Right to Work Laws

I wasn't aware that anything was being done about right to work laws on the federal level. Currently there is no law requiring people to join a union, but there is law that says, once a union has been certified, it becomes the sole bargaining agent for all the employees in the defined unit, and it has to represent all those workers whether or not they are union members. People who refuse to join the union are called "free riders", and are not well liked by the union members in the plant. To keep peace in the family, many employers and unions have negotiated "union shop" agreements, which require everybody to join the union as a condition of employment. In a "right to work state", such agreements are prohibited by state law, although some of them allow unions to collect an "agency fee", which means that non union employees pay a fee in lieu of union dues to compensate the union for representing them. Whatever percentage of the members' dues that is used for political activity, or anything other than the direct costs of representation, is usually deducted from the required agency fee. Several states, Michigan among them, have recently passed right to work legislation, and the union people are not pleased about it, which is probably why the issue has come before the Supreme Court.

I quit the Libertarian Party some time during W. Bush's first term of office, and I voted to re-elect Bush to his second term. I don't know as I would call the Libs "dovish", they are more like isolationists than peaceniks. An isolationist policy might keep us out of some wars, but it wouldn't guarantee us peace in our time. It might have kept us out of the Mideast if it had been in force for the last 70 years or so, but it's too late for that now. To implement it now, we would have to throw Israel to the wolves. Not that we haven't shamefully abandoned any of our allies in the past, but I was against it then and I am still against it.

I have heard that what Obama and his ilk really wanted was a single payer plan, but I don't think it was ever proposed in Congress. If the Republicans had the power to block that, then why didn't they also have the power to block Obama care?

There are a number of reasons why somebody would want to own more than one gun. If you hunt deer, waterfowl, and upland small game, you need three different guns right there. If you go off to Africa or someplace to hunt really big game, you will also need something more powerful than your deer rifle. My personal choice for self defense in the home would be a shotgun, but if I felt the need to protect myself downtown, I would probably get a handgun. A small caliber rifle like the .22 is fine for target practice because the ammunition is relatively cheap, if you can find it anymore, and some people use it for small game, although I don't. Then there are the collectors, both the serious hobbyists and guys like me who keep old family guns for sentimental reasons. I also have Old Betsy for the muzzle loader season, and Old Betsy's predecessor, which doesn't work anymore, but could probably be fixed if I was so inclined, which I'm not because I like Old Betsy so much better.

Be that as it may, it is my understanding that Obama's election inspired lots of people to buy guns who never owned them before. This is good because, if any of them were previously Democrats, they will likely turn into Republicans because they now have something to lose.