Craig at mtpolitics is talking about the abomination that is called The Employee Free Choice Act. The choice for employees already exists, in that if enough of them want it, there will be an election called to determine if a true majority of the workers want to be represented by a union. This vote presently, is done in secret, so that neither management nor the union could influence the worker's choice on whether to unionize or not. The result has been a continuing drop in union membership.
Recognizing that unions are losing members, and along with it, their ability to extort a portion of their wages, unions are now going to Congress to get them to pass the EFCA in order to reverse the decline in membership and dues. The premise is that the union organizers will be standing just outside of the business, and will harass, annoy, delay and confuse workers until they sign the card. Once the card is signed, the worker will be left in peace until half of the employees are signed up, and they suddenly find out that they are required to pay dues, and have to answer to someone not their boss in order to do their job.
I only belonged to one union in my lifetime, and that was when I worked at Safeway as a bagger during my High School years. I didn't care for them, and later when I was older and learned that many of the things that I was doing violated labor laws, I realized that the only thing that mattered to the union was paying my dues. When I joined up with the Office of Public Defenders, I found out that the defenders who were already unionized got to vote on having a union before anyone was hired. I refused to join, and took steps to decertify the union, which I put on hold to wait and see how they did in protecting the members of the union. What I learned was that the union did absolutely nothing.
They promised to increase our wages, which they didn't do. Sure, that is a problem that the Legislature is the only source of funding, but why promise what you can't deliver? Then the union expanded from the attorneys, the newest who are making about $46k per year, and roped in the support staff who average around $25k per year. The funny thing is, that everyone pays the same union dues. Cost effectively, the lawyers have the best deal, paying a smaller percentage of their salary than the support staff for absolutely nothing.
Amusingly, the unions continue to ignore unlawful and illegal management practices, even in the OPD. If I ever get fired, my retirement plan is going to be a civil suit against the State and the union for their acts.
Oh heck, why wait? Maybe I should start a suit against the union now for fraud, misrepresentation and malpractice. Maybe all forced unionized workers should do that.
Showing posts with label dextra. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dextra. Show all posts
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Monday, November 17, 2008
Union Boss Security Act
Montana Main Street Blog has been addressing the issue of the Card Check method of unionizing workers. Matt Singer rises to the defense of the union bosses to collect the dues of workers by forcing them to sign the union card in their presence. It seems that in a secret ballot, the unions keep losing.
Singer of Left in the West is singing "Look for the Union Label" by claiming that all workers need to be unionized, and that the only fair way to do it is by the union bosses forcing employees to give up their right to a secret ballot. Matt feels that workers can be intimidated by management in order to prevent unions from forming. In support of that, Matt offers this:
Unions are becoming as obsolete as the dinosaur, and this travesty of a law is their last hurrah. With this ability to coerce workers who would rather be left alone, the union bosses will ensure a continuing stream of revenue in the form of dues, that they will use in support of Democratic candidates for office. It has worked well for them, they have paid hundreds of millions of dollars of your hard earned pay to get their pals elected.
Maybe that is why the workers don't vote for unions in the privacy of the voting booth.
Singer of Left in the West is singing "Look for the Union Label" by claiming that all workers need to be unionized, and that the only fair way to do it is by the union bosses forcing employees to give up their right to a secret ballot. Matt feels that workers can be intimidated by management in order to prevent unions from forming. In support of that, Matt offers this:
In fact, one former Bush Administration official summed up his opposition to card check by saying, "[Corporations] have no chance to retaliate" against workers trying to organize. Retaliation, of course, is already "illegal," but the laws are so meaningless that Labor Department officials talk about it as though it is legal (the equivalent of ONDCP opposing a law because it would give pot smokers no chance to light up in the privacy in their homes).Matt links to a site in support of this factoid. Which then links to this site in support of the assertion. Except, when you chase the links down, it wasn't a Bush administration official as Matt said, it was an audience member in a Q&A session. I am sure that Matt was just being lax in his reliance on web sites that support his opinion.
Unions are becoming as obsolete as the dinosaur, and this travesty of a law is their last hurrah. With this ability to coerce workers who would rather be left alone, the union bosses will ensure a continuing stream of revenue in the form of dues, that they will use in support of Democratic candidates for office. It has worked well for them, they have paid hundreds of millions of dollars of your hard earned pay to get their pals elected.
Maybe that is why the workers don't vote for unions in the privacy of the voting booth.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Wedge Issues
Wedge issues are those arguments that are meant to split support for the opposition. Gay marriage has been used by the Republicans for sometime to split the blue collar Catholic voter from the effete elites who actually rule the Democratic Party. Now it seems that the Republicans are coming to grips with gay marriage as well. The social conservative position is very well (if not succinctly) put by Mike at The Last Best Place. While I agree with most of his post, the strength of his argument comes in the defense of the traditional definition of marriage. It is compelling, intelligent and well supported by thinkers of most of recorded history. But I am not so sure that his strong defense of traditional marriage denies that gay marriage can also have many of the same benefits.
