Posts
I'm gratified to see a number of employers rewarding their faithful hirees with extra vacation time this week. In similar spirit, due to a number of other obligations and factors, I've decided to take this week off from many of my usual activities. This includes the blog, which will resume in 2010. Have a lovely week, all.
Best wishes for the new year,
MK
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Unaffiliated: The Third Party
Many people identify with one of the two big parties on paper, but in their hearts they feel misrepresented. Perhaps this is why many, like myself, have chosen "unaffiliated" as our official designation on our voter registration cards. I've long held that we need a third party to represent middle America, and I'll tell you why by recounting two friends' perspectives on the parties.
My Republican friend views the constituents of the Democratic party as a bunch of communist, eco-terrorist, tax raising, big spending hippies in suits out to suppress religious freedoms.
My Democratic friend views the Republican party as ultra-conservative, corporate owned, gun toting, fundamentalist religious nuts bent on seeing us cast into the dark ages of homophobia and Christian creationism as the only possible explanation for life.
Do either of these sound like the majority of Americans? I don't think so either. Yet the most vocal portions of these parties, the people who represent these parties, the very small percentage of these parties that make sure their faces are on camera- these are the people who create these perceptions.
I say we let them have their parties. Let's form our third party for middle America and let the extremes have the parties they hijacked. One day, perhaps, they'll hold the same political weight as the Whigs and Torries.
Tomorrow is Christmas Eve, and so I sign off until Monday. Have a lovely weekend, friends, and a very Merry Christmas.
Take care of each other,
MK
My Republican friend views the constituents of the Democratic party as a bunch of communist, eco-terrorist, tax raising, big spending hippies in suits out to suppress religious freedoms.
My Democratic friend views the Republican party as ultra-conservative, corporate owned, gun toting, fundamentalist religious nuts bent on seeing us cast into the dark ages of homophobia and Christian creationism as the only possible explanation for life.
Do either of these sound like the majority of Americans? I don't think so either. Yet the most vocal portions of these parties, the people who represent these parties, the very small percentage of these parties that make sure their faces are on camera- these are the people who create these perceptions.
I say we let them have their parties. Let's form our third party for middle America and let the extremes have the parties they hijacked. One day, perhaps, they'll hold the same political weight as the Whigs and Torries.
Tomorrow is Christmas Eve, and so I sign off until Monday. Have a lovely weekend, friends, and a very Merry Christmas.
Take care of each other,
MK
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The Poll Results: A Trick Question
As my first poll, I thought I'd have a little fun. I asked the following:
Which of the following would you trust more with your money? An auto company, A big bank, A failed brothel, or the US government.
Of the six responses I received, four said they'd trust their money more with a big bank, and two said they'd trust the failed brothel. Now, as you've guessed from the title of this post, the poll was a trick question: all of the answers are the same entitiy.
I assume I don't need to explain the first two answers in light of today's economic climate. As for the brothel, in 1990 the IRS siezed the Mustang Ranch in Nevada for tax evasion. Due to a quirk in the law, the government was required to operate the brothel for a time. The business was shortly sold again, primarily through piece-meal sales of the various physical assets.
Our government failed to make money selling sex and alcohol, and this week it is likely they'll take over the health of 300 million citizens. We continue to elect people who hold no other position, who've had no career outside politics, and we think they have the experience, the capacity to run major operations like national health care? They might know how to win elections, ladies and gentlemen, but they have no idea how to improve your lot in life.
So the next time you're sitting in a doctor's lobby or the ER waiting area, you can play a little game to make the time pass. Look at each of the people around you, and ask yourself: how hard would it be to sell a lapdance to him? Does she look like she could use a drink?
Maybe our government will take a cue from Wal-Mart, where you can eat McDonald's, have your picture taken, and get your eyes examined just after your salon appointment. When you walk into a hospital in the near future, there might be a banking counter to your right, an auto dealership to your left, and on the third floor, well, that's only for patients with no history of liver or heart trouble.
Stay healthy,
MK
Which of the following would you trust more with your money? An auto company, A big bank, A failed brothel, or the US government.
