You know those ads in which the very serious voice-over claims to have information “the credit card companies don’t want you to know about”?  Turns out, the advertisement is for one of those credit management companies the credit card companies very much want you to know about.  If you, the consumer, have decided to pursue bankruptcy – you know, as a business strategy in an effort to reposition yourself for improved operations going forward (just like big business does when jettisoning pension obligations) – the credit card companies would first like to take a look at your finances…a very close look.

To that end, they’ve developed a detailed budget format.  I’ve had occasion to see one of these forms and I can assure you, it covers EVERYTHING.  They’ve thought of things you haven’t.  When setting up a personal budget, most people tend to think big; house payment, car payment, electricity, water.  But there’s also what’s known as “the Latte Factor”.  The idea is, if you stop by some local coffee stop every day and buy a four dollar latte, why, you’ve spent $120.00 month – $1,440 dollars a year you COULD have been giving to the credit card companies!  (For the record, I don’t really mean to denigrate the idea.  I support the notion of paying one’s bills…)

They’re looking for that.  It’s the form equivalent of turning you upside down and shaking to make sure your last shiny penny isn’t hidden at the bottom of a pocket.  They want to know, on average, how much you spend on birthday presents each month.  I mean, it’s VERY detailed.  The first time I saw one of these forms I was simultaneously impressed/sickened by the comprehensive nature of the personal invasion associated with credit card companies ensuring you’re not spending their money foolishly.  (I note there was no space on the form to explain that the good job you once had that allowed you to manage your debts is now done in China and all you’ve been able to find to replace it is a job – or two – in the “service industry”…)

This, of course, brings me toward my point.  (Just remember the form bit for a minute.  We’ll get back to it.)  Recently, I’ve been seeing “news” stories about fast-“food” workers staging one-day walkouts, agitating for higher pay.  By now, we’re all familiar with the stories of Wal-Mart paying its workers so poorly they’re forced to turn to state assistance even though they’re willing to work.  The other day, I heard there’s a group out there trying to get public corporations to list CEO pay as a ratio against the pay of the rank and file workers of their companies.  The idea is to “shame” CEO’s into paying better wages…as though CEO’s understand the concept of “shame”…

I don’t mean to pick on McDonald’s but a quick Google search shows that McDonald’s profits for 2012 came in at $5.5 billion dollars – that’s “billion”, with a ‘B’.  Wal-mart’s profits, sadly, were down a bit.  They had to settle for only $15.7 billion in profits in 2012.  Now remember, these are profits – the amount of money left over after all expenses (including wages) have been paid.  These days, a CEO makes roughly 204 times that of their average worker’s pay.

Sorry about the numbers.  I know they’re boring.  But the two preceding paragraphs are a kind of compare and contrast; what’s the situation for the workers as compared to the situation for the companies?  In the face of all of this, California is considering raising the state’s minimum wage from the current $8.00/hr to the incredible $10.00/hr by 2016.  Woo-hoo!  That means a person working full time for minimum wage in California will only fall $980 below the poverty line in three years instead of the $5,140 they fall behind now.  Assuming, of course, the poverty line doesn’t change between 2013 and 2016.*

More numbers, I know.  The worst part is that all of that is based against a “poverty line” that is, if I may say, ridiculous at best.  For a person to try to get by in most places in California on $22k per year is…difficult, at best.  You want to set a realistic “poverty” line?  Use that form I mentioned at the beginning – the one where the credit card companies want a realistic look at your spending habits.  Fill in real numbers.  Don’t try to tell me how little I need if I just forego heat or indulge in food only every other day.  (For my part, I won’t try to pretend everyone needs the newest iWhatever every time they come out with a new color…)  Do it on a county by county basis – because the cost of living really is different around the state.  Annualize it.

Once you’ve done that divide by 2,080.  (That’s the number of hours a full time employee works each year.  Did you know that?)  You know what you’ll have?  You’ll have a legitimate living wage.  And THAT’S my actual point.  It’s time to stop all the window dressing and symptom-treating and pay workers enough to live on.  Let’s pass THAT law.  (Yes, I know it would hurt small, mom-and-pop business so we’ll start with businesses that employ 20 or more people without any bunk regarding full or part time.)

