Link to a labor rights report:
“ITUC Global Rights Index 2017: Violence and Repression of Workers on the Rise”
Cultural Detritus, Reviews, and Commentary
Link to a labor rights report:
“ITUC Global Rights Index 2017: Violence and Repression of Workers on the Rise”
Link to an article by Meagan Day:
“Jonathan Chait Is Wrong: Neoliberalism Is Real and Fundamentally Opposed to Left Principles”
Bonus links: Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics (this is an older book that concretely refutes Chait’s claim that the Democrats have veered left, or simply haven’t veered right) and Liberalism: A Counter-History (this book shows how liberals in general are more aligned with the right than the left)
Link to an article by Daniel Gaido:
Link to a memorandum by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
“Was the ‘Russian Hack’ an Inside Job?”
and “VIPS: Mueller’s Forensics-Free Findings”
and “VIPS Fault Mueller Probe, Criticize Refusal To Interview Assange”
Bonus links: “Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge” and “Why ‘Russian Meddling’ is a Trojan Horse” and “A Look Back at Clapper’s Jan. 2017 ‘Assessment’ on Russia-gate” and “Finally Time for DNC Email Evidence”
Link to an article by Russell Mokhiber:
“DC Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton Fox Won’t Let Whistleblower Lawyer Lynne Bernabei Go”
Link to an article by Staughton Lynd:
“John L. Lewis and His Critics: Some Forgotten Labor History That Still Matters Today”
The point that Lynd makes is much the same as the difference between Lenin and Stalin‘s methods of leadership. Someone even shared a link with me to some garbage business school article that said much the same thing about humble vs. charismatic narcissist CEOs.
One flaw in Lynd’s article is the statement, “There is the subtle but all-important understanding that the experience of solidarity in action, not ideology, comes first.” This is not outside ideology, but rather about putting the ideology of solidarity before some other kind of ideology. Ideology always comes first (to be fair, though, Lynd seems to rely on the old formulation of “ideology” as “false consciousness”). The other issue with the article is perhaps the historical focus. In an age of digital telecommunications and globally integrated transportation networks, and the so-called “post-industrial economy,” the ability of workers to strike by setting down their tools and have an impact on employer behavior is not what it was in the historical period Lynd describes. Strikes succeed primarily because they drive a wedge between capitalists and finance, not merely because the workers slow or stop production as such. In other words, strikes work primarily where factory owners owe debt to banks/financiers that continue to accumulate as those same machines sit idle in a strike. There is nothing wrong with Lynd’s history in this regard, but its practical relevance to the present is maybe in question.
Link to an article by Michael Barker:
“How Alternative Dispute Resolution Promotes Injustice”
An interesting theory about liberal technocratic banality in the judicial arena masking oppressive social policy.
Link to an article by Jonathan Latham:
“The Biotech Industry is Taking Over the Regulation of GMOs From the Inside”
The central dispute between industry and critics like Latham is over which of two approaches to adopt: (1) reasonably prove safety before commercial release, or (2) presume safety (and permit commercial release) until harm is proven. See also “Unsafe at any Dose? Diagnosing Chemical Safety Failures, from DDT to BPA”
Good riddance!: “Peter Sagan Disqualified After Dramatic Crash That Forces Mark Cavendish Out of Tour de France”
But how long with it take to disqualify Chris Froome and revoke his titles for doping? Too long, it seems.
Link to an article by Ralph Nader: