Friday, March 05, 2004

I just heard Ketchup Kerry's new add on Rush. One of the points he raises is that he stopped drilling in ANWR. But wait just one second, didn't Jimmy Hoffa Jr. tell everyone on Hardball that Kerry promised him that they would drill everywhere? In fact after Hoffa said that, the panel on Hardball started laughing. Ann Coulter shows us the idiocy of Hoffa in saying something like that in a recent column about how the AFL-CIO mindlessly endorses the Demo candidate, even though policy decisions are against their own member's interests. See yesterdays entry about Ketchup's "economic" policy. Talking about the union is a nice segue into today's topic, the unions.

Not only is an angry rant warning issued for today, but a mindless angry rant warning is issued for today.

I lost my job about a two months ago. For some time, I had a great difficulty sleeping (which among many other things I was going through) is a symptom of depression. I mentioned that to management and there was also a union steward present each time when I said that. I don't remember exactly how many times I said it, mainly because for three months, two hours of sleep was a good nights sleep, so there are a few things that are a little hazy, but it was 4-5 times. I've been trying to get unemployment, and I have been in contact with both of my state representatives, Rep. Glenn Anderson (D), who's staff has been a great help to me, and Sen Laura Toy (R) also, a staff that has been a help to me. I was told that my former employer has not yet responded to my claim, and the unemployment office has told me that it would take about 3 months. Rep. Anderson's staffer, who I have been in contact with, told me that because my former employer is a union shop, I have to go through the union. The same union that ignored my health concerns along with management of my former employer. The same union, which the state requires me to join and pay dues to has declined to help me yet again. What is my benefit to joining a union? Absolutely none. The union business agent has told me things that were told to him by shop stewards who I did not know, I do not know their names, and I get the feeling that they wouldn't know me except that they had been present when I had been called into the supervisor's office about productivity (which also by some odd coincidence is also the same time I tried to tell anyone who would listen that I did not sleep) the business agent also said that I rarely showed up for work, that is also true, just not the whole story. Early on, when I quit sleeping, I went out and got a second job, this job had more opportunity so that became my primary job, and I worked my other job once a week. So, yes, for a period of two months I worked one full time job and one part time job. My full time job ultimately did not work out, and I decided to go back to my old job. He also said that I left early often. Yes, I did. Most of the time that I left early had to do with the fact that I never had enough sleep, and didn't always have the energy to work a few hours of overtime. One time sticks out to me, it was a Sunday, I got about a half hour of sleep the night before, they called three hours of overtime, and I didn't really feel too much like working 13 hours (because the company I worked for had some financial issues, they changed the schedule to four 10 shifts a week of course, the reason that they gave was an outright lie).
The point that I am ultimately (but very slowly) coming to, is that closed shop states are a harm to the working man because they are automatically told they must join a union, and it shuts people out because unlike real businesses who have competition which causes companies to compete to provide the best services, the unions do not have to compete with anyone for the employees to pay dues to. When that happens, the rank and file of unions are harmed, because they end up with lowest common denominator representation. I have to join the union, who else am I going to go to? That question is logically followed up by, why are the unions scared of right to work laws? I can't answer definitively, but there are several examples of union behavior that lead to conclusions. Unions are losing members, the union leaders are resisting a law that requires them to have to disclose to the rank and file how the dues money is spent and what percentage is spent on political purposes (unions are really little more than a state required Democrat PAC) which makes it sound like unions have a little something they want to hide. Union leaders get money from the rank and file, and are basically little more than Democrat fundraisers. As a side note, Jimmy Hoffa took two trips to make announcements (the Teamsters are headquartered in the city that has the most media scrutiny in the world, Washington D.C.) one time, to Miami to say that the Teamsters are against liberating the people of Iraq who paid for that trip? The dues paying members of the union. As a dues paying union member, I don't recall being asked to my opinion on the issue. Jimmy Hoffa had no problem taking my money, and then trying to tell me what to think. Another trip was taken to Las Vegas to say that the train engineers union was going to join the Teamsters. Again, why did Hoffa leave Washington to make that announcement. I'll tell you why, he took a vacation and billed it to the dues paying members of the union. Does this sound like someone you want looking out for you? I know I don't want him looking out for me.

