Wisconsin and the Unions

This post has been a bit delayed due to illness, but, conveniently, nothing new has happened, so, it's still timely.

The current political situation in Wisconsin is at once interesting and disgusting.  Public involvement in the political process is commendable at any level; too often the only people who become involved and get press time are fringe lunatics on either side of the issue.  In Wisconsin, the rank and file are involved, and I find that to be a good thing.  On the other hand, though, the heavy handed actions of the political majority leave a lot to be desired, and the cockroach-like hide and scatter tactics of the minority are deplorable.

The issue?  Too much money has been promised to Public Employee Unions over the years.  Wisconsin is not alone in this matter, as many States are finding themselves in this boat.  Collective bargaining by union representatives have gained members benefits that States are unable to pay for.  States are villifying the unions for this situation, but the blame lies on all sides.  State and Municipal governments are, generally, short-sighted, always assuming that the future will be bright and rosey.  Unions are, typically, heavy-handed in their negotiations.  The argument is that to retain good employees at lower rates, public employers must offer significant benefit packages.  There is some merit to this argument; but, it's a policy that needs to be looked at and modified quickly.  Retirement and medical benefits are crippling State and Town budgets, and, because of existing contracts, there is little that can be done about it. 

I work in Management, and, as such, I am generally anti-union.  I understand the value that unions have provided to labor relations over the years, and I believe that they had their day, and reasons.  Unfortunately, these days, they seem to be as much about political grand-standing as about workers rights.  During a large union strike a number of years ago, we hired a temporary technician who  needed some extra cash on the side while his union was striking.  While he was working for me, I learned a number of things that make no sense to me.  First off, his technical skills and knowledge were strong, he was excellent at troubleshooting, and had an excellent level of electronics knowledge.  His job at the union shop?  Janitor.  He had twenty years of tenure, and was making more money as a janitor than I was as a department manager.  There is something inherrently wrong with that.  He had no incentive to move into another position in the company, as his union protected salary structure ensured that he'd make more money mopping floors than he would working on the technical side.  The second thing I learned was that the union techs that he did work with were severely limited in what they were allowed to do while working at their jobs, based on their job titles and union requirements.  An operator was not allowed to troubleshoot boards, and a troubleshooter was not allowed to operate the test equipment.  This quickly leads to over-staffing, as you need one person to test the board and one person to fix the board; where one person ought to be able to perform both functions.  Inefficiencies such as these increase operating expenses for the companies that are burdened with them.  These costs are, of course, passed down the chain until it reaches the consumer.  People wonder why products made in China and Taiwan are so much less expensive than American made products...this is a huge contributing factor.

In Wisconsin, we've seen at least one other damaging aspect of Unions.  Schools were forced to close down for two days because Union teachers called in sick so that they could protest the Government actions.  Look, you have every right to protest the government actions, and should be applauded for your civic involvement....but, the result of that protest here is to SHUT DOWN the SCHOOL systems, and damage your relationships with the community and the children.  Your job is to TEACH, and I for one find it DISGUSTING that this sort of situation should arise.  Ronald Regan had it right when he stood up to the Air Traffic Controllers.  Unions be damned, every one of those teachers that called in sick and showed up at the Capitol should lose their jobs, period.  There are plenty of unemployed people out there to replace them.

The State's response has been less than stellar, as well.  I am unimpressed with the Democratic caucus hiding out of state.  I understand that it's the only thing that they think they can do to protest the changes that the Republican led majority wants to make, but, c'mon now, you've made your point.  You are going to lose the vote on the floor, get over it.  Get back to doing your jobs.  Attempt to work with the Republicans to craft legislation that can make major differences in your state.  Make your voices heard.  If the people don't want these levels of changes, it'll be easy to paint the majority as big bad bullies for foricing this legislation through on partisan votes, and the minority will easily run the tables at the next election.  If all you are doing is making a political point, you will lose the public-opinion portion of the game by continuing to avoid your responsibilities and hiding out in a different state.  Remember that your party was a part of creating these problems in the first place, and get back to doing the work that the State needs you to do.

Republicans are no longer blameless in this issue, either.  It should have been easy for them to paint the Democrats as the bad guys in this whole scenario....they already look like weenies....all the right had to do was point out that the Democrats don't want to be a part of fixing the problems in the state, while explaining that they are willing to hear Democratic proposals.  But, instead of inviting differing opinion, and overriding it; they have stood firm on their majority, indicating that they will pass these laws despite their popularity levels.  They took their lead, of course, from the Federal government of the past two years; but, that doesn't excuse it.  The Feds got it wrong, too.  The Unions have made some huge concessions (for them) in this whole evolution; but, the right wants to go further, and has the power to do so.  Instead of using that power to show everyone that they can do what they want, they should use their power to negotiate the best course of action for their state.  Unfortunately, in today's partisan world, navigating the best course of action does not appear to be a part of anyone's game plan.

