We see too much about liberal bias against conservatives and conservative bias against liberals. But do we even know what a conservative or liberal is?
Are those who think billionaires should be free to run their companies without any government interference liberals or conservatives? They are certainly "liberal" in their interpretation of the Constitution. The true conservatives are those who believe the Constitution's power to the Congress to "regulate commerce among the states".
Are those who think the Constitution starts with "We the People" means persons as a collective liberal or conservative? It seems that so-called conservatives are rather liberal in interpreting the opening clause as "We the Corporations".
Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about liberals and conservatives in academia. For some of the letters in response see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/politics-and-academia.html.
If "conservatives" have a problem being accepted into academia it may be because they are not open to change. A true academic is a liberal-conservative: liberal in open to new views and conservative in evaluating evidence.
Showing posts with label We the People. Show all posts
Showing posts with label We the People. Show all posts
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Friday, May 06, 2016
Bernie Sanders, second choice after none of the above
I really am not happy with our choice of Presidential candidates this year, but from all that I can read Bernie Sanders is far above being more interested in the people than the special interests. It really is time we bring government back to "We the People" rather than "We the Corporations" or "We the special interests".
If you are for Bernie Sanders, before sure to vote even if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. If you stay away because your first choice didn't get the nomination, consider that if you stay away that is one more vote for the party of the plutocrats.
That said, here is one of Bernie Sanders latest pronouncements about bringing government back to "We the People".
In the United States today, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, 47 million Americans are living in poverty.
Almost 22 percent of American children are poor and we have the highest child poverty rate of almost any major country on earth.
Let’s be clear. Living in poverty doesn’t just mean you don’t have enough money to buy a big screen TV, a fancy laptop, or the latest iPhone. It goes much deeper than that.
Living in poverty means you are less likely to have a good grocery store in your community selling healthy food. Far too often it means you don’t know where your next meal is going to come from. Living in poverty means you are less likely to have access to a doctor, dentist or mental health care provider. It means you have less access to public transportation, which makes it harder to find a job. It means you are less likely to have access to child care.
In the United States of America, poverty is often a death sentence.
Yesterday, I spoke about poverty in McDowell County, West Virginia — one of the poorest counties in one of the poorest states in America. In 2014, over 35 percent of the residents in McDowell lived in poverty, including nearly half of the children. The roads are crumbling and only 6 percent of adults have a college education. Less than two-thirds have graduated high school. It has the lowest life expectancy for men in the entire nation. I hope you’ll watch part of my speech on poverty and share it with friends and family on social media.
\Bernie Sanders Speaks on Poverty in McDowell County, WV [See Video]
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/share/poverty-is-a-death-sentence
Poverty is an issue we must address. In 2011, the American Journal of Public Health found that 130,000 people died in just one year alone as a result of poverty.
This is not an issue we can just sweep under the rug and hope it will go away. Because it won’t.
And when I talk about it being too late for establishment politics and economics, this is what I mean. When I talk about thinking big and outside the box, about rejecting incremental change, I am talking about the millions of Americans who live in poverty who have been tossed out, left behind, and abandoned by the rich and powerful. We need to create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.
Here’s what we need to do:
Rebuild our country’s crumbling infrastructure. A $1 trillion investment in our infrastructure will create at least 13 million jobs all over America - jobs that cannot be outsourced.
We must rewrite our disastrous trade policies that enable corporate America to shut down plans in places like West Virginia and move them to Mexico, China, and other low-wage countries.
We can create 1 million jobs for disadvantaged youths through legislation I introduced with Rep. John Conyers of Michigan.
We need to increase the wages of at least 53 million American workers by raising the minimum wage from a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour.
At a time when women workers earn 79 cents for every dollar a man earns, we need to sign the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. Equal pay for equal work.
We need to make health care a right for every man, woman, and child through a Medicare for All single-payer system.
We need to treat drug addiction like a mental health issue, not a criminal issue.
We need to ensure every worker in this country has at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, two weeks of paid vacation, and one week of paid sick days.
We need to impose a tax on Wall Street to make public colleges and universities tuition free while substantially reducing student debt.
At a time when half of older workers have no retirement savings, we’re not going to cut Social Security, we’re going to expand it so people can retire with dignity and respect.
No president can do all of these things alone. We need millions of Americans to begin to stand up and fight back and demand a government that represents all of us. That is the political revolution.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
Paid for by Bernie 2016
(not the billionaires)
PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE
Stand against the powerful special interests who are systematically buying our Congress and have their sights set on the presidency.
If you are for Bernie Sanders, before sure to vote even if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. If you stay away because your first choice didn't get the nomination, consider that if you stay away that is one more vote for the party of the plutocrats.
That said, here is one of Bernie Sanders latest pronouncements about bringing government back to "We the People".
In the United States today, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, 47 million Americans are living in poverty.
Almost 22 percent of American children are poor and we have the highest child poverty rate of almost any major country on earth.
