Non-Negotiable: The Rights of Unions and Workers

Greetings all!

This post comes as March draws to a close and my week of extra writing comes to its end. After this, my usual schedule resumes its usual pace. I’d like to wish all Christians a late but happy Easter. Instead of celebrating said holiday, I stood in remembrance of Cesar Chavez, whose birthday was yesterday. He was a perennial leader for rural workers’ and unions’ rights, and his struggle earned him state holidays in California, Colorado, and Texas, as well as earning him a place as this week’s quote. In light of his legacy, tonight I write on the value of unions and the value of workers.

Unions have come under fire for years now, becoming an essential target of conservatives in the crusade to save the economy in their way. Indeed, union membership has declined lately, especially in states like Wisconsin and Indiana where Republican leadership has reduced the power and significance of unions. This is not a new occurrence in America; union membership has, as an overall percentage of population, been dropping since the 1950s when it hit a high of about 35%. Union rights and influence in American economics and politics have been dropping as well.

This is not a solely American problem, either. While unions in Europe have maintained a greater dominance and presence, they have been on the wane since the great liberalization of European economies began in the 1980s. Beginning with Margaret Thatcher and ending with Mikhail Gorbachev, much of Europe used this decade to inject fresh capitalism into the beginnings of what would become the European Union.

During the 1990s, most of the unions in Asia that did have power lost most of it. Central Asian republics formerly under the rule of the Soviet Union adapted capitalist “shock therapy” similar to what was prescribed for Russia during said decade, resulting in severe economic decline alongside worker’s rights which were torn asunder. Middle Eastern dictatorships, republics, and kingdoms did not have much protection for unions and most never did. The Indian license raj was removed after 1991, and while it transformed the Indian economy it also introduced massive corruption and made already harsh poverty endemic to many Indians. Many East Asian economies liberalized in the 1990s especially in light of the financial crisis, notably China which pursued state capitalist reforms.

Much of South America and Africa had no history of union presence or true worker’s rights. Most of South America had been plagued by military governments and other forms of dictatorship, and only now are they becoming truly modern economies where unionization is possible and necessary. Most of Africa is the same; the lack of true industrial bases and the severe exploitation forced upon Africans by colonial empires made independence a tough and often violent process where unions were much less of a problem than wars and suffering were.

However, no person should cry out victory or praise now that unions have diminished. Instead, we should be reminded of what good a strong, collective workforce can do. We should be reminded that workers do deserve the same rights and privileges as do their bosses, no matter what the economic situation.

Unions are certainly an integral part of any trillion-dollar class economy such as our own in America. For my example as to why, let’s begin across the pond in Europe as I do so frequently. While union membership in Europe has been dropping overall for many years now, most European nations have a labor force which is more unionized than our own. Some nations there have unionization rates higher than 50%, a large difference considering our own rate is only just above the French rate of 8%. If the conservative claim that unions hold back economic growth and prosperity were true, then those nations with the highest unionization would also have low economic growth each year. Instead, countries like Norway (where unionization is one of the largest in the world) had their GDP grow at a rate faster than our own. Meanwhile, Spain has pursued strict austerity measures including cutbacks on union strength, and the Spanish economy has been in deep recession for an uncomfortably long time now.

We don’t have to look outside America for examples of the failure of union-busting, either. Just look to a state like, say, Wisconsin. Tea Party hero and Governor Scott Walker made significant budget cuts to his state along with tax cuts, while also becoming a conservative icon by winning a recall election aimed to remove him for his actions against public employees and unions. But while Wisconsin started 2010 as 11^th in job creation, in Walker’s tenure it has fallen to 44^th in job creation. Compare that position to states with the highest rates of job creation such as New York or California. Not coincidentally, neither of these states has weakened its unions or workers’ rights in recent years.

That is all for tonight, and I hope I've provided enough information to support my ideas. I encourage feedback through the comments here, or at my email of zerospintop@live.com. You can also contact me through Facebook, Twitter, Google+, DeviantArt, Steam, Tumblr, and Reddit. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.

Forgotten: The Threat of Inequality

Greetings all!

This post comes amid serious political debate in the United States over gay marriage. Protests have erupted mainly in Washington DC both for and against gay marriage, and the Human Rights Campaign has started a wave of changes in Facebook profile photos in support of LGBT rights. And, while I feel more strongly about this issue than most anything else at the moment, I have already made my position clear. I support the absolute equality of marriage on a federal level; no couple should be denied the right to marriage or the benefits said marriage entails no matter what in my eyes. Instead of writing further on this than I have in the past, I have decided to address something that mostly goes forgotten in debates and is shoved aside when presented. Tonight, I will address why we cannot forget inequality among the rich and the poor, in any nation.

