I was shaking my head this morning, thinking about how Mayor Bloomberg and his riot police forcibly evicted the people of Occupy Wall Street, and when they came back with copies of the court order stating they had the right to be there, they found themselves under arrest. As I type, they are massing at the park, waiting for final word from a judge on whether this is their peaceable place of assembly or not. I look around at what has been happening in Ohio, Florida, Maine, California, and my own state of Wisconsin and I look beyond our borders to Italy, Egypt, England ... the world is being shaken. The hierarchy of power is being questioned world-wide, and as I write, no one really knows if the entrenched powerful will be able to quell the masses or not.
I think of the song by REM: "It's the end of the world as we know it ...." and I realize that the outcome of all these various confrontations is going to change the world, one way or another. The question is not *whether* the world will change, but *how* it will change. Will we continue heading toward a modern version of serfdom, explore a world oligarchy (Robocop, anyone?), or settle on fascism? Are corporations the final arbiters of what is important in life? Is profit the most critical deciding factor in creating policy? Do we continuously need to grow (money, population, ownership)? Do we make policy decisions based on the power of profit or do we explore the Happiness Index? Which way is it going to go?
The other side of the spectrum doesn't offer much improvement. Power, in even the most idealistic system corrupts the leaders. I believe that neither socialism, nor communism is the answer. Frankly, I have never been a fan of any pure "-ism." Dogma, by definition, closes minds to any other option. Sometimes, it makes sense to go in one direction. Other times, other situations, other paths to a solution. The world is too varied to allow for a bi-tonal world. I know it is simpler to only answer yes or no questions, but that isn't reality. Reality is a huge range of vibrant colors, including many that our eyes can't even see. Yes or no, left or right, these are too simplistic for the long term health of any society.
How do we come up with a societal structure that allows for the flexibilty required for general well-being and the pursuit of happiness for the greatest percentage of our society? That is what 'The Great Experiment' was all about. Almost 250 years later, we have become so bloated by outdated laws, so controlled by the way the fiscally powerful want to shape the world, that we are in danger of imploding on ourselves. We have lost our way, and I wonder who among us knows how to lead us out of this mess? If we can't even agree on what is wrong, how can we move in any direction at all?
In my naivete, I thought that everyone would agree that it is of paramount importance to have the greatest good for the greatest number, but I didn't realize that we don't all agree on even what qualifies as 'good.' For example, I believe that universal healthcare is a good thing. Others tell me that they pay their own way, and they should not have to pay more so that others can live. They even tell me that it is a bad thing to give any support at all to those suffering from drug or alcohol addictions, street people who have no job or place to live, or those who might not be here legally. It doesn't matter if they are human. They don't count. Too, I believe that no one should starve or freeze to death in the richest country the world has ever known. When I have debated this topic, I have been told that we are so rich because of our profit motive and there is no profit in helping the incapacitated poor live long enough to breed (yes, that is almost verbatim). And I am shocked that people cheered the idea of a non-insured man hypothetically dying from lack of care at the Republican debates. In so many words, I have had it explained to me that we have no intrinsic societal value as human beings, but that a person's worth is determined only by the value they add to our economy. Even that can be downplayed, if the value added is not enough to compensate for the value removed by needing health care or food, clothing or shelter. How can I discuss possible approaches to our societal problems, if we can't even agree that every human being has an intrinsic value? How to approach the idea that everyone deserves compassion, food, shelter and basic healthcare?
At some point, the scales are going to tip in one direction or another. I truly believe that this tension can't last indefinitely. Whichever side of these world-wide confrontations winds up with the policy-making authority, the world is going to change. The end of the world as we know it is happening right before our eyes. It isn't some future event, and we don't have to wait for 2012 or a world cataclysm. And with a little luck, we will be able to avoid escalating it into WWIII before we agree as to which way we want to go.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The Incredible Shrinking World
Several times in recent weeks, I have seen people complain when alternate views on a topic are posted on someone's wall or discussion board. Once, I was even the person getting told that "If you don't agree with me, don't post on my wall." I understand that nobody wants their wall to become a flamewar in progress. I also understand that stating one's opinion is different than trying to start a war. The person who was upset with me claimed that somehow I was violating his 1st ammendment rights by disagreeing with him. The idea that "my rights end where yours begin" is a concept we seem to be losing in our current culture. It is both a question of respect, and a willingness to be open to change. (In the interest of full disclosure, I told the person that if he only wanted people who agreed with him to be his friends, I might not be a good choice - so, he "unfriended" me. A wise move on his part.)
When we listen to Eli Pariser on the TED video (linked in the blog title), discussing the concept of online filter bubbles, it seems to be referencing the same mentality. Our world is shrinking, but it isn't just that technology is making it possible for anyone to talk real-time to friends in China for free via Skype. It is also about the fact that many of us are painting ourselves into a corner.
We have so much information available to us, and I think we sit on the cusp of information overload for a large part of our lives. I try to be understanding of this. We each have an awful lot to process every day.
However, if I only read articles slanted to my existing point of view, if I only accept data that validates my opinion, if I only allow those who agree with me to post on my wall, I am limiting my opportunities for growth, change, and even my ability to impact those who disagree with me. By controlling the discussion, I am limiting the potential for conflict, and that may seem like a good thing. Very few people want to spend their "relaxation time" in heated discussions, defending opinons. Think about it, though. If your conversation is only with those that already agree with you, you could be led to a mistaken impression that your point of view is more popular or common than it is. You may be ignoring a ton of evidence that suggests you might want to modify that opinion. There are lots of ways a healthy debate can be a positive influence. Also, I truly believe that respect for differing opinions is a character trait that is essential for a healthy democracy. We can't lose the capacity for civil discussion on controversial issues. If we do, we're done!
When we share our ideas, we need to be respectful of the other person's right to their opinion. That doesn't mean we have to avoid expressing contrary thoughts, or sharing statistics and data to back up our opinion. The fine line is there between inciting an argument and sharing a contrary opinion, and it isn't always clear-cut.
I am asking you to consider how much you are limiting yourself when avoiding confrontation is the be-all, end-all of your life. It shrinks your world, and there is an amazing, huge, abundant universe out here. You don't want to miss any of it!
