Who said Americans don't care about politics? The top 3 trending terms on Google right now are “wisconsin recall,” “wisconsin recall election results," and "scott walker." California's "prop 29" rounds out the top five. 

Find more at google.com/trends
35
6
Adiv Paradise's profile photoEric Stacey's profile photoBilly Kopp's profile photoCaleb Diffell's profile photo
56 comments
 
Wisconsin really let us down last night.  End Citizens United!
 
#Google  needs to put some TLC on their Trends site.
 
How many of those searches are coming from inside the US?
 
+Mike Moore Unions are what got you the right to work 40 hours, have vacation time and prevented you from competing against children for a job.  
 
+Shane Coffey Actually, Henry Ford proposed the 40-hour work week, and Ford Motor Co. adopted it in May 1926. The first union contract at Ford was in 1941:

'Henry Ford said of the decision: "It is high time to rid ourselves of the notion that leisure for workmen is either 'lost time' or a class privilege." At Ford's own admission, however, the five-day workweek was also instituted in order to increase productivity: Though workers' time on the job had decreased, they were expected to expend more effort while they were there. Manufacturers all over the country, and the world, soon followed Ford's lead, and the Monday-to-Friday workweek became standard practice'

Source: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-factory-workers-get-40-hour-week

Want me to rebut your other inaccuracies, or will this suffice?
 
Unions have been holding state budgets hostage for decades much like gov agencies are holding the federal budget hostage. Hooorah hooorah. 
 
i dont understand that whole recall deal what was the deal i only caught a little bit of the news 
 
I feel for the people who are out of work but intelligence dictates that your job is hinged on how much money that state can afford. Should always have a plan B 
 
Disgusting witless fascists, you deserve all you're going to get.
 
now days you have to go as far as d cause ab and c dont work 
 
Politics is the greatest show on earth, in my opinion. It features all the strategy and tactics of sports, but the outcome actually matters.
 
+Lyndsey Duncan I understand you're angry at the world because you've got a girl's name but really don't try to annoy your betters, you're not up to the job mentally.
 
+Seán O'Nilbud Well, a couple of things about that. First, "Lyndsy" is a family name, and goes back six generations. I'm actually quite proud of it. Second, I'm quite secure in my manhood; it's going to take a lot more than your boorish mocking to threaten it.

Still, upon reconsideration, I hereby withdraw my previous statement. A potential employer might one day see these comments, and it would appear quite ungentlemanly of me to engage in a battle of wits with one so woefully unprepared for the contest.
 
+Lyndsy Simon
Woefully.... I like that word .. Pay no attention to people with room temperature I.Q.'s 
 
Well, at least Americans who use the internet on a frequent basis and know how to perform a Google search to get what they want care about politics. Although, how many people have to do a search for it to be in the top 5? I bet there are so many searches that it's not that many--maybe 5% of the population? So that plus taking into account that a lot of the people who pay no attention to politics or current events are also unlikely to be tech-savvy internet users, I think we can safely say that, judging by those estimations and the US's dismal voter turnout, Americans really don't care about politics.
 
+Adiv Paradise Your conclusion is sound, but I'll take one more point - Google Trends are indicative of a topic's gain in popularity, not of its total popularity.

People who are already interested in politics typically have sources for this type of information handy - particularly those of us active in social media.
 
+Adiv Paradise People not caring about politics is precisely why we have assholes running the country. If you're an asshole chances are you're not going to call your elected officials out for being an asshole ...assholes do, as assholes do they shit alover everyone. The public is bathing in it's own shit and know one seems to know it except the people who are not assholes.

The literacy rate in America is indicative of the monolithic cookie cutter coloring book education system foisted onto the American public... But I digress. 
 
+Kip Kipper The scary thing is, I'm afraid that the assholes running our country are a direct result of controlling, authoritarian assholes voting.
 
+Lyndsy Simon No argument there--you're absolutely right that Google Trends are indicative of a rise in popularity, not total popularity. Would like to contest your second point, though--if I want election results, and I don't particularly trust one individual site, and want a whole bunch of sites that are reporting the results as they come in, I'm not going to turn to social media, or some other source--I'm going to do a Google search. It's fast, easy, and gets me the information I'm looking for from a wide variety of sources. 

