As I was flipping through TV channels after church on Super Bowl Sunday, I happened to pause long enough to hear the lead story on PBS’ Religion & Ethics Newsweekly. It was a brief overview of religious groups’ reactions to President Obama’s State of the Union speech, noting mixed responses, especially to his call to raise the minimum wage.
“But others, including religious conservatives, argued this would hurt businesses and lead to more unemployment,” the announcer said. Disgusted, I flipped the channel.
“Since when,” I wondered aloud, “did Judeo-Christian traditions mandate care of business? The charge is to care for people.”
Make no mistake -- this as a moral issue. If people work, and in today’s economy some are working two or three jobs, they should earn enough to supply their basic needs. In other words, they should earn a living wage.
Instead, more Americans have become victims of our Wall Street economy that measures success via the annual financial statement’s profits and shareholder dividends. Long hours, benefit cuts and wage freezes have become accepted means to increase corporate profits. Workers are simply resources to be exploited.
As David Cooper reports for the Economic Policy Institute in “Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Millions out of Poverty and Provide a Modest Economic Boost,” “It is important to also recognize that today’s minimum wage has not fallen to exceptional lows out of economic necessity. Over the past 45 years, the U.S. economy has vastly expanded, and productivity (our ability to produce goods and services for the same amount of work) has more than doubled.”
He also debunks the belief low wage jobs are held by teenagers with no need for an income. He writes: “This is patently false: The workers who would be affected by increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 earn, on average, 50 percent of their family’s total income.”
In an article on the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, introduced by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, Jared Bernstein and Sharon Parrot of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reinforce these findings: “ . . . the vast majority of those who would benefit are adults, most are women, and their families depend on their paychecks . . . . This reflects the fact that the low-wage workforce has gotten older and more highly educated in recent decades . . .”
In fact, as Jim Hightower notes in an article about college teachers last week, “The sorry secret of higher education -- from community colleges to brand-name universities -- is that they've embraced the corporate culture of a contingent workforce, turning professors into part-time, low-paid, no-benefit, no-tenure, temporary teachers.”
The real reason for low wages and temporary jobs is to exponentially increase profit for a few, not add value to products and services. If Americans truly value the dignity of work, we will demand all workers are paid fairly for their labor.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Monday, February 3, 2014
Can the House move beyond horsefeathers?
Last weekend, my husband mentioned the cold weather was making him hungry for duck soup, something we’ve been anticipating since we carved up a duck for Christmas dinner.
“Now why does that always make me think of the Marx brothers?” I asked.
“You know they made a movie with that title,” he said. “It includes the song ‘Whatever it is, I’m Against It.’”
I shook my head, noting I could remember seeing Groucho perform the number he described. “Are you sure it was in Duck Soup?”
Sure enough, after searching online, he found the song in the 1932 movie “Horse Feathers.” Groucho Marx plays Quincy Adams Wagstaff, the new president of Huxley College. In the opening number, Wagstaff and other college professors sing and dance in full academic robes and mortarboards:
I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is
Or who commenced it
I'm against it!
Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it
Or condensed it
I'm against it. . .
As my husband played the clip for me, we heard our 13-year-old daughter stirring in the next room. “What is that?” she asked. “It sounds just like the Republicans!”
She’d read my mind.
For the last five years, I’ve been continually amazed at the recalcitrance of congressional conservatives, and House Republicans more specifically. No matter the proposal, if it is supported by President Obama, they oppose it. Even policies based upon conservative blueprints, like the Affordable Care Act which was originally conceived by The Heritage Foundation, have been vigorously attacked.
Last June, when Edward Snowden leaked information about the activities of the National Security Agency, conservatives blasted the administration for potential violations of citizens’ civil liberties. Yet after 9-11, they enthusiastically supported the Patriot Act in the name of national security, arguing some loss of liberty was necessary. Also last summer, after the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration bill, conservatives in the House refused to take up the bill.
In October, this same group felt it was more important to oppose President Obama than to negotiate and compromise their way to a working budget for our government. Before Christmas, they decided that their absolute (and irrational) loyalty to austerity was more important than extending unemployment benefits for workers seeking jobs and funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program to feed the needy, including many elderly, disabled people and children.
Elected to govern, these folks have decided to stand in the corner and pout instead of conducting themselves with statesmanship and working across differences to develop working policies.
Time to vote them out. I took the first step last Tuesday when I attended my party caucus, wearing my “Democracy isn’t a spectator sport” T-shirt.
You know what? Governing isn’t a spectator sport either. I want my representation in there talking to the opposition and looking for common ground and workable solutions for the common good. Enough with the horsefeathers.
“Now why does that always make me think of the Marx brothers?” I asked.
“You know they made a movie with that title,” he said. “It includes the song ‘Whatever it is, I’m Against It.’”
I shook my head, noting I could remember seeing Groucho perform the number he described. “Are you sure it was in Duck Soup?”
Sure enough, after searching online, he found the song in the 1932 movie “Horse Feathers.” Groucho Marx plays Quincy Adams Wagstaff, the new president of Huxley College. In the opening number, Wagstaff and other college professors sing and dance in full academic robes and mortarboards:
I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is
Or who commenced it
I'm against it!
Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it
Or condensed it
I'm against it. . .
As my husband played the clip for me, we heard our 13-year-old daughter stirring in the next room. “What is that?” she asked. “It sounds just like the Republicans!”
She’d read my mind.
For the last five years, I’ve been continually amazed at the recalcitrance of congressional conservatives, and House Republicans more specifically. No matter the proposal, if it is supported by President Obama, they oppose it. Even policies based upon conservative blueprints, like the Affordable Care Act which was originally conceived by The Heritage Foundation, have been vigorously attacked.
