I took a little trip down to Buena Park this weekend to attend the California Republican Assembly (CRA), the reason for my trip was to listen to the Gubernatorial and Senatorial candidates speak and present their reasons for seeking these elective offices.  The candidates and their teams were out in force canvassing the conference on a mission to seek endorsements, sign-up supporters, and when possible recruit converts to their campaign and cause.

Granted, the CRA is known for being more conservative, and candidates had come seeking the endorsement of this politically powerful group; but their endorsement is no guarantee that California Republicans will fall in lock step behind a CRA endorsed candidate.  I had the opportunity to catch Whitman’s speech at noon, and found that she didn’t stray far from the candidate she has presented herself as at prior events and speaking engagements.  Whereas Poizner seemed to have move even further right, which I think is an attempt to garner support from the more conservative arm of the party.  I can understand a candidate wanting to craft their message to “suit” their audience, as a lecturer I’ve done this frequently; however there’s is crafting your message and there’s turning in a whole new message – which it what Poizner appears to have done just that to curry favor with the CRA delegates.

So desperate to curry favor that he ratchet up his negative campaign against his opponent, Whitman, to an almost frenetic level reminiscent of the now infamous Howard Dean yell.  The attacks against Whitman began with Michael Shroeder’s introduction of Poizner and Poizner continued those attacks with repeated charges that Whitman had good things to say about Van Jones, accusations of Whitman giving donations to Democratic candidates and so forth – charges that have already been answered by Whitman.  Yet Poizner meet the criticism of the disclosure that he had also donated personal monies to at least one Democratic candidate with “my wife the Democrat did that.”  Poizner’s marionette-like performance at the CRA left me with little doubt that he would receive the CRA’s endorsement.  While the CRA endorsement may be significant to some Republican voters, but for a voter such as myself an endorsement from a group such as Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association PAC holds much more significance.

I recall reading, probably from one of the many Poizner for Governor propaganda pieces that continually fill my email inbox, that the CRA did not endorse Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor and how that turned out; I’d counter with that’s what you get for electing a Governor whose wife’s a practicing Democrat!

Just the other day I received a nearly two-page letter, from Poizner, announcing his petition “California Republicans Deserve a Debate”.  The goal of this petition is to “force” Whitman to agree to a debate at the upcoming California GOP Convention.  This missive rambles on with many of the same and tired complaints Poizner has been lobbing at Whitman at each and every speaking engagement he attends and, well, at pretty much any opportunity that he can – and now he’s jut beginning to sound desperate and a mite peevish to this grassroots activist and voter.

He seems to forget that Whitman and he agreed to a debate; unfortunately it wasn’t at the California GOP Convention (I don’t think that the convention organizers had even thought to extend such an invitation).  As a grassroots activist, having cut my teeth on such activism as changing a state law to allow resident aliens to get their LVN license in one state, then getting a corrupt and unscrupulous Southern judge removed from the bench in another state, and later in the fight against HIV/AIDS, my involvement in ACT-UP LA and most recently on all things healthcare related – I know what grass-roots activism looks like and unfortunately I don’t think the California GOP convention qualifies.  I’ve come to this conclusion after attending quite a number of these conventions, and though I keep hoping the next one will be more grass-roots than the previous one, at the end of the day I usually go home disappointed.  This is not to say that grass-roots Republicans don’t attend, they do but the convention focus is generally not on growing the grass-roots. Maybe this one will be different.

But I digress, Poizner’s email attempts to paint Whitman as a woman on the “run” (I guess he read Dan Walter’s column in the SacBee), or someone who’s too afraid of him to agree on a debate, which of course is not true, since there is a debate scheduled – it’s just not at the convention and now he has buyer’s remorse for agreeing to debate at a venue other then the convention.  Poizner’s email is riddle with innuendoes and prevarications, which are unseemly in a man that aspires to our Governor’s office.  His email makes a point to rehash old stories, such as Whitman endorsed Boxer (not accurate but as so many CEO of large corporations she attended and donated to fundraising events for both Republican and Democrats alike).  I wonder if Poziner ever attended a fundraiser for one of our duly-elected Democratic representative; but we do know that he gave a sizable donation to “the other-side”, oh that’s right he blamed his wife saying that it was her donation written on a joint account, which of course makes it alright in his book.  Then he reminds everyone that Whitman spoke in glowing terms about now disgraced Obama appointee, Van Jones, for which she has admitted, was a mistake, stating that she had made such statements after a initial meeting in which he had left a strong impression.  She has also made it clear that she took this as a lesson learned and will not speak of an individual that she meets for the first time in such glowing terms until she has had an opportunity to do some research on that individual; and until she repeats the above mistake I’ll take Whitman on her word because I think she’s that smart.

He concludes his appeal with accusing Whitman of “wanting our party’s nomination for Governor without giving you a voice.”  I thought that’s what we did when we cast our vote at the primary and then later during the general election?  Perhaps instead of trying to browbeat Whitman into a debate at the convention he should make good on the previous agreement and have faith that Californians will make a sound and wise choice for Governor – but then again maybe that’s what he’s afraid will happen.

After reading this post, one might think that I have a bone to pick with the editors, and some reporters of the Los Times – and you’d be right!

For years, it has been my opinion that when it comes to nurses, nursing unions and the nursing profession the LA Times has been inconsistent and at times down right off in left field when it comes to nurses.  My disagreement with the LA Times on this topic goes back many years, and started with an article they ran on nursing which reported, incorrectly, that the American Nurses Association (ANA), was some how representative of all California.  When I read this article I quickly responded with a letter to the editor and provided them with data from the ANA itself showing that less then 11% of all active RNs were members of the organization nation wide . Did they run this letter, of course not, but they did run a very small correction in the Home section of the paper much later.  The correction was so small it barely served as a correction at all since it was so small it was all but insignificant and surely hardly worth the ink that was used to print it.  This episode would mark my first, but far from my last, run in with the LA Times Reader Advocate, Ms. Gold.

Over the years, I’ve been vigilant and responsive to articles that have run in the newspaper especially when those articles shed a bad light on nursing that was not deserved, or glossed over what were gross nursing mistakes because those nurses worked in some venerated institution.  For far too long all forms of media have relied upon groups such as the ANA, California Nurses Association (C.N.A.) and other such ilk to provide them with data and information on all things nursing.  I’ve nothing against the media citing these and other organizations as sources of information, they are after all groups that represent nurses and thus have some expertise in the nursing arena.  What’s wrong is when the media blindly cite suspect facts from these organizations with little effort to fact check the organization’s statements.  Such as when the ANA purports to represent the interests of the almost 3 million RNs; or when the C.N.A. labels itself the voice of the California RN – when neither of these facts are accurate, let alone true.  When individuals such as myself take the time to educate the media and provide them with the correct statistics and facts the response is often the proverbial paternalistic pat on the head, as if we’re somehow ignorant but well-intentioned children.

Equally frustrating is when the media soft peddles the mistakes or bad deeds of an organization or institution they consider venerable.  Not that long ago the LA Times and various other media outlets barraged us with the numerous medical and nursing misdeeds of the now defunct King-Drew Medical Center (KDMC).  Now granted there were many serious medical/nursing and even management errors occurring in this institution, and the press would have been remiss if they failed to report the story aggressively.  However, when two nurses at Cedars-Sinai nearly offed a handful of infants, including the Quaid twins, little was really covered.  Oh yes, there was front-page article about the initial incident, then there was at least one or two “follow-up” articles.  What I found striking about the handling of the nursing errors at both hospital was the way the articles were spun.  Granted KDMC’s problem were nearly endemic, but the heparin incident at Cedars was also on a grand scale, but the article spun this serious nursing error and breech of nursing protocol as well there have been other heparin incidents and these are primarily due to the labels not being different enough between the adult and children dosages and the fault was much more a “labeling” issue and not really the fault of Cedars-employed nurses.  As a RN I took issue with this redirection of blame, because as someone who had administered more than once dose of Heparin to infants during my career I knew precisely where the blame for this error lay, and it wasn’t with the labeling – it was squarely on the shoulder of the two nurses who failed to not only read the label, but to also implement the time honored and basic nurse practice of double checking of certain drugs (heparin being one of them).  What is this double-checking I speak of, simple the first nurse checks the order, checks the medication, draws the ordered amount, then another nurse checks the order, inspects the bottle the medication was drawn from and then verifies that the appropriate amount has been drawn, as well as verifying that the correct patient is receiving the medication at the correct time and by the appropriate route all the while placing their initials at the appropriate stages and places (this describes a general overview of the procedure, some hospitals have even more detailed safety protocols in place).  But why come down so hard, nurses are only human, and this was just a mistake.  Perhaps, but Cedars is also a so-called Magnet hospital which is supposed to designate that they have a higher standard for nurses, and such a failure of basic nursing safety protocols is indicative of a hospital that is not worthy of claiming that its nurses are a “cut above”, since the heparin incident is not a “ordinary” nursing error, because as it turned out apparently the mistake happened not once but twice.

