Minimum Wage, No Longer Minimum...?

Is a $10-15 minimum wage really the best answer to solving the present problems?

Michigan's minimum wage is currently at $7.40. Recent protests have been staged to raise the minimum wage up to $15.00. This large increase would be more than double what it already is.

People supporting this raise feel that this is a logically thing to do. In this blog I will tell you five reasons as to why I feel the minimum wage should not be raised.

The first reason addresses the fast food workers on strike. You work at a fast food restaurant. You are filling a job that is easily replaced by any commoner walking the streets. A degree or diploma is not required to work as a cashier, drive through operator, or patty flipper.

Secondly, working at a fast food restaurant is not going to make you rich. Typically, you work at one of these places because you can not get a better job. People do not grow up hoping they will work at the local McDonalds.

Adding on to the previous salary comment; you can not sufficiently support a family working at a place like one of these restaurants with a $7.40 minimum wage. With that being said, it sounds like I am advocating the raising of the minimum wage. I do not at all feel that way. I would tell a person who uses that as their argument that they should not have had so many kids or that they should work for a better job.

Also, with college being so expensive, young adults are beginning to look for jobs. If the minimum wage was raised to $15, a lot of kids would be swayed to apply for these jobs, forcing the current holders out of their jobs. If that were to occur, there would a big commotion about hiring all new workers. Employers could possibly be convinced to hire the youngsters who have interest in working, in addition to the same credentials, possibly better.

The fifth and final reason that the minimum wage should stay the same has a little more to do with society than the actual money. Fast food restaurants are not a good thing for our nation. They are a great concept, with many short term benefits such as: a quick-and-easy dinner, great taste, typically hot, etc., but there are also draw-backs. Fast food restaurants are causing our youth to be overweight. It is not healthy how much kids have gained in weight with all of the fast food at their fingertips. By raising the minimum wage, there would be no incentive to get rid of these types of places. It is an unrealistic goal to remove fast food from our growing world, but it is most definitely not a step in the right direction to encourage their growth.

United States of Secrets - Edward Snowden and Post-September 11th (UPDATED-5/15/14)

PBS aired a Frontline episode called "United States of Secrets". This episode was about the American government post-9/11 and their actions in dealing with surveillance.

They begin this showing by showing a computer screen displaying all of the documents that had been obtained. There are lists of different confidential documents, power points, pictures, and emails.

The people meeting with Edward were thrown off by the man they were meeting. They were expecting an older man, but instead were meeting a younger, skinny, student-like man. Also, meeting him in the hotel room was a little suspicious. They described that Snowden had pillows and blankets covering the doors so no one could listen in through the walls. This was a sign of danger for the group.

The interesting thing with the NSA is that it was created after the Pearl Harbor bombings to prevent another dangerous attack on American soil. We did not want something like these events to ever happen again, yet they did. No one knew how or why this happened, considering we were suppose to have knowledge on actions like this.

Bush was open to allowing the NSA to do what they wanted. He said "what do you want that you already can't do that would help prevent another 9-11." Chaney outlined the program as gathering data from phone calls from millions of Americans, and then using that data to search out possible targets. Bush was hesitant that this program would not be legal; he was then convinced by Michael Hayden that this program was necessary.

The people involved in this decision did not pass this right away. They were certainly concerned about the legality of this, but in the end, decided that this program was completely necessary for America's safety. General Hayden sited the Constitution in Article 2: "The president's authority as commander and chief".

William Binney, Former NSA agent. 

Thinthread. This is the brainchild of Bill Binney; it worked to sort through massive amounts of phone and email data. This program had a built in system that you could not gather data on American citizens, unless there was a court order saying they were allowed to take information on our people.

