Donald Trump's head swelled a bit more this morning, if that was even possible.
The White House finally released President Obama's long-form birth certificate. It looks official. At least more official than that one they released during the campaign. So what I want to know is simply what took so damn long? The President said "We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We've got better stuff to do. I've got better stuff to do. We've got big problems to solve."
He is correct. But, what remains to be seen is if this release will sate the so-called "birthers" and get them to finally shut the hell up. And if that happens, will it cause the birther-obsessed liberal media to drop this issue and shut the hell up. I think that if the latter happens, the former is irrelevant.
So why now? Why two-plus years later? What political gain is there to be made from doing this now? Is it really because Donald Trump has been talking practically non-stop about this? In this instance at least it is proven that when The Donald talks people listen. You know who believes this? Donald Trump. Did his incessant chatter really drive the national conversation so far off course that the White House decided to do what was in the best interest of the People and put this controversy to bed? That would be nice, but the skeptic in me doesn't believe that politicians are that noble.
So again I ask, why now? I think this is purely for political gain. And yes, Donald Trump did play a large roll. As Mr. Trump's argument became more and more prevalent and more media outlets picked it up, the so-called birthers began to feel justified in their arguments. The liberal media, being obsessed with this issue, naturally used Trump's popularity as a way to make him, birthers and Republicans in general look stupid. So by releasing the long-form certificate now, while the issue is red hot, it gives the appearance that Obama is taking the high road, and now those skeptical groups have to be put on the defensive, or at least made to retract what they've been screaming from the rooftops for the past two years. Winner: Obama and the Democrats.
Shrewd, perhaps, but premature. I think if this was done to score political points, Obama should have waited until next year during a Presidential Debate. How awesome would that have been to break that puppy out right on national television in front of the Republican opponent and in front of millions of people. By playing this card nine months out from the beginning of the primary season (nine months? Really?) that leaves plenty of time for this issue to fade away. Any political gain will have been lost by that time allowing people to focus on issues that are only slightly less pressing. I speak of the economy, sky high gas prices, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, ridiculous debt, etc.
Maybe Obama was sincere when he said there were more important things to focus on. Maybe? That would be nice, but again, I'm skeptical.
So then the birth certificate issue is settled? By and large here, yes, but there will always be people who are never convinced. (9/11 truthers, anyone?) But if the media just ignores them they'll fade away into the woodwork. They should have tried that with Sarah Palin instead of focusing on her every word, making her a martyr in the process. But that's for another blog.
KFI's Bill Handel has said that releasing the certificate actually proves that President Obama is not a legitimate president because his official name is "Barack Hussein Obama II", and he was inaugurated without the "II" being stated, therefore we inaugurated his dead Kenyan father.
Before anyone goes A-HA!!! and before I'm accused of being some incurable birther, I should mention that Bill Handel, being a brilliant and hilarious radio host, is joking. If you've never listened to him, check him out mornings on KFI-AM 640 in Los Angeles, or find it using the iheartradio app.
UPDATE: Here it comes - From thesmokinggun.com
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Obama and Libya 2011/Bush and Iraq 2003 : Coincidence?
From drudgereport.com
-------------------------------------------
MARCH 19, 2011
PRESIDENT OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...
MARCH 19, 2003
PRESIDENT BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...
-------------------------------------------
It shall be interesting to see how the media and the so-called "anti-war establishment" handle Obama's actions in Libya compared to Bush in Iraq.
-------------------------------------------
MARCH 19, 2011
PRESIDENT OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...
MARCH 19, 2003
PRESIDENT BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...
-------------------------------------------
It shall be interesting to see how the media and the so-called "anti-war establishment" handle Obama's actions in Libya compared to Bush in Iraq.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Untitled And Unbiased
Although my quest for unbiased, moderate journalism continues, I came across this piece about the death threats levied against Republican senators in Wisconsin and the mainstream media's refusal to report on it especially in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in January. Oh, I've read and heard many pieces about this in the past week. I've heard it mentioned on the Rush Limbaugh radio program and noted at newsbusters.org for instance, two obvious conservative outlets. What makes this piece unique is that it comes from an unexpected source.
This article by Lee Stranahan, posted on the left-leaning Huffington Post website, is quite possibly the single most unbiased writing I've ever encountered by someone who openly admits to being a liberal. I'd rather you read his article directly than have me rehash it here, so click the link, but I applaud anyone who is able to look beyond the rhetoric, actually look at the facts and report on them accordingly, even if it flies against the consensus views put forth by the majority on their side.
What is telling in any sort of news article or posting online are the "opinions" given by the anonymous commenters. That's where the outrageous and nutty aspects of any given ideology will crawl out from under their respective rocks, spew some crazy venom, then slither back. This happens on both sides. Reading Stranahan's article, surprisingly a lot of people actually agree with him. The "wingnut" elements do make an appearance, however, and I encourage you to read through some of them.
Blind loyalty to any type of political ideology is dangerous, in my opinion. Level-headed people, no matter what they believe should be able to model their own opinions and make decisions for themselves. There have been several instances where I have disagreed with the Republican Party, most noteworthy was the Terri Shiavo case in 2004-05. That was embarrassing, actually. I could write about this for days. I have a theory that the people on the left who are critical of Fox News (calling it things like Fixed Noise and Faux News, always original when regurgitated) likely spend zero time watching it. If they did, they'd realize that the actual NEWS side of the channel actually does some pretty damn good reporting, while leaving the opinionated portion of the channel to the Glenn Becks, Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys. And for every accusation of unbiased reporting from FNC, you could make the reciprocal argument against MSNBC. Except I find their news reporting shows to be extremely left-leaning. (Contessa Brewer and Andrea Mitchell, anyone?)
I actually watch MSNBC, and though I occasionally dabble in it, I may start poking around HuffPo a little more. At least Lee Stranahan.
This article by Lee Stranahan, posted on the left-leaning Huffington Post website, is quite possibly the single most unbiased writing I've ever encountered by someone who openly admits to being a liberal. I'd rather you read his article directly than have me rehash it here, so click the link, but I applaud anyone who is able to look beyond the rhetoric, actually look at the facts and report on them accordingly, even if it flies against the consensus views put forth by the majority on their side.
What is telling in any sort of news article or posting online are the "opinions" given by the anonymous commenters. That's where the outrageous and nutty aspects of any given ideology will crawl out from under their respective rocks, spew some crazy venom, then slither back. This happens on both sides. Reading Stranahan's article, surprisingly a lot of people actually agree with him. The "wingnut" elements do make an appearance, however, and I encourage you to read through some of them.
Blind loyalty to any type of political ideology is dangerous, in my opinion. Level-headed people, no matter what they believe should be able to model their own opinions and make decisions for themselves. There have been several instances where I have disagreed with the Republican Party, most noteworthy was the Terri Shiavo case in 2004-05. That was embarrassing, actually. I could write about this for days. I have a theory that the people on the left who are critical of Fox News (calling it things like Fixed Noise and Faux News, always original when regurgitated) likely spend zero time watching it. If they did, they'd realize that the actual NEWS side of the channel actually does some pretty damn good reporting, while leaving the opinionated portion of the channel to the Glenn Becks, Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys. And for every accusation of unbiased reporting from FNC, you could make the reciprocal argument against MSNBC. Except I find their news reporting shows to be extremely left-leaning. (Contessa Brewer and Andrea Mitchell, anyone?)
I actually watch MSNBC, and though I occasionally dabble in it, I may start poking around HuffPo a little more. At least Lee Stranahan.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The Ballad Of Charlie Sheen
I've been largely ignoring the whole Charlie Sheen drama. Mostly, because for the most part, celebrity news bores me. But I've always liked the guy. He's been relatively entertaining in just about everything he's been in. I loved him in his cinematic peak, 1996's "The Arrival" where he plays a scientist who uncovers a link between global warming and... wait for it... aliens. (Ron Silver, whom I mentioned in my most recent entry, has a role in this movie as well) But I digress...
The news, and I'm talking every news channel, probably even The Weather Channel has been showing snippets from his various phone-ins to radio shows, his TV interviews, and his bizarre rants on webcasts. I've tried to stay above it. But, last night I broke down and actually watched one of his episodes or whatever. I just have to say that I find it to be one of the saddest, most pathetic and self-destructive things I've ever seen. I think it's appalling that people are actually enjoying this. It's clear to me, and should be to anyone who has been around someone that has had to deal with some sort of addiction or manic depressive type of behavior that there is something not quite right with ol' Charlie.
But the thing that is just pissing me off to the point to where I want to take my warlock machete and kill people** until they are completely drained of tiger blood, are these morons who keep saying "winning" like it's the most original and hilarious thing they've ever heard. Some of my friends on various social media sites have taken to using it, and now on their statuses (stati?) their friends are responding by saying "winning" and I'm sitting here getting really pissed off about it because I just watched this burnout make an ass of himself and here are these assholes encouraging more of this behavior because they're putting him up on some pedestal and turning him into some folk hero by using his stupid catchphrases. Not to mention he's struck some deal with some other asshole to trademark and market this garbage on t-shirts. So now I'm going to have to see stupid trendy wannabe teenagers walking around wearing t-shirts that say "winning" on them. It's worse than the morons who wouldn't stop saying "FML" or "FTW" or even "fail," even though I liked and used that last one. But whatever.
