Companies (please!) Change, or Else

“On January 24th Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like '1984.'" That was the tagline to the 1984 commercial launch of the Mac, which featured what looked from a scene from 1984—overworked, unhappy citizens doing what they can for the state, under constant supervision with the threat of excommunication if they don’t continue to work for “Big Brother.”

Well, it seems that Apple has lived long enough to see itself become the villain (to quote Batman: Dark Night). I just read a NY Times article exposing Apple’s consistent apathy for its suppliers’ welfare. I shouldn’t say they don’t care about the welfare of its suppliers. They just care more about money. I’ve attached a link to the article at the bottom of this page for reference.

It’s unfair to pick on Apple since they are one of many companies that use the same factories including Dell, HP, IBM, Motorola, Nokia, Sony, etc. I briefly read through the forums and the rhetoric seems to be, “We don’t want to support a company that allows such abuses, but we have no alternatives.” I own an iPhone and I can totally relate the frustration. My iPhone does so much more for me than a normal cell phone (if you don’t own a smart phone I can’t begin to explain what you’re missing).

That said, imagine a manufacturing plant where children work 60-hour weeks, housing for employees is overcrowded and unsanitary, and workers are locked in to keep them at their machines. And if you protest, you’re blacklisted. Sound familiar? It could be because it’s happened before…in the United States during the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s and early 1900s.

I’m not a big supporter of unions, but I am a supporter of why they were formed in the first place. We had a government with few labor laws and those that existed weren’t enforced. So, in brief, the workforce banded together and refused to work and/or protested until working conditions changed and laws were created and enforced.

Will China unionize? I’m not sure, but should it even come to that? Do we allow the abuse of human beings until revolution comes? I don’t believe most of us agree that we should. If that’s the case, do we wait for companies to change their labor practices or force them to?

I continue to hear the debate about “regulation.” After the housing bubble popped in 2008, Democrats screamed “More regulation!” because they believed that the banks had acted irresponsibly and oversight could have prevented such dealings. On the other side, you had Republicans arguing that new regulations would cost taxpayers more money and prevent companies from hiring new workers.

What’s the alternative? What choice do we have? If companies were irresponsible without oversight, what makes us think they’ll change (especially when they can expect the government to “bail them out”)? This story about Apple only reinforces that companies are here for one thing—money.

They might have begun as ways to improve others’ lifestyles or provide jobs. Many entrepreneurs start companies because they can’t work for someone else. Others just want to create ideas and make a living at the same time. But when you’re talking about this scale (large corporations and private companies with thousands of workers), maintaining those jobs, continuing to provide goods and services to millions, while keeping shareholders happy becomes a BIG priority.

And as long as the company is able to provide income for workers and shareholders and make great products, it’s hard to see them enforcing change on suppliers’ suppliers in a country on the other side of the world.

With customers having no choice but to buy and manufacturers having no choice but to keep prices down, there’s only one body big enough and capable enough to protect these workers. You guessed it, the U.S. Government. While I hate paying more taxes and I can’t stand the government getting into my affairs, I don’t think these companies have given us much choice. I mean, should we even be debating this?

The message to these companies is simple: “Change how you allow your products to be made before we make you do it.”

Apple accused of ignoring labor abuses that can kill

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46143670/ns/business-us_business

RE: When the Left goes too far

After writing my last blog, I was really frustrated and down-hearted. I mean, it’s all I’ve been able to think about all weekend. And I’ve weighed the arguments and gone back and forth. And no matter what it seems like I really can’t come to a solid conclusion about the whole thing.

We’ve got conservatives stating that it’s about Pharmaceutical companies that want birth control to be paid for by nonprofits, that it’s a violation of the freedom of religion, or the federal government flexing its muscle on businesses.

On the flip side we have liberals stating that it’s about freedom of choice, that it’s all about women’s rights, or that birth control is a basic human right. And of course the atheists like to chime in at this point that religion is the opiate of the masses and anything having to do with religion should be shunned.

