Friday, February 24, 2012

Child Abuse

There are two things that really piss me off - child abuse and domestic abuse. The former more so, because while it may be difficult, an abused adult ultimately does have the freedom to walk away from their abuser. A child does not. Ultimately, according to law, a child's entire life (through childhood) is to be decided by adults who, try as they might, can never fully comprehend what the child is going through. Often, adults really don't give a rat's ass, either. They automatically tend to assume the kid is wrong.

If you watch the show "Cops" enough, you will see what I'm talking about. Every time there's a call about a parent with an unruly kid, the cop, in my experience, has always sided with the parent without even hearing the kid's side, especially if the parent in question is the mother. Yes, the kid does have a side. I'm not saying the kid is always right, but it is worth hearing.

Yes, I'm a little bitter on the subject of child abuse. I've been abused myself... physically, emotionally, and because the previous two made me an easy target for it, sexually. During the time I was abused, I spent much of my time bordering on suicidal. Yes, I was a cutter... and for the armchair psychologists out there, I was not doing it for attention. I actually generally wore long sleeves to hide that I was doing it. The pain was a distraction, I think it may have momentarily satisfied my self-destructive impulses.

If you see child abuse happening, intervene! You may be saving a life. You may be threatened for it (I was threatened with a weapon once when I did), but you'll sleep better with a clean conscience for it. At least call the police and make sure they follow through... in said instance, it was like pulling teeth to get the police to do a welfare check on the kid afterward.

The inspiration for this rant is this:

One thing that kind of sticks with me is the people who witnessed this didn't realize that they were witnessing a murder. It also said something about concerned citizens having called the sheriff. The sheriff's department either was called too late, or they didn't think it was important. I have to wonder what might have happened if the sheriff's department did respond more quickly, or maybe if one of the "concerned citizens" stopped her and asked her what was going on. She may still be alive, and the stepmother and grandmother would be up on child abuse charges instead of murder.

This also hits close to home, as it sounds like something an ex of mine might have done, had we had a kid. They said something about a bladder problem being the reason this kid wasn't allowed to have chocolate. If you didn't read the article, the punishment of being made to run for three hours was because she lied about eating a candy bar a friend had given her. There was no evidence found of a bladder condition, so my speculation leads me to believe this was more about weight and vanity. I have seen mothers forcing that obsession on their kids. I even remember in elementary school, one classmate who said her mother would smell her breath for sugar every day and spank her if she smelled sugar... which was every day.

The father really should have stepped things up and stuck to his guns in getting divorced from that woman. He said that she was bi-polar and a drinker, but he still apparently trusted her with his daughter for some reason. It's one thing if you don't pull yourself out of an abusive relationship, but it's another if you have a kid in one. Having a kid means extra responsibility... so if you can't get out of the relationship for yourself, do it for your kid!

Friday, February 17, 2012

Update on the Lunch Police Thing

So, it seems there are going to be more than a few people that are going to be rather red-faced about this whole thing. For my own part, I do try to bring reliable information, but as mentioned in yesterday's post, this becomes difficult when people are so fired up about one issue. Turns out that this was stupidity on the teacher's part:


I believe I did mention the possibility that this was a miscommunication. And understandably, people expect teachers to be knowledgeable. But after all, keep in mind that this is all second-hand information from a four year old, and like I said in my previous post on this issue, one can't expect a four year old to draw fine distinctions. From her point of view, it may as well have been the schoolyard bully taking her lunch. And her point of view is right.

But it turns out that all that should have been done is that the kid was offered some milk. While the cheese on her sandwich realistically does amount to dairy, I'm not sure how much dairy it amounts to... or it simply could have been forgotten. Good ol' cheese is easy to forget about on a sandwich.

Still not sure how comfortable I am with the fact that home-brought lunches are being inspected. Like I said yesterday, if a parent cares enough to pack a lunch, they usually care enough to make an effort toward nutrition.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Vaccines and Autism

There is at present, as many know, a growing movement opposing vaccination, saying that it causes autism. The suspicions may seem well-founded, as many parents with autistic children first noticed symptoms after a round of vaccinations. Dig a little deeper, and you find that in most vaccines, a mercury derivative called thimerosal is used as a preservative. Thimerosal does have some well-established antibacterial and antifungal properties, but the mercury it's derived from also has its own very well-known neurotoxicity. Logic does suggest that autism could easily be linked to a neurotoxin such as mercury, especially in the more sensitive bodies of infants.

