Monday, February 28, 2011

Gov Walker - Reagan in our Midst?

It's now week two of the Wisconsin Union-busting standoff, and the more I think about it, the more I believe that vestiges of Ronald Reagan can be seen in Gov Walker's actions...although with the whole uprising in the Middle East lately, I have to admit, I've been missing Reagan quite a bit in general. While any strong conservative with steadfast beliefs will echo Reagan, so few in power ever actually do.

The battle in Wisconsin is due to the fact that unions and their supporters don't want to give up collective bargaining as a concession. The Fleebagger Democrats from Wisconsin have escaped - mostly to my home state of Illinois - to avoid having to vote on the bill (Wiconsin only has 19 votes; they need 20) to postpone it from becoming law. You see - unions, and their supporters, like to believe that although they didn't invent the means of production, or start the company, but merely work for it, that their 6-12 months of trade learning should entitle them to enough compensation to run a company. They like to believe that they are invaluable, and invulnerable, and over the years, we as a society have allowed them to get this way. Let's think back to 1981 - a similar group of people, the air traffic controllers, thought they were invulnerable and invaluable. Mr. Reagan showed them otherwise. No man is invaluable - a man is only as valuable as how hard he is willing to work. When a man gets into his head that he is more important than he is, consequences and repercussions ensue. Governor Walker is simply enforcing these consequences, as Reagan did nearly 30 years ago. We need more strong conservatives in Washington and in our states. It's our job as members of society to positively reinforce the messages these strong leaders send.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Angry Unions, Gravy Trains, Violence, Hate, and Abuse

I have to admit, even as a child, the term "union" conjured up images of surly burly men, blue-collar thugs throwing their weight around because of some investment into the idea that "might makes right." I see that currently, they aren't doing much to dispel this archetype. Let's visit the steps of Madison, Wisconsin's Capitol building, along with other capitols in an ever-growing number of states this past week.

This past week, union workers and their advocates have been in a furor over Gov. Walker of Wisconsin and his legislature's attempt to severly curtail the union gravy-train of benefits, as well as rescind the ability for unions to collectively bargain - that is, modify their contracts whenever they are up for renewal by demanding ever-more generous concessions. The typical arguments - or usual suspects as I call them - have reared their heads. I'd like to underscore a list of the most commonly offered arguments advanced by unions and their supporters:

1. Without unions, there would be no 40 hour work week, no lunch breaks, and no livable wages.

2. The Republicans are trying to take our rights away.

3. The Republicans are at the mythical behest of the evil Koch brothers and other wealthy, limited-government advocates.

4. Without unions, there would be a greater income disparity between women and men, minorities and non-minorities.

Well, here is what I have to say about these points.

1. You're right, unions are responsible for the creation of the 40 hour work week and a livable wage. However, now government ensures workers' rights. We don't need you anymore.

2. What rights? The Constitution doesn't enumerate any rights you specifically have that nobody else does. You're right to a pension you didn't contribute to, funded by my tax dollars? Is that what you mean?

3. Just because Republicans receive donations from corporations doesn't make them behest to anybody. Answer me why union donations, and dues collected from members, always only go to democratic candidates? Could it be Big Labor is at the behest of the Democratic Party?

4. Women make less than men because statistically, women take off more time from work. They do things like have children/maternity leave, they're far more likely to call off work to take care of domestic issues, such as a sick child, and overall, their work output and hours-worked end up being fewer than men. Statistically speaking. As for the minority argument - stop race-baiting. People get paid for how qualified they are. A minority member in a skilled labor job is compensated the same.

Answer me this. If Person A goes to college, then graduate school, gets an advanced degree, and makes $XXX,000 dollars, and has to pay back $200k of student loans, in addition to their own pension and healthcare, why should Person B, who spent 6 months apprenticing a trade with a maximul educational attainment of high school make close to Person A, and make Person A subsidize their retirement and healthcare costs while having to pay for their own? Are those the "rights" you feel are threatened? I think, the bottom line is, maybe some union members aren't very educated, and have only one skill, but feel that their 6 months-1 year of trade-apprenticeship should entitle them to enough compensate to support a family and retire comfortably. Life is about working hard. If you don't want to work hard - and I have lived long enough to realize that some people have a VERY different idea of what "hard work" is than others - you don't get much back. It's that simple. You don't get to put in less work and reap the same benefit. I'd never expect to make as much as somebody with 8 years of post-HS education if I myself had zero or 2. Again - statistically speaking.

