My methods are new and are causing surprise: To make the blind see I throw dust in their eyes --The Song of the Cheerful (but slightly Sarcastic) Jesus by Oliver Joseph St John Gogarty
Friday, May 14, 2010
Did UUA read the Law?
Holder didn't. Seem like those who voted for us to take a 600k hit, should have read the law first. That seems the diligent thing for a board member to do.
I posted a link to the law, which more than what any of the bloggers talking about racism or fascism did. It's not very long at all, as laws go; I think everyone wanting to comment should read it.
But posting a link to the law in question would mean that U*Us might have to engage in a free and *responsible* search for the truth and meaning of that law Joel.
You can always count on me to encourage U*Us to engage in a a free and *responsible* search for the truth and meaning, regardless of where that search may lead. . .
I haven't posted on this on my blog (yet) but of course I read the law before stating my opinion elsewhere. I haven't read anything about the UUA Board's deliberations, so I don't know whether they read it and what troubles them about it, but for me the dangerous provision is article 8E, which allows for arrest without a warrant. Sounds like a violation of the 5th Amendment to me.
I'm also extremely wary of all the provisions regarding pulling people over on "reasonable suspicion" of violation of a law. As far as I understand, that's legal, but I see it abused all the time (e.g., in Palo Alto), so if you ask me, we need laws pressing cops to have a justification other than "he's black and driving in Palo Alto"/"she's brown and driving in Arizona", not one pushing cops to check MORE IDs.
And finally, the larger issue than the constitutional questions raised by the law is the moral question of scapegoating people whom we depend on so heavily to do our scutwork for under-minimum wages. But clearly it's time for me to post on this, myself.
re: ...the moral question of scapegoating people whom we depend on so heavily to do our scutwork for under-minimum wages.
The US should be open to anyone with a job offer. They'll work under US Labor Laws at at least the min wage, and get to keep their SSA payments (more considers sharing their pension systems... which long ago when I worked for SSA I recall Germany and a few others doing...your FICA payment was credited to the Germany system.)
Now, try and find a UU open to that Liberality for me. The Free movement of Labor, Capital, Goods, and Services runs counter to Liberal reflexive protectionism.
9 comments:
I posted a link to the law, which more than what any of the bloggers talking about racism or fascism did. It's not very long at all, as laws go; I think everyone wanting to comment should read it.
But posting a link to the law in question would mean that U*Us might have to engage in a free and *responsible* search for the truth and meaning of that law Joel.
We wouldn't want *that* would we?
Thanks guys...
You can always count on me to encourage U*Us to engage in a a free and *responsible* search for the truth and meaning, regardless of where that search may lead. . .
I haven't posted on this on my blog (yet) but of course I read the law before stating my opinion elsewhere. I haven't read anything about the UUA Board's deliberations, so I don't know whether they read it and what troubles them about it, but for me the dangerous provision is article 8E, which allows for arrest without a warrant. Sounds like a violation of the 5th Amendment to me.
I'm also extremely wary of all the provisions regarding pulling people over on "reasonable suspicion" of violation of a law. As far as I understand, that's legal, but I see it abused all the time (e.g., in Palo Alto), so if you ask me, we need laws pressing cops to have a justification other than "he's black and driving in Palo Alto"/"she's brown and driving in Arizona", not one pushing cops to check MORE IDs.
And finally, the larger issue than the constitutional questions raised by the law is the moral question of scapegoating people whom we depend on so heavily to do our scutwork for under-minimum wages. But clearly it's time for me to post on this, myself.
And then of course there's -
He's white and walking in Long Branch. . . :-)
Looking forward to your post RevAmy...
re: ...the moral question of scapegoating people whom we depend on so heavily to do our scutwork for under-minimum wages.
The US should be open to anyone with a job offer. They'll work under US Labor Laws at at least the min wage, and get to keep their SSA payments (more considers sharing their pension systems... which long ago when I worked for SSA I recall Germany and a few others doing...your FICA payment was credited to the Germany system.)
Now, try and find a UU open to that Liberality for me. The Free movement of Labor, Capital, Goods, and Services runs counter to Liberal reflexive protectionism.
Here's a video about reading the law produced by Arizona: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6qEQ-KnitQ&feature=player_embedded
Post a Comment