About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Breaking Marital Vows

Posted by Playful Walrus on Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:22:20 AM
I do not excuse the breaking of marital vows.  But have you listened to the marital vows?  Having sex with someone other than your spouse is just one of many, many ways people break marital vows every day.  Again, I do not excuse cheating on your spouse, but we don't really know what has gone on behind closed doors.  Sometimes... SOMETIMES... not necessarily in any particular case in the news lately... the spouse being cheated on has already broken the marital vows in some serious ways - even if none of those ways included sex with someone else.

Unfortunately, we often find out about sexual contact with someone else, because there are so many people involved.  And because we, as a society, are obsessed with sex.  That's why there are strip bars, prostitutes, "adult" media, and the term "sexual harassment", when there are so many other ways to harass someone that are not given their own name.

Some people cheat because they are lousy people.  Some people cheat because they react poorly to being wronged.  Either way, cheating is wrong.  But sometimes, the other spouse is also to blame - even if it is just for picking the wrong person to marry.

We need politicians who do not have something to hide, something distracting them or that can be used to blackmail them.  We need politicians who can be true to their family obligations.

Are they really so hard to find?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More Big Labor Shenanigans

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:09:13 PM
Paul Pringle of the Los Angeles Times has two articles about the latest SEIU shenanigans.  Of course, we all know that the Los Angeles Times is just a right-wing rag, right?  This first article is about a man named James Bryant.
A Bay Area officer of the scandal-clouded Service Employees International Union has collected double salaries, one as a city transit worker and the other from a charity that receives much of its funding from the labor organization and corporate interests, records show.

In addition, the nonprofit paid more than $16,000 in rent for the officer's home in 2007, the most recent year for which the charity's tax return is available, according to his son, who is also on the charity's payroll.

James Bryant, who earned just under $68,000 as a transit station agent in 2007, received about $117,000 that year as president of the San Francisco chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, according to the tax return and the city's Municipal Transportation Agency. He was also paid or reimbursed about $10,000 as an executive board member for SEIU Local 1021, whose political committee he chairs, the union's financial statements show.
And what does the nonprofit do?
The nonprofit's tax-exempt purpose is to promote property rights, voter education and the interests of white business owners.
Oops, I’m sorry.  I played with that a little.  Here’s what the article actually says:
The nonprofit's tax-exempt purpose is to promote civil rights, voter education and the interests of black workers.
Let’s see – I'm sure the "voter education" aspect doesn’t promote voter fraud, or instruct people to vote for socialism and larger government.
Its biggest contributors include Pacific Gas & Electric and other corporate benefactors that have enlisted it to campaign for or against ballot initiatives dealing with energy and land development.
Make sure you pay your utility bill.
The institute's corporate supporters say the nonprofit's campaign work helped preserve funding for social programs and supported the construction of affordable housing.
Ugh.  We know that what "affordable housing" means.  And "social programs" can be just about anything, as long as it doesn't promote traditional values.
He said the charity's rent payments for the house amount to less than half of his father's monthly mortgage bills and are justified because more than 75% of the home is devoted to the nonprofit.
Suuuure.
The charity paid $5,000 to use the house in 2006, he said. It has also rented office space at a San Francisco union hall at the same time it was paying rent on the house, he said. He said the payments for the house continued last year.
Spread the wealth.
The local represents 58,000 city, county and other public-sector workers, as well as nonprofit and nursing industry employees.
Government employees, whose paychecks get dinged to pay the union, which in turn funds political efforts and backs politicians who will expand government, thereby creating more union members.  It's a neat little cycle, isn't it?

Here's Pringle's other article, on Annelle Grajeda.
The Service Employees International Union's highest-ranking California officer has resigned that position and two other leadership posts in the wake of an internal investigation of payments to her ex-boyfriend, it was announced today.
So she resigned?
The union said Grajeda, who could not be reached for comment, had decided to become an assistant to the SEIU's secretary-treasurer in Washington, D.C.
Ah.  She was simply shuffled around.
SEIU spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette said the internal probe determined that Grajeda "never stood to benefit" from any money Stephens received.
No, of course not.  How would she benefit from money given to a boyfriend?

Do you know where your union dues are?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What’s Good For the Goose

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, October 27, 2008 12:40:39 PM
When Democrats and other supporters of former President Clinton are rebuffed in their criticisms of President Bush when defenders of Bush compare something Bush has done to something Clinton did, they often blow up and say something alone the lines of "Is that your answer to everything?  That Clinton did it, so it is okay?"

Actually, our argument in that case is that you, the Clinton supporter, apparently thought such things were okay, because you didn’t speak up when Clinton did them.  You only complained when Bush did them.  You have a lot less standing to bash Bush for doing something akin to what Clinton did, especially if you supported Clinton’s behavior.

It’s going to be the same thing if Obama is elected.  The MSM and other Obama supporters have glossed over Obama’s associations with extremists, radicals, terrorists, and criminals.  But don’t make the mistake of thinking they will EVER give a pass on a Republican for having some sort of connection to extremists or criminals, no matter how distant and casual.

And when we point out that it was okay by them that Obama had such associations, they will blow up in frustration and again say, "Is that your answer for everything?  That Obama did it, too?"

It is the worst kind of partisanship to hold the other side to standards to which you do not hold yours.

According to some analysts, Mark Foley was one reason the Democrats made gains in 2006.  Yet does anyone expect Republicans to make gains because of the scandals of his successor, Tim Mahoney?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »