Planned Parenthood & Racism

I want to thank Spartan Spectator for notifying me of this video.

HATE SPEECH & MSU

Hate speech. What an elusive concept. What makes something hate speech? Well, according to most speech police, it would include any and all speech (or actions) that incite, or could potentially incite, violence. It is speech that is, or could possibly be, harmful to the psyche of another. It is, to many, what is referred to as revisionist history, although this is highly qualified in the favor of the speech police. It is speech that is believed to be prejudicial or bigoted; the latter being another very elusive concept. While these qualities and characteristics are the most common among what is referred to as hate speech, this by no means satisfies the entirety. But at least this gives us a framework wherein the discussion can be understood.

The problem here, in my estimation, is not so much the idea of hate speech - or even censorship for that matter - but the standard used to determine what is hate speech. Even more important is the matter of who is the standard bearer. As recent history has played out, the standard tends to be secular pluralism, and the standard bearers tend to be a cabal of academic leftists.

This should raise flags for those on the other side of the ideological spectrum. Their views are in the cross-hairs here, and theirs alone. They will be labeled by the establishment as intolerant, bigoted, xenophobic, fascist, and even historical revisionists. Their ideas, values, and heroes will be maligned. They will be forced, not by persuasion, but by fear, into keeping their opinions to themselves. They will be told to keep their mouths shut, with penalties for any brave soul who violates their newly founded code.

The irony here is in the tenets within the standard. Most of the speech police work off of presuppositions that include moral relativism, epistemological subjectivism, diversity and tolerance. But their actions speak much louder than their words. Moral relativism wouldn't provide any basis by which to distinguish between hate and love. Epistemological subjectivism wouldn't grant them any intellectual rationale for judging one idea to be more repugnant than another. Diversity would require them to embrace and celebrate the fact that there are people who hold different political, ethical, and cultural ideas than they do. And tolerance would force them to bite the bullet, regardless of how ideologically distasteful they may think these hate-mongers to be. On each and every front, the speech police fall upon their own standard as Saul fell upon his own sword.

So how will this play out? In my estimation, the speech police will win. Not because their ideas are right, not because their standard holds up, but because they hold the trump card; they are in power. The entire affair is rather unfortunate, but it is all too typical.

R.I.P. First Amendment...

GUNS ON CAMPUS

In the wake of an ever increasing number of school shootings, many people are asking whether or not it would be prudent and wise to allow students and teachers who have gone through the appropriate channels to carry loaded weapons on campus and in the classroom. In fact, Senator Erwin of Alabama is putting that very idea before the state legislature. Senator Erwin believes that the time is long overdue for us to have this discussion, and he hopes his bill will bring it out into the open.

Many people are opposed to this idea, especially those within the educational establishment. Many fear that it would result in more events similar to those at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Others insist that it would create, in their opinion, and unnerving learning environment. Still others are opposed to it on purely ideological grounds, being opposed to most any deregulation of currently existing gun laws.

But do their arguments and concerns hold up to scrutiny? I don't believe so.

First of all, the people who committed these crimes weren't law abiding citizens that went through the proper channels. These people were not only diabolical, they were criminal. Under Erwin's proposal, the new law would only include those who pass inspection and undergo the kind of weapons safety training currently required under law.

Secondly, the naysayers presume that allowing guns on campus will result in a sudden surge in those interested. Granted, there would be a mild increase in numbers, but it would be far from the "everyone would be packing" doomsday scenario envisioned by the opponents. Nobody is talking about passing out guns like candy on Halloween. The same rules apply, and the same type of citizens currently submitting to the process would be the ones to likely purchase such weaponry.

Third, an unnerving environment is one where any lunatic could walk in with an illegally purchased weapon with the sole intention of killing the most people he can before taking his own life, all the while being confident that there isn't one living soul in the classroom that could stop him short of his scheme. It is unnerving that one shooter could cause an entire classroom of students to run and hit the floor, fearing for their life, knowing that there is nothing but the desk they cower under to protect them. That is unnerving! Were the renegade student to be aware of the fact that the teacher and/or students have loaded weapons on the other side of the door, he may think twice before opening fire.