Marriage is not a biological construct. It is more an economic and political construct that has the benefits of providing for a future of the human race. Historically, polygamy has been used for the better part of time, probably because of the low rate of survival of women in giving birth, and the short lives and violent deaths of young males. But at a micro level, polygamy and its lesser used sibling polyandry, are inherently imbalanced in the relations between all of the parties. There will always be the first wife, or the first husband, who agree to the subsequent marriages because it gives them control over the newbies to the relationship. But even in Western culture, we have arranged marriages, political marriages, marriages for the unification of property, shotgun weddings, mail order brides, Britney Spears and even the concept of a "starter marriage." All of these have had the support of authority and sometimes even the blessings of the religious powers. But that doesn't mean that these marriages are all equal in their application and construct. Perhaps one of the greatest problems that we have in Western Civilization starts with the Medieval notion of romantic love leading to marriage. This notion automatically creates unrealistic expectations of the marriage.
Since the period of human gestation is so long, and the helplessness of a newborn requires so much more, the need to have a stable structure that creates the newborn and cares for it is essential to our species survival. Marriage is the best system that we have to provide for that future, but it calls into question the reason to have marriage after a woman enters menopause. So obviously, marriage is much more than that.
Society benefits from marriage, in that it establishes clear relationships, removes issues of property holdings, and is the basic political building block. When two people come together in a long term relationship, it brings two equal but different selves to agree to cooperate for their mutual benefit, the benefit of any children and the community as a whole. But it is also a statement of commitment that society has agreed to honor. A vow to love, cherish and honor, in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer until death do us part, used to mean something. Unfortunately, marriage has now come to mean that "I will love you until I get bored or something better comes along." And that is what I think most social conservatives have a problem with, and I would have to agree with them on that point.
Marriage has significant economic benefits for the spouses. If one of the pair has benefits that are extended to the spouse, the other spouse now has the opportunity to take risks to enhance their economic viability through either a new enterprise, or staying at home to raise and school the children. But it is the legal standing of the spouses that allow this to happen. By putting a bar to use of this protection, are we not also denying the opportunity to gays?
One of the arguments against gay marriage is the perceived transitory nature of their relationships. But isn't that a chicken and egg problem. If they had gay marriage wouldn't that allow for more stability. Even if it didn't there are numerically a higher number of divorces among straight couples. In fact, it is not gay marriage that is trivializing the concept of marriage, it is the heterosexual community and their flip attitudes toward marriage that is the trivializing effect.
For marriage to regain its status as an important institution in our society, we need to make it harder to get married, thereby insuring a minimum commitment, and harder to get out of a marriage, insuring a longer lasting commitment.
Set a nationwide standard of waiting six months for a marriage license. This would prevent those who marry in haste and divorce in leisure. And do away with no fault divorce. Right now, if one party wants a divorce, the other spouse has no say in the matter. I would return to the concept of divorce as a tort. If you want out of the marriage, you surrender all of your property rights to the other spouse. That would go a long way toward lowering the divorce rate.
But the most important thing that we can do is to remove the judges who start these problems. The supreme courts of Massachusettes and California have found a right that has lain hidden all of this time. In California, the people have rightly exercised their authority over the constitution of that state to overrule the supreme court. To make matters worse, the supremes have decided to hear a case to determine if Proposition 8 is itself unconstitutional. If that happens, we have changed from a democratic republic to a rule by the judiciary.
Gay marriage advocates need to appreciate that while they may feel their rights are being withheld arbitrarily, they must also work to remove the use of the law to coerce people away from their fundamental beliefs. Whether it is the orphanage in New Jersey that Mike cited, or more locally, the demand that the pharmacist in Glendive carry birth control pills, they are using the law to change deeply held values, and that is a violation of the Constitution's right to freedom of religion.
I say that both sides need to back off using the law to foist their beliefs and values on others in either the name of tolerance or tradition.
Marriage is not a biological construct. It is more an economic and political construct that has the benefits of providing for a future of the human race. Historically, polygamy has been used for the better part of time, probably because of the low rate of survival of women in giving birth, and the short lives and violent deaths of young males. But at a micro level, polygamy and its lesser used sibling polyandry, are inherently imbalanced in the relations between all of the parties. There will always be the first wife, or the first husband, who agree to the subsequent marriages because it gives them control over the newbies to the relationship. But even in Western culture, we have arranged marriages, political marriages, marriages for the unification of property, shotgun weddings, mail order brides, Britney Spears and even the concept of a "starter marriage." All of these have had the support of authority and sometimes even the blessings of the religious powers. But that doesn't mean that these marriages are all equal in their application and construct. Perhaps one of the greatest problems that we have in Western Civilization starts with the Medieval notion of romantic love leading to marriage. This notion automatically creates unrealistic expectations of the marriage.
Since the period of human gestation is so long, and the helplessness of a newborn requires so much more, the need to have a stable structure that creates the newborn and cares for it is essential to our species survival. Marriage is the best system that we have to provide for that future, but it calls into question the reason to have marriage after a woman enters menopause. So obviously, marriage is much more than that.
Society benefits from marriage, in that it establishes clear relationships, removes issues of property holdings, and is the basic political building block. When two people come together in a long term relationship, it brings two equal but different selves to agree to cooperate for their mutual benefit, the benefit of any children and the community as a whole. But it is also a statement of commitment that society has agreed to honor. A vow to love, cherish and honor, in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer until death do us part, used to mean something. Unfortunately, marriage has now come to mean that "I will love you until I get bored or something better comes along." And that is what I think most social conservatives have a problem with, and I would have to agree with them on that point.
Marriage has significant economic benefits for the spouses. If one of the pair has benefits that are extended to the spouse, the other spouse now has the opportunity to take risks to enhance their economic viability through either a new enterprise, or staying at home to raise and school the children. But it is the legal standing of the spouses that allow this to happen. By putting a bar to use of this protection, are we not also denying the opportunity to gays?
