Tag Archives: Clearly Wrong

Thanksgiving Hypocrite Conservatives

28 Nov

I remember growing up looking forward to Thanksgiving. I would get to see family I had not seen in a long time. Stories were shared, fun times were had and live long memories were made. Family was the most important thing.

Today, all Thanksgiving is to most people is a day to eat more than normal (or maybe not) and to go buy material wares in a guise of “saving” money. For the shopping to happen and the “savings” to be available a store has to be open. And for a store to be open, employees will have to sacrifice a day designed to celebrate family away from theirs.

Every single person who claims to be a conservative should boycott stores whom are open on Thanksgiving. The stores need to be only filled with people who think less of family and others. That is not supposed to be conservatives. We spout all the time about “family-values” and their continued deterioration of them in this country, and the world. Yet when conservatives have a chance to make a real difference they put those convictions of “family-values” aside so easily for the all mighty dollar.

Some will try to make the counter argument of, “But not everyone wants Thanksgiving off. Some people want to work and make extra money!” And to those people I would say thank you for proving my point. The fact people are so focused on making more money, to buy and have more stuff, is the exact problem with our society, country and world I am speaking about.

So for everyone of you conservatives who goes shopping today for those “bargains” just remember they come at a price. Nothing in this world is free. The price being paid is the continued erosion of real family-values, which was one cornerstone which made this country so great.

Oh the Huge Manatee: Target Catches Unnecessary Grief for Color Label

5 Apr

Ah the PC police are at it again. Seems someone on planet earth was yet again offended by what another person did. Shocking isn’t it? Apparently Target, the step above Walmart retailer, had a plus sized dress for sale with the color description of “Manatee Grey”.

While on the surface this could appear to be a cheap shot at fat/overweight women and it seems someone got their feelings hurt by his knee-jerk reaction. The offendee? Susan Clemens (aka Twitter user @suZen). She found the discrepancy between the color label of the plus size version of the dress and the “regular” size version, which uses the color label “Dark Heather Grey”.

Continue reading

Called Out: AP Drops “Illegal Immigrant” From Style Guide

3 Apr

Journalism used to be about telling an unbiased, factually correct story. The information was gathered and put into a form the general public could consume without distorting information. Sadly those days are gone and the Associated Press (AP) has capitulated in the demise of true journalism. Quite ironic.

In the latest blow, the AP has decided to bow down to political correctness and become intellectually incorrect by removing the use of the term “illegal immigrant”. Why do so? Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll states the style book is trying to rid itself of labels[1]. Huh? Human beings naturally group, classify and label everything around us.

Ms. Carroll wrote on her blog:

“The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term ‘illegal immigrant’ or the use of ‘illegal’ to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that ‘illegal’ should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.”

Now those learning or currently practicing “journalism” will be seen in a negative way if they use technically correct term “illegal immigrant” as a descriptive term. The AP has long lost its credibility of being an unbiased, true journalistic entity. This current move clearly illustrates, yet again, their move to show their bias. Giving a weak excuse which anyone without cataracts can see through.

Continue reading

Name Game: Washington Redskins in Court Again for Team Name Suit

7 Mar

In the United States we have the right to free speech, with some limits. This means people have the right to speak what is on their minds and hearts. It does not mean those who are offended do not have the right to be unoffended. It’s time people who get offended by what other people say grow up and get over themselves.

Washington Redskins LogoAccording to a CBS article, the Redskins organization will go before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to defend their brand. The suit against them has been brought forth by group of Native Americans. A quick side note, every group who came to the North American continent was migrant from somewhere. Calling any group “native” is a misnomer. Back to the ridiculous lawsuit, the organization has faced issues over its name for some time. This latest suit is just another round it has faced from thin skinned babies.

According to Suzan Shown Harjo, “It’s just like a drive-by shooting, They’re trying to make money, and not caring who is injured in the process — or if anyone is injured in the process. I don’t think they wake up or go to sleep dreaming of ways to hurt Native people. I think they wake up and go to sleep thinking of ways to make money — off hurting Native people.”

Well Ms. Harjo, if the logic of the case is based upon making money hurting people, the courts are going to be over run with lawsuits very soon. Why? Well using her logic, every comedian who has ever told a joke and offended someone has made money hurting some person or group of people. Are we, as a country, going to allow case law be established outlawing comedy? One can only hope Ms. Harjo has never told any jokes in her lifetime which were recorded. She might be facing a lawsuit of her own then.

Interestingly enough, this specific case was tried before and Ms. Harjo and her group won back in 1999. Really? Fortunately it was overturned in 2003 on a technicality. Apparently Ms. Harjo and her group were now doubly offended and now a new group, playing by the rules set forth by the 2003 technicality ruling, filed another suit in 2006 to start this process (and waste tax money) again. Yes we the people are paying court costs for people being offended. Someone say sequester?