I've heard various theories as to what Mr. Sheen's issue is. Everything from drugs to bipolar disorder and everything in between. But he's becoming so popular based on his maniacal rants, that I fear something really bad is going to happen to him, and all of these people basking in his misguided hilarity are going to go awww... how tragic. Maybe somebody should have stepped in and tried to help this guy. Yeah, or maybe everyone, even the media should have just backed away and not given this guy such a humongous forum. On the other hand, can you really blame him? Who wouldn't be willing to take advantage of this? This guy is probably on the ride of his life, thinking that he is the king of the world knowing that everyone on the planet is hanging on his every word and move. This has the potential to end very badly, and who will be responsible? Well, only Charlie Sheen is ultimately responsible, but the online community is full of willing accomplices.
I for one am already sick of it. Tbere is only one Charlie Sheen and he should be the only one uttering these nutty sayings.
And I'm sure Carlos Santana wants his song title back.
**not literally
The news, and I'm talking every news channel, probably even The Weather Channel has been showing snippets from his various phone-ins to radio shows, his TV interviews, and his bizarre rants on webcasts. I've tried to stay above it. But, last night I broke down and actually watched one of his episodes or whatever. I just have to say that I find it to be one of the saddest, most pathetic and self-destructive things I've ever seen. I think it's appalling that people are actually enjoying this. It's clear to me, and should be to anyone who has been around someone that has had to deal with some sort of addiction or manic depressive type of behavior that there is something not quite right with ol' Charlie.
But the thing that is just pissing me off to the point to where I want to take my warlock machete and kill people** until they are completely drained of tiger blood, are these morons who keep saying "winning" like it's the most original and hilarious thing they've ever heard. Some of my friends on various social media sites have taken to using it, and now on their statuses (stati?) their friends are responding by saying "winning" and I'm sitting here getting really pissed off about it because I just watched this burnout make an ass of himself and here are these assholes encouraging more of this behavior because they're putting him up on some pedestal and turning him into some folk hero by using his stupid catchphrases. Not to mention he's struck some deal with some other asshole to trademark and market this garbage on t-shirts. So now I'm going to have to see stupid trendy wannabe teenagers walking around wearing t-shirts that say "winning" on them. It's worse than the morons who wouldn't stop saying "FML" or "FTW" or even "fail," even though I liked and used that last one. But whatever.
I've heard various theories as to what Mr. Sheen's issue is. Everything from drugs to bipolar disorder and everything in between. But he's becoming so popular based on his maniacal rants, that I fear something really bad is going to happen to him, and all of these people basking in his misguided hilarity are going to go awww... how tragic. Maybe somebody should have stepped in and tried to help this guy. Yeah, or maybe everyone, even the media should have just backed away and not given this guy such a humongous forum. On the other hand, can you really blame him? Who wouldn't be willing to take advantage of this? This guy is probably on the ride of his life, thinking that he is the king of the world knowing that everyone on the planet is hanging on his every word and move. This has the potential to end very badly, and who will be responsible? Well, only Charlie Sheen is ultimately responsible, but the online community is full of willing accomplices.
I for one am already sick of it. Tbere is only one Charlie Sheen and he should be the only one uttering these nutty sayings.
And I'm sure Carlos Santana wants his song title back.
**not literally
What's The Difference?
Wisconsin Senate Republicans find an obscure, possibly unconstitutional means to pass a bill that strips unions of their collective bargaining rights, and the people on the left lose their minds. Most of the media reports this as a blow to the middle class.
U.S. Congressional Democrats find a number of obscure, possibly unconstitutional means to pass a bill that completely overhauls the nation's health care policies, and the people on the right lost their minds. Most of the media reports this as a victory for the middle class.
I'll be specific. Rachel Maddow spent the first 30 minutes of her show tonight denouncing the tactics used in Wisconsin as an unpopular (as some, definitely not all, polls show) move to destroy unions, and by extension the middle class worker, in Wisconsin. She detailed how numerous other states controlled by Republicans are pushing forward legislation that is designed to limit or end union collective bargaining power.
But whatever... that's not really my point.
What I would like to know is where was Ms. Maddow when the Democrats were pissing on the Constitution in 2010 by doing everything they could to undermine any opposition to the health care bill? I'm talking about reconciliation. I'm talking about the vote buying. The shady dealmaking. I'm talking about the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. And why weren't the numerous polls which showed how unpopular that bill was (and continues to be) highlighted by any of the left-leaning pundits? Why weren't the Tea Party protests portrayed as hard working Americans standing up for what they believed in? Instead they were shown to be racists. Why was anyone who opposed that bill scorned and ridiculed? Why couldn't they at least honestly report both sides of the story? Why won't they do that now?
