Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,506 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm only sharing this for the latter half, but figured I'd post the whole article. This guy had 3 stories in one article and I clipped the last one cuz it was rubbish and not even related:


Column: Why we need unions
Chicago Tribune 09/26/07
by Neil Steinberg
(Copyright 2006 by the Chicago Tribune)

There are no General Motors manufacturing plants in Illinois, so I should probably just cough into my fist as 73,000 GM workers go on strike nationwide, trying to keep their jobs from being someday shipped to Saqu Province. Sorry, not my table.

But I pulled a little paper card out of my wallet, identifying me as a dues-paying member of the Newspaper Guild of the Communications Workers of America, and as I looked at it, I decided that union solidarity demands something be said.

Workers in the Third World are paid less for a reason. They are less educated, less efficient, and work under harsher conditions, churning out pollution we would never tolerate here. Their standards can be woefully inadequate, as U.S. toymakers discovered to their sorrow.

They don't have unions. We do. Years of Republican lobbying have given unions a bad name by focusing on all-too-real corruption. But we wouldn't have the standard of living that's imperiled now without them.

They may not be perfect, but shipping work to countries where workers are inferior in almost every way is definitely not the answer "There is no lie," wrote Pliny the Elder, "so reckless that it lacks all support." I would go further than the great Roman and suggest that there is no lie so reckless that it lacks a whole lot of support.

Which is what we should carry away from this week's visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

We miss the point by guffawing at his antic performance at Columbia University. It doesn't matter that he said there are no homosexuals in Iran. Nor is it fruitful to chase after the will-o'-the-wisp of his Holocaust denial and try to cage it with our cold reason. Nor should we pick apart his vague ramble and catalog its various lunacies.

What is important is that Ahmadinejad represents, not just Iran, but a chunk of the Islamic world that finds itself blinking in the white light of modernity and doesn't like it one bit. The attacks of Sept. 11, and whatever else is to come, is the fallout from that rude awakening.

Our error is in believing that we can marshal our facts and our logic and win. We can't -- we are not dealing with ourselves, but with people such as Ahmadinejad.

You can't persuade that sort -- list his crimes to his face and he dismisses them as "insults," as if he were a guest invited to tea.

It didn't even matter whether Columbia let him speak or not -- the people arguing that it gave him "legitimacy" also miss the point. The only thing that would delight his supporters more than giving Ahmadinejad a platform at Columbia would be denying him one and sending him home in glory to strut as the man whose ideas are too dangerous -- too true -- even for America's so-called freedom of speech.

Let's talk a moment about freedom of speech, shall we? Because a lot of people seem confused.

The reason Americans can spout any vile rubbish that crosses their minds is that we have a First Amendment to our Constitution. It states:

"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."

Note the all-important word "Congress." The First Amendment is directed toward the government. It doesn't compel CBS to give Don Imus a job no matter what he says. It doesn't force the Sun-Times to run my column (but don't tell my bosses, because I've convinced them they must run my stuff or they'll go to straight to prison).

Nor did it demand that Columbia extend an invitation to the Iranian nutbag. The suggestion that they had to, in honor of the free play of ideas, is nonsense. Were I to ask Columbia to allow me to deliver my address, "The Moon and Why it is Made of Cheese," I somehow doubt they would let me speak.

What the First Amendment does do is constrain New York state legislators -- who are threatening vague punishments against Columbia for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak. They should know better but, if they're anything like our legislators in Springfield, of course they don't.
 
Joined
·
42,948 Posts
I'm only sharing this for the latter half, but figured I'd post the whole article. This guy had 3 stories in one article and I clipped the last one cuz it was rubbish and not even related:


Column: Why we need unions
Chicago Tribune 09/26/07
by Neil Steinberg
(Copyright 2006 by the Chicago Tribune)

There are no General Motors manufacturing plants in Illinois, so I should probably just cough into my fist as 73,000 GM workers go on strike nationwide, trying to keep their jobs from being someday shipped to Saqu Province. Sorry, not my table.

But I pulled a little paper card out of my wallet, identifying me as a dues-paying member of the Newspaper Guild of the Communications Workers of America, and as I looked at it, I decided that union solidarity demands something be said.

Workers in the Third World are paid less for a reason. They are less educated, less efficient, and work under harsher conditions, churning out pollution we would never tolerate here. Their standards can be woefully inadequate, as U.S. toymakers discovered to their sorrow.

They don't have unions. We do. Years of Republican lobbying have given unions a bad name by focusing on all-too-real corruption. But we wouldn't have the standard of living that's imperiled now without them.

They may not be perfect, but shipping work to countries where workers are inferior in almost every way is definitely not the answer "There is no lie," wrote Pliny the Elder, "so reckless that it lacks all support." I would go further than the great Roman and suggest that there is no lie so reckless that it lacks a whole lot of support.

Which is what we should carry away from this week's visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

We miss the point by guffawing at his antic performance at Columbia University. It doesn't matter that he said there are no homosexuals in Iran. Nor is it fruitful to chase after the will-o'-the-wisp of his Holocaust denial and try to cage it with our cold reason. Nor should we pick apart his vague ramble and catalog its various lunacies.

What is important is that Ahmadinejad represents, not just Iran, but a chunk of the Islamic world that finds itself blinking in the white light of modernity and doesn't like it one bit. The attacks of Sept. 11, and whatever else is to come, is the fallout from that rude awakening.

Our error is in believing that we can marshal our facts and our logic and win. We can't -- we are not dealing with ourselves, but with people such as Ahmadinejad.

You can't persuade that sort -- list his crimes to his face and he dismisses them as "insults," as if he were a guest invited to tea.

It didn't even matter whether Columbia let him speak or not -- the people arguing that it gave him "legitimacy" also miss the point. The only thing that would delight his supporters more than giving Ahmadinejad a platform at Columbia would be denying him one and sending him home in glory to strut as the man whose ideas are too dangerous -- too true -- even for America's so-called freedom of speech.

Let's talk a moment about freedom of speech, shall we? Because a lot of people seem confused.

The reason Americans can spout any vile rubbish that crosses their minds is that we have a First Amendment to our Constitution. It states:

"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."

Note the all-important word "Congress." The First Amendment is directed toward the government. It doesn't compel CBS to give Don Imus a job no matter what he says. It doesn't force the Sun-Times to run my column (but don't tell my bosses, because I've convinced them they must run my stuff or they'll go to straight to prison).

Nor did it demand that Columbia extend an invitation to the Iranian nutbag. The suggestion that they had to, in honor of the free play of ideas, is nonsense. Were I to ask Columbia to allow me to deliver my address, "The Moon and Why it is Made of Cheese," I somehow doubt they would let me speak.

What the First Amendment does do is constrain New York state legislators -- who are threatening vague punishments against Columbia for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak. They should know better but, if they're anything like our legislators in Springfield, of course they don't.
sorry, found false information in first paragraph and quit reading. Please change the subject line from "article" to "editorial"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,506 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I didn't get anything in there as to why we need unions. At least to tie to the second part of the article.
Yeah, and the third part of the article was tied in even less, hence the clipping.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top