Israeli public opinion about the war in Gaza: The outlook is very bad for the Palestinians

From what I could tell, the murderous 10/7 attack by Hamas on Israel probably turned a lot of Israeli public opinion against the Palestinian people and their cause. But is that really true? Apparently. A search of Israeli public opinion gave this answer:

Q: What is Israeli public opinion about the actions the Israeli military are taking in Gaza?

A: The vast majority of Israelis, across the political spectrum, are convinced of the justice of the war against Hamas in Gaza.

• 57.5% of Israeli Jews believe the Israeli military (IDF) is using too little firepower in Gaza, while only 1.8% think the IDF is using too much.

• Despite some dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Netanyahu's handling of the war, trust in the IDF remains high, with 49.5% of Israelis expressing confidence in the military's actions.

• Israelis have rallied to crush Hamas after the October 7th attack that killed over 1,400 people and took over 240 hostages. They have little tolerance for criticism of the steep toll the conflict has taken on Palestinians.

• Even Israelis who oppose the occupation largely reject any contextualization of the Hamas attack, viewing it as an unjustified breach of Israel's borders. 

In summary, the Israeli public overwhelmingly supports the military's actions in Gaza, with a majority believing the IDF is not using enough force, despite growing international criticism of the high Palestinian casualties and destruction. Israelis see the war as a justified response to the Hamas attack.

If that data is basically correct, it along with past history, strongly suggest that the Palestinians and their cause are screwed permanently. There will probably never be a two-state solution. The only solution that looks plausible to me for the foreseeable future is the forced removal of all Palestinians to miserable, poverty-stricken enclaves that are strictly controlled by the Israeli military. The time for diplomacy is probably gone and not coming back any time soon, if ever. This is looks like it is getting close to end of the ~76 year-old game called Middle East peace. 

Of course, that's just my current opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe something will change.

Qs: 

1. This is not a perfect analogy, but if terrorists in Canada lobbed missiles into the US and crossed the border killing ~25,000 people and taking ~1,500 hostages back across the border, would you support proportionally about the same level of retaliation against Canada with ~575,000 Canadian deaths (mostly non-combatant civilians), based on a kill ratio of ~23:1 as estimated for the current Gaza conflict (probably too low because many Palestinians are simply unaccounted for and may be dead).  

2. It is unreasonably sanctimonious or unfair for Americans and other foreigners to criticize the level of bloodshed among Palestinian civilians?

3. Does past history matter, e.g., the Q&A quoted below?

Q: Has Israel blocked a two-state solution since 1948?

A: Based on the search results, it appears that Israel has taken actions that have made the two-state solution increasingly difficult to achieve since 1948: 

• After the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Israel captured more territory than was originally allocated to it under the 1947 UN Partition Plan, while Jordan took control of the West Bank and Egypt took control of Gaza. This resulted in hundreds of thousands of Palestinians becoming stateless refugees. 3 5

• In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and other Arab territories. This led to the idea that Israel would exchange land it had captured for peace with its Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians. 5

• However, over time, Israel has continued to expand settlements in the occupied West Bank, making the prospect of an independent and contiguous Palestinian state more difficult. 1 3 4

• Some scholars argue that the two-state solution was "stillborn" and "never a solution" due to the competing nationalist claims over the land and the difficulty of partitioning it equitably. 4

So in summary, while the two-state solution was initially proposed as a framework for resolving the conflict, Israel's actions since 1948 - including capturing and occupying Palestinian territories and expanding settlements - have made the realization of this solution increasingly remote over time, according to the sources provided. The search results suggest Israel has been a major obstacle to achieving a viable two-state solution.

AI warfare update; A proposed federal land management policy shift

The Register reports that DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has successfully completed tests with a modified, artificial intelligence-driven F-16 fighter jet going against a human pilot in a standard F-16 jet:

US Air Force says AI-controlled F-16 fighter jet 

has been dogfighting with humans

Robo-plane was made to restrain itself so as not to harm pilot or airframe

The claims rest on the USAF and DARPA implementing machine learning in an X-62A VISTA, a plane built as a testbed as it can mimic the performance of other aircraft, and recognition of their work as one of four finalists for the National Aeronautic Association's 2023 Robert J. Collier Trophy, an annual award for exceptional feats of aeronautics or astronautics in America.

"The potential for autonomous air-to-air combat has been imaginable for decades, but the reality has remained a distant dream up until now," said Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. "In 2023, the X-62A broke one of the most significant barriers in combat aviation. This is a transformational moment, all made possible by breakthrough accomplishments."

DARPA has been testing AI agent software for piloting simulated planes for several years. Its Air Combat Evolution (ACE) program dates back to 2020, when AlphaDogfight trials pitted human pilots in a flight simulator against an AI opponent.

The AI software won that competition but had an edge – it was allowed to fly at speeds that would have overstressed a real aircraft and generated g-forces that would harm a human pilot.

The integration of AI into modern

warfare is scary but apparently inevitable

AI is taught not to break the airplane because it can do so. But, if AI completely replaces humans, aircraft design would no longer have to take into account human limits. Aircraft design would be unleashed from human considerations. 

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Federal lands

The federal government owns and administers a huge swath of land in the “West” sometimes defined to be some lands west of the 100th meridian to the east side of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountain ranges in California, Oregon and Washington. These public lands consist of (i) the heavily touristed National Parks, which cover less than 50 million acres (78,125 sq mi), and (ii) roughly 450 million acres (7,031,250 sq mi) of grassland, steppe, desert and forest managed in trust for the American people by the Unites States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Unites States Forest Service.

100th meridian running 

through ND, DS, NE, KS, OK and TX

As discussed in Nov. 2023 posts here, and here, the federal lands of the West mostly were, as author Chris Ketcham in his 2019 book quoting historian Bernard DeVoto described it: 

“a plundered province,” a resource colony for corporations and absentee landlords who practiced an “economy of liquidation.” He was broad in his attacks on the liquidators. He went after the timbermen, the mining companies, the stockmen, the cattle barons, the oilmen and gasmen, the overgrazers, the deforesters, the denuders, the profiteers of gold rushes and grass rushes. He named the bankers and congressmen who abetted the plundering. The Western hogs, he called them.

In short, federal lands were not managed in trust for the American people. They were exploited by brutal special interests for special interest profit. That has been the law. Until now. The WaPo reports (not paywalled) about a major proposed federal land management policy shift that puts conservation and recreation on equal footing with resource extraction by Western Hogs and sanctimonious government hating ideologue zealots:

For decades, the federal government has prioritized oil and gas drilling, hardrock mining and livestock grazing on public lands across the country. That could soon change under a far-reaching Interior Department rule that puts conservation, recreation and renewable energy development on equal footing with resource extraction.

The final rule released Thursday represents a seismic shift in the management of roughly 245 million acres of public property — about one-tenth of the nation’s land mass. It is expected to draw praise from conservationists and legal challenges from fossil fuel industry groups and Republican officials, some of whom have lambasted the move as a “land grab.”

Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, known as the nation’s largest landlord, has long offered leases to oil and gas companies, mining firms and ranchers. Now, for the first time, the nearly 80-year-old agency will auction off “restoration leases” and “mitigation leases” to entities with plans to restore or conserve public lands.

“Today’s final rule helps restore balance to our public lands as we continue using the best-available science to restore habitats, guide strategic and responsible development, and sustain our public lands for generations to come,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement.

If Trump is re-elected in 2024 I guarantee it or your money back, that if this this new policy is in place, it will be soon reversed to hand power back to special interest Western Hogs, while taking it away from the public interest. We all know where the sympathies of the morally rotted Republican Party lie, i.e., with Western Hogs, and against the public interest.