Let’s be clear. Living in poverty doesn’t just mean you don’t have enough money to buy a big screen TV, a fancy laptop, or the latest iPhone. It goes much deeper than that.
Living in poverty means you are less likely to have a good grocery store in your community selling healthy food. Far too often it means you don’t know where your next meal is going to come from. Living in poverty means you are less likely to have access to a doctor, dentist or mental health care provider. It means you have less access to public transportation, which makes it harder to find a job. It means you are less likely to have access to child care.
In the United States of America, poverty is often a death sentence.
Yesterday, I spoke about poverty in McDowell County, West Virginia — one of the poorest counties in one of the poorest states in America. In 2014, over 35 percent of the residents in McDowell lived in poverty, including nearly half of the children. The roads are crumbling and only 6 percent of adults have a college education. Less than two-thirds have graduated high school. It has the lowest life expectancy for men in the entire nation. I hope you’ll watch part of my speech on poverty and share it with friends and family on social media.
\Bernie Sanders Speaks on Poverty in McDowell County, WV [See Video]
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/share/poverty-is-a-death-sentence
Poverty is an issue we must address. In 2011, the American Journal of Public Health found that 130,000 people died in just one year alone as a result of poverty.
This is not an issue we can just sweep under the rug and hope it will go away. Because it won’t.
And when I talk about it being too late for establishment politics and economics, this is what I mean. When I talk about thinking big and outside the box, about rejecting incremental change, I am talking about the millions of Americans who live in poverty who have been tossed out, left behind, and abandoned by the rich and powerful. We need to create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.
Here’s what we need to do:
Rebuild our country’s crumbling infrastructure. A $1 trillion investment in our infrastructure will create at least 13 million jobs all over America - jobs that cannot be outsourced.
We must rewrite our disastrous trade policies that enable corporate America to shut down plans in places like West Virginia and move them to Mexico, China, and other low-wage countries.
We can create 1 million jobs for disadvantaged youths through legislation I introduced with Rep. John Conyers of Michigan.
We need to increase the wages of at least 53 million American workers by raising the minimum wage from a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour.
At a time when women workers earn 79 cents for every dollar a man earns, we need to sign the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. Equal pay for equal work.
We need to make health care a right for every man, woman, and child through a Medicare for All single-payer system.
We need to treat drug addiction like a mental health issue, not a criminal issue.
We need to ensure every worker in this country has at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, two weeks of paid vacation, and one week of paid sick days.
We need to impose a tax on Wall Street to make public colleges and universities tuition free while substantially reducing student debt.
At a time when half of older workers have no retirement savings, we’re not going to cut Social Security, we’re going to expand it so people can retire with dignity and respect.
No president can do all of these things alone. We need millions of Americans to begin to stand up and fight back and demand a government that represents all of us. That is the political revolution.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
Paid for by Bernie 2016
(not the billionaires)
PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE
Stand against the powerful special interests who are systematically buying our Congress and have their sights set on the presidency.
Friday, November 14, 2014
We the People Lost; They the Corporations Won
The election results are in and I am very disappointed. Not in who won and who lost, but in how few bothered to even vote. Those who didn’t vote gave the election away to those who were determined to vote. And many of those who didn’t vote, if they had voted, might have flipped the results the other way. This is probably true of both those who normally favor Democrats and of those who normally favor Republicans.
Too many claim they don’t like to choose the lesser of two evils. Well, guess what? If you don’t choose the lesser of two evils you might get the “worser” of two evils.
Many in Duluth are proud that they had one of the highest turnouts in the country at a bit less than 60 percent. I think it is not something to be proud of because a bit more than 40 percent of registered voters didn’t even bother to show up.
Who makes up these no-shows? Are they people that don’t even care about politics? Are they people who have other priorities, like Dick Cheney? Are they people who don’t think their vote counts? Are they people who don’t think their candidates have a chance? To those who think their vote doesn’t count – of course it doesn’t, you didn’t cast it. To those who think their candidates don’t have a chance – of course they don’t have a chance, you didn’t vote for them.
I hope that those who did win have a bit of humility by realizing that most registered voters didn’t support them. Most registered voters didn’t support them? Well if 40 percent didn’t show up and a candidate received 60 percent of the vote of those who did, then only 36 percent of the registered voters supported them. Hey, that’s a lot better than Ronald Reagan’s “landslide” with the support of less than 30 percent of the registered voters.
Let’s look at two races familiar to many in Duluth – 8th District for the U.S. House and 7A for the Minnesota House.
Let’s take the closer race first - 8th District with Stewart Mills, Rick Nolan, and Skip Sandman. Only 266,081 of the 389,425 registered voters showed up. Less than four thousand votes separated Mills and Nolan. Nolan had a plurality of 48.51 percent vs. Mills’ 47.11 percent. Nolan did not win a majority of the votes cast. But if we look at the candidates’ support among registered voters, the support is even less. Nolan received the support of about 33 percent of the registered voters and Mills was close behind with a bit more than 32 percent of the voters.
Next let’s look at the more lop-sided race – District 7A with Becky Hall, Jennifer Schultz, and Kris Osbakken. Less than 16 thousand of the over 23 thousand registered voters showed up. Schultz had 62.1 percent vs. Hall’s 33.3 percent. But Schultz did not have the votes of a majority of registered voters; less than 41 percent of the registered voters cast a vote for her.
You can find the data I used at on the Minnesota Secretary of State’s pages at http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ENR/Home/20.
I didn’t go through all the Minnesota races, but I think you’ll find this lack of majority support in most, if not all races, in Minnesota and throughout the country. For example, Sen. Al Franken may have had a clear majority of the votes cast, but he received the support of less than a third of the registered voters.
It is easy to blame corporate interests for the big gains by the Republicans across the country, especially when the New York Times has headlines like “Business Leaders Cautiously Expect G.O.P. Win to Open Some Doors” (2014-11-05). Given the statements by some Republicans, one could expect a floodgate of legislation that favors corporations over the environment and public health. It is easy to blame the Supreme Court for letting corporations have all the rights of people that led to huge amounts of money spent on attack ads. It is easy to blame the Koch brothers for manipulating legislation and public opinion to their benefit.
It is hard to remember that this has been going on in politics for over two centuries.
Newspapers in the early Nineteenth century often were libelous in their attacks on politicians they didn’t favor. Corporations lobbied for their pet projects. Remember “Honest Abe” was a railroad lawyer and, as President, even called for doubling the subsidy for building a transcontinental railroad, a corporate give-away if there ever was one.
For over 100 years the turnout of the voting age population has been “dismal” in presidential elections. The high was 73.2 percent in 1900, the low was 48.9 percent in 1924, and average since 1900 have been 57.0 percent. Interestingly, Bush I and Bush II had 50.3 percent turnout, Bush II did better in his second election with 55.7 percent turnout. Then Obama did better and better: 57.1 percent and 59.3 percent turnout. Hope does increase turnout.
Will the turnout continue to climb in 2016? It depends on you.
Mel voted and hopes you did, too.
This article was published in the Reader Weekly, 2014-11-13 and can be found at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/11/13/4345_we_the_people_lost_they_the_corporations_won.
Too many claim they don’t like to choose the lesser of two evils. Well, guess what? If you don’t choose the lesser of two evils you might get the “worser” of two evils.
Many in Duluth are proud that they had one of the highest turnouts in the country at a bit less than 60 percent. I think it is not something to be proud of because a bit more than 40 percent of registered voters didn’t even bother to show up.
Who makes up these no-shows? Are they people that don’t even care about politics? Are they people who have other priorities, like Dick Cheney? Are they people who don’t think their vote counts? Are they people who don’t think their candidates have a chance? To those who think their vote doesn’t count – of course it doesn’t, you didn’t cast it. To those who think their candidates don’t have a chance – of course they don’t have a chance, you didn’t vote for them.
I hope that those who did win have a bit of humility by realizing that most registered voters didn’t support them. Most registered voters didn’t support them? Well if 40 percent didn’t show up and a candidate received 60 percent of the vote of those who did, then only 36 percent of the registered voters supported them. Hey, that’s a lot better than Ronald Reagan’s “landslide” with the support of less than 30 percent of the registered voters.
Let’s look at two races familiar to many in Duluth – 8th District for the U.S. House and 7A for the Minnesota House.
Let’s take the closer race first - 8th District with Stewart Mills, Rick Nolan, and Skip Sandman. Only 266,081 of the 389,425 registered voters showed up. Less than four thousand votes separated Mills and Nolan. Nolan had a plurality of 48.51 percent vs. Mills’ 47.11 percent. Nolan did not win a majority of the votes cast. But if we look at the candidates’ support among registered voters, the support is even less. Nolan received the support of about 33 percent of the registered voters and Mills was close behind with a bit more than 32 percent of the voters.
Next let’s look at the more lop-sided race – District 7A with Becky Hall, Jennifer Schultz, and Kris Osbakken. Less than 16 thousand of the over 23 thousand registered voters showed up. Schultz had 62.1 percent vs. Hall’s 33.3 percent. But Schultz did not have the votes of a majority of registered voters; less than 41 percent of the registered voters cast a vote for her.
You can find the data I used at on the Minnesota Secretary of State’s pages at http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ENR/Home/20.
I didn’t go through all the Minnesota races, but I think you’ll find this lack of majority support in most, if not all races, in Minnesota and throughout the country. For example, Sen. Al Franken may have had a clear majority of the votes cast, but he received the support of less than a third of the registered voters.
