I really hope that Bernie Sanders comes through on Super Tuesday. After not the greatest showings in Nevada and South Carolina, I am concerned for his campaign.
I think Massachusetts and Vermont will come through for Sanders, but a lot of the states voting on Super Tuesday are southern states, and because the Clintons are from the South, Hillary may have the advantage there.
I was surprised that a lot of Sanders's supporters are twenty-somethings. They are probably recent college graduates who see very little employment opportunities using the skill-set that they learned in college. They are probably unemployed or underemployed and they are the first generation to get the full brunt of country destroying policies of Nixon, Reagan, and two Bushes. They see a not very bright future ahead for this country as I do, and Bernie Sanders is the only candidate really promising to do something about it.
If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination I will vote for her , but her husband has done some lasting damage to this country as well. NAFTA and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act under his administration has also weakened this country's economy, therefore I worry that Hillary is also a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I know Barack Obama ran on a platform of change and didn't deliver, but it doesn't mean that Sanders will be the same way. I think he will at least make the effort. If Clinton gets into office the Republicans will hem and haw about her, but I think ultimately she will do there bidding and not make any more change than Obama did in his two terms.
It is very important for Sanders supporters to participate on Super Tuesday if is campaign is going to continue to have momentum, so please get out to vote on March 1.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Friedrichs vs. California Teachers' Union and the death of the middle class. Or mandatory union dues do not limit free speech and here is why.
Destroying organized labor, in the form of labor unions, has always been one of the ultimate goals of rich Americans and the radical right-wingers that dominate today's Republican party. To achieve this goal, they have moved almost all manufacturing overseas (when practical) and are in the process of off -shoring as many service jobs as possible, and, of course, with each passing year new technologies are designed to take away more and more jobs.
Pesky labor unions are still around for many state's civil service employees because those jobs are harder to offshore. But the wealthy right-wingers have been slowly working on taking away the collective bargaining rights of workers. The ironically named "right-to-work" legislation passed in several states takes away the ability for unions to charge dues and some states to not allow civil service employees to unionize at all (which in my opinion should also be unconstitutional.) It should be called "right-to-work for low wages and in poor conditions"
The Friedrichs vs. California Teachers' Union case which was heard before the United States Supreme Court in January would take away all unions' rights to charge mandatory dues to all employees regardless of whether or not they want to participate in the union. This would weaken any remaining unions in the United States. Fortunately before the decision could be written up, right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia died, This leaves the case in limbo, and I am not certain if a decision will ever be official. The lower court had ruled in favor of the Teacher's Union which would maintain unions for now, if the Justices hold the ruling to only the surviving members of the Supreme Court. However if this attack fails, I am sure there are other lawsuits either in progress or ready to launch trying to do the same thing.
The argument against the California Teachers' Union's right to charge dues to all members, states that mandatory dues take away the right to free speech. I would agree with that however, unionized employers are now few and far between, therefore workers have a right not to choose to work for a unionized business or organization or not. Their free speech is protected by them not working for a unionized school district. I am sure there are union free school districts in California as well as non-union private schools, Ms. Friedrichs could have utilized her free speech by choosing to work for one of those districts or schools. I think free speech should only come into question if all employers in the United States had unions and the worker had no choice as to whether or not to work for a unionized employer.
As the right-wingers constantly push their agenda through, you have progressives like Elizabeth Warren trying to get legislation passed that will force employers to give worker sufficient notice about shift changes and working overtime. She sponsored the "Schedules that Work Act" which basically regulates how employers can change schedules. This is something that unions would normally do, but since unions are being eliminated you know have to have laws modify labor practices nationwide.
If the unions are completely wiped-out the American middle-class will eventually be wiped-out as well. I do not know who Rachel Friedrichs is but if you Google her, you get a picture of someone who has wry smile on her face, a look that says, "I am getting a big payday for doing this, and you stupid unionized workers are all going all be out of jobs or working for minimum wage very soon, heh, heh, heh," I am not sure if this was the intention, but that's what the photo looks like to me.
Whether you worked for a unionized employer or not, it is important to support labor unions, if we want to continue to have a middle class, but if the wealthy right-wingers get their way labor unions will quickly become a thing of the past.
