Monday, February 2, 2009
Letter of mine when Obama was still running for Prez
Barack Obama is being accused of using race to help him win the Presidency. Senator Obama is not running as a black candidate or any candidate from any racial/ethnic candidate but a candidate for Americans. Yes, he is strong in the black community but Obama can hardly be faulted for his strong appeal in that community. Frankly, no candidate could be leading a major party in delegates without support from not only black voters but also white, latino voters. Obama has had to undergo a vicious campaign against him. He is not Muslim, and the school he attended in Indonesia had not only Muslims but those of other different religious groups in them. Indeed, Senator Obama also attended a Catholic school, why no rumors that he is secretly a Catholic? Probably because being considered a Catholic isn’t a negative such as being perceived as a Muslim is today. Anyway you can’t fault someone for what school they attended as a small child. What about him not putting his hand on his heart during the National Anthem? During a recent pro basketball game I looked around during the playing of our Anthem and 90% of those who I saw did not put their hand on their heart. They stood, just as Obama did. Should those 90% be disallowed from running for public office? Senator Obama has recited the Pledge of Allegiance with his hand on the heart. But what about Obama being endorsed by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan? Yes and John McCain has been endorsed by John Hagee, a man who has stated that the catholic church is a “Great Whore.” Although Sen. McCain sought out that endorsement to get elected I am sure that he doesn’t agree with the views of Rev. Hagee. You cannot help who endorses you. But doesn’t Obama not wear a flag pin? Well, so do virtually none of those who condemn Obama wear them. A Republican congressman (while being interviewed) from Georgia named Jack Kingston decried Obama for not wearing them. Was Kingston wearing one, he had to admit no. Is Kingston the only conservative not wearing a flag pin? No of course not though some do wear them. But, why aren’t those not wearing them being criticized? Well, they aren’t a threat to be elected to the Presidency, of course. Patriotism isn’t just wearing symbols, though to a certain extent it is part of it, but ideas, support for liberty and democratic values.
Teaching of evolution/Special rights to gays
Letter in response about subject of evolution:
Larry Christian states that the teaching of evolution is teaching of the "religion" of humanism. Some, though just a handful today, of God believers believe the earth is flat. Does teaching that the earth is round constitute the teaching of a religious view because it goes against the religious belief of some that the earth is flat? Now, very few people (including Christians) take that view but if 20% of Americans believed the earth was flat (about the same number of Americans who believe in a 6000 year old earth) would we have to teach the dual "theory" that the earth is flat along with it being round in geography classes? Or do we only teach alternatives dependent if a certain percentage of Americans hold those views? If so, then science because a popularity contest, nothing more. We would not state, if a sizable number of Americans believed the atomic theory of matter went against their religion, that it should not be taught in physics classes. In fact, most people who believe in evolution believe in God. About 1/2 of Americans believe in evolution to a certain extent but only 1/10 of Americans are without a belief in God, so 80% of evolutionary believers in fact, are religious to some extent. Do these religious Americans believe that their belief in evolution is part of their religion or part of their knowledge of science? The fact is, something should be taught in science classes when it has solid evidence behind it. Evolution meets and exceeds that test. There are not only fossils but transitional fossils such as homo habilis and homo erectus. There is the fact that fossils are only found in certain geological strata and not randomly in the geological layers. Creationism or the new buzzterm, Intelligent Design, rests on the idea that something can't be explained (because of its' complexity) without a deity. It leaves unanswered wouldn't a deity be more complex then the answers he supposedly solves and second why when the knowledge of science keeps expanding at such a great rate, we would expect that there is certain knowledge that cannot be answered without a deity? After all, we find the idea of Thor hurling lightning bolts laughable in our modern day. Lastly, a scientific theory is not a guess by the way, but a set of principles built on observations. Creationism or ID fails that test.
Gays and evolution redux
Joel. Hendon writes that the American people disagree with “granting special rights to homosexuals.” What special rights? Heterosexuals can marry the people they love, gays can’t. Laws on discrimination and hate crimes cover religion, race, sex but not sexual orientation. If homosexuality is a choice, isn’t religion and should they be covered by these laws? Finally Mr. Hendon makes a statement about “teaching an unproven theory in our schools and calling it scientific fact.” Obviously he means evolution. First a scientific theory isn’t a guess or a hunch. What is meant in the general public as a theory would be a hypothesis in science. A theory in science means a set of principles that described observed events, finds or data. Evolution is a fact and a theory. For example, if evolution wasn’t true then the fossil record would be scattered wildly in the fossil records with homo sapien bones with dinosaurs or mammoths with early reptiles. This doesn’t happen. That evolution has happened, which I would say conservatively 99% of those who make their living in this field would agree, is a fact. The exact mechanism or model of how it happened, is the part that deals with theory. Again, a scientific theory isn’t the same as a theory in the general sense. Strangely, no one ever criticizes Relativity or electro-magnetic theory because they are just “theories.”
Larry Christian states that the teaching of evolution is teaching of the "religion" of humanism. Some, though just a handful today, of God believers believe the earth is flat. Does teaching that the earth is round constitute the teaching of a religious view because it goes against the religious belief of some that the earth is flat? Now, very few people (including Christians) take that view but if 20% of Americans believed the earth was flat (about the same number of Americans who believe in a 6000 year old earth) would we have to teach the dual "theory" that the earth is flat along with it being round in geography classes? Or do we only teach alternatives dependent if a certain percentage of Americans hold those views? If so, then science because a popularity contest, nothing more. We would not state, if a sizable number of Americans believed the atomic theory of matter went against their religion, that it should not be taught in physics classes. In fact, most people who believe in evolution believe in God. About 1/2 of Americans believe in evolution to a certain extent but only 1/10 of Americans are without a belief in God, so 80% of evolutionary believers in fact, are religious to some extent. Do these religious Americans believe that their belief in evolution is part of their religion or part of their knowledge of science? The fact is, something should be taught in science classes when it has solid evidence behind it. Evolution meets and exceeds that test. There are not only fossils but transitional fossils such as homo habilis and homo erectus. There is the fact that fossils are only found in certain geological strata and not randomly in the geological layers. Creationism or the new buzzterm, Intelligent Design, rests on the idea that something can't be explained (because of its' complexity) without a deity. It leaves unanswered wouldn't a deity be more complex then the answers he supposedly solves and second why when the knowledge of science keeps expanding at such a great rate, we would expect that there is certain knowledge that cannot be answered without a deity? After all, we find the idea of Thor hurling lightning bolts laughable in our modern day. Lastly, a scientific theory is not a guess by the way, but a set of principles built on observations. Creationism or ID fails that test.
Gays and evolution redux
Joel. Hendon writes that the American people disagree with “granting special rights to homosexuals.” What special rights? Heterosexuals can marry the people they love, gays can’t. Laws on discrimination and hate crimes cover religion, race, sex but not sexual orientation. If homosexuality is a choice, isn’t religion and should they be covered by these laws? Finally Mr. Hendon makes a statement about “teaching an unproven theory in our schools and calling it scientific fact.” Obviously he means evolution. First a scientific theory isn’t a guess or a hunch. What is meant in the general public as a theory would be a hypothesis in science. A theory in science means a set of principles that described observed events, finds or data. Evolution is a fact and a theory. For example, if evolution wasn’t true then the fossil record would be scattered wildly in the fossil records with homo sapien bones with dinosaurs or mammoths with early reptiles. This doesn’t happen. That evolution has happened, which I would say conservatively 99% of those who make their living in this field would agree, is a fact. The exact mechanism or model of how it happened, is the part that deals with theory. Again, a scientific theory isn’t the same as a theory in the general sense. Strangely, no one ever criticizes Relativity or electro-magnetic theory because they are just “theories.”
Tradition, good thing?/
Letter of mine on answring about is tradition such a good thing
Letter writer James Wilson makes several claims which aren't true.
He states that the values that makes America great are traditional. Well, at one time they weren't. At one time, the right for women to vote went against tradition. The right for non-property holders to vote went against tradition. The very nature of democracy went against tradition. Tradition of these times opposed all these things as tradition usually does. We are not a nation based on tradition but one based on change, a rejection of the Divine right of kings for example. Mr. Wilson talks about Objective truth. Saying you have objective truth doesn't mean you have objective truth, it just means you think you have it. Saying your values are reflected be a deity doesn't make it so. Muslims say the same, is their religion objective truth? What about that of Hindus? Did Joseph Smith speak objective truth too? Debate in the arena of ideas, do not hide behind religion.
