This isn't a post about food, though what is contained within could be considered food for thought.
There are realistically three approaches to voting that citizens employ when going to the ballot box:
1.) Vote the party line
2.) Vote for the best candidate
3.) Vote for the candidate most like them
These approaches are, of course, broad generalizations, but let's just be honest - American voters, taken as a whole, aren't sophisticated, smart, or offered enough options to make nuanced choices. Our two-party system, designed to provide voters with two clear and concise paths forward (or backward, as it were), limits the ability of voters to nominate and elect candidates who are truly able to govern in their own best interests.
The irony of this two-party system is that voters have said time and again that they are "tired of politics as usual," but have repeatedly voted in ways that suggest otherwise. We are often caught in the morass of saying we want options when it comes to candidates, but when those candidates step too far outside of the mainstream we pillory them.
The reality of the situation in American politics is much simpler than we pretend it to be: we don't have a choice.
We don't have a good choice of candidates because the "base" wants a certain kind of candidate; we don't have a good choice of candidates because money is the way you play the game; we don't have a good choice of candidates because Americans are stupid and fly like moths to the brightest political flame until they catch fire and drop.
Those entrenched in our two-party system consistently put forth the "best candidate" because that's the way the game is played; any suggestion that we need to move to a multi-party system of government is met with arguments that this would only further encumber our political process, leading to total inaction in Washington.
I'm not sure what game they're watching, but I can't imagine it being much worse than it's been for the past two years.
Americans are stupid, and the proof of this lies in the fact that politicians know they can get away with just about anything, so long as they properly frame an issue.
Framing Theory aside, Americans are provided with these options because they are the easiest to explain. We want things homogenized, with clearly defined lines, and we want candidates who fall neatly into categories with which we can easily identify. It is not often, however, that we are ever happy when we get what we say we want. Nothing is ever that simple, and admitting this is hard for Americans to do.
The "Republican Base" wants a candidate who is both a fiscal and social conservative, strong on "the issues," strong on defense, pro-Israel, isolationist, and a strong supporter of traditional Christian values.
The "Democratic Base" wants a candidate who is both a fiscal and social progressive, strong on "the issues," strong on social welfare, pro-Israel, willing to right the world's wrongs, and a strong supporter of freedom and justice for all.
We all want things we can't have in one neat package. We will never get candidates like these, because if we had candidates like these descriptions, they would be crazy.
And if I'm entirely honest, I have played this game, myself. I want someone who agrees with me on all the issues - I want a pro-gay rights, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, defense-cutting, pro-universal healthcare candidate. I will never get one.
I will never be able to find a candidate who will actively support every cause I support, because it is not realistically possible. The sooner other voters come to this conclusion during the vetting process, the better. Only then are we able to vote for the candidate that best represents the majority of our beliefs.
And even then, we get into problems, because not everyone will be happy with the candidate we get.
Perhaps the biggest issue that voters regardless of their nation face is that people tend to vote for those with whom they most closely identify. Once people find a candidate who shows promise for fighting for their priorities as citizens, they tend to vote for that person regardless of his or her positions on other issues.
Take, for example, the LGBT community that overwhelming votes for Democratic candidates because we believe we have made the most advancements in terms of civil rights under Democratic representation. I have personally taken part in this approach, though generally the GOP candidates in areas where I have voted have actually stated their opposition to my civil rights advances.
But, is this the best path forward for everyone? If everyone is a single-issue voter, will that really serve us best in the long run, or will we continue to witness the decline of our nation's primacy in the global community?
I have many friends who are members of the LGBT community and who vote Republican, and do so because of economic reasons; I, of course, disagree with the Republican platform and theories of economics, steadfastly believing that the proof of the pudding has been in the eating - that we are currently reaping the rewards of Republican economic stewardship, and frankly, they're not that fuckin' great.
But, I understand their positions, however much I may disagree with them. Truth be told, were I to find a Republican candidate who was strong on civil rights (not only LGBT rights), realistic about defense spending, and dedicated to repealing GOP-authored legislation that literally encroaches upon our freedoms and liberties (private or public), I would gladly vote for him.
And then, we're met with the reality that we much each vote in our own best interests, which means that we wind up with fewer choices, and those choices are rarely good ones. Without a multi-party electoral system to support candidates with a variety of views, we are increasingly likely to get highly partisan politicians and candidates for office who won't serves our nation's best interests.
