Sunday, January 25, 2015

Legislation Proposal For Protecting Jobs and Addressing Unjust Lay Offs

Hello Everyone,
    I used to believe that the government should leave the capital sector alone. To a certain extent, I still think this is true, but I've come to realize that Government does in fact have business with the capital sector. Laws are passed to help address unjust behaviors and there is something that I think have been a practice long enough: Laying off people within a couple of years of their hire.
   I don't care what the current administration is saying, but the economy has not gotten better. Don't just report how low the unemployment numbers are in December. Those are to show how much the Minimum Wage and seasonal jobs make up our economy. If anything, that shows how bad our economy is when the working force is dependent on $9 per hour wages, and that's only guaranteed for a couple of months if that.
   Can you believe there used to be a time when one man could earn enough for a family of four or more? Apparently, my grandfather used to own a family drugstore for a while and he was able to take care of a family of nine and was still a generous man. I only heard that because it was gone by the time I was born, but the fact is that even a small business could take care of a large family. Now, a married couple with both having "well-paying" jobs, still have trouble with mortgages and want children but how they can afford to is a very good question. The economy stinks and part of it is because we focused so much on Unemployment Numbers that we neglected the Quality of Work Numbers (I don't know what the actual term would be).
    How can we fix this? A law I have in mind would do two things. Protect the current jobs while giving incentives to give them raises. The law is simple. Before a company can lay off anyone, the officers and board must take a paycut to the level of 10x the lowest paid salary and keep that for a year with no bonuses (More Complicated Calculations necessary for higher brackets).  The reasoning behind this is that companies claim they cannot afford a division when in fact they can. I heard of a company a few months ago that laid off 200 employees so they could afford a new VP they didn't really need. 200 salaries gone to pay one? That is unjust. Now considering that the lowest someone who works 40 hours a week can earn is around $20,000, that means the board can still earn $200,000, which might mean they have to change their lifestyle a bit, but they won't starve. After all, if they believe that laying off people is best for the company, they should prove that they believe it by sacrificing some of their pay first. Also, people at the bottom would get raises because the people at the top would want to earn more.
    Have you heard of a company that pretty much did this, and still hasn't laid off many people? I have. It's Nintendo of Japan. When their latest handheld, the Nintendo 3DS launched, it was a failure. But rather than lay off employees, the CEO Satoru Iwata took a 50% paycut and board members took a 20-30% paycut and the 3DS is now a success. Just search for "Nintendo paycut 50%" and you will find articles on this. Wired reports that Iwata was making roughly $770,000. So his paycut brought him down to about $385,000. Now Japan does have a different business model than the U.S. but I think that's about 10x the lowest paid salary. In fact, they defended that Lay offs are not good for business.
   I have respect for a company like that. If American companies were more like that, I think we will greatly help our economy grow and it will be peaceful. I personally would love to avoid another French Revolution because of economic injustice like the case I mentioned before. So perhaps we can all start a petition and make this proposal law by the time the next election comes around.
N. D. Moharo

Again that proposal is Before a company can lay off anyone, the officers and board must take a paycut to the level of 10x the lowest paid salary and keep that for a year with no bonuses (More Complicated Calculations necessary for higher brackets).

