Modern scientists say that hypothetically, there are a few unifying mathematical theories that - if ever proven to be true - would make some of our wildest possibilities reality. Like being in two places at one time.
While some people focus on the "theory" part of that fantastical description, it's often been our opinion that the "union" part of that explanation is really where the power lies.
With that in mind, it's easy to see why some of our staff has been perplexed for quite a while, now, as to why large numbers of Americans still don't seem to see the potential power in large numbers of people coming together for a common purpose - like securing decent wages for workers who give an honest day's work.
In fact, in many corners of the country, opinions and attitudes surrounding unions are still as unattractive as avocado gold appliances and shag carpeting straight out of the 1970's. Unions have matured and changed and grown since the days when they had much more clout - even if the average wage levels of most American workers hasn't.
Unions aren't like the characters portrayed in the movie "Hoffa" anymore, and haven't been for a long time - much longer than the lifespans of most of our staff. In short, unions are merely the flip side of the economic coin. Unions can be just as beneficial as corporations (More so, if you're not inclined to subscribe to the fantasy that the company will take care of the best interests of its workers first).
President Obama made his point - that what's good for American labor interests is also good for American business - while he was delivering a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Monday. What surprised us more was that this was an opportunity to speak that the Chamber had offered to him to give to their members.
The President didn't let this opportunity go to waste.
He hit corporations and business leaders with multiple truths during his speech on Monday. And while he may not have been as antagonistic as FDR, or as direct as Kennedy, his message came across just as clearly to many in the audience: the era where corporations can do whatever the hell they want at the expense of their workers and the communities they reside in, is over.
The President even spoke of how the union (there's that word again) between the government and business could be powerful and beneficial to all groups - workers, corporations, and government - so long as everyone takes care of their collective responsibilities.
Unfortunately in some states like Nebraska, unions have been treated so poorly, for so long - and have allowed themselves to be treated poorly - that their influence has weakened considerably.
Still, it now appears that even in states like Nebraska, unions are beginning to truly see a resurgence - and we welcome that balance.
As the President himself said in front of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Monday, without American labor - specifically American workers - American business won't get ahead in their competition with the rest of world.
It will take all of us, working together, for the benefit of everyone, to bring America out of the economic nightmare we've been having to live with these last few years.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Fear Of The Unknown
As we begin another week - and another week of the protests in Egypt and the Middle East - our thoughts keep turning towards the idea that there really aren't so many differences between people over there, and people here in the United States.
Over there, people want democracy. Our people enjoy having that here. The people of Egypt, and many other Middle Eastern countries, want the freedom to worship as they see fit - and we're proud we have the right to do that here. The people over there are tired of having a significantly stratified economic structure. This is also the case in America.
However, unlike our counterparts in the Middle East, and especially Egypt, Americans seem to be doing very little to defend our freedoms here in our own country.
This past week, we've seen Muslims standing guard defending Christians - and Christians reciprocating the gesture. We've seen the Egyptian military defending the rights of the people to protest - and, in some instances, defending the people from the corrupt state security and police force.
In so many cases, we've seen the people of the Middle East standing up for their rights, often willing to die for them.
Meanwhile, in America, we continue to meekly accept as truth so much of what we're told.
"There's no problem at all with building that oil pipeline above the aquifer that satisfies the water needs of virtually everyone in the center of the country," we're told. So we simply say OK.
Even though the company behind the pipeline doesn't have the best record.
Even though our government doesn't have the best record of managing those kinds of companies. (See 'British Petroleum')
Even though similar projects often fail to create the number of jobs their promoters claim they will.
We're not saying that Americans need to overthrow their government, like the Egyptians are in the process of doing.
What we are saying is that too many Americans may have blindly trusted too many of our institutions for too long.
Freedom - whether economic, religious, or political - is something that can't be expected to simply continue with no effort on the part of the citizenry. It must be defended and striven for every day.
It is worth noting to quote the inscription over one of the entrance doors to the Nebraska State Capitol: "The salvation of the state is watchfulness of the citizen."
Perhaps it's time we citizens all became a little more watchful instead of just believing everything we're told.
Over there, people want democracy. Our people enjoy having that here. The people of Egypt, and many other Middle Eastern countries, want the freedom to worship as they see fit - and we're proud we have the right to do that here. The people over there are tired of having a significantly stratified economic structure. This is also the case in America.
However, unlike our counterparts in the Middle East, and especially Egypt, Americans seem to be doing very little to defend our freedoms here in our own country.
This past week, we've seen Muslims standing guard defending Christians - and Christians reciprocating the gesture. We've seen the Egyptian military defending the rights of the people to protest - and, in some instances, defending the people from the corrupt state security and police force.
In so many cases, we've seen the people of the Middle East standing up for their rights, often willing to die for them.
Meanwhile, in America, we continue to meekly accept as truth so much of what we're told.
"There's no problem at all with building that oil pipeline above the aquifer that satisfies the water needs of virtually everyone in the center of the country," we're told. So we simply say OK.
Even though the company behind the pipeline doesn't have the best record.
