>Shove it, Josh. Unless you're a mindreader you have no idea how much
>spend thinking about labor issues.
I apologize--I had no business speculating about how long you've been thinking and writing about labor. (Longer than me, I'm sure.) I do think there's a tendency for folks on the left to underestimate the extent to which their analysis is shared by people here in the Death Star, and perhaps to overestimate the possibilities for spontaneous radicalism among the rank and file.
>This kind of condescending paternalism is precisely why the national
>is viewed with such derision around the country and it's a pretty
>indicator of why the AFL-CIO "brain" trust will inevitably put its
>(legal and otherwise) behind Al Gore (and his senatorial and rep.
>ideological clones), as they've done Clinton, regardless of what foul
>measures these neo-liberal thugs stuff down the throats of working
Don't disagree, not a bit. But it might be useful to separate the AFL-CIO's unappealing political record from the issues raised in your article and my response to it. In particular, isn't there a contradiction between criticizing the AFL for failing "to draw up a clear, bold, focused strategy and stick with it" on the one hand and calling for all power to the locals on the other?