The whole thing is just plain frustrating because I can see both points of view and there really isn’t precedent like it in the past. In the 1860s we forced companies to pay their workers by abolishing slavery. Later that century, we forced companies to pay workers in money, not just material goods. We forced them to limit the hours and jobs of minors. In the past 100 years, employers have been forced to hire women and Blacks as equally as men and Whites.

Many of us have seen the employee rights listed on the posters in the break room.

Aren’t these good things? These don’t have anything to do with religion, do they?

At some point, all of those issues were religious in nature. For example, many in the South came to believe that God had made the white man ruler over all other races. Many cite the New Testament as a reason for why a man should not work for a woman. There are even more examples outside of employment.

As far as I can see, it comes down to two points. (1) Do religious nonprofits operate differently than other companies, and (2) is birth control a basic human right?

Let’s talk about Nonprofits. Many believe that nonprofits should be treated like regular businesses possibly because there are so many with so many people. Maybe it’s because they believe that businesses will claim nonprofit status just so they don’t have to pay so much.

A nonprofit business is not in it for the money, but for the “greater good.” All of its funds must be used for that cause. No person owns the nonprofit and property and income are recycled back into the nonprofit’s public benefit mission and activities. Cash, equipment, and other property cannot be used for anyone’s private benefit without fair market compensation to the nonprofit organization. It is run by a board of directors that act as one body and no one, not even the founder, can control it.

So, let’s use Catholic Charities (USA) as an example (since Catholics do not believe in birth control). Their vision states that “The mission of Catholic Charities is to provide service to people in need, to advocate for justice in social structures, and to call the entire church and other people of good will to do the same.”

So where does birth control fit in their mission? It falls under “justice in social structures.” What justice? According to the Catholic belief, contraception (of any kind) is unnatural and harmful to those involved. It encourages promiscuity and prohibits God’s gift of life. Okay, so that’s the abridged version. The point is, being “Catholic,” birth control violates a key part of who they are.

So why can’t they just follow the law? Christians and non-Christians don’t understand that religious belief often comes in packages. For example, if you follow the ten commandments, you can’t have “Thou shalt not kill” without having “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Need some analogies? It’s like making Jews let employees work on Saturdays. It’s like making Hindus serve beef at their homeless shelter. It’s like making Atheists allow Bibles in their libraries.

All of these are ridiculous things to ask of these organizations because it violates the principles that govern them in the first place. Clearly, a nonprofit has the right to serve the community and follow its creeds at the same time. The alternative is that you force the nonprofit to close its doors since it cannot violate its creed and exist at the same time.

Let’s talk basic human rights for a moment. Should a nonprofit be allowed to deny basic human rights? Should I go to a homeless shelter and be turned away because I’m white? Should I? No. Should the nonprofit be allowed to? Yes. What? How can I say that?

Because in this fictional (as far as I know) scenario, this nonprofit doesn’t believe it should serve white people? So, let’s say that another white person feels that it isn’t fair and files charges against the nonprofit? And let’s say that legislation is passed that prohibits racial discrimination by a nonprofit. Now, the homeless shelter closes its doors. And hundreds of non-whites go homeless on the street.

What’s more humane? Closing services to hundreds of people over fairness or allowing services to continue in spite of unfairness?

Obviously, shelter is a basic human right. Yet, we still allow “women’s” shelters and “men’s” shelters. Isn’t this sexual discrimination? Some nonprofits target specific groups, like the NAACP. Aren’t they racially prejudiced? What about nonprofits that target only nursing homes? Aren’t they practicing age-discrimination?

Even if birth control is a basic human right (which I would argue is not the case since humans have never been born with such a right), nonprofits are already discriminating who they offer services to. But what about the employees? Clearly, a nursing-home nonprofit has young people in its ranks. And the NAACP has non-black volunteers.

Can a nonprofit discriminate who it hires?

Because clearly this law of making nonprofits pay for birth control wouldn’t even be an issue if its employees didn’t believe in it, right (I mean, ideally)? Actually, yes, they can. According to the U.S. Supreme Court,World Vision can hire only Christians to work in its U.S. operations. The largest nonprofit in the state has the right to hire or dismiss employees based on their religious affiliation, the court ruled by allowing the lower court decision to stand.