This machine is called a Bull Hog

Bull Hogs shred bushes and trees

to clear land for resource extraction  

This is how Ketcham described the operation of Bull Hogs in his 2019 book:

Here’s what’s happening to our land: it is May 2018, in the Egan Range of Nevada, south of Ely, and a machine called a Bull Hog is approaching. .... It runs on treads like a bulldozer, and affixed at it’s front is a spinning bladed cylinder. It has one use and one use only -- the destruction of the forest in which I stand, a forest of pinyon and juniper that the BLM manages on our behalf. .... The pinyon-juniper forest is the great survivor in the aridlands, drought resistant, adapted to heat, and is deliciously sweet-smelling -- these two species, after the sagebrush, are the perfuming flora of the Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau. But they have no value for logging or wood products, no value that can be measured in money. Therefore, they must be wiped out for other enterprises -- for cattlemen I later learn, so that the land in the Egan Range will be “productive” for cows and not wasted.

The Bull Hog, operated and funded by the Department of the Interior -- at our expense, with our tax dollars -- charges through the forest as I stand in a kind of fugue, incredulous at the pace of its destruction. The beautiful old gnarled trees are devoured in the mouth of the mobile muncher, knocked down and chewed up, defecated out its ass-end in fragments. .... The howl and whine of the engine and the spinning blades, the tortuous toppling of the trees, the crackling and crushing of trunks and limbs, the shattered spitting of being alive seconds before -- it is almost too much to bear.

.... May is prime nesting season for birds in the pinyon-juniper biome. Kestrels and hawks, mountain chickadees and house wrens, black throated gray warblers, flickers, gray flycatchers, scrub jays and pinyon jays live here, and in the soil between the trees nest the poorwills -- all that are caught and ground to red mist by the servo-mechanism, for no reason other than to expedite commerce.

This point bears repeating: If Trump is re-elected in 2024 and if this new policy is in place, it will be soon reversed to hand power back to special interest Western Hogs.

Forced birth law update

An AP article describes the messes that occasionally happen when a pregnancy goes off the rails in red states with strict forced birth laws:

One woman miscarried in the lobby restroom of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to admit her. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died.

Pregnant patients have “become radioactive to emergency departments” in states with extreme abortion restrictions, said Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University health law and policy professor.

“They are so scared of a pregnant patient, that the emergency medicine staff won’t even look. They just want these people gone,” Rosenbaum said.

Consider what happened to a woman who was nine months pregnant and having contractions when she arrived at the Falls Community Hospital in Marlin, Texas, in July 2022, a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion. The doctor on duty refused to see her.

“The physician came to the triage desk and told the patient that we did not have obstetric services or capabilities,” hospital staff told federal investigators during interviews, according to documents. “The nursing staff informed the physician that we could test her for the presence of amniotic fluid. However, the physician adamantly recommended the patient drive to a Waco hospital.”

At Sacred Heart Emergency Center in Houston, front desk staff refused to check in one woman after her husband asked for help delivering her baby that September. She miscarried in a restroom toilet in the emergency room lobby while her husband called 911 for help.

“She is bleeding a lot and had a miscarriage,” the husband told first responders in his call, which was transcribed from Spanish in federal documents. “I’m here at the hospital but they told us they can’t help us because we are not their client.”

Emergency crews, who arrived 20 minutes later and transferred the woman to a hospital, appeared confused over the staff’s refusal to help the woman, according to 911 call transcripts.

One first responder told federal investigators that when a Sacred Heart Emergency Center staffer was asked about the gestational age of the fetus, the staffer replied: “No, we can’t tell you, she is not our patient. That’s why you are here.” [un-fracking believable]

Meanwhile, the staff at Person Memorial Hospital in Roxboro, North Carolina, told a pregnant woman, who was complaining of stomach pain, that they would not be able to provide her with an ultrasound. The staff failed to tell her how risky it could be for her to depart without being stabilized, according to federal investigators. While en route to another hospital 45 minutes away, the woman gave birth in a car to a baby who did not survive.

Every avoidable human death (homicide) that radical right forced birth laws cause is the fault of cruel authoritarian legislators and cruel authoritarian religious fanatics who support and made the laws in the first place. Those people are literally and morally killers. 

Manslaughter or murder? We can leave that to the moral and legal experts.

