You might be wondering what connection to science a martini could have. Surprisingly, quite a lot. Every aspect of our lives is governed by and reliant upon science, even religion. "Give us this day our daily bread". This simple phrase involves astronomy, biology, chemistry and physics. If you take the time to think about it, you will begin to see the science behind everything.
Several years ago, I went through a martini phase. When I began making martinis for my friends, I set out to create the perfect martini. I'm not talking about the concoctions that are poured in a martini glass and called something pretentious: chocolatini, melontini, cocktail weinietini, whatever. I'm talking about the basic gin (although I prefer vodka, gin makes me angry) and vermouth with an olive, and shaken, not stirred. The secret involves "old ice".
Old ice is ice that has been frozen for at least 24 hours. This is important because water turns to ice at 32° F (0° C). Until the water is completely frozen, the ice remains at 32 or 0°, depending on your temperature scale. However, your freezer is probably closer to 0° F (about -18° C). Now for the tricky math stuff, this will all be in metric units because I'm too lazy to do conversions today. To lower the temperature of 1 gram of water 1° C requires 1 calorie of heat be removed. To change 1 gram of water at 0° C to ice requires 80 calories be removed. To lower the temperature of ice requires 2 calories per gram.
If you don't use old ice (and follow the other instructions at the end of this entry) when you begin to mix your martini, the ice will start to melt and instead of vodka (or gin) and vermouth you have vodka (or gin), vermouth and water.
But what does this all have to do with climate change? Perhaps you recall last years news about extreme melting of the polar ice caps, or more recent news about the melting of Antarctic ice. You probably also noticed a rather prolonged, cold and snowy winter, and you might be thinking this solved the problem. But it didn't, and the reason is "old ice".
The ice caps act as shock absorbers for our weather. If the ice cap is too small, then we can expect to see large changes in temperature. In a normal, balanced system, the ice caps shrink and grow and change in size gradually. When the temperature rises they help slow down the rise, because it takes twice as much heat to raise the temperature of ice, and 80 times as much to melt ice as it does to raise the temperature of water. When temperatures drop, it slows down the drop, for the same reason.
Without the old ice, the size of the polar cap can fluctuate much more, removing or adding much more heat. This leads to extreme weather. Besides the flooding we have been warned about (and the warnings are now 40 years old), we can expect more and stronger storms, tornadoes and hurricanes, we can expect drought, excessive snowfall, extreme high and low temperatures and unseasonal weather, and we can expect the trend to accelerate.
There is some good news. It is clear no one is going to make a real effort to deal with the changing climate, but don't despair. The problem will correct itself. Quite a few of us won't survive the correction, but eventually it will work itself out. Once the population stabilizes at a much lower level, the weather will begin to moderate.
Now, you probably need a martini. Here is my not very secret recipe. First, store your vodka (or gin) in the freezer, it won't freeze. If it does freeze, then someone is drinking your vodka and replacing it with water. Store your vermouth in the refrigerator. It's also a good idea to keep your drink shaker in the freezer (and martini glasses if you have the room. Fill your shaker with old ice, then add vodka and vermouth (I prefer 3 parts vodka to 1 part vermouth, vary the mix to suit your taste), shake and pour into your chilled martini glass. Garnish with a stuffed olive and/or a cocktail onion. Enjoy.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Friday, March 21, 2014
Why Couldn't Evolution Be the Work of God?
Unless this is your first visit, you probably realize you're not going to find a simple answer, or an answer you can agree with, and probably not an answer that makes any sense at all. But, before we get to the confusion, a brief explanation of why I'm asking this question.
My Facebook page is set up so that, not only can I see anything posted or shared by my slowly diminishing list of friends, but I can also see anything you comment on or like. Late last night this came across my newsfeed, because a friend had commented on it. Curious, I took the time to glance through some of the comments on the "Evolution and Creationism - Open Debate" page. As is so often the case with open debates, most of the comments were either insults or attempts to debate whether or not an insult was an actual insult. My sadistic side reveled in this discovery, watching others inflict meaningless pain is so rewarding. Not to be left out, my masochistic side chose to write my thoughts on the subject.
If you can find a copy, I highly recommend "Experiment in Autobiography" by H.G. Wells. Not only is it an incredible account of the life of a very interesting man, it also paints a vivid picture of life in the late 19th and early 20th century. One tidbit from this book is, shortly after Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" set the scientific community afire, the church (I'm assuming he means the Church of England) agreed that creationism and evolution fit together just fine. Problem solved, class dismissed, our work here is complete. Add in 150 years of research, that continues to prove the reality of evolution, and it is clear, evolution is real. So why is this still an issue. The answer is "Symbols".
Communication is the exchange of symbols, just as commerce is an exchange of values. For either to exist there must be a consensus on the values and the symbols. If I agree that a loaf of bread is worth one dollar and the grocery store agrees one dollar is worth a loaf of bread, I can buy and they can sell the loaf of bread. If we can not agree, they are stuck with moldy bread and I'm spreading peanut butter and jelly across George Washington's face.
Why can't "Why Couldn't Evolution Be the Work of God?" be debated rationally? Because the symbol God is undefined. In the equation 8 + y = x, if I ask you to give me x number of dollars, what do you do? X could be anything, because y could be anything. Similarly, if I ask you "What is God?", how do you answer in a way that makes sense? There is nothing you can point to and say "This is God". To illustrate, I am going to play Borat for a few moments.
I have just asked you "What is a dog? I have never heard of such a thing. Can you tell me?" You might tell me a dog is a pet, but so is a goldfish. You might say a dog is a pet with 4 legs and a tail, which could be a turtle. You might even show me a picture of a dog. But still I am confused. You showed me a German Shepard, someone else showed me a Pomeranian and a third person showed me a Saint Bernard. When you think of dogs, you probably think of a specific dog, and the same is true when you think of God. Not to be insulting, but to some people, God is a Poodle and to others God is a Pitbull.
This confusion over the symbol "God" is increased by the one source of all things pertaining to "God". The source varies depending on your religion, for most people around here, that source is the "Holy Bible". If you do some reading you will find that God is benevolent and God is vindictive. God is loving and God is jealous. God wants peace and God wants war. God loves children and God kills children. The contradictions go on and on. Most people deal with the contradictions with a simple "We can't understand the mind of God".
