Islam

[sexual_chocolate]

Page top, with 666?

[rbw1966]

Maybe

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Or MAYBE NOT!

 

Bwa ha ha ha HAAAA!!!

[sexual_chocolate]

Goldang you and Trask! You two are the cutest things cc.com has going right now! But don't take away my moment in the sun; page top AND 66 ummm... ahhhh and almost 6!

[RobBob]

quote:

---

Hey in case you didn't notice Greg's member stuff appears corrupt and that might disable him from posting.

---

Remember kids, when your member an' stuff is corrupt, you're likely to end up on the disabled list...

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sexual chocolate:

Do you see collective bargaining and unionization as integral within a capitalist society?

---

Sorry, profile got corrupted, just as Caveman said. No, I do not see collective bargaining and unionization as "integral" within a capitalist society; taking the definition of "integral" as "...essential for completeness..." per Webster. I do believe that individuals have a right to organize, just as I believe that employers have a right to prohibit organization in their companies. Collective bargaining, in my opinion, is a legal form of extortion and an attempt at mob rule.

 

The revived Greg W

[Greg_W]

Not completely because when a union strongarms a business owner; the business owner is no longer acting freely, he is being coerced. Also, with current worker protections legislation I don't think the same abuses that gave rise to the birth of the unions could occur. I know I will probably get slammed for that, but it's my opinion (and experience). I think that a capitalist society can exist and thrive without union organization and/or collective bargaining. Employers have to pay competitive wages or suffer from lack of labor, merchants will have to price their wares competitively or lose business. Supply and demand works.

[Jim]

Interesting though how worker productivity has been steadily increasing for the past 20 years while worker pay (AFI) has been flat, or negative. Someone is seeing the benefit.

 

It's always interesting to hear the business view that abuses happened in the past but no, no they are not occurring now. If you get fired for an arbitrary reason and you're a working stiff, you're union is you're only recourse. Unions may not be appropriate for small businesses, but larger firms often lose their compassion and sense of fairness. I'm not talking about professional ranks, mostly lower skill or more manual labor professions. Having worked in union shops and non-union shops when I was younger I can see the pickle of both sides, but generally favor allowing democratic organizaiton to negoiate wages, etc.

[sexual_chocolate]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

Also, with current worker protections legislation I don't think the same abuses that gave rise to the birth of the unions could occur.

---

So does this mean you are in favor of current worker protection legislation?

 

[ 11-26-2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim:

Interesting though how worker productivity has been steadily increasing for the past 20 years while worker pay (AFI) has been flat, or negative. Someone is seeing the benefit.

---

I don't know where you're getting your data, or if this is personal experience, but my personal income has been moving up quite well.

 

As far as current worker protection legislation, that depends. I don't agree with the WISHA Ergonomics Guidelines that Gary Locke (Satan) is pushing.

 

If you are unfairly fired, unions aren't your only recourse - if you have a good case, you can get a lawyer. And don't whine about not being able to afford it, there are plenty of advocacy groups who do pro bono work.

 

Greg W

[JayB]

At the risk of getting back on topic, here's an interesting paper that deals with some aspects of the connection between Islam and political violence. His thesis was highly controversial in '93, but events seem to be bearing out his predictions.

 

"THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

 

Samuel P. Huntington

Foreign Affairs. Summer 1993, v72, n3, p22(28)

from the Academic Index (database on UTCAT system)

COPYRIGHT Council on Foreign Relations Inc. 1993

 

THE NEXT PATTERN OF CONFLICT

 

World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be--the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.

 

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future..."

 

The rest is here:

http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html

[sexual_chocolate]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

I don't know where you're getting your data, or if this is personal experience, but my personal income has been moving up quite well.

 

As far as current worker protection legislation, that depends. I don't agree with the WISHA Ergonomics Guidelines that Gary Locke (Satan) is pushing.

 

If you are unfairly fired, unions aren't your only recourse - if you have a good case, you can get a lawyer. And don't whine about not being able to afford it, there are plenty of advocacy groups who do pro bono work.

 

Greg W

---

Ok. Just trying to feel out your positions on things, since it's obviously quite easy to misunderstand each other here.

 

So you are in favor of some government regulation of the business sector. Fair enough. Then the only disagreement would be as to how far gov should go.

 

Do you think your income is indicative of general trends in the marketplace? 1 (one) does not a fair sized sample make.

[Jim]

If your wages have gone up from compared to average wages for you position in the '70s, in relation to the cost of living and inflation then congratulate yourself. You're one of the rare few.