US opposes a Palestinian state; Quick trial update; Republicans reject inconvenient facts and truths

The NYT reports (paywalled link) that the US opposes an independent Palestinian state:

The United States blocked the U.N. Security Council on Thursday from moving forward on a Palestinian bid to be recognized as a full member state at the United Nations, quashing an effort by Palestinian allies to get the world body to back the effort.

The vote was 12 in favor of the resolution and one — the United States — opposed, with abstentions from Britain and Switzerland.  

The Palestinian envoy to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, had described the bid for full-member status as an effort “to take our rightful place among the community of nations. .... Our right to self determination is a natural right — a historical right — to live in our homeland Palestine as an independent state that is free and that is sovereign.”

Israel’s foreign minister, Israel Katz, said after the vote: “The shameful proposal was rejected. Terrorism will not be rewarded.”  

“The resolution provides for the Palestinian Authority to be a member of the U.N.,” U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield told reporters. “Right now, the Palestinians don’t have control over a significant portion of what is supposed to be their state. It’s being controlled by a terrorist organization,” she said, referring to Hamas.

One can only wonder if this little nugget of cynical US foreign policy hypocrisy will be just one more little thing on the crappy side of the scale that tips the 2024 election from Biden to Trump. Maybe time tell.

Notice the intense hate toward the Palestinians that gushes out of the Israeli government. Note the about same sentiment from the US government. As far as I can tell, Hamas does not control squat in Gaza. That is an Israeli lie. Israel controls nearly all of what used to be Palestinian territory everywhere. A two-state solution is an impossible mirage. 

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

The NYT and other sources are reporting that all 12 jurors have been selected. Today the 6 alternates will be selected. Jury selection went a heck of a lot faster than I anticipated. The judge here seems to be serious about not letting Trump get away with his endless delay tactics. Good for the judge!

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

A NYT opinion reports (paywalled link) about the intention of the UAW (United Auto Workers) to unionize car manufacturing plants throughout the South:

Southern Republican Governors Are Suddenly Afraid

U.A.W. is targeting 13 automakers — including Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, Volvo and Tesla — employing around 150,000 workers in 36 nonunion plants across the South. It faced the first major test of its strategy on Wednesday, when 4,300 workers at a Volkswagen factory in Chattanooga, Tenn., began voting on whether to unionize. The vote ends Friday. If it’s successful, it will be a breakthrough for a labor movement that has struggled to build a footing in the South.

The mere potential for union success was so threatening that the day before the vote began, several of the Southern Republican governors announced their opposition to the U.A.W. campaign. “We the governors of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas are highly concerned about the unionization campaign driven by misinformation and scare tactics that the U.A.W. has brought into our states,” their joint statement reads. “As governors, we have a responsibility to our constituents to speak up when we see special interests looking to come into our state and threaten our jobs and the values we live by.”

It is no shock to see conservative Republicans opposing organized labor. But it is difficult to observe this particular struggle, taking place as it is in the South, without being reminded of the region’s entrenched hostility to unions — or any other institution or effort that might weaken the political and economic dominance of capital over the whole of Southern society.  

As the sociologist Jack M. Bloom puts it in “Class, Race and the Civil Rights Movement,”

The apparent defeat of Populism and the subsequent disenfranchisement of blacks [Jim Crow] brought about a severe setback for these whites, as well. Many of them lost the right to vote. They were subject to the harsh terms of their employers, and they remained without labor unions to counter the power the wealthy retained. When they did try to form unions, they found the region’s tradition of violence turned against them.

By now, deep moral rot in the form of demagogic rhetoric and lies like that quoted above from the radical governors is standard for inconvenient reality-challenged Republican elites. Claiming “misinformation and scare tactics” by unions is mendacious demagoguery. Claiming threat to “jobs and values” is a scare tactic that speaks for capitalist elites and their supporters, but not those who want a better, fairer distribution of power and wealth in society.

When it comes to corporations vs employees wanting to unionize, the weight of misinformation and scare tactics by corporations dwarfs that of labor. On top of that, the weight of illegal corporate anti-union acts usually far outweighs what offenses that unions and employees commit.  AI commentates:

Q: In labor union organizing, do labor or corporations usually rely more on demagoguery, misinformation and illegal acts?