Pesky labor unions are still around for many state's civil service employees because those jobs are harder to offshore. But the wealthy right-wingers have been slowly working on taking away the collective bargaining rights of workers. The ironically named "right-to-work" legislation passed in several states takes away the ability for unions to charge dues and some states to not allow civil service employees to unionize at all (which in my opinion should also be unconstitutional.) It should be called "right-to-work for low wages and in poor conditions"
The Friedrichs vs. California Teachers' Union case which was heard before the United States Supreme Court in January would take away all unions' rights to charge mandatory dues to all employees regardless of whether or not they want to participate in the union. This would weaken any remaining unions in the United States. Fortunately before the decision could be written up, right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia died, This leaves the case in limbo, and I am not certain if a decision will ever be official. The lower court had ruled in favor of the Teacher's Union which would maintain unions for now, if the Justices hold the ruling to only the surviving members of the Supreme Court. However if this attack fails, I am sure there are other lawsuits either in progress or ready to launch trying to do the same thing.
The argument against the California Teachers' Union's right to charge dues to all members, states that mandatory dues take away the right to free speech. I would agree with that however, unionized employers are now few and far between, therefore workers have a right not to choose to work for a unionized business or organization or not. Their free speech is protected by them not working for a unionized school district. I am sure there are union free school districts in California as well as non-union private schools, Ms. Friedrichs could have utilized her free speech by choosing to work for one of those districts or schools. I think free speech should only come into question if all employers in the United States had unions and the worker had no choice as to whether or not to work for a unionized employer.
As the right-wingers constantly push their agenda through, you have progressives like Elizabeth Warren trying to get legislation passed that will force employers to give worker sufficient notice about shift changes and working overtime. She sponsored the "Schedules that Work Act" which basically regulates how employers can change schedules. This is something that unions would normally do, but since unions are being eliminated you know have to have laws modify labor practices nationwide.
If the unions are completely wiped-out the American middle-class will eventually be wiped-out as well. I do not know who Rachel Friedrichs is but if you Google her, you get a picture of someone who has wry smile on her face, a look that says, "I am getting a big payday for doing this, and you stupid unionized workers are all going all be out of jobs or working for minimum wage very soon, heh, heh, heh," I am not sure if this was the intention, but that's what the photo looks like to me.
Whether you worked for a unionized employer or not, it is important to support labor unions, if we want to continue to have a middle class, but if the wealthy right-wingers get their way labor unions will quickly become a thing of the past.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Donald Trump's road to the Republican presidential candidate nomination is going as I predicted.
Instead of the ultra-conservative right-wingers trying capitalize on Donald Trump's appeal, they are, of course, flat-out denouncing him as a viable candidate for President. A recent issue of the conservative magazine "The National Review" has the front cover dedicated to a multi-author feature entitled "Conservatives Against Trump." The feature's authors go down a laundry list of how Trump is not aligned with conservative movement and therefore not a viable Republican candidate.
Trump is of course winning most of his primaries and caucuses and most likely will continue to do so, because what he says, no matter how nastily he says it, is more in line with what Americans want to hear.
The conservative movement is really for the top 1 percent of earners and magazines like "The National Review," "The Weekly Standard" and news organizations like Fox are out to market it to the masses. They refuse to see that Trump's success shows that their message is no longer getting through to the American people. They cannot keep saying that, "white is black" (or in an economic sense "red is black") and get away with it.
I still think that the top 1 percenters and the Tea Partiers are going to continue to denounce Trump every chance they get, and when the time comes for the Republican convention, they will push delegates into voting for the number two candidate instead of Trump. Whether or not this actually happens, at some point Trump will get disgusted and run as a third-party independent candidate.
I do not think Trump is a serious candidate for United States and he may only be there to help ensure Clinton gets voted into the White House. I can't imagine he says the things he says in such a tactless manner and expects to be taken seriously. I am willing to bet if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination Trump will drop out of the race altogether. We can just wait and see what happens.
And to make things worse, billionaire and former NYC Mayor, is also considering running for President as an independent. I think his candidacy will be more about the hot button issue of gun control, and upset conservatives even further by ensuring a Republican loss. Whatever happens it is going to be a very interesting election year.
Trump is of course winning most of his primaries and caucuses and most likely will continue to do so, because what he says, no matter how nastily he says it, is more in line with what Americans want to hear.