Fourth, these law-abiding students carrying weapons may not deter the mentally unstable from unloading on students, but minimizing the damage is certain worth their having the right to carry in the classroom. Thirty-two students, teachers, and faculty were killed at Virginia Tech. Thirty more were wounded. Even if the law-abiding gun-carrier were to drop that number from 32 to 30, I can list off two people and 4 parents who would be thankful that a brave student stood in defense of classmates who were otherwise defenseless.

Regardless of whether or not the law in Alabama passes, it is providing a framework wherein the discussion can be held. This, in and of itself, is a good thing. In fact, I'd dare say it is too many dead students overdue.

FREEDOM TO CENSOR

We discussed censorship in seminar this morning. The question was:

Is there any instance where censorship is a good thing?

Most students immediately said no, but then - predictably - gave various exceptions. Some of these included child pornography, others included porn that involved animals. Beyond this, most thought it was entirely up to the individual. So long as it doesn't infringe on the right of another individual, all was well.

I humbly disagree. I think that while the federal government should probably stay out of censorship, there should be a degree by which a school, community, or even state should maintain the right to defend themselves from things that they believe would be harmful to the commonwealth. If a school doesn't want to permit Darwinism to be taught or My Two Mommies to be read, that is the right of the school. If a community doesn't wish to have pornography in their stores or gay bars on Main Street, they should be permitted to prohibit these things. If a state wishes to retain a specific moral climate, it is their Constitutional right to do so. In each of these cases it begins and ends with families, communities, cultures, and values.

While this may seem radical to the modern mind, our Founding Fathers understood this very well. The very same people who wrote free speech into the first amendment also wrote blasphemy laws and codes pertaining to public vulgarity. They knew that while people should be free to make decision, communities also had the right to do so. They didn't view America as "we the individuals" as much as "we the people," and this was reflected in the way they enacted various laws.

We now live in a day and age where Jerry Springer, MTV, and mild-porn run rampant across a civilization that, in days past, would be repulsed by what they see and hear. They most certainly wouldn't have celebrated it as stellar examples of freedom of speech as they meant it to be. On the contrary, they would shake their heads in disgust. So should we.

Families, school, communities, and states should begin taking advantage of their constitutional right to censor what they believe to be harmful to their children, their students, and their citizens. If America wishes be a shining city on a hill, then we may wish to rid ourselves of porn shops, filth on airwaves, and smut in our schools. Until then, we may be shining on a hill, but a city shining with moral depravity.

AL QAEDA IN AMERICA

People called me a pessimist back in 2004 when I said that Al Qaeda would be just as much a threat in 2008 as it was in 2001. Yesterday proved the optimists wrong.

As the New York Times reported, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell admitted that not only is Al Qaeda still recruiting, but that their efforts are steadily improving. They continue to train operatives to attack the United States, and many of their new operatives appear to be coming from the Western Hemisphere. Furthermore, many of these new jihadists seem to be from the United States.

While McConnell and others tried to ease the mind of the American public by saying that there is little evidence to suggest that they have infiltrated the motherland, this is in blatant contradiction to remarks made by President Bush during his State of the Union Address. During the earlier portion of his speech he admitted that terrorists are taking advantage of our broken borders, specifically that which divides the US and Mexico.

Due to the reaction of 9-11, terrorists have had to shift gears. Flying planes into buildings isn't on their current agenda. According to intelligence estimates, they are focusing on cyberterrorism, polluting our water supply, and possibly mounting attacks on other means of travel such as metro systems or railroads.

What our politicians need to take serious is what they have already recognized: the threat is on the motherland. If or when they do choose to attack us, it will be on our soil. This means that they must first be here. This will require our political leaders to begin taking matters such as our borders, work visas, and immigration very serious. It also forces them to be more scrupulous about what is coming in through our port system. Revising our agreement with Mexico to allow vast amounts of semi-trucks into our country is also a worthy consideration. Lastly, they may wish to take a closer look at the truckloads of refuse coming to our country (specifically Michigan) from Canada.

