Right to work- and why I’ve been silent

I just (finally) got around to researching this line in the sand known as right to work, and I found this fascinating study.  Basically, I kept silent because I wondered at the reasons RTW would help economically.  The info in this study, and the case studies therein on Oklahoma and Idaho, helped not only make it make sense, but gave empirical examples of its success.  I didn’t want to say anything until I knew the facts, and frankly I was too turned off by the democrats baby-crying on it to look before now.  But since GiaQuinta, Moses, et al finally did the state the great honor of actually showing up and doing their jobs, I figured I’d do mine.

John W. Cooper’s study not only showed facts as well as they could be deciphered, but demonstrated how both sides could manipulate the data to their own advantage.  He spotlighted other statistical surveys, noted their methodology, and drew his conclusions.

There is a net benefit in both hiring and new job creation for RTW states.  There is also evidence that in at least one RTW state (Oklahoma) that union membership ROSE after RTW.  This right here both gives the 2 main reasons FOR right to work and partially negates one of the reasons AGAINST it.  The other main reason against it, the so-called free ride, is an unassailable fact.  Under RTW, unions carry the bargaining load of those who opt-out.  However, let me now be controversial in why I don’t give a crap about that.

#1- Wasn’t the original idea of labor bargaining about improving conditions for ALL workers?  Somewhere along the line of legitimacy, unions developed the “I don’t care about the other guy” attitude that has resulted in “scabs” being injured, harassed, etc, for the crime of not being union.  When you treat fellow workers, who are also just trying to earn a living, like that, you lose my sympathy.

#2- If the labor movement hadn’t become an arm of the Democratic party, no one would even care about RTW.  Studies show that the percent of union dues going to political causes are 30% AND RISING.  Given average dues of $120 a year, that means I’d have to donate $40 dollars a year to a cause unrelated to my job and against my principles. 
#3- There was a 1988 court decision called the Beck decision that said that a union member cannot be forced to pay the portion of his dues that are earmarked for political contributions.  This, if complied with by the unions, would be enough to silence MY objections.  A study cited in Cooper said 32% of union employees disagree with the positions the unions support, so I think it is more than fair.  But do the unions?  From Cooper:

More recently, in 2001 the House Committee on Education and the Workforce’s Subcommittee on Workforce Protections heard a case on Mark Simpson’s experience with attempting to exercise his Beck rights. Mr. Simpson tells a very compelling tale. He starts out by saying he “used to be a union loyalist” and “was even a union shop steward” (Simpson). He then found out that some of his union dues were being used to support causes he did not believe in, so he tried to exercise his Beck rights. He gave notice to his union in June 2000 that he wanted to exercise his rights, and it took his union six months to respond to his request. Mr. Simpson testified that “Their response said that only 1.3% of their spending was eligible to be rebated. The other 98.7% were bargaining expenses, chargeable to me as agency shop fees even after my exercising my Beck rights. And if I didn't pay them, I was fired” (Simpson).

Big surprise- unions aren’t in the business of playing fair.

#4- The politicians in the union pockets.  One woman legislator said after the vote (and I sure wish I’d have been paying attention so I could’ve got her name) to the effect of, I see know who will work with you and who won’t.  I’ll remember this.  Gee, lady, 8 republicans worked with you, how many Democrats crossed the fence?  At the beginning of this I gave a sideways compliment to those who decided not to boycott the vote.  But the fact of the matter is that the legislators who stayed the whole time, opened the floor to debate, and passed a good law, were certainly more mature and more professional that the ones that stood outside the chamber and whined, blindfolded their followers into believing that the whole thing was about strip-mining the unions, and tried to win their argument by throwing out the fire marshall’s safety ruling and packing the outside of the chamber with protesters and ringers to try to disrupt the legal rule of law.

I’m sorry that I didn’t speak up sooner, that I didn’t research sooner.  But I didn’t want to color the decision I made by filtering it through the hopelessly dishonest hordes fighting against it, hordes that need to realize that IF they had ever been honest and EVER supported the RULE OF LAW vis-à-vis the Beck decision, NONE of this need ever have happened.

More fun with wastebook

Before I get started, let me congratulate President  Obama on his decision to not go forward with the Keystone Pipeline project (“Because we haven’t had time to study it,” Be sure to use whiney voice to read quote.)  He has done yet another great service to the cause of racial equality by proving that numbskulls like Jimmy Carter who should never have been elected President come in all colors, flavors, and ethnic groups.

