Dear My Darling Public
Have you ever wondered how it is that you run into all your friends in one day? I absolutely love seeing them whenever I do to whatever capacity, but I really live for those days that are filled with every familiar face on campus. With every destination and every transitional treading, a new and friendly soul presents itself in warm welcome. Well, that day was today and, for a moment, I was reminded of my home town of Evergreen Park, Illinois. This neighborhood, not a mile long by a mile deep, contained within its bordering streets some of the most recognizable figures by silhouette alone. Indeed this was a place where nearly every person you saw existed somewhere in your memory, in some long lost thought in the back of your head and, just like that, their name was just at the tip of your tongue. Your first guess was usually right, but if it wasn't, you need not worry. Not enough time would be cast to the wind before the both of you would become lost in conversation.
The Village of Churches certainly has a culture of its own, embodied by the mystique of its poets, the rustic habits and old world welcome of its elderly, the morality and kind hearts of its church goers, the personal relationships and generosity of its local businesses, and the reliability and prudence of its politicians. From every bite of a Rosangela's pizza to every moment spent in prayer at Most Holy Redeemer Church, nothing quite compares to the beauty of a place to call home. I live in Erie, Pennsylvania at present, but no amount of words of combination of actions could put into amplification the feelings that enter my soul each and every time I return to my home.
When you grow up in the Chicago land area, it occurs to you very quickly that you, aspiring young (insert aspiration here), are a small human in an even smaller world. Hell, the city itself, in all of its visually overwhelming majesty, can seem, at that young, sponge like age, like it is the whole world. I have even been quoted as saying that "I'm back in America!" every time my family and I came back to Chicago from Indiana or Wisconsin. I know, I know, I literally thought I was going in between two different countries, but that's what it felt like. You learn, at a very young age, that it takes a community to raise a child, and, for the most part, you are raised by your friends, your comrades. The streets become the endless playground of discovery that provides you with adventure complete with danger at every turn and all kinds of friends from all walks of life to be made along the way. It was an urbanized, legend-of-zelda like game where you aren't just an individual, but an important part of the community.
It's not quite Chicago over here at Edinboro University, but the principles that I have embraced as dogma back home work in quite the same way out here in the country. For what it's worth, they make life here even more fulfilling and they allow for the kind of friendly, public trust that allows me to be extroverted and have the long list of familiar names and faces that I run into every single day.
I know I didn't go off on any political rant today, but in light of the State of the Union address and how much politics is already being shoved down the nation's throat, I just thought I would be a wee bit anecdotal, and play to the emotions of all of you because I know that feeling emotions of any kind is what makes us human. That and research just sounded a bit boring for today. Have a wonderful day, and God bless.
With Love
Thomas F.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Minimum Wage Hike? .... Sounds Like A Plan.
Dear My Darling Public
I took some time out of my night, which could have been spent on just about anything else, to watch the State of the Union address, and I have to say, I can't argue with at least one issue. The federal minimum wage is not where it needs to be to constitute a living wage. The president suggested raising it to about $10.10, not even what it would be if it truly remained linear with inflation, but don't hold your breath on this one.
According to the PEW Research Center, roughly 3.55 million hourly workers are federal minimum wage earners or lower. To put that number into perspective, the United States population is 313.9 million people according to the last census. If this makes it look like people making the federal minimum wage make up a tiny part of the population, just remember that the number of employed US citizens is 136,600,000. It is still a smaller portion of the working population, but does that mean that they no longer matter?
I mean, we're still talking about 3.55 million human beings with mothers, fathers, and in some cases, families of their own. An argument commonly made on the right is that raising the minimum wage would be an infringement upon the rights of business owners because they would have to use more of their profits to pay workers, and this will, in turn, raise the costs of products and services provided by their companies, but this kind of thinking cannot come from a place of experience, given that the federal minimum wage has lagged far behind inflation for quite some time.
The problem that this issue creates is a one two punch. First, it creates a working poor that absolutely must use federal entitlement programs like snap and medicaid, which are funded through tax payers' dollars. Considering the state of taxes today, just a half step above stealing from the ordinary income earner, raising taxes beyond necessity wouldn't just be devastating for the poor and middle classes. It would absolutely decimate Americans who are unemployed, overwhelmingly through no fault of their own, who need this coverage, like the modern minimum wage earner, to survive another day. Second, and I would argue most important to those who champion business, it squeezes the buying power out of a large portion of the american consumer base.How could we ever expect to have a perfect "free market economy" if a giant chunk of your working population cannot purchase any goods?