This is the cruel joke of the American political system - we cannot offer a real choice, because we refuse to accept multiple solutions. We are stupid, as a nation, and prefer our answers to be in black & white; either/or. Shades of grey are never acceptable to Americans, and for this reason we will never be a truly progressive nation, despite overwhelming evidence that younger voters are increasingly uninspired by our current system of politics and feel we need to change our system.
Until then, we will continue to jam our heads up our own asses, insisting upon our self-ascribed American Exceptionalism, and complain about how divided we have become.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The Purpose of the U.S. Flag Code
To many of my more Conservative friends, I often come across as anti-patriotic, a moniker with which I bring great issue. It is my belief that to question our politicians, their policies, and the nature of politics as a whole is the greatest form of American patriotism; it is a fundamental right and duty granted and protected by our Constitution. Where I bring issue with this process is when people take issues based on facts and turn them into opinion-based arguments, using their own facts (often pulled from sources that are questionable, at best) to criticize politicians, policies, and parties without actually knowing what the hell they're talking about.
There is one issue about which I am vehement - adherence to the U.S. Flag Code.
Shortly after the attacks on September 11th, 2001, it suddenly became haute couture for politicians to wear American flag lapel pins. At a time when patriotism was at a high, few people questioned the reasoning behind this show of support for our nation and its troops.
Even fewer people recognized this behavior as being in direct conflict with the United States Flag Code:
United States Code Title 36, Chapter 10, Section 176, Article (d) - The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
While the U.S. Flag Code is, in fact, a Federal law, there is no Federally established penalty for failing to adhere to this law, it is not widely enforced, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that enforcement of this law violates our First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech.
<hr>
I should probably explain why this issue is of such importance to me, lest my readers think me crazy (or Conservative).
When I first joined The Cadets drum and bugle corps, I was incredibly permissive concerning issues related to the American flag. I readily hopped on the bandwagon in believing that usage of the flag in whatever way one wanted should be protected. However, as a new member of the all-American drum corps, I quickly learned that presentation of the flag in any way contrary to the flag code was unacceptable.
One of the easiest ways to get out of spinning in a parade was to agree to present the colors in front of the corps; the same could be said of standing in the traditional Cadets guard circle:
I will openly admit that I purposely tried to be on flag duty for every regional so that it would be easier for my parents and friends to take photos of me during retreat. Regardless of my selfish reasoning behind taking on this role, there were certain responsibilities that came along with it. The guard staff at Cadets was nothing if not thorough in making sure that all new members fully understood and adhered to the flag code when presenting arms. If we were going to be Cadets, we were going to BE the all-American corps.
My first year at Cadets, I took this seriously. It wasn't until my second year, in 2002, that I fully understood the impact of this responsibility.
Our show that year was "An American Revival," a World War II-themed show performed in part as a tribute to the survivors and victims of the 9/11 attacks. It was this year that George Hopkins, the corps director, started sending corps members to the souvenir booth after performances to meet the fans who came to shop.
This quickly became my favorite post-show responsibility, because it allowed me to interact with audience members on a face-to-face basis, and to hear feedback from those who had just watched our show. Anyone who took on this duty will tell you that, in 2002, the fans were nothing if not grateful. The sheer number of older fans who stopped to visit us kept saying the same thing: "Thank you, so much, for your show!"
There is something magical about having a WWII vet come up to you in tears to tell you how thankful they are for your performance.
It was at this time that I began to truly understand the important of the role the corps, and by extension, I, played in adhering to and maintaining the U.S. Flag Code.
<hr>
In every election that followed the 9/11 attacks, political candidates (primarily, if not exclusively, Conservative ones) made the wearing of this American flag lapel pin an issue. To be caught without this pin festooned to your lapel was to show disregard for the soldiers fighting "for our nation's freedom," and much ado was made about those who wore nothing.
Democratic candidates, in particular, were lambasted for being unpatriotic if they were caught without this pin, and a behavior that was, in fact, a violation of Federal law became an issue of national importance. It is no small irony that the Republican party - the party that continually avers that they are the "Pro-America" party; the "most patriotic" party - should create an issue based around breaking a law.
