Here's a lotty subject that's likely to turn heads so I'll try and refrain from character bashing as much as I can.
What is a nation?
Is it a place? A definable boarder separating my land from theirs? Is it the palaces of government? The halls of the Senate? Does it lie in the heart of our national monuments? Is it the people who live there? Is it the businesses that keep it running?
Let me pose a theory.
No.
Every nation has landmarks, territories, monuments, and while these may endeavor to represent the heart and soul of a nation (or the memory of it's heroes.) While these could not be done without some nation to represent, saying that a nation is in it's monuments is akin to seeing the forest for the trees.
I would also argue that the government, while close, isn't the nation either. if the government isn't the nation, then, by extension, neither are the people. People are fickle, fragile beings, locked in their own mind. No one (besides Stephen Colbert, or perhaps 'papa bear' Bill O'Reilly) could claim to be their nation personified, not the nations founders. Though this may have been the case back when we believed in "God-Kings" or "Divine Emperors" in our modern world, those ideas seem out of place.
So, where is it? I would argue a very simple idea, one most of us have proboly thought before:
A nation IS the ideals it holds most dear.
We are not united by monuments or fanfares, but rather we, in tribute to our nation, construct/perform them. We are not brought together solely based on where we were born (re: imagration). Our laws serve to protect our ideals and beliefs, but they are the guardiens, not the beliefs themselves.
Good, bad, right, wrong, these words can be bandied about to judge what a nation is but that judgement is a perspective, not the thing itself. Whether we are good or bad depends solely on what ideals we hold to.
The true test of what we are comes in times of crisis. Ideals we are willing to give up in times of crisis arent ideals, they're hobbies (another Boston Legal-ism, a favorite of mine), and are, therefore, not what we actually are or hold most dear. I'm not going to say that sacrificing freedoms and rights for the sake of safety and security to object is right or wrong, but it does say that safety means more to us than freedom. You're call as to which we should be defigned by.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
... about getting fired.
Ever heard the term "at-will employee?"
It's a frightening aspect of our modern working culture that's been nagging away at the back of my mind since I signed a contract stating that I was one some years ago. I've since left the job but the idea sits ill at ease with me.
The basic tenets of the law state that:
"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
(Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, Cases and Materials on Employment Law (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.)
While I fully respect the idea of striking, quitting, and all that jazz, am I the only one who finds the words "good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all" just a little tyrannical?
Well, let's try and see it from both sides. Legal and financial reasoning springs to mind in defense of the employer. If every employee discharge could be argued in court (likely costing quite a lot of money in legal fees), employers would be afraid to fire disruptive or belligerent employees for fear of being taken to the cleaners in court. Not to mention that a clever but malicious employee could disrupt or bring harm to their place of employment by finding loopholes in their contract and would then be legally unfireable.
However, on the side of employees (which I tend to lean) this means that your boss can fire you for WHATEVER reason that they seem fit. You talk too lout? You're fired. You look at them funny? You're fired. You smoke on your breaks? You're fired. You smoke at home? You're fired (Authors note: those last two were in reference to a show called Boston Legal, one of my favorites, I may bring it up again.) The repercussions of this precedent are terrifying in a very real sense for anyone who's had a part time ob with a boss they didn't like.
Fortunately there are some limits to the basic elements of the law. Firing someone in a manner that breaks a law is illegal almost across the board (exceptions mostly being on the east coast). Various states have various exceptions, limiting the resons for termination. There are also federal exceptions blocking employers from fireing based on sex, race, religion, etc (for a better list follow this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employee#Statutory_exceptions).
Perhaps my fears are unfounded or exagerated by my Orwellian scepticism of government. I do, however see how this can be abused. on the other hand, what can't?
According to Thomas Jefferson (supposedly) "The cost of freedom is eternal vigialence." If that is the case then my scepticism is healthy regardless of how well founded it is. I think we must keep a watchful eye on every right in the troubled times, lest they slip away.
It's a frightening aspect of our modern working culture that's been nagging away at the back of my mind since I signed a contract stating that I was one some years ago. I've since left the job but the idea sits ill at ease with me.
The basic tenets of the law state that:
"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
(Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, Cases and Materials on Employment Law (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.)
While I fully respect the idea of striking, quitting, and all that jazz, am I the only one who finds the words "good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all" just a little tyrannical?
Well, let's try and see it from both sides. Legal and financial reasoning springs to mind in defense of the employer. If every employee discharge could be argued in court (likely costing quite a lot of money in legal fees), employers would be afraid to fire disruptive or belligerent employees for fear of being taken to the cleaners in court. Not to mention that a clever but malicious employee could disrupt or bring harm to their place of employment by finding loopholes in their contract and would then be legally unfireable.
However, on the side of employees (which I tend to lean) this means that your boss can fire you for WHATEVER reason that they seem fit. You talk too lout? You're fired. You look at them funny? You're fired. You smoke on your breaks? You're fired. You smoke at home? You're fired (Authors note: those last two were in reference to a show called Boston Legal, one of my favorites, I may bring it up again.) The repercussions of this precedent are terrifying in a very real sense for anyone who's had a part time ob with a boss they didn't like.
Fortunately there are some limits to the basic elements of the law. Firing someone in a manner that breaks a law is illegal almost across the board (exceptions mostly being on the east coast). Various states have various exceptions, limiting the resons for termination. There are also federal exceptions blocking employers from fireing based on sex, race, religion, etc (for a better list follow this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employee#Statutory_exceptions).
Perhaps my fears are unfounded or exagerated by my Orwellian scepticism of government. I do, however see how this can be abused. on the other hand, what can't?
According to Thomas Jefferson (supposedly) "The cost of freedom is eternal vigialence." If that is the case then my scepticism is healthy regardless of how well founded it is. I think we must keep a watchful eye on every right in the troubled times, lest they slip away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)