Which brings me to the ongoing LA Times investigative report about the California BRN and the handling of nurse licensure.  In its December 27, 2009 – Inept nurses free to work in new locales (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nurses27-2009dec27,0,2090185.story) the article took a detailed look at the licensing failures that occur because there’s no real national clearing house, i.e. national nurse license agency which can lead to nurses gaming the system and securing licenses in additional states when they have a suspended or revoked license in another state.  This is a very real problem, since every state is solely responsible for the verification of a nurse who is applying for or renewing their license in that state.  Some states have a better verification system then others, catching a nurse with an out-of-state suspended or revoked license then others (California falls into the not so successful verification system).  As part of their research the LA Times reported interviewed the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCBSN), regarding this issue.  The quote from NCSBN that really caught my attention was this one “Officials at the National Council of State Boards of Nursing said they don’t tell nursing boards how often to consult their database.”  But wait a minute the NCBSN is comprised of representatives (most of the Executive Director) from each of our Nation’s state board of nursing!  So what does this quasi-governmental agency really do; I call it quasi-governmental and not non-profit since it appears that its board is comprised entirely of representatives of governmental agencies.  In my opinion very little is done to truly protect the nursing profession and the patients we care for, since when the Philippine test stealing scandal broke in 2006 the NCBSN stayed relatively silent on the matter (I wonder if this had anything to do with the fact that the NCBSN was in the process of opening an NCLEX testing center in that country?), if not for the local Philippine Nursing Association, the Association of Nurse Executives and a handful of nurse activist such as myself very little would have been done to force a retest of the suspect exam period.  The NCBSN finally took a stand after the fact, so much for serving as a watchdog.

Though I think that its important that the LA Times reveals failures of our system of checks and balances, I think it’s equally important that they aggressively investigate agencies such as the NCBSN, that our BRN pays fees to and on which the BRN executive director (in this case the interim executive director) is a member of – if it cannot aid its board members to be better advocates for the profession then does it serve a purpose.  Or perhaps the purpose it serves is to continue to charge fees for tests once administered and collected by the individual states thus consolidating power and wealth in the quasi-governmental agency that presents itself as a non-profit?

I think a candidate for governor, especially in this state, needs to have a strong backbone, and possessed of the ability not to turn tail when they think they have done something to incur someone displeasure.  Several years ago I had the opportunity to speak with Poizner on several occasions about the issue of Workers Compensation reform, he was after all the Insurance Commissioner, and it seemed to me that Workers Compensation Insurance was under his department, or at least under his purview; and as someone who was currently going through the labyrinth that is our state’s Workers Compensation system I thought it appropriate to share with him my personal experiences and frustrations.

I gave him a brief synopsis of the problem and he asked that I forward to him a letter providing greater details and he’d have someone from his staff see how his department could aid me in getting answers to my questions and perhaps assistance in resolving some outstanding issues; nothing special but using our government resources as they are meant to when a citizen encounters roadblocks when navigating the “government services” that are meant to help, but all too often impede us.  Weeks passed and then months and still no one from his office responded to my citizen’s request for assistance.  Later I’d meet Poizner at another event and I mentioned to him how my letter had remained unanswered.  He expressed concern and asked me to resend my correspondence and assured me that someone would respond.  And true to his word a response followed in the form of a “form letter” that was non-responsive to my query and concerns; but that wasn’t all because this form letter also explained that Workers Compensation Insurance was not in the purview of the Department of Insurance – silly me and here I thought that our Department of Insurance had some influence over all things insurance.  Needless to say I shared this with Poizner at the next event that we both attended, and also in my “take no prisoner style” that I’ve become famous for, told him quite bluntly that I was surprised that Workers Compensation wasn’t under his purview and that I truly thought his department, and he personally might want to do some additional work on Workers Compensation reform; and that his excuse left me greatly disappointed.

Since that day, Poizner has done his best to avoid me.  Whenever we’re attending the same meeting he makes sure to cut a wide swath from where I’m at just to make sure he doesn’t have to make eye contact or say hello.  At two recent meetings, one of which was a candidate forum he still couldn’t meet my gaze, leaving me to conclude that he may lack the “intestinal fortitude” to be an effective governor.  Why?  You may ask.  Well ask yourself this if he can hardly stand to make eye contact with a little old lady from Pasadena who has to use crutches or an electric scooter to move around just because he felt his answer displeased or disappointed her; than how can he stand up to our fractious, recalcitrant, often hostile State Legislature.  We’re already constrained by a governor so concerned with being liked that he almost always wilts when the legislature pushes back, and I don’t think we need another milk toast in our Governor’s Office.

They thought we’d be like sheep lead to the slaughter, easily corralled and lead off in whatever direction they wanted; at least that’s what Speaker Pelosi and the 111^th Congress thought until they tried to ram HR 3200 the Health Care Reform Act down the American’s people throat.  It’s not often that one experiences such a seminal moment as the August town halls and the call to arms that “We the People” instigated.

You’d have to have been living in a cave these past several months if you hadn’t read about in the newspapers or watched on TV the unfolding drama that are the August 2009 Town Halls.  The main subject of most if not all of these town halls is HR 3200 also known as the Health Care Reform Act or Obama Care.  Having both watched numerous clips of town halls and having attended one in person I find myself amused at the pro-HR 3200 supporters claims of racism, fascism, ignorance, falsehood-spreading, place the invective of your choice here used to describe the hundreds and in some cases thousands that have shown up to have their voices heard.  Instead of having their participation acknowledged with grace or fairness elected officials and their lap dogs have chosen instead to attend to demean and marginalize them with labels such as right-wing extremists, militia supporters, Brown Shirts, NAZIS and so forth; and much to their surprise this tactic has done little to send those opposing the “plan” crawling back into the shadows as it so has done so reliably in the past.  This month Americans have stood up, instead of behaving like the sheep the pro-HR 3200 supporters expected them to behave.

As one of the original members of ACT-UP LA, I can recall the activism we exhibited in the past, the numerous demonstrations and disruptions and I cannot recall our elected officials (Democratic or Republican) treating us with the same disdain and dismissiveness as so many elected officials have of the “No to HR 3200” have been treated.  When I heard Speaker Pelosi and others refer to these activists as Brown Shirts and NAZIS I felt my skin crawl, because having grown up in war-torn France and having had two brothers interred in German work camps I know the real meaning of the phrase Brown Shirts and NAZIS and these activists are neither!  If anything I’ve seen more attempts of repression from Democratic law makers, including my own Congressman Schiff, against Americans’ exercising their First Amendment rights than the other way around.

