Minimum Wage Sucks... Too Bad It'll Never Change.

The minimum wage is at least seven times greater than it was in 1956, but it's actually worth slightly less. In fact, the minimum wage was worth the greatest amount back in 1968 at a measly $1.60 an hour. This sounds absolutely absurd, doesn't it? I didn't even believe it until I found five different sources all telling me the same thing. According to this article from the Huffington Post, an individual working full time would need to make $11.06 an hour to remain at or above the poverty line for a family of four. As I know all too well, $7.25 is the minimum wage and individuals under 18 working a seasonal job can make as little as $5 an hour, a laughably small amount for anyone attempting to help support their family or save for college (but that's an entirely different fish to fry). Additionally, the article states that if minimum wage reflected worker productivity, minimum wage could be as much as $21.72. Personally, I wouldn't know what to do with that kind of cashflow.

People that make minimum wage are becoming more and more aware of this and asking congress to do something about it. But are they? No. Obama mentioned it in his state of the union address and has been trying as hard as he can to get them to do something, anything. But they won't. At this point Obama is pleading to Americans, asking them to send letters to their GOP representatives. He wants everyone making at least "ten-ten." It's catchy but not the necessary $11.06. While I respect what Obama is trying to do, will that really help? Sure I'd love a $2 raise, but if everyone got a raise of that much it would have to affect inflation. It certainly wouldn't be a post-war-Germany-playing-with-bundles-of-money-because-it's-cheaper-than-toys level of inflation, but without change at other levels, Americans would certainly lose buying power, if my math is correct. I'm no expert on economics, but it would make so much more sense to put restrictions on the top earners' paychecks, say they can only make x% of what the lowest paid employee makes. As of 2011 that amount was typically 230 times greater. Hmmm 230*7.25=$1667.50 per hour. And who does the real labor? That's disgusting.

Whose Job Description Does This Fall Under?

Ginsburg out on the town

Scalia acting like he's reading
a legal tome

On thursday night Antonin Scalia (R) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D), two of our nine supreme court justices, were answering questions at a conference at the National Press Club. Still in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks, the NSA is fresh in the minds of most Americans. It's very difficult to get any concrete information out of anyone regarding what is to happen next, but Ginsburg and Scalia were willing to add to the speculation.


Even the ever-conservative Scalia said that the constitutionality of the acts committed by the NSA would likely be decided by the Supreme Court. He also stated that "The institution that will decide that is the institution least qualified to decide it...." This lead me to wonder who is qualified to decide it. The NSA themselves clearly can't make this decision, that would be a conflict of interest. The president already expressed his distaste, but that isn't going to move beyond his statement. The Department of Homeland Security could take on the task, since the NSA is under the Department of Defense, but would that be wise? DHS is the lowest executive agency on the totem pole and there is a lot riding on this. Ultimately, I believe that it is smart to have the Court make a decision. They will be more likely to think of the people because they aren't experts; they can't have a bias in this situation.

What was the CIA up to?

In this article from the New York Times, posted last thursday, it was announced that American citizens will finally be able to know what the CIA did under the Bush administration. It has become almost common knowledge that the CIA allowed some morally questionable practices in interrogations, especially in the name of counterterrorism. Additionally, Obama has publicly spoken out in opposition to these practices since 2009, and has advocated for them to be made public, so there is no question about what happens now that there is senate approval.

After Obama approves the publication of the documents, they will have to be edited per the guidelines of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, so as to not give away any trade secrets or military information. Reading this article, I was unclear as to whom will be doing the editing, but it seems like that will be a duty of the CIA. If so, then I would like to point out how horrible of an idea that is; even if most of those who took part in these activities are gone, CIA employees are not going to want to discredit their organization. While I see the dangers in letting non-CIA employees read the documents, there is a very high possibility that things will be removed that should be revealed to the general public. If the CIA is not responsible for editing the 6,200 pages of secrets, it will be more complete, but that would take months to shift through. Releasing this information is a great idea, but the release itself is going to be tricky.

I Always Feel Like Somebody's Watching Me

A Belated Unit One Post
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/03/25

In a very short period of time Edward Snowden has become one of the most famous, or infamous, names in the country. Some liken him to a saint, others call him a treasonous #^%$&@. But regardless of your personal convictions, any internet-savvy person over the age of ten was shocked and appalled to find out the extent to which the US federal government has been monitoring us and infringing upon our privacy. Personally, I find the practice to be offensive and dictatorial. I'm disgusted that Americans have this kind of power over other Americans, and I think it needs to be stopped. Even Obama disapproves of the extent to which the NSA has taken this form of counterintelligence, with his administration calling on the NSA to give everyone a little bit more breathing room. However, this actually happening doesn't seem very likely. In fact, bills are circulating, but would never pass, that would allow the NSA even more power! As it is they have nearly unlimited power, as long as their actions can be justified in the name of national security. At this point, the nation is already sliding headfirst down a slippery slope toward an Orwellian dystopia. I'm not sure how much hope there is that America can turn itself around, but I really hope we can.

