atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#4921: One of the many reasons I don't like unions.

Like all leftists they're hypocritical. Short form: union employs non-union workers and treats them like dirt, and fires them rather than letting them unionize. Because the head of the union likes being able to fire people at will even as it agitates to make it impossible to fire union employees, such as teachers.

The union also likes being able to pay its nonunion employees some $10,000 per year less than its union employees, doing the same work in the same office. They like that a lot.

And in fact my link text is a paraphrasal of the concluding sentence of the piece. "Like so many progressive organizations," it concludes, "what unions expect from everyone else never applies to what they expect of themselves."

* * *

I still don't understand what the hell Obama is doing. His foreign policy doesn't make any sense to me. At least with Bush I could kind-of-sort-of figure out what the fuck was going on, even if I thought it was a dumb idea, but as far as I can tell Obama's foreign policy is completely insensate.

I had no idea that the "reset button" Hillary offered to Putin was resetting our relations to "1979".

What's so important about getting Assad out of power in Syria? Why don't we work with Russia to get rid of ISIS? Who cares about other powers having their own ideas about policy? It's natural and normal for other parties in a system to have conflicting interests and there's nothing wrong with them pursuing those interests as long as they don't interfere with ours (militarily, for example, or other deleterious ways).

The essence of Democrat foreign policy for decades has been, "So-and-so is not a nice person. Even though he is friendly to American interests, he's got to go, because he's mean. It would be much better if he were replaced with someone who is less mean, even if that person is hostile to American interests."

That's why the Shah of Iran ended up being replaced with the Ayatollah Khomeini and our embassy was seized by "students" in 1979. The Shah was a skunk, yes, but he kept the lid on the islamic shitheads, and once loosed upon the world the islamic shitheads promptly acted like the savages they were. Carter's foreign policy FTW.

Assad--he's no angel, and there may be someone out there who'd be better in the job than he is...but so far the Obama administration is oh or two in their "democratize the middle east" effort and I am not optimistic about their chances for success here. Particularly not when Assad is actively fighting the real threat to our interests in the middle east (ISIS). So let's say Obama gets Assad out. Who replaces him? Someone more friendly to ISIS? How does that help anything?

To make matters worse, Obama's going after Russia because they're helping Assad fight ISIS which, as I said, is the main threat to our interests in the middle east. This, after Obama helped oust Mubarak (America-friendly leader of Egypt) and Qaddafi (well-cowed dictator of Libya who was not going to make any trouble) because his administration said it wanted to help bring democracy to those nations. (And in the wake of Qaddafi's ouster? Benghazi, of which Shrillary tells us, "What difference does it make?")

It's long past time that America stopped meddling in middle east politics solely because we think they should be doing X or Y. We should never have started; it's always better to deal with a friendly skunk than a rabid raccoon or a pissed-off rattlesnake. Even if you have to hold your nose once in a while, your life is a lot easier.

* * *

There's supposed to be a lunar eclipse tonight. Of course, it's overcast, and the forecast shows no sign of that being any different later today. Well, here's hoping.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment