Even though O’Donnell laudably tried to target the audience’s focus onand hopefully final, Charlie Sheen trainwreck interview, courtesy of the tragic undertow that threatens to pull Sheen below for excellent, I used to be overtaken, not from the pulling around the thread, as well as the voracious audience he serves. It did not make me unhappy, it created me angry.
On the subject of celebrities, we can be a heartless country, basking in their misfortunes like nude sunbathers at Schadenfreude Seashore. The impulse is understandable, to some diploma. It may be grating to pay attention to complaints from consumers who relish privileges that many of us can’t even think about. Should you can’t muster up some compassion for Charlie Sheen, who may make a great deal more moolah to get a day’s do the trick than many of us will make inside a decade’s time, I guess I cannot blame you.
Using the speedy tempo of events online and also the information revolution sparked by the Web-based, it’s very effortless for the technological innovation community to assume it is distinctive: continuously breaking new ground and undertaking factors that no person has at any time done in advance of.
But you will find other sorts of business enterprise that have previously undergone several of the exact radical shifts, and also have just as awesome a stake while in the foreseeable future.
Get healthcare, for instance.
We normally believe that of it being a large, lumbering beast, but in reality, medication has undergone a series of revolutions during the past 200 years that are at the least equal to all those we see in technological innovation and specifics.
Significantly less understandable, but still inside the norms of human nature, would be the impulse to rubberneck, to slow down and have a look at the carnage of Charlie spectacle of Sheen’s unraveling, but of your blithe interviewer Sheen’s existence as we pass it inside most suitable lane of our daily lives. To get honest, it may be difficult for persons to discern the variation involving a run-of-the-mill interest whore, and an honest-to-goodness, circling the drain tragedy-to-be. On its individual merits, a quote like “I Am On the Drug. It’s Identified as Charlie Sheen” is sheer genius, and we can not all be expected to take the total measure of someone’s existence each and every time we listen to some thing funny.
Rapidly ahead to 2011 and I'm attempting to take a look at signifies of becoming a bit more business-like about my hobbies (for the most part audio). Through the end of January I had manned up and started off to promote my weblogs. I had designed many numerous weblogs, which were contributed to by associates and colleagues. I promoted these activities by way of Facebook and Twitter.
2nd: the minor abomination the Gang of Five about the Supream Court gave us a 12 months or so ago (Citizens Inebriated) in fact has a little bouncing betty of its personal that could highly properly go off while in the faces of Govs Wanker, Sacitch, Krysty, and J.O. Daniels. Seeing that this ruling extended the notion of “personhood” to both equally firms and unions, to attempt to deny them any best suited to run in the legal framework that they had been organized under deprives these “persons” of the freedoms of speech, association and movement. Which suggests (the moment once again, quoting law school educated loved ones) that possibly the courts ought to uphold these rights for that unions (as particular person “persons” as assured through the Federal (and most state) constitutions, or they have to declare that these attempts at stripping or limiting union rights need to utilize to main firms, also.
It’s nearing two weeks since unions and their cohorts on the Left have thrown a nationwide fit over Scott Walker’s solution to what is ailing Wisconsin. Unions and Democrats have made Wisconsin their cause célèbre by deploying OFA astroturf, the big talking heads, as well as recruiting just about every known Grateful Dead concert attendee on their mailing lists into Wisconsin. Meanwhile, Democratic state senators (now humorously known as fleebaggers) comically continue to hold the state hostage over an issue of union power, politics and money—nothing more and nothing less.
Despite unions’ long hatred of Scott Walker, the new governor is moving to address both the symptoms of the disease and the disease itself—the public-sector union scheme that has molested Wisconsin’s taxpayers and their children by gaming the system. Unions like Wisconsin’s teachers’ union [WEAC] (which was Wisconsin’s biggest-spending lobby in 2009) have been extraordinarily adept at fixing the system through spending millions to elect politicians who, in turn, reward the unions at the expense of the taxpayers.
Now, in response to Walker’s proposals, the Left has gone overboard in their attempt to protect their stranglehold on Wisconsin taxpayers. Even though unions have made clear that their fight is not about their wages or benefits (they’ve offered concessions), they’ve made the fight all about their “right to be unionized” and the fictitious right to “collective bargaining”—which makes their cause even more despotic.
In making Madison into something reminiscent of the spectacle of the 1960s, unions, Democrats and their liberal cohorts are attempting to make the Wisconsin union battle into a civil rights battle, when it is not. In fact, the Wisconsin fight, when compared to private-sector negotiations is about: 1) the Scope of Bargaining, 2) Union “Income” Security [Right-to-Work vs. Forced Dues], 3) whether Wisconsin should be the unions’ dues collection agency [payroll deduction of dues], and 4) whether public-sector unions should be ‘recertified’ by holding elections every year.
Contrary to the Left’s hyperbole, Scott Walker’s proposals do nothing to eliminate public-sector workers’ right to association, assemblage, or to petition their government. Even pretending that it is a “rights” issue is a mistake. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires a government to engage in a back and forth negotiation with a collective of workers. In a poignant piece entitled There is No Right to Collective Bargaining, Public Service Research Foundation President David Denholm summarizes the problem with the unions’ argument, stating:
A law granting public-sector unions monopoly bargaining privileges gives a union, a special interest group, two bites at the apple. First, it uses its political clout to elect public officials. Then it negotiates with the very same officials.
When you consider that between 70 and 80 percent of all local government expenditures are personnel costs, you begin to get an idea of the magnitude of the power such laws give unions.
Not only is there no right to collective bargaining in public employment, it is wrong. Collective bargaining distorts and corrupts democratic government.