Sharing a bit of medical knowledge here, it is crucial that such preservatives be added to multi-dose vials of parenteral (injectable) medications. Such things must be kept sterile, as the body simply does not have built-in defenses against things being injected directly into the blood or muscle. From a financial standpoint, the multi-dose vials are preferred because as anyone who goes to Costco or Sam's Club knows, you save when you buy in bulk. In this case, the savings is most obvious on the packaging. This of course makes it the preference of the insurance companies who pay the healthcare fees, the healthcare providers who order them, and the patients who receive them and pay the co-pays or the entire cost.

And so, considering that it's been used since the 1930's with minimal if any problems, it just seemed to make sense to keep using thimerosal. Yet we have a seemingly growing number of kids with autism.

Autism itself is a poorly understood disease. For my own part, I suspect there might be a few different diseases under the blanket term of autism. No one seems to know what causes it, and it hits some harder than others. It's upsetting to parents, as their child may never be able to live independently and achieve all those dreams they have for them, and for the children who have it and have some function, it's also upsetting. They have a harder time fitting in, and tend to have sensory issues which may prevent them from enjoying many of the same things their peers enjoy.

The thing is though that the link between vaccines and autism has never been established, and is close to being debunked, thanks in large part to a Danish Study. There are many groups who spend their time and efforts looking for flaws in the study, but it looks fairly straightforward to me. I actually rather wish that autism could be attributed to thimerosal, as then we would know and could solve the problem in short order. But so far, the evidence is stacking up against this mercury derivative in childhood vaccinations being the culprit. That being the case, one could easily make the argument that efforts and funding could be better put to use in finding the real culprit than in beating this dead horse.

It is easy to understand however the concern about any form of mercury in any amount being injected into your infant. And you are not alone in this concern. As it turns out, thimerosal is being phased out of childhood vaccines and is now absent from most, if not all, childhood vaccines. I consider this to be good news. While there is no scientific evidence thus far of the chemical causing problems in the small amounts that it's used, that doesn't mean we won't find the evidence later. If you question this however, by all means talk to your healthcare provider to verify that the vaccine your child is being given doesn't contain thimerosal.

In either case, I would say that getting the vaccinations outweighs the possible risks, unless the possible risks are a known allergy or such like. Thimerosal aside, the way a vaccine works is fairly natural. You've heard the phrase that you can't catch the same cold twice? Well, that's essentially what a vaccine does... except that you can skip that rather inconvenient "getting sick" part.

The first vaccine was created by an English physician by the name of Edward Jenner. The vaccine was against smallpox. He had noticed that milkmaids seemed somehow immune to the smallpox epidemics, and this got him thinking. If you remember your nursery rhymes and the like, I'm sure you remember some that talk glowingly of the beautiful complexions of milkmaids. Consider that this was in contrast to the faces of those who had suffered smallpox, which did leave some ugly scars on the faces of its survivors. Further, it was theorized that the protection of smallpox came from the milkmaids' having to suffer cowpox, a relatively mild disease whose victims typically fully recover. It wasn't hard for Jenner to put two and two together.

In an experiment that would have had him arrested in modern society, and perhaps justifiably so, he infected an eight year old boy with cowpox from a milkmaid's fresh, juicy lesions. The boy predictably came down with cowpox, then recovered. A couple months later, he then inoculated the boy with smallpox from a fresh and juicy smallpox lesion. The boy didn't get sick. Turned out the two were similar enough that the body's safeguards against a re-infection of cowpox also protected against smallpox.

And that's more or less the way vaccine works, the very name "vaccine" being a tribute to Jenner's work (vac- referring to a cow in Latin). Smallpox is something that's wiped out entire civilizations, and had an overall fatality rate of 30%. Notice I use the past tense. This is because, thanks to vaccinations, it has been eradicated from the world's population. It still exists, I'm certain, in various freezers around the world "just in case," and with this, there is the potential for it to be used in bioterrorism (think nuclear is scary?). But the point is that you didn't have it, and chances are, no one you know has had it. It's not killing people now. The last case in the US was in 1949, the last in the world having been in the late 1970's.

You can also thank vaccination programs for the fact that Polio (link goes to informative photo gallery) is now more often referred to in the past tense. While not eradicated, it hasn't been seen in the US for decades, and is well on its way to being eradicated.

While it is easy to forget these plagues in today's world, there was a time not that long ago where they were common. Kids with withered limbs from Polio (remember Franklin Roosevelt?), mass graves from the 1918 influenza pandemic... the list goes on. It is good to have legitimate concerns for your children, but it's also important to protect them and remember that ultimately, scientists are on our side.



Sorry about the quality of the video, it's the only one I could find of this clip on YouTube. Before the start of the video, the mother explained to House that she refused on principle to vaccinate her child, also talking about how she only gives the kid her all-natural breast milk as opposed to formula.

Nanny State Lunchbox Inspections

When I heard about this originally a couple days ago, I was skeptical. I was figuring it seemed kind of far-fetched to be true. But the story persisted through a few different sources, so it caught my attention.


The above story takes place in North Carolina, specifically. Were it extreme circumstances, say, the kid showing signs of malnutrition, I'd support it. But policing kids' lunchboxes? Come on! Oh, and the unhealthy lunch being provided provided to this poor, malnourished kid by her negligent and uncaring parent/guardian: a turkey and cheese sandwich (meat, dairy, grains), a banana (fruit/vegetables), potato chips (kinda vegetables), and apple juice (more fruit/veggies!). As is the case with most kids, this one is kind of picky too, so her negligent and uncaring parent/guardian packs the food according to what she eats.

So, enter the state inspector, who says that her lunch does not meet nutritional guidelines (yes, that's guidelines, not law... yet). It seems unclear whether the lunch was actually taken away or not, as you can imagine the headline alone tends to ignite all sorts of anger and speculation. At any rate, it is clear however that the four year old girl was told her lunch wasn't nutritious enough. I read somewhere that the girl brought home the lunch, which means that it wasn't thrown away... but it may have been taken away during the lunch period, or the little girl may have been given the impression that she wasn't allowed to eat it. Keep in mind, this is a four year old we're talking about, and kids generally don't make these fine distinctions.

So, what do these heroic lunch box police do? They give her a cafeteria lunch and bill those darn dirty negligent and uncaring parents/guardians $1.25. What did this healthy and nutritious cafeteria lunch consist of? Apparently, the main part of it was chicken nuggets, of which the girl ate three. I dunno... I don't claim to be a doctor or nutritionist, but that turkey and cheese sandwich, potato chips, banana, and apple juice are sounding pretty good right now... especially in comparison to a few chicken nuggets.

Generally, if a parent cares enough to pack a lunch, they care enough to make it something relatively nutritious. And speaking as someone who vividly remembers what it's like to be a kid, I'll say that chances are, a packed lunch from home will taste much, much better than one the school would serve up, thus making it more likely the kid might actually... are you ready for this? You may want to sit down. Okay, continuing... making it more likely the kid might actually eat it.

Not too many kids praise the taste of school lunches, if you haven't noticed. This is for good reason - they suck. The quality is poor (for all you fast food haters, McDonald's has more strenuous quality and food safety standards). By the time of high school, I was ignoring school lunches pretty much entirely because of how bad they tasted, instead opting to get a bag of chips and a soda on most days.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not bashing the school lunch program as a whole, but I am discussing the relative merits of school lunch versus homemade lunch, and the stupidity of policing lunch boxes to replace their contents with a "more nutritious" school lunch. Yes, that has to stop... else, the nanny state mentality will grow, guidelines will become laws, and freedoms and liberties will be further eroded.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Auto Industry Bailouts

I've been a consistent, albeit reluctant, supporter of the auto industry bailouts. There are a variety of reasons, some of which include being able to compete with the market for foreign vehicles, the fear of mass unemployment of auto industry workers in America, things like that. For or against the bailouts, one would have to admit that there are positive results... though that won't stop some people from continuing to deny this fact.


I've heard people screaming that this was all done for the unions, that the unions now own the companies. Well, whatever the case be now, it seems to be working... and this coming from someone who doesn't always like unions, someone who supports the Employee Rights Act, much thanks to my own negative experiences with a union.