One of the arguments against gay marriage is the perceived transitory nature of their relationships. But isn't that a chicken and egg problem. If they had gay marriage wouldn't that allow for more stability. Even if it didn't there are numerically a higher number of divorces among straight couples. In fact, it is not gay marriage that is trivializing the concept of marriage, it is the heterosexual community and their flip attitudes toward marriage that is the trivializing effect.
For marriage to regain its status as an important institution in our society, we need to make it harder to get married, thereby insuring a minimum commitment, and harder to get out of a marriage, insuring a longer lasting commitment.
Set a nationwide standard of waiting six months for a marriage license. This would prevent those who marry in haste and divorce in leisure. And do away with no fault divorce. Right now, if one party wants a divorce, the other spouse has no say in the matter. I would return to the concept of divorce as a tort. If you want out of the marriage, you surrender all of your property rights to the other spouse. That would go a long way toward lowering the divorce rate.
But the most important thing that we can do is to remove the judges who start these problems. The supreme courts of Massachusettes and California have found a right that has lain hidden all of this time. In California, the people have rightly exercised their authority over the constitution of that state to overrule the supreme court. To make matters worse, the supremes have decided to hear a case to determine if Proposition 8 is itself unconstitutional. If that happens, we have changed from a democratic republic to a rule by the judiciary.
Gay marriage advocates need to appreciate that while they may feel their rights are being withheld arbitrarily, they must also work to remove the use of the law to coerce people away from their fundamental beliefs. Whether it is the orphanage in New Jersey that Mike cited, or more locally, the demand that the pharmacist in Glendive carry birth control pills, they are using the law to change deeply held values, and that is a violation of the Constitution's right to freedom of religion.
I say that both sides need to back off using the law to foist their beliefs and values on others in either the name of tolerance or tradition.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Phone Phishing?
Everyone who has an email account has had billions of dollars worth of offers if they would just assist the poor daughter of a deposed Nigerian dictator by giving her a safe account that she can park her money, and as compensation, you will receive a share of the wealth. Outside of repetitive stress disorder from hitting the spam button, these are not much of a problem as long as you ignore them. But lately, I seem to be under attack by phone.
It started on Monday when I was called at work, and a robo-caller let me know that there was no problem with my credit card (no card name mentioned) but that I could get a lower rate and to take part in this lower rate, all I had to do was to punch the number 1. I was ticked off that I was getting a robo-call at work, and I am on the "Do Not Call" list, so I punched 1 and waited for a real person. A woman picked up at the other end and wanted to know if I wanted to lower my credit card rate? First, I asked her what my credit card balance was. She said that she couldn't release that information to anyone but the cardholder. I told her my name, but didn't list any of the credit cards that I used. After a few seconds, she came back and told me that my credit card balance was $36,000.
"What?" I said, and then she said it was $78,000, again I repeated my brilliant comment "What?" Then she said that it was $108,000. Now, at first I thought I might be a victim of identity theft since I pay off my card balance every month. But then I thought about it for a second, and realized that she had no real information on me, that there was no way that she could figure out how to spell my name to check my account, and the fact that she didn't even want to know my account number made me think that this was some sort of in person "Phishing."
Phishing is an attempt to get you to release important information to the questioner so that they can use it in identity theft.
I informed her that I was on the Do Not Call List, and that using robo calls is a misdemeanor punishable by $500 per event. She then asked me if I knew where she lived, and guessing from her accent, I would say somewhere in the South, but I told her that it wouldn't matter, as the FBI can find her. I also threatened her and her employer with a lawsuit for invading my privacy, harassment, and fraud. She told me that I was abusing her right to privacy by pressing the number 1 during the robo-call, and she hung up.
Amusing, but to follow it up, we have been receiving calls at home about out delinquent account from some so called "collections agency." I ran our credit reports and there are no delinquent accounts or pending legal actions, so I figure this must be another form of phishing.
Off the top of my head (DISCLAIMER, this is not legal advice, and I am not your lawyer, this is just common information, and is designed to inform the public of their rights, if you have any legal questions, contact your lawyer.) when doing debt collection, they have to send you written notice of the debt and inform you that you have thirty days to dispute the debt. You can also demand written proof of the debt. The creditor cannot pursue any actions against you if you provide written dispute until that is resolved.
Whatever you do, don't give out any personal information, credit card numbers or bank account numbers over the phone.
Just doing my good deed.
It started on Monday when I was called at work, and a robo-caller let me know that there was no problem with my credit card (no card name mentioned) but that I could get a lower rate and to take part in this lower rate, all I had to do was to punch the number 1. I was ticked off that I was getting a robo-call at work, and I am on the "Do Not Call" list, so I punched 1 and waited for a real person. A woman picked up at the other end and wanted to know if I wanted to lower my credit card rate? First, I asked her what my credit card balance was. She said that she couldn't release that information to anyone but the cardholder. I told her my name, but didn't list any of the credit cards that I used. After a few seconds, she came back and told me that my credit card balance was $36,000.
"What?" I said, and then she said it was $78,000, again I repeated my brilliant comment "What?" Then she said that it was $108,000. Now, at first I thought I might be a victim of identity theft since I pay off my card balance every month. But then I thought about it for a second, and realized that she had no real information on me, that there was no way that she could figure out how to spell my name to check my account, and the fact that she didn't even want to know my account number made me think that this was some sort of in person "Phishing."