 

And ah yes, the tpical knee jerk reaction - get a lawyer. Unfortunately most working class folks can't afford to get a lawyer, or hang around until the case winds it's way through the

court system and comes up on docket in two years. And doesn't this cause the overuse of the courts that the right wingers are always crying about. With a union there is a standard grivence process, with rules that were negoiated by the union and employeer. Heaven forbid that you complain that there is unsafe conditions at your job. You could lose it without a union - I've seen it done firsthand. Yes there are some lameos in unions, but there's just as many if not more in management.

 

Hey, what happened to the Islam topic?

[Greg_W]

Oh, sure Jay. I'm sick of your strongarm tactics, this is 'Spray'. Just kidding. Haven't read the article, but the synopsis seems to bear some weight.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sexual chocolate:

Do you think your income is indicative of general trends in the marketplace? 1 (one) does not a fair sized sample make.

---

Maybe not. I'm the only sample size I'm interested in. My goals are to make money and enjoy life; I have positioned myself and made choices in my professional life to meet those ends. It's as simple as that. Don't like where you are or what you're doing? Only you can change it.

[Jim]

IMO Greg's opinion " I'm the only sample size I'm interested in." is what is at the crux of a societial shift, I don't know, in the past 15 years or so. We are becoming an increasingly selfish, greedy, and cruel society, and ignoring a social contract to take care of some of those of society that cannot take care of themselves. My opinion. I expect the usual pull yourself up by the bootstrap flames.

[Greg_W]

Well, Jim, here's my take: I am only responsible for myself and my family. I was brought up to be self-reliant and work hard for what I want; if I wanted something I had to work for it. No one will give me the wealth that I want unless I work for it. It's not selfishness or greed, it's self-determination. I have a plan for my pursuit of happiness and I am carrying it out.

 

Your "social contract" argument is bullshit. Contracts are only valid if they are freely entered; I never agreed to support shiftless people.

 

My opinion on why we appear to be becoming a more cruel, selfish, greedy society (as you put it) is that many people are sick of the "gimme gimme" people who feel they are "entitled" to shit they didn't earn. There's nothing cruel or selfish or greedy about expecting people to work for what they get. Oh, and wanting to amass wealth isn't BAD either.

 

Greg W

 

[ 11-26-2002, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Greg W ]

[allthumbs]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

I never agreed to support shiftless people.

---

...please daddy, don't cut off my allowance now!

[Mr._Natural]

[iain]

eh?

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trask:

...please daddy, don't cut off my allowance now!

---

Who's your daddy, bitch?

[iain]

[sexual_chocolate]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

My goals are to make money and enjoy life; I have positioned myself and made choices in my professional life to meet those ends. It's as simple as that. Don't like where you are or what you're doing? Only you can change it.

---

Hey, I agree with personal responsibility. I agree with evaluating one's position in life, and making changes accordingly. I think it's also true that when people blame others for their situation, it tends to disempower said individual (Notice the word "blame"). But I also think that you are overlooking all the benefits you have received in your lifetime; the benefits of family, the benefits of education, the benefits of being in this country. If you can see these as being benefits, I wonder why you wouldn't be more inclined to want to share these benefits with others? Don't you think that others want education, stability, a decent income?

 

My fear is that in a capitalist society, everyone is made into an enemy of each other, because capitalism necessarily commodifies resources, creating the appearance that there isn't enough to go around. Then we need to fight for a little slice of the pie, and when we get it, we become protective, and angry if anyone tries to take it away.

Think about the insecurity in the US today. Recession; millions unemployed, with the ones lucky enough to have unemployment benefits fearing the end of them very soon; millions homeless; 50 million without health insurance? Almost a fifth of our population? And while this happens, the richest are enjoying tax-cuts?

 

I don't think life needs to be a fight. But I'm afraid that's exactly what capitalism promotes.

[sexual_chocolate]

BTW, your family isn't free-loading off you, are they? Hmmmm....

 

Put 'em to work!

[Jim]

Sometimes bad things happen to good, hard-working people. They get seriously hurt, have a mental illness, get sick. They loose their job. It could happen to you or your family. What then? Tough luck? The supports to help some people are being tossed aside in favor of increasing supports to the upper class.

 

I personally know a logger who had his back crushed by a bad tree felling. His family is struggling, medical bills, physical therapy, drugs. He's the least person to expect a handout. I would argue we need to give him a helping hand, and let him live a dignified life with proper medical treatment. And guess what? His social security disability and medicare doesn't cut it. When I see him over the holiday I'll convey your message of "Don't like where you are - change it".