Yes, I was pissed about the bailouts being necessary. I still remember when the execs spent several thousands to board their private jets and stay in luxury accommodations in Washington to go ask congress for a bailout. Yeah, I was pissed... and while I'm not certain it wasn't counter-productive for congress to send them back home and tell them to come back via more humble means, I'm sure it's what many were thinking. Very simply, if you are running low on money, save it where you can. It's common sense for most of us.

Myself being in the market for a new car hopefully in the near future, I was actually inclined toward a Ford Mustang. After all, who doesn't love those cars? I've often said that my dream car was a '65 Mustang. For a time, the bailouts kind of cemented that with me, as Ford was the only company who didn't take one. I also liked that they were bringing back the muscle car look. While Mustangs to my knowledge have always been a muscle car, they kind of lost the look for awhile, I think.

But, I saw that other American car manufacturers were also stepping up their game. I loved the Dodge Charger, then in researching that, I learned about my more contemporary dream car, the Dodge Challenger. Are you getting this, Dodge? BLACK. DODGE. CHALLENGER. Dammit. Ah well, to each their own. It's all good ol' American muscle.

The point is that good things have come from those auto industry bailouts. A lot of people like to pin it all on Obama, naming it an example of his socialist agenda. Let's not forget though that it was George "Dubya" Bush that got the ball rolling on these, and he said he'd do it again. Looking at the seeming success of these bailouts, it's almost like watching that once-irresponsible kid finally graduating college with a good degree. Let's hope this apparent success continues.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

The Prodigal Sons Return

Were I one of the more cocky bloggers, or say... Rush Limbaugh, I would be telling you all to bow to my prophet-like powers of prediction. But I'm not all that cocky. Just cocky enough to have a blog and assume that a few people might actually be interested in it. Oh, and to do shameless plugs for a black Dodge Challenger that I so desperately want. But that's another story.

But, it seems that some companies are starting to see the folly of outsourcing that I've been preaching about: Manufacturers getting homesick.

In the story, the manufacturers talk more about logistics and the like, which sadly is probably a big part of this. It kinda depresses me that it still just comes down to the bottom line, and I'm not sure this quote makes me feel much better about it: "...we underestimated in some cases the value of our workers back here." Hmm... underestimated in "some" cases? No... what they did was completely screw over the ones whom their companies were built on.

Nonetheless, I am glad to see this happening, although it's only a start. Not all companies are doing this, and let's not forget that the article only names manufacturers. It doesn't mention, for instance, call centers. I do think though that such a move should be strongly encouraged and that measures should be put in place to strongly discourage another such exodus.

Some companies are now complaining that they are having a hard time finding qualified workers, though. Again, I largely suspect that this is where the companies have shot themselves in the foot. You saw several people with good, practical degrees having them go to waste when companies started shipping overseas. With that, people started going for different degrees or certifications. Ones that might actually get them a job, although with often significantly less pay than one of the degrees in question would have made for them, if such jobs were available.

To the people, I say this: the first go-around in college, get a useful, practical degree or certification. You can get your liberal arts degrees and the like later, or just independently study it and not pay thousands for it. Meanwhile, it'll hopefully save you from having to work fast food, retail, customer service... that sort of thing. Believe me when I tell you that such professions, with few exceptions, are not fun. By few exceptions, I refer to those where such things are part of your specialty - like mechanics will have to give some customer service, pharmacies are kind of specialized retail, that sort of thing.

To the corporations, I say this: never underestimate the value of the workers who have built you up to where you are and kept you there. Never screw them over just for the sake of your bottom line. They are the ones who do the hard work. And while you may sign their paychecks, they are the ones who give you yours. If you haven't yet, you may do well to watch National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Or perhaps Mr. Deeds with its question, "what would your child self think of your adult self?" When asked in the movie, many of the rich shareholders and the like came to the conclusion that their child selves would kick their adult selves' asses. In our youth, we all wanted to be heroes. Why has that ideal died in so many adults?