Of the six responses I received, four said they'd trust their money more with a big bank, and two said they'd trust the failed brothel. Now, as you've guessed from the title of this post, the poll was a trick question: all of the answers are the same entitiy.
I assume I don't need to explain the first two answers in light of today's economic climate. As for the brothel, in 1990 the IRS siezed the Mustang Ranch in Nevada for tax evasion. Due to a quirk in the law, the government was required to operate the brothel for a time. The business was shortly sold again, primarily through piece-meal sales of the various physical assets.
Our government failed to make money selling sex and alcohol, and this week it is likely they'll take over the health of 300 million citizens. We continue to elect people who hold no other position, who've had no career outside politics, and we think they have the experience, the capacity to run major operations like national health care? They might know how to win elections, ladies and gentlemen, but they have no idea how to improve your lot in life.
So the next time you're sitting in a doctor's lobby or the ER waiting area, you can play a little game to make the time pass. Look at each of the people around you, and ask yourself: how hard would it be to sell a lapdance to him? Does she look like she could use a drink?
Maybe our government will take a cue from Wal-Mart, where you can eat McDonald's, have your picture taken, and get your eyes examined just after your salon appointment. When you walk into a hospital in the near future, there might be a banking counter to your right, an auto dealership to your left, and on the third floor, well, that's only for patients with no history of liver or heart trouble.
Stay healthy,
MK
Monday, December 21, 2009
Small Government: Big Responsibility
Today's blog post will be rather short; we have very little time left until Christmas, and I have cookies to bake. Still, the fact that I am summarizing my perspective a bit should not diminish the weight of my message. To put it succinctly, small government is not for the weak.
Living in a nation as ours was intended to be requires a great deal of personal responsibility. Basically, I believe that government is there to do for us as a group what we cannot do as individuals. Primarily, those things are wage war, uphold contracts, and regulate trade when it crosses state and national boundaries. The government is not here to save us from ourselves.
I know it's sad when a small child drowns, but does that really mean we need a law to protect every child in America from ever sticking its head in a bucket again? I know it's sad when a kid dies in a car accident, but does that mean the parents have any right to crusade for a law that takes away my parental rights to decide when my kid is big enough to not require a child seat?
Please, I beg of you all- think about the rights we chip away when we pass these laws. Think about the added expense and bureaucracy our government requires to enforce them. Please- stop trying to protect me from myself and the world around me. I can take care of that, and if I fail, well, that's on me.
Respectfully,
MK
Living in a nation as ours was intended to be requires a great deal of personal responsibility. Basically, I believe that government is there to do for us as a group what we cannot do as individuals. Primarily, those things are wage war, uphold contracts, and regulate trade when it crosses state and national boundaries. The government is not here to save us from ourselves.
I know it's sad when a small child drowns, but does that really mean we need a law to protect every child in America from ever sticking its head in a bucket again? I know it's sad when a kid dies in a car accident, but does that mean the parents have any right to crusade for a law that takes away my parental rights to decide when my kid is big enough to not require a child seat?
Please, I beg of you all- think about the rights we chip away when we pass these laws. Think about the added expense and bureaucracy our government requires to enforce them. Please- stop trying to protect me from myself and the world around me. I can take care of that, and if I fail, well, that's on me.
Respectfully,
MK
Friday, December 18, 2009
University of Phoenix: Enroll Now
I heard an odd comment the other day, and it disturbed me deeper than I first realized. A man in his forties said, "It's not my fault I didn't go to college. No one ever told me I could."
My initial reaction to this was a bit skeptical. How does someone get through four decades of life and not realize how many opportunities there are to go to college in this country? No, it's not easy, nor is it cheap. It's not a secret, though.
Next I felt a bit sad for the man. Everyone should have someone that believes in them. Every child should be told that, if college is their dream, nothing should stop them from getting a degree.
My pity faded, though, on the realization that this man was blaming everyone in the world for his lack of education except himself. I can understand this in a kid, but is this even remotely acceptable for a person in his forties? I've seen entirely too many people overcome incredible hardships to earn their degrees. People make it through college with no money, working two jobs, supporting aging or ill parents, dealing with pregnancies and marriage, and living with physical disabilities and learning impairments.
