Unskilled, UNPAID Labor Seeks to Organize a “Labor Union”

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

OK, now THIS really IS quizzical, if not all that comical.

What a concept! A collection of Lefty bloggers is seeking to form a “Labor Union” they hope will “help them receive health insurance, conduct collective bargaining and even set professional standards.”

Uhhhh, OK, you’re UNPAID, unsolicited and a brief perusal of the Left side of the blogosphere will certainly show the unprofessional, as well as largely UNSKILLED aspects of that segment of the “labor market,” and they think a “Labor Union” will get them payment, healthcare benefits and that elusive “professionalism” they long for?

Isn’t that kind of like what the scarecrow aseked for in the Wizard of Oz?

Guys! A hobby or avocation isn’t “real labor.” Real labor is a JOB that you are solicited and paid to do. No wonder so many “progressives” don’t understand economics. They don’t even understand its most basic terms.


SEE: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-08-06-blogger-union_N.htm?csp=Tech&POE=click-refer

Court Rules that the Jefferson Raid was Unconstitutional....Well, at Least Parts of it...

Just as Newt Gingrich said and as the rest of the GOP, as well as many Congressional Democrats agreed, the FBI raid on the office of La. Rep William Jefferson was declared unconstitutional.

Well, it didn’t declare the raid itself unconstitutional, just the collecting of legislative documents as evidence.

According to Matt Apuzo an Associated Press writer, “The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office last year and viewed legislative documents in a corruption investigation, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

“A federal court ordered the Justice Department to return any legislative documents it seized from the Louisiana Democrat's office on Capitol Hill. The court did not order the return of all the documents seized in the raid and did not say whether prosecutors could use any of the records against Jefferson in their bribery case.

“Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker's documents.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The court held that, while the search itself was constitutional, FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.”

.

None of this makes Jefferson any less guilty of blatant corruption and malfeasance and the court went to great lengths to limit the scope of its ruling to the LEGISLATIVE documents only. If they hadn't ALL the evidence gathered in that raid (including that $90,000 of cold, hard cash found in a freezer) would've been thrown out...and it wasn't.

SEE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_go_ot/raid_on_congress

Hillary Booed by the Kos Kids

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton refused Saturday to forsake campaign donations from lobbyists, turning aside challenges from her two main rivals with a rare defense of the special interest industry.

"A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans, they actually do," Clinton said, drawing boos and hisses from liberal bloggers at the second Yearly Kos convention.

Despite their own infatuations with special interest money, former Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama put Clinton on the spot during a debate that featured seven of the eight major Democratic presidential candidates.

You know you’re a moonbat when the likes of Hillary Clinton are “too far Right” for you!


SEE: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292151,00.html

What Happened to the Anti-War Democrats???

One of Murphy’s laws goes, “When a politician gets an idea, he/she usually gets it wrong.” That would certainly seem to be the case in Barack Obama's new found support for military invasions of soveriegn nations.

A scant two days after being called naïve over his stating that he’d be willing to unilaterally “sit down and talk” with rogue leaders, by Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama abandoned his anti-war position and stated he’d consider invading an allied nation, Pakistan.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," said Obama in a speech billed as a major security-issues address.
"They are plotting to strike us again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Nice sentiments, albeit, Senator Obama is coming over to the “war-mongering side” a little late. Worse still, is the fact that there really isn’t a “war-mongering side” in America, merely those who understand the need for a military war on terror and those who do not.

Until now, the only Democrat who seemed to support our military war on terrorism was Hillary Clinton.

She officially has company!

In truth, NONE of the Democrats have any intention of doing anything other than woo the naïve anti-war folks. They KNOW that (1) this naïve group is and always has been more anti-Republican than anti-war (they had no problem with the Balkans) and (2) they’re naïve enough to be counted on to accept the old “New information has come to light,” or “The situation has changed,” once they get into office.

In short, they have as low a regard for the die-hard anti-war folks – the Kos Kids, the MoveOn morons and the HuffPoos as most Americans do.

Do I think Obama’s idea of invading Pakistan is a good one?

No, not at all. They’ve been an ally, an imperfect one, to be sure, but an ally, none-the-less and there’s a better than even money chance that such an invasion would indeed trigger an overthrow of the Musharef government, with a radical Islamic one likely to replace it...and we could NOT allow a radical Islamic state to have nuclear weapons. THAT would indeed be a direct pathway to perhaps a Third World War.

