PEBO that's funny.

The world will end when God says so. Not sooner, no later.

I think I've developed a man crush on Gary Graham........
High Five to ya sir. Great to hear some common sense actually comming from Hollywood for a change.

The bills, according to the article, are bills to give employees more tools to fight sex-based wage discrimination. One bill is inspired by a employee of 19 years who was still the lowest-paid of the managers at her place of work despite having significantly more experience than her male counterparts. This is discriminatory practice and needs to be stopped. The bill makes it so that an employee has six months from each paycheck to file a claim, rather than six months from when they started work. This is necessary in cases where they don't find out about it until much alter, as in this woman's case.

The second bill "closes loopholes" in earlier anti-discriminatory language that allow situations like the above.

The world is not black and white, and Unions, though often bad, do have a place in some cases. Decrying legitimate, necessary legislation to end discriminatory practices simply because they're union-sponsored is incredibly narrow-minded.

Not that that's surprising with the New Boortz. Neal, get back to your Libertarian roots and stop kissing the butts of every single corporation like they're saints who can do no wrong. That's neo-con territory.

Neal,
You should have this guy on your show. Maybe he could even fill in for you sometime. His writing is fantastic and his words need to be shouted across the airwaves. Thanks for sharing the link to his article.

Berkowitz makes some valid points, and I think that his ideas would certainly help the conservative party along. The main problem is that modern conservatives cling too tightly to social conservative platforms, and take an otherwise attractive smaller-government platform down by increasing government in other areas -- specifically the areas that restrict personal liberty. Time and time again conservative candidates ensure that I cannot vote for them because no matter how much I might like their fiscal policy, I cannot elect anyone that is prepared to limit personal freedoms in the name of some bogus moral code.

Case in point, Bush's support of a constitutional amendment regarding same-sex marriage. The government has absolutely no place dictating who someone can marry, so long as it's between consenting adults. Laws must always be made with a simple question in mind: Who is being directly harmed by this activity?

Similarly with foreign policy. The term 'national defense' has been hopelessly perverted. It is perfectly valid to want to protect the country itself, but there are many who do not support foreign wars of agression against a poorly-defined 'threat' that does not actually have any means of inflicting significant damage upon the nation itself.

Berkowitz is getting in the right direction though. He might also mention that a good way to start is to start campaigning about platform issues -- tell us why we should vote for you, and not why we shouldn't vote for your opponent. Recent conservative candidates focus far, far too much on trying to say that their opponent is morally repugnant, and not nearly enough on what makes them desirable on a policy front.