It was the year 1972. The year of the Munich Terrorist Attack and the release of the Copernicus Satellite. One was the dawning of the many massacres that would soon become a normalcy and the other was a pioneer is space exploration, an aid in the cold war. You probably won't recognize either of these events because they paled into comparison of the real aspersion of the year. Both of these were influential for the years to come but this case shook the political world like nothing else before it. The event of the greatest american political scandal to date.
It all began the morning of June 17th, where two men were arrested for breaking into the hotel area where the Democratic National Committee took place. They were accounted for charges of trying to wiretap the phone lines and steal secret documents. They had tried this once before on May 11th of the same year, both attempts in relation to the Richard Nixon's election the republican candidate across George McGovern the democratic representative. The name of the hotel? Watergate.
In the re-election he had won in a landslide victory and pledged to his voters that he had played no part in the scandal and would cruelly punish the culprits who had committed this felony. It was really the opposite as he had paid them off in hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to keep them quiet. The Congress suspected something larger was at hand, and slowly the walls that held the white house afoot began to crack.
A handful of aides testified before a grand jury and information was brought up of Nixon's various crimes and the fact that Nixon taped every conversation of white house grounds, obviously causing them to want to see these tapes. It was a given that most of the tapes would simply be about the normal day to day facts about the government officials lives, but a few of them were deemed to be about Nixon.
At first Nixon declined to hand over the tapes but later he was subpoenaed, a formal letter declaring he had to give them over, so he did. Funnily enough, the day before he had to give them up, five government officials who held high places of power had all resigned. Nixon had asked them all to cover for him, and they refused and stepped down from their positions. As a president could not be charged with a crime he was impeached on the counts of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, criminal cover up, and several violations to the cover up. He resigned from office and his vice president took up his position.
What happened to him in the aftermath? Well the president has a special power, the only power that goes unchecked by the government, presidential pardon. And so, on the historic day of August 9th we saw the president of the U.S. cry on national television, get a free pass, watch his step onto a helicopter and wave at the american people as he raised up and flew away, with no charge at all.
This one loophole from the Constitution allowed one president who thought he was above the law, and discovered he wasn't, but still be forgotten of all wrongdoing. This might be a loophole or a verbal technicality but regardless of the order of what it was, it affected the order of how everything was.
Writing is an important aspect of the order in our lives, and even one small technicality, purposely or accidentally can have an effect on the entire meaning. A simple choice of a comma or a phrase can alter the whole thing. I could have used "a" instead of "one" in the first sentence, but I decided not to, because it would changed the entire tone. The point is that you should keep an eye on the small details. You have to be very particular with your word choice, mistakes are only allowed when you choose to make them.
From little different saplings come great disparate oaks. This small clause our founding fathers wrote over two hundred years ago has resulted in the release of one of the most heinous political crimes ever, disparaging american politics towards its end, scarring us with one of the biggest scandals ever, Watergate.
The Cure Worse than the Disease.
People are associating being liberal with being nicer and accepting and inclusive, so as a result a huge portion of today's generation are liberals who adopt very leftist views, to a point of socialism. One of the most well known modern socialists is Bernie Sanders who is very ardent with his position of implementing a fifteen dollar minimum wage, which is almost double than it is now. He reasons that it could help people support their families more, but then if that's the case why stop at fifteen? Why can't you raise it to twenty or thirty or even fifty? Because that is when it begins to harm our environment and becomes more of a burden than a benefit? I think just the right amount of minimum wage is ten and a half dollars, Canada's minimum wage. I'll first explain why in a more causal sense but then later in a more economic sense, but as a disclaimer I am not saying I am or am not left wing.
In regards to how a high minimum wage can help raise the standards of living, there are many accounts of successful careers where the servers are paid a medium wage. I focus on servers because it is the large demographic but also because of tipping culture. Now tipping culture is getting kind of out of hand here in America, to the point where we have started to top baristas who are already getting minimum wage unlike servers, who have no need for it but since it is beginning to be the norm we feel guilty if we don't do it. A good aspect of raising the wage though is that in some no tipping bars in Canada, the tenders have said that they like the consistency of getting paid regardless of a big or slow night, which really helps their families. With the minimum wage they also receive better healthcare and other perks of normal jobs.
