Some definitions and a thought or two

Merriam-Webster online's primary definition of Socialism is:  "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies."

Since we don't like Socialism, that means we don't like Tennessee Valley Authority, right? Or the local utility companies?.

How about these guys:

• Commodity Credit Corporation^[27]
• Corporation for National and Community Service (Americorps)
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting
• Export-Import Bank of the United States^[28]
• Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation^[29]
• Farm Credit Banks^[30]
• Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
• Federal Financing Bank^[31]
• Federal Home Loan Banks^[32]
• Federal Prison Industries^[33]
• The Financing Corporation^[34]
• Gallaudet University^[35]
• Government National Mortgage Association^[36]
• Legal Services Corporation^[37]
• National Consumer Cooperative Bank^[38]
• National Fish and Wildlife Foundation^[39]
• Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation^[40]
• Millennium Challenge Corporation
• National Corporation for Housing Partnerships (NCHP); Washington, D.C.
• National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility
• National Endowment for Democracy^[41]
• National Park Foundation^[42]
• National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak
• Overseas Private Investment Corporation
• Panama Canal Commission
• Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation; Washington, D.C.
• Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
• St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
• Securities Investor Protection Corporation

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-owned_corporation#United_States)

Again, using Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, Capitalism is defined as: "a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government."

I don't think that the list of organizations above would exist without the backing of local and federal governments. I think it is necessary to have government involvement sometimes.

Maybe, instead of calling people names, we should think about the meaning of those words?

                                   ______________________________

CEO pay and the minimum wage - here's a nifty little statistic:  The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay between CEOs of the S&P 500 Index companies and U.S. workers widened to 380 times in 2011 from 343 times in 2010. Back in 1980, the average large company CEO only received 42 times the average worker’s pay. 

As a business owner who has taken ALL of the risk, signed my name to ALL of the notes payable, and am on the hook for EVERYTHING that can go wrong in my business, I damned well expect to be paid significantly better than my employees.  But 380 times better? I think I might be able to share the wealth a little better than that.

Here's another fun little statistic:  The Walmart CEO gets paid 1,034 times more than the median Walmart worker, according to a new analysis by PayScale, a salary information website.

About a month ago, I was talking about how we as taxpayers are actually subsidizing Walmart and other large corporations.  

Doesn't this mean then, that I am helping to pay Mike Duke's $23.15 million total compensation, regardless of whether or not I shop there? I think it does, and I don't think I really like that.

I don't find, in dealing with my clients, many companies who can't afford to lift their employees off of the minimum wage, ESPECIALLY adults. I think that requiring a minimum wage to be a living wage, AND to be tied to the rate of inflation, is good social policy.  Sometimes, having the government decide social policy is a good thing.  The mortgage interest deduction on your tax return is a government mandated social policy designed to promote home ownership.  Likewise, the charitable contribution deduction is a government mandated social policy designed to promote INDIVIDUAL charitable giving. I've yet to hear any complaints about those examples.

Them there Gays, wanting rights again!

The City of Chattanooga is wrestling with the decision of whether or not to offer domestic partner benefits to its employees. The City originally passed an ordinance approving those benefits, but a group called "Citizens for Government Accountability and Transparency" collected 7,000+ signatures on a petition, which forced the City Council to either repeal the ordinance or do nothing (which would send the ordinance to a vote in the August general election). The Council has decided to let the citizens of Chattanooga vote it up or down.

The underlying reason for this ordinance, although not explicitly stated, is to provide same-sex couples with the same benefits that heterosexual couples already enjoy.

As you might imagine, this has created a firestorm of opinion, often centering around biblical interpretations. It seems to me, in reading various comments following online articles and polls (yeah, I realize that I should NEVER read the comments, as that is often where the worst of us reside), that the majority (not all, but the majority) of the comments coming from the pro-bible side of the argument are against providing these benefits.  Some of the comments came across as downright mean and nasty ("dirty homos").

Disclosure:  I'm a Christian - I'm an Episcopalian (a Christian denomination that encourages me to use my God-given brain as a tool for discernment).

Lacking in many of the comments is a feeling of love for our brothers and sisters. There seems to be a pervasive sense of hatred out in the world today - maybe it is not a new phenomenon, but it is one that I've really noticed over the last several years.

I realize that there isn't consensus among Christians as to the rightness or wrongness of Homosexuality.  To me though, that is beside the point.  The point is the rightness or wrongness of providing equal rights to all Americans, as our Constitution requires (I guess I'd go with the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment, although I'm certainly not a lawyer!).

It's not an issue to be adjudicated according to religious beliefs - although that might be how it is decided, at least at this level. It is a civil issue, much the same way that same sex marriages should be civil issues. Churches should be free to perform or not perform same sex ceremonies according to the dictates of their rules, but should have no say in how governments that follow the Constitution act.

I was reading a blog post written by an Episcopal priest (written in 2007) that pretty much sums up how I feel as a Christian - as it relates to this subject - here is a link to the whole post: http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com/2007/01/sex-religion-and-culture-wars.html, but I'll excerpt this bit:

"Homosexuals in the Church - Episcopalians do not tend to believe in homosexuality as a moral or psychological disorder. We accept the well-researched findings of boring experts like the American Psychiatric Association, which sees homosexuality as a “normal variant of human sexuality.” An important question, then, is not the gender of your partner but rather the quality of your intimate relationship. Are you committed, monogamous, and nurturing? Most of us have come to know homosexuals who are involved in healthy, life-giving and sustaining partnerships. We see that there is no essential difference between gay and straight: we all long for love; we all fail to love perfectly; and as we deepen our spiritual journey, we seek to live in forgiveness and harmony with the Source of love. Episcopalians humbly follow Jesus as One who shows us how this is done, and for that reason our worship centers around Christ.

And yet, a handful of Christian leaders lead the charge that would deprive homosexuals of their civil and human rights. Many who call themselves Christians routinely link homosexuality with pedophilia and incest. If we did not know better, we would dismiss this position as sadly ignorant; but if this is ignorance, it appears to be of the willful variety, and it is dangerous."

I believe then that the voters in Chattanooga should vote this ordinance "up" so that this group of human beings is granted the same rights as other humans.