F**K YOU Tom Delay

Hi all and forgive the title. It's Monday, March 8, 2010.

I came across a headline that really hit a nerve this morning. It was published by "The Huffington Post" and read as follows, Tom Delay: People Are Unemployed Because They Want To Be.

That statement really pisses me off! I have been actively seeking any kind of employment since August of last year. I have submitted hundreds of resumes to employers across a wide range of industries; from IT Security (my most recent position) to truck driving. If you apply to an employer looking for someone with your skills, they have between 6 to 10 other candidates or more from which to choose. If you apply as a grocery clerk (and I did and worked in this industry in my twenties) they don't even bother to look at your skills. They immediately consider you to be overqualified. I will admit that there are likely a handful of the populace that has no desire to go back to work and continue to live off the government tit through unemployment benefits, food stamps, welfare, or some combination of benefits. But I for one along with countless others WANT to work. We want to secure gainful employment and regain our self respect. We want to have something meaningful to do with our lives and something to represent our efforts at the end of a full day of work. I personally take affront to this statement and feel that everyone who has been in the same boat with me voice their opinion. I don't have a wealthy wife to lean on. In fact my wife cannot work and thus dependent on me to support us both. I want and need to work as I'm certain that most real MEN do. For someone who is supposed to have been a public servant, I find this kind of comment uncalled for, inappropriate, irresponsible, and offensive. But, perhaps that is one reason he is no longer a public servant.

I invite your thoughts.

Who is Bart Stupak?

Hi y'all and welcome to the weekend. It is Saturday, March 6, 2010.

Now I know that some of you are gonna' take this opinion kinda' hard and that's okay. But this is how I feel on this issue and that's okay too.

It seems that another politico has come to the surface over the debate on healthcare. Rep. Bart Stupak, the nine-term Democrat from Michigan is the author of the "Stupak Amendment" which is a rider attached to the House health care legislation that would effectively ban most government funding of abortion under the new health care system. I must say that I agree that this is a procedure that should not be paid for with tax dollars. This is not a condition like a cold or the flu which can be contracted by simply interacting with daily life. The condition for which an abortion becomes the treatment is clearly, and in most cases, avoidable.

I believe that too many folks have come to accept abortion as a means of contraception; it is not. And as such I don't believe that abortions should be funded by tax dollars. If people desire to engage in unprotected sexual activity then they should bear the burden of the cost and not John Q. Taxpayer. I believe that if these were the rules then folks might think a bit harder before engaging in an act that results in a human life. Not withstanding the issue of a person relying on the government to pay for their abortion, but then to pay for the food and care of the new infant as well. Seriously people, it all boils down to this... "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em".

I welcome your thoughts and have a great weekend.

And so the feeding frenzy begins

Hi folks, it is Wednesday, February 24, 2010.

According to Yahoo News, the conservatives have turned against one of their own. Newly elected Senator Scott Brown is now under attack from those within his own party because he has voiced support for a jobs bill sponsored by the administration. So what's the deal? We need to put people back to work right? If we don't then things are just gonna' get worse for everyone. More local governments are gonna' have to lay off staff to keep their already strained budgets in check. This means more claims for unemployment benefits and food programs which are surely at their breaking points in many states. And if that's not bad enough, all levels of government will get slammed when things like hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes occur and there is no revenue to cover the costs associated with rebuilding. Oh yeah, the Federal government will likely keep spending to keep the train on the rails, but at what cost to the future generations of this country.

I have always believed that in order to make money you have to spend money. But it would seem that the government at all levels as well as big business take a dim view of this way of thinking. Politicians don't want to raise taxes so that they can get re-elected. Big business wants to keep every penny and not carry their fair share of the burden. So in the end who really gets stuck paying the bill? That's right; you, me, your friends, your neighbors, your families and so on.

I think it's high time that all of the bickering stop. If that same amount of energy were placed into an effort to do something about job creation we just might start to crawl out of this mess. Granted, there is enough blame to go around such that everyone gets a share. We might not be personally responsible for creating this mess, but by not voicing an opinion to our elected officials we are no less to blame for the problems at hand. We are a country of smart people, educated people, people with common sense. Why don't we all just shut the F**K up and get the job done. The sooner we do the sooner the pain will end for us all.

I invite your thoughts

So I'm not alone?

Hi everybody, this is what's left of Wednesday, February 17, 2010.

If you were to ask my wife what I thought of this as it was being reported by the evening news, you would know that I pegged this one before the story even finished. It now appears that the majority of us feel that the US Supreme Court committed a huge gaff when they decided to allow corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence political campaigns (see accompanying story at Yahoo).

In this regard there are lots of things that folks have strong opinions on but cannot prove: the existence of Area 51, who shot Kennedy, or whether astronauts landed on the moon. But one thing I think is for certain even though I have no concrete evidence; our elected officials are in bed with big business.

As elected officials, there are very specific rules regarding political activities. They are defined within the Hatch Act of 1939. Below are a few thing that are verboten under this act:

• Allow your official title to be used in connection with fund raising activities
• Solicit, accept, or receive political contributions from a subordinate employee
• Solicit, accept, or receive political contributions (except in limited circumstances involving certain Federal labor or employee organizations)
• Engage in political activity while using Government property, including computers, printers, copiers, fax machines, and telephones
  

But now the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom decides that corporations (which possess many of the same attributes of individuals) can donate whatever they feel to a candidate who supports their particular agenda. Now I have to ask, where is the sense of adhesion to the law in that?

What are your thoughts?