Powers on Politics Issue VI

Powers on Politics

It’s a New Week: First day of the new week, it’s October 20th and we are totally ready to get this issue going. Last week I procrastinated so that by the time I finished I was a day late. I assure you, however, that I will be right on time with this issue because I care about these topics more than I do about what Obama and McCain are going to do to screw us over. To clear up any discrepancies I don’t like either and I still don’t know how I’m going to vote therefore the information enclosed in the last two issues was as unbiased as I could make it without the addition of my own commentary with it. On a different note we are officially back to what I was doing before this whole Candidate thing started. Therefore without further ado I present…the issues!

Hola Chicos y Chicas!: That’s right the first story that I’m starting out with is this because…I can! The theme is Spanish, and the great argument that is going on all across the country. Should the U.S make its official language English? In order to forewarn everyone we all know that I’m a racist and blah, blah, blah so it shall come as no surprise to anyone that my resounding answer to this simple conundrum is YES! Absafreakinlutely (woohoo a new word!) we should have it as the official language of America!
Basically it breaks down like this. Once upon a time you went to France, and you thought to yourself this should be nothing I’m sure that there are plenty of people around here that speak English, I’ll have no problems. Come to find out that once you start to try to ask for directions, however, you are greeted with a whole lotta French. You get kinda bugged about this mostly because you had decided that you wanted to live there, so you think that they should start putting English on everything and start speaking English because it is convenient for you. Unfortunately for you, my friend, French is their official language and just because you wanna make a fuss about it doesn’t mean that that is changing any time soon.
What I’m trying to get at (through my cute little story) is that a country speaks a certain way because the majority of its population is, or was of that certain background. French aren’t going to drop their language for English just because some immigrant wants them too, so why does America have to ignore English as OUR official language just because some immigrants who came to US don’t want to speak English. I’ll tell you what if you done come over to my side of the fence y’all best be speakin’ the same language as me or I’ll haul ya back over from whence you came!
For a moment let me be extremely clear. I want English to be the official language in the U.S, but I am not objecting to students learning other languages. Why not, it promotes the ability to work with other people over seas, but that doesn’t mean that we bend over backwards as a country to accommodate these immigrants with their own language on EVERYTHING! If you come over OUR border you best be speakin’ OUR language or be prepared to learn. We should not be pandering to these people, they need to deal with themselves and get an Spanish to English dictionary or go home because otherwise they ain’t going to know whether they are coming or going. Welcome to America, now learn to speak English.

