The New Look of the Working Class

                                                   
Over and over again we hear both in the news and on the streets, companies going way too far in controlling their employees beyond what is reasonable.

For instance: Tattoos.  Personally, I don't like tattoos.  I think that getting one is a poor choice, I wouldn't get one, but many people do get one, and they don't get it to be hidden somewhere, whether on their leg or their arm, and sometimes on the back of the neck, and I figure, to each their own.

Businesses, however, have been moving toward not allowing visible tattoos on their employees in the name of professionalism. Now I tend to agree with that for certain kinds of employment, such as office jobs, banks and the like.  I don't want to walk into my bank for instance and have the guy or girl handling my account to be filled with all manner of tattoos.  Its not that I don't think they should have them but in a setting like that, its not something that I would expect to see in such an environment. Walking into fast food...my expectations aren't really that high, so I would expect to see tattoo's here and there, on one or both arms, on the neck, maybe small ones on their face.

The same goes with how people talk, specifically the slang they use.  Mind you, I'm personally a grammar Nazi, or at least I try to be; and I do so because I feel like there's a level of intellect conveyed in using proper grammar that lends itself to a certain level of credibility over sounding like a 2nd grade dropout.

That being said, there is a line that I wont cross when it comes to what I expect in certain environments.  Where I do expect a business professionalism from certain employment archetypes, the fast food industry is just not one of them.

Which brings us to our ever favorite Chik-Fil-Ay.  The picture above is of a note that a manager of an undisclosed location placed in an attempt to quell the "unprofessional" language, even referring to the employees as professionals.  You know who believes that the people taking your orders and are flipping burgers in fast food are professionals?  Exactly no one!

These people are not professionals, These jobs have been embarrassments for the last thirty years, are some of the worst paying.  The only job set that out scums fast food is Walmart.  When you're at about a level playing field with Walmart, don't expect that you're going to attract people of a professional five star restaurant.  You're not going to get the professionalism of a 5 star restaurant worker because those workers are probably already working at a 5 star restaurant and wouldn't be bothered by a fast food environment.

Frankly, if you want a professional environment they you probably should stop working at Chik-Fil-Ay and actually get a professional job.








                                                                                                                               

What Direction Do We Go From Here?

The dust has cleared and the midterm elections are over, and we liberals got creamed!  Its a matter of fact!  It doesn't mean that our beliefs are any less right mind you or that our values are substandard.  To the contrary our values and beliefs are very much a force for good in the country.  Instead of being selfish and only pleasing to a select few of our countrymen, our prefer ed way of helping the country is by developing, passing and implementing legislation the most amount of the population the best way possible.Things like better gun legislation, Women's right, workplace equality, marriage equality, and increasing the minimum wage to a level that the demographic that largely works in those areas are able to sustain themselves in a way that doesn't nearly make them homeless from month to month.

These are all important things to the health of our economy and country  But we have a massive problem as liberals.  Where we're awesome at coming up with these ideas and working to implement them when they do pass, we fucking suck at running campaigns that will get us elected to the positions that will most allow us to actually accomplish these things.  That's why we got our asses handed to us across the country!  I watched as one state after another turned from blue to red as republican after republican take seats in their districts, setting up a really bad problem that will either lead to more gridlock in Washington and now in the state senates and congresses, or see some dangerous legislation start passing that would threaten to undermine the incredible progress that we've already made in repairing the damage that was done by President Bush and the republican control ed congress that existed between 2001 and 2009.

So where do we as liberals and democrats go from here?  Well right for the moment its far to late to spring back and win the 2014 midterm elections.  What we need to do now is regroup.  The first thing we need to reflect on why we lost and study our opponent and try to understand why they won.  If we dont learn from it we're going to keep making the same mistakes over and over again and keep letting the republicans win.   If we keep letting them win its going to throw the country further and further into a downward spiral.