So maybe it’s a non-issue. If nonprofits only hire individuals that don’t use birth control, then even if they would pay for the service, they could terminate the employment of anyone that uses it. But wouldn’t that be worse than just letting nonprofits run their businesses like they want?

Really, I think the federal government should back off on this one. Part of the appeal of nonprofits is that they do things because they are compelled by their beliefs to do so.  That's where they get their passion. Let’s not destroy the good that they do because we don’t agree with their morals. Instead, acknowledge your disagreement, and try to be a brighter light to the world. I dare you.

Supreme Court: World Vision can hire only Christians http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2011/10/03/supreme-court-world-vision-can-hire.html

When the Left goes too far

One of the greatest strengths of the Left is its acceptance of other peoples’ beliefs. One of my biggest gripes about the Right is their notion that everyone else should be forced to believe like they do.

Today, however, the Obama administration announced that church-affiliated institutions (nonprofit institutions such as church-affiliated hospitals, colleges, and social service agencies) will have to cover free birth control for employees.

First, let me acknowledge what’s right about it. I would venture to say that most Americans believe in some form of birth control. I also believe that birth control has many scientific advantages including (obviously) preventing conception, minimizing periods, balancing emotions due to hormone-changes, and improving judgment of potential mates.

I also believe that there are many employees of such institutions that are paying out-of-pocket for such services and suffering financially because of it while others are going without and having to pay for the extra (emotional and financial) expenses associated with child birth and raising a child.

On the other hand, you should not force someone to pay for something that violates their religious beliefs. We make exceptions for religion all of the time. We make exceptions for military drafts because of religious beliefs. We don’t force doctors to participate in capital punishment when they don’t believe in it.

While we allow people to live their lives according to their creeds as long as they bring no harm to themselves or anyone else, we don’t force them to participate in activities that violate those beliefs. While I’m all for people being able to do what they want, it is not the responsibility of anyone else to give it to them either.

Essentially, this is what the government is asking these nonprofits to do.

Additionally, it does no good to complain about the fairness of the situation. Whether you believe that these organizations are right or wrong, I’m also concerned about the effects. For one, these organizations aren’t going to just break their principles. Instead, they will stop offering insurance altogether. And if more laws like this pass or become more far-reaching, the organizations will close altogether. Many of our social services are provided by religious organizations and it is a shame and burden on this country to cause them to fail.

To read the full article I’m referring to, see Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46076912/ns/health-womens_health/t/feds-religious-employers-must-cover-pill/

Republican Compassion

It’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in America and we celebrate the man that took the lead on Civil Rights during the 1960s. Schools, banks, and government institutions are closed. Many reflect on the “I have a dream” speech. For me, it’s not so much about Martin Luther King, Jr. as it is about the values he preached. Most importantly, we are all God’s children.

Being a centrist, I thought it pertinent to really figure out why the majority of Blacks vote Democrat. It hasn’t always been this way. Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party and initially the Black population voted along with him. It wasn’t until the 20^th century that this began to change. In fact, it wasn’t until 1924 that Blacks could be in the Democratic Party.

So why the change? A big reason was Roosevelt. His New Deal gave Blacks aid they had never seen before. He desegregated the military. He also created the Fair Employment Practices Commission to ensure that the government agencies and contractors hired without regard to race or religion. When Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, he secured the Black-Democrat vote through the present day.

So, you might be thinking…this is easy—just throw money at people and they’ll vote for you. G.W. Bush signed the $168 billion stimulus package which cut taxes and mailed checks to Americans and businesses. By the 2008 election, however, Republicans lost the Presidency and House. I believe that FDR’s intention was not to throw money at people in hopes of votes, but to give people a fighting chance working in a down-turned economy.

