BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 4.

In the End, the IMPLICATIONS OF NOT ALLOWING A SENATE HEARING FOR A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE GOES EVEN DEEPER THAN MANY THINK, BUT ITHINK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS AWARE OF THIS, AND IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES. 

-  THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, (EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL), HAS BEEN USURPED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, IN THE FUTURE IT MAY BE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH REFUSING TO NOMINATE ANYONE AT ALL, UNLESS CERTAIN CONCESSIONS ARE MET.

-  GIVEN THE COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, YOU ARE LEFT WITH A SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTYTO BEHAVE IN THE SAME MANNER, IF THE POSITIONS ARE REVERSED.DO YOU REALLY EXPECT ONE PARTY TO BE FAIR AND OPEN IN THE SELECTION PROCESS, IF THE OTHER IS JUST GOING TO DISCARD IT ANYWAY?  

-  IN ANY CASE, THE FUTURE OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM WILL BE PUSHED TOWARDS TOTAL CHAOS, WITH RANSOMING THE LEGAL SYSTEM A GIFT LEFT TO FUTURE GENERATIONS. NO LONGER WILL THERE BE A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, WITH NEITHER THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE SENATE CONTROLLING THE FATE OF OUR SYSTEMS OF LAW.

-  EVEN IF THE REFUSAL TO HOLD A HEARING IS SOMEHOW ALLOWED TO STAND, BUT A DEMOCRAT WINS THE PRESIDENCY, WE ARE STILL LEFT WITH THE SAME PROBLEM.  THEY WILL HAVE DONE IT ONCE, WITHOUT SANCTION, WHAT IS TO STOP THE REPUBLICANS FROM DOING IT AGAIN?

AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN.

SO THE BIG QUESTION IS: WHY?

Date-  4/27/2016.

BEWARE OF THOSE WHO ATTACK POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, USING IT AS A WEAPON FOR MANIPULATION.

As the Insults, Derogatory Comments, and Pettiness begin to Increase in Fervor, and We are Assaulted by Rhetoric and Bombastic Speeches that are Good For Media Sound Bites, but little else, one thing is sure: ELECTION DAY IS FAST APPROACHING, AND THE DESPERATION OF MANY FACTIONS BECOMES MORE APPARENT.

However, We begin to see find that THERE IS A NEW TACTIC, THAT SUPERFICIALLY, SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE.  YET, IN SOME CASES IS JUST AN EXCUSE TO SLING VICIOUS AND CRUEL CRITICISMS THAT ARE NOT GROUNDED IN REALITY, AND JUSTIFYING SUCH STATEMENTS BY SAYING THAT ANY CRITICISMS ABOUT SUCH SPEECH...

          

 ... IS JUST ANOTHER CASE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

     GONE WILD.

Why such an ACCUSATION WOULD AUTOMATICALLY LET THE SPEAKER OFF THE HOOK IS MYSTIFYING, ESPECIALLY IF THE CRITICISM IS TRUE, AND DOES NOT PORTRAY SUCH SPEECH IN A FALSE LIGHT.

To Be Fair, there are CASES OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS WHO DO EXHIBIT AN EXAGGERATED SENSITIVITY TO SOME INNOCUOUS COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS, BUT EACH CASE MUST BE EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERITS.  JUST LABELING SOMETHING AS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TO AN IRRATIONAL EXTREME, IS NOT, AND SHOULD NOT BE A FREE PASS LETTING THE SPEAKER OFF THE HOOK.

Examples can Include;

Any Commentary that Automatically Groups Entire Classes of Individuals in a NEGATIVE LIGHT, BY ASSERTING THAT EACH MEMBER EXHIBITS THE SAME TYPE OF UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOR.

JUDGMENTS OR CONCLUSIONS THAT ASSUMES FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN 

EVIDENCE.

INFLAMMATORY WORDS OR PHRASES BEING USED TO APPEAL TO THE BASER ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN PSYCHE.

