The Institute for Global Labor and Human Rights released a report in June that showed major American companies had been purchasing clothes that were made in factories in Jordan that abused their workers. The factories did things such as beating workers, nor complying with contracts, and forced them to live in unsanitary conditions. I want to be clear that the American companies were not doing this, but they were buying clothing from factories that were. The American companies buying the clothing were Target, Macy's, Kohls, Hanes, and Target according to this report. The American government and United Nations are investigating.
If this is true, this is disgusting. Companies should first and foremost be moral. Profit motive comes second to that. Workers should be treated fairly. People have a right to fair working conditions, and to be paid a living wage that will allow them to NOT live in poverty and save for their retirement. There is no reason this should not happen, with corporate profits in the millions and sometimes even billions. Unions need to come back strong in the United States and all of our standards of living will improve.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Texas Does It Again!
Remember when Texas' Board of Education decided to engage in revisionist history? They said there was no such thing as a separation of church and state, teach that Germans and Italians were put on concentration camps also along with Japanese(which is actually true but doesn't really quell charges of racism, it just bolsters them), how McCarthyism was right, change "capitalism" to "free-enterprise system", and got rid of Jefferson in groups of thinkers that inspired revolutions and replaced him with Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone. They are at it again with evolution.
Rick Perry, the dumbed down version of George Bush, appointed Barbara Cargill to chairwoman of the board. She recently said that of the 11 members on the board, only 6 are "true" conservative Christians, and there are 11 Republicans on the board. She does not believe evolution occurred, and thinks textbooks should point out the problems with the theory. As a budding philosopher, I have no problem with pointing out flaws in something. However, evolution is the best and most current explanation of the variety of life on earth. My problem is more with the anti-intellectualism that has infiltrated many in the Republican party.
All liberals have had this problem. The conservative says something that is factually false, and you point to a reliable source that refutes them, and then they deny the source is reliable. For example, waterboarding was considered torture for many years in the United States, at least since World War 2. And then conservatives claim that what George W. Bush did was NOT a war crime when all the evidence is to the contrary. Or the theory of evolution. Or being gay is a choice. Conservatives do not have to embrace this absurdity. Not all conservatives do, but many in the Republican party are like this, enough to force the elected officials to often give lip-service to these positions, and sometimes push for them. Another example is the Bush tax cuts. Some conservatives claim that revenues increase with tax cuts, but no reliable fact-checking organization has ever found this to be true, AND Ronald Reagan himself raised taxes during his Presidency, seeing that the revenue was needed to keep the debt from exploding more than it already was.
Prominent conservatives in the Republican party need to speak out against this anti-intellectual, history revising, bigoted outspoken wing of their party and say enough is enough. We will no longer court your vote. And the media should ask directed questions about why they don't think evolution is a viable theory (used in the SCIENTIFIC SENSE OF THE WORD and not everyday lingo) and why they believe discriminating against homosexuals even with all the scientific evidence against them is the right thing to do.
Rick Perry, the dumbed down version of George Bush, appointed Barbara Cargill to chairwoman of the board. She recently said that of the 11 members on the board, only 6 are "true" conservative Christians, and there are 11 Republicans on the board. She does not believe evolution occurred, and thinks textbooks should point out the problems with the theory. As a budding philosopher, I have no problem with pointing out flaws in something. However, evolution is the best and most current explanation of the variety of life on earth. My problem is more with the anti-intellectualism that has infiltrated many in the Republican party.
All liberals have had this problem. The conservative says something that is factually false, and you point to a reliable source that refutes them, and then they deny the source is reliable. For example, waterboarding was considered torture for many years in the United States, at least since World War 2. And then conservatives claim that what George W. Bush did was NOT a war crime when all the evidence is to the contrary. Or the theory of evolution. Or being gay is a choice. Conservatives do not have to embrace this absurdity. Not all conservatives do, but many in the Republican party are like this, enough to force the elected officials to often give lip-service to these positions, and sometimes push for them. Another example is the Bush tax cuts. Some conservatives claim that revenues increase with tax cuts, but no reliable fact-checking organization has ever found this to be true, AND Ronald Reagan himself raised taxes during his Presidency, seeing that the revenue was needed to keep the debt from exploding more than it already was.
Prominent conservatives in the Republican party need to speak out against this anti-intellectual, history revising, bigoted outspoken wing of their party and say enough is enough. We will no longer court your vote. And the media should ask directed questions about why they don't think evolution is a viable theory (used in the SCIENTIFIC SENSE OF THE WORD and not everyday lingo) and why they believe discriminating against homosexuals even with all the scientific evidence against them is the right thing to do.
Palin LAUGHABLY Says She Will Help the Mainstream Media
Ever since Palin could not answer Katie Couric's question, "What do you read?", she has become known as a bit of a dunce. What many people do not know about Sarah Palin is that she has a bachelor's degree in Journalism from the University of Hawaii. She recently said "I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism..." I think the first step she can take is to start acting like a serious thinker.