I can’t think of any group of Americans who have been so demonized and marginalized as those protesting HR 3200.  They have been characterized as “Astroturf”, protestors for hire, misinformed, and even accused of racism.  Many of the supporters of HR 3200, especially those in our Nation’s legislature and the “intelligentsia” have been quick to try to suppress the outcry.  The tactics of suppression have included a call by the White House for folks to send the White House so-called fishy emails so the good folks at the White House could help “sort things out” and not long after this Gestapo like tactic flag@whitehouse.gov was disabled the White House officials issued a lame excuse that they weren’t trying to collect names, they were just trying to help folks fact check – just like the good folks of the now infamous McCarty hearings were just trying to do.  And if you don’t think this isn’t the first tenuous step towards the dark chasm of Fascism then one only needs to watch the protestors that have launched their vitriol at Mr. John Mackey, co-Founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market.  What has Whole Foods done to deserve a boycott, have they employed slave labor?  Been an unjust corporate citizen? No!  Then what is it that has elicit the anger of many of the supporters of HR 3200 and health care reform is that he dared to stand in opposition to the President and his many supporters and cronies and express his opinion in a well thought out op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.  It’s those who wish to punish Whole Foods and Mr. Mackey are the real Fascists and when our President stands silently by and allows such censorship his actions, or lack of actions allows Fascism to flourish.

What people like Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, Reid and others don’t seem to grasp is that when asked most Americans would probably agree that our nation could use solid healthcare reform, but the anger that they are encountering has more to do with a populace that has come to realize that those they elected to represent them have long ago stop representing them and have deemed their constituents more of a bother to serve then a privilege to serve.  In a recent Town Hall meeting Senator Specter announced to an angry audience that “I don’t get paid to come to these meetings”, and the audience angrily reminded him that it was his job to do just that.  Others have stood at podiums and scolded angry attendees making comments such as “am I going to have to use my mother voice”, or “what planet are you living on” and showing anger and disdain at a poster depicting President Obama as Hitler and yet when Frank saw President Bush depicted as Hitler he said nary a word, because of course Frank liked equating a President he didn’t much like with Hitler but when it was his ox being gored it wasn’t so much fun.  Even my own Congressman orchestrated a mock Town Hall where he changed the venue at the last moment so folks would have to wait outside for hours without shade or seating.  The few seats that were offered were almost all reserved for the handicapped, which turned out to mean for a bus load of “pro-HR 3200” supporters (not handicapped).  He then had a panel of so-called experts – NOT, to pontificate for nearly 45 minutes on the benefits of healthcare reform leaving the audience, his constituents, with time for three whole questions to get asked and to be answered.  I think Congressman Schiff should go back to school to learn the meaning of the word town hall before he holds another one.  I’ve provided some photos of the event. Amazingly, not all Town Halls have been raucous, but those have been few and far between but appear to be the results of Congressmen/women that have taken the time to acknowledge that people have real disagreements with what has been proposed in HR 3200, they have created an atmosphere where attendees are not deemed or made to feel as though their elected official is granting them a special favor by showing up.  It too bad far too many elected officials have chosen to behavior in an imperious fashion in regards to the frustrations of their constituents, as in the case of one New York representative that was taped making the statement that he would vote in opposition to what his constituents wanted if he felt it was in their best interest.  Its this type of behavior that has touched of this fire storm, first with the refusal to listen to the majority of the Americans will on the Stimulus package, and then on Cap and Trade.  HR 3200 was simply the last straw, just as our founders had their last straw with the decision of England to levy a tax on tea that sparked our Revolution.  Perhaps HR 3200 will spark a renewal in Americans’ desire to be participatory in our Democracy rather then being content to watch from the sidelines as they have done for far to long.  Such activism is good for our Country and our elected representatives, including the President, should take heed of Americans when they speak up so loudly on a matter of such importance.  This may well be the Summer where the American people got their groove back!

So many disabled people are expected

And yet another whole section reserved for the disabled

All seats reserved for the disabled

Congressman Schiff's Town Hall

Peaceful assembly

No mob here, just folks excersing their right to assemble

Newspapers across the country are suffering from declining readership, and many have either closed or are facing impending closure – most place the lion’s share of the blame on the Internet.  Pundits claim the instant access offered by the Internet is driving people from the printed word to the electronic word.  I’m not sure if I’m ready to buy into this conclusion, simply because I think there’s also a growing lack of confidence in the “objectivity” of newspapers among the reading public.

For example several weeks ago the LA Times ran an article, “Many Nursing jobs, but only the strong need apply (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/27/health/he-nurses27)” .  The article was available in its entirety on line nearly two days before it ran in the print version of the Los Angeles Times, and upon reading it I found that it appeared to have more in common with a PR piece for the C.N.A. rather than an unbiased, objective piece of reporting.   I took issue with several parts of the article, and submitted a letter to the editor and one to the Reader’s Representative.  I wasn’t sure if they’d run it, but I thought that at the very least they’d print a correction.  They did neither, but after some persistent follow-up on my part; including several telephone calls to Ms. Gold, the reader representative which remain unanswered, and two calls to Mr. Newton, A Sr. VP at the LA Times who communicated with me that he ask the reporter to call me which she never did, and a lengthy conversation with someone named Maria they quietly ran my letter on the “Health” page in their internet edition.  A copy of my letter can be found here (http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-hew-letters18-2009may18,0,3851881,full.story).

I felt compelled to address several shortcomings that I found in the article.  The first and most obvious was the number of new licenses issued that the C.N.A. representatives tout to prove the success of the California Nurse/Patient ratio law that they helped push into law.  Though it’s correct that there have been nearly 100,000 new licenses issued since the law was passed five years ago, a nearly equal number of licenses have been lost, so it’s been a wash.  The reporter had an obligation to report the fact, not just the rhetoric.  The reporter also appeared unable or unwilling to interview a variety of nurses, since the three nurses she interviewed were all from C.N.A.-represented hospitals, and if this was to be a pro-union piece she should have at least interviewed nurses from the S.E.I.U. and U.N.A.C.; better yet she should have interviewed two non-union nurses and one union nurse as this would have been a fairer representation of nurses.  But the worst offense, in my opinion, was her failure to identify one of the nurses she interviewed as a member of the C.N.A./N.N.O.C. Council of Presidents.

It’s reporting and editing such as this that’s caused the reading public to loose faith on the ability of their local newspaper to report, rather than make, the news.  Just like the LA Times refused to cover the recent “Anti-Tax” parties attended by thousands in LA based on the excuse that these were manufactured events; but would show up to cover a couple of hundred people who showed up at a recent LA School Board meeting to protest impending lay-offs.  As anyone who has ever organized an event, protest or rally in this city knows, it’s all “manufactured” because as a rule you have to get permits, put out press releases, etc.  So if events being organized and manufactured is the LA Times threshold then they shouldn’t cover any such event but of course they cover those that they seem sympathetic to.  And this is one of the primary reasons, this citizen, thinks that people are turning to the Internet because more often than not we know the bias of blogs, forums and other “news sources” from these sites.

A day doesn’t seem to go by that President Obama doesn’t remind the American people that we are in an economic crisis, and more recently near an economic catastrophe. So I’m not surprised to see that every time the President or one of his “economic gurus” open their mouths the stock market seems to sink even lower with it hovering just around 1997 levels and erasing nearly all the gains seen under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. With friends like these we surely don’t need enemies!

I know there are many that have accused the Bush Administration of engaging in fear mongering; however fear mongering isn’t/wasn’t the sole domain of the Bush Administration. Presently the Obama Administration has made liberal use of this age-old tactic. For those unfamiliar with the concept, I have provided the definition of fear mongering courtesy of Wikipedia.

Fear mongering– (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic

I can’t seem to recall any previous President who has made such liberal use of the word crisis and catastrophe as our current President. This apparent, nearly pathological, need to whip up public hysteria does not give me confidence in his ability to lead our Nation; but then again I have always been weary of his preparedness to lead since he had little to no real life experience that provided me with an reasonable reason to believe that he had the requisite skills to be elected the to the highest office of our land. Of course, regardless of his experience or lack thereof he could have opted for informing us of the harsh realities but he could also lift up our spirits with the “hope” he consistently hyped during his campaign. Of course if he did that then he wouldn’t be able to drive the American people into a fearful panic that then serves to distract our attention from the constant gaffes and mistakes being made by both his team and him.

