More about me...
Mood:  happy
Topic: informative
I filled out one like this not too long ago, but this one I found had even different questions...enjoy :)

LAYER ONE:
-- name :: Bryan Lawrence Dehler
-- birthdate :: June 8, 1982
-- birthplace :: Mather AFB, CA
-- current location :: Portland, OR
-- eye color :: blue
-- hair color :: brown
-- height :: 6'0"
-- righty or lefty :: ambidextrous: write left, throw ball right, most everything else is both
-- zodiac sign :: Gemini

LAYER TWO:
-- your heritage :: German on my father's side, part Native American from mother's side
-- the shoes you wore today :: black slip on dress shoes
-- your weakness :: Mountain Dew and chocolate
-- your fears :: dying too young,
-- your perfect pizza :: hawaiian (Canadian bacon/pinneapple)
-- goal you'd like to achieve :: retire by the age of 55

LAYER THREE:
-- your most overused phrase online ::
-- your thoughts first waking up :: "are you sure it's time to wake up?"
-- your best physical feature :: smile?
-- your bedtime :: preferably never, realistically usually between 11pm and 1am
-- your most missed memory ::

LAYER FOUR:
-- smoke :: nope
-- cuss :: sometimes (when the occasion calls for it)
-- sing :: sometimes (when there's no one around to suffer bleeding ears)
-- take a shower everyday :: try to
-- have a crush :: nope
-- like(d) high school :: for the most part
-- want to get married :: yep
-- believe in yourself :: usually
-- get motion sickness :: nope
-- think you're attractive :: not really, but a sense of humor is more important right? lol
-- think you're a health freak :: not in the least
-- get along with your parent(s) :: definitely
-- like thunderstorms :: oh yeah
-- play an instrument :: I have a guitar does that count?

LAYER FIVE:
in the past month...
-- drank alcohol :: oh yeah
-- smoked :: nope
-- done a drug:: *thinks to himself* nope
-- made out :: nope :(
-- gone on a date :: nope
-- gone to the mall :: yeah
-- eaten an entire box of oreos :: never done that actually lol
-- eaten sushi :: not in the last month, but sushi is pretty good
-- been on stage :: not since sophomore year of college
-- been dumped :: nope
-- gone skating :: nope.

LAYER SEVEN:
ever...
-- played a game that required removal of clothing :: nah
-- been caught "doing something" :: yeah
-- been called a tease :: no, cause I think being a tease is just wrong!
-- gotten beaten up :: yeah, it was called "childhood" :P
-- shoplifted :: yeah
-- changed who you were to fit in :: not that I can remember

LAYER EIGHT:
-- age you hope to be married :: *shrugs* whenever
-- numbers and names of children :: I'd like to have at least 2 or 3. For girls I want Marie, Candace, Adelaide. My wife can pick the boys' names.
-- how do you want to die :: "peacefully, not like the 5 other people in the car." No seriously, though, I'd want to die in a manner in which I can be assured that I've done a fair share for this group of people we call "humans."
-- what do you want to be when you grow up :: so you're saying I have to grow up? I think a "consultant" would be the best job: just getting paid to share your knowledge.

LAYER NINE:
in a guy/girl..
-- best eye color :: no preference
-- best hair color :: no preference
-- short or long hair :: not too short, then again not too long. Let's say "middle" :)
-- best weight :: no preference
-- best articles of clothing :: jeans, overalls, shirts
-- best first date location :: sitting at a coffee shop just talking. If she can't handle that, it won't last lol
-- best first kiss location :: lips, definitely the lips

LAYER TEN:
-- # of drugs taken illegally :: none
-- # of people I could trust with my life :: I can name a good dozen
-- # of CDs that I own :: an actual number? We're talking upwards of 200 - 300 including all my Pearl Jam CDs
-- # of DVDs that I own :: without an official count, I'd say close to 20
-- # of records that I own :: 3 or 4 (all Pearl Jam)
-- # of piercings :: none
-- # of tattoos :: none
-- # of scars on my body :: ummm...biggest one would be the horseshoe shaped one that "surrounds" my left ear (craniotomy). I have one on my chin from when it split open while resting my chin on the side of the public pool, the one on my right index finger from when an industrial sized tape measure sliced through my finger (I really should have had stitches, thank God I still have movement in that finger). I also have on my forearm right near the elbow from when I accidentally stabbed myself while holding a mechanical pencil and attempting to put on backpack on my back. Two chunks of lead (actually graphite) lodged in my skin from a pencil: one in my right thumb, the other in my left palm. I think that's about it...
-- # of things in my past that I regret :: not spending more time with my grandma and uncle Mike before they passed away. Getting mad enough at my friend, Kevin, from Utah and not talking to him for 2 years, then finding out he died of a drug OD.