Inequality is a mostly ignored issue in America; our capitalist model is more fixated on an unimpeded market than social benefits. The reasoning for our sidelining of inequality comes from Ronald Reagan, unsurprisingly. It begins in 1976, when Reagan coined the term welfare queen in a speech where he described a woman as follows: "She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000." While grossly inaccurate, the truth (or lack thereof) of Reagan’s words resonated with individualist Republicans of the time. The New Conservative movement was beginning, one which would challenge egalitarianism in America and effectively win.

Reagan lost the 1976 election, but won in 1980. He then embarked on two full terms of selling America to businesses and selling out common people in the process. National welfare programs were reduced drastically in an effort to essentially remove the Great Society completed by LBJ in the 1960s. And while conservatives championed this change as fighting abuse of public funds by ensuring every person works and gets what they deserve, it damaged every worker’s right we ever fought for. We never put much effort into restoring these rights again; after Reagan left office, Bush Sr. took over and did relatively little. Clinton did make reforms, stating that he was “changing welfare as we know it,” but in reality this likely only exacerbated the problem by encouraging welfare-to-work programs that needlessly stress and damage those whom need our help the most. While a growing economy in the 1990s did lift some from poverty, the environment around those in it was increasingly restrictive.

The years of the next Bush presidency made inequality a niche issue; our budget was pushed towards national defense, especially with two new wars on the credit card. But now that these wars are ending and we have the chance to change, we should.

It is often argued that inequality is a natural part of a free market economy, and that we therefore should not interfere. I have trouble seeing the free market as some all-powerful force, however. If the free market is always right, then no government regulation would be logical or necessary. Slavery could be pushed because “the market supports it.” There are many things which are endemic in capitalism which we regulate anyway. We do this because it is in the public interest to do so. We regulate our food production industry so that our meat is not grossly contaminated and unfit for consumption (although we clearly need more regulation on this front). We regulate the gun industry so that citizens don’t get their hands on anti-tank weaponry. We regulate jewelry so that people do not purchase blood diamonds. We do this because we wish for people to be safe and secure in their purchasing options in America. We cannot depend on every single person to know for themselves about these things in their day-to-day lives; to do so would be putting a great deal of unfounded faith in humanity.

Even if inequality were natural, that does not mean we shouldn't try to alleviate it. The fact of the matter is that inequality is damaging to our economy, and the more unequal we are the more damaging it becomes. We already post a Gini Index score of 45.0, just a step worse than Iran on equality. That’s right, we are worse than our greatest geopolitical foe when it comes to inequality. Even though the Iranian state is laden with sanctions, bureaucracy, and subsidies, it still manages to pull more of its poor to a better status than we do. I will grant that being poor in America is definitely better due to the lack of Islamic theocracy, but with Christian conservatives trying to impose religion on governance more and more these days we are not as far off as we should be.

But what can we do, and how far should we go? I redirect us to the Gini Index, where Sweden has the lowest score among 136 recorded nations. As such, Sweden is the most equal country on record so far, although comparable nations like Norway jockey for that position frequently. The Swedish welfare state is one of the most extensive—and well-funded—endeavors among first world economies. In total, the average Swede gives about 70% of their salary in taxes away (yeah, you heard me). In return, healthcare and education are free. The social security system has more than enough money to pay for elderly care for all Swedes. Most common worker’s benefits, like maternity leave and vacation days, are greatly extended without trouble to businesses. Significant opportunities are given to Swedes of all economic strata. And while not a perfect system (the Swedish economy is vulnerable to swings in export prices), it does quite well. Like most other Scandinavian nations, it did not suffer much at all during the 2008-2009 financial crisis. It has resisted contagion from the Eurozone debt crisis as well, despite being a member state (although it does not use the euro).

