Why does the Hearld even print drivel from this entitled welfare loser?

This whiny crap isn't fit for print. The author needs to get out in the world and do something for himself, quit crying and be a man.

Does anyone else get frustrated when politicians throw out random numbers with seemingly no explanation of where they come from? I know Mr. King will be reading this so I have a rare opportunity to get a clarification from a politician that may help me out. Exactly how many people in your district are working for minimum wage? Where did you get this number? (This may be to specific) But what jobs are they working at?
I may have some more questions based on your answers, so I will hold up on those to see if you will answer my first few... or just ignore them because you don't have an answer.

The fact that you would vote for someone of this one single issue is mind boggling

A $10 minimum wage? You are seriously messed up. You don't want your constituents to have a living wage, you want them to have NO wage. Increasing the minimum wage in Wisconsin to even $6 would make the state a lonely island as the highest in the region. Jobs would flow out and away from such a high pressure zone to anywhere else. More employment at any wage is better than no employment at all. As a constituent of yours, I'm greatly disturbed at your shallow understanding of this issue.

That's why the wage has be raised nationally. States and localities are too vulnerable to competition otherwise.

Look, I know that Economics 101 taught you that raising the minimum wage costs some jobs. If we took your logic seriously, though, why not just abolish the minimum wage? Better for everyone to make a buck an hour than not have a job, right?

Actually, no. When those people can't afford health insurance, or pay for their kids' food, you'll end up paying for it anyway, because most of us still believe that there should be a floor that people shouldn't fall below IF they are working hard. We used to do things that way, before the Great Depression. We left that world for a reason--remember FDR? He was popular for a reason.

As for the whiny loser comment...look, man, if you're going to criticize someone, make at least one substantive comment. Otherwise, why even bother?

Idiot. Raising the minimum wage nationally would send more jobs to mexico, china, indonesia, etc. You are a damn fool.

Competition is NEVER a bad thing.

One again, King shows why he's not only the worst alder in the city, but also one of the worst writers.

Remember how this dude promised not to run again after one term? And then lied? Guys, get him out of office and put in a real progressive instead, one who understands the stakes of this election.

And why would the Herald let King write his own tagline? "He's been a leader in Madison's fair wage campaign?" Christ, that's bad journalism.

I wasn't a fan of that tagline either, but they did run King alongside a column by the conservative Klemz. In terms of writing, even diehard liberals can't argue with who won that showdown.

I've never understood the following point under Mr. King's logic: Why not have a minimum wage of $50/hr?

How about we just add a line to the minimum wage law, stipulating an annual cost-of-living increase equal to the percentage by which legislators' salaries rise every year? That way, the already overpaid legislators cannot raise their pay without forcing small businesses to pay their employees something closer to a living wage. It should control spending across the board.

Looks like Mr. King read Savage Love this week. Nice use of the word "kakistocracy." Too bad at least half of UW-Madison knows how you are familiar with that word.

A few things.

First off, Econ 101 is a lie when they say the minimum wage causes unemployment. I could get into some very intricate details as to why, but that would take a 1000+ word article. Keep an eye on The Madison Observer because I will be publishing an article there later in the semester about how the Economics department systematically lies to students and spreads economic theories which are untrue and have no basis in reality. Anyways, this is off topic...

The problem with this article is that an elected Green official is using his clout to support a Democrat. Austin King was elected as a candidate for the Four Lakes Green Party, an affiliate of the Wisconsin Green Party and National Green Party. When he recieved our support, there was an understanding that he would not endorse or otherwise support candidates that were not Greens, or at the very least running against Greens.

Austin has consistantly abused this privilege as an elected official by vocally supporting someone who so clearly does not stand for Green values and is running against a Green- David Cobb our presidential nominee. John Kerry is not an alternative to Bush, and yet Austin supports this corporatist. Austin's article does not represent the views of the Green party, and chances are that he will lose our support in his upcoming re-election bid because of this.

Bill Anderson
wjanderson@wisc.edu
Organizer for the UW Green/Progressive Alliance

I don't agree with Ralph Nader on much of anything, but I admire his resolve and his integrity.

