Native American Treaties...what are they?
Well, if you're like the standard American, you're not likely to know a whole lot about the complexity and status of Native Treaties. Many years ago, we European whites and other nationalities moved into a seemly vacant land. We found people who lived here, engaged them in commerce, trade, and other activities to gain a foothold. Later, as a new nation, we entered into treaties with various native peoples. This was so unique that it was given lip service in our Constitution:
"The Federal Government shall have the power to regulate commerce between the several states AND the Indian Tribes."
The Constitution: Article 1, section 8
Now, let's skip ahead to the modern day. We, the United States of America have written over 600 treaties with Native Tribes over the years. We've broken pretty much all of them. But, today we're doing much better than we have in the past and a lot of bad blood is being forgiven and set aside. There is, however, a lot of other kinds of bad blood that exists now. How many of you have been to a Native American owned casino? Did you all know they don't pay state taxes on those? They're not subject to state regulation of any kind. The reason: The Supremacy clause of The Constitution, Article 6:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The above means that Native Americans, their commerce, their reservations, their resources, and anything to do with Native Lands are under the direct pervue of the Federal Government. States can't touch anything on Native Lands unless are either A) Invited to do so by the tribe, or B) Permitted to do so by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Now, why am I making commentary about Native Treaties. Because, I find it offensive when someone says "They should pay taxes like everybody else." I'm sorry, there is no justified reason to state that. We, as a civilization came in and displaced them, shoved a treaty into their noses, and at many occasions coerced it signing. Now, talking about citizenship, Native Americans are not "citizens" in the same definition as you would think. They are, federally dependent individual nations which are fully sovereign with a few minor exceptions. The aid they get from the Federal Government is BY TREATY mandate...meaning it's not welfare like you would think of the kind that someone applies for with their state welfare office. Many of our Native Treaties also included provisions to provide for the day to day needs of the people's we displaced. In many cases, that included food, medical care, and shelter. This was a contractual agreement between two parties in exchange for the transfer of ownership of lands they have inhabited for thousands of years. On that note, it's important to remember that, while yes, they don't pay taxes on the activities they do, we as a society are their custodians now. We entered into this deal with our eyes open, though, I will say that we were likely the short-sighted ones in the long run.
When you see a Native American, you see a person, fully blooded and truly unique just as the next person. They do what they can to preserve their cultural heritage and their ancestral lands (what few of them are left), and maintain some dignity after a relatively short period which brought their abundant, rich, and numerous cultures to near extinction. They are peoples that we can learn from. With their help and their guidance, we can build a stronger country for everybody.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
War is Terrible, Not Glorious.
We, as a nation, cannot continue to be like "The Fire Nation." It is not the right or the duty of anyone to spread our culture to the rest of the world. It is our duty, as a nation, to live as a nation based in peace, ready to defend our rights from outside aggressors, and to ensure stability by creating strong ties with other nations. A ready and able defense is a good thing. A ready and able standing army with obscene amounts of money and weaponry...not so much. We must scale back our defense spending to levels consistent with the current state of geopolitical affairs. Achieve victory in conflict with the minimum amount of necessary force, engage in war only when attacked, never harm women, children, elderly, and visible non-combatants.
War is not something to be glorified, it's not something to be desired. War is something we should be engaged in with great hesitation and reluctance
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
James Madison
“The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.”
James Madison
“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
James Madison
"It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it."
Robert E. Lee
Monday, September 24, 2012
A Progressive Minimum Wage
The wage is a mechanism that gave great flexibility to modern commerce. It allowed people engaging in business relationships to trade a medium that gives access to resources instead of resources themselves. Wages ran into problems when they because so small that people were literally unable to support themselves with what was available. This was, in many ways worse than being a slave or worse than living on a Lord's farm during the Feudal Age in Europe. At least then, your master or owner allowed you to care for your basic necessities. We now are running into a time where the minimum wage no longer meets the needs of our citizens to maintain a minimum standard of living.
The minimum wage, in it's day, was designed to ensure that the unskilled could find work that would support their basic and most necessary needs: housing, Food, the basic amenities of life. In 1971, the minimum wage translated into a real dollar wage (the inflation-adjusted wage into today's dollar) of approximately (assumed 40 hours * 52 weeks) $20,000 a year. Now $20,000 a year today is enough to live in a basic manner. Most major areas have rudimentary housing available that can be sustained by a $20,000/year salary with very little effort if you live within your means and perhaps a little frugally. But, in today's day, the wage of $7.25/hr is very much incapable of sustaining a minimum standard of living. Currently, the minimum wage, with the above same calculations only grosses $15,080 per year. With the costs of housing, food, medical care, and transportation going up by record numbers every year, we must consider the affect this is having on society. Currently, if you're single and you work 40 hours, you may qualify for SNAP after a state's deduction.
So arguments against the minimum wage are the following:
1. It increases the costs of businesses.
2. It's a disincentive to do quality work because of the lack of ability to leverage higher wages in exchange for better performance.
3. It standardizes wages across several industries.
4. It can cause unemployment.
5. It causes a small increase in other wage categories forcing businesses to raise their wages to compete with minimum wage jobs.
6. Hurts business profits constraining the ability of businesses to expand.
Now, the arguments above are pretty standard for most people opposed to or opposed to increases in the minimum wage. However, there are some things you need to consider about these arguments.
1. It does increase the costs of businesses...however, keeping the minimum wage in pace with purchasing power is important to ensure that people who are not falling further and further behind the curve. Such a problem will cause more people at minimum wage to qualify for public assistance. If the goal of conservatives is to keep people off the public dole, then, they should be encouraging higher wages to keep that hope alive rather than letting people pay abnormally low wages. Furthermore, with less people on the public dole, that means lower tax demands from businesses and tax payers in the long hall.
