The Pat Miller problem

First, before I harangue, I'd like to thank all of you who wished me a happy 49th.  I wasn't trying to fish for birthday wishes (nod, nod, wink, wink), so it was nice to get them anyway. 

Anyway, as the title suggests, I have a slight problem with WOWO's Pat Miller.  Before any blood pressure readings go up, let me just say that if I wasn't a regular listener in the 4:30 to 5:20 slot, I wouldn't have a problem, so obviously I agree with him more often than not.  That said, we don't quite always agree- as you can see on my profile I am a "Nixon conservative", which places Pat, a tea party supporter and self-proclaimed strict constitutionalist, just to the right of myself.  Still, his show is quite informative and stimulating, and generally on the mark.

However, about once a week or so, he'll come out with a topic that just inflames me to no end, and makes me wonder where Sirhan Sirhan is when we REALLY need him- only to look up the story and find a piece or two missing that cools my ardor substantially, and turns a harangue such as this into a "well, now what do I blog about" night.  Today is a case in point.  The story/topic: the NLRB decision on Boeing.

Pat's take, abridged:  Boeing, upon failing to reach an agreement with their often antagonistic union, began building a plant in right-to-work South Carolina to build the new 787 dreamliner.  The NLRB waits until the plant is built, employees are hired, and work is scheduled to begin in 5 weeks, to tell Boeing that they are engaging in unfair labor practices by building a new plant in a right to work state, and forbids them to open.  This, in Pat's opinion- and he's alone by no means- is yet another example of a) a government willing to break laws on the books to get their way, and thus out of control; and b) Obama's anti-business outlook.

Where Pat's right: Boeing did negotiate with the just-as-described union, and failed to reach agreement.  As is their right, Boeing began and completed building the plant in SC to build dreamliners.  And the NLRB, in another shining example of government agencies' piss-poor timing, did file unfair labor practice charges against them.

What Pat left out- at least in the almost hour I followed-: Boeing had sought terms that would head off any possible union related disruptions of the production schedule, including longer term contracts to avoid frequent strikes and the threat of them.  Upon failing to reach agreement with the union, Boeing began construction of the SC facility that was to build THREE of the TEN planes they wanted to build per month, whilst the other seven were to be built in union-site Everett, Washington.  This way, even if they did have to strike, they would maintain some production, and theoretically be able to weather a strike that might lose them the contracts and put them out of business.  (See, Boeing realizes that a union sees its purpose as less caring for workers and more building a constituency.  Boeing going completely out of business would be preferable to union sheeple than giving one job to a non-union person.)  The NLRB found that this could be construed as a payback to the union for their intransigence, and thus within their purview.  They magnanimously told Boeing, they had no problem with ANY OTHER production in SC- but the three dreamliners had to go to Everett.

Now, Pat's main point is valid.  Boeing, having satisfied any existing letter of the law in dealing with the union, had every right to build in a right to work state.  The stakes on this thing were too big to count on the union not trying to louse it up to gain leverage.  The NLRB really has no business in this matter, other than as an extension of Obama's Socialist-leaning agenda.  Where I have the problem with Pat is what he left out- the split production of the dreamliner, and the ruling not kicking Boeing completely out of SC.  Are the omissions crippling to the point? Not really.  But my problem is the same as I often have with Foxnews' reporting of controversial issues (as Joshua has called me on- thanks!) and certain Christians who make assertions with (to put it charitably) less than perfect knowledge of the Bible (like Waynesboro you-know-who and Dove WO).  If the other side wants to fudge data and etc. to make a point, let them.  Why make us look like them by leaving out things that could be construed as critical? 

Pat, you make your radio livelihood by making a stand, and 99% of the time I'll be right behind you.  But if we are to fight misinformation, we have to be held to a higher standard.

I've mentioned my problems with church in passing before.  Let me spell one of them out as it is germane to the topic.  Our pastor did a series on the founding fathers wrapping around the Fourth of July last year.  In the last chapter of the series, he took from one of the many Christian websites hyping the founding fathers' Christianity a supposed quote from Thomas Jefferson saying, "I am a Christian."  A little research beyond the site he took this from would have revealed the full quote:

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."

Or to put it in simple English," I believe in Jesus' philosophy, and that any of His claims to divinity were the work of later peoples' additions to the gospel."  This no more makes him a Christian than evolution makes him a fish.  And those who put the chopped up version on the internet where those who let others do their research (like, apparently, our pastor) do a HUGE disservice to the cause they claim to espouse.

There is FAR too much of this kind of thing happening in our internet, mass media world.  We who want the truth to be known have to hold ourselves to a higher standard, have to make sure we get the facts- and relay them completely and in a way that does not open us up for charges of fudging.  That is my Pat Miller problem.

HOOOOOWEVER, let it be known that I agree with Pat's premise.  I think ALL states should be right to work, and the union should support that.  After all, they like to tell us that they are there for the workers- and anything that gives workers more options and freedom has got to be a good thing.  I think the NLRB's ruling was ill-considered and failed to take into account the health of the company, the rights of the non-union workers in SC, the rights of South Carolina as a state, and the fact that NOT ONE union worker in Washington was harmed by the action.  Where were they when business after business moved their factories to Mexico and China- and what will they say if Boeing moves their production overseas to avoid this kind of idiocy.  But that's the liberal mantra- protect the minority at the expense of the majority.  Thomas Jefferson may not have been a Christian.  But if he was alive today, I doubt he'd be a Democrat either.