Each and every one of these must be taken very serious if we hope to stop a terrorist attack on our country. Unless our politicians begin taking steps towards stopping terrorists from entering our country, whether it's through immigration, visas, broken borders, imports, or trucking, they will be putting this nation at great risk. Worse yet, they will be derelict in their responsibility to confront the threat that they readily admit already looms over the American people.

MATTERS OF RACE AND GENDER

Race and gender matter. We all know they do. We may act like they don't. We may say they don't. But deep down inside, we all know that they do.

Last night gave us a perfect example of this reality. The mainstream media has, possibly above all except for the educational establishment, talked down the significance of race and gender. Yet as I watched the Super Tuesday commentary I couldn't help but to notice something as strange as it was predictable: the journalists were fixated on the racial and gender dynamics of the election. They had pie charts, graphs, and a never ending stream of statistics, all having to do with race and gender. They broke down the Hispanic vote, the Black vote, the White vote, and then broke these down into the categories of male and female.

I wish I could say that I was shocked by this, but I'm not. It's easy to say that race and gender don't matter when there are a bunch of rich white men in fancy suits pacing the platform. It is something altogether different when we have a black man and a white woman running neck-and-neck for the Democratic nomination, both having the potential to be the next president of the United States. Now race and gender matter, and they matter a lot! In fact, it seems as if racial and gender identities are the only things on everyone's mind.

Prior to this election, such focus on race and gender would have been seen as racialist or sexist. Now it is a matter or national interest and intrigue. Talking about these two factors is not only permissible, it is something that may cut hard into your ratings if you choose to ignore it.

The big question shouldn't be why race and gender have taken a central role in election coverage and commentary. The answer to that question is rather obvious. The real question is why such conversations were ever taboo in the first place. And what will happen post-election? What if Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton lose? Will we return to silence? Or will this newfound fascination reinvigorate lively debates over racial and gender inequality that have, for at least some time, been confined to academic symposiums and sit-ins? Time will tell. It always does.

THE AMAZING AMERICAN SYSTEM

Here we are in the midst of Super Tuesday. Different candidates winning different states at different rates. This all seems too typical. What many may miss is the fact that when all is said and done and the final primary vote is cast, the winner may come out with just around 40% of the party vote. This, too, is all too typical.

The problem I see here is that the next Republican candidate, and his platform respectively, will have the backing of just over 1/3 of all those he will soon represent. How is this representation? Will this person tailor his platform in order to better represent those 60% of people who didn't vote for him in the primaries? This is unlikely. Instead, if history is trustworthy guide, the winner will ignore the beliefs and values of the 60% that caused them to vote for another candidate and act like he and his platform have some mandate from heaven to stay the course.

My fears and frustrations were confirmed while recently watching Chris Matthews interview a delegate from New Jersey. He is an officeholder and has endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The question was what he would do were Clinton to lose the state. Would he delegate in a way that is consistent with the voice of the people, or would he stay true with his endorsement of Clinton. Without hesitation he vouched for the latter! While he admitted he would be going against the people, he must stay true to his endorsement. Bye-bye representation. Bye-bye notion of delegation! Yet this is typical not only of delegation but of those who take home the gold and head on to the general election.

However this works out one thing is for sure: 2/3 of the American voters will be let down... once again. What an amazing system we have.

FREE TRADE vs. AMERICA

I will not be on the air this evening. I am very sick. Liz may be doing the program on her own, but I am not sure.

FREE TRADE ON PALEO RADIO

PALEO v. STATE OF THE UNION (Part 2)

This is the second of a two-part series dealing with the recent State of the Union address. The first dealt with his remarks on immigration and the economy. This deals with remarks pertaining to Iraq, the so-called War on Terror, and the Middle East.

BUSH: "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else."

PALEO: I am curious then as to how you explain saying that our aim is "build" preserve free and independent nations, with democratic governments answerable to their citizens. This isn't the government they had before. A secular democracy, one which is "encouraged" by you and others, is a form of government entirely alien to their people. There is no precedent here. It is, in its most basic form, an imposition of an alien system upon an alien people.

BUSH: "Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures."

PALEO: Why did this sentiment not fly with Palestine, Syria, or Iran? What happens when Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood, or Hizballah get the majority vote? What happens if Saudia Arabia were to become democratic? Would we settle for Sharia in Iraq or Afghanistan? What if Al Qaeda received a popular vote in Pakistan or Indonesia? We have expectations, and we will not permit the people to speak were they to vote in favor of such ideologies.

