Thursday, July 29, 2010
Just a thought. If we're a land of laws and no one is above the law then doesn't that mean all laws must be enforced? Apparently not. It seems we have certain people in the government at local, state and federal levels who decide which laws to enforce. Aren't these people sworn to uphold the law? Are they breaking a law when they don't uphold the law? Does this mean it is ok to break the law in certain situations? How do I find out which laws I can break? If later on they decide to uphold the law am I grandfathered in since I was breaking the law when it was ok? If I know someone that is breaking the law but I know it is one of the laws it is ok to break am I an accomplice? Do the lawmakers represent the will of the people when they make the laws? Is there a way for the lawmakers to know they are working on a law that won't be enforced so maybe they can stop wasting their time on that particular law? How many laws are there? How many do we actually enforce? Just a thought. Maybe we should undo all the laws we don't want to enforce. Maybe we should do something before the masses catch on that we have a ruling elite that decide these things, and all this law stuff is just a charade.
Friday, July 9, 2010
I thought this cartoon from City Journal tells it all.
Unfortunately, union leadership has ruined whatever legitimate purpose unions served and if you subscribe to the "pendulum" theory we will most likely need them in the future when power swings back to management and workers really get abused.
It is still difficult for me to envision how unions serve a purpose in the public sector where management is indifferent to cost and therefore open to whatever demands are put on them as long as the bureaucracy survives.