Politics is disgusting, yes it is true. Both sides. But in 2009, after Obama was inaugurated, he told Republican Congressional leaders that "we won" in order to make it clear that he was pushing forward with his agenda. Media pundits on the left agreed and said the GOP should just get out of the way. But now, with a sweeping and historic victory in the 2010 midterms, the shoe is on the other foot. The attitude is a bit different. In fact, it's 180° different. By Obama's standards, Dems should just step aside for the Republican agenda, because they won.
My biggest issue here is with the lack of balance in the reporting on this. After the health care debacle, the left would report this in terms of, "this could hurt the Democrats in November" and such. This, despite most polling showing that Americans were largely against their version of health care reform. And what happened? They predicted flurries and got an avalanche. Now, they're saying, rather dishonestly I feel, that support is against the republicans over this union matter based on polling. (here's a great article from Scott Rasmussen
illustrating how deceiving poll results can be) Of course, they're predicting that public support for unions will energize the liberal base, and come 2012 Obama will be reelected and the Dems will sweep back into power.
I think they've got it backwards.
Back in 1993, when President Clinton took office, the late actor Ron Silver, who attended the inauguration stated that he was appalled at the use of fighter jets during the ceremony, feeling that they appeared too hawkish. He had a change of heart when, in his words, “but then it came to me, hey, those planes are ours now. Those are our planes!”
And though years later, Mr. Silver would become a Bush 43 supporter, I never forgot how angry I felt at his divisive statement back in 1993.
Oddly enough, here in 2011, I completely understand the sentiment.
U.S. Congressional Democrats find a number of obscure, possibly unconstitutional means to pass a bill that completely overhauls the nation's health care policies, and the people on the right lost their minds. Most of the media reports this as a victory for the middle class.
I'll be specific. Rachel Maddow spent the first 30 minutes of her show tonight denouncing the tactics used in Wisconsin as an unpopular (as some, definitely not all, polls show) move to destroy unions, and by extension the middle class worker, in Wisconsin. She detailed how numerous other states controlled by Republicans are pushing forward legislation that is designed to limit or end union collective bargaining power.
But whatever... that's not really my point.
What I would like to know is where was Ms. Maddow when the Democrats were pissing on the Constitution in 2010 by doing everything they could to undermine any opposition to the health care bill? I'm talking about reconciliation. I'm talking about the vote buying. The shady dealmaking. I'm talking about the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. And why weren't the numerous polls which showed how unpopular that bill was (and continues to be) highlighted by any of the left-leaning pundits? Why weren't the Tea Party protests portrayed as hard working Americans standing up for what they believed in? Instead they were shown to be racists. Why was anyone who opposed that bill scorned and ridiculed? Why couldn't they at least honestly report both sides of the story? Why won't they do that now?
 |
| Out of disgust over how dishonest Democrats handled the debate over health care last year, I designed this as the new logo for the Democratic Party. |
Politics is disgusting, yes it is true. Both sides. But in 2009, after Obama was inaugurated, he told Republican Congressional leaders that "we won" in order to make it clear that he was pushing forward with his agenda. Media pundits on the left agreed and said the GOP should just get out of the way. But now, with a sweeping and historic victory in the 2010 midterms, the shoe is on the other foot. The attitude is a bit different. In fact, it's 180° different. By Obama's standards, Dems should just step aside for the Republican agenda, because they won.
My biggest issue here is with the lack of balance in the reporting on this. After the health care debacle, the left would report this in terms of, "this could hurt the Democrats in November" and such. This, despite most polling showing that Americans were largely against their version of health care reform. And what happened? They predicted flurries and got an avalanche. Now, they're saying, rather dishonestly I feel, that support is against the republicans over this union matter based on polling. (here's a great article from Scott Rasmussen
illustrating how deceiving poll results can be) Of course, they're predicting that public support for unions will energize the liberal base, and come 2012 Obama will be reelected and the Dems will sweep back into power.
I think they've got it backwards.
Back in 1993, when President Clinton took office, the late actor Ron Silver, who attended the inauguration stated that he was appalled at the use of fighter jets during the ceremony, feeling that they appeared too hawkish. He had a change of heart when, in his words, “but then it came to me, hey, those planes are ours now. Those are our planes!”
And though years later, Mr. Silver would become a Bush 43 supporter, I never forgot how angry I felt at his divisive statement back in 1993.
Oddly enough, here in 2011, I completely understand the sentiment.