Even though our government doesn't have the best record of managing those kinds of companies. (See 'British Petroleum')
Even though similar projects often fail to create the number of jobs their promoters claim they will.
We're not saying that Americans need to overthrow their government, like the Egyptians are in the process of doing.
What we are saying is that too many Americans may have blindly trusted too many of our institutions for too long.
Freedom - whether economic, religious, or political - is something that can't be expected to simply continue with no effort on the part of the citizenry. It must be defended and striven for every day.
It is worth noting to quote the inscription over one of the entrance doors to the Nebraska State Capitol: "The salvation of the state is watchfulness of the citizen."
Perhaps it's time we citizens all became a little more watchful instead of just believing everything we're told.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Reasons For Starting A Fight
In general, we're not really into picking fights.
That's not to say that we haven't gotten into our individual and collective share of tussles from time to time. If it's something we believe in, we'll stand up for it strongly and proudly. We've even gotten into heated exchanges with fellow staffers over differences of opinion.
Not everyone is like our small group - and not all of us are as assertive about their beliefs as others.
Starting fights for no reason, however, is something we don't understand at all.
To those who wonder why Nebraska State Senator Brenda Council introduced LB 192 - a sex education bill - it may seem at first glance like she's just picking a fight without cause. That such a bill isn't likely to pass in the ever-more ideologically conservative Nebraska Unicameral shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with our state, or its current legislative makeup.
It's not the educated people Senator Council is worried about.
And she's not worried about "winning" by getting her bill passed.
What Council is concerned about is the growing number of Nebraska high school students - especially in urban areas, like the region of Omaha she represents - that are being infected with sexually transmitted diseases. According to recent statistics, Douglas County, Nebraska, currently has some of the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases in the country. Teens' seeming ignorance about how to prevent STDs proves the current methods of sex education don't seem to be getting through to them.
Sen. Council thinks it would be a good idea if Nebraskans did everything they could to stem the numbers of infected teens, so that Nebraskans could save some young people from a life filled with prescription medications and behavioral restrictions.
We can't disagree with her on that.
There are those who don't see eye to eye with her, however.
Media outlets, politicians, and partisans on both ends of the spectrum have, as expected, jumped into the fray. Each is supporting their favorite pet causes, whether that cause is the unrealistic standard of teenage abstinence, thorough and complete sexual education - or too often in the case of the media, continuing to propagate the fight between those on the far left and far right.
While our views on abortion and parental responsibility differ, we all agree - the best way to preemptively treat a sexually transmitted disease is to never catch one.
Sen. Council's idea doesn't seem to be so much to "win" this battle by passing her proposed law. Rather, she seems to want to generate discussion and awareness - and maybe some action - on the outsized problem of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers in Nebraska.
If that's truly Sen. Council's logic, to not start a fight, so much as to start a discussion, we have to say...it worked on us.
We hope it works to generate further preventative action on the parts of others as well.
That's not to say that we haven't gotten into our individual and collective share of tussles from time to time. If it's something we believe in, we'll stand up for it strongly and proudly. We've even gotten into heated exchanges with fellow staffers over differences of opinion.
Not everyone is like our small group - and not all of us are as assertive about their beliefs as others.
Starting fights for no reason, however, is something we don't understand at all.
To those who wonder why Nebraska State Senator Brenda Council introduced LB 192 - a sex education bill - it may seem at first glance like she's just picking a fight without cause. That such a bill isn't likely to pass in the ever-more ideologically conservative Nebraska Unicameral shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with our state, or its current legislative makeup.
It's not the educated people Senator Council is worried about.
And she's not worried about "winning" by getting her bill passed.
What Council is concerned about is the growing number of Nebraska high school students - especially in urban areas, like the region of Omaha she represents - that are being infected with sexually transmitted diseases. According to recent statistics, Douglas County, Nebraska, currently has some of the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases in the country. Teens' seeming ignorance about how to prevent STDs proves the current methods of sex education don't seem to be getting through to them.
Sen. Council thinks it would be a good idea if Nebraskans did everything they could to stem the numbers of infected teens, so that Nebraskans could save some young people from a life filled with prescription medications and behavioral restrictions.
We can't disagree with her on that.
There are those who don't see eye to eye with her, however.
Media outlets, politicians, and partisans on both ends of the spectrum have, as expected, jumped into the fray. Each is supporting their favorite pet causes, whether that cause is the unrealistic standard of teenage abstinence, thorough and complete sexual education - or too often in the case of the media, continuing to propagate the fight between those on the far left and far right.
While our views on abortion and parental responsibility differ, we all agree - the best way to preemptively treat a sexually transmitted disease is to never catch one.
Sen. Council's idea doesn't seem to be so much to "win" this battle by passing her proposed law. Rather, she seems to want to generate discussion and awareness - and maybe some action - on the outsized problem of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers in Nebraska.
If that's truly Sen. Council's logic, to not start a fight, so much as to start a discussion, we have to say...it worked on us.
We hope it works to generate further preventative action on the parts of others as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)