Why file another, costly, lawsuit? The answer is quite simple, according to the CBS article, “The motive is to force Redskins owner Dan Snyder into a change by weakening him financially.” That seems like a clear admission of abusing the legal system. The system was not setup so people could file lawsuit after lawsuit to bankrupt someone to get them to change. In fact, one might argue they just admitted to a form of extortion. Mr. Snyder has stated more than once a name change is not coming.

So far Ms. Harjo has been unsuccessful in her attempts to force a change in the Redskins organization. She has previously predicted a change would already have happened back in 1998, “I fully expect these names to be a thing of the past in 10 years. I think that will happen whether or not we win this suit.”. Much like the over hyped Mayan dooms day, that prediction fell flat. Hopefully this latest round will as well.

If Ms. Harjo and her thin skinned group does happen to win, what’s next? Are they going after the Atlanta Braves? Maybe some group can bring a suit against Cracker Barrel. The outlandish possibilities are endless for those so easily offended. The rest of us will look on, laugh and wonder why they don’t group up and sit with the rest of us at the adult table of life.

Source –

Fight On: Battle Over Redskins Name Goes Before Federal Board – CBS

Only 11 Things Wrong with Congress? Part 2

26 Feb

Continuing from part 1[1]  of Mr. Newman’s list of 11 things wrong with Congress[2] we pickup with number five.

5. Lobbyists

Now here’s one the masses get riled up about but don’t understand fully. Mr. Newman gives the impression all lobbyists are wealthy, entitled people who can bend a Congressman to their will by using money and power. However, that’s not the truth. What is a lobbyist? He or she is someone who, by definition lobbies. So what is lobbying? It is simply “the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.”[3] In other words it is someone who goes to a representative and has them listen to their issue, cause or point of view on a subject. Anyone in this country could be a lobbyist. If someone has called up a representative to make their voice heard about an issue, guess what, they are a lobbyist. Unpaid for sure, but a lobbyist nonetheless. Granted not all lobbyists are good or do good work. But there are plenty groups of lobbyists who stand up for people who might not otherwise be heard. All lobbyists are not wrong. How some operate and how some get around the rules is wrong. That should be the focus of where something needs to be fixed.

 

6. Earmarks

Remember when these little additions of spending were big news? Many people had never heard of them before but did not know what exactly they were. In Congress they are “loosely defined as guarantees of federal expenditures to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents.”[4] There are a couple of types of ear marks:

Hard earmarks, or “hardmarks”, found in legislation, and soft earmarks, or “softmarks”, found in the text of congressional committee reports. Hard earmarks are legally binding, whereas soft earmarks are not but customarily are acted upon as if they were binding.

They have become synonymous with “pork barrel” legislation.[5]  There are some politicians who speak out against earmarks, but their actions tell a different story. One of the most visible is Ron Paul. He ran for President on reducing government spending and fiscal responsibility, yet he still played the game of earmarks while denouncing them. Mr. Newman is right about needing to eliminate earmarks. Especially when they have nothing to do with the bill being proposed and voted upon. Attaching an earmark for improving dog catching equipment to a bill on funding the military should be as illegal as it is unethical.

 

7. Speeches to nobody

Hearing a Representative speak can be informative and energizing. It can also put one to sleep better than any insomnia medicine on the market. Many people see a clip of a representative on the new speaking to Congress about a subject they too are passionate about. The impression is the Congressman is working to sway the other representatives to see his or her side of the argument. However, as Mr. Newman points out, there are times when that representative is speaking to an almost empty, or entirely empty room but is shown on C-SPAN. Seems like a huge waste of time and energy. And in some cases it is. There are times though, when it can be advantageous to use the empty chamber to give an impassioned speech which will hopefully get picked up by a media outlet. By doing so a the issue is given a voice. What is the cost to us the taxpayers for these empty house speeches? Probably not much of any. The Congressman is already getting paid and money is already being spent on having the chamber open at the time. The only real cost is the time which the representative could be using doing something else. But sometimes having them bloviate to an empty room keeps them busy from doing other foolish things. That might be money well spent.

 

Coming up in part three are the final four on Mr. Newman’s list of 11 things wrong with congress. Two are a stretch but the last two clear problems which have been facing Congress decades.

 

References

  1. Only 11 Things Wrong with Congress? Part 1 – Clearly Wrong
  2. 11 Things Wrong With Congress – US News
  3. Lobbying – Wikipedia
  4. Earmark (politics) – Wikipedia
  5. How Congressional Earmarks and Pork-Barrel Spending Undermine Stateand Local Decisionmaking – The Heritage Foundation

Only 11 Things Wrong with Congress? Part 1

21 Feb

An article[1] written back in September of 2011 by Rick Newman lists 11 things wrong with Congress. Limiting as list of things wrong with Congress to only 11 took a machete the size of the Empire State building to chop down. Some points on his list I agree with and other sound like the same liberal talking points heard numerous times before. In this series, we’ll break down the 11 things Mr. Newman lists is wrong with Congress back in 2011. Has anything changed? If so has it been for the better or worse? Are any of the points valid or are they just rhetoric? It’s time to find out.

