Currently viewing the tag: “those”
The Left’s current pet target….well, one of them, as Sarah Palin and the TEA Party are still high on their Bitch Meter….., the Koch brothers, have some explaining to do for why they are so evil
A number of organizations are advocating a boycott of the products that come from companies owned by the Koch family. This is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it could potentially hurt the wrong people.
The Koch brothers own Georgia Pacific. It is an American consumer goods company that makes everyday products like facial tissue, napkins, paper towels, paper cups and the like. Their plants are great examples of American advanced manufacturing. Incidentally,
GP makes most of its products here in America. The company’s workforce is highly unionized. In fact, 80 percent of its mills are under contract with one or more labor union. It is not inaccurate to say that these are among the best-paid manufacturing jobs in America.
This presents a dilemma and a paradox. While the Koch brothers are credited with advocating an agenda and groups that are clearly hostile to labor and labor’s agenda, the brothers’ company in practice and in general has positive and productive collective bargaining relationships with its unions.
Alas, this is no April Fool’s Day joke. In fact, the article, which goes on much further, is written by Jon Geenen, International President of the United Steelworkers, and published on the USW website. Mr. Geenen goes on to say that boycotting the Koch brothers’ products would not hurt them, but hurt the unionized members who make the products.
Really, the Koch brothers do not have a problem with unions: they have a problem with public sector unions. I’ve always wondered why we need unions for government employees. Unions were started to protect blue collar workers in typically dangerous and hard working conditions, like steel mills, from poor working conditions and harsh bosses/companies. Unions gave the workers in these conditions a chance to collectively bargain for better and safer working conditions, better pay, and better protection. Yet, here we have unions run by far left people who say that government is great and awesome, and is only there to benefit people, but they need a union to protect themselves from the evil government?
As stated many times, public unions serve: 1. get their employees absurd levels of benefits and pay that go far beyond the public sector, all at the expense of the American taxpayer, and b. get Democrats elected so that the members can get absurd levels of benefits and pay that go far beyond the public sector at the expense of the American taxpayer. And that needs to stop. It wasn’t that long ago when people said “you don’t go into government/teaching to make money.” We need to get back to that time, and stop fleecing the American public.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
The Left’s current pet target….well, one of them, as Sarah Palin and the TEA Party are still high on their Bitch Meter….., the Koch brothers, have some explaining to do for why they are so evil
A number of organizations are advocating a boycott of the products that come from companies owned by the Koch family. This is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it could potentially hurt the wrong people.
The Koch brothers own Georgia Pacific. It is an American consumer goods company that makes everyday products like facial tissue, napkins, paper towels, paper cups and the like. Their plants are great examples of American advanced manufacturing. Incidentally,
GP makes most of its products here in America. The company’s workforce is highly unionized. In fact, 80 percent of its mills are under contract with one or more labor union. It is not inaccurate to say that these are among the best-paid manufacturing jobs in America.
This presents a dilemma and a paradox. While the Koch brothers are credited with advocating an agenda and groups that are clearly hostile to labor and labor’s agenda, the brothers’ company in practice and in general has positive and productive collective bargaining relationships with its unions.
Alas, this is no April Fool’s Day joke. In fact, the article, which goes on much further, is written by Jon Geenen, International President of the United Steelworkers, and published on the USW website. Mr. Geenen goes on to say that boycotting the Koch brothers’ products would not hurt them, but hurt the unionized members who make the products.
Really, the Koch brothers do not have a problem with unions: they have a problem with public sector unions. I’ve always wondered why we need unions for government employees. Unions were started to protect blue collar workers in typically dangerous and hard working conditions, like steel mills, from poor working conditions and harsh bosses/companies. Unions gave the workers in these conditions a chance to collectively bargain for better and safer working conditions, better pay, and better protection. Yet, here we have unions run by far left people who say that government is great and awesome, and is only there to benefit people, but they need a union to protect themselves from the evil government?