I do not advocate that we make an immediate switch to this model. That would cause a great shock to our economy, and would be met with swift unbearable resistance. I do not even suggest we have to go that far; comparable first world economies have reached significantly more equal societies with lower tax rates than the country with the highest single rates on the planet. Switzerland manages to pull off a healthy welfare state while allowing its citizens to pay the lowest tax rate in Europe. And while everything isn't as great as it used to be, Switzerland does prove that we don’t have to change our tax rates quite so radically. Nor do we have to raise public spending to the levels of France, which spends more on each person than any other country in Europe (outside Sweden, of course). As long as we exist in a capitalist market, we cannot risk immediately changing ourselves and scaring off chances of private investment. Our government simply doesn't have the finances or the political will to fill that hole with public investment entirely.

I advocate we bring our public spending up to the OECD average (p. 5) of 43.6% through taxation. And while it took an annoying amount of calculations, I think I've found the most agreeable ways we can do this. In the first more radical option, individual income tax rates on those making $250,000 a per annum would be raised to about 45%, with the capital gains tax rate being raised to 35%. Because I saw this change as somewhat harsh to swallow, I came up with a secondary option; raising the top income rate to about 40% and the capital gains rate to about 33%, while raising taxes on incomes for most middle class families (those making between $90,000-$250,000 per year) by 1.5%. I realize that sounds like financial suicide, but it is the more moderate (and likely to pass Congressional approval) option of the two. In both cases, none of the current tax loopholes are changed; doing so would likely make this much easier on the common taxpayer. If we were to cut the subsidies to large oil companies which top $52 billion per year, I’m certain those rate increases wouldn't be nearly as large, especially if we cut other loopholes which get abused easily.

We should then ensure that our newly increased public spending does not go to waste. If we put that increase in spending all towards defense, we will not feel any of the effects of our taxes and the heightened taxation will become justifiably unpopular. To be specific, with new tax revenue I propose we bring our spending on social protection to between 35%-40% of our total budget. We should also divert at least some of our defense spending towards education and general public services. I’m not sure increasing spending on health here would be intelligent or not, given that we already spend more on healthcare than pretty much all countries. We should probably wait for a more efficient healthcare system before we propose greater spending on it (good thing Obamacare takes effect soon). All this would assuage the high level of inequality in our country and provide greater opportunities to common Americans, making our economic model more stable in the present and more sustainable in the future.

That is all for tonight, and I honestly hope that my calculations and sources back up my viewpoint here. If you have questions or comments about this, please feel free to post them right here in the comments section. Otherwise, my email at zerospintop@live.com is still open, along with my Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, Google+, Steam, Tumblr, and Reddit accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

A Final Promise: The Cypriot Debt Crisis

Greetings all!

This post comes after a somewhat prolonged break from my writing, due to a combination of technical difficulties and large amounts of school work predating a brief break from school which I have just begun. Because I am guilty of not finding enough time to write and now have extra time, I will be making several posts this week to make up for my absence. Tonight, I address the Cypriot financial crisis going on at this very moment, along with the entire European debt and capitalism crisis. This week’s quote comes from Néstor Kirchner, a former Argentine president and renowned economic hero of said nation.

The current trouble in Cyprus is one that is not new to the EU, but the proposed solution for it certainly was. Cypriot banks, which had assets much larger than the entire Cypriot economy, made some dangerous and risky investments in Greece. When the Greek economy began to tear at the seams, Cypriot banks were found trapped in a mire of financial burden and uncertainty. In order to ensure the liquidity and stability of the Cypriot economy, the government was forced to seek a deal with the troika, composed of the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the EC (European Commission), and the ECB (European Central Bank). Because the Cypriot government could not bail out the banks on its own and it was impeded by slow growth, it was essentially forced to ask for international help. While the former communist president, Demetris Christofias, was less willing to give in, the country recently elected a more negotiable conservative leader, Nicos Anastasiades. You read that right, Cyprus had a communist president. Too bad he came in at the exact wrong moment. For a fuller description of the origins of the crisis, see this.

The original deal proposed by the troika was horrifying, and a close call. At first, a bank levy on all deposits in Cypriot banks was suggested, starting at 6.75% for smaller deposits and up to 10% for larger ones. This was the greatest breach of trust yet in the European debt crisis; governments and organization had promised no bank levies would occur. Citizens were ensured that their savings deposits would not be endangered, no matter what. By making a bank levy on all Cypriots the first option, the hopes of ensuring the safety of each person’s money were broken and shattered. This was reflected by protests across Cyprus. The very notion that this issue has made common Cypriots forget the divide between Turks and Greeks proves how serious this has become. Luckily, this deal was protested feverishly and struck down by the Cypriot parliament.

The new deal is not very much better. Taxes on the average Cypriot will be coupled with privatizations of state holdings. The second largest bank, Laiki Bank, will be closed, and deposits over 100,000 euros will be moved. Deposits under that level are being moved into the biggest bank, the Bank of Cyprus, which has to undergo restructuring. Deposits over that limit will then be used to finance the bailout. And while this does not target as many Cypriots as it does Russian oligarchs (wealthy Russians enjoy investing in Cyprus), it stands as testament that Europeans have been lied to and they are not safe. We now know for certain that the troika does not see citizens as something worth protecting, they just see them as assets to exploit to ensure capitalism doesn't break.

The most important thing we should consider when looking at all this is that this is not a problem for Cyprus alone. It should be clear to just about everyone that austerity doesn't work, in all cases. These economic policies force severe damage to those nations that pursue them, causing a shrinking economy, spiking inequality of wealth and income, and inject structural flaws into systems that cannot handle such problems. However, jam the idea of bank levies into austerity packages and you have a full plan to sabotage any economy. Combined, an austerity-oriented economic model with bank levies would surely speed any afflicted nation towards plutocracy. While all common citizens will have their jobs, their savings, their education, and their healthcare jeopardized, the wealthy will suffer comparatively less and not be prosecuted afterwards. A more dangerous system of capitalism will be left in the wake of these crises, a system even more dependent on the rich and corporations and less willing to fight against them.

We like to point towards Germany as an example of why austerity should work. But while Germany appears safe, the truth is murky. We forget that German austerity did not work as intended, and was modest in comparison to those nations forced to pursue it like Greece, Italy, and Spain. What we should know is that German austerity has not justified itself in terms of economic output, and this is reflected by nervous chattering among the Christian Democratic Party which currently leads Germany and fears losses in coming elections due to austerity failures.

What we must realize is that austerity, while it appears like it should work, does not and is counterintuitive to the best interests of any people. The French people realized this, and attempted to rectify the problem by electing Francois Hollande, an anti-austerity socialist. Instead, governments should focus on preserving the social safety net by stimulating growth of the economy. Because the poor and the middle class are the most vulnerable in crisis, it is the programs which help them which must be protected first and foremost, not the banks, the corporations, or the wealthy. They can handle themselves, and are not in severe danger. We must not fall prey to them.

That is all for tonight, and I hope I have provided sound reasoning behind my argument. If you have comments or questions, please feel free to comment on this site. If you would prefer other methods of contacting me, I can be reached at my email at zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Steam, DeviantArt, Tumblr, and Reddit accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

No Question: A Case for the Voting Rights Act

Greetings all!

This post comes just days before the so-called “sequester” in the United States, among other things. However, I have had my eye on a smaller issue that seems to have gone unnoticed among most of us. Namely, that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has received a new challenge, this time by a small county outside Birmingham, Alabama. Most Americans turn away at news of this because we feel the outcome is inevitable; section 5 will likely be upheld by the Supreme Court, and nothing will change. However, this passivity strikes me as dangerous. America was a nation built on racism, and racism is alive and well in our nation, that is clear. That we automatically accept that section 5 is under no threat proves how foolish we may be. In this post, I intend to show why our inaction on this may cost us severely. This week’s quote comes from Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, an agrarian populist president of Guatemala prior to a CIA-backed and United Fruit Company-sponsored coup against his democratically elected government.

First, we must know what section 5 states. In the Voting Rights Act, section 5 notes that 9 states—Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia—must receive permission from the DOJ or a federal court before any state voting laws are changed. The provision was included in the law to ensure that states with a history of oppressive voting practices would comply with the new law no matter what. Of course, most of the states are primarily in the south, outside Alaska, as the south was the primary battleground of civil rights issues in the 1960s. While the north suffered from de facto segregation that it had to confront, the south legislated de jure segregation which made section 5 absolutely necessary to progress. Without it, the Voting Rights Act would have been moot because many states would find ways around the law in order to prevent minorities from voting.

The reason states challenge the law, as noted in the link earlier, is that many claim the south has “outgrown” the racist policies of its past. This is often based on population and representation statistics, in that the south is more racially diverse than its past and its state government make-up reflects these demographic changes.

