A Time and a Place

English: Canvass for a Cause field organizers working on the ground in Maryland to build support for the upcoming initiative to Legalize marriage equality. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I make no bones about the fact that I tend to lean a little bit to the right in regards to my political affiliations. OK, there are those that might label me a "right wing extremist." It is a badge that I wear with honor.  Just take a quick gander through this blog and read through my Twitter feed, and you will no doubt come to the conclusion that I am 100% conservative.

Though I am proudly and unabashedly conservative, there are certain areas of my life where I do not wear my conservatism on sleeve.  For instance, I do not broadcast my political views in the office place for all the world to see.  That is not to say that if it comes up in conversation with a coworker that I won't express my leanings, but I do not go out of my way to express those views.  There are some places where I just don't feel it's appropriate.

Most of the places that I have worked have more or less had a policy in place that basically instructed employees not to discuss political issues.  As the old saying goes, there are two things you don't want to discuss in polite company, politics and religion.  I think it is probably a wise policy to have in place as it can help to keep the peace.

So, it has surprised me to see one particular individual boldly showing her support for a political issue, and a controversial one at that.  On a regular basis, she wears a button urging people to "Vote for Marriage Equality" in support of ballot question 6 on Maryland's ballot on whether or not the state should allow same sex marriage.

Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem to me to be appropriate to be wearing in an office setting.  It isn't the subject matter of the button that bothers me.  It just doesn't seem professional to me.  I would have no problem with her sporting a bumper sticker on her car or campaigning for her cause outside of the office.  One should be involved in causes they believe in.

It would probably be inappropriate of me to make a comment about how her appearance matches the stereotypical look of a butch lesbian but I won't go there.  Oops, I just did.  Seriously though, I am not sure how I will vote on this particular issue.  I don't have strong feelings either way, though I might be leaning a bit one side based on this post.

In all seriousness though, do you think it is appropriate to wear any type of political button/statement in the work place?  I wouldn't wear a button or have a plaque on my desk promoting the Romney/Ryan ticket.  Nor would I express my support or opposition to a ballot initiative like Question 6 here in Maryland.  Now, if we could have another Ronald Reagan, that would be another matter entirely.

Related articles

• NFL players tackle gay marriage and free speech (dailycaller.com)
• Supreme Court won't hear anti-gay marriage appeal (oregonlive.com)
• Gay Marriage Leads In Maryland With 8 Points (ontopmag.com)

Save Us Chuck Woolery: Foreign Oil

About 6 weeks ago, I discovered Chuck Woolery's new website, Save Us Chuck Woolery.  The game show legend is a political conservative and uses his wit and wisdom to address some of the issues of the day from his unique perspective. 

Woolery has a new video posted on the website addressing the subject of our addition to foreign oil.  While Woolery's suggestion that we invade Canada because they have abundant supplies of oil is obviously tongue in cheek and sarcastic, he does hit home on the subject of our addition to foreign oil.

Politicians constantly harp about our dependence on foreign oil, yet nobody is willing to do anything about it. We continue to buy oil and send our assets to countries who essentially are not friendly to us or our way of living.  They literally have us over a barrel.

Meanwhile, our friends to the north have an abundant supply of oil and shale oil.  They would like to build a pipeline from Canada to Texas to allow us to refine that oil.  That pipeline would do two things, create jobs and give us a reliable supply of oil.  Yet our leaders give in to the environmentalists and cost us jobs and higher energy costs.

Take a look at what is going on in North Dakota these days.  While the rest of the country is struggling with 9% or higher unemployment rates, North Dakota is sitting at an unemployment rate of 3.5%.  Why?  Because they are drilling for oil and hiring workers at good pay rates.

Not only do our friends to the north in Canada have plenty of oil, but so do we.  Yet we continue to leave those resources untapped due to environmental concerns.  Neighbors like Russia in the Arctic region, and Cuba and others in the Caribbean are drilling near our shores. 

So we still have the risks of a spill from them near our shores, without the benefits of having a domestic supply of oil and natural gas.  I would trust our ability of getting that oil out of the ground in a more environmentally friendly manner than any of the others drilling near our coastlines.