Phishing is an attempt to get you to release important information to the questioner so that they can use it in identity theft.
I informed her that I was on the Do Not Call List, and that using robo calls is a misdemeanor punishable by $500 per event. She then asked me if I knew where she lived, and guessing from her accent, I would say somewhere in the South, but I told her that it wouldn't matter, as the FBI can find her. I also threatened her and her employer with a lawsuit for invading my privacy, harassment, and fraud. She told me that I was abusing her right to privacy by pressing the number 1 during the robo-call, and she hung up.
Amusing, but to follow it up, we have been receiving calls at home about out delinquent account from some so called "collections agency." I ran our credit reports and there are no delinquent accounts or pending legal actions, so I figure this must be another form of phishing.
Off the top of my head (DISCLAIMER, this is not legal advice, and I am not your lawyer, this is just common information, and is designed to inform the public of their rights, if you have any legal questions, contact your lawyer.) when doing debt collection, they have to send you written notice of the debt and inform you that you have thirty days to dispute the debt. You can also demand written proof of the debt. The creditor cannot pursue any actions against you if you provide written dispute until that is resolved.
Whatever you do, don't give out any personal information, credit card numbers or bank account numbers over the phone.
Just doing my good deed.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
This is Ridiculous
Before he is even swore in, there are those calling for the impeachment of Barak Obama. Further evidence of the trivializing, or as I prefer to call it, the Wulfgarization of politics.
It serves no purpose, other than pseudo intellectual masturbatory fantasies, but then that explains Wulfgar, so I guess they are just his alter ego.
It serves no purpose, other than pseudo intellectual masturbatory fantasies, but then that explains Wulfgar, so I guess they are just his alter ego.
One More Try
Earlier, the California Supreme Court found that there was a right to homosexual marriage in their constitution, which obviated the law passed by referendum that said marriage is between a man and a woman. Yesterday, the voters of California passed a constitutional amendment restoring the original referendum's intent. Now, "cvil rights advocates" are filing suit in California to overturn the amendment.
While I don't really care who marries who, so long as they don't scare the horses, the fact is, that I feel no need to tell anyone who to marry or not marry based on sexual preferences. I tried talking my son out of marrying his wife, but he persisted, even though I am sure that the marriage is doomed. But that is my son, someone with whom I have a very special relationship. So how can I tell people that I don't even know not to marry? Actually, the best argument against anyone marrying, is that it is the leading cause of divorce.
But the interesting thing about the article mentioned above is that the California Supreme Court went specifically against the expressed will of the people of California by finding a "right" that was carefully hidden from the eyes of the layman, detectable only by those with the right kind of legalistic scholarship of mind.
But the amendment is to their state constitution. Under the division of labor known as the system of checks and balances, the supreme court could only interpret the law, not create it, as they did earlier. For their supreme court to find that the amendment passed in response to their earlier ruling is unconstitutional will create its own constitutional crisis. After all, it is the province of the legislature to promulgate laws, not the supreme court. For the court to take on this task is deliciously fun, having made an excrement sandwich with their ruling, they are now being asked to garnish it with mayonnaise.
Enjoy.
While I don't really care who marries who, so long as they don't scare the horses, the fact is, that I feel no need to tell anyone who to marry or not marry based on sexual preferences. I tried talking my son out of marrying his wife, but he persisted, even though I am sure that the marriage is doomed. But that is my son, someone with whom I have a very special relationship. So how can I tell people that I don't even know not to marry? Actually, the best argument against anyone marrying, is that it is the leading cause of divorce.
But the interesting thing about the article mentioned above is that the California Supreme Court went specifically against the expressed will of the people of California by finding a "right" that was carefully hidden from the eyes of the layman, detectable only by those with the right kind of legalistic scholarship of mind.
But the amendment is to their state constitution. Under the division of labor known as the system of checks and balances, the supreme court could only interpret the law, not create it, as they did earlier. For their supreme court to find that the amendment passed in response to their earlier ruling is unconstitutional will create its own constitutional crisis. After all, it is the province of the legislature to promulgate laws, not the supreme court. For the court to take on this task is deliciously fun, having made an excrement sandwich with their ruling, they are now being asked to garnish it with mayonnaise.
Enjoy.
Congratulations
To all of the successful Democratic candidates across the nation starting with President Elect Obama all the way to my fine opponent, Theresa Henry. You have won, and now have full control.
I disagree that the election was a referendum on maximizing individual liberty, but believe that it was just the final throes of 2006 and a blame the Republicans mentality that was successfully promulgated by a Main Stream Media that so desperately wanted their candidate to win that they flushed their credibility. Not that Republicans didn't deserve it to a certain extent. The growth of government under Bush would make even the hardest Left Democrat blush with envy. Throw in such useless and dangerous actions as the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the imposition of certain elements of the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Benefit plan, etc. and you have a harbinger of the growth in government control that is going to expand even more in the next few years.
But we should also not forget those few things that Bush did right. Contrary to public opinion, from a geo-strategic point of view, the invasion of Iraq was justified and if allowed to mature will become a very valuable ally against the depredations of extremist Muslim fanatics, like the ones in Somalia who stoned to death a 13 year old girl because she had been raped. The much reviled tax cuts stimulated an economy that was lurching around after the dot.com bubble and the assault on the economy from 9-11. Before the Democratic Congress, unemployment was running at well under 5% and real wealth was increasing across the board in spite of Mark T.'s assertions to the contrary. Bush and company should have not let the powers that be obstruct the implementation of controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fact that they didn't push the issue harder shows that even they did not realize the severity of the crisis that was to ensue.