Unions: The Tea Parties of the Left, Except The Hate Is Real
Man, I hate unions. And as I watch what is going on in Wisconsin, it just cements my feelings and positions about them. Disgusting thugs. And as someone who was an actual, bonafide union member for eight years, I'm qualified to make such a statement. As an employee of Hughes Family Markets, unfortunately a defunct grocery chain, I was a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers local 1167.
Let me tell you about my experience.
I was 18 when I first started working for Hughes. Seemed like a good place to work. Friendly, engaging coworkers. Flexible scheduling, etc. Oh, and some nice benefits because now I was told I was a union employee. Sweet! All I have to do is pay dues out of every paycheck. No sweat. What's $35 a month when you're making $4.25 an hour? I remember having to go to the emergency room a couple of times, and the copay was covered. That was nice. Eye exam? Well, I got a check for $100 to cover that. Awesome! I just went about my business being a late-teenager, not a care in the world. Life was great. Then we had our first union meeting at the store and everything changed.
Charlie was our rep. I don't remember too much about her, to be honest. I had heard things varying from how awesome she was, to that she really didn't care about the workers, it was more about taking care of The Union than the individual. Different philosophies, but I was naive and open minded. So we sit down to have this meeting, and here is Charlie, representing us, the workers, and our store management staff along with some "big wigs" from home office. It was very cordial, and I don't even really remember what the topics discussed were.
Then, after the nice meeting, the "big wigs" left us to discuss the meeting with Charlie. That's when it got scary. She starts berating us, saying things like "don't ever trust the Suits!" "The Suits do not have your interests at heart!" "The Suits! The Suits!" Holy crap, it scared me! I thought we were all getting along! Suddenly this nice woman was screaming about how we should NEVER trust anything our management said to us. It was all lies and they just intend to take our jobs, our benefits and our RIGHTS!! It really made an impression, and not a good one.
Then, I started to notice something weird. Around 1992, the Union newsletter I received had its entire cover dedicated to what political candidates and issues we should vote for if we wanted to protect our jobs. I was being told to vote for people like Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. I was being told to vote for people like Kathleen "I Have A Plan For California" Brown. I was being told to vote "no" on state ballot issues like Prop 187. And then I realized that Union money, my dues, were going toward supporting candidates and political organizations that I did not necessarily support. I had absolutely no say in the matter. I was and remain appalled.
So when I was laid off (both times) I contacted my Union rep to see what they could do for me to get me placed with another company, or anything. The answer? Nothing. The last time I spoke with him he said said that he'd make some calls, but I never heard back from him.
(At this time I should mention that Charlie was not our rep for much longer after that meeting. The rep who replaced her was some mealy looking guy who's apparent mission in life was to come into the stores and hand out ball point pens to the employees. I still have at least one of these pens as a testament to my life as a Union member. This rep split in 1996, and the guy I spoke with after the layoff was someone different.)
So, given that what I've learned over the years, Unions sound a lot like Communism as I learned it. Everyone pays into it, but you get no say in the outcome, and you are frowned upon if you even think about dissent. Nice. Perhaps this is why in nearly every struggle I've witnessed where a union is involved, I tend to side with whoever they are against. Baseball, or any other sport? I'm with the owners. Grocery strike which took place in 2004? I proudly crossed those picket lines to support those stores.
Which leads us to Wisconsin.
These protests are outrageous! The benefits these people get compared to the average worker is embarrassing, and they should be embarrassed to try to put forth the view that this is somehow oppressive. These benefits and pensions (which were collectively bargained) are KILLING these states, but the union thugs don't care. They only care about what's good for them. So, to somehow try to say that Governor Walker is some sort of Hitleresque dictator is ridiculous. (this includes a Keith Olbermann "tweet" but I'm not going there today)
And while we're at it, let's talk about these protests. I find it to be ridiculously embarrassing that these teachers are behaving the way they are. There are numerous videos out showing the hateful signs displaying rhetoric that was once used to show that the conservative Tea Party movement to be racist. Also, what happened to the whole call for civility after the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords last month? I guess it's okay if liberals are the ones making the charges. What really pisses me off about these protests were the teachers who pulled their kids out of class to attend the protests. If I was a parent, I'd be livid! What right do they have to take my child out of the classroom. What's really infuriating is that these kids are clueless as to why they were taken out of class in the first place! These irresponsible acts by these so-called educators make me feel they should not be teaching children, period. Then, you get these "doctors" who were standing on the sidewalks handing out fake sick notes for the teachers so they would have an excuse to not be teaching. I mean, what a way to prove that you deserve your job, let alone your ridiculously lavish benefits. This is why unions piss me off. And they want to argue that the other side won't allow them to negotiate in good faith. Please. Because you're doing a bang-up job of showing how rational and civil you can be.
