Colin made a great point in his comment on my previous post about science and religion. He posited that "The problem with religion is that...it is static...very much the same as it was thousands of years ago." I just don't agree that it's a problem.
The basic tenets of christianity (the religion I know the most about)are, and should be "static" or unchanging. These are: Love, hope truth, faith and compassion. They also include the concept of inalienable rights for all of mankind, that are endowed by a greater power than man, and exist beyond man's laws. Christianity (as well as other religions) teaches that these tenets and conduct are more important than material wealth, or power. I have seen no discovery that changes these. Perhaps that is why they endure.
Feb 22, 2009
Feb 15, 2009
Physics < Theology
This will be a brief presentation of the other point of view regarding Freyguy's attack on God and believers in his new post "Physics>Theology". But first, I must advise that I will continue to post about the "stinkulus bill", the largest, least read, least transparent, least bipartisan major bill ever passed.
My opposing view to Freyguy's post will not be nearly as long. My view, as a believer, is not based in any amazement over a talking snake (as Freyguy alludes). I am amazed, though, that people who believe that an exploding rock randomly created the complexities of all life, rely on the unbelievability of a talking snake to prove there is no God.
The basic tenets of my beliefs are that faith is more powerful than knowledge, and that faith is better vested in a majesty greater than man. It is about the search for purpose superseding the quest for proof. I've mentioned a number of times to him (I suppose that's redundant, as fathers always repeat themselves) that, although I have no proof there is God, I have a lifetime of evidence that man just can't be the highest form of being.
This is no plea for ignorance. I often bemoan the fact that so many times people make important decisions without seeking knowledge about the subject, or disregard past experience as relevant. Human endeavors should be pursued with the most knowledge one can gain, as well as an understanding of past performance to guide the probability of future outcomes.
Rather, I argue that greater knowledge inspires greater awe of elements that shape the universe...and those that shape man, instead of being shaped by man. They encompass hope, compassion, and love, as well as life itself. And those "inalienable rights" that were understood so late by man, were always endowed by God. The fundamental problem most non-believers have is in trying to shape God in man's image, instead of believing that God's image is in each one of us, but beyond our attempts at personification (or proof)...and perhaps in being too proud of their intellectual abilities to point out that a snake couldn't talk.
The Old Man
My opposing view to Freyguy's post will not be nearly as long. My view, as a believer, is not based in any amazement over a talking snake (as Freyguy alludes). I am amazed, though, that people who believe that an exploding rock randomly created the complexities of all life, rely on the unbelievability of a talking snake to prove there is no God.
The basic tenets of my beliefs are that faith is more powerful than knowledge, and that faith is better vested in a majesty greater than man. It is about the search for purpose superseding the quest for proof. I've mentioned a number of times to him (I suppose that's redundant, as fathers always repeat themselves) that, although I have no proof there is God, I have a lifetime of evidence that man just can't be the highest form of being.
This is no plea for ignorance. I often bemoan the fact that so many times people make important decisions without seeking knowledge about the subject, or disregard past experience as relevant. Human endeavors should be pursued with the most knowledge one can gain, as well as an understanding of past performance to guide the probability of future outcomes.
Rather, I argue that greater knowledge inspires greater awe of elements that shape the universe...and those that shape man, instead of being shaped by man. They encompass hope, compassion, and love, as well as life itself. And those "inalienable rights" that were understood so late by man, were always endowed by God. The fundamental problem most non-believers have is in trying to shape God in man's image, instead of believing that God's image is in each one of us, but beyond our attempts at personification (or proof)...and perhaps in being too proud of their intellectual abilities to point out that a snake couldn't talk.
The Old Man
Feb 13, 2009
Scandal! Infidel Tricks Francis Collins into Giving, Signing Free Book
I recently had the opportunity to hear Dr. Francis Collins give two lectures. Dr. Collins is the former head of the Human Genome Project, an outspoken Christian and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. The first lecture was about the Human Genome Project. Later, he gave a second lecture on his beliefs about the relationship between science and religion. Hundreds of students and members of the public packed the lecture hall to hear him speak, spilling into overflow rooms provided with video feeds. Collins argues that evolution is a fact, that it does not contradict the Bible because not all of the Bible is literally true, and that there is scientific evidence for a God that intervenes in the universe. You can watch the lecture here.
