The Washington Post reports that 558 people have been shot dead by police in America so far this year. That's an average of almost 80 people a month. Almost every one was in possession of a deadly weapon when they were shot, according to police reports. Everything from a stick, to knives but mostly guns to even a sword.
Who threatens a cop with a sword today, or a stick? Now some have been nationally publicized, like Abdulazeez in Tennessee over the marine recruiting station shootings, but most are more locally reported. These numbers seem way out of whack. And it's not just minorities being singled out. There's plenty of whites and blacks and some Hispanics. It seems to be non biased.
But why so many? Reading some of the reports, can't help but bring you to the point that some cops must be trigger happy and more importantly, far too many unstable people are in possession of firearms. The police seem not to have the respect due them and maybe with cause in too many cases.
I'm not convinced that a lot of police have the proper respect due the citizens they're charged with serving. Maybe I'm way off base. but I don't think so.
Now the police I know of, here in my little town seem respectful, but even them, I don't know how they would treat someone not local. What's going on in America? Is respect just a quaint custom of the past? Nice sounding but not practical or deserving? When did we change? Has politics changed us? I know that politicians are far from respectful of their opponents, but that's nothing new. Has their disrespect for one another deteriorated to the point of bitterness not previously seen? Historians say no.
No, I think that politicians have resorted to lying about their opponents so publicly because of 24/7 news cycles that they feel the need to one up their own comments. As for disrespect, I think it's disrespect for the citizenry that's the cause. And the support for "guns across America", that's the root cause.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Monday, July 27, 2015
What Minimum Wage?
There's been so much talk about raising the minimum wage to so many different amounts that it's hard to keep score. Then there are the arguments for and against those raises. It'll stifle business growth. People need to be paid a living wage. Most minimum wage earners are teens living at home. Most minimum wage earners are single parent adults.
I'll bet you can find counter claims for every argument put forward. But is doubling the current rate going a bit too far? Maybe so, maybe not. Let's remember just how long it's been since it was last raised. I've got a suggestion that might solve two problems at the same time.
Why not tie the federal minimum wage to the Congressional wage increases. Members of the United States Congress receive increases automatically, they do not vote on them. That was a semi-good idea. They can't vote themselves a raise. But if they can't even vote themselves a raise, why should they be able to vote for or against raises for the bottom rung of workers in America. Every time there's a raise for your Senator or Congressional Representative, an equal percentage raise in the minimum wage would take place as well.
That would eliminate all the fuss over why poor people should get raises. Or it might raise a flag on how much our representation in Congress is getting for so little they do for us. Now I don't mean to suggest that these fine legislators aren't worth all they make, or even that they should make more. But if they're worth more, shouldn't the people who serve them in stores and eateries and everywhere else, be worth more as well? The same should hold true for states. A raise for one is good for all.
Maybe then we could get on with even more pressing issues for our Congress to work on. I know it would be another stake in the heart for our legislators to lose control over yet another facet of power, but the need to streamline our government is important too.
I'll bet you can find counter claims for every argument put forward. But is doubling the current rate going a bit too far? Maybe so, maybe not. Let's remember just how long it's been since it was last raised. I've got a suggestion that might solve two problems at the same time.
Why not tie the federal minimum wage to the Congressional wage increases. Members of the United States Congress receive increases automatically, they do not vote on them. That was a semi-good idea. They can't vote themselves a raise. But if they can't even vote themselves a raise, why should they be able to vote for or against raises for the bottom rung of workers in America. Every time there's a raise for your Senator or Congressional Representative, an equal percentage raise in the minimum wage would take place as well.
That would eliminate all the fuss over why poor people should get raises. Or it might raise a flag on how much our representation in Congress is getting for so little they do for us. Now I don't mean to suggest that these fine legislators aren't worth all they make, or even that they should make more. But if they're worth more, shouldn't the people who serve them in stores and eateries and everywhere else, be worth more as well? The same should hold true for states. A raise for one is good for all.
Maybe then we could get on with even more pressing issues for our Congress to work on. I know it would be another stake in the heart for our legislators to lose control over yet another facet of power, but the need to streamline our government is important too.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Who's Protecting Your Savings?
Glass-Stiegel vs. Dodd-Frank. What's the big deal? The big deal is that we wouldn't have needed the one if we'd left the other alone. At or near the end of the Great Depression, the Glass-Stiegel laws were put in place to protect our economy from big banks who weren't interested in anything but bigger and bigger returns on the buck.
But over the next six decades the banking industry and Wall Street convinced Congress that they had learned the hard lessons and were fully capable of controlling their businesses without big brother looking over their shoulders. So the farmer unlocked the hen house and put the fox in charge of protecting his chickens.
Then something unexpected happened. The farmer was forced into the feather business. Now five years ago, the Dodd-Frank bill was passed to pick up the pieces of the Glass Stiegel act that Wall Street and the Banking industry convinced our Congress to replace. Not a perfect answer to the problems brought on by the Great Recession but at least a start.
So here are the questions; How long will they remain in effect before the financial markets convince Congress they're adult enough to look after their own housekeeping and what will the next financial meltdown cost us? You can be fairly certain that when the time comes both the financial markets and Congress will assure us that we're fully protected.
The final set of questions are; what will the next bill do to protect us and how long will it remain in effect? You're probably familiar with the old adage that making the same mistake over and over won't change the outcome, right? But which outcome? The one where we fix the problem or the one where we allow the fix to be repealed?
But over the next six decades the banking industry and Wall Street convinced Congress that they had learned the hard lessons and were fully capable of controlling their businesses without big brother looking over their shoulders. So the farmer unlocked the hen house and put the fox in charge of protecting his chickens.
Then something unexpected happened. The farmer was forced into the feather business. Now five years ago, the Dodd-Frank bill was passed to pick up the pieces of the Glass Stiegel act that Wall Street and the Banking industry convinced our Congress to replace. Not a perfect answer to the problems brought on by the Great Recession but at least a start.
So here are the questions; How long will they remain in effect before the financial markets convince Congress they're adult enough to look after their own housekeeping and what will the next financial meltdown cost us? You can be fairly certain that when the time comes both the financial markets and Congress will assure us that we're fully protected.
The final set of questions are; what will the next bill do to protect us and how long will it remain in effect? You're probably familiar with the old adage that making the same mistake over and over won't change the outcome, right? But which outcome? The one where we fix the problem or the one where we allow the fix to be repealed?
Friday, July 17, 2015
The Lone Knifeman.
A lone gunman has killed four Marines and wounded several people in Chattanooga, Tennessee. It's getting so a week doesn't go by without some gunman killing a bunch of people. At least that's the impression we get from the news media. Here a gunman, there a gunman, everywhere a gun-gun-gunman. to here it you'd think the only people who are killing people are other people with guns. Not so. There are many ways to kill people.
Look, I realize it's easier to kill somebody with a gun than almost any other way, but you have to understand, the gun lobby doesn't like to hear it stated that way. It makes it sound like the only effective way to kill people is with a gun. And that flies in the face of the NRA's "guns don't kill people" mantra.
Why is it you never hear a headline that shouts out "A lone knifeman has killed 27 people and is under arrest after having received a knife wound?" Of course, knives don't kill people either. But that's an argument for another post. The important point to keep in mind is that guns have yet to be robotized to where they can operate independently from the people pointing them. On the other hand, no other weapon can work independently from it's operator either.
The fact that guns seem to be the weapon of choice is all to often overlooked. Could bows and arrows replace guns as number one on the HIT parade? Ehhh, still not as convenient as a gun. No, the best weapon to choose, if you want to get the job done, is the gun.
The point I'm working toward is that since we can't eliminate the individual in advance of a killing spree, the next best thing would be to eliminate the weapon he or she is likely to choose. And therein lies the problem. If there's one thing we've come to understand, it's that no gun can ever be banned because the NRA won't stand for it. We could eliminate the entire human population, but not one single gun.
Look, I realize it's easier to kill somebody with a gun than almost any other way, but you have to understand, the gun lobby doesn't like to hear it stated that way. It makes it sound like the only effective way to kill people is with a gun. And that flies in the face of the NRA's "guns don't kill people" mantra.
Why is it you never hear a headline that shouts out "A lone knifeman has killed 27 people and is under arrest after having received a knife wound?" Of course, knives don't kill people either. But that's an argument for another post. The important point to keep in mind is that guns have yet to be robotized to where they can operate independently from the people pointing them. On the other hand, no other weapon can work independently from it's operator either.
The fact that guns seem to be the weapon of choice is all to often overlooked. Could bows and arrows replace guns as number one on the HIT parade? Ehhh, still not as convenient as a gun. No, the best weapon to choose, if you want to get the job done, is the gun.
The point I'm working toward is that since we can't eliminate the individual in advance of a killing spree, the next best thing would be to eliminate the weapon he or she is likely to choose. And therein lies the problem. If there's one thing we've come to understand, it's that no gun can ever be banned because the NRA won't stand for it. We could eliminate the entire human population, but not one single gun.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
The Great Intellectual Fight.
They want you to know that they do not support smoking. They support the protection of intellectual property. The "they" being the United States Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber should not be confused with your local Chamber of Commerce. The National Chamber supports American companies who do, or want to do, business worldwide.
