|
Copyrights reserved by the author. If you are in doubt, please click on 'Copyrights' and read the details. Another strike of the rich! By J. G. Fabiano Here I sit on a Saturday afternoon in front of a monitor instead of in front of my television watching the Red Sox attempt to stay close to the New York Yankees. Wandering downstairs to my living room I see my small black refrigerator topped with bags of potato chips and pretzels wondering why they are left unopened on this traditional day of gaining weight and losing voice. As we all are aware by now our national game is about to go on strike. While the union did not set a strike date yet, it has asked players on individual teams to give it authority to set one. If there is not progress in negotiations, the executive board is expected to call for baseball's ninth work stoppage, setting a walkout date for August or September. The key issues of this upcoming strike consist of increase revenue sharing among teams, the owners' proposal for a luxury tax to slow payroll growth, random testing for steroids and other drugs, extending the amateur draft worldwide, and management's attempt to change salary arbitration rules and eligibility. It is difficult to discuss a situation concerning professional players who are making more than most of us make in a lifetime when there are other people fighting for their right to survive. I don't want to take this time to discuss the pros and cons of another strike of the rich. I do want to talk about groups of people who never go on strike but should. I am talking about all of the aspiring candidates for political office, leaders of nations and industry whose ethics and morality are finally being questioned, real estate developers who could care less about the ecology and social structures of our homes, and, of course, the legal weasels who are more interested in their own advancement then in the laws they are supposed to defend. Can you imagine how quiet our lives would be if all the political candidates decided to go on strike. The headlines would be deprived of all the political stories that bore most of us to death. Newspaper and television reports would have to deal with the reality of people instead of the fantasy of how great our lives would be if we elect a certain person to lead us into what they consider to be the Promised Land. Why couldn't all these candidates go on strike until a month or so before the election, instead of starting their campaigns a year before most of us realize that an election is supposed to take place. If they did so they would have to concentrate on real issues and problems of our society. Our population would then have an understanding and thus a choice in the direction we want our government to follow. The many public relation firms that make millions of dollars to make the paying candidate appear to be a cross between John F. Kennedy and Jesus Christ would feel the only loss caused by this strike. The political action committees (PAC) would also be distressed because there would no longer be a need for massive amounts of dollars to run the campaigns. Thus, there would no longer be a need to create a debt that would have to be paid back in terms of supporting legislation to advance the financiers of the PACS. How about having the leaders of all the warring factions of the world go on strike? I can see the headlines now: "The leaders of every terrorist group and warring nation are meeting today in Iraq to discuss a strike depriving the world of terrorism, war, starvation, pestilence, and greed." It would be entertaining to watch as Arafat, Saddam, Sharon, and Bin Laden walk the picket line asking for the world to give them more of their children in order to continue what they believe is their God's right. Hell, you may as well throw G. W. into the line in order to make it more interesting. The story could continue by stating that the world's industrial giants are joining to support this strike by not producing any more weapons of mass destruction and by not supporting the chosen few to control third world industries. This would make the people of these desperate nations control their own destinies and thus build their own economies around the concept of bettering the living conditions of their own populations. The situation could become even more interesting if the controllers of the world's markets joined in on this strike. This would leave small investors responsible for the world's economies without the inside information that has become a necessary tool of today's market place. Ethics, morality, and trust would sneak back into the world's marketplaces leaving the money to spread out into the general public. The insurance companies would lose their most important ally if the lawyers went out on strike. But, then again, I believe they have become one and the same. People would have to once again take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Need would once again have the potential to overwhelm greed. They would have to put their tax money into programs that would guarantee the health of all of our people from the children to those of us who lived too long. Here I sit on a Saturday afternoon staring into a monitor attempting to express my frustration about the probability of a baseball strike. For the next few months I will be condemned to watch as athletes walk the picket line, competing as to who wears the larger earring, who wears the most expensive suit, or who drives the most valuable car. Maybe I'll read a book instead of focusing on this newest of comedies. A walk down the beach with my family and friends could be an interesting change of pace. I could walk over to the local ball-field to watch local school children who still love the game they play. However, before I do anything I think I'll call my lawyer and suggest a possible strike! The End
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
