Wisconsin Recall

Unions Flood Wisconsin In Final Days of Walker Recall

When "We Are Wisconsin" really means "We are union members from New Jersey, Alaska and other states"

|

MADISON — A final round of campaign finance reports shows that one of the most active liberal political action committees in Wisconsin is bringing in money and campaign staff from out of state in the days before the recall election.

We Are Wisconsin

We Are Wisconsin, a political action committee based in Madison, is one of the most active groups campaigning against Republican Gov. Scott Walker. The PAC since May 24 has received more than $1.18 million from unions in other states and Washington, D.C. Most of that total has been spent to bring in out-of-state organizers to help drive Tuesday's get-out-the-vote initiatives.

Unions have led the effort to recall Walker since February 2011, when he and Republicans in the Legislature passed Act 10, which curbed collective bargaining for unionized public workers.

Walker faces Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat, in Tuesday's gubernatorial recall election.

Ciara Matthews, communications director for the Walker campaign, called the spending totals "a last ditch effort" to turn the race in Barrett's favor.

"I don't think there was any doubt that the unions were going to play hardball in the final week of the campaign," she said.

As of June 1, We Are Wisconsin had spent more than $3.4 million on the recall election through advertisements critical of Walker and other Republicans, or in favor of Barrett and other Democrats.

It's been widely reported that national unions have been pouring money into the Wisconsin recall election, which many see as a preview to November's national elections, determining control of Congress and the White House.

But these last-minute contributions from unions — based at the state level — tell a slightly different story. 

The unions are trying to prevent the spread of reforms from Wisconsin to their own states — many of which have Republican governors and Republican-controlled assemblies.

Steve Wollmer is communications director for the New Jersey Education Association, a Trenton-based teachers' union. His union, he said, is helping to fight a national effort to crush public-sector unions.

"The attitude of a lot of the unions is that this is a very significant fight that goes beyond the borders of Wisconsin," he said.

For the most part, these last-minute donations are in-kind contributions, which are different from cash donations.

According to the Federal Election Commission, an in-kind contribution is any donation of anything of value — including office machines, furniture and supplies — to a campaign. The value of the donation must be reported, but donated materials do not 

In this case, most of the in-kind contributions are in the form of campaign workers from across the country helping to organize Wisconsin voters in the final days of the campaign. 

"The recall election process began with the public-sector unions occupying the Capitol, so it is fitting that it would end with them here again," said Ben Sparks, spokesman for the Wisconsin Republican Party.

The Ohio Education Association made a $58,000 in-kind contribution May 30, followed a day later by a $21,000 contribution from the Pennsylvania State Education Association.

New York State United Teachers gave $23,000 on June 1, the Massachusetts Education Association gave $17,000 on May 31, and a group of unions based in Washington, D.C., poured in $922,000 during the past week, according to the reports.

Money even came from as far away as Alaska, with the National Education Association's local union there chipping in $4,000.

Wollmer defended the use of mandatory union dues to fight a political battle in another state.

"People are elected by our union members to determine how their dues should be spent," he said. "We're completely transparent about it."

Matthews agreed the race has national implications for the future of organized labor.

"Governor Walker is very reform-minded, and they have to do whatever they can to stop other governors and other states from following his lead," she said. "This is about trying to influence elections to ensure that the unions have more seats at the table than the taxpayers."

The Barrett campaign did not return requests for comment.

After the close of the final campaign finance reporting cycle May 24, any contributions or expenditures of more than $500 must be reported daily to the Government Accountability Office.

This article originally appeared at WisconsinReporter.com

NEXT: Your Domestic Drone News: Boeing Tested a Drone Capable of Staying in Flight For Four Days and the EPA is Using Drones to Observe Cattle (Hopefully)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We Are Wisconsin

    Ironic name for a mainly out-of-state funded organization, eh?

