My mentor for my MA in American history is not a union member. In fact, he was involved in a lawsuit years ago over the fact that the equivalent of union dues were subtracted from his wages due to the fact that the union negotiated the contracts for all professors, including him, regardless of his position on unions.
He and his compatriots won the lawsuit, and he no longer sees money stolen by the union.
The reason that he won is interesting. Apparently, the court ruled that he did indeed owe the union money for negotiating the contract. However, what the union was taking was the same amount as its regular dues for union members--presumably this includes monies allocated for an assortment of other union functions (e.g. grievances, newsletters, red shirts, etc.).
The court instructed the union to deduct from non-union members' wages only the amount necessary for contract negotiations.
But he pays nothing to the union. Why? Because the union does not want its members to know how much/little is actually required to negotiate their contracts.
Unions are run by crooks, which is why it was so easy for the mafia to infiltrate them decades ago and why unions are among the most ardent supporters of the democratic party.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Obama and Change
Obama is not the candidate for change. He is the candidate for more of the same kind of socialist evil that has come to define the populist side of the democratic party since even before FDR.
When you tell a crack addict that he needs to change, you don't mean that he should smoke more crack.
When you tell a crack addict that he needs to change, you don't mean that he should smoke more crack.
Monday, August 25, 2008
In God We Trust
I just received an email from someone begging me to vote on an msnbc poll regarding the presence of "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.
The person who sent it to me assumed that I would "vote" to keep the motto on the currency since I believe in God.
However, if my faith hinges upon U.S. currency, how weak must my faith be? Our money is based upon nothing--not gold, not silver, not cow manure. Its value declines every year. Do I really wish such a thing to represent my faith?
If the U.S. were to stop using the words "In God We Trust" on its currency, would my faith decline? Of course it wouldn't, which is why this whole thing is ridiculous.
No one has been made a believer by those words on a quarter, and no one will be made a non-believer if those words are not on a quarter.
I'm so tired of this kind of symbolic crap. This is almost as annoying as when those people gather thinking that making giant quilts will cure AIDS, or that walking a modest distance will cure breast cancer or diabetes.
I honestly couldn't vote on the poll because I think (and let us not forget that this blog is called "What I Think") that all U.S. currency should be destroyed and replaced with something valuable. The most logical replacement would be something backed by gold or at least by silver.
Besides, if our money so trusted in God, then the Federal Reserve wouldn't have so much damn control over it.
The person who sent it to me assumed that I would "vote" to keep the motto on the currency since I believe in God.
However, if my faith hinges upon U.S. currency, how weak must my faith be? Our money is based upon nothing--not gold, not silver, not cow manure. Its value declines every year. Do I really wish such a thing to represent my faith?
If the U.S. were to stop using the words "In God We Trust" on its currency, would my faith decline? Of course it wouldn't, which is why this whole thing is ridiculous.
No one has been made a believer by those words on a quarter, and no one will be made a non-believer if those words are not on a quarter.
I'm so tired of this kind of symbolic crap. This is almost as annoying as when those people gather thinking that making giant quilts will cure AIDS, or that walking a modest distance will cure breast cancer or diabetes.
I honestly couldn't vote on the poll because I think (and let us not forget that this blog is called "What I Think") that all U.S. currency should be destroyed and replaced with something valuable. The most logical replacement would be something backed by gold or at least by silver.
Besides, if our money so trusted in God, then the Federal Reserve wouldn't have so much damn control over it.
Stop-Loss Final
I think that the ending of the movie is one of hopelessness.
To the government that was instituted to protect your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean jack squat.
To the government that was instituted to protect your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean jack squat.
Stop-Loss
I am presently watching the film Stop-Loss. I haven't finished it yet--I'm little more than 1/4 through it--so I might alter my opinion on this. Nonetheless, I'm going to shoot from the hip on this one.
The story seems to be that a distinguished soldier is about to be discharged from service, but is instead set to redeploy to Iraq due to a clause in his contract known colloquially as "stop-loss"--to stop too many able soldiers from leaving during a time of war. He protests, saying that since the president declared the war over (I presume this is a reference to Bush's infamous "mission accomplished" fiasco), the clause is invalid as it is no longer a time of war.
Since the president cannot declare war (read the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11?--it's Congress's power), he cannot end it. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says that the president has the power to make treaties "with the advise and consent of the Senate . . . provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."
Based upon what I've seen so far, I sympathize with the soldier, but his legal/constitutional argument is not valid.