Friday, February 10, 2012

Religion

With the posts I've done, some might think I'm anti-religion as a whole. While this may appeal to many, it's not the truth. I do in fact believe quite strongly in a religion. I'll flatter myself by assuming some are now scratching their heads and saying, "but Raven, you're too smart to be religious!" First of all, let's not assume that having religion means being stupid. How it goes for me is this:

  • I believe that there is a higher power. Seeing as I've never met this higher power, I don't know its name - just that I feel its presence on some level.
  • I decided naming this higher power may help. "Bob" somehow didn't seem appropriate, and the atheists' suggestion of "Flying Spaghetti Monster" didn't seem to fit, either. I don't want to think of my higher power as being a tasty treat, and if it was, it would be a pizza... with pepperoni, green chile, and artichoke hearts.
  • I researched the different religions. I knew more or less immediately that my choice would not be Christianity. I was raised as a Christian, and it didn't feel right to me.
  • When I found one that seemed to match my beliefs and my conscience fairly well, I adopted it.
This approach may seem arrogant to some - "a religion tells you what morals to have, not the other way around!" Again, seeing as there are no deities here to say otherwise, I believe that our gods (or at least the ones we should listen to) speak to us through our conscience, if we choose to listen. If I'm wrong, oh well. I guess you could say that ultimately, my conscience is my higher power. But it's somehow more pleasant and fun to assign a mythology to it.

And it's harmless. I don't force my religion on other people. I'm pretty content in my own way of living and beliefs.

This isn't to say I hate Christianity as a whole, it simply didn't work for me. The ones I actively dislike are the ones who do hurt and/or harass others. My problems with Christianity are mostly its use of scare tactics and its resistance to change, whether it be philosophical or scientific. Some seem to focus more on the fear of Hell than they do the message of love. Which one is it?

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Same-Sex Marriage

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm very happy that Prop 8 was overturned as unconstitutional. Perhaps it's obvious by now that I agree with that assertion. Of course though, not everyone's happy about it, else I wouldn't figure it's worth blogging about.

The opponents of same-sex marriage honestly only have religion as their argument. However, a pesky little thing called the First Amendment makes purely religious arguments invalid. So, opponents have been forced to come up with other arguments:

"It's not natural!"
Only a very small step away from being a religious argument, this seems to be an attempt to merge religious with scientific. Unsuccessfully, though. For one thing, we as humans do a lot of things that aren't natural. Why should we stop at something that causes no harm? Another argument they make though is that humans are the only ones "perverse" enough to practice homosexuality. Guess again, suckers. So... I guess it is natural, then?

"Homosexuals spread AIDS!"
Well, so do straights. Straights also spread any number of other STD's and other diseases. A lot of society's more hateful members like to think of AIDS as god's punishment for gays. What about all the other diseases and disorders, though? If Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) were to come down with, say... syphilis, who would he blame it on? Or what about just having a monster heart attack during one of their protests? Would it be god's punishment then? Diseases being called a punishment from god is nothing new. In the old days, the smallpox vaccine was considered by many to be a terrible sin, as it interfered with what they perceived as god's plan/retribution. There's some compassion for you, huh? Anyway, there are several different disease-spreading behaviors. Shall we ban them all, or just keep using it as an excuse to discriminate against some? Let's not forget about certain races being more prone to some diseases - Native and African Americans seem more vulnerable to diabetes. Native Americans and southern Europeans seem more vulnerable to milk allergies. African Americans seem vulnerable to heart problems. Asians seem disproportionately vulnerable to certain kinds of cancer, TB, and Hepatitis B. The list goes on. Shall we ban all those and just move on to Hitler's "super race" ideals?

I've seen many opponents of same-sex marriage become very angry when the issue is compared to the older civil rights movements involving racial equality and the like, but can anyone tell me what the differences really are? That is, without bringing up religion?

Monday, February 6, 2012

Boycott Starbucks?

This just in: if you love everyone equally, you hate god. Oh, and Jesus loves you, even if he does command everyone else in the world to hate you.


You know, I don't really drink much coffee in general. I don't dislike it, just that I like other things better. After reading the above article, I'm inclined to join the hipsters, albeit reluctantly, at Starbucks more often. S'pose I'd fit right in, writing and blogging on my laptop while listening to my under-rated/obscure/outdated music. Scary thought.

You know what else? I've read through much of the Bible, and while I have a fair to decent memory, I don't remember who Jesus said to hate. Did he say to hate anyone?