High-ranking NSA officials did not want anything to do with Bill's thinthread program (we later find out that they actually used it). They did not want to communicate with him as to why they were not planning on using his program. This was a little suspicious for some people because they knew that the NSA was gathering information on all people, even US citizens. Thinthread was actually being used by the NSA but they removed the part of the program that encrypted all US citizens information.  At the time, the NSA was operating under a "no questions asked" way of business (since they knew that their operations were becoming illegal).

At the time, no one in the government wanted to stand up and take full responsibility of their actions; they continued to beat around the bush, and make justifications for these programs.

Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly

Judge Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the government was performing lawful actions. The President and high-ranking officials sought out reasons to justify that gathering information secretly was legal. After this ruling of warrantless search and seizure being legal, all actions were back on. President Bush acknowledged that they were accused of searching without warrants, he assured the American public in a speech that all of their findings were legal and through warrants.

Thomas Tamm (anonymous whistleblower) decided that he should call the New York Times and expose the government on their actions. After leaking this information, he returned to the shadows of the Justice Department. It has not been proven that he indeed leaked information and he has not been charged with anything.

When the government found out that Tamm "blew the whistle", they called up the New York Times immediately. The calling officials told the Times that all of the reports, are false and that they should not report on these disclosures. The editors of the Times were concerned that the White House was misleading them on certain information and that they should not run the story for legal purposes. The story about these programs was not run, for the time being.

After thinking things over, the Times reconsidered the story. The editors of the New York Times were called in to the oval office. The President and Hayden threatened the editors that they would be held accountable if there were to be another attack similar to 9-11. Even with this weight resting on their shoulders, they went on to publish the story.

After the story was run, President Bush spoke publicly and admitted the programs to in-fact be real and true. He downplayed the actions of the programs, though. Bush said that all findings were legal under the Constitution and that all of the surveillance was only of known suspects. He failed to mention that all citizens were at one point were watched. The lies from the government continued to pour in. General Hayden did the same when he spoke later. Hayden said that no one in the NSA considered this program to be worrisome. This is known to be a lie after some of the members were interviewed.

Thomas Drake was watching the speeches from the NSA. He thinks that the top ranking officials speaking were lying. Drake was not happy that they were lying to the public about what they were doing, considering, they were coming out about lying about the programs. Drake went to the Baltimore Sun to Siobhan Gorman to expose only "unclassified" documents.

Chaney was not happy with all of the leaks about their programs. Attorney General (2005-07) Alberto Gonzales was the lead detective in this investigation into the leakers. The FBI raid the houses of those considered to have been a whistleblower. All electronic devices were ceased. Drake was prime suspect number one as being the person who leaked to the New York Times, even though there was no evidence that could connect him to the New York Times, or the Baltimore Sun for that matter.

Senator Barrack Obama addressed the whistleblowers in his speeches for Presidency. He said that they will hold all people responsible, and that there will no longer be anymore secret wiretapping, email gathering, or other unwarranted surveillance of innocent citizens.

44th President, Barrack Obama

President Bush decided that he needs the help of Congress by amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This was a sneaky way by the President to actually allow the NSA to gather information on all foreign intelligence. It not only validated the legality of their recent investigations, but also gave them more power. At the time, the people did not read the fine print of FISA, therefore, did not realize what really was granted after this was passed.

After this bill went through Congress, Senator Obama had to make the decision whether to vote in favor of FISA. If he voted to pass this act, he would be contradicting his recent comments on halting further surveillance; if he voted to veto the act, people would be questioning what the purpose of the act truly is. He voted to pass the bill, and later became the 44th President of the United States. After being elected, Obama could have decided to take down the surveillance programs, but he opted out of doing so.

With all of the data being gather, the NSA needed highly-skilled computer programers to control their system. This is when twenty-five year old, Edward Snowden comes into play. He was a high school dropout, living only twenty minutes away from the NSA. Snowden enlisted into the military but was forced to leave after breaking both of his legs. Edward Snowden had the credentials that the NSA was looking for. In 2009, Snowden was working in Tokyo, Japan as an NSA contractor. He knew a great deal of details about the NSA and all of the information that they were capable of having their hands on. In his little investigation, Snowden found one of the most important documents about the program.