There are others, but this is a good starting point.

FEATURE ARTICLES. RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE; HERE WE GO AGAIN. PT 5.

Since we have seen that claims saying raising the Minimum Wage causes a rise in unemployment to be false, and the positive affects such an increase has in both the public and private sectors is often ignored, what is really at the heart of the opposition?  It may not be what you think.

In fact, it may be a couple of reasons;

-  Raising the Minimum Wage must be done by Government Decree. There are those who OPPOSE ANY GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE ON WAGES, ESPECIALLY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.  This holds true even if you point out how business will benefit, and profits will rise.

( Of course, to them, Government Intervention is good for such things as Tax Breaks, Bail Outs, Tax Free Loans etc.)

Some Billionaires and Multi- Millionaires consider this an acceptable trade- off,

as long as wages are in their control.

- It cuts down on the supply of POVERTY LEVEL LABOR.  Many of those working for the current Minimum Wage, cannot meet the minimal financial levels needed for the basic necessities, ( i.e, Food, Rent, Medical etc.) , even if they work full time. (It is even more of a problem with dependents.)

This often leads to taking a second or third part- time job, which are usually low paying positions similar to their full time employment.  Even when paying low wages, many employers will do just about anything to avoid paying overtime. So this leaves a pool of workers trapped in a cycle of working just to make ends meet.

However, raising the Minimum Wage to levels where poverty isn't the only result, will cut down the need for multiple employers and jobs, and give an opportunity for Individual growth through additional Education and Training.

In other words, a better prepared work force, in terms of the ability to achieve Financial and Professional success.

A SCARY THOUGHT FOR MANY CORPORATIONS.

I would like to end this Article leaving you with the following thought:

NO MATTER WHAT IS SAID PUBLICLY, THERE ARE POLITICIANS, ELECTED OFFICIALS AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO COULD CARE LESS THAT ANY AMERICAN GOES HUNGRY, IS HOMELESS, OR STRUGGLES TO FEED THEIR CHILDREN.  THE SUCCESS OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS DRIVING THEM CRAZY, FOR IT BENEFITS ALL AMERICANS, NOT JUST THE SELF- CENTERED.

Remember this the next time you hear a Candidate speak.

Date-  10/30/2014.

FEATURE ARTICLES. RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE; HERE WE GO AGAIN. PT 3.

Instead of reciting the minimum wage rates of the 50 States in the U.S. as compared to the Federal Minimum, l would like to address a different issue.  Is the decision to raise, maintain or lower the minimum wage an issue of morality for which Government must become involved, and if so, to what degree?

Before we go on, it should be acknowledged that both sides have proponents that push extreme views, apart from mainstream supporters of compromise.

Group #1-  Pay in the private sector should be left entirely to the business owner or operator.  Government has no right or obligation to intervene, that is the free-market system, the foundation of Capitalism.  The Free Market regulates itself.

Group #2-  The Free Market system can only work if there are consumers who are financially capable of purchasing goods and/or services.  By deliberately keeping wages low, the private sector limits the purchasing power of a large part of the population.  This results in less taxes paid, and more reliance on social services to meet basic needs.  Intervention is necessary to prevent the private sector from sabotaging governments ability to provide essential services to both the public and private sectors. 

The heart of the matter is this;  what responsibility does government have, at any level, to those groups or individuals who come under its power to regulate any decisions or policies that may be employed in the market place.  Further, how is that responsibility to be extended to those who are affected by the actions of said groups or individuals.

Basically, it comes down to two competing economic theories, which in the end, are just polar opposites of each other.  All other theories can be found somewhere in the middle, and a solution may be found in adopting the positive aspects of each, and accepting that each has negative qualities to be avoided.

IT IS THE COMPETING CONCEPTS OF A HANDS-ON VS HANDS-OFF ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN REGULATING BUSINESS PRACTICES.

Look for PT 4.

Date-  8/17/2014.