Palin consistently dodges reporters of any news organization that does not give her a favorable view. She only gives interviews to places like NewsMax, Fox News, or The Christian Broadcasting Network. All three of these are actually unreputable news organizations. She doesn't go on CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC. She won't talk to the New York Time or the Washington Post. Her interviews are to organizations that do NOT practice good journalism. It is ironic at BEST that she would make such a statement. In theory she knows very well what she is doing. She knows what good journalism should be, she just chooses for some reason not to engage news companies that practice it. I think she does have a lesson to teach. Any news organization that she regularly appears on is an example of HOW NOT TO PRACTICE GOOD JOURNALISM. Until she engages with real reporters, she cannot be taken seriously as a public thinker.
Palin consistently dodges reporters of any news organization that does not give her a favorable view. She only gives interviews to places like NewsMax, Fox News, or The Christian Broadcasting Network. All three of these are actually unreputable news organizations. She doesn't go on CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC. She won't talk to the New York Time or the Washington Post. Her interviews are to organizations that do NOT practice good journalism. It is ironic at BEST that she would make such a statement. In theory she knows very well what she is doing. She knows what good journalism should be, she just chooses for some reason not to engage news companies that practice it. I think she does have a lesson to teach. Any news organization that she regularly appears on is an example of HOW NOT TO PRACTICE GOOD JOURNALISM. Until she engages with real reporters, she cannot be taken seriously as a public thinker.
Grover Norquist Backtrack
Grover Norquist, the man in charge of Americans For Tax Reform, and the one who insists all Republicans sign a pledge promising that they will not raise taxes, told the Washington Post editorial board that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would not be an increase stating, “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase," and with regards to the pledge and whether letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be a tax increase he said, “We wouldn’t hold it that way."
In a stunning about face, on an interview with MSNBC, Norquist said he was quoted out of context by the Washington Post and said if he had been quoted in context, "Otherwise it wouldn't pass the laugh test to go to the American people and tell them you just allowed $4 trillion dollars in higher taxes by allowing the 2001-2003 lower rates to lapse and tell people that's not a tax increase."
It seemed as there was a glimmer of hope. The debt-ceiling talks have been stalled due to the Republicans consistently being in bed with corporations. Norquist comes out and says letting the tax cuts expire would not technically be a tax increase and liberals like me cheer. It is a breakthrough. The Republicans have political cover now to let them expire for the richest Americans and not be in trouble for it.Then Norquist backtracks, and all hope is lost again. The debt-ceiling talks show how irrational and ridiculous the Republican Party has become. Recently, a video was found of Ronald Reagan calling for a CLEAN debt-ceiling increase with no policy attached. He would be laughed out of the Republican party today. HE ALSO RAISED TAXES 11 TIMES. What a liberal. The Republican party has transformed from a conservative alternative to Democratic liberals to a party based on the religious dogma of no new taxes.
In a stunning about face, on an interview with MSNBC, Norquist said he was quoted out of context by the Washington Post and said if he had been quoted in context, "Otherwise it wouldn't pass the laugh test to go to the American people and tell them you just allowed $4 trillion dollars in higher taxes by allowing the 2001-2003 lower rates to lapse and tell people that's not a tax increase."
It seemed as there was a glimmer of hope. The debt-ceiling talks have been stalled due to the Republicans consistently being in bed with corporations. Norquist comes out and says letting the tax cuts expire would not technically be a tax increase and liberals like me cheer. It is a breakthrough. The Republicans have political cover now to let them expire for the richest Americans and not be in trouble for it.Then Norquist backtracks, and all hope is lost again. The debt-ceiling talks show how irrational and ridiculous the Republican Party has become. Recently, a video was found of Ronald Reagan calling for a CLEAN debt-ceiling increase with no policy attached. He would be laughed out of the Republican party today. HE ALSO RAISED TAXES 11 TIMES. What a liberal. The Republican party has transformed from a conservative alternative to Democratic liberals to a party based on the religious dogma of no new taxes.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Limits of Free Speech
I begin this post not really sure how I feel about the case I am about to describe. Free speech is a protected right in the U.S. Constitution, but at what point does it cross the line and deserve censorship? Walter Bagdasarian posted a message about Obama on Yahoo.com two years ago. This is not surprising. There are many political comments on Yahoo. However, in this one he said that Obama "will have a 50 cal in the head soon" and also called him a racial slur.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled that his speech was protected and there was no evidence that he actually intended to carry out an act. Usually free speech is protected unless the individual is inciting a riot or there is a known intent to harm. Many people say unruly things in political discourse, so it is hard to gauge intentions. With that said, I believe that if I were to say outloud at a school or work that I wanted to shoot Obama and I was reported, the FBI would be paying me a visit. I do not know whether I would be charged or not. But is this what free speech is about? Talking about killing another human being? I'm not sure this is protected. I don't believe the man necessarily deserved a harsh sentence or anything. Perhaps he needs anger management. But the point is that talking about politics and issues is not equivalent to talking about killing another person, just because of their race or political party.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled that his speech was protected and there was no evidence that he actually intended to carry out an act. Usually free speech is protected unless the individual is inciting a riot or there is a known intent to harm. Many people say unruly things in political discourse, so it is hard to gauge intentions. With that said, I believe that if I were to say outloud at a school or work that I wanted to shoot Obama and I was reported, the FBI would be paying me a visit. I do not know whether I would be charged or not. But is this what free speech is about? Talking about killing another human being? I'm not sure this is protected. I don't believe the man necessarily deserved a harsh sentence or anything. Perhaps he needs anger management. But the point is that talking about politics and issues is not equivalent to talking about killing another person, just because of their race or political party.