An Expansion of Implied Powers?

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-supreme-court-considers-environment-presidential-power/1858384.html

Jim Malone's February 24th article on Voice of America introduces readers to an ongoing Supreme Court battle to determine the extent of the president's power regarding the environment. While environmentally centered bills float in and out of congress almost continuously, the bills rarely have any success. This is partially due to the polarized nature of politicians: the democrats generally are all for new regulations and higher standards, and the republicans see this as a hinderance upon free enterprise and a great unnecessary burden on corporations. But some have argued that this is not within the government's power, and certainly not a power to be held by one man. Those concerned don't have a huge problem with Obama himself having this power, it's down the road that they are worried about.

I believe that they have a very valid argument. No one knows what the issues will be regarding the environment in 50 years, conceding this power solely to the executive branch could be a very slippery slope, especially when considering how fast technology seems to be moving these days. Clearly something needs to be done regarding pollution, but I do not think this is the answer. The Republican party needs to get its act together, not just thinking about major corporations, but the health and safety of Americans, and compromise on some of these bills before the president has a good argument to get himself a large chunk of power.

A decision from the Supreme Court is expected to be released at some point in June, but currently the Court seems very divided.

Let Everyone Vote in the Primaries.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-my-wordchoice-edwards-20140303,0,1678746.story

The primaries are a major part of the election. Millions of dollars are spent wining, dining, and wooing people that could potentially help them get into the white house, or any other government position. If you don't do well in the primaries, you can't make it. Candidates often just reiterate their party platform in an effort to win over the party. The ideas and plans they spew in debates and interviews may not be anything even remotely close to their own ideas. In the primaries, all they need to do is win their party. This hardly seems fair.

The idea of this article is to have an "open primary" so that the candidates would have to appeal to everyone, not just democrats OR republicans. Then the top two from that primary, regardless of party, would be in the running for the presidency. In theory, it seems like there would still always be a democrat and a republican in the running, which negates any argument against the idea.

Whether we like it or not, America is stuck in a two-party system. Regardless of what party one may be registered within, the presidential candidates will always be a democrat and a republican. Therefore, everyone should get a say in who will be on the ballot. The decisions made in the primary are just as important, and affect just as many people, as the election in November. 

Racism? Or Ignorance?

http://www.redstate.com/2014/02/17/bi-partisan-agreement-national-public-radio-nprnews-misrepresents-facts-to-fan-racial-tension/

Racial tension has been around as long as the concept of migration. Yet through the centuries, racial tension remains unable to be eradicated. The issue of race in American politics originated as a party platform for the Republican party in the era of Abraham Lincoln. Today, most minorities are more closely tied to the Democratic party. This makes race a fairly liberal issue today, therefore, it makes sense for the liberal radio station NPR to do an exposé on the voting rights act and how they believe the black community is being suppressed in southern areas like Georgia.

NPR was given a few facts, which they correctly stated. The district had recently consolidated, combining Macon and Bibb to become Macon-Bibb County. Turnout was expected to be around 50%, but was around 60%. There were four candidates running for mayor: a white man, a rabbi, and two black men. The winner was white. NPR took this information and spun it to mean something that everyone has claimed it is not. The news organization even went as far as getting claims from "experts" that really knew nothing other than what NPR had told them, bias included. But all of their points could easily be nullified. The county voted to consolidate. Black voters make up 60% of the registry. And the expected 50% came from the fact that 50% of the voters in the counties voted in the 2010 election.

Just because the winner of an election in a predominantly black area happened to be white, Liberals are all ready to cry foul. Race is no longer as big of an issue as people make it out to be. The "race card" is getting old. It's used to defend criminals, slander anyone who doesn't give greater sympathy to minorities than anyone else, and justify racism toward white people. I am in no way saying that the tables of racism have turned on the white majority.  But the terrible history Black Americans have endured is no longer as relevant as it was in the post-Jim-Crowe-era, not everything needs to be turned into an issue of racism anymore. Anyone can share political ideals with anyone else, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. That is true equality.

It's 2014. Voter suppression hasn't been a relevant issue in 30 years! There are much larger social issues to be fighting, relevant ones that still need support if we want to see a difference in the world.