    1. Like rain in your chardonnay, or flies on your wedding day, don’tcha think?

      1. Those are just bummers.

        Try 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

    2. This isn’t about unions. This is about the government class v. taxpayers.

      1. Sure looks like a matter of unions mucking up the Democratic system from this angle.

  2. Looking *very* desperate…
    Can you guys keep paying this for every election?

  3. Unfortunately, the New York Times Magazine failed to mention all those contributions when it decried out of state lobbyist money coming into Wisconsin. It only mentioned the Kochtopus.

    1. A mere oversight, I’m sure. Look for the correction in Sunday’s Times Page G-19.

      1. Under the fold, in agate type.

      2. You haven’t been reading Weigel lately. He argues story placement is irrelevant in the digital age. If the NYTs runs a front page story on Romney’s secret Mormon child bride human sacrifices it is offset by a tiny buried piece on Obama neglecting his campaign because he is more concerned with the plight of ordinary Americans in the Great Bush Depression. In fact it PROVES THE MEDIA IS BIASED AGAINST OBAMA!!!

        I miss Weigel’s fair n’ balanced libertarian reporting unlike the knee-jerk TEAM RED hard-right partisan pieces Reason runs these days. See what we’re missing:

        Who, in the news cycles of 2012, cares what page an article appears on? Campaigns care if the Post or the Times covers a story. They shoot out e-mails informing reporters that the Post or the Times covered said story. These e-mails rarely make reference of what page the stories appeared on because reporters are going to read them online.

        1. I’d say placement is less relevant, but not irrelevant.

          1. “I’d say placement is less relevant, but not irrelevant.”

            Depends on the audience. If you’re appealing to other print-folks is matters. If you’re willing to search for it and provide it, then the audience doesn’t care where it was buried.
            But even e-content is subject to hiding or high-lighting. SFgate does so on a regular basis; Pelosi victory laps get top-of-screen placement with visuals and large, colored type.
            Articles on how the Euro-twits are spending themselves to death, well, you gotta look for those.

            1. SEO techniques can also be used to emphasize or de-emphasize content, along with revisions, changed links, placing old articles in restricted archives, and more. They may not be perfect but can all be considered forms of placement.

    2. Uh, heller, that’s because the Kochs are worse than Lex Luthor and Hank Scorpio combined. Come on, man. You know this.

      1. Blowing up bridges and wanting to rule the world doesn’t necessarily make someone evil. The important question is his position on collective bargaining.

        1. No, on collective bargaining for public employees. And I guess that makes you Toyman.

          1. At least Toyman had a motivation. You’re more like the Shocker.

            1. The Shocker has a motivation: money. So yeah, you’re right. Though maybe I was wrong about you being Toyman. You might be Mister Mxyzptlk.

              1. The inter-dimensional king of trolls? I think Urkobold might have something to say about that.

                I’m more like the Creeper, the harmless, naked version of the Joker. I’ll give you a moment to look that up since you only seem to be capable of grasping Superman-related references.

                You’re more like Superman’s pal, Jimmy Olsen. But with scare quotes around “pal.”

                1. Are you implying that Jimmy’s friendship with Superman was faked?

                  But “Creeper” is certainly the right title for you, Hugh.

                  1. That’s definitely one way to read it. The other way is that “pal” is a Comics Code-era euphemism for Super-catamite.

                    Either way, it suits you.

                    1. Well, it’s time for this Jimmy Olsen super-catamite to play Diablo III.

                      I’ll kill something just for you, Hugh.

  4. “People are elected by our union members to determine how their dues should be spent,” he said.

    Perhaps a recall is in order.

    1. How many of those union members were there against their will until Walker changed the rules?

      Based on the declining rolls, I’d say it was about 68% of them.

      1. I will say this again, but it was not strictly “against their will”. If they do not like the terms of employment, they can find another job.

        1. So those people should rejoin the union of which they voluntarily and lawfully dissociated? What’s that point again?

          1. I was just mentioning it is not coercive, or, at least, not as coercive as thought here.

            That was my only point. If there something you were arguing, I missed it entirely.