However, we should know by now that these are mistruths. Having minorities in leadership positions does not a diverse government body make; what matters is how much power and equality the common minority has. If they have less in any way, no amount of representation makes up for that. Given, the south is more racially diverse and less oppressive than the past. Racially based policies are outlawed, and about 56% of African-Americans reside in the southern states. But this does not change the fact that 74.1% of Americans are white, meaning that all American minorities still do not constitute much power in governance. This is especially true of the southern states section 5 applies to; while they may have large representative amounts of African-Americans, other minorities are not represented as well in these states as compared to the rest of America.

And we should also not be foolish enough to believe that racism is not apparent in the governance of these states. While it is rare to get legislators on the state level openly proposing racist policy, racism is still reflected in socio-economic inequality between whites and minority groups. Even Fox News, the bastion of the Republican Party which absorbed racist southern Democrats after the civil rights movement, acknowledges that racism still exists in America. Racism towards African-Americans is not our only problem; we also have become less tolerant of Arabs and Muslims in exchange for more tolerance of Hispanics. Note that this does not mean that we have overcome our intolerance of Hispanics, either. This becomes especially easy to see when we consider such American policies as the war on drugs, in which blacks constitute 13% of drug users, yet also represent 38% of those arrested for drug offenses and 59% of those convicted.

It should be clear now that the arguments these southern states make for abolishing section 5 are false, and as such the Voting Rights Act in its entirety should be upheld. I contend that, because section 5 is for the good of minorities, it should in fact be extended to all states. This way, we can prevent racist policies in voting for all states. We already know that racism is not limited to these 9 states the law originally applies to; this was proven by Pennsylvania, which tried to pass new restrictive voter ID laws ahead of this year’s presidential election. Not only did this law disproportionately harm Democratic voters (and democracy), it easily targeted immigrants, the elderly, and other minority groups which were not prepared for the law. And while the law failed, the fact that such propositions are still made is symptomatic of our troubles. Therefore, we must extend section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to all states, to protect all Americans from discriminatory policies in the present and the future.

That is all for this week, and I hope I’ve provided sound reasoning. I can be contacted through the comments section here, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com. I can also be found on Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, Steam, Tumblr, and Reddit. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.  

Living By Your Means: A Case For Raising the Minimum Wage

Greetings all!

This post comes as Americans celebrate President’s Day, an agglomeration holiday meant to declare our gratitude towards our great leaders of the past. Sadly, we seem to always look backwards for an example of a great chief executive, and while not without reason this is disappointing. Much of our dislike for the office of the presidency in America has centered on our last president, George W. Bush, and the current president, Barack H. Obama. And while the former deserves every criticism thrown his way as a war criminal, neither he nor Obama is truly the worst president in American history. This is true regardless of what those on the extreme end of the GOP establishment may claim. I was particularly surprised by the outpouring of hate this week after the State of the Union address, when the president’s remarks about raising the federal minimum wage were touted as more socialist, anti-American policies intended to destroy us and our economy while attacking the very values our country was established upon. And so, in order to wash these rumors away, I’ve decided to write something in support of raising the minimum wage. This week’s quote comes from Adam Smith, an economic philosopher widely renowned for his ideas about economies and how governments should be run in order to prosper.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama noted that our economy is on the rise, but our loyalty to our workers and our treatment of labor is in decline. While saying comparatively little about unions as I had hoped, the president then pledged support for raising our federal minimum wage to nine dollars an hour. Should this be instituted, a person working full-time for 5 days a week would earn under 19,000 dollars a year, and this figure excludes holidays and other reasons for not working a few days. For a single person, this easily reaches over the federal poverty line (although it still ignores typical costs of living in America). For a family in America, however, this is still barely enough even with some small tax exemptions for those in the lower classes. In essence, it is similar to the stimulus package of 2009; it does not do enough to address the problem.

While raising the federal minimum wage to nine dollars may be small, it is still a necessary and beneficial step we can take. I would love if the minimum wage were $21.72 as it should be, but if we are going to raise wages we might as well start somewhere. Of course, raising that wage level starts at Congress, and we should hope that something which seems like common sense will at least be viewed favorably by some conservatives.

Arguments which argue against raising minimum wages are plentiful. One of the most prominent arguments tends to flow in the same “common sense” direction that raising the minimum wage does. This is a very basic economic argument which states that if employers have to raise wages for employees, they will start hiring workers less and start firing workers more to save money. It seems simple, and therefore it is easy to listen to and believe. However, economics are not quite so simple, and there are far more variables at play in a large economy than just business profits versus worker benefits. We must consider the realities of our so-called market economy if we wish to analyze what a raise in minimum wages would do to business and consumers alike.