When we listen to Eli Pariser on the TED video (linked in the blog title), discussing the concept of online filter bubbles, it seems to be referencing the same mentality. Our world is shrinking, but it isn't just that technology is making it possible for anyone to talk real-time to friends in China for free via Skype. It is also about the fact that many of us are painting ourselves into a corner.
We have so much information available to us, and I think we sit on the cusp of information overload for a large part of our lives. I try to be understanding of this. We each have an awful lot to process every day.
However, if I only read articles slanted to my existing point of view, if I only accept data that validates my opinion, if I only allow those who agree with me to post on my wall, I am limiting my opportunities for growth, change, and even my ability to impact those who disagree with me. By controlling the discussion, I am limiting the potential for conflict, and that may seem like a good thing. Very few people want to spend their "relaxation time" in heated discussions, defending opinons. Think about it, though. If your conversation is only with those that already agree with you, you could be led to a mistaken impression that your point of view is more popular or common than it is. You may be ignoring a ton of evidence that suggests you might want to modify that opinion. There are lots of ways a healthy debate can be a positive influence. Also, I truly believe that respect for differing opinions is a character trait that is essential for a healthy democracy. We can't lose the capacity for civil discussion on controversial issues. If we do, we're done!
When we share our ideas, we need to be respectful of the other person's right to their opinion. That doesn't mean we have to avoid expressing contrary thoughts, or sharing statistics and data to back up our opinion. The fine line is there between inciting an argument and sharing a contrary opinion, and it isn't always clear-cut.
I am asking you to consider how much you are limiting yourself when avoiding confrontation is the be-all, end-all of your life. It shrinks your world, and there is an amazing, huge, abundant universe out here. You don't want to miss any of it!
Sunday, October 16, 2011
International Food Day
Today is International Food Day, and the #BAD11 (Blogger Action Day 2011) has chosen this topic as the theme. I didn't actually sign up to participate, but I was always one of those strange students who enjoyed writing essays, so I figure, "Why not?" Maybe I can sign up after the fact?!
There are so many options that fall into my geekoliscious sensibilities, when it comes to food. I am a foodie, actually ... love exploring new restaurants, new tastes and new dishes. I was thinking I'd write on a favorite dish or restaurant, or maybe on the politics of food. That would tie in my political geekiness, too.
I don't know if you will call this political, but I decided to go with a something that hit me last night. I was watching TV with my sweetie and an ad came on for a program whose entire topic appears to be throwing pumpkins, smashing them, or watching them explode. Suddenly, it struck me how insane this was. We have so much food in this country that we not only throw a ton away, but we actively destroy food as entertainment.
This bothered me, though I recognize that this is hardly the only time I've seen food wasted on TV. I sat and thought about it, and I realize that whether it is on tv or not, pumpkin tossing is something that has become a popular pasttime in certain circles. Beyond that, we carve pumpkins all the time, not eating them (except for possibly the seeds). Pumpkins may have caught my attention, but I throw out bad food every time I clean the fridge. At other times, I go out to eat and don't bring home a "doggie bag." I am just as guilty as anyone.
So, it is one thing to make a list of ways food has been wasted, but it is much more productive to come up with ways to minimize that waste. The saying is that you have to be the change you want to see in the world. So, I went searching the interwebs, and here are some tips I found to get me thinking about food waste differently:
There are so many options that fall into my geekoliscious sensibilities, when it comes to food. I am a foodie, actually ... love exploring new restaurants, new tastes and new dishes. I was thinking I'd write on a favorite dish or restaurant, or maybe on the politics of food. That would tie in my political geekiness, too.
I don't know if you will call this political, but I decided to go with a something that hit me last night. I was watching TV with my sweetie and an ad came on for a program whose entire topic appears to be throwing pumpkins, smashing them, or watching them explode. Suddenly, it struck me how insane this was. We have so much food in this country that we not only throw a ton away, but we actively destroy food as entertainment.
This bothered me, though I recognize that this is hardly the only time I've seen food wasted on TV. I sat and thought about it, and I realize that whether it is on tv or not, pumpkin tossing is something that has become a popular pasttime in certain circles. Beyond that, we carve pumpkins all the time, not eating them (except for possibly the seeds). Pumpkins may have caught my attention, but I throw out bad food every time I clean the fridge. At other times, I go out to eat and don't bring home a "doggie bag." I am just as guilty as anyone.
So, it is one thing to make a list of ways food has been wasted, but it is much more productive to come up with ways to minimize that waste. The saying is that you have to be the change you want to see in the world. So, I went searching the interwebs, and here are some tips I found to get me thinking about food waste differently:
* Planet Green had some ideas to get me started: 5 Ways to Cut back on Food WasteSo, I now have plenty of ideas to get me started. An added benefit to this is that, if I am successful, I should have more change in my pocket, too. Maybe, I can save enough for that MacBook Air that keeps calling my name ...
* OrganizeIT is a UK site and their starter list is definitely doable, in my opinion.
* NPR has tips from an Anthropologist who says that Americans waste almost *half* the food we grow!
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Why I Support the 99%
The 99% movement started with mostly young people, and contrary to what you hear on right wing radio and TV, this is not just about personal debt and job situations of a disenfranchised youth, though that plays a role. These pundits know it is about much more, but they want to denigrate the youth who put fire to these issues. If they can convince the general public this is about a bunch of kids “whining,” they will defuse the situation and avert the change they do not want. (Sound familiar to any of you who were adults in the 60’s?)
This is very much about change, and it is not just kids out there:
It is about taking the private money out of politics so that fat cats and corporations will no longer be able to buy politicians. It is about reducing the corporate tax loopholes because it feels wrong when a company gets a record-breaking multiple billions in profits, and somehow manages to avoid paying a penny in taxes - or even more offensive! - when they get a tax refund on top of their profits. It is about changing the tax code, so that a secretary doesn't pay a larger portion of his or her income in taxes than the CEO. It is a recognition that current tax rates for millionaires is at a 40 year low, and the politicians are still wanting to cut essential services to fund more tax breaks for the rich. It is acknowledging the sad truth that the income gap between the 1% at the top and the rest of us is widest it has been since the Great Depression, and every tax cut to millionaires adds to it, shifting even more of that wealth up to the top income bracket. It is about trying to find a way to hold some of these CEO’s and fund managers responsible for the crash that they caused with their greed and that the government permitted with its lack of regulation. It is about recognizing that we ARE our brother's keeper, in terms of the poor, the infirm, and the elderly. It is about recognizing that how we treat the 'least of these' defines who we are as a nation.