Idolatry

It appears to me that we as a society have some serious issues with the way in which we idolize celebrities.  It is understandable that we look up to celebrities, and hold them to higher standards because of their public exposure; but, there are times when I think that our expectations go a little too far.

People are in an uproar now about Lea Michele, star of the Fox show Glee, posing for the cover of Cosmo wearing....are you ready for the moral outrage....clothes.  Check out the cover here.  Apparently, the low cut blouse is "confusing" to twelve year old fans.  Look, if your twelve year old is reading Cosmo, you've got bigger problems than them being confused about Lea Michele.  This, of course, comes on the heels of Lea and her castmates posing in GQ last year.  People are up in arms that these actors and actresses would pose in sexually suggestive poses and clothing.  C'mon, now.  They're all consenting adults.  And they all have smoking bodies.  If they want to pose like that, it's completely up to them.  If your children are reading GQ and Cosmo, it's certainly not the models fault!

And now, a Texas store has banned the magazine from their shelves!  Why?  Because Lea's character in Glee is a role model to young viewers!  Look...I've always had issues with the whole role model argument.  It's ok for your kids to look up to someone, but, let's teach them to look up to something in the realm of reality.  Who really thinks that students break out in song and dance in the hallways of highschools in America?  If something like that happened, there would probably be some intervention from the school.  Admiring the way a character on TV acts is a far cry from mimicing their actions in their lives.  Just because an actress models for a major ADULT magazine doesn't mean your kid is going to strip down into their underwear in the middle of the school.  Or, maybe it does....but, I'd suggest that there are other factors at work if your child is running through school in their underwear.

And why is it that Lea is the only one getting hammered for this?  Naya Rivera did a Maxim photo shoot last year in much racier outfits (check them out here), and didn't get beat up as badly as Lea is.  Nor was there talk about banning the magazine from store shelves.  Why?  Because Maxim is recognized as an ADULT ORIENTED magaine, and no one is letting their twelve year old children read it. 

Heck, Heather Morris has had some nude portraits done, that are widely available on the internet, but she's not even getting the attention that a low cut blouse is getting for Lea.

So, parents, take some responsibility for what your children are looking at.  Teach them the difference between characters on TV, and actors and actresses in real life.  If they aren't able to differentiate between real life and TV shows, you've got bigger things to be concerned about than what they're wearing in professional photo shoots.

Responsibility

When the mainstream, overreactive media isn't irritating me (all of about 10 seconds a month or so), I can usually count on some hyped-up, overly sensitive, morally outraged group to fill in the blanks.  There are so many groups out there that are actively engaged in protecting you from society.  That's right, for every thing you're supposed to be offended by, there is an activist group to tell you what it is.

The folks from Corporate Accountability International believe that it's a good idea for McDonalds to retire Ronald McDonald.  Their argument:  he appeals to children.  Well no kidding, idiots; he's a clown!  What did you think, he was designed to appeal to adults?  They claim that Ronald is peddling junk food to children, and is contributing to the childhood obesity "epedemic" that we've all been hearing about.  While I would agree that the Ronald McDonald character is geared towards children, I would suggest that he's not buying them any of the food...their parents are.  And if parents can't prevent their children from eating McDonalds food, the fault does not lie with the clown.  Ronald isn't hanging out at the restaurants telling the children to eat Happy Meals, and he's not forcing the parents to order food for their children.  But, today's parents are, apparently, not to blame for their children's eating habits.  Teach your children good nutrition early, and keep them active....that'll go a whole lot farther towards minimizing childhood obesity than attacking corporate advertising!

What has become of personal responsibility in today's society?  Why is it that we are not responsible for our actions, or our children's actions.  We are continually being told that it's not our fault; but, you know what, it really is.  Suck it up and deal with your choices.

The State of the Union

The state of our union is....cold!

Tonight is the President's annual State of the Union Address to Congress.  I will probably not be watching. I am much too cynical to actually watch what our Commander in Chief has to say.  I know, it seems strange that someone who tends to write about politics will not be watching the single largest political speech of the year, but, that's the way it is.  There are two main reasons:  1.  My wife won't want to watch it with me.  This one should be good enough, but, there is another.  2.  The whole concept kind of bores me.  The President will spend around ninety minutes talking, and won't actually say anything.  There will be long passages about what he wants to do in the upcoming year, but, when he's done talking, he won't have actually given us any details.  Then, after the speech, the partisan spin doctors will get busy telling us all exactly what he meant...and why it's either the best thing since sliced bread, or concepts tantamount to the destruction of the Union.  Thanks, talking heads....I'm not able to think for myself, so, I need you to spoon feed me the salient points, and tell me how I should feel about those salient points.

One difference, tonight...some Republicans and Democrats will be seated next to each other during the speech.  I am a fan of this arrangement.  Up until last week, I always thought that seating was dictated...with Republicans on the right, Democrats on the left, and the Supreme Court and Joint Chiefs front and center.  Apparently, the only seats that are reserved are those for the Supreme Court and Joint Chiefs.  Huh...who'd've thunk it?  The news agencies are really playing this up, now, creating drama.  Can you imagine....what do you do when you disagree with the President, but the guy sitting next to you leaps to his feet in an unadulterated binge of applause?  I'm guessing you just quietly sit there, and I'm not sure why it's an issue.  I guess the news agencies are concerned that they're not going to be able to determine the partisan differences in the Hall because it won't be obvious who's applauding, and who isn't.  Hey, new stations...here's a clue....the people applauding will be Democrats...the people sitting there with those disdainful looks on their faces will be Republicans.  With the current partisan tones, you can bet that even if the Republicans agree with the President, they won't dare applaud.  Oh, and the people yawning in the back?  Those are the Freshman Senators and Representatives, who haven't been around long enough for the lobbyists to tell them what they're supposed to be thinking.

The President is expected to focus a fair amount of his speech on bi-partisan government.  Look, people, we have two political parties for a reason....they represent disparate viewpoints, and bring those views to Congress.  This is a GOOD THING.  Debate between differing views should lead to better legislation, and a better rule of the country.  Unfortunately, the recent political history has shown that our representatives in Congress are more concerned with denigrating anything the other party has to say, and refusing to work together to accomplish anything.  The abject lack of respect for anyone else's ideas in politics these days is preventing anyone from doing the people's business in Washington.  Until this changes, I fear we won't see any meaningful legislation accomplished.

Grammar

I read a lot of online news, and, as a result, a lot of online message boards attached to the news stories.  As I read all of these posts, I am continually assaulted by poor grammar and spelling.  And I'll admit, it confuses me. 

Grammar is one thing.  I can understand that the vagaries of the English language can be difficult to grasp.  Run on sentences don't bother me that much, but, completely misused apostrophes really kill me.  Didn't we all learn the correct method of using apostrophes when we were in school?

Inappropriate verbiage really drives me  nuts.  If you can't spell the word you're trying to use, don't use that word.  I know that homonymns can be difficult, but, c'mon, at least give it a try.  People don't seem to understand the difference between except and accept; or their, there, and they're.  Really?  Where were you in fourth grade?  You accept a theory, or you take exception to a rule.  But, you don't except a story as true, or include everyone accept those people over there. 

Some folks use words to make themselves sound more intelligent.  My favorite is irregardless.  I don't care that this travesty has been recently listed in some dictionaries, it's not a word.  The prefix ir- means not or without.  The suffix -less means not or without.  So, the summary of the made up word  is, simply without no regard.  What you probably mean is: without regard, which would be the word regardless.  Surely everyone remembers the double negative rule from basic grammar! 

With the preponderance of online reference material available today, there is no excuse for spelling words incorrectly, other than laziness.  Nearly every online forum that I read has a spell checker as a part of the posting form that people fill out.  Hey, those red squiggly lines under the word do not indicate that it's a special word that only you understand, it indicates that you spelled it wrong!  Press the button that says spell check!  If you think that you're spelling a word incorrectly, why don't you look it up.  Go to http://www.dictionary.com/ and type the word in.  You may even read the definition while you're there, and realize that the word your using doesn't even fit into the context of what you're writing!  Of course, that will require that you actually comprehend the definition that you're reading....that's another story.

It's Time to Legislate

I have no intention of this blog only being a commentary on politics; but, at the moment, it's politics that has my attention.

The new Congress was sworn in on Wednesday.  The House is now under Republican control, and the Republicans have promised a fiscally conservative approach to legislating.  They were swept into office on promises of reducing the deficit, maintaining (or reducing) taxes, and ensuring that no new legislation is passed without knowing how it will be paid for.  I happen to believe that these are all respectable goals. 