I'm sorry, sir. I think you're lying to yourself. By now you should have learned to cope with not receiving a special invitation to the academic world. You have society's permission. By all means, please get your degree.
Sincerely,
MK (NCSU class of '04)
My initial reaction to this was a bit skeptical. How does someone get through four decades of life and not realize how many opportunities there are to go to college in this country? No, it's not easy, nor is it cheap. It's not a secret, though.
Next I felt a bit sad for the man. Everyone should have someone that believes in them. Every child should be told that, if college is their dream, nothing should stop them from getting a degree.
My pity faded, though, on the realization that this man was blaming everyone in the world for his lack of education except himself. I can understand this in a kid, but is this even remotely acceptable for a person in his forties? I've seen entirely too many people overcome incredible hardships to earn their degrees. People make it through college with no money, working two jobs, supporting aging or ill parents, dealing with pregnancies and marriage, and living with physical disabilities and learning impairments.
I'm sorry, sir. I think you're lying to yourself. By now you should have learned to cope with not receiving a special invitation to the academic world. You have society's permission. By all means, please get your degree.
Sincerely,
MK (NCSU class of '04)
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Localize Minimum Wage to End Off-Shoring
I read an article earlier today about wage theft and how much worse it is with the recession. If you're not familiar with the concept, "wage theft" is the term given to actions taken by employers to deny workers their rightful pay. This comes in the form of denying overtime, paying less than minimum wage, and paying less than agreed for the work performed, as examples. The article focused on the issues immigrants, legal and illegal, face with wage theft given their vulnerable status; even legal immigrants fear deportation if they confront their employers. It also mentioned that this is primarily an issue of low-wage industries.
I bring this up because the article stated how many are calling for the Federal government to "step up enforcement", and it mentioned that many cities and states have had to combat wage theft in the absence of Federal regulation. I don't claim to be an expert on the Department of Labor, and I'm certain I have some research to do here. I'm posting this as a lead-in to what I hope will be further discussion. That said, my opinion is that this is not a Federal issue; this is a local issue.
It seems to me that the Federal government should only be concerned with wage theft if the offenders cross state lines. Two examples would be companies that hire employees in multiple states, and travelling carnivals that cross state lines. Essentially, the state and local governments are more than capable of dealing with the enforcement of wage laws. I understand that minimum wage and many of the wage laws being broken are Federal laws, and therefore it would fall to the DoL to enforce them. Absolutely. But why are they Federal laws? Why do we not have localized minimum wage laws? Think about it. The cost of living is not the same in San Francisco, CA, and Beaufort, NC. Why is the minimum wage the same?
Why do we have a nationwide minimum wage instead of legislation that says something to the effect of, "each state will create and maintain a system for determining the minimum wage within its borders." Period. Done. Then the states can decide if they want this to be handled by their state legislature or if it should go to more localized governing bodies. That would be their choice. They could set up the guidelines that work within their own subcultures, and the minimum wage would be more in line with the local cost of living.
With a locally set minimum wage, we would create competition between states. On the one hand, if you set your minimum wage too high, businesses will leave the area unless the state has other incentives to overcome the high wages. Some areas have advantageous corporate taxing structures; others have a highly educated and skilled labor force that can demand higher wages. On the other hand, if you set your minimum wage too low for the cost of living, residents will leave in search of better paying opportunities. This will act as an incentive for the state to adjust the minimum wage or, as an example, create educational opportunities so that a skilled labor force can attract higher-paying jobs.
The increased competition for a good balance of wages, taxes, and other benefits will force the US citizenry to accept that we demand entirely too much money for unskilled labor. We hear complaints all the time about how our jobs are being sent overseas where wages are lower. We hear about illegal immigrants taking jobs because they work for less than minimum wage. We hear about how rising prices in America are making it harder for parents to provide for their families. Then we hear about how the minimum wage is going up again.