Since Republicans are so evil, why don't you ask Bill Clinton and the Democrats who signed NAFTA into law why they did that? Ask your democrat friends about globalization, and the shipping of your vastly overpaid job overseas so it can be done by foreigners for pennies on the dollar. But make sure you keep funnelling your dues into their coffers.

Lastly, but most importantly - I'd like to bring up the horrific examples of media-ignored double standards. When Jared Laughner went on his terrible rampage, before the bodies even hit the floor (no disrespect to the victims), Democrats were pointing fingers at Republicans in the civil discourse that erupted immediately after. "It makes perfect sense," I read on one liberal blog. "I'm praying to god this wasn't a rethuglican, but I'm not holding my breath" read another comment. When the dust cleared, and it turned out that it was not the work of a Republican, did anybody bat an eyelash or apologize? No, it was back-to-usual. Katie Couric must have been pissed she didn't have a story. Another example: the tea party. Years later, not a single instance of racism, homophobia, violence, or general misanthropy from any one of the hundreds of thousands of people who have attended the thousands of rallies, but god forbid we go a week without hearing something about how violent we are. Sarah Palin, the left's favorite sinner, came under nonstop reproach for her at-the-time already forgotten poster showing targets over states with (D) congresscritters to vote out of office at the November 2010 Midterms. Ignore the fact Democratic candidates released dozens of similar posters of the sort. HOWEVER: let's flash forward to the present, where democratic congressmen advocate "getting a little bloody" at union solidatory rallies - and his constituents took him up on it. Look at what's happening at the Massachussetts State house - pro-union thugs hurting people, then MsNBC fill-in commentators for Ed Schultz validate their behavior, discussing how these "old, elderly" 45-65 year olds have had their time, eliciting responses from his co-hosts like "we're just a few funerals away from good government." Imagine some burly, piece of filth 20something Southie rube tossing some 50+ year old man into a wall, hitting him, unleashing a torrent of curse words at him, destroying his American flag and screaming at him to leave.

When it comes to Obama's Era of Civility, apparently everybody but Obama and his supporters were supposed to get on board.

Monday, November 8, 2010

The Midterms

The Republicans have so-far picked up an almost unprecedented 60 seats in the House of Representatives. Pending the outcomes of 9 more races, the possibility to pick up around 3 or more very much exists. Does this mean the GOP can rest on its laurels? The answer is: absolutely not.

The GOP should think of the election not only as a rebuttal of Obama and his socialist, extreme left policies, but also of the RINO policies of the previous administration and the batch of Repulicans leading up to 2006. The pundits say that American voters are "hormonal" and "unpredictable." I beg to differ. American voters are pretty consistent: they are consistent in wanting traditional American values, they are consistent in that they don't want the government in their lives, they are consistent in that they like feeling like their politicans care about what they have to say and think, they are consistent in that they don't like special interest groups or special treatment constantly given preferentially to anybody based on any classification other than merit, and lastly, they are consistent in that they believe in second channces. America is, in a way, a land of second chances. This is a mixed blessing, a two-edged sword if you will, for the Republicans, or in fact for anyone running for office: they will just as quickly give the Democrats a second chance if the recently voted-in crop of Republicans and Tea Party candidates let them down. This is why the conservatives in Congress need to act like conservatives. History makes it seem like it's impossible to make people happy as a politician, that it's impossible to succeed. However, this is simnply not the case. Politicians who do what is in the best interest for the majority of their constituency are successful. Politicians who pander to minorities or lobbyists for a few extra votes end up losing the other 90% of their votes. "Special interests" are just that - "special," meaning they preclude the majority of the population. Again, this goes back to people wanting less government intervention. America is a country where people can and should stand on their own. If one student out of 30 fails a class, does the teacher hold the entire class back? Does the teacher redistribute the grades from those students who got A's to the one who failed? No. Plenty of opportunities exist to bring the failing student up to speed, but ultimately, if they don't take advantage of them, they have nobody to blame but themselves. GOP politicians will have nobody to blame but themselves if they f*ck this one up.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Get out the Tea Party Vote!

