Our last conversation

Please read the article linked below and consider these questions 1. Are all citizens given "equal protection under the law" as guaranteed by the US Constitution? 2. Is the War on Women different from the Mommy Wars? 3. If you are a woman, what do you see as your role in the world today? If you are a male, what do you think is the proper role women should play in our society? Be thoughtful and enjoy this our LAST CONVERSATION. Article link: http://www.policymic.com/articles/8257/om-mothers-day-2012cease-inhostilities-in-the-war-on-women-and%20mommy-wars

Poverty

After reading Honky and watching Grapes of Wrath and Pursuit of Happyness, do you feel poverty is something that can be elimnated or effectively reduced in our American society? Justify your position and engage your classmates as you discuss Poverty in America.

Free Speech--is there a limit to this right?

How free should our speech be? Are there or should there be limits to free speech? Is unchecked free speech a detriment to civil discourse in our democratic society?
Consider these questions as you look at the articles linked below.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/racist-email-federal-judge-richard-cebull-sent-his-buddies-about-president-obama-s-mom

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/rush-limbaughs-attack-on-sandra-fluke-was-hate-speech/2012/03/02/gIQAZVxrmR_blog.html

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-villa-park-councilwoman-protest,0,5376822.story

Income Inequality and living wage

In recent months the Occupy Wall Street Movement has received a lot of media attention. Though the goals of the movement haven’t always been crystal clear, one idea—“We are the 99%” has resonated with large segments of the American society. Who are these “99%” and what does the movement want for this group? The major sticking point is income inequality. For them, who is the 1% might be a better question. The one percent is CEO’s, hedge fund managers, and top executives who account for 31 % of our nation’s income. This group, for the most part, has not suffered from the recent economic downturn. In a recent University of California at Berkley study revealed that from 2007-2009 Wall Street profits, representing many of the corporations for whom the top one percent work, have risen 720%, while at the same time unemployment has more than doubled, and American’s home equity has diminished by 35%. This last statistic is particularly troubling since most of middle class Americans wealth is tied up in their homes. So, while most of America has been suffering, the wealthiest one percent has actually improved its economic standing. A Yale University study also reveals that during that same time period, 2007-2009, the top one percent has an average of $600,000 more per year to live on, while middle class Americans have experienced a drop in income of nearly $8500 per year. Are these trends fair? Should the government intervene to make income distribution more equal? The opinions of Americans are mixed. President Obama recently stated, “We can’t leave our values at the door….great reformers in American history did their work not just because it was sound policy, or good analysis but because our faith and values dictated it.” I agree with Obama. Our economic policies should be subject to moral judgment. As a recent editorial from “Protestants for the Common Good” stated—“morality and policy should be synonymous. If not we will lose our souls as individuals and our stature as a nation”. One suggestion to bring fairness and morality to our economic system is a proposal to institute a “living wage” as law. A living wage is defined as the bare minimum wage needed to sustain a life above the poverty line. Presently that figure is roughly $10 an hour. Ten states are already discussing such proposals. The benefits are obvious. With food prices going up (5%) over the last year and gas prices dramatically rising (32%), lower and middle class families are struggling to make ends meet. The extra wage would be more money to pay for necessities and could increase consumer spending and government tax revenues. Others counter however, that since such a wage increase would lead to a significant rise in the cost of production, businesses would have to fire workers and outsource more American jobs to cheaper overseas labor markets. Other business leaders argue that a mandated living wage would also lead to higher prices and lower demand, which would make our current economic situation worse. Can American business “afford” to be moral and pay their workers a “living wage”? I believe so. Another study by UC-Berkley involving Walmart—a well-known corporation that hires minimum wage or below living wage salaries, revealed that neither Walmart prices nor profits would be significantly impacted by a living wage proposal. The study projected that the average Walmart customer would pay 36 cents more per visit and only $10 more per year if wage increases were passed on to consumer through higher prices. I would gladly pay that much, if every Walmart worker could receive at least a living wage. I know some smaller companies would have more difficulty meeting that wage standard. However the larger companies, the ones whose profits have soared in recent years, certainly can afford to do the morally right thing. As President Obama said –“we can’t leave our values at the door” when we make policy. It is time to dignify all jobs and guarantee all Americans a “living wage”.

Meritocracy in America--Fact or Fiction?

Meritocracy in 21st century America—Fact or Fiction?
It is 2012 and another Presidential election is on the horizon. The past four years have been troubling ones for Americans. We have experienced four years of economic recession. Unemployment remains high, the nation’s debt continues to skyrocket, and all the while politicians argue about the best ways to address our current economic and social woes. As our society struggles with the options to address our dilemma, many are advocating tax cuts and reductions in entitlement programs as the best method for reviving our economic system. Proponents of this approach justify this path by arguing that our nation was founded on the American Dream—a belief that everyone has the opportunity to “make it” in America. Inherent in this American Dream is the idea of meritocracy. Meritocracy suggests that financial success in America is justly and fairly earned through hard work and performance. Conversely, meritocracy implies that the poor are lazy and actually deserve the station in life which they find themselves. If both financial success and financial failure are “earned”, then politicians can, in good conscience, vote to cut programs like unemployment, Medicaid, food stamps, and other entitlement programs. They can argue that “my hard-working tax dollars” should not be used to help those who didn’t help themselves. After all, we all had the same chance to succeed, didn’t we? Why should successful people be penalized at the expense of the lazy and indolent? Do we have a meritocracy in America? Is success or failure determined by our own efforts—or lack thereof? Consider these facts. In America today, 38 million people, including 14 million children, live in households experiencing hunger. That represents 8 percent of our population. The top 1 percent of Americans have more wealth than the lower 95 percent. Does individual initiative and effort explain these facts? Two top US executives, who are among the wealthiest people in the world, admit that individual effort does not explain their financial success. Erik Schmidt, CEO of Google, said, “Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don’t have a fraction of what I have.” And Warren Buffet, second richest man in the world, recently stated, “I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I have earned.” Obviously other factors play important roles in achieving success. Among those could be the wealth (or lack of it) of a person’s parents; the education level of that parent; God-given talent—like a professional athlete or musician; or chance or luck (winning the lottery). Regardless, it must be obvious that meritocracy is a flawed concept. Why, then, do we cling to this ideal? It’s easy--the wealthy love it because acceptance of the principle helps to maintain our current system. Economic reform is discouraged. There is no need for affirmative action or many of our social programs. Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps—that’s the mantra of 2012. The myth is so alluring that even many of our poor have bought into the ideal. We are taught meritocracy in our schools and we see it reinforced on TV shows, movies, and the popular media. The danger of America being so smitten with meritocracy is that it has justified the status quo. Why aren’t Americans shocked and angered by the growing inequality in America? A recent study reveals that America has less social mobility than most European countries. The gap between the rich and poor is the worst in this country since the Gilded Age of the late 1800’s. A growing middle class has always been the backbone of our democracy. As these trends, mentioned above, continue, we move further away from a democracy and closer to a plutocracy. This trend has been justified and rationalized by our belief in meritocracy—an American myth that needs to be debunked.