Fortunately, I believe I've found a way to cut through the confusion that accomplishes nothing. This makes it equally acceptable by all sides. Quoting the Bible, John 1-1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not." When combined with the creation story in Genesis this leads me to assume that the entire universe is, not only the creation of God, but is in fact God. If I can say "God is the universe" and you can agree "the universe is God", we now have a symbol we can agree upon.
I realize, half my readers left after the Poodle comment, for the other three, I'll wrap this up soon. Whether you attribute your triumphs and defeats to the glorious, but inscrutable will of God, or you chalk them up to the perversity of the universe, when it comes to science, the answers found are more important than the questions asked. Evolution is a fact. The evidence supporting evolution boggles the mind. Imagine forcing 5 billion people to ingest a fatal dosage of poison just to prove poison can be deadly and you begin to grasp the magnitude of proof supporting evolution.
Evolution is the work of God and evolution is a natural and expected result based upon the laws of the universe. To quote a former President, "What is, is."
If anyone has a dollar I'll make you the last peanut butter and jelly sandwich you'll ever want to eat.
My Facebook page is set up so that, not only can I see anything posted or shared by my slowly diminishing list of friends, but I can also see anything you comment on or like. Late last night this came across my newsfeed, because a friend had commented on it. Curious, I took the time to glance through some of the comments on the "Evolution and Creationism - Open Debate" page. As is so often the case with open debates, most of the comments were either insults or attempts to debate whether or not an insult was an actual insult. My sadistic side reveled in this discovery, watching others inflict meaningless pain is so rewarding. Not to be left out, my masochistic side chose to write my thoughts on the subject.
If you can find a copy, I highly recommend "Experiment in Autobiography" by H.G. Wells. Not only is it an incredible account of the life of a very interesting man, it also paints a vivid picture of life in the late 19th and early 20th century. One tidbit from this book is, shortly after Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" set the scientific community afire, the church (I'm assuming he means the Church of England) agreed that creationism and evolution fit together just fine. Problem solved, class dismissed, our work here is complete. Add in 150 years of research, that continues to prove the reality of evolution, and it is clear, evolution is real. So why is this still an issue. The answer is "Symbols".
Communication is the exchange of symbols, just as commerce is an exchange of values. For either to exist there must be a consensus on the values and the symbols. If I agree that a loaf of bread is worth one dollar and the grocery store agrees one dollar is worth a loaf of bread, I can buy and they can sell the loaf of bread. If we can not agree, they are stuck with moldy bread and I'm spreading peanut butter and jelly across George Washington's face.
Why can't "Why Couldn't Evolution Be the Work of God?" be debated rationally? Because the symbol God is undefined. In the equation 8 + y = x, if I ask you to give me x number of dollars, what do you do? X could be anything, because y could be anything. Similarly, if I ask you "What is God?", how do you answer in a way that makes sense? There is nothing you can point to and say "This is God". To illustrate, I am going to play Borat for a few moments.
I have just asked you "What is a dog? I have never heard of such a thing. Can you tell me?" You might tell me a dog is a pet, but so is a goldfish. You might say a dog is a pet with 4 legs and a tail, which could be a turtle. You might even show me a picture of a dog. But still I am confused. You showed me a German Shepard, someone else showed me a Pomeranian and a third person showed me a Saint Bernard. When you think of dogs, you probably think of a specific dog, and the same is true when you think of God. Not to be insulting, but to some people, God is a Poodle and to others God is a Pitbull.
This confusion over the symbol "God" is increased by the one source of all things pertaining to "God". The source varies depending on your religion, for most people around here, that source is the "Holy Bible". If you do some reading you will find that God is benevolent and God is vindictive. God is loving and God is jealous. God wants peace and God wants war. God loves children and God kills children. The contradictions go on and on. Most people deal with the contradictions with a simple "We can't understand the mind of God".
Fortunately, I believe I've found a way to cut through the confusion that accomplishes nothing. This makes it equally acceptable by all sides. Quoting the Bible, John 1-1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not." When combined with the creation story in Genesis this leads me to assume that the entire universe is, not only the creation of God, but is in fact God. If I can say "God is the universe" and you can agree "the universe is God", we now have a symbol we can agree upon.
I realize, half my readers left after the Poodle comment, for the other three, I'll wrap this up soon. Whether you attribute your triumphs and defeats to the glorious, but inscrutable will of God, or you chalk them up to the perversity of the universe, when it comes to science, the answers found are more important than the questions asked. Evolution is a fact. The evidence supporting evolution boggles the mind. Imagine forcing 5 billion people to ingest a fatal dosage of poison just to prove poison can be deadly and you begin to grasp the magnitude of proof supporting evolution.
Evolution is the work of God and evolution is a natural and expected result based upon the laws of the universe. To quote a former President, "What is, is."
If anyone has a dollar I'll make you the last peanut butter and jelly sandwich you'll ever want to eat.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
How to Exploit Women for Fun and Profit
For most of my life I have heard the adult entertainment industry exploits women. From reasonably tame magazines such as Playboy to pornographic films to so-called Gentlemen's Clubs, they are all in the business of exploiting women, therefore this is all bad and such things should be shunned. I'm certainly in favor of banishing all things that exploit women, but I think we often miss the mark in our battles.
The traditional exploitation culprits are things I'm too familiar with. Before the age of 10, I was a regular reader of Playboy (but just for the articles), and many similar, less literate, more graphic magazines. At one stage of my life I spent so much time in a local strip club, that I was their version of Norm from Cheers. The manager would sometimes buy me drinks, the kitchen manager would give me free samples of meals he was experimenting with, the bouncers would all stop by and ask how I was, and nearly every dancer stopped by just to chat, give me a hug, or tell me their latest problem. I even worked briefly for a man who owned a large chain of adult book/video/peepshow businesses. I've been friends with porn stars, strippers and prostitutes. It will come as no surprise that many of the women involved in these occupations have been and continue to be exploited. What you may find surprising is that the exploitation often goes both ways.