Well it seems the National Chamber has taken offense at the New York times article of July 1 that states the American Chamber travels the world fighting curbs on smoking. Now do you see the difference? They're not in favor of smoking, they're just not comfortable with any country fighting against it's citizens smoking habits. the AC of C just wants tobacco manufacturers to be left alone.
See, if the Tobacco people are left alone, you can count on them doing the right thing. In which case the American Chamber will stop picking on those governments who want their people to stop smoking. Don't you see? The Chamber wants everyone to stop smoking, they just don't want any government to say so. It's all about intellectual property, not about smoking.
Let me try to explain. If the intellectual property of a tobacco company convinces you to smoke, that's one thing, because the tobacco company and the Chamber both want you to stop smoking, but if the government suggests you shouldn't smoke, that's interfering with those intellectual property rights. And that's what the Chamber is all upset about.
Maybe the U.S. Chamber of Commerce should be less concerned about intellectual property rights if those rights are detrimental to people's lives, and a little more interested in people's lives. Tobacco is one of those industries that, if successful, will eliminate all of it's customers. Just remember, the Chamber is concerned with business, not people.
Well it seems the National Chamber has taken offense at the New York times article of July 1 that states the American Chamber travels the world fighting curbs on smoking. Now do you see the difference? They're not in favor of smoking, they're just not comfortable with any country fighting against it's citizens smoking habits. the AC of C just wants tobacco manufacturers to be left alone.
See, if the Tobacco people are left alone, you can count on them doing the right thing. In which case the American Chamber will stop picking on those governments who want their people to stop smoking. Don't you see? The Chamber wants everyone to stop smoking, they just don't want any government to say so. It's all about intellectual property, not about smoking.
Let me try to explain. If the intellectual property of a tobacco company convinces you to smoke, that's one thing, because the tobacco company and the Chamber both want you to stop smoking, but if the government suggests you shouldn't smoke, that's interfering with those intellectual property rights. And that's what the Chamber is all upset about.
Maybe the U.S. Chamber of Commerce should be less concerned about intellectual property rights if those rights are detrimental to people's lives, and a little more interested in people's lives. Tobacco is one of those industries that, if successful, will eliminate all of it's customers. Just remember, the Chamber is concerned with business, not people.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Can You Feel It Too?
There have been several items of consternation lately that I've noticed, in particular. The National Chamber of Commerce has been leading a fight internationally against any form of tobacco smoking legislation. Our Supreme court has voted that it's more important to allow coal-fired energy generation plants to kill people with mercury and a number of other carcinogenic and toxic pollutants than to make them pay to eliminate those pollutants.
And these as well as others are made possible by a force in Washington that is primarily located on 'K' Street. That is to say, lobbyists. Did you know that there are presently over 400 former legislators who are now lobbying Congress? And that doesn't count family members of former and present legislators, or their former staffers. Did you know that former legislators still have certain privileges like access to Congressional cafeterias, etc, that allow them to mingle at will?
They claim that in the past you earned a lot of money then ran for office. Now you run for office to make a lot of money afterward. A year or two ago I listened to a Congressman ask "Do you really think I would sell my integrity and position in Congress for money?" Ya know, I really do think most of them are actually doing just that. The influence that 'Dark Money' has on our government is like a stranglehold.
It wouldn't be such a horrible thing, this influence peddling, if everybody had an equal opportunity to influence our representatives. The problem is that influence is only available to the very rich. If you can't afford to buy government, you have no business complaining about it. Heck, even the vote is purchased. It's done by buying a media outlet and converting it's news reporting into a partisan rumor mill selling propaganda.
All that rumbling being heard around the country is not mini-earthquakes, it's our founding fathers rolling over in their graves.
And these as well as others are made possible by a force in Washington that is primarily located on 'K' Street. That is to say, lobbyists. Did you know that there are presently over 400 former legislators who are now lobbying Congress? And that doesn't count family members of former and present legislators, or their former staffers. Did you know that former legislators still have certain privileges like access to Congressional cafeterias, etc, that allow them to mingle at will?
They claim that in the past you earned a lot of money then ran for office. Now you run for office to make a lot of money afterward. A year or two ago I listened to a Congressman ask "Do you really think I would sell my integrity and position in Congress for money?" Ya know, I really do think most of them are actually doing just that. The influence that 'Dark Money' has on our government is like a stranglehold.
It wouldn't be such a horrible thing, this influence peddling, if everybody had an equal opportunity to influence our representatives. The problem is that influence is only available to the very rich. If you can't afford to buy government, you have no business complaining about it. Heck, even the vote is purchased. It's done by buying a media outlet and converting it's news reporting into a partisan rumor mill selling propaganda.
All that rumbling being heard around the country is not mini-earthquakes, it's our founding fathers rolling over in their graves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)