Writers on Strike by Denise Morris on 11/15/2007 at 8:05 AM

I've been paying a small bit of attention to the current writer's strike all throughout the entertainment industry. In case you haven't heard, the writers of television shows and movies are on strike in order to change what they think are unfair practices by the companies who buy their scripts. This strike will have a big affect on entertainment as a whole. The late night shows have already felt it -- no new Jay Leno jokes for awhile (is anyone complaining?).

At first I thought the writers were just being babies. I mean, they work in Hollywood, the land of the rich and famous. Did they want more money so they could buy an even bigger Hummer? But writers in Hollywood are not the same as famous Hollywood actors. They write a script and sell it. Their income is not necessarily steady. As one writer puts it:

There are long gaps between jobs; no one buys the movie you spent six months writing; you're a sitcom writer and the public's taste favors police procedurals—or vice versa; or you finally get a show on and you're scheduled opposite "American Idol." This is all part of the game, and no one expects it to be any different. The thing that gets you through these fallow periods is the residual.

A residual is paid to an author whenever their work is shown on TV. If their episode is rerun, they get a check. So whenever a network like NBC makes money from the ads that were bought during the show, the writer of the show sees some of that money as well.

The reason the writers are striking has to do with good old technology advancement. Many networks have started to show television shows on the Internet. Because of this, the shows don't get rerun as often. Writers don't see as many residuals. However, the networks are still showing ads during the shows on the Internet. I've watched a program on NBC.com and there are always pauses so that I can learn about Dove's latest product or Geico's fabulous car insurance. But as it is now, the writers of these shows are not getting any residuals from the money the networks are making when they provide the show online.

As Motte just blogged about, some of the future of television seems to be online. If shows aren't on television as much, the writers won't be getting paid as much.

So, what do you all think? Do the writers deserve residuals from the online showings? Or should the network be able to do what they want with a show once they've bought the script from the author?

Writers on Strike by Denise Morris on 11/15/2007 at 8:05 AM

I've been paying a small bit of attention to the current writer's strike all throughout the entertainment industry. In case you haven't heard, the writers of television shows and movies are on strike in order to change what they think are unfair practices by the companies who buy their scripts. This strike will have a big affect on entertainment as a whole. The late night shows have already felt it -- no new Jay Leno jokes for awhile (is anyone complaining?).

At first I thought the writers were just being babies. I mean, they work in Hollywood, the land of the rich and famous. Did they want more money so they could buy an even bigger Hummer? But writers in Hollywood are not the same as famous Hollywood actors. They write a script and sell it. Their income is not necessarily steady. As one writer puts it:

There are long gaps between jobs; no one buys the movie you spent six months writing; you're a sitcom writer and the public's taste favors police procedurals—or vice versa; or you finally get a show on and you're scheduled opposite "American Idol." This is all part of the game, and no one expects it to be any different. The thing that gets you through these fallow periods is the residual.

A residual is paid to an author whenever their work is shown on TV. If their episode is rerun, they get a check. So whenever a network like NBC makes money from the ads that were bought during the show, the writer of the show sees some of that money as well.

The reason the writers are striking has to do with good old technology advancement. Many networks have started to show television shows on the Internet. Because of this, the shows don't get rerun as often. Writers don't see as many residuals. However, the networks are still showing ads during the shows on the Internet. I've watched a program on NBC.com and there are always pauses so that I can learn about Dove's latest product or Geico's fabulous car insurance. But as it is now, the writers of these shows are not getting any residuals from the money the networks are making when they provide the show online.

As Motte just blogged about, some of the future of television seems to be online. If shows aren't on television as much, the writers won't be getting paid as much.

So, what do you all think? Do the writers deserve residuals from the online showings? Or should the network be able to do what they want with a show once they've bought the script from the author?

Comments

[1. Samantha said the following at 8:33 AM on Nov 15:]

1

Yes, 100% the writers deserve residuals from their work being used online - or in any other form of new media. When the last writers contract was negotiated 20 years ago, DVD hadn't yet been invented. Or at least it wasn't being distributed. In any event, the writers only make $0.04 for each $20 DVD sold. That's it. The studios make $9. They make NOTHING off internet downloads of their shows/movies (even the legal ones) and nothing off the additional content they often write for their show's official website.

How fair is that?

These writers are NOT being greedy. They're asking the studios, who are telling stockholders and others how much money there is to be made on the internet(!!), to give them a piece of what they've rightly earned. As someone pointed out, in 10 years time, these residuals could be the difference between having electricity and getting dressed in the dark for some - if not most - of these writers.

[2. John D. said the following at 8:34 AM on Nov 15:]

2

The worker is entitled to his wages. Do not muzzle the ox as he is treading out the grain.

The studios are making a LOT of money. If the writers who make it possible are being short-changed, then that becomes an economic justice issue. Remember, it's only the top writers who make $200,000 a year.

[3. DT said the following at 8:35 AM on Nov 15:]

3

I'm having a very hard time having much sympathy for the writers. The ones with steady jobs on TV shows can make more than $200,000 a year. I'm not jealous of their salary (well, maybe I am since I'm a homemaker and get NO paycheck!) but of their apparent greed. Yes, they should be paid for what they do, which includes residuals from downloads, but is a strike really necessary?

I decided I'd had enough of them when I learned that 102 staff members of The Office were laid off. That includes hairdressers, cameramen, grips, food service folks, the medic, the makeup and wardrobe people... Everybody who makes the show run each day, basically. Some of those people make less than I made as a public school teacher, and now they have nothing. They're dipping into savings and retirement funds just to get by. How is that even remotely fair?

[4. Adam D said the following at 8:54 AM on Nov 15:]

4

Hopefully this purging will clear out a lot of the junk that floats around Hollywood and television networks in general and these people will get real jobs.

[5. Katie (the other one) said the following at 9:03 AM on Nov 15:]

5

DT,

The writers have been threatening to strike for some time, if changes were not made. Do not blame the writers for other workers being fired. It is the studios and production companies that need to be held responsible. They are the ones who are underpaying the writers and refused to cut a deal before the strike deadline. And yes, even in the world of capitalism, sometimes a strike is necessary. Also, when you compare $200,000 to the multi-million dollar profit these shows bring the production companies over just one season, the writers are severely underpaid.

[6. BB said the following at 9:12 AM on Nov 15:]

6

With tivo and other ways of getting around commercials, writers are going to have a hard time in the coming future keeping up. Notice they aren't striking for more money... just to maintain their current lifestyle. That seems fair enough and I support it despite setting back several of the movies I'm looking forward two in the next few years.

[7. Amy Reyes said the following at 9:20 AM on Nov 15:]

7

I absolutely believe that the writer's deserve to get their fair share of the money the producers are making off of their work through ad sales online. They did the work and should be paid for it rather than their hard work lining the pockets of already wealthy producers.

[8. Jeremy said the following at 9:27 AM on Nov 15:]

8

I feel a bit conflicted about the WGA strike; I can see merits to both sides. On the one hand, writers don't have a "right" to any specific form of compensation, they can barter for their services like anyone else, and massive organized strikes of this sort do indeed hurt a lot of bystanders. Additionally, almost no studio is currently making money with internet media; indeed most are losing quite a bit by making shows available online (but hoping to build viewership and loyalty over the long term). Thus, for the most part, there really aren't any profits to be shared yet.

... but there will be. Again over the long term, either studios will come up with a business model that makes money from internet media, or they will abandon it. Since the writers see the first as being far more likely, they want to make sure that there is a residual schedule in place for that time, and refusing to work is really the only leverage they have. It will be interesting to see how this ends up, and how quickly it gets resolved.

[9. Laura said the following at 9:30 AM on Nov 15:]

9

I wasn't quite sure what to think until I saw a video that members of the WGA produced that explained what's going on. Now I'm 100% convinced that the studios are just being greedy and that the writers had to take action to ensure they'll get what they deserve. Since almost 50% of writers are unemployed at any given time, they need residuals to support their families.

[10. Kit said the following at 9:30 AM on Nov 15:]

10

They most definetly should be paid for their work, each time it is aired, regardless of whether or not it is online. As a just-out-of-school, trained classical musician, I know how rough it is in the "arts" scene. It is HARD and you are often underpaid even when you ARE receiving a regular paycheck. They aren't whining, "poor me, poor me." They are most likely struggling with the same issues all artists face. They don't call them "starving artists" for nothing! :-)

[11. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 9:42 AM on Nov 15:]

11

I just hope they resolve it soon. I'm not sure how much longer I can go without late-nite TV. I've had to resort to... *shudder*... school work.

[12. DT said the following at 9:50 AM on Nov 15:]

12

Sorry, Katie, I just have a really hard time having sympathy for somebody who makes over $200K a year and says it's not enough when us SAHMs work harder and make nothing. Perspective is key here. :)

[13. Samantha said the following at 10:06 AM on Nov 15:]

13

DT: Please keep in mind that while someone who works on a hit show might right now make $200,000, what happens when that show gets canceled or the series ends? What happens when their scripts and proposals are no longer purchased? I believe they make nothing then - unless they get residuals.

As I pointed out, what they're making now and the residuals that they should be getting could be the difference between having electricity or not. Or being forced to sell their house because they cannot afford to pay the mortgage anymore.

[14. Kit said the following at 10:08 AM on Nov 15:]

14

Hi DT,
I sincerely think it's great that you are a SAHM. That's to be applauded! It's great that you are able to stay at home with your kids! :-)

However, I can guarantee you that most of the writers aren't making $200K or more. Maybe the big wigs are, but the others in the union are struggling along and doing things like waiting tables and living on the skimpy tips from people who don't tip the 20% because they know nothing about "waitress wage" and think that tips are an "extra" thing. Guaranteed. It is a hard life, because often you have to live in or near a city to make the art thing work (cost of living is higher) but your degree (in something artsy/creative) often "overqualifies" you for regular jobs, thus causing you to retreat to waitressing or serving coffee at Starbucks, none of which pay well. I've run into the same problem when applying for jobs. People see the music degree and say, "but, wait. Why are you applying here?" They don't realize that there ARE no artsy jobs or the ones that there are are extremely irregular...thoughts to chew on...

[15. Adam T. said the following at 10:10 AM on Nov 15:]

15

Another example of the way technology is going to force us to re-examine current notions about 'intellectual property'.

Do the writers deserve residuals from the online showings? In principle, no - nobody ever 'deserves' residuals for any reason (or 'royalties' in the music business, etc.). Once you've written something, that's it - your work is done. If I take what you've written and DO something with it, I'm now doing the work; your part is done and you 'deserve' nothing further.

You might very well GET something further, and in this case the writers may very well GET residuals - 'we won't sell you any more scripts unless you guarantee us residuals in the future!' - but not because they 'deserve' them.

[16. Katie (the other one) said the following at 10:28 AM on Nov 15:]

16

DT,

Sounds like you are a disgruntled SAHM. Need I remind you that staying at home was probably your choice? And that you could probably choose to go back to work if you're so unhappy not having an income?

Like you said, it's all about perspective. In the film/TV industry, $200,000 would probably fall near "poverty level" compared to CEOs of production companies and actors in hit shows.

[17. Samuel PG said the following at 11:21 AM on Nov 15:]

17

I have a friend among the Screen Writer's Guild and I can tell you that it is definitely not true that anywhere near a majority of these writers make over $200k a year. A writer might spend upwards of six months developing a script, and when complete the script will only be pitched to different production companies. Mind you, a pitch does not at all entail a successful production of their work, but is just the beginning of a long process in which the script might be dropped at any moment. Screen writer's operate financially on faith more than some missionaries! For those who do not live around Los Angeles and who have never been here, don't trust the super-wealthy representations of the area entirely. There are some extremely wealthy people here, but they are definitely the minority.

[18. tom said the following at 11:48 AM on Nov 15:]

18

For a good perspective on the strike, read Janet Batchler's Quoth the Maven blog. She's a Christian and experienced screenwriter, and she explains the strike issues pretty clearly.

[19. Gina said the following at 12:09 PM on Nov 15:]

19

I would also recommend Karen Hall's blog at http://somehavehats.typepad.com -- she also is a Christian and a veteran screenwriter.

I'm on the writers' side as well. How can we as Christians say, "We need more Christian screenwriters in Hollywood," and not support their right to earn a fair wage for what they do? How is it fair for the studios to make money off Internet showings, and for the writers to make zip?

[20. DT said the following at 12:25 PM on Nov 15:]

20

Katie, I'd appeciate it if you wouldn't project any of your personal feelings onto me. I am enormously happy at being at SAHM. It is God's calling for me, and it is my and my husband's choice. I would be devestated if our financial situation ever required me to return to the workforce. I take care in how I shop and spend our money because I respect my husband's paycheck and my ability to do the job I do. We don't need more. Think about asking someone about their feelings before assuming and insulting, okay? Thanks. :)

Also, if $200K or so in America is seen as "near poverty level," and if what matters is comparing our salaries to those of others, then we as a nation have much bigger problems than writers not receiving residuals.

[21. Brian said the following at 12:36 PM on Nov 15:]

21

The US typically operates as a free-market system, which means that if wages are too low, it usually means that there are simply too many employees seeking that particular job. People forget that supply and demand works on the employment market too. If there were fewer writers there would be an incentive for studios to pay more to attract the better ones. As it is, there are too many writers, which means that the writers don't (or shouldn't, in my opinion) have much leverage in the situation. Unions often only serve to temporarily provide unsustainable levels of prosperity to their members and the expense of the long-term success of the company (or industry. See Detroit). I know this sounds harsh or uncaring at first, but in the end it results in more prosperity for everyone.

And Laura, at first I thought you were joking. You really watched a propaganda video and now are siding with the producers of the video?

[22. Katie (the other one) said the following at 1:32 PM on Nov 15:]

22

DT,
I was inferring from your comment about "making nothing" as a stay at home mom. I couldn't care less about your state as a SAHM; I just don't see its relevence in this discussion. It wasn't my intention to offend, just suggesting a different "perspective.

[23. Julia said the following at 1:53 PM on Nov 15:]

23

Wasn't there a post a while back about a college graduate who got himself a useless degree and then moved in with his parents because he couldn't get his dream job?

I have absolutely no sympathy for people who CHOOSE to work in a field that they KNOW may not pay well and then COMPLAIN about it. Writers are a dime a dozen. If they wanted to be in demand they should have gone to University or trade school and got a career that is useful to the public and not overpopulated with a bunch of whining liberal arts grads.

I could have chosen a career in a field I was interested in, but instead I decided to look at reality and economics. I am now a well-payed engineer. I recognized that just because I wanted to be a ____ didn't mean that I could and that a million other people also wanted to be a ____.

If writers are unhappy with their salaries, they could always apply their skills in other areas or go back to school. It is their choice.

Then again, less TV means more time for online gaming, so I'm happy. I still get my escapist entertainment.

[24. Tami said the following at 2:18 PM on Nov 15:]

24

Generally, once you've bought and paid for the work, you've bought and paid for it, and you can use it as you wish. (Depends on who owns the copyright, though.)

However, there are also ethical issues of equity. Do the other workers (e.g. the actors) get paid residuals? Whatever the studios do should treat the writers fairly within that structure, and the contracts should account for that.

*Most* writers aren't exactly raking it in... the grand majority of literary authors (as opposed to your super-bestseller types) are doing OK but aren't multimillionaires by any stretch. And like many scriptwriters, they have another job (e.g. teaching).

