Wisconsin's history shines as a bastion of liberal achievement.  It's one of the birthplaces of the modern configuration of labor unions and collective bargaining rights, as well as a safe blue state in presidential contests.

But Wisconsin witnessed a drastic shift during the 2010 election cycle when the Republican wave sweeping the country carried Wisconsin along with it. 

The state's assembly, Senate, governor's office, and even one of its U.S. Senate seats switched to unilateral Republican control.

Already we have witnessed the consequences.  When newly elected Governor Scott Walker unveiled a budget bill that would effectively kill the rights of union workers and raise the personal contribution demanded of employees receiving public pensions, Democrats in the minority - as well as two brave Republicans - revolted and literally fled the capitol to block a vote on the bill. 

Governor Walker has asked the Wisconsin state patrol to search out and arrest the lawmakers so that they could be forced to come back and a vote on the bill could proceed - an act which is within his legal power as head of the state. 

But the missing legislators appear to have fled to other states where they cannot be found.

Republicans from Wisconsin to Washington have cried foul, proclaiming that the absentees are "hindering the democratic process."  Even Sarah Palin - okay, of course, Sarah Palin - complained about it.

Wait, what?  Excuse me, which party was it that belligerently filibustered scores of bills in the 2009 and 2010 (not to mention 2007 and 2008)?  Which party was it that almost halted a bill to fix the financial regulatory system on the sole basis that they weren't going to get their way? 

Clearly it goes both ways.

The Wisconsin minority took the only reasonable course of action available to them. 

They don't have the option of a filibuster (as congressional Republicans did), and the governor has expressed no interest in negotiation. 

The more than 40,000 angry Wisconsinites who swarmed Madison have demonstrated that the legislators acted not in the interest of political stunting, but in the interest of adhering to the people's wishes.

To be fair, I don't even believe the bill is as terrible as some claim it is. 

After all, unions do need to accept that they, like everyone else, will have to make sacrifices so that the budget situation isn't exacerbated further. 

In addition, and more frustratingly, my father and many of his coworkers - all non-union county government employees - will stand to lose more pay if the unions get their way.

Still, this bill is too extreme.  It takes away the power of laborers to organize - which means handing even more power to the bloated big-business interests. 

A more moderate bill that might lessen the impact for unions would be better received and far, far more likely to pass.  But faced with a choice between giving too much power to big business or giving too much to unions, I would choose to give it to unions. 

They are, at least, comprised of common people instead of millionaires and billionaires.

Though this bill may become law despite their unconventional actions, these legislators deserve great praise for their stand.