It is easy to blame corporate interests for the big gains by the Republicans across the country, especially when the New York Times has headlines like “Business Leaders Cautiously Expect G.O.P. Win to Open Some Doors” (2014-11-05). Given the statements by some Republicans, one could expect a floodgate of legislation that favors corporations over the environment and public health. It is easy to blame the Supreme Court for letting corporations have all the rights of people that led to huge amounts of money spent on attack ads. It is easy to blame the Koch brothers for manipulating legislation and public opinion to their benefit.
It is hard to remember that this has been going on in politics for over two centuries.
Newspapers in the early Nineteenth century often were libelous in their attacks on politicians they didn’t favor. Corporations lobbied for their pet projects. Remember “Honest Abe” was a railroad lawyer and, as President, even called for doubling the subsidy for building a transcontinental railroad, a corporate give-away if there ever was one.
For over 100 years the turnout of the voting age population has been “dismal” in presidential elections. The high was 73.2 percent in 1900, the low was 48.9 percent in 1924, and average since 1900 have been 57.0 percent. Interestingly, Bush I and Bush II had 50.3 percent turnout, Bush II did better in his second election with 55.7 percent turnout. Then Obama did better and better: 57.1 percent and 59.3 percent turnout. Hope does increase turnout.
Will the turnout continue to climb in 2016? It depends on you.
Mel voted and hopes you did, too.
This article was published in the Reader Weekly, 2014-11-13 and can be found at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/11/13/4345_we_the_people_lost_they_the_corporations_won.
Saturday, October 04, 2014
Constitution á la carte
“Á la carte” is French for “from the menu”. It means that one chooses various items from the menu rather than being offered a complete meal chosen by the chef. It seems to me that the writers of the U.S. Constitution provided us a complete meal for governance, but we all seem to pick and choose what we want from the Constitution and ignore much of the rest, even going so far as to go against the intent of the writers.
Let’s start at the beginning: “We the people…” Just who are “the people”? The word “people” is used just twice in the original constitution: in the opening and in Article I, Section 2. In the latter “the People of the several States” choose the Representatives. The “electors”, presumably of the people, are defined by state law. Interesting, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit women from voting. But considering that states had laws allowing only men to vote, then the Constitution indirectly prohibits women from voting.
Another prominent noun is “person”, again without gender stipulation. All of the uses assume a single human individual, free or otherwise. For census purposes the qualification “free” is added. So, although the States didn’t allow women the vote, did they allow free Blacks and Indians taxed to vote? The Constitution is mute on this.
The sticking point nowadays is the use of “people” and “persons” in the Bill of Rights. The “people” can peaceably assemble, bear arms, “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”, retain rights not enumerated, and have powers not in the Constitution or “prohibited by the States.”
We seem to have a real “á la carte” on these amendments.
Some think peaceably assemble means they can have marches or demonstrations that block entire streets. Others think that a small group of people, especially Blacks, is not a peaceable assembly. The Twin Cities has a case that assumes one person sitting on a publicly-accessible chair is not peaceable assembly.
Bearing arms has been a contentious issue for ages, but most Supreme Court cases until at least 1939 interpreted it as militia-related and not personal. After all, it is a right of the people, not of persons. Now there are persons who insist that they have a right to have a gun wherever they feel like. Interesting, that there were lots of sheriffs and marshals who made gun toters check in their guns while in town.
Many Southern States conveniently overlooked and resisted the Federal authority to override state laws regarding “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Election for … Representatives.” See Article I, Section 4.
Many complain about federal regulation, but Article I, Section 8, leaves two questions wide open. “The Congress have have the power to lay and collect Taxes…and provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.” Are a highway system, an air traffic control system, and clean air and water “general Welfare”? There seem to be many who think clean air and water are over-regulation. Some of these same people want to have an extensive highway network to move themselves or goods, but they don’t want Congress to “lay and collect Taxes” for them.
One of the current ironies is that the Postmaster General is trying to overturn Congress’ responsibility “to Establish Post Offices”. Is getting a Netflix DVD the next day a Constitutional right? It is ironic that the Postmaster General’s actions are an attempt to promote corporate interests over public interest but that one large competitor to the Postal Service depends on USPS for the “last mile”. UPS sends many small packages for the “last mile” via USPS. Can you imagine UPS stopping every two blocks or so to distribute a package that fits in the mail box?
Some corporate interests are working overtime to redefine “limited time” for “exclusive Right to “Writings and Discoveries” They hope to retain film and book rights forever long, long after the creators have died. I can see a family retaining the rights but not for generation after generation. I remember that some decades ago the Verdi family lost the rights to royalties for Verdi’s operas and other works.
Has Congress abandoned the spirit of no appropriation for Armies should be for longer than two years? This was written because the writers of the Constitution disliked standing armies. Not only do we have a standing army but a globe-straddling army. I am glad that all the signers of the Constitution are not buried in the same place; the spinning in graves would be deafening.
Their backup plan was the state Militias which “may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Many may complain about the multiple deployments of the National Guards, but they are Constitutional.