EXTRAS:
-- favorite color :: blue
-- favorite animal :: chimpanzee
-- favorite subject :: politics/religion/economics (three way tie)
-- favorite food :: Italian
-- favorite drink :: non-alcoholic: Mountain Dew; alcoholic: brain hemorrhage
-- favorite meal :: Chicken, green beans, and new potatoes in a dill gravy...mmmmmmmm
-- what are you doing right this second :: "working" at the Credit Union, and filling this out of course
-- listening to music :: nope, wish I could be though

Men's odd place in the abortion debate...
Mood:  blue
Topic: informative
The only reason I chose "blue" as my mood is because of the recent posts that I've received in the yahoo group I am a member of. It has recently had a constant flow of strong thoughts/attitudes back and forth on the abortion debate. Some people have shown how strictly they believe in a woman's "right to choose" regardless of whether the unborn child in her is considered alive or not. It is a little sad to see how strongly people can disagree on such an obviously heated topic.

One member, who goes by the name Jenna, has been on the pro-life side (and the only one to help keep my sanity). She posted this link so that others may read this article. I thought it was very well done...

*************************************************

Aborting Equality: Men's odd place in the abortion debate

By Cathy Young

REASON April 2003

The 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in January evoked the usual rhetoric from the usual suspects: anti-abortion activists lamenting the slaughter of fetuses, feminists lamenting the threat to women's rights, cautious language from the president about respect for life. But in all the commentary, little attention was paid to one crucial aspect of the issue: how the availability of abortion affects relations between men and women.

Pro-choicers see legal abortion as essential to gender equality, a guarantee that a woman can enjoy sexual freedom just like a man, without an unwanted pregnancy disrupting her career or education. As one Planned Parenthood pamphlet puts it, the basic issue is, "Should women make their own decisions about family, career and how to live their lives?" Men are rarely mentioned in pro-choice commentary, except to celebrate women's freedom from male control over their reproductive lives -- though supportive partners of women who have abortions may sometimes be acknowledged as well.

On the pro-life side, abortion is depicted as the epitome of several purported feminist evils: selfish and unwomanly careerism, the decline of motherly qualities, and the liberation of women from "natural distinctions" between the sexes. At the same time, in keeping with the popular conservative theme that women are oppressed by liberation, anti-abortion activists have increasingly depicted women who have abortions as victims of a society that undervalues motherhood -- and of selfish, irresponsible boyfriends. Their rhetoric occasionally refers to bereaved fathers of aborted "babies" but more often invokes evil males for whom legal abortion makes it easy to seduce and abandon women.

A few maverick activists and commentators have argued that, in fact, the current legal situation puts men and women on a footing that is far from equal -- and is blatantly stacked in favor of women. Women have reproductive rights, and men have reproductive responsibilities.

If a woman gets pregnant and does not want to be a mother, she can end the pregnancy with or without her partner's knowledge. If she wants to have the baby, she can force the father to pay child support -- so that, as lawyer Melanie McCulley pointed out in a 1998 article for The Journal of Law and Policy, he "does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood."

Once, biology colluded with male privilege to ensure that women were largely the ones who paid the price (often a heavy one) for illicit sex. Scientific and social progress has changed that: Even as reliable contraception and legal abortion allowed women to control reproduction, their ability to hold absentee fathers financially liable was enhanced by new methods of establishing paternity and by friendlier laws.

The issue of men's reproductive rights occasionally surfaces in largely symbolic legal cases. In August 2002 a Philadelphia man, John Stachokus, obtained a temporary court injunction barring his former girlfriend Tanya Meyers from having an abortion -- much to the dismay of feminists and pro-choicers, who called the decision "an abuse of the legal system" and "a disgrace." A few days later, the judge dissolved the order. Had he not, it undoubtedly would have been reversed on emergency appeal, like a handful of other such court orders issued in the past 30 years.