I expect that the Democrats will be frustrated by their inability to solve everyone's problems immediately. There will be those who will blame Bush as an excuse for failure to accomplish anything. You get to do that until June. After that, it's going to be your baby. In the words of the SNL investment banker "FIX IT! JUST FIX IT!!"
I will not succumb to the personal attacks that the Left have employed for the last eight years (Selected, not Elected) even though it would be easy to do. But I will oppose those policies that I think are dangerous vigorously. I will do it with out ad hominen attacks, just to show the friends on the Left how a grown up reacts to disappointment.
In a way this is a very liberating election for me. There is the chance, albeit small, that the Democrats will bring about all of the improvements that they have promised and at no great cost to individual freedom, dignity or economic costs. And if they succeed, I will applaud them. On the other hand, if they do as I expect, and use heavy handed tactics that will destroy individual liberty and choices, I will be ready to help change the makeup of Congress in two more years.
I disagree that the election was a referendum on maximizing individual liberty, but believe that it was just the final throes of 2006 and a blame the Republicans mentality that was successfully promulgated by a Main Stream Media that so desperately wanted their candidate to win that they flushed their credibility. Not that Republicans didn't deserve it to a certain extent. The growth of government under Bush would make even the hardest Left Democrat blush with envy. Throw in such useless and dangerous actions as the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the imposition of certain elements of the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Benefit plan, etc. and you have a harbinger of the growth in government control that is going to expand even more in the next few years.
But we should also not forget those few things that Bush did right. Contrary to public opinion, from a geo-strategic point of view, the invasion of Iraq was justified and if allowed to mature will become a very valuable ally against the depredations of extremist Muslim fanatics, like the ones in Somalia who stoned to death a 13 year old girl because she had been raped. The much reviled tax cuts stimulated an economy that was lurching around after the dot.com bubble and the assault on the economy from 9-11. Before the Democratic Congress, unemployment was running at well under 5% and real wealth was increasing across the board in spite of Mark T.'s assertions to the contrary. Bush and company should have not let the powers that be obstruct the implementation of controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fact that they didn't push the issue harder shows that even they did not realize the severity of the crisis that was to ensue.
I expect that the Democrats will be frustrated by their inability to solve everyone's problems immediately. There will be those who will blame Bush as an excuse for failure to accomplish anything. You get to do that until June. After that, it's going to be your baby. In the words of the SNL investment banker "FIX IT! JUST FIX IT!!"
I will not succumb to the personal attacks that the Left have employed for the last eight years (Selected, not Elected) even though it would be easy to do. But I will oppose those policies that I think are dangerous vigorously. I will do it with out ad hominen attacks, just to show the friends on the Left how a grown up reacts to disappointment.
In a way this is a very liberating election for me. There is the chance, albeit small, that the Democrats will bring about all of the improvements that they have promised and at no great cost to individual freedom, dignity or economic costs. And if they succeed, I will applaud them. On the other hand, if they do as I expect, and use heavy handed tactics that will destroy individual liberty and choices, I will be ready to help change the makeup of Congress in two more years.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Final Comments on the National Election
The end is near, and many candidates for public office (myself included) are heaving a sigh of relief after all of the hours, the doors, the meetings. Don't get me wrong, I personally found meeting voters to be invigorating, it's just that after working all day, to get home, have a bite with the wife (The Good Democrat) it is easy to want to just say the heck with it and stay home. But instead, you go out get in the car and move on to the next block to spread the message. At the national level, the difference is that you get on the plane and jet off to somewhere that you have a scheduled appearance, trying to brush up on the local tidbits of information that will help make the connection with people who are already excited to see you. For me, the election has lasted seven and a half months. For Obama, it seems to have been for the last 47 years.
But tomorrow, the end will be here, and the voters will have made their choices, subject of course to the lawyers interpretation of the votes. Right now, Obama is solidly in the lead, and most of the media show him ahead by a seemingly insurmountable lead. But what bothers me, are the undecided voters. How in the Hell can you be undecided after all this time? Undecideds make up anywhere from 6% to 19% in some polls. My theory is that the undecideds are either obtuse, and will just flip a coin, or they are secretly McCain voters, but don't want to advertise it so that they don't get into an argument over their choice.
McCain was not my first choice, nor my second, nor . . . oh heck, I am still ticked off at him for McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy, and McCain et al, that are further encroachments by the nanny state into our lives. But I am more worried about the direction that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate will want to go for the next two years. Admittedly, their excesses will be necessary for the rebirth of the Republicans who will be propelled into office if they can just come up with a coherent and intelligent message beyond "We are not Democrats."
Newt, where are you, now that we need you more than ever?
But tomorrow, the end will be here, and the voters will have made their choices, subject of course to the lawyers interpretation of the votes. Right now, Obama is solidly in the lead, and most of the media show him ahead by a seemingly insurmountable lead. But what bothers me, are the undecided voters. How in the Hell can you be undecided after all this time? Undecideds make up anywhere from 6% to 19% in some polls. My theory is that the undecideds are either obtuse, and will just flip a coin, or they are secretly McCain voters, but don't want to advertise it so that they don't get into an argument over their choice.