We start off with #45 today- actually, I’ll be hitting a subsidiary point of this one.  The main story was the spending of nearly $700,000 in Nevada to spruce up ONE (count ‘em, one) highway exit with “striped” boulders and “Native” vegetation.  This is, of course, bad enough; but Coburn goes on to mention that it came on the heels of a Lawsuit that Clark County had to settle on a $120 million road widening project.  It seems that they rejected a bid $4.5 million LOWER than the one they took because “the contractor was not properly licensed”  (read: non-union); the judge smelled horseshit and the county ended up paying an extra $5 mil to the non-union outfit for screwing them.  Mr. GiaQuinta, Mr. Moses, can you see WHY most of your constituents want the Right-To-Work legislation to pass in Indiana?  Can you see why we’re sick of union manipulation, corruption, and lies?  Of course not, you have union dollars clouding your vision.
Martin Savings: outside of what could be saved by banning unions altogether, which I won’t go into here, the county could have saved $9.5 million dollars just by being honest and following the law instead of crawling into a union pocket. Why, you could’ve decorated 13 1/2 more exits with that!

#40 is another one of my beaten path, because this is one of those few times I’ll say, “See?  Barney Frank is right!!!”  The Congressional Committee on Wartime Contracting estimates that upwards of $4.4 billion was wasted on inefficient, corrupt, and inflated contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2011 ALONE.  I realize that many like minded conservatives such as myself decry the removing of the least dollar from the defense budget, but OMG you idiots, LOOK AT THIS!! I hear way too much about how defense cuts will “hurt our navy, hurt our reputation, hurt our vets”, etc.  So cut the right spots and it will only hurt crooked contractors.

#36, which I had to throw in just because of the ridiculousness of it.  $50,400 went to the Oregon Cheese Guild who are using some of it to develop the “Oregon Cheese Trail”, which you can see here.  Just think, had the Donners just took the Oregon Cheese Trail, they wouldn’t have had to eat each other.

Finally, it wouldn’t be right if we didn’t take a poke at our good friends at USAID.  This one’ll crack you up.  We start out with a $23 million, 3-yr project to aid Pakistan with its electrical grid failure by getting them to use less energy.  The first year ended with these results: 15 industries targeted to develop energy conservation plans, 0 completed. 10 companies targeted to evaluate energy efficiency, 0 completed. 300 energy companies targeted to upgrade equipment, 0 did so. 4 energy distribution companies targeted to implement conservation strategies, none did so. 300 energy sector employees trained, 138 actually got the training.  So one year and $2 million later, they “changed strategy”.  Where have we heard that before?

The new strategy was to get farmers to ditch their old, inefficient energy pumps that USAID would pick up half the cost of.  Their contractor told USAID that they would be able to provide the pumps for $500 per, but as the year drew on, the cost just for the pumps rose to “$1,000 to $4,000”.  Thus it was that instead of paying $5.5 mil for 11,000 pumps at $500 per, they paid $10 million for 963 pumps at $8,500 per!
The IG’s report found that while USAID and the contractor blamed most of it on floods that wracked the nation last year, the real causes were mostly farmer indifference.  Why didn’t the Pakistani farmers jump on the deal?
1- farmers wanted some bucks for the old pumps that they had to get rid of, and USAID failed to anticipate this.
2- the cost of new masonry and electrical also weren’t factored in, and most farmers flat couldn’t afford them.
3- pump manufacturers didn’t want to participate in a short-term program.
4- the regional energy utility was penciled in as a partner, but they declined to participate.
5- almost 8,000 farmers submitted “letters of interest” in the program. USAID, having not the example of Gunner Kiel to learn from, assumed “interest”=”participation”, assumed that all of these were going to participate, but only one out of eight actually did.
6-USAID was allowing one day for the required cement to dry.  Probably not a good idea, since the concrete needed 28 days to cure.
7- and probably the most important, even with USAID paying half, farmers could get the pumps cheaper FROM CHINA.

The IG’s reports that the program be discontinued when it hits year #3 in March.  Even if they did renew, USAID would have to re-budget for a more reasonable pump price, bump their contribution to 75 %, and kick in another 10% for the old pump.
Martin savings:  Let ‘em buy from China.  Require USAID to formulate a coherent plan before giving them ANY money. The current system is a lot like giving a 3 year old a Toys ‘R Us gift card and sending him in alone.  Another way to save money wqould apparently be to stop training the unemployed and just send them to work at USAID, where an education (and common sense) isn’t exactly required.  Or even expected.

September sh... uh, er, stuff. Yeah, stuff is good...

Okay, guys, I have a lot to rant about and I'm getting hungry, so, hang on and let's go.

Last night, Scrappy and I topped off our raccoon adventure with a walk that ended up having us turn a corner( on the woods trail) and run pretty much into our two deer.  They were off the trail about 50 feet or so away.  After we spent a few seconds just looking at each other ( and I tried to get my camera) and Scrappy actually obeyed my whispered command and just sat there, they bounded off to join their friends at the retirement home (yes, friends, they leave salt blocks on the property edge).  We also found a cap I thought might be a winner- a red-and-yellow job called "Cockta".  On looking it up, I found out that Cockta is a Slovenian invention, a soft drink flavored with dog rose hip- which is the hip (fruit) of a dog rose.  Not sure I ever heard of a dog rose, definitely didn't know any roses had fruit, and surely have know idea what a flavoring made from it would taste like.