When he’s not busy whipping the American people into a fear-ridden mass paralysis inaction and thus contributing to the continued slide in consumer confidence, which is of course another reason why our economy continues to stumble along. He was pushing through the “Stimulus Package”, a package that is estimated to cost several future generations and us somewhere around one trillion dollars (and this is a conservative estimate). This package was so urgent that no one in Congress was given less than 9 hours to read the humongous bill. Why, because there were those in Congress and President Obama busy trying to “save us” which meant that there was no time for something as impertinent as reading the bill and questions were limited to a handful of hours. This ludicrous situation was highlighted in a recent YouTube video by Congressman Price (R-GA) who created a short video. In this video he highlights the 1,000+ highlighting a copy of the final bill in his possession, and it was distressing to learn that even this final bill seemed to have be hurriedly slapped together with hand written notes in the margin and numbers (often totaling in the millions) written over, next to and above lined out sums. Also missing was the much-promised vaunted transparency that then Senator and now President Obama hawked throughout the campaign trail. A promise he failed to keep – miserably.

So in closing, I hear that today President Obama will address Congress and his new media public relations groupies (i.e.: CNN, NBC, MSNBC, et al) have informed us that he will be “Reaganesque”, which I think is ironic considering how much the Democrats despised President Reagan, and thus have a hard time envisioning him giving a speech in such a manner (except if he’s had two to three days to rehearse and his teleprompter) – but we’ll see. Tonight perhaps he’ll finally stop campaigning for the office of the President and actually lead from the office of the President.

Update – tonight’s Presidential address seemed to me to be more of the same, so much for being “Reaganesque”.

You better be quick and hop to, why because those who say they have all the answers have once again spoken; and this time they have deemed that the American worker must, absolutely must have the Employee Free Choice Act signed into law. To fail to enact this important, to hear them speak of it, act would be to rob the American worker of freedoms they do not currently enjoy. However, those who support the passage of this act, including our erstwhile President Obama and his Secretary of Labor nominee Congresswoman Hilda Solis, know that it’s not so much about free choice but more about the removal of the secret ballot from the American worker. Unions, just like their adversary employers, each have a vested interested in workers choosing to have or reject unionization. However, over the past decades unions have seen their membership rolls continue to thin out, except in California, with public-sector jobs being some of the few growth areas for unions.

So committed are the proponents of the Employee Free Choice Act that they descended on DC this week to lobby for this Act’s passage and to deliver a petition with one million signatures in support of the Employee Free Choice Act. Now, I know that one million may seem like a large number, but keep in mind that there are approximately 16 million union members, and a untold numbers of non-union employees; so one million signatures is hardly a resounding endorsement of support. At the very least the union should’ve been able to deliver 16 million signatures or failing that 8 million. But one million signatures is just pitiful, but it does make an argument for Congress to quash the Act, because if union’s that have been the loudest advocates for this Act could get a petition with so few signatures then it would appear that the American workers prefers to retain their freedom to a secret ballot.

Supports of the Employee Free Choice Act like to argue that it only streamline the current system, but even Gov. George McGovern (one of the stalwarts of the Democratic party) has come out against it (to read his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed). He even went so far as to film a commercial asking, no begging, that the Democratic party should not become the party that takes away an employee’s right to a secret ballot. Click here to see his commercial . Of course supporters of the Act would argue that signing a card signifying the desire to join a union is equal, if not better, then the current secret vote. They even argue that in past unionization actions they have been bewildered at vote outcomes that reject the union when they can produce numerous cards showing that workers express an interest in a union. Of course there is vast difference between expressing an interest in joining a union versus actually choosing to join a union. I can express an interest in purchasing a Maserati but that doesn’t mean I’m going to buy one.

Oh the gnashing of teeth and the wringing of hands that must be taking place right now in the ivory towers of the union bigwigs, and the White House at the news that the confirmation of Congresswoman Hilda Solis for Secretary of Labor has been held up. Whether or not she is qualified for the position of Secretary of Labor isn’t so much an issue for as her obfuscation when she was asked about her support of the Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of laying it out for the committee she chose to word parse and pretend that she had formulated no opinion, since the Administration (i.e. President Obama) hadn’t “taken a stance”.