BUSH: "Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq."

PALEO: Our generational commitment? Who committed us? Certainly not the brave men who put their lives on the line to create an independent Republic. This is Wilsonian to the core, having no precedent in the historical American tradition.

BUSH: "That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there."

PALEO: No, Iraq is a distraction. Iraq was not necessary. And terrorists are there because we are there. If we were in Saudi Arabia, they would be there. If we were in Syria, Pakistan, or Iran, they would be there. They believe that we are evil, granted; but when an "evil" is in their front yard, they take it personal. They feel, as would we, that these military actions are an affront on their religion and their culture. The only difference is that they, unlike us, take their religion and culture very serious.

BUSH: "Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we do not have to face them here at home."

PALEO: This flies in the face with what you said earlier in your admission that terrorists are entering this country through our borders. You readily admit that they are not only "over there," but also "over here." The only problem is that our troops are over there and not over here. If terrorists wish to hurt us, they must be here. They can only get here through borders, immigration, visitations, and work visas. But what have we done to stop them from using these means to enter our country? Nothing.

BUSH: "Freedom in Iraq will make Americans safe for generations to come."

PALEO: We were safe from Iraqis when they weren't free. Iraqis could be foaming at the mouth and burning our flags all they want, so long as they do so over there. Our security from such radicalism, something that was relatively uncommon in pre-war Iraq, will only come from securing our borders, protecting our coasts, checking imports, and crunching down on who we let in this country.

BUSH: "We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself."

PALEO: The goalposts have changed so many times, the American people are getting dizzy! Take down Saddam. Check. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Didn't work out the way we were promised. Setting up a government. Check. Helping rebuild infrastructure. Check. Arming and training a police force. Check. Elections. Check. Now these? Seriously, we are acting more like the Peace Corp than the US Military. These standards are not only high, they are utopian.

PALEO v. STATE OF THE UNION (Part 1)

This is the first of a two-part series. The first deals with immigration and the economy. The second will deal with military interventionism and the so-called War on Terror.

BUSH: Claims that we have a "healthy, growing economy, with more Americans going back to work."

PALEO: Economic indicators point towards anything but healthy. The growth we do have is in service jobs with the food industry and janitorial services leading the way. Americans, contrary to the president's claims, are losing jobs left and right. In fact, the job growth we did have doesn't even match the rate by which Americans are entering the job market.

BUSH: "Now we must add to these achievements. By making our economy more flexible, more innovative, and more competitive..."

PALEO: The problem here is with free trade agreements and government regulations and taxation. We are not competitive because the deck is stacked against us. How can American producers choosing to stay stateside compete with third world countries? The cost of production resulting from regulations, taxation, and the quotas placed on our good by foreign countries makes it virtually impossible for us to compete on a level (or semi-level) playing field.

BUSH: "To make our economy stronger and more dynamic, we must prepare our rising generation to fill the jobs of the 21st century."

PALEO: We have people going through college at an alarming rate. Many of these are in the sciences and technology. Unfortunately, these happen to be at the top of the pecking order for offshoring and outsourcing. As I have said on my program as well as on this blog, the jobs being projected as highest in demand over the next 10 years are hardly the kind that requires an education. In fact, only three of the top 10 jobs mentioned by Forrest Research require college education. This means that seven of the 10 can be taken by low-skilled workers, many of them here illegally.

BUSH: "America's immigration system is outdated - unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country."

PALEO: It is not so much that the system is outdated as it is that it is not being enforced by you and those in Congress. Furthermore, your not having made good on your obligation to enforce the laws of the land has resulted in an economic crisis, whether it is the level of unemployment for American workers or the deflation of wages resulting from illegal immigrants working in our system.

BUSH: "We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families, and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border."

PALEO: We would not be punishing anyone for hard work. We would be punishing people for knowingly and willingly violating the laws of the United States of America. We would not be denying businesses of willing workers, we would be denying them the right o hire people who have broken our laws in order to come and work here for wages that pit them against American citizens. We are not inviting chaos on our borders, we are wishing for people to respect our laws and asking that they follow the appropriate channels to live, work, worship, and play here legally.

