FEATURE ARTICLES. RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE; HERE WE GO AGAIN. PT 2.

What is most troubling about this issue, is the simplistic way it is presented to the General Public. Many Americans are forming opinions based on rudimentary, and misleading data. Here are two statements that seem to be perfectly reasonable, yet represent polar opposite positions when discussing raising the MINIMUM WAGE.

1) "Raising it will cost jobs, especially among low skill workers.  

 Businesses who have such a work force will have to lay off

 workers to remain profitable."

2) "Raising the minimum wage will create a need to expand the 

work force.  Families that are now just making it, will have a      

sudden increase in discretionary spending.  Necessities are

more easily met, and luxuries are now within reach."

What do they both have in common?  They are both offering a solution to a problem that cannot be solved so easily.  Further, neither addresses Moral or Ethical implications in either course of action.

In part 1, I cited the most frequent argument, (Repeated above), against raising the minimum wage.  I then offered arguments against such reasoning at the end of pt 1 and above in pt 2.  However, to find a solution that will be satisfactory to both ends of the political spectrum, certain guidelines must be met. This means that all sides must make clear the bottom line: 

- What is the goal of Government Intervention in regulating wages, and whether it should be done at all?

- Should it be applied to both the Public and Private sector?

- Does the Private Sector have any Moral Obligation to its' employees,

apart from the profit margin affecting Stockholders and Investors?

Finally, and an area I consider most important, is the idea that anytime Private Business asks for Tax Breaks or Subsidies to rescue Poor Management, Faulty Judgment or Declining Profits, it be tied in with employee paychecks.  If you want Public Money to save your Private Stock Portfolio, the Public should expect something in return.  This should be a guarantee, not a desire to see them do "The Right Thing."

Look for PT 3.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: A LOOK AT PRESIDENT OBAMAS SPEECH ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE ACTIONS HE IS TAKING TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE. PART 1.

(Some of the following I have covered in other posts. However, I  believe they

are worth repeating, for the Benefit of those who are new readers.)

Let us TRY TO IGNORE THE RHETORIC, SOUND BITES, AND 

OTHER MEANINGLESS CLAPTRAP BEING SPREAD ACROSS

THE AIRWAVES AND THE INTERNET, AND APPROACH THIS WITH 

MATURITY AND RATIONAL THOUGHT, WITH THE IDEA TO DO WHAT 

IS RIGHT AND GOOD FOR THE U.S., THE WORLD, AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.

Question #1-  Do we Agree that there are certain Individuals and/or Groups

that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO FIREARMS. If so, who and why?

Question #2-  Previous Judicial Decisions, and Legislative Actions have set

Limits, as to what ACTIONS ARE PERMISSABLE and COVERED BY THE

BILL OF RIGHTS SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

For Example:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH-  DOES NOT ALLOW US TO SAY ANYTHING 

WE WANT, ANYWHERE WE WANT, AT ANY TIME, AND USE "FREEDOM

OF SPEECH" AS A UNIVERSAL DEFENSE TO AVOID SANCTIONS OR 

PUNISHMENTS.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION-  DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY, PHYSICAL

ABUSE, CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN DRUGS, DISCRIMINATION IN THE

EMPLOYMENT SECTOR....AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE COVERED 

BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

So if we ACCEPT THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE,

BUT ARE SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD,

WHY WOULD THE 2ND AMENDMENT BE EXEMPT?

Question #3-  Given the Stated GOALS AND PROCEDURES SET FORTH BY 

THE PRESIDENT IN HIS SPEECH, TO HELP REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE, WHY

WOULD YOU CONCLUDE THAT:

-  THEY CANNOT BE ACHIEVED, OR WILL NOT

   PRODUCE DESIRABLE RESULTS?

-  THEY PRESENT AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN 

   ON THE LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER?

-  IT PUNISHES HONEST GUN OWNERS , INSTEAD OF

   REINFORCING THE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS THEY

   ALREADY MAKE?

TO BE CONTINUED...

FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD EVIDENCE, BAD EVIDENCE, AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN? PT 2.

Now you may be Thinking Like, "EVIL CONSPIRACIES",
WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSE TO MEAN, AND WHY DO
THEY USE IT AS AN EXPLANATION?"

