Update from the Heartland
No.349
18.8.08 – 24.8.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.349
18.8.08 – 24.8.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Circa 05:00 CDT, Monday, 18.August.2008, the International Association of Machinists (IAM) held a pre-dawn, show-of-force rally for the strikers at Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC) in Wichita, Kansas. Off-shift union employees from other aircraft companies in the area were asked to join the rally as a sign of solidarity. Sadly, as the rally broke up, one of the HBC strikers tried to walk across an, unlit, four-lane, major street. He was hit and killed in his attempt. He left a wife and two small children. I suspect this strike is going to get much worse before it is resolved. The company restored the benefits for the victim’s family – a gesture of condolence and certainly not required. Also, this week, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services requested that HBC and the IAM join them and return to the negotiating table. Except for the fatality and a few minor incidents on Monday, probably perpetrated by outside agitators, the conduct of the strikers has been orderly, respectful and relatively calm. Just as a little side note, I shall identify the official IAM website [http://www.goiam.org/] for you, and ask that you look at the first button on the blue tool bar below the logo. Interesting mindset, isn’t it?
The follow-up news items:
-- Senator Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois, presumptive Democratic Party nominee for President, selected Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., of Delaware, to be his vice presidential compatriot. Next week, the Democrats hold their convention in Denver, Colorado, after which the Party nominations will be official.
-- Former Pakistani President and Chief of the Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf [293 et al] resigned his position to avoid impeachment by Parliament and the coalition government. His fate or what he intends to do is unknown, but I suspect he is searching for a place to reside in exile. Sadly, the coalition partners began jockeying for power. What is it they say about the devil you know?
-- As a brilliant illuminator and punctuation point on Musharraf’s resignation, the Taliban [53 et al] in Pakistan staged a coordinated attack by at least two suicide bombers on the government’s largest weapons manufacturing complex in Wah, just north of the capitol of Islamabad, killing more than 60 people.
-- A suicide bomber struck a police school at Issers, 60 kilometres (37 miles) east of Algiers, Algeria, killing 43 and wounding another 38 people. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. Al-Qaeda does not just kill Christians; they are equal opportunity killers – Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Christians and Jews. They kill innocent people of all faiths ostensibly to further their aims – fundamentalist, Shariah, Islamic theocracy for all the world. That is our enemy!
A friend and contributor forwarded this Op-Ed column regarding the Russo-Georgian War:
“What Did We Expect?”
by Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times
Published: August 19, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20friedman.html?th&emc=th
I don’t often find myself in agreement Tom Friedman, but he rings the bell rather well in his Op-Ed column. My only quibble with his presentation rests in his ignoring or overlooking the antagonism coming from Georgians in South Ossetia (and/or Russian agents seeking the confrontation). How long would we tolerate the occasional artillery projectile fired from Mexico, exploding inside U.S. territory? A minor quibble, but a quibble nonetheless. In the main, resonance!
In July, several Indian cities were attacked by a group known as the Indian Mujahideen [AKA Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI)]. I smelled al-Qaeda, however, the connection has not been established, to my knowledge. The following assessment remains the best I have seen so far of the situation in India.
“India: Arrests, Revelations and Implications”
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Strategic Forecasting Inc.
Published: August 20, 2008 2009 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/india_arrests_revelations_and_implications
We have discussed a myriad of clashes between public and private, between the government and the individual citizen. This week’s governmental actions from opposite ends of this Grand Republic give us an interesting and relevant confrontation between conflicting constitutional rights. The California Supreme Court gave us another controversial ruling – North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. San Diego County Superior Court [SC CA S142892 (2008)]. The other contrasting action came from the other coast. The Federal government’s Department of Health and Human Services issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) [RIN 0991-AB48] against 45 CFR Part 88 to ensure that “Department of Health and Human Services funds do not support coercive or discriminatory policies or practices in violation of federal law.” The common element involved in both actions is the rights of one citizen versus another. In the North Coast case, Guadalupe T. Benitez sought an intrauterine insemination (IUI) procedure from Dr. Christine Brody, MD, who in turn refused to perform the procedures based on religious and/or moral grounds, because Benitez was an unmarried homosexual. We have seen a number of these cases with pharmacists, doctors, and such. California Supreme Court Associate Justice Joyce Luther Kennard wrote the court’s decision. She quoted from article I, section 4, of the California constitution, “Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.” (Emphasis added by Kennard.) Kennard also