John Kerry & the other taser incident
What is it with John Kerry and taser incidents? For the second time in two days, there was a discussion involving tasers, with John Kerry being too oblivious to notice.
I will spend little time discussing the famous taser incident, since Criminy Jicket summed it up perfectly. For more in depth coverage, Michelle Malkin is on top of it.
http://criminyjicket.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/taserit-does-a-body-good/
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/17/student-tasered-at-john-kerry-forum/
The gist of the incident is that a maggot infested Moveon.org type creature started screaming at John Kerry for having the nerve to allow President Bush to continue governing even though Mr. Bush won the election.
This screaming bag of filth acted in a manner similar to other Americans who have been institutionalized for similar fits of rage. The police subdued him, he played “truth or dare,” with them, and they accepted his dare to be tasered.
I am no supporter of Smarty Jones (Kerry), but as a conservative tired of seeing conservative speakers shouted down, I must support Kerry’s right to bore people to death unimpeded. What if this fellow had a gun? Had Senator Kerry (God forbid) been shot, the police would have been criticized for reacting too slowly. If the police officers were republicans, the Jayson Blair Times would have run a front page story about a deliberate plot to let him die. Instead, the police did their jobs, and subdued a lunatic. The rager against the machine was disturbing the peace, and could have instigated a riot.
The only thing Kerry seems guilty of is ignoring the entire episode around him. Fine, so John Kerry is a liberal gasbag who is self absorbed. In this case he was right to ignore the fellow in the same way that television cameras now refuse to show sports fans who run onto the field naked. Kerry may have come across as shallow, which he is, but at least Kerry inadvertently ignored a publicity hound worthy of ignoring. I would have either deliberately ignored him or organized cheerleaders to taser him again. Heck, I could have done my best George W. Bush impersonation (college version) and branded the guy on his hide myself.
However, there was a second incident that Kerry and the mainstream media ignored that was far more serious. Past and present members of the National Football League were testifying before congress, and the issues could have been brought by any Americans.
I know, a good part of my life revolves around the NFL, but this was not about wins and losses. It was about human beings trying to survive.
The NFL is being sued by former players who claim that the NFL pension system does not take care of former players. Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Players Association Rep Gene Upshaw were testifying about the pension system, but the real heartbreaking testimony was by former players.
The NFL is now a multi billion dollar industry, but this was not always the case. In the 1960s, heroes such as Vince Lombardi and Tom Landry had to sell insurance in the offseason to survive.
Football is a violent, brutal game, and while the players play voluntarily, they deserve the same right to a decent pension as a coal miner, a schoolteacher or anybody else since that pension is promised.
Garrett Webster is the son of former Pro Bowl Center Mike Webster. Mike Webster played for the Pittsburgh Steelers dynasty in the 1970s. He retired from the game, but was not able to live a normal life due to severe injuries. He could not walk or move. This brings us to the taser. Garrett Webster would have to taser his father just to be able to help him move, so that his father could get up and use the restroom. Sometimes he could not make the trip, and would live like an animal, the trip to the restroom being too painful on his once proud Superbowl and Pro Bowl body.
Again, It took a taser to help this man move. So how does this relate to John Kerry? While North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan was asking tough but fair questions at the senate hearing, John Kerry was sitting in the hearing talking on his cell phone. His cell phone? Are you kidding me? No, I am not. He then got up and walked out of the hearing in the middle of the most crucial part of the testimony.
Yes, this condescending, self absorbed man whose only talent seems to be marrying wealthy women really cares about the working man. He cares so much that he leaves senate hearings in the middle of a man talking about his dying father’s pain and inability to be given his pension. Again, do not confuse all football players with millionaires. The NFL did not explode from a salary standpoint until the 1990s. Many players from the 1930s through the 1970s are starving, often selling their possessions to survive.
How can a senator who claims to care about unions and working men ignore men like Garrett Webster? John Kerry apparently was too busy to hear Hall of Famer Mike Ditka stating, “Don’t make grown men beg. We have dignity.”
I want to make it clear that I am not taking sides in this pension dispute. I do not have all the facts. All I know is that many Americans, especially those on the left, complain that the rich get richer while good people go hungry and homeless. Rock star Bret Michaels of Poison in his song “Something to Believe In,” sings, “It just makes me wonder, why so many lose and so few win…give me something to believe in.” Where are the hordes of people protesting that some football players make millions while the players who built the modern NFL have to beg for their pensions?
Again, I personally am not taking sides, but why are unions so unwilling to represent those that are not in sympathetic lines of work? Why are men like John Kerry so willing to speak about how important helping those in need is, yet so unwilling to follow through in terms of at least listening to these very people?