This movement is a multi-headed hydra and hard to attack because there is no single mouthpiece speaking for the whole. As one analyst pointed out, this is the first large-scale protest of the Internet age, and no one knows the “rules of engagement.” It may have started in NYC, but it has spread, and continues to spread, because the entire world is angry at the inequities in their own countries, how the rich just keep getting richer and the rest of us find stagnating wages when we are lucky enough to have work.
There isn’t a quick fix to this. The protest isn’t saying, “do this one thing.” It is saying, “fix the system!”
This is very much about change, and it is not just kids out there:
It is about taking the private money out of politics so that fat cats and corporations will no longer be able to buy politicians. It is about reducing the corporate tax loopholes because it feels wrong when a company gets a record-breaking multiple billions in profits, and somehow manages to avoid paying a penny in taxes - or even more offensive! - when they get a tax refund on top of their profits. It is about changing the tax code, so that a secretary doesn't pay a larger portion of his or her income in taxes than the CEO. It is a recognition that current tax rates for millionaires is at a 40 year low, and the politicians are still wanting to cut essential services to fund more tax breaks for the rich. It is acknowledging the sad truth that the income gap between the 1% at the top and the rest of us is widest it has been since the Great Depression, and every tax cut to millionaires adds to it, shifting even more of that wealth up to the top income bracket. It is about trying to find a way to hold some of these CEO’s and fund managers responsible for the crash that they caused with their greed and that the government permitted with its lack of regulation. It is about recognizing that we ARE our brother's keeper, in terms of the poor, the infirm, and the elderly. It is about recognizing that how we treat the 'least of these' defines who we are as a nation.
This movement is a multi-headed hydra and hard to attack because there is no single mouthpiece speaking for the whole. As one analyst pointed out, this is the first large-scale protest of the Internet age, and no one knows the “rules of engagement.” It may have started in NYC, but it has spread, and continues to spread, because the entire world is angry at the inequities in their own countries, how the rich just keep getting richer and the rest of us find stagnating wages when we are lucky enough to have work.
There isn’t a quick fix to this. The protest isn’t saying, “do this one thing.” It is saying, “fix the system!”
Monday, June 20, 2011
This is what Democracy looks like
The world has gone crazy. I started blogging about the crazy politics of the ultra-right and I think I had a notion in the back of my head that the outrage expressed by many of those not in the Tea Party would make the extremists step back, pause and reconsider. I totally missed the boat on this one!
I did not expect moderate republicans to stand up for the extremists in their party. I knew that the country had become more polarized since a black man took the big chair in the white house, but I expected my moderate Republican friends to be willing to chastise their own party when it got out of line. Instead, it seems to have become an 'us versus them' dynamic, with Republicans circling the wagons and standing together against the President and the Democratic party, no matter how unreasonable and illogical the rhetoric has become.
Ironically, many of us on the left feel that this President is a bit too friendly with corporations, himself. Personally, it was one of the reasons I waited until the last minute to make my decsion in the 2008 primary. He gets called a socialist by the right, but his policies are hardly in line with a socialist agenda. He is more of a centrist than I would like. And, I don't think I am alone in this thought.
So, where do we go from here? Corporatist Republicans claim that since we liberals lost the election in 2010, we should simply accept the fact and stop protesting and complaining so loudly. I disagree. I don't think that playing possum is an appropriate strategy. Yes, we lost. The 'winners' are pushing through legislation that is anathema to those of us on the left. In many cases (such as the current case in Wisconsin), we can't stop them. This is such extreme legislation that we need to do what we can to pull it back, even an inch, from the precipice that will slide this state and this country toward fascism - a view that we on the left see looming in front of us.
So, we protest. We chant. We draft and sign petitions. We do what we can, legally and peacefully, to influence those we have elected to vote on our behalf. When and where possible, we attempt recall elections. This country is supposed to be "of, by and for the people." I realize that corporations have been given the rights of people, legislatively. However, I refuse to accept that this means I must roll over and play dead while all the rights, money and privilege slowly gets taken away from the working class and handed on a silver platter to the richest among us.
I did not expect moderate republicans to stand up for the extremists in their party. I knew that the country had become more polarized since a black man took the big chair in the white house, but I expected my moderate Republican friends to be willing to chastise their own party when it got out of line. Instead, it seems to have become an 'us versus them' dynamic, with Republicans circling the wagons and standing together against the President and the Democratic party, no matter how unreasonable and illogical the rhetoric has become.
Ironically, many of us on the left feel that this President is a bit too friendly with corporations, himself. Personally, it was one of the reasons I waited until the last minute to make my decsion in the 2008 primary. He gets called a socialist by the right, but his policies are hardly in line with a socialist agenda. He is more of a centrist than I would like. And, I don't think I am alone in this thought.
So, where do we go from here? Corporatist Republicans claim that since we liberals lost the election in 2010, we should simply accept the fact and stop protesting and complaining so loudly. I disagree. I don't think that playing possum is an appropriate strategy. Yes, we lost. The 'winners' are pushing through legislation that is anathema to those of us on the left. In many cases (such as the current case in Wisconsin), we can't stop them. This is such extreme legislation that we need to do what we can to pull it back, even an inch, from the precipice that will slide this state and this country toward fascism - a view that we on the left see looming in front of us.
So, we protest. We chant. We draft and sign petitions. We do what we can, legally and peacefully, to influence those we have elected to vote on our behalf. When and where possible, we attempt recall elections. This country is supposed to be "of, by and for the people." I realize that corporations have been given the rights of people, legislatively. However, I refuse to accept that this means I must roll over and play dead while all the rights, money and privilege slowly gets taken away from the working class and handed on a silver platter to the richest among us.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
Happy Mother's Day!
Rather than ranting about insane politicians with mysogynist bills (believe me, I considered it), I decided to simply post a quick wish to all those nurturing souls out there to have a wonderful and relaxing Mother's Day. This shout out is not limited to women, but goes out to any who nurture and love the youth of today. :-)
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Georgia's Bobby Franklin
Georgia Representative Bobby Franklin (R-43rd district) has issues regarding women. That seems pretty certain. So far this year, he has submitted two of the most mysogynistic bills before any legislature.
