One problem with the corporate model

A corporation has one goal- to make as much money as possible.  So if I can make 100 million dollars by creating good-paying jobs in America and producing a product that is useful and good for the planet, that's great.  But if I can make 101 million dollars by sending all my jobs overseas, harming the economy, and making a product that destroys the environment, well...that's just business.  Screw y'all.  I'm taking my extra million and putting a helipad on my yacht. 

So, does that mean that we should get rid of all corporations?  No.  There just needs to be a balance between benefiting the private and the public. Corporations are indebted to their shareholders. Without them, they would not have the capital with which to conduct business. But they are also indebted to the environment (physical, political, economic, etc) in which they do business. Without a uniform currency, courts, roads, our natural resources,and an educated public, companies would not be able do business. So I think that if you can't make money while treating your employees and the environment right, then you shouldn't be in that business. And I don't think corporate profits should be the only measure of a company's value. 

Clean water and solid ground in Illinois, for now...

If Bruce Rauner becomes governor of Illinois, he will swiftly allow fracking all over our state.  This will pollute groundwater and cause earthquakes.  Early voting is open now.  Vote now!

http://wjbdradio.com/LocalNews/Candidates-in-Their-Own-Words--Bruce-Rauner#.VCX8C_ldWSo

Do you want to give congress 186 Million dollars to do nothing?

If the Republicans keep the house and/or take the Senate, nothing will get done for another two years.  They have stated that their goal is to make sure nothing gets done.  They even oppose things that they initially proposed (health care comes to mind).  So if you don't vote Democratic, government will remain crippled.  And it will not be any better if they take both houses, because Obama will veto whatever legislation they propose to benefit the 0.1% at the cost of the rest of us (and that's all they do because that's all they represent).  Congresspeople and Senators are paid $174,000 per year.  There are 535 of them.  They will collectively receive $186 Million dollars over the next two years.  Do you really want these guys to get 186 million to do nothing?  And while they waste time, our recovery and development remain stalled.

Imagine you had a football team.  The running back wants to be team captain and some of the linemen want him to be captain as well.  But the quarterback also wants to be captain.  More people vote for the quarterback than the running back, so the QB is captain.  Now imagine that the running back and his linemen agree that they will not try anoymore.  They won't block, they won't try to tackle, they won't run the ball, they won't do anything.  If you were in charge of this team, would you give them 186 million dollars?  No, you would fire them.  The Republicans have disabled our government.  Fire them.

It's simple math, people

So if I am a minimum wage worker, I make $7.50/hour, which is $300/week.   If I get a raise to $10/hour and I am working 40 hours/week, then I'll get another $100/week.  BUT, if employers like McDonalds have to pay minimum wage workers $10/hour, then they'll have to raise their prices.  Some estimate that the price of a Big Mac could go up by as much as $0.60.  So if I were to eat a Big Mac every meal for a week, it would cost me an additional $12.60.  That leaves me with ONLY an additional $87.40/week.    Therefore, we should not raise the minimum wage.  I mean, who would agree to pay an additional $12.60 just so they could make another $100?  Bruce Rauner (Illinois Republican Governor candidate) understands why we should lower the minimum wage.   Knock me down to $5/hour and my Big Mac cost could drop by as much as $0.60.  So I'm making $100/week less ($200/week), but I am saving $12.60 on food.  So my choices are:  $5hour, $200/week minus $12.60 for food, $7.50/hour, $300/week and the same food cost, or $400/week and an additional $12.60 for food.  So would you rather have $212.60, $300, or $387.40?  And if you can do that math and don't come to the conclusion I want, that is proof that we need to cut education spending.   

How to re-institute the separation of Church and State

Separation of Church and State was a founding principle of our nation.  But now, some want to use the government to impose their particular interpretation of their religion on others.  And they do so in the name of protecting religious freedom.  "Allowing women to make their own choices about abortion infringes on my religious right to tell people what to do", or "Forcing my company to pay for health care that includes birth control infringes upon my religious right to try to make my employees live according to the principles of my church."  I want to live in a Democracy, not a Theocracy.  But the tide of Supreme Court decisions (5 to 4) has been to allow religion to trump other individual freedoms.  So what could change this trend?  If the Bin Laden family were to buy a major American company (say Sears, or Starbucks) and require that all their female employees wear burkas.  I think public opinion and the Supreme court would quickly condemn it and re-institute the ability for individuals to live free from the religious beliefs of their employers.  Remember, when you allow religion to dictate, you have to allow all religions to dictate.  The right-wingers don't want that, they want everyone to follow only their version of the Bible (be it the Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran interpretation or what have you).  But they know they can't sell that idea.  So they cloak their intentions in the guise of religious freedom.  Bin Laden's please come and push the envelope so people can wake up and realize the danger of letting a religion dictate civilian life. 

Global climate change really benefits the energy companies

I have long been aware that Big Oil. and Big Coal, and Big Gas have denied global warming (aka climate change) because they don't want to incur the expense required to reduce their pollution and contribution to the problem.  But today, in Chicago, I see another benefit for them.  I live in Chicago.  Yesterday, I had my heat on, as the temperature was about 50 degrees.  Today it was 90 degrees and I had to turn on my air conditioner.  Spring used to be a time were you didn't have to pay for heat or cooling.  But with the drastic shifts in temperature, we'll have to pay the gas company or the electric company (and their suppliers) every day.  We should put solar on every roof, windmills in every field, and stop killing our planet to line the pockets of the very few. 

The new, right-wing take on the old Jesus prostitute story

We all know the story:  a group of men were about to stone a prostitute to death when Jesus stepped in and famously said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."  Well, the right wing loves throwing stones.  So the new interpretation of that story is not that Jesus was saying, "You shouldn't throw stones," but rather he was saying, "I get to throw the first stone, because I am holier than thou."   As long as you believe that you are closer to Jesus than the other guy, it's perfectly fine to condemn, belittle, persecute, and harm your neighbor.  If Jesus were alive today, he'd be using His divine powers to slit the throats of all the Muslim heathens, the gays, the "lazy. inner-city" folks, the liberals, and anyone who would want any restriction on capitalism.    If you're not sure who Jesus would hate, just watch FOX news.  They are His spokesperson.