The answer is simple. It is never about doing right with these limousine and lear jet (thank you Sean Hannity) liberals. It is about preening for the cameras. It is about making speeches. It is about Hollywood actors sleeping outside to feel like a homeless person rather than inviting one into their mansion. It is about presidential candidates talking about poverty while building 30,000 square foot homes, while owning businesses that evict poorer neighbors from their homes. It is about Hillary Clinton decrying the politics of personal destruction while refusing to condemn human filth like Moveon.org that traffics in smearing honorable soldiers.
I can understand why John Kerry would turn a blind eye to some young savage baboon ranting and raving to get 15 minutes of fame. I cannot understand how John Kerry can show complete indifference to congressional testimony that affects human lives. The next time he compliments the Green Bay Packers at “Lambert (it’s actually Lambeau) Field,” it will not seem so funny.
I hope that Good men like Roger Goodell and Gene Upshaw can figure out a way to preserve the integrity of their pension system. They have every right to be concerned about abuse of the system by fraudulent claims. Players who took illegal drugs, or suffered injuries unrelated to football, are not entitled to aspects of the pension (unless the drug use or reckless behavior was sanctioned by the teams, as opposed to off field unrelated behavior). However, the NFL does not consist of millions of people. It is a few thousand at most. Separating the legitimate cases that require financial assistance from the fraudulent cases is a serious matter.
Making sure that elderly crippled men that cannot walk, feed, clothe or bathe themselves receive honorable treatment from their employer that they fought, bled, and scored touchdowns for is a serious matter.
Making sure that a man does not have to be tasered to be able to tell that he is still alive is a serious matter.
It is so serious that the (dis) honorable senator from Massachusetts might wish to stop talking about caring and start actually caring by sitting down, being quiet for once in his windsurfing and windbagging life, and just listening.
eric
September 19th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I don’t know what you are talking about. I’ve heard plenty of voices from the labor movement and the Left standing up for these old ball players. I think you just don’t spend a lot of time paying attention to the Left and labor.
JMJ
September 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Jersey,
the labor movement? oh yeah, the same guys who gave us jimmy hoffa.
Ask yourself WHY enrollment in unions are dropping but party bosses, whose SOLE JOB is arbitration, make 300K+ a year?
For example, it costs GM about 8K PER CAR made to pay for union benefits for the company. That 8K MORE that YOU have to pay for the car.
And liberals wonder why we can’t compete and WHY we make such sh*tty cars.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Kerry is typical of the left….tell people ANYTHING if it will win an election. Hillary is another perfect example. As a senator she has done NOTHING for NY or America.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Hey, Gunny, I’m seeing you all over the place!
Yeah, unions are worthless, salary-sucking organizations that do noone any good. I haven’t met a decent one yet . . .
September 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
If it wasn’t for the labor movement… ya’ know, forget it. You guys are… just forget it.
JMJ
September 19th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I have worked in 3 unions, Iron workers, Hotel and Retail grocers.
After spending approximatly 15 years in labor unions I can say with no doubt that it is one of the most constrictive and unimaginative conditions I have ever worked in. I have seen first hand how labor rates are pushed through the roof due to the system that promotes a mentallity of “just do your time”
The union houses give employees more reasons NOT to work and more excuses and reasons to jerk off than I’ve ever seen anywhere.
As an Iron worker if it started to rain we would draw a 3 foot circle and if more than 20 drops landed in the circle in a minute we would go home. Even if it only rained for that one minute all day. We would get a full days pay for doing nothing.
As a grocery clerk I was not allowed to bag groceries no matter how busy the store got.
Similar attitude and rules apply in the hotel / rest. unions also.
This kind of organization actually hampers productivity due to the fact that you dont have to do anything you dont want to do . And if you do go above and beyond the call of duty you get written up, or no praise for actually doing a little more than what is expected.
So where is the incentive? Where is the foundation to stimulate creativity and competition which breeds progress and innovation ?
The most imaginative and creative and productive houses or fields I’ve worked in have been independently owned and managed.
And they were fun also.
I remember working for Safeway in Honolulu , it was Chritmas and the Heinekin cases come in a red and green holiday design. I figured if I stacked them on the sales floor in a pyramid shape it would look like a Christmas tree. I got scolded by not asking management for permission to make such a huge decision. I mean WTF ?
Everyone loved it and it made the floor look nice and it was actually safer than the traditional rectangular stack. But NOOOOOOOOO. I had to take it down.