In a broader sense of the economy all minimum wages prevent people from working. If your talents are only worth three to eight dollars yet the job pays you say fifteen dollars, if you lack those extra communication or leadership or attitude skills you can't even qualify for the job. But this goes against the whole inherent purpose of these minimum wage jobs to help the unable, the diseased, the mentally challenged, the cripples, and inserting more and higher level competition with the higher price disregarding the real people in need of help and instead choosing the better people. Really what most liberals are doing through this raise of wage is appetizes there dignity that someone out there is working as hard as them but just lacks the skills to be paid well so they seek a compensation in the most direct way possible, an increase in wage.
Liberals, by trying to help a group of people in a direct way hurt them in an indirect way, by comparing those who don't have the skills to a very useful person. But isn't that same value of helping out the needy at the price of the needless supposedly evident in all of the liberal ideals? To help the people who require it before the people who can afford not having it and find use somewhere else? Though these liberals may be trying to help the needy, they are creating more harm them good, and whats worse is that they believe they are doing the just the opposite, the cure worse than the disease.
In regards to how a high minimum wage can help raise the standards of living, there are many accounts of successful careers where the servers are paid a medium wage. I focus on servers because it is the large demographic but also because of tipping culture. Now tipping culture is getting kind of out of hand here in America, to the point where we have started to top baristas who are already getting minimum wage unlike servers, who have no need for it but since it is beginning to be the norm we feel guilty if we don't do it. A good aspect of raising the wage though is that in some no tipping bars in Canada, the tenders have said that they like the consistency of getting paid regardless of a big or slow night, which really helps their families. With the minimum wage they also receive better healthcare and other perks of normal jobs.
In a broader sense of the economy all minimum wages prevent people from working. If your talents are only worth three to eight dollars yet the job pays you say fifteen dollars, if you lack those extra communication or leadership or attitude skills you can't even qualify for the job. But this goes against the whole inherent purpose of these minimum wage jobs to help the unable, the diseased, the mentally challenged, the cripples, and inserting more and higher level competition with the higher price disregarding the real people in need of help and instead choosing the better people. Really what most liberals are doing through this raise of wage is appetizes there dignity that someone out there is working as hard as them but just lacks the skills to be paid well so they seek a compensation in the most direct way possible, an increase in wage.
Liberals, by trying to help a group of people in a direct way hurt them in an indirect way, by comparing those who don't have the skills to a very useful person. But isn't that same value of helping out the needy at the price of the needless supposedly evident in all of the liberal ideals? To help the people who require it before the people who can afford not having it and find use somewhere else? Though these liberals may be trying to help the needy, they are creating more harm them good, and whats worse is that they believe they are doing the just the opposite, the cure worse than the disease.
The Narcotizing of Conversatism.
In our society, every day more and more people are transferring to a liberal point of view, their minds painting a picture of conservatives to be horrid bastards who only care about their own values and about pushing their own agendas. They think that just because they disagree with a liberal on a solution. They believe that conservatives don't care about all the people in poverty, dying of starvation and diseases. That they place their own interests before that of the entire country or the "greater good." That conservatism is basically modern day fascism. These are in fact the biggest misconceptions about conservatism and though I am not a conservative myself, I feel it is important to defend their actual positions.
Firstly if someone disagrees with the big government solutions to poverty doesn't mean they hate the poor. If they disagree about a single payer health care doesn't mean they hate the old and sick. If they believe that America should enforce their immigration laws doesn't mean that they hate all immigrants, and the list goes on and on. As for impoverished people, the conservative viewpoint is just the opposite. The strongly believe in the use of the free market to create not only just jobs, but also for the poor themselves to to become owners and employers. This also isn't a view saying that there should be no safety net for someone who isn't able to care for themselves, but those who are poor need to have a way to be able to work themselves out of their poverty, and the government themselves can't provide them.
Also conservatives don't always hold their personal agendas in front of others, and especially not for the sake of the whole country. There are many republicans that I personally know that would have greatly benefitted from Bernie Sanders's political scheme but chose not to in order to preserve the well being of the entire country. This isn't even to mention the fact that even Aristotle the biggest advocate of classical republicanism stated that this type of common good model because there everyone there have the same fundamental, but this could never work modern day, especially in our country where we are divided on almost every topic. These same kind of liberals are the ones that also associate conservatism with fascism parties like the Nazi group. During the Nazi regime they had a huge dependency on the production industry and so with the governments socialist approach to the production line they merely changed the direction of the ongoing chaos by increasing the production value of certain products but wrecking havoc on the entire industry.