The moral of this story--based upon the 39 minutes that I have thus watched--is that the government should not be trusted.
By the way, that's the moral of the story in the history of every government that has ever existed and will ever exist.
The story seems to be that a distinguished soldier is about to be discharged from service, but is instead set to redeploy to Iraq due to a clause in his contract known colloquially as "stop-loss"--to stop too many able soldiers from leaving during a time of war. He protests, saying that since the president declared the war over (I presume this is a reference to Bush's infamous "mission accomplished" fiasco), the clause is invalid as it is no longer a time of war.
Since the president cannot declare war (read the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11?--it's Congress's power), he cannot end it. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says that the president has the power to make treaties "with the advise and consent of the Senate . . . provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."
Based upon what I've seen so far, I sympathize with the soldier, but his legal/constitutional argument is not valid.
The moral of this story--based upon the 39 minutes that I have thus watched--is that the government should not be trusted.
By the way, that's the moral of the story in the history of every government that has ever existed and will ever exist.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Mike the Headless Chicken
Here's an interesting story that I caught on msn.com. The beheaded beast survived for a year and a half!
Friday, August 22, 2008
Lower the Drinking Age
In an article on www.msn.com, those who support lowering the drinking age to 18--among these supporters are many college presidents--were criticized by "a wave of criticism from health experts, transportation officials, government leaders and opponents of drunken driving."
So an 18 year old cannot decide for him or herself whether or not to have a beer/shot/glass, etc. because an 18 year old is not responsible/educated/temperate/mature enough to know when he or she has had enough.
Is that it?
How absurd, then.
At age 18, a person is responsible/educated/temperate/mature enough to vote in any public election--playing an important role in who controls the largest nuclear arsenal on the Earth.
But an 18 year old cannot be trusted with fermented beverages!
At age 18, a person can enlist in the military, be trained and equipped to kill (or die--though the training tries to minimize the latter and maximize the former)
, deployed in a foreign land--let's say Iraq or Afghanistan (just for shits and giggles)--but he or she is not old enough to order a glass of chianti (with faver beans) at the freaking Olive Garden?
Either raise the voting age and the minimum age for enlistment in the military, or drop the drinking age. I don't care how many mom's with too much time on their hands (and lonely and desperate for some kind of attention) stand in the way.
So an 18 year old cannot decide for him or herself whether or not to have a beer/shot/glass, etc. because an 18 year old is not responsible/educated/temperate/mature enough to know when he or she has had enough.
Is that it?
How absurd, then.
At age 18, a person is responsible/educated/temperate/mature enough to vote in any public election--playing an important role in who controls the largest nuclear arsenal on the Earth.
But an 18 year old cannot be trusted with fermented beverages!
At age 18, a person can enlist in the military, be trained and equipped to kill (or die--though the training tries to minimize the latter and maximize the former)
, deployed in a foreign land--let's say Iraq or Afghanistan (just for shits and giggles)--but he or she is not old enough to order a glass of chianti (with faver beans) at the freaking Olive Garden?
Either raise the voting age and the minimum age for enlistment in the military, or drop the drinking age. I don't care how many mom's with too much time on their hands (and lonely and desperate for some kind of attention) stand in the way.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Music
In case some of you have noticed, I have a music player installed on the site. To disable it--which you'll need to do in order to enjoy any video clips--just go to the bottom of the page and click on the pause button.
I'll try to change the position of the player to facilitate this a bit.
I'll try to change the position of the player to facilitate this a bit.
Clarification
In my previous post I noted that India had more billionaires in the top ten--not more billionaires total. And India's population doesn't account for this, otherwise there's be more billionaires in Bangladesh than Texas.
Monday, August 18, 2008
America and the Global Economy
Here's something that's bothering me:
Everyone is worried that the United States seems to be losing its position as the leader in global in economics.
To me this sounds more like xenophobia than anything.
So what if a few years down the road China outproduces the United States in its industrial output? This doesn't mean that the United States becomes poorer. It just means that more goods are being produced in China than in the United States.
If athlete A can run a mile in 4:45 min., but athlete B can run the mile in only 4:50 min., does that mean that athlete B is a pathetic loser? No, it just means that A can run a mile a little bit faster than B. An even better comparison, is that athlete A improves his mile time by 4 seconds, but athlete B improves his by only 2. The way that people are talking about global economics, it sounds more like athlete B had actually gotten slower, that athlete B is getting fat and lazy, that athlete B is liable to suffer cardiac arrest due to his lack of fitness.