Yes, I know all about the horrified, hand-wringing and dire, sky-is-falling predicted consequences from businesses that might have to find a way to squeeze by on profits of only $14.7 billion dollars a year.  (Oh, the huMANity…)  But I’ve taken enough of your time, for now, so suffice to say, for now, those calamitous predictions are wrong – just like every other worker reform that has occurred in the face of predicted destruction.  But I’ll come back to it.  There’s a lot that goes into this.  It’s better if we take it in bite-sized pieces…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 *  These are my back-of-the-napkin calculations so you can see (and I can remember) how I arrived at the numbers:

 Poverty line in California for one person, 2012: $21,780

Full time, 8/hr: $16,640/yr    $5,140 below 2012 poverty line

Full time, 10/hr: $20,800    $980 below 2012 poverty line

 Source: quick Google search, answered by Ask.com.  There are no numbers provided for one person but there’s a regular increase per individual of $7,640, which I subtracted from the listed 2 person poverty line of $29,420…

I’d like to say a few words about the inevitability of Hillary.  Before I do it’s important to clarify that I’m a liberal.  I’m not a Democrat but as of late, I DO play one in the voting booth.  In the last five elections, I voted for Clinton (Bill), Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Obama.  Four out of five wins.  (Yeah, I know…)

 One can’t talk about the Hillary Presidency without talking about the Bill Presidency.  That’s fair, right?  After all, one of Hillary’s selling points is that she’s a “two-fer”.  If you take Hillary, you get Bill, too!  I was a big fan of William Jefferson Clinton III.  I very much enjoyed the prosperity the country experienced while he was President and the entire time he was running the show I felt a general feeling of optimism about the direction the country was heading.  But, as it turns out, there were a couple of things.  (No, not Monica.  That was never any of my business…)

 It seems a fine point but I distinguish between legislation a President signs and legislation passed by over-riding a Presidential veto.  If he signs it, he supports it, even if his support is the result of a compromise.  There are three that particularly bother me and they are these: he signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which put the final nail in the coffin of American journalism, he signed NAFTA, which put in place the mechanism that prompted the exodus of American industry overseas, and he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall which allowed the banksters to run rampant over the American – and world – economy.

 Now, I say again, I like Bill Clinton…so, I randomly decided he signed these destructive bills by way of compromise.  This was, I decided, the “give” so he could “get” the balanced budgets that were benefiting so many Americans – me included.  Again, without evidence, I decided he did it because he believed Al Gore would be allowed to serve the Presidency he won (Yeah, I know…) and if things began to go off the rails Al could step in with the proper fix…

 But that’s all conjecture.  I have no rational basis for believing any of those “explanations” – I just like Bill – so I can’t exactly point to pure speculation as a defense for signing such devastating legislation.  Besides, if pure speculation serves, it would be equally fair to randomly assume he signed those bills because somebody promised he would end up tremendously rich and a member of the Bilderberg Group.  (Which by the way, he is and he is…)

 The one thing I can NOT credit Bill with is the notion that he didn’t understand the potential impact of the bills he was signing.  I believe that Bill Clinton is the smartest person in any room he’s in.  Certainly he understood the risks of repealing Glass-Steagall.  The reason this is relevant is this: if Bill Clinton knew the risks of the bills he was signing – and, being the smartest person in any room he’s in, he did – having him back in the White House on a “two-fer” – even as the “First Gentleman” –  might not be the boon to liberalism many on the left believe.

 All of which brings us to 2004.  By 2004, several things were apparent: the 2000 “election” had been rigged in Florida.  The banksters were already running wild without controls imposed by Glass-Steagall.  American industry was fleeing – or in some cases being forced – overseas to cheaper labor markets, leaving a devastating hole in the American employment outlook.  All signs pointed to yet another rigged election – this one in Ohio – and the corporate media was covering the whole thing over with front page stories of which starlet had the best bikini body…with pictures!

 For clarity, when I say the GOP rigged the 2000 and 2004 “elections”, what they did was put their finger on the scale.  Their guy doesn’t “win” with 100% of the vote.  The “elections” are close.  In fact, the “elections” NEED to be close or the technique won’t work.  In 2004, there was one candidate with the needed popularity and gravitas to bring enough credibility to the Democratic ticket that it could easily outweigh any GOP fingers on the scale – one: Hillary Clinton.

 Liberal America tried to get her to run.  We practically begged her to run.  But when the chips were down and we needed her most, Hillary said “no”.  She was serving in the Senate at the time and she cited as her reason a promise she had made to her constituents that she wouldn’t run for President.  In honoring that promise, though, she doomed ALL Americans – her constituents included – to four more years of Bush 43.

 Truthfully, I think this is the main reason Barack Obama won in 2008.  When liberal America asked Hillary to fight for us, she said no.  When liberal America asked Obama to fight for us, he stepped up.  As it happens he hasn’t been up to the task but he stepped up.

 I’ll tell you this: Clinton supporters will continue to press the inevitability of Hillary and the truth is, if she ended up with the nomination I could vote for her without too many reservations.  But her “inevitable” moment passed in 2004 and I’d like to check my options first.  After all, it’s hard to put one’s faith in the person who stood idly by and watched while you got your ass kicked…

I’ve been thinking about the Zimmerman trial as it proceeds and I’ve come to the conclusion that George Zimmerman is most likely going to be acquitted.  Now, I’m going to come right out and admit that I don’t think he SHOULD be acquitted.  I think he murdered Travon Martin.  I’ll explain why in a moment.  But the DA in Florida – the one who didn’t want to charge Mr. Zimmerman in the first place – seems to have turned this whole thing into a show trial.  I think he “over-charged” Mr. Zimmerman, knowing the burden of proof was higher – too high to be achieved.

