WHAT'S FAIR: Minimum Skills Earning Minimum Wages

Are you worth $30,000 a year?

For those fast food employees, and their nannies in public office, thinking they deserve $15 an hour, or more, let's do some math.

> At $15 an hour, someone slinging burgers would make $31,200 annually.
> An E1 (Private) in the military makes $18,378.
> An E5 (Sergeant) with 8 years of service only makes $35,067 annually.

So you're telling me, Woody Likefrieswithat , that you deserve as much as those kids getting shot at, deploying for months in hostile environments, and putting their collective asses on the line every day protecting the rights of YOUR unskilled butt!?

Here's the deal, Frank Andbeans: you are working in a job designed for a teenager in high school or working his way through trade school or college. It's a job for someone who is learning how to work. Have you thoroughly learned how to work? These jobs are designed for those looking to earn enough for shared rent, beer, and some food and gas, and hanging out with their equally goofy young pals.

If you have CHOSEN this basic means of making a living as your lifelong profession, you have not planned very well. Time to accept the consequences or to firm up, work your way out of the lower rungs, and rely on yourself, not count on foul promises of a few rise from low wages to high with little or no stops to learn skills that deserve a higher wage. It is a tough lesson, but you either learn it, or you stay where you are. The ones misleading you into believing you deserve higher pay for the same minimum role in life might sound like your hero, but they are only your big talking "better." They are fooling you. Wake up!

Here's what is fair to everyone: If you don't want minimum wage, don't settle on your minimum skills,  don't put forward minimum effort, be the example of a great employee that can move past the minimum job. And please don't expect someone else to pave your way, without you advancing your skills, for a smooth ride to $30k and better in earnings. That's how it might work in your dreams, but in real life, a solid person seeks rewards for effort, not for whining.

I revised this considerably. A version of this, no doubt a chain email, was sent to me by a retired person. He understands what working means. No one promised him a cake walk to a better life.

- J Ruse

So-called progressives' cry against AM radio: anti-free market rules are pro-free speech

The recent assault on talk radio by progressives (so-called) has also produced comments that moderate reporting, or non-biased to non-media people, is boring. That's just one of the little offshoots of this odd agenda being taken up right now.

I have a serious problem with this. This is the worst of what liberalism, or progressivism, or whatever you call it, has to offer. It shows the broader goal they look toward: to run things without a care of free markets or consumer and market guided business. It's called overregulating. They are for it. I am against underregulating, but this is no better. Nooo better!

The playground rules of equal time at bat is now being pushed for radio. Have you ever listened to AirAmerica? I once listened to a ten-minute assault on Barbara Bush, back in January 2009, calling her mean and vicious and alleging all sorts of profane things about her. I think they actually referred to her as fat at one point. I mean, it was foul and just mean. Why? How appealing is it that these "radio personalities" go after the MOTHER of the current president! Little wonder this stuff dies in the free market! Crude, and more ironically juvenile than Pee Wee's Playhouse (or, for that matter, more juvenile than Glenn Beck's radio show some days, when he does the cynical, half-funny "America's favorite game show" segments)!

Since the free market does not exist for these pro-overregulation clowns, there's ongoing debate of 'conservative' radio vs. fairness doctrine for radio. Not papers & TV, but just radio! Would force far left liberal - oh wait, 'progressive' - radio on radio stations. For what? Their future economic success?!!

They call it a 'system' of companies. Bull. Air America not a company, then? It ignores the biz law of what sells ads, which certainly TRUMPS any 'BALANCE' LAW. Ask any struggling paper just how much ads determine their life or death! Or, any radio station! This smacks of collectivism, where the media would be controlled by the all-knowing, all-controlling hand of government. Period.

I would welcome more successful liberal radio, because the so-called progressives are being so oddly anti-business, anti-free market, and inferring communist ideals in their hassling of radio stations and their owners that it smacks of outright shameless envy and jealousy. They will apparently stop only short of cutting power sources to radio stations with this assault on AM radio. (I should avoid mentioning that some areas, such as Nashville, Tenn., have excellent FM talk stations.)

Think Progress » Dear Rush Limbaugh, Why Are You Hell-Bent On Protecting A Radio Market That Limits Free Speech?
(First of all, HAAA! What a headline! Can you guess where that's going? Duh!)

ThinkProgress asked the authors of the original report to respond to Limbaugh. Two co-authors, CAP’s John Halpin and Free Press’s Josh Silver, gave us this response:

Dear Rush Limbaugh:

We have a straightforward question, which we hope you will answer in a straightforward way: When a handful of major media companies control who and what is allowed to be broadcast on the commercial dial, how is that not regulation of radio content? When these same companies then push out one-sided, right-wing information 90 percent of the time, how does that uphold freedom of expression?

Those of us at CAP, Free Press and other public interest organizations do not want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and we definitely do not want to limit free speech. We want more of it. You and other conservatives seem more interested in protecting a system that does the exact opposite.

If Limbaugh wants a debate, let’s have it.

Go ahead and call him, debate it! Please! There's only a few of you who could manage to handle it! But debate? Good luck with that. Rhetoric as what comes from ThinkProgess will not play for success on this issue. I think it would bore his listeners if he waited until these closeted big govt freaks had the nerve to call him and offer something remotely close to a civil, topical argument about this subject.

In the piece they at once call these "commercial stations", yet bluntly claim that they "push" an agenda? How is it that they are making any money, then? Somebody must be advertising on the stations! So all the advertisers are conservatives, too, and there's some secret handshake of advertisers and listeners who support those businesses?

Their presumption falls on its face, it seems, and they surely must know it. How can dashing free market ideals for their version of a "free" (wink) media possibly pass muster under authentic public debate? These pro-controlled airwaves (oh, but ONLY radio!) people are tossing rocks, and keeping their distance, they are not offering a debate.

Liberals have most of TV in their back pockets. Viewership of news on TV is lowering, for them. MSNBC is the laughed-at geek among all TV news entities, and steeply liberal. It is rising generally, we learned recently from viewership reports, but MSNBC is comparably rising far less than FOX News. Fox News is of course another media outlet despised by liberals. This one is disliked for simply not being liberal rather than for its being rampantly conservative -- but don't try to tell any of them that, they're too busy calling it racist, fascist and owned by "the Man". These same liberals pan PBS and NPR for being too moderate, too. Shame. I like both of those, and appreciate their reporting. Funny, I thought reporting was meant to be objective as possible, but plenty of progressives -- and a few blow-hard counterparts on the far right -- call objectivity boring. So much for news reporting and "boring" old journalism!

Liberals lay claim to the majority of large newspapers in the nation, and seem to be doing just fine with not forcing "balance" on those media. So, what gives? Not debate, that's for sure! Can you imagine if conservative talk radio hosts started insisting that such action be taken to level the playing field on television, or in major newspapers, what would happen? Can you imagine if someone allegedly legitimate tried -- seriously, not as a joke -- to petition HBO to have a counterbalance to the Bill Maher show?

How is it that AM radio, which is for some the mocked poster child for old technology, gets so much attention from these folks for abuse of free markets? Isn't this a bit like hilariously odd, like a liberal faction of our government demanding that we invade the Phillipines?

Perhaps they are doing this since they simply want to win the ubiquitous debate, not actually have one. You know, like Chavez holds elections, and supporters take control of gov't buildings while the election happens to show their support. They'll debate it, but only on their terms. "I'll debate you any time! Just submit the questions three days ahead of time, please!"

I really wish I could resist reacting to any particularly stupid fringe ideas for control, at either edge, but I cannot help it when they are conceptually bizarre and insincere as this is. Who'd have thought that AM radio was the chief threat to the First Amendment!


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

(rev. Feb. 24, 2009)

CFIF.org: Spending is illegitimate way to motivate economy

Why Massive Government Spending Is Ineffective “Stimulus” – A Primer

Barack Obama, economically uninformed and obviously confusing his temporary personal approval rating with some sort of permanent mandate to do whatever he pleases, crudely justified his unprecedented spending proposal by grunting, “I won.” Shortly thereafter, Obama rationalized his agenda to House Democrats attending their retreat last week with the following irrational and simplistic attempt at humor:

“So then you get the argument, ‘well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.’ What do you think a stimulus is?! (Laughter and applause.) That’s the whole point! (More laughter and applause.) No, seriously! That’s the point! (More laughter and applause.)”