The other day I was reading this liberal article that a lot of people that I know whom are hardcore liberals have been referencing on social media. Basically the girl who wrote the article talked about how she says that she doesn't mind paying an extra few percent on her total payment as tax if it means the server can feed their family. She goes on to say that she doesn't mind paying a little extra in taxes so that it can go to public schools, to pay for the healthcare of poor people, and to help other profit free institutions continue. Then she says if everyone payed a little more in taxes then minimum wage as well as other things will raise. The rest of the article is spent on demonizing the right wing and her saying that she is disgusted by conservatives lack of being able to pay a little more so that some people can survive. Personally I find two big things wrong with this, one, all the statistics biased to raise an agendum that they want to provide. The other one is believing the government is able to solve larger problems manifesting in society. The main problem I have with this is that if she wants to help the server she should give her that extra money as a tip, if I was in a suitable position I would do the same thing as would most republicans I know. The difference comes in giving it to the government, they have no belief in the government to efficiently take that money from me and give it to that worker in need.
So really, they don't hate democracy. They don't loathe social workers. They don't have a prejiduce poverty or healthcare, nor anything else. Really it's usually to the contrary their views. Their main problem lies in the government, which unlike conservatism, it doesn't have any fallacies, any of the seeming misconceptions are sadly true.
Firstly if someone disagrees with the big government solutions to poverty doesn't mean they hate the poor. If they disagree about a single payer health care doesn't mean they hate the old and sick. If they believe that America should enforce their immigration laws doesn't mean that they hate all immigrants, and the list goes on and on. As for impoverished people, the conservative viewpoint is just the opposite. The strongly believe in the use of the free market to create not only just jobs, but also for the poor themselves to to become owners and employers. This also isn't a view saying that there should be no safety net for someone who isn't able to care for themselves, but those who are poor need to have a way to be able to work themselves out of their poverty, and the government themselves can't provide them.
Also conservatives don't always hold their personal agendas in front of others, and especially not for the sake of the whole country. There are many republicans that I personally know that would have greatly benefitted from Bernie Sanders's political scheme but chose not to in order to preserve the well being of the entire country. This isn't even to mention the fact that even Aristotle the biggest advocate of classical republicanism stated that this type of common good model because there everyone there have the same fundamental, but this could never work modern day, especially in our country where we are divided on almost every topic. These same kind of liberals are the ones that also associate conservatism with fascism parties like the Nazi group. During the Nazi regime they had a huge dependency on the production industry and so with the governments socialist approach to the production line they merely changed the direction of the ongoing chaos by increasing the production value of certain products but wrecking havoc on the entire industry.
The other day I was reading this liberal article that a lot of people that I know whom are hardcore liberals have been referencing on social media. Basically the girl who wrote the article talked about how she says that she doesn't mind paying an extra few percent on her total payment as tax if it means the server can feed their family. She goes on to say that she doesn't mind paying a little extra in taxes so that it can go to public schools, to pay for the healthcare of poor people, and to help other profit free institutions continue. Then she says if everyone payed a little more in taxes then minimum wage as well as other things will raise. The rest of the article is spent on demonizing the right wing and her saying that she is disgusted by conservatives lack of being able to pay a little more so that some people can survive. Personally I find two big things wrong with this, one, all the statistics biased to raise an agendum that they want to provide. The other one is believing the government is able to solve larger problems manifesting in society. The main problem I have with this is that if she wants to help the server she should give her that extra money as a tip, if I was in a suitable position I would do the same thing as would most republicans I know. The difference comes in giving it to the government, they have no belief in the government to efficiently take that money from me and give it to that worker in need.
So really, they don't hate democracy. They don't loathe social workers. They don't have a prejiduce poverty or healthcare, nor anything else. Really it's usually to the contrary their views. Their main problem lies in the government, which unlike conservatism, it doesn't have any fallacies, any of the seeming misconceptions are sadly true.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)