No?

Then golly gee, I guess that means that people are making some shit up, then using Jesus' name to justify their own hate and prejudice.

I am not ignorant to the fact that the Bible is unkind toward homosexuality. However, it seems Christians have become perfectly well acclimated to picking and choosing what parts they want to follow. I suppose it makes sense, considering that the Bible is rather well known for its contradictions. Anyway, I'd equate worship of the Bible (to include believing its word as infallible) with idol worship. Otherwise, Christians would shun pork, along with shrimp, lobster, cheeseburgers - anything not allowed in the Jewish/Muslim diets. Not only that, but there would be public stonings (and I don't mean smoking pot in public) and the like for any variety of behaviors which is commonplace in the modern world. Even amongst evangelicals. Does anyone remember what the Bible says to do with false prophets?

This reminds me much of the Southern Baptists and their boycott of Disney. I'm not sure too many people even noticed, once the news reports died down. Then just a few years ago, after just about everyone had forgotten about the "boycott" anyway, they announced the end of the boycott, calling it a victory and saying they had made their point. How many people, other than Southern Baptists, even take the Southern Baptists seriously now?

Anyway, it always pisses me off to see people spreading hate in the name of their religion. I see it as arrogant, and were I more religious, I would call them false prophets, as they claim to speak for their god.

But I will say this now: even if extremists are right, I would rather burn in Hell with a clean conscience than serve a hateful god.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Stem Cell Research

Embryonic stem cell research is one of those issues where almost everyone thinks they know more than they actually do. The common perception seems to be that the stem cells come from aborted fetuses. With this, pro-lifers are kind of alienated from supporting the research while pro-choicers figure it's at least some good that comes out of abortion.

But, as it often is, the common perception is wrong. Embryonic stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. There is, in fact, a difference between a fetus and an embryo - fetuses are at a much later stage of development. The embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are at their earliest stage of development. So early in fact that they haven't even seen the inside of a womb. You see, these embryos are leftovers from in vitro fertilization clinics. Eggs that were fertilized in a test tube or petri dishes, or something along those lines.

When these fertilization clinics do their thing, they fertilize a few eggs, then they implant only the most viable embryos - at this point what's known as a blastocyst. Between 50 - 250 cells generally make up the whole thing. So, what happens to the rest? Well, the couple can opt to preserve them for possible later use, but that's expensive. They can also opt to give them to other hopeful mothers to be, if any are in need of them. More often than not though, these embryos are simply disposed of like a prom night dumpster baby. Or, they can also (if current laws allow it) opt to donate them to stem cell research.

Stem cell research does have a lot of potential, and contrary to what some nay-sayers say ("nay"), there have been results. Mostly in using one's own (or a close relative's) stem cells. This is likely simply because there have been so many roadblocks in embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are more desirable because they have more potential to adapt. The thing is that if you put an embryonic stem cell in with another cluster of cells, it generally will take on the properties of its surrounding cells.

Stop and think about this. You know all that stuff that can't heal or be replaced? This can change. Rather than waiting and likely dying while waiting on transplant lists, a new organ can be grown. One in which you don't need to take immunosuppressants for the rest of your life to prevent your body from rejecting said organ. Maybe this can also help repair spinal cords, maybe this can also cure or more effectively treat autoimmune disorders. Use your imagination, it's all being looked at.

As always, I encourage you to do your own research. Then come to your own conclusions based on your research rather than letting someone else do your thinking for you.

This post done, I leave you with the Prom Night Dumpster Babies!

Minimum Wage

I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney, although I'd prefer him over Gingrich. But, I came across this article on CBSnews.com: Club for Growth doesn't like Romney's minimum wage stance. The short of it is that Romney has a fairly progressive attitude toward wages, and does believe in a minimum wage. Although I know it's not anything new, it still does surprise me when I hear Republicans wanting wages to be completely left to the free market.

Why, you ask? Because businesses have proven time and time again that they really can't be trusted any more than anyone else. Sure, we want business to grow. But don't we also want fewer people on welfare? I think that the current wage standards are more than reasonable from a business standpoint, although still pretty impossible to really live on.

We keep seeing such experiments every time Republicans are in power. Remember Bush's "trickle down" philosophies? Remember how the only thing to trickle down was a stream of urine from the rich? I hate to sound like I'm just spouting liberal propaganda here, but this is simple greed. The rich want to get richer, and they don't care whose heads they step on on their way up. And, news flash: the economy really didn't improve under Bush. Instead, we kept seeing a steady stream of jobs leaving the US from greedy companies whose executives only cared about making more money.

The problems that come from a minimum wage (and increases in it) are this: in a perfect world, when the minimum wage is increased, the business owners might slap their foreheads and say, "holy shit, what have we been doing to our workers? I guess I can accept a little less pay this year." That seems to be what people expect when they hear of a minimum wage increase.

But what actually happens is, "shit, I'm not giving up my money. Guess I better make some lay-offs and jack up prices." So, we have increased unemployment and price inflation as a result.

It might seem like the solution would be to set a maximum wage. But no, that would be counterproductive. I don't want to punish people for being rich; I have nothing against the rich. I want to discourage greed. I don't use "greedy" and "rich" interchangeably. Hell, I'd like to be rich... but I don't see myself being greedy. Perhaps then the solution could be setting wages at percentages? To give an extreme example, imagine a CEO deciding him and the board of executives gets 90% of the company's money for wages, leaving the remaining 10% to be split among everyone else - the manufacturers, the customer service, the marketing, the accountants, the engineers, etc. Not very fair, right? Start with adjusting those percentages until they are more fair. I'm willing to still let the owners and execs have the lion's share, but not to the point of starving everyone else. For the companies, it would have the advantage of encouraging better work and loyalty from the employees, as they would see the more direct results of their success or failure. Seems also that it may take some of the point out of being greedy.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

In which I continue to pander shamelessly to the auto industry...

Have you noticed that it's getting more and more rare to find full sized tires in the newer car, and that instead you find more and more of those little "donuts"? Well, even those donuts may soon become a thing of the past. No, it's not because of some big improvement in tire technology, it's because of small improvements in fuel mileage.

If you've ever had to change a tire, you know that they are kind of heavy. To meet average fuel economy standards, which are rising, automakers are having to get rid of weight where ever they can. "But Raven, the car industry is just being greedy! It's just that a bunch of smug Republicans want to drive around in Hummers when hybrid cars are a perfectly acceptable alternative!"

Well, hybrid cars aren't bad... but, their eco-friendliness is overstated. For one thing, their manufacture takes a lot more energy, and their batteries are especially bad. Extremely toxic... I've heard, but am having difficulty confirming that the battery manufacturing process is so toxic that it's not even allowed on US soil. And while many are saying that hybrid car batteries will last longer than regular car batteries (why?), they are much more expensive to replace. "How expensive?" seems to be a question that many smug hippies who support hybrid technology are trying to evade by pointing out the batteries' longer life expectancy. Again, consider how dirty the battery manufacturing process is, recycling or no.

Another thing also often overlooked is that it's not often one gets the mileage advertised on a sticker. It's not false advertising, they are testing the mileage as they have been told to do so by the government. That's not to say that auto manufacturers are always honest. But a hybrid's usefulness is on congested city streets. Lots of stop and go traffic. On the highway where more horsepower is needed, it goes over to gas. If that's your primary driving situation and you want a hybrid, great. But, regular gasoline engines really aren't as far behind as many think.

But, let's get back to the main subject, huh? Is it just because of looking good on a sticker that the auto industry is doing away with spare tires? No. Personally, I'd happily take the extra weight and fuel cost of a full sized spare tire and its equipment over not having one at all. It's because of what the average mileage has to be.

I'm all for saving the environment. I am not one of those global warming deniers. However, at what cost? Jobs? Safety? If we really want to help the environment, why not hold China and other nations to the same standards as we hold to on being environmentally friendly? It would cost much less to bring them up to our standards than it would be to keep our standards moving up at the rate they are. There would also be much more in the way of immediate and long term benefits to the environment worldwide. Comparatively speaking, we are the obsessive-compulsive fussy house cleaners while China is the lazy redneck neighbor with leaking cars on cement blocks in their front yard.

I leave you with a video of car battery recycling for your viewing enjoyment:





Oh, and more obligatory pandering for a black Dodge Challenger