The Good, The Bad, The Union: Alright so to be absolutely truthful I am very new to this whole Union debate. I understand what they were created for-to protect workers from terrible conditions, too many work hours, and bad payment, but what I am not sure of yet is what the argument against them is. Due to this undeniable fact you get to follow me on a journey of discovery. Together we shall look into these unions and find out if they are really all they’re cracked up to be, or if there are some things that need to be addressed.
In the 19th century during the Industrial Revolution workers were being treated like scum. They were forced to work in terrible conditions, long excruciating hours were all too common, low pay, health risks, and other worker rights were all being thrown out the window by businesses so that they could turn a better profit. Many workers didn’t like this and they would go on “strike”, at this point it was a terribly ineffective way of trying to make a point. The business owners were probably annoyed about the strike, but during this time it wasn’t hard to find someone else who was willing to do the job. Because of this many workers were being “let go”. If an employer didn’t want to fire his workers, however, there was always another option. Intimidation. Many employers opted for groups like the Pinkerton Detective Agency, a group that were basically police for hire, though they didn’t fall within the jurisdiction of the city; they were privately owned. Though all of the riots, strikes, and conflicts that came from this time period weren’t something that many wanted to allow to continue. This is where Unions originally came in.
A labor union is an organization of workers dedicated to protecting the interests, wages, and conditions for workers. There are multiple types of Unions that support different workers such as mechanics, teachers, actors, police officers, pilots, janitors, doctors, and even writers are some of the groups that have their own unions. It is legal for employers to try and convince their workers not to unionize, but you’re breaking the law if you are an employer that refuses to allow your workers to unionize. At the same time it is illegal for unions to threaten workers to join a union. Further an employer must bargain with a union, but must not agree to particular terms. If an agreement is reached then a CBA is signed that details an agreement between the employer and the union that will ensure wages, vacations, and benefits. These CBA’s don’t last forever, in fact they have a set time limit on them and will eventually expire. In the case that the Unions believe that the employer isn’t holding up their end of the bargain they can file a complaint that will ultimately be resolved through a process called arbitration.
Alright this next bit is where I begin to grow a bit concerned. To enforce labor union laws two groups were formed the NLRA and the NLRB. The NLRA is the act that was written to “encourage a healthy relationship between private-sector workers and their employers”. While the NLRB is an organization created by the NLRA to enforce the laws created by it. The reason I’m a little iffy on this is because it seems to me that the same organization that was created to protect unions made an enforcement group of unions to make sure the rules were followed. Looks like a bit one-sided to me, it’s like me walking into a business and saying “I’m going to set up some rules for myself that are different from your rules”, the business says “okay, go ahead we promote individuality”, but while I now have my own set of rules I get the ability to say “if you don’t follow my rules consequences are coming.” Instead of having an outside group watch both myself and the business to ensure that the rules are upheld I get to enforce my rules and determine if both sides are following the rules I set up. Doesn’t really make sense.
The last thing I want to add about this is that in one of the largest group labor unions (basically a bunch of labor unions put together under one name) called the Teamsters their one time leader was James R. “Jimmy” Hoffa. Uhm…what? Yeah, that’s right a famous mafia member was a union leader! How does that make sense to anyone? I certainly don’t get it. Now his son is the President of the Teamsters, now I have nothing against his son-I don’t know anything about him-but it’s the father Jimmy Hoffa that disturbs me greatly! It seems kind of hard to trust a group who was headed by a known mafia member-a BIG TIME mafia member!
Alright with this information I am going to come to this conclusion. It is all nice and happy that workers are getting rights like proper wages, some benefits, a safe working environment, etc. However the fact that the Unions themselves seem explicitly capable of setting the rules (yeah I know both sides have to agree), or at least enforcing them there is too much space for abusing the power without being checked. It is also apparent that it the unions don’t care who is in charge so long as they are big, and in the case of Jimmy Hoffa-intimidating. I’d love to hear what you think, it might help me learn some more.

Freedom of Speech…Maybe: What a provocative title, I am sure this is what you are thinking, what could she possibly mean by this? What I mean is a bill that is known as the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness doctrine was originally written up to encourage discussion within the public of key issues that face us on a daily basis. To accomplish this the idea was that both sides of the issue received equal “air time”. However there is an immediate problem that arises. The other side-or for those of you who aren’t Conservative-the liberal side doesn’t get great ratings on radio specifically. This fact is mostly due to the fact that they like to do nothing but angrily spew their opinions in everyone’s faces while demeaning their callers, and other individuals who don’t agree with them. Most normal people don’t like hearing that sort of stuff on three hour stretch of time, and therefore these shows don’t last. This explanation of why leftist radio doesn’t generally cut it leads us to the first problem that comes forward with the Doctrine. Though there would also be a Conservative radio show it wouldn’t be enough (or at least this is what many station owners believe) profits from this show to cover for the great lack of profits that would arise from a liberal show. Because of this most stations would just cut out the issue by eliminating both shows. Worse if a station doesn’t agree to airing both sides then it can have its license revoked-and no one wants to go through that.
Since I like them so much I’m going to give you a little story about why this just wouldn’t work. The Pitkin County airport features various celebs reading those ubiquitous airport announcements visitors and reciting various safety-related provisos. (You know, please remove your belt, your shoes, your remaining dignity, etc.) Among those reading the announcements was John McCain. spokeswoman Bingham told the Los Angeles Times, "I was at a party, and he was there," she said. "And I thought, 'Oh, cool a senator.' It had nothing to do with my political feelings."
That was a year ago. Recently, according to Bingham and the Times:
"We had one complaint from a guy, who thought maybe it would tip the scale of the election or something."
True, Colorado is considered a likely swing state in the general election. But would McCain's warning that the federal regulations restrict certain items from being carried aboard airplanes sway many votes?
Regardless, said Bingham, "We didn't want to offend anyone." So the McCain recording got mothballed.
She ruefully added: "Had I been forward thinking, I should have gotten Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to do one. Then it would have been equal time."
This is an excellent example of what would happen to the talk radio as well as the television shows such as the Glenn Beck Program, and Hannity and Colmes. There isn’t space for most people for opposition, so when the possibility to send these opposing views out the window many politicians and even news media groups are more than happy to see it go down the toilet.
In the end the only thing that will result from the Fairness doctrine is the snuffing out of alternative opinions that people deserve to hear. No longer will you be able to see the other side, or voice your own opinion publicly save that there is someone on the other side fighting you with every word you speak. Don’t listen to what those trying to pass this will say to you (because it will come up again), “we have to be fair”, “don’t you want to hear all sides?” There is nothing in the book of fair, people, and we already hear both sides of the story, watch the news and compare it to what you hear on talk radio…they are totally opposite.

