Minimum Security by Stephanie McMillan

Minimum Security

Comments (7) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 12 months ago

    “… they will be instantly fired, or even killed.”
    .
    Ha! – “perish” the thought! which, as I say it, I realize carries a double meaning of its own in this context: the common and the banishment of dangerous ideas from the minds of the underclass.
    .
    Still, it is all as was discussed in the commentary from the prior week, when unions were again a topic of favor. In short, a union can give voice to grievance, but a voice has no meaning in a void. (Double the meaning again! I am of two legs tonight!).
    .
    The plight of the working class might elicit sorrowful feelings of shared sympathies, but what good are sighs and CareBear hugs to those living beneath an autocratic yoke? It moves no lever of power within the autocracy. It lays no pressure upon the ruling class. It compels no meaningful action by those poised to use it. Come now – the rich have Swiss bank accounts and the poor have mouths to feed; who suffers most from the strike, Red Fist of Power Bear? Quick! Sunshine Struggle Bear! Leaflets Heart-Beam of Moral Persuasion, fire!
    .
    Only in a democracy can the weight of popular sentiment drive policy and influence governmental “morality.” Political change through a union is possible, but is preconditioned on the existence of there being such a populist power structure already in place when the ‘argument’ is made. Seeds thrown upon a rock never take root. They do not make the dirt and the rain that give fruit to life. You must start with soil, fed with water, and there plant these seeds of Hope. To bide the reverse is a wait in vain.
    .
    Crocodiles shed no tears; they only bite, and the government of Bangladesh is a very scaley beast. The first struggle is, as always, for democracy. The rest will come in due.

  2. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 12 months ago

    Bangladesh, a haven and example of Republican thought. No unions, no real regulation, not human rights getting in the way of their profit. What they want for the world.

  3. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 12 months ago

    Unions can be a positive or negative factor for the business and their membership. It depends on whether the organization adopts an autocratic or democratic political structure. Unfortunately, most (nearly all) unions develop into autocracies of one shade or the other, and as such are heir to the same strengths and foibles of this traditional arrangement.
    .
    Once set on the autocratic path the tendency is to beggar the future for the advantage of the present. Bad governance is rewarded with stability and control. The union becomes yet another parasite on the corporate body and neither it nor the membership profits.
    .
    But you do not need a union to accomplish waste. The vast majority of business failures have nothing to do with unions, government regulation, or tax schemes. They live or die on the competence of their own management.
    .
    Some executive teams are better at threading the gap of solvency between the Beast of Competition and the shoals of investor greed. Others (like Hostess) less so, and their graves line the pages of Harvard Business Review.
    .
    Either way, it is the lowly worker that ends with a fiscal bullet through the head.

  4. Norman Baron

    Norman Baron GoComics PRO Member said, 12 months ago

    Banjoaah thanks for the info on the chemicals. I’m not too worried about them since in the case of Dioxin I don’t eat all that much meat. With Diaquat dibromide I hardly ever eat algae, unless I am going to audition for “Jackass.” That leaves Endrine but since we cook our rats thoroughly before eating and since I have been informed that Endrine is detoxified by heat I not in a sweat over it’s toxicity.

    In the case of the sorely vexed residents of Bangladesh, unfortunately, their state of existence was pretty much fore ordained. They have very little land, rotten weather with typhoons and such and few, if any, natural resources. However, they have a whole bunch of people. So people being their only visible resource they become natural targets for exploitation. I think as the world’s empires continue to fall apart there will be more and more wide spot in the road countries that will be in the same fix. They will be in the position of: exploiting their own people or living off of what they run over on the road, assuming, of course, that the pesticides haven’t gotten to their road kill they might limp along for a few years until they are taken over by a dictator that kills off the excess population. So, capitalism rampant or not, it looks like things will pretty much work themselves out. Now if I could just find my copy of the Wall Street Journal……

  5. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 12 months ago

    @Norman Baron

    If you went for a full spectrum chemical analysis of your body you would find all kinds of dioxins and heavy metals and all kinds of oncogenic catalysts.

  6. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 12 months ago

    Most countries in the world are run by dictators (autocrats). Shockingly few are democratic by any stretch of the imagination. Democracy, as noted before, is more than just a label or a box crammed with paper slips. One must look past the veneers and into the heart of the beast. You must map the coursing flow of power through the body politic and there will be revealed the nature of the thing.
    .
    There is a correlation here. It is no coincidence that nations with the lowest standards of living are governed by autocracies while those with the highest of standards are democratic. A country does not become “susceptible” to despotism because of a failing economy – economies fail because they are possessed by autocratic government, and it is in the express interest of such an institution to bleed the productivity of the nation in exchange for political stability.
    .
    Bangladesh was not a land swimming in riches when it was formed, but its consecration as an autocracy effectively doomed whatever hope there might have been. What you see there now is the natural outgrowth of this development. To feed the ruling class and maintain control, the leadership must exploit the underclass – the powerless – and sacrifice the economic health of the nation on the altar of political security. Autocracy brought the nation to poverty; poverty did not bring them to autocracy.

  7. Christinecedar

    Christinecedar said, 12 months ago

    Wonder why the right arm of the Bangladeshi sewist is behind her back? Take a look at the Four Corners video, an absolute atrocity, never to be brought to justice.

  8. Refresh Comments.