And the Democratic legislators? What a bunch of cowards! These people were voted in to represent the people of Wisconsin. You know what? There are more of them than there are of you. That's how elections work. That's what Republicans were told by Obama after he won the election, right? The people spoke. But now that some legislation appears that you don't like? Run away. That's the democratic way. I hope they all get voted out next cycle. And just like Texas last decade, it's always the Dems that use this tactic. The media is complicit in how it is reporting this, and you just know that if the rolls were reversed, there would be calls for arrests, recalls and impeachments and so forth. Jackasses.
Polling shows that most people, depending on your poll of choice, voters or likely voters, have more support for Governor Walker than the unions. So I just hope that the Governor and the Republican senators stick to their guns on this one. And when any of the pundits suggest that this issue will lead to the eventual removal of Republicans in the state houses and even to a Democratic resurgence in 2012, I have to say, knowing that most of the people I know (most of whom are non-union) do not support union causes and most certainly will not be a part of some uprising in support of them.
So, do I feel that all unions are bad? Of course not. But by and large, they are as corrupt as organizations as they claim the Big Bad Corporations to be. And the one question I will raise to anyone who supports unions and their millions of dollars in donations to political causes and candidates from the dues they collect is this: If you support this, then you have no issue with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, right? After all, it's all freedom of speech, right? If you want to limit anyone's ability to support who they choose with their money, then it should work both ways.
According to Bob Chanin, recently retired general counsel to the National Education Association, "Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them; the union that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.”
Exactly. It's about power. He says "advocates" and I say "lobbyists." And I don't believe for one second that these people give a damn about how their members feel about how they are represented. It's all about getting those dues, and it's all about power.
And in Wisconsin, the playing field is about to be leveled.
Let me tell you about my experience.
I was 18 when I first started working for Hughes. Seemed like a good place to work. Friendly, engaging coworkers. Flexible scheduling, etc. Oh, and some nice benefits because now I was told I was a union employee. Sweet! All I have to do is pay dues out of every paycheck. No sweat. What's $35 a month when you're making $4.25 an hour? I remember having to go to the emergency room a couple of times, and the copay was covered. That was nice. Eye exam? Well, I got a check for $100 to cover that. Awesome! I just went about my business being a late-teenager, not a care in the world. Life was great. Then we had our first union meeting at the store and everything changed.
Charlie was our rep. I don't remember too much about her, to be honest. I had heard things varying from how awesome she was, to that she really didn't care about the workers, it was more about taking care of The Union than the individual. Different philosophies, but I was naive and open minded. So we sit down to have this meeting, and here is Charlie, representing us, the workers, and our store management staff along with some "big wigs" from home office. It was very cordial, and I don't even really remember what the topics discussed were.
Then, after the nice meeting, the "big wigs" left us to discuss the meeting with Charlie. That's when it got scary. She starts berating us, saying things like "don't ever trust the Suits!" "The Suits do not have your interests at heart!" "The Suits! The Suits!" Holy crap, it scared me! I thought we were all getting along! Suddenly this nice woman was screaming about how we should NEVER trust anything our management said to us. It was all lies and they just intend to take our jobs, our benefits and our RIGHTS!! It really made an impression, and not a good one.
Then, I started to notice something weird. Around 1992, the Union newsletter I received had its entire cover dedicated to what political candidates and issues we should vote for if we wanted to protect our jobs. I was being told to vote for people like Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. I was being told to vote for people like Kathleen "I Have A Plan For California" Brown. I was being told to vote "no" on state ballot issues like Prop 187. And then I realized that Union money, my dues, were going toward supporting candidates and political organizations that I did not necessarily support. I had absolutely no say in the matter. I was and remain appalled.
So when I was laid off (both times) I contacted my Union rep to see what they could do for me to get me placed with another company, or anything. The answer? Nothing. The last time I spoke with him he said said that he'd make some calls, but I never heard back from him.
(At this time I should mention that Charlie was not our rep for much longer after that meeting. The rep who replaced her was some mealy looking guy who's apparent mission in life was to come into the stores and hand out ball point pens to the employees. I still have at least one of these pens as a testament to my life as a Union member. This rep split in 1996, and the guy I spoke with after the layoff was someone different.)
So, given that what I've learned over the years, Unions sound a lot like Communism as I learned it. Everyone pays into it, but you get no say in the outcome, and you are frowned upon if you even think about dissent. Nice. Perhaps this is why in nearly every struggle I've witnessed where a union is involved, I tend to side with whoever they are against. Baseball, or any other sport? I'm with the owners. Grocery strike which took place in 2004? I proudly crossed those picket lines to support those stores.
Which leads us to Wisconsin.
