« September 2005 | Main | February 2006 »

December 22, 2005

NYC Transit Strike: Selfish or a Necessary Stand?

On the third day of New York City's transit strike, the first in 25 years, "leaders of striking bus and subway workers in New York agreed... to a return to work after talks at which the union and transit authorities undertook to resume talks on a contract," reports Reuters.com.

The strike, repeatedly called "selfish" by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is illegal due to state law barring public workers from striking. Transit Workers Union leaders have been threatened with jail, the union is being fined $1 million each day of the strike, and striking workers "will also lose two days’ pay for every day they are on strike, and they could also be jailed" (MSNBC.com).

Still, according to a WNBC/Marist poll, 38% of New Yorkers support the strike. According to CNN.com, Local 100 of the TWU president Roger Toussaint justifies the strike as "transit workers are tired of being underappreciated and disrespected." Even some commuters with schedules disrupted by the strike sympathize with transit workers. According to The Associated Press, Matthew Higgs said, ""I try to put myself in their shoes. The only way you can get what you want is to take a stand. These guys work every day. ... Why shouldn't their kids have good health care? Why shouldn't their kids be able to go to college?"

Either way, some have speculated that the fines TWU and individual transit workers are facing will quickly eat up whatever raise in pay transit workers may receive after negotiations are settled.

Did NYC's transit workers take a brave stand for their rights, or are they acting selfishly and stupidly?

Posted by Tuck at 01:09 PM | Comments (18)

December 19, 2005

Big Brother Bush?

Last week The New York Times leaked that President Bush authorized domestic eavesdropping after the September 11th attacks.

Some critics find this surveillance disturbing, likening a spying National Security Agency to a "Big Brother." BBC News reports that "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping in the US without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was 'both illegal and unconstitutional.'"

Bush, according to ScienceDaily.com, "defended the program as important in being able to stop future attacks and suggested it was harmed by being publicly known." Bush also said he would continue the program "for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens," and added the program "included safeguards to protect civil liberties," reported Chron.com.

Is government surveillance of possible terrorists necessary in this time of war, or is it disturbing to your sense of civil liberties? Is America turning from land of the free to a government of Big Brother?

Posted by Tuck at 11:27 AM | Comments (42)

Cheney's Surprise Visit to Iraq

Vice President Dick Cheney recently made a surprise visit to Iraq, arriving in Baghdad yesterday "amid great secrecy... [and] under intense security for nine hours, leaving 12 hours before President Bush's televised national address from the Oval Office on the war and what comes next," reported SFGate.com.

Cheney reportedly appeared to show support for the US's decision to occupy Iraq, "transmitting the [Bush's] administration's confidence that it is beginning to get Iraq under control" (SFGate.com).

Depending on your view of the US's stay in Iraq, that Iraq's prime minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari told Cheney he was "very happy for [him] to see the fruits of [his] labor" (qtd. in SF Chronicle) may sound sincere or rather ironic.

What do you think? With several attacks during the Iraqi election, and the continuing violence as the US pushes Western democracy onto the country, do you think al-Jaafari's comment proves the Right is right, or do you snicker because the only fruits of labor you see in Iraq is continuing violence?

Posted by Tuck at 11:02 AM | Comments (14)