Market Basket is a New England grocery chain. Recently, the popular CEO Arthur T. DeMoulas was ousted and replaced by his cousin Arthur S. Demoulas. Market Basket employees have been protesting "Artie T's" departure and customers have been shopping elsewhere. The Market Basket employees are willing to lose their jobs to fight for a CEO who cared about them, who provided them with good wages and good benefits and inspired a loyalty that knows no boundaries. This is what happens when a businessperson does the right thing for the right reasons and refuses to put profits over people. The employees and customers respond with the same care and concern.
Why should a New England grocery store, its employees and customers matter to us? Because this is what happens when people join together, stand united and believe in a cause. This is what happens when people decide that they will not simply just accept what happens and go on because they can't do anything about it. This is what happens, without violence or threats of violence, when people really care. This is how change begins. This is where hope begins. This how every good thing accomplished and/or achieved in this country began.
Whether the protests will ultimately achieve the desired result: Arthur T. Demoulas reinstated as CEO, remains to be seen. But for now, we must all stand and applaud the efforts of a group pf people who are choosing to do all they can to make a difference.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Monday, July 21, 2014
Does the Lady in the harbor matter any more?
I wrote this July 31, 2010 and four years later, the question still remains:
Does the Lady in the harbor matter any more?
The Statue of Liberty, gift from the people of France to the people of the United States, symbol of hope and liberty to those seeking freedom from oppression. Stories are told and written of immigrants shedding tears of joy at seeing the Statue after a long journey on the sea. Even those who never passed by the Lady in the harbor still know that she represents the chance for a life of opportunity. She stands as a welcome, not to the rich and famous, but to the poor and desperate:
We are now engaged in a great debate, a great battle, over what to do about the immigrants who did not take the necessary steps to get permission to enter this country. How to find them and send them back to their own countries. Arizona has attempted what can only be described as legalized racial profiling to stop and arrest anyone who cannot prove the right, whether by birth or paperwork, to live in this country.
How easily we forget that not only are we a nation of immigrants, but the first settlers were also illegal immigrants. They may have had permission from their governments, in the form of royal charters, but their governments neither owned nor had any legal authority to colonize or allow to be colonized any land in North and/or South America.
How sad that the Lady in the harbor, once a symbol to the world that here in the United States all are welcome, is now just an old statue whose meaning is fading. In 1986 for the Statue's Centennial anniversary, the Statue under went a restoration.
Now in 2010, let her undergo a new restoration, let us stand together with the Lady in the harbor to remind the world, our own federal, state and local governments as well as those citizens who wish to pursue anti-immigration laws that the torch is still lit and the Statue of Liberty still welcomes ALL to our country.
Does the Lady in the harbor matter any more?
The Statue of Liberty, gift from the people of France to the people of the United States, symbol of hope and liberty to those seeking freedom from oppression. Stories are told and written of immigrants shedding tears of joy at seeing the Statue after a long journey on the sea. Even those who never passed by the Lady in the harbor still know that she represents the chance for a life of opportunity. She stands as a welcome, not to the rich and famous, but to the poor and desperate:
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus
We are now engaged in a great debate, a great battle, over what to do about the immigrants who did not take the necessary steps to get permission to enter this country. How to find them and send them back to their own countries. Arizona has attempted what can only be described as legalized racial profiling to stop and arrest anyone who cannot prove the right, whether by birth or paperwork, to live in this country.
How easily we forget that not only are we a nation of immigrants, but the first settlers were also illegal immigrants. They may have had permission from their governments, in the form of royal charters, but their governments neither owned nor had any legal authority to colonize or allow to be colonized any land in North and/or South America.
How sad that the Lady in the harbor, once a symbol to the world that here in the United States all are welcome, is now just an old statue whose meaning is fading. In 1986 for the Statue's Centennial anniversary, the Statue under went a restoration.
Now in 2010, let her undergo a new restoration, let us stand together with the Lady in the harbor to remind the world, our own federal, state and local governments as well as those citizens who wish to pursue anti-immigration laws that the torch is still lit and the Statue of Liberty still welcomes ALL to our country.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
There is strength in numbers
There is strength in numbers. There are more people who are opposed to open-carry, than people openly carrying their weapons. There are more people who want reasonable gun control laws than people who want no restrictions on gun ownership. There are more people who are not members of the National Rifle Association than people who are members. There are even more members of the National Rifle Association who support gun control than members opposed to gun control. There are more people who support the Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as ObamaCare, than people who do not support universal health care for all people. There are more people who support social service programs that aid those most in need than people who do not support those programs. And 98% of the population is a greater amount than 2% of the population.
