Update: Similar union busting bills move to other states

Indiana: state legislators have left the state to stop its own anti-union bill restricting collective bargaining or, eliminate it. As stated this is a dangerous precedent and must be stopped. My home state of Washington has a bill that would do the same but, it died. All around America our eyes are on Wisconsin, but keep a wary eye on your own state. We must fight for our rights ordained by the people. In order to pursue happiness we must have unions; the labor movement created a better atmosphere for success, for all classes rich or poor.

I won’t bore you with more opinion, just keep vigilant. Here are some readings to help; I’ll throw in some conservative opinion to keep the scale from falling through the floor. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-17/public-employee-union-protests-spread-from-wisconsin-to-ohio.html Some scope for this one. http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/02/22/indiana-democrats-walk-out-to-protest-union-busting-bill-deny-quorum/ this opinion/news is important to note. http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/02/23/follow-the-money-what-the-wisconsin-education-association-isnt-talking-about/ this is the conservative one to sort of balance the scale (notice the grammar in the title)

Hope for Equality (some context for my thinking)

Started writing this during the extension of the bush tax cut debate. Ended writing this around the time the tax cuts passed.

In the course of human events a people rise to the challenge of inequality. Our world riddled with the man made curse of inequality; in America there is a great divide within nations and the continent. “…extends almost all of the Bush tax cuts, including income tax cuts for the nation’s wealthiest families, for two years and sets the estate tax at 35 percent for individual inheritances of more than $5 million.” (The hill, Alexander Bolton) A tax cut for all of the republics people in times of budget alleviations is creating wealth at taxpayers’ expense disproportionately to the wealthiest 2%, giving haven to billionaires and millionaires to continue their destructive ways, is unacceptable. People who make less than 20 thousand dollars a year, well below the mean income of taxpayers’ will get a smack in the face in the form of a tax hike. However in developing nations the suffering of the people in the face of opulence is at such great heights, wars erupt from the danger of inequality.

Fair is the glorious word to which we emancipate ourselves from the tyranny of undeserved riches from trusts, which hoard power and leave tiny scraps of wealth, to aristocrats who’s only claim to luxury is that their ancestors worked. Fair is the epitome of great ideals, fair leads hope through tragedies such as recessions. However my convictions stand, economic anarchy and complete economic control is both amoral and impractical. People all over the world have tried these options and failed, while most end of in totalitarianism. Fair is equivalent to equality, but equality is not the epitome of same. People ought to be treated with the knowledge he/she can do whatever his dreams desires, but with the ideals come a responsible society and we shall stand by that knowledge with actions.

In our world industrialized nations use their wealth to provide services to its people through taxation. The people with the means to support themselves a few times over helps pay for hardworking people who finance a standard of living of modesty instead of abject poverty, because of social programs. Most industrialized nations provide, life saving, health care to all its citizens in one way or another. Canada provides universal health care through a single payer system, this helps people live and makes everyone equal for health.

In the United States of America we have social programs to help the elderly and the impoverished, to a certain degree. America the wealthiest society is in class warfare fought only by the wealthiest Americans to gain access to the wealth taken from the impoverished of the world. The tax code is a known vice for favoring aristocratic Americans, in the face of common people. Our liberties may be intact, but what of our right to be who we want to be, is that a just cause worth taking. The American constitution states " We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Are the causes of a more perfect union and the general of the people not a worthy cause? Should we as a world not aspire to our greatest ideals? Should we as humans continue our destructive ways? Should we as a people condone greed in the face of poverty and despair? Perhaps we should clearly draw a line in the sand without ambiguity that we as a world are not helping the few rule the many. Perhaps we should even encourage the many to rule the many. Perhaps we should save all who come from the adversity of inequality.

The depolarization of America, handbook, (sort of)

The depolarization of America, handbook

The United States is facing a recurring enemy, seen everyday yet hidden. Because, of this enemy we fear things and people/peoples that are irrational to fear. Fear drives this enemy and bias fuels it, leading to unforeseen problems in our political landscape, where suffrage is granted to any non-federal criminal over 18. (i.e.: the gullible and easily uninformed are allowed to vote). The media is the exploitation aggregate for partisans. Our media outlets, today like Fox News and MSNBC; various newspapers from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal, and the blogosphere; hype news stories in an echo chamber respective to its partisan side. The two echo chambers combined, coined “the conflictonator”, constantly bicker and the blogosphere stokes the flames for the next controversy. (i.e.: set of bickering) Though humans are biased we should expect our news to be as objective as possible, in order to make an informed and ultimately opinionated decision, although that is an ideal form of informed democratic society that is not the current situation. In fact, a Harris opinion poll says quite the opposite: the nation as a whole was misinformed about the Iraq War in 2004. 62% of people thought Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al-Qaeda, and 41% thought Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the US on September 11, 2001.” (Harris opinion poll October 21, 2004) A diagnosis for the media’s behavior is that to make money you need partisanship in a significant part of the schedule, especially prime time. This leads to a misrepresentation of the facts when editorial shows are a large portion of the “24 hour news cycle”, or a majority, as in the case with Fox News. So instead of fighting this enemy on its terms, the sane majority must fight it with what it does best, reasonable dialogue.

People should lobby news organizations such as Fox News to renegotiate terms with inflammatory stars such as Glen Beck and organizations such as M.S.N.B.C., Ed Shultz, to find better rhetoric for his views.* This will keep pressure on organizations that display bias, and people that lie to fit a narrative. Narratives are important to the “lamestreem media” not discourse. Therefore any sort of pressure will influence organizations and media stars for renegotiations of terms, firings, and resignations. If even one voice that seeks to divide is toned down then “the conflictonator” as a whole is toned down, as a part of the feedback loop is ended. Therefore lobbying organizations is an effective mechanism to reduce noise from “the conflictonator”.