She wanted to act as though she was not one of the co-sponsors of record for the Employee Free Choice Act, and that the other co-sponsor was of course then-Senator Obama; and let’s not forget his campaign promise to sign the Employee Free Choice Act into law if it came to his desk. So with all this knowledge, Solis wanted her questioners to somehow believe she had no opinion. Oh and did I mention that she is on the Board of Directors and Treasurer of a group known as American Rights at Work, a group devoted to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

As I use to tell my children when it was obvious they were attempting to pull the wool over my eyes – does Congresswoman Solis think that we’re stupid? An honest, and of course a completely uncharacteristic trait of most Washington insiders, would have been to make a clear distinction between what she as a Congresswoman and a representative of a group of constituents believed in and what she as a potential Secretary of Labor who must work with both business and labor leaders might be expected to believe in and how that might impact how the Secretary would do her work. But no, this was not to be, instead she sat there and said she had no opinion. Would such a lame excuse have been tolerated from let’s say fervent pro-business, anti-labor Congressperson been accepted – of course not. But then again I think that those individuals in Obamaland expect everyone else to simply buy their rhetoric without questions and we all know what road that can take people down.

If Solis wanted us to see her as an upstanding and ethical person she would have been brutally honest with the committee and explain how she would be able to put those earnest feelings into a context where they could be integrated into whatever policies the Administration championed and what ever laws Congress passed. Too bad she had to play the politician card, and too bad the Obama Administration showed the American people that the ”Hope and Change” President Obama promised to bring to America didn’t begin when he took the oath of office and apparently has yet to be implemented.

As the New Year dawn’s unions and their supporters, many of whom are legislators that owe their elections to the vast sums of money unions donated to their campaign, are gearing up to tackle the “Employee Free Choice Act”, also known as the “Card Check Bill”. As with so much legislation the words that were chosen to describe the bill don’t necessarily provide an accurate picture of the intent of the bill. Oh sure — free choice – everyone is in favor of free choice. Unfortunately this bill isn’t so much about free choice as it is about weighing the fight to unionize in favor of one group over the other.

Unions contend that employers impede their ability to unionize under the current system and thus are pushing for what they describe as a more streamline approach, which is the card check. Simply put if a union can gather a majority or set number of employees to sign cards indicating that they want union representation then voila the union “wins”, and if the employer drags their feet then the employer can face sanctions and fines. Now to some this may seem a simplified and fuss free approach to what can often be a long drawn out procedure to union recognition for employees who want such representation.

However, I wonder if those who support this approach would be willing to allow for the same approach to decertification? As it stands now decertify is an onerous and tedious task, and for good reason. Just as one should not approach unionizing without thought, full disclosure and discussion one should not decertify without full and complete discussion for all involved. Both the act of unionizing and decertifying can and often has far reaching implications, not only for the employees who are seeking this action but also for the employer and community at large.

Here is a link to information about the Employee Free Choice Act — http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employee_Free_Choice_Act. However, I propose to my fellow pro-union and “Employee Free Choice Act” supporters, allow the same rules that the Employee Free Choice Act will invoke to those wish to decertify, because those who want to ride themselves of a union should have the same “free choice” as those who wish to bring in a union, n’est pas?

Of course they may argue that the Free Choice Act may subject employees who wish to decertify to undue influence and intimidation and therefore a secret ballot is called for, but the same can be said for those who wish to unionize. A secret ballot protects all individuals and organizations from undue influence, intimidation and tampering. And yes unions are equally culpable of the same bad behavior they often accuse employers of perpetrating. Don’t just take my word for it, you need only look up the hearing transcripts of the NLRB hearing that involved Cedars-Sinai and the C.N.A. where non-union supporters (nurses) were threatened by C.N.A. representatives: Threats such as we know where your children go to school, and where you walk your little doggies (authors emphasis added).

So before you give the Employee Free Choice Act a pass, remember that if the same rules cannot be applied to those who wish to remove a union then the bill/law is flawed and is not deserving of support.