First, SOMETIMES THE WORD "CONSPIRACY" IS USED TO DESCRIBE THE OPPOSITION, AND AT OTHER TIMES DIFFERENT TERMS ARE USED.

HOWEVER, THEY ARE ALL MEANT TO DEFINE THE SITUATION IN THE SAME WAY:

THAT THOSE WHO OPPOSE, OR DENY, THE CONCLUSIONS MADE BY ONE SIDE;
(THOSE WHO "KNOW THE TRUTH, AND WILL NOT BE SILENCED"), ARE PART OF AN
ORGANIZED PLOT TO DESTROY ALL OPPOSITION. THIS IS MEANT TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC
THAT THEY ARE CRAZY, DELUDED, IRRATIONAL. UNEDUCATED OR DISHONEST. IN THAT WAY,
"THE POWERS THAT BE," CAN KEEP THE "SHEEPLE" IN LINE.

Some other Terms that are used ALONG WITH "CONSPIRACY", OR "POWERS THAT BE" INCLUDE:

"OLD BOYS NETWORK", "SELL-OUTS", "NEW WORLD OLDER", "SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT", 

AND JUST ABOUT ANYTHING THAT MAY INCLUDE WORDS SUCH AS:

-  GOVERNMENT.

-  CORPORATE.

-   POLITICIAN.

-   DOGMATIC.

Those who cry CONSPIRACY are usually doing so because They have no where else to go.  

IT IS A LAST DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO KEEP THEIR BELIEF(S)AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE
TO WELL REASONED, AND PROPERLY ANALYZED DATA PROVIDED BY THE OPPOSITION.

To Them, CRITICAL THINKING AND THE RULES OF LOGIC ARE FINE THINGS,AS LONG AS IT SUITS THEIR PURPOSES.  However, Once They Realize it Cuts Both Ways, and Their Conclusions are Shown to be Derived From Faulty Premises, and EVIDENCE THAT FALLS APART ONCE IT IS PROPERLY EXAMINED AND ANALYZED, THE "LAST STAND" MENTALITY OF "CONSPIRACY" IS TROTTED OUT TO RESCUE THEIR DISCREDITED OPINIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND JUDGMENTS.

LOGIC. IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY." #1.

This is a new category, and will be updated from time to time.

The subject matter will focus on current issues, and how many of those who give opinions and commentary in Public Forums often violate the basic rules of Logic and Critical Thinking.  Often this is done so casually, that it implies a disdain for proper intellectual discourse.

All examples are not meant to be considered true to life, they are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Some of the definitions I will use are my own, others can be found in Textbooks, Websites and Essays that are used to teach Logic and Deductive Reasoning.  If a definition is of my own creation, I will indicate it.

Lets get started.

TOPIC-  Gun control laws.

Reporter- "Senator, results from National Crime Reports indicate that your State, has one of the highest rates of violent crime and murder convictions in the nation. Do you think that your States Gun Laws are responsible for this, and what changes would you support to bring these rates more in line with the national average."

Senator- "My Constituents believe that the Second Amendment is essential to guarantee the Freedom of all Americans.  If we start taking away Guns from law abiding Americans, then only the Criminals will have them."  

This is what I label as a case of:

                                                 MISDIRECTION.

1)  A QUESTION IS ASKED ABOUT A CERTAIN TOPIC. 

                            

2)  THE ANSWER, WHILE STILL ON TOPIC, DOES NOT  

ADDRESS THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE 

QUESTION.

                            

3)  INSTEAD, THE RESPONSE ATTEMPTS TO TURN THE 

CONVERSATION INTO AN AREA OF THE TOPIC NOT 

COVERED BY THE INITIAL QUESTION.

This is a Tactic of many politicians, who want to avoid controversy by not taking a stand that may upset a certain portion of the electorate.

Why do I call it MISDIRECTION?-  Those of you familiar with Stage Magicians know that the success of many illusions relies on getting the audience to pay attention to what one hand is doing, while ignoring the other.  It is this hand that is actually performing the necessary work to make the Trick believable.

MISDIRECTION in the above example, (Gun Control Laws), is an attempt to draw attention away from what is actually asked, and focus it on information that has nothing to do with the question. Since it remains on Topic, the answer is the deception to draw attention away from the initial question, and focus it on unrelated information.