Since the media is inherently biased, we must read multiple sources in order to create our own opinions on the subject. A study by Harvard University found: “Free Republic’s apparent anti-Republican skew disappears, replaced with a slight (albeit insignificant) skew against anti-Republican stories, while Daily Kos appears even more skewed against Republicans” (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/mbaum/documents/BaumGroeling_NewMedia.pdf) (page 353 starts on page 345); this was during the 2006 election cycle and these are both blogs on the opposite sides of the spectrum. If the American people, and people around the world relative to this situation, read both blogs then their view might not be as jaded if a person read one blog. When media becomes biased people must be able to influence their own readings as a way to stay sane. (i.e.: reasonable)

Protesting the “conflictonator” as a whole will equally if not more effectively than both of the proposals combined; this will continue the effort for media objectivity. The Rally to Restore Sanity/ and or Fear, was a protest on the national mall with comedians John Stewart and Stephan Colbert, to raise attention to the polarization of politics due to rhetoric in the media. The success of the protest was in that it created a new national dialogue on reasonability and rhetoric, for example Keith Olbermann, the (former) host of Countdown, suspended his hyperbolic series “Worst Person in The World” in honor of the protest. The left in some ways, visible at least, (as little as it was) the response and toned down redirect. Therefore protesting gives voice to reason and effects the “conflictonator”.

Lobbying, reading multiple sources, protesting, all being necessary for our democracy, will increase the chance of the demos not being manipulated for monetary purposes and partisan purposes. As a nation there is a choice to be made; to allow America to slip back into an abysmal period of zero compromise, or begin to begin understand others for their beliefs and finally compromise. The nation must choose the second; although both options are charted, the former is dangerous.

“I understand that people have a hard time with the concept that we get to decide what is news and what isn’t, and what is fair and what isn’t” (McCumber, 2007).

*Since Ed Shultz is a liberal Glen Beck of some sort. I put them together; however I feel that unlike Glen Beck; Ed Shultz can watch what he says. Glen Beck however I believe is completely crazy and no appropriate rhetoric can be found.

Wisconsin protest rant. (trying to be less Glen Beckish)

“We the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union… promote the general welfare…” by busting unions? Unions create better lives for its members, created all bargaining rights, created non-work hours, such as the weekend, created the minimum wage laws… ect. Yet they are portrayed in the media as money grubbing, job-killing, working class hating, organizations hell-bent on the destruction of the economy and your way of life with it. (I hear this from the Republican Party at least) We are the change yet, how can we create change without institutions we rely on, unions. If the unions go away a cornerstone of the progressive agenda will be ruined, but make no mistake this was not a conscience decision by the colluding corporations and their pet buddies the Republican Party. This was a decision made by people who believe part of this crap. (i.e.: ruining the economy)

Union busting is a republican as it is democrat, think of turn of the century America, yet ever since the unions aligned with the “New Deal Democrats”; Republicans have fed lies upon lies from a trough of corporate money. Now 78 years later we are seeing people create substantial public polices not seen since the Reagan era, to destroy unions. Wisconsin, one of the states who voted for the progressive party in 1924, is the staging ground for this all out assault on unions. We must stand in solidarity with the hard-working people of Wisconsin, who’s only objectives are to preserve “life” for themselves and/or their family. Are we as a nation to decide that people who serve this great nation deserve just compensation? Because, if we do then people must have collective bargaining rights, (i.e.: union) to preserve their livelihoods. If we favor a more 19^th centaury system for the employees of the people, then strip these working people of their bargaining rights.

Yet I will warn Scott Walker and the republicans, that there are reasons we have the right to unionize and that is the famed act of striking. If the bill is passed expect to see uproar not seen yet, not 30 thousand protestors, but perhaps 50 thousand chanting in unison for their right to unionize. These people are teachers, expect unused schools, these people are the backbone of your state and if you neglect them; then trouble is a brewing. The benefits they get actually improves the economy; as people have more money and worry less about their health, they are more likely to spend. Then again didn’t we call that argument Marxist about 2 years ago? Giving people benefits from the public sector today will encourage benefits for the private sector, or is that also Marxist. It is true that giving more money to people means less money for other services, but are these people not working like you say they should to deserve these benefits. However what is the price of a stagnate economy, does economic growth not help the general society as a whole, or does believing people should be lifted from despair make me a Marxist.

Scott walker and Wisconsin state assembly created the budget gap and it is their responsibility to fill it responsibly. How is union busting, and making teachers pay more in pensions responsible? Call me any label you want but, this is the most irresponsible plan I’ve heard in a long time. How can a teacher teach if he/she can’t pay the bills, let alone buy school materials? Teachers are underpaid as is, why would anyone want to neglect what provides the future generation with skills in the real world. After all the young pay for the old, in the form of social security, teachers are the key. Teachers have the most power of all yet, when powerless they are unable to help. If promoting the idea of everyone can be able to do what they want makes me a Marxist, then so be it. Unions provide for their workers they are as necessary as they were over a hundred years ago, why ruin this precious asset to America.

For the argument of unions move jobs overseas, how would you like to be paid $2 dollars an hour without overtime pay, health benefits, lunch-breaks, and harsh working conditions? Well, this is a back to the future moment for America, will we go down a regressive path or at least keep the vice status quo. Perhaps we must build unions, not destroy, for America.