observed, “[U]nder the United States Supreme Court’s most recent holdings, a religious objector has no federal constitutional right to an exemption from a neutral and valid law of general applicability on the ground that compliance with that law is contrary to the objector’s religious beliefs.” On the other hand, if the Federal NPR had not been issued so close California’s North Coast ruling, we could argue the purpose as direct contravention of the court’s decision. Even a quick scan of the NPR renders a clear image of the new regulation’s intent – the latest salvo in the abortion wars. I have tried to remain neutral and objective through most of these moral confrontations, but now I am pissed. I am never going to have an abortion, so it would be so easy and cost me absolutely nothing to say, “Not my problem, man,” and just let these fascists continue chipping away at the rights of others. After all, it does not affect me. Oh heck, I could also join the sanctimonious chorus and say, “yea verily, I love life; I am pro-life. I insist on protecting a single cell, clump of atoms and molecules; and I believe in life so much that I am willing to condemn an old man or an old woman to weeks and months of suffering and humiliation, just so I can maintain the holier-than-thou position I have staked out for myself; and, I am quite content to bludgeon every other citizen to maintain my position.” Oh yeah, I feel good. It would be so easy. This damnable, sanctimonious, unilateralist administration has gone far beyond the line. I know we are in a real war, but the corrosion and consumption of our most fundamental rights by this administration has become a far greater threat to our quality of life than the Islamo-fascists can ever hope to become. January 20th 2009 cannot arrive soon enough. Stick me with a fork; I am done! Now that I have gotten that off my chest, let us examine the core theme between these two near simultaneous and dramatically different government pronouncements. This is a really dicey conflict between public and private, and will remain a region of constant struggle for many years to come. Dr. Brody has a constitutionally protected right to whatever religious beliefs she freely chooses and to practice her religion without interferences from the government and from other citizens. We certainly know that some religious folks proclaim homosexuality (actually non-heterosexuality as well as any extra-marital sexuality) an abomination, a sin against God, and to some religions, punishable by death. So, it is hardly a surprise that Dr. Brody, and those like her, find it contemptible to render medical services to non-heterosexual, non-married individuals. The NPR is simply raw executive power . . . just because they can; but, Dr. Brody’s choice, which would be protected if the NPR becomes Federal regulation (without judicial challenge), represents the more direct confrontation. I do not believe many of us, if any, seek to compromise anyone’s religious beliefs. Yet, as we discussed in this forum, the struggle begins when anyone’s personal, private, religious beliefs impact or impose upon the public domain or another citizen’s beliefs. Where do we draw the line? Let us approach an answer from the negative position. What if all essential services in a town (police, fire, medical, sanitation, et cetera) were denied to a resident/citizen based on any one or a combination of the social factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, language, political affiliation, sexual orientation, physical characteristics, and to a certain extent, disability – those individual elements that do not affect public performance)? Where would we be as a society? Sure, there were other doctors in San Diego who were able and willing to perform the IUI for Guadalupe and her partner Joanne Clark; so, why get huffy about a couple of doctors who refuse their services because they don’t approve of you? Both parties had conflicting rights. The key for me is the impact on the other in the public or quasi-public domain. And, in questions such as these, I am drawn back to choices I have had to make. I have worked all of my adult life ‘serving at the pleasure of . . . ,’ first, the President of the United States, and then a series of commercial employers. I could be dismissed at anytime for any reason. When a conflict in principles occurred, my choices were: 1.) perform my assigned tasks to the best of my ability, or 2.) resign and move on. I have made both choices at different times of my life. If providers of public services cannot set aside their phobias, biases, and bigotry regarding the any of the social factors, then they need to resign and move into another line of work where their beliefs are not so easily offended.
Comments and contributions from Update no.348:
“I grew up in a strong union family (typographical union - newspaper linotype operators) during the 50's, when there was indeed a substantive amount of real value and benefit brought to the laborer from the leverage of solidarity and numbers through the union.
“That, though, was a different time. Over the years company policies, laws, and precedence have pretty much neutralized both the need and the influence of the unions.
“My view is simple - if you are paid a six figure income to represent your union brethren, how much value will they think you are adding if you come out and say – ‘You know, this is a pretty good deal; we should take it.’ They'll say – ‘What do we need you for?’ So, rejecting a contract is pretty much self-preservation to the existence of a union boss.
“Secondly, the average laborer likes the idea of a strike just from the attention, emotion, and collective hubris from walking out - no matter the deal.
“So, they will eventually come around I would guess - after the bank accounts dwindle and they lose interest in the action.
“We'll see.”
