The consequences of actions

The Action: Voting in (twice) a recovering alcoholic who believes that without Jesus, he’d be rolling in the gutter sucking on a stale Schlitz. Said recovering alcoholic (who had other experimentations, as well), is beholden to the Religious Right, and makes very transparent efforts to turn the government into a theocracy. He then gets to nominate two men to be on the Supreme Court, who share his Christ-astic world vision.

The Consequence: It’s now legal to discriminate against women in the workplace.

Actions. They have consequences.

–WKW

Advertisements

13 Comments

Filed under 07_wolfrum

13 responses to “The consequences of actions

  1. the only dispute i have is the characterization of bush as “a recovering alcoholic.” alcoholics in recovery (and i am one of them) make deep inward, soulsearching and searing journeys of self discovery. they then retrace their steps to try and set right some of the damage that they have done to people and in the world.

    bush, merely says he quit drinking. there hasn’t been any journey of recovery, he firmly believes “that’s all behind me now” which directly opposes the view of alcoholics in AA who say “we will not regret the past, nor wish to shut the door on it.”

    bush is the same old asshole he was when he was drinking (and lord knows what the fuck else). he is a sick motherfucker without any medicine.

  2. SAP

    So does this mean that Alito is no longer a “moderate”?

  3. I concur with minstrel boy. Mr. Bush isn’t in recovery, he’s just going a long time between using, and if we were to apply the 12 steps to him, he hasn’t even gotten to #1.

    That said, this ruling sucks on so many levels. It basically cuts the statute of limitations on discrimination to six months. That’s less than a misdemeanor in many jurisdictions. It also hands companies a really good incentive to cover up any evidence of discriminiation. Hell, it encourages it.

  4. minstrel boy
    May 30th, 2007 at 11:31 am

    Well said. Bush acts very much like a dry drunk. He’s hardly recoved or ever done much soul-searching.

  5. Arkades

    It also hands companies a really good incentive to cover up any evidence of discriminiation. Hell, it encourages it.

    My question is, how are we supposed to know who is and isn’t being discriminated against? I’m not privy to my co-workers’ salaries, and I assume very few people out there in the workforce are, either. How can a 6-month limitation possibly be fair, in light of the fact that someone could labor under an unfair situation for months or years without realizing it? This stupid decision strips people of any right to redress.

    If they wanted to make the deadline ‘six months after first learning about the discrimination, that would still be a ridiculously short time limit, but at least wouldn’t be completely exclusionary. Obviously, the decision is little more than a valentine to businesses that discriminate and a big slap in the face to women in the workforce.

  6. Minstrel Boy, thanks for pointing out the obvious!

  7. PortlyDyke

    My question is, how are we supposed to know who is and isn’t being discriminated against? I’m not privy to my co-workers’ salaries, and I assume very few people out there in the workforce are, either.

    When I read the ruling, this was my thought exactly.

    Being an optimist, it’s my hope that every woman and minority gets education on this and begins filing their lawsuit immediately upon a suspicion of discrimination. Being a pessimist, I can just imagine the cries of “frivolous litigation!” arising as a chorus from the Right.

    Fortunately my boss (oh, I guess that would be . . . me) pays everyone in our firm the same amount (oh — me again). 😉

    And as for Bush and “recovery” — let us never forget: “Self-knowledge availed us nothing.”

  8. Paen

    Why does anyone believe Bush when he claims to have quit drinking?

  9. Voting in (twice)

    This country did not vote that man in twice. The first time did not happen, and the second one is debatable.

    I don’t mean to be brusque about it, but I really, really don’t want the election of 2000 to somehow tiptoe into validity while we’re not looking.

  10. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    Of course, if Bush were a Democrat, the Corporate McMedia would put TEAMS of reporters on Bush 24-7 looking for evidence that he had started drinking again. 😛

  11. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    What OhioBrian said.

  12. W. Kiernan

    Jeez, you mean you think Duh-Byuh isn’t currently drinking like a fish? Surely the National Enquirer hasn’t been lying to us, has it?

    You laugh and think I’m trying to make some kind of sarcastic argument here, based on the putative unreliability of the National Enquirer. I am not. I have it on genuine Hollywood-insider authority (my sister-in-law happens to be a famous model and movie star) that the Hollywood gossip the Enquirer publishes is surprisingly accurate. I really don’t think they’d have published that headline story about Duh-Byuh’s binges without loads of extra fact-checking and corroboration by multiple witnesses.

    And the story is consistent with what we can all see: he acts like a drunk. Not a “dry drunk,” but a plain old out-and-out drunk drunk.

  13. jahf

    This country did not vote that man in twice. The first time did not happen, and the second one is debatable.

    No? This country is sure acting like both “elections” happened. For example, I understand that U.S. troops have been in Iraq for the last 4 years attempting to bring it under the yoke, ordered there by a man who “isn’t our elected President.” I also hear that two U.S. Supreme Court justices were selected by this same man who is “not our elected President.”

    Transparent and verifiable election process apparently is not a concern in this country, or those elections would have been scrapped or re-done. Given the lack of outcry and acquiescence of the America public, Bush might as well have been legitimately elected.

    Yeah, actions have consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s