I didn't buy his pitch. But he has an interesting perspective, and he is a light-hearted, funny guy with an opinion to share. I even got free copies of Language of God and C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity out of the deal.
Below - Dr. Francis Collins unwittingly signs his book for Freyguy, seen here hunching over like an idiot even though he is completely in frame.
I didn't buy his pitch. But he has an interesting perspective, and he is a light-hearted, funny guy with an opinion to share. I even got free copies of Language of God and C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity out of the deal.
Below - Dr. Francis Collins unwittingly signs his book for Freyguy, seen here hunching over like an idiot even though he is completely in frame.
Feb 12, 2009
Physics > Theology
Hooray! It's my turn to choose a topic again. Since The Old Man and I started this blog a couple of months ago, we have discussed "the end of capitalism", "the water torture", and Obama's "stinkulus bill". It's time to address the omnipotent elephant in the room: God.
No, I am not talking about Genesha, the Hindu Lord of Success, although I suppose he is an omnipotent elephant. Nor am I talking about the ancient gods, like Thor, Zeus, or Rah. While I don't dismiss these as possibilities a priori, approximately half the world's population does--the Christian/Islamic segment, with a tiny Jewish minority. So, on this blog in general, I may as well focus on Yahweh, the god of Abraham and PreachingToday.com 's 2005 Person of the Year.
Even thusly narrowed, this remains an impossibly broad topic. So in this single post I'd just like to just share some disparate personal thoughts, and hear what people have to say in response.
I used to be Christian. In fact, when I first enrolled at Archbishop Alter high school, I looked forward to the mandatory theology class. To me, questions about how God works and how Jesus wants us to live our lives were the ultimate questions in life. I loved the class. The topic was the New Testament as viewed from scholarly-historical and faith perspectives. The trouble was, I found the scholarly-historical perspective rather compelling! I still appreciated many of the ethics espoused in the New Testament, like the Golden Rule (although Confucius advocated the same principle thousands of years before Jesus). But I didn't buy the miracles. (I have not read it, but Thomas Jefferson attempted to rectify this problem by removing all supernatural content from what is now known as the Jefferson Bible.) This led me to a sort of natural progression to physics and a set of philosophical values which, I found out, fit the description of a secular humanist.
I have come to believe that the universe as we understand it through science is bigger, more mysterious, more awesome and in some ways more terrifying than any description of God that has been dreamed up. As a bonus, there also happens to be a lot of evidence for it. In regard to "how it all started", the two separate creation myths of Genesis are overmatched in poetry and profundity--not to mention accuracy--by modern cosmology. Consider the famous Hubble Ultra Deep Field image, which magnfied a tiny speck of the night sky in a random direction. Every fleck of light in that image is an entire galaxy (except those few large balls of light with spikes sticking out--those are foreground stars); each galaxy contains hundreds of billions of stars like our Sun. Based on this image and other data, it has been estimated that there are many hundreds of billions of large galaxies in the observable universe. And if the inflation model of big bang theory is correct, the size of the entire universe compared to the size of the observable universe is like comparing the observable universe to a single proton.
Now, I have heard it seriously suggested that nothing is meaningful, beautiful, etc. if Yahweh did not create it. But go stare at the Hubble Deep Field for a few minutes. Then tell me how "meaningful" it would be if all that was merely leftovers from the special creation of one particular speck, on which woman came from a rib and a talking snake made her realize she was naked.
The science of physics, in particular, overtook its religious predecessor and counterpart--theology--and left it in the dust long ago, in my opinion. This shouldn't be surprising, since the methods of physics involve questioning, calculating, experimenting, and ruling out hypotheses; theology in general does not, and cannot, do any of those things, since no known measurement device can distinguish divine revelation from the voices produced in one's own head. This is why we remember Isaac Newton for his lasting contributions to fundamental physics; not his large volume of work in Bible numerology, or the fact that he succeeded in pleasing God by dying a virgin. It is also why Albert Einstein is often claimed by the religious as a God-fearing man, even though he rejected the idea of a personal God and thought religion "childish".
Stephen Hawking freely uses the metaphor of God, as do a few of my physics textbooks, on occasion. But this is a consequence of the physicist's annoying habit of encroaching on, and conquering, the theologian's turf.
A case in point:
When Benjamin Franklin invented the "lightning attractor" in the 18th century, the priests, reverends, and many other self-appointed spokesmen for God had understandable reservations. The lightning rod, as it came to be known, seemed to interfere with the Divine order. The Harvard-educated Reverend Thomas Prince (after whom Princeton, Massachusetts is named) believed these abominable "points of Iron" would force God to take more drastic measures. In 1755, he published an addendum to his sermon "Earthquakes the Works of God and Tokens of His Just Displeasure" saying, in part:
(I believe he refers to the 1755 Boston earthquake.) Presumably, the good Reverend used the Standard Method of the Theologian in Reaching his Conclusions: he Closed his eyes, let his Imagination run wild, and yea, he Wrote down the Results.
Of course, it's easy for us to dismiss his argument as silly today, after hundreds of years of success using lightning rods. But imagine living in 1755. There was no such thing as shifting tectonic plates or a Richter scale back then, no unified theory of electricity and magnetism; there were simply Earthquakes and Volcanoes, and that eerie glowing Substance responsible for Lightning. Their origins were not of this world; they were the awesome manifestations of Heaven's will.
So, in my opinion Rev. Prince's logic was pretty sound; it was simply based on bad premises. Remember that most people back then, including well-educated reverends, truly believed lightning and earthquakes were under divine control. Given that assumption, erecting a lightning rod is sort of like running away from a divine spanking; the Heavenly Parents will simply chase you down, shouting "You're only making it worse for yourself!"
So why don't we buy the good Reverend's argument today? Because we reject his premise. Most of us no longer believe destructive phenomena are instruments of Divine Judgment. And the reason we came to reject it, the reason countless lives have been saved, has nothing to do with breakthroughs in theology.
Your thoughts?
-Freyguy
No, I am not talking about Genesha, the Hindu Lord of Success, although I suppose he is an omnipotent elephant. Nor am I talking about the ancient gods, like Thor, Zeus, or Rah. While I don't dismiss these as possibilities a priori, approximately half the world's population does--the Christian/Islamic segment, with a tiny Jewish minority. So, on this blog in general, I may as well focus on Yahweh, the god of Abraham and PreachingToday.com 's 2005 Person of the Year.
Even thusly narrowed, this remains an impossibly broad topic. So in this single post I'd just like to just share some disparate personal thoughts, and hear what people have to say in response.
I used to be Christian. In fact, when I first enrolled at Archbishop Alter high school, I looked forward to the mandatory theology class. To me, questions about how God works and how Jesus wants us to live our lives were the ultimate questions in life. I loved the class. The topic was the New Testament as viewed from scholarly-historical and faith perspectives. The trouble was, I found the scholarly-historical perspective rather compelling! I still appreciated many of the ethics espoused in the New Testament, like the Golden Rule (although Confucius advocated the same principle thousands of years before Jesus). But I didn't buy the miracles. (I have not read it, but Thomas Jefferson attempted to rectify this problem by removing all supernatural content from what is now known as the Jefferson Bible.) This led me to a sort of natural progression to physics and a set of philosophical values which, I found out, fit the description of a secular humanist.
I have come to believe that the universe as we understand it through science is bigger, more mysterious, more awesome and in some ways more terrifying than any description of God that has been dreamed up. As a bonus, there also happens to be a lot of evidence for it. In regard to "how it all started", the two separate creation myths of Genesis are overmatched in poetry and profundity--not to mention accuracy--by modern cosmology. Consider the famous Hubble Ultra Deep Field image, which magnfied a tiny speck of the night sky in a random direction. Every fleck of light in that image is an entire galaxy (except those few large balls of light with spikes sticking out--those are foreground stars); each galaxy contains hundreds of billions of stars like our Sun. Based on this image and other data, it has been estimated that there are many hundreds of billions of large galaxies in the observable universe. And if the inflation model of big bang theory is correct, the size of the entire universe compared to the size of the observable universe is like comparing the observable universe to a single proton.