On the other hand, Congress was “To provide and maintain a Navy”. It apparently doesn’t have the appropriation limitations that the Armies have. After all, the Navy has to support Congress’ power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas”. Does this also apply above the high seas?
All of the above is mostly my opinion and interpretation of the Constitution. I tried to frame most of it as questions rather than fixed-in-stone assertions. Unfortunately, there are those who believe they can deduce the Founder’s intent by reading the Constitution. Sorry, but consider all the words written in the Federalist Papers to “sell” the Constitution. Also consider how few Supreme Court cases are decided by unanimous opinions. These are judges who have spent life-times studying the Constitution.
Mel has long been fascinated by rules and regulations, and like many others, tries to interpret them to his advantage.
Also posted to the Reader Weekly, 2014-10-02.
See also
"Foreign policy foreign to founders"
"Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress"
"Quote of the day: Stealing the Constitution"
"The right to bear Canons"
Let’s start at the beginning: “We the people…” Just who are “the people”? The word “people” is used just twice in the original constitution: in the opening and in Article I, Section 2. In the latter “the People of the several States” choose the Representatives. The “electors”, presumably of the people, are defined by state law. Interesting, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit women from voting. But considering that states had laws allowing only men to vote, then the Constitution indirectly prohibits women from voting.
Another prominent noun is “person”, again without gender stipulation. All of the uses assume a single human individual, free or otherwise. For census purposes the qualification “free” is added. So, although the States didn’t allow women the vote, did they allow free Blacks and Indians taxed to vote? The Constitution is mute on this.
The sticking point nowadays is the use of “people” and “persons” in the Bill of Rights. The “people” can peaceably assemble, bear arms, “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”, retain rights not enumerated, and have powers not in the Constitution or “prohibited by the States.”
We seem to have a real “á la carte” on these amendments.
Some think peaceably assemble means they can have marches or demonstrations that block entire streets. Others think that a small group of people, especially Blacks, is not a peaceable assembly. The Twin Cities has a case that assumes one person sitting on a publicly-accessible chair is not peaceable assembly.
Bearing arms has been a contentious issue for ages, but most Supreme Court cases until at least 1939 interpreted it as militia-related and not personal. After all, it is a right of the people, not of persons. Now there are persons who insist that they have a right to have a gun wherever they feel like. Interesting, that there were lots of sheriffs and marshals who made gun toters check in their guns while in town.
Many Southern States conveniently overlooked and resisted the Federal authority to override state laws regarding “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Election for … Representatives.” See Article I, Section 4.
Many complain about federal regulation, but Article I, Section 8, leaves two questions wide open. “The Congress have have the power to lay and collect Taxes…and provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.” Are a highway system, an air traffic control system, and clean air and water “general Welfare”? There seem to be many who think clean air and water are over-regulation. Some of these same people want to have an extensive highway network to move themselves or goods, but they don’t want Congress to “lay and collect Taxes” for them.
One of the current ironies is that the Postmaster General is trying to overturn Congress’ responsibility “to Establish Post Offices”. Is getting a Netflix DVD the next day a Constitutional right? It is ironic that the Postmaster General’s actions are an attempt to promote corporate interests over public interest but that one large competitor to the Postal Service depends on USPS for the “last mile”. UPS sends many small packages for the “last mile” via USPS. Can you imagine UPS stopping every two blocks or so to distribute a package that fits in the mail box?
Some corporate interests are working overtime to redefine “limited time” for “exclusive Right to “Writings and Discoveries” They hope to retain film and book rights forever long, long after the creators have died. I can see a family retaining the rights but not for generation after generation. I remember that some decades ago the Verdi family lost the rights to royalties for Verdi’s operas and other works.
Has Congress abandoned the spirit of no appropriation for Armies should be for longer than two years? This was written because the writers of the Constitution disliked standing armies. Not only do we have a standing army but a globe-straddling army. I am glad that all the signers of the Constitution are not buried in the same place; the spinning in graves would be deafening.
Their backup plan was the state Militias which “may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Many may complain about the multiple deployments of the National Guards, but they are Constitutional.
On the other hand, Congress was “To provide and maintain a Navy”. It apparently doesn’t have the appropriation limitations that the Armies have. After all, the Navy has to support Congress’ power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas”. Does this also apply above the high seas?
All of the above is mostly my opinion and interpretation of the Constitution. I tried to frame most of it as questions rather than fixed-in-stone assertions. Unfortunately, there are those who believe they can deduce the Founder’s intent by reading the Constitution. Sorry, but consider all the words written in the Federalist Papers to “sell” the Constitution. Also consider how few Supreme Court cases are decided by unanimous opinions. These are judges who have spent life-times studying the Constitution.
Mel has long been fascinated by rules and regulations, and like many others, tries to interpret them to his advantage.
Also posted to the Reader Weekly, 2014-10-02.
See also
"Foreign policy foreign to founders"
"Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress"
"Quote of the day: Stealing the Constitution"
"The right to bear Canons"
Friday, May 09, 2014
Equal pay for equal work; will it work?