There are many cases of women being forced into these industries by boyfriends, husbands, even by their own parents, and I've met several examples, including one who was sold to be a sex slave by her own mother, at the age of 12. Deplorable and despicable, I agree, but it happens and it will continue to happen. There are just as many cases where intelligent, driven women have realized the money men are willing to pay for just a look, for a few moments of fantasy. One very good friend was working as a waitress to help pay her way through college when she found out she could make more money waiting tables at a strip club. The pay increase was good, but the dancers were making a great deal more. Since she had studied dance most of her life, she realized she could make more in a few hours than she made in two weeks. She finished her degree and began dancing. Within a few years her income had soared. It took her about 10 years, but she managed to buy and pay off a nice house, a new car, a new Harley, travel all over the world and then quit dancing and, using money saved and contacts made, started a very successful traditional business. Now she's a married soccer mom/businesswoman. I have known several others who went the same route, with varying degrees of success. Who was exploited?
Let's get away from the seedy side and look at the traditional world, where women are not exploited. I grew up with certain knowledge about women's roles in the business world. Women could be secretaries, nurses, teachers or stewardesses (long before we had flight attendants), but most often they were homemakers. They cooked, cleaned and raised children. The implied assumption with working women is that they were having sex with the boss. Stewardesses with pilots, nurses with doctors and secretaries with the sort of person who is too important to write their own memos. If a woman wanted to move up in the business world, she had several options, but they all involved penetration. The Hollywood casting couch is a worn out cliche, but it is just a reflection of what women have always faced.
For much of the past 30 years strides have been made. In 1991, the trial of William Kennedy Smith for rape, even though he was acquitted, introduced us to the possibility that having sex with a woman too drunk to stand, might be wrong. Movies, such as "The Burning Bed" (1984) suggested that perhaps a man did not have the right to beat his wife. Although we still have a long way to go, great strides have been made and today there are very few occupations unavailable to women.
Don't get too excited just yet. There is still a long way to go, and recent trends have been to reverse those earlier successes. Recent laws in several states have made it clear that women are and will remain the servants of men. How independent can you be, when you are not even allowed to make decisions regarding your own reproductive system? It's hard to feel empowered when a rapist is either acquitted or given a laughable sentence because a judge has decided you were "probably as much in control of the situation" or because your manner of dress provoked the rapist. And let's not forget it is becoming nearly impossible, in many states to abort the pregnancy caused by the rape. Of course that is only right because such a result of rape is "A gift from God", and women don't get pregnant from rape, so bruises, bleeding, physical and emotional trauma aside, it's clear you couldn't have been raped.
If you're a man who wants a woman to wait on you, to cook, clean, fetch your slippers and be in every way your perfect menial slave, by all means go find a woman who wants this sort of life. They are out there. If you're having trouble finding one, you might consider the advice of Phil Robertson, the Duck Dynasty start at the heart of a recent controversy, get one that is still in high school. Find yourself a 15 or 16 year old, or maybe someone will sell you a 12 year old. Then you can train them to be what you want. Just don't be too surprised, if one day they come to their senses and you awaken to find your penis in the blender.
The traditional exploitation culprits are things I'm too familiar with. Before the age of 10, I was a regular reader of Playboy (but just for the articles), and many similar, less literate, more graphic magazines. At one stage of my life I spent so much time in a local strip club, that I was their version of Norm from Cheers. The manager would sometimes buy me drinks, the kitchen manager would give me free samples of meals he was experimenting with, the bouncers would all stop by and ask how I was, and nearly every dancer stopped by just to chat, give me a hug, or tell me their latest problem. I even worked briefly for a man who owned a large chain of adult book/video/peepshow businesses. I've been friends with porn stars, strippers and prostitutes. It will come as no surprise that many of the women involved in these occupations have been and continue to be exploited. What you may find surprising is that the exploitation often goes both ways.
There are many cases of women being forced into these industries by boyfriends, husbands, even by their own parents, and I've met several examples, including one who was sold to be a sex slave by her own mother, at the age of 12. Deplorable and despicable, I agree, but it happens and it will continue to happen. There are just as many cases where intelligent, driven women have realized the money men are willing to pay for just a look, for a few moments of fantasy. One very good friend was working as a waitress to help pay her way through college when she found out she could make more money waiting tables at a strip club. The pay increase was good, but the dancers were making a great deal more. Since she had studied dance most of her life, she realized she could make more in a few hours than she made in two weeks. She finished her degree and began dancing. Within a few years her income had soared. It took her about 10 years, but she managed to buy and pay off a nice house, a new car, a new Harley, travel all over the world and then quit dancing and, using money saved and contacts made, started a very successful traditional business. Now she's a married soccer mom/businesswoman. I have known several others who went the same route, with varying degrees of success. Who was exploited?
Let's get away from the seedy side and look at the traditional world, where women are not exploited. I grew up with certain knowledge about women's roles in the business world. Women could be secretaries, nurses, teachers or stewardesses (long before we had flight attendants), but most often they were homemakers. They cooked, cleaned and raised children. The implied assumption with working women is that they were having sex with the boss. Stewardesses with pilots, nurses with doctors and secretaries with the sort of person who is too important to write their own memos. If a woman wanted to move up in the business world, she had several options, but they all involved penetration. The Hollywood casting couch is a worn out cliche, but it is just a reflection of what women have always faced.
For much of the past 30 years strides have been made. In 1991, the trial of William Kennedy Smith for rape, even though he was acquitted, introduced us to the possibility that having sex with a woman too drunk to stand, might be wrong. Movies, such as "The Burning Bed" (1984) suggested that perhaps a man did not have the right to beat his wife. Although we still have a long way to go, great strides have been made and today there are very few occupations unavailable to women.
Don't get too excited just yet. There is still a long way to go, and recent trends have been to reverse those earlier successes. Recent laws in several states have made it clear that women are and will remain the servants of men. How independent can you be, when you are not even allowed to make decisions regarding your own reproductive system? It's hard to feel empowered when a rapist is either acquitted or given a laughable sentence because a judge has decided you were "probably as much in control of the situation" or because your manner of dress provoked the rapist. And let's not forget it is becoming nearly impossible, in many states to abort the pregnancy caused by the rape. Of course that is only right because such a result of rape is "A gift from God", and women don't get pregnant from rape, so bruises, bleeding, physical and emotional trauma aside, it's clear you couldn't have been raped.