Truly, if American-owned company X makes a 250 million dollar profit on a given year, it's considered by many to be a tragedy if Japanese/Chinese/Korean/non-Anglo-Saxon company Y makes a 350 million dollar profit.
The Dark Knight just recently surpassed Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope on the all time highest grossing films list. This must mean that Star Wars sucks.
Weightlifter A bench pressed 600 pounds, but weightlifter B bench pressed 640 pounds. Hey weightlifter A, you're a wussy!
It's time to dispense with this mercantilist nonsense that economics is a competition between countries. The most recent article that I read regarding this issue bemoaned that there are only four American billionaires in the world's top 20 list of billionaires--and then a point was made that India (gasp!) had four in the top 10. Why is it an issue which country has the most wealthy billionaires? Are we afraid that these new Hindu billionaires will use their newly found wealth and power to replace our meat and potatoes with curry vegetables?
Friday, August 08, 2008
Fishing
For my birthday (today), my uncle, his friend, and my cousin took me salmon fishing in the San Juan's.
We caught no salmon, but I managed to reel in a rockfish--think really ugly fish with bulging eyes and spiney fins--and a dogfish--a small shark, about 2 1/2 feet long.
We also pulled up three crabs, two of which were keepers.
On top of this, I managed to catch a few too many rays. My face, forearms, and knees are bright red.
I'm not really that much into fishing, but I had a good time. It makes me think of the Brad Paisley song, 'I'm Gonna Miss Her," known to most as "The Fishing Song."
We caught no salmon, but I managed to reel in a rockfish--think really ugly fish with bulging eyes and spiney fins--and a dogfish--a small shark, about 2 1/2 feet long.
We also pulled up three crabs, two of which were keepers.
On top of this, I managed to catch a few too many rays. My face, forearms, and knees are bright red.
I'm not really that much into fishing, but I had a good time. It makes me think of the Brad Paisley song, 'I'm Gonna Miss Her," known to most as "The Fishing Song."
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Trailer
Rarely--very, very, very, very rarely--is a movie as good as the book upon which it was based.
This looks like it might be.
This looks like it might be.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
On Vacation But Still Working (Sorta)
Don't expect much of substance. I am in Seattle or Los Angeles until August 21st (we're going to both--the Seattle or Los Angeles isn't meant as a riddle).
However, I might be good for an occasional observation or mere youtube posting.
For example:
However, I might be good for an occasional observation or mere youtube posting.
For example:
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Idle Talk
Among the several minuscule things about me that my wife does not like, supreme among them is my general unwillingness to be dragged along somewhere just "to visit" someone, usually one of her relatives.
She accuses me of being "anti-social," but I protest. You see, these visits turn out to be the most mundane experiences known to man. They make the narration of a Dostoevsky novel look like the screenplay to a James Bond flick.
The worst part about these visits is that she springs them on me by surprise. We'll be out at Wall-Mart, so--just before I turn in the direction homeward--she says something like, "Well, since we're out here, let's visit so-and-so."
Now so-and-so are very nice, friendly, charming, all that good stuff kind of folks. However, to me, such a suggestion is like the sound of nails on the chalkboard. They're not going to talk with me about anything that I find interesting. If I'm going to have to spend a good two to three hours chatting with them, then I need time to consider material such as "So, I hear that Rossetti is coming out with a new accordion," or "I hear what you're saying, but I still think that Kristalnacht was unjustified to its core and essentially evil in every way."
I just can't make idle chat with people, no matter who they are. It's not that I don't like them or love them. It's that I am unequipped to engage in conversations about nothing.
She accuses me of being "anti-social," but I protest. You see, these visits turn out to be the most mundane experiences known to man. They make the narration of a Dostoevsky novel look like the screenplay to a James Bond flick.
The worst part about these visits is that she springs them on me by surprise. We'll be out at Wall-Mart, so--just before I turn in the direction homeward--she says something like, "Well, since we're out here, let's visit so-and-so."
Now so-and-so are very nice, friendly, charming, all that good stuff kind of folks. However, to me, such a suggestion is like the sound of nails on the chalkboard. They're not going to talk with me about anything that I find interesting. If I'm going to have to spend a good two to three hours chatting with them, then I need time to consider material such as "So, I hear that Rossetti is coming out with a new accordion," or "I hear what you're saying, but I still think that Kristalnacht was unjustified to its core and essentially evil in every way."
I just can't make idle chat with people, no matter who they are. It's not that I don't like them or love them. It's that I am unequipped to engage in conversations about nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)