1. Too many rich people

Mr. Newman begins his list with attacking “the rich”. Yes those horrible, people who create businesses, jobs and salaries. Mr. Newman’s contention is they are so rich they are out of touch. While I would agree there are some in Congress who are out of touch with the “common man”, being rich is not a direct correlation. But why let that get in the way of some old fashioned class warfare, right? In the final sentence commenting on this point he states, “Congress may even have gotten richer, overall, thanks to the influx of new money—at a time when America as a whole is getting poorer.”

Getting poorer? What’s his point of reference? Mr. Newman doesn’t say. However, let’s look at some data from the US Census Bureau. According to historical data available [2] people of all races (their breakdown no mine) have seen the median income increase since 2008. Additionally, there was a decrease of the population earning less than $25,000 and an increase in those earning more than $25,000, from 2010 to 2011. Clearly America “as a whole” was not getting poorer at the time.

2. Automatic pay raises

Here’s a point where many people would agree with Mr. Newman. Congress should never, ever get an automatic pay increase. Most of America has to prove they deserve a pay increase from their boss (and their boss, and their boss, etc…) Not Congress though. Unfortunately instead of making a real case, again Mr. Newman trots out more class warfare rhetoric. He does make one very good, valid statement when he notes:

“Congress has voted to forego its annual raise. One bill introduced this year would cut members’ pay by 5 percent, while another would dock pay for every day the government fails to operate. But such token bills come up every now and then, and never garner meaningful support.”

How many times has the American public seen this from both sides. What appears to be one party getting a backbone and standing up for what’s right and good for the country, only to bow and kiss the feet of the opposing side when push comes to shove. And yet we the people continue to elect these same hypocrites back hoping for something different?

3. Gold-plated benefits and 4. Free parking

Mr. Newman lists these as two separate items but really free parking is just another benefit of the elected position so we’ll put them together. Indeed Congressmen get quite a few benefits for their jobs. As noted in the article, their retirement and health insurance is second to none. And we the tax payers get to foot the bill for those benefits. Mr. Newman does give this interesting statistic regarding Congressional benefits:

“A recent study by Our Generation and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, two nonprofit research groups, found that fringe benefits for members of Congress are worth about $82,000 per year—which raises total compensation to well over $250,000.”

Some other, minor benefits are free parking at their job (which lets face it many Americans have) and free mail service. Listing free US Postal service as a benefit might be stretching it though. A 2010 article by Fox News [3] lists some other benefits for members of Congress. While it’s perfectly fine for someone to advance to a position which gives perks and benefits for the job, Congress should never complain about not being able to cut expenses when there is plenty of room from their own, tax payer supplied, benefits to do so.

Tomorrow we will look at another set of Mr. Newman’s 11 things wrong with Congress.

References –

  1. 11 Things Wrong With Congress – US News
  2. Historical Income Tables: People – US Census Bureau (Microsoft Excel File)
  3. How Are the Benefits? For Members of Congress, Not Too Shabby – Fox News
  4. Rick Newman Bio

Bad Reasons for Laws: Find Out What’s in the Bill

24 Jan

Wrapping up our series is a reason given for just one bill. It is the most controversial bill in modern history and will be debated for years and years to come. It is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Back in 2010 the debate of “health care” reform as the hot political topic. Both the left and the right were battling it out to get public support for their version of reform.

At the time, the Democrats had the majority in both the House of Representatives, 255 to 179, and the Senate, 57 to 41 with 2 independents who caused with the Democrats. While not filibuster proof, all the Democrats needed was three Republicans to join their side to prevent one. The Senate passed their version of the reform bill on December 24, 2009. In March of 2010, shortly before the House was to vote on the Senate version of the bill, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House at the time, gave a  speech at the Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties[2]. During her speech she made the following statement:

Some argue this one statement was taken out of context. However, Pelosi is not the only one who scoffed at the idea of reading the bill before it was passed. Isn’t that right Mr. John Conyers?

It is easy, at this point, to draw the logical conclusion there were other members of Congress who did not read the bill before voting on it. Instead of being knowledgeable about the proposed legislation which affects all Americans, these people given authority willfully ignore doing their job and just vote as they are told by their party. This could not be any more wrong and insulting.

In the end, their choice cost many of them their elected offices in the 2010 elections as the Republicans took control of the House and gained seats in the Senate. To say it was a lesson learned though would be a stretch at best. While it is unlikely a politician will use the same or similar phrase again, the arrogance and attitude behind the responses seen will likely not change any time soon.

 

References –

  1. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – Wikipedia
  2. Pelosi Remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties