Friday, September 28, 2012

When does one arrive at adulthood?

  Tonight, I'm watching a 20/20 story on ABC television of a woman, a Ms. Colleps  who had sex with five 18 year-olds.  She was sentenced to 5 years in prison.  Why?  Well, mostly because she was a highschool teacher and these were students.

  I'm not saying it was right, so don't throw things at me.

  What I'd like to ask, though, is that we compare thsese 18 year old "victims" to the many "surprise, you're an adult" kids who are sentenced as adults as young as 11. 

  I remember the day I was officially an adult.  I was never a great one for birthdays.  They weren't always so happy for me as a kid, and as an adult I ignore them.  Just another day.  But, the day I was no longer a kid, officially.... it was huge for me if for no-one else.  I didn't feel so much as an adult, but I was glad I was now free to be one.
  Now we steal not only our children's childhood, but their day of majority.  We tell them that the state will decide when they are an adult, and will move that target at a whim.

  Well, I'm not trying to make any world-class points, just to say that we have a really weird ass culture.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Well, never so good at Math....

Hello My Friends;

  Not so long ago, I told you how I was one of the 99%.  Well, after hearing young Mitt speak, I guess I'm getting a whole lot closer to the top!  I'm now one of the 47%!  Wooo Hooo!

  Yep.  I am dependent upon the "Government Dole".  Oh, don't get me wrong - between my two jobs, I work somewhere between 48 and 54 hours a week - down from 60+ now with the new position.  And, being single male, I pay a hefty bit of tax.  And, I pay a fair bit in property tax, sales tax, gas tax, "sin tax" (I drink beer), etc.  Still, I'm on the government dole...... I'm one of those crazy ones, don't you know, who want to eat, have health care - and I want the government make sure it's available.  Yep.  That's me - a 47%er.

  Like yesterday; I went to the market.  You would not believe it, but I drove on ROADS!  Oh, I felt so embarrassed to not be blazing a trail through the countryside on my own, but I'm a government dependent type, so I used the roads the government built. 
  Of course, still being one of those government needy types, I drove my pick-up, complete with all the government mandated equipment, like puncture resistant gas tank, tires to government spec., and would you believe I wore my seat belt!
  While on the way, I passed one of the government types who patrol the roads looking for those who put my life in jeopardy by not following the government mandated rules - like what side of the road to use, speed, following distance, stop signs.  Oh, the craziness.  It was short lived, though, because that government type guy went rushing off to help some nice people who challenged the laws of physics and lost - but they were ok, as their vehicles were equipped with the government mandated safety equipment and their car was equipped with bumpers and crumple zones so they could survive an accident.
  When I got to the market, being one of those needy types, I didn't slaughter my cow myself.  Nope.  I bought meat from an already slaughtered cow.  I was even sure to get a package that came from one of those government law controlled slaughterhouses that have to use healthy animals, in a healthy environment, and even use refrigeration and stuff.  Sorry, I'm a wimp.  I only needed a pound of ground round, seemed a bit senseless to kill Bessy myself and do all the work.... well, like I said, I'm a 47%er government dole needy type. I'm not even going to tell you about how I shamefully bought vegetables that weren't grown in human waste.
  Oh, my friends, you would not believe... I passed by the pharmacy while in the store.  You know, they put medicines in there that the government makes the drug companies make correctly!?!  Yep, they can't just put anything in a bottle, tell us it will cure whatever....   What softies we are.
  I won't tell you about the hospital where the government makes the doctors and nurses wash their hands and other craziness like licensing and stuff.
   Well, I'm so embarrassed to go on.  I'm just not one of those independent types no matter how hard I try.  I'll never be like Mitt - a self made man who brought himself up from nothing.  Nope.  I'm not one who is able to travel in a conveyance I created myself, over uncharted lands, killing and dressing out my own meat as I go.  I'm just one of those sucking on the government teat.  Damn.

  Ok, sarcasm aside.  You know what really pisses me off?  It's not the fact that I'm paying taxes so this asshole can go around pimping out our country to the fat cat rich, I'm pissed that he is so enamored with the rich that he would forget that his goal should not be to kick the 47% who don't pay taxes due to being poor, being elderly, being on health assistance, or being a kid, but to bring all Americans up to the point where we are so wealthy that we don't have the poor, the hungry, the sick or the needy! 

Saturday, September 15, 2012

A little thing like workers being treated fairly....

Hello Friends;

  As one who has been in management, even at a low level, I understand the concept of workers as a resource.  The simple fact of life in business is that the workers make the money!  In my current work, we have "machine operators" as our 'common' worker... for lack of better word... who run the machines, sort and box the parts, so that they can be sold to the customers.  It matters little how many sales are made, how strategic the material and other resources are garnered, if we have no parts to sell to the customers.  So, at the top of our organization of needs is that little phrase "human resource".  But, do we value them?
   The unfortunate thing is, many employers see the 'common worker' as the great unwashed.  They may slip into the fallacy that the worker is given his job as a favor and should owe undying gratitude to the employer.  He becomes like that picture below - a tyrant.
  The opposite side of the coin, too often the employee sees himself as irreplaceable and infinitely valuable, owed every cush and deferment.

The fact of the matter, a business is a partnership between the sellers of the product and the producers of the product.  Neither side can survive alone. 

 But,  for too many, the power position of the worker is nill.  He can take what he's given, or walk out.  His only recourse is to work slower.... is that promoting good business?  Does that maintain the health of the very creature which feeds his children and pays his mortgage?  Of course not.  His other power position is collective bargaining.... but what happens when the union forgets that partnership with the business is the only means to survival, instead becoming a pariah, a leach, a parasite on the company?

MADISON, Wis. (AP) By SCOTT BAUER — A Wisconsin judge has struck down nearly all of the state law championed by Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers.
Walker's administration immediately vowed to appeal the Friday ruling, while unions, which have vigorously fought the law, declared victory. But what the ruling meant for existing public contracts was murky: Unions claimed the ruling meant they could negotiate again, but Walker could seek to keep the law in effect while the legal drama plays out.

The law, a crowning achievement for Walker that made him a national conservative star, took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.

Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void.

In his 27-page ruling, the judge said sections of the law "single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association and therefore infringe upon the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions."

Colas also said the law violates the equal protection clause by creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally.
The ruling applies to all local public workers affected by the law, including teachers and city and county government employees, but not those who work for the state. They were not a party to the lawsuit, which was brought by a Madison teachers union and a Milwaukee public workers union.

Walker issued a statement accusing the judge of being a "liberal activist" who "wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process."

Wisconsin Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck said DOJ believes the law is constitutional.
The ruling throws into question changes that have been made in pay, benefits and other work rules in place across the state for city, county and school district workers.

Walker's law, passed in March 2011, only allowed for collective bargaining on wage increases no greater than the rate of inflation. All other issues, including workplace safety, vacation, health benefits, could no longer be bargained for.

The ruling means that local government and schools now must once again bargain over those issues, said Lester Pines, an attorney for Madison Teachers Inc. that brought the case.

"We're back to where we were before the law was enacted," he said.

Pines predicted the case would ultimately be resolved by the state Supreme Court.

"What's going to happen in the interim is unknown," he said.

The state Supreme Court in June 2011 ruled that the law was constitutional after it had been blocked by a different Dane County judge on a challenge over its passage being a violation of open meetings law.

Walker introduced the proposal in February 2011, six weeks after he took office. It resulted in a firestorm of opposition and led to huge protests at the state Capitol that lasted for weeks. All 14 Democratic state senators fled the state to Illinois for three weeks in an ultimately failed attempt to stop the law's passage from the Republican-controlled Legislature.

The law required public workers to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits at the same time it took away their ability to collectively bargain over those issues. Walker argued the changes were needed to help state and local governments save money at a time Wisconsin faced a $3 billion budget shortfall.