HB1: Pre-natal Murder Act
This bill is amazing in its scope. Not only would it require any woman who has a miscarriage to prove that she did nothing to cause it (hence, "murdering" her own child), but it would effectively prevent doctors from assisting anyone with an impending miscarriage, never mind outlawing abortion (Roe v Wade, anyone?):
I can't imagine anything more heartbreaking than miscarrying, then having to legally prove that I didn't murder my child. What insanity!
How ironic that this is the party that rails against the Democrats under the guise of being against 'Big Government!' I would expect even non-feminist libertarians to step up to battle against this one as well. This bill should never have seen the light of day, but now that it has, let it go the way of the dodo.
HB14
In Bobby Franklin's world, women who have been assaulted and raped should not be presumed 'victims,' but should carry the moniker of 'accuser,' instead. I don't know at what point it becomes ok in his mind to admit that someone who is assaulted is actually a victim of that assault.
Did women really vote for this man? If so, they and their daughters have all been seriously betrayed.
Additional Sources:
Pre-natal murder:
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb1.htm
Change the verbage from rape victim to rape accuser (HB14):
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/108144.pdf
HB1: Pre-natal Murder Act
This bill is amazing in its scope. Not only would it require any woman who has a miscarriage to prove that she did nothing to cause it (hence, "murdering" her own child), but it would effectively prevent doctors from assisting anyone with an impending miscarriage, never mind outlawing abortion (Roe v Wade, anyone?):
Franklin's bill would classify the removal of a fetus from a woman for any reason other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus as "prenatal murder." Physicians indicted for alleged "prenatal murder" would have their license suspended until they were found innocent of the crime. (The Raw Story Article)Note that the verbage within the proposed act amends article 5 of Georgia's Official Code, declaring specifically that a fetus is legally a person from the moment of conception. What a relief that he got that one figured out for the rest of us! (/sacasm)
I can't imagine anything more heartbreaking than miscarrying, then having to legally prove that I didn't murder my child. What insanity!
How ironic that this is the party that rails against the Democrats under the guise of being against 'Big Government!' I would expect even non-feminist libertarians to step up to battle against this one as well. This bill should never have seen the light of day, but now that it has, let it go the way of the dodo.
HB14
In Bobby Franklin's world, women who have been assaulted and raped should not be presumed 'victims,' but should carry the moniker of 'accuser,' instead. I don't know at what point it becomes ok in his mind to admit that someone who is assaulted is actually a victim of that assault.
Did women really vote for this man? If so, they and their daughters have all been seriously betrayed.
Additional Sources:
Pre-natal murder:
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb1.htm
Change the verbage from rape victim to rape accuser (HB14):
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/108144.pdf
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
ALEC needs the light of day
How ironic that I wrote yesterday about the "coincidence" of such similar bills proliferating across the country, and today, an article about ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is brought to my attention. In this well-written blog post by Bill Cronin, he suggests that the conservative agenda is being set and coordinated by this supposedly non-partisan group that has flown under the radar for nigh on 40 years. I highly suggest you read his post and the associated comments, if you want to get a feel for what is happening on a national scale.
Some highlights from the article, in my opinion:
ALEC's bills include many of the anti-healthcare bills, those that are anti-EPA and regulation, anti "big" government legislations, including suggesting constitutional amendments, and much more. I recommend people spend some time browsing the site and looking at the suggestions that they do make publically available (only a small portion of the 1000 pieces of legislation they claim to introduce each election cycle).
This information is not light reading, by any means. It is easy to peek at this stuff and have our eyes glaze over as we realize that we aren't truly understanding what we are reading. Legislation tends to be that way, with all the "legalese" that is deemed necessary to define the intent of the author. I often think that legislators on both sides like it that way, as it prevents the average person from understanding what they are trying to do. If you can wade through some of these templates, I suggest you do. It is an eye-opening experience, to say the least!
There are watchdog groups listed in the blog, which might help in understanding this from a liberal perspective. He was unable to find any more objective / non-partisan analysis, and I admit that I am not surprised there either. These are emotional issues, and we are in a time of stark polarization in this country.
A concerned centrist's look at ALEC:
http://scholarcitizen.williamcronon.net/2011/03/15/alec/
NPR's take (I wonder if this is part of the reason they want to defund NPR so badly?):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130891396
ALEC:
http://www.alec.org/
Some highlights from the article, in my opinion:
- ALEC has a closed membership, and does not make their rolls accessible to non-members - so, we have no idea about who is privy to the internal workings of this group.
- Since the rolls are not public information, any gathering of this group could arguably circumvent the open meetings law. I say "arguably" because, as the author points out, both major parties have exemptions for caucus meetings. Some might argue that these meetings qualify. I would disagree, partly because of the inclusion of the private sector members, but no one has asked my opinion.
- ALEC creates template bills that legislators can then use back home. An example of one of their template bills is SB1070 from Arizona (the illegal immigration bill).
- Coordination and template bills allow them to move forward with a concerted effort to transform American to their vision.
- There is currently no real equivalent on the left. Personally, I am not surprised. We liberals don't easily fall into the hierarchical, arguably militaristic, mindset that allows for this kind of lock-step approach, even if that promotes a concerted effort. In many ways, this mindset is anathema to us.
ALEC's bills include many of the anti-healthcare bills, those that are anti-EPA and regulation, anti "big" government legislations, including suggesting constitutional amendments, and much more. I recommend people spend some time browsing the site and looking at the suggestions that they do make publically available (only a small portion of the 1000 pieces of legislation they claim to introduce each election cycle).
This information is not light reading, by any means. It is easy to peek at this stuff and have our eyes glaze over as we realize that we aren't truly understanding what we are reading. Legislation tends to be that way, with all the "legalese" that is deemed necessary to define the intent of the author. I often think that legislators on both sides like it that way, as it prevents the average person from understanding what they are trying to do. If you can wade through some of these templates, I suggest you do. It is an eye-opening experience, to say the least!