Last June, when Edward Snowden leaked information about the activities of the National Security Agency, conservatives blasted the administration for potential violations of citizens’ civil liberties. Yet after 9-11, they enthusiastically supported the Patriot Act in the name of national security, arguing some loss of liberty was necessary. Also last summer, after the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration bill, conservatives in the House refused to take up the bill.
In October, this same group felt it was more important to oppose President Obama than to negotiate and compromise their way to a working budget for our government. Before Christmas, they decided that their absolute (and irrational) loyalty to austerity was more important than extending unemployment benefits for workers seeking jobs and funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program to feed the needy, including many elderly, disabled people and children.
Elected to govern, these folks have decided to stand in the corner and pout instead of conducting themselves with statesmanship and working across differences to develop working policies.
Time to vote them out. I took the first step last Tuesday when I attended my party caucus, wearing my “Democracy isn’t a spectator sport” T-shirt.
You know what? Governing isn’t a spectator sport either. I want my representation in there talking to the opposition and looking for common ground and workable solutions for the common good. Enough with the horsefeathers.
Gossip much?
My parents weren’t much for gossip or rumors. Mom and Dad might listen to the latest neighborhood news, but they didn’t put much stock in information that wasn’t “straight from the horse’s mouth.” And I don’t remember hearing them repeat anything they heard from others outside our home. I used to think most people were raised that way.
But I’m beginning to wonder because too many good people I know don’t seem to understand they are spreading rumors when they forward chain e-mails or share infographics on Facebook and other electronic media.
Let me give you an example. Thanks to the current national debate on gun control, handy-dandy electronic posters and photos with stories are making the rounds. One that caught my eye used different photos of a young woman paired with a long caption that included the statement of Darrell Scott, father of a Columbine School shooting victim, to a congressional panel.
Although Mr. Scott’s statement is reproduced accurately, the background information and conclusion attached to his words have been altered to politicize his testimony. I easily discovered the inaccuracies and hyperbole via a quick search at www.snopes.com.
Unfortunately, instead of taking a couple of minutes to ferret out the truth, most folks simply hit “Share,” spreading this Internet gossip. Given the power of the father’s words, I think the media manipulators who altered the story have done him a disservice – because the false context overshadows and hijacks his message.
But that’s the point. Public relations/communication companies and political organizations hire people to create and distribute these messages. Through careful word choices, image selection, color, animation and other tactics, they craft these messages to manipulate you.
The goal is to push your emotional buttons so you react strongly without thinking. So not for the last time, I’m going to recommend if you’re not willing to verify the story, don’t pass it on. Because if you do, you are advancing someone else’s agenda – one that may be hidden and malicious. Otherwise, why hide it? Why circulate information anonymously?
I asked that about the last chain e-mail that landed in my inbox. It was a list of symbolic meanings for each of the 13 folds in a ceremonial presentation flag.
After checking it on Snopes and determining most of the e-mail’s contents were harmless (the exception was a rhetorical jab at separation of church and state), I nearly let it go. But then I scrolled to the end to see flashing stripes and rolling stars; the cheap electronic equivalent of a patriotic car magnet. It was just too much for me, so I hit Reply All and sent the Snopes link with a short note.
As one of my Facebook friends noted recently, there are simple ways to verify these items. And he warned if his friends won’t check them, he will do it publicly. Then he signed his post “The Debunking Ba****d.” I swiftly agreed.
So if I’m on one of your e-mail lists or you’ve friended me on Facebook, consider yourself warned.
But I’m beginning to wonder because too many good people I know don’t seem to understand they are spreading rumors when they forward chain e-mails or share infographics on Facebook and other electronic media.
Let me give you an example. Thanks to the current national debate on gun control, handy-dandy electronic posters and photos with stories are making the rounds. One that caught my eye used different photos of a young woman paired with a long caption that included the statement of Darrell Scott, father of a Columbine School shooting victim, to a congressional panel.
Although Mr. Scott’s statement is reproduced accurately, the background information and conclusion attached to his words have been altered to politicize his testimony. I easily discovered the inaccuracies and hyperbole via a quick search at www.snopes.com.
Unfortunately, instead of taking a couple of minutes to ferret out the truth, most folks simply hit “Share,” spreading this Internet gossip. Given the power of the father’s words, I think the media manipulators who altered the story have done him a disservice – because the false context overshadows and hijacks his message.
But that’s the point. Public relations/communication companies and political organizations hire people to create and distribute these messages. Through careful word choices, image selection, color, animation and other tactics, they craft these messages to manipulate you.
The goal is to push your emotional buttons so you react strongly without thinking. So not for the last time, I’m going to recommend if you’re not willing to verify the story, don’t pass it on. Because if you do, you are advancing someone else’s agenda – one that may be hidden and malicious. Otherwise, why hide it? Why circulate information anonymously?
I asked that about the last chain e-mail that landed in my inbox. It was a list of symbolic meanings for each of the 13 folds in a ceremonial presentation flag.
After checking it on Snopes and determining most of the e-mail’s contents were harmless (the exception was a rhetorical jab at separation of church and state), I nearly let it go. But then I scrolled to the end to see flashing stripes and rolling stars; the cheap electronic equivalent of a patriotic car magnet. It was just too much for me, so I hit Reply All and sent the Snopes link with a short note.
As one of my Facebook friends noted recently, there are simple ways to verify these items. And he warned if his friends won’t check them, he will do it publicly. Then he signed his post “The Debunking Ba****d.” I swiftly agreed.
So if I’m on one of your e-mail lists or you’ve friended me on Facebook, consider yourself warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