However, if you, like me, approach this in a more humanitarian manner, then you might take the "don't be such a heartless monster" argument in stride. You see, in the eyes of the free market, you have to "incentivize" the ever living crap out of big businesses in the same way a teacher would gives incentives to a bunch of kindergartners that need a peace of candy every time they do something positive or answer a question right. It sounds stupid, yes, but it's every bit as much true and raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will not kill the profits of these already over profitable companies.
With Love
Thomas F.
I took some time out of my night, which could have been spent on just about anything else, to watch the State of the Union address, and I have to say, I can't argue with at least one issue. The federal minimum wage is not where it needs to be to constitute a living wage. The president suggested raising it to about $10.10, not even what it would be if it truly remained linear with inflation, but don't hold your breath on this one.
According to the PEW Research Center, roughly 3.55 million hourly workers are federal minimum wage earners or lower. To put that number into perspective, the United States population is 313.9 million people according to the last census. If this makes it look like people making the federal minimum wage make up a tiny part of the population, just remember that the number of employed US citizens is 136,600,000. It is still a smaller portion of the working population, but does that mean that they no longer matter?
I mean, we're still talking about 3.55 million human beings with mothers, fathers, and in some cases, families of their own. An argument commonly made on the right is that raising the minimum wage would be an infringement upon the rights of business owners because they would have to use more of their profits to pay workers, and this will, in turn, raise the costs of products and services provided by their companies, but this kind of thinking cannot come from a place of experience, given that the federal minimum wage has lagged far behind inflation for quite some time.
The problem that this issue creates is a one two punch. First, it creates a working poor that absolutely must use federal entitlement programs like snap and medicaid, which are funded through tax payers' dollars. Considering the state of taxes today, just a half step above stealing from the ordinary income earner, raising taxes beyond necessity wouldn't just be devastating for the poor and middle classes. It would absolutely decimate Americans who are unemployed, overwhelmingly through no fault of their own, who need this coverage, like the modern minimum wage earner, to survive another day. Second, and I would argue most important to those who champion business, it squeezes the buying power out of a large portion of the american consumer base.How could we ever expect to have a perfect "free market economy" if a giant chunk of your working population cannot purchase any goods?
However, if you, like me, approach this in a more humanitarian manner, then you might take the "don't be such a heartless monster" argument in stride. You see, in the eyes of the free market, you have to "incentivize" the ever living crap out of big businesses in the same way a teacher would gives incentives to a bunch of kindergartners that need a peace of candy every time they do something positive or answer a question right. It sounds stupid, yes, but it's every bit as much true and raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will not kill the profits of these already over profitable companies.
With Love
Thomas F.
A Little Privacy Please!
Dear My Darling Public
I have been on something of a media binge lately. This is, for better or for worse, because my Intro to Reporting professor had warned my class on the first day that she would be "pop-quizzing" us on what is happening in the media. I can't exactly complain, though. I mean, it's just an excuse to watch all of the Al Jazeera America, BBC World News, c-span, and CBS that I want. It also gives me the reasoning that I need to catch up on the various newspapers that I frequent, which include, but are not limited to: USA Today, The Erie-Times News, The Washington Post, Politico, The Erie Reader, and The Wall Street Journal.
I happened to be flipping through Monday's addition of USA Today, and I found myself interested, beyond my ability to keep track of time, in the latest news on French president Francois Hollande's "affair with actress Julie Gayet, and the de facto first lady's hospital visit for what the french consider "a crisis of nerves." This story has put me in a place of empathy for the first socialist president of a nation with such a long history of social revolution.
For those who have not been keeping up with the distinctly French soap opera, it goes a bit like this. On January 10th, a French tabloid magazine called Closer featured a story that made front page news. President Francois Hollande had been discovered to have been having an affair with an actress named Julie Gayet. As it is not customary in most of Europe for the media to dwell upon the private lives of, well, anybody, president Hollande blew it off, understandably so, urging his people to focus on the parts of politics that matter. However, before the president could act, his girlfriend, journalist and de facto first lady Valerie Trierweiler had already checked into the hospital of what can only be described as a broken heart.