Let's break this down. The minimum wage goes up, so the companies have three choices: raise prices, find cheaper labor, or make less money. You can be sure they're not going for option three. If we had local minimum wages, though, option two would still include the US and US citizens. Wages getting out of control in Utah? Time to move to Colorado. Your family depends on this job? You can probably follow it. Yes, you'll be making less, but it's likely because the cost of living is less. You get the idea.
For now, yes, the DoL needs to enforce the regulations in place. I would even love to see a list of employers convicted of wage theft posted for all to see. These unscrupulous people would have been hung in the town square at one point in time, but for now I'll settle for paying what's owed and a fair amount of public humiliation. In the future, though, we need to decentralize the minimum wage. It is rightfully the responsibility of the local governments to address these issues.
Thanks for reading,
-MK
I bring this up because the article stated how many are calling for the Federal government to "step up enforcement", and it mentioned that many cities and states have had to combat wage theft in the absence of Federal regulation. I don't claim to be an expert on the Department of Labor, and I'm certain I have some research to do here. I'm posting this as a lead-in to what I hope will be further discussion. That said, my opinion is that this is not a Federal issue; this is a local issue.
It seems to me that the Federal government should only be concerned with wage theft if the offenders cross state lines. Two examples would be companies that hire employees in multiple states, and travelling carnivals that cross state lines. Essentially, the state and local governments are more than capable of dealing with the enforcement of wage laws. I understand that minimum wage and many of the wage laws being broken are Federal laws, and therefore it would fall to the DoL to enforce them. Absolutely. But why are they Federal laws? Why do we not have localized minimum wage laws? Think about it. The cost of living is not the same in San Francisco, CA, and Beaufort, NC. Why is the minimum wage the same?
Why do we have a nationwide minimum wage instead of legislation that says something to the effect of, "each state will create and maintain a system for determining the minimum wage within its borders." Period. Done. Then the states can decide if they want this to be handled by their state legislature or if it should go to more localized governing bodies. That would be their choice. They could set up the guidelines that work within their own subcultures, and the minimum wage would be more in line with the local cost of living.
With a locally set minimum wage, we would create competition between states. On the one hand, if you set your minimum wage too high, businesses will leave the area unless the state has other incentives to overcome the high wages. Some areas have advantageous corporate taxing structures; others have a highly educated and skilled labor force that can demand higher wages. On the other hand, if you set your minimum wage too low for the cost of living, residents will leave in search of better paying opportunities. This will act as an incentive for the state to adjust the minimum wage or, as an example, create educational opportunities so that a skilled labor force can attract higher-paying jobs.
The increased competition for a good balance of wages, taxes, and other benefits will force the US citizenry to accept that we demand entirely too much money for unskilled labor. We hear complaints all the time about how our jobs are being sent overseas where wages are lower. We hear about illegal immigrants taking jobs because they work for less than minimum wage. We hear about how rising prices in America are making it harder for parents to provide for their families. Then we hear about how the minimum wage is going up again.
Let's break this down. The minimum wage goes up, so the companies have three choices: raise prices, find cheaper labor, or make less money. You can be sure they're not going for option three. If we had local minimum wages, though, option two would still include the US and US citizens. Wages getting out of control in Utah? Time to move to Colorado. Your family depends on this job? You can probably follow it. Yes, you'll be making less, but it's likely because the cost of living is less. You get the idea.
For now, yes, the DoL needs to enforce the regulations in place. I would even love to see a list of employers convicted of wage theft posted for all to see. These unscrupulous people would have been hung in the town square at one point in time, but for now I'll settle for paying what's owed and a fair amount of public humiliation. In the future, though, we need to decentralize the minimum wage. It is rightfully the responsibility of the local governments to address these issues.
Thanks for reading,
-MK
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Happy Holidays? Why you little...!
Happy Holidays: the American equivalent of "I don't know your religious beliefs and don't want to offend you, so I'll just say something generically genial and seasonal." We hear this everywhere now. Leaving a store? Happy Holidays! Eating out? Happy Holidays! Gave money to charity? Happy Holidays! Now "Happy Holidays" has become offensive to many, so let's talk about this for a minute. 'Tis the season, after all...