If you're a man who wants a woman to wait on you, to cook, clean, fetch your slippers and be in every way your perfect menial slave, by all means go find a woman who wants this sort of life. They are out there. If you're having trouble finding one, you might consider the advice of Phil Robertson, the Duck Dynasty start at the heart of a recent controversy, get one that is still in high school. Find yourself a 15 or 16 year old, or maybe someone will sell you a 12 year old. Then you can train them to be what you want. Just don't be too surprised, if one day they come to their senses and you awaken to find your penis in the blender.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar
Clearly, I am not a woman, and I am not contemplating becoming one. Not that I have anything against women, or against any transgender person, but in the world we live in, wanting to become a woman would be very masochistic of me. Like everyone else, I have my perversions (yes, you have them too, you just may not recognize them, because they are normal to you), but being kicked, humiliated and walked upon just doesn't appeal to me.
My topic today is not one where I need to spend a few hours gathering enough material to fill up the space. Instead, I need to filter out 75% of what I would like to say to keep the size down to something people will be willing to spend the time reading. For many of you, I'm already past that point, for the rest, let's get down to business.
Unless you've spent your entire life under a rock, you should be aware that women are paid less to do the same job as men. Women are also not well represented in the top ranks of corporations or in government. Over the years, the imbalance has improved slightly, but there is a great deal of room for improvement. If you have a daughter get her interested in math and science, in technology and engineering. Don't limit her choices to the traditional roles.
The pay and employment discrepancy between men and women is only one small problem when compared to the many other problems in the way women are treated in our society. Women are subjected to violence, abuse, harassment and discrimination at a much higher rate than men, healthcare for women is subjected to much more regulation than healthcare for men.
One area where we have been going backwards is in reproductive healthcare. Several states have recently enacted very strict abortion laws that make getting an abortion, even to save the life of the mother, extremely difficult. There has also been a push to limit access to contraception for women. What this adds up to, is forcing women into a condition of sexual slavery. All that is required is for a man to get a woman pregnant and he is granted some control over her life. Even if his method was rape (more on that soon), he has (depending on state laws) forced the woman into motherhood, which often locks the woman into a life of poverty.
Many people use the Bible as justification for limiting or removing any access to abortion procedures. The only problem with this is the Bible is completely mute on the subject of abortion. The loosest interpretation might recognize a fetus as a person once it is able to live outside of the womb. Although the exact point is open for discussion it certainly does not occur until after the 20th week (survival is a possibility beginning sometime during the 21st week). For an excellent discussion on this, read this article:
What the Bible says about abortion
The obvious method to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. There are two readily available tools to accomplish this goal, and they have already been proven to be extremely successful. The first is contraception, it is inexpensive and extremely effective. The Catholic Church claims contraception is wrong. Over the centuries, the same church has claimed many things were wrong or right, things that would horrify most modern Catholics. Should we bring all of those things back as well?
One argument against contraception is that it encourages teens to have sex. Recently released data shows that teenage sex has remained constant, while access to contraception and improved education has resulted in a drastic decrease in teen pregnancy. In states where contraception is not as available and where adequate sexual education is not available, the teen pregnancy rate is much higher.
Here is a revelation for you: Teens are going to have sex. When I was a teen, teens were having sex. When my parents were teens, teens were having sex. When my great, great, great, great grandparents were teens, teens were having sex. There is nothing you can do to keep teens from having sex short of chaining them all up and binding them so they can't touch themselves. That is not going to change. No matter what you do, teens are going to have sex. Instead of focusing on what you can not change, why not deal with what you can change: contraception and education. By education, I mean true education, not the garbage that is called "abstinence only education". Because, teens are going to have sex. Telling a teen "just don't have sex" is the same thing as telling them "you're going to become a parent and maybe you'll pick up a disease or two along the way".
If you are opposed to abortion, don't have one. If you are opposed to teens having sex, talk to your teens, educate them, prepare them and then encourage them to wait. Don't just tell them no, it doesn't work.
Recently, a judge in Montana achieved notoriety by sentencing a rapist to 31 days in jail (with one day off for time served). The victim was a 14 year old student at the time of the rapes and the rapist was a 50 year old teacher. When the story about the rapes came out, the girl, age 16 at the time, committed suicide. Initially, the rapist was charged with 3 counts of "sexual intercourse without consent", but 2 counts were dropped and the third one would have been dropped if he had completed a sex offender treatment program. After he was kicked out of the program for violating the rules, he was then convicted of the crime, with a 15 year sentence. However, the judge felt the 14 year old girl had been in control of the situation so suspended all but 31 days of the sentence.
As you might imagine, this created a bit of a stir. The judge has tried to backpedal on his remarks and his sentence, but for now the damage has been done. This entire case is a travesty from the start and just goes to show how sick our society's attitude towards women is. A bit of research seems to indicate that sexual crimes against young girls tend to carry a shorter prison sentence than the same crimes committed against young boys. Using 2 examples that both recently occurred in Indiana, a man convicted of molesting a 9 year old boy was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Another man, charged with molesting 11 girls (ages unknown) had all but one charge dropped and was sentenced to 2 years in prison. The conclusion is simple, sexually abusing girls or women is acceptable.
All of this is a bit too much for me. I can't understand the violence, the discrimination and the abuse of women (I can't understand the same things when applied to any group but I am trying to stay focused). It is time we stopped blaming women for the crimes committed against them. It is time we stopped discriminating against women. It is time we realized that women need to be given the same rights and treatment as me.
My topic today is not one where I need to spend a few hours gathering enough material to fill up the space. Instead, I need to filter out 75% of what I would like to say to keep the size down to something people will be willing to spend the time reading. For many of you, I'm already past that point, for the rest, let's get down to business.
Unless you've spent your entire life under a rock, you should be aware that women are paid less to do the same job as men. Women are also not well represented in the top ranks of corporations or in government. Over the years, the imbalance has improved slightly, but there is a great deal of room for improvement. If you have a daughter get her interested in math and science, in technology and engineering. Don't limit her choices to the traditional roles.
The pay and employment discrepancy between men and women is only one small problem when compared to the many other problems in the way women are treated in our society. Women are subjected to violence, abuse, harassment and discrimination at a much higher rate than men, healthcare for women is subjected to much more regulation than healthcare for men.
One area where we have been going backwards is in reproductive healthcare. Several states have recently enacted very strict abortion laws that make getting an abortion, even to save the life of the mother, extremely difficult. There has also been a push to limit access to contraception for women. What this adds up to, is forcing women into a condition of sexual slavery. All that is required is for a man to get a woman pregnant and he is granted some control over her life. Even if his method was rape (more on that soon), he has (depending on state laws) forced the woman into motherhood, which often locks the woman into a life of poverty.