Republican Voter's Lack of Intellectual Depth
Michele Bachmann, one of the Republican Presidential candidates from Minnesota (the other being Tim Pawlenty), is now polling at number two right behind Mitt Romney. I wonder about the rationality of voters who strongly support her. She's extremely inflexible and bigoted. Bachmann and associates DOES practice reparative therapy, and Bachmann refuses to consider tax increases as part of the budget deal on the table (thought his could be leveled against any Republican). She called for investigation into members of Congress who may hold "anti-american views". And she's just downright crazy with her beliefs on homosexuality. Why should such a person be supported?
A President should be able to assess evidence and change opinions accordingly, and should not be a bigot. She refuses to change her mind on anything, even with the evidence is staring her in the face, such as is the case with homosexuality and evolution. She has irresponsibly said that she won't vote to raise the debt-ceiling, and in doing so it is not a big deal. Default isn't a real threat. Stephen Colbert likes to use the word "truthiness" for politicians who play fast and loose with the facts, and Michele Bachmann seems to be the epitome of that word.
A President should be able to assess evidence and change opinions accordingly, and should not be a bigot. She refuses to change her mind on anything, even with the evidence is staring her in the face, such as is the case with homosexuality and evolution. She has irresponsibly said that she won't vote to raise the debt-ceiling, and in doing so it is not a big deal. Default isn't a real threat. Stephen Colbert likes to use the word "truthiness" for politicians who play fast and loose with the facts, and Michele Bachmann seems to be the epitome of that word.
Rupert Murdoch Lies Just as Badly as Fox News
If one were to watch Fox News as the main source of media, public policy polling has shown that they will consistently misinform you on major issues, and politifact has rated many of the people on the network and find the truth to be wanting. The man who owns NewsCorp, which is the parent company of many smaller companies, one of those being Faux News, was engaged in sleazy journalism. His British newspaper, News Of The World, was caught hacking into the phones of many British people, some as famous as Gordon Brown, and lower status people, such as the 13 year old girl named Milly Dowler. She was missing and NewsCorp employees actually hacked into her voicemail and deleted them to make room for her family and friends to leave more, leaving them and the police to believe she was still alive. And recently, Rebekah Brooks, Murdoch's second in command, admitted she had paid off the police for scandalous information. Murdoch claimed yesterday in front of the British Parliament that he did not know what was happening.
There seems to be a problem among conservative politicians of taking "personal responsibility" fof their actions. If a CEO is running a company with so many unethical people, he should resign for the sheer fact that he lacks the ability to judge character. However, it is not likely that he did not know what was going on, especially with Rebekah Brooks admitting to the police she paid off the police for information! This abdication of responsbility is similiar to what the Republicans that were in charge during the Bush years are doing. They cry and wail like a child at a candy store that they are not getting what they want, all the while they have spent all of their parents money at the mall and maxed out all of the credit cards. When the parent asks the child to get a job and pay for it (because this would bring in revenue), they refuse and blame the parents for wreckless spending, even though it was them that actually spent wrecklessly. The Republicans voted for huge tax cuts, two wars, a prescription drug bill, the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security, and No Child Left Behind all without paying for any of it. The economy tanks and revenues fall because people aren't working, emergency measures are needed to stabilize the economy, and Republicans make it sound as though Obama is the main problem. America needs to wake up to the fact that the Republican party in it's current form is intellectually bankrupt. And in the words of David Brooks, a conservative, " But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity.(What he means here is a real deficit reduction deal in these debt-ceiling negotiations) That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative."
There seems to be a problem among conservative politicians of taking "personal responsibility" fof their actions. If a CEO is running a company with so many unethical people, he should resign for the sheer fact that he lacks the ability to judge character. However, it is not likely that he did not know what was going on, especially with Rebekah Brooks admitting to the police she paid off the police for information! This abdication of responsbility is similiar to what the Republicans that were in charge during the Bush years are doing. They cry and wail like a child at a candy store that they are not getting what they want, all the while they have spent all of their parents money at the mall and maxed out all of the credit cards. When the parent asks the child to get a job and pay for it (because this would bring in revenue), they refuse and blame the parents for wreckless spending, even though it was them that actually spent wrecklessly. The Republicans voted for huge tax cuts, two wars, a prescription drug bill, the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security, and No Child Left Behind all without paying for any of it. The economy tanks and revenues fall because people aren't working, emergency measures are needed to stabilize the economy, and Republicans make it sound as though Obama is the main problem. America needs to wake up to the fact that the Republican party in it's current form is intellectually bankrupt. And in the words of David Brooks, a conservative, " But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity.(What he means here is a real deficit reduction deal in these debt-ceiling negotiations) That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)