For example, we must examine how consumption would be affected by such a raise. Obviously, we must exclude all people in the U.S. not working for the minimum wage. This still leaves about 30 million Americans as consumers on the minimum wage, when excluding those whom live in poverty above the minimum wage. So, that means we have just fewer than 10% of our population on the federal minimum wage. Now, remember that in a mixed-market economy business and trade is driven by consumption and production. This cycle is fueled by the amount of money consumers have to spend on items beyond necessities, otherwise known as disposable income. At the poverty line, disposable income does not exist; poverty is a state where wasting money on anything besides necessities is foolish. And while such spending occurs, it is fairly rare (hopefully) and does not do much to improve our economy.

By introducing a new factor like a raised minimum wage, the situation is altered. Now, there is more cash in the pockets of consumers. Undoubtedly, some of this will be put towards increased living standards, getting through bills, covering debt, etc. However, any leftover cash which does not get put towards these things only really has two uses from there on: investment and indulgence. It’s fair to say some of those experiencing this windfall of cash will invest it in retirement funds for themselves, college funds for their children, etc. But chances are that most people, when suddenly experiencing extra cash, will not make the wise forward-thinking decision of investment and will instead spend that cash on other things. People are impulsive with money, especially when there is so little to go around. And so consumption would likely rise dramatically with a wage increase for those earning the minimum wage today, thereby benefiting the economy and decreasing business incentive to cut down on employees to make profits. While paying a higher wage may be more difficult for employers on the surface, it becomes more than worthwhile in the long term.

Another common argument against the minimum wage increase is that doing so decreases a person’s incentive to work harder. This essentially compares a minimum wage increase to an automatic promotion that people do not necessarily deserve. The major problem with such a comparison is the implications it creates; do people not deserve a living wage? In what case could it be feasible to subject any person to life-long poverty? Why would any person ever deserve that kind of suffering and scraping by? It is hard to make the argument that any person making minimum wage deserves that kind of pay, even if they have a meager work ethic. The truth is that “welfare queens” do not really exist, as current American welfare programs are simply not enough to live any kind of comfortable life. We do not provide a hammock for the poor to rock in; the poor are called poor for a reason. Those in the lower classes of society do not live well, and no amount of food stamps helps enough to de-incentivize work. The same can be said of wage increases; even at $21.72 an hour, people will still always desire more than a living wage because they are greedy and envious. People want luxuries in order to make themselves feel successful and to lord these things over others. This is what capitalism breeds, so we may as well make it happen.

The only other argument I have encountered when opponents of raising the minimum wage stand up is that by requiring greater pay for workers, we take money out of company and entrepreneur pockets. If employees are not then fired to make up for lost revenue, we lose out on the private sector investment and expansion that our economy finds useful. However, this is a flimsy claim at best; private sector investments do not absolutely even have to buoy our economy if we increase public sector investment. Plus, increasing the minimum wage would not truly hurt a business unless the majority of its workers get the minimum wage. All those minimum wage employees in America do not work for one company, they work for thousands. Spread amongst the owners of these companies, the raise is not harmful. Even with some cash out of pocket, these companies and entrepreneurs will easily make up for it in new revenue through consumer spending.

That is all for this week, and I hope I have provided solid reasoning. I am still open for feedback through my email at zerospintop@live.com, as well as my Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, Steam, and Tumblr accounts. I also now have a Reddit account as well, just look for KnoFear. And this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Treating It Right: Gay Rights As Civil Rights

Greetings all!

This post comes after a brief break in posting last week which I undertook to focus on other pressing work. Fortunately, in the meantime I had a bit of an idea concerning the movement towards LGBT rights that would only be helped by an extra week for the necessary research I had to do. I’m certain that someone has already had this idea before, but that does not diminish its possible impact on American and global society. This week’s quote comes from Fidel Castro, a leader of the Cuban Revolution decades ago and head of the Cuban state for decades. I respect and admire him for keeping up one of very few nations which still has an economy that is entirely centrally planned without ever breaking from his commitment to his ideals.