2. Wages are not the only benefit gained from hard work. Many times, even in companies that pay minimum wage, there are promotion opportunities. I would hope that any company seeking to raise a worker up to a higher tier of responsibility would warrant higher wages. The benefit of promotion or benefits are perhaps better incentives than just a raise. Simply put, this is the company trying to be cheap...usually unnecessarily so.
3. It is true that the minimum wage does standardize the wages for many industries. But such a standardization is kind of a non-issue. You cannot expect someone to work for 5.15/hr, as the minimum wage would still be at if it had not been raised during the Bush Administration to 7.25/hr. There is a point where the minimum wage becomes nearly unpalatable and is regarded is highly unjust. Many businesses will pay minimum or just slightly above minimum if they can get away with it. It's simple psychology. With a shortage of jobs and a surplus of workers, there's no bargaining power to negotiate a higher wage. So, many businesses can get away with paying whatever minimum is, because they know people will take it out of desperation. The minimum wage loses it's buying power every year due to inflation, and, as a result...people are more and more unable to get ahead and move up. While many conservatives will say "If they don't like the wage, they'll need to find another job." And while that sounds all well and good, it's not an excuse for paying the least amount the law will let you.
4. The argument that "it causes unemployment" is used OVER and OVER again by conservative economists, but, they leave out one very important piece of information. The statement "It causes unemployment" is true ONLY when the Job seekers vs. Job creators are in Equilibrium with each other. Personally living in a state with a high minimum wage, Washington State, I can personally attest that businesses, while they hate the minimum wage at $9.04/hr, they pay it, and they still hire just fine. Furthermore, Washington's unemployment rate has been in step with the national average if not actually slightly lower. The assertion that the minimum wage causes unemployment is under most scenarios, false.
I recommend the following articles in support of my claim in item 4:
http://thinkprogress.org - Minimum Wage does not affect job creation even in hard economic times.
http://www.epi.org/ - Employment and the Minimum Wage—Evidence from Recent State Labor Market Trends
http://www.epi.org/ - Job Slayers or Fact Slayers? The Wall Street Journal’s flawed argument against raising the minimum wage
5. Just like with union wages in a particular area, non-union wages actually get dragged up with union wages indirectly, the same is true with the minimum wage. When you raise the floor of wages higher, workers will often refuse to accept employment where their wage is only slightly above minimum wage. So, to give further incentive, employers will raise their wages proportionately to make sure that prospective employees don't feel their being paid, what is viewed as, the bare minimum. So this is actually a good thing for all wage earners up to a certain level. It also creates some wage competition where, if a worker feels a job that requires less energy pays only a little less than the job they're seeking, their bargaining power is increased because if they choose, they can go work for a job with less scruples for a little less or the same money and make just as much. This forces employers to be more competitive on wages closer to the median wage.
6. I will concede that businesses will have increased costs in the short term from an increase in the minimum wage. There is definitely no debating that point. However, what other businesses will have to realize is that, a minimum wage increase can actually increase another business' profits and in retrospec, their own as well. By requiring higher wages, more people are moved into a more middle-class income level giving consumers more disposable income to spend on things beyond the absolute minimums. Businesses fail to realize that their own low wages are actually a self-perpetuating problem. Low wages equal low costs, but low wages also equal low amounts of disposable income, which lead to lower profits, and lower expansionary outlooks as well. The wage issue is something to be approached with careful considering, as to not over-mandate wages, but also under-mandate them either.
Now, to move onto the actual meat and potatoes of the point of this article:
The progressive minimum wage is a function that may or may not be practical, however, I hope that someone of some influence reads this, and perhaps puts some of my assumptions to the test to see if it'd work out. Now, just like an income tax, which I believe should be based on net profits (Including payouts to investors and and not gross profits just as I would favor a Single-rate tax system that leaves a lump of income not subject to taxation. The same should be for the minimum wage. There are reasonable justifications for having a lower minimum wage to foster growth in small business.
There are many small businesses which lack the capital to pay a full livable wage. And I'm reasonably sure that the good and hardworking small business workers/owners would indeed love to pay employees a livable wage. However, to foster growth in a small business, I would like to see a progressive minimum wage which incorporates size and profitability.
A business which makes only a little money should not have to pay huge minimum wages in that it will hurt their ability to be competitive. So, based on post-tax profits, the minimum wage should be determined at a set rate. For companies that have larger post-tax profits, their minimum wage obligation should be much higher. Now, many might say "What right does government have to tell a private business how much in wages they have to pay?" My answer is this: If a business is allowed to pay a bare minimum wage that doesn't even provide for a minimum standard of living and leaves the worker asking the public dole for assistance. It has now it becomes a government issue. Walmart is notorious for helping it's workers get on the public system because they refuse to pay livable wages and provide good working conditions. While Walmart does pay higher than most retailers, they also provide lower amounts of hours, meaning that, the hourly rate is semi-competitive, but the time worked doesn't provide for enough income for a person to live in a semi-reasonable manner without public assistance. It seems reasonable to me, that companies, such as Walmart which net $16 Billion in profits (2012) world wide, has a moral obligation to share more of it's profits with it's employees. Just because you own a company doesn't mean you don't justly compensate them for the work they do. I don't know how many have worked retail, but, it's no the easiest of work to do. Walmart pays from about $7.55/hr to as high as $11-12/hr for hourly managers. Hourly managers are generally full time, but associates are usually not, and given that their average hours are somewhere between 20 hours and 32 hours, depending on the store and region, They don't even make the $15,080 per year which is the salary someone at $7.25/hr would be making with 40 hours of work per week. Ultimately, the goal of the minimum wage is to keep people off the public dole and help them build their finances to be self-sufficient. Keeping the wage at 40% of median wages does not help bring the poor into the middle class. People who's basic needs are met will stop trying to meander the system for more. They will start working on other areas of their lives for self improvement. In areas of the country where the cost of living his even higher, it's an even bigger problem. The problem being where single bed apartments cost $1000 or more a month or two bedroom apartments cost nearly $1600 or more a month. Someone making minimum wage cannot afford that kind of rent.