Pat Miller was having a hard time with some democratic congresswoman from California, stretching the truth like silly putty to make her point.  "What district on this planet, " he asked, "would elect this woman?"  I guess Pat has forgotten the two rules of power liberalism (as opposed to sincere and relatively honest liberals like Dr. Tom Hayhurst): #1- truth is relative, and in some cases fluid, when confronted with proving a point; #2- Liberals can be elected in any district where there is a large enough concentration of one of their "constituencies" (i.e. LGBT, Welfare cases, illegal aliens, union members who use the newsletter to avoid thinking on their own).

Which brings me to another of his rants- Lil' Jimmy Hoffa calling the right wing half of this nation S.O.B.'s.  This doesn't merit that much comment; Hoffa is a) the leader of a dying organization who owes its continued existence to its symbiotic relationship with the democratic party; b) the son of a dead mobster that got his job on his daddy's coattails.  IOW, the man has the credibility of a global warming scientist.

The next on the list is more serious.  Due to obvious reasons, I'm not going to go into much details.  A local school district has given middle schoolers laptops to do homework on.  Not a big deal, but the second part is that they left Facebook and skype unblocked so that the students might use them to communicate about homework.  Still not a big deal?  Several young girls have been contacted by a sexual predator through these unsecured media.  Local police are investigating, but a "spokesperson" for the school has given the impression that the school thinks that that's just the price of technology in the modern world.  Obviously, in the "modern world", protecting the student's "rights" of "free speech" and "privacy" is more important than PROTECTING THE CHILDREN.  I swear to God, there is not one chance in hell I'd ever put a child in a public school ever again!  And as for these predators, my hope is a) that the lowest ring of Hell is ready and waiting for them; b) that the faithful will get a chance at the Judgement to boot a few of 'em over the edge, and c) that they bounce off of  liberal educators who think all of the above is a good idea on the way down.  Honestly, people, I do not understand how ANY PASTOR can teach "there is no hell" when slimebags like this are around just waiting to get there.

Okay, and now back to sweetness and light- or, a scam e-mail update.  Today I got two- the first from the English sounding (though not real good at writing it) Sir Mark James, who informs me that the Paris Club International has donated $1.5 million to me, but for some reason has left it in a Western Union office in..... Benin! The financial capital of the world, I should have expected that, I guess.  Then comes #2- Barrister Jim Mike (nifty name) who was kinda peeved that I didn't get down to.... Benin! to pick up the $6.5 million he owes me, so he packaged it up and left it at the Lagos Nigeria branch of Fed Ex in Benin. (so, let's get this straight- Fed Ex has a Lagos, Nigeria branch, and that branch has a branch in Benin?)  Now when I get there, I'll need to pay the FELNBB (Fed Ex Lagos Nigeria/ Benin Branch) the security fee.  Jim doesn't tell me how much that is, but according to Sir Mark, Western Union (which I think is a simple Benin branch and not a Lagos Nigeria/Benin branch) charges $175. 

I was going to do my FCS stuff tonight too, but I'm starving, it's already 7:08, and Laurie is shooting hair bands at Scrappy, probably because she is patiently waiting to get on Farmerama and is taking out her frustration on lower forms of life.  But I promise I'll try harder tomorrow.

The Debt Crisis, and the Harlot's Forehead

I had a moment this morning when I just had to go out and, as I told Laurie, "do some mental screaming".  The reasons were of faith and finance.  I started with the Journal Gazette headline, which summed up the idea that Texas Gov. and 2012 Presidential candidate Rick Perry prayed for our country, our economy, and the decisions being made by our government by the line "Perry asks God to solve U.S. crisis".  Which is good if, you being a liberal and unconscious to the mashing of facts to express your opinion, you want to paint Perry as a fundamentalist whacko who'd turn the nation's government into one big church.  So it goes any time a person of faith expresses an opinion.  Those of you old enough will remember the fathers of these anti-religious bigots saying that JFK's election would make Washington an adjunct to the Papacy because he was "catholic".

Another example came as I watched a morning news program (Fox, because CNBC was busy stimulating the economy by running paid programming) where a conservative girl and liberal fellow were debating the debt ceiling deal.  For her credit, at least she was objective;  she pointed out not only that the cuts made were just a start of what were needed, but that Defense was "greatly bloated" and that high end tax loopholes need to be closed.  She was not ashamed to say that harmful rhetoric pervaded both sides.  When Mr. Liberal got his shot, was he willing to be as even handed?  Well, his main "points" were:
-The Tea Party was to blame for the S&P downgrade.
-The Tea Party was a bunch of "terrorists" who held up the government and the people to get what they wanted.
-The Tea Party was responsible for the sinking of the Titanic, the explosion of the Hindenburg, and the meltdown at Chernobyl.  (Not really on these, but you get the point).

Yes it was THE LIBERAL who could not get past his talking points to have a reasonable, adult discussion.  It was THE LIBERAL that thinks that fighting however misguidedly for your economic policy position is just as evil as, say, flying a plane full of people into a building full of people.  It was THE LIBERAL who had no intention of saying, "well here's where my side should have given a little".  And, it was THE LIBERAL who claimed that the Tea Party had been planning to make the debt ceiling a battleground for the last two years, instead of saying truthfully that the debt ceiling should have been a battleground FOR THE LAST THIRTY YEARS.

I'm not saying that the republicans are fighting for truth, honor and apple pie.  Think about this- the stimulus was in essence giving money to rich businessmen to create economic opportunity.  A good dictionary would use this as a definition of "trickle-down economics".  Yet the same liberal who won't say a word against Obama in the face of the majority opinion that the stimulus failed, are more than happy to say trickle down econ won't work- WHEN THEY ARE THE SAME THING.    Meanwhile, republicans assail the stimulus and say that cutting taxes to the corporations will stimulate growth, never admitting that these, too, are the same thing.

You want the truth about economic policy and politics? Here it is:  Republicans won't raise taxes, not because of you and I who are down here already screwed, but because the rich and corporations are where they get their power- and that's who is unwilling to pay their fair share, Obama's recent primer on the debt crisis notwithstanding.  And, democrats won't cut the spending, or reform entitlements, because the "great unwashed" and the unions are their power base.  Behind every bit of rhetoric that either side spews out, the underlying motivation is nothing but self-preservation.  Both sides as a group are disingenuous in claiming they are fighting for the little man- they are in a constant fight for nothing more or less than their next election.
I only get pissed at the liberals because they are revisionist historians at the core- willing to tell any lie (and convince the undereducated to believe it) to bolster their cause.  At least I hear some conservative voices willing to stand up to the rhetorics and say, "Hey, that's bulls--t," like the lady on Fox did today.  Show me a liberal willing to do the same.

In the meantime, we sit here with a narrow bandwidth of time before China and the G20 say, the hell with you, and really put the squeeze to us.  And the best solution we can come up with is to print up yet more monopoly money, because nobody wants to stop campaigning for office long enough to commit to working on a real solution.  If we weren't in the age of metal detectors, I'd bet money that during the "supercommittee" meetings, someone on the panel would take out a gun and shoot another panelist.  Because we talk in protest signs and work together like rutting bucks.

And so, out I went to calm down thinking of what I studied in this morning's Bible reading.  One phrase had caught my eye- Jeremiah 3:3:

3 Therefore the showers have been withheld,
And there has been no latter rain.
You have had a harlot’s forehead;
You refuse to be ashamed.

A harlot's forehead, I asked?  A perusal of my concordance shows that the Hebrew word translated "forehead" or "brow" connoting something of prominence.  In other words, when someone looks at you as a person, what stands out?  I have to look at myself in the mirror every moment to see if I have a Christian's forehead, or a harlot's.

And in that idea, I have to ask our government, our political sides:  What is your forehead?  Republicans, I agree that most Americans are taxed to the limit now, and that spending is where we need to work to eliminate the debt.  Can you agree, that $900 for a$7 part tells us that Defense is one of the first places to start?  If I agree that just giving money to the corporate heads will not result in jobs, will you agree that tax incentives haven't worked either?  Democrats, if I agree that all people, corporations and little guys, must do their part, will you agree that we won't NEED  as much if we do not SPEND as much?  If I agree that Defense can be reformed, can you agree that rampant social security, welfare, and medicare/medicaid fraud tells us that entitlements need reformed just as badly?  If I agree I don't have all the answers, can you agree that I am not a "terrorist" because I didn't agree with yours?  Whose forehead do you have? 

Quite frankly, I think we all have enough "scarlet letters" that name calling rhetoric only proves the bankruptcy of your mindset.  Mind you, I'm not trying to say either side is stupid- but if all you can bring to the table is, "It's their fault", then YOU ARE.

The Presidentiial Address, the Republican Response, and Me

The President's Side

It continues to amaze me how President Obama still feels the only way to get the sympathy of the American People is to wrap himself up in the banner of Ronald Reagan.  Of course, tonight he also wove in Jefferson, Bush the Elder, and Clinton.  His speech was alright if it was made to educate the American People in something they hadn't been hearing about for the last 8 months.  As it was, he made a fairly good- and fairly deceptive- case for the basics of the Gang of 6 plan, which for all its warts I still think is the better of the plans.  I have said before I'd like to know how rank and file Tea Partiers defend tax breaks to Exxon/Mobil, GM, and their brethren.  But, as usual, he didn't stop there.

It's All Their Fault

He did make a somewhat halfhearted effort to not lump all republicans together, and he did say that his own party needed to quit their crying and be willing to make tough choices on entitlements.  But then he very explicitly let us know who the villains of the piece were IHHO:  John Boehner and the newly elected "young gun" republicans.  He managed to slip in the pro forma "they want to eliminate Medicare" just before mentioning the demand for Medicare reform, thus putting the truth out there, but covering it first with the scary lie that makes you ignore it.  Instead of mentioning the $800 billion in new tax revenue that Boehner had agreed to before Obama changed the rules Friday night, he made the blanket "they won't allow for any taxes" and won't agree to making the richest Americans pay their fair share", which "they (the richest) have stepped up and been willing to do everytime this nation has had bipartisan agreement".  So the rich are ready to pay the new taxes- the GOP won't let them.  Hmmm.

Obama's big score

The one good hit the President got in was on Boehner's new "temporary ceiling raise" , which Obama called "kicking the can down the road another six months". And y'know what, he's right.  This needs to be finished, once and for all, NOW.

Overall

For all the "smoke coming out of his ears"  (said Bob Scheaffer) in this "tough speech"  (Bob again),  to my ears a reasonably educated high schooler could have written this and got a 'b' in his civics class.

Boehner Fires Back

The Speaker taught Bob the meaning of a tough speech.  If Obama had smoke coming out, Boehner had fire and brimstone.  Where I don't agree on the no taxes period approach, Boehner did score several hits.
1. Boehner said, "the President came to us in January wanting to do business as usual.  Mr. President, the days of doing business as usual are over."  Any of you liberals in the press and elsewhere that still want to cling to that myth of Boehner as a weepy guy who cries at the drop of a hat, you just keep telling yourself that.  You may soon find tire tracks down your back.
2. Boehner wasn't afraid to mention what all America has already heard- that they had a deal Friday night and the President shat all over it.  "the President changed the numbers, " Boehner said gravely.  I'd surely like to be a fly on the wall when these two get together.
3.  Boehner got to the heart of why he and the President have not hammered something out already:  "He came to us in January wanting a blank check.  He still wants it now.  And he's not going to get it."
4. Boehner's characterization of the democrat idea of a balanced plan; " We spend more, you pay more."  Not completely accurate, but the funniest line of the night.
5.  Boehner felt no need to wrap himself in dead presidents to make his point.  And he was right there.

I Hear A 'But' Coming...

I've said this on my CC&B vs GO6 post last week:  This spot is not the place to bring in a Balanced Budget Amendment.  I don't deny we need one, just that it needs to attach itself to this bill.  Boehner hinted that his new proposal (which I haven't seen) forgoes the requirement for a BBA and instead calls for a bipartisan committee to lay the groundwork for one.   If so, then let's put that into a deal which gets the cuts, caps the spending, and raises the ceiling now, not some six month patch.  Boehner also called the new taxes a job killer- and giving subsidies to companies that are charging us $3.80- 4.00 a gallon for gas ISN'T?? 

Overall

This was  the kind of speech you wish the Speaker could've gone first, so we could really see Obama at his pissed-off best.  Still, for all that, it was the kind of speech that, like Obama's you wish you could've heard months ago- and not with one week left before default.

And The Winner Is...

On style and substance, Boehner.  On sympathy, and pathos, Obama.  But for all the good it did us as Americans, they might as well have done this in the boxing ring.

Here's Your Sign

The last few days, I have found the news particularly depressing.  Here are some reasons why.

Apparently hoping the long weekend would take the bite out of it, the Administration released their latest "report card" on how the stimulus is working.  Boiling it down, by the government's own numbers, not only did we pay over a quarter million bucks for each job "created or saved"  (and I'll let you muse about how you consider a job "saved"), but, in the last three months, the total of "jobs created or saved" has DROPPED by 288,000!

In the meantime this same administration, which was quoted as saying that White House staff would not receive pay raises, gave 54% of staffers at LEAST 16% raises this year.  So, let's make this perfectly clear: if I work for president Obama, I get a pay raise; if not, I need to "sacrifice with the rest of America" and support the tax INCREASE he wants me to pay.  Every time I hear a Democratic legislator tell me that "the republicans need to be willing to give a little" I'd personally like to slap them.  They won't agree to cutting their bloated budget unless they can re-bloat it with a tax increase WE DO NOT NEED!!!  Tell me, "President" Obama, if you spread out all the raises you weren't going to give across all the people who you feel need to chip in and sacrifice, what percent raise would we all be getting?  Gee I bet it would be real close to the same amount you want to TAX us to PAY for it!

Just combine this with all the "I didn't have to ask Congress about Libya because it wasn't a big enough deal"s, the "just pass the bill, we'll find out what it says later"s, and my personal favorite, the Ted Kennedy Memorial "I don't care if I've never skipped a meal and it shows, YOU need to stop giving your kids Happy Meals"s- and my honest conclusion is that on the gatepost in front of Hell there will be a sign:

DEMOCRATIC ETERNAL CAUCUS

MAIN BALLROOM

Just turn left at the Union Leadership Office,

Across from the Global Warming Science

Research Center

And why, you ask, do I bring the unions into it yet again (I mean, other than the fact that Union Leadership and Democrat Party Leadership are a pair of leaches sucking from each other and thus hard to separate)? Well, here is a story about the Wisconsin labor revolt- and the true consequences of the bill passed by the republicans and signed by Governor Walker- that will say it better than I ever could.

Another one of the things bringing me down is the Casey Anthony verdict.  I have several Facebook friends who have joined Porch Lights for Caylee Marie Anthony.  The idea is to leave the porch light on overnight in honor of Caylee and other abused and murdered innocents.  I read through about a hundred of the postings ( the group has 2.2 million members as of my visit) , and while 95% of them are heartfelt, there are more than a few idiots who either think it's a dumb idea or just want attention. One jerk posted SHE DESERVED IT.  I did not post a comment- for one thing, it would be disingenuous since our porch light is always on.  For another, I know where Caylee is right now.  I feel sad for those on FB who feel the need to get their anti-social rocks off by proving their stupidity.  And I really think Casey- and whoever assisted her- received a great disservice from our justice system.  Instead of paying human justice- with the chance of repentance and forgiveness- she/they will more than likely be happy at the fate that they cheated, never bothering as they cash in on tabloid testimonies to think about the eternal judgement that awaits them.

And finally, a note on the curious fact that blogger, while it is pretty good at putting spam comments in the trash where they belong, they curiously let them go to e-mail.  Thus it was that I received this comment on my latest post over on Chris' Cap Collection:

Ladylike Post. This record helped me in my college assignment. Thnaks Alot

If you can figure it out, let me know. If I like your answer, I'll award you the next Trophee du Beagle.

Chris Martin sells vote to highest bidder

Not really, I just thought it might attract Win Moses and his band of Benedict Arnolds for when I chew them yet another new one later on.

Anyway, Monday I was too sick to want to read or write. Which meant that yesterday I was too busy catching up reading to write. Today I'm going to rant first and read later.

Topic #1: Libya. WTF do we (read: does Obama) think we are doing? I'm as patriotic and hawkish as the next guy (more so, depending), but let's step back and look at this. First, we have a revolt in Libya, fad o' the week in the middle east. We had one in Egypt, where we got along for many years with Sadat and Mubarik until it became PC to bash poor Hasni, evil bastard that he was. Now we'll probably end up with Gamal Abdel Nasser #2, and won't that be fun? Well, there's one in Bahrain (what is that, the 5th fleet's base? Or is it 6th, I'm not sure), but there, mum's the word. Ditto in Yemen, because EVERYbody knows all the rebels there are al-Qaeda. So that brings us to Libya, where we are actively supporting rebels who are in turn being supported by that same al-Qaeda that we don't like in Iraq and Yemen. We're shooting missiles at planes so that Qaddaffyduck can't strafe civilians while he's blowing them to bits. The Arab League wants us to set a no-fly zone, as long as we don't kill any one. France and Obama play hot potato with the leadership of the "UN" mandate. And what exactly are we doing? Are we saving lives? Debatable. Giving aid to a legitimate government, one that will appreciate our help? Not really, and yeah, right. Hillary "mine are bigger than Bill's" Clinton basically said the goal is to get rid of Qaddafyduck.
Okay, now ask this: Why Now? Getting rid of a screwball nobody likes is, as the liberals like to tell us, why we went into Iraq. Just a way to get votes for GW Bush, they said. No exit strategy, they said. But Sadaam Hussein was a murderous nutcase and needed to go, and thus we all got patriotic and GW got his second term, they said.

DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND FAMILIAR!!!!!??????!!!!

Well, when al-Qaeda assumes the running of Libya and tells us to go jump, PLEASE remember THAT at the next election.