So I don’t agree with, nor like Senator Obama’s idea very much, BUT I do like his abandoning the peaceniks.

All you passionate anti-war folks out there, YOUR own candidates are calling you stupid!

Well, That Didn’t Take Very Long!

In Tuesday’s WSJ Brody Mullins and Sarah Lueck declared, “Some prominent Democrats are beginning to rethink proposed tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers' earnings, after an aggressive pushback by industry lobbyists and arguments that the impact could extend far beyond Wall Street.”

"When you first hear about it, it seems like, 'Yes, this looks like an appealing way to generate a lot of revenue,' but when you study it more it seems like there are some serious unintended consequences," said Rep. Brian Baird of Washington, a member of a coalition of centrist Democrats who often play a deciding role on business and tax bills."

As Mullins and Lueck note, “Among other things, lawmakers say they worry a tax boost could take a bite out of public pensions' investment returns, adversely affect financial-sector profits and employment or, more broadly, disrupt investment incentives.

“It remains to be seen, however, how any individual Democrat might vote on the issue, especially if it is combined with another, more popular Democratic priority. One such vehicle might be legislation to reduce the hit of the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to prevent the richest Americans from dodging their taxes but will ensnare growing numbers of middle-class taxpayers. That combination would fit with Democrats' broader push for tax equity.”

The real threat is its impact on public employee pension funds. Public employee Unions are one of the Democrats most powerful constituents.

According to Mullins and Lueck, “New York Sen. Charles Schumer, the top fund-raiser for Senate Democrats -- and a perennial favorite of Wall Street donors -- was among the first in his party to question the legislation. He says Congress shouldn't single out hedge-fund and private-equity managers. Any legislation, he says, should be expanded to include managers of other investment partnerships, such as real estate, oil and gas, timber and agriculture investment vehicles. Such a move, though, would likely boost opposition to it.

“Lawmakers' emerging concerns may open the door to compromise. Some Democrats have discussed a plan to raise the tax on carried interest above 15%, but lower than the 35% proposed in the House bill, an idea floated by some in the private-equity industry.”

.

Still, Charels Rangel (D-NY) supports the tax hike, in fact, there are few tax hikes he doesn't support, so it'll be interesting over the next few months.

SEE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118584621735982940.html?mod=politics_primary_hs

Is it Possible? The Liberal Brookings Institute Documents GOOD News in Iraq?

Yes, it seems to be true that both Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, two Iraq war critics have reported a great deal of progress in Iraq...that’s “good news” to Americans, maybe not so much, for committed hardcore Leftists.

In a piece entitled A War We Just Might Win, which appeared in Monday’s (July 30th) NY Times, they said; “In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

“The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”

“After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

“Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

“Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.”

Read the entire article HERE: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html

An Intrusive Government for Health Issues but NOT Terror?

.

.

.

A few weeks ago, I was surprised to hear a number of very Liberal people, people otherwise disposed to support and defend “freedom of choice,” applauding New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg’s “Nanny State” edicts banning trans fats and all but making smoking illegal, even allowing employers to take a smoker’s off the job activities into account.

The problem with such local bans or prohibitions is that they are (1) easy to subvert by merely crossing a state or city’s border and (2) hypocritical in that they refuse to make ILLEGAL substances that some public officials obviously believe are detrimental to life and health. If these substances are THAT unhealthy why not just make them ILLEGAL?

Ironically enough, many of these same Liberals claim to support drug legalization, at least the legalization of marijuana.

How do we rationalize banning smoking tobacco in public when a new study shows that ONE, single marijuana joint does the equivalent lung damage as FIVE cigarettes!
"The study shows that one cannabis joint causes a similar degree of lung damage as between 2.5 and five tobacco cigarettes," said lead author Sarah Aldington.

“Marijuana smokers had symptoms that included wheezing, coughing, chest tightness and phlegm — all of which were associated with tobacco smokers, except chest tightness.

“Last week, another study published in The Lancet medical journal suggested that using marijuana may increase the likelihood of becoming psychotic, with even infrequent use potentially raising the overall small risk by up to 40 percent.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_he_me/pot_vs_cigarettes;_ylt=Ar6V0_1_EScnfAwRUUQyU8IR.3QA

Trans fats, used mainly to maintain the shape and consistency of some foods amount to just 2% of the American diet, while saturated fats that also increase the risk for coronary disease account for 15%...and THEY’RE not getting banned...at least not yet.

