What Should We Get Paid?

When I started this blog, it was just a way to get across certain things I've pondered. Then I wanted the blog to help as a way of getting exposure to my writings on the Internet; and I wanted to cover wider and deeper issues in a wider and deeper context.

Well, what can I say? I don't think those things are working as far as this blog is concerned. So, I'd like to begin making this blog personal...but in a deeper and wider context.

I was on Facebook this morning, doing that micro-blogging thing, and was considering posting a status update on a particular subject. The subject was pay, wages, income: And in the context of the social setting which we consider acceptable, the acceptable being entirely unacceptable to me.

Here's what I'm talking about: We seem to believe that only some people deserve help, which is generally measured by income and how well someone has adhered to the assumptions and rules of the social and economic order: Hard work, having a job, being a good boy and girl. Doesn't matter how destructive all of that is, how much heart disease you get from it or how much it diverts you from doing what you love and what you need to do for your sanity and health. The fact that most welfare recipients work on jobs that do not pay for basic needs hasn't deterred anyone from this ludicrous thought that such people are not deserving of help; however, it seems acceptable that banks and corporations deserve bail-outs even though their only function is to make money and to make more money for those who already have a lot of it. Baffling.

So, if we are going to continue with this system and approve of it and follow it and propagate it to our children, co-workers, and friends, then I'd like to propose an adjustment in the system.

I propose that we reverse the income brackets. The CEO whose only function is to make money, which essentially does no one any good except to continue the system of corruption, should be paid minimum wage; because currently, the care-providers, the artists, and others who actually help people and give what is good to society are making the least amount of money and taking the heaviest burden. So, the care-providers, the ones who take care of children and those with disabilities and the aged, the people doing the work that is obviously necessary and helps the whole of society, should receive millions of dollars an hour, like a CEO. Same goes for artists, writers, dancers, photographers, painters, and others who contribute to the culture, illuminate and give insights.

Yes, I know, it's all so crazy how I talk. As if things aren't already crazy and backwards.

More Gun Talk and Gun Control Talk Over Here

In my previous posts I've been covering the issue of gun control quite a bit. It grabbed my attention. But I will confess this: It's not that important to me. Generally not interested in the subject. I am interested in whether people are homeless and hungry, destroying themselves in wretched jobs, and if the wars we have going on across the globe are killing children. Those things definitely concern me. But the gun control issue never has.

And it's amazing how few can discuss the issue without it degenerating and moving away from important points. It's either balls to wall or unrealistic, rarely rational. I won't go into specifics there, but probably most people have seen it.

The issue is disturbing, if you're at all paying attention. It brings to light America's violence and fear, our divisiveness and penchant for brutality and even murder. It's an old problem. And those problems are the real root of this gun control debate.

The point has been making the rounds in social media and elsewhere that the NRA was for gun control when it applied to the Black Panthers, radical political group born in the 60s revolution, and when the "Master", Ronald Reagan, was all for it; then the Black Panthers died and Reagan was president, everything was fine and dandy in their sheltered little world, so both Reagan and the NRA were against gun control again. Well, the hypocrisy is obvious.

But this post's real intention is to get away from the debate and make a move to humor. Because I'm tired of this issue already.

There Are Still Three Branches of Government, Though We Have Executive Orders

Well, really, I want to talk about gun control....again.

Here's the thing: I understand the need for self-defense; I've trained in it, I've had experiences in the real world which taught me its necessity, and I have many friends who believe strongly in self-defense; and these friends own guns; none of them are bonkers and they don't misuse their guns.

Also, if your home is invaded by a multitude, you're going to need more than a six-shooter to deal with it, you'll probably need 16 in the clip. Just sayin'.

I guess I'm saying I have more than just an idle sympathy for the defenders of the Second Amendment.

But I was a bit wobbly...until recently.

Suddenly (to me, suddenly), Mr. Vice-President Joe Biden suggested the possibility of controlling guns through executive order. Well, we still have checks and balances, three branches of government, one branch makes laws, another interprets laws, and another executes laws. Not the best system but better than a dictatorship in which the executive controls everything and everyone. I think we know the dangers of a powerful executive; yes, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and even little ol Ferdinand Marcos took away the guns and had their way with the people. A tad bit of knowledge of history will let you in on that.

We have unemployment, homelessness, and hunger at an all-time high and the Vice-President suggests Obama ought to make an emergency move on gun control. Quite absurd.

But here's the thing, it's still true. It's the mind which creates violence; and that's not looking like it's going to change any time soon.

More On Gun Control Plus More With Piers Morgan

This seems to be a subject which Piers Morgan is hot for, and he gets hot and pushy, no doubt about that. Alex Jones might have been trying to put the fire out with his own torrent. But I'm getting fascinated by this issue myself. I'm not a gun man, but I am into martial arts and self defense; I don't know that the three things necessarily go together, but I know a lot of martial artists who are into guns, and connect it vehemently with self defense.

But self defense is not the concern of those who are for the Second Amendment and against gun control. Their concern is tyranny. And they make a good point.

Historically, it is the case that tyrannies disarm the public and institute control over the public; Japan outlawed weapons in Okinawa because they feared the martial arts public; in the Philippines, at least according to my Filipino martial arts sources, Spain outlawed the practice of Filipino martial arts; so it was done in secret. Granted, the martial arts "world" is full of fanciful stories. Still, Mao, Hitler, and the list goes on, disarmed the public and instituted tyranny. The people can't defend themselves, then they are helpless before the government.

It's a compelling argument, and in some ways beats the argument that automatic weapons allow for the slaughter of school kids and movie-goers. Also, there is the argument that an attempt to ban semi-automatic guns will outlaw hand-guns and nullify our ability to have something handy for self defense.