There are watchdog groups listed in the blog, which might help in understanding this from a liberal perspective. He was unable to find any more objective / non-partisan analysis, and I admit that I am not surprised there either. These are emotional issues, and we are in a time of stark polarization in this country.
A concerned centrist's look at ALEC:
http://scholarcitizen.williamcronon.net/2011/03/15/alec/
NPR's take (I wonder if this is part of the reason they want to defund NPR so badly?):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130891396
ALEC:
http://www.alec.org/
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Coincidence? Seriously?
Thinkprogress.com reports has noticed a very odd "coincidence." Maine, Missouri and New Hampshire all have quite similar bills before the legislature, all basically aimed at doing damage to collective bargaining / unions. We here in Wisconsin are so caught up in our own struggle, we don't always notice that ours is not the only battle. As important as our struggle is, we can't forget that this is one battle ... albeit a key battle! ... in an ongoing war against the middle class, and I would argue, against families.
Tennesee is also in on the fight. Ohio is under the gun as well. All across the country, collective bargaining rights are under the gun. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of peole who don't get why they should care.
There are many ways that unions impact non-union people. Labor, as a group, has a history of fighting for better working conditions, minimum wages, safety laws, overtime pay, etc. Just a little over 100 years ago, disability pay was a pipe dream:
Where there are labor unions, there is much less likelihood of child labor. It isn't surprising, therefore, that when labor is under attack, there are people out there trying to repeal child labor laws. Just last week, I mentioned Jane Cunningham of Missouri who wants to roll back the clock on child labor protections.
I don't know how many times I have heard the argument that we may have needed labor unions once upon a time, but we have laws in place now, and so we don't need unions any more. I sincerely feel this is naive and will get us into a ton of hot water down the road, if we let these sentiments rule the day. Often, unions are the only champion for these laws staying in place. In a world where corporations feel their only reason for existence is for profit, do you really think that they would not try to get more out of their workers for less money, or less expensive work conditions, if they could legally get away with doing so?
Not every working person is a union worker, but I strongly believe that every working person should be a supporter of unions and the existence of collective bargaining.
Additional Sources:
Economic History:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/aldrich.safety.workplace.us
Child Labor Public Education Project
http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/ending.html
Jane Cunningham - rolling back child labor protection:
http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=406876
Tennesee is also in on the fight. Ohio is under the gun as well. All across the country, collective bargaining rights are under the gun. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of peole who don't get why they should care.
There are many ways that unions impact non-union people. Labor, as a group, has a history of fighting for better working conditions, minimum wages, safety laws, overtime pay, etc. Just a little over 100 years ago, disability pay was a pipe dream:
While workers injured on the job or their heirs might sue employers for damages, winning proved difficult. Where employers could show that the worker had assumed the risk, or had been injured by the actions of a fellow employee, or had himself been partly at fault, courts would usually deny liability. (~Economic History of Workplace Safety)If you have ever had compensation for an injury, or disability pay, even though you may never have been part of a union, you owe them a huge thank you. Labor was an instrumental player in getting an 8 hour work day established as the US norm. Some people would like to tell you that is a myth, but the history of trade unions is quite clear. Although I don't normally like to tag wiki sites, this one is a good overview and links to other sources, so feel free to read more HERE. I believe that they want to convince peole this is a myth because it is something we all appreciate. It doesn't take too much imagination to be grateful we don't have to work 12, 14 or 16 hour days, 6 or 7 days a week.
Where there are labor unions, there is much less likelihood of child labor. It isn't surprising, therefore, that when labor is under attack, there are people out there trying to repeal child labor laws. Just last week, I mentioned Jane Cunningham of Missouri who wants to roll back the clock on child labor protections.
I don't know how many times I have heard the argument that we may have needed labor unions once upon a time, but we have laws in place now, and so we don't need unions any more. I sincerely feel this is naive and will get us into a ton of hot water down the road, if we let these sentiments rule the day. Often, unions are the only champion for these laws staying in place. In a world where corporations feel their only reason for existence is for profit, do you really think that they would not try to get more out of their workers for less money, or less expensive work conditions, if they could legally get away with doing so?
Not every working person is a union worker, but I strongly believe that every working person should be a supporter of unions and the existence of collective bargaining.
Additional Sources:
Economic History:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/aldrich.safety.workplace.us
Child Labor Public Education Project
http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/ending.html
Jane Cunningham - rolling back child labor protection:
http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=406876
Monday, March 14, 2011
Peeking at the National Scene for a Moment
Unfortunately for us all, the craziness is not confined to individual state legislatures. We currently have a situation in Washington, where Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and crew have threatened that the 47 Republican senators will allow the US to default on their loans (not raise the debt ceiling) unless Social Security is slashed.
I understand that raising the debt ceiling is abhorrent for many, and it doesn't sit none too well with me either. However, asking the poorest among us to pay more when we can't bring ourselves to ask the same of the richest among us is even worse in my mind. It is a decision that lacks empathy, compassion and a sense of justice. Why is it acceptable to rip at a social safety net that clothes the poor, gets them money for food and shelter, yet it is not acceptable to ask the rich to give even what they gave a few years ago? Remember, we couldn't allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire. That would be terrible! Those poor rich people!
I am not saying that the rich shouldn't get the fruits of their efforts (except for rare circumstances, we can't really call it their 'labor'). I am saying that it is disgusting when profitable businesses and individuals wind up paying less tax than a secretary, teacher, functionary or street cleaner. Or when we have people declaring that $250,000 per year is middle-income, but it is ok to ask people who earn ONE TENTH that amount to kick in more (see table 2, here).
Where is our moral outrage? How can this behavior be allowed to stand? Where are the people of faith? All faiths seem to have tenets regarding caring for the poor, and I know that the Christian faith has some pretty strong words in Matthew 25. So, where are the champions?
WANTED: A politician with integrity, strength of character and compassion to stand up to these bullies and help them see the light of day. It's past time. So, who will it be? Who will stand up for the poor, the infirm and the elderly? Come on senators ... time to buck up!
I understand that raising the debt ceiling is abhorrent for many, and it doesn't sit none too well with me either. However, asking the poorest among us to pay more when we can't bring ourselves to ask the same of the richest among us is even worse in my mind. It is a decision that lacks empathy, compassion and a sense of justice. Why is it acceptable to rip at a social safety net that clothes the poor, gets them money for food and shelter, yet it is not acceptable to ask the rich to give even what they gave a few years ago? Remember, we couldn't allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire. That would be terrible! Those poor rich people!