Many people use the Bible as justification for limiting or removing any access to abortion procedures. The only problem with this is the Bible is completely mute on the subject of abortion. The loosest interpretation might recognize a fetus as a person once it is able to live outside of the womb. Although the exact point is open for discussion it certainly does not occur until after the 20th week (survival is a possibility beginning sometime during the 21st week). For an excellent discussion on this, read this article:
What the Bible says about abortion
The obvious method to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. There are two readily available tools to accomplish this goal, and they have already been proven to be extremely successful. The first is contraception, it is inexpensive and extremely effective. The Catholic Church claims contraception is wrong. Over the centuries, the same church has claimed many things were wrong or right, things that would horrify most modern Catholics. Should we bring all of those things back as well?
One argument against contraception is that it encourages teens to have sex. Recently released data shows that teenage sex has remained constant, while access to contraception and improved education has resulted in a drastic decrease in teen pregnancy. In states where contraception is not as available and where adequate sexual education is not available, the teen pregnancy rate is much higher.
Here is a revelation for you: Teens are going to have sex. When I was a teen, teens were having sex. When my parents were teens, teens were having sex. When my great, great, great, great grandparents were teens, teens were having sex. There is nothing you can do to keep teens from having sex short of chaining them all up and binding them so they can't touch themselves. That is not going to change. No matter what you do, teens are going to have sex. Instead of focusing on what you can not change, why not deal with what you can change: contraception and education. By education, I mean true education, not the garbage that is called "abstinence only education". Because, teens are going to have sex. Telling a teen "just don't have sex" is the same thing as telling them "you're going to become a parent and maybe you'll pick up a disease or two along the way".
If you are opposed to abortion, don't have one. If you are opposed to teens having sex, talk to your teens, educate them, prepare them and then encourage them to wait. Don't just tell them no, it doesn't work.
Recently, a judge in Montana achieved notoriety by sentencing a rapist to 31 days in jail (with one day off for time served). The victim was a 14 year old student at the time of the rapes and the rapist was a 50 year old teacher. When the story about the rapes came out, the girl, age 16 at the time, committed suicide. Initially, the rapist was charged with 3 counts of "sexual intercourse without consent", but 2 counts were dropped and the third one would have been dropped if he had completed a sex offender treatment program. After he was kicked out of the program for violating the rules, he was then convicted of the crime, with a 15 year sentence. However, the judge felt the 14 year old girl had been in control of the situation so suspended all but 31 days of the sentence.
As you might imagine, this created a bit of a stir. The judge has tried to backpedal on his remarks and his sentence, but for now the damage has been done. This entire case is a travesty from the start and just goes to show how sick our society's attitude towards women is. A bit of research seems to indicate that sexual crimes against young girls tend to carry a shorter prison sentence than the same crimes committed against young boys. Using 2 examples that both recently occurred in Indiana, a man convicted of molesting a 9 year old boy was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Another man, charged with molesting 11 girls (ages unknown) had all but one charge dropped and was sentenced to 2 years in prison. The conclusion is simple, sexually abusing girls or women is acceptable.
All of this is a bit too much for me. I can't understand the violence, the discrimination and the abuse of women (I can't understand the same things when applied to any group but I am trying to stay focused). It is time we stopped blaming women for the crimes committed against them. It is time we stopped discriminating against women. It is time we realized that women need to be given the same rights and treatment as me.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
I Blame Obama
It has taken me awhile and I know many of you have been impatient with me, but finally I see the light. No matter what the problem is, President Obama is to blame. Initially I was fooled, but no more. I can clearly see that what we need is another George W. Bush.
There are several factors that kept me blinded to the facts for so long. First there is President Obama's diligence: If the trend continues he will have averaged about 37 vacation days per year, compared to 127 days per year averaged by President G.W. Bush. Then there is his restraint and attempts to work within the system: 147 Executive Orders in first term vs. 173 for Pres. Bush. There was also his desire to address pertinent issues affecting our country, such as the health care fiasco, racial and marriage inequality and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For over 5 years I've been denying what has been obvious to many Republicans ever since President Obama beat Senator McCain in 2008. But finally I can declare that everything truly is Obama's fault.
The clincher was the recent survey taken in Louisiana concerning the emergency response and recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. Over 70% of the people surveyed either believe President Obama is more at fault, or are unsure whether President Obama or President bush is more to blame for the massive failures of the response and recovery effort. But, wait! Wasn't Bush President and Obama just a first term Senator from Illinois? How could he have any blame at all? The problem is trying to apply logic and reasoning to the problem. The proper method is to start with the Universal Axiom: It's President Obama's Fault. Now the answer is clear. If President Obama had devoted his efforts to physics and engineering, he might have developed a machine capable of steering Hurricane Katrina away from Louisiana. With this in mind it is obvious President Obama is to blame for every hurricane, every tornado, every flood, earthquake and tsunami. Shame on you Mr. President! Shame!
Let's take a moment to think about the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as "Obamacare". I personally despise the term "Obamacare". At first I just thought it was an attempt to blind the people to the facts by placing in inaccurate and meaningless label on necessary legislation, but now it's because it is clear he doesn't care (since he did nothing to stop Hurricane Katrina, and don't get me started on AIDS, Michael Jordan's early retirement or The Holocaust). Sure the average cost of healthcare increases more than twice as fast as income increases, and the overall costs are spiraling out of control, but do we really need a law that guarantees everyone will have access to healthcare? Why can't we just rely on the insurance companies to do what they think is best? After all, they would never take advantage of us. Would they?
Besides, there is a much simpler solution to all of our healthcare problems. According to former Arkansas Governor and current Fox News host, Mike Huckabee, instead of providing health care we should just find a cure for all of the diseases. With a mind like that, it is clear how he has become a part of the Fox News family. Of course, the only reason we haven't already cured every disease is because It's Obama's Fault (henceforth known as IOF).
