What the hell? Don't you have a wedding to plan?

I can always take time out to mock a guy like this. And you. Always got time to mock you.

Aww. . . that's possibly the sweetest exchange between these two I've ever heard. Adorable.

Easily top 5. :-)

You know what I love best about the abuse of power scandal featuring Governor Sarah Palin?

No, it's not that she's a Republican although, y'know, bonus.* It's not that he called for an ethical investigation by the State Personnel Board on herself, calling the bipartisan-created Legislative investigation "partisan" and based on "political motive", thanks guvner. It's not even that he's already been found guilty of abuse of power by that Legislative investigation, and having to say things like he's "vindicated" when the report says anything but that.

My favorite part isn't even that she replaced Frank Murkowski, who she beat by campaigning "on a platform to restore integrity to the seat."

My favorite part is that the supposed lapdog State Personnel Board investigation may be even more wide ranging and harder on her than the Legislature's investigation! hahahahahaha

*If you can be disingenuous about this so can I. The party affiliation is 100% the root of the schadenfreude for both of us.

Dammit. I thought I changed those "he's" to "she's."

You did rather walk into that one Karol. Trying to get your sister's ex-husband the boot will do that for you (even if the guy is a dick).

Wait. Didn't I just note that party affiliation is NOT my favorite part? If it were, I would say so. Do I seem like I'm trying to be above partisanship? HA. I actually didn't know Mahoney was a Democrat when it flashed across the television screen in a restaurant I was in that the guy who replaced Foley was involved in a sex scandal.

And please, you both know that guy deserved to be fired. It's hardly a scandal that Palin helped make that happen.

Bryan and Charles are both wonderful, understanding people.

you both know that guy deserved to be fired. It's hardly a scandal that Palin helped make that happen.
Then why doesn't she man up and say so?

Agree nds. She should stop running away from the reporters and put this issue to bed. Instead she looks like she is guilty. (One interpretation of)The Bush doctrine states that a sound offence is the best defence. It would serve her well to realise same.

Because, NDS, as you've noted in another comment section: it's a campaign and this is what people do in campaigns. Awesome, ain't it.

It is a good-ol'-fashtioned scandal, but Mahoney still can't hold a candle to the patron saint of douchebags, John Edwards.

snoop, surely that is Nixon (rep) and Teddy Kennedy (dem)?

Karol,
No, in a previous comment section I said "filling air" is what TV pundits do. I am actually appalled that you would truly believe that Palin fired that guy because "he deserved to be fired" even though she has said over and over that she did not. Basically, you believe Palin is a liar, yet she's your homegirl? You're going to vote for her? Insert headshake.

She didn't fire him, that's just factually wrong. Grow up, your head shaking is getting tedious.

Appalled. Hahaha. The girl whose principles are, in total, 'get our guy in' is appalled. Pshah.

Were you as amused when Bob Livingston, loud critic of Clinton's adultery, had to give up being Speaker of the House and then resigned because he was an adulterer? I have to say, it was party affiliation for me that time, too.

Also, "the guy" hasn't been fired, if "the guy" is Wooten. He's still a trooper.

If "the guy" is Monegan, it doesn't really sound like he was someone that had to be fired except for, you know, refusing to fire Wooten in violation of the civil service rules. The other policy disagreements may have been enough to dump someone that serves "at the Governor's leisure" but when the First Dude of Alaska keeps bugging you to fire his ex-brother-in-law, it is pretty hard to claim with a straight face that a Monegan's refusal to go along didn't play a role in the firing - unless you are Sarah Palin and are capable of saying ANYTHING with a straight face.

There's a reason that lawyer and liar sound so much alike, and why they're both unfit for public office. Tedious is the right word. I was there before you K. They are purveyors of tedious arguments of insidious intent.

Of course lawyers never run anything, unless they've left their trade, so they don't understand why you'd fire a disloyal subordinate making end-runs around your stated policies. If lawyers are making a living, they betray someone five times before lunch.

Charles, Bryan, et. al.--the fact that you're equating a man cheating on his wife then paying off his mistress with a woman firing her abusive, kid-tasering bro-in-law speaks much to indicate your own moral bankruptcy. Not only would I have fired the trooper, I would have looked at the panel and said, "You're godda*ned right I abused my power." Add in the fact that the good trooper was wall-to-wall counseling his wife and, quite frankly, I'm amazed he didn't have a moose hunting accident.

For those of us who actually believe that there's right and wrong in this world rather than shades of gray, this is a minor issue brought up for obviously partisan means. Indeed, if you have children, I'm sure you would want to make sure every 'i' was dotted and every 't' was crossed before a trooper who tasered them was fired. Or, alternatively, you'd be screeching for the guy's head and not really caring about things like "due process."

Finally, as to Livingston, it's called 'integrity' and 'respect for the office.' I understand those of you who may lean leftward may not comprehend such concepts ("it's only a blowjob" "No, it's f*cking perjury"), but given that the failure to impeach Clinton probably emboldened the current bunch of village idiots running the office, I hope that party schadenfrude tastes awful good with your constrained civil liberties, emasculated legislative branch, and bloated government.

When the suit sitting at the desk changes in a few weeks and he's sitting there with a whole bunch of powers you don't like and the precedent of signing statements because I hope you can still smile. After all, if the guy overseeing the government that's giving you the shaft is of your own party--well, you're still getting the shaft. When the idiots in charge of Congress are your idiots--well, they're still idiots. Maybe we as a collective people need to stop thinking about parties and single issues so much and start thinking, "Is this person healthy for the Republic." Or, hey, ignore the crazy guy in the corner muttering "It's 18 *f*cking 56 you idiots! Stop being stupid!" and go on scoring your partisan points.

Were you as amused when Bob Livingston, loud critic of Clinton's adultery, had to give up being Speaker of the House and then resigned because he was an adulterer?

Yep, actually I was.

So Charles, let me get this straight.

Palin should get in trouble for firing a subordinate, one of whose job failings was quite obviously not firing a trooper who should have been fired. The fact that he was Palin's sister's ex-husband is irrelevant. Is he or is he not a bad cop?

You invoke "civil service rules" but clearly do not realize how they make it hard, if not impossible, to fire bad employees on the public dole. This ass not only made a death threat but was irresponsible to use a taser on his 11-year-old stepson, supposedly because the kid asked for it. Tell me why this guy should still be a trooper?

"when the First Dude of Alaska keeps bugging you to fire his ex-brother-in-law"

Note that Molly is in fact Sarah's blood sister, not Todd. Sarah apparently told First Dude to "drop it" with the implicit promise she'll handle it her way.

This non-scandal scandal doesn't show Palin was abusing her governor powers (as the commission in fact concluded), but that a bad cop is so entrenched that even the governor couldn't get him and could only can the Public Service Commissioner.

you invoke 'civil service rules' but clearly do not realize how they make it hard, if not impossible, to fire bad employees on the public dole
I understand that perfectly well, Perry. That's the point of civil service rules. I understand that you hate them. Fine. They also remain law in Alaska (or contractual rights, depending on whether the civil service system is a product of collective bargaining or a state agency). Monegan can't simply fire a guy who has already been given a suspension as discipline for the acts that Palin complained about. If he HAD fired Wooten in contravention of the suspension ruling, Wooten would probably have appealed, won, and gotten his job back with back pay. That's how civil service works and why having the Governor's office pressuring subordinates to go around the civil service system is an abuse of power.

Sarah apparently told First Dude to "drop it" with the implicit promise she'll handle it her way.
And you say this based on what, Perry? He was making the calls from a state office and pulling files by saying I am the First Dude.

This non-scandal scandal doesn't show Palin was abusing her governor powers (as the commission in fact concluded)
That is NOT what the commission concluded. The commission concluded that she abused her powers by pressuring Monegan but that she ALSO had the right to fire Monegan anyway.

a bad cop is so entrenched that even the governor couldn't get him and could only can the Public Service Commissioner
That's a legit argument to make (though I'm not the guy who is going to be receptive to it; pro-union is another of my many flaws). I assume that will be part of Palin's next gubernatorial campaign.

you invoke 'civil service rules' but clearly do not realize how they make it hard, if not impossible, to fire bad employees on the public dole
I understand that perfectly well, Perry. That's the point of civil service rules. I understand that you hate them. Fine. They also remain law in Alaska (or contractual rights, depending on whether the civil service system is a product of collective bargaining or a state agency). Monegan can't simply fire a guy who has already been given a suspension as discipline for the acts that Palin complained about. If he HAD fired Wooten in contravention of the suspension ruling, Wooten would probably have appealed, won, and gotten his job back with back pay. That's how civil service works and why having the Governor's office pressuring subordinates to go around the civil service system is an abuse of power.

Sarah apparently told First Dude to "drop it" with the implicit promise she'll handle it her way.
And you say this based on what, Perry? He was making the calls from a state office and pulling files by saying I am the First Dude.

This non-scandal scandal doesn't show Palin was abusing her governor powers (as the commission in fact concluded)
That is NOT what the commission concluded. The commission concluded that she abused her powers by pressuring Monegan but that she ALSO had the right to fire Monegan anyway.

a bad cop is so entrenched that even the governor couldn't get him and could only can the Public Service Commissioner
That's a legit argument to make (though I'm not the guy who is going to be receptive to it; pro-union is another of my many flaws). I assume that will be part of Palin's next gubernatorial campaign.

They also remain law in Alaska (or contractual rights, depending on whether the civil service system is a product of collective bargaining or a state agency).

Most likely collective bargaining agreements enshrined in statute.

Monegan can't simply fire a guy who has already been given a suspension as discipline for the acts that Palin complained about.

And that's the problem with following the law to the letter -- or as most people improperly call it, "the rule of law."

Which is right, firing this bad cop, or following "the law"? The answer is clear to me, because law is not the same as justice. Law is subservient to justice.

If he HAD fired Wooten in contravention of the suspension ruling, Wooten would probably have appealed, won, and gotten his job back with back pay. That's how civil service works and why having the Governor's office pressuring subordinates to go around the civil service system is an abuse of power.

Which, again, is why "the law" is wrong. And there are bad cops like Wooten who should be taken out into the woods, crippled, and left to be eaten by bears.

I said: Sarah apparently told First Dude to "drop it" with the implicit promise she'll handle it her way.

You said: And you say this based on what, Perry? He was making the calls from a state office and pulling files by saying I am the First Dude.

Why else would Palin tell her husband to "drop it"? She wanted him to stop using her office's authority lest it get them in trouble, and her subsequent actions prove that she was going to handle things her way by putting pressure on the commissioner.

I have no problem with his phone calls. Such expenses are miniscule.

I have no problem with him pulling files, as any private citizen should be able to get them from the government.

That is NOT what the commission concluded. The commission concluded that she abused her powers by pressuring Monegan but that she ALSO had the right to fire Monegan anyway.

I should have clarified, what I meant was that she didn't abuse her powers in firing Monegan. But in the end she did act lawfully when firing him. And that goes to my bottom line: a bad cop is so well-protected that even a governor can't get him fired for bad conduct.

Do you not agree Wooten should have been fired? If you do, then what does it take to get rid of him?

Do you not agree Wooten should have been fired? If you do, then what does it take to get rid of him?
Well, now that we're exiting the world of partisan politics and entering the world of labor policy and punishment, instead of answering the 'should have' question, I'll say this: I believe in the use of progressive discipline for public employees and due process in the civil service system.

AFAIK, it was the first time Wooten had been brought up on disciplinary charges, and he was never brought up on criminal charges (had he been arrested for anything the firing would have been much easier). From what I can tell, a firing would not have been unreasonable, but neither was a suspension. What it would have taken to get rid of him was a better attorney for the state.

Well, now that we're exiting the world of partisan politics and entering the world of labor policy and punishment, instead of answering the 'should have' question, I'll say this: I believe in the use of progressive discipline for public employees and due process in the civil service system.

But according to what "due process"? My point all along is that Wooten, like other bad cops, is so protected by "the system" that even the governor can't get him fired. There's "due process" for you and me, and a completely different "due process" for government employees.

If I used a taser on a pre-teen stepson, I'd be sent to prison for assaulting the child. Whether he asked for it is irrelevant because he wouldn't be of age to give consent. Now that is due process, but after all, I'm just a regular Joe who doesn't carry a badge.

AFAIK, it was the first time Wooten had been brought up on disciplinary charges, and he was never brought up on criminal charges (had he been arrested for anything the firing would have been much easier). From what I can tell, a firing would not have been unreasonable, but neither was a suspension. What it would have taken to get rid of him was a better attorney for the state.

Using my example above, I can't imagine how I would not be arrested, at minimum, for using a taser on my own stepson. Granted, it wasn't brought up (as far as we know) until the divorce, but do you not think he got off so lightly for what he's done? Do you not think a person with his judgment and temperament is a danger to the public that he's supposed to serve?

In the end, his suspension was a mere five days. Five days! What it takes to rid "public service" divisions of him and other bad guys is eliminating all of the protections that unions demand.

But according to what "due process"? My point all along is that Wooten, like other bad cops, is so protected by "the system" that even the governor can't get him fired. There's "due process" for you and me, and a completely different "due process" for government employees.

Or any unionized employees. Or any employees who work for an employer trying to avoid a union that sets up a voluntary grievance process. We come at this from different mindsets. You think this means that there should be no municipal unionization; I think it means that all private sector workers should also try to get in a union.

The "due process" is the civil service disciplinary process. Both the State and the employees consent to it beforehand. Your position is like saying that if the Attorney General plea bargains with a criminal, the Governor should be able to have the guy held an extra year anyway because she's the Governor.

If you are the Governor and you don't like the civil service system, work to change it. Your office doesn't give you the authority to ignore it.

If I used a taser on a pre-teen stepson, I'd be sent to prison for assaulting the child. Whether he asked for it is irrelevant because he wouldn't be of age to give consent.
You don't get the sense that the taser thing is being overblown for tactical reasons? If either the kid or the mother had a problem with it at the time - as opposed to after the fact amid a contentious custody battle - Wooten would have been arrested. But he wasn't because, in context, at the time, nobody thought it was a big deal. IT was a dude having a kinda stupid laugh with his stepson. Wooten says that the kid laughed about it afterwards and I don't doubt that was the case - 12 year olds LIKE stupid, potentially dangerous stuff. Sure, the phrase "tasered his stepson" sounds like child abuse but it wasn't discipline and - while I'm sure the jolt hurt - the kid wasn't injured at all. They engaged in the kind of idiocy that a handful of local news shows engage in every sweeps week. It was STUPID but it wasn't abusive.

If you want to know why a guy who tasered his stepson got only a five day suspension, I'd bet it was because a disinterested disciplinary panel has more critical distance than either the Palin family or political partisans.

Do you not think a person with his judgment and temperament is a danger to the public that he's supposed to serve?
The cop here arrested the cyclist for assault and wrote in the police report that the cyclist attacked him. That's how police reports are routinely written after an arrestee takes a beating. If there wasn't video, the cyclist probably would have had a hard time proving that he didn't assault a police officer.

I know enough prosecutors and defense attorneys to have heard enough stories that I don't think Wooten's behavior would be considered all that outrageous behind the Thin Blue Line.

A couple of notes from the prior round:

Why else would Palin tell her husband to "drop it"? She wanted him to stop using her office's authority lest it get them in trouble, and her subsequent actions prove that she was going to handle things her way by putting pressure on the commissioner.
So she wanted him to stop exerting improper pressure so that she could exert it directly? That doesn't make any sense. And I still don't know what source you have the she asked him to stop at all.

And that's the problem with following the law to the letter -- or as most people improperly call it, "the rule of law."
Now who is the conservative? Scalia would tell you that the only way to know what a law means is to see what it says. The law is what it is and it constrains the Governor from acting out petty grievances from the Capitol, like demanding that her former brother-in-law be fired.

I have no problem with him pulling files, as any private citizen should be able to get them from the government.
Good luck calling the police personnel records office and getting a file. You'd have to file a FOIA request, it would be refused, then you'd have to sue. That citizens SHOULD be able to get the files doesn't matter. If they can't get them in the routine course of business, the First Dude has no legitimate reason for having them.

Or any unionized employees. Or any employees who work for an employer trying to avoid a union that sets up a voluntary grievance process. We come at this from different mindsets. You think this means that there should be no municipal unionization; I think it means that all private sector workers should also try to get in a union.

In fact, I think unionization is fine. If people wish to come together and withhold their labor until the price is right (i.e. salary and benefits), that's their right. But it should *not* come at the expense of making them extremely difficult, if not impossible to fire.

The "due process" is the civil service disciplinary process. Both the State and the employees consent to it beforehand.

Unions' strength, as history shows, came about because of their threat of violence and disruption.

Your position is like saying that if the Attorney General plea bargains with a criminal, the Governor should be able to have the guy held an extra year anyway because she's the Governor.

I don't know which to call your statement: a stretch or just a bad analogy? Both fit. I never said anything with an intimation even close to your absurdity.

If you are the Governor and you don't like the civil service system, work to change it. Your office doesn't give you the authority to ignore it.

You're telling us to bell the cat. How can it be done, then?

You don't get the sense that the taser thing is being overblown for tactical reasons? If either the kid or the mother had a problem with it at the time - as opposed to after the fact amid a contentious custody battle - Wooten would have been arrested. But he wasn't because, in context, at the time, nobody thought it was a big deal. IT was a dude having a kinda stupid laugh with his stepson. Wooten says that the kid laughed about it afterwards and I don't doubt that was the case - 12 year olds LIKE stupid, potentially dangerous stuff. Sure, the phrase "tasered his stepson" sounds like child abuse but it wasn't discipline and - while I'm sure the jolt hurt - the kid wasn't injured at all. They engaged in the kind of idiocy that a handful of local news shows engage in every sweeps week. It was STUPID but it wasn't abusive.

It was certainly used as a tactic in the divorce proceedings, but you and I were not parties to it, thus we can evaluate it objectively. Ignore everything else and consider the base fact that a grown man used a taser on a kid. Nobody ever said it was abusive, but it's an incredibly stupid thing to do to a child. It goes to show Wooten's bad judgment, and that his job means he's held to a different standard than "regular people."

If you want to know why a guy who tasered his stepson got only a five day suspension, I'd bet it was because a disinterested disciplinary panel has more critical distance than either the Palin family or political partisans.

Absolutely. The system protected him well.

The cop here arrested the cyclist for assault and wrote in the police report that the cyclist attacked him. That's how police reports are routinely written after an arrestee takes a beating. If there wasn't video, the cyclist probably would have had a hard time proving that he didn't assault a police officer.

I had forgotten about that Critical Mass guy, but it's a good example. The system implicitly makes the cop's word as good as gold.

So she wanted him to stop exerting improper pressure so that she could exert it directly? That doesn't make any sense. And I still don't know what source you have the she asked him to stop at all.

I had read in the news (I'm surprised you hadn't picked up on this) that she did tell him to "Drop it." So he did, and that's when she used her office to pressure the commissioner.

Now who is the conservative? Scalia would tell you that the only way to know what a law means is to see what it says. The law is what it is and it constrains the Governor from acting out petty grievances from the Capitol, like demanding that her former brother-in-law be fired.

Actually I'm an Ayn Rand libertarian who recognizes that "the law" does not necessarily mean what is right or proper. "The law is what it is" -- so slavery was right? After all, it was the law. And should we have merely worked within the law to change it?

Good luck calling the police personnel records office and getting a file. You'd have to file a FOIA request, it would be refused, then you'd have to sue. That citizens SHOULD be able to get the files doesn't matter. If they can't get them in the routine course of business, the First Dude has no legitimate reason for having them.

My point exactly. The common citizen can't pull records that rightly belong to the people. It shouldn't have to take being the governor's spouse to get the files.

Unions' strength, as history shows, came about because of their threat of violence and disruption.
History also shows a lot of corporate sponsored violence in response. Pinkerton's etc. Whatever.

I never said anything with an intimation even close to your absurdity.
You said that the Governor should be able to trump the results of a civil service hearing. I'm not sure that my analogy is entirely inapt, if extreme. If the entirety of your point was that the civil service grievance system sucks, we can just agree to disagree. Otherwise, I think the analogy holds.

It goes to show Wooten's bad judgment, and that his job means he's held to a different standard than "regular people."
He got suspended and the black mark on his record probably means that he'll be fired for the next fuckup. As I said, I won't argue that a firing would have been entirely inappropriate, though I think it would have been excessive. 5 days seems a bit lenient, I'll admit.

I'm not sure what your point about the system's inherent bias towards the trustworthiness of police. I haven't heard anywhere that Wooten lied about his behavior or that anyone contradicted his account of the tasering.

"The law is what it is" -- so slavery was right?
Now who is in the specious analogy game? You think that Palin trying to fire Wooten compares to Dred Scott's run for freedom? The stakes aren't nearly high enough for Palin's alleged 'civil disobedience' to be considered legitimate.

My point exactly.
I know. But you are missing my point. Being the First Dude is not supposed to confer special records-access privileges. Asserting them to pry into non-public records is an abuse of power.

History also shows a lot of corporate sponsored violence in response. Pinkerton's etc. Whatever.

There's no doubt that violence has been exhibited on both sides, but it's unions that began employing violence in the first place. If a group attacks you or otherwise uses force against your business, it's your right to return force.

You said that the Governor should be able to trump the results of a civil service hearing.

That's a far cry from your comparison, which I now know to call a pure stretch. If a DA let a criminal off with too light a sentence, then there's always the judge to throw out the plea deal. There's always the public to vote a soft DA out of office, and if necessary, to lynch a truly bad guy once he's released.

I'm not sure that my analogy is entirely inapt, if extreme. If the entirety of your point was that the civil service grievance system sucks, we can just agree to disagree. Otherwise, I think the analogy holds.

So you don't think the methods of recourse don't suck? I guess you've never run into a bad cop, nearly gotten killed by a public transit driver, etc. The last I've heard, and you might know more, the NYPigD who hit the cyclist is still on "desk duty." He still has a job. If you or I had done the same, we'd have been sent to jail for assault.

But membership has its privileges. The system will protect its own, and if it must do something, it will give out just token punishments.

So tell me: what if a civil service hearing is completely wrong? What recourse is there when "the system" doles out mere slaps on the wrist?

He got suspended and the black mark on his record probably means that he'll be fired for the next fuckup. As I said, I won't argue that a firing would have been entirely inappropriate, though I think it would have been excessive. 5 days seems a bit lenient, I'll admit.

He might be treading on thin ice now, but there should be NO chance for a "next time." If he's going to taser or shoot or threaten someone, let him do it as a purely private citizen, not while he's on the job.

I'm not sure what your point about the system's inherent bias towards the trustworthiness of police. I haven't heard anywhere that Wooten lied about his behavior or that anyone contradicted his account of the tasering.

It wasn't just the tasering. He denied making the death threat, which was later deemed credible enough to hold against him. The investigator found that, overall, he's just that kind of unstable person. Like Todd Palin said, here's a crazy man allowed to carry a gun...as part of his government job!

Now who is in the specious analogy game? You think that Palin trying to fire Wooten compares to Dred Scott's run for freedom? The stakes aren't nearly high enough for Palin's alleged 'civil disobedience' to be considered legitimate..

It's not specious in the least. "The law" has been shown to be wrong, if not morally bankrupt, for big things. It's likewise not infallible for smaller things. Just because something is "the law" does not mean it's right. Many conservatives get riled up about illegals "breaking our laws," but what about laws sanctioning abortion? They want the first to be enforced "because it's the law," but not the second although it too is law? And the reverse applies to liberals. Ultimately "enforce the law" comes down to "I like this law so it had better be enforced, but don't enforce that law I don't like!"

In fact, what I've said elsewhere is the essence of classic liberal philosophy of government: good law ties down government (i.e. restrict its powers), but bad law ties down people. You can ponder that and get back to me.

I know. But you are missing my point. Being the First Dude is not supposed to confer special records-access privileges. Asserting them to pry into non-public records is an abuse of power.

I understand your point, actually. My point is a counter: why should it be an abuse of power to get such records, when ANY common citizen should have that ability? Demanding records, demanding a review of disciplinary action, demanding justice, are citizens' rights that keep government accountable to the people it's supposed to serve. But as I said, it took being the governor's husband to get anything done. It shouldn't be so. Todd Palin could be a ditch-digger and should still be able to call up the commissioner's office to say, "Hey, this schmuck on your force..."

Ack, forgot to close italics in there, but I think you can follow the flow.

it's unions that began employing violence in the first place
That is objectively false. Not only was private force used to suppress unionization, the industrial/railroad barons had the cops and military on their side to boot.

So tell me: what if a civil service hearing is completely wrong? What recourse is there when "the system" doles out mere slaps on the wrist?

I don't know. What do you do when a jury returns a not guilty verdict for OJ? Lynch him? Not every hearing goes as you'd like it to. (Holy hell. I wrote that as a parody. Then reread your post in which you actually, literally, come out pro-lynching. We aren't ever going to agree on any of this.)

In any event, it has been fun (and shockingly respectful, given what I know about me) but I think we've both staked out our territory pretty clearly and I will resist the urge to close with what I think is a fair portrayal of your position but you would think is extremist parody so that I don't have to check this comment thread again.

That is objectively false. Not only was private force used to suppress unionization, the industrial/railroad barons had the cops and military on their side to boot.

If you want to go back up to a couple of centuries, then yes, there were times when it was illegal, and the government would prevent unions from forming. But aren't you the one who says "the law is the law" and must be enforced?

I should have been more specific that I was talking about more modern union history (19th century America and later), when it was legal to unionize. Unions then employed violence, as you know, against factories, scabs, etc., to force their way. Whatever their motive, such illegitimate violence should certainly be quelled with whatever violent methods are necessary.

I don't know. What do you do when a jury returns a not guilty verdict for OJ? Lynch him?

If you're sure that justice was not delivered, then yes. This is subject to practicality, also, because you'll need to be able to dispense justice yourself (and get away with it if you so desire).

Not every hearing goes as you'd like it to. (Holy hell. I wrote that as a parody. Then reread your post in which you actually, literally, come out pro-lynching. We aren't ever going to agree on any of this.)

I do think a lot of corrupt criminals, from street thugs to corrupt politicians, should be made to swing from the nearest tree. We can try it through "the system," but a judge or jury letting a known criminal go free is no reason for society to accept it.

In any event, it has been fun (and shockingly respectful, given what I know about me) but I think we've both staked out our territory pretty clearly and I will resist the urge to close with what I think is a fair portrayal of your position but you would think is extremist parody so that I don't have to check this comment thread again.

I think we've had a good dialectic, actually, and I hope you're starting to understand (even if you don't agree with) my perspective. But go ahead and offer any extrapolations, if you'd like, and I'll let you know if they apply.