Why minimum wage should not be raised

By the title of this piece you might think I am some horrible person who thinks that wants people to not move up in their lives and stay living as the "working poor". Quite the contrary. I do not want to see people living as working poor.

Minimum wage was never designed to be a "living" wage. Especially if you are basing that off of only one income. Minimum wage was started to get people "started" in the work force. A way to pay people a wage that was legal, but low enough to be an incentive to move in your career or to start the career you wanted to have. That is why a lot of times you see pictures of teenagers and people in their low to mid twenties in commercials for those companies.

If you work at McDonald's for 10 years and are still making or just above minimum wage, that is noit businesses fault. Businesses are in the business to make money.  There are some smaller business that pay their employees well, and yes, I do put McDonald's in smaller businesses since most of them are franchised to a private owner.

What a lot of people do not put into account is the costs of running a business. A lot of these protestors think that all the overhead costs businesses have is the wages to their employees. Do they put into account all the other costs; such as rent/lease, product, legal fees, vendors, utilities, ect?

Then people complain about companies like Walmart paying only minimum wage. You know what? You applied for the job, it was then offered to you with the pay rate and you accepted. So, in essence, you are complaining that you accepted a job with the full knowledge and understanding of the pay rate will be. Then, complain about not getting paid enough. Also, part of the reasons why the wages are lower is so they can sell their product at a lower price, which in turn, keeps people coming back to their store.

People need to realize, especially in the United States, you get what you pay for. I for one am not going to pay 5 bucks just for a burger that was quickly cooked on a double sided grill where I could not say how it should be cooked, other then being "well done" and then slapped on a bun.

If you work at someone where that only pays minimum wage for years and do not move up or get better career skills, that is not the companies fault. You might want to look in a mirror and ask yourself. Why am I only making 8 dollars an hour? You should also ask yourself; what can i do to get a better job and make more money. Also, did you do anything to move up in the company you were in or did you just stay where you were at and now you complain about it?

Hate Crime = Your life is more important than mine

OPINION: 
Why is it that we consider a crime done one person, worse than done on another person? Why is it that if I assault someone of the same race, it’s usually just a simple an assault, but if I assault someone who happens to be of another race it can be labeled a hate crime? Why it is if my wife hits me, is domestic violence, which carries more of a punishment then if she were to hit a coworker that upset her?

These are question I do not believe are getting asked. And if they are, they are either being deflected or completely ignored.

Now, let me preface that I have never been arrested or charged with a crime, other than a couple minor traffic violations. I have been the "victim" of violence. Not of from someone in my family, but I have been assaulted by people of other races. That does not mean I think they should get anymore punishment for assault than if they were Caucasian.

Though I do not agree with hate crime laws, I do understand why people put them into law. But, in my opinion, all that does is show that someone else is better other people when it comes to what punishment is deserved.

Let’s take domestic violence for instance. In most states, if there is a claim of domestic violence almost every time, someone is going to be arrested. Most of the time it’s the male and I can understand why the "State" presses charges when the victim wont. I can see that. But, if convicted the domestic violence charge, as opposed to a assault charge, even though it’s a misdemeanor, the punishment is harsher. You go to jail longer and your gun rights get taken away.

Also, let’s take so called hate crimes. There is an added punishment if you commit a crime against someone due to their race or sexual orientation. What that tell me is this. That murder that killed that person that is a "hate" crime is more important than the murder of someone that was not a "hate" crime. One life or crime committed means more than the other, only due to the reason why the crime was committed.

If we are ever going to get through this false pretense a lot of so called equality activists are trying to reach, we have to treat everyone the same. That includes the punishment they receive for the crime they commit.

Be it for someone is another a race or making disparaging remarks about their mother, the punishment should be the same for the crime they committed.

I have the freedom to use proprietary software

When you think of freedom, what comes to mind? The men in woman in the armed forces? the red white and blue of the United States flag? The freedoms we supposed still have in our Constitution? But what if I asked you what freedom means when it comes to software?

The man who is leading the "fight" of software freedom is Richard Stallman, or more commonly known as RMS.

RMS wrote the GNU utilities that was eventually paired with the Linux kernel, which was created by Linus Torvolds. He also wrote the GPL license, which pretty much spells out his ideals of freedom in software.


Contributing to open source has brought us countless Linux distributions and Linux software. Also Windows and MAC software as well.

The open source community, I believe has been instrumental in software development and progress. Most servers, more then likely the server that is hosing this blog, is running on Linux. Android uses the Linux kernel. Microsoft and Apple even contribute code to the Linux community.

Suffice to say, open source is great and has made a lot of things possible in the computing world.

But getting back to the topic at hand. RMS believes all software must me open sourced, being able to change the code and freely distribute that code/software. In other words, if I make a piece of software, I cannot keep the source code closed. I cannot let people not distribute the software I made without my permission. And I have to let people change my software as they see fit.