The progressive minimum wage is a workable solution to ensure that businesses who are starting out don't drown under an excessive wage obligation, and have room to grow into a successful firm, while also raising the income floor for people who work for very successful companies who disproportionally disperse their profits. The case for a more progressive minimum wage ensures an increased standard of living for the poor and lightens the load and burden on the welfare system which should be serving those that are truly unable to work. Welfare benefits given to people that are essentially at, what I would call, full employment simply means that full employment's wages are not high enough and need to be brought up to par.
The minimum wage, in it's day, was designed to ensure that the unskilled could find work that would support their basic and most necessary needs: housing, Food, the basic amenities of life. In 1971, the minimum wage translated into a real dollar wage (the inflation-adjusted wage into today's dollar) of approximately (assumed 40 hours * 52 weeks) $20,000 a year. Now $20,000 a year today is enough to live in a basic manner. Most major areas have rudimentary housing available that can be sustained by a $20,000/year salary with very little effort if you live within your means and perhaps a little frugally. But, in today's day, the wage of $7.25/hr is very much incapable of sustaining a minimum standard of living. Currently, the minimum wage, with the above same calculations only grosses $15,080 per year. With the costs of housing, food, medical care, and transportation going up by record numbers every year, we must consider the affect this is having on society. Currently, if you're single and you work 40 hours, you may qualify for SNAP after a state's deduction.
So arguments against the minimum wage are the following:
1. It increases the costs of businesses.
2. It's a disincentive to do quality work because of the lack of ability to leverage higher wages in exchange for better performance.
3. It standardizes wages across several industries.
4. It can cause unemployment.
5. It causes a small increase in other wage categories forcing businesses to raise their wages to compete with minimum wage jobs.
6. Hurts business profits constraining the ability of businesses to expand.
Now, the arguments above are pretty standard for most people opposed to or opposed to increases in the minimum wage. However, there are some things you need to consider about these arguments.
1. It does increase the costs of businesses...however, keeping the minimum wage in pace with purchasing power is important to ensure that people who are not falling further and further behind the curve. Such a problem will cause more people at minimum wage to qualify for public assistance. If the goal of conservatives is to keep people off the public dole, then, they should be encouraging higher wages to keep that hope alive rather than letting people pay abnormally low wages. Furthermore, with less people on the public dole, that means lower tax demands from businesses and tax payers in the long hall.
2. Wages are not the only benefit gained from hard work. Many times, even in companies that pay minimum wage, there are promotion opportunities. I would hope that any company seeking to raise a worker up to a higher tier of responsibility would warrant higher wages. The benefit of promotion or benefits are perhaps better incentives than just a raise. Simply put, this is the company trying to be cheap...usually unnecessarily so.
3. It is true that the minimum wage does standardize the wages for many industries. But such a standardization is kind of a non-issue. You cannot expect someone to work for 5.15/hr, as the minimum wage would still be at if it had not been raised during the Bush Administration to 7.25/hr. There is a point where the minimum wage becomes nearly unpalatable and is regarded is highly unjust. Many businesses will pay minimum or just slightly above minimum if they can get away with it. It's simple psychology. With a shortage of jobs and a surplus of workers, there's no bargaining power to negotiate a higher wage. So, many businesses can get away with paying whatever minimum is, because they know people will take it out of desperation. The minimum wage loses it's buying power every year due to inflation, and, as a result...people are more and more unable to get ahead and move up. While many conservatives will say "If they don't like the wage, they'll need to find another job." And while that sounds all well and good, it's not an excuse for paying the least amount the law will let you.
4. The argument that "it causes unemployment" is used OVER and OVER again by conservative economists, but, they leave out one very important piece of information. The statement "It causes unemployment" is true ONLY when the Job seekers vs. Job creators are in Equilibrium with each other. Personally living in a state with a high minimum wage, Washington State, I can personally attest that businesses, while they hate the minimum wage at $9.04/hr, they pay it, and they still hire just fine. Furthermore, Washington's unemployment rate has been in step with the national average if not actually slightly lower. The assertion that the minimum wage causes unemployment is under most scenarios, false.
I recommend the following articles in support of my claim in item 4:
http://thinkprogress.org - Minimum Wage does not affect job creation even in hard economic times.
http://www.epi.org/ - Employment and the Minimum Wage—Evidence from Recent State Labor Market Trends
http://www.epi.org/ - Job Slayers or Fact Slayers? The Wall Street Journal’s flawed argument against raising the minimum wage
5. Just like with union wages in a particular area, non-union wages actually get dragged up with union wages indirectly, the same is true with the minimum wage. When you raise the floor of wages higher, workers will often refuse to accept employment where their wage is only slightly above minimum wage. So, to give further incentive, employers will raise their wages proportionately to make sure that prospective employees don't feel their being paid, what is viewed as, the bare minimum. So this is actually a good thing for all wage earners up to a certain level. It also creates some wage competition where, if a worker feels a job that requires less energy pays only a little less than the job they're seeking, their bargaining power is increased because if they choose, they can go work for a job with less scruples for a little less or the same money and make just as much. This forces employers to be more competitive on wages closer to the median wage.
6. I will concede that businesses will have increased costs in the short term from an increase in the minimum wage. There is definitely no debating that point. However, what other businesses will have to realize is that, a minimum wage increase can actually increase another business' profits and in retrospec, their own as well. By requiring higher wages, more people are moved into a more middle-class income level giving consumers more disposable income to spend on things beyond the absolute minimums. Businesses fail to realize that their own low wages are actually a self-perpetuating problem. Low wages equal low costs, but low wages also equal low amounts of disposable income, which lead to lower profits, and lower expansionary outlooks as well. The wage issue is something to be approached with careful considering, as to not over-mandate wages, but also under-mandate them either.
Now, to move onto the actual meat and potatoes of the point of this article:
The progressive minimum wage is a function that may or may not be practical, however, I hope that someone of some influence reads this, and perhaps puts some of my assumptions to the test to see if it'd work out. Now, just like an income tax, which I believe should be based on net profits (Including payouts to investors and and not gross profits just as I would favor a Single-rate tax system that leaves a lump of income not subject to taxation. The same should be for the minimum wage. There are reasonable justifications for having a lower minimum wage to foster growth in small business.
There are many small businesses which lack the capital to pay a full livable wage. And I'm reasonably sure that the good and hardworking small business workers/owners would indeed love to pay employees a livable wage. However, to foster growth in a small business, I would like to see a progressive minimum wage which incorporates size and profitability.
A business which makes only a little money should not have to pay huge minimum wages in that it will hurt their ability to be competitive. So, based on post-tax profits, the minimum wage should be determined at a set rate. For companies that have larger post-tax profits, their minimum wage obligation should be much higher. Now, many might say "What right does government have to tell a private business how much in wages they have to pay?" My answer is this: If a business is allowed to pay a bare minimum wage that doesn't even provide for a minimum standard of living and leaves the worker asking the public dole for assistance. It has now it becomes a government issue. Walmart is notorious for helping it's workers get on the public system because they refuse to pay livable wages and provide good working conditions. While Walmart does pay higher than most retailers, they also provide lower amounts of hours, meaning that, the hourly rate is semi-competitive, but the time worked doesn't provide for enough income for a person to live in a semi-reasonable manner without public assistance. It seems reasonable to me, that companies, such as Walmart which net $16 Billion in profits (2012) world wide, has a moral obligation to share more of it's profits with it's employees. Just because you own a company doesn't mean you don't justly compensate them for the work they do. I don't know how many have worked retail, but, it's no the easiest of work to do. Walmart pays from about $7.55/hr to as high as $11-12/hr for hourly managers. Hourly managers are generally full time, but associates are usually not, and given that their average hours are somewhere between 20 hours and 32 hours, depending on the store and region, They don't even make the $15,080 per year which is the salary someone at $7.25/hr would be making with 40 hours of work per week. Ultimately, the goal of the minimum wage is to keep people off the public dole and help them build their finances to be self-sufficient. Keeping the wage at 40% of median wages does not help bring the poor into the middle class. People who's basic needs are met will stop trying to meander the system for more. They will start working on other areas of their lives for self improvement. In areas of the country where the cost of living his even higher, it's an even bigger problem. The problem being where single bed apartments cost $1000 or more a month or two bedroom apartments cost nearly $1600 or more a month. Someone making minimum wage cannot afford that kind of rent.
The progressive minimum wage is a workable solution to ensure that businesses who are starting out don't drown under an excessive wage obligation, and have room to grow into a successful firm, while also raising the income floor for people who work for very successful companies who disproportionally disperse their profits. The case for a more progressive minimum wage ensures an increased standard of living for the poor and lightens the load and burden on the welfare system which should be serving those that are truly unable to work. Welfare benefits given to people that are essentially at, what I would call, full employment simply means that full employment's wages are not high enough and need to be brought up to par.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
The Ire of a Liberal
I am genuinely appalled at how badly built the social safety net is built in our country. People have zero compassion for people that are less fortunate. I'm so sick and tired of people saying "it's not my problem, or, I don't want to pay this, or they're just a bunch of freeloaders." No, if you say crap like that, you are a freakin' terrible person and you have no heart. If you think that people on welfare WANT to be on welfare, you're ignorant or just plain uninformed about anything. The most successful nation on Earth can't keep people housed, fed, and sheltered because we have too many freakin' greedy, corrupt, and plain heartless people. If jobs were abundant, housing cheap, and incomes at reasonable levels instead of what they were...and corporate bosses that were actual human beings, we'd have a much kinder society. But in a society where someone makes 30 million dollars for being FIRED, or stockholders liquidate their employees' pensions due to bankruptcy, or corporations and rich people buy Republicans to pass tax cuts and subsidies for them and tax breaks for them, I'm sorry, but, I call horse-S**T. It's time that Americans wake up. The social safety net will be rebuilt to truly help those that cannot help themselves. Many of us are spoiled, many of us have families, but there are thousands of people across the country that did nothing wrong and that are still homeless, underemployed, starving, and other bull of that nature. It's been proven over and over that charity is too inconsistent to maintain a social safety net of it's own. Being dependent on people's generosity is not sufficient to bring people out of homelessness and into lower-middle-class. Regularity and consistency is what is necessary to build up a person's stability. If you don't like the safety net, move somewhere else where you can be greedy and heartless
Monday, September 17, 2012
Romney's 47% remarks are loathsome.
How many of you pay no income taxes each year? Did you know that because you pay no income tax, you are now dirt to Mitt Romney. You're dependent on the Government, you're a waste of resources, you're not worth investing time into. My friends, such a remark is deeply offensive to us who, through mostly no fault of our own, have to use a government program to make ends meet. How cold can one be to say that 47% of those that pay no taxes are worth nothing? How many of those on welfare want and wish to not be on welfare? How many people wake up each morning go "Gee, I can't wait to get my welfare check so I can be a social leech on society."? Yeah, not many people think like that. If you truly do think that, then shame on you. But, 99.9% of people one welfare are generally good people who just got into a bad rut in life. And all they need is something to keep them treading water until they can get back into the job market. If Romney thinks that he can marginalize a demographic that pays no taxes and uses welfare to score him political points, he's SORELY mistaken. There are plenty of people in the bottom 47% who vote for him out of principle even though it does not represent their financial interests.
Shame on him for acting like a self-righteous opportunist, and it's time that he get that message squarely in the face. Vote NO for Mr. Romney, and tell him his remarks are deeply inappropriate and highly offensive.