My point, though, was that the original post's implication that Americans do indeed care about politics was fallacious--political search terms being top-ranked in Google Trends is not evidence that the majority of the public is interested in said search terms.
 
I think people are waking up to the fact that their house is on fire. 
 
+Kip Kipper Would that house fire be a problem with the unions, or the intense partisan divide in our nation that makes any sort of workable compromise impossible? Unions are a fine thing in concept--they provide a way for workers to ensure fair and safe working conditions, benefits, and wages. That's not to say that unions are a good thing all the time as they can certainly be too powerful--the intent behind unions was never to turn the tables on employers--it was to provide a table for workers and employers to sit at and negotiate an agreement that benefited both the employers and the workers--just as Henry Ford did, as +Lyndsy Simon lectured +Shane Coffey about. Destroying unions isn't going to put out the fire--it'll make it worse. Nobody wants to go back to the days of The Jungle, and not having unions period would allow that to happen. Neither will giving unions all the power they want--that would cripple free enterprise. What will put out the fire is folks getting out of their trenches, bridging the partisan divide, and working out workable compromises that work for everybody.

On a side note--Walker didn't win this election because there's growing opposition to unions in Wisconsin. And in the end it wasn't even about the unions. Walker made it an election about jobs and the economy, and Barrett let him, which was a huge mistake--the numbers didn't particularly condemn Walker. Walker won this election because he ran a vastly superior campaign to Barrett's, and was far more likable than Barrett. Politicians don't really win elections on the issues--they win elections on how well they connect with voters don't pay all that much attention anyway. 
 
+Lyndsy Simon It's good that you back down and retract your stupid remarks. Learn from your mistake and move on. Servility is your thing.
 
+Adiv Paradise Unions (in my opinion have fulfilled their intended purpose) i.e. to ensure people are treated fairly and that companies , agencies are duty bound to pay wages suitable to maintain a sufficient living .. The problem is that unions have bargained themselves right out of the competative marketplace by holding state budgets hostage and making demands unrealistic to justify wages pensions and entitlements that are not congruent or unbalanced to what the sate can really afford. This is been an ongoing problem over the last 30 years. 


  ..so essentially every one is getting their tier pay according to their tenure not according to the merits of their work performance.... this is not only bad business it's socialism disguised as collective bargaining. .. for example the Department of Corrections pays out pensions to employees that are eligible after only 10 years - 15 years of work. The State then has to pay people essentially who produce NOTHING.  Those individuals get 80% of their highest wages earned over a three year period. They get paid indefinitely or what ever their contract states.. So essentially you have %40 of a work force that can retire .. still get paid over the next 20 years and all they have to do is sit on their ass.

And lets not forget the sway they have to lobby to have the laws changed to their advantage .. which benefit them and screw the little guy. 

Unions are a dinosaur and they have outlived their purpose there are plenty of laws on the books now that protect the worker. and yes we can thank unions for that .. time to move now. 
 
I went to +Google Politics & Elections's website multiple times building up to the time the results were going to start being released.  I was hoping for a live results map.  There was no mention of one, and all I could find was a repub primary map.  I ended up heading to Politico.  Would have been cool if you had done a live results map (or at least publicised it on your website if you did one), +Google Politics & Elections.
 
+Kip Kipper I agree with you on all of those points, except your last. Yes, we absolutely need union reform, particularly with the teachers' unions. But I think you'll find that if we get rid of unions entirely, the laws on the books will still be insufficient to ensure fair conditions and wages for a lot of workers, particularly factory workers. I could see the idea of unions for relatively white-collar jobs being slightly unnecessary, but non-unionized factory workers in this country are still being exploited. One thing that a union can bargain for is a maximum percent of immigrant workers hired by the company, so that you don't get what happened with the kosher meat-packing plants in Postville, Iowa--the company brought in thousands of immigrants, paid them the smallest amount possible, and gave them horrible working conditions. A union could have partially prevented that. There are numerous examples, particularly in the meat-packing industry, where a union could still be extremely beneficial. So yes, unions have served their purpose in many industries. But there are still many industries where the union is necessary because state and federal laws are insufficient. Also, don't forget that we live in a country where politics is dominated by money--without unions in the way, it would be foolish not to expect corporations to lobby legislatures heavily to repeal or weaken worker-protection laws.
 