Now, I have heard it seriously suggested that nothing is meaningful, beautiful, etc. if Yahweh did not create it. But go stare at the Hubble Deep Field for a few minutes. Then tell me how "meaningful" it would be if all that was merely leftovers from the special creation of one particular speck, on which woman came from a rib and a talking snake made her realize she was naked.
The science of physics, in particular, overtook its religious predecessor and counterpart--theology--and left it in the dust long ago, in my opinion. This shouldn't be surprising, since the methods of physics involve questioning, calculating, experimenting, and ruling out hypotheses; theology in general does not, and cannot, do any of those things, since no known measurement device can distinguish divine revelation from the voices produced in one's own head. This is why we remember Isaac Newton for his lasting contributions to fundamental physics; not his large volume of work in Bible numerology, or the fact that he succeeded in pleasing God by dying a virgin. It is also why Albert Einstein is often claimed by the religious as a God-fearing man, even though he rejected the idea of a personal God and thought religion "childish".
Stephen Hawking freely uses the metaphor of God, as do a few of my physics textbooks, on occasion. But this is a consequence of the physicist's annoying habit of encroaching on, and conquering, the theologian's turf.
A case in point:
When Benjamin Franklin invented the "lightning attractor" in the 18th century, the priests, reverends, and many other self-appointed spokesmen for God had understandable reservations. The lightning rod, as it came to be known, seemed to interfere with the Divine order. The Harvard-educated Reverend Thomas Prince (after whom Princeton, Massachusetts is named) believed these abominable "points of Iron" would force God to take more drastic measures. In 1755, he published an addendum to his sermon "Earthquakes the Works of God and Tokens of His Just Displeasure" saying, in part:
"the more points of Iron are erected round the Earth, to draw the Electrical Substance out of the Air, the more the Earth must needs be charged The Reverend Thomas Prince with it. And therefore it seems worthy of Consideration whether any part of the Earth, being fuller of this terrible Substance, may not be exposed to more shocking Earthquakes. In Boston are more erected than anywhere else in New England; and Boston seems to be more dreadfully Shaken, - 0, there is no getting out of the mighty Hand of God. If we still think to avoid it in the Air we cannot in the Earth; yea, it may grow more fatal."
(I believe he refers to the 1755 Boston earthquake.) Presumably, the good Reverend used the Standard Method of the Theologian in Reaching his Conclusions: he Closed his eyes, let his Imagination run wild, and yea, he Wrote down the Results.Of course, it's easy for us to dismiss his argument as silly today, after hundreds of years of success using lightning rods. But imagine living in 1755. There was no such thing as shifting tectonic plates or a Richter scale back then, no unified theory of electricity and magnetism; there were simply Earthquakes and Volcanoes, and that eerie glowing Substance responsible for Lightning. Their origins were not of this world; they were the awesome manifestations of Heaven's will.
So, in my opinion Rev. Prince's logic was pretty sound; it was simply based on bad premises. Remember that most people back then, including well-educated reverends, truly believed lightning and earthquakes were under divine control. Given that assumption, erecting a lightning rod is sort of like running away from a divine spanking; the Heavenly Parents will simply chase you down, shouting "You're only making it worse for yourself!"
So why don't we buy the good Reverend's argument today? Because we reject his premise. Most of us no longer believe destructive phenomena are instruments of Divine Judgment. And the reason we came to reject it, the reason countless lives have been saved, has nothing to do with breakthroughs in theology.
Your thoughts?
-Freyguy
Feb 7, 2009
'Anonymous' Weighs in on Stimulus
The following was originally posted by 'Anonymous' in the comments section. -Freyguy
Hypocrisy indeed.
