Freedom of speech does not mean not getting offended

Freedom of speech almost certainly means that someone somewhere at sometime will be offended. This is because we are free to express any opinion, however contradictory to the norm it may be. When people discuss views, opinions and beliefs openly and freely, there is sure to be disagreement and there is always the risk of offending someone.

The offended party, fortunately, has the right to express his or her moral outrage and put forth their own opinion. That is the beauty of freedom of speech and why it must be vigorously defended. If we didn't have it, we would be forced to conform to one way of thinking approved and endorsed by one particular group, usually the government.

The risk of being offended is a small price to pay for such a basic and essential freedom. There are messages we see every day that we don't necessarily agree with, but we must stand up for the individual rights of others to put forth even those, or we run the risk of losing our right to express our own thoughts.

Think for a moment about a time when you have been most outraged about a form of expression. What did you do? Odds are, you expressed your indignation and spoke about why you disagreed with the message. You may have even thought to yourself that the party who expressed the offending message shouldn't have had the right to put it forth in the first place. If you stop to think logically about that, it would mean that you would likewise not have the right to express your opinion on the matter.

Free and open discourse is the only way that civilized, rational people can resolve problems and issues that affect everyone. It is because of contradictory ideas being expressed in the marketplace of ideas that social change ever has the opportunity to occur. When two opposing ideas are expressed, it opens up a forum or debate where others are free to give their input, often resulting in a clear resolution of the issue or even compromise. Someone is likely to propose an idea that appeals to both schools of thought and gives them some common ground on which they can agree.

Without our freedom of speech intact we may have a life of less conflict and find ourselves offended less often, but we would lose our ability to think and reason on our own. Plus, we would have to rely on someone or some group to decided what messages are appropriate and approved. There is no one in the world qualified to make those decisions for us. What we think, feel and believe must not be dictated by a single individual or group, but rather determined by our ability to sift through all the conflicting messages available and find those which which we agree and disagree.

Communist countries without freedom of speech and without a free press rely on their governments to distribute information. They are told what the government feels they need to know and are not allowed to express any opinions that do not totally agree with and support the ruling party. They may live their lives without being offended, but they are also living in the dark, their minds dulled by ignorance and controlled by a handful of people who decide what's best for them.

I would much rather stand the risk of being offended by what you have to say than to give up my right to either agree or disagree and have a frank, open discussion with you about it. Since, fortunately, we are still free to express ourselves, I was free to write this blog post. If you have been offended in any way or if you disagree, you are free to make that known by expressing yourself through freedom of speech.

Why a "made in the USA" label is better than a "made in China" label

We did it to ourselves. As consumers, we demanded everything and more, and we didn't want to pay much for it. So, our factories closed and our retailers started getting items from China because they could get them much cheaper and sell them at lower prices here. We could buy more and more stuff and everyone was happy.

That is, until we found ourselves either unemployed or with low paying service industry jobs because there were no production jobs left. Then, we suddenly couldn't even afford so much of the cheap junk that was being imported from China and somebody suddenly looked up and said, "Hey, how did this happen?"

There are so many reasons a "made in the USA" label is better than a "made in China" label that I couldn't even begin to list them all here. We have discovered some of those reasons recently and I, for one, can only hope it's not too late to do something about it.

Jobs and economic impact:
The main reason a "made in the USA" label is superior to a "made in China" label is that if the product was made here, somebody had to make it. That means jobs on American soil. The person who made that item worked at a production facility. That means that person was employed, had money to spend that would stimulate the American economy and was able to pay taxes to keep the American government running. It also means that the production facility was paying taxes and more than likely purchasing raw materials here in the United States to make the items they produce. That's a whole lot of economic benefit from one baseball cap or similar item being made in the USA rather than China.

Health and safety:
One reason the things being imported from China are so inexpensive is because their costs to produce them are lower. One reason their costs to produce them are lower is the fact that there aren't nearly as many rules and regulations on health and safety in China as there are in the United States. With all the news lately of toys with lead paint, poisonous food and similar horrors, we have finally begun to discover that you get what you pay for. Had those items been "made in the USA," they would have been thoroughly inspected by government agencies whose jobs it is to ensure public safety. They don't do that with the stuff that comes into our borders from China. We find out about it after a child chews on a toy car with lead based paint and has to be hospitalized for lead poisoning. Yes, it's a little more expensive to put systems and proper equipment

in place and to provide workers with good training. Yes, that raises the costs of goods made in the USA. No, a child's life isn't worth saving a few cents on a toy car.

Improved quality:
Because of less regulatory activity in China and because of a workforce that will work for much less than Americans will accept for the same work, the quality of items we import From China are much cheaper. That means, of course, in all ways. They are cheap as in inexpensive, and they are cheap as in poor quality. We were willing to accept this for years because we were gobbling up more and more lower quality stuff and loving having so much. Then, we began to take a look at what we really had. Slowly, people have begun to realize that it doesn't matter what a super low price you pay for something if it's potentially dangerous or falls apart in a week. We are moving back from a disposable society to a society that values craftsmanship and we are hungry for well-made items that will last a while. This is partly because we don't have the money to keep buying the "made in China" crap over and over.