I’ll never work in a union house again, Mostly because I cant stand being around people who have had all imagination and individuality and morale stripped from their being. They dont care as long as they get their 40 hours a week.
I’ll take a little mom & pop restaraunt over a union house any day of the year.
The staff is allowed to flex and use their imagination and the staff is motivated by quality and progress instead of a scale. Results are driven by incentive.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Unions, like everything else in life, have their ups and downs. A good union lives up to it’s duty - to be a union of people with like minds and goals, struving to achieve better things for all concerned. There is the union of marraige. There is a the union of states. There is the union of workers. Ideally, a union of workers strives to make their working lives and their work better. It should be for the best for all concerned. For the workers, their families, their employers, and the society. To be against unions in general is to be against marraige, families, towns, states, cultures, employees, employers, productivity, progress and societies. We should work to make unions better, not to be rid of unions.
JMJ
September 19th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Nah.
You pay me and respect me, you’ll get what you asked for.
I dont need no one to hold my hand.
The union thats needed should be the agreement to work to a certain goal with a certain work ethic.
Adults with conviction can do this without any guidance.
Like I said , the non union houses were always more fun and had better products and profit margins.
Marriage ?
Sex is a union too, but hardly qualifies to the subject at hand
September 20th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Jersey’s argument for unions is that they did good things for America back in the 30’s. That seems to be how liberals think. Social Security started out as a widow and orphans fund, a good thing, at 1% tax. Not bad. Now it’s 13% (6.5 emplr/6.5 emply) and you’re lucky if you live to collect it and NONE OF IT passes to your heirs like privatization would allow.
But hey, according to liberals like Jersey, it was good back in the 30’s so it’s GOTTA be good now right?
In any event, that’s why I don’t buy American cars anymore. They make a sh*tty product and I don’t like funding organized crime and the DNC.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Jersey, your post at 642 was pretty lame. So since Unions arose from communism/socialism, then I should want to be a commie using your logic. After all, unions repersent Mom, the flag, and apple pie!
Please.
How many fallacies are in Jersey’s argument at 642?
1. Appeal to tradition
2. Appeal to the majority
3. Appeal to the people
4. Appeal to emotion
5. Hasty Generalization
6. Appeal to Pity
September 20th, 2007 at 12:48 am
DDennis,
On Drudge or Rush I hope! haha.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:46 am
GEORGE W. BUSH STOLE THE 29004. HOW IN GOD’S NAME DO PEOPLE’S MINDS BECOME SO TWISTED THAT DEFEND LIES SUCH AS IN THIS ARTICLE. THIS IS THE VERY REASON WELL OVER A MILLION PEOPLE HAVE DIED IN IRAQ AND WHY THE BUSH REGIME WAS INVOLVED WITH THE 9/11 ATTACKS.. YOU ARE ALL GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:56 am
I’m trying to post…
JMJ
September 20th, 2007 at 4:56 am
I’ve worked in both union and non-union shops. Both had their ups and downs. In my twenties I was an inspector in the auto industry (mirrors). Sometimes we manufactured a faulty mirror, and, tolerances being what they are in the auto biz, even one bad mirror in a batch of 50,000 meant that we inspectors would be off to some auto plant somewhere to inspect every single remaining mirror (remember, just one bad part and the whole assembly line stops). I remember a plant worker asking me once if I was union, I told him no (I was technically management), and he said, “No wonder they sent you, they’d have to pay me $56 dollars an hour to do that!” I was making about $23 p/h for that back then. He said that it was because it was not a part of his regular job description (though he was an SAE inspector assigned specifically to that part of the line) he would have to be paid time & 1/2 for such a task. I never knew what to make of that. Just the same, an auto plant is a huge, complex, dangerous place. Unions actually make life easier for the manufacturers in many ways. Simple pay scales, division of labor, and handling of individual issues, takes the pressure of the companies to deal with all these things. The union can be very handy.
…
JMJ
September 20th, 2007 at 4:57 am
Auto parts makers are another story. The poor immigrant line workers back at my place made only $5+ p/h and their union served only to provide a little health insurance for the liners and personal graft for themselves. On the other hand, when certain bosses were sexually harassing (and impregnating) some of the workers, the union stepped in and fixed the problem without having to get the courts and lawyers involved, which for a small company could spell the end. The workers involved lacked the faith in mgmt to help them (though they should have, but they didn’t know and past experiences elsewhere informed them otherwise), but they trusted the union for redress and got it.