Thursday, March 04, 2004

For some reason, I don't know why, I watched the speech where Ketchup Kerry outlined his "economic" policy that is supposed to heal our surging economy.
1. Ketchup wants to raise the minimum wage. Stupid. About 75% of minimum wage earners are teens working entry level jobs. For the small businesses of the country that are barely staying afloat, it would cause them to have to scale back and lay off employees. For the unions who supposedly stick up for the working man, it would cause them to want to up the wages of the rank and file, cause the large corporations to pay more in payroll causing them to have to cut back on domestic employees and outsourcing more jobs. End result, we lose more jobs, and the economy goes into recession.
2. He wants to raise taxes on the "rich" people. How exactly does Ketchup define rich? As the excellent Thomas Sowell said, 80% of the people who are in the bottom income bracket, end up in the top income bracket at some time in their life. Ketchup wants to take money away from people who earn it, invest that money into their small business, stock market, etc, and then give it people who don't want to work increasing the size of the government and nanny state. End result, people have less money to spend, and retail jobs are hurt because people have less disposable income to spend on the more elastic items.
3. Reinstate the death tax. Need I say more? End result, someone works their entire life to make their kids' lives better, and the government, comes in and taxes them after they die. Aren't we over taxed enough already without the government reaching into our pockets beyond the grave? This stymies growth because it hinders the creation of wealth, which again causes less investment which causes less economic growth.
Obviously, the biggest problem with Kerry's "pro growth economic" policy is that he has always lived a privileged life, and has never known what the plight of the common working man is. The man married two incredibly rich women in his life, never having to work an honest days work. If as the Demos claim that Bush's economic policy is a failure (which I don't agree with)then where does that leave our economy after Ketchup gets a hold of it? In recession along with the socialist states of the EU.

Wednesday, March 03, 2004

Whoops, I just lost control for a minute there, I was so excited that Howie finally won a primary. Oh wait, Howie was forced to drop out because the Angry Left didn't think he was "electable." That says something. It says a lot.
So, we're just left with Ketchup Kerry (and Kucunich and Sharpton). I saw Kerry's speech where he outlined his platform, and I will go into his regressive and destructive economic policy tomorrow. First, I want to say a little about Johnny E.
An angry rant warning has been issued.
Johnny E's favorite theme is that there are two Americas. Which America does he live in? After all, he's only worth a measly $50 million. Cavuto said it best when he said that Edwards' "populism" is disingenuous. Disingenuous at best, might I add. Edwards likes to talk about "two healthcare systems" who does he think is responsible for rising healthcare costs? I don't know, maybe dishonest grasping trial lawyers who sue doctors over junk science, and cause doctors to have to pay higher malpractice insurance costs. Who fits that description? Johnny E, I'm looking in your direction. The guy is worth $50 million. I know that I said this once today, but someone needs to harp on this given his "populism" and his "two Americas." Which America does Edwards belong to? This is just a guess, but maybe with his $50 million maybe the rich America that Edwards finds so despicable.

As an interlude, I would give parts of my anatomy for just one fiftieth of Edwards' fortune. Okay, back to ranting.

If Edwards is so concerned about the underprivileged of America, maybe, just maybe he should take his money, which he got by suing doctors, and causing healthcare costs to rise, and set up a chartable foundation to assist people who live in poverty and go to sleep hungry at night. But then again, if Edwards actually won the war on poverty, which has been called the biggest quagmire ever, he wouldn't have a platform to run for president again. You know, I just had a sudden brainstorm, the Left loves Cuba for all of its "progressivism," Edwards should become the first American to escape into Cuba, he can live in a country that has one healthcare system, one school system, no one goes to bed hungry, because of the great system set up by the benevolent leader and big brother to the people, Fidel Castro. Wait, that might not be such a good idea because he would be forced to give up his $50 million for the greater good of the people (and to the greater good of the Left's hero, Uncle Fidel). Well, I'm starting to run out of steam, luckily though my VRWC control officer has informed me that my Black Helicopter is almost here. I must be off to spread discord among the masses to maintain the status quo. After all, even though my personal finances would classify me among the crappy America of Edwards' fantasy, I have a better chance of moving up in the world than I would in the Left's socialist/communist worker's paradise.