Letter on Romney being a Mormon
Some people are questioning former Massachusetts Governor and current Presidential candidate Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. It doesn’t matter that much to me what his beliefs are but it does matter to the extent that those same religious beliefs might or would impact the policies he would support as President. After all, religious beliefs are beliefs. No person would state that because a candidate is a communist then the fact that they are a communist isn’t relevant to should they be voted into office. If one’s religious belief leads a person to take a stand one way or another on abortion, the death penalty then it becomes relevant. If a candidate is not forthcoming on their positions on these issues but they belong to a church that takes stances on those same issues then it is relevant. On a second topic I wish to mention, Citigroup lost $8 billion in one quarter in 2007 while the CEO of Citigroup received an exit package worth at least $40 million. I thought that CEOs deserved high compensation for the skills and value they bring to companies, as Americans are often told. Maybe we need to outsource CEOs and executives because if an American worker working an assembly line making $12 cannot compete in the global marketplace neither can nor should CEOs who make $40 million and lose $8 billion in a quarter. Somehow I don’t think this will come to pass. Lastly, why do Americans buy tennis shoes from companies like Nike that charge $100 for many of their shoes while paying their workers less then $1 an hour in working conditions that haven’t existed in this country since the 19th century. If these conditions and wages are intolerable for American workers (as they should be) then why do we allow products made under these same horrible conditions into the US? Would you want your 12 year old daughter,, grandson or niece working in a sweatshop? No, so why do we tolerate it if the 12 year old is from Malaysia?
Letter writer James Wilson makes several claims which aren't true.
He states that the values that makes America great are traditional. Well, at one time they weren't. At one time, the right for women to vote went against tradition. The right for non-property holders to vote went against tradition. The very nature of democracy went against tradition. Tradition of these times opposed all these things as tradition usually does. We are not a nation based on tradition but one based on change, a rejection of the Divine right of kings for example. Mr. Wilson talks about Objective truth. Saying you have objective truth doesn't mean you have objective truth, it just means you think you have it. Saying your values are reflected be a deity doesn't make it so. Muslims say the same, is their religion objective truth? What about that of Hindus? Did Joseph Smith speak objective truth too? Debate in the arena of ideas, do not hide behind religion.
Letter on Romney being a Mormon
Some people are questioning former Massachusetts Governor and current Presidential candidate Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. It doesn’t matter that much to me what his beliefs are but it does matter to the extent that those same religious beliefs might or would impact the policies he would support as President. After all, religious beliefs are beliefs. No person would state that because a candidate is a communist then the fact that they are a communist isn’t relevant to should they be voted into office. If one’s religious belief leads a person to take a stand one way or another on abortion, the death penalty then it becomes relevant. If a candidate is not forthcoming on their positions on these issues but they belong to a church that takes stances on those same issues then it is relevant. On a second topic I wish to mention, Citigroup lost $8 billion in one quarter in 2007 while the CEO of Citigroup received an exit package worth at least $40 million. I thought that CEOs deserved high compensation for the skills and value they bring to companies, as Americans are often told. Maybe we need to outsource CEOs and executives because if an American worker working an assembly line making $12 cannot compete in the global marketplace neither can nor should CEOs who make $40 million and lose $8 billion in a quarter. Somehow I don’t think this will come to pass. Lastly, why do Americans buy tennis shoes from companies like Nike that charge $100 for many of their shoes while paying their workers less then $1 an hour in working conditions that haven’t existed in this country since the 19th century. If these conditions and wages are intolerable for American workers (as they should be) then why do we allow products made under these same horrible conditions into the US? Would you want your 12 year old daughter,, grandson or niece working in a sweatshop? No, so why do we tolerate it if the 12 year old is from Malaysia?