Saturday, January 17, 2015

The Root of the Homosexual Debate and Effects on Friendship and Adolescence

Hello Everyone,
   I've avoided this topic for a long time because I'm really sick of it. I'm actually sick of romance in general at this point. I even find it hard to think of a movie or book that has no aspect of romance at all. The only one I can think of at the moment is The Hobbit (the book and part one). However, I don't think we'll be rid of the topic for a while so I might as well contribute to hopefully helping people from both sides have a better understanding of each other. Perhaps if we limit the amount of "hate" from both sides, there will be actual progress.
    Some people might think that the rise of the "Gay Rights Campaign" is just the latest of the "Civil Rights Movements." This is understandable because the core issue pretty much started at the same time, but it wasn't about rights, it was about the meaning of sex. Both sides of the homosexual debate boils down to how one views sex. Is it for pleasure or for procreation? That's how simple it is and is the answer to why some groups will never approve of "gay marriage."
    That issue reveals that the idea of homosexuality is just the recent culmination of the debate on abortion, contraception, and the purpose and practice of sex. To be honest, I'm still surprised that homosexuality has taken the stage before incest or polygamy. I would have thought those would be harder to argue against but we'll see those arguments eventually. Anyways, I am wandering off topic. Let's look at the opinions.
    On the homosexual side, sex is meant for pleasure. This would mean that it would logically have the support of those who are in favor of porn, those who are okay with contraception and free sex, and the media that likes to promote those ideas to make money. Also, it can be a form of intimacy. So I can somewhat understand that those heavily invested and moved by romance tales can support this side.
    For the people on the other side, sex is for procreation and the effects of pleasure and intimacy are effects to serve that goal. Seriously, sex rationally sounds gross. The guy uses the thing he pees with to mate with the girl who bleeds in that area? If it wasn't pleasurable, mankind probably never would have had sex and considering how hard it is and long it takes to procreate, we would be extinct. As for intimacy, it's a necessary to keep the parents together to raise the weak and helpless child as well as give themselves to each other. These people view that taking the procreation aspect out of intercourse results in an large increase of men being jerks and abandoning responsibility (I think this has proven true), the objectification of women (some of whom are partially undermining the efforts to limit this), an increase in divorce (rates have greatly increased over the last 50 years), and that people will grow up to be more childish than actual adults. So people who look at the results like these and those who are for "doing as nature intended" would hold this view. An example of this would be the Catholic Church which apparently produced a document called “Humanae Vitae” with these details at the start of the debate over 50 years ago and still has not changed its stance.
    I can also understand that these people in the latter group have things to fear. Currently, the idea of voting has been attacked as many voter approved measures across the country have been overturned by the courts. The idea that things like this are state issues as expressed in the Bill of Rights and should be determined by the state and not the federal government also has been undermined. Soon enough, the First Amendment will be under fire as gay couples will demand that they can get married wherever they want to be, at the expense of people practicing their own values. This includes a few Christian Denominations, Conservative Jews, and Muslims, and so on. What I can see is that this group sees that if the foundations of all rights are taken away, there is no guarantee that any rights will be protected (unless it helps someone gain power/money for the short term). America has one of the oldest current governments, but it almost looks like it's doomed to collapse as people sacrifice the foundations for their rights for things they consider rights (but what is a right?).
    Personally, the thing that upsets me the most is the value that appears to be overlooked and yet attacked very stealthily. I fear that the next generation will be afraid of or not know real friendship. Every deep friendship that I can think of in the media or stories is somehow being subverted. It's a running and overdone joke in Sherlock that people think Holmes and Watson are gay despite their own words. Even longer, people played around with idea for David and Jonathan. We are even at the point where two teenage girls hold hands and we can immediately think they are lesbians. That's sad considering that that last one was not even a thought a few years ago. I just saw a TV show that featured holding hands as just excitement for seeing a good friend, just as little girls who don't know about sex would. Unfortunately, we've turned hand-holding into a sign of romance now, and soon we'll start teasing/bullying people that they "must be gay" (which is the case in Sherlock).
    The idea of being "bullied into being gay" does strike a big chord in me. This actually does happen and cause so much trauma for these kids. When everyone around you says it must be so, you start to wonder if it's true. Can you imagine if it comes from your family as well? As much as you fight with your siblings and parents, they do have a big impact on your development, especially during the confusing adolescence period, which makes them the most vulnerable and anxious as well as easy target. The only reason I was spared this is because I didn't understand the insults I was given. To me, the definition of "gay" was "happy," as in the Christmas carol Deck the Halls. I remember it being explained to me, but just like when my father tried to explain the concept of sex and where babies came from, it did not click in my head. All I remember was having one of my favorite drinks and just nodding along.
    Unfortunately, I think we will only see an increase of these attacks on friendship and bullying. Soon, people are going to just assume that your best friend will always be your romantic partner. After all, it's always the close friendships we see that people speculate about. This might also be in part to blame about how girls nowadays refer to marriage as "a sleepover with your best friend every night." It's an ideal to some that your spouse is also your best friend, even though that doesn't have to be the case. Actually, I've started to wonder if doing so actually ruins your friendship. It's a subject I'm currently pondering as I wonder if it's supposed to be the reverse. Maybe the true ideal is not that your good friend becomes your spouse, but that your spouse becomes your great friend. I'm thinking about this because a true friend is someone you have common interests and respect but at the cost of nothing in return but respect and love (not the romantic type). Meanwhile a romantic love is normally complementary and demands some sort of exchange in order for it to continue. Anyways, I still need to think about that more. As it is, I have taken enough of your time. I hope this helps both sides get a better understanding of each other and lead to more peaceful discussions instead of heated and angry fights.
With Love,
N. D. Moharo