…
JMJ
September 20th, 2007 at 4:58 am
Later, I was working container lines at a corp hq in the NYC area. Our LA office unionized. Some of my foreign co-workers asked me if we were planning to do the same. I said, “No. You guys treat us very well. Besides, East Coast unions are strong and have too much to lose for a fight.” But labor is weak in California and the unions were playing their hands to get into the new terminals that were being built out there and the only way to do it was to get into the offices first. Those unions had nothing to lose. Container terminals are tough, dangerous, polluted places to work. Unions at the terminals help the workers cope with a rough trade.
…
JMJ
September 20th, 2007 at 4:59 am
A few of things I learned from these experiences, and others: 1) If we had universal healthcare, unions and union wages wouldn’t be much of an issue. Healthcare is a huge overhead burden on our profitability, productivity, and competitiveness. We really are cannibalizing ourselves. 2) I never work for Americans. They may pay better, but their benefits are lousy. I worked for the Brits, the Mexicans, the Germans and the Chinese. All paid lower, but gave me plenty of time off and great insurance benefits. If American companies treated their workers better, they’d have nothing to fear from unions. 3) Unions can be bad, good or indifferent, and usually are a mix of the three, like anything else. But eliminating them will only make the condition of the American worker worse and do nothing to increase our profits, productivity and competitiveness. The blind hatred of unions really is just another bogeyman for the rightwing to keep their eyes off real political prizes, and quick, short-term cash in their pockets.
JMJ
September 20th, 2007 at 5:47 am
Just a thought.
I’d have paid to see the cops taze Ol Hanoi John Fonda-Kerry-Heinz.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Having worked for some corporations with a meanspiritied approach to employment, the only way for an individual worker to get modestly decent pay and any modicum of respect or safety in the work place was with unionization.
I think there are good unions and there are worthless unions but without them powerful corporations would have squashed labor.
If the companies were all as benificent as some of these posters have described there would be no role for a union. BUT they aren’t all so fair and caring to their workers.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Can you imagine if they tazed those code pink ladys that were at the Patraeus testimony ?
Hah ! They probably would of lit up like Christmas trees, did anyone see all the crap they had on ?
O Reilly just came out with bumper sticker that reads” Dont taze me bro”
Honest.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Eric,
You mentioned Hillary and how she didn’t come out and condemn the Move On NYT Hit peice. There is going to be a problem for her at the Primarys and the National Election, for not making a formal announcement denouncing Move On’s HIT on Patraeus. The Dems had a widow of opportunity, and the window has closed, they have given the Reps another arrow in their quiver. I am making a list, I think the Reps are being very patient, then the closer to the primarys and the national election, the arrows are going to fly. The Senate voted for Patraeus, no dissent, does this mean the Dems in the US Senate, don’t know, what they are voting for? The Dems apparently think you can vote a certain way and no one will notice. That is what comes up in elections, your Voting record. Is Hillary going to be another Kerry, I was against Patraeus before I was for him, and depending on the polling, I may or may not be for or against him, in the future….depending on what the definition of “For” is. GRIN.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Nobody will bet that Hillary will roll over on another subject soon, its a gaurantee.
Yea but laree, you followed “for’ with “is”.
Now I’m totally confused.
We have labor laws and countless organizations to ensure saftey and fairness at the work place. I have a feeling that if they just did their jobs there would be a lot less need for unions.
Unions set rules that allow for very little improvisation when things dont go exactly as they are accorded to. This is ridiculous and expensive and insults the intelligence of the worker, and mangements cannot do what any normal system would dictate in a time of inconsistancy.
Very similar to the paradox our miltary has to deal with.
Its called rules of engagement. Too many cooks spoil the soup.
Once you get all these other factions and outside organizations to start implementing what they believe is right and wrong , the system no matter if its the work place at home or our guys in the field becomes almost disfunctional.
I always believed that good labor and work ethics are a commodity that will reap the highest price in a free market.
Unions stand in the way of the further developement of these omportant traits that should be carried into the work place.
How do you build morale and a competitive spirit when you know that as long as you do the bare the minimum you’ll get paid anyway ? Plus , unions make it almost impossible to fire a bad or not very productive employee. This very apparent in the case with our public school teachers.
I know for a fact that half my sons teachers are about as motivated as a rock. I’ve met with them.