April 14, 2010, Thomas Drake was indicted for being the enemy of the state. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act. The government actually framed Thomas Drake. All of the files that the government had that Drake leaked were clearly labeled "unclassified". After ceasing these documents, they crossed this line of text off and wrote "classified". Days before the trial began, the charges on Drake were dropped!

Snowden did not want to take his findings to the New York Times. He went to the Washington Post with all he knew. Snowden had every single document he could ever imagine having and no one in the entire NSA knew that he had a single one of them. This is considered to be one of the biggest breaks in national security ever, and it was just getting started from there.

What has Edward Snowden Really Done?

First and foremost, what most people know Snowden for doing is revealing to everyone that the American government has ceased all phone calling records (time, location, duration, and sender/receiver). This caused a colossal stirrup in society. Even though the purpose of gathering all phone records was for National Security, a group of people feel that this is a massive invasion of their privacy. Would you rather have personal privacy, or the the most knowledgeable protection possible? Seems like an easy answer to me; then again, I am not a person who thinks that the government is interested in my personal relations life.

To piggy-back on the "personal privacy" issue, Snowden also revealed another privacy violation. He disclosed our PRISM program that allows government officials to gather records of emails, search engine history, and file transfers that could potentially be connected to dangerous foreign affairs. I highlight "foreign affairs" because that is precisely what the government is looking at. They want information on our potential enemies, not our harmless citizens sending lovey-dovey messages.

A really interesting thing that would have been better kept a secret, was a tool that the NSA uses called the "Boundless Informant". This allows the NSA to keep track of metadata that the USA gathers about all of the countries in the world. The Boundless Informant sorts through all of the information quick enough so we know if there is an immanent threat present in a country. The green is the least likely to be targeted for surveillance, while the darker red colors are more to be watched.

The fourth thing that Snowden did was he told China that we have been tapping into their computer systems in mainland China since 2009. This is obviously problematic that a country knows that we have been interested in their information for the past five years. While China has not found evidence that we have been hacking their computers, it still puts us on their radar as deceptive.

Not only did Snowden reveal that we are spying on potential enemies, but also that we are listening in on our allies. This could end up being problematic because our friends, could become just the opposite.

Ask yourself: "Is it really worth all the commotion caused by Snowden; is personal privacy more important than national security?"

Edward Snowden: Do Too Many People, Know Too Much?

Are our nation's top secrets not closely protected? Everyone in Congress hears information and opinions of our government everyday. Congress is re-elected every few years. If you are a member of the House of Representatives, your seat in Congress is up for election every two years. Senators have a little longer term; they are only up for re-election every six years.

In my opinion, this is problematic for members of Congress. Even though they are protected to say their true opinion under the Constitution, some members could be afraid to speak their mind. They have a lot on their plate. Being a member of Congress is a big responsibility, with a big salary.

When considering their opinion, they also take into consideration that they have to please the public. Sadly, some members of Congress work for re-election so they can keep their job safe. This can lead to bad decisions in our government.

Since people are possibly cycled through every 2 years, that could lead to a large number of people who know our nation's secrets. I would suggest that we allow members of Congress a few more years, per term, to allow them an adequate amount of time. With more time in a seat, members could fully express their beliefs, therefore, I expect them to make more educated decisions. People will work less for being liked by the public, and more for what is better for our country.

Longer terms also benefit the American public because the people in these spots have more experience. They know how to do business and how to work the system. This would also allow the members to have a little chemistry. Chemistry would allow them to work together to get work done and pass more bills.

Timetable of NSA and Metadata Programs

The New Yorker listed and described all of the events that have transpired since 1999.

In December of 1999, Edward Snowden leaked an Inspector General Report. This leakage exposed that some people may be under surveillance. It is still a mystery to me, as to how and why a man who leaked Top Secret files from the NSA. The document he released has "Top Secret" on every page.