Friday, January 2, 2015

Driving Tips part 2

When I wrote my last post of driving, I thought I had covered everything I had wanted to, but I started to recall more as I was driving. Here are more tips on how to improve your driving experience and the experience of others.

DON"T USE HIGH BEAMS. If you live in a city, you almost never have a reason to use these. They may not cause your accident, but they blind other drivers, some coming in your direction. I actually wondered if it's legal to put a mirror on the back of my car so that people could realize how bright these lights are. When the car behind me is using them, all three of my mirrors are blind and reflecting light into my eyes. That is definitely dangerous especially if I decide I need to change lanes and you decide you want to accelerate. To fix this, don't use these lights. The symbol for high beams is the combination of horizontal bars and a shape meant to represent your headlight's bulb. Some cars tell you when you are using them, but not many such as my car. Look for the symbol on your headlights switch and make sure to avoid it unless you are absolutely alone on a dark road.

Use your signals when you want to change lanes, not while changing. My sister would often get upset because people wouldn't let her change lanes. I would then comment that she never indicated that she wanted to move over. For the people behind, she might just look like a drunk or confused driver which would mean they want to get far away from her. If she would signal, about one out of three cars would let her in.

While changing lanes, accelerate. This is what you are supposed to do. Since you aren't going straight while lane-changing, you have to increase your speed to match the people in the other lane as well as prevent the people behind you from needing to slow down drastically. If you don't have enough space to properly accelerate and refrain from having to brake, then you didn't have enough space to change in the first place.

Know the lines. You know the solid lines? That's when you cannot change lanes. Even when there are no lines, like in an intersection, you are not allowed to change lanes. In fact, some practices, such as turning on red, are dependent on people obeying this law. The times you can change lanes is when the lines are dotted. When they are blocky, then that is a warning that the lane is not going straight. You often see them on the freeways to indicate that the lane is an exit only lane.

Know your lane rights. The only people who are allowed access to one or more lanes while crossing an intersection are the ones turning into a 3-lane or more road on a green light, in which only the lane closest to the straight traffic has this right. So that means if you are turning left, and you are in the most left lane, you can only turn into the most left lane unless that was the only lane. The same is true with the right lanes. While a cop will most likely never give you a ticket for breaking this law, if you get into an accident, the blame is all on you. Just follow the curved dotted line and you should be fine unless someone decides to break this law.

Learn to read road signs. In the rare occasions that you come across a spot where the exit lanes on the freeway are either the left or center instead of being right, there are warnings posted on the freeway. When you come across that green sign above the freeway, the side of the sign where the small "Exit" sign is above indicates which side of the freeway you need to be on to use it.

That's all I have for today, but I feel like there is more for me to cover so you can expect another post like this sometime in the future. Until then, I wish you a fantastic new year.