Prayer in School/
I hear that the Supreme Court has disallowed prayer in school. All that ended, was organized prayer as led by a teacher, principal or directed by the school. The problem before the Court rulings dealing with organized prayer in schools was that students were required or pressured to participate in prayer not of their religion, if they had a religion. No government or school board committee has the right to teach a certain religious view that the parents of those students might disagree with. Those that advocate organized prayer back in public schools state students wouldn’t be forced to pray but ironically it was some of those condemned church/state court decisions from the 1940s through 1960s that dealt with children forced to pray or pressured to pray by teachers and the school. While the phrase “separation of church and state” does not in fact appear in our Constitution it was not penned though by judges as some believe, though it was referenced by judges in later court cases. It was in a letter written by President Jefferson, after consultation with advisers, on the ideal that government and religion should have separation between them. Now, President Jefferson was not a signer to the Constitutional Convention but James Madison not only was but is considered to be the Father of the Constitution and wrote very similar sentiments. Mr. Madison wrote in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822, “Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.” In an 1819 letter to Gene Garman, “The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of Church and State.” As a nonbeliever, like most nonbelievers, I am not offended by people praying in public buildings. I just don’t want the government organizing prayer or religious exercises. That is all. I am not miserable because I don’t believe in God or life after death. Other people have those beliefs and that is fine. Atheists are not unhappy and wretched with misery. I heard a Christian state once why do nonbelievers believe in atoms but not God when they cannot see neither. Well, an atom is observed scientifically through various experiments that have been repeated many, many numerous times. There is conclusive scientific evidence that atoms do exist. If they did not, then nuclear energy or nuclear bombs would not work at all let alone other advanced technology. That a God is necessary for the universe leaves God unexplained and while I understand Christians say God doesn’t need a cause that just isn’t a sufficient explanation for nonbelievers. Why the universe needs a cause but a cause we can’t observe doesn’t need a cause doesn’t make sense to me. An explanation that God is immaterial doesn’t make.
Self styled expert on atheists, who knows nothing about the topic-nothing new
After reading Joel Hendon’s letter, I am of the impression that he knows less about atheists and atheism then I do about quantum mechanics. At least he didn’t say atheists worship Satan. Atheists do not fear the moral and ethical rules of the bible. Some they agree with. Rules against stealing and murder make sense because they are based on not harming others. Atheists are not rejecting the bible as true because they are afraid to follow those rules but because they simply have no more belief in the bible then Mr. Hendon has in the Qaran. Does Mr. Hendon reject the Qaran because he is afraid of following the moral and ethical rules of Allah? How about those of Hinduism? I doubt it. In fact atheists according to at least one survey by the Federal Bureau of Prisons are less represented in prisons then they are in the general population. If atheists fear the “tough” rules of the bible, then why aren’t they out committing crimes? The bible can give a moral sense but so can non religious sources. Atheists don’t believe in “nothing” but have an ethical system whose precepts are built on reason and empathy and not faith. Anyway the laws/rules of the Christian deity or any other God can’t be based on him because if they are they are either his whims or are above him. If the latter then logic/reasoning can find those same moral rules. I do not fear the bible Mr. Hendon. I do not believe it is true and I do not believe it is the foundation of a moral sense. But unlike you I do not give false motives to people who don’t believe like me.
Self styled expert on atheists, who knows nothing about the topic-nothing new
After reading Joel Hendon’s letter, I am of the impression that he knows less about atheists and atheism then I do about quantum mechanics. At least he didn’t say atheists worship Satan. Atheists do not fear the moral and ethical rules of the bible. Some they agree with. Rules against stealing and murder make sense because they are based on not harming others. Atheists are not rejecting the bible as true because they are afraid to follow those rules but because they simply have no more belief in the bible then Mr. Hendon has in the Qaran. Does Mr. Hendon reject the Qaran because he is afraid of following the moral and ethical rules of Allah? How about those of Hinduism? I doubt it. In fact atheists according to at least one survey by the Federal Bureau of Prisons are less represented in prisons then they are in the general population. If atheists fear the “tough” rules of the bible, then why aren’t they out committing crimes? The bible can give a moral sense but so can non religious sources. Atheists don’t believe in “nothing” but have an ethical system whose precepts are built on reason and empathy and not faith. Anyway the laws/rules of the Christian deity or any other God can’t be based on him because if they are they are either his whims or are above him. If the latter then logic/reasoning can find those same moral rules. I do not fear the bible Mr. Hendon. I do not believe it is true and I do not believe it is the foundation of a moral sense. But unlike you I do not give false motives to people who don’t believe like me.