In “Minimum Wage, Inflation, and Personal Experience” (Reader Weekly 2014-03-27) I wrote that I didn’t think wages for many jobs had kept up with inflation. At least in Minnesota that seems to have been ameliorated a bit. Congress is still dithering about a minimum wage with the usual suspects filibustering it. Those members of Congress who think that Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is determining wages should read his words about masters organizing to keep wages down.
Now the hot legislative topic is “equal pay for equal work”. And again, the masters will probably have more sway than the workers.
Just what does “equal pay” mean? One figure bandied about is that women earn 77 percent of what men do. But this is the aggregate pay of all women is 77 percent of the aggregate pay of all men. But this is reflection more about the jobs and hours worked by men and women. No law is going to change this.
On the other hand, there have been many cases of women starting the same job as men with the same relevant skills but getting less pay, just because they were women.
Equal pay for equal work is a great idea if all other things are equal. If all other things were equal, we would be robots or bees in a hive. "Brave New World" anyone?
First what is equal work?
Suppose John and Mary start on the same day with the same pay at a fast-food restaurant. John is somber, takes orders and money with a minimum number of words, and never smiles. Mary is outgoing, shows a bit of interest in every customer, and always has a smile. John takes more orders per day than Mary. Mary on the other hand takes bigger orders and gets people to come back often. Should they get the same raise whenever that may happen?
If Dale and Marty graduate from the same school taking the same courses and getting the same grades, then they probably should be offered the same starting salary for doing the same thing.
After a year the company hires Lee and Jan from the same school. They took the same courses and got the same grades as Dale and Marty did. They are placed in jobs doing the same thing as Dale and Marty.
After a year on the job, Dale and Marty expect an annual raise because of their increased experience. Should Lee and Jan get the same pay as Dale and Marty? If the pay of all four were equal, the first two might consider going to another company where they will get more pay.
Now suppose after five years Dale takes a year off to have a baby. When she returns should she get the same pay as Marty or the same pay as Lee and Jan?
Suppose after another couple of years Jan takes a year off to go skiing all over the world. When he returns should he get the same pay as Dale and Lee?
Suppose after a few more years Dale has a very good year. She solves some really tough problems and implements some great innovations. She gets a raise that gives her a higher salary than Marty. The next year she performs about the same as Marty. When annual raises are given, should she get none thus once again getting the same pay as Marty? Oops! There goes another employee to the competition.
After a couple of more years Lee takes some leadership on a project. As a reward management gives her a supervisory position which raises her pay to greater than that of Dale. But she spends only half of her time on supervisory tasks. The rest of the time she is doing exactly the same work as the other three. Should her pay go up and down with what she is doing?
When I worked some late hours at Univac, we defined a good manager as the person who operates the copier when things get busy late at night. That is, the manager is not just reading a summary of the work the next morning, but providing moral support with presence. Should the manager get less pay for the time spent observing and doing menial tasks?
Consider the varied tasks of a grocery store manager. The manager obviously hires new people, sees that they are properly trained, and evaluates their performance. The manager has to oversee the accounting of receipts and bills, ordering of groceries, and the stocking of shelves. The manager might also bag groceries, check out customers, stock some shelves, and even sweep the floor when everybody else is busy with customers. Should the manager track his or her time so that he or she gets equal pay for equal work?
Fair pay takes more thought than a simple slogan. To achieve fairer pay for more people, you have to do two things.
Join a union. Unions have a long history starting with the American Revolution. Remember “United we stand, divided we fall.” “We, the people,… to form a more perfect union…”
Always vote. Don’t be a stay-at-home who lets the “wrong” side win. Remember “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Now the hot legislative topic is “equal pay for equal work”. And again, the masters will probably have more sway than the workers.
Just what does “equal pay” mean? One figure bandied about is that women earn 77 percent of what men do. But this is the aggregate pay of all women is 77 percent of the aggregate pay of all men. But this is reflection more about the jobs and hours worked by men and women. No law is going to change this.
On the other hand, there have been many cases of women starting the same job as men with the same relevant skills but getting less pay, just because they were women.
Equal pay for equal work is a great idea if all other things are equal. If all other things were equal, we would be robots or bees in a hive. "Brave New World" anyone?
First what is equal work?
Suppose John and Mary start on the same day with the same pay at a fast-food restaurant. John is somber, takes orders and money with a minimum number of words, and never smiles. Mary is outgoing, shows a bit of interest in every customer, and always has a smile. John takes more orders per day than Mary. Mary on the other hand takes bigger orders and gets people to come back often. Should they get the same raise whenever that may happen?
If Dale and Marty graduate from the same school taking the same courses and getting the same grades, then they probably should be offered the same starting salary for doing the same thing.
After a year the company hires Lee and Jan from the same school. They took the same courses and got the same grades as Dale and Marty did. They are placed in jobs doing the same thing as Dale and Marty.