For now obesity is going the very same way of smoking, as Joseph Epstein, writing in the WSJ notes

“A new study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine and done at Harvard Medical School (those twin towers of false authority), claims that not only do fat people do great harm to themselves but, through the influence of social network, can harm friends, especially close friends, by making it easier for them to overeat. Not only food, it turns out, but the wrong friends can make you fat.”

Can THAT be true? Second-hand FAT???

According to Epstein’s review of Harvard’s Gravaman Study, it CAN. “The Gravamen of the Harvard study holds that, if you hang around the heavy, soon heavy indeed will be the added bulk hanging about you, in the form of double and triple chins, pot bellies, love handles, ample cabooses, thunder thighs, thick calves, chubby fingers . . . good God, it's enough to make one tape a photograph of Joan Didion in a body stocking in one's locker down at the gym.

“The Harvard study, a work of medical sociology, is based on the famous Framingham, Mass., federal study of heart disease, which has been tracking some 12,067 people over the 32-year period between 1971-2003.

“Like much sociology, what the study has to report is obvious: If lots of one's friends are fat, it naturally makes it more likely that one will pick up their eating habits. In such company, putting on an extra 30 or 40 pounds isn't going to result in social censure.

“Like much sociology, too, the Harvard study is also preposterous: It apparently allows for environment (lots of junk food out there) and genetics (some people can eat Seattle Sutton meals with the tread mill turned all the way up without loss of a gram), but its single new finding -- that fat friends make it easier for their friends in turn to become fat -- dominates and is the only reason for the study's temporary prominence. In one of his poems, Wallace Stevens speaks of the "lunatics of one idea," and this particular idea -- fat friends make you fat -- sounds like a nice instance of Stevens's fine phrase.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118593336631384258.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Oddly enough, the world is replete with examples of “unhealthy things’ suddenly found to be “healthy.”

Alcohol is without question one of the most abused drugs and perhaps the ONLY drug that doesn’t have to cross the nerves synapses, but can be absorbed directly through the cell membrane. It has long been seen as a healthcare nightmare, leading to cirrhosis, renal disease and cardio-pulmonary problems among many others.

And yet, today one to two glasses of an alcoholic beverage (especially red wines) has been shown by numerous studies to be very healthy.

A recent study from Japan shows that coffee use can reduce colon cancer rates in women by up to one half! Coffee and its primary ingredient have been lambasted by many health-nanny’s for it’s many unhealthy effects on people.

All that’s to say that it’s incredible to me, that so many people, people who seem ready to jump to the defense of our “freedom to choose” at a moment’s notice, are so willing to allow the government, a government they DO NOT trust in being more intrusive over terror concerns, to control what they can and cannot eat.

I mean seriously, if you’re going to let government make such personal decisions for you as what you can eat, how much you can eat, etc., then what possible problem can such a person have with surveillance cameras in the subways, on street corners, etc.? For that matter, what possible problem could that person have with government listening in on cell their phone calls, looking over their bank records, etc., etc.?

If you’re going to allow a government to ban various food stuffs based on studies that can often change or be contradicted down the road, based on various “health concerns,” or “public health threats,” then how can you then balk at the government being much more intrusive in its dealing with the current terrorist threat – a “public safety threat?”

It just DOESN’T make any sense.

In fact, the reverse could better be argued. The government’s police and military powers are both enshrined in the Constitution (“To provide for the Common Defense” AND “To ensure domestic tranquility”), but the entire Bill of Rights protects “We the People” from government intrusion, certainly any government intrusion that would seek to control what we eat, how long we must exercise, how much wealth or property we can accrue, etc.

Yes, the same Constitution gives criminals those same protections from government, BUT terrorism is NOT a “crime.”

Terrorism is an act of “unconventional warfare,” making international terrorists, or “terrorists for a cause” warriors or non-uniformed soldiers, who are (1) not subject to our Constitutional protections and (2) not even protected by the Geneva Accords which strips POW status from those who fight without uniform.

It was an interesting exchange, if only to show how badly misguided some far Left Liberals are today.