As stated many times, public unions serve: 1. get their employees absurd levels of benefits and pay that go far beyond the public sector, all at the expense of the American taxpayer, and b. get Democrats elected so that the members can get absurd levels of benefits and pay that go far beyond the public sector at the expense of the American taxpayer. And that needs to stop. It wasn’t that long ago when people said “you don’t go into government/teaching to make money.” We need to get back to that time, and stop fleecing the American public.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
The Left’s current pet target….well, one of them, as Sarah Palin and the TEA Party are still high on their Bitch Meter….., the Koch brothers, have some explaining to do for why they are so evil
A number of organizations are advocating a boycott of the products that come from companies owned by the Koch family. This is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it could potentially hurt the wrong people.
The Koch brothers own Georgia Pacific. It is an American consumer goods company that makes everyday products like facial tissue, napkins, paper towels, paper cups and the like. Their plants are great examples of American advanced manufacturing. Incidentally,
GP makes most of its products here in America. The company’s workforce is highly unionized. In fact, 80 percent of its mills are under contract with one or more labor union. It is not inaccurate to say that these are among the best-paid manufacturing jobs in America.
This presents a dilemma and a paradox. While the Koch brothers are credited with advocating an agenda and groups that are clearly hostile to labor and labor’s agenda, the brothers’ company in practice and in general has positive and productive collective bargaining relationships with its unions.
Alas, this is no April Fool’s Day joke. In fact, the article, which goes on much further, is written by Jon Geenen, International President of the United Steelworkers, and published on the USW website. Mr. Geenen goes on to say that boycotting the Koch brothers’ products would not hurt them, but hurt the unionized members who make the products.
Really, the Koch brothers do not have a problem with unions: they have a problem with public sector unions. I’ve always wondered why we need unions for government employees. Unions were started to protect blue collar workers in typically dangerous and hard working conditions, like steel mills, from poor working conditions and harsh bosses/companies. Unions gave the workers in these conditions a chance to collectively bargain for better and safer working conditions, better pay, and better protection. Yet, here we have unions run by far left people who say that government is great and awesome, and is only there to benefit people, but they need a union to protect themselves from the evil government?
As stated many times, public unions serve: 1. get their employees absurd levels of benefits and pay that go far beyond the public sector, all at the expense of the American taxpayer, and b. get Democrats elected so that the members can get absurd levels of benefits and pay that go far beyond the public sector at the expense of the American taxpayer. And that needs to stop. It wasn’t that long ago when people said “you don’t go into government/teaching to make money.” We need to get back to that time, and stop fleecing the American public.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
CBC.ca |
Dodgers win — now to order those postseason tickets
Los Angeles Times Opening day yields a victory over the Giants, just as the home team had begun to get that Clippers feel about it. By TJ Simers Golly gee whiz, this is so exciting, the Dodgers already having more wins this season than I thought possible. … Eighth-inning standoff enlivens Torres' opener Dodgers beat World Series champion Giants 2-1 Kershaw dominates World Series champs |
According to a Rasmussen Reports poll released today, just seven percent of Americans believe that government employees work harder than their counterparts in private sector. The same poll finds that 44 percent of government workers agree.
As we’ve learned recently, not only do public-sector workers get paid more than private industry employees doing comparable tasks, they get better benefits, they can retire earlier, and are much harder to fire.
Technorati tags: 
Democrats government democrat politics economy news labor unions
Yesterday, I posted a link to the live WorldView interview with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
For those who missed it:
Which begs the question:
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.
Israellycool
Everyone loves solar, right? Well, until someone puts the panels up
The general public is all for renewable energy — in theory, anyway. But recent renewable projects have raised hackles because of their alleged conflicts with wildlife, damage to Indian spiritual sites, and elevated earthquake risk. And now, objections to green energy based on their, well, ugliness are popping up in New Jersey and Nevada.
Residents and politicians in Ridgewood, Wyckoff, and several other posh suburban towns just outside New York City are attacking local utility company PSE&G for putting up solar panels. Specifically, in an attempt to double the Garden State’s solar capacity, the company has been installing 3-foot-by-5-foot solar modules on utility poles. And the reactions are less than positive: “It’s just horrible,” said Ridgewood’s Deputy Mayor Tom Riche, according to an article in The Record, of Bergen County, N.J. on Sunday.
And that’s the issue in a nutshell: people want cleaner, cheaper, more stable energy, yet, they don’t want to see it. Consider the Cape Wind Project: Ted Kennedy fought it for 10 years, because the wind turbines would be in view of his family compound, and be in the yachting area. He was all for “green” energy, just not stuff that affects him.