After a year on the job, Dale and Marty expect an annual raise because of their increased experience. Should Lee and Jan get the same pay as Dale and Marty? If the pay of all four were equal, the first two might consider going to another company where they will get more pay.
Now suppose after five years Dale takes a year off to have a baby. When she returns should she get the same pay as Marty or the same pay as Lee and Jan?
Suppose after another couple of years Jan takes a year off to go skiing all over the world. When he returns should he get the same pay as Dale and Lee?
Suppose after a few more years Dale has a very good year. She solves some really tough problems and implements some great innovations. She gets a raise that gives her a higher salary than Marty. The next year she performs about the same as Marty. When annual raises are given, should she get none thus once again getting the same pay as Marty? Oops! There goes another employee to the competition.
After a couple of more years Lee takes some leadership on a project. As a reward management gives her a supervisory position which raises her pay to greater than that of Dale. But she spends only half of her time on supervisory tasks. The rest of the time she is doing exactly the same work as the other three. Should her pay go up and down with what she is doing?
When I worked some late hours at Univac, we defined a good manager as the person who operates the copier when things get busy late at night. That is, the manager is not just reading a summary of the work the next morning, but providing moral support with presence. Should the manager get less pay for the time spent observing and doing menial tasks?
Consider the varied tasks of a grocery store manager. The manager obviously hires new people, sees that they are properly trained, and evaluates their performance. The manager has to oversee the accounting of receipts and bills, ordering of groceries, and the stocking of shelves. The manager might also bag groceries, check out customers, stock some shelves, and even sweep the floor when everybody else is busy with customers. Should the manager track his or her time so that he or she gets equal pay for equal work?
Fair pay takes more thought than a simple slogan. To achieve fairer pay for more people, you have to do two things.
Join a union. Unions have a long history starting with the American Revolution. Remember “United we stand, divided we fall.” “We, the people,… to form a more perfect union…”
Always vote. Don’t be a stay-at-home who lets the “wrong” side win. Remember “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Who's in charge? Government, Corporations, or We the People
According to Steve Bhaerman, aka Swami Beyondananda, We the People have let government and corporations take control, just like a bad dog can control a family. Like Cesar Millan, The Dog Whisperer, believes there are not "bad dogs" but owners who are not good pack leaders, Bhaerman believes that we must become government whisperers, taking charge of government and corporations. These entities are the tools of We the People, We the People are not the tools of government and corporations.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Let's kick the Koch-Cain habit!
Who decides the government of the United States? We the People or they the money?
Who decides the government of the United States? A well-informed populace of high-turnout voters or a secretive group of manipulators who only want their "people" to vote?
I thought I had a new revelation of how manipulated we are when I read "Pizza Magnate Herman Cain Has Extensive Ties to Powerful Koch Group", Huffington Post, Ryan J. Foley, 2011-10-16. I started playing around with Koch being the start of Kochaine and then thought, oh, Koch-Cain.
Well, I was late to the party again. I found about 16,800 results for "Koch-Cain" as a single phrase. The first two were "Billionaire puppeteers at it again? Exploring the connection between Koch brothers and Herman Cain", and "Does GOP Cocaine = Koch-Cain? Are Koch bros Buying GOP Pres Nomination by Supporting Herman Cain?"
I haven't seen anyone writing this yet, but I have a feeling that besides Cain being a puppet of the Koch brothers, he is cynically being used as their "black candidate" against Barack Obama.
If you don't like this cynicism and manipulation, if you would rather have democracy than plutocracy, be sure to vote in every election, especially in November 2012. Please put in VOTE in capital letters on your calendar for November 6, 2012. Please ask all your friends and relatives to do so. To avoid any manipulation, be sure you have registered well before and have a valid ID.
Who decides the government of the United States? A well-informed populace of high-turnout voters or a secretive group of manipulators who only want their "people" to vote?
I thought I had a new revelation of how manipulated we are when I read "Pizza Magnate Herman Cain Has Extensive Ties to Powerful Koch Group", Huffington Post, Ryan J. Foley, 2011-10-16. I started playing around with Koch being the start of Kochaine and then thought, oh, Koch-Cain.
Well, I was late to the party again. I found about 16,800 results for "Koch-Cain" as a single phrase. The first two were "Billionaire puppeteers at it again? Exploring the connection between Koch brothers and Herman Cain", and "Does GOP Cocaine = Koch-Cain? Are Koch bros Buying GOP Pres Nomination by Supporting Herman Cain?"
I haven't seen anyone writing this yet, but I have a feeling that besides Cain being a puppet of the Koch brothers, he is cynically being used as their "black candidate" against Barack Obama.