Writing can be a challenging, solitary, not-financially-rewarding vocation that many do feel called to. It might sound fancy and cushy, but for the vast majority of writers it really isn't. There are deadlines, dry times, financially worrisome stretches, and picky bosses, just like any job. The difference is, it's frequently glamorized, and it's a "media" type job so you hear about it more often in the media.

[25. Leah said the following at 6:22 PM on Nov 15:]

25

Of course they deserve the residuals. It is absolutely no different to the money changing hands in the television industry, except the show is being shown on a different machine.

TV:
Ads pay money -> TV network who pays money -> Writer

Internet:
Ads pay money -> TV network who keeps money

I think this deserves a big "WHAT THE?"

(hopefully Australian readers will get that.)

[26. Kit said the following at 6:28 PM on Nov 15:]

26

Julia,
As someone who chose to purse two "useless" degrees and on my way (hopefully) to a third, I'll put in my two cents. I personally can't study something I don't have a passion for. I'd rather be poor and passionate than rich, comfortable, and bored out of my mind. There is a sizable workforce of people who hate their 9 to 5, even though they bring home the money money money. For me and many others who have "useless" degrees, 40 to 60 hours of week climbing the corporate ladder combined with three business trips a week flying all over the USA for the company to make more money money money, it's just not worth it. Sorry. I'd rather live just above the poverty line and be happy, happy happy.

And not to burst your bubble, but, there is a LOT of competition in the enginering field as well. I believe engineers may even be a "dime a dozen", to use your phrase. Despite majoring in something "practical," with a 4.0 GPA, I know several engineering students who are still working at Starbucks fresh out of school. Count yourself lucky, and don't be so quick to judge.

As a side note, I'm not even going to comment on your quote: "...and got a career that is useful to the public and not overpopulated with a bunch of whining liberal arts grads." Let it suffice to say, "Wow." It would take too long of a post to explain how all forms of art are the strongest forms of human expression, without which we would have no intrepretation of the beauty that surrounds us. I feel bad that you're missing out.

[27. Leah said the following at 6:30 PM on Nov 15:]

27

DT- Katie did not suggest 200k is near poverty level in American- she suggested that compared to CEOs of production companies and actors it's "poverty level". Not that I agree with her, but you certainly took her words out of context. Secondly, as many people have already said on this thread but you've apparently missed, a majority of writers do NOT earn in excess of 200k. Many are working second jobs to keep something of an income to support their families.

Julia- the writers are not complaining that they can't get work. On the contrary- they are getting work but not getting paid for it. This has nothing to do with the previous post of the young man who couldn't get a job. See my illustration in my previous post. It isn't fair that the writers get paid for television screenings and not internet screenings.

[28. Adam D said the following at 9:19 PM on Nov 15:]

28

My comment is briefly on the subject of "useless" degrees. I am just curious but, why is it so difficult to get a decent, tolerable well-paying job, and just study your "passion" in your free time. Books are easy to come by, all you need is time and patience to study something, a degree is not necessary to become an expert at anything which would be denoted as a "useless" degree. I just don't understand the logic to it when you most likely will have plenty of freetime to study your passions outside of college. Ok my rant is ended, thank you for your time.

[29. Andy said the following at 9:22 PM on Nov 15:]

29

Adam T. - That notion of intellectual property is extremely wrong. When someone originally creates a piece of art, the worth is not completely known. The advance given up front to a writer of a script or a song, is what the potential worth of that piece of work is. Then the work either doesn't meet the potential and the company that invested in that copyright made a poor choice. But if the work is a hit, much more than originally paid for, then the writer should be compensated accordingly. Its not like other businesses where the worth of the workers output is immediately known.

---------------------

Lets give another example:
A Christian songwriter writes a hit worship song. That song is extremely popular all over the radio for about a year and the cd goes platinum. You may think that Christian songwriter has it made. But what if they never write another hit song? They may try and they may be writing great songs but nothing never hits the market like that first song. They would rely on CCLI(a company that collects money from church's to pay out to the songwriters that write the worship songs) money to make a living.

You can't hate on the writers just because they are in Hollywood and the 'secular' world. They need to make a living just like everyone else.

On another sidenote: go to the CCLI top 25 songs. Every single one of those songs is giving those writers a 6-figure check every quarter.(I work in Christian music in Nashville) Should we be angry at Chris Tomlin cause he makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on his songwriting?

[30. Kit said the following at 10:03 AM on Nov 16:]

30

Adam,
You asked, "My comment is briefly on the subject of "useless" degrees. I am just curious but, why is it so difficult to get a decent, tolerable well-paying job, and just study your "passion" in your free time. Books are easy to come by, all you need is time and patience to study something, a degree is not necessary to become an expert at anything which would be denoted as a "useless" degree. I just don't understand the logic to it when you most likely will have plenty of freetime to study your passions outside of college. Ok my rant is ended, thank you for your time."

Here's why: I can't speak for all fields, but, in order to be a professional musician, you need to get lessons with the top players on your instrument. These top players usually reside on college and university faculties. You also need to be active in a competitive studio...also found primarily at colleges and universitites. In music, where you get your degrees from matters very much.

Musicians usually do the reverse with their "avocation"--they get a "random" job that they don't care so much about--I've had two different teachers advise me to "find a job that pays the most for the least work" so you have time to practice-- and focus their studies on developing their skills in music instead. You just aren't going to get the training outside of school. In addition, in undergraduate and graduate school, a lot of people are practicing five to six hours a day. This is because later in life they will not have the time to hone those skills at that intensity, and a college music major provides you with the TIME to do so at a crucial time in your developemnt.

And, in order to get a job, a lot of orchestras and colleges looking at hiring faculty will look solely at your credentials for the first round of interviews. Otherwise they will often toss your resume without hearing you play. Ther are just too many applicants for them to do otherwise. For a single flute position (one of the most popular instruments, for example), there could be as many as 200 applicants for one spot, and they certainly aren't going to audition that many. That's why it matters.

I don't know about other fields, but this is how music works. And of course there are exceptions, but this is how it generally goes.

[31. David P said the following at 10:32 AM on Nov 16:]

31

My sympathy lies neither with the writers nor the studios. Each group surely deserves the other. As far as I'm concerned, Adam T has it right. The current understanding of "intellectual property" (perhaps even the very concept itself) is long outmoded in the wake of decades of huge technological strides in the field of media communications. What we have today are desperate leviathans fighting tooth and nail to prop up and cling to crumbling legacies from some golden heyday. This strike is but another insignificant skirmish in the collective grab for an ever-shrinking slice of pie.

[32. Samantha said the following at 12:46 PM on Nov 16:]

32

Adam T. and David P. - I take it neither of you have ever created anything that would be considered intellectual property before. If you do, tell me if your definition of IP holds when someone makes millions of dollars off something you've "intellectually" created and you get nothing. It might rub you the wrong way at that point.

[33. Leah said the following at 10:57 PM on Nov 16:]

33

Adam T-

If a writer only deserves money for writing, then I say the writers should be charging an awful lot more. Say one episode of a TV sitcom rakes in $1 million in advertising the first time it is aired.

Say that it is re-run a few months later and gets $700,000 worth of advertising. Or say it's re-run 2 years later and gets $500,000 worth of advertising. Why is it fair that the production company can keep profiting from the show, but not the person who actually wrote it? So the writer gets a cut of that first million, but not the 700,000 or 500,000?

You say Once you've written something, that's it - your work is done. Absolutely. And you should get paid for it. Not just once, but whenever someone makes money off your work, you should get paid. Why? Because they wouldn't be making that money if it weren't for you!

You think that If I take what you've written and DO something with it, I'm now doing the work; your part is done and you 'deserve' nothing further.
No, you are not now doing the work. You are doing part of it. A huge chunk has already been done for you. Now, if you have paid for the rights to that script (not just the rights to produce it), that's entirely different. In that case, it is no longer the property of the writer; it is your property, and you will gain all profits. But while the rights to the script still belong to the writer, you are using somebody else's property to make yourself money. I cannot comprehend how you should then keep all the money.

[34. John P. said the following at 12:01 AM on Nov 17:]

34

Seriously, guys, this $200,000 number is meaningless. It's the average income only because the average is severely skewed on the high end by a handful of 'golden boys' who can move their scripts for six figures a piece. Many film and television writers make less than certain schoolteachers.

And this business about getting a 'real job'? Excuse me, but these people have real jobs that create other real jobs, and all they're asking for is the portion of their online revenue that they're entitled to.

If you think writers are spoiled, entitled crybabies because they refuse to work for free while their work generates billions in revenue for some old guys in ponytails, then you have successfully drunk the studio kool-aid.

[35. Natalie said the following at 12:21 PM on Nov 17:]

35

I'm not sure how much people have been following this situation, but most TV writers either live paycheck to paycheck, are supported by their spouse, or have a day job that pays the bills. The famous, wealthy writers that are also on strike (i.e. Larry David, Marc Cherry, James L. Brooks, etc.) are quite up front about the fact that they are striking on behalf of the much less famous and not at all wealthy 99% of TV writers.

The television and movie industry is also quite different in that the same contract is standard across the entire industry. This isn't the sort of circumstance where a writer can just turn down an offer from NBC and expect a better offer from CBS - they're all using the same contracts. In this situation, the only tool the writers have to make a change is a strike.

And as far as the comment about writers being a dime a dozen - most people vastly overestimate their own writing ability or underestimate how hard good writing actually is. I highly recommend googling "slushpile" if you want to see some examples of the sort of garbage books that are submitted to publishers and literary agents. It's no different in the television industry. And if writers are a dime a dozen, why did the television industry completely shut down? Maybe they know something you don't.

[36. John said the following at 2:04 PM on Nov 18:]

36

It is a shame that free markets are so lost on Christians.

Unions, of any kind, are simply leaches. They exist for their own sake, neither for the laborers nor the business.

Strikes, as someone said, are used by those who can't do something else and work in jobs where the supply of workers is too high at the price being paid.

That being said, of course they should be paid for residuals. They're creating "art" that is reused, not a painting that sits in a museum (which could also receive residuals!). And the reuse doesn't diminish the product! (If you can grasp that, you're well on your way to understanding more than probably 99% of the world's population)

Technically it’s not "intellectual property" either, because intellectual property usually deals with a process or idea or some other non-tangible thing.

A script is tangible. And because of technology (that's existed since before last century) so is music. Also, it should be noted, new technology has made the "fluidity" of the written word ever greater and thus creates more cash flow.

What writer's produce makes money more than once, so writers should definitely make money from that repeated use.

Therefore, it is clearly acceptable to not work for an employer who does not pay you properly (as determined by the market and negotiation), a striking union, however, is contrary to fundamental market principles.

Here's a good article:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=113006A

[37. Leah said the following at 6:15 PM on Nov 18:]

37

John, if you think that's what strikes are about, you are seriously misinformed.

There is currently a shortage of nurses in Australia, and there was a nurse strike just a few weeks ago. This is because they feel their Workplace agreements are not fair. The supply of workers most definitely doesn't outstrip the demand.

I agree with the rest of what you said in regards to what writers deserve in terms of residuals, but strikes, although I do not necessarily condone them, are NOT always a result of supply outstripping demand.

John P- Couldn't have said it better myself.

[38. Stefanie said the following at 1:43 AM on Nov 19:]

38

I realize my post is going off topic a bit, but I have to respond to the comment about unions being leaches.

It may be true that unions as organizations today exist for their own sake, but that doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose for their members or society in general.

"Strikes. . . are used by those who can't do something else and work in jobs where the supply of workers is too high at the price being paid."

I work as a teacher in the inner-city of a large metropolitan area in our country. I am an intelligent person, I did very well in school my entire life, I have a master's degree, and I could do something else if I wanted to, but my humanitarian heart keeps me in this field. And I can tell you, there is no "over-supply" of workers in this field. The city is pulling out its figurative hair trying to attract teachers, but it's also leaking them like a seive. You would think that the laws of supply and demand would spur the city to raise teacher salaries and in other ways try to make teaching here attractive to people in general, like lowering class sizes or making schools safer places so that students and teachers alike don't have to worry about other students bringing in knives or stabbing people (both of which have happened in my classroom, but different years), but it doesn't. The city does not care about the schools, the teachers or the students. The elected officials put up a front like they care, but they never do anything to help the situation.

If it weren't for my union, my students would be sitting in a class of up to 40 students or more(as it is class size is capped at 28 for the lower grades and 35 for fifth and up), the school building would be falling apart from lack of repair (as several across the city are), there would be absolutely no supplies (as it is, I do not have a complete class set of science or social studies textbooks, and I spend about $400 a year on basic supplies like paper, pencils, and books), and I would be paid jack-squat for my sacrifice and hard-work and would have no pension or benefits (because the city views teachers as cheap labor, unskilled factory workers, because teaching is not hard, after all, any joe-shmo off the street can do it :p). My union benefits my students and me as a professional.

Rich, powerful people will take advantage of the masses if they are allowed to. Think of serfdom in the middle ages, or France before the Revolution, or Russia when the last czar and his family were executed, or NYC during the Guilded Age. Unions help the masses to organize and bring their one advantage, their sheer number, to the table to act as a balancing force.

And anyway, God agrees. God cares about people exploiting their workers. He says, "For day after day they seek me out; they seem eager to know my ways, as if they were a nation that does what is right and has not forsaken the commands of its God. They ask me for just decisions and seem eager for God to come near them. 'Why have we fasted,' they say, 'and you have not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?' "Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers. Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists. You cannot fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high." Isaiah 58:2-4 NIV

[39. John said the following at 10:07 AM on Nov 19:]

39

Stefanie,

If it weren't for government indoctrination centers AND the unions, students would be educated properly!

[40. John said the following at 12:42 PM on Nov 19:]

40

Leah,

"The supply of workers most definitely doesn't outstrip the demand"

Ahem, therefore, high demand should increase wages, thereby attracting more nurses, which would increase supply of said nurses. Also, if the working environments are bad, AND the free market were allowed to work, they could find a job elsewhere OR the company would do whatever they could to keep them.

Leaching organizations, (a.k.a. unions) are anti-free market, and therefore anti-liberty. If the job didn't have too many people that could do it, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO STRIKE! The company would have to attract people by raising financial rewards.

[41. John said the following at 8:32 PM on Nov 19:]

41

Stefanie,

I'm not sure where you received your humanities degree, but if it were anytime in the last 50 years, anywehere at any of the liberal universities in the US, then I could see where you're coming from!

(Because this is probably true, I'll spell it out, you actually believe the government controlled "schools" and government mafias (unions) are a benefit to students)

My stomach hurts from alternately laughing and crying.

[42. Kit said the following at 11:01 PM on Nov 19:]

42

John,
Government schools are completely constitutional. Public school is a BENEFIT we recieve of living in America, and a darn good one. If you don't like it, go live in another country.

I went to a very conservative Christian college...and happen to think that government mafias, what you call "leaches", and public schools are a good thing. Oh, and so are liberal universities. They challenge you to THINK. It is not their job to teach anyone about Christianity. That belongs to the church.

[43. John said the following at 2:04 PM on Nov 20:]

43

Kit,

You're a christian who supports socialism?

That's a shame, I am sorry to hear that. I will pray for you.

Where exactly in the constitution does it call for federally funded and run schools?

That's the truth, and if you don't like it go live in another country.

[44. kit said the following at 9:36 PM on Nov 20:]

44

John,
I must say I was quite surprised at how narrow-minded your comment came across. Your comment of my "support of socialism" is very much an overgeneralization and infers that I support ALL socialism, which I do not. But I think there is a balance that can be reached in this country that utilizes some aspects of socialism for the better.