Then there's the question of why we want and need guns, why we're afraid and why the government is dangerous. I'm not going to go that deep into the subject. But I find this interview on Piers Morgan's show very, very interesting. Ben Shapiro nails it a couple times, and Morgan can't say much for that: Especially at the point when Morgan is trying to turn accusations around on him.

Gun Control, Alex Jones and Piers Morgan

By Francois Polito (Appareil numérique OLYMPUS C700UZ) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Well, I'm guessing many people are already aware of the interview with Alex Jones on the Piers Morgan show on CNN. I'm not here to take sides on the debate, but to laugh out loud at the interview itself.

This is not a blast against Jones either, but even objectively, that interview is a classic case of absurdity, a sudden outburst out of nowhere that went nowhere and with talk that had no substance. Was Jones right in his criticism of Morgan's question? Yes. Was Morgan correct that Jones did not engage in any kind of fruitful dialogue? Yes. Was the interview hilarious? Yes.

What was Morgan's question that Jone's objected to so vehemently? He asked Jones how many gun murders there were in the UK last year. I believe the correct answer is 35. That's quite a low number. In America, it's in the thousands. Definitely seems to point to a problem. But I think Jones is correct, that little stats here and there do not cover the subject in any depth. Limiting the guns, for sure, doesn't get rid of violence. Of course, I know the counter-argument: Well, there won't be such a mass slaughter without the guns. Of course, that's true. And then I know the arguments about how the government is doing quite a fine job of murdering people with high-powered weapons, why limit the citizenry? Also true. Gun control is common in developed countries and taken for granted; many people think Americans are a little bit looney to be debating this issue at all. But, as an aside, I know plenty of people who own guns who are probably never going to murder dozens of people any time soon. I could be wrong.

Of course, I also know that that's not the point, on the side of the Second Amendment folks. The point is, gun control laws are gateway laws for further oppression; well, it has happened before: Just like drug laws made it possible to imprison a tragically huge number of people, disproportionately black, brown, and poor. I'm not much into restrictions myself.

Also, gun control advocates use an awful lot of scare tactics.

However, what do you do about someone who can collect a cache of high-powered guns and go slaughter people at schools and movie theaters. Here's where I cop out. I said this blog post wasn't going to be about the issue, but about the hilarity of the interview on Piers Morgan's show. So, let's just watch the interview.

Well, turns out Alex Jones had something to say about the whole incident.

Well, it's all a bit divisive: Afraid of New York, afraid of the Red Coats, using fantastical terms like New World Order. Not my thing, but I'm entertained.

Piers Morgan had his own response to what had happened at the interview. He feels Jones is good advertisement for gun control and feels it's scary that Jones has strong influence on the public. It's all free speech, folks. Still love it, even though it takes on almost any kind of form.

Piers Morgan can come off as an arrogant bully, but this discussion with Ron Paul shows his style; a bit gracious at the end, seems he just wanted Paul to give him the scoop. Of course, it might be Morgan's style that made Jones go after him so vehemently. 

Ron Paul seems like a nice guy, I almost had a protective instinct kick in when I saw Morgan assail him a bit. But it ended well.

Probably at the end of the debate, we will have gun control. I have a feeling about that. America is usually fifty to a hundred years behind every other developed country in terms of social justice and social reform; this is another one America's going to have to let go of, so we can move on. I don't think it's the beginning of tyranny and the end of freedom, just an adjustment and a reform. I mean, some weapons are capable of mass slaughter, and we don't have the minds to handle such power.

Glenn Beck and John Boehner: The Conservative Criers

Well, I might as well put this in the category of my other two posts about Conservative pranksters Wally George and the Westboro Baptist Church. It's looking more and more like it's all a joke; I don't like partisan politics or single issue politics, I think they're divisive and irrelevant and a ploy to get people to not pay attention; intentional ploy or not intentional, that's the end result; everyone fights, money stays at the top, wars don't end and your job still sucks.

But it's a bit surprising to me that the Conservatives continue to be, by all appearances, jokes. The silly and dim-witted Sarah Palin, the crazy Bachmann, and the boring McCain. There's more, I know.

But this trend of crying all the time is the most gut-busting funny part of the whole dragged out fiasco. John Boehner, crying on 60 Minutes, crying in Congress, crying giving out awards: What the eff is wrong with him?! Are we supposed to believe these guys are sensitive?

Glenn Beck is over there with his wacked out theories about Obama and Socialism, looking like a corn-fed rich boy, whining that he can't get his way anymore because the horrid Reagan-Bush era is long dead. Of course, I"m happy that the Reagan-Bush era is dead, because back in that era it was cool to be a callous bigot, and I guess that's why Glenn is so heart-broken that we no longer live in that era. Worst of all, we have a black President which, no matter what anyone says, scares a lot of people to death; and I'm sure they feel that now it's their turn. I don't even agree with most of what Obama does, I think he's middle-of-the-road-do-nothing typical politician material and he's been sold and marketed to us like every President. I also doubt he's in charge; no President is in charge. But, nevertheless, America's fear that anyone not white might be in charge is evident. America has regard for only certain people.

So, the crying thing is hilarious to me, but I also put it on the list of Conservative fake pranks. Here's an episode of the Young Turks, exposing Glenn Beck's career in comical show boating.

While I'm about it, let's look at overly-tanned Boehner, doing the crying bit.

I mean, come on! These guys want to keep things as they are or go backwards to pre-Civil War days. They want to protect the rich, take from the poor, and keep the wars going. They miss the America that would have never elected a Black president, that didn't have cool techie corporations that take care of their employees, and they miss the America that catered to them and treated them like kings, in which they had the run of things, could do whatever they wanted to anyone they felt like doing it to and no one would say a word. Too bad, guys. It's over.