A Feeble Argument

I know this isn't timely, but an email from a friend today about AARP finally prompted me to write. Back in September Rick Perry called Social Security a Ponzi Scheme in a debate. The next month's AARP bulletin's lead editorial was on why it wasn't a Ponzi scheme. Their argument was 1) it hasn't run out of money yet 2) it's run by the government and 3) everybody has to participate. I guess I'm missing some subtlety in their argument. To me, all this argument says is Social Security is a REALLY BIG Ponzi scheme. Help me out here, I'm not really wanting to debate Social Security, the facts are pretty plain there. It's AARP's limp argument that struck me.

Why The Next Generation Won't Observe MLK Day

Good morning all! Happy Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday (observed). I claim that a generation hence, our children won't be celebrating MLK Day. Why? Look at history. Our parents celebrated Armistice Day on the 11th day of the 11th month. This is when the treaty ending World War I was signed. We celebrated Veterens' Day. I remember Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday. Now it's President's Day. Humanity's collective memory blurs and generalizes. The specifics of the above celebrations turn into generalizations over the years. So I claim that a generation hence MLK day will be renamed "Civil Rights Day". You can hear the rationale now: The Civil Rights movement was bigger than just one man, we need to celebrate all its leaders; it's really the movement, not the man we should be remembering, etc. Time will tell if I'm right or not, but if the past is a gauge of the future I think it's just a question of 'when' not 'if'.

On a side note: On his birth certificate, Martin Luther King Jr.'s first name as listed as 'Michael'. Clearly a typo, because then he wouldn't have been a 'Jr', would he?

The Family that Works Together...

I always think of that when I go into a Chick-fil-A and see the old photo taken in the Dwarf House of the Cathy family working there. In the photo are the boys: Dan and Bubba. The caption on the photo says they "greeted and entertained guests". Yeah, right! Then how come they're dressed as bussers and have towels under their belts? They were working bussing tables! And I bet Truett didn't pay them minimum wage!

Trent and Smally conducted studies of why some families are close and some not. Their conclusion was that families that work together against a common outside negative influence were closer. Through most of humanity's existence fathers and sons, mothers and daughters have worked side-by-side againt the common evils of starvation and deprivation. Now we're too sophisticated to allow that, and have minimum wage laws that prevent young men from working beside their fathers in the workplace. This is part of why the family structure has weakened in America. Thus I claim that eliminating the mimimum wage could be pro-family.

If Raising the Minimum Wage is Good....

A few years back, I heard a political debate among the minor candidates for Governor of Georgia (I believe). The Socialist candidate was running on a platform of "If elected, I'd immediately raise the minimum wage to $100" After all, if raising the minimum wage is good, why not go whole hog? Raising the minimum wage to $100 would immediately make us all rich, right? Most people see the consequences at once. Either a) we'd all be immediately unemployed as all our jobs flew oversees or b) inflation would immediately make $100 spend like $10.

Thoughts on Abortion: Where I Get in Trouble with Everyone

Alright, with all the talk about embyonic stem-cell research, I'm going to take a stance on abortion that will get me in trouble with everyone. Here goes:

The two camps in the abortion debate are the pro-life group that says that life begins at the moment of conception and the pro-choice people that say that a person's rights begin at the moment of birth. I'm neither. I say that whatever yardstick we use to measure the end of life should be the same as what we use to measure it's beginning. Medical science would tell us that when a certain type of brainwave stops, a person is clinically dead.  Apparently neither side of the abortion debate has any issue with that. I say that it's only common sense to say that, therefore, when those same types of brain waves begin, the fetus is then a person and has rights.

Now I'm in trouble with everyone, because I'm not saying that live begins either at the moment of conception or personhood at the moment of birth, but somewhere in between. Right. But as far as I can see, my argument makes sense in the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" way. We need to use the same measure for the start of life as we do for the end.