Saturday, February 22, 2014

Raising the Minimum Wage is a good start

The quick serve franchise model in this country is one of the problems. They are the bottom feeders in our society; parasites by any definition. They produce nothing, but permeate our thoroughfares to suckle the teats of neighborhoods. The brand names tend to squeeze regional operators to leverage profits from the fruits of their uber-low-wage workforce. There is so little profit margin for operators that it’s not feasible to own just one McDonald's restaurant, nor is it in their revenue interests to pay a living wage. Not to mention the fact that they sell notoriously unhealthy meals.

States and communities should begin putting their collective legislative feet down and facilitating some local requirements on absentee parasite corporations that tend to hurt communities as opposed to acting as responsible corporate citizens. There could be local ownership requirements in addition to an objective measurement of economic and commercial impact; the ratio of what a restaurant brings to a community versus what it removes. The ratio of revenue versus wages & taxes, for example.

But that's not the most fundamental issue in this society.

Let’s be clear. The so-called Republicans who purport to identify with conservatism are advancing policies that help corporate interests amass or export the wealth of this country, leaving the rest of us with fewer greenbacks – of diminishing value – after ever-expanding payroll deductions and expenses are withheld.

The idea that low wages are caused by unemployment, as Heritage Foundation’s Chief Economist Steve Moore recently claimed, is the wrong assessment. Unemployment might give corporations a better negotiating position, leading to lower salaries, but it hurts them in the end when domestic markets can’t afford to buy whatever it is they’re selling. This is of course partly helped by the flood of currency being created out of thin air in hopes some of it will land in consumers’ pockets (but oddly never does as promised).

Moore's right about one thing: we need dialogue on job growth policies. But the only rational, effective job growth policy is to adjust wages with inflation, not only because it respects the workforce – without which there is no business – but because it's ultimately better for the economy because it puts more buying dollars in the marketplace.

The reason people won’t or can’t pay the extra buck for a sandwich at a minimum-wage eatery, whose pay suddenly becomes $10.10 an hour, is because the office workers haven’t received a cost-of-living or merit increase for the last six years. It's the office workers who are getting pinched, but when they complain about how expensive the food is at the lunch counter or grocery store, they should rightly direct their anger at their employers for stagnating wages instead of parroting the lies being fed to them by corporate-run media outlets who want you to think that equitable wages leads to job loss.

It’s fundamental that poverty creates no demand, and that’s the real harm to our economy; when people aren't paid equitably for the fruits of their labor, they buy cheaper and fewer products and services. It’s intuitive that when wages contract, consumer demand contracts.

Corporations don’t add jobs when they’re handed a few tax breaks and other subsidies. They add jobs when demand increases; when the customers are there. If a corporation gets a gift from the tax payer, it makes more sense that the CEO buys a Learjet than to add jobs if demand can’t support the additional workforce.

You cannot have a conversation about the housing bubble and its economic impacts without also talking about depressed wages and lost jobs and the suffering on Main Street and in our neighborhoods. In the game of musical chairs that is our financial markets, it’s not hard to see who got the cushy chairs when the music stopped; they’re the same ones to whom the political class are beholden, and therefore shielded from any accountability.

But we’re getting used to CEOs taking the first slice of the pie for themselves. They’re people, too, right?

Corporations are comprised of individuals, so the notion that they, as entities, are entitled to be recognized as people is completely beyond the pale of fairness. When corporations are granted the same rights as individuals, we find that corporations exercise extra rights – super rights, if you will – through enormously greater power and influence … more than any other collective of people.

Corporations already have a huge advantage when it comes to influencing government via their in-house captive audience, those individuals who comprise the corporation, who are at least somewhat subservient to their employer. To add to that the extraordinary status as “person” is mind boggling.

Friday, December 6, 2013

Ten basic things everyone should know when cops want to talk

Whether you're pulled over by police or have an encounter on the sidewalk, here are some essential tips on how to preserve your rights.
I. It's insufficient to simply remain silent because police might construe that as uncooperative behavior.

II. In order to preserve your constitutional rights, you should never consent to forfeiting them.

III. By answering questions without the benefit of your lawyer, you are forfeiting your Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination and undermining your Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

IV. By consenting to searches, you forfeit whatever shred of Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search & seizure the Supreme Court hasn't yet eviscerated.

V. To preserve your 4th, 5th & 6th Amendment rights, say out loud that you refuse to answer any questions without your lawyer, and that you do not consent to any searches.

VI. A person’s refusal is insufficient cause for cops to suspect wrongdoing, which is the necessary legal justification for cops to detain you.

VII. If a cop can claim you committed an offence like speeding, he can then detain you long enough to write a summons. An offence also gives him adequate justification to demand your driver's license, insurance and registration. However he cannot arbitrarily expand the scope of the seizure (detention) without some other justification ... or your consent. Once the summons is signed, you are, de facto, free to go, so any subsequent encounter then becomes a voluntary (or consensual) one, to which you may refuse and politely depart.

VIII. Lacking reasonable suspicion or probable cause, a cop can't legally detain you ... unless you consent to it. Also, if no offense has been committed, he cannot demand identification (except in states with stop-and-ID laws; but even there, 'reasonable articulable suspicion' of wrongdoing is still needed).

IX. A casual conversation is a consensual encounter, but you may only know whether it's consensual or not if you ask specifically whether you're free to go. A trial verdict can turn on that fact alone.

X. Cops can and do con citizens out of their rights in order to bolster their arrest metrics and standing in their respective departments.
These tips are but a tip of the iceberg when it comes to criminal law. The more you know, the better prepared and more confident you can be if you have a run-in with police. And please don't take these items as wholesale facts; please let them be a trigger to get you started with your own research.

If you want to know more, you can start with the landmark Supreme Court Miranda case associated with the Miranda Warning, the case that defined modern day stop-and-frisk encounters called Terry v. Ohio, or Brown v. Texas, which established stop-and-ID standards.

Understand that I'm an informal student of criminal law and not an attorney. This article represents a few of the things I've learned throughout my adult life. It's not legal advise by any stretch, but rather a launching pad for your own legal research.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

The cops have a plan for you

I've written about police encounters through the general advice of criminal defense attorneys and have shared a particular video that outlined one pretty important rule. You have the right to remain silent, so you should do it. The "Don't Talk to Cops" video was close to an hour. This lesson is not.

I've found another excellent video that covers the same essential bases, but it's much more condensed, yet well articulated and laid out. It's by defense attorney Mary Griego. Her basic message is that police have a plan for you, and that's to make you an informant ... against yourself. Your task is to have a plan of your own ... hopefully before cops come calling.

Instead of rehashing it in detail, I'll give you the recap version. When the cops come knocking, follow these steps to minimize the amount of evidence that is collected and used against you:

  1. Shut up! Please shut up!
  2. Stay shut up ... unless you're refusing consent, asking what you have to do, asking for your lawyer or giving your name and date of birth.
  3. Do as you're ordered and not as you're asked. Make sure you're not being conned into thinking you have to unless it's a command.

Griego suggests you create crime fantasies and practice with friends how you'd handle yourself when police knock on the door. She says to do it with your kids because minors also have civil rights.

Source: Ignite New Mexico. Tags: Albuquerque, New Mexico | Albuquerque Police Department (APD) | Bernalillo County Sherrif's Office (BCSO)

How PR is leveraged to bullshit the public

Organizations leverage public relations techniques to manage crises, often utilizing specialized language to control narratives, freeze out ...