Treason and absolute Truth
Politically incorrect to call others traitors:
Mr. Hyatt said he isn’t calling Democrat leaders and politicians traitors but he goes on to basically do just that. He said Harry Reid, Murtha, etc would have been hanged in 1944 or 1951. How about 1999? That was the year that almost 2/3 of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to cut off funding for the Bosnian war. So, should these gentlemen and gentlewomen have been strung up too or was it ok because they were opposing a war supported by a President who was a democrat? Now, I don’t believe these individuals should have been executed. They opposed a war that they believed was wrong and they should have opposed it, including cutting off funding since they believed it was wrong. Should Mark Twain have been executed for opposing the Spanish American War? Mr. Hyatt is not politically incorrect as he probably imagines himself to be. He is just wrong and if he does not support the same harsh treatment to republicans who opposed and voted against the Bosnian war as those democrats who oppose the current war, then he is also guilty of hypocrisy. I do not oppose the Iraq war but I oppose this idea that equates disagreements and dissent with a war as treason. Now, if the term politically incorrect has any real logical meaning then it would be the idea that taking unpopular positions while there are calls of treason and even hanging for taking them. So, I guess the democrats who have oppose the Iraq War are kind of politically incorrect then.
Absolute Truth:
Many Christians believe in absolute truth, and usually they believe their religion is the truth. I doubt Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos or a host of other religions believe that Christanity nor any other religion that is not theirs is “the truth” but believe that they have “the truth.” As an atheist I believe that is an absolute reality to the universe and that in all likelihood it is purely natural in nature. I believe based on various scientific evidence. Some ask how is it possible for someone to know the difference between right and wrong without a reference point beyond themselves. Well, atheists and even many humanist theists (including Christians) base moral principles on harm. That something is moral or not depends on limiting harm and actions further human happiness. For example the bombing of Hiroshima by an atomic bomb was moral because it saved many more lives then would have happened with an invasion of Japan. But what of the idea that whatever a God says is moral, makes that action or concept, moral? Ok, where did that deity get his moral sense? Is it based on ultimate reasoning ability because he is all wise and intelligent? If so, then such a deity comes to those moral rules/principles/sense that exist outside of himself. These rules are discovered then. So, even if a God exists or doesn’t exist then moral rules/principles are a matter of using reasoning to acquire them. Our rights aren’t based on a creator. Rights are a product of a desire/yearning for happiness and liberty and not to be harmed. Another question is, is Christianity a motivating factor behind most reform in US history? I do not discount that many Christians have done wonderful work in terms of making the nation a better place but humanists or the term more in vogue in the 19th century, freethinkers, accomplished and helped accomplish much reform. Susan. B Anthony, Cady Stanton were not Christians and at best were vague agnostics on the question of religion but they helped start the Women’s suffrage movement. Many of those who supported the Revolutionary War were non-Christians such as Thomas Paine or Ethan Allen. Indeed, it is amazing what non-theists (atheists, agnostics, humanists, deists, freethinkers, etc) have helped accomplish in terms of reform in America while being a relative small minority. Atheists don’t want to impose themselves on Christians. No atheist favors the government making a statement in the Pledge of Allegiance or on coins that a God doesn’t exist. Atheists don’t urge for organized readings of the works of Robert Ingersoll at public schools football games. That atheists are perceived as a threat to the freedoms and rights of Christians is a simply not true anymore then rank and file Christians are a threat to the rights of atheists or other non-religious Americans.
Mr. Hyatt said he isn’t calling Democrat leaders and politicians traitors but he goes on to basically do just that. He said Harry Reid, Murtha, etc would have been hanged in 1944 or 1951. How about 1999? That was the year that almost 2/3 of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to cut off funding for the Bosnian war. So, should these gentlemen and gentlewomen have been strung up too or was it ok because they were opposing a war supported by a President who was a democrat? Now, I don’t believe these individuals should have been executed. They opposed a war that they believed was wrong and they should have opposed it, including cutting off funding since they believed it was wrong. Should Mark Twain have been executed for opposing the Spanish American War? Mr. Hyatt is not politically incorrect as he probably imagines himself to be. He is just wrong and if he does not support the same harsh treatment to republicans who opposed and voted against the Bosnian war as those democrats who oppose the current war, then he is also guilty of hypocrisy. I do not oppose the Iraq war but I oppose this idea that equates disagreements and dissent with a war as treason. Now, if the term politically incorrect has any real logical meaning then it would be the idea that taking unpopular positions while there are calls of treason and even hanging for taking them. So, I guess the democrats who have oppose the Iraq War are kind of politically incorrect then.
Absolute Truth:
Many Christians believe in absolute truth, and usually they believe their religion is the truth. I doubt Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos or a host of other religions believe that Christanity nor any other religion that is not theirs is “the truth” but believe that they have “the truth.” As an atheist I believe that is an absolute reality to the universe and that in all likelihood it is purely natural in nature. I believe based on various scientific evidence. Some ask how is it possible for someone to know the difference between right and wrong without a reference point beyond themselves. Well, atheists and even many humanist theists (including Christians) base moral principles on harm. That something is moral or not depends on limiting harm and actions further human happiness. For example the bombing of Hiroshima by an atomic bomb was moral because it saved many more lives then would have happened with an invasion of Japan. But what of the idea that whatever a God says is moral, makes that action or concept, moral? Ok, where did that deity get his moral sense? Is it based on ultimate reasoning ability because he is all wise and intelligent? If so, then such a deity comes to those moral rules/principles/sense that exist outside of himself. These rules are discovered then. So, even if a God exists or doesn’t exist then moral rules/principles are a matter of using reasoning to acquire them. Our rights aren’t based on a creator. Rights are a product of a desire/yearning for happiness and liberty and not to be harmed. Another question is, is Christianity a motivating factor behind most reform in US history? I do not discount that many Christians have done wonderful work in terms of making the nation a better place but humanists or the term more in vogue in the 19th century, freethinkers, accomplished and helped accomplish much reform. Susan. B Anthony, Cady Stanton were not Christians and at best were vague agnostics on the question of religion but they helped start the Women’s suffrage movement. Many of those who supported the Revolutionary War were non-Christians such as Thomas Paine or Ethan Allen. Indeed, it is amazing what non-theists (atheists, agnostics, humanists, deists, freethinkers, etc) have helped accomplish in terms of reform in America while being a relative small minority. Atheists don’t want to impose themselves on Christians. No atheist favors the government making a statement in the Pledge of Allegiance or on coins that a God doesn’t exist. Atheists don’t urge for organized readings of the works of Robert Ingersoll at public schools football games. That atheists are perceived as a threat to the freedoms and rights of Christians is a simply not true anymore then rank and file Christians are a threat to the rights of atheists or other non-religious Americans.
40 hour workweek/Lost of manufacturing base
Letter about George Will and opposition to shorter workweek
George Will decries the 35 hour workweek in France in a recent column. The 40 hour workweek was created in the U.S. almost 70 years ago in 1938. In that time productivity per worker has far more then doubled, but the workweek still stands at 40 hours. While I do not want nor advocate for the labor laws of France, they are too burdensome, we should reward the hard workers in the U.S. who helped the U.S. economy to become so efficient. What is needed a workweek of 32-35 hours to be factored in over the next five or so years. Maybe more, maybe less. We do need to compete in a global economy but not a global economy that is out of the 19th century. Indeed we need to take action to pressure and urge other nations to raise their standards on labor, workplace and environmental rights and not lower ours to oppressive dictatorships such as China.