If you read or watch an FDR biography, it becomes apparent that he had a deep compassion for people. Conspiracy theorists will cringe, but I  think they’re pretty easily proven wrong—that FDR gave the order to nuke Japan because it would save American lives (not because the Russians would take over Japan). And eventually he caved to city and night-time air raids because it would end the war sooner. Nearly every decision was made with preserving American lives in mind.

And I believe that rhetoric continued to his successors. Lyndon Johnson got 94% of the Black vote in 1964 when he pushed through the Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Act. Racists are cringing I’m sure, but my point isn’t whether or not these Acts were right or wrong. It’s that they gave freedoms to a people who had never had such an opportunity.

Since then, the Democratic Party has continued to promote freedoms of all kinds, possibly going too far in some circumstances. And it’s this “going too far” that has fueled the Republican Party, which acts as a balancer, rallying for more restrictions. And so the American fabric of freedom gets stretched to the extremes. But while the Democratic Party may nearly support an anarchist state of no restrictions and a communist-like regime of equally-distributed wealth, I believe there is something they have that the Republicans seem to be missing—compassion.

Ironically, the Republican Party prides itself on Christian and family values. But then they fight to downsize Welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, taxes for the wealthy, and the list goes on. It doesn’t seem like you can have it both ways “pick yourself up by your own bootstraps” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus frequently helped the poor and criticized the ruling upper class. He told the rich young ruler to sell everything he has and yet Republicans seem to argue against such notions.

My point is not that Republicans aren’t generous. My point is more about their message. They really don’t come across as good Samaritans, but more like the priest and Levite avoiding the man dying on the side of the road. Just insert the line “[When the priest] saw the man, he thought ‘a charity will handle it,’ and passed on the other side.”

A good message to have? Have compassion. Be moved by the poor and struggling and have pity on them.

Like Martin Luther King, Jr. said, quoting Isaiah: “I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; ‘and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.’”

Mexico's Drug Problem is the U.S.

So I read today how many drug-related deaths happened last year in Mexico: a death every half-hour. Talk about depressing. In addition to the deaths, the cartels continue to cause other problems like keeping children dependent on their drugs so they’ll work for them. I’m sure you can use your imagination to determine that death isn’t always the worst that can happen when you’re working with the cartels. But I’m not posting to advocate vigilantism against the cartels. But I am suggesting that a real contributor to the problem is America.

America is the world's largest consumer of illegal drugs. Just read the comments section below any news article about border security and you’ll find that one of the top-voted comments is about the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. And any time an illegal marijuana operation is shut down, people complain that it should be legalized. I would argue that most supporters of the legalization and regulation of (any) drugs are users. I’m sure there are those that have philosophical arguments for it (like those who want the tax money), but let’s not be naïve.

This is typical of America. When you feel like the government’s wrong, take matters into your own hands. When the U.S. prohibited the sale of alcohol, look how Americans responded. Did they stay dry while protesting and working to repeal the law? Over half a million arrests were made from 1919-1929.

The same is happening now. Americans are buying illegal drugs from Mexico because they believe that the law is wrong and they are entitled to whatever makes them happy. Really? With that philosophy we should just let everyone out of jail. Illegal drugs are used for recreation—you don’t need them! If you were starving and your only way to get food was illegally at least I’d understand. Is your recreational activity worth thousands of deaths and several thousand more enslaved?

My argument is not whether or not the drugs should be legalized. My argument is that it isn’t worth it. The price in human lives isn’t worth your entertainment. And I’m sorry you think it is. Continue to protest and argue. Hire an attorney. But don’t support an industry that supports itself this way. It’s really un-American, and certainly inhumane.

Appened 2/3/2012:
Cross-border methamphetamine trade booms amid Mexico's 'war on drugs'
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/03/10307672-cross-border-methamphetamine-trade-booms-amid-mexicos-war-on-drugs

Setting the Blog Agenda

The purpose of this blog is to get my theological and philosophical points out so I can express myself to God and people. If a post generates a discussion, great. Whether you're a Christian or not, keep searching for the truth. Never stop. Always grow.

