About Me

Name: Kel-C
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Moral Equivalency

Posted by Kel-C on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:15:47 PM
Last night on Hannity and Colmes, the two hosts had a verbal scuffle over the treatment of Edwards's affair vs. McCain's affair.  
 
Hannity asked the panel how Edwards could be trusted with his promises to the country (if he had become the President) when he can't keep a vow to the people he loves most.  When Colmes got his chance, he asked the same question about McCain, who admitted to cheating on his first wife when he returned from Vietnam.  While I think the question is valid, neither Hannity nor the other panelists could give a decent answer.  The panelists said McCain's affair was fully vetted or brought the discussion back to Edwards.  Hannity said it was understandable because McCain was tortured and came back a changed man.  But no one answered Colmes's question.
 
Here's why the two are different.  Almost every person who would run for office has made a mistake of some sort in his or her life or has come to change his or her mind about the world (I know I have - I was a Democrat before I went to college).  Short of serious crimes such as treason, bribery, or murder, I look at a politician's horizon of about 15 years.  That's why I could care less about Obama's drug use or Bush's alcohol use or McCain's affair or the HUGE glasses Hillary wore in the 70's while working against Nixon.  We all make mistakes. 
 
The past 15 years is what has most shaped how a person is today.  John McCain cheated on his first wife more than 25 years ago.  By all accounts (with the exception of a hit piece in the New York Times), he has been faithful to his current wife and has overcome almost all of the personal problems that led him to cheat in the first place (he apparently has a slight temper, though).  Those years also show his record of voting and how he stands on issues.  That's what makes me want to vote for him.
 
Now take Obama's past 15 years.  Rev. Wright.  William Ayers.  Chicago politics.  The votes he's made in the Senate to date.  That's all I need to know.  I don't care if he smoked pot and did tons of coke and was enamored with Communist poetry in college.  I don't care if his parents had him in a Muslim school when he was child and had no say in the matter.  Look at his record over the past 15 years, and there is no comparison to McCain's. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tyson Gives In

Posted by Kel-C on Friday, August 08, 2008 11:25:19 AM
Well, looks like Tyson is definitely a hen and not a rooster.
 
Tyson reopened negotiations with the union at their Shelbyville, TN plant in order to reinstate Labor Day and reduce the amount of bad press they've been getting.  The company succeeded, and now employees at that plant will have Labor Day off.  The Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr will now be covered under a personal holiday, which can also be used to replace the employee birthday holiday for non-Muslims that was lost.

So now, half of the plant will be empty on one day because it's now a floating holiday and not everyone will take that day off.  That's tough for planning, but boycotters don't care.  Just don't give in to any religion except Christianity. 
Tags: religion  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Boycott Tyson?

Posted by Kel-C on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:12:49 PM
A large company has allowed for a religious holiday to be observed by its employees instead of another traditional holiday.  Over half of its employees celebrate this holiday, and the contract with this new provision was passed by 80% of the unionized members (1,000 out of 1,200 total employees). 
 
So why are boycotts against this company being called for?  Because the religious holiday being celebrated is a Muslim one.

It was announced that one of the Tyson Foods poultry processing plants would be giving up Labor Day holiday for Eid-al-Fitr, a day of celebration that marks the end of Ramadan in the fall. This change does not affect Tyson's other 119 plants.  Muslims make up over 50% of the workforce at that location, 700 of 1,200 employees. 
 
Each employee gets eight paid holidays a year, the same amount as before the new contract.  The other seven holidays are the employee's birthday, New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. 
 
What is the big deal?  If this were a case of changing Labor Day for Good Friday because 700 of 1,200 employees are Catholic and would like that day off instead, we'd see praise!  In this case, these Muslims aren't asking for anything extraordinary.  This is an important day for them, and they are the majority in this case.  They asked their non-government employer to make a change, and almost 70% of the employees voted for it.  While I'm no fan of unions, the company decided that would be a fair accommodation to make during negotiations for a new contract so they agreed to it.
 
I, for one, will continue to support Tyson fully.  In fact, I bought myself some yummy chicken nuggets this morning just because I saw this story.  
Tags: religion  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Obama Fifty

Posted by Kel-C on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:21:06 AM
Through all of this my-statement-was-not-about-race garbage when Obama said the GOP would scare voters by contrasting him with those on the currency, I have wondered what Obama really meant if it wasn't about race.

First of all, it's garbage that this comment wasn't about race.  He's said it directly before.  I saw Tom Daschle on Fox News Sunday, and he almost couldn't keep a straight face when he said that the comment was about Obama's age compared to Presidents on currency. 

Another Obama surrogate was on The O'Reilly Factor Friday trying to tell Laura Ingraham that it's because he's more about change than any other President.  Really?  More change than Washington, who only lead the revolution to create the country, or Lincoln, who ended slavery?  C'mon!
 
So, what DID he mean when he said that?  I think it all has to do with his ego.  Sure, he wants to be President to feed his ego and have power and be the first black President.  But we all know what comes with that.  Hours after he passes after a long after his Presidency would end, there would be a bill on the floor of Congress that would forever immortalize him on our currency.  Maybe he'd replace Grant on the $50 bill.  That would probably be like the $1 bill by the time he passes. 
 
He doesn't just want to be President, he wants to be immortal! 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »