Let Them Eat Cheese

Before you Far Rightists take to the streets to beat and debase those minimum wage workers on strike for a living wage, read this. Essentially the 2 only "real" reasons given by the radical right for keeping minimum wage low (discountinmg the insane ramblings of Michele Bachmann) are 1: it will make some items cost more, and 2: it will slow job growth and hurt the economy.

Taking the first, first (makes sense, huh?): If the cost of a McDonald's burger increases by 5 or 10 cents because their workers actually can support a family of four if both work there, so be it. I have zero problem with that. As an aside, if McDonald's just raised the price by that amount, no one would even notice. Don't give me any crap - no one would notice. The thing to remember is that this is disposable income for most - I mean the cost of dining out, and many of us eat out at far more expensive places where we willingly pay an additional 20% of the bill in tips, without considering the extra cost. Even adding 10% to the McDonald's bill would cover the increase without much impact on the owner The impact on the employee, however would be huge. even a "split the difference" raise of $ 3.50 hourly, to $11.50 would move a worker who was married with a child from below to above Federal Poverty level income. Add a second parent working just half time, and the family is still well above the guidelines, even for as family of four. So much for that canard.

Second: "It will slow job growth and hurt the economy!" (usually stated in a whiny tone by people who own more stuff than they can count). reality? well, don't take my word for it, since I was going to deal with dull economics concepts like money multiplier, and things like that. Check this out instead:  "The effort (to raise minimum wage to $15/hour has been boosted by a growing body of economic research suggesting that raising the minimum wage doesn’t significantly reduce job growth. That’s helped undercut conservatives’ central argument in opposition to a raise. An analysis by Goldman Sachs last June found that job growth was actually a little higher in states that raised their minimum wage at the start of 2014 than in those that didn’t. Get that? A LITTLE HIGHER!!

As an aside, higher paid workers might actually (would) be able to afford more contribution to their health care insurance, and far fewer would qualify for earned income tax credit, decreasing the burden on taxpayers. In a Congress where there is yet another effort underway to reduce or eliminate the inheritance tax ($10.6 million is exempt for a couple, so you go figure how many of us middle class persons will ever be affected by this anyway!) it's small wonder that there is Far Right opposition to the minimum wage increase. We seem to just keep slapping workers in the face as they see income gap statistics continue to escalate. The Far Rightist response almost seems to be (Parodying Marie Antoinette, and we remember what happened to her) "Let them eat government cheese!"

When Morons Attack

It is depressing to consider with all the bitching and moaning of conservative, usually Evangelical, Christians, that what they are bemoaning isn't actually attacks upon them or their faith. The Mike Huckabees, Ted Cruz's and Rick Santorums, not to mention  Far Right Christian shamans too numerous to mention, are shamelessly whoring faith for votes.

        Statements such as "gays hate America" (Mike Levin) are not so very far removed from Russia's oppressive and repressive laws on the subject.  When asking for equal treatment under the law and in a civilized society is seen as an attack, there is something very wrong in the mind of the accuser. In the mid 50s to early 60s the same vile hatred was visited upon Black Americans by some White ones. Like the current anti-gay attitudes of a vocal minority of alleged Christians, the race hatred of that era was supported by some religious leaders, and led but a group who characterized themselves as Christians, first and foremost - the KKK.

        It almost seems as if Evangelicals and Muslim extremists, portrayed as mortal enemies, actually have a great deal in common. Both have for over a thousand years, periodically used their beliefs as a basis for murder. Both have demonstrated an unwillingness to consider that any other spirituality than theirs has sufficient merit to be conceded equal rights. While Muslims ignore color as a qualification, Many  (not all) truly racist Evangelical Americans also carry the remnants of racism within. One only need  look no further than the inbreds of Duck Dynasty for proof of both points. In like fashion, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell decades ago demonstrated their willingness to use slur, innuendo and  bullying tactics to further the flow of money into their  coffers.  Today it is the  morally bankrupt, political opportunist politicians  who, using the big lie in a manner which would make Hitler proud, lead the field of liars.