This also does not make me 'not a Christian.' Jesus cared very much about helping the poor and reaching out to those who had less. Perhaps you should do some reading: Dr. Tony Campolo, a respected professor emritus at Eastern University, A conservative Christian college in Philadelphia, has a great book outcalled, "Is Jesus a Republican or a Democrat" If you read it willingly, with an open mind, you might be surprised at what you find. He makes an excellent Biblical case for some of the issues I support. I'm really sorry for you that you can't objectively consider the other side--that's what is a shame. But he does a great job presenting both sides, so just read his book.

I do, in fact, support socialized education and teacher's unions. I thought that Stefanie had a wonderful case--unions make sure people have a fair working wage. Are you a teacher?

Government schools are constitutional because they allow each citizen at a chance of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' Education is KEY. If people don't have the means to a basic education...well, then, that's when things like communism are able to take a real hold on a country. Sorry to burst your bubble...but ignorance is not bliss. And because we DO live in such a great country, if you want to whine about the opportunity to receive a free education, you can always homeschool.

I also support socialized health care. It would be a excellent thing for the nearly 50% of Americans who are un-insured, through no fault of their own. I hope you know that even people who work full time jobs nowadays often have no form of health insurance unless they purchase their own private policy at an exorbident price. And in case you're wondering, I do also support taxing the rich (those over a certain income bracket, say $200K or more) more in order to fund the program. It's a "working together" mentality, driven home in the John Donne sonnett: "No man is an island, entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main" and Christ's words (yes, shocker, I am a Christian. I just happen to care more about the economic decline in this country than the moral one. Each of us will still stand before God, regardless. But if the economy collapses, we will ALL be up a creek without a paddle, in this life as well as the next.) "To whom much is given, much is expected." I'm guessing you're one of those "rugged individualists." Well,all I am going to say is that if anyome misses the extra two grand coming from taxes on a salary such as the one above, they're simply living too extravagantly. I'd say, sell the hummer and buy a cavalier--and even make money.

As for your other comments, I will leave them alone. I don't find them worth commenting on. America is a great country, and I thank God every day I live here. But we are not invincible and cannot be reckless with our economy, or we WILL crash. To quote you, it's the truth. We need to take care of what we have and be very careful with the power and influence that we have over the rest of the world.

As for me, I'm going to go read some Marx and listen to Simon and Garfunkel while wearing a shirt made from recycled trees. Joking... :-)

[45. John said the following at 5:20 AM on Nov 21:]

45

No response?

If it is because you're looking for the constitutional clause that ok's our current "educational" system, let me help you out.

Stop looking, it's not there.

[46. John said the following at 9:24 AM on Nov 21:]

46

Kit,

Just to start, there are NO, none, zero aspects of socialism that are "ok".

Socialism is evil, pure and simple.

[47. John said the following at 9:25 AM on Nov 21:]

47

Kit,

Eastern University a conservative christian college?

Nope.

[48. John said the following at 9:44 AM on Nov 21:]

48

Kit,

Where did I say you are not a christian?

What is a "fair working wage" and how do unions ensure it?

You quoted from the Declaration of Independence to support your claim of constitutionality of government schools.

Socialism is the stepping stone to communism. GOVERNMENT CONTROLED EDUCATION IS COMMUNISM!

Even if I homeschool, I have to meet the requirements mandated by the government. I also have to pay for government schools, even if they suck or my kid does not use them. The government controlling everything from womb to tomb is as unbiblical as it gets. You really don't see that?

No whining here sweetheart, just addressing those who know (or should) letting those who don't (and their kids) walk off the cliff.

Where do you get "50%"?

"Exorbident price." Hmm, let's see, why would that be? Maybe because government is ALREADY too involved in the industry AND the fact that people don't need to actualize the true cost of their own health care because it is paid by a third party. I don't know, could be.

Are you saying that if you don't have the right economic beliefs (your beliefs) that a person can't get into heaven?

The sad thing is you're not joking. Everything you expouse is directly from Marx's play book.

You want unbiblical economic policies and unbiblical social policies.

If you don't like my other comments, than you must not like you're own comments being said back to you, because that's all I did.

[49. a sassy sister said the following at 10:28 AM on Nov 21:]

49

to kit and john:

are your comments towards each other encouraging or antagonistic?

are your comments related to the original blog post? if they are, how are they related?

if the two of you could see each other face to face, would you say the same things you wrote on this post and still believe that you were walking in love with each other?

am I wrong in hoping that there are mature Christians who understand that differing opinions and or disagreements don't justify disrespect or condescension?

The one thing about disagreements I am constantly learning is this: I cannot, in good conscience, make someone believe or agree with me by manipulation, disrespect, or condescension. The saying goes,"you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

I refuse to be mean, nasty, disrespectful, or haughty when it comes to people who disagree with me or who believe differently. Does that stop me from calling a spade a spade? Absolutely not. But what it does force me to do is to check my motives. Am I passionately attacking someone with words because I want to be the victor in the debate or the "right person", or do I want to enlighten the person and point them in Christ's direction?

Just my thoughts, not trying to be argumentative or anything...

[50. John said the following at 1:19 PM on Nov 21:]

50

sassy,

neither

if you can't see how they are related to the original post, then I can't help you.

yes, we're having a discussion, what's the problem?

condescension? I've not been disrespectful in any of my comments.

How are your comments related to the original post?

[51. Paul said the following at 2:42 PM on Nov 21:]

51

John you've got me ROTFL ;) take a chill pill my friend. :)

and don't you all find the hilarity of this writer's strike? These actors, comedians, talk show hosts, they're the face of the industry, but they're nothing without their writers. I say good for the writers.

[52. John said the following at 3:05 PM on Nov 21:]

52

Paul,

Take a chill pill my friend.

[53. Kit said the following at 6:37 PM on Nov 22:]

53

I echo John. We're both opinionated, and neither of us is able to sway the other. But I have not been personally offended by his comments. I love a fiery discussion. Calling a truce?

John, to answer your questions, briefly:

Unions ensure a fair working wage by making sure each worker gets paid based on the current rate of other jobs, inflation, cost of living, etc. Especially in the arts, it is very hard to do without them. Pare example, Any symphony member is mandatorialy in the union. When funding in such fields is so low, it is a necessity.

I see your point about gov't education, but disagree. I think it's a great opportunity. Biblical information needs to be taught by the parents and the church, not the schools. And there are Christian schools, if you feel so called.

...but people are involved in their own healthcare costs. 50% of all bankruptcies in America last year (2007) were because of medical expenses (Bill Clinton interview, CNN, Washington DC).. That number is rising as healthcare costs do the same. It's unfortunate, but true. My other quote of 50% came from the same interview. It's quite a high number of un-insured.

I am by no means saying that someone without my belifs can get into heaven. I was just clarifying my own because many on this post are on the other side (nothing wrong with it, by the way).

I've actually never read any Marx.
:-) I came to my conclusions based on my convictions about social and economic justice, but recognize that others may not agree. Everyone is en titled to his or her own opinion.

Truce? Agreed to disagree? :-)

[54. Leah said the following at 8:33 PM on Nov 22:]

54

John, you said

Leah,

"The supply of workers most definitely doesn't outstrip the demand"

Ahem, therefore, high demand should increase wages, thereby attracting more nurses, which would increase supply of said nurses.

Are you Australian? If you are, have you been paying attention to the news? The high demand is NOT increasing wages, that's the whole point of the strike. Therefore it does NOT attract more nurses and therefore the supply of nurses is NOT increasing.

You then said Also, if the working environments are bad, AND the free market were allowed to work, they could find a job elsewhere OR the company would do whatever they could to keep them.
The only places the nurses can go from public hospitals (which a majority of hospitals are) are to private ones, where I'm guessing they already have enough nurses and aren't looking for more. And there are no "companies" involved, it's all the state government (Queensland, but I'm sure it's happening in other states too).

[55. Leah said the following at 10:37 PM on Nov 22:]

55

John- if government controlled education is communism, then Australia's communist. (And most every person I've ever spoken to- and I mean non-Australian- has said Australia's the luckiest country on Earth). Government controlled education is not communism. There are private schools around for those who so desire.

Also, I think I have to echo Paul- take a chill pill. (And I see no reason for Paul to). Unions do have their place. Now, hear me out. I certainly don't want unions running the country (which is why I won't be voting Labor on Saturday, research Australian politics if you need to). I don't even condone strikes. I was just saying supply outstripping demand is not always the cause of strikes.

As for socialism, a certain amount of socialised education and health insurance is good. You needn't jump down people's throats at the very mention of the word "socialism"- it does not necessarily mean the type of socialist regimes that ruled the USSR. The point is, the government is there for a reason. Education and health are two of those reasons. Now I'm not saying everyone must be government educated or stick with public healthcare. What I am saying is that the government does have a duty of care to provide those services for people who choose not to go private.

[56. BDB said the following at 10:55 PM on Nov 22:]

56

Hmmm...I usually stay out of these political ones. But hey, why not:

EDUCATION: America is a Federal system, John is correct that the Federal Constitution has nothing to say about education. It's in the constitutions of the individual states. In fact, education spending is one of the largest things states spend money on. (Or waste money on, depending on how you view the billions of dollars that never reaches the classroom.)

NURSES: My grandmother was a nurse, and worked her later years in a doctor's office. Much better hours than hospitals. She worked the night shift all during WWII - they actually came to her and said, "we know you have a new baby, but you're trained as a nurse and there's a shortage." So, she worked the night shift, leaving the baby with my grandfather after he got home from work. In education...

UNIONS are DECLINING:

Not all private hospitals are unionized. Good, consistent management leaves little room for a union to gain traction.

Unions in all fields make it very, very difficult to remove terrible performers. Bad teachers are protected, which discourages the other teachers. Same thing happens with nurses. In both fields, there are lots of trained people who quit the field. I argue that the union work rules drive good people into other jobs. I know a number of people who've left both fields because they're such a mess.

But I would also suggest that the education for both professions is emphasizing the wrong things. The schools recruit the wrong skill sets, train the wrong skill sets, and end up with graduates who become frustrated on the job, then quit. For example, there's more emphasis on "assessment" in an education curriculum, but job satisfaction comes from good classroom management. Similarly, there's so much government bureaucracy in both education and health care that it creates tremendous amounts of paperwork. This is creating lots of administrator jobs in both fields in order to meet government demands of "accountability." But every hour spent doing paperwork for government "accountability" is an hour not spent with a student or patient. So people who want to be with students or patients get frustrated at all the paperwork they need to do.

The main result of government involvement is to create jobs for people with master's degrees.

Incidentally, the Hollywood writer's strike hasn't harmed my quality of life at all...and I live near Hollywood. Well, an hour away, it's on the news every morning during the "entertainment" segment. How many cities have a morning news program with a full-time "entertainment" anchor instead of a full-time "sports" anchor? Only in L.A. I'd guess...

[57. BDB said the following at 11:19 PM on Nov 22:]

57

Oops...I should have read all the comments first. I hate to be on the opposite side of the issue from Gina.

Anyway, there's a big practical problem with trying to tie any kind of compensation to the Internet: rampant copying. There is so much information being transferred for free that it would actually cost more to build a system to track usage of a piece of work than the revenue that exists from that piece of work.

I'm not making this up: it costs less than a penny to connect a telephone call. But BILLING for that call costs a lot of money to measure the per-minute usage, etc. To really track and pay for usage on the Internet would require terribly expensive billing systems to be created. Frankly, it would cost more to keep track of it than they'd ever get in revenue - resulting in eliminating legitimate distribution of the content.

You're going to end up with a system like ASCAP for music: big, legitimate companies paying fees; big payouts going to the big stars, and pennies for the little stars. It's easier for big companies to simply own all the pieces and only hype their owned stuff. Small writers, like small book or song writers, will be relegated to the free part of the Internet and still make not nearly enough to make a dent in their living expenses. Nicholas Sparks does great with the current system, but there are far more book writers who make less than $1,500 for a book.

This is probably why so many writers have a day job, say at a magazine or newspaper, and write books on the side. Or they teach as a day job, and write as a sideline. You get my drift.

I like to write. I doubt I'll ever get paid anything for it.

[58. John said the following at 12:53 PM on Nov 23:]

58

Leah,

You made my point. "Public" hospitals, like "public" schools are nothing but government monopolies that impead market forces. Unions only add to the problem. They fix pay rates artificially. They don't allow markets to function.

That's why the wages are NOT rising and that's why the supply is NOT rising.

You concept of government responsibility is thoroughly socialist/communist.

The government's responsibility is to protect, not to feed, clothe or "educate".

That is the job of families and churches.

No amount of socialism is okay. Just like no amount of Satan is okay.

"Government controlled schools is not communism"

"I can't write a single word of English"

"A circle has 4 sides"

Socialism/communism are thoroughly evil in any dose. They are unchristian, unbiblical, and sinful economic/political systems.

[59. John said the following at 1:22 PM on Nov 23:]

59

Kit,

Quoting Bill Clinton? That'll get ya no where fast.

If 40 million out of 300 million is 50% then I'm the pope.

Unions ensure that workers get paid less then they could and suck profits from the organizations their leached onto. Take a look at the UAW. They've taken on more costs, because they know that their one of the reasons American car makers are sucking the exhaust of foreign auto makers.

Here's another question. Why do you think it is unions, like UAW, that have steadily declined for years, but government unions, like NEA, have steadily increased?

You never have to go bankrupt for medical expenses, that I'm aware of. You simply pay $10 a month for the rest of your life if you have to. But I'm not even talking about major emergency medical care, which is what insurance is supposed to be for. I'm talking about paying only 5 dollars to visit a doctor for a cough. Insurance should not be used like asking mom and dad for date money.

Also, just because people are uninsured, doesn't mean they do not have health care.

You said:
But if the economy collapses, we will ALL be up a creek without a paddle, in this life as well as the next.

That implies that after we die, if we don't do what you say is socially and economically correct, we won't go to heaven OR we'll receive some kind of punishment.

You may have never directly read Marx, but you have swallowed everything he proposed, hook, like and sinker!

You have sinful beliefs and apparently act on those sinful beliefs. What's worse, is there are millions of people who think they are christian AND think that socialist, communist, liberal beliefs are congruent with christianity.

Lord help them!

[60. Leah said the following at 7:53 PM on Nov 23:]

60

John, you don't know the half of my concept of government, therefore it's a bit rich of you to say that it's communist. I'm completely opposed to communism. I believe that you earn is yours, and nobody else's (which is in direct contradiction to communist policy).

So now you believe me when I say that pay and supply of nurses in Australia aren't rising despite the strikes? A few days ago you were telling me that was wrong.

Since when is the government's sole role to protect?

And it's a bit rich to automatically equate a system of government with Satan. For sure, every socialist country on earth has handled socialism very badly. It's just like dictatorships. If you think about it, the perfect form of government is a dictatorship- if the "dictator" is a good and right person who makes good and right decisions and does not abuse his power. But the reality is, that in this fallen world, the chances of that happening are slim to none. That's why, as a general rule, dictatorships are looked down upon. But in an ideal world with a perfect ruler, a dictatorship would be perfect. (If you think about it, that's what the New Earth will be, with God as "dictator"- except not in the sinful fallen sense of the word that we have become acquainted with). My point in all this is that you cannot automatically link a system of government with God or Satan. It is how those systems are run which is godly or evil.

If you want to prove that the system itself (whether dictatorship or socialism) is inherently evil and unbiblical, you'd better start producing biblical references to back yourself up.

NB to observers: In no way am I condoning dictatorships, socialism or communism on this Earth. They are too easily corrupted by man's sinful attitude. I'm simply making the point that no governmental system (which I've ever come across) is inherently sinful itself.

[61. Paul said the following at 10:31 PM on Nov 23:]

61

John, I downed a nice dose of chill as instructed, but I had to interject on this one. ;)

True, Kit was indeed off with her statistic of the uninsured Americans. But you still should admit that in a country as affluent as ours, even 10% is still too high and that the health care system (while it should not be overhauled) needs a bit of work.

And I didn't like your crack on Public hospitals. I used to work in one, and to tell you the truth, they're superior in many ways to the Private hospitals. They're not-for-profit, unlike most of the private ones which focus almost solely on the bottom line, and they do more good work and treatments for the poor and uninsured than any of the private hospitals that tend to turn away many uninsured citizens.

And also, who in the world is to say that one political/economical ideology is sinful or not? The early church practiced Communism (Acts 2), and the Kingdom of Heaven is definitely not a Republic or Democracy. I'm definitely a Capitalist, but who are you or I or anyone to say that espousing Socialism or Communism is "acting on sinful beliefs." Even if Kit is a socialist (which I highly doubt she is), you're way out of bounds, and I think you owe her an apology...

[62. Kit said the following at 11:08 PM on Nov 23:]

62

John,
You said:

You never have to go bankrupt for medical expenses, that I'm aware of.

Actually, I know several people who have. I dated one once. And at the time, they had full-time jobs. And I do not live in a low-income area. The fact is, many DO go bankrupt from medical expenses, especially if a major surgery is necessary. Many "emergency" policies do not make adequate coverages for hospital stays, ambulance rides, etc. All of which adds up.

. But I'm not even talking about major emergency medical care, which is what insurance is supposed to be for.

Actually, insurance should be for PREVENTATIVE care. This does not include going every two days as you would on a date. Your comment implies it should never be used except in the event of an emergency. If the citizens are not healthy, the health of the nation as a whole will not be healthy. You are also implying that people will take advantage of the system; true, but that is nothing that doesn't already happen. A once/year health exam is a GOOD thing.

You said, "Also, just because people are uninsured, doesn't mean they do not have health care." True only in a technical sense. But in practice, unfortunately, it is quite untrue. They can have access to the ER if they can get in, eventually, and if they most likely go bankrupt paying for the medical costs, ambulance ride, and ER charge. Not a good system. It's inefficient, and wastes time and money of both hospitals and patients. Not to mention it's easier to just have a physical once a year, and know what is wrong ahead of time instead of after it's too late.

A comment on China education vs. American "liberal" education (just so you know we are not, in fact, communist): In present-day China, retired college professors are required to live on-campus. The government does not want them to mix with the "common" people because they "know too much." It is only in this kind of "education" where communism can take hold. If the people were all educated, it wouldn't happen! In America, we are taught to think and exposed to many views. This is good. As long as there is diversity of opinion, the democracy will run as it should. It is when governments start cloistering the educated faction to one spot that communism can take hold in an area. Just to make a point...we are not like this, or anywhere near.

My comment about being up a creek was referring to my earlier sentence of God's judgement. When I said, "as well as the next," I meant those who were judged unfavorably for moral actions (an individual responsibility except within the context of Christian community), not economic. Sorry it wasn't clear.

Saying that my or Leah's beliefs are sinful (or anyone on this post really) is a pretty strong accusation and one I would be wary to make. How is wanting to help the poor sinful? How is sending my children to public school sinful? How is wanting the economy to improve, and international relations, sinful?? Oh, and how is environmentalism sinful when global warming is only happening because WE have poor stewardship of the earth? We are called to all these things as Christians, and all are Biblical except you don't need to send your kids to public school. But if you don't want to, there are private Christian schools, so it shouldn't be an issue....

[63. Kit said the following at 11:10 PM on Nov 23:]

63

PS--I did not swallow EVERYTHING Marx proposed. I do not believe in the elimination of class or anything like that. Christ says we will "always have the poor." But I believe it is a responsibility of our government and yes, possibly the rich as well, to help them out because they are able. With great power comes great responsibility.

[64. Jo said the following at 4:33 AM on Nov 24:]

64

John, what political system do you propose that would both:
a) be completely consistent with Christian beliefs and
b) be actually practically workable in this world?

That's not a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know your thoughts. And if anyone else wants to answer as well, please do.

[65. John said the following at 6:16 PM on Nov 26:]

65

Leah,

What you propose for government is socialist/communist. That's based on what you said. You're the one who wrote what you wrote.

How, if the aspects of a system of government are sinful, does that not make the system sinful?

"Every country who's tried it, hated it, changed it, or crumbled under it, therefore, it must be okay"

Just because something may seem or sound good in theory doesn't make it sinless, when, infact, if you implement it it is sinful in practice.

Socialism "seems" good in theory, but it even breaks down there.

I'm not going to waste my time quoting scripture, because people have such far out ideas about simple basic fundamental principles, I could only imagine their interpretation of scripture. I declare based on biblical principles, but I don't have to quote anything. If you want to prove me wrong, show me the scripture that supports your points.

Socialism and communism can be nothing but sinful. There is no possibility for them to be anything else.

You have stated that government controled-fill in the blank-is okay. Then you say you don't believe in communism. Are you schizophrenic? You may not agree with everything, but you espouse communist/socialist ideals.

By the way, a dictator and socialism deal with different aspects of government. Non-centrally controlled education can exist under a dictatorship, it can't under socialist governments. A dictator can control everything or only what he wants. Socialism/communism are designed to control everything!

[66. John said the following at 6:33 PM on Nov 26:]

66

Paul,

Yes, our health care system needs to be adjusted. We should minimalize and eventually eliminate third party payers. The government should take less of our money to play with and allow us to have more for health care. And lawyers should not be allowed to bankrupt doctors and at the same time force their insurance costs up so high to make people not want to become doctors.

There's law in this country that hospitals have to care for someone in emergent situations, regardless of insurance. The situation you cite proves the fact that we need to have less government involved in the system. Private hospitals have to get paid or they close! Publics can fall back on government handouts.

The early church in no wise practice communism. They practiced a form of charity within their own group that could appear similar to socialism, BUT they did not force anyone to do it nor did they force non-members (other citizens) to participate! Please don't twist scripture.

God says socialism and communism is sin. If you don't like that, take it up with Him.

[67. John said the following at 6:49 PM on Nov 26:]

67

Kit,

I didn't say no one does go bankrupt, I'm saying they don't have to.

"Actually, insurance should be for PREVENTATIVE care."

THIS IS EXACTLY NOT WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR!!!

Are you kidding? No, really. Insurance is for the indemnification of the insured against overwhelming loss or costs.

Insurance is not a toothbrush, it's a surgeon after an accident.

What's the incentive for a person to take good care of their body if it costs them next to nothing to have a doctor "fix" what ails them?

Again, because government raises the cost of anything it gets its grubby little hands on, it becomes harder and harder for the average middle class family to buy decent insurance, especially if their company doesn't provide it. And, can you guess what group of lovelies have golden tickets for medical insurance? Ding, ding, ding, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES!!! Talk about not having to worry about costs, on either side!

[68. John said the following at 6:56 PM on Nov 26:]

68

Kit,

A once a year health exam is smart. Why shouldn't someone pay for that out of their own pocket? Why should insurance pay for that?

No, Kit, again you are wrong. Just because a person doesn't have health insurance, doesn't mean they have no health care.

Like I keep saying, because of the government beauracracy, insurance prices are pricing many individuals out of the market, so they just find ways to pay for their medical care out of pocket. (Doctors love to get cash that uncle sam can't count!)

You all keep making the same point I'm making. Government invovlement has made the system inefficient and punative. Yet, you believe MORE government involvement will solve the situation. (Clank, clank, clank goes the head against the wall)

[69. John said the following at 7:20 PM on Nov 26:]

69

Kit et al,

Please, define communism for me. You all keep saying that centrally controlled and run schools that teach atheism are not communist. How in the world is that not communist.

I don't know what schools you've been in, but the "many views" you speak of, fall into a handful categories, secular progessivism, atheism, communism, socialism, New Age...okay, more than a handful. Notice Christianity ain't one of 'em.

By the way, there is not a whole lot of thinking going on, either. I have first hand knowledge and experience. Kids can quote Jay-Z, but forget about Shakespeare.

In fact, even the "smart" ones sound a lot like you. They actually believe socialism and communism work. Go figure.

Education is becoming "cloistered". An Education Department at the federal level should not even exist. It is a state responsibility!

Socialism/communism HURTS the poor!

WE are not causing global warming.

I should not have to pay to indoctrinate someone else's child, even if mine is not being indoctrinated by the government.

I should also not have to pay that tax AND pay for private Christian education.

It is biblical that the parent is the primary educator and primarily responsible. Thus, it follows, I and any parent have the biblical command and right to educate our children according to biblical principles.

This is true of non-believers as well. They, whether they know it or want it, are ultimately responsible for educating their children. They should be able to choose to do that how and where they wish (ideally biblically, but either way, what they deem appropriately)

It is not government's right nor responsibility to educate children. They are taking over the parent's roll. THAT IS SIN! You are advocating sin.

[70. John said the following at 7:24 PM on Nov 26:]

70

Kit,

Yes, charity is part of Christianity, BUT, government forced income redistribution is not charity.

The rich should help. People should do a lot of things. This does not mean you force them to do everything they should do.

Forced charity is an oxymoron.

[71. John said the following at 7:28 PM on Nov 26:]

71

Jo,

Republican.

[72. Kit said the following at 5:11 PM on Nov 27:]

72

John,
As far as global warming...You said, "WE are not causing global warming."

Do you honestly believe we can literally slowly murder the earth and not pay the consequences? Have you ever been to Washington, D.C. during rush hour? If not, think of your own city (I don't know where you live). What, exactly, do you think happens to all the exhaust coming out of people's cars? It just floats up to the atmosphere and magically evaporates? What you put into the earth comes out of it in some way!

Or, have you ever seen parts of CA or Beijing?? Do you think the 'smog' is another one of God's creations? WE put it there, and it is our responsibility to take it out.

And yes, I know the earth goes in cycles of heating and cooling. The problem is not the cycle, it's the SPEED of the cycle. Never in history has it ever been this fast. It makes perfect logical, intellectual sense. What you put in comes out in some way. True for most of life.

I would like to ask why some Christians in particular can not bring themselves to believe this. I'm not trying to be catty, I'm asking a serious question. What is the reasoning behind the other point of view, besides "science is not reliable?" Why, when it makes complete logical sense, and science is in fact many times very reliable, do so many refuse to believe it?

What about strip mining? River poisoning? Serious, prolonged droughts? Rising oceans, melting icebergs, etc.? Mounds of trash, which we have nowhere to put? And things that drip underneath the earth into the cave systems, slowly destroying the beautiful creations God has put there? How can we, as Christians, say it is anything BUT our responsibility to be environmentally active when God entrusted it's care first to Adam???

[73. John said the following at 8:44 PM on Nov 27:]

73

What I have begun to notice is that liberals often do not focus on the points addressed, but, instead, tend to always go on tangents.

I hope the producers and writers get what's coming to them.

[74. John said the following at 10:14 AM on Nov 28:]

74

Kit,

Global warming is political pseudo-science.

Yes, it is logical that our actins have consequences, but nothing to the extent chicken littles are saying.

Plus, we only have 100 years of really good solidly scientific evidence.

Have a go at this:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/11/28/the_free_market_does_it_better

Lord bless.

[75. Kit said the following at 3:45 PM on Nov 28:]

75

What I have begun to notice is that liberals often do not focus on the points addressed, but, instead, tend to always go on tangents.

I didn't feel like typing to answer every point so I just chose one. It took long enough as it was.

[76. Kit said the following at 4:17 PM on Nov 28:]

76

And, John, it was actually not a tangent. It was a direct response to one of your direct points.

Interesting source, but I want to see stats, and the gathering of data over time, not the opinion of one or two people, especially on a site that seems to have no scientific/political/academic credentials.

From the above article, if you haven't had a chance to check it out:

People in the developing world desperately need prosperity. Blocking their development on the flimsy promise of climate "fixes" will only make hard lives harder. Their primitive environments are killing them.

Then why is the climate change hurting them if it's fake? According to sociologist Tony Campolo, he has met with African tribal leaders who have no knowledge of science whatsoever. But they have said to him that the prolonged droughts are nothing like what they have ever seen, and actually, THAT is what is killing them. They can't live off the land if it's all dry and dead!

And just for the record it's pretty presumptuous to assume that "their primitave environments are killing them." That's a fairly large overgeneralization.

Actually Christianity talked about in my world religions class in high school. It was given the same treatment as the other religions. And our teacher was actually a Christian.

John, you said: It is biblical that the parent is the primary educator and primarily responsible. Thus, it follows, I and any parent have the biblical command and right to educate our children according to biblical principles.
Yes. I already said that. There are many alternate routes if you do not like public schools. But don't bash them for the people who use them. It's still the parent's responsibility, regardless of what type of school your child is in.

[77. Jo said the following at 5:15 PM on Nov 28:]

77

John said: "Republican."

Thanks for that one word answer, that tells me (a Brit whose only knowledge of American politics comes from Boundless) virtually nothing.

But are you really saying that Republican policies, values and practical outworkings of those policies and values are completely in line with scripture? Like, 100%? In every situation? Seriously?

And there are so many other things I could say, but I'll end with this: you said "How, if the aspects of a system of government are sinful, does that not make the system sinful?". Kit had already explained perfectly well the problem of putting a good system in the hands of sinful humans. By your logic, God sinned by giving humans authority over creation and responsibility for looking after the world, since the implementation of that power and responsibility has been a monumental disaster for all concerned. Bad decision by God? 'Satanist' system? Or perhaps, as Kit said, everything human beings get their hands one will be corrupted, whether socialism, democracy, theocracy or dictatorship. WE are the common thread running through all the big cock-ups of history. WE are the problem.

[78. Jo said the following at 5:33 PM on Nov 28:]

78

John

Oh wait, there was just one more thing. Did my eyes deceive me, or when Kit asked you to provide Biblical support for your position, did you really say (and I quote) "I'm not going to waste my time quoting scripture"?

It's like a joke, except that I know you're serious. You're the only one here who's claiming the monopoly on truth. You're the only one making bold statements like "God says your opinion is sin" (I'm paraphrasing). I don't see anyone else accusing others of supporting satanist ideas and telling them if they don't agree they can take it up with God. The burden of proof is on you, when you say things like that you have to back them up.

We're not idiots. The Bible isn't a government manifesto, we are each interpreting what it says in the light of various situations we come across, one of which is politics. It seems to all of us (from what I can gather) that you're picking out 'Biblical principles' that support your ideas and ignoring ones that don't. If that isn't the case, and you believe your interpretation is so far above everyone else's, you can either explain the scriptural basis for your views, or you can leave the discussion.

[79. John said the following at 8:33 PM on Nov 28:]

79

I'm not bashing government schools.

I'm calling a spade a spade.

They're anti-biblical indoctrination centers.

So, yeah, if a parent wants their child to go to such a place, sure, it's their choice.

[80. John said the following at 8:35 PM on Nov 28:]

80

Jo,

Republican government, NOT republican party.

[81. John said the following at 8:48 PM on Nov 28:]

81

Socialism/communism are inherently sinful.

They go against our God made image and aline with our sinful nature.

You have to slow down and think. Are you talking before the fall or after the fall?

There was NO government as we know it before the fall.

You're right, humans can abuse any system, but, some systems are more open for abuse then others. And, others still, are just simply sinfilled systems that allow for greater abuse by and of people.

