My Thoughts

Favorite targets of business owners and conservatives alike, unions get a lot of bad press. They promote inefficient work rules and “feather bedding”, so say the critics; ignoring the fact that most, if not all, of those cases were in industries where the owners have made truly obscene amounts of money, for example railroads in the early 20th century. As for inefficient work rules, according to some business owners, anything that costs more is bad, even if it is safer. Some unions have had corruption and ties to organized crime, but that shouldn’t taint all unions anymore than the corruption of some CEOs and their companies.

Because of their long association with manual laborers, it has been easy to sell these myths to an emerging, well educated middle class. It even subtly reinforces a classism/racism to office workers who might otherwise have wanted representation in their dealings with management.

American manufacturers have long promoted the idea that unions raise wages and therefore increase the cost of goods and services. There is obviously some truth to that BUT what good does it do to have cheap goods if people can’t afford them on the wages they’re paid? And what of the enormous salaries and bonuses of top management, and their desire to continually increase profit margins? Profit margins, which influence the price of stock and therefore the value of their stock options, more than an improvement in quality of goods and services. 

While there is a whole other discussion to be had about the true value of C-Level positions and how much they truly contribute to the running of the business, it should be obvious that the ratio of their pay to the average worker is unjustifiably large, and based on too many factors having little to do with actual operational success of the business.

The answer has always been “get a more skilled job, this is how free markets work, supply and demand” i.e. find a better paying job. As far as it goes,this is good, reasonable and fair advice. But it does ignore some economic facts. Supply and demand work best in what economists call “pure and perfect” competition. This is when all consumers know the price, all providers (current or wannabe) can freely enter the competition and most of all price is the ONLY determiner of purchase decisions. 

Clearly this isn’t the case, especially in wages. A single current or prospective employee is in the worst possible negotiating position. Add to that most employers want to know your current or previous salary, so they can make you an offer just enough above it to be enticing. But if you are underpaid relative to your market skills, say by starting out in a low position with your current or last company, your promotions will probably never equal the going market rate for the job. Climbing out of that deficit is next to impossible. There’s lots of talk about paying for performance but most employers assume that your pay reflects that when you apply., as if everyone had effective performance ratings and a perfectly working pay for performance systems. Even if you know the market for your skill, your employer will try to get you for less if they can; and they have the resources to out wait you. Furthermore, some of the most ridiculous and bizarre biases about what makes a successful employee get factored into the decision. It isn’t even illegal as long as it isn’t obviously based on race, gender, national or ethnic origin, or to a lesser extend on age or disability.

White collar workers (and those incorrectly identified as ‘contractors’) have as much need for protection in their dealings with corporations as the blue collar workers of the past. A range of issues from health care benefits to work schedules (businesses paying part timers minimum wage and constantly changing their schedule making a second employment, let alone finding another job extremely difficult), are among the legitimate issues to discuss. In the past automation created new jobs at a greater rate than the ones it replaced. Even if that is still true with the coming AI revolution, it will be important to give workers a voice that is at least as powerful as the employers in sorting out these changes.

I.              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This specifically means religiously motivated laws under the guise “general morality”, “Natural Law”, “offense to believers” etc. In order to ensure all beliefs are protected there can be no banning of actions by others that some feel offended by because it conflicts with their beliefs.

Freedom of speech does not permit the call for armed uprising against the government nor should it allow “hate speech” which incites to violence or promotes the idea the some citizens have less rights. A live and let live attitude is the best way to preserve everyone’s freedom to believe what they wish without pushing their beliefs on others.

II.            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

“A well regulated Militia” a phrase almost always omitted by some is the key to this right. At the very minimum regulation should include a basic level of proficiency and safety. While this was intended to be how we recruited citizen armies, today’s only reason for keeping it is to allow a person (in the absence of the police or military) to defend themselves and their home. Nothing in this amendment could reasonably be construed to allow any citizen to possess any sort of weapon they choose, especially if they have violent or antisocial history.

III.           No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV.          The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The standard for “probable cause” should not be something as vague as their presumed affiliations based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender etc, There is no reason to presume that the search can be destructive. It shouldn’t be a method of intimidation, destroying or completely scattering one’s belongings around the premises.

V.           No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

While it has been common for some people to claim that “taking the fifth” is tantamount to guilt (at least until they themselves are under suspicion of a crime) the clear purpose of this amendment was to prevent coerced confessions, i.e. torture. The Founders were well aware of the kinds of dangers the republic would face which would elicit excuses for an exception, but did not feel that such excuses would warrant the long term damage to the freedom and rights of citizens.

VI.          In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The right to a speedy trial does not offer exceptions for a public unwilling to pay the taxes for additional courts or judges. Being as how these are among the most important functions for a free society the complaints about their taxes shouldn’t be a deciding force in providing a chance for the innocently accused to clear their name and be on about their business, as one would expect under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

VII.         In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII.       Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This should be considered in connection with the Sixth Amendment. There is a tendency for high bail to be set for poor defendants which essentially deprives them of their freedom, often their livelihood as well as their right to a speedy trial. The entire point of bail was to ensure the accused’s appearance at trial. If a speedy trial cannot be assured then some method other than incarcerating someone presumed to be innocent until convicted by a jury should be employed. Requiring bail only for violent offenders, prior felons, etc. may be a step in the right direction, but avoiding the imprisonment of people for long periods prior to trial simply because they cannot afford bail seems in complete opposition to this amendment.