LGBT rights have only slowly progressed in these last years. In America especially, it has been quite difficult to ensure equal protection under the law for those of different sexualities and gender identities. Since 2000, just eleven countries fully allow for same-sex marriage rights. Many countries deem the practice to be illegal or at least not practiced by the state, and some nations even actively fight against it through brutal means. It is not as though there is no hope; slowly but surely more American states are beginning to recognize same-sex marriage, and the speed with which some countries have recognized equal LGBT rights is promising in some ways. For example, the U.K. currently looks to be the next nation to legalize same-sex marriages after a House of Commons vote strongly in favor of the new law. It’s not often for David Cameron to support a cause typically branded by the left, so it’s somewhat doubtful this will go poorly.

And yet we continue to see hate speech and religious dogma thrown casually in America to fight against the legalization of gay marriage. We tout our hatred for gays and lesbians on our sleeves, and then claim that we fight for ridiculous notions of preserving the “sacred institution” or “definition” of marriage. And while I’d love to rant about how these notions are silly and pointless, there would not be a reason for me to repeat something I made a point of on this site in its early days. Instead, I’d like to present an idea for how we can make progress, rather than why we should. The why should be more than clear by now.

I commend us on the ways we have fought for same-sex marriage rights over the years. By challenging DOMA, holding public protests, and passing state laws legalizing the practice, we are making good progress. At the same time, it will not be enough until we have federal laws which force states to recognize the rights of all couples, whether they like it or not. A question we supporters of gay marriage rarely ask ourselves in America is why it is so difficult to get people to accept the legality of gay marriage. If we are asked this question, we would normally respond by saying it is due to a history of long-held religious prejudice and homophobia which runs deep in the American psyche, especially in the South. By now, we should not excuse the lack of progress on the opposition to ourselves; we should predict exactly what they will say and do because we know what they will say and do to fight us. We must consider that perhaps we are lacking in the strength of our fight. We must consider new ways to challenge status quo of marriage, and that is primarily what I wish to discuss.

We like to note that the fight for gay marriage is not a question of gay rights, but a question of civil rights. This is the truth, of course. However, we consistently do not match our actions with our words. The last time there was a civil rights movement in America, those fighting to change society were not doing so as quietly as we are now. The last civil rights movement we experienced was not one where those fighting to change the status quo did so by legal means. In order to ensure equal protection under the law for African-Americans, civil rights leaders staged boycotts, sit-ins, and marches to demonstrate our need for change. These actions were not legal at the time, but that did not matter to them. What mattered was the injustice done to those of color, and anything that could be done had to be done. The reason that Martin Luther King, Jr. is remembered so well and laid so thickly upon students is because of the example he set of non-violent resistance. By not advocating for riots or planning to endanger the state unnecessarily for his cause, he is touted as a man with a perfect methodology for change. He led by example, and it is time we applied his teachings and the teachings of other civil rights leaders of his time.

By this, I mean that we should not be allowing the LGBT crowd to be repressed without fighting back by necessary means. And if this means taking things to a slightly illegal measure, then so be it. When civil rights activists participated in the Greensboro sit-ins, they were not following the laws of the day. It was not legal to do what they did, yet they did not back down. We must learn to follow in their footsteps. This means that if you are a same-sex couple trying to get married and a church or other institution refuses, you must tell them that you won’t leave until they let you get married. This means that if you are a same-sex married couple that moves to a state which does not recognize your marriage, you must sue the state for your right to that marriage. This means that we should not just stand outside churches and demand equal rights, but that we should enter the churches and demand those rights face to face with our opposition. This means that our protests must be strong and large, and must not break apart when threatened by law enforcement. We must be willing to receive the business end of a fire hose, we must be willing to receive the teeth of police dogs and the harsh strikes of batons. We must be willing to be sprayed with pepper spray, just as protesters in the Occupy movement were. Most importantly, we must not sit silently by and watch ourselves be oppressed. We must follow in the footsteps of those before us, and change our society without violence. If we lead by example and put everything we have into it, we cannot fail. History is on our side this time, and this is the idea I’ve been hoping to express.

That is all for this week, and I hope I’ve provided a full explanation of my ideas. If you have feedback of any constructive kind, I encourage you to leave a comment below. Otherwise, I can be reached for contact at my email at zerospintop@live.com, as well as my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, DeviantArt, Steam, and Tumblr accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Legalize Condoms: Providing Simple Birth Control

Greetings all!

This post comes in the middle of harsh winter conditions for portions of the country amid several tough political debates. In this piece of commentary, I intend to address a topic not so covered by current media. Namely, I will write my opinion on the provision of Obamacare which requires that all employers provide birth control in their employee health plans. This is not to say the issue has not resurfaced; many religious groups have lobbed legal battles against the provision. I have planned to write something specifically about this for some time, and I feel now is as good a time as any. This week’s quote comes from Carl Sagan, a man who contributed more to the popularization of science and intelligent skepticism than most people on the planet, and for that I am forever grateful to him.