Meanwhile, a few men fighting paternity suits have argued, so far unsuccessfully, that "forced parenthood" denies men equal protection. Peter Wallis, a New Mexico real estate broker, made headlines in 1998 when he sued ex-girlfriend Kellie Smith for "intentionally acquiring and misusing" his bodily fluids by getting pregnant against his wishes. The case was quickly tossed out. Even victories by men whose child support obligations resulted from deception -- when the woman lied about using birth control or even, in one bizarre case, used a syringe to inseminate herself with semen collected in a condom -- have been struck down on appeal.

Public opinion has been generally unsympathetic to men in such cases. Men who want to stop their partners from having abortions are seen as domineering patriarchs. Men who want to avoid paying child support are seen as irresponsible playboys. But it's not always so simple.

Very few studies have looked at the men implicated in unwanted pregnancies. Drexel University sociologist Arthur Shostak and journalist Gary McLouth surveyed 1,000 men in abortion clinic waiting rooms and did some in-depth interviews for the 1984 book Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love. They found that in most cases ending the pregnancy was a mutual decision, and only 5 percent of the men didn't want the abortion -- though nearly half of the single and divorced men said that they had suggested getting married and having the baby.

As for the roughly 50 percent of men who don't show up at the clinics, various estimates cited by Shostak and McLouth suggest that while some fit the stereotype of the feckless runaway male, a significant percentage oppose the abortion or are too upset about it to come along. As many as one in six men are never told about the pregnancy or the abortion.

Occasionally, wrenching personal stories appear in articles on the subject, such as one published a few years ago in the Bergen County, New Jersey, Record. One man profiled in the article said he was an emotional wreck for several years after his fianc?e had two abortions without consulting him; the second time, she had assured him she wanted the child, then walked out on him after an argument and terminated the pregnancy.

And the flip side? A girl who gets pregnant in high school can decide that she's not ready for motherhood. If her male classmate gets his partner pregnant, he can spend the next 21 years paying for an unwanted child, to the detriment of his education, his career, and his ability to have a family of his own. Yet if he complains about his predicament, the typical response is "You play, you pay" -- uncannily similar to the attitude of some abortion opponents who say that if women want to exercise "choice" they should just keep their legs together.

Given biological realities, it may be impossible to come up with a solution that wouldn't be unfair to someone. The current situation is indeed inequitable to men. But allowing a paternal veto raises the disturbing specter of giving a man authority over a woman's body. Allowing men to renounce paternity obligations means that a woman who wants to avoid unwanted parenthood has to undergo surgery or drug treatment while a man merely has to fill out some forms. One could argue that 21 years of child support is a greater burden than nine months of pregnancy, but bodily autonomy is generally seen as a more fundamental value than the financial kind.

One can argue for some legal reforms -- for instance, requiring that the prospective father be notified of an abortion (with exemptions for cases of domestic violence or rape), though any such measure would require the Supreme Court to reverse its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling. Limiting a mother's ability to collect child support when the pregnancy results from deceit, or to sue for retroactive support after waiting years to let the man know he has fathered a child, should be feasible as well.

The most important change may be cultural. Abortion can create a radical imbalance rather than equality between the sexes, giving women unilateral power over a reproductive process that involves two people. Can men be expected to be full partners in child rearing but mere bystanders in pregnancy?

In the feminist classic Backlash, Susan Faludi cites a 1990 poll in which nearly 40 percent of women said that "in making a decision about whether to have an abortion, the man involved should not even be consulted" as welcome evidence of women's embrace of reproductive freedom. She also chided men for not shouldering their load as fathers. But if men's parental role is to be taken seriously, we need, at the very least, a cultural consensus that women have a moral obligation to involve their partners in their reproductive decisions.

The good ol' abortion debate...
Mood:  cool
The following is an email I posted to a yahoo group I belong to (the one I mentioned a few days ago)...the topic was abortion...

*************************************************

Well I have fallen 12 msgs behind just in the last few days. I did read them all but I know I'll miss replying to some things. I know that if I went through and replied to each one we'd all get over loaded with far too many emails. Anyone else agree? Maybe it's just me...

Anyway, I'll attempt to sum up my thoughts on all of the recent emails I have yet to reply to. Just so you all know, I'm going to generalize a little (I know, that is dangerous waters to tread in to begin with) as to what pro-choicers and pro-lifers believe. Feel free to let me know if I was a little off, but keep in mind I mean no harm/insult by any of this :)

I totally understand the point of view you're coming from: a baby isn't considered "human" (i.e. protected by law under the Bill of Rights) until it is fully born. Even partial-birth abortions were legal for a time there, but that's for another discussion. Anyway, those who are pro-choice tend to see fetuses as non-human, so there is no problem with terminating a pregnancy if it is just not the right time for the woman, she can't afford it, etc. A woman's rights are impeded if the gov't tells her what to do with her body. Nobody else should be able to control her body and what she does with it, especially her unborn child. To do so would force her to bear children against her will and, thus, would increase the number of unwanted children in the world, increase the costs of welfare, increases in possible drug use, crack babies, crime, etc.

But, whether pro-choicers like it or not, pro-lifers see things quite differently. (Don't worry though, pro-lifers don't like how pro-choicers see things either, so it's a shared frustration). For pro-lifers (at least the ones I'm referring to), they believe life begins in the womb. Some may disagree as to exactly when life begins exactly (conception, when brain waves are present, when the fetus responds to stimuli, etc), but their point is once life begins, nobody (woman included) should be legally able to terminate it. And, furthermore, the gov't should not support it financially lawfully.

If abortion was illegal would abortions still happen? Of course. Making something illegal doesn't stop it from occurring, it just tells people "Big Brother (gov't) doesn't like that, and you'll get in trouble if you get caught." Laws are passed, of course, to curb people's behaviors away from the "bad" and toward the "good." Laws aren't passed on the assumption that the behavior will stop (just look at how well we all follow speed limit laws). A pro-choicer would most likely believe that laws should support people's rights to their own bodies. If someone infringes on someone else's body, that's one thing, but as long as one doesn't infringe on any one else's body/property, leave it alone. Most pro-lifers, remember, believe life begins in the womb. So, they would argue, an abortion isn't along the same lines as a woman getting a tattoo or piercing, but that abortion is murder.

Everyone I talk to who is pro-choice will say this is a bad analogy, but nonetheless, whenever you hear a pro-life person mention that they think abortion is murder and therefore wrong, remember that they are saying abortion is wrong just like walking down the street and pulling a gun out and shooting someone dead is wrong. Or, to make it a closer analogy, a mother pulling out a gun and shooting their post-birth child dead. Very gruesome and ugly images yes, but so is abortion to them. And you may (and probably do) disagree 100% with either the analogy or with the pro-life stance, but that is nonetheless how they see things. Even though there is an obvious difference in the timing of abortion vs. killing ones own born child, they see little difference as to the injustice to human life done.

But, as with everything else in life, one must analyze the "everything else" of the situation. I realized a long while ago that the most difficult things in arguments are the "other shoe" and "point of view" issues.

As for the "other shoe" issue: there's always the problem of not being able to "walk a mile in the other person's shoe" so to speak. Can a man ever REALLY comprehend the pain involved with childbirth? Can anyone who has not had to live through it ever fully understand or comprehend the mental/emotional anguish of being raped? Or having to outlive your own child? Or (because it's late and i can't think of a better one) the pain of a man being kicked in the groin? Women will never know what that feels like for us (yeah it hurts like hell) just like men will never know what childbirth feels like. A man could survive being tortured in a POW camp and still not know EXACTLY what childbirth feels like. So they'll never be able to argue fully on that scale. The question is, though, does that make their point of view worthless? I argue that it does not, since each one of us have a complexity of "hands" that life has dealt us that NO ONE else ever received. To say "this hasn't happened to you, so you don't really understand what I'm going through" is one thing (and obviously true in the literal sense) but to say "you haven't gone through the exact same thing I have therefore I don't want to hear from you at all" really makes it so that no one can ever critique anything you say or do. Not to mention, it will probably leave you quite friendless.

Aside from the complexity of never being able to physically/mentally "walk in the shoes," there's the reality of everything else involved in decision making. There are a potentially unlimited number of points of view: as an economist I tend to look at the financial aspect of many issues. Because I'm religious/spiritual I tend to look at things from that point of view too. Had I decided to get my degree in psychology instead, I would probably see things MUCH differently. As someone mentioned (I believe it was Matt), had my girlfriend gotten pregnant before either of us were married, our thoughts/concerns would have been much different than if we both were financially/emotionally/physically ready. As my brother (father of 4) would say, "you may think you're ready, but you never are." He told me the same thing goes for marriage as well as kids (and that could be extended to many other things in life of course).

So the question could always arise: what gives you the right to tell this person how they should act if you can't "walk in their shoes" or fully see their "point of view." Very good question, and it's damn tough to answer. The best thing I can offer is, if I (along with others) have no ability to mention my thoughts or opinion on the matter, then who does? If no one does, than what we will get would approach chaos. Just think about it, NO ONE being able to tell ANYONE what to do, say, think, etc. Laws are designed to curb behavior so as to prevent that chaos...

Unfortunately the decision of whether or not to have an abortion means the woman is in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" category of life decisions. What I mean is, if she has the abortion, there are always the questions in the back of her mind as to "Should I have done this? Could there have been another way? Am I going to regret this later?" And if she doesn't have one, she may always wonder "What if I had one?" Although, I've yet to meet a woman who at first admitted that they were uncertain about wanting another child and then, after having one, said "man I wish I hadn't had a child." Could just be me though...

As for Bob's posting...for the record I don't think it was too harsh at all. I've had conversations with people who didn't spend more than 2 seconds thinking that I might have anything intelligent to say (perhaps they were too busy thinking I was wrong?) So for you to see some of points as "non-crap" means a lot to me; and you seem to have a certain patience/politeness that I hope I convey as well. :) Anyway back to what you were talking about: the whole "what if I'm wrong?" question. Keep in mind, though, it goes both ways.

What if the pro-lifers are wrong and they cause more harm than good by forcing women to carry pregnancies to term? Or...what if pro-choicers are wrong, life does begin at conception, and they are seen as sitting idly by and allowing others to murder their own children?

Both of them have reason to worry; both stances carry with them a burden of possible guilt (and if it truly exists, the possibility of eternal damnation). Now, unfortunately (for my defense) if the pro-choicers are wrong (i.e. abortion really does = murder) then they could easily say "so what?" and the answer to that would be greatly up to debate. What I mean is, they could always argue that even though it may be murder and even though it may be the murder of an innocent person, it would take place before the person ever knew it's own existence and that their death could still be better than being born into a "crappy situation" (insert any negative aspect you'd like to think up: drug addicted, abusive, neglectful, etc). I would argue that this brings up a whole new mess of questions though (is murder ok if the person doesn't know they're dying? could we argue a 2 yr old "doesn't know their own existence" either? how many people alive today say they'd rather be aborted than living in their present state? etc)

And, of course, if the pro-lifers are wrong that means that a woman who is not ready yet to have a child would be forced to bring it to term, either give it up for adoption or raise it herself, which would raise the problems/questions that Bob mentioned in his post. But for many pro-lifers, they don't see abortion as an option. They see it as murder. They would rather gov't funding be used to help the woman (and hopefully man if he is still in the picture) bring the baby to term, get a job, daycare etc than see the child be murdered. Now you don't have to tell me what would cost more, trust me I know. But pro-lifers don't see murder as an option, and would never consider allowing murder to take place in order to "save the gov't money." To us, it would be like a mother who has 5 kids already say "well I can't afford the bills, so I guess I'll have to off one of my kids." I'm not mentioning this to start a fight or get a "who is for/against that?" discussion going. I'm sure we all agree that murdering one of your born children is wrong. But for pro-lifers the fact that the question "should I off my child?" is ridiculously not even logically/ethically comprehendible whether the child is in the womb or out.

I feel I have rambled quite enough. I hope that everyone who read this found something that provoked thought or that they hadn't heard before (in other words, this wasn't a waste of time to read).

Would I be stretching too far if I suggested this:

Perhaps we all can agree, rather we are for or against abortion, that we should work hard to prevent unwanted pregnancies from ever coming about, so as to make abortion (logically) unnecessary to even argue? In other words, could we all possibly somehow work together to "solve" the problems that lead women to even consider abortion?

Ok...*steps off the soapbox*...I'd like to hear from everyone now. And if you asked me something I didn't respond to (I'm sure there is plenty I forgot) feel free to ask again...

Bryan

A Picture Share!
Topic: pictures

Cute huh? :)

Crash Victim Gets $105 Mln from Concessionaire
Topic: ramblings
And I thought me costing my work a few grand was bad...glad I'm not this employee...

************************************************

Crash Victim Gets $105 Mln from Concessionaire

Jan 21, 10:05 AM (ET)

By Larry Fine

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The family of a girl paralyzed in a car crash caused by a drunken football fan won $105 million in damages from the concessionaire that sold him beer, and the girl's father said on Thursday the case should have far-reaching effects.

The Superior Court jury in Hackensack, New Jersey, assessed punitive damages on Wednesday against Giants Stadium concessionaire Aramark Corp., for its role in the October 1999 accident that left Antonia Verni, then 2 years old, paralyzed from the neck down.

"I believe the jury accomplished two things," Ronald Verni said in a telephone interview. "It should provide Antonia with the necessary medical care and maintenance for the rest of her life, and send a message to Aramark and other vendors of alcohol at stadiums and arenas in the United States.

"Clean up your act and hopefully prevent other Antonia Verni conditions out there."

Aramark, one of the world's biggest food and beverage providers, said in a statement it plans to appeal.

Trial testimony showed that Daniel Lanzaro, 34, had gotten around a rule allowing the purchase of only two beers at a time by tipping a vendor to buy six. The family's lawyer, David Mazie, argued that Lanzaro was also noticeably drunk at the time.

Lanzaro, whose blood-alcohol level after the crash was more than twice the legal limit, is serving five years in prison for vehicular assault. He settled separately with the Vernis.

The New York Giants football team defended Aramark's alcohol policies and said in a statement: "No words can express the sorrow we feel for what the Verni family has gone through."

The conduct of inebriated fans has been a concern in U.S. sports, notably at last November's NBA fracas at the Detroit Pistons' Palace in Auburn Hills where Indiana Pacers players charged into the stands to fight with fans after a beverage was dumped on one of the Pacers.

That incident prompted criminal charges, the suspension of eight players and promises from NBA Commissioner David Stern to improve security operations across the basketball league.

But it did not change the Auburn Hills' policy on beer, which is sold through the third quarter of games.

Arguments...
Topic: ramblings
Well I happened to join this yahoo group called "IdLikeToHaveAnArgumentPlease" a few months ago. For those who don't know, yahoo groups are created and used to share information, tips, support, etc (in this case it is to share arguments lol)

Well for the first few months the group was really mild...then someone posted:

"Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, will ask the Supreme Court tomorrow to
vacate Roe v. Wade.

Rhonda"

That sparked quite a debate as we all put in our two cents about the abortion debate (quite possibly the most heated of them all). I have never known anyone to think that denying a woman their "right" to have an abortion equated to forced slavery. Nor had I ever heard of anyone developing an artifical womb in order to, I suppose, raise and nurture the pre-born rather than "forcing" the mother to do it. I understand women not wanting to go through the pain/work of being pregnant and giving birth, but I also know many women who see pregnancy as a blessing and willingly put themselves through whatever they need to in order to say "yeah, I helped create that." Anyway, they had totally opposite views/perspectives on love, sex, responsibilities, rights, and laws than I do. Which makes for plenty good debating huh? :)

I debated whether I would post the emails and arguments on here, but I think I'll hold off for now. Besides, I will be spending plenty of time responding to them as it is :)

Topic: pictures

Brevity - 1/18/05 (C) 2005 guy & rodd Dist. by UFS, Inc.

A Picture Share!
Topic: pictures


Some more cars parked a little crooked...I can only assume they slid on the ice and got stuck like that...?

A Picture Share!
Topic: pictures


This pic was taken 1/15/05 after we had severe freezing rain. The ground was definitely covered in a layer of ice and there were three cars parked all crazy like this...

Sweat shops...
Mood:  chillin'
Topic: informative
I categorized this under "informative" instead of just "rambling." I hope you agree :)

I was reading another blog (http://trueliberal0.tripod.com/) and the author mentioned sweat shops. (He also happened to be mentioning how the far left can go too far left sometimes).