The reason this issue comes up, today, is because of a recent uproar over the usage of President Obama's face on the American flag by the Lake County Democratic Party in Florida. Veterans protested this defacing of the flag as inappropriate, and rightfully so: it is inappropriate to flout the Flag Code is such a manner.
I wonder, however, if the same uproar would be made if another political candidate's image...let's say a Republican...had been used in such a manner. Where was the veteran uproar when the American flag was being worn as apparel? Where was this outrage when marketing campaigns gratuitously used its likeness for their own purposes?
It is rare that you will hear me espouse Pro-American sentiments - this is one of those times.
The maintenance and upholding of the United States Flag Code is not just about obeying the law; it is about paying tribute to those who have actually fought for freedom, not just for Americans, but for the oppressed...for those who could not defend themselves...for those foreigners who honestly believe that America is the Land of Opportunity.
But, more importantly, the purpose of the United States Flag Code is to prevent those who would use it for their own personal gain from abusing this nation's image - this is the very last thing we need.
There is one issue about which I am vehement - adherence to the U.S. Flag Code.
Shortly after the attacks on September 11th, 2001, it suddenly became haute couture for politicians to wear American flag lapel pins. At a time when patriotism was at a high, few people questioned the reasoning behind this show of support for our nation and its troops.
Even fewer people recognized this behavior as being in direct conflict with the United States Flag Code:
United States Code Title 36, Chapter 10, Section 176, Article (d) - The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
While the U.S. Flag Code is, in fact, a Federal law, there is no Federally established penalty for failing to adhere to this law, it is not widely enforced, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that enforcement of this law violates our First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech.
<hr>
I should probably explain why this issue is of such importance to me, lest my readers think me crazy (or Conservative).
When I first joined The Cadets drum and bugle corps, I was incredibly permissive concerning issues related to the American flag. I readily hopped on the bandwagon in believing that usage of the flag in whatever way one wanted should be protected. However, as a new member of the all-American drum corps, I quickly learned that presentation of the flag in any way contrary to the flag code was unacceptable.
One of the easiest ways to get out of spinning in a parade was to agree to present the colors in front of the corps; the same could be said of standing in the traditional Cadets guard circle:
I will openly admit that I purposely tried to be on flag duty for every regional so that it would be easier for my parents and friends to take photos of me during retreat. Regardless of my selfish reasoning behind taking on this role, there were certain responsibilities that came along with it. The guard staff at Cadets was nothing if not thorough in making sure that all new members fully understood and adhered to the flag code when presenting arms. If we were going to be Cadets, we were going to BE the all-American corps.
My first year at Cadets, I took this seriously. It wasn't until my second year, in 2002, that I fully understood the impact of this responsibility.
Our show that year was "An American Revival," a World War II-themed show performed in part as a tribute to the survivors and victims of the 9/11 attacks. It was this year that George Hopkins, the corps director, started sending corps members to the souvenir booth after performances to meet the fans who came to shop.
This quickly became my favorite post-show responsibility, because it allowed me to interact with audience members on a face-to-face basis, and to hear feedback from those who had just watched our show. Anyone who took on this duty will tell you that, in 2002, the fans were nothing if not grateful. The sheer number of older fans who stopped to visit us kept saying the same thing: "Thank you, so much, for your show!"
There is something magical about having a WWII vet come up to you in tears to tell you how thankful they are for your performance.
It was at this time that I began to truly understand the important of the role the corps, and by extension, I, played in adhering to and maintaining the U.S. Flag Code.
<hr>
In every election that followed the 9/11 attacks, political candidates (primarily, if not exclusively, Conservative ones) made the wearing of this American flag lapel pin an issue. To be caught without this pin festooned to your lapel was to show disregard for the soldiers fighting "for our nation's freedom," and much ado was made about those who wore nothing.
Democratic candidates, in particular, were lambasted for being unpatriotic if they were caught without this pin, and a behavior that was, in fact, a violation of Federal law became an issue of national importance. It is no small irony that the Republican party - the party that continually avers that they are the "Pro-America" party; the "most patriotic" party - should create an issue based around breaking a law.
The reason this issue comes up, today, is because of a recent uproar over the usage of President Obama's face on the American flag by the Lake County Democratic Party in Florida. Veterans protested this defacing of the flag as inappropriate, and rightfully so: it is inappropriate to flout the Flag Code is such a manner.