The next thing we need to do after studying what went wrong for us and right for them, is sit down and come up with an actin plan to retake the ground we lost on the state and national levels.  We're in for a turbulent storm over the next two years.   Mitch McConnel is the most likey person to be chosen for the republican majority leader and he's been quoted on camera as saying that "he looks forward to working with President Obama".  I think we all know that what McConnell really means is he and the Republican majority run house will work with President Obama, so long as he's doing what they want him to do, or else gridlock and government shutdowns are likely to continue.  We'll see.

We can take the senate back but its going to be a hard fight.  But I think if we were to correct our campaigning issues between now and the primary elections in 2016 that we can not only take back the state level senate's and congress' we lost this year, but add to the number of states we turn blue, while at the same time getting the majority of the house back in our national senate and house and set up a really good environment for a real progressive president instead of the one that we got.  Dont get me wrong, Obama has done a number of great things, but at the same time he's also allowed though a number of dangerous things things like more tax cuts for the wealthy for instance, though. 

Lets make the next two years count so we can repair the damage that's about to be done to the country via bad republican policy.

Please Don't Vote - A Message From The Republican Party

Have I ever mentioned that I absolutly love The Young Turks?  If you dont know who they are, The Young Turks, or TYT are a political based commentary news show, the largest on the internet and the world.

One of the reasons I love them so much is because of their blunt real view of world events and breakdowns of them. One of the big things that they support?  Getting money out of politics.  The mock advertisement below is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.






The Pure sarcasm centered around a single truth about our national politics especially is very exposing to the GOP.  The above is such a blunt description of what the GOP really wants from the American public, the unfettered ability to make decisions without the burden of the American public holding them accountable for passing legislation that would only help the top one percent or blocking things that would actually help the rest of the country, but not their doners.  This mock "advertisement" bluntly outs what the GOP's intentions really are.

Now often when I get on the subject of voting I get a pretty well defined few that dont vote because "they dont care".  What these people done realize is them not voting is still a form of voting.  The more people that are progressive in though but dont get out and vote for whatever reason, are actually still casting a vote for the ideals they dont want taking over the country in lue of their self serving ideologies.

What people need to realize is that all these politically charged issues that directly affect them, be it the Affordable Healthcare Act or Net Neutrality or any other high profile subject, its all decided by the people that get voted in to office.  That's why you see things that the larger majority of people wanting certain things to be done by the people that get voted in, completely ignore those people and do whatever they want, and voter's be damned!

These people are counting on you not to vote so they can go on their merry way ruining everything in their path.  Get out there and vote these people out.  The bigger majority we have on the state level the more we can actually get the country moving forward again, instead of being in constant gridlock.

Who Has The Right to Say What Consitutes Marrage?

So right wing pseudo-historian David Barton, in an interview conducted by televangelist Kennith Copeland, believes that no government can ever legalize same sex marriage because "we have an inalienable right to marriage to be a man and a woman and no other combination.  The short statement  below gives a verbatim of what he said.

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barto

right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton

I think this good that he said that.  Please understand that he's not right in what he said and what he said is very.  No argument there.  The reason I like this statement is because its bluntly telling of where this push against LGBT rights is truly coming from.

The problem is that this is purely a religious stance and it always has been.  The only people that actually believe that gay marriage should be politically banned.  The problem with that idea is politics are not supposed to take a religious posture under the constitution.   Article one also known as the first amendment talks about the freedom of expression and religion.  Focusing on the point it makes on the freedom of religion, expression of it, is specifically says that no law would respecting the establishment of relgion was to be made, nor the prohibiting the freedom of exercise of it.

That's a very important couple of points to be had out of those statements.  First of all, and many liberal progressives have rightly made this argument, that because anti gay marriage political pulls are purely religious based and not scientific, they should be allowed to marry under federal law since neither the church nor the state are allowed to establish a religious stance as the legal standard.  The other point that is that religion must be allowed to be freely exercised.