McCain was not my first choice, nor my second, nor . . . oh heck, I am still ticked off at him for McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy, and McCain et al, that are further encroachments by the nanny state into our lives. But I am more worried about the direction that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate will want to go for the next two years. Admittedly, their excesses will be necessary for the rebirth of the Republicans who will be propelled into office if they can just come up with a coherent and intelligent message beyond "We are not Democrats."
Newt, where are you, now that we need you more than ever?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Just Words
The only thing that allays my concerns about an Obama presidency, is that I don't believe a word that he says. Think FISA, Public financing for campaigns, the Surge, etc., etc.
Yeah, that's the sort of change I can believe in.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Coming Crackdown?
It's easy to think that the efforts by the Obama campaign to silence its critics are just overblown hysteria. But then, the evidence starts to accumulate. First came the threatening letters from the Obama lawyers to stations that ran an NRA ad. Then the aggressive mob tactics to silence a critic of Obama from speaking. Add to it, the inappropriate request by the Obama campaign of the Justice Department to investigate a group who questioned Obama's assertions about Ayers as being untrue.
Luckily for Obama, the LA Times came to his defense and said that the entire event was untrue. Except, it was true. As Patterico points out in this post, he pointed to a blog by a liberal blogger who described the event. Then after Patterico pointed it out to the LA Times, the article disappears. Luckily, the evidence is still preserved at his site.
The problem that I am having with this is the combination of heavy handed thuggery in conjunction with the complicit MSM. Was the LA Times so inept that they missed the evidence? If so, why did the evidence suddenly become "disappeared?"
Democrats may feel that they are just trying to avoid being Swiftboated by using these tactics. What they forget is that the essential elements of the Swiftboat vets are true, and if Kerry had responded in the same manner as Obama, it would have been an affront to open and honest discussions about a candidate.
GGuy at Electric City has posted a piece that mentions a new blog Unfair Doctrine, that is covering the suppression of free speech by the Obama campaign.
If you don't agree completely with "The One," be afraid. Be very afraid.
Luckily for Obama, the LA Times came to his defense and said that the entire event was untrue. Except, it was true. As Patterico points out in this post, he pointed to a blog by a liberal blogger who described the event. Then after Patterico pointed it out to the LA Times, the article disappears. Luckily, the evidence is still preserved at his site.
The problem that I am having with this is the combination of heavy handed thuggery in conjunction with the complicit MSM. Was the LA Times so inept that they missed the evidence? If so, why did the evidence suddenly become "disappeared?"
Democrats may feel that they are just trying to avoid being Swiftboated by using these tactics. What they forget is that the essential elements of the Swiftboat vets are true, and if Kerry had responded in the same manner as Obama, it would have been an affront to open and honest discussions about a candidate.
GGuy at Electric City has posted a piece that mentions a new blog Unfair Doctrine, that is covering the suppression of free speech by the Obama campaign.
If you don't agree completely with "The One," be afraid. Be very afraid.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Last 8 Years vs Last 2
The unending drumbeat of "the failed policies of the last eight years" is annoyingly tendentious and just plain wrong. Compare the state of the nation at the end of the Republicans in the majority in Congress with what's happening right now. Conveniently, that has already been done for you.
If the last two years are a harbinger of things to come, start buying gold and hiding it in your back yard. And, don't forget to stock up on ammo.
If the last two years are a harbinger of things to come, start buying gold and hiding it in your back yard. And, don't forget to stock up on ammo.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
C'est Plus Change
Who said
Sounds like someone we know now, doesn't it? Even though most of the posters on the Sinestra may think that it was Obama, I wonder how surprised they would be if they found out it was this guy?
(Voters) will either choose to continue along the road we have traveled for the last four years or they will take the new road to progress I have offered.Or,
You are the people who have contributed so much to our culture but have not shared equally in it.
Sounds like someone we know now, doesn't it? Even though most of the posters on the Sinestra may think that it was Obama, I wonder how surprised they would be if they found out it was this guy?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A Plumber is what he's fighting for!
So, now Barak is making fun of the people who work. I guess we should be getting used to this. Of course, I guess I am one of the people that Barak is fighting for, a government employee. It's just that I am doing Public Defender work because I think it's important, and I think that I am making a difference. Now, if I was back in private practice, I am sure that I would not rate The One's attention in this matter.
But the original YouTube posting had Barak taking the stance that he wants to "Spread the Wealth Around."
Now, I keep coming back to the same basic question. What moral theory says that it is okay to take from the sweat of the workers to pass on to those who either don't work, or are not as successful? If you want the rich to pay their fair share, don't you mean that they should get a tax cut to the same as everyone else? Others have written very well that this is nothing more than the politics of envy.
We have succumbed to the idea that progressive taxation is acceptable. The question is: Why?
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Watch Banned Videos Here!
NBC was apparently not happy with a portion of the Saturday Night Live skit that showed that the Democrats could possibly be to blame. As a result, they have pulled it, but like just about everything else on the Intertubes, it can't stay hidden forever. You can watch the portion that is banned here.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Post Debate
Having watched the debate while I am stuffing envelopes for the absentee voters, I was not particularly impressed by either of the vice presidential candidates. But I was amused by my wife, The Good Democrat, who was giddy in anticipation of the debate that it would show Sarah Palin to be "dumb." At the end of the debate, she had to concede that Sarah Palin was not dumb. When I pointed out that she was relying on the spin that was provided by Main Stream Media, she seemed a bit discombobulated by the notion that she was being manipulated in her opinion.
