Kal, SEIU and the new union dilema

Other day, I walked into my favorite gin mill after work and ran into a friend, same as I did almost every other day the last quarter century, cept, maybe, when one of our kids was born. Only this time it was different. My friend wasn’t his usual effervescent self.

“Hey Kal, why so glum?” I ask him.

“Oh, nothing,” he says to me.

“Nothing? Yer like a lump on a log, yer head hangin’ over yer beer. What, you thinkin’ about all that business up in Wisconsin? Well, don’t ya worry. We got us a judge up there on our side. She done put the kaibash on the whole thing. Yeah, I tell you, that Governor Walker is gonna be one sorry son-a-bitch.

My friend only shook his head and glanced at me briefly the way he does each spring when I proclaim this is the year fer the Cubs. You know that, “What, are you kidding,” look he gives me when I say something mildly ridiculous.

“What, you don’t think Walker’s gonna win this fight, do ya?” I ask him.

“I don’t know,” he says glumly as he stares into the foam that is fading from the beer that’s gettin’ warm in front of him.

“YOU DON’T KNOW,” I yell out in astonishment. “Hell, it almost sounds like you don’t care.”

“Of course I care,” he says to me. “It’s just, well …”

“IT’S WHAT,” I holler as my patience runs a tad thin.

“Well, if we win …”

“What do you mean, ‘if’?”

“Alright, have it your way, ‘when’ we win,” Kal hollers at me losing his temper a bit, too. “What then?”

“WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN, 'WHAT THEN'?”

“Well, let’s suppose we get everything we want. What are we gonna do then?”

“For lamb’s sake, wolfie, whaddya think we been tryin’ to do here all these years? You think we been tryin’ to lose?”

“No, of course not. But what does it mean to win?”

“Man, I haven’t the slightest idea what the hell yer talkin’ about.”

Kal went and took a long overdue slug off his beer, as though fortifying himself for a difficult task, and then turned in his seat to look me straight in the eyes in a way that always makes me a little uncomfortable.

“Well,” he says, “if we win, what then? If we take over the companies, we run the show, what then?”

I just stared at Kal a minute, my mouth hangin’ open as nothing came to mind. “I don’t know, man. I suppose that’d be a day of celebration, not a day to get all sad about.”

“Okay, let me ask you this: You an American?”

“Well, of course I’m an American. What's that got to do with it?”

Kal swings back to the bar and half mumbles, “I was talkin’ with Jackson today …”

At that point, I couldn’t help but interrupt. “What the heck you doin’ listenin’ to that jerk. What kind a brother is he? Guy drives around with a McCain/Palin sticker on the back of his car. I’m surprised he don’t get his ass kicked off the job site for that, or least get his ass kicked in general.”

“Well, that’s kinda the way I always figured it,” Kal says. “But, today, he tells me about some recording of this guy from SEIU saying we’re gonna collapse the economy and take over.”

“For cryin’ out loud, Kal, you know better than to believe that guy’s crap.”

“That’s what I figured. So, I stopped at home on the way here and looked it up online. Sure as shit, there it is. SEIU guy says we’re gonna collapse JP Morgan by not paying our mortgages. Next thing, the economy falls apart, then the government then, well, then I guess we got violence in the streets.”

“Now, that can’t be true. It’s just some lies from the Republicans.

“Maybe,” Kal says. “But, even if it ain’t true, it got me to thinkin’ – I always knew I’d stand up for my brothers in the union but I also figured I’d stand up for Good-ole Uncle Sam, too. I guess, I just always kinda thought they was one and the same. But now, I don’t know. I mean, lookin’ at things, you know, takin’ over GM and stuff, I thought that was great the unions getting control. But maybe it ain’t so great.”

“Awe come on, the union knows what it’s doing.”

“The Union?" Kal says. “Mostly, we do what our elected leaders tell us to do. That’s the point; this whole thing sounds great for folks like Andy Stern and stuff. I just don’t know that it’s as good for the rest of us. Besides, a collapsed economy and violence doesn't sound too good for anyone, cept maybe Andy Stern and his group.”

Well, now I don’t know what to think. I mean, Kal has always been like a rock – most pro-union guy I know. And here he is having doubts. Funny thing is, I went home and looked up the video myself. This guy commenting on the thing says causing confusion is part of the program. Well, I sure am confused.

The Left's 'Duh' factor is working to our advantage

I'm glad they're trying to do this. It's the stupidest, most idiotic, moronic idea I've ever heard of and I applaud their effort. In fact, I hope they try to outdo themselves with something that even surpasses this proposal for its 'Duh' factor.