The conservative movement is really for the top 1 percent of earners and magazines like "The National Review," "The Weekly Standard" and news organizations like Fox are out to market it to the masses. They refuse to see that Trump's success shows that their message is no longer getting through to the American people. They cannot keep saying that, "white is black" (or in an economic sense "red is black") and get away with it.
I still think that the top 1 percenters and the Tea Partiers are going to continue to denounce Trump every chance they get, and when the time comes for the Republican convention, they will push delegates into voting for the number two candidate instead of Trump. Whether or not this actually happens, at some point Trump will get disgusted and run as a third-party independent candidate.
I do not think Trump is a serious candidate for United States and he may only be there to help ensure Clinton gets voted into the White House. I can't imagine he says the things he says in such a tactless manner and expects to be taken seriously. I am willing to bet if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination Trump will drop out of the race altogether. We can just wait and see what happens.
And to make things worse, billionaire and former NYC Mayor, is also considering running for President as an independent. I think his candidacy will be more about the hot button issue of gun control, and upset conservatives even further by ensuring a Republican loss. Whatever happens it is going to be a very interesting election year.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Ted Cruz is Canadian. And he scares me.
Ted Cruz is in my opinion Canadian. At one point he had dual citizenship. He has renounced his Canadian citizenship, but this means nothing. Americans are not allowed to have dual citizenship, period. Go try to become a citizen of another country and try to remain United States citizen, just try to do it and see what happens This means that Cruz is Canadian and he should not be allowed to run for United States President. Yet he seems to have quite a great deal of financial backing to skirt the law.
It is just like the rich elite to want show off how the law does not apply to them. They are special and they want to get a Canadian in as President just to show how powerful they really are.
Another thing that bothers me about Ted Cruz aside from this ultra-right-wing agenda is that he is very disturbing to look at. He is very uncharismatic in my opinion. While running for President is not a beauty contest, a Presidential candidate should have a certain commanding yet comforting presence. Cruz just gives me the heebie jeebies. I cannot see how right-wing supporters can look at him and say, oh this is the guy I want running this country, but I guess he is telling them what they want to here in order to get their financial support. The appeal is there for them, but I just don't see it.
There are lawsuits against Cruz trying to stop him from running because of his past Canadian citizenship, he should not have the right to. I am just amazed that this would not scare financial backers away, because he may not be a viable candidate. Trump has the right to sue him, but hasn't done it yet. Perhaps he is afraid it will backfire and make Cruz some sore of right-wing martyr.
Ironically, if Cruz becomes President, I think a lot of Americans are going to want move to Canada, but I doubt the Canadians will want to let us in. I hope someone will stop Ted Cruz, because I think that even if Trump wins the Republican party will not let the delegates vote for him at the Republican convention. And if my theory is correct, Trump will only run as an independent if Hilary wins the Democratic nomination.
I hope in the end the lawsuits challenging Cruz's right to run for President will eventually do him in as a viable candidate.
It is just like the rich elite to want show off how the law does not apply to them. They are special and they want to get a Canadian in as President just to show how powerful they really are.
Another thing that bothers me about Ted Cruz aside from this ultra-right-wing agenda is that he is very disturbing to look at. He is very uncharismatic in my opinion. While running for President is not a beauty contest, a Presidential candidate should have a certain commanding yet comforting presence. Cruz just gives me the heebie jeebies. I cannot see how right-wing supporters can look at him and say, oh this is the guy I want running this country, but I guess he is telling them what they want to here in order to get their financial support. The appeal is there for them, but I just don't see it.
There are lawsuits against Cruz trying to stop him from running because of his past Canadian citizenship, he should not have the right to. I am just amazed that this would not scare financial backers away, because he may not be a viable candidate. Trump has the right to sue him, but hasn't done it yet. Perhaps he is afraid it will backfire and make Cruz some sore of right-wing martyr.
Ironically, if Cruz becomes President, I think a lot of Americans are going to want move to Canada, but I doubt the Canadians will want to let us in. I hope someone will stop Ted Cruz, because I think that even if Trump wins the Republican party will not let the delegates vote for him at the Republican convention. And if my theory is correct, Trump will only run as an independent if Hilary wins the Democratic nomination.
I hope in the end the lawsuits challenging Cruz's right to run for President will eventually do him in as a viable candidate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)