Thursday, January 4, 2018

Start talking about a Living Wage

We need to stop talking about the minimum wage.  It is an outmoded concept that only hurts those that it intends to help.

A living wage should replace the concept of a minimum wage.      

Let’s examine how a minimum wage is set.  The conservative business/alliance in congress will only come to the table to discuss an increase in the minimum wage when they find they may lose an election.  But, when the alliance does come to the table, every ploy is used to keep the increase to a bare minimum.  

So, when, and if, the wage is increased it will not be enough to make up the difference between what it was and what someone needs to live.  (But, they will shout and holler about how wonderful they are because they increased it.)

All of that is crap.  

If the increase isn’t enough, and it never is, the increase in taxes the poor will pay and the decrease in purchasing power will eat up what ever the increase is and leave them with nothing for another 10 years.  (The last time the minimum wage was increased was in 2009.  Since then, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has lost 9.6%. (1))

We need to start talking more about a living wage.  A living wage,

“… refers to a theoretical wage level that allows an individual to afford adequate shelter, food and the other necessities. A living wage should be substantial enough to ensure that no more than 30% of it gets spent on housing. The goal of a living wage is to allow employees to earn enough income for a satisfactory standard of living.” (3)

The living wage isn’t a new idea.  The concept, not always in name, has been around for more than 2,000 years. (2)  Plato and Aristotle argued for the concept of a wage that would sustain an individual.  But, so did Adam Smith (yes, the author of the Wealth of Nations), Thomas Aquinas and others.

With a living wage, numerous problems are solved.  Here are a few. 

A minimum wage is a national average that doesn’t consider the variations in communities around the country.  But, with a living wage, communities that have a higher cost of living then in others, the employees in that community will receive enough to cover their expenses. 

Also, the minimum wage is set by confrontational decision making between competing political parties as noted above.  One party doing everything they can to keep it as low as possible.  But, with a living wage, the income is set by the market.  Then, instead of waiting for the national government to catch up with the increase in the cost of living, as the cost of living rises so do the wages.  

With the increase in income, the economy will grow.  As workers have more money to spend on the basics of life, business will prosper.  This will increase the standard of living for all. 

What ever increases there might be in prices (In many areas that have living wage policies in place, there has not been a sharp rise in prices.) it will be offset by a decrease in government spending.  People that are earning a wage that pays their expenses will not need to apply for government assistance even if they have a job.  As reported by Forbes, Walmart employees cost the American government $6.2 billion in public assistance.  Yes, that is billion with a “B”. (4)   If Walmart paid a living wage these employees would not be collecting public assistance. 

It is suggested you do research on the concept and support a growing movement for a living wage.  After more than 2,000 years, its time has come.



Monday, June 19, 2017

Blocked from Twitter


Knight First Amendment Institute of Columbia University is considering suing President Donald Trump for blocking people from his Twitter account. (1)

Isn’t that a right of every social media user?  Blocking is a great way to protect privacy, express outrage about a tweet you disagree with and the final act of giving up an old girlfriend.  But, if you are the President of the United States, it shouldn’t be a freedom that is enjoyed. 

To place this in context, what if the President of the United States used caller ID and blocked your phone calls?  You wouldn’t be able to express your view point on an item of importance to the nation.

How about if the post office, noticing that your letter is being sent to the president, wouldn’t deliver it to the president because of his orders. 

How about Western Union being instructed by the president to not deliver telegrams from you.   

If the president doesn't like you, or your opinions, he still can't deny access to you by stopping all letters, post cards, telegrams or any other communication with him.

As a private citizen, blocking someone on Twitter or any other social media can be allowed.  But, as soon as a private citizen becomes a public citizen by running for office, holding office, working for the government as an appointee or employee, especially as the most important public citizen in the country, the rules change. 

This is a basic First Amendment right.  While it isn’t directly “speech”, it is an element of speech called access.  A free press, widely interpreted as free speech, has 6 parts.  They are access, inquire, records, publication, association and redress.

Access is the ability to “reach” the official.

If a citizen of the country doesn’t have access to what is being said by the people that make, enforce or judge the laws of the country, they are not able to fully exercise their First Amendment rights.  Once a person crosses the line from private citizen to public figure (government official) citizens of the country must be able to have access to him or her just like anyone else.  To block some citizens and keep others is like creating a first tier - second tier relationship with the very people you are to protect and support equally.