What am I talking about? I was listening to Michael Medved on the radio yesterday and he spoke about the geniuses in Seattle proposing a law that would make it illegal for a landlord to consider an individual's criminal background when determining someones viability as a reasonable tenant.

Of course, I don't want to saddle Seattle's landlords with such an insane law. But, as the liberal progressives pile insanity upon insanity, fewer and fewer Americans will be able to ignore the fact that something crazy is afoot. Too many American voters didn't notice the insanity of electing an ultra-liberal, with an unknown background president of the United States. For all we know about Obama - whether we dig in Hawaii or Kenya - there might just be an infant's grave containing the bones of a newborn jackal.

OK, now I'm sounding crazy - but just a little bit. The point is that Obama and the liberal progressives generally hid in the shadows of obscurity during the election of 2008. Sure, Obama's smiling, teleprompter reading face was splattered across television, internet and newspapers, but what did we really know about him, and how much interest did the Left-stream media really exhibit in its effort to vet the presidential candidate? Kind of like voting on a 2,700 bill before reading it, we elected Obama so that we could see what we got once we had him in the White House.

Well, now we've seen. Of course, the Left-stream media is still trying to run interference for the man but that will only go so far. Libya erupts into revolution and we see Obama's backswing while teeing off at the 9th Hole. An earthquake and Tsunami engulf Japan in a radioactive disaster, and Obama graces us with his NCAA picks.

It's not just in the White House. Here in Illinois, we have a liberal progressive attorney general, the daughter of the liberal-progressive, big-spending Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, agreeing with the Left-stream Associated Propaganda that gun card and gun ownership records should be open material. Never mind that the Constitutionally questionable records are required by the state - now that Illinois has forced people to sign up to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, the state wants to turn over that list to the liberal biased medai.

Let's look at the media for a little liberal-progressive insanity. Members of the Left-stream media have hurled every possible vile epitaph at conservatives and TEA Party members these last two years, accused them of violence when there was nothing to report, rashly pointed the finger at the TEA Party when violence did occur only to find out the violence did not originate from the right. And what did the Left-stream media have to say about death threats to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker? ................................................................. Yep, that's the sound of silence. Not a peep.

So let the liberal jerks in Seattle propose laws that require landlords to ignore a rapist's criminal background when he wants to move into the apartment next to several teenage girls. Never mind that the child molester wants to live next door to the young couple with several young boys. And, just because that guy with the crazy look in his eyes has killed before, that's no reason to stop him from moving into that quiet little apartment block.

Of course, none of these examples even begin to address the idea that criminals shouldn't find life easier as a result of their crimes; that making life a little more difficult for criminals might actually persuade some potential criminals, or prior criminals to choose a different path in life.

Palin has to be stupid

Sometimes, well, I guess the wheels turn a bit slowly for me. The obvious hangs out there just beyond my reach until, one day, I stumble forward and, before it can skitter away, I latch onto logic as though it were my own idea. I feel as though that's the case today.

I've found it mind boggling the way the Left and the Leftstream Media have utterly demonized Sarah Palin. Sure, I realized they recognized her as a political threat. After all, she's a woman in an age when a male politician is somewhat detached and distant in the world of PC. Sure, a lot of men are still elected to office but that only proves that some of us have shrugged off the politically correct brain cleansing that the elitists started 20 years ago or so.

But, today, I realized that it's not just that she's a threat politically - that she has a chance to pull away members of her own gender from a customary majority vote for the Liberal side. The Liberal Progressive premise is that any intelligent woman will recognize her interests as best served with the Democrats, just as any union member would have to be out of his or her mind to vote Republican. In other words, Palin has to be stupid.

If the Liberals concede that Palin isn't a razor's edge above a moron they have to also concede that an intelligent woman might not find the Liberal argument as entirely convincing; they'd have to admit that there are plausible reasons for a woman to vote conservative.

This goes deeply against the grain for the Liberal Progressive way of thinking. Doesn't Palin know that the Democrats have bought and paid for her vote with addictive support for abortion rights and equal rights. All an intelligent woman need do is look at the voting records. But, what if those votes, in the long run, aren't as assuredly in a woman's best interest after all?

What if standing firm on Constitutional principles is a more certain road to the best interests of women. What if conceding that choice starts and ends at conception would actually save women from the horrible 'choice' of infanticide, saving them from a life of regret and inescapable guilt?

So Palin has to be stupid. It just has to be that way. Think of it as her sacrifice to the Liberal cause. Of course, if she's unwilling to make that sacrifice, maybe she's not that dumb after all. And, if Palin's not that stupid, maybe more union members can come to see that their immediate interests are poorly served in the long run.