Collective bargaining is a process for employer-employee relations that was designed for the private sector. This process served as the model for the development of public-sector collective bargaining without taking into account the fundamental differences between the two sectors.
As Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour explains:
“When they have collective bargaining in Wisconsin, on one side of the table there’s state employee unions or the local employee unions. On the other side of the table are politicians that they paid for the election of those politicians,” Barbour said. “Now, who represents the taxpayers in that negotiation? Well, actually, nobody.”
Even Newsweek’s Evan Thomas noted on Sunday [via Newsbusters]:
The Democrats really depend on these public employee unions in a lot of states for their support and for their political muscle, and public employee unions got a problem here. I want to distinguish between unions and public employee unions. Unions obviously are critical, but in the public sector, public employee unions have a pretty easy time getting a lot of benefits because nobody’s really pushing back all that hard.
Admittedly, Walker’s proposals are a threat to unions in several ways. As Walker’s proposals determine:
- The extent of what unions will be allowed to bargain about. Walker’s proposal limits bargaining to wages only, effectively eliminating the WEA Trust monopoly which gets its money from local school boards and runs it through a union-run insurance company.
- Whether unions can have workers fired for not paying union dues. According to its most recent financial record on file, WEAC (the teachers’ union) raked in over $25 million in 2009. Walker’s proposal makes paying union dues voluntary, as opposed to mandatory. This goes to the lifeblood of any union. If, for example, 20% of those teachers who are currently required to pay union dues as a condition of employment opt out, WEAC could lose up to $5 million a year in revenue. [It is noteworthy that, in the private-sector, the SEIU will be conducting its second strike at a Pennsylvania medical center over the issue of mandatory dues.]
- Whether the state will continue being the unions’ dues collector. Walker’s proposal eliminates’ the employers’ payroll deduction of union dues. Again, while it is commonplace for unions to negotiate payroll deduction, there is nothing anywhere (in private or public sector law) that states that it is an employers’ duty to be a union’s collection agency.
- Whether the unions will have to ‘re-certify’ every year to maintain representational status. Of all of Walker’s proposals, this seems to be one that could be considered a ‘throw away’ item in negotiations. If Walker’s other proposals get enacted, and union-represented employees feel that the union is worthless, they can initiate an election themselves every calendar under existing law [see Section 111.83(5)[h]] .
Given the ability of the unions and their co-conspirators on the Left to hijack the issue in Wisconsin over these last two weeks, there appears no way for a “win-win” compromise to be worked out. One side or the other will win. Either the unions and the Left, or taxpayers will prevail.
If the Left wins, all chances of reforming public-sector unions will be tossed aside by weak-kneed Republicans who will then be held hostage by temper-tantrum throwing Democrats (see Indiana for example). In addition, the Left has already painted the entire Republicans party with bulls eyes and has for years. Therefore, there is no reason for GOP governors like Scott Walker, Chris Christie and John Kasich to back down, which puts the Left in an untenable situation as well.
In the meantime, the disciples of Saul Alinsky will continue their prattle, attempting to convince America that the Battle of Wisconsin is something more than a fight over union power, politics and money…even though it’s not.
_________________
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
X-posted.
Photo Credit: Tony the Misfit
Drought denial's tougher to pull off than climate denial.Photo: Luke RobinsonWhere and how will climate change first affect large numbers of American voters? Answering that question may be crucial to the global efforts to protect the Earth's climate. The tsunami of stupidity and science denial that has washed over Washington, D.C., won't be held back by earnest calculations of long-run risks, or by the potential inundation of remote island
nations, or by the news that polar bears and other iconic species are endangered.
While climate change may seem remote, the water crisis in the Southwest is all too immediate. Recent years of drought have reached critical levels, threatening to curtail agriculture and even the normal patterns of urban life throughout the region. Even if today's climate remained
unchanged, water use in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah would more than double over the next century, just from population and income growth.
In a recent study, Elizabeth Stanton and I show that the changing climate will make a bad situation worse, increasing the Southwest's water consumption by an additional one-third of today's level of use. There is simply no way to get that much water; the region's rivers and rainfall aren't going to grow. Ocean desalination is expensive, energy-intensive, and environmentally controversial. Groundwater, which makes up the water deficit today, is bound to run out at some point; it is being used far beyond its recharge rates in California and Arizona, and probably elsewhere as well. There are two different estimates of California's current groundwater reserves; the state would need three times the more optimistic estimate in order to make it through the next century.
Solving the water crisis will require reductions in water use. Nevada and Utah are the top two states in per capita residential water use today. Extensive conservation and efficiency measures will be needed, reshaping urban water use, improving irrigation methods, and cutting back on the region's lowest-value crops, which are worth less than the water used to grow them.
It gets much harder to solve the water crisis when it gets hotter: We found that climate change could add as much as $1 trillion to the costs of water scarcity for the five Southwestern states over the next century. As Americans start to experience mounting costs of climate change in this and other areas, spending money to reduce carbon emissions will look like a bargain
by comparison.
So here's a message from planet Earth to our newly elected congressional "leaders." You've made it clear that you're not planning to protect the climate because of what's happening to polar bears, or the islands that are sinking beneath the waves, or even because you care about the lives of your great-grandchildren. But you've got to take action anyway; controlling climate
change is crucial if you want people to have reliable water supplies in the Southwest. This isn't the only way that you'll feel the impacts of climate change in years to come -- but it could be the first big one.
Source: http://removeripoffreports.net/ online reputation management
The best in online reputation management
No comments:
Post a Comment