My reply:
Yea verily! I freely acknowledge that unions served their purpose from their inception in the late 19th century through 1930’s or so. Far too many companies were overtly abusive, treating people like an expendable commodity to be used and discarded. Corporations began to change in the 1940’s & 50’s with management recognition that labor was a valuable and essential element of business. With the growth of business schools and necessary laws, nearly all of the abusive practices disappeared. American labor unions still act like it is the 1930’s, and have failed to grow with business. If they saw themselves as a vital part of making businesses successful, they might actually add value. But, I’m afraid what I see today is a parasitic organization that is bleeding the labor force rather than serving their interests. If they continue on their chosen path, they will price American labor out of business.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Circa 05:00 CDT, Monday, 18.August.2008, the International Association of Machinists (IAM) held a pre-dawn, show-of-force rally for the strikers at Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC) in Wichita, Kansas. Off-shift union employees from other aircraft companies in the area were asked to join the rally as a sign of solidarity. Sadly, as the rally broke up, one of the HBC strikers tried to walk across an, unlit, four-lane, major street. He was hit and killed in his attempt. He left a wife and two small children. I suspect this strike is going to get much worse before it is resolved. The company restored the benefits for the victim’s family – a gesture of condolence and certainly not required. Also, this week, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services requested that HBC and the IAM join them and return to the negotiating table. Except for the fatality and a few minor incidents on Monday, probably perpetrated by outside agitators, the conduct of the strikers has been orderly, respectful and relatively calm. Just as a little side note, I shall identify the official IAM website [http://www.goiam.org/] for you, and ask that you look at the first button on the blue tool bar below the logo. Interesting mindset, isn’t it?
The follow-up news items:
-- Senator Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois, presumptive Democratic Party nominee for President, selected Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., of Delaware, to be his vice presidential compatriot. Next week, the Democrats hold their convention in Denver, Colorado, after which the Party nominations will be official.
-- Former Pakistani President and Chief of the Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf [293 et al] resigned his position to avoid impeachment by Parliament and the coalition government. His fate or what he intends to do is unknown, but I suspect he is searching for a place to reside in exile. Sadly, the coalition partners began jockeying for power. What is it they say about the devil you know?
-- As a brilliant illuminator and punctuation point on Musharraf’s resignation, the Taliban [53 et al] in Pakistan staged a coordinated attack by at least two suicide bombers on the government’s largest weapons manufacturing complex in Wah, just north of the capitol of Islamabad, killing more than 60 people.
-- A suicide bomber struck a police school at Issers, 60 kilometres (37 miles) east of Algiers, Algeria, killing 43 and wounding another 38 people. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. Al-Qaeda does not just kill Christians; they are equal opportunity killers – Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Christians and Jews. They kill innocent people of all faiths ostensibly to further their aims – fundamentalist, Shariah, Islamic theocracy for all the world. That is our enemy!
A friend and contributor forwarded this Op-Ed column regarding the Russo-Georgian War:
“What Did We Expect?”
by Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times
Published: August 19, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20friedman.html?th&emc=th
I don’t often find myself in agreement Tom Friedman, but he rings the bell rather well in his Op-Ed column. My only quibble with his presentation rests in his ignoring or overlooking the antagonism coming from Georgians in South Ossetia (and/or Russian agents seeking the confrontation). How long would we tolerate the occasional artillery projectile fired from Mexico, exploding inside U.S. territory? A minor quibble, but a quibble nonetheless. In the main, resonance!
In July, several Indian cities were attacked by a group known as the Indian Mujahideen [AKA Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI)]. I smelled al-Qaeda, however, the connection has not been established, to my knowledge. The following assessment remains the best I have seen so far of the situation in India.
“India: Arrests, Revelations and Implications”
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Strategic Forecasting Inc.
Published: August 20, 2008 2009 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/india_arrests_revelations_and_implications
We have discussed a myriad of clashes between public and private, between the government and the individual citizen. This week’s governmental actions from opposite ends of this Grand Republic give us an interesting and relevant confrontation between conflicting constitutional rights. The California Supreme Court gave us another controversial ruling – North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. San Diego County Superior Court [SC CA S142892 (2008)]. The other contrasting action came from the other coast. The Federal government’s Department of Health and Human Services issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) [RIN 0991-AB48] against 45 CFR Part 88 to ensure that “Department of Health and Human Services funds do not support coercive or discriminatory policies or practices in violation of federal law.” The common element involved in both actions is the rights of one citizen versus another. In the North Coast case, Guadalupe T. Benitez sought an intrauterine insemination (IUI) procedure from Dr. Christine Brody, MD, who in turn refused to perform the procedures based on religious and/or moral grounds, because Benitez was an unmarried homosexual. We have seen a number of these cases with pharmacists, doctors, and such. California Supreme Court Associate Justice Joyce Luther Kennard wrote the court’s decision. She quoted from article I, section 4, of the California constitution, “Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.” (Emphasis added by Kennard.) Kennard also observed, “[U]nder the United States Supreme Court’s most recent holdings, a religious