What should any reader expect? Expect the posts to be religious in nature and Christian in flavor. Don't expect every post to be centrist. Most of my posts will undoubtedly criticize the conservative right. Being more involved with the conservative community, I have more conservative material. That's just how it will have to be.

When you read the posts, hopefully you'll read them as opinionated, but tactful. You won't see name-calling (much). As a Christian, my duty is to shine a light that others will be attracted to, not blast them. I know, I'm no fun at all.

I was raised in the Church of Christ, but have attended Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, and various non-denominational churches. I don't attach a label to myself. If you ask me my denomination, I'll simply say "I attend a [type of church here] church." I am a Christian. That's it.

Politically, I'm Democrat, but I've previously been Republican. I voted for G.W. Bush and Obama. So there you have it. If I think someone's a good candidate (and has a decent chance of winning), I'll throw my vote behind them regardless of their political party.

The rest of my political and religious views? Well, you'll just have to read the posts I guess.

Oh, one last thing. It takes a long time to look up information on these topics and I won't always be inclined to list chapter and verse unless I feel it's really necessary. They can be quite complicated in nature and sometimes there are no simple answers. I will undoubtedly be incorrect about many things and welcome correction (cringing).

Christian Radio News

This morning, I drove my son to school. On the way, I listened to a Christian radio station (as is typical on my drive). Shortly after leaving the house, the news came on and began reporting about events. Since I listen to this particular radio station every morning, I already know that the news will be spun conservatively: "Republicans are good. Democrats are bad. Adoption is good. Abortion is bad. Heterosexuals are good. Homosexuals are bad. We all have the right to bear arms."

The news will hit on one of these points at least once in the couples of minutes it airs. Understandably, we're headed into an election year and there's always something happening in politics. But this is a typical broadcast. A year ago, I could say the same thing.

So what is it that bugs me so much about listening to this news cast? I think it's the hard line that conservatives take on the subjects. The idea that Republicans are good, for example, can be proven untrue without much research (and the same can be said of Democrats).

And why do we have to focus on abortion and gay rights all the time? As Christians, we already know where we stand on these issues. Reporting on it all the time just us upsets us. If the gay rights are expanding, conservative Christians get upset. If gay rights are being challenged, liberal Christians get upset. The occasional mention is fine as it prompts action, but can we go a day without bringing it up? Please?

Same with abortion (aka pro-choice and pro-life). Since when is it every Christian's responsibility to worry about abortion? Most of us don't have to deal with the issue and for most of us it's a philosophical argument (as it will never affect us). How will my view on abortion save or condemn me if I never have one or advise anyone on the subject? Just like gay rights, it's okay to mention the subject on occasion because I believe it is important. But daily? Really?

This is a Christian radio station. The listeners are (primarily) Christian. When you're broadcasting the news, broadcast things that Christians need to hear. The occasional political post is good. We need that. Mostly, though, we need a couple of things (1) positive stories and (2) calls to action.

Everyone loves a positive story. It's encouraging when we hear about Christians pulling together to help the community, the Christian athlete that stays faithful, and miracles. I'm not saying Christians need to have their heads in the clouds. In fact, aren't Christians dealing with the same daily issues as everyone else? When you're feeling down, isn't it nice to get a bit of good news?

A call-to-action, really balances out the positive stories. As Christians, we're not on this earth to be entertained. We need to be living the life of Christ and one of the biggest ways we do that is by serving others. Christians want to help and often they just need to know how. Broadcasting this information is very important when we're talking about large needs--a city that gets hit by a natural disaster, the cancer ward that's looking for blankets, or the schools that need backpacks. They will know we are Christians by our love, right? While protesting is a call-to-action, I think it's pretty obvious that serving is a bigger priority and should get the focus it deserves.

I care about how God will be there to help me make it through the day and I care about how God can use me to minister to others. The same could (in my opinion should) be said for Christian radio news--it's a ministry to believers. Minister to us by giving us what we need to make it through our day. By doing that, maybe, just maybe, an unbeliever will listen and hear the message--how God loves us and how we share that love with others.