It is time for us to seriously get down to business. We need to shut down the government, repeal the Affordable Care Act and Impeach the President because IOF. We need to persecute, punish and whenever possible, shoot and kill minorities because IOF. We need to deport all immigrants (unless the opportunity presents itself to shoot and kill them) because IOF. We need to remove all access to health care for women and put them back in the kitchen where they belong because IOF. We need to take all of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people and put them back in the closet and then burn the closet. If they also happen to belong to an ethnic minority, shooting is an option. After all, IOF. Of course exceptions can be made for any of the above if they are willing to unquestionably and without fail vote republican (and stop acting so gay, lesbian or black).
We need to stop trying to feed, shelter and uplift the poor. If they didn't want to be poor, they wouldn't be poor (plus, IOF). After all, until Obama made the changes in the Bible, didn't Jesus really say "Screw the poor, they don't make campaign contributions"? Let's stop trying to deal with climate change and protecting our environment. Instead of worrying about the future of the planet we need to devote all of our resources to finding all the things in the world that can be blamed on President Obama.
Now I have to do laundry. I'm out of clean underwear and It's Obama's Fault.
There are several factors that kept me blinded to the facts for so long. First there is President Obama's diligence: If the trend continues he will have averaged about 37 vacation days per year, compared to 127 days per year averaged by President G.W. Bush. Then there is his restraint and attempts to work within the system: 147 Executive Orders in first term vs. 173 for Pres. Bush. There was also his desire to address pertinent issues affecting our country, such as the health care fiasco, racial and marriage inequality and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For over 5 years I've been denying what has been obvious to many Republicans ever since President Obama beat Senator McCain in 2008. But finally I can declare that everything truly is Obama's fault.
The clincher was the recent survey taken in Louisiana concerning the emergency response and recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. Over 70% of the people surveyed either believe President Obama is more at fault, or are unsure whether President Obama or President bush is more to blame for the massive failures of the response and recovery effort. But, wait! Wasn't Bush President and Obama just a first term Senator from Illinois? How could he have any blame at all? The problem is trying to apply logic and reasoning to the problem. The proper method is to start with the Universal Axiom: It's President Obama's Fault. Now the answer is clear. If President Obama had devoted his efforts to physics and engineering, he might have developed a machine capable of steering Hurricane Katrina away from Louisiana. With this in mind it is obvious President Obama is to blame for every hurricane, every tornado, every flood, earthquake and tsunami. Shame on you Mr. President! Shame!
Let's take a moment to think about the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as "Obamacare". I personally despise the term "Obamacare". At first I just thought it was an attempt to blind the people to the facts by placing in inaccurate and meaningless label on necessary legislation, but now it's because it is clear he doesn't care (since he did nothing to stop Hurricane Katrina, and don't get me started on AIDS, Michael Jordan's early retirement or The Holocaust). Sure the average cost of healthcare increases more than twice as fast as income increases, and the overall costs are spiraling out of control, but do we really need a law that guarantees everyone will have access to healthcare? Why can't we just rely on the insurance companies to do what they think is best? After all, they would never take advantage of us. Would they?
Besides, there is a much simpler solution to all of our healthcare problems. According to former Arkansas Governor and current Fox News host, Mike Huckabee, instead of providing health care we should just find a cure for all of the diseases. With a mind like that, it is clear how he has become a part of the Fox News family. Of course, the only reason we haven't already cured every disease is because It's Obama's Fault (henceforth known as IOF).
It is time for us to seriously get down to business. We need to shut down the government, repeal the Affordable Care Act and Impeach the President because IOF. We need to persecute, punish and whenever possible, shoot and kill minorities because IOF. We need to deport all immigrants (unless the opportunity presents itself to shoot and kill them) because IOF. We need to remove all access to health care for women and put them back in the kitchen where they belong because IOF. We need to take all of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people and put them back in the closet and then burn the closet. If they also happen to belong to an ethnic minority, shooting is an option. After all, IOF. Of course exceptions can be made for any of the above if they are willing to unquestionably and without fail vote republican (and stop acting so gay, lesbian or black).
We need to stop trying to feed, shelter and uplift the poor. If they didn't want to be poor, they wouldn't be poor (plus, IOF). After all, until Obama made the changes in the Bible, didn't Jesus really say "Screw the poor, they don't make campaign contributions"? Let's stop trying to deal with climate change and protecting our environment. Instead of worrying about the future of the planet we need to devote all of our resources to finding all the things in the world that can be blamed on President Obama.
Now I have to do laundry. I'm out of clean underwear and It's Obama's Fault.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Does Anyone Want The Last Donut?
Wednesday mornings and payday Friday afternoons were always the best, along with any day the receptionist woke up to discover she didn't have any clean work appropriate attire (the year was 1989, her appropriate attire was suitable for Hooters. In her inappropriate attire she could have sold condoms to the Pope). At the time, I was working as a Tech Writer for a company that specialized in Department of Defense contracting. Our office consisted of a Vice President, a Department Manager, five Tech Writers, three Word Processors, a Computer Support Tech and the aforementioned Receptionist.
On payday Fridays, we would take up a collection, send someone to the store for beer and snacks, then lock the doors early and have a mini office party. Usually the VP would skip these, unless it was also an inappropriate attire day. Every Wednesday morning we had a staff meeting with the Manager, Tech Writers and Word Processors all in attendance. The Tech Writers took turns providing the donuts for the meeting. With donuts being about $3 per dozen, it wasn't a significant expense.
When it was my turn to buy donuts, I would visit a local bakery and buy three dozen assorted, fresh donuts (if you're doing the math, that's 4 donuts per person). One of the Tech Writers could be counted on to eat at least 6 donuts, so I wanted to be sure there was enough for everyone. That same person, when it was his turn to buy would go to the local supermarket and pick up one dozen, glazed, day old donuts for a dollar. On payday Fridays, the same person would pitch in two dollars (the average being five), then drink 6 beers and grab any unopened chips to take home.
Every group, no matter the size has givers and takers. Left in the middle are those people who want to pay exactly their share and not a penny more. As a lifelong (to the point of financial ruin) giver, I sometimes find myself annoyed with the takers. My belief is, if we all give a little more than we take, all our problems can be solved. Unfortunately, the givers are a a rather quiet minority.
The phenomenon isn't limited to small office or social groups, but exists within any group, and the groups themselves tend to be either givers or takers (mostly takers). Eventually, what is being taken exceeds what can be given and the whole thing collapses. Most of the problems and issues that we are dealing with today can be broken down to givers and takers. Quite often it is a battle between takers to decide who will reap the profits. The major corporations want to avoid any mandatory increase in minimum wage or worker benefits, the energy companies want to avoid any ecologic restrictions, the bankers want to avoid any limitations on their use of other people's money.