Bill Anderson:

Do you not find anything hypocritical about being a member of a party that is against hierarchy, against censorship, againt "party bosses" and for open dialogue? Last time I checked, Austin King was indeed a member of the Green Party, regardless of whether you endorsed him or not. He can call himself whatever the hell he wants, you fascist. You and Rove would get along well in your strong-arm tactics. Why don't you spend your time threatening the Nader-crazies who are out there stumping for a candidate who is going to cost the Green Party ballot lines?

Goddamn Trotskyite nonsense.......

Wow, this page has turned into a wing of freerepublic.com. While I gotta respect the position of all you crazies calling for a repeal of the minimum wage, you're on a losing side of that public debate (~80/20 nationwide in favor of increasing the wage in recent polling). I don't think it needs to be $10/hour overnight (that's probably irresponsible) but $5.15 is definitely too low. And Mr. Andersen, I'm not a Green, but if the Green Party doesn't welcome people that want Bush out of office, y'all are screwed. I don't know if you've noticed that organized labor, the peace movement, women's groups, people of color, environmentalists, and every sane person on the PLANET wants Bush out. These folks will never be with you if you don't want them to be, which, apparently you don't. Good luck with your all-white, little club.

I'm sure King is fucking quaking in his boots about you nutjob young Republicans running someone against him. Oh, and he might have to face your challenge without the support of the all-powerful Green Party! How will he ever survive?

By the way, props to Bill for having the guts to provide his name, despite being a moron. Why don't you crazy wingnuts do the same?

Thomas Dewar

Response:

First off, I am not a Trotskyite or Marxist. My economic views tend to be more along of the lines of Social Democracy to Anarchism/Libertarian Socialism than State Socialism. I have had enough experience with the ISO to know that they are trouble, with all their Leninist tactics and such.

You are right that the Green party is very anti-heirachical and anti-authoritarian, but we have very limited resources. We prefer not to spend resources on someone who has consistantly betrayed our democratically elected presidential nominee. There was much discussion and debate leading up to our decision to nominate David Cobb at the convention in Milwaukee over the summer. In fact, Austin himself was at the convention. Since then Austin has published numerous articles, including one in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, which heavily cowtow to the liberal Democrats in the corporate media by expressing "Green" support for John Kerry.

As of yet, there is no decision as to weather Austin will recieve the support of the Four Lakes Green Party in the spring elections. However, his statements are most definetly not representative of the Green Party, and many members of the local Greens have taken great offense to Austin's actions.

Bill Anderson

Bill Anderson:

I don't understand your reply at all. You say you do not agree with Leninist/Trotskyite tactics, but then you take a hardline/strong-arm/fascist position that sounds just like the ISO crazies who are ideologues about their "candidate." And I don't see what limited resources have to do with anything. You endorsed a guy who's not listening to the party bosses.... So then next time don't endorse him. No need to threaten. The problem is when you publicly threaten him with insinuations of not being endorsed so that he'll pander to the "bosses." That is so hypocritical for an "anti-hierarchical" Green. How many damn resources does it take to say "I endorse you" or "I don't endorse you." Seems like you're spending more man-power hours writing about how much you don't like what he's saying or threatening Ald. King. Call a spade a spade, you don't need to use rationalizations here. The Greens are never for free speech - they're a bunch of aggressive men (ala Peter Camejo) who strong-arm people they don't agree with (except, oddly enough, Ralph Nader who they have deified even though he's shat on them).
I went and looked at the website that King mentions in his article too, and you know what, he endorses the Green nominee in some states too! So your posts are very misleading anyway. I also read that the Green Presidential candidate was himself insinuating people should vote for Kerry in close states.

I don't think the article ever mentions that King purports to speak for the Green Party (and even then, isn't his view one of many within any political party?). This is the problem with this type of narrowmindedness, you can never grow a party by acting as if the party can only have one viewpoint and stomping out any dissent like Stalin or ISO (again, support for Nader here being a clear Green hypocrisy - damn Greens don't care if we support a non-Green like Nader, but they go crazy if we support Kerry - does this make sense to you?)

I also don't get this nonsense you wrote: "and many members of the local Greens have taken great offense to Austin's actions." By this I take your statement to equate members with "party bosses" or people who go to crazy Green meetings, right? What about all of the leftist voters out there, including people who tend to vote Green? Don't they count? Seems like you're equating Greens with these hardline fascist Green Party bosses.