I wonder, however, if the same uproar would be made if another political candidate's image...let's say a Republican...had been used in such a manner. Where was the veteran uproar when the American flag was being worn as apparel? Where was this outrage when marketing campaigns gratuitously used its likeness for their own purposes?
It is rare that you will hear me espouse Pro-American sentiments - this is one of those times.
The maintenance and upholding of the United States Flag Code is not just about obeying the law; it is about paying tribute to those who have actually fought for freedom, not just for Americans, but for the oppressed...for those who could not defend themselves...for those foreigners who honestly believe that America is the Land of Opportunity.
But, more importantly, the purpose of the United States Flag Code is to prevent those who would use it for their own personal gain from abusing this nation's image - this is the very last thing we need.
Monday, March 12, 2012
The Party Is Over, But You're Still Here...
It's been awhile since I have posted anything on this blog, primarily because work and school got to pile up on me (secondarily, because I've been lazy). There have been plenty of issues to cover, and just not enough energy or time to do so.
Today, however, a friend of mine from many years ago posted on my Facebook wall that he was "officially de-friending" me for my repeated bashing of the GOP. My opinions, he said, were more out of touch with reality than those against whom I rail, and that if I was going to express my opinion in a public forum, I should do so in a more mature way.
My initial response to this was, and still is, to say, "Peace the fuck out!"
My secondary response, however, is to take what he said and put it into context, both for myself and for others.
If it seems that my approach to critiquing the GOP is harsh, I cannot apologize for that. For much of the past decade, I have lived in areas of the country where the GOP has a chokehold on the political agenda and discourse (AKA - the South). I have seen firsthand what can happen when Conservative policies are put into action - a continued tradition of poverty, discrimination, and literal sickness.
I wasn't always politically active. At one time, I was content to sit on the sidelines and watch the GOP rip itself asunder. However, living in areas that could have very easily become thriving towns and cities if not for being run by Conservative ideologues has convinced me that allowing them to do themselves in ultimately ends up hurting everyone.
There's a large part of me that wants to say, "Just let 'em have it, and watch how fast this place burns to the ground!"
Realistically, this won't ever occur. There are enough people dedicated to the roach-like survival of this nation that something could be saved from the ashes of a Conservative government. Too many people still care to let that happen.
To be fair, it isn't just Conservatism that kills nations - it's overindulgence in any one political ideology that leads to downfall. When governance skews too far in any one direction, the needs of all people are not being met; just the needs of those who ascribe to that political ideology.
My biggest issue with American politics is that we have been forcefully skewed so far to the right that ideas that were at one time common sense, centrist approaches to governance are now considered to be Liberal. The GOP establishment consistently abuses Framing Theory, presenting their policies and positions in ways that are designed to frighten people out of making rational decisions.
Case in point:
Doubts About Obama's Faith
Here we have a classic example of how the GOP uses "fear of the Other" to confuse, misinform, and manipulate its base. In this case, the "other" is a "Muslim." This type of argument has been used by Conservatives time and again to strike fear into the hearts of their base. Kennedy was a Catholic, which meant that he would be taking orders from the Pope; Romney is a Mormon, which is a creepy cult with a lot of money hellbent on converting people to their caffein-free existence.
There is a convenient cross section between people who think Obama is a Muslim and those who believe only Christians should hold office and that laws and policies should be based upon the Bible. I don't want to say that people who believe this are easily led down the pathway to hell, but their "good intentions" certain seem determined to do so.
Fear of "the other" is frequently used in politics to ensure that one party or another remains in power indefinitely, and is a preferred tactic of hard-right/hard-left political regimes. Arguments against change are frequently framed in a way which presents voters/citizens with a doomsday scenario. Take, for example, the Yes on 8 commercials:
"Whether You Like It or Not"
This is a perfectly designed ad used to frighten people into believing that their children are at risk of being indoctrinated to believe something anathema to their own system of beliefs. Arguments crafted in this manner are almost used almost exclusively by Conservative activists.
The irony about arguments like the Yes on 8 ads is that there is no actual threat involved. They very wisely play upon voters' fears that life as we know it will be set on a path to moral destruction if a certain action is taken.
Similar tactics, however, are not as successful in getting the results they want. Arguments for increasing taxes to fund school lunches, for example, rarely result in people voting to raise their taxes. The very real reality that funding for food at schools will be cut unless there is more revenue doesn't hit the same nerve in Conservative voters.