It doesn't matter if a 40% increase in the minimum wage would only increase costs by 4 to 8%. It doesn't matter that we require fresh water, clean air and a biosphere capable of supporting human life. What matters is the profit that might be lost if we try to benefit everyone, rather than just a very small group.
Any attempt to discuss whether or not that small group should benefit to the detriment of the majority of people is met with, often ridiculously inaccurate, hyperbole. An excellent example occurred recently when someone asked Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 per hour. Rep. Mullin's response was that this would raise the cost of a McDonald's hamburger to $20. Nobody wants to pay $20 for something with no nutritional value, so forget about the minimum wage increase!
Let's look at the numbers. The best I can come up with (somewhere between an educated guess and no idea at all), it would appear minimum wage labor is somewhere between 15 and 20% of McDonald's operating expenses. Taking the high number and assuming no decrease in company profits, I come up with a worst case of 7.6% increase in food prices for a 38% increase in minimum wage. For a Big Mac, that comes out to just over 30 cents. For the most expensive burger on the menu, the double quarter pounder with cheese, the $4.69 price jumps to a whopping $5.05. Admittedly, mathematics was never my best subject, but I can't find any method that would reach that $20 per burger number. Even if 100% of McDonald's costs is minimum wage labor, the most expensive item would top out at less than $6.50 (higher in Alaska and Hawaii).
But how does raising minimum wage help anyone? Many minimum wage workers (especially in the fast food industry) are working 24 hours or less per week (to avoid providing any benefits). The higher wages would mean $66 more (before taxes) each week. For a young family, with both people working, one working 2 jobs, and one working one job, after taxes, that comes to about $130 more per week. For tax revenues, that's an increase of $77 billion (once again, an approximation). For the country, it reduces the number of people requiring public assistance, and takes 74 million people who are trying to just survive and gives them hope for a future.
Isn't giving hope to almost 25% of the population worth a few pennies?
On payday Fridays, we would take up a collection, send someone to the store for beer and snacks, then lock the doors early and have a mini office party. Usually the VP would skip these, unless it was also an inappropriate attire day. Every Wednesday morning we had a staff meeting with the Manager, Tech Writers and Word Processors all in attendance. The Tech Writers took turns providing the donuts for the meeting. With donuts being about $3 per dozen, it wasn't a significant expense.
When it was my turn to buy donuts, I would visit a local bakery and buy three dozen assorted, fresh donuts (if you're doing the math, that's 4 donuts per person). One of the Tech Writers could be counted on to eat at least 6 donuts, so I wanted to be sure there was enough for everyone. That same person, when it was his turn to buy would go to the local supermarket and pick up one dozen, glazed, day old donuts for a dollar. On payday Fridays, the same person would pitch in two dollars (the average being five), then drink 6 beers and grab any unopened chips to take home.
Every group, no matter the size has givers and takers. Left in the middle are those people who want to pay exactly their share and not a penny more. As a lifelong (to the point of financial ruin) giver, I sometimes find myself annoyed with the takers. My belief is, if we all give a little more than we take, all our problems can be solved. Unfortunately, the givers are a a rather quiet minority.
The phenomenon isn't limited to small office or social groups, but exists within any group, and the groups themselves tend to be either givers or takers (mostly takers). Eventually, what is being taken exceeds what can be given and the whole thing collapses. Most of the problems and issues that we are dealing with today can be broken down to givers and takers. Quite often it is a battle between takers to decide who will reap the profits. The major corporations want to avoid any mandatory increase in minimum wage or worker benefits, the energy companies want to avoid any ecologic restrictions, the bankers want to avoid any limitations on their use of other people's money.
It doesn't matter if a 40% increase in the minimum wage would only increase costs by 4 to 8%. It doesn't matter that we require fresh water, clean air and a biosphere capable of supporting human life. What matters is the profit that might be lost if we try to benefit everyone, rather than just a very small group.
Any attempt to discuss whether or not that small group should benefit to the detriment of the majority of people is met with, often ridiculously inaccurate, hyperbole. An excellent example occurred recently when someone asked Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 per hour. Rep. Mullin's response was that this would raise the cost of a McDonald's hamburger to $20. Nobody wants to pay $20 for something with no nutritional value, so forget about the minimum wage increase!
Let's look at the numbers. The best I can come up with (somewhere between an educated guess and no idea at all), it would appear minimum wage labor is somewhere between 15 and 20% of McDonald's operating expenses. Taking the high number and assuming no decrease in company profits, I come up with a worst case of 7.6% increase in food prices for a 38% increase in minimum wage. For a Big Mac, that comes out to just over 30 cents. For the most expensive burger on the menu, the double quarter pounder with cheese, the $4.69 price jumps to a whopping $5.05. Admittedly, mathematics was never my best subject, but I can't find any method that would reach that $20 per burger number. Even if 100% of McDonald's costs is minimum wage labor, the most expensive item would top out at less than $6.50 (higher in Alaska and Hawaii).
But how does raising minimum wage help anyone? Many minimum wage workers (especially in the fast food industry) are working 24 hours or less per week (to avoid providing any benefits). The higher wages would mean $66 more (before taxes) each week. For a young family, with both people working, one working 2 jobs, and one working one job, after taxes, that comes to about $130 more per week. For tax revenues, that's an increase of $77 billion (once again, an approximation). For the country, it reduces the number of people requiring public assistance, and takes 74 million people who are trying to just survive and gives them hope for a future.
Isn't giving hope to almost 25% of the population worth a few pennies?
Friday, August 9, 2013
Slavery: Now New and Improved!
For those of you who have been out of the loop, slavery has been illegal in the United States for the past century and a half. Many people are still wondering why? After all it seemed to be working out so well. The common assumption is the decision involved the dignity of human life, the inherent wrongness of slavery and the realization that all people deserve equal and fair treatment, regardless of their skin color. If you think for just a moment you'll realize how ridiculous that assumption is, since fair and equal treatment is still a long way off.