BUSH: "It's time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs American workers will not take."

PALEO: The problem with this is that the numbers don't add up. Most of the people involved in these services just so happen to be Americans. If Americans will not take these jobs, why are so many of them doing so? And it isn't that they won't take these jobs, it is that they will not (and cannot) work for the same low wages that illegals can.

BUSH: We need an immigration policy that "closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists."

PALEO: You say this how many years after 9-11? How do you plan to do this? The border wall you promised? Why not our national guard? And what of those terrorists that the Border Patrol and Homeland Security believe have already slipped through the wide open border? Furthermore, and not to get ahead of myself, but didn't you say that we are fighting terrorists "over there" so that they won't be "over here"? If so, why would you even insinuate that terrorists are taking advantage of our porous borders?

PALEO RADIO: January 28

Paleo Radio
Every Monday and Friday from 7-10pm EST
Listen online (Internet Explorer ONLY)
Call in! 269-749-7398

NOTE: For anyone who enjoys sports talk, the radio program prior to Paleo Radio runs from 5-7pm EST. Listen, call, tell them you heard about their show from Paleo Radio.

STUDENT CULTURE WARRIORS

Paleo Radio can be heard every Monday and Friday night from 7-10pm EST by going to www.wocrfm.com. The site is only compatible with Internet Explorer.

AMERICA THE ANDROGYNOUS

Paleo Radio:
Every Monday and Friday from 7-10pm EST
Listen LIVE on www.wocrfm.com

GREAT VIDEO ON IRRATIONAL TRADE

My friend Blake on the irrational attack of libertarian purists against those of us who support free trade under the proper conditions but do not believe that those conditions are currently being met in light of burdensome regulations, taxation, and fiscal policies. Great video!

MULTICULTURALISM & THE AMERICAN OATH

The pledge of U.S. citizenship since 1795 includes these words:

"... to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, and sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen."

This poses a great difficulty to the multicultural blueprint. Multiculturalism, to retain diverse, requires a diversity of language, culture, traditions, heroes, and bloodline. It also happens to invoke a variety of allegiances, specifically to foreign states. It is for this reason that we hear of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and others. This is also at the root of the fact that around 18% of Hispanic Americans respondents to the Hispanic Pew Center poll identified themselves as Americans first and foremost.

This is horribly problematic. It is problematic to the American identity. It is problematic to our culture, our language, and our way of life. Yet this is at the heart of multicultural dogma.

The greater issue at hand here is one of perjury. When anyone, regardless of nationality, vows to "renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity" to the nations they came from, they better make good on that claim. In the instance where they act in any way contrary to this oath, they are guilty of perjury. This is something that must be taken seriously.

Multiculturalism is fine and dandy, but the moment it enables or encourages one to break the oath of their citizenship (if they are here legally), then we have a problem. Unfortunately, this is all too common among those involved in multicultural programs, whether on campus or in the workplace.

PRECIPICE IN FRONT, WOLVES BEHIND

Miss American Pie bids farewell to the Working Class Jack as companies downsize, outsource, and offshore what were once American jobs. This once great nation of producers has run out of steam somewhere between Pauperism and the ghost town of the eternal Proletariat. Our microchips are now potato chips, our steel manufacturers are now McDonald's. All the while our politicians and economists whistle away the day, not knowing for a second what it feels like to be on the receiving end of the pink slip.

Those hit worst are the young, the poor, and those without a college education.

The young could work these jobs, believing that it was a stepping stone to something better. They knew that while the job may be tedious and redundant, it looked excellent on a resume. And with wages superior to Taco Bell, they could save up for a home or higher education.

The poor are hit especially hard here. Many of these people are willing to work long hour on the line in order to meet the demands of a meager life. These jobs may not have the skill level of the medical field or law, but it put food on the table, clothes in the closet, and checks in the bill statements. And with enough savings, little at a time, they had a greater chance at social mobility.