If you're wanting to point fingers over our nation's bewildering national debt, you're going to have to let off Obama and go chase down ol' Georgie in Texas. You show me careless spending of trillions of dollars, I will show you the Iraq war. The biggest Charlie Foxtrot this great country has ever had to put up with. We're so up to our eyeballs in IOU's from the countless missteps of the Bush Administration, that even China is fed up with us now.
But that's a debate for another day. I suppose there's no use in looking at the mistakes from the past (except to hopefully learn from them). What we need to focus on now, is the future, and how Obama will attempt to correct these blunders he inherited from George Christ Bush.
Anyone who has ever studied public economics should know that in times like these, government spending is a common, and arguably necessary, strategy. Just look at what FDR did during the Great Depression! We could let the market run its course without government intervention, but I think we all know why that's not an acceptable idea. It's the government's responsibility to look out for it's people, especially for those who are less fortunate, and who would most certainly suffer the most (and are suffering the most) should the economy hit an even rockier bottom. This stimulus package is not an extravagance, it is a necessity. The key is not to just give money to people in the hopes that they'll spend it, like Bush did. The idea is to create programs that give people jobs, and that will help to save money in the long run.
That's what Obama's plan does. It will create thousands of jobs to try and restrain our debilitating unemployment rate, and it invests in many other things, like Green buildings (what's wrong with blue ones, you ask?) that will help save billions of dollars in energy costs in the long run.
The argument that our country can't handle all of this spending in light of our current debt (keeping in mind that this spending wouldn't be any problem at all if we hadn't already thrown 10 trillion into our Middle Eastern money pit) is flawed. Nobody has any intention of spending the 1 trillion from the stimulus package at one time. It will happen gradually, and most likely when its all said and done, the entire trillion will not be used.
What's more, for those people who complain about the other programs the stimulus package covers that they feel are unnecessary (and which make up only about 2% of the entire bill), I can't say anything more than "sorry." Obama is not spending money on anything that he didn't say he would spend money on. As someone who voted for Obama, I couldn't be happier that he is giving money to improve education, our country's sexual health, science and research, and much more. I've spent the last eight years disagreeing with the choices that our president has made--its nice to feel like my opinions are being represented for once. For all of you irritated conservatives who disagree with the stimulus package, it's not that Obama is doing anything unethical (which he isn't), or that he is not representing his constituents properly (because he is). This is just what it feels like to be on the losing side.
Hypocrisy indeed.
If you're wanting to point fingers over our nation's bewildering national debt, you're going to have to let off Obama and go chase down ol' Georgie in Texas. You show me careless spending of trillions of dollars, I will show you the Iraq war. The biggest Charlie Foxtrot this great country has ever had to put up with. We're so up to our eyeballs in IOU's from the countless missteps of the Bush Administration, that even China is fed up with us now.
But that's a debate for another day. I suppose there's no use in looking at the mistakes from the past (except to hopefully learn from them). What we need to focus on now, is the future, and how Obama will attempt to correct these blunders he inherited from George Christ Bush.
Anyone who has ever studied public economics should know that in times like these, government spending is a common, and arguably necessary, strategy. Just look at what FDR did during the Great Depression! We could let the market run its course without government intervention, but I think we all know why that's not an acceptable idea. It's the government's responsibility to look out for it's people, especially for those who are less fortunate, and who would most certainly suffer the most (and are suffering the most) should the economy hit an even rockier bottom. This stimulus package is not an extravagance, it is a necessity. The key is not to just give money to people in the hopes that they'll spend it, like Bush did. The idea is to create programs that give people jobs, and that will help to save money in the long run.
That's what Obama's plan does. It will create thousands of jobs to try and restrain our debilitating unemployment rate, and it invests in many other things, like Green buildings (what's wrong with blue ones, you ask?) that will help save billions of dollars in energy costs in the long run.
The argument that our country can't handle all of this spending in light of our current debt (keeping in mind that this spending wouldn't be any problem at all if we hadn't already thrown 10 trillion into our Middle Eastern money pit) is flawed. Nobody has any intention of spending the 1 trillion from the stimulus package at one time. It will happen gradually, and most likely when its all said and done, the entire trillion will not be used.