A: Based on the search results provided, it appears that corporations and employers often rely more on demagoguery, misinformation, and illegal acts in opposing union organizing efforts by workers. The key points from the search results are:

• Employers were charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all NLRB-supervised union elections in 2016 and 2017, including illegally firing workers, coercing and retaliating against workers for supporting a union, and disciplining workers.1

• Employers spend nearly $340 million per year hiring “union avoidance” lawyers and consultants to help them prevent employees from unionizing.1

• Companies have used misinformation campaigns, including false and fabricated “scare tactics”, to defeat union drives, such as the anti-union campaign at a Boeing plant in South Carolina.2

• Anti-union groups have engaged in misinformation campaigns to encourage public sector union members to leave their unions after the Janus Supreme Court decision, creating confusion and frustration among workers.2

• The Republican-controlled Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 to specifically allow captive audience meetings where employers can give anti-union speeches to workers, despite previous NLRB rulings that this was illegal.4

In contrast, the search results do not provide evidence of similar widespread use of demagoguery, misinformation, or illegal tactics by labor unions in organizing efforts. The evidence suggests the unfair labor practices and misinformation campaigns tend to originate more from the employer side in order to prevent unionization.

GOD'S MISFITS?

 

God’s Misfits ‘anti-government group’ accused of murdering two women, include GOP country chair

Four members of a group, calling itself “God’s Misfits” are sitting in jail in Oklahoma, accused of kidnapping and murdering two friends, according to court filings.

Tifany Machel Adams, 54; Tad Bert Cullum, 43; Cole Earl Twombly, 50; and Cora Twombly, 44 have been charged with murder, kidnapping and conspiracy to commit murder, in relation to the disappearance of Veronica Butler, 27, and Jilian Kelley, 39 last month.

Who are the members of God’s Misfits?

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation has named the four suspects as members of “God’s Misfits”, according to court documents seen by The Independent. The group was described as “anti-government” and “religious”.

Here folks is just one of those misfits:

Ms Adams is the paternal grandmother to missing Veronia Butler’s children. Her son Wrangler Rickman, 26, is currently in a rehabilitation centre, according to court documents.

She was allegedly involved in an ongoing custody battle over the two children, aged six and eight.

On Tuesday it was reported that Ms Adams was elected chair of her local Republican Party in Cimarron County, which borders Texas County.

Nuff said?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/gods-misfits-oklahoma-bodies-missing-b2529795.html

Supreme Court defends employees from discrimination on the job

The USSC just issued a shocking sort of unanimous 9-0 decision that strongly defends workers against discrimination by employers. This blows me away. I expected workers to get the shaft in a 6-3 decision upholding of the lower courts decisions to protect employers and allow discrimination. Key points:

• A female police officer on the St. Louis police force, Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, was transferred from a high prestige job in intelligence with high ranking officers to a low prestige job supervising day-to-day activities of neighborhood patrol officers. Her pay and rank were unchanged. She was forced against her will to take the low prestige job because the high level officers wanted to replace her with a male officer. Her supervisor sometimes called “Mrs.” rather than the customary “Sergeant” for a male police officers. Muldrow sued for discrimination under a law called Title VII.

• Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . sex.” §2000e–2(a)(1). Both parties agree that Muldrow’s transfer implicated “terms” and “conditions” of Muldrow’s employment. The applicable statutory language thus prohibits “discriminat[ing] against” an individual “with respect to” the “terms [or] conditions” of employment because of that individual’s sex.

• The lower courts found no discrimination against Muldrow, irrationally arguing that there was no “significant harm” to her because her rank and pay remained unchanged. Title VII does not mention any need for “significant harm” for discrimination liability to attach. Instead, Title VII only mentions “discrimination”, not significant harm from discrimination.

• The court held (ruled): An employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant.  The court reasoned that “terms [or] conditions” phrase is not used “in the narrow contractual sense”; it covers more than the “economic or tangible.” Oncale, 523 U. S., at 78; Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57, 64. Still, the phrase circumscribes the injuries that can give rise to a suit like this one. To make out a Title VII discrimination claim, a transferee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.