If you don't like this cynicism and manipulation, if you would rather have democracy than plutocracy, be sure to vote in every election, especially in November 2012. Please put in VOTE in capital letters on your calendar for November 6, 2012. Please ask all your friends and relatives to do so. To avoid any manipulation, be sure you have registered well before and have a valid ID.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
You are being manipulated, lied to, and bamboozled! Here's how
So you think the U.S. has the best health care system in the world, that free enterprise made this country great and any government intervention stifles free enterprise, and you think that we don't have global warming but maybe climate change, then you are being manipulated, lied to, and bamboozled by the spin doctors of large corporations. They are putting out big bucks in advertising to get us to see things their way and big bucks in campaign contributions and lobbying to have governments do things their way. Forget, "We the People".
The writers of the U. S. Constitution used "people" in the sense of communities. When they meant individuals they used "persons" or "citizens". Large corporations don't want communities, whether they are unions, co-operatives, or any other group where people come together for their common economic interest. They want isolated individuals to whom they can target their messages.
I've long suspected that corporate interests aren't my interests, or even many others interests, but I've become strongly aware of this after reading three books on corporate manipulation of us and our elected officials.
The first was "Deadly Spin" by Wendell Potter on how the health insurance companies work to minimize their payouts and maximize their profits, even if it gives bad health outcomes to their customers. I have already written about this book; see "Benefits - Getting mad at the wrong people?"
The second is "23 Things They Don't Tell You about Capitalism" by Ha-Joon Chang. Chang's first Thing is "There is no such thing as a free market", that is individuals acting in their own best interest. This free market idea simplifies individuals into economic entities without complex personalities.
The third is "Life, Inc., How the World Became a Corporation and How to Take it Back" by Douglas Rushkoff. His starting point is how limited liability corporations started and what they enabled. Like any good idea, this has morphed into a monster that "The People" can't control.
If you can stomach reading about the manipulations, you might find these books very informative and fascinating. If you're reading this blog, you probably see the world as a more complex place than the spin doctors would have us believe. These books might give you more information to counter the spin doctors. If you think the world is relatively simple, then please read these books before you vote again.
The writers of the U. S. Constitution used "people" in the sense of communities. When they meant individuals they used "persons" or "citizens". Large corporations don't want communities, whether they are unions, co-operatives, or any other group where people come together for their common economic interest. They want isolated individuals to whom they can target their messages.
I've long suspected that corporate interests aren't my interests, or even many others interests, but I've become strongly aware of this after reading three books on corporate manipulation of us and our elected officials.
The first was "Deadly Spin" by Wendell Potter on how the health insurance companies work to minimize their payouts and maximize their profits, even if it gives bad health outcomes to their customers. I have already written about this book; see "Benefits - Getting mad at the wrong people?"
The second is "23 Things They Don't Tell You about Capitalism" by Ha-Joon Chang. Chang's first Thing is "There is no such thing as a free market", that is individuals acting in their own best interest. This free market idea simplifies individuals into economic entities without complex personalities.
The third is "Life, Inc., How the World Became a Corporation and How to Take it Back" by Douglas Rushkoff. His starting point is how limited liability corporations started and what they enabled. Like any good idea, this has morphed into a monster that "The People" can't control.
If you can stomach reading about the manipulations, you might find these books very informative and fascinating. If you're reading this blog, you probably see the world as a more complex place than the spin doctors would have us believe. These books might give you more information to counter the spin doctors. If you think the world is relatively simple, then please read these books before you vote again.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Business-friendly policies? Friendly to which businesses?
One of the buzz words in politics is being business-friendly. Makes me think the Constitution begins "We the Corporations of the United States…"
Businesses run the gamut from über-corporations like Wal-Mart and Apple to local businesses with a few dozen employees to single-person businesses. One size of politics does not fit all.
One would think that the U. S. Chamber of Commerce represents all businesses, but according to Daniel Gross, "Does the Chamber of Commerce Know What's Best for Business?", Yahoo Finance Tech Ticker, it is "essentially a lobbying group for large businesses". Well, not all businesses, Apple quit the Chamber in 2009 over climate change. Pick your story with a search for "Apple Chamber of Commerce".
Gross points out that the Chamber angers "everyone from deficit hawks" to environmentalists. He also points out that the Chamber got much of what it wanted but that didn't deliver the results the Chamber promised.
To think that the House of Representatives began its year with the reading of the Constitution and immediately forgot "We the People".
Businesses run the gamut from über-corporations like Wal-Mart and Apple to local businesses with a few dozen employees to single-person businesses. One size of politics does not fit all.
One would think that the U. S. Chamber of Commerce represents all businesses, but according to Daniel Gross, "Does the Chamber of Commerce Know What's Best for Business?", Yahoo Finance Tech Ticker, it is "essentially a lobbying group for large businesses". Well, not all businesses, Apple quit the Chamber in 2009 over climate change. Pick your story with a search for "Apple Chamber of Commerce".
Gross points out that the Chamber angers "everyone from deficit hawks" to environmentalists. He also points out that the Chamber got much of what it wanted but that didn't deliver the results the Chamber promised.
To think that the House of Representatives began its year with the reading of the Constitution and immediately forgot "We the People".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)