These protests are outrageous! The benefits these people get compared to the average worker is embarrassing, and they should be embarrassed to try to put forth the view that this is somehow oppressive. These benefits and pensions (which were collectively bargained) are KILLING these states, but the union thugs don't care. They only care about what's good for them. So, to somehow try to say that Governor Walker is some sort of Hitleresque dictator is ridiculous. (this includes a Keith Olbermann "tweet" but I'm not going there today)
And while we're at it, let's talk about these protests. I find it to be ridiculously embarrassing that these teachers are behaving the way they are. There are numerous videos out showing the hateful signs displaying rhetoric that was once used to show that the conservative Tea Party movement to be racist. Also, what happened to the whole call for civility after the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords last month? I guess it's okay if liberals are the ones making the charges. What really pisses me off about these protests were the teachers who pulled their kids out of class to attend the protests. If I was a parent, I'd be livid! What right do they have to take my child out of the classroom. What's really infuriating is that these kids are clueless as to why they were taken out of class in the first place! These irresponsible acts by these so-called educators make me feel they should not be teaching children, period. Then, you get these "doctors" who were standing on the sidewalks handing out fake sick notes for the teachers so they would have an excuse to not be teaching. I mean, what a way to prove that you deserve your job, let alone your ridiculously lavish benefits. This is why unions piss me off. And they want to argue that the other side won't allow them to negotiate in good faith. Please. Because you're doing a bang-up job of showing how rational and civil you can be.
And the Democratic legislators? What a bunch of cowards! These people were voted in to represent the people of Wisconsin. You know what? There are more of them than there are of you. That's how elections work. That's what Republicans were told by Obama after he won the election, right? The people spoke. But now that some legislation appears that you don't like? Run away. That's the democratic way. I hope they all get voted out next cycle. And just like Texas last decade, it's always the Dems that use this tactic. The media is complicit in how it is reporting this, and you just know that if the rolls were reversed, there would be calls for arrests, recalls and impeachments and so forth. Jackasses.
Polling shows that most people, depending on your poll of choice, voters or likely voters, have more support for Governor Walker than the unions. So I just hope that the Governor and the Republican senators stick to their guns on this one. And when any of the pundits suggest that this issue will lead to the eventual removal of Republicans in the state houses and even to a Democratic resurgence in 2012, I have to say, knowing that most of the people I know (most of whom are non-union) do not support union causes and most certainly will not be a part of some uprising in support of them.
So, do I feel that all unions are bad? Of course not. But by and large, they are as corrupt as organizations as they claim the Big Bad Corporations to be. And the one question I will raise to anyone who supports unions and their millions of dollars in donations to political causes and candidates from the dues they collect is this: If you support this, then you have no issue with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, right? After all, it's all freedom of speech, right? If you want to limit anyone's ability to support who they choose with their money, then it should work both ways.
According to Bob Chanin, recently retired general counsel to the National Education Association, "Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them; the union that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.”
Exactly. It's about power. He says "advocates" and I say "lobbyists." And I don't believe for one second that these people give a damn about how their members feel about how they are represented. It's all about getting those dues, and it's all about power.
And in Wisconsin, the playing field is about to be leveled.
How Do You Spell "Crazy Libyan Dictator"?
With Libya being so prominently in the news lately, it takes me back to a magical day in 1986...
10 days after a bombing at a German nightclub killed an American serviceman had been linked to the Northern African country, President Ronald Reagan authorized an attack on the Libyan capital of Tripoli which was meant to send a message to the Libyan president, as well as other countries in the region who supported terrorism. It was nothing short of awesome, and as a 14 year old kid who was raised believing that the United States was the greatest country in the world, and not one to be taken lightly, especially in the face of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, I was beside myself with giddy excitement. As best as I can recall, the Libyan president's name was spelled Khaddafi. Since then, aside from the Lockerbie Pan-Am disaster in 1988, he pretty much fell off of the proverbial map, and Libya sort of became a footnote in the realm of state sponsored terrorism.
But since the uprisings taking place in various Middle East countries reached Libya, suddenly he has re-emerged as the nutcase that we all discovered him to be 25 years ago. Depending on the news outlet you look at, you will see just about every one of them spell his name differently. It's uncanny, actually. I was going to list four or five different ones that I have come across, but fortunately, the London Evening Standard has done the work for me and come up with a list of 37. Yes, THIRTY-SEVEN different ways that various media outlets and government organizations spell this guy's name. So, here you go. Feel free to pick your favorite.