Tuesday, March 02, 2004

What I want GWB to say during the campaign:

1. Hey Kerry, Vietnam ended 30 years ago. Get over it.

2. See above--The Senator from Mass, has no plans for the future, so he lives in the past.

3. Getting rid of the tax cuts I passed is still raising taxes. (Already said, woohoo).

4. Kerry has said that he wants the UN to dictate our defense policy to us. The UN won't even enforce their own resolutions. We cannot trust murderous dictators (who also happen to have a voice in the UN) to support the pro-democracy aims of the US.

5. I have tried to unite Congress behind me to further improve the quality of life in the US, certain elements on the Left side of the aisle are more interested in playing politics than in uniting. They are driving the wedge issues.

6. If the Senate intends to continue threatening to filibuster qualified judicial appointees instead of fulfilling their Constitutional obligation of advice and consent, they should actually carry out their filibuster. Although, it would be their funeral.

7. 45 million people in formerly repressive governments now live in democracy. The UN that Kerry holds in such high esteem also held these dictatorships in high esteem.

8. Both Johnny E and Johnny K could buy and sell me a few times. They have no place to be talking about lives of privledge, their populisim is just an act.

9. The reason that most people don't rate terrorism as a major campaign issue is that I actually will fight against terror. Kerry has a weak record on defense, and both Johnnies voted against supporting the troops in Iraq. Do you really want someone who doesn't support the troops to be their commander in chief.

I've been waiting for Pres. B to begin to respond to Kerry. I think that he really had to wait until Kerry is the nominee in all but name. I'm just waiting for the Bush ads to start, so that I don't have to see Kerry constantly talking in soundbites, and getting free media time. Kerry is also beginning to lose energy in his campaigning. That is a bad sign for him. No one wants a listless president.

Monday, March 01, 2004

Do we really need a Constitutional amendment defining marriage? We shouldn't. The problem is that some elected officials, Gavin Newsom I'm looking in your direction, don't respect the will of the people. The Mass. Supreme Court told the legislature that they must pass a bill allowing "same sex marriage." Some mayor in NY decided to preside over "same sex marriages," luckily though, the city clerk in this case showed some moral courage and refused to file "gay marriage" licenses. Good for her, I wish I knew what her name is. Finally, someone is willing draw a line in the sand, and follow the rule of law for a change. Prop 22 defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman passed with 61% in Cali. Wacko fringe Leftist Cali voted to keep marriage as it is meant to be. Two thirds of the population are against "same sex marriage." We don't really need an amendment defining marriage, we need officials who respect the law, and the will of the people. The Mass. Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected. What they did in telling the legislature what bills to pass sets a dangerous precedent. The branches of government are supposed to check and balance each other, not take power over another. When a court tells a legislative body what laws it must past, it shows a total lack of respect for the people. The legislature votes based on the will of the people, that is to say, if a representative's constituents don't like the way he votes, they vote him out of office. The reason that the courts are not voted on, is so that judges don't feel beholden to any group. But, to get back onto checks and balances, the Mass. Court wildly overstepped its bounds by saying the legislature must pass a law recognizing "same sex marriage."
The Left has brought this constitutional debate on itself. The Left's position has always been that the Constitution is a "living" document, that is to say that the simple clearly written amendments are open to interpretation into something that has a completely different meaning from those written by Mr. Madison. Now, the Left wants to take the 10th Amendment position, one they wouldn't take on other issues that were found in the Constitution by activist judges. The Left as usual is running away from the debate that they started and trying to turn it into a different debate. As long as radical Leftism and gay activists try to push their agenda down our throats, public opinion will turn against the Demogogues and grandstanders. At least public opinion in the real world will reflect this. San Francisco and Mass. are not the real world, they are some liberal fantasy land.

What lesser-known Simpsons character are you?

Brought to you by the good folks at sacwriters.com


Sunday, February 29, 2004

If this is true, then I find it to be extremely disturbing about the man who would be our president.
The truth about Kerry's war record
More here
I suppose this is why Johnny K. is scared that his true Vietnam record will come up and he sent a letter to the Bush Campaign trying to hide from what happened. I guess when Kerry testified in front of Congress, he was testifying on his own actions.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?