So why, if there is strength in numbers, are we still unable to even have a serious dialogue about the need for reasonable gun control laws? Why are we still fighting about healthcare? Why are social service programs that benefit the elderly, veterans and the poor, still the first to be slashed in budget talks? Perhaps because the real strength in those numbers can only come when we stand together, speak together and vote together. That is something we do not always do. The question is, why haven't we?
Well, the Koch brothers have invested so much money in advertising and sponsoring tea party candidates. Okay, fair enough answer. But the Koch brothers have only one vote each and there are, after all, only two of them. Well, there are more wealthy people involved than just those two. Yes, and still they are a small percentage of the voting public. But we seem to have convinced ourselves that we just can't do anything about them. We have bought in to the whole idea that money buys elections and there's nothing we can do. We have forgotten that there is strength in numbers and we clearly outnumber them!
What about the gerrymandering? What about those protected districts? Yes, what about that? Gerrymandering is almost as old as the Constitution. Based on the census, the redrawing of districts is done by the State legislatures and the party in power draws districts favorable to them. Certainly gerrymandering has become a more critical issue as of late, but still not an impossible situation because there is still strength in numbers.
The current makeup of the Congress, with the number of tea party members should serve as a prime example of strength in numbers. The people who elected those men and women made sure they voted. Conservatives, such as the Koch brothers and Ruprt Murdoch, count on the fact that there is a solid block of conservatives who vote in every election. So they utilize Fox News, right wing politicians, right wing talk show personalities and right wing ministers to keep the voting base ever ready and ever energized to do battle against the liberals who threaten their civil liberties and basic rights. They misinform, either deliberately or because they themselves just do not know the facts, the truth or the fundamentals of early American history. More important is that they count on the real majority simply choosing not to get out and vote in numbers that could and would make a difference.
Why does that happen? Why do we not use our strength in our numbers to make the changes we need to make? Unfortunately, for many reasons. Some people really don't think their vote matters. Others think nothing will change even if they do vote because one party's just as bad as the other. Whatever the reasons, when people choose not to vote, they, too, are demonstrating just how powerful strength in numbers is. Their votes might have made a difference, might have helped to elect a candidate for change rather than a candidate wanting to turn back the hands of time.
As always, our history is filled with those who wanted to be obstacles to change, who refused to grant equality to all, who stood in the way of progress and forward movement. Still we have made the changes, taken steps, small sometimes, toward ensuring equality, and continue moving forward and making progress, even if it can barely be noticed at times. How have we done this? By people standing up, standing together and speaking out with their voices and their votes because they know there is strength in numbers.
So why, if there is strength in numbers, are we still unable to even have a serious dialogue about the need for reasonable gun control laws? Why are we still fighting about healthcare? Why are social service programs that benefit the elderly, veterans and the poor, still the first to be slashed in budget talks? Perhaps because the real strength in those numbers can only come when we stand together, speak together and vote together. That is something we do not always do. The question is, why haven't we?
Well, the Koch brothers have invested so much money in advertising and sponsoring tea party candidates. Okay, fair enough answer. But the Koch brothers have only one vote each and there are, after all, only two of them. Well, there are more wealthy people involved than just those two. Yes, and still they are a small percentage of the voting public. But we seem to have convinced ourselves that we just can't do anything about them. We have bought in to the whole idea that money buys elections and there's nothing we can do. We have forgotten that there is strength in numbers and we clearly outnumber them!
What about the gerrymandering? What about those protected districts? Yes, what about that? Gerrymandering is almost as old as the Constitution. Based on the census, the redrawing of districts is done by the State legislatures and the party in power draws districts favorable to them. Certainly gerrymandering has become a more critical issue as of late, but still not an impossible situation because there is still strength in numbers.
The current makeup of the Congress, with the number of tea party members should serve as a prime example of strength in numbers. The people who elected those men and women made sure they voted. Conservatives, such as the Koch brothers and Ruprt Murdoch, count on the fact that there is a solid block of conservatives who vote in every election. So they utilize Fox News, right wing politicians, right wing talk show personalities and right wing ministers to keep the voting base ever ready and ever energized to do battle against the liberals who threaten their civil liberties and basic rights. They misinform, either deliberately or because they themselves just do not know the facts, the truth or the fundamentals of early American history. More important is that they count on the real majority simply choosing not to get out and vote in numbers that could and would make a difference.
Why does that happen? Why do we not use our strength in our numbers to make the changes we need to make? Unfortunately, for many reasons. Some people really don't think their vote matters. Others think nothing will change even if they do vote because one party's just as bad as the other. Whatever the reasons, when people choose not to vote, they, too, are demonstrating just how powerful strength in numbers is. Their votes might have made a difference, might have helped to elect a candidate for change rather than a candidate wanting to turn back the hands of time.
As always, our history is filled with those who wanted to be obstacles to change, who refused to grant equality to all, who stood in the way of progress and forward movement. Still we have made the changes, taken steps, small sometimes, toward ensuring equality, and continue moving forward and making progress, even if it can barely be noticed at times. How have we done this? By people standing up, standing together and speaking out with their voices and their votes because they know there is strength in numbers.
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Sarah Palin, slavery and the Engladers
Sarah Palin posted on Facebook that Jesus was with George Washington and lead the Revolutionaries to victory during the war for independence. This statement does not trouble me so much because there are those who believe that Jesus and/or God is on the side of the victorious. President Abraham Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural Address, spoke of both sides praying for victory to the same God. What concerns me much more deeply is that Sarah Palin, a woman chosen to be a vice-presidential candidate, either does not know or does not understand much about early American History.
Sarah Palin, in her post, spoke about the fight against the "Englanders." Ah, Sarah, they were actually referred to as British or English. Perhaps a little petty on my part to point that out, but knowing and using proper terminology does lend some bit of credibility to the speaker/writer.
If simply misstating the name of the group the Revolutionaries were fighting against was all Sarah Palin did, then I'd likely have simply let it go without so much as a brief comment. But Sarah Palin had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt her lack of historical knowledge. She said that if the colonists had been defeated, "it's possible we would all still be slaves to the England empire." Sorry Sarah, but the colonists were not slaves in the British empire. They were actually British citizens. They chose to fight for freedom, not out of a fear of being enslaved or to free themselves from slavery, but because they believed their rights as citizens were being violated. The decision did not come easy for them, and the Declaration of Independence states their case against the King of England and reasons for choosing independence.
While many are focusing on Sarah Palin's praise and thanksgiving to God that Jesus led the colonists to victory, I am more dismayed at her factual inaccuracy than her religious beliefs about the victory. I am not concerned about how many people share her beliefs about Divine Intervention, but I am am deeply worried about how many people believe her when she speaks or writes about history.
Sarah Palin, in her post, spoke about the fight against the "Englanders." Ah, Sarah, they were actually referred to as British or English. Perhaps a little petty on my part to point that out, but knowing and using proper terminology does lend some bit of credibility to the speaker/writer.
If simply misstating the name of the group the Revolutionaries were fighting against was all Sarah Palin did, then I'd likely have simply let it go without so much as a brief comment. But Sarah Palin had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt her lack of historical knowledge. She said that if the colonists had been defeated, "it's possible we would all still be slaves to the England empire." Sorry Sarah, but the colonists were not slaves in the British empire. They were actually British citizens. They chose to fight for freedom, not out of a fear of being enslaved or to free themselves from slavery, but because they believed their rights as citizens were being violated. The decision did not come easy for them, and the Declaration of Independence states their case against the King of England and reasons for choosing independence.
While many are focusing on Sarah Palin's praise and thanksgiving to God that Jesus led the colonists to victory, I am more dismayed at her factual inaccuracy than her religious beliefs about the victory. I am not concerned about how many people share her beliefs about Divine Intervention, but I am am deeply worried about how many people believe her when she speaks or writes about history.
Friday, July 4, 2014
4th of July reflections
As I walked to the grocery store yesterday (July 3), I saw two American Flags on all the telephone polls on the east side of the street. I felt pride in my community for decorating the telephone polls, pride in the United States and pride in the American Flag. I neither have a "my country right or wrong" nor a "my country never does wrong" sentiment. Our history is filled with all the wrongs we have done and mistakes we have made both here and around the world. Still, I believe there is much for which we can be proud.
When the colonists declared their independence July 4, 1776, they were willing to risk their lives to pursue the ideal that all are created equal, entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In 1787, a group of men met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and wrote a Constitution that created a new form of government: a democratic republic with three distinct branches of government with a system of checks and balances.
President Abraham Lincoln chose to accept war rather than let the Southern States leave the Union because he believed that if those States left, if the United States could not sustain itself, then neither could the concept of "government of the people, by the people and for the people." There are those, I know, who argue that we no longer have that and perhaps never really had that. That we have always had government by the rich and for the rich. That allegation goes all the way back to the debates during and after the writing and ratification of the Constitution.
Our history is filled with examples of people who were not given the equality about which Thomas Jefferson wrote and for which Abraham Lincoln and so many others gave their lives. So what possible reason could I have to be proud?
In every case, despite the best efforts of narrow-minded citizens and politicians, people found ways to make progress, to move our country forward, inching ever closer to that ideal of equality for all. Do we still have far to go? Absolutely! Are there still those who would rather destroy this country than allow progress? Yes! But what has and will always make me proud of the United States is the people who refuse to let this country turn back to a mythical non-existent past. The people who know that we must continue moving forward and making progress 238 years after we took that first step.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)