While such a title to a post would probably give certain people fits on reading, I refer, rather, to the issues that are being decided today in libraries and high school gyms all across the country.
For those who don't know, Missouri happens to be one of the bizarrely more important states in the congressional races, as well as having three pretty massive consitution amendments on the ballot today. Some thoughts on each of those three:
The first is the stem cell bill. St. Louis in particular has been a hotbed for bioengineering in the past few years, and it somewhat shocks me that this is even "contested" in the state. The rather obvious reason for that is Monsanto, but there are numerous smaller firms operating in the area. I actually know quite a few people that work for them.
But, like so much of elections these days, the opposition makes every attempt to make the issue a moral one, and not a legal one. The fact is that, despite your views on cloning and abortion, the legality of such an act shouldn't really be in question. Testing on living things happens quite a bit. Ask the rats who went through that red wine test how they're feeling now that they can't fit into those little cartoon holes in the wall. But, hey, an embryo might be a human, so that makes a difference.
One of the better quotes I've heard, from Bill Maher: "Might be a human being: an embryo. Is a human being: Michael J. Fox." There are many "disadvantages" to the amendment as proposed, one of the largest I have is that the affirmative seems to represent that there will be cures that will save lives, which isn't true. There's a possibility, but no definite proof yet, but banning the testing, in an area known for testing that sort of thing, seems to be ludicrous, regardless of the moral issues involved.
My view on the morality: The human embryos which are generated for stem cell research come from product that would otherwise be destroyed by a fertility clinic. In other words, they're being destroyed anyway. Why not use them to save someone else's life?
My view on the actual law: The research will be done. If not in St. Louis or Missouri, somewhere in the United States, or even somewhere in the world. If people need these supposed cures, cures which will already create an almost impossible financial burden on the families involved, why make them go to Chicago or Detroit, or even Canada, or overseas, for access to them? If your morality states that this is inherently wrong, one should focus instead on a national law banning the testing. If Amendment 2 is passed in Missouri, it only allows that all testing legal in the United States is legal in Missouri. If national law bans it, what do you care about Amendment 2?
The second amendment introduces a 4 cent tax on each cigarette in the state. That's 80 cents a pack. Despite my personal interest, such a tax would hurt a *lot* of businesses in Missouri, businesses which aren't doing that well to begin with. Taxing a subsection of the populace has appeal when said subsection is the minority. And while it's rather drastic to draw the parallel, it draws similarities to several words ending in "-ism."
It's a tax that's meant to single out vices. The idea is that it's a win-win, because it means more money, and might encourage people to quit smoking. It taxes a product of big business, which is supposed to draw support from the poor.
The issue is twofold. First, taxing a product which is generally used far more by the poor than the wealthy isn't going to help Missouri's economy much in the long wrong. Second, smoking is a chemical addiction, not something do just because they want to. It's not viewing porn, people who are addicted to nicotine don't quit because they don't want to, they don't quit because they can't.
Brace yourself. I have a friend who has been addicted, at random intervals, to most drugs out there, illegal and otherwise. When asked why she still smoked, when she didn't do all the rest of that, her response: "It's impossible to quit." She drew parallels to drugs such as heroin and cocaine as far as the difficulty, a
fact that is supported by the scientific community.
Getting people to quit is a noble goal. Perhaps more funding could be given to actually acknowledging the problems inherent in such, rather than simply trying to convince people it's no big deal and moving on.
The final amendment is an increase to the minimum wage, from $5.15 to $6.50. This is the one I was seriously on the fence about, and a lot of people ask me about it, because of my position as someone working perilously close to that minimum. I followed this logic:
Business owners believe they will have to slash jobs if they have to pay minimum wage workers more. Understandable, and I'd rather those people have jobs that pay awfully, than have no jobs at all.
But the fact is this: People who are paid minimum wage are not people in my position. I get paid more than that, I did when I started working where I'm working now, if I wanted to get another job doing exactly what I'm doing, I would be paid more than either of those numbers. Minimum wage is paid primarily to high school and college students, or the elderly. The latter bothered me, but I realized this: Minimum wage is never viewed as an amount intended to provide for someone's life. It is meant to supplement someone's income, or it is meant to provide spending cash for someone who is otherwise taken care of.
So leave the minimum where it is, right? Not really. The majority of these jobs are held by large, large companies (a certain fast food restaurant comes to mind). They can afford an extra dollar an hour for all those people. While it's still not enough to live on (I have serious issues getting by on my over-minimum-wage pay), and I almost believe it's not doing enough to help people who rely on these jobs to pay their way, these are also not jobs which aren't meant to support a family by themselves.
Think about this: The cocky, bored teenager who's screwing up your order at McDonald's doesn't care about his job. It's not the amount of money that he's being paid, it's that he doesn't want to work. Someone like that doesn't deserve to work one job and be able to pay all his bills. It does hurt the people who do have an honest desire to work and work hard, I'll be the first to admit that. But as callous as it sounds, those people, who pull two minimum wage jobs to feed their families, signed up for hard lives early on. While the poor generally have fewer opportunities to succeed than the rich, they still have opportunities, regardless of their upbringing and financial status.
I think the real issue there, is that the primary decision for the quality of someone's future is made at a moment where decisions are nearly impossible to make. Tell a teenager that if he doesn't shape up, he won't get into college, and he'll laugh. High school's hell to him, why put himself through another 4 years?
I am not a greedy man, I don't want a six-figure a year job, and a house in Ladue. But I'll be damned if I don't regret not listening to that advice every single day of my life.
Let's fix that problem, not make it so that working at Jack in the Box is a viable alternative.