Biden Predicts the Future: This story broke last Monday so the…19th of October and it was all about Biden for the next week. What happened is that Biden was out stumping in some city (sorry I don’t think that detail really matters) and he got up in front of the crowd and what came out brought nothing but shock from the crowd. Basically (no I don’t have the exact quote, couldn’t find it, but I heard it every day at least twice a day for a week so I think I have a good handle on it) Biden said that if Obama is elected president he can “guarantee” that an international incident will occur to test him. Then he told everyone there that they would have to “trust us” because “at first you won’t think our actions will be the right ones.” I-uh-don’t know…does this…frighten anyone? Or are you thinking “where’s his crystal ball?” I was wondering the same thing. Come to find out that Presidential and VP candidates have already begun getting briefed by the FBI and the President on current issues around the world, this is usually done after the elections but in this case there is just too much information that they couldn’t possibly wait. Keep in mind that this information that they are receiving is classified…which could actually mean that Biden just let the cat out of the bag.
My next question that I have for you is this “do you want to elect a president that will invite an international incident?” Oh, but wait- “Chene’ Biden corrected himself later that same week!” That’s right, I forgot, after all the publicity that the radio talk show hosts were giving it Joe wouldn’t want to just leave it at that-no-that would be stupid. (Not that opening his mouth in the first place was overly brilliant). “What I meant by that comment was that both Presidential candidates will be tested-it’s what happens with every new President.” Joe just continues to impress me every time he opens his mouth. *Sigh* Alright Joe, here’s the scoop, each President does go through something that no other President does-that’s what happens over the space of four to eight years-change (Ick…I just used the “C” word!). However where you are wrong is that not every President endures an international crisis during their presidency! You kill me Joe-kill me! In fact, returning to the two candidates we are currently stuck with, if McCain gets into the Presidency we won’t get attacked because everyone knows that if you mess with McCain he’ll come after your sorry hind-end! That’s because McCain isn’t an inexperienced “let’s sit down and chat with out enemies” actually I’ve already chilled with terrorists candidate-he knows how to conduct a fight, and how to win! Joe, thank you for alerting all of us to the impending doom we face if we elect Obama, at least we know the consequences. I hope this gives everyone a little help in deciding who they will vote for in this election.

Period-The End: I think I’ll draw this issue to a close here. It seems like a pretty good place to call it to a momentary halt-since I’m two days late in posting this issue (I know I’m terrible!). Hopefully I’ll do better next time. Just so everyone knows I’m sort of lacking some ideas for what to write next time…so seriously if there is ANYTHING you wish to discuss-tell me! Hope y’all enjoyed yourselves! Talk to you next time!


Chene’