Many businesses require their employees to say Happy Holidays instead of making any references to a specific winter festivity. I understand why they do this: money. Businesses do not actually care about their patrons' feelings. Business owners and managers might care, but businesses themselves do not. Businesses care about money, and patrons don't spend money where they feel they've been offended. Rather than risk saying Merry Christmas to a Jewish person, the hostess or salesman must say Happy Holidays to all to wish all a good night. But why? Why are we offended by good wishes, even if we don't celebrate that particular holiday?
Americans have become a nation of individualists that expect others to know, respect and obey our personal wishes. Why is saying Merry Christmas to a Jewish person bad? If that person wished a Christian Happy Hanukkah in return, would the Christian be offended? What if you say Merry Christmas to an Atheist? Are you likely to get a diatribe of anti-religious sentiment? Why did we start taking these things so seriously?
I have a crazy idea that I think might alleviate this problem. If someone wishes you well, even referencing a holiday you don't personally celebrate, say something absurd, like "Thanks! Same to you." If you're feeling really spunky, you might even wish them your own seasonal blessing. Imagine it: people saying things like "Merry Christmas" and hearing "Happy Kwanzaa" in return without a big argument afterwards! I don't know if my heart can take it, but I'm absolutely positive our society can.
We need to start accepting our fellow citizens as we find them, religious beliefs and all. I'm not personally a Christian, though I was raised in a Christian household and share many of the same values. I celebrate many Christian and non-Christian holidays throughout the year. These are my beliefs, and I expect my fellow citizens to respect them, whether they understand or agree with them.
I do not, however, expect the people I meet each day to know by looking at me that I'm more likely to say Merry Christmas than Happy Hanukkah. This brings me to my point: when someone wishes me a happy holiday, no matter what their holiday of choice may be, I assume this is the equivalent of saying "peace be with you" or "fare thee well". Yes, each of these expressions has their own histories, but the point is that they are nice things to say. So is wishing someone a good Ramadan, even if they're not Muslim. Getting angry is like taking offense to someone saying "gesundheit" to a sneeze because you're not German.
So the next time someone wishes you a Merry Christmas or a Happy Hanakkah or a Happy Ramadan, return the favor with your own holiday greetings. If we all start to recognize the niceness and goodwill behind these sentiments, we can start working our way toward a nation that truly has freedom of religion instead of an egg-shell-walking semi-religious minefield of half-greetings.
Assalamualaikum, friends.
-MK
Many businesses require their employees to say Happy Holidays instead of making any references to a specific winter festivity. I understand why they do this: money. Businesses do not actually care about their patrons' feelings. Business owners and managers might care, but businesses themselves do not. Businesses care about money, and patrons don't spend money where they feel they've been offended. Rather than risk saying Merry Christmas to a Jewish person, the hostess or salesman must say Happy Holidays to all to wish all a good night. But why? Why are we offended by good wishes, even if we don't celebrate that particular holiday?
Americans have become a nation of individualists that expect others to know, respect and obey our personal wishes. Why is saying Merry Christmas to a Jewish person bad? If that person wished a Christian Happy Hanukkah in return, would the Christian be offended? What if you say Merry Christmas to an Atheist? Are you likely to get a diatribe of anti-religious sentiment? Why did we start taking these things so seriously?
I have a crazy idea that I think might alleviate this problem. If someone wishes you well, even referencing a holiday you don't personally celebrate, say something absurd, like "Thanks! Same to you." If you're feeling really spunky, you might even wish them your own seasonal blessing. Imagine it: people saying things like "Merry Christmas" and hearing "Happy Kwanzaa" in return without a big argument afterwards! I don't know if my heart can take it, but I'm absolutely positive our society can.
We need to start accepting our fellow citizens as we find them, religious beliefs and all. I'm not personally a Christian, though I was raised in a Christian household and share many of the same values. I celebrate many Christian and non-Christian holidays throughout the year. These are my beliefs, and I expect my fellow citizens to respect them, whether they understand or agree with them.