        An "attack" carries the connotation of attempting  to defeat a foe with the object of achieving some sort of superiority by that effort.  The issue here is that Christians have occupied the high ground and favored position in America, and for centuries, they have enjoyed that privileged position with relative impunity. Christian metaethics dominated the political and societal landscape and there were few willing to or courageous enough to point  out publically and persistently that the Constitution  didn't actually create or enforce such a situation. Even worse was that, just as slave owners had, the Evangelicals were happy to evangelize, but only certain groups were welcome to the table. In the 1950s there were relatively few Christian congregations in most of this nation with both White and Black communicants. No one claimed that this was what Jesus wanted; it was their own bigotry and bias which fostered it.

      By the turn of the century, Evangelicals had actually turned their bigotry into a parody of Blazing Saddles, where the mayor says, "Ok, the Niggers and Chinks can stay, but we don't want the Irish."  In Evangelical speak, this has become, "Ok, the Blacks can stay and women can preach (sometimes), but we don't want the gays."  Any literate person, regardless of who or what they may believe Jesus was, was not, or if he even existed, can read the new Testament  words describing his actions and quickly see just how f***ed up Evangelicals are on this issue. If anyone who actually thinks of them self as a Christian believes for  a minute that Jesus would have refused anyone, prostitute, thug, asexual, gay, Black, or whatever, a seat at the table, is lying to themselves and their God if they have one.

       Only in the deluded mind of fanatics, is asking for equality seen as an attack. Accusations of lack of patriotism are the same garbage. What minorities are seeking is simply to be treated equally. If this is seen as an "attack,"  then surely that is a bigoted and subjective opinion originating  with the person who is being called upon to actually live their life in a moral fashion instead of judgmentally  telling others what to do with theirs.          

The other foot!

what follows is part of an exchange  stemming from the following posts on a (gay former student) friend's Facebook page:

"I'm from the Right Wing but I would simply haul ass to a place that would serve me. Has anyone refused to serve a gay couple? I must have missed that."

At this point I felt  my interest piqued so I looked at the respondents bona fides. Amazingly enough, she  (this person) "studied at the London School of Economics" and now works at a volunteer fire department in Maine!

My first response:

"Yes, XXXXXX, it has happened all over the country, most frequently at bakeries who don't want to make a same sex couple cake. It extends, or has done , to refusal to rent. It has kept lifelong partners from deathbeds, disenfranchised surviving partners, and the list goes on. Apparently the London School of Economics didn't cover historical persecution of England's own gay population (Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing (forced chemical castration) in our lifetimes. It seems that you subscribe to the "I'm not gay, so screw 'em" school of thought. Of course one could use that vastly bigoted point of view to justify allowing discrimination to any group different from oneself. And for the record, I am a happily married (50 years) straight man. I just happen to be sick of seeing such ignorance in print. Kick this one around the firehouse, I'll bet they agree with you,  more's the pity.

She then asked why if a photographer refuses to shoot a wedding, so what? " Were other photographers available? If so, why the fuss?"

I responded:

"Because, if you offer your services in an open commercial setting, then you should provide those services to any legitimate customer who asks for them and can pay. The concept was (supposedly) settled by the USSC in Heart of Atlanta Hotel vs US in 1964 (yeah, 50 years ago) Although the case was brought by a motel chain wishing to avoid providing rooms for Black potential customers, and sought to enjoin enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it related to any business involved in commerce. As  federal Law, it relates only  to "interstate" businesses, and therefore, if your photographer or baker isn't an interstate entity, there is the possibility that persons like yourself could deny service based on prejudice. Many Americans supported the abandonment of Jim Crowism, discrimination and bigotry during the Civil rights era. Some still cling to the idea that it is just fine to treat one group different from another based on bias and prejudice. The same principle you seek to justify would allow a very broad range of discrimination, not just anti-gay, but anti-single parent, anti- black, anti- Jew, Muslim , Hindu ....in fact against anyone who isn't just like you. The only conceivable reason one would support these "religious freedom" laws is if one, in extremely un-Christian fashion, I might add, given the example of the Biblical Jesus, chooses bigotry, bias and hatred over love. If that is you, XXXXX, you need to look to your soul."

"One last note, It amazes me that the only people we hear complaining about this reaction to the "religious freedom" laws, are persons who have never been the specific targets of discrimination ....not until their own allegedly religious based patterns of behavioral and overt discrimination were finally met by people of good will who challenged their right to be bigots. The shoe is on the other foot and apparently it pinches. Of course these "victims" of equal opportunity will never be lynched shot or burned for their complaints. They will, like you, just be scorned and shamed for their "pick and choose the scripture" religiousity. See a difference here?