She is still for Obama, and when we were talking about the state of the race after the debate, she said that Palin is good, but she lacks the ability to be president. When I questioned her further, pointing out that she has been governor of a state just like Brian Schweitzer, (whom she loves) and that should account for something.
My wife then said that Obama was a community organizer, which has to count for something. When I asked her what it was that Obama had accomplished as a community organizer, she replied "a lot." When I asked her what could she say that he actually accomplished, she could not provide an answer. Then she got mad at me for pointing out that she couldn't name anything that Obama had actually done.
Such is the state of the political discourse, that questioning the unquestioned beliefs results in hard feelings.
She is still for Obama, and when we were talking about the state of the race after the debate, she said that Palin is good, but she lacks the ability to be president. When I questioned her further, pointing out that she has been governor of a state just like Brian Schweitzer, (whom she loves) and that should account for something.
My wife then said that Obama was a community organizer, which has to count for something. When I asked her what it was that Obama had accomplished as a community organizer, she replied "a lot." When I asked her what could she say that he actually accomplished, she could not provide an answer. Then she got mad at me for pointing out that she couldn't name anything that Obama had actually done.
Such is the state of the political discourse, that questioning the unquestioned beliefs results in hard feelings.
Bill O'Reilly and Barney Frank
Gateway Pundit has a piece from the O'Reilly Factor in which Bill confronts Barney Frank. But the funniest piece is in the lead in where they describe Barney Frank as the
I like that, list all of the Democrats as "The failed . . . " whatever, whether it is the "Failed Senate Majority Leader" or the "Failed Speaker of the House."
Should be a tag line for the entire Democratic party.
failed Chairman of the House Services Committee for his role in the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac scandal tonight.
I like that, list all of the Democrats as "The failed . . . " whatever, whether it is the "Failed Senate Majority Leader" or the "Failed Speaker of the House."
Should be a tag line for the entire Democratic party.
Monday, September 29, 2008
A 9 Minute Explanation for What Happened
UPDATE: Apparently, Youtube pulled it because it was too embarrassing to the Democratic Party that brought you this mess. Thank God for the WWW part of the Internet. The video is now running again.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Musings
Blogging has been non-existent because of work and my campaign, but it's Friday night, and I had to stay home to watch the debate. So, without further ado, some observations:
For those Democrats who say that Obama is going to restore America's greatness, which country is now the greatest?
How can Obama give a tax break to 95% of the people in this country if one third doesn't pay taxes? Is he going to lower their FICA?
Why is it that Sarah Palin is considered an inadequate Vice President because she has no foreign policy experience, but that is okay for Obama, whom the Democrats have selected as their Presidential nominee? And why do they seem to forget that if Palin did become the President, there are these collections of bureaucrats called the "State Department" who may be able to assist her?
Why do we never hear all of the stupid things that Joe Biden says?
During campaigning, I have found that the poor are not automatically Democratic voters. In a way, this makes perfect sense to me. Thirty-four years ago, I applied for unemployment, and found that it was easier to get a job. I took student aid for my undergraduate, and learned to never do that again for my MPA and my law degree. If you look closely, you will find that the bureaucrats who are supposed to provide service find it easier to deny, delay and obfuscate than to actually provide service. There is a rich field to be tilled by the Republicans if they are willing to try.
With the mess of the economy, why aren't Republicans hoping that Obama wins, just so they can have two years of saying "I told you so!"
Who doesn't think that if Obama is elected and he gives $5,000 for each student to afford college, that the tuition will not increase by exactly $5,000 per year?
I thought s
For those Democrats who say that Obama is going to restore America's greatness, which country is now the greatest?
How can Obama give a tax break to 95% of the people in this country if one third doesn't pay taxes? Is he going to lower their FICA?
Why is it that Sarah Palin is considered an inadequate Vice President because she has no foreign policy experience, but that is okay for Obama, whom the Democrats have selected as their Presidential nominee? And why do they seem to forget that if Palin did become the President, there are these collections of bureaucrats called the "State Department" who may be able to assist her?
Why do we never hear all of the stupid things that Joe Biden says?
During campaigning, I have found that the poor are not automatically Democratic voters. In a way, this makes perfect sense to me. Thirty-four years ago, I applied for unemployment, and found that it was easier to get a job. I took student aid for my undergraduate, and learned to never do that again for my MPA and my law degree. If you look closely, you will find that the bureaucrats who are supposed to provide service find it easier to deny, delay and obfuscate than to actually provide service. There is a rich field to be tilled by the Republicans if they are willing to try.
With the mess of the economy, why aren't Republicans hoping that Obama wins, just so they can have two years of saying "I told you so!"
Who doesn't think that if Obama is elected and he gives $5,000 for each student to afford college, that the tuition will not increase by exactly $5,000 per year?
I thought s
Friday, September 19, 2008
Biden Questions Rangel's Patriotism
Joe Biden has now declared that it is patriotic to pay taxes. Aside from forgetting the fact that 40% of all Americans pay no income tax, this is the most ridiculous argument that I have ever heard. It is designed to set up the false premise that to be patriotic, you have to pay taxes. So, if you don't pay taxes, you are a traitor? Seems curious that Biden would make that statement about people who are just scraping by on their social security checks.