objector has no federal constitutional right to an exemption from a neutral and valid law of general applicability on the ground that compliance with that law is contrary to the objector’s religious beliefs.” On the other hand, if the Federal NPR had not been issued so close California’s North Coast ruling, we could argue the purpose as direct contravention of the court’s decision. Even a quick scan of the NPR renders a clear image of the new regulation’s intent – the latest salvo in the abortion wars. I have tried to remain neutral and objective through most of these moral confrontations, but now I am pissed. I am never going to have an abortion, so it would be so easy and cost me absolutely nothing to say, “Not my problem, man,” and just let these fascists continue chipping away at the rights of others. After all, it does not affect me. Oh heck, I could also join the sanctimonious chorus and say, “yea verily, I love life; I am pro-life. I insist on protecting a single cell, clump of atoms and molecules; and I believe in life so much that I am willing to condemn an old man or an old woman to weeks and months of suffering and humiliation, just so I can maintain the holier-than-thou position I have staked out for myself; and, I am quite content to bludgeon every other citizen to maintain my position.” Oh yeah, I feel good. It would be so easy. This damnable, sanctimonious, unilateralist administration has gone far beyond the line. I know we are in a real war, but the corrosion and consumption of our most fundamental rights by this administration has become a far greater threat to our quality of life than the Islamo-fascists can ever hope to become. January 20th 2009 cannot arrive soon enough. Stick me with a fork; I am done! Now that I have gotten that off my chest, let us examine the core theme between these two near simultaneous and dramatically different government pronouncements. This is a really dicey conflict between public and private, and will remain a region of constant struggle for many years to come. Dr. Brody has a constitutionally protected right to whatever religious beliefs she freely chooses and to practice her religion without interferences from the government and from other citizens. We certainly know that some religious folks proclaim homosexuality (actually non-heterosexuality as well as any extra-marital sexuality) an abomination, a sin against God, and to some religions, punishable by death. So, it is hardly a surprise that Dr. Brody, and those like her, find it contemptible to render medical services to non-heterosexual, non-married individuals. The NPR is simply raw executive power . . . just because they can; but, Dr. Brody’s choice, which would be protected if the NPR becomes Federal regulation (without judicial challenge), represents the more direct confrontation. I do not believe many of us, if any, seek to compromise anyone’s religious beliefs. Yet, as we discussed in this forum, the struggle begins when anyone’s personal, private, religious beliefs impact or impose upon the public domain or another citizen’s beliefs. Where do we draw the line? Let us approach an answer from the negative position. What if all essential services in a town (police, fire, medical, sanitation, et cetera) were denied to a resident/citizen based on any one or a combination of the social factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, language, political affiliation, sexual orientation, physical characteristics, and to a certain extent, disability – those individual elements that do not affect public performance)? Where would we be as a society? Sure, there were other doctors in San Diego who were able and willing to perform the IUI for Guadalupe and her partner Joanne Clark; so, why get huffy about a couple of doctors who refuse their services because they don’t approve of you? Both parties had conflicting rights. The key for me is the impact on the other in the public or quasi-public domain. And, in questions such as these, I am drawn back to choices I have had to make. I have worked all of my adult life ‘serving at the pleasure of . . . ,’ first, the President of the United States, and then a series of commercial employers. I could be dismissed at anytime for any reason. When a conflict in principles occurred, my choices were: 1.) perform my assigned tasks to the best of my ability, or 2.) resign and move on. I have made both choices at different times of my life. If providers of public services cannot set aside their phobias, biases, and bigotry regarding the any of the social factors, then they need to resign and move into another line of work where their beliefs are not so easily offended.
Comments and contributions from Update no.348:
“I grew up in a strong union family (typographical union - newspaper linotype operators) during the 50's, when there was indeed a substantive amount of real value and benefit brought to the laborer from the leverage of solidarity and numbers through the union.
“That, though, was a different time. Over the years company policies, laws, and precedence have pretty much neutralized both the need and the influence of the unions.
“My view is simple - if you are paid a six figure income to represent your union brethren, how much value will they think you are adding if you come out and say – ‘You know, this is a pretty good deal; we should take it.’ They'll say – ‘What do we need you for?’ So, rejecting a contract is pretty much self-preservation to the existence of a union boss.
“Secondly, the average laborer likes the idea of a strike just from the attention, emotion, and collective hubris from walking out - no matter the deal.
“So, they will eventually come around I would guess - after the bank accounts dwindle and they lose interest in the action.
“We'll see.”
My reply:
Yea verily! I freely acknowledge that unions served their purpose from their inception in the late 19th century through 1930’s or so. Far too many companies were overtly abusive, treating people like an expendable commodity to be used and discarded. Corporations began to change in the 1940’s & 50’s with management recognition that labor was a valuable and essential element of business. With the growth of business schools and necessary laws, nearly all of the abusive practices disappeared. American labor unions still act like it is the 1930’s, and have failed to grow with business. If they saw themselves as a vital part of making businesses successful, they might actually add value. But, I’m afraid what I see today is a parasitic organization that is bleeding the labor force rather than serving their interests. If they continue on their chosen path, they will price American labor out of business.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment