W-a-l-m-a-r-t does not spell welfare

Apparently the liberal MSM and politicians confuse the name Walmart with the concept of welfare. The first is a publicly-traded retailer with stockholders that expect the company to remain profitable. The second is a government-sponsored entitlement program for the needy. The two are examples of entirely different economic animals: the first provides purpose, the semblance of independence and potential upward mobility, the second guarantees Socialistic stagnation and the status quo.

In 2013, the D.C. minimum hourly wage was $8.25. At the time, the city council tried to shakedown the world's largest company (in 2014, by revenue as well as the biggest private employer) with the "Large Retailer Accountability Act." The bill targeted only non-union retailers with stores in the district larger than 75,000 feet and with corporate sales of $1 billion plus. When Walmart balked and almost bolted, the bill was rejected by then-Mayor Vincent Gray. It would have required them (and a limited number of other companies unique for their size such as Target, Home Depot and Macy's) to pay employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s minimum wage or $12.50.

Although mandated wage hikes sound good in theory, in the real world of economics that politicians wholly disregard, they are job-killers. These district-running Democrats grouse about low-wage jobs and a “living wage” in order to perpetually keep their voter bases stirred up ensuring their own re-elections. This is their draconian justification to use the heavy hands of government to throw destructive monkey wrenches (these arbitrary, Orwellian regulations) that, in practice, promote more unemployment under the guise of promising its opposite. In this, they completely ignore the history that such positions were designed as “starter” jobs: to give the young their first employment experiences. They were never intended to be the stuff of careers—or the economic basis upon which to raise a family.

Independent of the above situation, Walmart did initiate paying its hourly employees more, a $9.00 per hour wage in April of 2015.  (Reported Wednesday: a scheduled, second round of pay increases to $10.00 will begin next month.)  Perhaps a questionable business decision given the fact that employee wage increases have directly led to diminished profits; by October the stock had dropped 10%. This logically has caused an economic contraction, compelling Walmart to downsize worldwide including 154 stores in the U.S.—among them two in D.C. This actuality has current D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser “blood mad” because of the five stores promised—on a handshake—only three were built apparently in the better areas of town. The two slated for poorer regions have been abandoned.

Politician Bowser can stew and take it personally, but it is only business. Unlike government which never has a bottom line—and seems not to care one whit for economic consequences (read: 19 trillion in U.S. deficit spending and counting)—such is not the case for any business or any rational person managing a household budget. Yet, liberals' knee-jerk reaction is always the same: the politics of victimization. In this case, demonize the “evil” capitalist entity, publicly proclaim it a “racist” enterprise which “scammed” D.C.'s poor out of an economic oasis in a dilapidated urban sprawl. A circumstance the MSM neglects to mention, caused by Democrats' anti-capitalist policies and gross mismanagement of many of America's prominent cities.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Seeing black and white bookends 2015

At the end of any given year—or the beginning of the next—it is a common practice of many to soul-search and reflect on the past. In this preoccupation, Washington Post columnist Lonnae O'Neal is no exception. Her concession—obvious to anyone familiar with her relentless race-based scribbling—is still a real whopper. A person of rare moments of surprising clarity, Ms. O'Neal admits to seeing a world of gradation and layered human interactions in the unrealistic contours, literally and figuratively, of black and white. Therefore, as such, she is a self-confessed unreliable narrator with no business being employed as a de facto journalist in a major news-reporting organization.

As a typical, misguided liberal goody two-shoes, on the surface she seeks to “heal” the racial divide by constantly pointing it out. The disconnect is seen in how it is done: in the most divisive and polarizing manner possible. This creates a deep-seeded hypocrisy of philosophically claiming to “address” society's ills (a “good” deed) while simultaneously making her living sowing the seeds of racial discontent (seen like brush fires across the nation in places like Ferguson, MO, Chicago and Cleveland). Therefore, ironically she has a direct economic incentive not to solve anything, but to “keep the stirring the pot” with a steady stream of racially-charged propaganda.

This is the standard fare of the MSM: two-faced duplicity that parallels all Democrats' lies (à la Mr. Obama) and seeks not to cover them, but to minimize and/or change the subject entirely. It also mirrors both Hillary Clinton's style of falsehoods and her Sal Alinsky-inspired college thesis (“There is only the fight...”) in order to sell newspapers. Specifically, Ms. O'Neal's oversimplified “monotone” victim/victimizer formula usually fixates on some minor, unfortunate incident, for example, between the police and a black minority. Anytime the authority figure is white she promotes the racist “bogeyman:” a fantasy specter hiding around every corner that minorities should fear.

The fact that such an outrageous point of view is given credence in 21^st century America is completely out of touch with the good faith of a country that has elected a black man to the presidency twice. Worse, it completely ignores generations of substantive civil rights gains made since the 1960s and is antithetical to MLK's admonishment to focus on the content of character rather than the superficial difference of skin color; a hang-up more than fifty years later Ms. O'Neal cannot seem to grasp or move beyond in 2015.

As a minister, MLK's advice is grounded in Biblical scripture: “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:1-3). Once again, true to form in her latest article, Ms. O'Neal claims victimization (this time for herself) due to unfortunate and vulgar comments she received as negative reactions to her year's labors in the shallow end of race relations. In any case, as a self-proclaimed 'race woman,' it is equally wrong when she has judged others with the broad brush of ethnicity as when she, in turn, has also been pigeonholed by readers for her biology. That is the only issue here that is truly “black and white.”

Collective societal harmony has not been in evidence since Mr. Obama assumed office in 2008. My New Year's resolution for America: a more tolerant, forgiving and constructive 2016 reflecting mutual respect and Dr. King's non-violent code of conduct on all sides. May we see brotherhood through the colors of red, white and blue before any other consideration.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Bodily harm greater than secret shame

According to Washington Post columnist Lonnae O'Neal, Charlie Sheen is a victim. Raised in Beverly Hills by the Hollywood set, sharing famous father Martin Sheen's movie star good looks, and success as an award winning actor with both a highly successful movie career (lead character in Best Picture “Platoon” (1986); opposite Michael Douglas's Oscar-winning performance in “Wall Street” (1987)) as well as being a one-time highest paid TV actor at $2 million per episode. Further, a previous marriage to fellow actress, former Bond girl bombshell Denise Richards wasn't half bad either. Indeed, by any rational standard, Mr. Sheen the younger, has led a very charmed life.

Yes, Charlie had the world on a string—and understandably millions would have traded places with him. Many brave souls among us probably still would despite Mr. Sheen's new public disclosure as HIV positive. After all, while not cured, there are effective treatments. Likewise, the very real terror of the disco era late 70's and early 80's and the stigma faced by Rock Hudson and Freddie Mercury is nothing compared to the educated and tolerant attitudes of today.

Per 2012 World Health Organization (WHO) figures HIV is the 6th leading cause of deaths worldwide at 1.5 million. So, the threat—same as the stigma—has receded, but remains real. Yet, Charlie Sheen should not be portrayed as a victim due to his poor personal life choices. With this wrong-headed assertion, Ms. O'Neal has missed the mark: the true victims here are Mr. Sheen's sexual partners—who did not know about his status—and may have contracted the virus from him. In the final analysis public health trumps “sick” secret shame every time.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Democrats promote victimization, disregard youths' success roadmap: MLK's "Dream"

This is the Democrats' favorite divisive, 'whack-a-mole' political game: always blame the innocent, biologically dissimilar “other guy” for your individual troubles.

Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy makes his living tilting at this particular windmill with his thematically repetitive columns. Specifically he peddles the erroneous concept that a person, based solely upon superficial ethnicity, should blame society-at-large for a poor value system that informs worse individual behavior often leading to tragic results.  For example, in last week's 'For black youths, path to ruination, not success,' Mr. Milloy unfairly ignored the possibility of minority access to the American Dream through academic achievement. Specifically, last week's bogeyman was the fault not of poor individual choices, but the public school system which Mr. Courtland mischaracterized as simply a 'school-to-prison pipeline.' This assertion subtly infers that they are, in effect, the same thing: a societal holding cell victimizing the undesirable.  Worse still, Mr. Milloy's ideas imply the absurd standard of lower expectations predetermined by one's skin color.  

Certainly, the Ben Carsons of the world prove that effort, focus and character with a splash of good luck are enough to rise above poverty, humble beginnings or an ineffective public school system. This week, Mr. Milloy is at it again with black youths in the 'valley of the shadow of death.'  In both cases Mr. Milloy pigeonholes the same disadvantaged minority group as societal victims solely due to their pigmentation: the exact opposite of the intention of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy and, in specific, his seminal “Dream” speech in which he proclaimed:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” 

In this way, Dr. King desired to unify our culture as a color blind society in which to make an analogy one sees a human being as a Picasso masterpiece rather than the irrelevant frame that adorns him.  On the other hand, Mr. Milloy's picture is framed by his mention of the historically charged racial conflicts of Selma and his complaints of economic inequality as backdrops to blame this generation's epidemic of black-on-black homicide.  Therefore, unlike Dr. King--who no doubt would hold individuals of every stripe responsible for their actions--Mr. Milloy cryptically blames some vague overarching devil-made-me-do-it societal influence. To use his exact phrase the “morally disgraceful nation” is the truly responsible party.  
  

Well, who is that exactly?  Tying all elements of his narrative together suggests a subtle swipe at the dominant group (whites) that runs this country.  And assuming that Mr. Milloy is correct, does pointing it out in such a divisive manner promote the understanding and harmony that Dr. King wanted or is the net effect its opposite, the furtherance of discord and alienation?  Perhaps Mr. Milloy should take the context of Dr. King's words to heart before scribbling more of his own.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976