But what is amusing about this absurd argument, is that Rep. Charlie Rangel, (D-NY) the head of the House committee that sets the tax code, has come into some problems of his own for not paying taxes. I can see every tax attorney before all of the tax courts of this great land, pleading that their clients should never have to be convicted because the code is so complex, that even the guy who writes it can't follow it.
Of course, this is just another example of the arrogance of power. But it's okay. They're Democrats. They mean only the best for us.
But what is amusing about this absurd argument, is that Rep. Charlie Rangel, (D-NY) the head of the House committee that sets the tax code, has come into some problems of his own for not paying taxes. I can see every tax attorney before all of the tax courts of this great land, pleading that their clients should never have to be convicted because the code is so complex, that even the guy who writes it can't follow it.
Of course, this is just another example of the arrogance of power. But it's okay. They're Democrats. They mean only the best for us.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
It's the End of the World as We Know It.
Let's face it, this was supposed to be the Year of the Democrat. After eight years of endless abuse by the media, um, excuse me, eight years of Bush, the American public is ready for change. Democrats just knew that this was their time, and they had a post racial candidate to atone for all of the sins of America. When he was coronated, he declared that now "was the day that the oceans stopped their rising." Of course, he didn't say how, since that will be something that he will address as soon as he is elected. But in the meantime, trust him, that with all of this goodwill and heartfelt desire for change, it is inevitable.
Except, something happened.
There has been a detour on the way to the annunciation of "The One." So, what happened? What is this force that has seemed to thwart the inevitable?
Answer: Sarah Palin.
Actually, that is an incomplete answer. By herself, Sarah Palin would probably not have been enough. Instead, it took the active collusion of the Main Stream Media in their absolutely ignorant attacks on a "hockey mom" who also happens to be a governor. Throw in the ridiculous accusation that the "Everymom" may be a pervert, and you have no reason to doubt that the media that have always supported their Democratic choice, have collectively lost their minds. But you need to add to the equation, that Barak Obama and his campaign are being run by egotistical idiots. He has decided to pursue a fifty state strategy even though he does not have the resources to do just that. When you look at the most ineptly run campaign in history, you have to wonder what his administration would look like.
It is amazing to me that our system for selecting presidential candidates is so perfectly flawed. We do not actually pick the best person for the job, instead we pick the popular fraud of the moment.
It should not come as any surprise, that panic has set in in the Democratic Party. Of course, this is not to minimize the imperfect vessel that the Democrats have actually managed to select. I am really coming to believe that the Democrats do not want to win the Presidency this year.
Think about it, if Obama wins, there will be high expectations to turn rhetoric into reality. On the other hand, if McCain wins, the Democrats can continue to blame a Republican for all the ills that exist throughout the land.
Plus, for the local Montana bloggers of the Left, it will be exactly what they want, even if they don't say so. Wulfgar, the Lesser Pissant, will continue his junior high school level of correspondence, even though his level of reading comprehension remains even lower than that. Mark T. on the other hand, will seek solace that the Republicans have stolen another election, and Barak could never win because of all of the incipient Republican racism.
So, the end result is that McCain will win, the Democrats will control the Legislature, the Sinestra will always have an enemy to rail against, and they will not be held responsible. At the same time, we will avoid the increasing assault on personal liberty of socialism represented by an Obama administration.
So, it is a good thing for everyone that Obama loses in November.
Except, something happened.
There has been a detour on the way to the annunciation of "The One." So, what happened? What is this force that has seemed to thwart the inevitable?
Answer: Sarah Palin.
Actually, that is an incomplete answer. By herself, Sarah Palin would probably not have been enough. Instead, it took the active collusion of the Main Stream Media in their absolutely ignorant attacks on a "hockey mom" who also happens to be a governor. Throw in the ridiculous accusation that the "Everymom" may be a pervert, and you have no reason to doubt that the media that have always supported their Democratic choice, have collectively lost their minds. But you need to add to the equation, that Barak Obama and his campaign are being run by egotistical idiots. He has decided to pursue a fifty state strategy even though he does not have the resources to do just that. When you look at the most ineptly run campaign in history, you have to wonder what his administration would look like.
It is amazing to me that our system for selecting presidential candidates is so perfectly flawed. We do not actually pick the best person for the job, instead we pick the popular fraud of the moment.
It should not come as any surprise, that panic has set in in the Democratic Party. Of course, this is not to minimize the imperfect vessel that the Democrats have actually managed to select. I am really coming to believe that the Democrats do not want to win the Presidency this year.
Think about it, if Obama wins, there will be high expectations to turn rhetoric into reality. On the other hand, if McCain wins, the Democrats can continue to blame a Republican for all the ills that exist throughout the land.
Plus, for the local Montana bloggers of the Left, it will be exactly what they want, even if they don't say so. Wulfgar, the Lesser Pissant, will continue his junior high school level of correspondence, even though his level of reading comprehension remains even lower than that. Mark T. on the other hand, will seek solace that the Republicans have stolen another election, and Barak could never win because of all of the incipient Republican racism.
So, the end result is that McCain will win, the Democrats will control the Legislature, the Sinestra will always have an enemy to rail against, and they will not be held responsible. At the same time, we will avoid the increasing assault on personal liberty of socialism represented by an Obama administration.
So, it is a good thing for everyone that Obama loses in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)