Shame on him for acting like a self-righteous opportunist, and it's time that he get that message squarely in the face. Vote NO for Mr. Romney, and tell him his remarks are deeply inappropriate and highly offensive.
The Republican Establishment Hypocracy
So, the infamous Rush
Limbaugh stated on his show that Welfare recipients are turning out in droves
to vote for President Obama, which is not entirely accurate. Ezra Klein wrote in Wonkblog about how Mr.
Limbaugh is stating that voter turnout for the poor is huge, and that
Republicans have to turn out just as much.
However, Mr. Limbaugh kind of forgot to look at the data regarding
turnout for those making less than $15,000 per year. In Klein’s article, (linked here), he clearly
shows that the poor are turning out quite a bit less for voting as opposed to
white collar workers. Now the point that
I’m trying to make, is that Republicans are contending that Democrats are
trying to buy votes with social programs.
But, isn’t that what Republicans are also trying to do by promising tax cuts? Doesn’t promising tax cuts to the richest American citizens and companies also constitute vote-buying…according to their logic? The numbers showing a lack of increased voter turnout would suggest that the increased spending in Food Stamps and other welfare spending as not had the effect that Republicans contend that it has. However, it appears that promising lucrative tax cuts and light enforcement on reuglation has worked a great deal, causing the Republican coffers to overflow with money for Romney's and other Republicans' re-election campaigns. So, in a nutshell, Rush Limbaugh’s call that Obama is buying votes with welfare dollars is utter and staggeringly terrible hypocrisy. Republicans have done more to buy votes from the wealthy in exchange for deregulation, lower taxes, and lighter enforcement of existing regulation than any party in history. For example, According to Opensecrets.org, The Center for Responsive Politics, "Individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans." Feel free to read the whole list here.
But, isn’t that what Republicans are also trying to do by promising tax cuts? Doesn’t promising tax cuts to the richest American citizens and companies also constitute vote-buying…according to their logic? The numbers showing a lack of increased voter turnout would suggest that the increased spending in Food Stamps and other welfare spending as not had the effect that Republicans contend that it has. However, it appears that promising lucrative tax cuts and light enforcement on reuglation has worked a great deal, causing the Republican coffers to overflow with money for Romney's and other Republicans' re-election campaigns. So, in a nutshell, Rush Limbaugh’s call that Obama is buying votes with welfare dollars is utter and staggeringly terrible hypocrisy. Republicans have done more to buy votes from the wealthy in exchange for deregulation, lower taxes, and lighter enforcement of existing regulation than any party in history. For example, According to Opensecrets.org, The Center for Responsive Politics, "Individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans." Feel free to read the whole list here.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
The Blog entries below are in reverse order of publication
So, the note after this one is the oldest so far. From here on UP, it'll be in the proper sequential order. I was cutting and pasting these from my Facebook page. So anyway, ENJOY! And of course, comment, leave feedback, etc....
Christianity and Realizations
It takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be Christian or any other religion for that matter. Here's whats not logical to me. Atheists believe there can be no god because you cannot (in their view) perceive God with all 5 senses. But here's the flaw in their logic. God is a super-natural being, so why would you be able to with all 5... Read More senses in the first place. To propose that you can only perceive God all 5 senses is not logical. To perceive a Super-natural being through natural means does not make sense. So, faith walks into the picture where we perceive God because not of what he looks, tastes, feels, smells, or sounds like. We perceive God because he makes life complete for every Christian, and it is through our example and every day living that people see that. Never condemning people, never judging people, just living to serve people, standing ready to pick them up when they stumble and be a friend, comrade, and shoulder. Our best witness is to live our every day life as Christ did. Never shoving our beliefs down peoples' throats, condemning them of their sin, or judging their actions, as we are not qualified judges to do so. There is always a context, a reason, and motive that we are unaware of and unable to perceive.
To those of you who are on my friends' list who have been wronged by selif-righteous Christians, All I want to say is that is not what Christ had in mind for anyone is this world. It is for no man to judge your actions.
Christianity is not a religion, its not a society, it is an individual walk of life for a single person. Church is designed to bring those people together where they can share their individual glories and triumphs in their life, and give Glory to God for those triumphs. Where they can come together for causes and missions that serve the common good: Serving man as Christ did.
It is deeply painful for me when I personally meet people who have told me "yah, i used to be a Christian, then this happened, or that happened to me, or this person hurt me....etc etc." I say in the back of my head "Thats not the way it should be, never that way." So those of you who were hurt by Christians, I want to ask your forgiveness that my way of life was used as a means of hurting you. That you were ostracized as a person because of who you are/were, had a view that you didn't agree on, because you are/were gay or bi or a lesbian, because someone used Christianity to further their own selfish goals and you fell victim to it. Their judgment will come and justice will be yours. The Lord has a way of bringing things around full circle on those who are unjust to others. If there was one thing that the Lord ALWAYS delivered on, was being just to those who were taken advantage of, abused, or hurt deeply. He has a way of helping you deal with that pain, and bringing peace to your life.
Christianity isn't a "go to church" event, or even a social event. Its a daily transformation that takes work, effort, discipline, and a conscience desire to change the way you think, behave, and react instinctively. The Bible is not a rulebook full of boring rules and stuffy traditions. Its a guide filled with actions and feelings that you should already be feeling, impulses you should already be wanting to act on, and ideas that you should be discovering. The idea is that you follow Christ, these things should already be happening.
On a final note: those who claim to be Christians can be tested in a very easy way. By their fruits you shall know them. What that means is that by their actions, behavior, and way of thinking, will reveal their true person. And from there, you can decide.
Christ did not judge during his ministry, he lived, and help others live even better than he. So why should I judge if he didn't. It is the mandate of every Christ follower that they serve believers and non-believers equally if not the non-believer more so. That we should make living on this earth a bit easier for every person we come into contact with. And walk by faith as much as by walking in Christs footsteps and example.
Serve with a giving heart, and blessings pour out in abundance. Its not how much, its what heart it is done with.
To those of you who are on my friends' list who have been wronged by selif-righteous Christians, All I want to say is that is not what Christ had in mind for anyone is this world. It is for no man to judge your actions.
Christianity is not a religion, its not a society, it is an individual walk of life for a single person. Church is designed to bring those people together where they can share their individual glories and triumphs in their life, and give Glory to God for those triumphs. Where they can come together for causes and missions that serve the common good: Serving man as Christ did.
It is deeply painful for me when I personally meet people who have told me "yah, i used to be a Christian, then this happened, or that happened to me, or this person hurt me....etc etc." I say in the back of my head "Thats not the way it should be, never that way." So those of you who were hurt by Christians, I want to ask your forgiveness that my way of life was used as a means of hurting you. That you were ostracized as a person because of who you are/were, had a view that you didn't agree on, because you are/were gay or bi or a lesbian, because someone used Christianity to further their own selfish goals and you fell victim to it. Their judgment will come and justice will be yours. The Lord has a way of bringing things around full circle on those who are unjust to others. If there was one thing that the Lord ALWAYS delivered on, was being just to those who were taken advantage of, abused, or hurt deeply. He has a way of helping you deal with that pain, and bringing peace to your life.
Christianity isn't a "go to church" event, or even a social event. Its a daily transformation that takes work, effort, discipline, and a conscience desire to change the way you think, behave, and react instinctively. The Bible is not a rulebook full of boring rules and stuffy traditions. Its a guide filled with actions and feelings that you should already be feeling, impulses you should already be wanting to act on, and ideas that you should be discovering. The idea is that you follow Christ, these things should already be happening.
On a final note: those who claim to be Christians can be tested in a very easy way. By their fruits you shall know them. What that means is that by their actions, behavior, and way of thinking, will reveal their true person. And from there, you can decide.
Christ did not judge during his ministry, he lived, and help others live even better than he. So why should I judge if he didn't. It is the mandate of every Christ follower that they serve believers and non-believers equally if not the non-believer more so. That we should make living on this earth a bit easier for every person we come into contact with. And walk by faith as much as by walking in Christs footsteps and example.
Serve with a giving heart, and blessings pour out in abundance. Its not how much, its what heart it is done with.
The Employee Illness Protection Act
The Employee Illness Protection Act
Definitions
Employee is defined as any non-agricultural employee as defined by Washington State Law.
Insurance is defined as any underwritten health policy that requires a premium be paid at a regular interval which covers services relating to health and/or dental care and maintenance.
Employer is defined as any entity which employs a person for the purposes of working for that entity's interests.
Sick or Illness is defined as a state of condition in which a person's health is not in homeostasis caused by exposure to micro-organisms, physical injury of any kind which causes a person to be unable to work with reasonable accommodation, or any mental condition which my impair a person's ability to function in a manner that is safe and with standard mental function which is able to be diagnosed by a medical professional.
Doctor is defined as one who is medically licensed to practice medicine in the State of Washington.
Preface
The purpose of this law is to protect employees who attempt to take responsibility for their own health and protect the health of those they work with and serve by ensuring that such actions of responsibility do not result in an employee being disciplined, censored, or terminated. It is also designed to help prevent the spread of work-borne and food-borne illness by employees.
Body
1) No employer shall, through threats of disciplinary action, coerce an employee who is ill to report to work. This includes threatening a poor evaluation of an employee's work performance, reduction in pay, reduction in hours, changing or altering the nature of the employee's work, or any such related action deemed to be derogatory.
A) However, in regards to evaluation of an employee's work record, the employer MAY keep note of sick absences for the purposes of determining promotion and advancement as sick days may impact a business' ability to further its goals.
2) No employer shall require a doctor's note for an employee who is absent from work for three (3) or fewer scheduled working days within a work-week (Sunday through Saturday) with the following exceptions:
A) The employee has health insurance of any kind that will not create a financial burden for the employee.
B) The employer may require a doctor's note if the employer pays for the doctor's note. If this is the case, the employer must pay for the visit up front or request the office bill the employer directly.
C) The employee is a student in a state or private institution of higher learning and has access to a student clinic run by the institution.
3) Any employee fraudulently calling in as sick may be subject to immediate dismissal by their employer without notice if one of the following are true:
A) The employee admits it to their employer or is heard admitting it by their employer.
B) The employee is witnessed in public areas in which a normally sick person would not be. I.E. the employee is seen with their friends at the mall or movies or in a public area engaging in recreational activities that would not be engaged in if said employee was sick.
*) The employer is encouraged to seek an explanation from the employee in question before terminating an employee for this purpose.
4) Employers may not terminate an employee who attempts to protect the health of his or herself and those around them by refusing to work sick.
5) Any Employee that is ill for more than (3) three days, is required to get a doctor's note for their employer if requested to do so.
A) The requirements in Section (1) are lifted after the 3rd day of illness and the financial burden is solely the employee's responsibility.
6) Employers who violate this law are subject to a minimum of a $3000 fine per violation, and are subject to civil court action by the employee for violation of their rights under this law with a minimum judgment of $2,000+ court expenses. Other factors may increase the judgment to a maximum of $7,500.
Addendum
1) This act does not cover self-inflicted substance abuse side effects such as hangovers and other related conditions. Employees who are sick due to intoxication are not protected by this legislation unless the employee is using a controlled substance with a doctor's prescription in proper dosage who's warning label expressly warns the user of said drug to not engage in activities which may endanger his or herself and others around them.
2) This act does not apply to employers which are under contract through labor unions. The worker will contact the labor union for their specific rules relating to staying home from work due to illness. In the event that Labor Union rules are more relaxed than the contents of this law. Any parts of this law that have greater requirements than Union contracts supersede those contracts specific requirements.
3) This act does not apply to public employee's of any kind unless they are not represented by a union. State-created government entities such as counties, cities, municipalities and localities' employees are protected by this act and are afforded all the rights and protections there-in provided they are not represented by a Union.
4) Tribal lands' employers are exempt from this law as it has no jurisdiction over them. However, the tribal governments are encouraged to adopt this law in hopes that it helps people within tribal communities feel more secure in their place of employment.
5) Any Tribal member who works off the reservation area IS protected by this law and is afforded all its protections.
6) All workers who physically work for a contracted labor job in the State of Washington, but who's company is not based physically in Washington are afforded the protections of this law. The contractor is subject to the obligations of this law as a condition of accepting contract agreements in this state.
Definitions
Employee is defined as any non-agricultural employee as defined by Washington State Law.
Insurance is defined as any underwritten health policy that requires a premium be paid at a regular interval which covers services relating to health and/or dental care and maintenance.
Employer is defined as any entity which employs a person for the purposes of working for that entity's interests.
Sick or Illness is defined as a state of condition in which a person's health is not in homeostasis caused by exposure to micro-organisms, physical injury of any kind which causes a person to be unable to work with reasonable accommodation, or any mental condition which my impair a person's ability to function in a manner that is safe and with standard mental function which is able to be diagnosed by a medical professional.
Doctor is defined as one who is medically licensed to practice medicine in the State of Washington.
Preface
The purpose of this law is to protect employees who attempt to take responsibility for their own health and protect the health of those they work with and serve by ensuring that such actions of responsibility do not result in an employee being disciplined, censored, or terminated. It is also designed to help prevent the spread of work-borne and food-borne illness by employees.
Body
1) No employer shall, through threats of disciplinary action, coerce an employee who is ill to report to work. This includes threatening a poor evaluation of an employee's work performance, reduction in pay, reduction in hours, changing or altering the nature of the employee's work, or any such related action deemed to be derogatory.
A) However, in regards to evaluation of an employee's work record, the employer MAY keep note of sick absences for the purposes of determining promotion and advancement as sick days may impact a business' ability to further its goals.
2) No employer shall require a doctor's note for an employee who is absent from work for three (3) or fewer scheduled working days within a work-week (Sunday through Saturday) with the following exceptions:
A) The employee has health insurance of any kind that will not create a financial burden for the employee.
B) The employer may require a doctor's note if the employer pays for the doctor's note. If this is the case, the employer must pay for the visit up front or request the office bill the employer directly.
C) The employee is a student in a state or private institution of higher learning and has access to a student clinic run by the institution.
3) Any employee fraudulently calling in as sick may be subject to immediate dismissal by their employer without notice if one of the following are true:
A) The employee admits it to their employer or is heard admitting it by their employer.
B) The employee is witnessed in public areas in which a normally sick person would not be. I.E. the employee is seen with their friends at the mall or movies or in a public area engaging in recreational activities that would not be engaged in if said employee was sick.
*) The employer is encouraged to seek an explanation from the employee in question before terminating an employee for this purpose.
4) Employers may not terminate an employee who attempts to protect the health of his or herself and those around them by refusing to work sick.
5) Any Employee that is ill for more than (3) three days, is required to get a doctor's note for their employer if requested to do so.
A) The requirements in Section (1) are lifted after the 3rd day of illness and the financial burden is solely the employee's responsibility.
6) Employers who violate this law are subject to a minimum of a $3000 fine per violation, and are subject to civil court action by the employee for violation of their rights under this law with a minimum judgment of $2,000+ court expenses. Other factors may increase the judgment to a maximum of $7,500.
Addendum
1) This act does not cover self-inflicted substance abuse side effects such as hangovers and other related conditions. Employees who are sick due to intoxication are not protected by this legislation unless the employee is using a controlled substance with a doctor's prescription in proper dosage who's warning label expressly warns the user of said drug to not engage in activities which may endanger his or herself and others around them.
2) This act does not apply to employers which are under contract through labor unions. The worker will contact the labor union for their specific rules relating to staying home from work due to illness. In the event that Labor Union rules are more relaxed than the contents of this law. Any parts of this law that have greater requirements than Union contracts supersede those contracts specific requirements.
3) This act does not apply to public employee's of any kind unless they are not represented by a union. State-created government entities such as counties, cities, municipalities and localities' employees are protected by this act and are afforded all the rights and protections there-in provided they are not represented by a Union.
4) Tribal lands' employers are exempt from this law as it has no jurisdiction over them. However, the tribal governments are encouraged to adopt this law in hopes that it helps people within tribal communities feel more secure in their place of employment.
5) Any Tribal member who works off the reservation area IS protected by this law and is afforded all its protections.
6) All workers who physically work for a contracted labor job in the State of Washington, but who's company is not based physically in Washington are afforded the protections of this law. The contractor is subject to the obligations of this law as a condition of accepting contract agreements in this state.
My Critic Review of "The Last Airbender" - M. Night Shamalyn - July 3, 2010
So me and Kyle Kollmann went to go see "The Last Airbender" yesterday. Now, Kyle, in his infinite wisdom decided to look up the critic reviews for this film, which received a dismal D+ from the "real" critics, and a C+ from actual people who went to go see it.
Now, you may ask..."Why should I go see this then if it got such horrible reviews?" Because, if you're a fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender, which Nickelodeon made, then you will enjoy the action-filled, breath-taking special affects which permeate this wonderful work. Shamalyn's attempt at fantasy was, in my opinion, well done. Now, like most introductions to a new world/universe, they can start somewhat slow. This movie, definitely wasn't any exception. We follow Aang along in his adventures, his own personal quest of self-acceptance of his destiny, and the growth of his companions Katara and Sokka. IGN's own review looks like it was written by an Oxford film reject, as it shows his sheer ignorance of the animated series' plots and episodes. The tragedy of Prince Zuko was greatly depicted along with his internal struggle to find a place in his disgraced world. As the sequels of this movie unfold, I'm sure we'll be graced with more character development from Prince Zuko and his uncle who is an honorable and wise general who counsels his disgraced nephew throughout the film. (who's character I LOVED because of his sense of honor and integrity).