Moving on, the Affordable Care Act does provide an exemption from the birth control provision for religious institutions. However, in order for any employer to be considered a religious institution, it must meet four qualifying standards. These employers’ purposes must be to instill religious values in people, they must employ and serve people whom share said religious values, and they must be nonprofit groups. Unfortunately for them, most of the institutions challenging Obamacare in court do not meet these four standards, and therefore cannot opt out of the controversial coverage. While I respect that the owners and leaders of these institutions feel their freedoms are being infringed upon, there are a few things which prevent them from opting out without meeting the legal requirements already established by Obamacare.

First, I shall argue why these employers cannot deny birth control to their employees without meeting legal requirements. The first requirement in the Affordable Care Act states that the employer must be one which exists to instill religion. Therefore, a Pizza Hut cannot deny birth control because the owner is Catholic (I do not know if this is true; this is only an example). However, business owners have argued that providing said birth control infringes upon their freedom of religion, so they should not have to provide it under the freedoms guaranteed to them by the first amendment. The problem with this argument is that their religious freedoms are not the freedoms at stake here; the owners of these businesses do not have to use birth control themselves. And because they are not a religious institution, they cannot claim that the law infringes on the rights of said institution. The rights at stake here are the employees’ rights to healthcare as provided by their employers as guaranteed by Obamacare. To challenge that right given by this law is to challenge the law itself, which has already been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. Essentially, the argument becomes moot because it circles to no useful end in the legal system; because there are no reasonable legal objections that can be made, the fight to remove the provision for birth control in this case cannot happen anyway.

The second and third provisions are typically tied together: the institution must employ and serve people of similar religious beliefs. To serve my points here, I’ll be using a Catholic church as my example. Let’s say you are the priest at a Catholic church; you own that church, you employ its workers, and you give sermons to your Catholic congregants. For now, we’re going to ignore all the other people a Catholic church may serve, i.e. by giving to the poor. The new law requires you to provide birth control to your employees, but you reject this. However, you cannot do this without confirming that every person you employ is a Catholic. If even one employee is not a Catholic, you cannot withhold birth control because you do not meet the legal requirements to be considered a religious institution. You may say that it infringes on your personal religious beliefs, but in truth withholding that birth control infringes on the healthcare rights of any employee of yours that is not Catholic. In fact, denying that birth control may infringe on the personal religious beliefs of your employees, in which case you cannot say that your higher position in the church means you can swing your religious weight around. The rights of your employees are equal to your rights, and the more there are of them the more ridiculous your case is.

And now comes the final requirement under the law, which states that the religious institution in question must be a nonprofit group as is codified under federal tax law. This one rarely comes under much scrutiny in America; most religious institutions like churches do fit the legal requirements to be considered a nonprofit, mostly because churches do not typically conduct commercial activities for profit. For the ones that do (say, selling candied almonds from within the building to people whether they are church members or not), they should not be considered wholly nonprofit institutions, and therefore should not be able to opt out of birth control coverage as a result. This is simpler to understand and argue for; if a religious institution is making profits off of its work, it should be able to handle providing birth control as a caveat even if the personal beliefs of the leaders at that institution conflict with providing such coverage.

My last point is one which is especially more contentious to make, in that I believe that no religious institution should be able to opt out of the birth control coverage even if it meets all four legal requirements under Obamacare. While at first glance this is because I oppose the continuous gifting of loopholes to religion in American law, there is a deeper piece to it. By giving an option to opt out to the leaders of religious institutions instead of the employees, we place greater power towards religious freedoms than we do to healthcare rights. And while the United States does not have a tradition of universal healthcare, I still hold this as a right all Americans deserve. By giving the ability to refuse this healthcare, we only obstruct the process towards providing this long overdue right to the American public. And while some may disagree on whether healthcare is a right or not, it is my firm belief that everyone has the right to a life once they've got it. Healthcare is necessary to that life, in my eyes.

That is the end of my argument, and I hope I’ve provided sound reasoning for my cause. As always, I encourage constructive criticism in the comments section. I am also open for my contact at my email of zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Steam, Tumblr, and DeviantArt. Good night, and this is KnoFear signing off.