Oh well, I don't care if you screw your own party up. Reform Party did it too, Greens are next. This election is so funny to watch though. Bush is dumb is a brick, Nader is out of his mind, the Greens are strategically inept, the Dems won't stand up for themselves, and the Libs are crazy. What's left? Moving to Canada.....

Sir, whoever you are, I must say that you really don't know what you are talking about. There are no "bosses" in the Green party. The Green party is open to anyone who is interested in being involved, including some folks who are ABB. I would encourage you to come to one of our meetings and then hang out with us afterwards and you will see that we are very different than the ISO. Our Campus meetings are every Wed 8pm, TITU, and the Four Lakes Green Party meetings are the 2nd and 4th Mondays of every month at Madison Central Library at 7pm.

King has published several other articles besides this one which are entitled "Greens seek support for Kerry." Of course there is nothing wrong with debate. The real problem is that if Austin wrote an article entitled "Greens seek support for Cobb", the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal probably would not publish it, but they published it when he sought support for Kerry.

The reason there is resentment towards King from the Greens MEMBERSHIP is because he is doing things that undermine our very purpose as a party. There is nothing fascist about that. The Democrats have been incredibly fascist in their strong-arm tactics of keeping Nader off the ballot. The resentment towards Austin is not a product of a few actions, but the result of his general behavior and demenour to the party over the last year. Working for and endorsing TWO Democrats for president, one during the primary and one during the general, working for a 527 thats purpose is to support Kerry, and working with the College Democrats yet never even attending a single Campus Greens meeting, much less working with us, are all examples of Austin's disinterest in the Green Party. In short, Austin is far more concerned with his relationship with the Democrats than he is with his relationship with the Greens. In my view, he is a careerist whose first priority is himself.

The decision on weather or not to endorse Austin is not one that will be made by any party bosses. It will be made democratically by all Green party members who attend the endorsement meeting prior to the Spring election.

I am only expressing my own views when I say these things about King, and I will also vouch that there are a good number of Greens who agree with me. We are not being fascist, we are only doing what we feel is best for our party and our cause.

If you believe that you are a Green and have Green values, then I would encourage you to come to our meetings and make your voice heard. If you are genuinely interested in the Greens, there is nothing stopping you from voicing your opinion on this matter to other Greens, and to vote accordingly during the endorsement process.

Bill Anderson

Bill Anderson.....

One last question here. I'm not sure how much experience you have working with press, but were you aware that the media always puts their own titles on op. ed's? So it is almost certainly the case that the corporate media whores are coming up with sensationalist spin titles like "Greens seek support for Kerry" and that Mr. King didn't write things like that?

As much as I have enjoyed the conversation between Bill Anderson et al. I still don't have an answer from Austin King on the questions I asked the day his article came out. Three days... no answer. This smacks of fear mongering to me. Listen Austin just a bit of advice: the next time you want to use numbers like 1000s of my constituents be prepared for someone to ask for the proof. These are cynical times and if you aren't going to answer questions people are going to think you are crying wolf. Passion for something is one thing, but in this case it looks blind and stupid when the author doesn't even stand up for itself.

I am aware that the press puts their own titles on things, as I have had it happen to me numerous times.

That being said, however, it is not the title which is important, it is the content. What it all comes down to is that Austin is using his status as a Green alderman to jockey for power within the Democratic party. That is absolutely inconsinstant with Green values as we do not make political comprimises with the Democrats for personal gain.

Again, this is all my opinion. You don't have to agree, but understand that there is good reason for myself and other Greens to be angry at Austin for his actions.

That last comment was me

Bill Anderson

Hey anonymous who wants to talk to the author. Given what kind of ridiculous crap and insults get hurled at him on this message board, do you really think he hangs out here reading posts? If he did, he'd go crazy. Google his ass, and write him an email. I wasn't that hard, lazy.

http://www.thedailypage.com/community/resources/subSection.php?intSubID=46

Thanks fellow anonymous for your kind reply. But Mr. King made a public statement. So I thought it best to respond with a public question so as to get a public answer. I know his e-mail address. I also know he has answered questions before on the board. I was trying to give him the opportunity to publicly show that his claims were more than your run of the mill exageration.

Thanks for your concern. And Austin, I'm still waiting.