In Hawaii my sons school, the complex area, and the state do not even come close proficiency on reading and math assesments.(proficiency is at 300, the state,area, and school are between 280 and 290}
My neice goes to a private school. All scores are 350 and over. And the same goes for most of all the other private schools here.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Private schools are exclusive, though, Micky. Public schools are stuck with whatever kids happen to live in the area. When you look at the history of the union movement, you’ll note that the industries (especially heavy industries and massive public institutions) in which they are involved - defence, auto, healthcare, universities - work very well and are highly innovative. If you took health insurance costs out of the picture, these sectors would be all the more profitable and competitive. You’ll also note that a decline in the family in America coincided with the decline in public school achievement. When unions were strongest, you’ll also note, our families were stronger. One man could earn enough for a family and the kids would get the sort of attention they needed to succeed. Now, with the decline of unions, both parents are working, half of them are divorced, and the kids are doing worse. And remember, nothing breaks up families like financial discord. I contend that unions make industry and instituions and families better almost every way you look at it. I do not content that everyone should be in a union, that unions are right for everyone, that all unions are perfect, or that every industry should have unions involved. But I feel quite certain that there is no coincidence between the decline of the union movement and the general decline of the American family (and thus public schools). Remember as well, our schools have been run pretty much the same, with prettuy much the same cirricula for over a century, yet were more productive 50 years ago than now. And remember, back then a third of the workforce was unionized, whereas only about 4-7% are now.
JMJ
September 21st, 2007 at 5:04 am
Hey SALLY,
Nice post. Are you trying to get nominated for rabid moonbat of the year?
Since you’re already in full liberal froth-mode, swing by my blog,
http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/Default.aspx
and read some comments from your fellow peace, love, and tolerance libs on the LEFT coast!
September 21st, 2007 at 9:30 am
Sally,
There are signs that maybe it could be true that its possible that almost a portion of people who think it might be true that maybe one of these days it could be two days that some people have told me there are signs of a possibilty that this could be true. At least thats what I heard someone in the back at starbucks say
I’m with you girl !
Dont you wish Bush would stop putting those stickers on our organic produce ?
The sticker is there to cover up the hole from the site he injects the LSD into.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:17 am
Sally,
Did you see that video on CNN with that SUV driving around on Mars, putting out carbon and heating up the Mars atmosphere? I did and it had:
HALIBURTON on the door!
September 21st, 2007 at 11:54 am
Maybe just for the fun of it Eric would like to do a post inviting links to and quotes of all the moonbat conspiracy theories and accusations that have been thrown at Bush and the administration ?
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
Micky2,
I don’t think that the server can handle that type of load! haha.
The left, strangely silent throughout the Clinton years, erupts to blame Bush for everything. I WONDER how much tax money was wasted during Clinton’s “meals-on-wheels” foreign policy.
I mean, for a deployment that was only supposed to be SIX MONTHS, we SURE stayed in Bosnia a long time.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
“I mean, for a deployment that was only supposed to be SIX MONTHS, we SURE stayed in Bosnia a long time.”
And we were successful and not a single US soldier died from combat there.
Clinton left us with a surplus and the overall debt rose very little. Bush will levae us with a deficit and probably around a% increase in the nartional debt - oh, and a negative savings rate, higher crime and poverty, two failing wars, a most likely a full-fledged recession. Great job, there!
We have good reason to “blame Bush.” You guys had nothing.
JMJ
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Moving over to this thread.
Same thing
JMJ said;
We have good reason to “blame Bush.” You guys had nothing
OK jersey, we’ll take your word for it.
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Let’s try this again, Micky…
Clinton left us with a surplus and the overall debt rose very little. Bush will leave (sp) us with a deficit and probably around a 70% (sp) increase in the nartional debt - oh, and a negative savings rate, higher crime and poverty, two failing wars, a most likely a full-fledged recession. Great job, there!
Care to disprove any of that, or has cognitive dissonance gotten the best of ya’?
JMJ
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
JMJ said
“Bush will levae us with a deficit and probably around a% increase in the nartional debt - oh, and a negative savings rate, higher crime and poverty, two failing wars, a most likely a full-fledged recession. Great job, there!
We have good reason to “blame Bush.” You guys had nothing.
Disprove WHAT?
everything is only your opinion ! (You even said probably)
Failing war (opinion)
National debt ( all wars have a price tag) for some reason you hate paying for security.
You said ;
higher crime and poverty, two failing wars, a most likely a full-fledged recession. Great job, there!
I like the “most likely” part. And once again you go and say “great job there.
I want everyone to step this way and look into Jerseys eyes and you will see the future, this is how he knows so much folks.
Disprove your opinion ?
Clinton is history and so the surplus can be proven, the rest is all your imagination.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
You have nothing but opinion to offer on this thread also.
Playing word games again as usual
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/to-moveonorg-with-luv-osama/#comments