McDonald's and Greed

In the last few weeks many fast-food workers have gone on strike. These workers have done this for several reasons including the right to unionize and a living wage. Most want a wage increase to $15 an hour. This sounds like an incredible jump, it is double the minimum wage currently. Before I get into all of that stuff I first want to say how incredibly pathetic and demeaning I find the news coverage about this series of events. I direct this to, of course, Fox News and a couple of their reporters. They show no empathy towards people who work a lot and are rewarded with little.

Now lets get to the real meat of this story. In the US McDonald's employs over a half million people. This is with an average of around 9 dollars an hour. If you are working 40 hours a week this wage only brings in a little over 18,700 dollars a year. This yearly income without taxes being deducted seems in my opinion a little unreasonable. Unless of course your single and live in a one room apartment. To scrape by one would need a second job working the same number of hours for the same pay. Eighty hours a week leaves no time for the family that most employees have. The argument is that most employees are high school or college students trying to make some extra cash. This is a fallacy. The average age of fast food employees is about 29 and a half. While there are a lot of people making some extra cash there are also many more trying to support themselves and families. I fully support the strikers and what they stand for. The minimum wage is just that a minimum. I think I speak for all Americans when I say that McDonald's needs to stop scraping by on the minimums.

Some of you readers might say why don't they just get better jobs or go to college. I say why don't we just live underwater. By this I mean not everyone is capable of adapting or even creating better situations for themselves. We can't just wade out into the ocean and be good to survive for any length of time. It is all easier said than done. But if they don't want to do any of that doesn't that mean they are just lazy? NO. In fact, to call anyone who works 40 hours a week to get a mere 9 dollars an hour is just disrespectful. I am sure a vast majority of fast food workers can tell you that these jobs are not a vacation. I see them as victims of the status quo. The rich need to keep their wealth and the poor need to keep being poor. This will not change either not until the poor take control and utilize the tools they have at their disposal and we are finally seeing a little bit of that with the current strikes.

To wrap this article up I would like to leave you all with one thought. If you drove on a road, crossed a bridge, accepted money from the government for college, taxes paid for that and a whole heck of a lot more. So is to much to ask that the people with four homes pay into the system a little more if it means all these things can get better?

Mark Zuckerberg and Immigration Reform: Why we need it now.

If you haven't read my original post on immigration reform I encourage you to read it here. In the last few weeks Mark Zuckerberg's group FWD.org released several videos encouraging Americans to support immigration reform in the U.S. The overall point of the following video is to take home the human aspect of this important issue. They are trying to impress upon us that many immigrants believe in American values and want their piece of the American dream. They don't want to be a burden on our system, they want to be here legally.





While it is true that these people are here illegally, it is because of our current outdated laws. If not for that they could be fully functioning members of our society. For most Americans our ancestors came here with the same dreams as many of those who have come here illegally in the last 30 years; their dreams included freedom from religious persecution, tyrannical governments, security for themselves and their children, to gain an education, and to have new opportunities to improve their financial situation.

Many people support changing the current laws, which have become limiting and ineffective in encouraging legal immigration to the U.S. and often punish those who have known no other country but the U.S. as home. The backlog for working visas, even for high skill workers, has become limiting to our nations growth especially in high tech fields. Even spouses of citizens often have a difficult time receiving visas due to the difficulty navigating our system.

This is a serious issue and it deserves a serious debate by our leaders about the best path forward. We need to increase our security checks and protect both our border and our citizens from those who would do harm to us; but we also need to make a clear path for those who share our values, by preparing the way for those who want to come and by making a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally.

There is an opposition to reform, and I do understand some of the arguments used by opponents to the bipartisan immigration reform bill. As you may be aware there is a bill which has passed in the U.S. Senate earlier this year that is awaiting consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill attempts to address many of the immigration reform issues including securing the border, providing a pathway to citizenship, and providing for more clear regulations on providing visas.

The opposition often points at one major concern: illegal immigrants will be rewarded for coming to the U.S. illegally by granting citizenship. These are the individuals that call any path to citizenship no matter how rigorous "amnesty" and say that it is unacceptable. They state that by offering a path to citizenship we will have failed to uphold the rule of law. They feel there is nothing wrong with current laws but that current laws just need to be enforced.

The answer to this concern though can be answered in several ways, two of which I will explain here. The first is answered by posing these questions: what would you have us do with the (estimated) 14 million immigrants here, many of whom have been here for over 15 years and some who have never known another country? Would you punish them because they were babies when their parents brought them here by sending them to a country where they don't speak the language and don't know anyone? The answer to these questions is no because the cost of deporting 14 million people would be ridiculously high. Instead, the bill requires the border to be secured by adding border patrol agents and electronic monitoring, including drones. Additionally it would implement the e-verify system to ensure workers are here legally. Only after these conditions are put in place would any illegals be allowed to be considered for a visa. It seems to be in our better interest both as members of the human family and as citizens of the United States that we reach out to those who are here illegally and offer them a hand up, not a shove out the door.