This list from the London Evening Standard:
1) Muammar Qaddafi
2) Mo'ammar Gadhafi
3) Muammar Kaddafi
4) Muammar Qadhafi
5) Moammar El Kadhafi
6) Muammar Gadafi
7) Mu'ammar al-Qadafi
8) Moamer El Kazzafi
9) Moamar al-Gaddafi
10) Mu'ammar Al Qathafi
11) Muammar Al Qathafi
12) Mo'ammar el-Gadhafi
13) Moamar El Kadhafi
14) Muammar al-Qadhafi
15) Mu'ammar al-Qadhdhafi
16) Mu'ammar Qadafi
17) Moamar Gaddafi
18) Mu'ammar Qadhdhafi
19) Muammar Khaddafi
20) Muammar al-Khaddafi
21) Mu'amar al-Kadafi
22) Muammar Ghaddafy
23) Muammar Ghadafi
24) Muammar Ghaddafi
25) Muamar Kaddafi
26) Muammar Quathafi
27) Mohammer Q'udafi
28) Muammar Gheddafi
29) Muamar Al-Kaddafi
30) Moammar Khadafy
31) Moammar Qudhafi
32) Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi
33) Muammar el-Qaddafi
34) Muammar Gadafy
35) Muammar Gaddafi
36) Muammar Gadaffy
37) Muamar Qadaffi
I should also point out as a footnote, that noted former 102.7 KIIS-FM (Los Angeles, CA) disc jockey and one-hit wonder Rick Dees (remember "Disco Duck"?) recorded a song about the dictator not long after the 1986 event titled "Feel The Heat Khadafy" (spelling #30) This song never would have been played on the radio today, as I recall the lyrics were full of acceptable-for-its-time stereotypical slurs such as "towel head" among others. I have a recording of it somewhere, just in case I can't find one online somewhere. It would be funny to hear it and transcribe the lyrics. Maybe, if I can find the time.
10 days after a bombing at a German nightclub killed an American serviceman had been linked to the Northern African country, President Ronald Reagan authorized an attack on the Libyan capital of Tripoli which was meant to send a message to the Libyan president, as well as other countries in the region who supported terrorism. It was nothing short of awesome, and as a 14 year old kid who was raised believing that the United States was the greatest country in the world, and not one to be taken lightly, especially in the face of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, I was beside myself with giddy excitement. As best as I can recall, the Libyan president's name was spelled Khaddafi. Since then, aside from the Lockerbie Pan-Am disaster in 1988, he pretty much fell off of the proverbial map, and Libya sort of became a footnote in the realm of state sponsored terrorism.
But since the uprisings taking place in various Middle East countries reached Libya, suddenly he has re-emerged as the nutcase that we all discovered him to be 25 years ago. Depending on the news outlet you look at, you will see just about every one of them spell his name differently. It's uncanny, actually. I was going to list four or five different ones that I have come across, but fortunately, the London Evening Standard has done the work for me and come up with a list of 37. Yes, THIRTY-SEVEN different ways that various media outlets and government organizations spell this guy's name. So, here you go. Feel free to pick your favorite.
This list from the London Evening Standard:
1) Muammar Qaddafi
2) Mo'ammar Gadhafi
3) Muammar Kaddafi
4) Muammar Qadhafi
5) Moammar El Kadhafi
6) Muammar Gadafi
7) Mu'ammar al-Qadafi
8) Moamer El Kazzafi
9) Moamar al-Gaddafi
10) Mu'ammar Al Qathafi
11) Muammar Al Qathafi
12) Mo'ammar el-Gadhafi
13) Moamar El Kadhafi
14) Muammar al-Qadhafi
15) Mu'ammar al-Qadhdhafi
16) Mu'ammar Qadafi
17) Moamar Gaddafi
18) Mu'ammar Qadhdhafi
19) Muammar Khaddafi
20) Muammar al-Khaddafi
21) Mu'amar al-Kadafi
22) Muammar Ghaddafy
23) Muammar Ghadafi
24) Muammar Ghaddafi
25) Muamar Kaddafi
26) Muammar Quathafi
27) Mohammer Q'udafi
28) Muammar Gheddafi
29) Muamar Al-Kaddafi
30) Moammar Khadafy
31) Moammar Qudhafi
32) Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi
33) Muammar el-Qaddafi
34) Muammar Gadafy
35) Muammar Gaddafi
36) Muammar Gadaffy
37) Muamar Qadaffi
I should also point out as a footnote, that noted former 102.7 KIIS-FM (Los Angeles, CA) disc jockey and one-hit wonder Rick Dees (remember "Disco Duck"?) recorded a song about the dictator not long after the 1986 event titled "Feel The Heat Khadafy" (spelling #30) This song never would have been played on the radio today, as I recall the lyrics were full of acceptable-for-its-time stereotypical slurs such as "towel head" among others. I have a recording of it somewhere, just in case I can't find one online somewhere. It would be funny to hear it and transcribe the lyrics. Maybe, if I can find the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