And here is the crux of the issue:
Morality vs. Reality
When a certain politician or policy is framed by opponents as a "moral threat," people tend to react in a more visceral way. Convincing them that their very way of life is at risk of being unalterably destroyed, they are more apt to vote against that person or policy. Once that seed has been sown, little, if anything, can be done to rectify the situation.
Over the past thirty years, our nation's political spectrum has been pulled so far to the right that every policy and position has been framed as a moral issue. Conservatives are no longer able to approach issues rationally because every issue becomes forcibly charged with a moral argument. Reality never plays a role in these arguments.
Healthcare reform - "They're going to ration healthcare and create death panels!!!"
Reality - Insurance companies already ration healthcare based on your ability to pay prices they have artificially inflated.
Wall Street reform - "Small business owners will be driven out of business, and corporations will take over!!!"
Reality - Businesses both large and small have historically prospered and increased their revenues in times of greater financial regulation. Every time we deregulate the financial sector, we see immediate short-term gains followed by devastating long-term economic crashes.
Tax Increases - "Job creators are going to leave the country and we'll be plunged into poverty!!!"
Reality - Job creators are currently paying less in taxes than almost any other time in American history, and yet they still aren't creating jobs equal to the amount of profits they are making.
Environmental Regulation - "We need to drill, now!!! If we don't, we'll end up being held hostage by the Middle East!!!"
Reality - Drilling now will not decrease the price of gasoline, nor will it decrease the price of oil in the long run. Oil is a finite resource, and as our consumption of this finite resource increases alongside our population growth, it will eventually run out. Scarcity increases the value of a resource. Basic economics.
Minimum Wage - "Businesses won't hire people if they have to pay them more money!!!"
Reality - Minimum wage laws were created because business owners were paying near-slave wages for an inordinate amount of work. The current minimum wage does not even net $20,000/year in income if one works a 40-hour work week. It would require three full-time minimum wage jobs just to achieve the average household income in America. Increasing the minimum wage puts money into the hands of those most likely to spend it and recirculate the money back into the economy.
Gay Marriage - "If gays are allowed to marry, people will start marrying animals!!!"
Reality - If you believe this, you are an idiot. There is no nicer way to put it.
Every argument made by Conservative pundits and politicians stems from this "slippery slope" argument - that is the very nature of "Conservatism." The best way to think of it is to quote Professor Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix -
"Progress for progress' sake must be discouraged..."
So, to this person who de-friended me, today, because I choose to publicly fight against those in our political spectrum who have only their own benefit in mind - Peace the Fuck Out!
I still love you, friend, despite our disagreements.
Today, however, a friend of mine from many years ago posted on my Facebook wall that he was "officially de-friending" me for my repeated bashing of the GOP. My opinions, he said, were more out of touch with reality than those against whom I rail, and that if I was going to express my opinion in a public forum, I should do so in a more mature way.
My initial response to this was, and still is, to say, "Peace the fuck out!"
My secondary response, however, is to take what he said and put it into context, both for myself and for others.
If it seems that my approach to critiquing the GOP is harsh, I cannot apologize for that. For much of the past decade, I have lived in areas of the country where the GOP has a chokehold on the political agenda and discourse (AKA - the South). I have seen firsthand what can happen when Conservative policies are put into action - a continued tradition of poverty, discrimination, and literal sickness.
I wasn't always politically active. At one time, I was content to sit on the sidelines and watch the GOP rip itself asunder. However, living in areas that could have very easily become thriving towns and cities if not for being run by Conservative ideologues has convinced me that allowing them to do themselves in ultimately ends up hurting everyone.
There's a large part of me that wants to say, "Just let 'em have it, and watch how fast this place burns to the ground!"
Realistically, this won't ever occur. There are enough people dedicated to the roach-like survival of this nation that something could be saved from the ashes of a Conservative government. Too many people still care to let that happen.
To be fair, it isn't just Conservatism that kills nations - it's overindulgence in any one political ideology that leads to downfall. When governance skews too far in any one direction, the needs of all people are not being met; just the needs of those who ascribe to that political ideology.
My biggest issue with American politics is that we have been forcefully skewed so far to the right that ideas that were at one time common sense, centrist approaches to governance are now considered to be Liberal. The GOP establishment consistently abuses Framing Theory, presenting their policies and positions in ways that are designed to frighten people out of making rational decisions.