I am not saying that the rich shouldn't get the fruits of their efforts (except for rare circumstances, we can't really call it their 'labor'). I am saying that it is disgusting when profitable businesses and individuals wind up paying less tax than a secretary, teacher, functionary or street cleaner. Or when we have people declaring that $250,000 per year is middle-income, but it is ok to ask people who earn ONE TENTH that amount to kick in more (see table 2, here).
Where is our moral outrage? How can this behavior be allowed to stand? Where are the people of faith? All faiths seem to have tenets regarding caring for the poor, and I know that the Christian faith has some pretty strong words in Matthew 25. So, where are the champions?
WANTED: A politician with integrity, strength of character and compassion to stand up to these bullies and help them see the light of day. It's past time. So, who will it be? Who will stand up for the poor, the infirm and the elderly? Come on senators ... time to buck up!
Friday, March 11, 2011
Arizona Tea Party has own Mad Hatter bills
The 2010 elections in Arizona were very kind to the Tea Party, though to be fair, the state has always gone to the right. Look at the illegal immigration law passed last year for a sense of how people there tend to lean. Even so, an influx of Tea Party legislators has allowed them to promote their party agenda in a very large way. Some of the bills that have been promoted include the following:
Arizona is proud to be one of the states with the highest concenration of avowed tea party supporters. Approximately 25% of the residents are either active members or support them from the sideline.For this reason, I think it is a good idea to keep a close eye on the legislation they enact as a sampling of what this group does when in power.
Sources:
Birther Legislation:
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-dallas/arizona-tea-party-state-birther-illegal-immigration-legislation-right-move?render=print
Nullification of Federal Laws:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2011/02/02/sb1433-the-arizona-tea-party-is-so-american-that-federal-law-does-not-apply/
Tea Party License Plate:
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_25375b64-12a1-5105-a6d8-ff4e37317fe9.html
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2459p.pdf
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/adopted/1402shooter1001.doc.htm
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/representative_vic_williams_re.php
- As one of the first pieces of legislation discussed in this new term, I presume it is important to note that the Colt single-action army revolver has tentatively been named the official state firearm. Steve Gallardo (D-Phoenix) recited a long list of more pressing issues facing the state, including jobs! However, this is the one the Republican / Tea Party leaders decided to discuss. Go figure.
- Currently, Arizona joins several other states in promoting legislation to require Presidential candidates to present their birth certificates in order to be included on the state ballot. The Arizona version has the Secretary of State delegated to review the certificate and presumably give a thumb's up or down on its authenticity and correctness.
- SB1433 has Arizona joining Montana in their secessionist legislation, giving authority to a committee to review Federal laws and vote by a simple majority to 'nullify' them:
The Nullification of Federal Law bill introduced by Russell Pearce and Steve Montevendido. It creates a 12-member committee within the legislature that could 'vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government…'
- To cap it all off, it looks like SB1402 is going to put the DMV in Arizona in the position of marketing for the Tea Party in the form of a "Don't Tread on Me" license plate. Similar to many other states, AZ donates a portion of the cost of specialty license plates to the benefitting organization toward its programs. In this case, $17 out of the $25 cost will go to a committee of 5 people, all with Tea Party affiliations. They deny that this is in any way political, of course. Senator Russel Pearce (R-Mesa) explained:
"I know the Constitution is something that not all folks have read down here," Pearce said. "And that's what this plate is about, about furthering the principles of freedom, about the movement across this country, about citizens who want certain principles followed with limited government and family values and kind of the sea-wind change that's coming across this country."
On the other hand, to do this at all, they had to modify the rules on special plates. HB 2459 was adopted specifically to allow for the possibility. In the floor amendment explanation linked below, it states specifically that the HB1402 monies are to be administered by Tea Party members. Even so, Representative Vic Williams (R-District 26) states categorically that it isn't specific to any political party. I suppose he would like us all to believe it is just coincidence that those managing it are Tea Party people and that the slogan itself has been adopted by the Tea Party of Arizona. Note that the more generic Republican and Democratic parties do not currently have fund-raising license plates in Arizona. Hmmm ....
Arizona is proud to be one of the states with the highest concenration of avowed tea party supporters. Approximately 25% of the residents are either active members or support them from the sideline.For this reason, I think it is a good idea to keep a close eye on the legislation they enact as a sampling of what this group does when in power.
Sources:
Birther Legislation:
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-dallas/arizona-tea-party-state-birther-illegal-immigration-legislation-right-move?render=print
Nullification of Federal Laws:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2011/02/02/sb1433-the-arizona-tea-party-is-so-american-that-federal-law-does-not-apply/
Tea Party License Plate:
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_25375b64-12a1-5105-a6d8-ff4e37317fe9.html
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2459p.pdf
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/adopted/1402shooter1001.doc.htm
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/representative_vic_williams_re.php
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Michigan: Attack from Within
From a fascinating (to me) commentary on the Tea Party, written by Bob Altemeyer:
This brings me to Republican Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan. At his request, the Michigan Assembly put together and passed a bill that redefines the role of Emergency Financial Managers to be Emergency Managers - without "Financial" in the title, but with significantly expanded powers. Under the new bill, they have the power to "end existing contracts, take over pension plans, reorganize departments, enter into agreements to restructure debt and dissolve or consolidate fiscally troubled towns and schools." Yup. These state-appointed positions will have the right to go in and tell the Mayor to take a hike and dissolve city councils, and even merge or disincorporate townships, all under the guise of fiscal restructuring.
Michigan is suffering some tough times, especially since the massive changes it has witnessed in the auto and steel industries once the 2008 recession kicked in. Many of the towns are headed toward bankruptcy, and everyone knew that something drastic needed to be considered. Even with that level of desperation, I doubt that many people would have thought anything like this would be the result. In many ways it is the Michigan equivalent of the Wisconsin solution to the public employee problem. Note that state Rep, Mark Meadows warns, “[O]ur state and federal constitutions contain “contract clauses,” he said, “both of which prohibit the state from enacting any law that impairs existing contractual obligations.” That doesn't seem to be slowing Mr Snyder down any.
