Part-Time Pundit

Anti-Union??

Unions unhappy with AFL-CIO Organizing needs more emphasis, new coalition says

Pulaski said the governor’s anti-union initiatives include a measure that would make teachers wait five years rather than two years to achieve tenure.

A third would authorize a panel of retired judges to redraw state legislative boundary lines.

The first isn’t directed at unions at all but teachers and making it harder to get tenure where they can’t be fired.

I could buy the second, but that doesn’t attack the power of the union, that enables the member to have MORE of a say in the union… why is democracy bad.

The third is the most ludicrous of them all. What in the world does legislative boundary lines have to do with unions at all?

Sloppy writing? Maybe. A B&W session because they have nothing better to say? Probably.

June 16th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | National | no comments

In Maine It’s Murder to Kill a Pregnant Woman, To Kill Her Child Is Apparently Legal

Maine Family Unhappy With Compromise on Unborn Victims Bill

Maine’s legislators apparently compromised on the fact that killing a pregnant woman is a little more serious than killing a non-pregnant woman. They did not, however, add a second charge to killing the unborn child. You still can only be charged for the first murder, but the fact that the child died is only a consideration during sentencing.

This, however, goes to show that an unborn child is something of consequence to people not simply a blob of cells. No one minds getting warts lasered off (another type of cell blobs) but when you kill an unborn child it somehow makes a murder worse…

If life didn’t start until birth, then why do so many people support punishing people who criminally attack pregnant woman and injure the child (despite the fact in this case they don’t recognize a second charge)?

June 16th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | Pro-Life | no comments

ACLU: Legalize Child Porn, Think of the Pedophiles

The case is New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747. The ACLU in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court argued that the possession of child pornography should be legalized. Twilight of Liberty summarizes:

” The ACLU’s position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit.” ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of the ages of its performers; this would be “a gross violation of privacy.”

To the ACLU, violating an 8 year old on tape is bad, but to support the production of that tape by buying it is ok. Needless to say the Supreme Court rejected this obvious stupidity, but it makes it clear that this organization doesn’t see a problem with supporting the child porn industry because legal regulations would be a “gross violation of privacy”.

Sounds like Planned Parenthood’s arguments when covering up for child rape. We would hate for the privacy of pedophiles to be violated, afterall. That’s much more important than protecting kids.

June 16th, 2005 Posted by John Bambenek | Law / Legal Issues | 10 comments