Our system of government is the absolute best. Our economic system is the best.

Sadly, though, they are being destroyed, litle by little, by socialist and communist, many who believe they are christian.

Sad, very sad.

[82. John said the following at 9:20 PM on Nov 28:]

82

Jo,

I am stating what the bible says in my own words. I'm not stating what I think the bible says, but what it actually says.

You all are espousing what you think is in the bible, but is in fact not there.

That's the situation as it is.

[83. Kit said the following at 4:17 PM on Nov 29:]

83

I'm trucing on this one, John, we're simply not going to agree.

One other little thing, though. You said:

"I am stating what the bible says in my own words...You all are espousing what you think is in the bible, but is in fact not there."

Last time I checked, the Bible said nothing specific about not voting for a Democratic candidate, global warming, government schools, or really anything AT ALL in relation to contemporary American politics. I must have missed it.

My point is that you are reading the Bible through your own lens, same as everyone else on this post.

[84. Jo said the following at 10:26 PM on Nov 29:]

84

John -
I actually don't think I've given my opinion on what the Bible says in this post, so I don't think you can include me in 'you all'. My problem is not with your opinion, but with your conviction that you are 100% right and everyone who disagrees with you is hellbound, without ever quoting the Bible to back you up. Stating it 'in your own words' is simply not enough.

[85. John said the following at 5:16 AM on Nov 30:]

85

Kit,

Sorry, but you are reading the bible through your own lens.

I'm not. What I'm stating is objective truth.

You are stating subjective truth.

Of course the bible speaks to all of those subjects.

I'll quote for you later.

I'm not stating my opinions here. I'm stating biblical truth.

You and others are stating opinions that are wrong.

[86. John said the following at 8:28 PM on Dec 3:]

86

Just goes to show, even when shown how wrong they are, liberals will not even admit to it.

"None are so blind..."

[1. Samantha said the following at 8:33 AM on Nov 15:]

1

Yes, 100% the writers deserve residuals from their work being used online - or in any other form of new media. When the last writers contract was negotiated 20 years ago, DVD hadn't yet been invented. Or at least it wasn't being distributed. In any event, the writers only make $0.04 for each $20 DVD sold. That's it. The studios make $9. They make NOTHING off internet downloads of their shows/movies (even the legal ones) and nothing off the additional content they often write for their show's official website.

How fair is that?

These writers are NOT being greedy. They're asking the studios, who are telling stockholders and others how much money there is to be made on the internet(!!), to give them a piece of what they've rightly earned. As someone pointed out, in 10 years time, these residuals could be the difference between having electricity and getting dressed in the dark for some - if not most - of these writers.

[2. John D. said the following at 8:34 AM on Nov 15:]

2

The worker is entitled to his wages. Do not muzzle the ox as he is treading out the grain.

The studios are making a LOT of money. If the writers who make it possible are being short-changed, then that becomes an economic justice issue. Remember, it's only the top writers who make $200,000 a year.

[3. DT said the following at 8:35 AM on Nov 15:]

3

I'm having a very hard time having much sympathy for the writers. The ones with steady jobs on TV shows can make more than $200,000 a year. I'm not jealous of their salary (well, maybe I am since I'm a homemaker and get NO paycheck!) but of their apparent greed. Yes, they should be paid for what they do, which includes residuals from downloads, but is a strike really necessary?

I decided I'd had enough of them when I learned that 102 staff members of The Office were laid off. That includes hairdressers, cameramen, grips, food service folks, the medic, the makeup and wardrobe people... Everybody who makes the show run each day, basically. Some of those people make less than I made as a public school teacher, and now they have nothing. They're dipping into savings and retirement funds just to get by. How is that even remotely fair?

[4. Adam D said the following at 8:54 AM on Nov 15:]

4

Hopefully this purging will clear out a lot of the junk that floats around Hollywood and television networks in general and these people will get real jobs.

[5. Katie (the other one) said the following at 9:03 AM on Nov 15:]

5

DT,

The writers have been threatening to strike for some time, if changes were not made. Do not blame the writers for other workers being fired. It is the studios and production companies that need to be held responsible. They are the ones who are underpaying the writers and refused to cut a deal before the strike deadline. And yes, even in the world of capitalism, sometimes a strike is necessary. Also, when you compare $200,000 to the multi-million dollar profit these shows bring the production companies over just one season, the writers are severely underpaid.

[6. BB said the following at 9:12 AM on Nov 15:]

6

With tivo and other ways of getting around commercials, writers are going to have a hard time in the coming future keeping up. Notice they aren't striking for more money... just to maintain their current lifestyle. That seems fair enough and I support it despite setting back several of the movies I'm looking forward two in the next few years.

[7. Amy Reyes said the following at 9:20 AM on Nov 15:]

7

I absolutely believe that the writer's deserve to get their fair share of the money the producers are making off of their work through ad sales online. They did the work and should be paid for it rather than their hard work lining the pockets of already wealthy producers.

[8. Jeremy said the following at 9:27 AM on Nov 15:]

8

I feel a bit conflicted about the WGA strike; I can see merits to both sides. On the one hand, writers don't have a "right" to any specific form of compensation, they can barter for their services like anyone else, and massive organized strikes of this sort do indeed hurt a lot of bystanders. Additionally, almost no studio is currently making money with internet media; indeed most are losing quite a bit by making shows available online (but hoping to build viewership and loyalty over the long term). Thus, for the most part, there really aren't any profits to be shared yet.

... but there will be. Again over the long term, either studios will come up with a business model that makes money from internet media, or they will abandon it. Since the writers see the first as being far more likely, they want to make sure that there is a residual schedule in place for that time, and refusing to work is really the only leverage they have. It will be interesting to see how this ends up, and how quickly it gets resolved.

[9. Laura said the following at 9:30 AM on Nov 15:]

9

I wasn't quite sure what to think until I saw a video that members of the WGA produced that explained what's going on. Now I'm 100% convinced that the studios are just being greedy and that the writers had to take action to ensure they'll get what they deserve. Since almost 50% of writers are unemployed at any given time, they need residuals to support their families.

[10. Kit said the following at 9:30 AM on Nov 15:]

10

They most definetly should be paid for their work, each time it is aired, regardless of whether or not it is online. As a just-out-of-school, trained classical musician, I know how rough it is in the "arts" scene. It is HARD and you are often underpaid even when you ARE receiving a regular paycheck. They aren't whining, "poor me, poor me." They are most likely struggling with the same issues all artists face. They don't call them "starving artists" for nothing! :-)

[11. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 9:42 AM on Nov 15:]

11

I just hope they resolve it soon. I'm not sure how much longer I can go without late-nite TV. I've had to resort to... *shudder*... school work.

[12. DT said the following at 9:50 AM on Nov 15:]

12

Sorry, Katie, I just have a really hard time having sympathy for somebody who makes over $200K a year and says it's not enough when us SAHMs work harder and make nothing. Perspective is key here. :)

[13. Samantha said the following at 10:06 AM on Nov 15:]

13

DT: Please keep in mind that while someone who works on a hit show might right now make $200,000, what happens when that show gets canceled or the series ends? What happens when their scripts and proposals are no longer purchased? I believe they make nothing then - unless they get residuals.

As I pointed out, what they're making now and the residuals that they should be getting could be the difference between having electricity or not. Or being forced to sell their house because they cannot afford to pay the mortgage anymore.

[14. Kit said the following at 10:08 AM on Nov 15:]

14

Hi DT,
I sincerely think it's great that you are a SAHM. That's to be applauded! It's great that you are able to stay at home with your kids! :-)

However, I can guarantee you that most of the writers aren't making $200K or more. Maybe the big wigs are, but the others in the union are struggling along and doing things like waiting tables and living on the skimpy tips from people who don't tip the 20% because they know nothing about "waitress wage" and think that tips are an "extra" thing. Guaranteed. It is a hard life, because often you have to live in or near a city to make the art thing work (cost of living is higher) but your degree (in something artsy/creative) often "overqualifies" you for regular jobs, thus causing you to retreat to waitressing or serving coffee at Starbucks, none of which pay well. I've run into the same problem when applying for jobs. People see the music degree and say, "but, wait. Why are you applying here?" They don't realize that there ARE no artsy jobs or the ones that there are are extremely irregular...thoughts to chew on...

[15. Adam T. said the following at 10:10 AM on Nov 15:]

15

Another example of the way technology is going to force us to re-examine current notions about 'intellectual property'.

Do the writers deserve residuals from the online showings? In principle, no - nobody ever 'deserves' residuals for any reason (or 'royalties' in the music business, etc.). Once you've written something, that's it - your work is done. If I take what you've written and DO something with it, I'm now doing the work; your part is done and you 'deserve' nothing further.

You might very well GET something further, and in this case the writers may very well GET residuals - 'we won't sell you any more scripts unless you guarantee us residuals in the future!' - but not because they 'deserve' them.

[16. Katie (the other one) said the following at 10:28 AM on Nov 15:]

16

DT,

Sounds like you are a disgruntled SAHM. Need I remind you that staying at home was probably your choice? And that you could probably choose to go back to work if you're so unhappy not having an income?

Like you said, it's all about perspective. In the film/TV industry, $200,000 would probably fall near "poverty level" compared to CEOs of production companies and actors in hit shows.

[17. Samuel PG said the following at 11:21 AM on Nov 15:]

17

I have a friend among the Screen Writer's Guild and I can tell you that it is definitely not true that anywhere near a majority of these writers make over $200k a year. A writer might spend upwards of six months developing a script, and when complete the script will only be pitched to different production companies. Mind you, a pitch does not at all entail a successful production of their work, but is just the beginning of a long process in which the script might be dropped at any moment. Screen writer's operate financially on faith more than some missionaries! For those who do not live around Los Angeles and who have never been here, don't trust the super-wealthy representations of the area entirely. There are some extremely wealthy people here, but they are definitely the minority.

[18. tom said the following at 11:48 AM on Nov 15:]

18

For a good perspective on the strike, read Janet Batchler's Quoth the Maven blog. She's a Christian and experienced screenwriter, and she explains the strike issues pretty clearly.

[19. Gina said the following at 12:09 PM on Nov 15:]

19

I would also recommend Karen Hall's blog at http://somehavehats.typepad.com -- she also is a Christian and a veteran screenwriter.

I'm on the writers' side as well. How can we as Christians say, "We need more Christian screenwriters in Hollywood," and not support their right to earn a fair wage for what they do? How is it fair for the studios to make money off Internet showings, and for the writers to make zip?

[20. DT said the following at 12:25 PM on Nov 15:]

20

Katie, I'd appeciate it if you wouldn't project any of your personal feelings onto me. I am enormously happy at being at SAHM. It is God's calling for me, and it is my and my husband's choice. I would be devestated if our financial situation ever required me to return to the workforce. I take care in how I shop and spend our money because I respect my husband's paycheck and my ability to do the job I do. We don't need more. Think about asking someone about their feelings before assuming and insulting, okay? Thanks. :)

Also, if $200K or so in America is seen as "near poverty level," and if what matters is comparing our salaries to those of others, then we as a nation have much bigger problems than writers not receiving residuals.

[21. Brian said the following at 12:36 PM on Nov 15:]

21

The US typically operates as a free-market system, which means that if wages are too low, it usually means that there are simply too many employees seeking that particular job. People forget that supply and demand works on the employment market too. If there were fewer writers there would be an incentive for studios to pay more to attract the better ones. As it is, there are too many writers, which means that the writers don't (or shouldn't, in my opinion) have much leverage in the situation. Unions often only serve to temporarily provide unsustainable levels of prosperity to their members and the expense of the long-term success of the company (or industry. See Detroit). I know this sounds harsh or uncaring at first, but in the end it results in more prosperity for everyone.

And Laura, at first I thought you were joking. You really watched a propaganda video and now are siding with the producers of the video?

[22. Katie (the other one) said the following at 1:32 PM on Nov 15:]

22

DT,
I was inferring from your comment about "making nothing" as a stay at home mom. I couldn't care less about your state as a SAHM; I just don't see its relevence in this discussion. It wasn't my intention to offend, just suggesting a different "perspective.

[23. Julia said the following at 1:53 PM on Nov 15:]

23

Wasn't there a post a while back about a college graduate who got himself a useless degree and then moved in with his parents because he couldn't get his dream job?

I have absolutely no sympathy for people who CHOOSE to work in a field that they KNOW may not pay well and then COMPLAIN about it. Writers are a dime a dozen. If they wanted to be in demand they should have gone to University or trade school and got a career that is useful to the public and not overpopulated with a bunch of whining liberal arts grads.

I could have chosen a career in a field I was interested in, but instead I decided to look at reality and economics. I am now a well-payed engineer. I recognized that just because I wanted to be a ____ didn't mean that I could and that a million other people also wanted to be a ____.

If writers are unhappy with their salaries, they could always apply their skills in other areas or go back to school. It is their choice.

Then again, less TV means more time for online gaming, so I'm happy. I still get my escapist entertainment.

[24. Tami said the following at 2:18 PM on Nov 15:]

24

Generally, once you've bought and paid for the work, you've bought and paid for it, and you can use it as you wish. (Depends on who owns the copyright, though.)

However, there are also ethical issues of equity. Do the other workers (e.g. the actors) get paid residuals? Whatever the studios do should treat the writers fairly within that structure, and the contracts should account for that.

*Most* writers aren't exactly raking it in... the grand majority of literary authors (as opposed to your super-bestseller types) are doing OK but aren't multimillionaires by any stretch. And like many scriptwriters, they have another job (e.g. teaching).

Writing can be a challenging, solitary, not-financially-rewarding vocation that many do feel called to. It might sound fancy and cushy, but for the vast majority of writers it really isn't. There are deadlines, dry times, financially worrisome stretches, and picky bosses, just like any job. The difference is, it's frequently glamorized, and it's a "media" type job so you hear about it more often in the media.

[25. Leah said the following at 6:22 PM on Nov 15:]

25

Of course they deserve the residuals. It is absolutely no different to the money changing hands in the television industry, except the show is being shown on a different machine.

TV:
Ads pay money -> TV network who pays money -> Writer

Internet:
Ads pay money -> TV network who keeps money

I think this deserves a big "WHAT THE?"

(hopefully Australian readers will get that.)

[26. Kit said the following at 6:28 PM on Nov 15:]

26

Julia,
As someone who chose to purse two "useless" degrees and on my way (hopefully) to a third, I'll put in my two cents. I personally can't study something I don't have a passion for. I'd rather be poor and passionate than rich, comfortable, and bored out of my mind. There is a sizable workforce of people who hate their 9 to 5, even though they bring home the money money money. For me and many others who have "useless" degrees, 40 to 60 hours of week climbing the corporate ladder combined with three business trips a week flying all over the USA for the company to make more money money money, it's just not worth it. Sorry. I'd rather live just above the poverty line and be happy, happy happy.

And not to burst your bubble, but, there is a LOT of competition in the enginering field as well. I believe engineers may even be a "dime a dozen", to use your phrase. Despite majoring in something "practical," with a 4.0 GPA, I know several engineering students who are still working at Starbucks fresh out of school. Count yourself lucky, and don't be so quick to judge.

As a side note, I'm not even going to comment on your quote: "...and got a career that is useful to the public and not overpopulated with a bunch of whining liberal arts grads." Let it suffice to say, "Wow." It would take too long of a post to explain how all forms of art are the strongest forms of human expression, without which we would have no intrepretation of the beauty that surrounds us. I feel bad that you're missing out.

[27. Leah said the following at 6:30 PM on Nov 15:]

27

DT- Katie did not suggest 200k is near poverty level in American- she suggested that compared to CEOs of production companies and actors it's "poverty level". Not that I agree with her, but you certainly took her words out of context. Secondly, as many people have already said on this thread but you've apparently missed, a majority of writers do NOT earn in excess of 200k. Many are working second jobs to keep something of an income to support their families.

Julia- the writers are not complaining that they can't get work. On the contrary- they are getting work but not getting paid for it. This has nothing to do with the previous post of the young man who couldn't get a job. See my illustration in my previous post. It isn't fair that the writers get paid for television screenings and not internet screenings.

[28. Adam D said the following at 9:19 PM on Nov 15:]

28

My comment is briefly on the subject of "useless" degrees. I am just curious but, why is it so difficult to get a decent, tolerable well-paying job, and just study your "passion" in your free time. Books are easy to come by, all you need is time and patience to study something, a degree is not necessary to become an expert at anything which would be denoted as a "useless" degree. I just don't understand the logic to it when you most likely will have plenty of freetime to study your passions outside of college. Ok my rant is ended, thank you for your time.

[29. Andy said the following at 9:22 PM on Nov 15:]

29

Adam T. - That notion of intellectual property is extremely wrong. When someone originally creates a piece of art, the worth is not completely known. The advance given up front to a writer of a script or a song, is what the potential worth of that piece of work is. Then the work either doesn't meet the potential and the company that invested in that copyright made a poor choice. But if the work is a hit, much more than originally paid for, then the writer should be compensated accordingly. Its not like other businesses where the worth of the workers output is immediately known.

---------------------

Lets give another example:
A Christian songwriter writes a hit worship song. That song is extremely popular all over the radio for about a year and the cd goes platinum. You may think that Christian songwriter has it made. But what if they never write another hit song? They may try and they may be writing great songs but nothing never hits the market like that first song. They would rely on CCLI(a company that collects money from church's to pay out to the songwriters that write the worship songs) money to make a living.

You can't hate on the writers just because they are in Hollywood and the 'secular' world. They need to make a living just like everyone else.

On another sidenote: go to the CCLI top 25 songs. Every single one of those songs is giving those writers a 6-figure check every quarter.(I work in Christian music in Nashville) Should we be angry at Chris Tomlin cause he makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on his songwriting?

[30. Kit said the following at 10:03 AM on Nov 16:]

30

Adam,
You asked, "My comment is briefly on the subject of "useless" degrees. I am just curious but, why is it so difficult to get a decent, tolerable well-paying job, and just study your "passion" in your free time. Books are easy to come by, all you need is time and patience to study something, a degree is not necessary to become an expert at anything which would be denoted as a "useless" degree. I just don't understand the logic to it when you most likely will have plenty of freetime to study your passions outside of college. Ok my rant is ended, thank you for your time."

Here's why: I can't speak for all fields, but, in order to be a professional musician, you need to get lessons with the top players on your instrument. These top players usually reside on college and university faculties. You also need to be active in a competitive studio...also found primarily at colleges and universitites. In music, where you get your degrees from matters very much.

Musicians usually do the reverse with their "avocation"--they get a "random" job that they don't care so much about--I've had two different teachers advise me to "find a job that pays the most for the least work" so you have time to practice-- and focus their studies on developing their skills in music instead. You just aren't going to get the training outside of school. In addition, in undergraduate and graduate school, a lot of people are practicing five to six hours a day. This is because later in life they will not have the time to hone those skills at that intensity, and a college music major provides you with the TIME to do so at a crucial time in your developemnt.

And, in order to get a job, a lot of orchestras and colleges looking at hiring faculty will look solely at your credentials for the first round of interviews. Otherwise they will often toss your resume without hearing you play. Ther are just too many applicants for them to do otherwise. For a single flute position (one of the most popular instruments, for example), there could be as many as 200 applicants for one spot, and they certainly aren't going to audition that many. That's why it matters.

I don't know about other fields, but this is how music works. And of course there are exceptions, but this is how it generally goes.

[31. David P said the following at 10:32 AM on Nov 16:]

31

My sympathy lies neither with the writers nor the studios. Each group surely deserves the other. As far as I'm concerned, Adam T has it right. The current understanding of "intellectual property" (perhaps even the very concept itself) is long outmoded in the wake of decades of huge technological strides in the field of media communications. What we have today are desperate leviathans fighting tooth and nail to prop up and cling to crumbling legacies from some golden heyday. This strike is but another insignificant skirmish in the collective grab for an ever-shrinking slice of pie.

[32. Samantha said the following at 12:46 PM on Nov 16:]

32

Adam T. and David P. - I take it neither of you have ever created anything that would be considered intellectual property before. If you do, tell me if your definition of IP holds when someone makes millions of dollars off something you've "intellectually" created and you get nothing. It might rub you the wrong way at that point.

[33. Leah said the following at 10:57 PM on Nov 16:]

33

Adam T-

If a writer only deserves money for writing, then I say the writers should be charging an awful lot more. Say one episode of a TV sitcom rakes in $1 million in advertising the first time it is aired.

Say that it is re-run a few months later and gets $700,000 worth of advertising. Or say it's re-run 2 years later and gets $500,000 worth of advertising. Why is it fair that the production company can keep profiting from the show, but not the person who actually wrote it? So the writer gets a cut of that first million, but not the 700,000 or 500,000?

You say Once you've written something, that's it - your work is done. Absolutely. And you should get paid for it. Not just once, but whenever someone makes money off your work, you should get paid. Why? Because they wouldn't be making that money if it weren't for you!

You think that If I take what you've written and DO something with it, I'm now doing the work; your part is done and you 'deserve' nothing further.
No, you are not now doing the work. You are doing part of it. A huge chunk has already been done for you. Now, if you have paid for the rights to that script (not just the rights to produce it), that's entirely different. In that case, it is no longer the property of the writer; it is your property, and you will gain all profits. But while the rights to the script still belong to the writer, you are using somebody else's property to make yourself money. I cannot comprehend how you should then keep all the money.

[34. John P. said the following at 12:01 AM on Nov 17:]

34

Seriously, guys, this $200,000 number is meaningless. It's the average income only because the average is severely skewed on the high end by a handful of 'golden boys' who can move their scripts for six figures a piece. Many film and television writers make less than certain schoolteachers.

And this business about getting a 'real job'? Excuse me, but these people have real jobs that create other real jobs, and all they're asking for is the portion of their online revenue that they're entitled to.

If you think writers are spoiled, entitled crybabies because they refuse to work for free while their work generates billions in revenue for some old guys in ponytails, then you have successfully drunk the studio kool-aid.

[35. Natalie said the following at 12:21 PM on Nov 17:]

35

I'm not sure how much people have been following this situation, but most TV writers either live paycheck to paycheck, are supported by their spouse, or have a day job that pays the bills. The famous, wealthy writers that are also on strike (i.e. Larry David, Marc Cherry, James L. Brooks, etc.) are quite up front about the fact that they are striking on behalf of the much less famous and not at all wealthy 99% of TV writers.

The television and movie industry is also quite different in that the same contract is standard across the entire industry. This isn't the sort of circumstance where a writer can just turn down an offer from NBC and expect a better offer from CBS - they're all using the same contracts. In this situation, the only tool the writers have to make a change is a strike.

And as far as the comment about writers being a dime a dozen - most people vastly overestimate their own writing ability or underestimate how hard good writing actually is. I highly recommend googling "slushpile" if you want to see some examples of the sort of garbage books that are submitted to publishers and literary agents. It's no different in the television industry. And if writers are a dime a dozen, why did the television industry completely shut down? Maybe they know something you don't.

[36. John said the following at 2:04 PM on Nov 18:]

36

It is a shame that free markets are so lost on Christians.

Unions, of any kind, are simply leaches. They exist for their own sake, neither for the laborers nor the business.

Strikes, as someone said, are used by those who can't do something else and work in jobs where the supply of workers is too high at the price being paid.

That being said, of course they should be paid for residuals. They're creating "art" that is reused, not a painting that sits in a museum (which could also receive residuals!). And the reuse doesn't diminish the product! (If you can grasp that, you're well on your way to understanding more than probably 99% of the world's population)

Technically it’s not "intellectual property" either, because intellectual property usually deals with a process or idea or some other non-tangible thing.

A script is tangible. And because of technology (that's existed since before last century) so is music. Also, it should be noted, new technology has made the "fluidity" of the written word ever greater and thus creates more cash flow.

What writer's produce makes money more than once, so writers should definitely make money from that repeated use.

Therefore, it is clearly acceptable to not work for an employer who does not pay you properly (as determined by the market and negotiation), a striking union, however, is contrary to fundamental market principles.

Here's a good article:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=113006A

[37. Leah said the following at 6:15 PM on Nov 18:]

37

John, if you think that's what strikes are about, you are seriously misinformed.

There is currently a shortage of nurses in Australia, and there was a nurse strike just a few weeks ago. This is because they feel their Workplace agreements are not fair. The supply of workers most definitely doesn't outstrip the demand.

I agree with the rest of what you said in regards to what writers deserve in terms of residuals, but strikes, although I do not necessarily condone them, are NOT always a result of supply outstripping demand.

John P- Couldn't have said it better myself.

[38. Stefanie said the following at 1:43 AM on Nov 19:]

38

I realize my post is going off topic a bit, but I have to respond to the comment about unions being leaches.

It may be true that unions as organizations today exist for their own sake, but that doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose for their members or society in general.

"Strikes. . . are used by those who can't do something else and work in jobs where the supply of workers is too high at the price being paid."

I work as a teacher in the inner-city of a large metropolitan area in our country. I am an intelligent person, I did very well in school my entire life, I have a master's degree, and I could do something else if I wanted to, but my humanitarian heart keeps me in this field. And I can tell you, there is no "over-supply" of workers in this field. The city is pulling out its figurative hair trying to attract teachers, but it's also leaking them like a seive. You would think that the laws of supply and demand would spur the city to raise teacher salaries and in other ways try to make teaching here attractive to people in general, like lowering class sizes or making schools safer places so that students and teachers alike don't have to worry about other students bringing in knives or stabbing people (both of which have happened in my classroom, but different years), but it doesn't. The city does not care about the schools, the teachers or the students. The elected officials put up a front like they care, but they never do anything to help the situation.

If it weren't for my union, my students would be sitting in a class of up to 40 students or more(as it is class size is capped at 28 for the lower grades and 35 for fifth and up), the school building would be falling apart from lack of repair (as several across the city are), there would be absolutely no supplies (as it is, I do not have a complete class set of science or social studies textbooks, and I spend about $400 a year on basic supplies like paper, pencils, and books), and I would be paid jack-squat for my sacrifice and hard-work and would have no pension or benefits (because the city views teachers as cheap labor, unskilled factory workers, because teaching is not hard, after all, any joe-shmo off the street can do it :p). My union benefits my students and me as a professional.

Rich, powerful people will take advantage of the masses if they are allowed to. Think of serfdom in the middle ages, or France before the Revolution, or Russia when the last czar and his family were executed, or NYC during the Guilded Age. Unions help the masses to organize and bring their one advantage, their sheer number, to the table to act as a balancing force.

And anyway, God agrees. God cares about people exploiting their workers. He says, "For day after day they seek me out; they seem eager to know my ways, as if they were a nation that does what is right and has not forsaken the commands of its God. They ask me for just decisions and seem eager for God to come near them. 'Why have we fasted,' they say, 'and you have not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?' "Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers. Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists. You cannot fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high." Isaiah 58:2-4 NIV

[39. John said the following at 10:07 AM on Nov 19:]

39

Stefanie,

If it weren't for government indoctrination centers AND the unions, students would be educated properly!

[40. John said the following at 12:42 PM on Nov 19:]

40

Leah,

"The supply of workers most definitely doesn't outstrip the demand"

Ahem, therefore, high demand should increase wages, thereby attracting more nurses, which would increase supply of said nurses. Also, if the working environments are bad, AND the free market were allowed to work, they could find a job elsewhere OR the company would do whatever they could to keep them.

Leaching organizations, (a.k.a. unions) are anti-free market, and therefore anti-liberty. If the job didn't have too many people that could do it, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO STRIKE! The company would have to attract people by raising financial rewards.

[41. John said the following at 8:32 PM on Nov 19:]

41

Stefanie,

I'm not sure where you received your humanities degree, but if it were anytime in the last 50 years, anywehere at any of the liberal universities in the US, then I could see where you're coming from!

(Because this is probably true, I'll spell it out, you actually believe the government controlled "schools" and government mafias (unions) are a benefit to students)

My stomach hurts from alternately laughing and crying.

[42. Kit said the following at 11:01 PM on Nov 19:]

42

John,
Government schools are completely constitutional. Public school is a BENEFIT we recieve of living in America, and a darn good one. If you don't like it, go live in another country.

I went to a very conservative Christian college...and happen to think that government mafias, what you call "leaches", and public schools are a good thing. Oh, and so are liberal universities. They challenge you to THINK. It is not their job to teach anyone about Christianity. That belongs to the church.

[43. John said the following at 2:04 PM on Nov 20:]

43

Kit,

You're a christian who supports socialism?

That's a shame, I am sorry to hear that. I will pray for you.

Where exactly in the constitution does it call for federally funded and run schools?

That's the truth, and if you don't like it go live in another country.

[44. kit said the following at 9:36 PM on Nov 20:]

44

John,
I must say I was quite surprised at how narrow-minded your comment came across. Your comment of my "support of socialism" is very much an overgeneralization and infers that I support ALL socialism, which I do not. But I think there is a balance that can be reached in this country that utilizes some aspects of socialism for the better.

This also does not make me 'not a Christian.' Jesus cared very much about helping the poor and reaching out to those who had less. Perhaps you should do some reading: Dr. Tony Campolo, a respected professor emritus at Eastern University, A conservative Christian college in Philadelphia, has a great book outcalled, "Is Jesus a Republican or a Democrat" If you read it willingly, with an open mind, you might be surprised at what you find. He makes an excellent Biblical case for some of the issues I support. I'm really sorry for you that you can't objectively consider the other side--that's what is a shame. But he does a great job presenting both sides, so just read his book.

I do, in fact, support socialized education and teacher's unions. I thought that Stefanie had a wonderful case--unions make sure people have a fair working wage. Are you a teacher?

Government schools are constitutional because they allow each citizen at a chance of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' Education is KEY. If people don't have the means to a basic education...well, then, that's when things like communism are able to take a real hold on a country. Sorry to burst your bubble...but ignorance is not bliss. And because we DO live in such a great country, if you want to whine about the opportunity to receive a free education, you can always homeschool.

I also support socialized health care. It would be a excellent thing for the nearly 50% of Americans who are un-insured, through no fault of their own. I hope you know that even people who work full time jobs nowadays often have no form of health insurance unless they purchase their own private policy at an exorbident price. And in case you're wondering, I do also support taxing the rich (those over a certain income bracket, say $200K or more) more in order to fund the program. It's a "working together" mentality, driven home in the John Donne sonnett: "No man is an island, entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main" and Christ's words (yes, shocker, I am a Christian. I just happen to care more about the economic decline in this country than the moral one. Each of us will still stand before God, regardless. But if the economy collapses, we will ALL be up a creek without a paddle, in this life as well as the next.) "To whom much is given, much is expected." I'm guessing you're one of those "rugged individualists." Well,all I am going to say is that if anyome misses the extra two grand coming from taxes on a salary such as the one above, they're simply living too extravagantly. I'd say, sell the hummer and buy a cavalier--and even make money.

As for your other comments, I will leave them alone. I don't find them worth commenting on. America is a great country, and I thank God every day I live here. But we are not invincible and cannot be reckless with our economy, or we WILL crash. To quote you, it's the truth. We need to take care of what we have and be very careful with the power and influence that we have over the rest of the world.

As for me, I'm going to go read some Marx and listen to Simon and Garfunkel while wearing a shirt made from recycled trees. Joking... :-)

[45. John said the following at 5:20 AM on Nov 21:]

45

No response?

If it is because you're looking for the constitutional clause that ok's our current "educational" system, let me help you out.

Stop looking, it's not there.

[46. John said the following at 9:24 AM on Nov 21:]

46

Kit,

Just to start, there are NO, none, zero aspects of socialism that are "ok".

Socialism is evil, pure and simple.

[47. John said the following at 9:25 AM on Nov 21:]

47

Kit,

Eastern University a conservative christian college?

Nope.

[48. John said the following at 9:44 AM on Nov 21:]

48

Kit,

Where did I say you are not a christian?

What is a "fair working wage" and how do unions ensure it?

You quoted from the Declaration of Independence to support your claim of constitutionality of government schools.

Socialism is the stepping stone to communism. GOVERNMENT CONTROLED EDUCATION IS COMMUNISM!

Even if I homeschool, I have to meet the requirements mandated by the government. I also have to pay for government schools, even if they suck or my kid does not use them. The government controlling everything from womb to tomb is as unbiblical as it gets. You really don't see that?

No whining here sweetheart, just addressing those who know (or should) letting those who don't (and their kids) walk off the cliff.

Where do you get "50%"?

"Exorbident price." Hmm, let's see, why would that be? Maybe because government is ALREADY too involved in the industry AND the fact that people don't need to actualize the true cost of their own health care because it is paid by a third party. I don't know, could be.

Are you saying that if you don't have the right economic beliefs (your beliefs) that a person can't get into heaven?

The sad thing is you're not joking. Everything you expouse is directly from Marx's play book.

You want unbiblical economic policies and unbiblical social policies.

If you don't like my other comments, than you must not like you're own comments being said back to you, because that's all I did.

[49. a sassy sister said the following at 10:28 AM on Nov 21:]

49

to kit and john:

are your comments towards each other encouraging or antagonistic?

are your comments related to the original blog post? if they are, how are they related?

if the two of you could see each other face to face, would you say the same things you wrote on this post and still believe that you were walking in love with each other?

am I wrong in hoping that there are mature Christians who understand that differing opinions and or disagreements don't justify disrespect or condescension?

The one thing about disagreements I am constantly learning is this: I cannot, in good conscience, make someone believe or agree with me by manipulation, disrespect, or condescension. The saying goes,"you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

I refuse to be mean, nasty, disrespectful, or haughty when it comes to people who disagree with me or who believe differently. Does that stop me from calling a spade a spade? Absolutely not. But what it does force me to do is to check my motives. Am I passionately attacking someone with words because I want to be the victor in the debate or the "right person", or do I want to enlighten the person and point them in Christ's direction?

Just my thoughts, not trying to be argumentative or anything...

[50. John said the following at 1:19 PM on Nov 21:]

50

sassy,

neither

if you can't see how they are related to the original post, then I can't help you.

yes, we're having a discussion, what's the problem?

condescension? I've not been disrespectful in any of my comments.

How are your comments related to the original post?

[51. Paul said the following at 2:42 PM on Nov 21:]

51

John you've got me ROTFL ;) take a chill pill my friend. :)

and don't you all find the hilarity of this writer's strike? These actors, comedians, talk show hosts, they're the face of the industry, but they're nothing without their writers. I say good for the writers.

[52. John said the following at 3:05 PM on Nov 21:]

52

Paul,

Take a chill pill my friend.

[53. Kit said the following at 6:37 PM on Nov 22:]

53

I echo John. We're both opinionated, and neither of us is able to sway the other. But I have not been personally offended by his comments. I love a fiery discussion. Calling a truce?

John, to answer your questions, briefly:

Unions ensure a fair working wage by making sure each worker gets paid based on the current rate of other jobs, inflation, cost of living, etc. Especially in the arts, it is very hard to do without them. Pare example, Any symphony member is mandatorialy in the union. When funding in such fields is so low, it is a necessity.

I see your point about gov't education, but disagree. I think it's a great opportunity. Biblical information needs to be taught by the parents and the church, not the schools. And there are Christian schools, if you feel so called.

...but people are involved in their own healthcare costs. 50% of all bankruptcies in America last year (2007) were because of medical expenses (Bill Clinton interview, CNN, Washington DC).. That number is rising as healthcare costs do the same. It's unfortunate, but true. My other quote of 50% came from the same interview. It's quite a high number of un-insured.

I am by no means saying that someone without my belifs can get into heaven. I was just clarifying my own because many on this post are on the other side (nothing wrong with it, by the way).

I've actually never read any Marx.
:-) I came to my conclusions based on my convictions about social and economic justice, but recognize that others may not agree. Everyone is en titled to his or her own opinion.

Truce? Agreed to disagree? :-)

[54. Leah said the following at 8:33 PM on Nov 22:]

54

John, you said

Leah,

"The supply of workers most definitely doesn't outstrip the demand"

Ahem, therefore, high demand should increase wages, thereby attracting more nurses, which would increase supply of said nurses.

Are you Australian? If you are, have you been paying attention to the news? The high demand is NOT increasing wages, that's the whole point of the strike. Therefore it does NOT attract more nurses and therefore the supply of nurses is NOT increasing.

You then said Also, if the working environments are bad, AND the free market were allowed to work, they could find a job elsewhere OR the company would do whatever they could to keep them.
The only places the nurses can go from public hospitals (which a majority of hospitals are) are to private ones, where I'm guessing they already have enough nurses and aren't looking for more. And there are no "companies" involved, it's all the state government (Queensland, but I'm sure it's happening in other states too).

[55. Leah said the following at 10:37 PM on Nov 22:]

55

John- if government controlled education is communism, then Australia's communist. (And most every person I've ever spoken to- and I mean non-Australian- has said Australia's the luckiest country on Earth). Government controlled education is not communism. There are private schools around for those who so desire.

Also, I think I have to echo Paul- take a chill pill. (And I see no reason for Paul to). Unions do have their place. Now, hear me out. I certainly don't want unions running the country (which is why I won't be voting Labor on Saturday, research Australian politics if you need to). I don't even condone strikes. I was just saying supply outstripping demand is not always the cause of strikes.

As for socialism, a certain amount of socialised education and health insurance is good. You needn't jump down people's throats at the very mention of the word "socialism"- it does not necessarily mean the type of socialist regimes that ruled the USSR. The point is, the government is there for a reason. Education and health are two of those reasons. Now I'm not saying everyone must be government educated or stick with public healthcare. What I am saying is that the government does have a duty of care to provide those services for people who choose not to go private.

[56. BDB said the following at 10:55 PM on Nov 22:]

56

Hmmm...I usually stay out of these political ones. But hey, why not:

EDUCATION: America is a Federal system, John is correct that the Federal Constitution has nothing to say about education. It's in the constitutions of the individual states. In fact, education spending is one of the largest things states spend money on. (Or waste money on, depending on how you view the billions of dollars that never reaches the classroom.)

NURSES: My grandmother was a nurse, and worked her later years in a doctor's office. Much better hours than hospitals. She worked the night shift all during WWII - they actually came to her and said, "we know you have a new baby, but you're trained as a nurse and there's a shortage." So, she worked the night shift, leaving the baby with my grandfather after he got home from work. In education...

UNIONS are DECLINING:

Not all private hospitals are unionized. Good, consistent management leaves little room for a union to gain traction.

Unions in all fields make it very, very difficult to remove terrible performers. Bad teachers are protected, which discourages the other teachers. Same thing happens with nurses. In both fields, there are lots of trained people who quit the field. I argue that the union work rules drive good people into other jobs. I know a number of people who've left both fields because they're such a mess.

But I would also suggest that the education for both professions is emphasizing the wrong things. The schools recruit the wrong skill sets, train the wrong skill sets, and end up with graduates who become frustrated on the job, then quit. For example, there's more emphasis on "assessment" in an education curriculum, but job satisfaction comes from good classroom management. Similarly, there's so much government bureaucracy in both education and health care that it creates tremendous amounts of paperwork. This is creating lots of administrator jobs in both fields in order to meet government demands of "accountability." But every hour spent doing paperwork for government "accountability" is an hour not spent with a student or patient. So people who want to be with students or patients get frustrated at all the paperwork they need to do.

The main result of government involvement is to create jobs for people with master's degrees.

Incidentally, the Hollywood writer's strike hasn't harmed my quality of life at all...and I live near Hollywood. Well, an hour away, it's on the news every morning during the "entertainment" segment. How many cities have a morning news program with a full-time "entertainment" anchor instead of a full-time "sports" anchor? Only in L.A. I'd guess...

[57. BDB said the following at 11:19 PM on Nov 22:]

57

Oops...I should have read all the comments first. I hate to be on the opposite side of the issue from Gina.

Anyway, there's a big practical problem with trying to tie any kind of compensation to the Internet: rampant copying. There is so much information being transferred for free that it would actually cost more to build a system to track usage of a piece of work than the revenue that exists from that piece of work.

I'm not making this up: it costs less than a penny to connect a telephone call. But BILLING for that call costs a lot of money to measure the per-minute usage, etc. To really track and pay for usage on the Internet would require terribly expensive billing systems to be created. Frankly, it would cost more to keep track of it than they'd ever get in revenue - resulting in eliminating legitimate distribution of the content.

You're going to end up with a system like ASCAP for music: big, legitimate companies paying fees; big payouts going to the big stars, and pennies for the little stars. It's easier for big companies to simply own all the pieces and only hype their owned stuff. Small writers, like small book or song writers, will be relegated to the free part of the Internet and still make not nearly enough to make a dent in their living expenses. Nicholas Sparks does great with the current system, but there are far more book writers who make less than $1,500 for a book.

This is probably why so many writers have a day job, say at a magazine or newspaper, and write books on the side. Or they teach as a day job, and write as a sideline. You get my drift.

I like to write. I doubt I'll ever get paid anything for it.

[58. John said the following at 12:53 PM on Nov 23:]

58

Leah,

You made my point. "Public" hospitals, like "public" schools are nothing but government monopolies that impead market forces. Unions only add to the problem. They fix pay rates artificially. They don't allow markets to function.

That's why the wages are NOT rising and that's why the supply is NOT rising.

You concept of government responsibility is thoroughly socialist/communist.

The government's responsibility is to protect, not to feed, clothe or "educate".

That is the job of families and churches.

No amount of socialism is okay. Just like no amount of Satan is okay.

"Government controlled schools is not communism"

"I can't write a single word of English"

"A circle has 4 sides"

Socialism/communism are thoroughly evil in any dose. They are unchristian, unbiblical, and sinful economic/political systems.

[59. John said the following at 1:22 PM on Nov 23:]

59

Kit,

Quoting Bill Clinton? That'll get ya no where fast.

If 40 million out of 300 million is 50% then I'm the pope.

Unions ensure that workers get paid less then they could and suck profits from the organizations their leached onto. Take a look at the UAW. They've taken on more costs, because they know that their one of the reasons American car makers are sucking the exhaust of foreign auto makers.

Here's another question. Why do you think it is unions, like UAW, that have steadily declined for years, but government unions, like NEA, have steadily increased?

You never have to go bankrupt for medical expenses, that I'm aware of. You simply pay $10 a month for the rest of your life if you have to. But I'm not even talking about major emergency medical care, which is what insurance is supposed to be for. I'm talking about paying only 5 dollars to visit a doctor for a cough. Insurance should not be used like asking mom and dad for date money.

Also, just because people are uninsured, doesn't mean they do not have health care.

You said:
But if the economy collapses, we will ALL be up a creek without a paddle, in this life as well as the next.

That implies that after we die, if we don't do what you say is socially and economically correct, we won't go to heaven OR we'll receive some kind of punishment.

You may have never directly read Marx, but you have swallowed everything he proposed, hook, like and sinker!

You have sinful beliefs and apparently act on those sinful beliefs. What's worse, is there are millions of people who think they are christian AND think that socialist, communist, liberal beliefs are congruent with christianity.

Lord help them!

[60. Leah said the following at 7:53 PM on Nov 23:]

60

John, you don't know the half of my concept of government, therefore it's a bit rich of you to say that it's communist. I'm completely opposed to communism. I believe that you earn is yours, and nobody else's (which is in direct contradiction to communist policy).

So now you believe me when I say that pay and supply of nurses in Australia aren't rising despite the strikes? A few days ago you were telling me that was wrong.

Since when is the government's sole role to protect?

And it's a bit rich to automatically equate a system of government with Satan. For sure, every socialist country on earth has handled socialism very badly. It's just like dictatorships. If you think about it, the perfect form of government is a dictatorship- if the "dictator" is a good and right person who makes good and right decisions and does not abuse his power. But the reality is, that in this fallen world, the chances of that happening are slim to none. That's why, as a general rule, dictatorships are looked down upon. But in an ideal world with a perfect ruler, a dictatorship would be perfect. (If you think about it, that's what the New Earth will be, with God as "dictator"- except not in the sinful fallen sense of the word that we have become acquainted with). My point in all this is that you cannot automatically link a system of government with God or Satan. It is how those systems are run which is godly or evil.

If you want to prove that the system itself (whether dictatorship or socialism) is inherently evil and unbiblical, you'd better start producing biblical references to back yourself up.

NB to observers: In no way am I condoning dictatorships, socialism or communism on this Earth. They are too easily corrupted by man's sinful attitude. I'm simply making the point that no governmental system (which I've ever come across) is inherently sinful itself.

[61. Paul said the following at 10:31 PM on Nov 23:]

61

John, I downed a nice dose of chill as instructed, but I had to interject on this one. ;)

True, Kit was indeed off with her statistic of the uninsured Americans. But you still should admit that in a country as affluent as ours, even 10% is still too high and that the health care system (while it should not be overhauled) needs a bit of work.

And I didn't like your crack on Public hospitals. I used to work in one, and to tell you the truth, they're superior in many ways to the Private hospitals. They're not-for-profit, unlike most of the private ones which focus almost solely on the bottom line, and they do more good work and treatments for the poor and uninsured than any of the private hospitals that tend to turn away many uninsured citizens.

And also, who in the world is to say that one political/economical ideology is sinful or not? The early church practiced Communism (Acts 2), and the Kingdom of Heaven is definitely not a Republic or Democracy. I'm definitely a Capitalist, but who are you or I or anyone to say that espousing Socialism or Communism is "acting on sinful beliefs." Even if Kit is a socialist (which I highly doubt she is), you're way out of bounds, and I think you owe her an apology...

[62. Kit said the following at 11:08 PM on Nov 23:]

62

John,
You said:

You never have to go bankrupt for medical expenses, that I'm aware of.

Actually, I know several people who have. I dated one once. And at the time, they had full-time jobs. And I do not live in a low-income area. The fact is, many DO go bankrupt from medical expenses, especially if a major surgery is necessary. Many "emergency" policies do not make adequate coverages for hospital stays, ambulance rides, etc. All of which adds up.

. But I'm not even talking about major emergency medical care, which is what insurance is supposed to be for.

Actually, insurance should be for PREVENTATIVE care. This does not include going every two days as you would on a date. Your comment implies it should never be used except in the event of an emergency. If the citizens are not healthy, the health of the nation as a whole will not be healthy. You are also implying that people will take advantage of the system; true, but that is nothing that doesn't already happen. A once/year health exam is a GOOD thing.