The bottom line is that "made in the USA" is good for the USA in more ways than one and we, as consumers, need to start truly demanding it. We need to get good jobs back on our soil and not have to worry that the things we buy might kill us or fall apart the first time we use them. If these things matter to you, start looking for the "made in the USA" label the next time you go shopping. Odds are you're not going to find many, but if you stop buying so many of the "made in China" items, retailers will eventually get the message. Another way to give them the message, of course, is to step up and make your voice heard by telling them that you want a better selection of items that proudly carry the "made in the USA" label.

Will the minimum wage increase help or hurt the US economy?

In the current economic climate, with so many other issues already chipping away at the US economy, the 70 cent minimum wage hike will have absolutely no effect whatsoever. Independent of skyrocketing gas prices and retail price increases the highest in 30 years, the increase may have had an impact one way or the other, but it won't even cause a blip on the economic radar now.

The only effect the 70 cent minimum wave hike has noticeably had so far is to contribute to higher unemployment rates and higher retail prices. So, the money the people who received the pay increase could have used to put back into and stimulate the economy is being negated by these two things. When you adjust for inflation, spending is actually down, even though you're paying more at the grocery store. So, if you brought home an extra 20 dollars on your paycheck by it was eaten up because of the fact that the same groceries you bought last week cost you 20 dollars more this week, the effect on the economy, as well as on your personal line, is a big zero.

The nation's employers and retailers did exactly what we knew they were going to do. They whined and moaned about how the increase was going to devastate their bottom lines. Then, when they became effective, they cut workforce and raised prices to offset what they considered huge payroll expenditures, effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Had they had the courage and foresight to weather a brief storm of a potential dip into their significantly deep pockets, they could have regained even more later because those working people who have been struggling for so long may have actually started spending some of that extra money and stimulated the economy.

Instead of allowing it to be a good thing for them in the long run, employers and retailers have effectively dashed the hopes of the pay increase doing anyone any good. They raised their prices to recoup perceived losses, making that extra 70 cents no longer extra, but necessary for people to stay at the same stagnant economic level they were at before. We have no more discretionary income than we did before the minimum wage hike went into effect, so we have no way of effectively stimulating the economy. This will cause the retailers to see even further drops in sales after adjustments for unnecessarily high inflation levels.

The answer to this question may have been much different before we dropped into the recession that no one will call a recession. However, this nation's employers and retailers have created their own self-fulfilling prophecy by setting into motion a series of job cuts and price increases that will cause the 70 cent minimum wage hike to do absolutely nothing.

Ways to protest high gas prices

High gas prices are hurting the American consumer in numerous ways. The obvious ways are the fact that it is costing us way too much to fill up our cars. However, the not so obvious ways it is hurting us are by causing prices on nearly everything else to go up rapidly because of delivery and transportation costs. It's amazing that there hasn't been some sort of organized protest of these high gas prices because something needs to be done.

There are numerous ways we, as consumers, could protest the high gas prices, but very few that would have any real effect. There have been numerous calls for one day gas boycotts, but these have proven completely ineffective because not enough people participate and one day isn't enough to put a significant dent in the pocketbooks of big oil.

More effective uses of our time and resources would be to write letters to our elected officials explaining the effects the high gas prices are having on us and asking that something be done. After all, the political powers that be have much more control over economic matters than we average citizens do.

We need to also start taking a good, hard look at our elected officials before we elect them. If we put people in positions of power who have strong ties to large oil companies and whose wealth arises from them or whose campaign funding comes from them, we wind up in the situation we are in now where the average person has to think long and hard before deciding between purchasing a gallon of milk for his family or a gallon of gas to get to work.

As average citizens, about the only thing we can do that would make a serious impact is to reduce our overall use of gasoline significantly. We need to go back to the concept of carpooling and do things like utilize public transportation to put fewer vehicles on the road. In addition to helping lower gasoline use, these things would be beneficial for the environment as well by reducing vehicle emissions.

Other ways to reduce our individual use of gasoline are to plan out where we have to go in a day's time and combine as many errands into one trip as possible. Perhaps you can pick up your dry cleaning on your way to pay electric bill. And, maybe you can delay doing both of those things until it's time to pick up your kids at soccer practice. Also, avoid unnecessary trips altogether. If you can wait until tomorrow on your way home from work to pick up that loaf of bread, don't run to the store tonight to pick it up. Instead of wasting gas in a long drive through line, park, shut the car off and go inside. These may seem like small things, but if each of us did them, they would amount to significant decreases in gasoline use.

