I am encouraged to see a consensus growing around an all of the above approach to America's gun violence problem. With all proper respect to Mr. LaPierre, I could support armed security in schools ALONG WITH bans on assault weapons and high capacity clips, and a national list of the mentally ill ALONG WITH vastly better treatment and assistance for them, and controls on simulated violence in children's lives ALONG WITH prevention of REAL violence in their lives.
It is REALLY time to stop taking sides and consider each others' solutions.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Connecticut
I'm pleased to see that the idea of a multi-prong approach to this and other tragedies seems to be acquiring the state of consensus.
IMO, the most important aspect is the treatment of the mentally ill. If they have any sense (and that's debatable) the NRA will be all over that. But anyone who gets on that bandwagon (yes, I mean you Bob McDonnell) will have to realize that it will cost MONEY. And A LOT OF IT, if we are to do it right. And that means TAXES, because the government will definitely have to be part of it. Republicans are already on record as being willing for people to lose their houses and starve in the streets to prevent a tax hike. Are they willing to see 6 year old shot again and again for it?
IMO, the most important aspect is the treatment of the mentally ill. If they have any sense (and that's debatable) the NRA will be all over that. But anyone who gets on that bandwagon (yes, I mean you Bob McDonnell) will have to realize that it will cost MONEY. And A LOT OF IT, if we are to do it right. And that means TAXES, because the government will definitely have to be part of it. Republicans are already on record as being willing for people to lose their houses and starve in the streets to prevent a tax hike. Are they willing to see 6 year old shot again and again for it?
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
union primer
It seems to me it is time to re-educate the population about just what a union is.
The right to work crowd has done a good job of promoting their version of 'freedom', but if anyone examines it closely, it just doesn't work. Here are a few facts that explain why.
Fact 1. The workplace is an inherently unbalanced power situation. The boss has much more power than the worker by virtue of the power to fire.
Fact 2. The only way the worker can try to even up that balance is to combine with other workers and gain the threat of strikes, slowdowns, etc. These combinations of workers are called unions.
Fact 3. The only way unions have power is through at least majority, if not overwhelming, membership. A walkout by 5% of the work force is not likely to have much impact. 50 or 60% on the other hand ...
Fact 4. Management has and has used many tactics to prevent the unions from gaining strong membership. Campaigns of falsehoods, veiled threats, mandatory 'education' meetings, etc. are rampant. Most of the time we don't hear about them, but this last election brought some of that to light.
This brings us to our present situation. Closed shops may seem unfair, but in the real world, they are necessary to give the union some hope of competing with the dominant power of the employer. I heard one pundit comment on unions proving themselves effective and then gaining membership. Sounds reasonable until you realize unions can't be effective until they have membership. Early members have to join now, get the benefits later, after the membership has grown enough to force the employer to deal. Just a sad fact of the real world.
These are the facts. Maybe now you know why union members are so upset at gaining the 'freedom' of right to work (for less).
The right to work crowd has done a good job of promoting their version of 'freedom', but if anyone examines it closely, it just doesn't work. Here are a few facts that explain why.
Fact 1. The workplace is an inherently unbalanced power situation. The boss has much more power than the worker by virtue of the power to fire.
Fact 2. The only way the worker can try to even up that balance is to combine with other workers and gain the threat of strikes, slowdowns, etc. These combinations of workers are called unions.
Fact 3. The only way unions have power is through at least majority, if not overwhelming, membership. A walkout by 5% of the work force is not likely to have much impact. 50 or 60% on the other hand ...
Fact 4. Management has and has used many tactics to prevent the unions from gaining strong membership. Campaigns of falsehoods, veiled threats, mandatory 'education' meetings, etc. are rampant. Most of the time we don't hear about them, but this last election brought some of that to light.
This brings us to our present situation. Closed shops may seem unfair, but in the real world, they are necessary to give the union some hope of competing with the dominant power of the employer. I heard one pundit comment on unions proving themselves effective and then gaining membership. Sounds reasonable until you realize unions can't be effective until they have membership. Early members have to join now, get the benefits later, after the membership has grown enough to force the employer to deal. Just a sad fact of the real world.
These are the facts. Maybe now you know why union members are so upset at gaining the 'freedom' of right to work (for less).
Friday, December 7, 2012
Philosophy
So, now, in this season of great signicance to Christians, Bill O'Reilly says Christianity is a philosophy, not a religion.
If I put any credence to his statements, it would be good news for me. I have always liked the philosophy of Christianity. It's the religion that bothers me. I can't get behind their ideas on creation, salvation, or condemnation.
My own evolving beliefs have come to be a mash-up of science (the age & creation of the earth and the emergence of homo sapiens, Native American (the Great Spirit, without any characteristics that make it more prone to some segment of humanity), Celtic ( worship that is the celebration of the rhythm and life of the earth and our connection to it), and eastern (reincarnation).
And recently I have come to a whole new understanding of Christianity, through the medium of film. First I saw Religulous, Bill Mahers film, wherein I learned that the story of the savior was borrowed, as were many of the Christian legends, from other religions that had gone before. That left me wondering if possibly there had not even been a Jesus, something I had never questioned before. And if that was so, where did all those beautiful teachings come from?
I found the answer in another film later that told the story of the Essenes, whose
'philosophy' matched those teachings rather closely.
So it is possible that there are no Christians, because there was no Jesus Christ. Maybe we are all just Essenes and it is a philosophy after all.
Check it out, Bill, you may be right!
If I put any credence to his statements, it would be good news for me. I have always liked the philosophy of Christianity. It's the religion that bothers me. I can't get behind their ideas on creation, salvation, or condemnation.
My own evolving beliefs have come to be a mash-up of science (the age & creation of the earth and the emergence of homo sapiens, Native American (the Great Spirit, without any characteristics that make it more prone to some segment of humanity), Celtic ( worship that is the celebration of the rhythm and life of the earth and our connection to it), and eastern (reincarnation).
And recently I have come to a whole new understanding of Christianity, through the medium of film. First I saw Religulous, Bill Mahers film, wherein I learned that the story of the savior was borrowed, as were many of the Christian legends, from other religions that had gone before. That left me wondering if possibly there had not even been a Jesus, something I had never questioned before. And if that was so, where did all those beautiful teachings come from?
I found the answer in another film later that told the story of the Essenes, whose
'philosophy' matched those teachings rather closely.
So it is possible that there are no Christians, because there was no Jesus Christ. Maybe we are all just Essenes and it is a philosophy after all.
Check it out, Bill, you may be right!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)