All these “ugliness” objections are hard to comprehend, even if, like an alarmingly large portion of the population, you don’t worry about climate change. Solar energy strengthens local grids, which prevents blackouts. Plus solar modules generate the most power at the height of the summer when air conditioners are cranked up and electricity demand is highest. Conventional sources of energy are dirty, damaging to our health and completely unsustainable. Is it asking too much of people to sacrifice a bit of appearance of utility poles (which, let’s face it, aren’t the loveliest things to begin with) for the sake of the greater good?
The story writer, Matthew Van Dusen, is completely off his rocker…..wait, I actually agree with him. I’ll say it again: there is nothing wrong with cleaner energy sources. Well, at least some of them. Corn based ethanol is a disaster. Wind turbines need to be placed far away from where people live, because they are loud. And where it doesn’t get so cold that they freeze. Solar farms need to be in areas that are clear cut, which I despise, but, deserts are good places for them. Better yet, this project to place solar panels piecemeal around is a good one. When I visit the parents in NJ, I see many of these panels, which is a fantastic idea.
Even if you think anthropogenic warming is complete bunk, you should back alternatives to at least some degree. I’d love to see more use of solar for small projects, as I have repeatedly stated. Why not make most street lights run on solar, with battery backups? Anyhow, anything that can provide more power for the grid is a good thing. And putting solar panels on utility poles? Come on, people, seriously, get over it.
Today, Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) convened a hearing on “Protecting the Civil Rights of American Muslims” — the “first of its kind for Congress.” A counterweight to House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Pete King’s (R-NY) anti-Muslim hearings earlier this month, Durbin’s hearing sought to counter increasing number of bigoted attacks like the Quran burnings, hate crimes, and restrictions on mosque construction by reinforcing “the Constitution’s ‘First Freedom’ — the freedom of religion.”
Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-SC) provided a counter-approach to many in his own party. Graham took the opportunity to declare “I will do my part as a Republican to let my party and anyone listening that I totally get it when it comes to religion.” After the Justice Department’s Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testified to the “steady stream of violence and discrimination” targeting Muslim, Sikh, and South Asians, Graham responded, “one case is too many.” He went further to admonish those who unleash hate speech against Muslims are “putting our soldiers at risk”:
GRAHAM: I guess my opinion about such matters is that one case is too many. You have an example in America where somebody is being abused because of their faith, I think all of us should join in and push back as the Bush administration did, as you’re doing. So that’s my baseline here — I don’t know what the numbers are but one for me is too many. And to those who have freedom of speech, it’s a gift given to you by a lot of people risking their own lives. So when you say things here at home or you do things here at home that create tension based on religious differences, particularly when its the Muslim community involved, your putting our soldiers at risk.
We have soldiers all over the world of a variety of religions fighting in the name of America trying to help moderate Muslims defeat radical Islam. And my view is that there are plenty of moderate Muslims out there who need our help and we should be helping because its better to fight the war over there than it is here. But at the end of the day, we’re all in this together….there are plenty of Muslims who wear our uniform and we need to understand that, again, we’re all in this together.
Watch it:
Graham’s enlightened stance stands in stark contrast to the entrenched anti-Muslim position adopted by the hard right. Indeed, directly following Graham’s opening statement, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said that if this hearing “is part of a narrative that says its improper to point out the obvious” about radical Muslims and errs on the side of “political correctness,” then “count me out.” “All bigotry is to be condemned but we’re only credible if we’re principled in our condemnation. Selective indignation is not healthy,” he said — without a hint of irony or mention of King’s hearings.
It appears, however, that many high-profile Republicans relish in their “selective” condemnation of Muslims. GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain recently insisted all Muslims “have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them.” Fellow candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has used Muslims and Nazis interchangeably and advocated for “explicit profiling and explicit discrimination for behavior” of Muslims.
Taking the exact opposite view of Graham, King said Muslims aren’t “American” when it comes to war and “do not cooperate” to combat terrorism. Today, he condemned Durbin and Graham’s hearing as one that “perpetuates the myth that somehow Muslims are the victim of September 11” and that “create[s] the illusion that there’s a violation of civil rights of Muslims in this country. It’s absolutely untrue, and to me it makes no sense.”