            1. Well, good, because if there is coercion involved on a party to a contract, then the contract is lawfully void.

              1. Yes, but making it a precondition of the job is not coercion. There must be an actual threat of some kind.

                1. No coercion to see here, I suppose —

                  http://www.nrtw.org/es/blog/sc…..ur-5312012

                  SCOTUSblog recently highlighted the Foundation’s Harris v. Quinn case as a petition to watch during the latest Supreme Court conference. Harris challenges a series of executive orders issued by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and his disgraced precedessor, Rod Blagojevich, aimed at forcing unwilling homecare providers into a union. According to the governors’ orders, personal care providers are to be considered “public employees” for the purposes of union organizing, a move that has since forced thousands of unwilling care providers into the SEIU’s forced dues-paying ranks.

                  With the help of Foundation staff attorneys, eight Illinois homecare providers are challenging these executive orders on the grounds that forcing them to affiliate with a union and subsidize union activities violates their rights to free expression and association.

                  They don’t like the terms of their employment, they can get another job!

                  1. Huh, killaz, I wasn’t even talking about those who were forced ex post into a union. I was talking about those who took the job knowing it was a requirement.

                    you had to reach pretty far to find a coercive act, and even then, that’s not the unions’ being coercive, that’s the governor of the state.

                    1. you had to reach pretty far to find a coercive act

                      Didn’t have to go far at all. Thousands of reports exist on the manipulations of the law that push employers to unionize and employers to use closed shops. That one was at the top of the que.

                      Let’s see what the next one is about:

                      Workers Forced to Call Police on SEIU Union Thugs

                      Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare Workers West organizers in Orange County, California are turning up the heat on healthcare workers who want nothing to do with the union.

                      SEIU officials have been trying to unionize workers at Chapman Medical Center through a backroom deal known as a “neutrality agreement” designed to grease the skids for workers to be forced into union ranks.

                      The agreement was anything but neutral. Company officials granted union operatives access to company facilities to conduct a coercive card check organizing campaign in which union organizers pressure workers to fill out cards that count as votes for union control of the workplace. Meanwhile, Chapman waived the right to have a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees really wish to be unionized.

                      SEIU organizers then resorted to harassing late night phone calls, blocking workers’ driveways while they were heading to work, bribing workers with food to sign cards that would later count as votes, and stalking workers.

                      Just an isolated incident, right?

                    2. Your example is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

                      Company officials granted union operatives access to company facilities to conduct a coercive card check organizing campaign in which union organizers pressure workers to fill out cards that count as votes for union control of the workplace.

                      That’s an internal corporate governance matter, not coercion. Someone needs to determine if these activities are permitted or prohibited on the premises during work hours.

                      Meanwhile, Chapman waived the right to have a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees really wish to be unionized.

                      As is their right.

                      SEIU organizers then resorted to harassing late night phone calls, blocking workers’ driveways while they were heading to work, bribing workers with food to sign cards that would later count as votes, and stalking workers.

                      That is illegal and unfortunate. It, again, has nothing to do with workers who ex ante choose a closed shop. It’s why I oppose Right to Work laws – two wrongs don’t make a right.

                2. If, say, 2/3 of members stopped paying union dues as soon as it was legally allowable for them to do so, what would be the correct term – if “coercion” is inaccurate – to describe the circumstances which led that 2/3 to pay dues they would rather not have had to pay in order to engage in their chosen profession?

                  It seems unarguable that some external factor was exerting an influence. It also seems that “pay or get another job” has some threat-like qualities, doesn’t it?

                  1. You guys are amazing. If my employer tells me “do X or get another job”, we wouldn’t generally call that a coercive act. Is it coercion if your employer tells you that you must only take 15 minute breaks every four hours? That you must not surf Facebook during work hours?

                    So what is different about “you must join a union”?

                    1. Your employer dictating the details of your job is one thing. Being forced to pay a not-insignificant sum to join a different organization with a political agenda seems like quite another.

                    2. Your employer dictating the details of your job is one thing. Being forced to pay a not-insignificant sum to join a different organization with a political agenda seems like quite another.

                      not to libertarians who believe in freedom of association and liberty of contract it does not.