The adventure in the movie does move somewhat slow, some of the dialogue is somewhat cheesey. But again, its made for children and young adults, so, what an adult critic things of an adolescent film is somewhat irrelevant unless he can speak from that perspective. Aang is a young child, the voice and actor is well-placed to play that role, and furthermore, has a great message of honor, integrity, and morality that accompanies it.
A lot of the first 20 episodes were filler, character development, and travel; so of course, to move the main plot along, quite a bit was cut out. During one segment of the movie, when Aang reaches the Northern Water Kingdom, he resides there for about 3 weeks where he learns to master the Water-Bending technique. So reasonably so, the episodes which encompass this 3 weeks were cut for time reasons.
Furthermore, as Kyle and I were walking back to my car, we discussed how so few movies exist that depict actual magical battles. IGN's analysis criticizes the excessive magical battles throughout the film asking "though how many balls of fire and wind can one really stand after a while?" Honestly, the same can be said for war films which we see people blown to pieces, or sci-fi movies/series where all they do is fight for a whole season (DS9, season 7 anyone?) So criticizing the amount of war engaged in is totally irrelevant as well, because the battles had purpose and meaning for moving the plot along. But he also forgot to mention the very cool waterbending, which there was a great deal of as well. Battles which depict two wielders of whatever element of fantasy they utilize (magic, bending, etc) are SO hard to find these days. Lord of the Rings: Return of the king was a great disappointment in this department. The Theatrical Dungeons and Dragons movies had a little bit of it, but alas, what it had in special affects it lacked in plot and story. So I was pleased to see a strong epic story with malleable characters, built on a strong introductory foundation
The musical score is of particular enjoyment, as it invokes strong epic feelings and great peaks of awe in conjunction with the film's imagery. When they approached the gates of the Northern Water Kingdom, the score plus the visual gave me goosebumps of awe.
Finally, before you decide to listen to reviews written by IVY-league, snobbish critics, go see it for yourself and make your own judgment. I found the movie extremely enjoyable, and fun, something I would take my kid to see (if I had one that age, or at all for that matter), and don't let yourself be taken back by the drop off at the end of the movie; because they will be making more, I assure you!
Thanks, And make sure to look for Kyle Kollmann's own review which hopefully will surface around sometime this evening.
Now, you may ask..."Why should I go see this then if it got such horrible reviews?" Because, if you're a fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender, which Nickelodeon made, then you will enjoy the action-filled, breath-taking special affects which permeate this wonderful work. Shamalyn's attempt at fantasy was, in my opinion, well done. Now, like most introductions to a new world/universe, they can start somewhat slow. This movie, definitely wasn't any exception. We follow Aang along in his adventures, his own personal quest of self-acceptance of his destiny, and the growth of his companions Katara and Sokka. IGN's own review looks like it was written by an Oxford film reject, as it shows his sheer ignorance of the animated series' plots and episodes. The tragedy of Prince Zuko was greatly depicted along with his internal struggle to find a place in his disgraced world. As the sequels of this movie unfold, I'm sure we'll be graced with more character development from Prince Zuko and his uncle who is an honorable and wise general who counsels his disgraced nephew throughout the film. (who's character I LOVED because of his sense of honor and integrity).
The adventure in the movie does move somewhat slow, some of the dialogue is somewhat cheesey. But again, its made for children and young adults, so, what an adult critic things of an adolescent film is somewhat irrelevant unless he can speak from that perspective. Aang is a young child, the voice and actor is well-placed to play that role, and furthermore, has a great message of honor, integrity, and morality that accompanies it.
A lot of the first 20 episodes were filler, character development, and travel; so of course, to move the main plot along, quite a bit was cut out. During one segment of the movie, when Aang reaches the Northern Water Kingdom, he resides there for about 3 weeks where he learns to master the Water-Bending technique. So reasonably so, the episodes which encompass this 3 weeks were cut for time reasons.
Furthermore, as Kyle and I were walking back to my car, we discussed how so few movies exist that depict actual magical battles. IGN's analysis criticizes the excessive magical battles throughout the film asking "though how many balls of fire and wind can one really stand after a while?" Honestly, the same can be said for war films which we see people blown to pieces, or sci-fi movies/series where all they do is fight for a whole season (DS9, season 7 anyone?) So criticizing the amount of war engaged in is totally irrelevant as well, because the battles had purpose and meaning for moving the plot along. But he also forgot to mention the very cool waterbending, which there was a great deal of as well. Battles which depict two wielders of whatever element of fantasy they utilize (magic, bending, etc) are SO hard to find these days. Lord of the Rings: Return of the king was a great disappointment in this department. The Theatrical Dungeons and Dragons movies had a little bit of it, but alas, what it had in special affects it lacked in plot and story. So I was pleased to see a strong epic story with malleable characters, built on a strong introductory foundation
The musical score is of particular enjoyment, as it invokes strong epic feelings and great peaks of awe in conjunction with the film's imagery. When they approached the gates of the Northern Water Kingdom, the score plus the visual gave me goosebumps of awe.
Finally, before you decide to listen to reviews written by IVY-league, snobbish critics, go see it for yourself and make your own judgment. I found the movie extremely enjoyable, and fun, something I would take my kid to see (if I had one that age, or at all for that matter), and don't let yourself be taken back by the drop off at the end of the movie; because they will be making more, I assure you!
Thanks, And make sure to look for Kyle Kollmann's own review which hopefully will surface around sometime this evening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)