The issue of this "freedom" is people, alot of times will take a free sandwich when possible. Why pay 50 bucks for a piece of software when I can get it for free? Why should I have to pay for something if I don't have to.

Now, RMS does give the caveat of charging someone a fee for writing a custom pievce of software. But even that does not negate the possibility of the custom piece of software getting out in the open. Therefore, that, more then likely multi thousand investment a company made was for not, since now anyone can use the same software someone "paid" for now for free.

I take issue that someone is telling me that to be free, I have to restrict my choices on what software I can use. That someone believes that if I make the decision to use a closed source piece of software, I somehow am restricting my freedom. Isnt my freedom to use any software I want, without it having to be part of the GPL license? Do I not have that right to pay for something that only I have access to, since I am the one who made the investment for that software to be created?

And what about the developers? How many developers, besides Linus Torvalds is making a great living on the making software, per the GPL? As the great Bryan Lunduke has said, developers have to eat. We have to realize that if we want good software we have to pay for it and we have to realize that it might be proprietary. Do you really think AAA game shops like Valve, EA, ect is going to invest millions of dollars into a game, only to immediately open source the entire project for anyone to do anything with?

Long story short, I have the right to use any software I legally obtain. More to the point, I have the freedom to choose to use proprietary software.

Make Fraudulent ID's, Go to Jail for 5 years...During Christmas only.

COMMENTARY

I was going through some news story and came across an AP piece, where a 44 year old female was convicted making fraudulent ID's for people. The sentence can be up to fifteen years in prison, but she only got probation. She does have to spend sometime in jail though. At least three days a year during Christmas. She has to do this during her five year probation period.

So, I was trying to figure this out. If you were going to send someone to jail, why only for three days during Christmas? The article does not say the reasons, but only says that if she violates her probation she can be forced to serve the entire fifteen year sentence. I for the life of me cannot think of a reason why just during Christmas. I know judges do not always have the most conventional sentences, but what the hell is this? I mean seriously, why is it that we have people who have a "felony" possession charge get years in jail and this woman only get a slap on the wrist probation with the caveat she has to be in jail during Christmas for the next five years. I even know of a person who has sexual misconduct with a minor charge and only got a six year sentence. That means if she does not violate her probation she will only be in jail for a minimum of fifteen days in the next five years.

Now, when I was reading through the comments of the article some people think its because of the convicted individual is black and that is why the light sentence. I do not think that has anything to do with it. I think it has to to with the non standardized sentences people are given. Now I am not saying she should get the full fifteen years in prison for this crime she committed. But what does it say when we have a justice system for people get more time for simple possession then to make fraudulent government identification cards? Or going back to the instance I brought up about someone who had sex with an underage female and only got a total of six years of prison time.

I believe that Judges should have some say in how sentences need to carried out, but sentences like these is one of the reasons that a lot of people are losing faith in the justice system.

Airlines and the U.S. Passport Office are racist

Parody

For a while I have been thinking of traveling abroad, but I was stopped by the racist inexcusable actions of the airlines and passport office of the United States.

While looking on the official government website for information on obtaining one. I was appalled that I have to prove who I am to them before they issue me a United States Passport. I cant believe they would not take my word for it. Since my last name clearly shows I am from Hispanic origin, this is a clear case of racism. I even learned that I needed a Government Identification with my boarding pass just to get through TSA Security at the Airport. And to add insult to injury, I have to show that again to the boarding agent before I get on the plane. What kind of Police state is this?

This harkens back to the old Nazi days of "Show me your papers". As minority, I can not grasp this concept of having to prove myself to anyone. The United States Government must know I would have no idea how to obtain a Government issued Identification like a Driver's license or a State ID. So, with that said. Making  me prove who I am is clearly a case of racism and discrimination. Shown below is clear and undeniable evidence racism is alive and well to obtain a United States Passport.

The above sounds a little out there, does it?

This blog is not to necessarily to make fun of the issue, but to bring it to light in a somewhat comical way. Why is it that to drive I need a driver's license to prove I have been qualified under the DMV to operate a motor vehicle? Isn't my word good enough? That is the argument they are using against the requirement to show ID to vote. A right, which is only a right to United States citizens, as long as their voting rights were not taken away for a felony conviction. Why am I not required to to show an ID to vote, but I have to show one to get into a bar?

The main argument I have heard against making this a requirement is that its racist and discriminates against the elderly. So, what a lot of people are saying is that the elderly and "minorities" are so disabled, stupid, ignorant and cant grasp any concept of how to obtain a legal ID, that those requirements should not apply to them. So I will end with this question. Whats really racist; asking anyone, no matter what race they are to prove who they are when it comes to voting, driving, ect, or implying that the elderly and minorities would not be able to understand how to obtain a government issues ID.