What's more, for those people who complain about the other programs the stimulus package covers that they feel are unnecessary (and which make up only about 2% of the entire bill), I can't say anything more than "sorry." Obama is not spending money on anything that he didn't say he would spend money on. As someone who voted for Obama, I couldn't be happier that he is giving money to improve education, our country's sexual health, science and research, and much more. I've spent the last eight years disagreeing with the choices that our president has made--its nice to feel like my opinions are being represented for once. For all of you irritated conservatives who disagree with the stimulus package, it's not that Obama is doing anything unethical (which he isn't), or that he is not representing his constituents properly (because he is). This is just what it feels like to be on the losing side.
Feb 3, 2009
OBAMA PAY BAraCK METER DAY 3
The environmentalists gave our new president a lot of support (when they weren't at the airport for a sendoff of Al Gore on his private jet). Don't you think they deserve to be paid BAraCK? Well, on page 119 of the "stinkulus"bill", They got $600 million for grants to study "diesel emission reduction", and $650 million for "alternative energy technologies" and "energy efficiency enhancements" (whatever they are). Then, on page 176,...the best yet...$1.5 billion for "Green Schools". (I didn't know that hue was so expensive, couldn't they pick another color?)
The point here is not to argue whether any of these projects are good for us or not. The point is that no informed person can believe that the financial credit crisis or the economy is going to be helped any more than tangentially by this $2.75 billion of taxpayer money. This is another example of declaring a crisis, and then loading up the solution with favorite social and political spending programs. But we're not supposed to ask what's actually included in the "stinkulus bill", just believe we have to have it right away. Why?...'cause Obama say so.
And, the environmentalists are happy...because we can check them off on Day 3 of the meter watch...they've been PAID BAraCK!
The point here is not to argue whether any of these projects are good for us or not. The point is that no informed person can believe that the financial credit crisis or the economy is going to be helped any more than tangentially by this $2.75 billion of taxpayer money. This is another example of declaring a crisis, and then loading up the solution with favorite social and political spending programs. But we're not supposed to ask what's actually included in the "stinkulus bill", just believe we have to have it right away. Why?...'cause Obama say so.
And, the environmentalists are happy...because we can check them off on Day 3 of the meter watch...they've been PAID BAraCK!
Feb 1, 2009
The Meter is Broken
You know America is in trouble when "even O'Reilly", author of such hard-hitting investigative works as Kids Are Americans Too, does not devote sufficient attention to the new President's many crimes.
The first thing that strikes me about the Old Man's last two posts is the absence of any external sources of information. We are expected to simply take it on faith that the he has all his facts straight--a risky proposition, considering Fox News consumes 90% of my parents' household electricity bill. Rather than examine every claim, assumption, and insinuation, let me just quickly take a small sample from the Old Man's posts and compare that sample with reality.
I Googled "Wilma Liebman" and found some great information. Pres. Obama did appoint her as chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. This is not a controversial choice, since she has served on the board since 1997, was appointed to it by Clinton and (twice!) by Bush, and has a long record in labor, government, and law.
The Old Man quotes her as saying "What institution will be as effective in controlling the randomness of fortune of democratic capitalism?" Therefore, he says, she does not "believe in" democratic capitalism. But that does not logically follow from her statement. She merely thinks a certain institution [unions] can control the unpredictable ups and downs of fortune in democratic capitalism. I can think of at least one other institution which serves a similar purpose: the Federal Reserve. But the Fed is an institution which protects (among others) an elite class of wealthy private investors--the brilliant custodians of our most recent financial catastrophe--whereas unions merely protect millions of ordinary employees. Therefore, the Fed is within the bounds of "democratic capitalism" while unions are evil socialism.
