Actually, these bastards are going to end up hanging themselves on a couple of points (not my words, but family deeply involved in the legal business as lawyers and law professors).
First, there is a little point of technicality called the “Equal Protection Clause(s) of the U.S. Constitution, which pretty pointedly states that it is not exactly legal to try to deny guaranteed rights (under the constitution) from any one group of citizens. This is what ultimately torpedoed much of segregation (and Jim Crow laws) in the Deep South, and why the attempts to impose a modern day equivalent in Arizona are unlikely to survive a constitutional challenge. Trying to deprive these state union members of legally recognized rights, in organizations that are recognized as legitimate under both state and federal laws, is going to set off a whole minefield of legal issues, and could extend way beyond just the rights of union members to seek representation for collective bargaining purposes. Such as the rights of any number of groups to organize and hold meetings about common points of interest. Not too great an extension to say that if this bullshit can fly (what the Spotted Wanker is pushing in WI) than some other governor with a rubber stamp legislature could turn his attention to stripping rights from gays. Or blacks. Or Jews. Or whoever the hell these goons feel like ganging up on. That is why the poem from the 1930s has never lost any of its power…”first, they came for the trade unionists, but I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a trade unionist…” (apologies if this quote is not completely accurate or otherwise misstated) )
Second: the little abomination that the Gang of Five on the Supream Court gave us a year or so ago (Citizens Inebriated) actually contains a little bouncing betty of its own that could very well go off in the faces of Govs Wanker, Sacitch, Krysty, and J.O. Daniels. Since this ruling extended the concept of “personhood” to both corporations and unions, to try to deny them any right to operate within the legal framework that they were organized under deprives these “persons” of the freedoms of speech, association and movement. Which means (once again, quoting law school trained family) that either the courts have to uphold these rights for the unions (as individual “persons” as guaranteed by the Federal (and most state) constitutions, or they have to declare that these attempts at stripping or limiting union rights have to apply to major corporations, also.
I'm as entertained as anyone with the recent antics of Charlie Sheen, and if capturing the attention of the entire public was the goal, then Charlie is "winning."
Most of us are watching in a kind of awe-inspired horror. This would be great, we think to ourselves, if Charlie was actually in control, if his TV show was still in production and if his kids had not been carted away in the dead of night.
Charlie keeps saying he's tired of hiding who he is. He's tired of apologizing for his behavior and he doesn't see his choices as a problem. After all, he has tiger blood and Adonis DNA; he's special and he's tired of hiding it. This is where, in a free society, one has to ask, just how free are we, really?
Charlie has declared himself in defiance of social etiquette as a guy who does anything he wants to do whenever he wants to do it -- rules be damned. Society is now saying, "We can't stop you, but you won't be working for us, and you can't have custody of your kids".
For a lot of people in America, Charlie's antics are making him more of a role model than ever. They look at Charlie and say, "I want to party with you, man." These are the same people who say, "I love Jackass," and they go to shows where stunt men deliberately get into accidents. It's considered uniquely American to have the freedom to not care what society thinks, even if what you're doing is self destructive.
Most of us care about consequences; that's what keeps us in line. What other people think matters to us. We don't have our own definition of winning. We measure our success against a societal definition. As a result, most of us feel like failures, and as we watch a "free" man, we become frightened.
Charlie Sheen is fascinating, compelling, dangerous and exciting. We know it can't last. Eventually, Charlie will have to surrender and admit failure because too many people are watching. He'll either be reined in or become the societal definition. One way or the other, this will come to an end and we'll all say, "It was fun to watch while it lasted".
The funny thing is, there are lots of people living just like Charlie Sheen and no one is telling them to stop. Their children are not being removed and, if they don't work, many of them get money from the government or live completely outside the law. Charlie's problem is that he's experiencing too much of that societal definition of success and at the same time being too high profile. We all know you can't have it both ways.
bench craft company reviews
Iranian Video Says Mahdi is 'Near' - World - CBN <b>News</b> - Christian <b>...</b>
New evidence has emerged that the Iranian government sees the current unrest in the Middle East as a signal that the Mahdi--or Islamic messiah--is about to appear.
REPORT: <b>News</b> Corp. In Talks To Hand Over Control Of MySpace To <b>...</b>
News Corp. is in preliminary talks to give control of Myspace to Vevo.com, the site partly owned by top record companies, including Universal Music and Sony Music, according to a Bloomberg report. News Corp. has been looking to unload ...
How to create a Facebook <b>news</b> feed for a journalist (or anything <b>...</b>
I've been enjoying The Independent's individual Facebook feeds for journalists, football teams and other 'entities' of their news coverage. So much so that.
No comments:
Post a Comment