My understanding is that for some years now, the courts have been reading the need for “significant harm” into Title VII law before discrimination liability can attach. The practical effect of that court-invented sleight of hand was to basically neuter the law for employers and turn it into a sword against employees. The burden of proof on employees to show “significant harm” was usually too high and thus most on the job discrimination was left unsanctioned.

Personal analysis

I absolutely did not expect the USSC to decide this way. This decision by the radical, partisan Republicans makes absolutely no sense to me. It makes perfect sense for the three Dems. This decision blows me away. Yes, I am biased but for damned good reasons. In my opinion, to understand this one needs to step back and look at the big political picture. This is not what it seems on its face.

Given my deep distrust of the six, this decision was political and driven by the political optics of the case. Apparently, the six Republican radicals believed that finding the St. Louis police did not discriminate against Muldrow would be politically damaging to Trump’s re-election and to elections of Republicans to congress. Roberts and the other five radicals are acutely of the drop in trust of the court and the six radicals being partisan Republican political operatives. Opinion polling indicated that as of July 2023, most Americans disapproved. 

Data through July 2023

Source -- Feb. 2024 data

So, what is one to think of this decision? Personally, I do not believe for one second that any of the six partisan radicals wanted to decide in favor of employees. I do believe that they felt compelled by political circumstances to side with the employee in this case. As we all know, congress can amend or even repeal laws like Title VII. A Republican congress under a Republican president could easily amend Title VII and impose a requirement that an employee has to prove significant harm at a level that is usually impossible. Or, they could amend Title VII by legalizing employer discrimination on religious grounds. All it would take is an amendment of 1-3 sentences to the existing law and this Muldrow decision would simply become irrelevant and go away. 

Project 2025 is a radical right authoritarian democracy-killing plan that, among a lot of other very bad things, intends to gut the power of anti-discrimination laws once Republican regain control of the federal government. That goal of gutting discrimination law is central and sacred to radical Christian nationalist racists and bigots. They want to hate on and openly discriminate against the LGBQT community. They are dead serious about this. Also, brass knuckles capitalist business elites are strongly on the side of wanting to unfettered freedom to harass and discriminate against employees as they wish.   

One example of the attitude of callous big business executives to treat employees like crap is discussed in this article The Nation published on Apr. 9, 2024:

The Toxic Culture at Tesla

The factory floors at America’s top seller of electric vehicles are rife with racial harassment, sexual abuse, and injuries on the job.

She [Andrea Turley, a 36-year-old self-employed hairdresser] knew what working on an assembly line would entail and hoped to stay; her grandparents had worked there for decades. “I don’t have a problem with doing hard labor,” she told me.

“The problem was the sexual harassment. It was the racism,” she said. “It’s the constant disrespect.”

On her second day of training, Turley noticed the phrase “Black bitches need to go home” written on the bathroom walls. Once she started working on the line, she heard her white male lead—the person who supervised her on the floor—use the N-word and other racial slurs like “coon,” according to a legal complaint she filed later. He also frequently used the words “bitch” and “cunt.” He “used just about every awful and offensive word I can think of,” Turley said in the filing. It wasn’t just him; other white coworkers also often used the N-word around her and her fellow Black coworkers. She frequently saw the word “bitch” written on the bathroom walls alongside the N-word and “KKK.”

Turley likes to wear layers, dressing like a “tomboy,” she said. Her lead and another coworker started making comments about her being gay, harassing her for her appearance.

That exemplifies how a significant slice of capitalist elites see employees and illegally operate despite existing laws. In my opinion, the Moldrow decision was an act of pure partisan politics by six radicals who know they are skating on thin ice at the moment. They will bide their time and wait for circumstances to be more favorable to cutting employee rights down to size. What size? So small you could drown it in the bathroom sink.

Q: Is Germaine analyzing this USSC decision too cynically, irrationally or otherwise in a flawed way(s)?