• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

We can work it out

So, Indiana will be the 23rd state with a right-to-work law, and the only one in the industrial heartland. Good for us:

From 2000 to 2010, employment in right-to-work states increased 2.3 percent, compared to a 4.0 percent decline in non-right-to-work states. Indiana saw employment decrease 6.9 percent over the same period. That means Indiana lost roughly 207,000 jobs over the past 10 years. In contrast, 1.2 million jobs were created in right-to-work states.

Also from the report, which is from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy: The right--work law will mean good wages, will not affect worker safety and will not harm unions. That last point is especially interesting considering the union-busting rhetoric unleashed by House Democrats. Between 2000 and 2010, according to the Mackinac Center, union membership declined by 9.5 percent in non-right-to-work-states and 9.2 percent in right-to-work-states.

The next right-to-work battleground? Some people think it will be Michigan, which would be pretty remarkable. The victory here may encourage the movement there.


Christopher Swing
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 6:13pm

Oh, the "Mackinac Center for Public Policy," eh?

What does 5 seconds in sourcewatch.org tell us?


The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a state-level conservative policy think tank in Michigan. Founded in 1987, it is the largest state-level think tank in the nation. It was established by the state's leading conservative activists to promote free market, pro-business policies. The Center voices its policy positions though publications and has moved beyond Michigan by helping the leaders of similar conservative institutions to improve their operations in many other states and countries around the world. The organization has drawn fire for its advocacy of right wing positions. Leading academics have criticized the Center, saying that "Mackinac Center research is often of low quality and because of this it should be treated with considerable skepticism by the public, policy makers and political leaders. Much of the work of the Mackinac Center may have caused more confusion than clarity in the public discussion of the issues that it has addressed by systematically ignoring evidence that does not agree with its proposed solutions."


Ah, no wonder they think correlation somehow equals causation.

Tim Zank
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 7:15pm

"Leading Academics".......


Heh heh heh...that's funny.

Christopher Swing
Sat, 01/28/2012 - 4:36am

Don't worry Tim, nothing will ever be as funny as that time you used abovetopsecret.com as some kind of reliable source.*

Show us on the doll where your alien abductors touched you... right before they showed you Obama's real birth certificate hidden in the 9/11 inside job evidence. XD


*No, you don't get to live that down. Ever.

Sat, 01/28/2012 - 10:27pm

Chris Swing is becoming infamous for finding off-the-wall citations to attack opinions and facts he doesn't like and this SourceWatch badmouthing of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy is no different. SourceWatch ,you see, is the Wiki arm of The Center for Media and Democracy which is a very nasty leftist organization as Groupsnoop points out:

"The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a liberal watchdog group. It exists to investigate and malign conservative leaders, groups, and media. The Center for Media and Democracy spins the truth about conservatives and libertarians to push media and public opinion to the left. The Center for Media and Democracy often presents America’s right wing as engaging in grand conspiracies. <b>The Center for Media and Democracy is funded by far-left ideologues including George Soros and the Ford Foundation."</b>

Having pointed out the problem with the CMD, I also have to say that The Mackinac Center does champion free market causes, including but not limited to, Right-To-Work legislation in the state of Michigan.


Christopher Swing
Sun, 01/29/2012 - 2:01am

Yeah, the right had to counter actual information getting to people somehow...


GroupSnoop.org is a project launched in October 2011 by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) to critique reporting by sites like the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch (this site) and GreenPeace's ExxonSecrets.org. Both SourceWatch and ExxonSecrets have tracked funding by oil companies like Exxon for public relations and disinformation campaigns, such as Exxon's funding of climate denial. Both have noted that NCPPR, which advances climate denial claims, has also received funding from Exxon.

GroupSnoop is the latest effort by NCPPR to smear groups working in the public interest to connect the dots between corporations like Exxon and so-called experts, think tanks, and other ways such companies attempt to affect public opinion and public policy.

NCPPR has a controversial history of suspect activities, as documented below.


But the real point here is Leo Morris, not bothering to point out his source "backing up" the Republicans here is just another group of conservatives in another state, not any sort of independent/objective group.

Christopher Swing
Sun, 01/29/2012 - 2:34am

OK, I've had a minute to look through Groupsnoop. It took conservatives EIGHT YEARS to come up with something this comically bad?

"The Center for Media and Democracy’s central tenant [sic, you can't make this stuff up] appears to be that capitalism is to blame for all of America’s social and financial woes."

"Many SourceWatch entries are written to attack conservatives. The true aim of these SourceWatch entries appears to be the diminution of free speech. SourceWatch writers cannot stand conservative and free-market opinions, so they attack these groups and try to stifle their funding."

I'd like to know how more speech diminishes free speech. And how any funding for anyone has been stifled...

"As of August 2011, SourceWatch focuses its vitriol on these primary issues"

I... think they may have missed the part about neutral word usage in articles. Maybe.

"The Heartland Institute is not a front group. A front group is a puppet organization that does the bidding of a shadow leader that funds the organization. The Heartland Institute does not have a single primary funder, and a wide range of individuals, foundations, and groups finance it."

Well, if you make up your own definition of "front group/organization," I guess it's not.


Gadfly, I think you're the one that's brought us wacky and off the wall. And here I thought conservapedia was entertaining for conservative butthurt. XD