IX.          The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X.           The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is often said that the reason the terrorists hate America is our freedom, especially our freedom of religion. They can’t stand that there is a nation that allows “unbelievers” to have equal rights and say in the governance of the nation. I agree. All of the “official” objections to our influence in Islamic countries really boil down to our presence undermining their religious control of the people.

What they want is to destroy that sort of freedom and impose a theocracy, a religious dictatorship.

But wait…isn’t that the same goal (with a different religion) that the GOP extremists want to impose? Whether it is reproductive rights (believe it or not NOT all Christian sects think abortion is wrong), LGBTQ+ rights, immigrant/people of color rights, etc. isn’t that the main focus of the “new” right? And all of those objections are based their own unique reading of a particular faith’s religious texts.

They love to portray Progressives as trying to curb their “rights”; but no one is talking about making their offensive racial and religious slurs illegal. But as long as people are allowed to express their disgust at their remarks THEY portray that as if they are being persecuted. Their notion that tolerance of differences makes them somehow approve of the behavior flies in the face of everything this country stands for.

Like fundamentalists everywhere, regardless of their stated religion, they want to reduce the complexity of the real world to a few rigid and absolute rules. Maybe it’s because they are unsure of their own beliefs and need the rigidity of absolutism to bolster their ideas. Maybe it’s because they aren’t wise enough, or compassionate enough to look at the whole situation before passing judgment. Maybe they just think they’re God, or at least whatever they think is what God thinks. Whatever the reason, they need to force everyone else into their idea of a “moral and perfect world”.

Maybe it’s like an alcoholic who doesn’t want to be tempted to drink forcing everyone else to abstain for his sake. Or maybe we’re supposed to subscribe to their superstition that God will punish all of us unless we all agree, just like some Old Testament story. (Very different from Jesus’ ideas in the New Testament, and many other faiths.)  

Of course they can’t be honest, even with themselves, about their objectives. They cover it with pious language, misrepresentations of the facts, and outright lies to paint any opposition as “aligned with the Devil”, or engaged in some despicable behavior, or both (as in the case of QAnon conspiracy theories).

In a letter Thomas Jefferson (the principal author of the Declaration of Independence) once declared “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” I think Jefferson didn’t go far enough. The priest (reverend, minister, shaman, whatever) uses the despot to enforce his belief (at least in social adherence).

There are myriad excuses for this behavior: to protect people from God’s punishment,  to ensure God’s blessings, or to prevent offense to their beliefs. They are all bullshit!

First, God (according to every religious scholar) provides free will to people, which is why they must choose to believe, that is have faith. Without choice there can be no morality. If people weren’t free to choose, there would be no point in laws or accountability. So as far a civil law goes, the only system that preserves the maximum amount of freedom is one that ignores religious based views of morality and works out a system that holds a society together. That would be laws against murder, theft, etc. In short, God doesn’t need any human’s help in exacting whatever punishment He deems someone should have for whatever they did or didn’t do. So anyone’s attempt to help that process along is literally “playing God”.

A secondary idea to this is that God’s punishment might be delivered to an entire people. Aside from the grossly unfair and unjust nature of such an act (and the presumption that God couldn’t or shouldn’t be more precise) that is allowing one religion’s teachings to dictate to all others. It is this sort of thing that the separation of church and state was designed to prevent.

And as aside from the obviously superstitious nature of this argument, any reasonable examination of the Bible or actual history (or even personal history) will show that those blessings aren’t guaranteed by any specific action; and the religious leaders always have plenty of excuses for when that happens (for example; your faith wasn’t strong enough, there’s a sinner among you etc.)

Third, has actually been dealt with in an article I wrote, A Right Not To Be Offended. The short version of which is a right must be applicable to everyone to be a right, and everyone is likely to be offended by someone at some time. So there can be no liberty if we allow “offense” to be a reason to restrict behavior. However, it goes even deeper than that. Many Judeo-Christian-Islam followers have adopted this idea from ancient Hebrews over two thousand years ago. This idea has been interpreted as a sign of devotion to their faith, but in actuality it’s made them intolerant and not people who could “live and let live.”

The people who are so used to having their own brand of religion publicly on display cannot imagine how it would be if things were reversed. “It’s just a little Nativity Scene, why are some people so upset?” They cannot really imagine how they would feel if Mawlid an-Nabī (the birth of the Prophet Mohamad) was celebrated everywhere with public funds for displays of the Quran etc. Nothing so removes people from the ability to empathize than religion. Nothing so contradicts the core teachings of the world’s major faiths, as the institutions created in their names.

The alleged good organized religion does can and should be done by other non-profits with a single purpose. Want to feed the poor? Ease their suffering? There are numerous avenues to accomplish those goals; food banks, shelters, clinics for health care, etc. Want to help addicts get free of their addictions? There a literally hundreds of programs that could use help. The most manipulative approach is to offer this help along with a clear message that the help was provided by those believing in “x”. If your moral imperative is to help others, then doing that should be enough; not contaminating it with recruitment. In fact you can find support for this idea is Jesus’ own words (Matthew 6:2-3)

“2So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.”

I don’t expect the hypocrisy of “true believers” to be shaken by this. They only want things to be familiar, including the misunderstandings of their own religion that have been perpetuated for so long.