Last late night one of our own, Tony Palmeri, blocked one of our own, David Omachinski (Foundation Board, Alumn, Guest Lecturer) from a position on the Oshkosh Redevelopment Board. That crux of the argument to block the appointment was that Oshkosh Bgosh outsourced jobs to third world countries and that third world countries labor standards are not very good.
Right church, wrong pew.
Yes, there is no denial that third world labor practices are below those of developed countries. Often, compared to the practices in the US, these practices are abhorrent. There is no dispute here. However, one of the comebacks to the labor practices is that by having some jobs over no jobs, it will allow the third world to develop better economies. Economic historians bolster this argument by showing how the textile trade left the UK in the late 1800's and early 1900's for India and arguably now, India has one of the faster growing economies world wide and is one of the world's largest secular democracies. True, there are still major problems in India but economic historians will point out the growth and changes to bolster their argument.
But back to Mr Omachinski. I know Dave, I've worked with Dave and Tony you were wrong to block him. Should Dave had not outsourced Oshkosh and gone bankrupt? Would that have been a better outcome for the entire company to fold? Is it better for all to perish in outside the lifeboat if you can't fit everyone in? Is this your point?
To argue that the Authority needs someone representing organized labor on there is an interesting concept. Let someone from organized labor who has Dave's background (successful CEO of a public traded company, board member of others, and civic/philanthropic participation) step to the plate. To argue that the Authority needs organized labor representation is a hollow argument: the Authority needs competent membership not special interest group representation. If you've got someone out there equal or better to Dave from organized labor, please let us see it. You knew about the opening, did you present some candidates to Mayor Tower?
Don't just grab someone because of organized labor. Job creation and economic expansion starts with ideas and not with protecting the buggywhip industry.
8 comments:
I'm afraid Palmeri will discover quickly that he will inevitably run into paradoxes if he continues to govern through the use of pure idealism.
For example, say a position on the Redevelopment Authority is allocated to a Labor representative through either fiat or nomination ... Will Palmeri have issues with anyone from Oshkosh Truck filling the position, given that Truck is a defense contractor that supplies a war effort Palmeri has been vociferously against?
I guess we'll have to see ...
jb:
Well put!
It might be interesting to see how Tony could reconcile that. I can see it now "well, they do make other types of trucks and they put the Leach plant back on line after those jobs were shipped to, gasp, CANADA! So, the union brethren must be okay."
I've been thinking of getting his textbook list to see if all of his books are printed here in the US by union shops.
Practice what you preach, eh?
Take a chill on the ad hominem attacks. Tony simply Represents a new way of thinking. The literature does not support the claim that free industrial zones benefit the people in Honduras or the country at large. The claim that Trucks war profiteering will benefit Oshkosh, is also false. Hanna Arent wrote a book called, "the banality of evil" which describes not only Mr.Omachinski, but the owner of this blog and the comments so far.
One of the features of teaching liberal arts is that one generally was schooled in the liberal arts and sciences and one took all kinds of courses which one wondered if they would ever have practical applications in the real world.
To wit: suggesting that I and Mr Omachinski are evil, therefore our opinions are wrong or conversely that are opinions are wrong and therefore, we are evil are both ad hominen arguments. This means that you are largely criticizing the author of the opinion as a basis for criticizing the author’s position.
To suggest that my criticism of Dr Palemri’s position is an ad hominen attack is decidedly wrong. I’ve not criticized him; I’ve merely criticized his position and his reasoning for it and shown a historical argument for my position. Individuals may look at history and decidedly come up with different conclusions about an event. Do I think his position is wrong? Yes, I do. Do I think he is ‘wrong’ as an individual or ‘evil’ as you’ve described myself and Mr Omachinski? No, I don’t
Your attack of me suggests that you’ve not had the benefits of a liberal arts education. If one goes through life with absolute conviction that those who differ from you are ‘evil’, it must make for a troublesome existence, indeed.
other experts, and the mainstream media, to normalize the unthinkable for the general public.” Noam Chomsky in his chapter on the responsibility of intellectuals tells us that the function of academia is to rationalize the status quo. I was making a statement of fact based on the comments you have written. The only conclusion one can come to is that of evil. I will ignore the funny comment about liberal education being the path to enlightenment. If that were true we would be living in a much different w
This is probably foolish to continue, but what the hell ...
"The claim that Trucks war profiteering will benefit Oshkosh, is also false."
I don't know how you got that out of my comment. If you're going to accuse Truck of war profiteering, please do so with your own words. Though I certainly do not doubt that the practice takes place, engaging in defense contracting does not automatically make someone a war profiteer.
If you make a financial profit from war, by definition, that is "war profiteering".
Why? How is that true?
Truck makes armored vehicles that are not made to inflict damages on the enemy. They provide protection to troops and help to facilitate logistics. There is no ammunition involved, there is no offensive capabilities to contend with.
If a company makes parachutes are they "war profiteers" because they allow soldiers to land safely? If a company makes only MREs are they evil because they make food? Is the public school system a "war profiteer" because they educate people who will eventually become soldiers?
We can go on and on. War is so complex that that it really does involve every aspect of society, so there has to be a point where people have to agree to say "screw it!" and find a point along the chain of command where we agree as a collective society where the responsibility falls.
There are war profiteers, don't get me wrong, and we know who those guys are; but they are ultimately responsible to the people we elect to do business with them. So if you have a problem with war and/or war profiteering, take it up with them.
Post a Comment