You said, "Also, just because people are uninsured, doesn't mean they do not have health care." True only in a technical sense. But in practice, unfortunately, it is quite untrue. They can have access to the ER if they can get in, eventually, and if they most likely go bankrupt paying for the medical costs, ambulance ride, and ER charge. Not a good system. It's inefficient, and wastes time and money of both hospitals and patients. Not to mention it's easier to just have a physical once a year, and know what is wrong ahead of time instead of after it's too late.

A comment on China education vs. American "liberal" education (just so you know we are not, in fact, communist): In present-day China, retired college professors are required to live on-campus. The government does not want them to mix with the "common" people because they "know too much." It is only in this kind of "education" where communism can take hold. If the people were all educated, it wouldn't happen! In America, we are taught to think and exposed to many views. This is good. As long as there is diversity of opinion, the democracy will run as it should. It is when governments start cloistering the educated faction to one spot that communism can take hold in an area. Just to make a point...we are not like this, or anywhere near.

My comment about being up a creek was referring to my earlier sentence of God's judgement. When I said, "as well as the next," I meant those who were judged unfavorably for moral actions (an individual responsibility except within the context of Christian community), not economic. Sorry it wasn't clear.

Saying that my or Leah's beliefs are sinful (or anyone on this post really) is a pretty strong accusation and one I would be wary to make. How is wanting to help the poor sinful? How is sending my children to public school sinful? How is wanting the economy to improve, and international relations, sinful?? Oh, and how is environmentalism sinful when global warming is only happening because WE have poor stewardship of the earth? We are called to all these things as Christians, and all are Biblical except you don't need to send your kids to public school. But if you don't want to, there are private Christian schools, so it shouldn't be an issue....

[63. Kit said the following at 11:10 PM on Nov 23:]

63

PS--I did not swallow EVERYTHING Marx proposed. I do not believe in the elimination of class or anything like that. Christ says we will "always have the poor." But I believe it is a responsibility of our government and yes, possibly the rich as well, to help them out because they are able. With great power comes great responsibility.

[64. Jo said the following at 4:33 AM on Nov 24:]

64

John, what political system do you propose that would both:
a) be completely consistent with Christian beliefs and
b) be actually practically workable in this world?

That's not a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know your thoughts. And if anyone else wants to answer as well, please do.

[65. John said the following at 6:16 PM on Nov 26:]

65

Leah,

What you propose for government is socialist/communist. That's based on what you said. You're the one who wrote what you wrote.

How, if the aspects of a system of government are sinful, does that not make the system sinful?

"Every country who's tried it, hated it, changed it, or crumbled under it, therefore, it must be okay"

Just because something may seem or sound good in theory doesn't make it sinless, when, infact, if you implement it it is sinful in practice.

Socialism "seems" good in theory, but it even breaks down there.

I'm not going to waste my time quoting scripture, because people have such far out ideas about simple basic fundamental principles, I could only imagine their interpretation of scripture. I declare based on biblical principles, but I don't have to quote anything. If you want to prove me wrong, show me the scripture that supports your points.

Socialism and communism can be nothing but sinful. There is no possibility for them to be anything else.

You have stated that government controled-fill in the blank-is okay. Then you say you don't believe in communism. Are you schizophrenic? You may not agree with everything, but you espouse communist/socialist ideals.

By the way, a dictator and socialism deal with different aspects of government. Non-centrally controlled education can exist under a dictatorship, it can't under socialist governments. A dictator can control everything or only what he wants. Socialism/communism are designed to control everything!

[66. John said the following at 6:33 PM on Nov 26:]

66

Paul,

Yes, our health care system needs to be adjusted. We should minimalize and eventually eliminate third party payers. The government should take less of our money to play with and allow us to have more for health care. And lawyers should not be allowed to bankrupt doctors and at the same time force their insurance costs up so high to make people not want to become doctors.

There's law in this country that hospitals have to care for someone in emergent situations, regardless of insurance. The situation you cite proves the fact that we need to have less government involved in the system. Private hospitals have to get paid or they close! Publics can fall back on government handouts.

The early church in no wise practice communism. They practiced a form of charity within their own group that could appear similar to socialism, BUT they did not force anyone to do it nor did they force non-members (other citizens) to participate! Please don't twist scripture.

God says socialism and communism is sin. If you don't like that, take it up with Him.

[67. John said the following at 6:49 PM on Nov 26:]

67

Kit,

I didn't say no one does go bankrupt, I'm saying they don't have to.

"Actually, insurance should be for PREVENTATIVE care."

THIS IS EXACTLY NOT WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR!!!

Are you kidding? No, really. Insurance is for the indemnification of the insured against overwhelming loss or costs.

Insurance is not a toothbrush, it's a surgeon after an accident.

What's the incentive for a person to take good care of their body if it costs them next to nothing to have a doctor "fix" what ails them?

Again, because government raises the cost of anything it gets its grubby little hands on, it becomes harder and harder for the average middle class family to buy decent insurance, especially if their company doesn't provide it. And, can you guess what group of lovelies have golden tickets for medical insurance? Ding, ding, ding, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES!!! Talk about not having to worry about costs, on either side!

[68. John said the following at 6:56 PM on Nov 26:]

68

Kit,

A once a year health exam is smart. Why shouldn't someone pay for that out of their own pocket? Why should insurance pay for that?

No, Kit, again you are wrong. Just because a person doesn't have health insurance, doesn't mean they have no health care.

Like I keep saying, because of the government beauracracy, insurance prices are pricing many individuals out of the market, so they just find ways to pay for their medical care out of pocket. (Doctors love to get cash that uncle sam can't count!)

You all keep making the same point I'm making. Government invovlement has made the system inefficient and punative. Yet, you believe MORE government involvement will solve the situation. (Clank, clank, clank goes the head against the wall)

[69. John said the following at 7:20 PM on Nov 26:]

69

Kit et al,

Please, define communism for me. You all keep saying that centrally controlled and run schools that teach atheism are not communist. How in the world is that not communist.

I don't know what schools you've been in, but the "many views" you speak of, fall into a handful categories, secular progessivism, atheism, communism, socialism, New Age...okay, more than a handful. Notice Christianity ain't one of 'em.

By the way, there is not a whole lot of thinking going on, either. I have first hand knowledge and experience. Kids can quote Jay-Z, but forget about Shakespeare.

In fact, even the "smart" ones sound a lot like you. They actually believe socialism and communism work. Go figure.

Education is becoming "cloistered". An Education Department at the federal level should not even exist. It is a state responsibility!

Socialism/communism HURTS the poor!

WE are not causing global warming.

I should not have to pay to indoctrinate someone else's child, even if mine is not being indoctrinated by the government.

I should also not have to pay that tax AND pay for private Christian education.

It is biblical that the parent is the primary educator and primarily responsible. Thus, it follows, I and any parent have the biblical command and right to educate our children according to biblical principles.

This is true of non-believers as well. They, whether they know it or want it, are ultimately responsible for educating their children. They should be able to choose to do that how and where they wish (ideally biblically, but either way, what they deem appropriately)

It is not government's right nor responsibility to educate children. They are taking over the parent's roll. THAT IS SIN! You are advocating sin.

[70. John said the following at 7:24 PM on Nov 26:]

70

Kit,

Yes, charity is part of Christianity, BUT, government forced income redistribution is not charity.

The rich should help. People should do a lot of things. This does not mean you force them to do everything they should do.

Forced charity is an oxymoron.

[71. John said the following at 7:28 PM on Nov 26:]

71

Jo,

Republican.

[72. Kit said the following at 5:11 PM on Nov 27:]

72

John,
As far as global warming...You said, "WE are not causing global warming."

Do you honestly believe we can literally slowly murder the earth and not pay the consequences? Have you ever been to Washington, D.C. during rush hour? If not, think of your own city (I don't know where you live). What, exactly, do you think happens to all the exhaust coming out of people's cars? It just floats up to the atmosphere and magically evaporates? What you put into the earth comes out of it in some way!

Or, have you ever seen parts of CA or Beijing?? Do you think the 'smog' is another one of God's creations? WE put it there, and it is our responsibility to take it out.

And yes, I know the earth goes in cycles of heating and cooling. The problem is not the cycle, it's the SPEED of the cycle. Never in history has it ever been this fast. It makes perfect logical, intellectual sense. What you put in comes out in some way. True for most of life.

I would like to ask why some Christians in particular can not bring themselves to believe this. I'm not trying to be catty, I'm asking a serious question. What is the reasoning behind the other point of view, besides "science is not reliable?" Why, when it makes complete logical sense, and science is in fact many times very reliable, do so many refuse to believe it?

What about strip mining? River poisoning? Serious, prolonged droughts? Rising oceans, melting icebergs, etc.? Mounds of trash, which we have nowhere to put? And things that drip underneath the earth into the cave systems, slowly destroying the beautiful creations God has put there? How can we, as Christians, say it is anything BUT our responsibility to be environmentally active when God entrusted it's care first to Adam???

[73. John said the following at 8:44 PM on Nov 27:]

73

What I have begun to notice is that liberals often do not focus on the points addressed, but, instead, tend to always go on tangents.

I hope the producers and writers get what's coming to them.

[74. John said the following at 10:14 AM on Nov 28:]

74

Kit,

Global warming is political pseudo-science.

Yes, it is logical that our actins have consequences, but nothing to the extent chicken littles are saying.

Plus, we only have 100 years of really good solidly scientific evidence.

Have a go at this:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/11/28/the_free_market_does_it_better

Lord bless.

[75. Kit said the following at 3:45 PM on Nov 28:]

75

What I have begun to notice is that liberals often do not focus on the points addressed, but, instead, tend to always go on tangents.

I didn't feel like typing to answer every point so I just chose one. It took long enough as it was.

[76. Kit said the following at 4:17 PM on Nov 28:]

76

And, John, it was actually not a tangent. It was a direct response to one of your direct points.

Interesting source, but I want to see stats, and the gathering of data over time, not the opinion of one or two people, especially on a site that seems to have no scientific/political/academic credentials.

From the above article, if you haven't had a chance to check it out:

People in the developing world desperately need prosperity. Blocking their development on the flimsy promise of climate "fixes" will only make hard lives harder. Their primitive environments are killing them.

Then why is the climate change hurting them if it's fake? According to sociologist Tony Campolo, he has met with African tribal leaders who have no knowledge of science whatsoever. But they have said to him that the prolonged droughts are nothing like what they have ever seen, and actually, THAT is what is killing them. They can't live off the land if it's all dry and dead!

And just for the record it's pretty presumptuous to assume that "their primitave environments are killing them." That's a fairly large overgeneralization.

Actually Christianity talked about in my world religions class in high school. It was given the same treatment as the other religions. And our teacher was actually a Christian.

John, you said: It is biblical that the parent is the primary educator and primarily responsible. Thus, it follows, I and any parent have the biblical command and right to educate our children according to biblical principles.
Yes. I already said that. There are many alternate routes if you do not like public schools. But don't bash them for the people who use them. It's still the parent's responsibility, regardless of what type of school your child is in.

[77. Jo said the following at 5:15 PM on Nov 28:]

77

John said: "Republican."

Thanks for that one word answer, that tells me (a Brit whose only knowledge of American politics comes from Boundless) virtually nothing.

But are you really saying that Republican policies, values and practical outworkings of those policies and values are completely in line with scripture? Like, 100%? In every situation? Seriously?

And there are so many other things I could say, but I'll end with this: you said "How, if the aspects of a system of government are sinful, does that not make the system sinful?". Kit had already explained perfectly well the problem of putting a good system in the hands of sinful humans. By your logic, God sinned by giving humans authority over creation and responsibility for looking after the world, since the implementation of that power and responsibility has been a monumental disaster for all concerned. Bad decision by God? 'Satanist' system? Or perhaps, as Kit said, everything human beings get their hands one will be corrupted, whether socialism, democracy, theocracy or dictatorship. WE are the common thread running through all the big cock-ups of history. WE are the problem.

[78. Jo said the following at 5:33 PM on Nov 28:]

78

John

Oh wait, there was just one more thing. Did my eyes deceive me, or when Kit asked you to provide Biblical support for your position, did you really say (and I quote) "I'm not going to waste my time quoting scripture"?

It's like a joke, except that I know you're serious. You're the only one here who's claiming the monopoly on truth. You're the only one making bold statements like "God says your opinion is sin" (I'm paraphrasing). I don't see anyone else accusing others of supporting satanist ideas and telling them if they don't agree they can take it up with God. The burden of proof is on you, when you say things like that you have to back them up.

We're not idiots. The Bible isn't a government manifesto, we are each interpreting what it says in the light of various situations we come across, one of which is politics. It seems to all of us (from what I can gather) that you're picking out 'Biblical principles' that support your ideas and ignoring ones that don't. If that isn't the case, and you believe your interpretation is so far above everyone else's, you can either explain the scriptural basis for your views, or you can leave the discussion.

[79. John said the following at 8:33 PM on Nov 28:]

79

I'm not bashing government schools.

I'm calling a spade a spade.

They're anti-biblical indoctrination centers.

So, yeah, if a parent wants their child to go to such a place, sure, it's their choice.

[80. John said the following at 8:35 PM on Nov 28:]

80

Jo,

Republican government, NOT republican party.

[81. John said the following at 8:48 PM on Nov 28:]

81

Socialism/communism are inherently sinful.

They go against our God made image and aline with our sinful nature.

You have to slow down and think. Are you talking before the fall or after the fall?

There was NO government as we know it before the fall.

You're right, humans can abuse any system, but, some systems are more open for abuse then others. And, others still, are just simply sinfilled systems that allow for greater abuse by and of people.

Our system of government is the absolute best. Our economic system is the best.

Sadly, though, they are being destroyed, litle by little, by socialist and communist, many who believe they are christian.

Sad, very sad.

[82. John said the following at 9:20 PM on Nov 28:]

82

Jo,

I am stating what the bible says in my own words. I'm not stating what I think the bible says, but what it actually says.

You all are espousing what you think is in the bible, but is in fact not there.

That's the situation as it is.

[83. Kit said the following at 4:17 PM on Nov 29:]

83

I'm trucing on this one, John, we're simply not going to agree.

One other little thing, though. You said:

"I am stating what the bible says in my own words...You all are espousing what you think is in the bible, but is in fact not there."

Last time I checked, the Bible said nothing specific about not voting for a Democratic candidate, global warming, government schools, or really anything AT ALL in relation to contemporary American politics. I must have missed it.

My point is that you are reading the Bible through your own lens, same as everyone else on this post.

[84. Jo said the following at 10:26 PM on Nov 29:]

84

John -
I actually don't think I've given my opinion on what the Bible says in this post, so I don't think you can include me in 'you all'. My problem is not with your opinion, but with your conviction that you are 100% right and everyone who disagrees with you is hellbound, without ever quoting the Bible to back you up. Stating it 'in your own words' is simply not enough.

[85. John said the following at 5:16 AM on Nov 30:]

85

Kit,

Sorry, but you are reading the bible through your own lens.

I'm not. What I'm stating is objective truth.

You are stating subjective truth.

Of course the bible speaks to all of those subjects.

I'll quote for you later.

I'm not stating my opinions here. I'm stating biblical truth.

You and others are stating opinions that are wrong.

[86. John said the following at 8:28 PM on Dec 3:]

86

Just goes to show, even when shown how wrong they are, liberals will not even admit to it.

"None are so blind..."