On October 26, 2001, the Patriot Act was passed. The passing of this Act allowed the government to obtain all information (virtual, cellular, and physical), necessary to protect the United States from foreign warfare.  

After September 11, 2001, President Bush allowed the NSA to gather all phone and media records without a warrant. At the time, if you asked anyone if they cared that they were being watched, I guarantee you no one would care. Should that be the case now, or does it make a difference that it was so close to one of the biggest on-soil attacks in US history. In November of 2001, the NSA started gathering large amounts of phone numbers.

The Patriot Act was not loved by all members of Congress. December 14, 2005, Senators Obama, Hagel, Kerry, Durbin, and serveral more signed a letter that says the Patriot Act is a danger to our civil liberties. They were afraid that personal medical records could cause innocent Americans to be under unruly surveillance. To counter that point, you can not know someone is an upstanding citizen or a potential threat without seeing all of their personal information. The Patriot Act was ruled lawful and was reauthorized.

May 23, 2006, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales requested that the NSA needs all call-detail information so they can further analyze them. People argued that they should not need that in depth of records because most of the records have no correlation with terrorism.

In September of 2009, Obama requests phone conversations be gather in bulk. He goes back on his recent beliefs about the Patriot Act and wants it to reauthorized as it was before he requested changes.

June 2013, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper admits that he lied in March when asked if the NSA was collecting anything at all on Americans. This threw many Americans for a loop because it was exposed that the government does not fully disclose all that they know.

Did Edward Snowden Make America Safer?

Liberties over safety?

Edward Snowden made the American people personally safer, for the short term. Now that everyone knows there is a possibility that their every move is being watched, they will be more careful with what they view and talk about. The government needs to be able to see your every move if you want to have maximum security. If they can accurately track your credit card purchases, flight tendencies, and who you talk with, they can make informed decisions on how to handle a situation. It is relatively hard for us to have someone fly so far under the radar if we have access to what they are doing.

The amount of information we can potentially have on people is so extensive. The Brookings Essay is a great example of being able to know as much information as possible. This site has the capability of knowing how long you are on their page, what type of computer you are using, and the location that you are viewing from. This could be helpful in pinpointing where a person is if they are targeted as a person of interest.

If people of interest knew that we have access to all of this information, they will surely change their ways.  This series of events could lead to trouble down the road for the United States. Currently, we have not seen an immediate impact because of these exploitations, but a plausible attack would not occur right away. If something does happen down the road, which I sadly expect, it could be potentially detrimental to the American public. By that I mean, credit card information, identities, and family records (such as medical information), could be released to the general population. If that were to happen anyone could have access to people's information. So I do not expect a real life, physical war, but rather a virtual one.

NBA Playoffs: Round 1

This years NBA playoffs have been one of the most interesting and surprising playoffs in recent years. Top seeds are under-performing, and young stars are rising to the challenge. There are only two series that are complete so far - the Heat (2) over the Bobcats (7) , and the Wizards (5) over the Bulls (4). There are already three scheduled Game 7s left to play.

The top seed in the Eastern Conference is the Indiana Pacers. They started off slow to the Atlanta Hawks, but have battled back to even the series at three a piece. All of Espn's featured basketball experts picked the Pacers to win, but only one had the series going all seven games. If the Pacers do not come away with this series win, the nucleus in Indiana may get blown apart come next season.

The Western Conference match-up that is drawing an impressive amount of interest is the Oklahoma City Thunder (2) and the Memphis Grizzlies. OKC started the year on a tear, literally. Russell Westbrook went down with an injury early in the season. He is back and better than ever for this series with the Grizz. Memphis matches us well with this high-firing offense because of their great defensive ability. On the offensive side of the ball the two bigs, Gasol and Randolph, dominate the boards. This is a Game 7 you will not want to miss.