Tapping into our own natural resources will do two things.  One, it will provide good paying jobs to Americans at a time when we desperately need jobs.  Second, it will lower energy costs giving average working Americans more disposable income to spend on other things to get the economy moving again.  Both are things we desperately need in this country.

Related articles

• Chuck Woolery Tries to Help the IRS and 'Patriotic Millionaires' Find a Love Connection (michellemalkin.com)
• Chuck Woolery Edumacates The Rich Who Feel Guilty About Not Paying Enough Taxes (caseyhendrickson.wordpress.com)
• Why Does obama Hate America? (t2ctwn.wordpress.com)
• Canada lobbying hard after US delays approval of tar sands pipeline (texasvox.org)

Questionable Motives

Image via WikipediaI really have to wonder sometimes about what motivates some people.

Lately, I have been spending a lot more time on Twitter.  As of right now, I am up to just under 1350 followers.  Most of the people that I follow are individuals with similar interests as myself; conservative politics, blogging, family life, and autism.  I also follow a few news outlets, businesses, and the occasional celebrity or athlete.

Most of the interaction that I have with folks on Twitter is fairly good natured and friendly.  There is a lot of camaraderie in replying to other people's tweets and retweeting those things that you particularly like.  Occasionally you might get into a decent discussion or debate with people who have differing viewpoints from yourself. 

Every now and then though, you run across somebody whose soul purpose in being there is to harass and torment people.  A few weeks ago, I had somebody reply to one of my tweets about Herman Cain.  The person was somebody that I was not following, and they were not following me.  I replied back, and the person responded with some derogatory comments attacking me and resorted to name-calling.

I took a look at the person's other tweets and discovered that this person was following a handful of conservative pundits like Michele Malkin and conservative news outlets.  Every one of his tweets was attacking a tweet by a conservative, usually with name calling.  His soul purpose on being there was to harass and insult conservatives.  I decided at that time the individual was not worth my time or effort and block him.

Usually, I am not one to block people that I disagree with.  There are a few visitors to this blog who have a decidedly more liberal or progressive viewpoint who visit and occasionally comment here, like Len from the First Door on the Left blog and Aldon from the Orient Lodge blog.  Most of the time our viewpoints are diametrically opposed, but I welcome their comments and visits. 

The thing with my differences between Len and Aldon is that we just honestly disagree on issues.  They do not set out as their sole purpose to harass and ridicule others, but to legitimately respond with their point of view.  To have a reasonable debate is one thing, but if your only reason for responding is to harass or ridicule, you are nothing more than a loser and a troll.

Related articles

• Blake Shelton Still Tweets...Drunk! (wycd.radio.com)
• What's a Twitter reply? Mention? Retweet? (debsanswers.wordpress.com)

Charles Lollar vs Collins Bailey

I have mentioned a time or two that I am not a fan of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who also happens to represent the Congressional District where I live in the state of Maryland.  Unfortunately, in a Democrat stronghold like the state of Maryland, it will be difficult.  There are two Republicans currently running for the GOP nomination to try to unseat Hoyer; Charles Lollar and Collins Bailey.

Both men are successful businessmen, husbands, and fathers of four.  More importantly, both men espouse conservative virtues.  Lollar is a Major in the USMC Reserves, has been very active in the Tea Party movement, and is one of a growing number of African-American Republicans.  Bailey promotes adherence to the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and the FairTax.  Either one would get my vote over Hoyer in November.

If social media like Facebook and Twitter are any indicators, the edge in the upcoming primary would appear to favor Lollar.  On Twitter, Lollar currently has 412 followers, while Bailey has 218.  On Facebook, Lollar has a much more dominant following with 2794 fans compared to 463 for Bailey.  Both also have a fairly high profile endorsement listed on their websites.  Bailey has been endorsed by Texas Congressman, and former Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, and Lollar has appeared on and received the endorsement of conservative commentator Sean Hannity.

The primary takes place on September 14, 2010 which will give the winner a mere seven weeks to launch a successful campaign against Hoyer who has held the seat for nearly 30 years.  It is time for new blood.  Whichever man, Bailey or Lollar, that wins the primary will have my vote come November.  May the best man win.