Lost of Manufacturing Jobs
More then 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1998, with probably over half of these directly tied to our manufacturing trade deficit in that period. Not only manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization, but 500,000 or so professional services and information sector jobs, such a tech support operator in India, have also been lost. Forrester Research inc. predicts US employers will move 3.4 million white-collar jobs and $136 billion (with a B) in wages (from those jobs) overseas by 2015. A study reports 14 million jobs are at risk of being sent offshore. Garner, Inc estimates 10% of computer services and software jobs will be moved overseas by the end of 2007. A survey by Deloitte Research found the world’s 100 largest financial service firms espect to shift $356 billion worth of operations and about tow million jobs to low wage nations over the next five years. The fact is, trade isn’t good for the average American. Yes, it will reduce the price of that shirt or that DVD player, but at what cost? The fact is, even with lower priced goods wages in the last 30 years haven’t kept pace with inflation and through much of that period the sending of jobs overseas has greatly expanded. Indeed an economic assessment is that increased trade has decreased wages by 6% of the 2/3 of Americans without a college degree. Does anyone save 6% of their income (over $1500) in Wal-mart or any other store that sells cheap imported goods? I doubt it. A study by the Economic Policy Institute reports wages in industries where jobs are being created as on average, 21% lower then wages in those industries where jobs are disappearing. In addition expanding industries are less likely to offer workers health insurance then those cutting jobs. This doesn’t just affect workers but everyone in a given community. When the collective wages of towns, cities, counties and even states along with the nation as a whole it increases the burden on local government services. Simply, our nation’s trade policies must and have to change. No longer should they be written for and by big business/corporate interests to no loyalty to America and their lackeys. Indeed, trade agreements like NAFTA allow corporate interests to sue states and local governments for regulation of products that are dangerous or harmful to the environment. Simply we are not in the year 2007 anymore, we are in the year 1877 when workers had no rights and whatever a powerful interest wanted, they got. Really, is this what Americans want, for the price of a $3 t-shirt?
George Will decries the 35 hour workweek in France in a recent column. The 40 hour workweek was created in the U.S. almost 70 years ago in 1938. In that time productivity per worker has far more then doubled, but the workweek still stands at 40 hours. While I do not want nor advocate for the labor laws of France, they are too burdensome, we should reward the hard workers in the U.S. who helped the U.S. economy to become so efficient. What is needed a workweek of 32-35 hours to be factored in over the next five or so years. Maybe more, maybe less. We do need to compete in a global economy but not a global economy that is out of the 19th century. Indeed we need to take action to pressure and urge other nations to raise their standards on labor, workplace and environmental rights and not lower ours to oppressive dictatorships such as China.
Lost of Manufacturing Jobs
More then 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1998, with probably over half of these directly tied to our manufacturing trade deficit in that period. Not only manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization, but 500,000 or so professional services and information sector jobs, such a tech support operator in India, have also been lost. Forrester Research inc. predicts US employers will move 3.4 million white-collar jobs and $136 billion (with a B) in wages (from those jobs) overseas by 2015. A study reports 14 million jobs are at risk of being sent offshore. Garner, Inc estimates 10% of computer services and software jobs will be moved overseas by the end of 2007. A survey by Deloitte Research found the world’s 100 largest financial service firms espect to shift $356 billion worth of operations and about tow million jobs to low wage nations over the next five years. The fact is, trade isn’t good for the average American. Yes, it will reduce the price of that shirt or that DVD player, but at what cost? The fact is, even with lower priced goods wages in the last 30 years haven’t kept pace with inflation and through much of that period the sending of jobs overseas has greatly expanded. Indeed an economic assessment is that increased trade has decreased wages by 6% of the 2/3 of Americans without a college degree. Does anyone save 6% of their income (over $1500) in Wal-mart or any other store that sells cheap imported goods? I doubt it. A study by the Economic Policy Institute reports wages in industries where jobs are being created as on average, 21% lower then wages in those industries where jobs are disappearing. In addition expanding industries are less likely to offer workers health insurance then those cutting jobs. This doesn’t just affect workers but everyone in a given community. When the collective wages of towns, cities, counties and even states along with the nation as a whole it increases the burden on local government services. Simply, our nation’s trade policies must and have to change. No longer should they be written for and by big business/corporate interests to no loyalty to America and their lackeys. Indeed, trade agreements like NAFTA allow corporate interests to sue states and local governments for regulation of products that are dangerous or harmful to the environment. Simply we are not in the year 2007 anymore, we are in the year 1877 when workers had no rights and whatever a powerful interest wanted, they got. Really, is this what Americans want, for the price of a $3 t-shirt?
Christian Nation/atheists truly believe in God deep down? Of course not
I hear Christians state “In God We Trust” is in our national motto and we adopted it because Christian men and women founded this nation, along with Christian principles. This, is a gross oversimplification. There is not one right in our Bill of Rights that is found in the bible. No right against unlawful searches, no freedom of speech and definitely no free exercise of religion. Indeed, the bible gives harsh punishment for those who don’t worship the “right deity.” We are a nation founded upon the ideals of the Enlightenment by children of the Enlightenment such as Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ethan Allen and others who often were not Christian but deist, although there were certainly Christians among the Founders. Indeed, Ethan Allen who did not share one doctrinal belief of Christianity led Americans to one of their early victories in the capture of Fort Ticonderoga. The treaty of Tripoli, approved without dissent in the US Senate under the first Adams administration stated the United States government wasn’t “founded in any way upon the Christian religion.” Yes, we are majority Christian but our government and its’ principles are secular.
Atheists believe in God?
I hear some people state that atheists truly believe in God, deep down. . As an atheist I never understood this. Atheists don’t doubt there are sincere people who believe in God. Of course there are, their statements and actions support that such a belief actually exists. After all no one doubts Muslims believe in Allah, and capitalists believe in capitalism. But atheists are all liars or deceiving themselves. Go figure. Atheists don’t take action against church/state issues because they want attention, the vast majority of atheists will never file such a lawsuit in their lives though they may support them, but because they believe that the government shouldn’t’ support or endorse religion. Atheists as a rule along with many theists believe in neutrality. Government shouldn’t support the idea that a God exists or not, let the marketplace of ideas debate the idea out. Now, to the point by Mr. Wiggins that we need religion to be taught in schools so that we can curb the rate of crime; a 1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons showed .209% of inmates identifying as atheists, or 156 out of 74, 341. Even if we include those who might have identified themselves as agnostics or humanists it is doubtful if that number reaches more then 1% total, if that. While non-believers are only a minority of Americans that is still a tiny fraction of their population in the general population. The fact is that we are the most religious of the developed Western democracies. More so then Germany, Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland and even Spain and Italy. All of those nations have higher rates of atheism and non-belief then the U.S. but all conversely have lower rates of violent crime per capita as compared to us. So, it is not as simple as teaching religion in public schools that will make crime and immoral behavior disappear or decrease. I do not believe religion is a cause of crime among individuals but that larger social-economic problems overwhelm certain communities in America which create such negative consequences. Children need good fathers as role models, especially boys. Gangs are an unfortunate and depressing alternative that children often turn to instead. Teaching moral principles are a good thing and I do not oppose such actions in public schools but morality doesn’t need an appeal to a religious authority or a deity. Morality is universal. Even if a God exists then morality would still be dependent on not harming one’s fellow man or woman. This is what we should and must teach in public schools that must serve all Americans, believers and non-believers.
Atheists believe in God?
I hear some people state that atheists truly believe in God, deep down. . As an atheist I never understood this. Atheists don’t doubt there are sincere people who believe in God. Of course there are, their statements and actions support that such a belief actually exists. After all no one doubts Muslims believe in Allah, and capitalists believe in capitalism. But atheists are all liars or deceiving themselves. Go figure. Atheists don’t take action against church/state issues because they want attention, the vast majority of atheists will never file such a lawsuit in their lives though they may support them, but because they believe that the government shouldn’t’ support or endorse religion. Atheists as a rule along with many theists believe in neutrality. Government shouldn’t support the idea that a God exists or not, let the marketplace of ideas debate the idea out. Now, to the point by Mr. Wiggins that we need religion to be taught in schools so that we can curb the rate of crime; a 1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons showed .209% of inmates identifying as atheists, or 156 out of 74, 341. Even if we include those who might have identified themselves as agnostics or humanists it is doubtful if that number reaches more then 1% total, if that. While non-believers are only a minority of Americans that is still a tiny fraction of their population in the general population. The fact is that we are the most religious of the developed Western democracies. More so then Germany, Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland and even Spain and Italy. All of those nations have higher rates of atheism and non-belief then the U.S. but all conversely have lower rates of violent crime per capita as compared to us. So, it is not as simple as teaching religion in public schools that will make crime and immoral behavior disappear or decrease. I do not believe religion is a cause of crime among individuals but that larger social-economic problems overwhelm certain communities in America which create such negative consequences. Children need good fathers as role models, especially boys. Gangs are an unfortunate and depressing alternative that children often turn to instead. Teaching moral principles are a good thing and I do not oppose such actions in public schools but morality doesn’t need an appeal to a religious authority or a deity. Morality is universal. Even if a God exists then morality would still be dependent on not harming one’s fellow man or woman. This is what we should and must teach in public schools that must serve all Americans, believers and non-believers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)