So, what was the first thing our new House of Representatives did?  They read the Constitution on the floor.  Hmm...not sure how that fits in, but, they claim that it's to remind themselves of their responsibility to the Constitution, and the people.  All right, I'll grant that that is a noble concept, and, I'm pretty surprised that this was a first for the House.  I'll even go so far as to suggest that every Congress begin their session with a reading of the Constitution after the swearing in ceremonies.

Today, the Republican leadership has announced that it will take action to repeal the Health Care Law.  Here's the link to the Associated Press story.  It did so on a purely party line vote.  It also did so knowing that the Democratically controlled Senate will not pass this new bill; and that the President will veto this new bill.  So, exactly why are they even attempting this legislation?  Because they believe it will generate political traction for themselves in the 2012 elections!  Here we go, a Congress that promised to govern differently, and the first actions they take are a bid for elections TWO YEARS from now.  This is beyond insanity.  Maybe it's time to term limit all of Congress....to one term, period.  Spend your time LEGISLATING rather than politically positioning yourselves for reelection.

The CBO has reported that repealing the Health Care Law will actually increase the deficit by $230 BILLION from 2012 to 2021.  But, wait, you say...the Republicans passed new rules in the House that requires all bills to be deficit neutral.  How could they pass a bill that is not neutral?  Easy....when they drafted those rules, they specifically exempted any attempts at repealing the Health Care bill.

House Republicans response to the deficit increases?  They counter that even if it's technically true, it would save money in the long run.  Translated:  We're not really sure what's going to happen in ten years, good or bad, but, because we don't like that the Democrats passed this bill without us, we're going to try to thwart them now.  If we're right, we'll say we told you so.  If we're wrong, we'll blame it on President Obama anyway.

If this is what we have to look forward to for the next two years from this Congress, then I'm afraid that nothing of any substance will be achieved.  I would also expect to see the Republicans soundly thrown out of the Capitol come 2012, and a relatively easy reelection campaign for the President.

New Year, New Congress, Same old Crap

Today the 112th Congress will be seated.  The Republican party rode a wave of popularity into the Capitol, based mostly around vitriolic rhetoric, and a governing principle of doing anything that is opposite what the Democrats wanted.  Some folks think this is a good thing, some folks think it's a bad thing.  Me, I think it's wholly idiotic.  When given the opportunity to legislate throughout 2010, the GOP came off as needlessly antagonistic, and as obstructionists.  This tact is rapidly leading to a wholesale split in the Republican party, which, theoretically could birth a third party, but will most likely result in a Federal Government with little to no popular support.

The wave of newly elected Congress-people will immediately be faced with a couple of realities.  First, and foremost, they'll find out that as freshman, they really don't have any power to do any of the things that they promised their constituents that they would do.  They'll realize that as freshman, their primary responsibility is to sit on the bench in the back of the chamber, and vote the way their leadership tells them to vote.  They will, quite promptly, forget the promises they made during their campaigns, as they endeavour to discover what it is they are actually supposed to be doing.  The next thing that they'll realize is that in Congress, nothing is quite as it seems.  They will find that that spending bill that they told their constituents that they would adamantly oppose is attached to a bill that provides additional funding to our troops over seas, and to the Veterans Administration.  No Congress-person wants to be accused of not supporting our troops...and, so, they'll vote in favor of unrelated legislation to avoid the impression of non-support.  Before they know it, their campaign promises of no earmarks will develop into a "what's in it for me" attitude, where they slide in whatever ear marks they can for their home state.

In the meantime, the Nation will be watching.  There are a lot of expectations for this Congress, and a number of those expectations are needed.  The Country needs to get its fiscal house in order, and this Congress has promised to do this.  President Obama has already shown signs of moving towards the center, in an attempt to work with the Congress to achieve economical success.  If the GOP leadership persists in its anti-Democrat stance and rhetoric, it won't take the left long to paint the right as obstructionists who are more concerned about the upper-class than the middle or lower-classes.

The left and right wing of Congress is necessary to the continued success of this country.  A difference in ideas is what a bicameral legislature is based on.  Those ideas should be debated by different minded people, in an attempt to hash out the best solutions to the largest issues.  Political grand-standing by either party needs to be eliminated.  Congress-people need to be more concerned with getting their jobs done than with getting relected at the end of their terms.

Good luck to the 112th Congress of the United States of America.