For the most part, my sources on this situation are the same as have been available to everyone else.  As we all know, the media in America have become such a poor showing of corporate protection, misinformation, propaganda, and ‘celebrities-doing-what’ distractions that anyone paying attention knows better than to trust anything that comes out of it.  Still, I use two bits of (admittedly unverifiable) information to come to my conclusion: One, a “transcript” of an interview Mr. Zimmerman allegedly gave to police after the shooting and two, a video of Mr. Zimmerman doing a walk-through with police the day after the shooting and – according to Greta Van Susteren – before any lawyers were hired.  BOTH sources offer what is to me, the all important moment that turned a simple misunderstanding into manslaughter.

Honestly, I don’t have any problem with Mr. Zimmerman following Mr. Martin.  As part of the neighborhood watch, it seems it was within his purview to do so.  But, for me, the critical idea comes from the reality that Mr. Martin became aware he was being followed and to HIS point of view, “followed” quickly became “stalked”.  This, in turn, initiated the very human “fight or flight” response and the information I’ve seen suggests that Mr. Martin wasn’t a “flight” kind of guy…

According to both of the aforementioned sources, Mr. Zimmerman indicates that Mr. Martin at some point approached Mr. Zimmerman’s truck.  According to the written “transcript”, Mr. Zimmerman says Mr. Martin knocked on Mr. Zimmerman’s window.  When Zimmerman rolled down his window Martin demanded, “Why are you following me?”  Zimmerman replied, “I’m not”.

In the video walk-through of the events created the day after the shooting, the verbal exchange is not reported but Mr. Zimmerman makes clear that Mr. Martin approached the truck.  In the video, Mr. Zimmerman explains that Mr. Martin circled the truck then moved off in the same general direction he had been traveling previously.  Either way, THAT, to me, is the critical moment.

Even if there were no verbal exchange, Mr. Martin had made clear that he was aware of Mr. Zimmerman’s presence by approaching and circling the truck.  In that moment, Mr. Zimmerman had an opportunity – no, an obligation – to diffuse the situation by explaining that he was with the neighborhood watch and he (Zimmerman) didn’t know who he (Martin) was.  Sure, Mr. Martin could have become angry or even pseudo-outraged that he had been racially profiled but he would have known that he was not in danger.

To me, that’s the critical moment…and the failure is Mr. Zimmerman’s.  Now, I say again, my sources are all from the media and I have no way of knowing what’s actually happening in the courtroom.  If that detail is wrong, I would have to reassess my position but it seems clear from most accounts that at some point, Mr. Martin doubled back to confront/identify the guy who was following him and there are no indicators that Mr. Zimmerman identified or explained himself.  This failure exacerbated the situation and led directly to the shooting a few minutes later.

But it “only” rises to the level of Manslaughter, defined as killing without malice aforethought, not Second Degree Murder – an assault in which the death of the victim was a distinct possibility.  If media reports are to be believed (and they’re not) the arresting officer intended to charge Mr. Zimmerman with Manslaughter.  So, why did the D.A. up the ante with a charge of Second Degree Murder?

I’ll tell you this: The D.A. will henceforth insist that he was trying to “throw the book” at Zimmerman and stubbornly reject the notion that he intentionally sabotaged his own case by setting the too-high-a-burden standard, but no matter how I run it in my mind, it always comes back to SOME variation of: the DA wanted Zimmerman to walk free…

Recently, I’ve seen an increase in the assertion that Americans don’t enjoy a right to health care.  I’ll stipulate that I don’t see anywhere in the Bill of Rights any kind of statement that says anything like, “All Americans have a right to health care”, ok?  Agreed.  But don’t jump to the end.

Starting at the beginning of the Constitution, one discovers the founders expressed their opinion about why this new government should exist in the first place.  They defined, in general terms, their vision of the most basic responsibilities of government.  They wrote:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare (emphasis added), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Only 26 words into the document it says: “…promote the general Welfare…”

I started thinking about the word “Welfare” as it might have been understood in the late 18^th century – as opposed to today’s social safety net.  Checking my (admittedly not 18^th century) dictionaries, I found that my American Heritage Dictionary defines welfare as “Health, happiness, and general well-being”.

I turned next to the Internet and the Oxford English Dictionary.  OED is one of the most respected dictionaries of the English language.  Ok, they charge for access so I looked at the Compact Oxford English Dictionary online.  They define “welfare” as “the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group”.

