I think that anyone that can achieve that level of prominence in politics must by default have some real problems as a person. In a country with 270 million people, there are thousands and thousands of quite brilliant people. I would be that some of you all could easily make a fool of W. Bush in a debate for instance. So why does one person get ahead of others in a field where there are many many capable people. There are very few politicians I can think of that don't have a lot wrong with them, and they're usually at the local level. That isn't a function of 'everyone is human, and anyone put under the spotlight would have skeletons in their closet'. Really, politicians are worse people than average citizens, on average, and that is why they can get ahead. You'd at least have to be a megalomaniac, if nothing else, to run for president. I think that business tends to be the same way. The majority of the public wants to get rich and spends some time scoping out what their best choices would be, and what opportunities there are. Why do some people do so much better than others - especially in areas where there is no true entrepreneurship involved, marketing a truly new product or service. I met a law student whose father managed to accumulate 2000+ apartment units in S. Cal within 15 years of immigrating here. How could he have done that in a location where millions of people are trying to also become wealthy - was it really by just intelligence and wits alone?
TLehman makes some incorrect assumptions (below).
In the organizing campaign at MM, there were 3 of us involved, and it came after many confrontations with Nader over workplace issues that were impossible to resolve because there was no structure, only Nader's final decisions. We DID consult with several unions, but none had the time to work with a workplace of 3 people. So we simply went down to the NLRB and asked to be recognized as a collective bargaining unit - all it takes is two. It was the day after this request was made that our locks were changed and I was thrown out. And its true I was the editor but I didn't have the power to hire or fire - all power was in the hands of the Great Ralph. He certainly got some 'professional' advice, because before I was finally axed, he 'transferred' control of MM to his underlings and let them do the dirty work. As for Sawicky's earlier comments on card-check - I think it would make a very interesting test. Someone should ask Nader, would you agree to unionization of Public Citizen if a majority of its employees wanted it? I think that's a pretty good indication of someone's convictions on unions. I'm surprised that a representative of the Economic Policy Institute, which is so pro-labor, wouldn't see this as a rather important litmus test. Would Jeff Faux would have the same reaction as Nader if presented with a unionization drive, Sawicky? TShorrock
TLehman wrote: Max---Anyone even the least familiar with organizing would see where Tim went wrong. First, when you are about to be shown the door is the wrong time to attempt to get cards signed. If getting cards signed was ever attempted? And it doesn't sound like an attempt to get cards signed was ever made prior to Tim getting the boot.. This unfortunatley sounds like an after the fact or sour grapes charge---not that Tim didn't have good intentions. I'm sure he did. Tim should have consulted with a union organizer and planned a little organizing campaign in advance. This would have strengthened his position in case things went sour and he would have had professional help with his campaign.
Also, there is the little problem of Tim as editor being management for the magazine? Which might have been a bone of contention in a real organizing campaign.
TL
________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com