                      To those who want to say DIE UNIONZ DIE because they’re a little bit on TEAM RED, sure it would seem like “quite another”

                    3. Take away the right to vote for a closed shop, they could not survive. No employer in a competitive market place would resort to using them without being forced to under federal labor law. So it is not strictly the voluntary association between employer and union that you are making it out to be, now is it? Given employers are not given a choice whether voting is allowed in their shops or not. On down the line, the employee too, is denied a choice through this initial coercion.

                    4. While I agree with you vis-a-vis the NLRA and those labor laws that have those kinds of onerous restrictions, it really isn’t proper to say that due to the existence of X law, therefore every foreseeable and/or unforeseeable consequence of that law down the line renders every decision made in that vein a coerced one.

                      In other words, most people are well aware prior to applying for state jobs that they will have to be in a union. Union shops have prevalent notice that you have to join a union. While it is somewhat coercive to the employer, the decisions to join that employer by the prospective employee is not coerced.

                    5. I’m going to have to agree with Randian. The only coercion you describe is government coercion. I would bet you’re right that in a free market unions would be rare but they could still exist. Professional sports for one (I’m not saying government doesn’t play a role there either but when the supply of labor is so small {best atheletes in the world} they can get away with it).

                    6. Whether it is government coercion in the interest of a partisan, or the union, it is still coercion, right?

                      Let’s back up a minute, I’m interested in how tightly you would define the instance of coercion.

                      Huh, killaz, I wasn’t even talking about those who were forced ex post into a union. I was talking about those who took the job knowing it was a requirement.

                      For those who the governors have forced in this instance there is no question that it is forced and hence, coercive, correct? If the governor’s actions stand as a matter of law, the next generation of workers who choose that profession are not being coerced, right? Is the injustice suddenly solved even though the initial violence is allowed to stand? If not coercion, what would you call this form of injustice?

                      A highway man builds himself a nice little enterprise on one route. So long as there are other routes for you to take, no crime is being committed though your hand is being forced?

                    7. For those who the governors have forced in this instance there is no question that it is forced and hence, coercive, correct?

                      Yes. But as an added caveat, I assume that most of us here support employment at will, meaning that the State could have theoretically gone around to each employee, added this term to their employment, and told them to hit the bricks if they disagreed.

                      Correct?

                      If the governor’s actions stand as a matter of law, the next generation of workers who choose that profession are not being coerced, right?

                      Right, because the conditions are known. You cannot really say that you were ‘coerced’ into doing something you freely accepted, even if the origins of that ‘something’ are unjust.

                      Or do you support giving lands back to the Indians? That’s an uncorrected injustice, right?

                      Shouldn’t the chain of causality die at some point?

                      Keep in mind that I am in no way supportive of government unions. I don’t believe in them for a variety of reasons, but I don’t believe them to be de facto coercive institutions, no.

                    8. But as an added caveat, I assume that most of us here support employment at will

                      Yes. An employer prefers a closed shop (in non competitive markets it is even an advantage), that is his decision to make. Your point about right to work is true in the instance of banning closed shops.

                      Or do you support giving lands back to the Indians? That’s an uncorrected injustice, right?

                      Not really. No more than 2% of the land mass was inhabited at the time settlers arrived. The claim that indigenous Americans had on forest and plains without habitation doesn’t hold up. Now, for the forced migrations, murders and theft of property beyond what the squatters could claim due to negligence on the part of the Indians to uphold the value of such property, indigenous Americans have a just claim.

                    9. Yes. An employer prefers a closed shop (in non competitive markets it is even an advantage), that is his decision to make. Your point about right to work is true in the instance of banning closed shops.

                      Well, so then I guess what was coercive about Govs. Quinn and Blagojevich’s actions above? After all, the State is the employer, and can therefore impose additional employment terms that the employees can either agree to or find another job.

                      Not really. No more than 2% of the land mass was inhabited at the time settlers arrived

                      That’s a fact-specific point on a general philosophical commentary.

                      The claim that indigenous Americans had on forest and plains without habitation doesn’t hold up

                      Based on what theory of ownership?

                      Now, for the forced migrations, murders and theft of property beyond what the squatters could claim due to negligence on the part of the Indians to uphold the value of such property, indigenous Americans have a just claim.

                      A claim against whom, on behalf of whom? I didn’t do anything. I assume you didn’t. I further assume that no Indian alive today has suffered an active injustice such as murder, forced migrations, or theft on the part of the “American People” generally or by the government specifically.

                    10. I’m not ready to assume there are no live victims from forced migrations. Have you seen the old Indian guy from the Doors movie? He probably knew General Custer.

                      Based on what theory of ownership? One that differs from the assumption it is all owed to the indigenous, obviously. Any other land mass under discussion my point would not even have been controversial. Say, if the pilgrims cultivated an uninhabited swathe of land in the Caucasus steppes, English tradesmen blended into a river basin town there, and Scotsmen kicked the fuck out of the Cossacks, no one would be calling all three of these groups ‘invaders’ four centuries later. Just the fookin’ Scots.

                    11. “A highway man builds himself a nice little enterprise on one route. So long as there are other routes for you to take, no crime is being committed though your hand is being forced?”

                      Interesting alternatives.
                      Try one more: If X builds a road and requires a toll, that is not coercion in that X provided a service and requires payment for that service.
                      The highwayman OTOH is simply requiring payment so the traveler can avoid harm (theft, whatever). No ‘good’ is provided.
                      Now, in the case of unions, what ‘good’ is being provided that a ‘traveler’ might make a choice?
                      Put another way, can the ‘traveler’ ‘travel’ without the intermediation of the union? If so, then the union is providing no ‘good’.
                      I’d submit that a qualified worker needs no union, so the union is nothing other than a highwayman (a protection racket).

                    12. What is morally wrong with protection ‘rackets’ as you have framed them, provided they are free of force or fraud?

                    13. “What is morally wrong with protection ‘rackets’ as you have framed them, provided they are free of force or fraud?”

                      Easy: Protection rackets move assets to lower values; what was profit is now spent avoiding harm.
                      Broken window fallacy in services…

                    14. Easy: Protection rackets move assets to lower values

                      Except that the employer enjoys the security of having a steady stream of labor that expresses that it is generally satisfied with the terms and conditions of employment.

                      what was profit is now spent avoiding harm.

                      Unions effectively transfer, through freely-negotiated contracts*, profits from management to the workers. I fail to see how that is ‘spent avoiding harm’ and instead should be viewed as ‘greater compensation as consideration for a negotiated agreement’.

                      I wonder why you hate freedom of contract and freedom of association so?

                    15. Randian|6.4.12 @ 11:10PM|#
                      “Except that the employer enjoys the security of having a steady stream of labor that expresses that it is generally satisfied with the terms and conditions of employment.”

                      Except that you haven’t shown the same condition doesn’t exist absent a union. If it did, unions for privsec jobs would be successful. They aren’t.
                      ———————————-
                      “Unions effectively transfer, through freely-negotiated contracts*, profits from management to the workers.”

                      Uh, ‘management’ doesn’t get profits for the most part, they get paid salaries.
                      But, yes, some privsec unions have transferred ‘profits’ to ‘wages’; see, oh, the auto industry.
                      —————————
                      “I fail to see how that is ‘spent avoiding harm’ and instead should be viewed as ‘greater compensation as consideration for a negotiated agreement’.”

                      Well, that’s sort of your problem.
                      ————————
                      “I wonder why you hate freedom of contract and freedom of association so?”

                      I wonder why you’d bother to post such an obvious strawman, but that’s your problem also.

                    16. I wonder why you hate freedom of contract and freedom of association so?

                      The employer is forced to let the union in. The employee is forced to join the union.

                      Where do you see any ‘freedom’?

                    17. By Randian’s logic,income taxes are not coercive because your are free to not engage in income generating activities.

                    18. Well, no, because you don’t go to prison if you fail to join a union. You just don’t get the job.

                      If you consider those “equally coercive” I would submit you are engaging in false equivocation.

                    19. No, taxes are withheld from your wages, just like union dues are.

                      And anyway, you go to jail for lying about what you owe, or refusing to file returns, not for failing to pay your taxes.

                    20. No, taxes are withheld from your wages, just like union dues are.

                      Uh, no. That’s a choice you make. You don’t have to have any withholdings at all. Over-withholding is why a lot of people get tax refunds.

                      And anyway, you go to jail for lying about what you owe, or refusing to file returns, not for failing to pay your taxes.

                      Ha ha, I hope you’re joking with this. Filing and not paying is a superior option to not filing, but you are still levied fines and penalties for failure to pay, and you can ultimately wind up in jail if you don’t pay those.

                    21. Uh, no. That’s a choice you make. You don’t have to have any withholdings at all. Over-withholding is why a lot of people get tax refunds.

                      Nope,

                      You can claim more exemptions than you are legally entitled to, to reduce your income tax, but that does not eliminate your withholding entirely and there is an upper limit to the amount of deductions that you can claim on a W-2.

                      Furthermore there are no exemptions available for the income tax called SSDI.

                      Ha ha, I hope you’re joking with this. Filing and not paying is a superior option to not filing, but you are still levied fines and penalties for failure to pay, and you can ultimately wind up in jail if you don’t pay those.

                      I know several people that owe substantial amounts of money (7 figures) have frankly admitted it and are not subject to imprisonment. The bottom line is that you get sent to prison for lying about your tax liabilities (including trying to hide them) not for an inability to pay.

                    22. I was wrong about withholdings, but you’re still wrong about the alleged coercive nature of union dues. You aren’t entitled to a job. You are entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Not wanting to join a union prevents you from gaining the former. Not paying your income taxes prevents you from doing the latter.

                      This is false equivalence on your part.

                    23. Let me try another tack. Public employee union dues are a different case because unions are political entities, and because money is speech, the employer (the government) is forcing employees to make political speech they may not agree with.

                      The employer is also a monopoly: DMV workers can’t just get new jobs at a competing DMV.

                      Plus, there is a dangerous feedback loop: the monopoly transfers funds from workers to an organization that supports expanding the monopoly.

                      This is all quite distinguishable from a standard condition of employment such as “X minutes of break per shift.”

  5. NBCcommented tonite that the Walker forces outspent the other side by 7:1.
    True or not?

    1. Bull. Fucking. Shit.

      Unpossible.

    2. Are union workers who picket and run phone banks etc. included as “spending”?

      1. The article mentions ‘payment in kind’, so my guess is, if some folks ‘volunteered’, the cost of that labor is zero.
        All sorts of shenanigans possible there.

    3. It very well might be true in this case. The real hard core members of the Solidarity Forever brigade blew a lot of money trying to get their gal Kathleen Falk in there. They don’t really like Barrett all that much, and even the unions don’t have unlimited funds.

  6. See, THIS is what happens because of Citizens United! Evul Kochporashunszz!11one1! pour money in from places that have nothing to do with Wisconsin and….

    Oh, wait….

    NEVER MIND

    1. Not to mention that the various union orgs from out of state weren’t allowed to pour money into campaigns until Citizens United. But that gets left out of the narrative for some reason.

      1. NEVER. MIND!

  7. God I hope the unions crash and burn tomorrow.

    1. AMOK TIME!!!11!

    2. It’s going to be amusing to see some of my friends freak out on Facebook.

  8. Dude really does seem to klnow what the deal is.

    http://www.Anon-not.tk

  9. It’s been widely reported that national unions have been pouring money into the Wisconsin recall election, which many see as a preview to November’s national elections, determining control of Congress and the White House.

  10. “The attitude of a lot of the unions is that this is a very significant fight that goes beyond the borders of Wisconsin,” he said. http://www.vendreshox.com

    For the most part, these last-minute donations are in-kind contributions, which are different from cash donations.

  11. national unions have been pouring money into the Wisconsin recall election, which many see as a preview to November’s national elections, determining control of Congress and the White House.

    1. Have you two met?

  12. According to the Federal Election Commission, an in-kind contribution is any donation of anything of value ? including office machines, furniture and supplies ? to a campaign. The value of the donation must be reported, but donated materials do not

  13. At Forbes James Poulos attacks the astronauts complaint as well as Musk s presumption that space entrepreneurs are leading the way to a spacefaring future that will save humanity from an eventual extinction event

    I agree with the underlying assumption. Based on history, it is highly unlikely that an extinction event will happen. Odds are the human race will still be thriving on the Earth a thousand years from now.

    However, that doesn’t presume we shouldn’t and can’t colonize space. Episiarch is right from previous threads, the problems of space travel are vastly underestimated in science fiction to the point that even the most rigorous hard science fiction tends to fantasy.

    One assumption has to come about before interstellar travel to inhabitable planets is possible. That antimatter can be manufactured at a rate millions of times better than we are doing now. Antimatter engine designs have theoretically improved http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/n…..ship.html, but they are untestable.

    The second point, you are not traveling through space to get to those goals. It is difficult enough to survive in low earth orbit, you would need something similar to the Earth itself to survive sustained travel in the vicinity of the solar system; outside solar protection, I almost puke right now just thinking about interstellar phenomenon.

    (cont.)

  14. The best we could hope for is similar to what you find in Altered Carbon. Quantum teleportation is perfected well enough to send information over light years. It is calculated to travel hundreds of light years per year in speed, however, it may actually be instantaneous and not dependent on spatial relation. The problem, it’s a one shot deal. Your probe reaches a planet after, just for arguments sake, a century or two down the way, builds a habitable unit, and carries with it trillions of entangled particles. You have a one shot opportunity to send something down the way that changes the initial charge in a binary fashion, that being information, and in Altered Carbon that information was your mind.

    (cont.)

  15. My main reservation, I don’t know if biological lifeforms could survive such a journey to be end recipients. Especially in larger forms where their life supports would need to be huge. Frozen zygotes in protected shielding, maybe. You* once the cross over occurs would likely need to wait it out inside a robot, or cyborg unit, and serve the zygotes that arrived in the probe until they are large enough to be useful to complete the transfer to its body. Sounds like a tremendous amount of trouble, but, we’re the human race, trouble is our middle name, homo trouble sapiens. If you find fault with the above and find it too optimistic, I concur, that is the most realistic unrealistic (given a tremendous number of assumptions) scenerio that I know.

    * Because you are not being destroyed and recreated cell by cell, this you isn’t you you but a copy. In Altered Carbon origin point you would need to be destroyed, but rest assured this you will have your memories and carry on in your honor. You you aren’t going anywhere but you might have interesting future off this planet, anyway.

  16. And I published that entire thing in the wrong thread. Fuck.

  17. One can argue ad nauseam about which side is more misogynist and more hypocritical. There is no question that crude and sex-themed attacks on “enemy” women have come from both camps?be it vulgar language directed at Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, or, most recently, the Hustler magazine photomontage of conservative pundit S.E. Cupp performing a sexual act and the recent Twitter comment by blogger Dan Riehl inviting liberal pundit Joan Walsh to perform a similar act on him. I would say that, generally, the left has more consistently (if often grudgingly) condemned such behavior in its ranks while the right has been more likely to circle the wagons.

    1. “I would say that, generally, the left has more consistently (if often grudgingly) condemned such behavior in its ranks ”

      . . . WHEN?

    2. “I would say that, generally, the left has more consistently (if often grudgingly) condemned such behavior in its ranks ”

      . . . WHEN?

  18. Personally, I could side with worker’s unions.. if they were the smartest, the most knowledgeable, or even the most fit or qualified. But the stark truth is they are not. They are often the the least fit and qualified.

  19. Now it become the political matter in the media and now its good to see what happen in the future,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.