Unions are anti-union

  So the word union means "the act of uniting two or more things."
  We have to assume that the act of uniting is referring to all the same kind of people, since the idea of uniting union members with the regular American Joe is pretty unlikely, at this point, because the nastiness emanating from this segment of the population is pretty ugly.
  But if you've visited anywhere around the web you already know that.
  It's pretty depressing, actually.
  It's pretty divisive, actually.
  It's pretty, well, as I said, ugly.
  While on one hand, the perpetrators of the ugliness formerly called for civility in light of the crimes/agitation the tea partiers did not commit, given an opportunity to act like beasts they've eagerly seized every conceivable occasion to pretend to be apes, donkeys and dinosaurs.
  While in Wisconsin, we discover that the fleebaggers' absence is costing Joe Shmo $165 million.
  Administration officials are ramping up the fight against the American taxpayer, with Obama's Labor Secretary declaring that the "fight is on."
  Union members threaten teenagers with obscene actions, scream numerous epithets at tea partiers, and now the police in Wisconsin have declared that they will not do their jobs, but rather join in the protest in the State House.
  From Legal Insurrection:

More than anything, this shows the dangers of public sector unions.  Those who work for the state occupy a different position than those who work in the private sector because they carry the weight of state authority.  When those state workers are in law enforcement, they carry special obligations not to use their positions for political purposes. 

When an off-duty policeman wearing police insignia takes a megaphone and announces that he and his fellow police union members will disobey orders, that policeman -- at a minimum -- has dishonored his pledge to uphold the law.

It appears that by the end of today we will know whether the police union members' talk of insurrection was bluster (which I suspect is the case), or if they really will risk their careers by disobeying lawful orders from legitimate and duly elected state authority.

  Jacobsen's point that unions can present more of a danger to the public rather than a benefit extends to any area of security, such as the TSA, which the administration has agreed to unionize. In an insignificant job such as teaching children, unions who promote absenting teachers from the classroom based on bargaining can present inconveniences, rather than security issues. 
  What we've been witnessing the past few weeks is definitely a psy-ops endeavor. They think by banding together in as great numbers as they can muster, they will scream in the faces of the taxpayer and win the argument. 
  Picture this. "Gimme the money!" she screamed. 
  Legal Insurrection looks at the numbers of the turnout for yesterday's rallies, which are highly touted by the press as a show of unity but were somewhat disappointing in reality.

Promoters, such as David Dayen at Firedoglake, were predicting a million-person turnout nationwide.  But reports as of 7:00 E.S.T. today make clear that other than in Madison, Wisconsin, the crowds were sparse.

The turnout in Madison was sizable, with estimates ranging over from 50-70,000, which included protesters bused in from other states.  (Dayen is trying to pump the crowd estimate to over 100,000.) But elsewhere, the crowds numbered only in the hundreds or low thousands.

In Washington, D.C., only about 500 people showed up (go to link for good photos of crazy signs). (Note, WaPo says 1000.)

In Columbus, OH, where you would expect a big crowd given a similar controversy, only "several thousand" people protested.

  No doubt these protests will continue and even increase. They need to be ignored and legislators need to do the business of legislating with the interest of tomorrow's children in mind. 
  We owe them the right to inherit a country that is not burdened with the debt of paying entitlements for the huge baby boomer populace which will undoubtedly live for more years than they worked, limping slowly into the sunset with their smooth botoxed faces, suctioned muffintops and colonic-ed bowels. 
  Some foolish college students have even dreamily signed onto the movement, as if this were the sixties or something. Finally they have something to march for. 
  (On a side note, this situation reminds me of a student who was accepted at Harvard in glowing terms because she was "disadvantaged." Why was she disadvantaged? Because her mother was dead. Why was her mother dead? Because the student had killed her. Reality bites.)
  Goodwin at the NY Post puts the union behavior this way:

Wherever you look, the bile runneth over. Beyond making fools of themselves with juvenile comparisons, the "social justice" crowd is inadvertently proving that public-sector unions are a privileged class. Touch them and you die from a thousand insults.

  The truth of the character of these individuals is being revealed. It's pretty polarizing and pretty awful. The public who pays the salaries of these jokers isn't going to put up with this forever. In fact, they can run all the public opinion polls you want, but that won't change the way people feel about this. The only people who are defending this are the people who have a self interest in it.
  Apparently that's what we've become, however. 
  A nation of self-interested government workers.
  Um, not.

  They've united the taxpayer against their so-called "unity."   For an amusing look at what they really think of you, click on over here and laugh, where the truth is revealed.
  Seriously, do it.