Anger over the law's passage led to an effort to recall Walker from office. More than 930,000 signatures were collected triggering the June recall election. Walker won and became the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall.  (I'm sure the Koch brothers had nothing to do with any of this.....)

The lawsuit was among several filed against the law.

A coalition of unions filed a federal lawsuit in Madison in June 2011, arguing that the law violated the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause because it exempted firefighters and police officers. A federal just upheld most of the law in March, but the rulings are under appeal.

Another lawsuit was filed in July 2011 by two unions representing about 2,700 public workers in Madison and Dane County. They also challenged the law on equal protection grounds. The case is pending.

Democrats and unions were ecstatic with Friday's ruling.

"As we have said from day one, Scott Walker's attempt to silence the union men and women of Wisconsin's public sector was an immoral, unjust and illegal power grab," said Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO.

The Democratic minority leader in the state Assembly called the ruling a huge victory for workers and free speech.

"This decision will help re-establish the balance between employees and their employers," said Rep. Peter Barca.

Republican Rep. Robin Vos, a staunch supporter of the law and the presumptive next speaker of the Assembly, called the ruling an example of the "arrogance of the judiciary."
"I'm confident it's a single judge out of step with the mainstream," Vos said. He said the law is working "and we'll continue to implement it."

  Collective bargaining was provided in the National Labor Relations Act, below....  Many of the current laws we enjoy are a direct result of the unions.  A 40-hour work week, worker safety laws, and wage laws.  Even unemployment insurance.  The historic need for unions, some would argue, have passed.  But, be it need or right - the concept of collective bargaining is in our culture by law, and just because some politician decides it goes against the needs for the moment does not remove it. 
  What happens when our other rights are stripped by "necessity"?  Oh yeah, "Patriot Laws"... forgot.
___Collective bargaining consists of negotiations between an employer and a group of employees so as to determine the conditions of employment. The result of collective bargaining procedures is a collective agreement. Employees are often represented in bargaining by a union or other labor organization. Collective bargaining is governed by federal and state statutory laws, administrative agency regulations, and judicial decisions. In areas where federal and state law overlap, state laws are preempted. See, U.S. Constitution, Art. VI.

The main body of law governing collective bargaining is the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It explicitly grants employees the right to collectively bargain and join trade unions. The NLRA was originally enacted by Congress in 1935 under its power to regulate interstate commerce. See, U.S. Constitution Art. I, Section 8. It applies to most private non-agricultural employees and employers engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce. Decisions and regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, which was established by the NLRA, greatly supplement and define the provisions of the act.

The NLRA establishes procedures for the selection of a labor organization to represent a unit of employees in collective bargaining. The act prohibits employers from interfering with this selection. The NLRA requires the employer to bargain with the appointed representative of its employees. It does not require either side to agree to a proposal or make concessions but does establish procedural guidelines on good faith bargaining. Proposals which would violate the NLRA or other laws may not be subject to collective bargaining. The NLRA also establishes regulations on what tactics (e.g. strikes, lock-outs, picketing) each side may employ to further their bargaining objectives.

State laws further regulate collective bargaining and make collective agreements enforceable under state law. They may also provide guidelines for those employers and employees not covered by the NLRA, such as agricultural laborers.

Arbitration is a method of dispute resolution used as an alternative to litigation. It is commonly designated in collective agreements between employers and employees as the way to resolve disputes. The parties select a neutral third party (an arbiter) to hold a formal or informal hearing on the disagreement. The arbiter then issues a decision binding on the parties. Both federal and state law governs the practice of arbitration. While the Federal Arbitration Act, by its own terms, is not applicable to employment contracts, federal courts are increasingly applying the law in labor disputes. Fourty-nine states have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act (1956) as state law. Thus, the arbitration agreement and decision of the arbiter may be enforceable under state and federal law.

  What falls into the proverbial loophole, in Wisconsin, though is that state workers are not covered under the act.  This is fundamentally unfair.  The state, which controls the laws, also is an employer - exempting itself from following the very laws it requires of other employers is beyond hypocrisy.