WGN radio host smooches with Wisconsin Dem hiding in Illinois

I woke to a love fest on the radio this morning. A WGN radio host was questioning one of the Wisconsin Democrat legislators currently hiding out like a common criminal in Illinois. Did he ask him any tough questions? Certainly not during the time that I was listening. In fact, every question he asked seemed to come from a place where hiding in another state to avoid the passage of unwanted legislation is treated as entirely valid.

If anyone else was listening, please tell me - did the host ask the one question that begged to be asked, the only truly valid question? Did he ask, "If you and your peers had a Democrat majority in the Wisconsin legislature, and the Republicans fled the state to avoid a vote they didn't want, what would you say to them?"

Now, I know the Democrat on the radio this morning would not give an honest answer to that question. He would answer it based on the current situation: "Well, sometimes you have to do what you have to do. I'd understand and I'd compromise with them so they'd come home and we'd all work together like a happy family."

Here's the answer he'd give if he was in Madison, the Republicans were hiding in Iowa (they wouldn't hid in Illinois because our Democrat governor would almost certainly send our state police to send them back) while the Wisconsin Dems were about to pass legislation the Republicans didn't agree with: "This is an irresponsible dereliction of duty. These Republicans are nothing more than criminals. Imagine, running away to hide across state lines."

Of course, if the shoe was on the other foot, the Dems would twist the rules in Wisconsin so that they could vote without the Republicans.

You don't need to tell me. I missed the beginning of the interview but the question I've posed here was not in the spirit of the moment. Instead, the host seemed to validate statements by the Wisconsin Dem that the governor of Wisconsin is wasting state funds by having the state police drive to the homes of Democrat legislators he knows aren't home (hmmm, who paid for the gas when the Dems fled across the border?).

So, I have another question; how long do the Dems have to stay in Illinois before they lose their residency in Wisconsin, and hence their jobs? Oh, and one other question - will Taco Bell look to this as fodder for a new "Run for the Border" commercial?

Polls on Wisconsin issue are clearer than they seem

Bill O'Reilly asked Dick Morris to wade in on the Wisconsin issue that has already spread to other states. In the face of outright attacks against FOX instigated, apparently, by the SEIU thugs, O'Reilly has demonstrated an evenhanded perspective on the issue. Morris did an even better job.

The polls might, on the face of it, present the possibility that the public is somewhat schizophrenic on the topic. Not true. As Morris explained, the general population supports unions in general - the right to collective bargaining. On the other hand, the general population doesn't see why union members shouldn't be willing to pull back a little in hard times, such as these.

For those who haven't examined the issues beyond the Left-wing rhetoric, it appears that Wisconsin Governor Walker is on a crusade to blatantly bust the unions. However, upon closer examination, it turns out he merely wants a little restraint in terms of how much union members will contribute to their pensions and health insurance. In particular, this is related to government workers in the state.

While those in the private sector watch their contributions for health insurance skyrocket, they see those in the public sector enjoying benefits completely out of step with the times.

In the multi-state battle over the issue, private sector unions have joined in arm-in-arm with their public-sector brethren and sisters. It's a heart-warming show of solidarity. It's also misguided.

Public sector workers have become an elite group unto themselves. In these instances, they are consistently putting their immediate profit motive ahead of the welfare of the government bodies their work within. As Michael Medved said earlier today, what makes sense in the private sector, where profit and entrepreneurial viability place restraining forces on both management and the work force, makes no sense in the public arena.

States don't exactly go out of business the way companies do. The unsavory reality is that, without market-driven restraint, the public sector unions have operated at the expense of the public they're supposed to serve. Now, they have an unholy alliance with SEIU.

SEIU does not favor strong and successful unions; SEIU favors what comes after they use the unions to win their battles - the socialism of a welfare state. In fact, the driving forces at SEIU, the big name leaders of the organization, whether they're lying to themselves or not, really see the battle as one to redistribute the seating arrangements in a political game of musical chairs. And, when the music stops, those SEIU big shots expect to hold favored seats in the new America.

Theirs is an America unhindered by the inconveniences of Constitutional law or limited government. Government will provide all and, therefore, will rightly determine the cost, how the money will be raised and how the services will be administered. And that has nothing to do with private sector unions.

The reality is, though the folks at SEIU may be thinking otherwise now - I'm sure they're seeing this crisis as an opportunity - the American public is waking up. Yes, they do support unions, even unions in the public sector. But, they expect the unions to support the nation or, in this case, the states they work for.

For those private sector union leaders, you may want to think about where you'll be standing when the music stops. For all the bravado of the SEIU bigwigs, things may not shake out as expected.