Turns out, one can’t define welfare – as it relates to the human condition – without including health.  Well, in fairness, Webster’s tries.  They leave out ‘health’ and put in ‘well-being’ but when you look up ‘well-being’ in the same dictionary, it specifically includes “the state of being…healthy…”

The Founders were a clever group of guys with a solid command of the English language.  I think they knew what the word ‘welfare’ meant when they wrote “promote the general Welfare”.  They could have written, “promote the general health, happiness and general well-being” but they didn’t need to.  There’s a word for that: welfare.

If one plans to take the position that Americans don’t have a “right” to health care since such a right is not clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights, then one must simultaneously argue that one does not enjoy a right to vote.  Voting, after all, is not spelled out in the Bill of Rights, either.

But whether or not one defines health care as a “right”, certainly the Founders described it as a fundamental function of government.  Without question, I have the right to expect my government to perform its most basic functions.

Do you ever play video games?  In some games, the programmers include the possibility for the player to create a character.  Commonly, the game establishes a list of attributes important to success in the game and then allows the player to distribute some kind of “attribute points” – for lack of a better name – among the pre-determined categories.  Often, as the game progresses the player acquires more attribute points to add to character attributes.

If someone (with more time than sense) were to collect every character ever created for a given game, that person could easily see groups of players that emphasized a certain attribute.  The odds that the point distribution would be identical among created players is probably pretty low but it would still be possible to discern general strengths and weakness and sort them by group.

On a much more complex level, I think it’s a good way to think of how human beings are created.  We all start out with pretty much the same “categories” and we all start out with a given number of “attribute points” that DNA “distributes” randomly for us.  Then, we can add to various attributes or allow them to wither depending on what we do as people, er, “players”.

It’s important to note that “different” and “better” are not the same thing.  In the game, “Strength” might provide one game experience and “Magic” another but neither is necessarily “better”…they’re just “different”.

It might be beneficial to our society to start sorting people according to their most identifiable, though generalized, group.  This is not about starting some kind of caste system, though.  It’s just an identifier.  It would be helpful for other people to know who belonged in which group.

For example, I’ve long held that the character set that makes a good cop a good cop also makes for a poor choice of spouse.  Now, I’m not ripping on cops.  Our society needs them and I’m glad they’re there.  But good cops are people with high self confidence in their own judgment.  They’re not prone to buy sob stories and they don’t compromise.  They respond to their own determinations and let the courts worry about nuance.

But nuance and compromise are the very core of marriage.  See?  The character set that makes a good cop conflicts with the character set that makes a good spouse.  (Certainly there will be some number of people with “attribute distribution” that allows them to move seamlessly between the two disparate roles, but I think this would be a very small number of people, indeed.)

Knowing one’s own group could help someone avoid mistakes in life.  Knowing someone else’s group could help society direct people into fields in which they could excel and probably enjoy.  The value is two-fold: a kid displaying the attributes of a good cop could be introduced to the idea of police work.  (The child still gets to choose, of course.)   A person seeking an understanding life-partner might know to avoid cops.  Fewer divorces. Conversely, knowing someone’s group could dictate when their input has value and when…not so much…

I recently became aware of an “attribute distribution” that I would never have guessed would exist…but it does.  I call them “true believers”.  We all know one or more.  They gravitate toward fundamentalist religion and/or the neo-conservative movement but the predominant characteristic isn’t so much WHAT they believe.  It’s more THAT they believe…because they believe in spite of available evidence.

True believers have made a decision and seek information that supports their decision.  They disregard information that conflicts with their decision.  Facts and logical thought are unimportant – detriments, even – to their preferred position.  Now, let me be clear.  I’m not talking about intelligence or capability.  There are certainly plenty of true believers who are incredibly intelligent and/or talented.

But since these people have no use for fact-based information that doesn’t serve them directly, there’s no way to debate them.  There’s no benefit to discussion with them.  There’s no way to improve their understanding of issues facing the nation.  They already know what they know and they will not – sometimes forcefully will not – update what they “know” based on mere “facts”.

I’m not saying these people have no value, at all, in any field.  But governing a nation requires the ability to make actual life-affecting decisions based upon actual events, viewed in the context of testable reality.  When you want to figure out how to get to the moon, you bring in people strong in math and science.  When you want a new hit movie, you bring in people strong in language skills.  When you need to govern a nation, you bring in the pragmatic, not the true believers.

True believers are uniquely unqualified for the role.  Yes, of course, they have a right to their opinions.  Of course, they have a right to express those opinions.  But the rest of us have an obligation to sort of pat them on the head, thank them for their input, then ignore them and go about the business of improving society.

To be sure, they won’t understand.  They can’t.  But we, the people, are currently sifting through the wreckage of “governance by true belief”.  It’s time to return government to a fact-based institution operating in a fact-based world…