Clearly unable to defend the indefensible, Obama instead retreats to sarcasm and juvenile humor as if his premise is self-evident.

Tossing aside that Obama's comments goofily ignore 1/3 of the bill, that minority which is tax cuts, this strikes me as a core argument against Democrats who argue that spending is the only way to go. That Obama, even in front of his own party, ducks the issue, suggests he does not get it. Democrats, mostly, seem to think that more government control is the solution to an economy problem created by government not doing its existing tasks of responsibly regulating fields where greed runs rampant.

The comments in the quote are from CFIF.org, a group I am personally not very informed about, but which is interested in individual freedoms, thus smaller government, above all else. Apparently, these days, that automatically makes you a conservative, probably an extreme conservative, to liberals.

I think the above quote defines the faltered argument behind rushing to spend with the stimulus. In this age of wireless, computers and a widely educated American populace, I think the stimulus ought to FOCUS on four things:

1. lower taxes for consumers and businesses,
2. relief for the unemployed and otherwise impoverished,
3. freeing of the frozen banking and finance industry, and
4. adapting to the crunch to open up free enterprise, such as making credit available.

Instead, billions are being spent on -- not wrong but wrongly involved in the stimulus -- infrastructure programs that ought to be a part of a real budget or other bill. Some of those programs, such as bridges, have indeed been put off too long since government is not the answer, but part of the problem.

Bridges and roads are failing because government has avoided offering bills to get spending for them, too focused on pet agendas to do the business of the nation responsibly. Just as the gov't ignored subprime mortgages since they felt good about letting the poor and real estate prospectors (oops!) get mortgages on the upside down financial concepts behind those bad ideas. Just as gov't ignored rampant abuses of the financial markets, derivatives and hedge funds and Madoff-style ripoffs. Just as they ignored runaway deficit spending.

Have you noticed that subprimes promoted the use of those nasty derivatives, so people could keep the madness going, handing off the bad mortgages, like financial musical chairs. It alone proves that governmental liberal, short-sighted ideas to give people things they cannot afford are BAD! They will fail us, and today, they have led us into a bigger failure than they alone could give!

Gov't ignored regulation in areas of money and investing, and offered illogical programs for mortgages, the best places for greed to swell for the ethically abstract among us, and it ignored infrastructure. Two kinda obvious things gov't ought to always be dealing with, and overtly. And yet, gov't says now that they ought to be able to be in complete control, according to Democrats. How rich!

Caution against big government of all cautions, when we're all sweating to begin with, the government slips in the programs that they are too chicken to pass in good times. How does that get me a job, exactly, unless I am in those fields or can do -- physically can manage to do -- those jobs? I am sure lots of unemployed folks over 40 will be thrilled to know they can help build bridges out in the summer sun for ten-hour days when they've been living in a cubicle for 15 years or more.

Isn't it ironic, and eery, that a belief the small, regulatory role of government in trade is viewed as old-fashioned and part of a "failed" economic model by the Democratic leadership? What's the option, in their view? Isn't our government TOO BIG now?!! They blame GW Bush for making it larger, through the creation of Homeland Security, leaving out that the motivation was the greatest attack on our shores in 60 years. But they want to make government control of things greater, not just in what they have failed to do and should have regulated in finance and banking, but overall.

Where will they stop? Hugo Chavez' and Castro's model? China's model? Sweden or France's model? How long has it been since either of those last two states "wore the pants" anywhere in the world? The American liberals seem to forget that, on top of being in an economic down trend, we are also the only thing keeping Russia, China and other big, not very nice nations from running the whole show. I guess they'd want to stop just short of that. And, Sen. Kerry and fellow wealthy liberals who think government is the answer, where exactly would you stop? Do you have a specific thing in mind, or would you simply guess where we ought to stop?


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Why Obama matters to Africans: An observation by a white conservative guy

This is the first such piece I've come across. Good stuff.

Dennis Prager : From Africa With Love - Townhall.com

The election of a man of black African heritage as president of a predominantly white nation, and one that also happens to be the most powerful nation in the world, is taken by blacks the world over to mean that their centuries of suffering under the racist yoke of implied inferiority are coming to an end.