The second part of the answer is that there is a punishment put into place. Individuals here illegally would have to pay both a fine and back taxes which they owe, pass a background check, and wait for all those who have already applied to be considered for visas before they would get one. All things considered it is likely that the first individuals in this general category would have to wait 15 or more years to even be considered for citizenship.

Even with all of this, without significant Republican support in the house, it seems immigration reform might fail in the House if public support wavers at all on this issue. This is the best chance we have had in over 5 years to accomplish something which can have lasting positive impact on millions of individuals. I have applauded every member of the Senate who has voted for the bill.

“Today’s final immigration vote represents a product of many long hours of debate, discussion, and deliberation. It takes into consideration the necessity of securing America’s borders, while encouraging the lawful immigration of those who want to come to our shores to contribute to America’s greatness,” said Senator Dean Heller.

“While not perfect, this immigration reform bill is a step in the right direction towards fixing an immigration system that is clearly broken. No question, this has been a contentious debate. While the easy thing to do politically is nothing, the harder choice is to govern. I am pleased that both Democrats and Republicans were able to find ways to work together and pass legislation that this great nation deserves.”

To those who are on the fence about supporting the bipartisan gang of eight bill I say this: supporting it does not mean that you agree with everything in it, but it does recognize that this bill is the first significant piece of legislation with bipartisan support that has emerged from either house in the past 5 years, and with additional support it can also pass the House of Representatives.

I encourage you to do research on this bill, think through the issue, and contact your U.S. Representative to voice your support on this issue. It is vitally important that we as citizens become civically engaged in our democratic process in order to maintain our voice. I am glad that Mark Zuckerberg has thrown his support behind the movement and is raising awareness about the subject.

Embassy closings show the War on Terror is not over yet

Over the weekend U. S. embassies across the Middle East were closed due to security concerns. Today, the U.S. embassy in Yemen was evacuated and U.S. Citizens were told to leave the country due to an al-Qaeda threat.

In the last two weeks U.S. drones 4 times have targeted leaders of al-Qaeda in Yemen and it is believed that one of the dead  believed to be Saleh Jouti, a senior al-Qaeda member. Yesterday alone U.S. drone targeted a moving car in the  Marib province, killing four alleged al-Qaeda militants.

This comes as the State Department released a statement saying that the evacuations were due "“due to the continued potential for terrorist attacks.” After last year's terrorist attack on Benghazi it seems the administration is much more concerned with making sure that diplomatic staff in foreign countries receive adequate protection.

While it has long been known that there is a strong al-Qaeda presence in Yemen, it's strength has been growing and the potential for terrorist attacks seems more and more likely in the region due to the strong presence.

 “It’s very worrisome because al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is the most effective and threatening affiliate,” Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University professor told the Washington Post.

“So now the leader of the most consequential affiliate has an intimate command role in the overall organization. From Zawahiri’s point of view, there’s no better exemplar of the Qaeda brand than AQAP.”

While it is true that the core group of al-Qaeda was dispersed and diminished, it has slowly evolved in countries along the gulf and in North Africa, gaining support from governmental changes occurring due to the Arab spring and the continuing unrest in the region.

"We're witnessing another chapter of the terrorist threat and we'll be living with this for years to come,"  Juan Zarate, a deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush who's now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington told USA Today.

The regional networks are adapting to new opportunities and continue to operate despite pressure put on them by the U.S. and others, Zarate said.

"They're also taking advantage of the political, security and geographic space they operate in. We don't control all aspects of that so it's unfair to blame U.S. policy entirely," he said.

The regional groups continue their activities supported by other radical Islamist groups in Algeria, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries in the region. Concern continues even within the U.S. of al-Qaeda affiliates perpetrating terrorist attacks in the U.S. after the Boston Bombing earlier this year.

As the U.S. and it's allies continue to put pressure on it seems clear that we are not done yet, and continued pressure needs to be applied. It seems clear though that the senior leadership continues to be affected by the drone strikes, but that even without some of the senior leadership, the group continues.

Within the U.S. and around the world the questions continue about surveillance programs. Which wonder about their effectiveness and necessity, but results seem to show that at least some of them are necessary.

If the War on Terror can be won, one thing seems clear to us now, it won't be over soon. The theater in which the war plays out may continue to change but the overall influence of Radical Islam continues throughout much of the middle east, and until something changes to diminish it's influence it seems clear that attacks will continue to occur.