For those without a college education, jobs of this nature were a way to feel the pride of work and private ownership without having a degree to their name. They may have gotten married right out of high school. They may have had difficulties that would be difficult to overcome in a college setting. They may have come from a family without sufficient funds to send them to college. Maybe they simply wanted to dodge the bullet of student loans that so many spend years paying off in full. Whatever it may be, they had their reasons, and now their hopes are dashed to pieces.

And let us not forget the elderly. While I did not mention them before, it would be foolish to ignore the impact downsizing, offshoring, and outsourcing has on them. Many of them, ripe in age, have hit hard times. Social Security just isn't what it was made out of be. Health risks increase and insurance is hard to find. There may have been a death of a loved one, leaving them with less money and more bill. These people often find themselves back on the line, working tough hours, but it allows them to get by, and with some sense of accomplishment.

All of these people are hurt by the absurd faith based economics of so-called free trade. Each of these groups have been hit hard by executives who would rather benefit from slave labor and wages that work out to pennies on the dollar compared to the pay given to their fellow Americans. The almighty dollar is their creed, capitalism is the executive's national anthem.

Still, our politicians hold their breath in hope that their faith based economic theories will benefit America in the long run. We are assured over and over again that the loss of these jobs will result in the creation of other jobs. This may be true, it may not. The bigger question is what kind of jobs will be created. As it stands right now, the fast food industry and janitorial services are leading the way.

ANOTHER JOB BITES THE DUST

A dear friend of mine just informed me that her husband lost his job. What kind of job? Manufacturing. What state? Michigan. Typical, all too typical.

Free trade advocates may wish to minimize this as mere collateral damage in the pursuit of some globalist utopia, but it was what put bread and butter on the table for this Michigan family. Hope the worker in China, India, Mexico, or any other beneficiary to free trade trade policies enjoys the work and wages this Michigander once did... well, at least the work.

NEW LOOK AT OLD VIEW ON JUST WAGE

Most libertarians insist that just wages are fixed by nothing more and nothing less than the free consent of the hireling. If it is agreed upon, then all is well. So long as there is no coercion involved, then we have a just wage

I do not believe that this is .satisfactory. While the wage may be agreed upon, it leaves out a few important factors. It ignores the fact that when one works he or she is doing so in order to obtain what is necessary for self-preservation. As Pope Leo XIII pointed out in Rerum Novarum, a man's labor has two characteristics that must be considered by employers wishing to provide a just wage. The first is that work is personal. Someone is exerting time and energy. Secondly, labor is necessary for self-conservation. The person is not merely working for the sake of work; a person is working in order to live, move, and have his being.

With these two factors in mind, the libertarian notion of just wage is lacking. It's being voluntary, in and of itself, does not make it just. Justice requires that the employer provide for the employee the means necessary to live while the latter contributes valuable (and finite) time and effort to the betterment of the former.

The libertarian may respond by asking what is necessary for a man to live. The issue here is not with luxuries but with frugal living. No laborer has a right to luxuries. But the dedication of their time and effort is most certainly worthy of the sustenance necessary for self-preservation. This would be a living wage; a wage that allows man to live, move, and have his being. It should be sufficient for housing, food, and clothing.

Now, I am by no means endorsing federal wage laws. America is rather diverse, and different regions have different costs of living. This should be dealt with at a local or regional level. Even the state level would be ineffective, given the fact that the cost of living greatly varies from city to city or region to region.

Furthermore, one could make a case that such living wages could be procured by labor associations. These associations should by no means seek anything beyond what is necessary. It is due to the stupidity and selfishness of various labor unions that employers and employees end up with far less than they could have were they to seek only that which would provide for sensible housing, food, and clothing. In lacking the kind of moderation and self-restraint that would be advantageous to such associations, labor associations have possibly done more harm than good to those they are bound to assist. A return to sensible leadership and modest requests would do much more than absurd demands and political pandering.

Unfortunately, we live in a day and age where unions are more interested in political power than the basic needs and wellbeing of their members. We also live in a time when everyone turns to the federal and state governments to do for them what they should be able to do for themselves. Until we begin looking at this issue from a more personal, local, or regional perspective, I don't see the American worker making any significant movement towards a just and living wage any time soon.

LYING LIBS AT MSU AND THE SPLC