A budget plan sensitive to the needs of the poor would encourage charitable giving, right? At the very least, in an economy where more people struggle to pay for medical procedures and their kids’ education, a responsible budget shouldn’t discourage giving to hospitals or universities, right?
Unfortunately, this isn’t the case for President Obama’s proposed 2012 federal budget.
Obama’s plan, which the Senate Finance Committee will discuss at a hearing this Wednesday, would likely dampen charitable giving in the years ahead. The plan would not only weaken one of the incentives for those most able to donate large gifts but would further shift perceived responsibility for social welfare from individual donors to the state.
Specifically, Obama calls for raising the tax rate for families making more than $ 250,000 per year from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, beginning January 1, 2013. Obama also proposes reducing the rate at which these taxpayers can take itemized deductions from the current rate of 35 percent down to 28 percent, beginning January 1, 2012.
While it’s true that most donors don’t make gifts based solely on the charitable deduction, experts suggest that the deduction sometimes alters the manner and timing of giving as well as the number and size of gifts. This is especially true concerning large gifts from high-income Americans, the very taxpayers Obama’s plan targets. These high earners make up only a small percentage of total American households, but they contribute almost half of the donations claimed each year as charitable deductions.
The result of Obama’s proposals will likely be decreased revenue for hospitals, educational institutions, and nonprofits that help the poor. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University estimated that if Obama’s proposed changes had been in place five years ago, they would have reduced total itemized giving by wealthy households by almost $ 4 billion. While this is only a small percentage of total annual charitable donations, it is more than the combined annual operating budgets of the American Cancer Society, World Vision, St. Jude’s Children Research Hospital, Habitat for Humanity, and the American Heart Association.
Perhaps most importantly, Obama’s proposal sends the message that federal bureaucracy can deploy the resources of the wealthy more effectively than civil society can. Raising taxes while decreasing an incentive for charitable giving implies that the state should assume responsibility for people’s needs even at the expense of vital nonprofit organizations. Churches, ministries, and other community-based institutions, however, are often better equipped to serve people in need. And they often do so at reduced costs.
At a time when charities most need resources to care for the hurting, President Obama should seek ways to encourage voluntary giving and protect nonprofit groups. Instead, his proposed tax changes move the dial of social responsibility one more notch in the direction of the state.
It does seem like it, judging from the videos below.
The key thing is that the protests in Syria are spreading
Protests spread in Syria on Friday from their southern epicentre of Daraa to Damascus and a town south of the capital, where authorities moved to arrest at least five demonstrators.
Hundreds of people marched from Omayyed mosque in the centre of Damascus’ Old City along Souk Al-Hamadiyeh street chanting: “Daraa is Syria” and “We will sacrifice ourselves for Syria.”
At least five people were taken away by police in plain clothes, according to an AFP correspondent.
Supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad chanted back: “God, Syria and Bashar, that’s all.”
The Reform Party of Syria has a rundown on the protests-with videos:
Syrians are on the Move (99) – The End of Assad is Near
Damascus. A short video of demonstrations in Damascus today.
Aleppo. RPS is receiving news that thousands are rallying in Old Aleppo.
Idlib and Jablah. Demonstrators, in the hundreds, in support of the people of Dara’a, are in the streets. In Idlib, not far from the largest city of Aleppo in the north, RPS is told that the Ba’ath Party HQ has been torched. Jablah is located on the Mediterranean coast North of Banias and south of Latakiya, a stronghold of Assad. With these demonstrations, Syria has recorded rallies for freedom in every direction on its compass.
Homs. A Video of thousands of people large demonstrations taking place in Homs today. Slogans “Peacefully”, “Allah, Syria, and Freedom Only”. “No more fear”. We also hear few chanting “Allah wa Akbar” and slogans in support of the people of Dara’a.
Deir el Zour. Thousands are also demonstrating in the Kurdish stronghold. One chant “He who kills his people is the traitor” referring to Assad killing streets in Dara’a. RPS is receiving reports of violent clashes in Deir El-Zour between Assad’s security and the protestors.
Berlin. Large number of Syrian expatriates are converting upon the Syrian Embassy in Berlin.