The quote in question comes from Liebman's scholarly article, Labor Law Inside Out. I went ahead and did the unthinkable and actually read the paper in its entirety. Anyone who reads it will see that she does not argue to "allow unionization without elections". Her position is quite the opposite. What her paper demonstrates is that there was an unprecedented and unfair change in labor policy during the Bush years in opposition to union representation. Liebman writes:
One thing is true: Obama has indeed "repaid" the 12.4% of Americans who are part of a union, and who helped elect him, by appointing someone who thinks union recognition should be based on elections, not unilateral employer withdrawal. Normally, when elected representatives "repay" millions of voters and supporters by correcting unfair policies, we call that democracy. I hope to see more of it.
-Freyguy
(Below: 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike)
The first thing that strikes me about the Old Man's last two posts is the absence of any external sources of information. We are expected to simply take it on faith that the he has all his facts straight--a risky proposition, considering Fox News consumes 90% of my parents' household electricity bill. Rather than examine every claim, assumption, and insinuation, let me just quickly take a small sample from the Old Man's posts and compare that sample with reality.
I Googled "Wilma Liebman" and found some great information. Pres. Obama did appoint her as chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. This is not a controversial choice, since she has served on the board since 1997, was appointed to it by Clinton and (twice!) by Bush, and has a long record in labor, government, and law.
The Old Man quotes her as saying "What institution will be as effective in controlling the randomness of fortune of democratic capitalism?" Therefore, he says, she does not "believe in" democratic capitalism. But that does not logically follow from her statement. She merely thinks a certain institution [unions] can control the unpredictable ups and downs of fortune in democratic capitalism. I can think of at least one other institution which serves a similar purpose: the Federal Reserve. But the Fed is an institution which protects (among others) an elite class of wealthy private investors--the brilliant custodians of our most recent financial catastrophe--whereas unions merely protect millions of ordinary employees. Therefore, the Fed is within the bounds of "democratic capitalism" while unions are evil socialism.
The quote in question comes from Liebman's scholarly article, Labor Law Inside Out. I went ahead and did the unthinkable and actually read the paper in its entirety. Anyone who reads it will see that she does not argue to "allow unionization without elections". Her position is quite the opposite. What her paper demonstrates is that there was an unprecedented and unfair change in labor policy during the Bush years in opposition to union representation. Liebman writes:
A series of decisions of the past five years signal a serious shift in policy. These decisions, each with significant dissenting opinions, can be explained only by the Board’s present orientation toward protecting employee free choice only in the narrow sense: taking special care to ensure that employees are free to refrain from union activity and to reject union representation, while showing less concern about the right of employees to choose (and keep) a union.She goes on to explain what the precedents were (citing particular cases) for equitable treatment between employees and employers:
St. Elizabeth Manor and Lee Lumber sought to preserve the stability of the bargaining relationship by giving the parties a chance to make the process work before the union’s status was tested, and yet both respected employees’ freedom to reject or change representation after a reasonable period for bargaining had elapsed. Levitz Furniture permitted the employer acting on its own, without a Board election, to honor the freely expressed choice of a majority of its employees to reject union representation, but [eliminated the] “good faith doubt” standard [which allowed an employer to reject union recognition without an employee vote].She explains how the Board, during the Bush years, rejected union elections and longstanding precedents, citing several cases in particular:
The Board majority, agreeing with the dissenters in St. Elizabeth Manor, held that employees of the acquired company should be allowed to “exercise their statutory rights and vote out the incumbent union.” (Id. [emphasis added]). In other words, the incumbent union in a successorship situation will not be entitled to a reasonable period for bargaining with the new employer, insulated from challenge to its status.I urge anyone interested in the topic to read the report and contrast it with what was quoted out of context from the report. Unfortunately I do not have time to check all the other claims/accusations, including the ones about ACORN. But the disparity between what was said about Liebman, and the truth about Liebman, gives some reason to pause before accepting the version of reality presented without evidence in the last two posts.
...
And, in Wurtland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, 351 NLRB No. 50 (2007), the Board majority decided that the employer had lawfully withdrawn recognition from the union based on a petition signed by over 50 percent of employees seeking “a vote to remove the Union.” ... [The Board rejected] the dissent’s argument that the employer should have let a Board election determine employees’ sentiments about representation...
