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?

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?

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?

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.

Call for a Christian boycott vs Starbucks.

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.

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.

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