This causes a problem because once gay marriage becomes  a fact of federal law, and it will gay and lesbian couples will be able to legally marry everywhere but at the same time, most people who are authorized to preform a marriage are people in the clergy.  The question that comes to mind, should they be required to preform a marriage that under their religious beliefs they cant preform.  I would say no.

What needs to happen is more people outside of the religious element needs to be legally approved, however that process is done, to conduct wedding ceremonies. That way, we dont have to worry about the argument that the government is forcing religion to conduct these marriages against their beliefs.

That's not to say that businesses should be allowed to turn away based on the owners religious beliefs.  They are not a religious element, they are a business that's licensed by the government and is bound to proper federal business law.  In that religions should not be allowed to essentially copy-write and trademark the term "marriage" as if they are the only people who can use that term.  Marriage is marriage regardless if its under federal law or under a religious institution.

The ultimate point is marriage is not a purely religious term, despite what leaders of the religious attempt to portray. They dont get to change the definition though legal political means to make themselves more comfortable in the world. To do so violates the principles this country was founded on.

And The Insanity Continues

you know, Id like to go a month at least without having to open my mouth about gun violence in this country.  Heck Id do with a week at this point, but apparently the universe doesn't want me or anyone else too and this is becoming an almost daily event.

On the heals of the mass shooting here in Washington state another senseless tragedy has struck a family in Indiana and the loss of a 13 year old boy.

so what happened?  The yet unnamed shooter had returned home to find it had been broken into went out on a tirade though the neighborhood.  He then ran into 13 year old  Kobe Jones.  Now did Jones make any physically aggressive moves against this guy?  No.  Was he the one that even burglarized the guys house? Again no!  So what did Jones do that this guy felt he needed to take his life?

Jones was making fun of him for having his house broken into, or so the report by NBC news alleges in the title of their article.  The yet unnamed shooter felt this was enough to fire his gun at this 13 year old boy 9 times and killing him.  

The guy probably had his gun legally but clearly he's a person that probably shouldn't have been allowed to have a gun.  And this highlights the problem with the ludicrously lax gun laws in this country.  Thinks like this keep happening and its not getting better its getting worse.

No no that's all right, 2nd amendment, dont you dare suggest that we start making sure that people who get guns from these legal sources aren't checked to make sure they're responsible enough, dont have a violent background.  Lets just give them the guns and make our money and if a 13 year old boy gets shot nine times and killed, well that's just business baby!

Here's what I dont care about: Gun rights advocates and the supreme courts misinterpretation of the second amendment.  It may be a right to own something but rights are really more like privileges, and this one is being massively abused.  Its time to stop the madness and start making absolutely sure the people that have this kind of easy access.  That misinterpretation comes from one thing: Greed.  That's the short and the long of it.  They dont care about gun violence, though they make sham statements to the otherwise.

There's noting wrong with reasonable gun control.  Doing noting on the outside chance that adding one small piece of legislation or two in the interest of public safety, will be an invite to go too far.  Its deeply misguided and a dangerous stance.  Obviously the reality is, sane sensible gun reform is needed because this free for all is not working and its costing us dearly.

Police Use of Firearms...Off Duty

During the day yesterday I was messing around on Twitter and I got this interesting question in the form of a request to vote in an poll.  The question was "should cops be able to carry their badge and gun while off the clock?"

To answer that I have to assume two things. 

1. The question is asking about government issued equipment
2. That equipment being misused on off duty hours as well as the identification being misused.

Unfortunately I have to look at the fact that abuse of power in law enforcement has been a bad problem most everywhere in the US for decades and we've seen some pretty bad examples of it over the past couple of years, which im not going to list here for time and space sake.

But on duty is not really the question here.  The question is really the use of government issued equipment being used and potentially misused off the clock. 