Like Wisconsin, Michigan citizens may be forced to sue their governor and legislature, and attempt to get injunctions against bills of questionable legality. All over our country, the underpinnings of our democratic process are being attacked and redefined. There was a very low voter turnout in the 2010 elections and Tea Party voters took full advantage. If this is a wake up call to your mind, know that you have the power - and I would argue, the responsibility! - to organize and fight back. If you don't, you are making the choice to accept the changes being presented to you.
We always have a choice: We can be silent or we can take action.
Sources:
Tea Party History:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/drbob/Comment%20on%20the%20Tea%20Party.pdf
Michigan's Emergency Manager bill:
http://michiganmessenger.com/47013/bill-offers-no-guidelines-for-use-of-emergency-managers-powers
http://michiganmessenger.com/46807/constitutionality-of-emergency-manager-powers-questioned
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-michigan-is-preparing-for-a-tsunami-of-financial-crises-2011-2
"[...] the Quinnipiac poll found that 74 percent of the Tea Partiers were Republicans, or Republican-leaning Independents. Seventy-two percent had a favorable view of Sarah Palin, while the sample as a whole disliked her by a 2-1 margin. They were a little less educated than most, more female than male, older (most were over 50), and overwhelmingly white (88 percent)."The new Tea Party legislators are overwhelmingly those proposing these strange new bills. This is a group of people that have never been very vocal before. They reject the economic policies of the Obama administration and the Democrats with an emotional vehemence, to the point of appearing beyond logic. When they find a mentor to their liking, they accept that person's pronouncements without question, even when presented with contrary facts. Their approach to government appears to be to dismantle it whenever possible, privatise any mandatory functions, and put as much power as possible in their own hands. It is as though they don't realize that they won't always be the ones holding the reins of power.
This brings me to Republican Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan. At his request, the Michigan Assembly put together and passed a bill that redefines the role of Emergency Financial Managers to be Emergency Managers - without "Financial" in the title, but with significantly expanded powers. Under the new bill, they have the power to "end existing contracts, take over pension plans, reorganize departments, enter into agreements to restructure debt and dissolve or consolidate fiscally troubled towns and schools." Yup. These state-appointed positions will have the right to go in and tell the Mayor to take a hike and dissolve city councils, and even merge or disincorporate townships, all under the guise of fiscal restructuring.
Michigan is suffering some tough times, especially since the massive changes it has witnessed in the auto and steel industries once the 2008 recession kicked in. Many of the towns are headed toward bankruptcy, and everyone knew that something drastic needed to be considered. Even with that level of desperation, I doubt that many people would have thought anything like this would be the result. In many ways it is the Michigan equivalent of the Wisconsin solution to the public employee problem. Note that state Rep, Mark Meadows warns, “[O]ur state and federal constitutions contain “contract clauses,” he said, “both of which prohibit the state from enacting any law that impairs existing contractual obligations.” That doesn't seem to be slowing Mr Snyder down any.
Like Wisconsin, Michigan citizens may be forced to sue their governor and legislature, and attempt to get injunctions against bills of questionable legality. All over our country, the underpinnings of our democratic process are being attacked and redefined. There was a very low voter turnout in the 2010 elections and Tea Party voters took full advantage. If this is a wake up call to your mind, know that you have the power - and I would argue, the responsibility! - to organize and fight back. If you don't, you are making the choice to accept the changes being presented to you.
We always have a choice: We can be silent or we can take action.
Sources:
Tea Party History:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/drbob/Comment%20on%20the%20Tea%20Party.pdf
Michigan's Emergency Manager bill:
http://michiganmessenger.com/47013/bill-offers-no-guidelines-for-use-of-emergency-managers-powers
http://michiganmessenger.com/46807/constitutionality-of-emergency-manager-powers-questioned
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-michigan-is-preparing-for-a-tsunami-of-financial-crises-2011-2
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Political Geek
As I post this, the Republicans in Wisconsin have just finished with the vote to strip public unions of collective bargaining rights. To do it, they had to separate the collective bargaining out of the original bill. This is because they needed a quorum to vote on anything with a fiscal impact. Without a fiscal impact, they don't need quorum and can vote without the Democrats. Getting rid of public unions was so important to them, they were willing to let the lie of it being necessary to balance the budget see the light of day.
What could be so important that they would be willing to have the illusion of their integrity ripped away? I think it is because they plan on plundering the pension fund and needed to get those pesky unions out of the way. The pension fund in Wisconsin is set up old school ... it is fully funded, even over-funded by some estimates. Killing it and creating a new one would free up millions of dollars that could then be given to the corporate interests in the guise of "incentives." We'll see if I'm right ...
Unfortunately, Wisconsin isn't the only place seeing a rash of Tea Party activity. One of the posts I read called them Teapublicans. I kind of liked that. Anyway ...
I have had so many newsfeeds pop up lately that include stories about bills and situations that seem extremely odd, backward, or just plain insane … I post them on Facebook sometimes, but I am sure they get buried on my wall, what with all the local insanity due to HB11, the Executive Budget and the general bizarreness surrounding Scott Walker’s administration in Wisconsin. I have decided to take some time to post some of those I found to be truly bizarre on this blog. My goal is to try to expose what I perceive to be insanity sweeping across the country. Laws, bills and attitudes have erupted that are trying to take us back at least a half century in terms of rights and respect toward others.
Perhaps, you think I am kidding? Here are a few of the stories that have caught my eye recently:
And I didn’t even go into the insanity in Wisconsin, letting the governor modify the social safety nets of the elderly and the infirm without legislative approval or selling off our utilities without even a bid to ensure we get good money for it. I could have posted about the Georgian legislators who think it is OK to give tax breaks to the richest in their state, but want to alter the law to charge tax for the purchase of girl scout cookies. Hmmm ... what about the Florida legislature that wants to make it a criminal offense to take a photo of a farm? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Florida reportedly has some of the more egregious industrial farm abuses. In a similar vein, there is always the rash of laws recently passed in several states making it illegal to videotape police officers abusing their victims - I mean suspects. I find it totally bizarre that there is one set of laws for the general public, and a different set for the police. If anything, it would make sense to hold them to a higher standard, not a lower one. Yet, it is acceptable to film inside public stores to protect from thieves, and perfectly legal to photograph license plates of those running red lights, but it is illegal in several states to record the police breaking the law.
You see, I could rant quite a long time on this. We’ll see what else I find in my inbox this week!
What could be so important that they would be willing to have the illusion of their integrity ripped away? I think it is because they plan on plundering the pension fund and needed to get those pesky unions out of the way. The pension fund in Wisconsin is set up old school ... it is fully funded, even over-funded by some estimates. Killing it and creating a new one would free up millions of dollars that could then be given to the corporate interests in the guise of "incentives." We'll see if I'm right ...
Unfortunately, Wisconsin isn't the only place seeing a rash of Tea Party activity. One of the posts I read called them Teapublicans. I kind of liked that. Anyway ...
I have had so many newsfeeds pop up lately that include stories about bills and situations that seem extremely odd, backward, or just plain insane … I post them on Facebook sometimes, but I am sure they get buried on my wall, what with all the local insanity due to HB11, the Executive Budget and the general bizarreness surrounding Scott Walker’s administration in Wisconsin. I have decided to take some time to post some of those I found to be truly bizarre on this blog. My goal is to try to expose what I perceive to be insanity sweeping across the country. Laws, bills and attitudes have erupted that are trying to take us back at least a half century in terms of rights and respect toward others.
Perhaps, you think I am kidding? Here are a few of the stories that have caught my eye recently:
- Missouri State Senator Jane Cunningham (R-St Louis County) has submitted SB 222 for consideration. In it, she has suggested that the laws requiring 14 and 15 year old children to have a work permit are in need of repeal. While she’s at it, she wants to eliminate local inspections by the state Labor Board to ensure that the rules are being obeyed. According to a local report (Barb Shelley of the Kansas City Star), the legislation, as written, would actually allow 12 or 13 year old children to be put to work, “perhaps under the guise of receiving a home-school education.” Whether that is actually the case or not, the act of repealing local inspections would certainly be an encouragement to anyone prone to disobeying the laws and taking advantage of youth labor. If you want to know more, click here for the original article on this one.
- They won’t go so far as to call it secession, but no other word really defines the laws currently being considered in Montana. The Billings Gazette reports that, “From health care reform to food safety laws to the Endangered Species Act, GOP lawmakers this session are targeting laws for “nullification,” proposing bills that put Montana on record as declaring these laws unconstitutional and not enforceable here.” You read it right: ‘Nullification’ is the word of the day in Montana. If you only obey some of the Federal laws and can ignore the ones you don’t like, where is the cohesion of the Union? Some of the changes would include a requirement that the FBI would need the permission of the local sheriff to arrest anyone and a declaration that Global Warming is good for business. This is so far out there, that I would expect this kind of news to come from The Onion, or be seen on an SNL skit instead of being a serious article in a local Montana newspaper. For the full article, click here.
- Then, there’s Rick Perry, the Republican governor of Texas. In a keynote address to a conservative business group, he was quoted as speaking one of the most bizarre political statements I have ever read. After suggesting that good conservative republicans should remove their children from public schools and place them in Christian private schools (I assume this is because all conservatives are both rich and Christian), he added:
"It is only fair that teachers and state employees who voted Republican should be the first to lose their tax funded jobs."
There is a twisted kind of logic here. If you really believe that Rick Perry is correct in thinking that tax payers should not be paying the salaries of workers that could have their job function privatised, then put your money where your mouth is and quit your job if you draw a public salary. That would be internally consistent with the belief system. On the other hand, if you thought he meant that those OTHER people were slackers drawing a tax-funded salary, but that YOU work your butt off and deserve every penny … well, then I am sorry to say you were very badly mistaken with your interpretation.
Among other things, Mr Perry plans quite a few tax cuts for the Texas public school system, and when asked about how that might impact Advanced Placement exam scores, he responded with:
“I really don't see why high schools should have to teach college level courses like calculus, economics, physics, chemistry or biology. Not all children go to college anyway. Texas has plenty of on the job training programs that teach skills and trades. Oil field workers need to know how to operate machines that extract oil. They don't need calculus to do their job.”
I read that and my brain shut off for a moment. This is so outrageous, I would prefer to read the actual text of his speech, or see a video of it. If he really dismissed the future of Texas in this way, I certainly hope someone caught it on tape. I haven’t found it yet, but if any of you could let me know, I would be happy to post it. I don’t doubt that he said it, as it seems consistent with his philosophy, but a video is worth a thousand blog posts, to paraphrase and modernise a famous quote.
For quotes from the speech and progressive commentary, click here.
- The Salt Lake Tribune in Utah has an interesting tidbit about a law that requires children be taught that the USA is a republic and not a democracy. Although this is technically true, the reason for legislative involvement in school curriculum is that they are concerned that socialism is being indoctrinated into our children via school curricula in other states. The argument that socialism is also a philosophy and not just a form of government (and capitalism is a philosophy, but not a form of government) is apparently a little too complex for our friends in Utah, who actually spent time debating which it is. How teaching that the USA is a republic would in any way prevent socialist philosophy from being taught was not clear from the article.
For the full article, click here.
For the curious, a nice comparison of a republic vs a democracy can be found by clicking here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
And I didn’t even go into the insanity in Wisconsin, letting the governor modify the social safety nets of the elderly and the infirm without legislative approval or selling off our utilities without even a bid to ensure we get good money for it. I could have posted about the Georgian legislators who think it is OK to give tax breaks to the richest in their state, but want to alter the law to charge tax for the purchase of girl scout cookies. Hmmm ... what about the Florida legislature that wants to make it a criminal offense to take a photo of a farm? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Florida reportedly has some of the more egregious industrial farm abuses. In a similar vein, there is always the rash of laws recently passed in several states making it illegal to videotape police officers abusing their victims - I mean suspects. I find it totally bizarre that there is one set of laws for the general public, and a different set for the police. If anything, it would make sense to hold them to a higher standard, not a lower one. Yet, it is acceptable to film inside public stores to protect from thieves, and perfectly legal to photograph license plates of those running red lights, but it is illegal in several states to record the police breaking the law.
You see, I could rant quite a long time on this. We’ll see what else I find in my inbox this week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