  My father's workplace had a union.... that workplace is gone.  It now operates in Mexico, India, China, and some southern states.  Oh, the corporate headquarters are still in America - the higher ups don't want to live in those places.
  Was it necessary to move in order to break the union?  Yep... the union forgot that it was a voice for the resource, there to ensure that those members were treated fairly and with dignity.  Instead it became power hungry and lost.  Lesson learned?  Well, if not for the union officials, certainly for the corporations which find the OSHA laws and the Environmental Safety laws much less concerning in Mexico, China and India - and there are so many people there willing to put up with anything to have a job no matter if it maims or kills them, they've gotta eat.  And hey - there's a billion of them waiting to take over where that one fell.  Right?

Monday, September 10, 2012

Let It Be.

Hello Friends;

  I get so very tired.  So very tired.   There is something odd about a person who gets paid to rant and rave.  (Hey... I do it for free!)  The silly thing is that they are much like the evening news... if it bleeds, it leads.... and they get lots of money portray the extremes.  Case in point:  Rush Limbaugh, and this odd new person I'm hearing about named Linda Harvey.  They talk and talk, mostly putting their foot in their mouth as they rant and rave about whatever seems the most spectacular at the moment - and they seem to resent anyone having a different opinion to the point of bashing them.

  Well, I guess I have to step forward and say that I have a different opinion.  You see, I'm an adult male who has had nothing but misery from women.  I don't find them sexually attractive.  I do find males attractive.  So, by this - I'm now a horrible person, destined to be the downfall of mankind?  Oh yes... it won't be the war-mongers, or the "War Pigs" as Ozzy named them, who have nuclear weapons, biological weapons, who engage in genocidal campaigns, allow greed to starve women and children, .... aaargh!..... It won't be greedy stock and bond manipulators wiping out the economy and my 401k, or the politicians that sell our country right out from underneath our feet.  It won't be the depletion of the rain forests, the odd changes in the climate, the changes in the ocean ecology, or even earthquakes and tidal waves that wipe out nuclear plants.  Nope... it will be goofy ole me, struggling to find hope and love in this world in which I so often feel so very alone!

  Well, I'm a grown adult.  I'm not so easily bruised by the slings and arrows of the haters.  I laugh at them when they so blatantly butcher the very scriptures in which they claim describe their lofty state -- in specific, using Matt. 19:4-6 - which has now become a verse about "one man, one woman" rather than using the Hebraic Law to be cruel to one's wife.  Talk about missing the point.    But, frankly, these people are making me weary. 

  Why do they hate us so?    Why do people listen to them?    And why, amongst the huge number of crippling problems in this world - cancer, starvation, murder, hurt, heartache, fear, etc. - have they chosen to use their moments in the light to kick those of us who only want love?

Saturday, September 8, 2012

An interesting article on marriage

Published: November 26, 2007
Olympia, Wash.

WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.
The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.

But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.
In the 1950s, using the marriage license as a shorthand way to distribute benefits and legal privileges made some sense because almost all adults were married. Cohabitation and single parenthood by choice were very rare.

Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about people’s interpersonal responsibilities. Half of all Americans aged 25 to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America’s children are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several households.
Using the existence of a marriage license to determine when the state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly impractical. Society has already recognized this when it comes to children, who can no longer be denied inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing because their parents are not married.

As Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments.

Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.

Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.

Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history at Evergreen State College, is the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - 1948

In 1948, most of the countries of the world came together to declare that the rights of a person are not only universal, but necessary to be protected.  That was 7 years before the Civil Rights Bill in the U.S., and some 64 years (so far) since marriage equality.
  Moral of the story:  Politicians can't remember history for squat, and they are blind at home.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.[1]

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

[edit] Article 1All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

[edit] Article 2Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

[edit] Article 3Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

[edit] Article 4No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

[edit] Article 5No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

[edit] Article 6Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

[edit] Article 7All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

[edit] Article 8Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

[edit] Article 9No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

[edit] Article 10Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

[edit] Article 11(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

[edit] Article 12No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

[edit] Article 13(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

[edit] Article 14(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

[edit] Article 15(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

[edit] Article 16(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

[edit] Article 17(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

[edit] Article 18Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

[edit] Article 19Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

[edit] Article 20(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

[edit] Article 21(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

[edit] Article 22Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

[edit] Article 23(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

[edit] Article 24Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

[edit] Article 25(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

[edit] Article 26(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

[edit] Article 27(1) Everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

[edit] Article 28Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

[edit] Article 29(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

[edit] Article 30Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Our Community

Hello Everyone;

  I had a good day today.  I spent the weekend sick, not bad - just down.  So, it was a surprise for me to have a good day today.  Started out fairly rough, but got better and better as the day went.  How's that for a surprise?

  But, while I was having my good day, a very good friend of mine was expecting to have a rough day.  He was on my mind all day.  Then, about 2:30 in the afternoon, this song came on the radio.  CLICK HERE  I found myself singing along, and it actually lifted my day a bit more. 

  We don't see each other all that often, but we are a community.  'Pulling together to keep from being pulled apart', as the saying goes, we can reach out and hear each other's words - in our interests being posted, our friendly and interesting comments, and even some banter back and forth.  I'm so thankful for you all who come here and help me think about things, tell me things I don't know, and let me know that I'm not alone.  You are wonderful people.

So, to my very good friend who was concerned that today would be rough.... you were in my thoughts and even in my song today.  I hope you had a good day - and if you had a rough one, that it will lead to great things further down the road.

Many hugs!

Monday, September 3, 2012


I just saw this on Milkboys.  I missed it earlier.  I thought it incredible.  Entertaining.  Maddening.  Worth a watch.

Saturday, September 1, 2012

We are still the 99

Hello Friends;

  I don't think I posted too much about he 1% controversy in the recent past.  But, it's very real, isn't it?

  When the issue came up, those many short months ago, it was so polarizing. Fox News, of course, came out on the side of the so-called 1%, calling anyone who thought there was a problem a bum, a hand-out, a leach upon the "job makers" of society.  I did a post about Geraldo Rivera, the one time "people's champion" of the pseudo-journalistic world.  Well, he sold out, but never left the pseudo portion...

  Still and all, if you ask people working hard for their wages, you will find they simply aren't doing quite so well today as they once were.  Some people place blame on the government - which is unfair, really.  In the past years, the government has stepped forth to require a minimum wage considerably higher - really double what it was a short time ago.  Yet, those of us who make more than minimum wage, the proportion hasn't kept pace.  Now, who controls that?  It isn't Mr. Obama....

 Do we still talk about the 1% issue?  Not really.  It's gone the ways of all shiny things - losing their luster until replaced by something more new, more shiny.  Easier.

  If you asked the majority of the once "middle class", you would find that they love their country.  And, this is not unique to America.  Most people, unless in a horrible environment, love their country.  It's their home!  I typically would characterize myself somewhere in the lower middle class - not that I make much money, but I have fewer expenses.  Even still, I don't have the disposable income I once had.  I don't see my savings growing.... and expenses come despite the fact that I work very hard, and very long hours.

  Yet even still, I'm not complaining.  I'm overweight, so no meals missed.  I'm under a roof.  My truck runs well.  I don't mind hard work.

  But, those who are running our country have no problem pointing back and forth, declaring their party just itching to have the opportunity to "fix" things.  Somehow, as we cheer on our favorite leader, we don't realize that we are bent over the table in this little charade as they each talk how they are really on our side and make promises to be gentle in this gang rape. 
  I guess this is just the way things will always be.  There will always be the royals, and there will always be the 99% of us who somehow pay them to do this to us.  Got me how it got to this twisted and surreal place, and I have no idea how sanity could ever be found again.  I'm just saddened that we are now here, and all we can do is grab our ankles and smile as we cheer on our favorite.