I simply could not ignore this story because I was under the impression that, for the most part anyway, this repulsive coverage of the private lives of individuals, but especially politicians, was one of those destructively bad habits that was and still is unique to the puritanical, "christian-like" nature of American culture. Weather we're talking about Bill Clinton or Anthony Wiener, the american people just love to senselessly hate on the sexually active. I, however, expected a little more from the French media, a tradition that was once known for its attention to issues of consequence, and it's tendency to respect a private life as private.
The french, however, have not disappointed me quite yet. In fact, the presidents approval rating has, perhaps due to, or in spite of the highly publicized affair, increased from 15% in November to 26%. What I can say is that the French have certainly responded in a different, and arguably more mature way than the American public would have. To prove this, I need not look further than the Bill Clinton "sex scandal" in which the republican led congress of the late 90's spent nearly all of their time and resources investigating an affair between the president and a white house intern named Monica Lewinsky.
What I hope to see before I die, is an America that would mirror the actions of its more mature counterparts just an ocean away in Europe. Privacy and tolerance toward alternative lifestyles or different sexual practices are just another part of what makes the thought of living in a place like France infinitely more appealing than living in a place where such things are at the most illegal, and, at the least, discouraged and shunned upon like The United States. Furthermore, I wish to see an America that embraces civil liberties that go beyond the morals, "family values", and personal tastes of a few reactionary puritans, and if you share my deep seeded disdain for the morality police who swear to serve and protect "family values", then stand up, repeat the facts, and be heard.
With Love
Thomas F.
I have been on something of a media binge lately. This is, for better or for worse, because my Intro to Reporting professor had warned my class on the first day that she would be "pop-quizzing" us on what is happening in the media. I can't exactly complain, though. I mean, it's just an excuse to watch all of the Al Jazeera America, BBC World News, c-span, and CBS that I want. It also gives me the reasoning that I need to catch up on the various newspapers that I frequent, which include, but are not limited to: USA Today, The Erie-Times News, The Washington Post, Politico, The Erie Reader, and The Wall Street Journal.
I happened to be flipping through Monday's addition of USA Today, and I found myself interested, beyond my ability to keep track of time, in the latest news on French president Francois Hollande's "affair with actress Julie Gayet, and the de facto first lady's hospital visit for what the french consider "a crisis of nerves." This story has put me in a place of empathy for the first socialist president of a nation with such a long history of social revolution.
For those who have not been keeping up with the distinctly French soap opera, it goes a bit like this. On January 10th, a French tabloid magazine called Closer featured a story that made front page news. President Francois Hollande had been discovered to have been having an affair with an actress named Julie Gayet. As it is not customary in most of Europe for the media to dwell upon the private lives of, well, anybody, president Hollande blew it off, understandably so, urging his people to focus on the parts of politics that matter. However, before the president could act, his girlfriend, journalist and de facto first lady Valerie Trierweiler had already checked into the hospital of what can only be described as a broken heart.
I simply could not ignore this story because I was under the impression that, for the most part anyway, this repulsive coverage of the private lives of individuals, but especially politicians, was one of those destructively bad habits that was and still is unique to the puritanical, "christian-like" nature of American culture. Weather we're talking about Bill Clinton or Anthony Wiener, the american people just love to senselessly hate on the sexually active. I, however, expected a little more from the French media, a tradition that was once known for its attention to issues of consequence, and it's tendency to respect a private life as private.
The french, however, have not disappointed me quite yet. In fact, the presidents approval rating has, perhaps due to, or in spite of the highly publicized affair, increased from 15% in November to 26%. What I can say is that the French have certainly responded in a different, and arguably more mature way than the American public would have. To prove this, I need not look further than the Bill Clinton "sex scandal" in which the republican led congress of the late 90's spent nearly all of their time and resources investigating an affair between the president and a white house intern named Monica Lewinsky.
What I hope to see before I die, is an America that would mirror the actions of its more mature counterparts just an ocean away in Europe. Privacy and tolerance toward alternative lifestyles or different sexual practices are just another part of what makes the thought of living in a place like France infinitely more appealing than living in a place where such things are at the most illegal, and, at the least, discouraged and shunned upon like The United States. Furthermore, I wish to see an America that embraces civil liberties that go beyond the morals, "family values", and personal tastes of a few reactionary puritans, and if you share my deep seeded disdain for the morality police who swear to serve and protect "family values", then stand up, repeat the facts, and be heard.
With Love
Thomas F.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)