It's 3 weeks until the midterm elections everyone. Some polls are calling for the GOP to take the House; others are calling for the GOP to take the House and Senate. Either way, the influence of the Tea Party is undeniable. This grassroots movement, a genuine grassroots movement not to be confused with Soros funded AstroTurfing, is a groundswell of frustrated republicans and democrats.
What I've noticed is that most of the Democratic ads focus less on what the candidate has actually accomplished - because, in most cases it's very little or it's things their constituents didn't want - and more on thinly veiled class warfare Alinskyite attacks on their conservative opponents. Don't fall for it- this is a mentality not seen in polite society since the playground during 2nd grade.
One last point I wanted to bring up: this is the first election in which the terms "conservative" and "republican" are no longer interchangeable. Many true conservatives, now known as "the tea party," have felt betraye by the RINOs in the party. These RINOs are big government, big spending, entitlement-monger open borders loving politicians. I know that I, for one, feels a little let down by a government who is so much more preoccupied appeasing minority and special interest lobbies to scrape together a few votes by backstabbing the other 70% of us in the back. The founding fathers understood that a government needs to cater to the majority instead of the individual. In the words of Spock, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." but this is a topic I shall elaborate on for my next post. Thank you for reading and God Bless America.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Addressing the issue of Tea Party Racism

Recently, The Left admitted that they use the race card not because they actually believe it, but because it is a tried-and-true method to discredit social movements that are otherwise inscrutible. The Tea Party movement, far from being a "fringe" or an "arm" of the Republican Party, is a reaction to the Washington political zeitgeist and the current political discourse of the country.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Andy Thayer, the GLN and Fiesta Azteca

About a week ago, in Alsip, IL, a suburb located approximately 20 miles southwest of Chicago, two gay men went to dine at a restaurant called La Fiesta Azteca. They claimed they were discriminated against by the owner and asked to leave. Accounts of what really happened that night differ, as they often do after such events. The gay couple claim that they were merely interacting with each other as any couple in love would - i.e. what most people would probably define as mild PDA, things like gentle kissing, hand holding, cutsey-couple things. The owner, in his interview on Fox news, claimed they were going at it pretty hot and heavy. He insinuated the couple was acting inappropriately by any standards regardless of gender. The gay couple played the homophobia card and a "kiss-in" was staged at the institution.

My motive for writing about this is not to discuss how these events have probably hurt business (and they have), and it is not to talk about the reactions of the sample population polled by Fox News (the people shown on the original segment which aired were not in favor of same-sex PDA, or any PDA for that matter. They also expressed concern that same-sex kissing as well as a gay kiss-in protest would hurt business and create an uncomfortable atmosphere for diners in a family oriented restaurant). I also am not interested in the Illinois State Law, which states that if you want to ban kissing in your establishment, you must post a sign that says so explicitly. If a sign is not posted, you must tolerate all kissing, regardless of the sexes involved. What I am most interested in is the hypocrisy and violent reaction of the GLBT community whenever they "feel" their "civil rights" are being infringed upon.

I would like to address the visceral and violent reaction of the GLBT community to perceived snubs. I received this e-mail through Facebook yesterday, in response to the "kiss-in" that was held at La Fiesta Azteca. I shall reproduce it here:

------------------------ E-mail pasted below ---------------------
Hi everyone,

We have received at least one report of an attendee at Friday’s Kiss-In receiving a phone call from someone purporting to be from the Gay Liberation Network (GLN) making threatening remarks about Kiss-Iners being on the receiving end of a potential lawsuit from La Fiesta Azteca due to “loss of business.”

Please understand that if you receive such a phone call, it is NOT coming from anyone at GLN. During the latter part of our Kiss-In or immediately after it, someone from Fiesta Azteca apparently picked up the GLN sign-up clipboards from a table in the restaurant and has used them to make these false phone calls while impersonating being a GLN member.

Unfortunately, thanks to this apparent theft of the clipboards, GLN does NOT have your email addresses or phone numbers, and so if you would like information about the Pride Parade contingent (and other activities), please send an email to – say that you were at the Kiss-In and wish to be on the GLN list, and give your name, email address and/or phone number.

Please understand that for someone from Fiesta Azteca to be making these fraudulent phone calls means that instead of any participants in our Kiss-In potentially facing a lawsuit, it is the makers of these calls who are themselves breaking the law and potentially subjecting themselves to criminal and civil proceedings. If you receive one of these calls, please do the following:

1) Look at your caller I.D. (if you have it) and copy down the phone number and any additional information it provides about the caller.
2) Take careful notes as to what the caller says, getting exact quotes where you can.
3) Ask the caller to give his/her name, and copy that down.
4) Do not make threatening remarks against Fiesta Azteca or offer up any information about yourself or others.