+Adiv Paradise No one who voluntarily takes a job for mutually acceptable pay is being exploited. Period.
 
+Adiv Paradise " One thing that a union can bargain for is a maximum percent of immigrant workers hired by the company"

That is easily the most racist thing I've seen today. You advocate employers choosing their workforce based on preferred ethnicity?
 
+Lyndsy Simon It's not preferred ethnicity--it's nationality, and companies do it all the time, and they're under pressure to do so by almost everyone in the United States--how often do you hear about people complaining about American jobs being lost to illegal immigrants or workers overseas? One role a union can play is to get a company to hire locally. That could mean hiring anyone of any ethnicity--as long as they're local. Going to a third-world country and shipping in immigrants by the boatload to make them work for you for dirt cheap does not constitute hiring locally, even if you give them living quarters near the factory, and even if they naturalize at some point.

 And as for your point about the impossibility of exploitation in voluntary employment, consider a couple examples. For one, the porn industry: you'd be arguing a weak case if you argued that no women in the porn industry are exploited, yet that is in fact their voluntary employment, and they do in fact have a union that tries to get them better working conditions, such as mandatory condom use and good health care that allows for preventative treatment, testing, and medication for STD's. Another example would be a factory that, while being up-front about the hours and the wages, maybe isn't so up-front about the actual working conditions, such as how dangerous the machines are, or how often you get bathroom breaks, or whether or not you have to work if you're sick (see: the Jimmy John's class action lawsuit after workers alleged that they were forced to work while sick with contagious diseases (like flu) and were subsequently fired), and when someone tries to speak up about it, or tries to press for safer conditions, they either get fired, or are told that there are a thousand others who would kill for their jobs, so if they want to complain, they can walk out the door and give the job to someone else. You might argue that you should ask about these things before taking the job, but not everyone's that smart, or maybe there were no more options--small towns often have one large employer, and someone without the means to move would need to look to that employer for employment. Those people, the less intelligent and the difficult to employ, they deserve protection too. And while we have some laws on the books protecting them, they're relatively weak and could be weakened further or repealed given enough lobbying money. A union, albeit perhaps one with limits on its power, is necessary in many industries to protect workers from exploitation, because it does in fact happen.
 
Oh, and +Seán O'Nilbud -- you're not doing anyone any favors by using ad hominem. It only serves to reduce the credibility of any arguments you make.
 
It's not ad hominium to describe mindless dross as stupid. It's accuracy. The fascism in the US is at an all time high except they call themselves Libertarians now. Right wing sociopaths who see no need for society. They're like heroin addicts tearing the copper out of the walls of the house. The dementia which was just exhibited in Wisconsin plays into the hands of corporate interests at the expense of civil society.
 
+Adiv Paradise What if i don't want to join a union but want to work in a factory ? Unions monopolize the market place then dictate the terms for how much you will get paid and then hold corporations at the mercy of who will show up to work and how  etc the reason its failing now because the cost of goods and services is disproportionate to the rate of inflation.. Unions essentially do the work people should be doing for themselves, investing , saving etc.. people need to take more control of their lives if they want to see thing's improve. We rely too much on organizations to coddle us much like we do gov. 

As I said the laws are there to protect people in the work place .. you can't un-ring that bell... Unions are every where in America and quite frankly dare i say they are part of the problem and no longer the solution.  
 
+Seán O'Nilbud I am a libertarian - an Anarcho-Capitalist in fact.

Do you know a lot of fascist anarchists?
 
+Seán O'Nilbud Do you have any idea what a fascist is? Seriously. There is literally no such thing as a fascist anarchist. That's like saying a color is a very white shade of black.
 
Facism .. "The merger of State and Corporate powers" ~ Mussolini 

Merriam-Websters DIctionary "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual" 
 
These clowns seem to think dismantling the government (of the people by the people) and privatising everything will result in some kind of utopia. Whereas in fact it will lead to corporate power on a massive scale which would make old school fascism look like communism. It's all ok in their minds though because they're incapable of thinking more than 1 step ahead. Just like a junkie ripping copper out of the walls.
 
+Seán O'Nilbud We get it, you disagree with my political philosophy. So what? The point I'm making is that you're making yourself look like a moron and an ideologue by parroting the "fascist" meme, even when it is completely inappropriate for the conversation at hand.

I believe a government can be moral, but I don't believe that it can remain moral. The American federal government was established in its current form with the ratification of our Constitution in 1789. In 1794 - only five years later - Washington drafted 13,000 men to violently suppress a tax protest in Pennsylvania.

Now, I believe the American system is the best ever devised by man. It is and remains considerably better than any in Europe, and incomparably better than the traditional governments of the East. Still, it took only five years to go from "A government of the People, by the People, and for the People" to "surrender your land as taxation to us, or we will take it at the point of a gun."

Anarchy - or rather, a stateless society, which is a subset of anarchy - is not a perfect system. No actual anarcho-capitalist with which I've spoken maintains that it would be. Wherever there are men, there is free will, and with free will comes the certainty that some men will attempt to take that which is not theirs by force, and to run rough-shod over their weaker fellow men. This problem is not left unaddressed; there have been many books written on the subject of criminal justice sans governmental authority.

The thing that many seem to miss is that we do not live in a Utopia now. One cannot rationally compare a proposed stateless society with the standard of perfection; it must instead be compared the the society that exists to day and those which have come before it. Our society today actively encourages criminal behavior in many contexts. Take for example alcohol prohibition in the US in the 1920s. There was a demand for spirits prior to the passage of the law, and there was a demand for spirits after its passage. Before Prohibition, that demand was met by lawful business owners, who were taxed and settled their disputes through the tort system. During Prohibition, the same demand was met by bootleggers and criminal gangs. Because the industry was now underground, the court system was unavailable to them; violent criminals soon dominated it because they were willing to push out their competitors in an extremely violent way.

In this way, the US Government created the Gangster era of the 1920s and 1930s.

A very similar cycle is underway today in the US, with the "War on Drugs". Illicit narcotics are in demand, and that demand must be met. To fill that need, we have fostered an entire culture of gangs and other armed criminal groups, specializing in the trafficking of illegal drugs from their origin around the world. In fact, our demand has created a kind of shadow government in Mexico and surrounding countries, whose power rivals that of the "legitimate" government. Yet, with all of the billions of dollars spent to suppress these substances and all of the infringements on the rights of the individual put in place to support the effort, one can purchase marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, or a variety of other substances everywhere in the US more cheaply and with less hassle than a similar substance can be obtained through a medical institution.

Compared to this system, anarchy is indeed a rational alternative.
 
+Seán O'Nilbud One additional point - without a government, a corporation has no more power than any other group of individuals. It takes regulatory protection to sustain a massive corporation like those we see today, and government enforcement to protect its market.
 
+Kip Kipper I'm not saying unions are perfect, and I'm not saying that they're not part of the problem in many cases. They absolutely need to be reformed. For example, job security by seniority is maybe not the best policy to have in place. Mandatory union membership maybe isn't the best idea. It's absolutely true that in many cases, the union bosses have become as corrupt and powerful as those they were trying to fight. But I don't believe that the solution is to get rid of them entirely. Rather, we should fix them. If a component of your car is broken, and in danger of making the entire car crash or explode, the solution is not to remove it altogether--you probably need that part--the solution is to replace it with a component that works. I believe that having unions in some form, though certainly not as they are today, is essential to having a fair and safe workplace for working-class Americans.

And like I said before--just because there are worker protection laws on the books now does not mean that a) they're strong enough to actually protect workers, b) that they're particularly enforceable or are being enforced, or that c) they couldn't be weakened or repealed at the insistence of the pro-business lobby in the absence of the union lobby. You can't always rely on laws to protect people. 

+Seán O'Nilbud , while I probably agree with you on an ideological standpoint, I have to agree with +Lyndsy Simon here. The way you're using words like "dementia", "stupid", and "fascist" is absolutely ad hominem. You can't attack an idea or a person--only the reasoning behind that idea or the reasoning being used by the person, and even then, you can't attack it by calling it names or arguing that it comes from a point of unintelligence. You can point out logical inconsistencies and fallacies in the reasoning being used to support that idea.

Also, you really are misusing fascism. Fascism is where corporations exist to serve a single-party totalitarian state ruled by a superior few. Fascism represents a fairly large expansion of government, while you would be very very hard-pressed to meet a libertarian who favors any expansion of government control, except perhaps with regard to abortion. While neither anarcho-capitalism nor fascism eliminate the free market, fascism requires that the government assert enormous control and regulation over corporations, while anarcho-capitalism requires completely stripping away government control and regulation of the free market. The only possible way in which you could mistake +Lyndsy Simon 's views for fascism is that fascism opposes labor strikes (a form of unionized behavior). However, fascism also opposes similar heavy-handed tactics by employers. Basically, fascism opposes any kind of discord between employees and employers. Which is a general enough position that just opposing unions does not a fascist make. Now really--as a progressive to another liberal--please stop using ad hominem and trollish arguments. You're really not helping the cause at all. If you disagree with +Lyndsy Simon , +Kip Kipper , or the 54% of Wisconsinites that voted for Walker, say so, and explain why you believe their arguments to be logically flawed, rather than launching baseless attacks.
 
+Adiv Paradise
Attempting to "fix" a union is like trying make a silk purse from a sows ear.

As i have said before and will say again... The laws that protect workers are in place enough said.

If a worker believes his wages to be insufficient, then said worker needs to asses (as any good business would) how much he can afford to live on Or make a career change.

Again..Unions have priced themselves right out of the market place. This is the reason a car that should theoretically cost $15,000.00 costs $30k - 40k it comes down to much or little profits are built into the costs. The bulk of the price has union wages, retirement taxes tariffs' etc shipping and and so on built in.

An example that is working is Hyundai. Their factories here hire the average joe (or at least used to) non-union. I believe they make half of what union workers pay, however the worker has more control of their money and they pay no penalties for leaving and are not required to pay union dues.

Teachers unions are another albatross. People need to learn how to set their own wages for services rendered instead of allowing a bunch of fat headed fools do it for them. "a laborer is worthy of his hire" if people are too stupid to examine and attach worth to what they do then they have no right to complain when they are abused because they failed to do it themselves or expect "think tanks" to do it for them.

People need to have more faith in themselves as individuals. When that happens they will no longer rely on organizations to hold their hand.




 
+Kip Kipper , we have reached an impasse. You believe that legislation is the best way to achieve worker protection, I believe that it's foolish to depend on Congress to protect the average Joe. You believe that the individual should look out for his own, I believe that one person alone is often insufficiently powerful or loud to be heard, and that it is often necessary to band together into groups (unions) for protection and organization. I believe that when people work together, they can accomplish more than could have been accomplished by any of the individuals, even in summation. I don't believe that unions are always good, and in many industries (such as the automobile industry), they may have gone too far. But I do believe that unions can exist in a state in which they protect and serve the workers without crippling the companies they work for (no union wants to see its employer out of business--those that do have a death wish) or the economy they live in. On this fundamental position we disagree. So rather than go in circles, as we are now on the verge of doing, let's agree to disagree. Should we ever meet in the halls of a legislature, the result will be union legislation that reduces the influence and power of many unions while also protecting their ability to protect workers--a compromise between our two opinions. And that's how it should be. 'twould be a dull old country if we all agreed.
 
+Adiv Paradise
The world system is in trouble for a reason and to cover more points surrounding the conundrum countries face is far more detailed that can be covered in a thread.

To be somewhat more objective the United States is in itself a "union" of people.. "We the people" agree (or at least used to) that authority of our just laws comes from God. The sad commentary here is there appear to be more agnostics and athiests coming to the forefront which either deny or defy the idea of a universal (P)rinciple and that there are universal moral laws which govern all things... Another topic of discussion to be sure... I digress.