The best way to make an impact on a corporate giant is to impact their bottom line. If their high priced product is suddenly not selling as well, they will usually lower the price as an incentive to sell more. It's the simple law of supply and demand. We need to all band together and start using it to demand more reasonable gas prices.

Does Wal-Mart have any business telling its employees how to vote?

I personally think the obvious answer is a resounding no, however they are doing it. Wal-Mart has been trying to "persuade" their employees to vote Republican in the upcoming Presidential election by scaring them with inaccurate information about a Democrat plan to unionize the monstrous company.

The fact that this huge corporation is abusing it's power in such a way as to try and influence a Presidential election is scary and shouldn't be taken lightly. Please take just a few moments to read the information on the following website which explains this in further detail and also shows the "Wall Street Journal"* article about it: http://action.walmartwatch.com/page/s/voters

*This edit corrects New York Times to Wall Street Journal

Do mainstream media outlets favor bad news over good news?

If it bleeds, it leads. That is the stereotypical mantra of the media and, to a certain extent, it's true. While we'd love to blame the media for airing only bad news, we have to realize that in the world of television especially, ratings rule and giving the viewers what they want is the most effective way to get increased ratings and, in turn, advertising revenue. Since America is a capitalist society and the majority of news venues are for profit, there is the unfortunate reality that those advertising dollars are the bottom line.

If people didn't tune in to watch the horrors on the nightly news in such vast numbers, those responsible for the content would change it to meet the wants of the viewers. So, we are actually in control of what we see more than we might be comfortable taking responsibility for.

Another reason it seems all we see is bad news is the fact that, unfortunately, bad things are news. The fact that something went well or turned out right is as it should be and is therefore not newsworthy. Something going wrong or turning out badly is outside the norm, making it worthy of a headline in a newspaper or a segment on a news program.

The media even takes steps to counteract the overabundance of bad news by throwing in human interest stories that are meant to be uplifting and inspiring. You've not doubt read or seen stories of brave, courageous people who have overcome obstacles in their lives, or stories about organizations that are doing good in the community. This is good news. While viewers would more than likely get bored and tune out or put a newspaper down if this was the only content, it is there.

We as Americans tend to spend a lot of time analyzing and putting down the media in this country, but one thing to remember the next time you're watching a particular bit of bad news on television is this: at least you're not watching a state-run "news" broadcast which is made up of nothing more than government propaganda. You are free to see and read about what is really going on in the world around you. A lot of the time, those are bad things. It is those bad things we need to pay attention to so we can learn from them and learn to rise above them.

If you want to only hear how wonderful everything is and that there is nothing to worry about or fear and that the government will take complete care of you so there's no need for you to think on your own, move to a country that doesn't have a free press. If, on the other hand, you want the good, the bad and the ugly so you are free to form your own opinions and think and discuss freely important issues, thank God you live in the United States and lighten up a little on the media.

Are doctors motivated by high pay or healing patients?

The majority of American doctors are clearly motivated by high pay rather than healing patients. If this weren't the case, this country would at least be closer toward moving toward a system in which health care was affordable and accessible for all people instead of just those who can afford it.

While doctors themselves aren't completely to blame for the fact that we do not have universal health care in this country, they share the blame equally with politicians and the medical lobbying groups which have prevented us from moving toward a system which nearly every other civilized country has.

The arguments have been made for years that if American went to a system of universal health care that the quality of health care would suffer. Tell that to someone with an illness who cannot afford to have it treated at all or to an elderly person living on a fixed income who has to choose between eating and getting the medication they need to survive.

Did Canada lose all its qualified doctors when they switched to the universal health care system? No. Did everyone move away because the health care became so horrible? No. Did people who were unable to afford proper medical treatment in the past become able to get it? Yes. Is it cheaper to import the exact same medicines from Canada than it is to purchase them in the United States? Yes. This clearly indicates that the Canadian system of universal health care is working.

One of the biggest arguments offered against universal health care is a back log in the system and being forced onto waiting lists for medical procedures. I believe a poverty-stricken individual would rather be placed on a waiting list for a medical procedure than to know there was no way they would ever be able to receive it or that, even if they did, they would spend the rest of their life in debt for it. The waiting lists provide everyone an equal opportunity to receive life-saving medical procedures without pushing those with enough money to buy their way into the operating room to the front of the line while pushing those without the money out the door.

There are, of course, American doctors who are motivated more by healing patients and saving lives than they are by money. Those are the ones who are offering their services at free clinics and in similar ways. However, those free clinics are far and few between, especially in rural areas, and are usually painfully understaffed and struggle to stay afloat. This is where a system of universal health care would help out tremendously.

Some say that you would only attract substandard doctors if they didn't receive such high pay, which is basically unlimited income potential as it stands. That may be true, but if money weren't such a consideration, then you might attract more compassionate doctors motivated by what doctors are truly supposed to be all about, which is healing people.