I would say, and emphatically, no!  Police officers should not be allowed to carry their issued equipment off duty because that equipment is not issued to them for their personal use.  Its issued to them for the expressed use while on duty (and of course sometimes even that gets abused)

What I think should happen is that all guns and badges of police officers should be kept under lock and key at the station the officer is stationed at, when each they are off duty, and then returned to them at the beginning of their next shift.  Always the same badge and gun so they can keep the officer accountable for the care of those two specific Items, but outside of patrolling and emergency calls, those items should not leave the building or be taken home with the officer at the end of his shift.

If the officer, outside of his job, is additionally properly authorized to carry a personal weapon via the gun licensing laws that everyone else not in his job has to abide and is properly licensed to do so, then he can carry that.  Government issued should always mean "NOT for personal use"  And in my opinion, Carrying your badge for work is like me wearing my old Circle K uniform everywhere during my leisure time on my day off when I didn't even go into work in the first place.  You just dont.






                                               

Guns Everywhere and Not an Reasonable Person in Site

Often times when tragedies happen the debate over gun control becomes a central topic and its nothing if not a heated.  Proponents of gun control always talk about reasonable gun control, the gun rights advocates seem to always lose about  100 IQ points or so, at least the unreasonable ones do.  So whats the answer?  In this country its not a simple question to answer but I can tell you whats not the answer: Dont do anything to ebb it and make damn sure that we make the problem worse by expanding so called "gun rights" to unreasonable levels from the already unreasonable levels they're at now.

One of those unreasonable levels that  was in connection to some statements that Anita Sarkeesian, yes this is connected with Gamergate, made and the reaction that came back from those statement, namely,  Rape and death threats.  Pretty classy.  Not only did Wu literally drive her from her home because of these threats she ended up having to cancel the Utah State University speech that she was going to give because of further threats made not only against her but other feminist students attending the speach.

In an anonymous email sent to Utah State University, a threat was made against her and attendees stating that the sender was going to commit a "Montreal style Massacre style attack" (which happened in 1989 In Mantreal, Canada by Mark Lepine who killed 14 Women students and wounde 13 others)at Ecole Polytechnique School of Engineering at the University of Montreal) and said quote: "I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs.  This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history and I'm giving you a chance to stop it.  Even if they're able to stop me, there are plenty of feminists on campus who won't be able to defend themselves.  One way or another, I'm going to make sure they die."

That's a pretty straightforward in your face statement that left no question of what this guys intentions are.  He meant to end lives.  As bad as that is that's not even the worst part.  The University's response to it is.  Now they were going to bring in more police and bomb detectors.  Ok that's good, but when  Sarkeesian indicated that she would really like to make sure no guns were brought into the auditorium to further secure it bringing in metal detectors in to make sure nothing gets through, the university's response was less than acceptable.

They told her no, that Utah is an open carry state and if they want to carry then, oh well!  But this guy just made a major threat to commit the worst school shooting in American history! Nope dont care.  Our rights are more important than your safety.  Now thankfully Sarkeesian did cancel as mentioned earlier, and given the climate and situation, I think that was wise on her part because there was a strong possibility that whoever this person was that sent the threat, it sounds like the treat was confirmed as being a legitimate threat that needed to be dealt with, and I certainly hope the perpetrator of the threat is found, before he does in fact, harm someone.

When things like this rear their head, often the conversation of gun control will come up, much to the dismay of gun right advocates and it really shows how violent and backwards our country has become.  Just on my own Facebook I had response to a meme I favorites and shared, where Sylvester Stallone had said some pretty pointed things about guns that was most decidedly anti gun.  The response of one person from that? "Shoots".  Calling to shoot someone because you dont agree with someone?  Really?

This is indicative of the out of control mentality that the NRA and those that follow them have.  Its just plain irresponsible to believe that with people showing such a mentality that guns should be available in an uncontrolled way.  Regardless of the rulings that were made about it in the supreme court, we simply cant afford to keep this madness going.

And gun rights advocates wonder why we think they're insane.