Case in point:
Doubts About Obama's Faith
Here we have a classic example of how the GOP uses "fear of the Other" to confuse, misinform, and manipulate its base. In this case, the "other" is a "Muslim." This type of argument has been used by Conservatives time and again to strike fear into the hearts of their base. Kennedy was a Catholic, which meant that he would be taking orders from the Pope; Romney is a Mormon, which is a creepy cult with a lot of money hellbent on converting people to their caffein-free existence.
There is a convenient cross section between people who think Obama is a Muslim and those who believe only Christians should hold office and that laws and policies should be based upon the Bible. I don't want to say that people who believe this are easily led down the pathway to hell, but their "good intentions" certain seem determined to do so.
Fear of "the other" is frequently used in politics to ensure that one party or another remains in power indefinitely, and is a preferred tactic of hard-right/hard-left political regimes. Arguments against change are frequently framed in a way which presents voters/citizens with a doomsday scenario. Take, for example, the Yes on 8 commercials:
"Whether You Like It or Not"
This is a perfectly designed ad used to frighten people into believing that their children are at risk of being indoctrinated to believe something anathema to their own system of beliefs. Arguments crafted in this manner are almost used almost exclusively by Conservative activists.
The irony about arguments like the Yes on 8 ads is that there is no actual threat involved. They very wisely play upon voters' fears that life as we know it will be set on a path to moral destruction if a certain action is taken.
Similar tactics, however, are not as successful in getting the results they want. Arguments for increasing taxes to fund school lunches, for example, rarely result in people voting to raise their taxes. The very real reality that funding for food at schools will be cut unless there is more revenue doesn't hit the same nerve in Conservative voters.
And here is the crux of the issue:
Morality vs. Reality
When a certain politician or policy is framed by opponents as a "moral threat," people tend to react in a more visceral way. Convincing them that their very way of life is at risk of being unalterably destroyed, they are more apt to vote against that person or policy. Once that seed has been sown, little, if anything, can be done to rectify the situation.
Over the past thirty years, our nation's political spectrum has been pulled so far to the right that every policy and position has been framed as a moral issue. Conservatives are no longer able to approach issues rationally because every issue becomes forcibly charged with a moral argument. Reality never plays a role in these arguments.
Healthcare reform - "They're going to ration healthcare and create death panels!!!"
Reality - Insurance companies already ration healthcare based on your ability to pay prices they have artificially inflated.
Wall Street reform - "Small business owners will be driven out of business, and corporations will take over!!!"
Reality - Businesses both large and small have historically prospered and increased their revenues in times of greater financial regulation. Every time we deregulate the financial sector, we see immediate short-term gains followed by devastating long-term economic crashes.
Tax Increases - "Job creators are going to leave the country and we'll be plunged into poverty!!!"
Reality - Job creators are currently paying less in taxes than almost any other time in American history, and yet they still aren't creating jobs equal to the amount of profits they are making.
Environmental Regulation - "We need to drill, now!!! If we don't, we'll end up being held hostage by the Middle East!!!"
Reality - Drilling now will not decrease the price of gasoline, nor will it decrease the price of oil in the long run. Oil is a finite resource, and as our consumption of this finite resource increases alongside our population growth, it will eventually run out. Scarcity increases the value of a resource. Basic economics.
Minimum Wage - "Businesses won't hire people if they have to pay them more money!!!"
Reality - Minimum wage laws were created because business owners were paying near-slave wages for an inordinate amount of work. The current minimum wage does not even net $20,000/year in income if one works a 40-hour work week. It would require three full-time minimum wage jobs just to achieve the average household income in America. Increasing the minimum wage puts money into the hands of those most likely to spend it and recirculate the money back into the economy.
Gay Marriage - "If gays are allowed to marry, people will start marrying animals!!!"
Reality - If you believe this, you are an idiot. There is no nicer way to put it.
Every argument made by Conservative pundits and politicians stems from this "slippery slope" argument - that is the very nature of "Conservatism." The best way to think of it is to quote Professor Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix -
"Progress for progress' sake must be discouraged..."
So, to this person who de-friended me, today, because I choose to publicly fight against those in our political spectrum who have only their own benefit in mind - Peace the Fuck Out!
I still love you, friend, despite our disagreements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)