Sorry for this hassle, but apparently La Fiesta Azteca were even greater homophobes than we thought they were originally.

Finally, thank you again for participating in the Kiss-In!!


Andy Thayer, Gay Liberation Network
Frank Nielsen
Danny Hankes

--------------------------------- End of E-mail --------------------

Mr. Andy Thayer is making quite a few brazen accusations in this letter. Nowhere does GLN claim to have incontravertible evidence that makes it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the theft of the clipboards was perpetrated by an employee of Fiesta Azteca. It seems only that it was implied. Many possibilities regarding the theft of the clipboards exist. Maybe it was a concerned citizen with no ties to the restaurant. Maybe it was someone who had religious or moral objections to a same-sex Kiss-In. To give Mr. Thayer the benefit of the doubt, maybe it even was an employee of the Fiesta Azteca, trying to save their family business from financial ruin. Saving a venture which requires the investment of the amount of money that a restaurant requires does not translate to "homophobia." It is not "homophobic" to want customers to eat at your restaurant, and it is not homophobic to want 99% of the customers at your ***family-oriented establishment*** to feel comfortable at the expense of 1%. But like I said, I'm not getting into whether or not I agree with the owner's actions or the couple's kissing. I am getting into the fact I disagree with the loathesome methods the GLBT community has recently employed to circumvent freedom of thought.

I am reminded of the recent debacle over Prop 8 in California. The GLBT community responded to people who supported Prop 8 by violating their privacy while embarking on a witch hunt that would have made McCarthy blush. People who donated money - specifically the Mormons - in favor of preserving traditional marriage had to face a veritable shitstorm. Many had their identities published on a "blacklist" and as a result, faced a barrage of harassment. Their employers received angry phone calls, their businesses were boycotted, many of them were fired or forced to resign, they dealt with crude phone calls and e-mails, etc. Now, a similar thing is happening to the owners of a small, Mexican family restaurant in suburban Chicagoland, all because they wanted to make sure the majority of their customers felt comfortable dining there. It seems to me the GLBT community is responding to intolerance in kind. I urge La Fiesta Azteca's owners to confront Mr. Andy Thayer about his slanderous claims of "even greater homophobia" and his insinuations that it was a restaurant employee who stole the clipboard signup sheets.

From my own experience, gay men and women seem to want equal treatment. They don't want to feel left out and they want their love to be acknowledged to be as valid as their heterosexual counterparts. However, I think the GLBT community needs to become acquainted with the term "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Gay men and women long for marriage. Not content to be granted "separate but equal" privilegels of a domestic partnership or civil unions, they want marriage, a religious sacrament that is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It's ironic, considering how many gay men and women I know who have as high an opinion about religion as they do of George W. Bush. How does the gay community go about trying to achieve this equality? Perpetrating stereotypes. Whether we like it or not, society perceives our community as one which claims the wholesale rejection of heteronormative behavior, a community with escalating rates of sexually transmitted diseases (implying a disregard for safety or honesty), and a penchant for having anonymous sex, either through bars or the rabid use of the Internet to engage in risky sexual behavior devoid of emotion. I am, of course, not claiming the entire community is guilty of these actions. I know many people will complain about my use of the word "guilty" because many people adhere to some ridiculous notion of relativism in which one group's standards or morals are equal to another's. Regardless of it is the entire community or just a vocal and highly exposed minority, the fact remains: if we want middle America to accept us, we have to start living by the set of morals they do, or at the very least, not spit on them. If our community wants equal rights and equal respect, be prepared to meet the 90% halfway. Who are the 90%? The percentage of the population whose acceptance we have made clear we desperately want. We can't react to intolerance with worse intolerance and violence. This isn't a shouting match. If we truly want society to accept and embrace us, we have to accept, no, I daresay respect, their values and shortcomings. At the end of the day, do you want somebody to treat you equally because they respect you? Or are you content in somebody treating you as an equal only because you destroyed their life, their business, forced them to feel uncomfortable and threatened legal action against them? We all speak for each other, whether we like ir or not. Your actions speak for me and vice versa, because we all belong to the same community... and right now, I don't like what you're saying.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Super Tuesday is coming, Tea Partiers!

It's important to support Tea Party platform candidates for the primary races that are fast approaching. In races across our country, from South Carolina to California, the electorate has a chance to act on the wave of anti-incumbency that is crashing on the shores of America.