Topic #2: If Obama wants to blow cruise missiles in an arena that Might get him my vote, how about aiming them at Urbana, Illinois. My opinion on the traito...er, democrat walkouts here and in the Cheese state are well documented, I know, and I think actually cost me a follower, a young teacher who might have the mistaken impression I want her to live in poverty. So I'd like to clear up my intent once and for all. I have nothing against teachers or any other union member. I have heard from many well-spoken members of the other side, and I realize not everyone in the debate is a greed-serving scum sucker (read: union Mgmt.) or a blindly following sheeple who is out there howling about losing all collective bargaining rights; which is a bold-faced lie. I thank fellow blogger Roland Hansen and the Beyond the Beltway radio show Sunday night for aiding in my education.
What I AM Against:
1. ALL union mgmt. Their mutually parasitic relationship with the democratic party is destroying any usefulness and/or credibility in either organization.
2.The tactics of bringing in ringers to flood statehouses is IMHO deplorable. I don't need ticks and lice from New York and Pennsylvania (sorry Bob) coming to my state to tell my legislators what they want them to do.
3. Doctors passing out fake excuses to sorry-ass teachers that think pitching one at the capitol is more important than TEACHING THEIR STUDENTS.
4.Legislators (like the one in Wisc.) who think when a union member doesn't want his dues spent on Dem. candidates, the proper response is, "get another job."
5. Union officials (such as the head of the Michigan AFof L) who, when told that the non-union middle class (that the dems and unions are allegedly defending) are tired of paying the price for the unionized middle class' intransigence, feel that the proper response is, "you should unionize your workplace". Not a lie, I heard it myself. The next caller was a union teacher that told him that advice was "a bunch of crap", BTW.
6. But most of all, I do not like legislators that think holding the whole GD state hostage while they prance around and look pretty for their union mgmt. succubi is proper legislative action. Anyone who votes for someone who'd do that might just as well take their state taxes and blow 'em on the lottery, you'll get the return you deserve most likely.

Topic #3: Dumb commercials. In particular, one running on radio where some train company tells us that it can move a ton of freight a mile on a gallon of fuel. Perspective: If that freight car is empty, it weighs @ 30 tons, so that gallon of fuel will take the kick at the goal line and return it just across midfield. Fully loaded, it might weigh 140 tons, which means that gallon just might squeeze out a first down. Best to just fill 'er up, engineer.

Topic #4: Meth. I heard tonight that we are spending some 40% of Indiana's correctional budget on meth-related spending. All to keep a handle on our society's stubborn will to destroy itself. My God, we are crying tears of sympathetic pain over nature destroying Japan, but we sit here in this very state destroying ourselves and we still have people that say, if we'd just legalize it all everything would be OK!?! I hope katie over at Agape doesn't think me hypocritical, but sometimes it gets very hard to ask myself, why do we even care? and answer, because God still cares.

Okay, I feel better, Scrappy's begging me to rough him up, and I still haven't had dinner. Have a good evening, everyone. And Win? I think you left the stove on...

To Paul Joyce of Harlan- Really?

I saw a letter to Sunday's Urinal Gazette from union man Paul Joyce. He claims that republicans need to "earn" union votes, and thus union contributions. Here is that letter:



GOP needs to earn union contributions
I just finished the letter “Unions need to donate more to Republicans” (March 3) and was initially angered. Why would someone suggest that an organization that fights for working-class Americans, union and non-union alike, contribute to a party that fights for corporate interests, foreign and domestic, at the expense of the working class? Thousands of workers have shown up on their state capital doorsteps, not only to protest the assault on labor, but the assault on our children’s education as well. We need to applaud these workers and the politicians who that have their interests in mind for continuing to fight for what is just. What is going on today is nothing short of class warfare, the haves versus the have nots.
I challenge all of you, Democrats, Republicans, and independents: If you believe that your politicians should favor your interests over corporate interests and you believe that it is wrong to close public schools in favor of under-performing charter schools, go to the Statehouse and let your voices be heard.
As for contributing to Republicans, I am all for it. We shouldn’t waste time writing it into a bill, sending it through committees, and then sending it on to the governor’s desk, that takes too much time away from more important legislation. Here is my proposal for Republicans to get their contributions: Govern with working-class Americans in mind!
PAUL JOYCE USW 715L member Harlan

Really, Paul?I won't waste time telling you that I don't feel that the democrats are so pristine as you seem to think in "fighting for the working class". I won't expound on The fact that you, as a union member, seem to either think that a) you represent me, who am working class but non-union, and b)being a union member, you should expect that the sacrifices that REAL working class Americans have to make shouldn't apply to you. Look at my paycheck once and see who's a have or a have-not. Yes, there is a class war going on- you just don't see that as long as you're not in high management or politics, you are on the poor side and all of them are on the other- including your precious union management and their geisha-masters, the Democrat elite. What I will point out to you is this little article:

“State Rep. Nick Milroy is the Democratic state representative from Wisconsin’s 73rd assembly district.” He was on the radio. One of the hosts “pointed out that union membership was split by their votes in 2010, 49% for Democrats and 47% for Republicans, nearly an even split.” But, despite the fact that union members vote almost 50-50 Republican-Democrat, “unions donated 93% of their total contributions to Democrats.” Only 7% to Republicans, yet half of the union members vote Republican. So there’s quite a disparity. Union members vote 50-50, essentially, but 93% of their dues goes to Democrats. “The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns? The assemblyman contended that public employees can opt out of the unions. But when pressed about how even those that opt out must pay union dues, the assemblyman suggested that those people that didn’t want to be part of a union could find other work.