...
In turn, employee free choice is increasingly construed to minimize the choice of employees who selected union representation. Unionized employers are given a longer “leash” as “vindicator”9 of their employees’ rights by unilaterally withdrawing recognition, rather than by using the Board’s election machinery to test the union’s majority.
While unilateral employer action to withdraw recognition from a union is apparently favored (so employees do not have to endure representation if they do not want it), no parallel concern has been shown for employees who have voted for union representation but have to wait for legal challenges to be exhausted in order to enjoy its benefits. Correspondingly, the Board has recently made explicit that unilateral employer action to recognize a union—without a Board election—is not favored.
...
What the Board has now created is a complicated bureaucratic procedure that deviates from long-established doctrine by (1) allowing 30 percent of the unit to compel an election to vote on representation, notwithstanding that a majority has just chosen union representation, and (2) permitting a challenge to the union’s majority status without a reasonable time for bargaining having elapsed. Also, by requiring the posting at the workplace—after the voluntary recognition occurs—of an official notice informing employees of their right to file a decertification petition, the Board is breaking new ground. No equivalent workplace posting is required to notify unrepresented employees of their right to select union representation, or of their rights generally under the Act.
...
By effectively giving employers greater freedom to determine whether their workers will have union representation, the current Board’s approach threatens the basic, and unique, aim of federal labor law: empowering employees to act collectively and so to counterbalance the power of employers over their work lives....
Employees may well choose, freely, to decline unionization, to reject the union that has represented them, to deal with their employers individually, and to cede to employers all effective control over the workplace. But the Board is warranted in adopting legal rules to ensure that the choice is genuinely free and that it is exercised by employees themselves, not by their employers in their name.
One thing is true: Obama has indeed "repaid" the 12.4% of Americans who are part of a union, and who helped elect him, by appointing someone who thinks union recognition should be based on elections, not unilateral employer withdrawal. Normally, when elected representatives "repay" millions of voters and supporters by correcting unfair policies, we call that democracy. I hope to see more of it.
-Freyguy
(Below: 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike)
OBAMA PAYBAraCK METER Day 2
This is not a new topic, there are just too many pay backs to follow to let the meter go for more than a day or two without an update. So, apologies to the Grad student who is trying to get some studying done towards that PhD, for jumping back in here.
Guess who is in the $825 billion (and counting) "stimulus" package? That's right...ACORN! I thought they were largely volunteers....how does a contribution to a non profit, volunteer organization create jobs and stimulate the economy? The "stimulus" package has $4.19 Billion earmarked for "neighborhood stabilization activities". Does everyone know that the acronym ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now"? Does anyone doubt who will be at the head of the line to get a big chunk of that $4 Billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities"? This is, at the least, irresponsible to include billions of dollars for political programs, if not an out and out payoff for political support. ACORN even got Disney characters, some Dallas Cowboys, and a cat registered to vote for Obama. They are under federal investigation for voter fraud, and ...in line for a big payout under the new administration. (Hurry up, America, support the "stimulus" bill, don't ask what's really in it. After all, it's a crisis of epic proportions and we just have to do it...you know it couldn't be earmarks or pork....'cause Obama say so.
Guess who is in the $825 billion (and counting) "stimulus" package? That's right...ACORN! I thought they were largely volunteers....how does a contribution to a non profit, volunteer organization create jobs and stimulate the economy? The "stimulus" package has $4.19 Billion earmarked for "neighborhood stabilization activities". Does everyone know that the acronym ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now"? Does anyone doubt who will be at the head of the line to get a big chunk of that $4 Billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities"? This is, at the least, irresponsible to include billions of dollars for political programs, if not an out and out payoff for political support. ACORN even got Disney characters, some Dallas Cowboys, and a cat registered to vote for Obama. They are under federal investigation for voter fraud, and ...in line for a big payout under the new administration. (Hurry up, America, support the "stimulus" bill, don't ask what's really in it. After all, it's a crisis of epic proportions and we just have to do it...you know it couldn't be earmarks or pork....'cause Obama say so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)