Unions used to lobby to get laws changed to hold companies in check for poor wages, working conditions, and were instrumental in getting child labor laws passed .. Bravo.

What do unions do today? They put state budgets in a vice.

Part of the problem is the monolithic model you have for state agencies (not unlike the post office) they are static, not competitive and lets face it ...not very productive. You think if the DMV was run like McDonalds you be standing in line all day missing out on your golf game or what ever it is that gives you solace?

State agencies are tax based. Herein lies the problem. They make no money unless there are laws on the books that allow them to tax you. So what does the state do? It creates MORE laws to justify its existence.

When the costs of goods and services increase in the private sector based on supply/demand and what ever direction the political wind blows... people working for the dmv dot doc no longer have the disposable income they used to .. Now what?

The Union goes to the Governor and body politic to argue (negotiate) for more money. What does the state do ? They pass more laws create more "programs" and thus the spiral continues downward.

To the point the gov and state agencies and private sector are at war. Gov wants to do everything the private sector does. If you think health care costs are high deliberately you'd be right. Remember what i said about state agencies creating laws to make money this is what and why medical costs are so disproportionally high... Its so our political and yes union "saviors" can demonize and usurp control of the private sector.

If you want Unions to exist at all you should more focused on the Union that is the United States of America as once thats gone you'll be fighting for more than just a bigger paycheck.






 
Also, what about the recent letter the president of American Hospital Association sent to president Obama about the $40 billion dollars in uncompensated care that went to take care of the illegals dumped here on our front porch. you think that money could have gone to resolve some of these disenfranchised American citizens who need it?

Talk about priorities being out of whack.

Lets enforch 
 
+Kip Kipper I'm not going to argue specifics with you, since we have inherently different political beliefs. I will point out though, that I believe unions should go about their negotiations not by lobbying the government ("Mommy, make him stop poking me!") but by having face-to-face talks with employers. And I will reiterate that I do not believe that many of the biggest unions today, in their current forms, effectively accomplish their goals, and they do indeed hurt other people. I was part of a school board committee tasked with trying to patch up a structural problem in our public school district that resulted in ~$5 million deficits every year with a $45 million total budget, and a big obstacle was the teacher's union, not necessarily because of wages and benefits, but more because we wanted to restructure the day to take advantage of online course offerings, but do to union-controlled contracts, teachers had to be in the classroom a set number of hours per day--if we wanted the classrooms empty to reduce building costs, too bad. So I'm absolutely aware that we have a big problem, and unions are absolutely a big part of that. 

But where we fundamentally disagree is our belief in the purpose of government and what it can do. I believe that government, when done well, run not as a business that has a for-profit motive, but as a governing body that exists solely to help others, is a Good Thing. I believe it can make people's lives better. Does that fit the definition of our government right now? Absolutely not. But that's why we live in a democracy. Our forebears had the wisdom to give us a government that is malleable and can be changed by the people. So while the government today doesn't necessarily do what I think a good government does, that doesn't mean that I think we should strip back the government--rather, I think we should change the way we do government so that it works better. 

On the other hand, you believe that people are better off when the government stays out of things, and when it doesn't get involved in stuff. There's certainly logic to that, and there's not necessarily an obvious reason why that wouldn't work well in certain societies. If we lived in such a society, I would be totally fine with paying a lot less taxes and still having functional roads, hospitals, worker protections, a social safety net for the elderly, and affordable health insurance. In fact, if Google wanted to run everything, using advertising dollars rather than tax dollars, I might be okay with that. However, I myself don't believe we live in that sort of society, but there we go--it all boils down to a matter of belief. 

You can change how someone thinks about something by presenting evidence and logic that sheds doubt on their current position--that's how people's positions evolve. But you cannot change a fundamental belief, because it does not come from logic--it comes from an innate way in which we understand our world. 

That's why I'm not going to keep arguing this--we have different beliefs. Nothing will change that, nor should it. Our country is better off for having people like you and me who disagree but can talk about why we disagree, without resorting to petty bickering, cheap political ploys, or ad hominem.
Add a comment...