Conventional forms of communications; letters, telegrams, voice; have helped define our First Amendment rights.  No matter the form, delivery is assured to the official.  He or she can choose to read and consider each piece of communications, or toss it in the trash, as I am sure much of it does. 

Social media has changed much of the structure of communications.  In the past, a public official may have selected a traditional medium, like a newspaper, a radio station or a television program, to communicate to the public.  Even though access for some people in the country might be difficult using traditional media, none can be cut off from its access.  Response through the same channels was accessible.    

Yes, when President Trump chooses to use Twitter to communicate his thoughts and policy statements, he has chosen a medium that all citizens have broad access to.  But, there is an element that is a component of the medium that isn’t included in tradition media.  Users can be cut off by the President by his ability to block.  Those cut off don’t have access to what is said and don’t have the ability to communicate back in like form. 

The President of the United States’ expressions of thoughts on policy must be open to all to both receive and respond.

Other thoughts to consider:
Courts have consistently supported the difference of a private and public profile.



Friday, June 2, 2017

Here is what President Trump's son said about Kathy Griffin's tasteless tweet:



First, it is not the "Left."  It is one person's expression that may or may not be on the left.

Second, many leaders on the Left have expressed their outrage of the tweet.

Finally, some people have express much worse about Obama.

Just take a look.

Mr. Trump, Jr., I understand a son supporting his father.  I even understand supporting a President you may have voted for.  But, at least don't be hypocritical.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

It is Going to Be Right for a While

Today, I have empathy for my conservative friends.  That empathy springs not from what is happening today, but for what has happened over the last 50 years.  The United States for the most part has been moving left.  The conservatives must have been dishearten, challenged and downright bitter that things weren’t going their way.  Now, I can say, my feelings are about the same.  They, of course, must be gleeful.

The country is taking the sharpest of turns to the right.  We are speeding along a highway to get as far right as possible to both make up for lost time and to be as far right as possible when the left takes over again.  (Which I think it is going to be right for a while.)  I have become very dishearten since the last presidential election about the direction of the country and its relationship in the world.  President Trump is keeping aim on his core consistency, which seems to be holding its support for the president, with every policy decision he makes and is not concerned with those that are negatively affected. 

President Trump pulling out of the Paris climate change agreement was what sent me over the edge. (1)  There is a climate problem and we humans are both causing it and making it worse.  The effects of the problem will be severe in the very near future and far reaching for human existence.  If you think there isn’t a problem or that humans aren’t causing it, please read the blog posts about climate listed as 3, 4, 5 and 6 below.   

President Trump is getting all the focus, but he is not really the leader (2) of all this change.  He did win the election with a majority of the Electoral College.  Like the college or not, that does mean that he had the backing of the local, state and national elected officials.  So, the “leadership” he is taking credit for is more like marching orders from his core voters and from the new right in the country.  

Trump is but a side bar to a new right guard that has taken over.  This right guard believes in a social evolutionary environment where a core established tier of anti-government collective is deeply concerned about holding on to their own.  In fact, they are more concerned about holding on to their wealth, (and gaining more) then they are for the environment or those that are not among them in the same social-economic status.

If you do not believe in this anti-government collective read the book Dark Money by Jane Mayer.  (7)  It details how since the 50’s a small group of very wealthy people have kicked and scream about governmental rules that are meant to protect everyone, but most importantly the disadvantaged and powerless.  (I tried to find a simple word that meant, “citizens with little power” but could not find one better other than powerless.)

The country is returning to an elitist entitlement environment.  If there isn’t a fire wall established, we will see the destruction of a way of life – and I don’t mean creative destruction. 

(1)    “We are getting out” of Paris Climate Accord http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-climate-decision/index.html
(2)    Leadership defined http://www.dictionary.com/browse/leadership



Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Don't blame the group

Don’t blame governments, corporations or religions (i.e. as in the case of the last few days; ISIS) for the actions that appear to come from them.  These organizations don’t speak for everyone in them.  They are not an entity that exists in the real world.  They don’t just magically make things happen.

There are people that believe in the mission statements of these organizations that make things happen.   They sign the executive orders and memos, create the policies, interpret the belief systems, carry out orders and, in some cases, injure and kill innocent people that don’t always share the belief system of organization they are attacking.

Every time we blame a corporation, a government or a religion for actions that harm people we give cover to the people that carryout the actions. In some cases, we make them heroes.  We also justify our own response by punishing, harming and killing all people in the organization staking claim to the evil act regardless of each member’s personal beliefs. 

Action against an organization creates a response of revenge against an organization.


So, next time you want to blame an organization for things that have happen, don’t.  Blame a person.  Seek the individuals that carried out the action.  Punish them.  This will send a message of support to those that don’t share the criminal’s beliefs and warn those that will consider future action that they personally will be sought, will be personally held responsible and they will have no cover.

Friday, May 12, 2017

Deep State Officials

New phrase is creeping into the American Political scene.  DEEP STATE OFFICIALS.

Note the following from The Hill, Friday, May 12, 2017.

“Do we now have to worry about deep state officials that gather intelligence are going to go after Americans and the president (President Trump) politically, or the FBI, some that don't like him might be leaking to hurt this president?,” Sean Hannity, one of Trump’s top boosters in conservative media, asked on his Wednesday night show. [The wording of the question is exactly like it came from Mr. Hannity’s show.]

In the article the term is used many other times by different people, even once by The Hill itself.

This reminds of the many terms used by authoritarian governments that attempt to identify the opposition as evil.

This phrase is worrisome.

We will see where it goes.

Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333031-trumps-comey-firing-sets-off-new-round-of-leaks

Saturday, April 1, 2017

Trump wants to sue the press for libel

President Trump set up an executive order signing ceremony on Friday.  He was to sign two documents that would make a shift in the trade policies of the United States.  After a brief statement, he walked out of the Oval Office.  He asked (ordered?) Vice President Mike Pence to pick up the folders with the executive orders as the President left the room.

The Vice-President did just that, walking out of the room along with the two guests that were to witness the signing.  Doors closed and the room is empty of officials.  Only the security guards and reporters left.  The reporters asking each other, he didn’t sign, did he?

What just happen?

An article in the New York Times the next day, discussing the orders, implied that the orders were eventually signed, I assume in the room where everyone withdrew to.

The reporters in the room were asking Mr. Trump about former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn’s possible appearance before a congressional committee investigating Mr. Flynn’s and the Trump’s election campaign involvement with the Russians.  (We use that word “Russians” now not as a collective noun as meaning the people of the country and government but more as a personal noun meaning some dark and evil blob like the Smoke Monster in Lost.)  It is for that reason, in my opinion, that Trump left the room.  Trump thought he would teach them a lesson about what he expects when reporters are at events coordinated by him.

Trump is attempting to not only coral the press, but to pull them in line not just with his governmental policies but with his personality.  It can be seen in the way the press secretary treats the press at the daily briefings.  It can be seen the way Trump uses the media that support him.  It can be seen in the way Trump talks about “failing” newspapers, calls much of the press publishing fake news, or the personal attacks on specific reporters that he doesn’t like. 

In a recent Tweet, Trump asked the question, “Change libel laws?”  This was in context with a rant about the New York Times being a disgrace and that they have “Gotten me wrong for two solid years.”  This tweet was not about the President, a title of the office that anyone can hold if elected.  Not about governmental policy and not just about an opinion.  It was about him, Mr. Trump.  He used the word “me”.  Since the Times got “me” wrong for two solid years, he wants to change libel laws to allow him to sue (and jail?) the members of the press for having a different view point.

Let’s make a comparison here.  The NRA does not support anyone that uses a gun to kill innocent people.  (They should take a stronger position on that, but, that is another blog.)  But, every time a mass shooting happens, they stand in support of the Second Amendment.  Additionally, politicians that support gun rights also stand and support a right enshrined in the Constitution and it should not be violated.  During the Presidential election, Trump also support the Second Amendment.  

But, as soon as President Trump is attacked in the press (no one gets killed by the way and is still alive to present their point of view) instead of standing in support of an amendment to the Constitution that came before the gun rights, he wants to change the laws to allow him to sue, punish (and jail?). 


None of this has anything to do with the real issues that are facing our community right now.  Trump may have different opinions from this blogger, but that is part of the benefit of living in a diverse community.  But, when a person in authority is attempting to shut down the vehicle of communicating those diverse opinions and openly discussing the various viewpoints, it short cuts the benefits.