I do not, however, expect the people I meet each day to know by looking at me that I'm more likely to say Merry Christmas than Happy Hanukkah. This brings me to my point: when someone wishes me a happy holiday, no matter what their holiday of choice may be, I assume this is the equivalent of saying "peace be with you" or "fare thee well". Yes, each of these expressions has their own histories, but the point is that they are nice things to say. So is wishing someone a good Ramadan, even if they're not Muslim. Getting angry is like taking offense to someone saying "gesundheit" to a sneeze because you're not German.
So the next time someone wishes you a Merry Christmas or a Happy Hanakkah or a Happy Ramadan, return the favor with your own holiday greetings. If we all start to recognize the niceness and goodwill behind these sentiments, we can start working our way toward a nation that truly has freedom of religion instead of an egg-shell-walking semi-religious minefield of half-greetings.
Assalamualaikum, friends.
-MK
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
I am The Original American, and I am not alone.
Welcome to The Original American, a blog about traditional American values. I refer not to the values of the prudish 20th century, but rather to the basic ideals upon which this great nation was founded. Our forefathers believed in small government supporting the freedom and responsibility of individuals. I am starting this blog as a way to relate their principles to modern life in these United States.
As I leave the first blushes of youth, I weary of the ever-increasing restrictions on the freedom of the American people. I have watched our government accomplish virtually nothing over the past three decades while growing tremendously in size. Each year, our government takes more of our money, increases our national debt, and violates our personal liberties. Each year, the attitude of the average citizen becomes more complacent.
We have become a nation of whiners who expect our goverment to solve all our problems, to alleviate the ills and evils of the world. We no longer accept personal responsibility for our own actions and misfortunes. We no longer accept that bad things happen to good people, and sometimes there is no one to blame. We no longer accept that hard work is the path to a better life, and that each person holds the key to his own circumstances. Instead, we now off-load all responsibility to the government while using legislation to impose our values on our neighbors.
Starting today, I intend to speak out against the socialist agenda in the US. I understand that there are people who need help; this is why we have private charities and philanthropists. I understand that each socialist program does some good for some people; this does not make them appropriate within the context of the American government funded by the American tax payers. Those who wish to live in a socialist society should move to one. Europe is lovely, by the way.
I do not expect everyone to agree with my opinions, but I do expect those who respond to my blogs to be respectful. I intend this to be a forum for intelligent discussion, entertainment, activism and the occassional rant (when something really gets under my skin). I've opened my blog to the world, and I don't restrict comments except for those being disrespectful.
I'll try to post something new every day, Monday through Friday, and we'll see how that goes. For now, thank you for reading my first post. I hope you will keep reading, and if you like what you see, please feel free to share with your friends.
Good night,
MK
As I leave the first blushes of youth, I weary of the ever-increasing restrictions on the freedom of the American people. I have watched our government accomplish virtually nothing over the past three decades while growing tremendously in size. Each year, our government takes more of our money, increases our national debt, and violates our personal liberties. Each year, the attitude of the average citizen becomes more complacent.
We have become a nation of whiners who expect our goverment to solve all our problems, to alleviate the ills and evils of the world. We no longer accept personal responsibility for our own actions and misfortunes. We no longer accept that bad things happen to good people, and sometimes there is no one to blame. We no longer accept that hard work is the path to a better life, and that each person holds the key to his own circumstances. Instead, we now off-load all responsibility to the government while using legislation to impose our values on our neighbors.
Starting today, I intend to speak out against the socialist agenda in the US. I understand that there are people who need help; this is why we have private charities and philanthropists. I understand that each socialist program does some good for some people; this does not make them appropriate within the context of the American government funded by the American tax payers. Those who wish to live in a socialist society should move to one. Europe is lovely, by the way.
I do not expect everyone to agree with my opinions, but I do expect those who respond to my blogs to be respectful. I intend this to be a forum for intelligent discussion, entertainment, activism and the occassional rant (when something really gets under my skin). I've opened my blog to the world, and I don't restrict comments except for those being disrespectful.
I'll try to post something new every day, Monday through Friday, and we'll see how that goes. For now, thank you for reading my first post. I hope you will keep reading, and if you like what you see, please feel free to share with your friends.
Good night,
MK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)