When it comes down to cold, hard facts, slavery turns out to only be economically feasible in a non-industrialized society. Any slave is a capital investment that requires constant maintenance, is prone to a wide range of failures, requires trained (and paid) personnel for utilization and comes with no warranty. Slaves tend to be dissatisfied with their servitude and require close, often brutal, supervision, in order to ensure completion of any assigned task. In an agricultural setting, the damage a disgruntled slave can cause is minimal, but in a factory setting the potential revenue loss is staggering.
There are still many who miss the institution of slavery and many who would happily bring it back, regardless of the economic ramifications. After all, nothing really compares with the feeling of raping, torturing and murdering and being able to tell your friends all about it.
Fortunately, certain people have been putting a great deal of thought and effort into finding a way to bring back slavery without all of the negatives (from a slave owner's standpoint). Success looks to be only a few years away.
The first issue to overcome: Acquisition. Capturing people and transporting them halfway around the world (unless you claim they are potential terrorists) tends to generate negative publicity. They are also likely to seek ways to end their involuntary servitude. If only some way could be found to get slaves to volunteer.
Next is the issue of cost. Not only is there a significant cost in acquisition, but there is food, lodging, security and medical care. On the plus side, through a careful breeding program, the slaves can be used to create their own replacements. Still, this is a significant cost and drastically reduces profits. If only the slaves would carry some of these costs, everything would be much better (for the slave owners, but they are the only ones who matter).
Finally, the problems of supervision and low productivity must be dealt with. If you require a trained supervisor to directly and constantly oversee just a few slaves to ensure they stay on the job and stay productive, the profit margin will suffer.
The work of creating the new slavery has been going on for years, and finally we are on the verge of making this dream a reality. The first step was to convince a significant portion of the population they have no hope of improving their life. This has required effort on many fronts, but has been remarkably successful. We had to take the "education" from the education system and turn it into a simple accounting game, leaving young adults ill-equipped to seek higher education. Next, higher education needed to become prohibitively expensive, further entrenching those from low income families, by keeping a better future just out of reach. The last, and most brilliant step, was to use propaganda to discourage people from seeking higher education
Now that we have a significant pool of potential slaves, we need to convince them to take care of their own expenses. Once again propaganda has been very useful, in convincing the population, anyone who seeks any sort of assistance for housing or subsistence, is a freeloading, drug-abusing criminal. Many thanks to the Republican party for this effort. You've made up for that whole Abraham Lincoln fiasco.
The last, and most crucial step is to convince these potential slaves, slavery is better than their current situation. This has been accomplished by placing a WalMart and McDonald's within reach of every American so they can go and see people who are much worse off, and has been extremely successful. Employees who are paid an hourly wage make up about 60% of the workforce with 4.7% of those making the Federal Minimum Wage or less. This is up from 3% only 10 years ago, and the rate is increasing. Within 30 years, over 50% of the workforce can be expected to earn no more than the Federal Minimum Wage.
One of the few remaining obstacles is the Federal Minimum Wage, but we are working on that. What use is slavery, if the government can turn around and increase their wages to the point where they can live comfortable, happy, healthy and productive lives?
Of course with the new slavery, we will no longer be able to rape, torture and murder our slaves, but we can at least laugh at them for believing in "Employee of the Month" awards.
When it comes down to cold, hard facts, slavery turns out to only be economically feasible in a non-industrialized society. Any slave is a capital investment that requires constant maintenance, is prone to a wide range of failures, requires trained (and paid) personnel for utilization and comes with no warranty. Slaves tend to be dissatisfied with their servitude and require close, often brutal, supervision, in order to ensure completion of any assigned task. In an agricultural setting, the damage a disgruntled slave can cause is minimal, but in a factory setting the potential revenue loss is staggering.
There are still many who miss the institution of slavery and many who would happily bring it back, regardless of the economic ramifications. After all, nothing really compares with the feeling of raping, torturing and murdering and being able to tell your friends all about it.
Fortunately, certain people have been putting a great deal of thought and effort into finding a way to bring back slavery without all of the negatives (from a slave owner's standpoint). Success looks to be only a few years away.
The first issue to overcome: Acquisition. Capturing people and transporting them halfway around the world (unless you claim they are potential terrorists) tends to generate negative publicity. They are also likely to seek ways to end their involuntary servitude. If only some way could be found to get slaves to volunteer.
Next is the issue of cost. Not only is there a significant cost in acquisition, but there is food, lodging, security and medical care. On the plus side, through a careful breeding program, the slaves can be used to create their own replacements. Still, this is a significant cost and drastically reduces profits. If only the slaves would carry some of these costs, everything would be much better (for the slave owners, but they are the only ones who matter).
Finally, the problems of supervision and low productivity must be dealt with. If you require a trained supervisor to directly and constantly oversee just a few slaves to ensure they stay on the job and stay productive, the profit margin will suffer.
The work of creating the new slavery has been going on for years, and finally we are on the verge of making this dream a reality. The first step was to convince a significant portion of the population they have no hope of improving their life. This has required effort on many fronts, but has been remarkably successful. We had to take the "education" from the education system and turn it into a simple accounting game, leaving young adults ill-equipped to seek higher education. Next, higher education needed to become prohibitively expensive, further entrenching those from low income families, by keeping a better future just out of reach. The last, and most brilliant step, was to use propaganda to discourage people from seeking higher education
Now that we have a significant pool of potential slaves, we need to convince them to take care of their own expenses. Once again propaganda has been very useful, in convincing the population, anyone who seeks any sort of assistance for housing or subsistence, is a freeloading, drug-abusing criminal. Many thanks to the Republican party for this effort. You've made up for that whole Abraham Lincoln fiasco.
The last, and most crucial step is to convince these potential slaves, slavery is better than their current situation. This has been accomplished by placing a WalMart and McDonald's within reach of every American so they can go and see people who are much worse off, and has been extremely successful. Employees who are paid an hourly wage make up about 60% of the workforce with 4.7% of those making the Federal Minimum Wage or less. This is up from 3% only 10 years ago, and the rate is increasing. Within 30 years, over 50% of the workforce can be expected to earn no more than the Federal Minimum Wage.
One of the few remaining obstacles is the Federal Minimum Wage, but we are working on that. What use is slavery, if the government can turn around and increase their wages to the point where they can live comfortable, happy, healthy and productive lives?
Of course with the new slavery, we will no longer be able to rape, torture and murder our slaves, but we can at least laugh at them for believing in "Employee of the Month" awards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)