This is especially felt in Africa itself because Africa is largely benighted. Though many African countries have now been independent for nearly half a century, Africa remains particularly poor, particularly corrupt, and particularly violent. Africans, of course, know this, and while Barack Obama’s election will probably do nothing to end African poverty, corruption, or violence, it does seem to mark the end of the era of belief in black inferiority.

Hope. For Africans and their lineage everywhere. That is a good thing. Will it change anything? Who knows. Latin America cannot seem to get past its history of poorly educated masses, generally. Even our close neighbor, Mexico, cannot bring itself to dispose of mass corruption in order to develop further. It is a land where bullies reign and intellects either get killed or go along with the bullies, generally. What of Africa, then? And what else of this fanaticism? Is it due to the color of the skin? The ethnic familiarity? I hope they are happy for good reasons. Period.

What of improvement coming to Africa? Do they simply assume that now the U.S. will throw money at them? I certainly hope not. I hope we throw education and development at them. And push broad Chinese corruption out. In Africa, that is.


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

What is today's liberalism?

What's wrong with liberal ideals? Part I

I consider myself a center-right conservative. I think that there is nothing wrong with certain liberal ideals. It is the outlandish, no-holds-barred "rights" and government funding and taxing that I have a problem with. Some so-called issues promoted by liberals extended to the absurd, offensive, amoral, fascist, one-party demagogic, and irrational, in my lifetime (I am around 40 yo). The issues were even more absurd just prior to my birth, in the 1960s. Civil rights is one thing, walking around naked, having sex with anyone and using drugs freely and openly (like pot, acid, etc.) was beyond idiotic.

Naturally, the same adjectives can be placed on some conservative ideas. However, renaming French fries as "freedom fries" was a goofy reaction to something that offended someone and it wasn't combative; calling nearly all whites racist, simply because they are the majority skin color and facial features in this country, is extreme and offensive. These two have been in the common dialog in recent years.

As an example of going liberally overboard, a guy who maintains a solid status among liberals despite his hate-filled agenda, Spike Lee seems to have in him a belief that non-liberal whites - especially George Bush and any aligned conservatives - hate poor black people. Or at least they hate all poor black people who are living in New Orleans, LA. Yet this guy is a champion of cinema (deserved, artistically) and is somehow an example of someone who stands up for civil rights (undeserved, for his irrational and paranoid viewpoint). Ignoring the truth that Hurricane Katrina was a one-in-400 storm seems awfully convenient, and his avoiding an outright damning as well of the Democratic operators of the city and the state pours gas on a fire of political bias. It is agenda over truth that Lee chose to favor in his movie about Katrina. It's sad. I would say it is pathetic, but Spike Lee knows what he is doing. Hardly pathetic - more like divisive.

I suspect one problem is that some people who are socialist or Marxist stumble into the liberal camp and they are welcomed to stay. If that's the liberal, or the Democratic Party, idea of inclusiveness -- welcoming bizarre, ineffective or dangerous ideologies -- then liberals will hopefully never succeed in becoming a long-term dominant force on America. That, or we will lose our position as a capitalist, freedom-loving society. It is simple. If Bill Maher represents your ideas, you are unsavory and never going to gain traction with self-respecting, self-motivated people. Perhaps such people are the minority in America now. I suspect that spoiled celebrities such as Maher, Larry King, and Al Franken are among the minority, though.

The Republican Party, or conservatives, are generally not interested in extreme right ideas, such as white supremacy, racial inequality, racial separatism, or any kind of fundamentalism. There was a time when a conservative would not be deeply troubled by liberal views. There was a time when the great dividing line was tradition and economics, not social issues. As such, calling rabid KKK members conservatives misses the point, just as immediately pairing fascists or socialists with liberals. Ideas such as racial equality are liberal; pay equity for women; non-prejudice against blacks, Latinos, Asians, women, homosexuals, and the disabled. If these are liberal ideals, then I am a liberal. But I am not a liberal. How so? Because I do not agree with the extremes brought about by those whose ideas are today considered liberal. And I am conservative where economics comes in.

For instance, FDR was a liberal - he'd gag at some of the obsessions of liberals today, I suspect. Woodrow Wilson was liberal. JFK was an old fashioned liberal, and he got us into Vietnam (much as his many worshipers want us to forget that).

Powered by ScribeFire.