So, Paul, tell me again that if the GOP bent over to your demands that the contribution picture would change. Union management does not even listen to the votes of THEIR OWN PEOPLE!!
And if you disagree, you should either grin and bear it, or come join me in non-union labor. Or perhaps run off to Illinois with the traitors like Moses and GiaQuinta.

I don't disagree with your premise of the GOP being elitist. That is the one thing more than any other that will cost us 4 more years with Obama. But if you don't think that the Democrat powers-that-be are just the same, or that your beloved union's leadership isn't just as bad, you are deluding yourself.

My dad was union. In the heart of the worst slowdown in the economy (until now) since the depression, they went on a months long strike and cost Fort Wayne its biggest supplier of jobs. He told me when I first registration to vote that "we always vote democrat". I registered independent and said, "I'll make up my own mind, thank you." Paul, you should try that sometime. Spouting the union line when the leadership is living better than you'll ever see just ain't all that bright.

more march manglings

Just a quick run through of thoughts I haven't gotten to with all that's going on around here.

1. Per Bob's wishes, there will be no funeral service. The plan right now is everybody's going to meet at the house Friday and see if there's a) anything anyone wants to keep; b) anything worth selling on e-bay and splitting the proceeds; c) anything that Bob hid well enough that it hasn't been found yet ( a real concern, as Bob was a gun aficionado on a Bob G. scale); and d)anything that really should be destroyed before the house gets bulldozed (apparently one back room has some truly spectacular mold formations). Beyond that, I don't know. Chuck is the executor, and thus will win the right to keep the urn and all the fun crap that goes with it.

2. Wisconsin's Governor Walker did what he should have done all along- pulled all

the stuff that required a quorum out of the union scaleback bill and let the loyal state reps pass it while the traitorous (i.e. Democrat) reps sat in their Illinois playpen and cried. Now come the howls of "a corruption of democracy" from the liberals. Which is hilarious because of how ingenuous it is- it's not a "corruption

of democracy" to hide out in another state on the taxpayer's dime, but it is to legally conduct the business of state without them. Nor was it crying foul to bus thousands of union out of staters into Madison to protest, or to have Obama's minions immediately organize a recall movement for the GOP legislators who stayed and DID WHAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO!!! Union members, democrat voters, do you want to know why the conservative mainstream can't stand you? Look at this situation. In Wisconsin, we see liberals/unions being:

-cowardly, running from the fight they knew they couldn't win fairly;
-two-faced, demanding "honor" from the GOP they have no intention of living by;
-disrespectful, breaking into and trashing the state house because they didn't get their way.
And the media, screaming about the "Ash Wednesday Ambush". And the cheating doctors, the union sheeple who WILL NOT EXCEPT THAT THEY HAVE TO SACRIFICE TOO!

3. In a sidelight to this, I had heard yesterday that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is one of 5 "serious candidates" for the GOP nomination in 2012. Today, it was Walker, whose courage and ingenuity won him some speculative love. If Mitch wants some of that love, he ought to get on to doing the same thing; and woe to him that he didn't think of it first. And Winfield, Phil? How's that house search in the Land o' Lincoln coming?

4.Jim Tressel, OSU football boss, gets a 2-game suspension and a fine from the university for lying about what he knew in Tattoogate. I was just reading that the charges against him involve NCAA rule 10.1 (involving unethical conduct), a rule from which only one coach has ever escaped with his job. Of course the OSU president Gordon Gee (you remember, the guy that thought Minnesota and IU were "murderer's


row" and TCU and Boise St. were "the little sisters of the poor") tried to blow off the situation by implying that Tressel had the power to fire HIM. Fine, I'll go with that. Tressel, you can keep your job- if you fire Gordon Gee. I guess it's true that once a bureaucracy gets so big, even a half-wit can run it. As if Obama didn't prove that.

5. And I apologize for the Obama ending on the Happy Days video. I didn't proof it first as I was trying to save the answer to her dad's birthday song for a surprise. However, Laurie makes up for it with the follwing suggestions:
-Use a paint program to draw moustaches, horns, unibrows, etc. on Obama.
-Photoshop even bigger ears or yellow, rotting teeth on him.
-Paste a hat on him. Her choice was a pointy white one, for some reason.
Keep in mind these are not politically correct choices, and any one of which might lead you to being accused of being Evangelical, homophobic, or racist. Or worse yet, acting like a -OMG- liberal! So be careful.