In a later post, we have the results of the Syrian protests:
Assad’s Killing machine has unleashed its hell. Scores of people have died in Dara’a (We are told hundreds), several killed in Homs and in Deir el-Zour and in Aleppo. 20 killed in As Sanamyn. More people have been killed in Latikiya.
Syrians need the international community to stop this carnage.
And did you know there was a Syrian opposition-in-exile:
Syrian opposition leaders-in-exile called in Paris for the downfall of President Bashar al-Assad, asking France to maintain pressure on the Syrian leader to “halt the killing of innocents.”
“The state of Syria must stand, but the regime must fall,” Anas Al Abdeh, president of the London-based Movement for Justice and Development, told journalists Thursday.
At his side were two other opposition leaders, Sarkis Sarkis of the Arab Socialist Movement, and Abdulhamid Alatassi of the Syrian Democratic People’s Party.
Mr. Al Abdeh also calls upon Europe to apply pressure on Syria to stop the killings and to send the Syrian ambassadors back home to send a message to Syria.
Funny, he doesn’t address the Obama administration.
Mr. Al Abdeh may not know who will help him, but he has a pretty good idea who won’t.
Maybe he’s got a chance.
Technorati Tag: Syria.
The Obama administration is seeking ways to save the federal government money and offering “save awards.” Which got the Wall Street Journal thinking.
We don’t work for the government, but here’s our “save” suggestion: How about not spending some $ 3.5 million to deceptively promote ObamaCare?
It turns out it cost the Health and Human Services Department $ 2.78 million to buy airtime for three cable TV ads last year, featuring Andy Griffith praising the new entitlement. The “Matlock” eminence rendered his services pro bono, but Porter Novelli didn’t. The media consulting firm racked up 668 billable hours and earned $ 404,384.40 producing the spots, according to documents released by the outside GOP advocacy group Crossroads GPS through the Freedom of Information Act.
At least Porter Novelli didn’t charge taxpayers for fact-checking. Among Mr. Griffith’s many deceptive claims, he tells his fellow seniors that their Medicare benefits won’t change (they will, most immediately in Medicare Advantage) and that ObamaCare strengthens the program’s finances (it doesn’t, according to the chief Medicare actuary). Lovable ol’ Andy of Mayberry then says “that new health-care law sure sounds good” to him, in a transparent bid to win over senior voters in advance of the 2010 election.
The next time the President wants to run misleading ads ahead of an election, he might hit up the Democratic Party or use his bully pulpit, rather than passing the bill to taxpayers. Meantime, an Administration functionary says in a new promotional Web video for the save award—how much did that one cost to produce?—that “Something that seems relatively small if replicated over the full length of the federal government can really result in substantial savings.”
Shazam!
Technorati tags: government politics universal health care health care reform obamacare
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)
The spending cuts that House Republicans proposed for the remainder of the fiscal 2011 year would gut important federal investments in special education, K-12 education for low-income students, federal job training, environmental protection, community health centers, nuclear security, infrastructure, programs that aid both pregnant women and newborns, housing assistance for veterans and rental assistance for people with long-term disabilities. And one of the primary targets on the long list of programs that Republicans have slated for reductions is Head Start.
Head Start, as Alex Seitz-Wald noted, is “a valuable early education program, which has helped millions of low-income children and their families through comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services since it was started in 1965.” Protests have been staged across the country against these particular cuts, with many taking place at the offices of various lawmakers. However, when Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) is asked about why Republicans proposed cutting Head Start, he just shrugs:
U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, said when groups ask him why their budgets were picked to be cut, he asks them, “What would you cut?” […]
[Walberg] added that the cut to Head Start was just one piece of the Republicans’ proposal, and the program was not singled out for a separate vote. “It was just one of those things,” he said.
Walberg doesn’t seem interested, but study after study has found that Head Start provides substantial long-term benefits to disadvantaged children. Head Start students are more likely to be reading and writing at the appropriate level in their early school years, have better health outcomes, earn more money, and commit fewer crimes. Parents with students in Head Start are also more likely to be involved in their child’s education and cost states less in Medicaid outlays.
One long-term study in California found that “our society receives nearly $ 9 in benefits for every $ 1 invested in Head Start children.” There are certainly ways to reform the program to make it even more responsive to the needs of children and their parents, but Republicans are simply throwing it under the budget knife, without even having bothered thinking up a reason.