Case in point: sweat shops.

Now how many of us think that manufacturing companies here should go from paying workers $7/hr + benefits, 40 hr work weeks, paid time off, sick leave, etc to moving their factories overseas, pay $1/day to the workers and give them little to no benefits? Well unless you happen to own the business (or are a hired financial advisor for them) you probably won't support that. "It's ridiculous" you probably say. "They shouldn't be allowed to get away with that!"

Well, the story, as they say, always has two sides. The "other side" was introduced to me by a man named Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times. In my humble opinion, I think he is an outstanding author. That's my opinion though, you're free to think whatever you want of him.

See, Nicholas and his wife travel abroad a lot. In one article, entitled Two Cheers for Sweatshops, Nicholas actually argues for sweatshops. "How can someone in their right mind do this?" you ask? Well, simple: he's been to those third world countries where these sweat shops are. He knows the conditions of these shops (not as bad as you can imagine, but not the best working environments either). He also knows the conditions of the children who are not able to get jobs at these sweatshops...of the sad truth behind child prostitution, drugs, and crime. Many families (as the article and others like it show) actually encourage their children to work in these shops. The families need money, and the parents don't want their kids turning to drugs or prostitution to get it.

"Fourteen years ago, we [Nicholas and his wife] moved to Asia and began reporting there. Like most Westerners, we arrived in the region outraged at sweatshops. In time, though, we came to accept the view supported by most Asians: that the campaign against sweatshops risks harming the very people it is intended to help." He goes on to explain situations that are reported in America, Michael Moore-style. For those who don't know, "Michael Moore-style" is when you take the truth and twist it and turn it a little bit and omit a few things so that it looks worse than it is.

Rather than sweat shop owners forcing the workers to work long hours, many sweat shop workers request it so as to make more money.

"It's actually pretty annoying how hard they want to work," said the factory manager, a Hong Kong man. "It means we have to worry about security and have a supervisor around almost constantly."

"$2/day for a nine hour shift, six days a week," definitely doesn't sound like a good deal for us, but to someone in a foreign land that is decent money. Comparing what they make to what we make is comparing apples to oranges: Nicholas went to a food stand in a nearby village there and paid the equivalent of 5 cents for a meal of leaves, rice, fish paste and fried beetles. Now where in American can you get a meal for 5 cents?

And then, there's the third side of this story: what paying $2/day to people in Thailand means for us Americans. It means, quite plainly, that we can go to a store and purchase something today for half the price we paid for it a few years ago.

As any intro econ teacher would tell you, it doesn't matter so much how much you make (nominal wage), but what you can buy with it (real wage). Who cares if you make $100/hr if the cheapest hamburger you can find is $300? Life would be much better for you if you made only $5/hr and paid $1 for a hamburger. (We are assuming, of course, that all other goods and services are on comparable terms to the hamburger.) In three hours of working in situation one, you could just barely afford to buy your hamburger; in situation two you could afford 15 hamburgers.

"What does this have to do with it?" you ask? Well, when people overseas produce our products cheaper than we can and in turn the companies that make them sell them to us at a reasonable mark-up, we are better off. Our "hamburgers" become cheaper.

Let's use clothing as an example. Today, let's say, you can find a sweater you like for $20 (regular price). Three years from now, you might find the exact same sweater and it will be $15 (regular price, not sales price). Did cotton fall upon the earth in great quantities and the over-abundance cause a lower price for sweaters? Or was it that the sweaters were made with less labor and capital? Most likely, #2. Now during those three years your wage probably didn't change all that much. Let's say, for the sake of making things easy, that today you make $10/hr, and in 3 years from now you just happen to make $15/hr. That's a good raise in just 3 years, but not completely out of line. Well, today you'd spend 2 hrs working in order to purchase the sweater ($20); in 3 years it will only take you one hours worth of work to purchase the sweater ($15).

What always has bothered me was Nike: they pay someone 15 cents a day to make shoes overseas, and then turn around and sell the shoes in America for over $100. From a business point of view it's brilliant (since they can get away with it). But morally I think it is reprehensible...and that is why I boycott Nike :)

It is hard to be in "support" of sweat shops, but most of them aren't as bad as the press and some activists here would have you believe. But sweat shops aren't all bad, like they'd have you believe. Certainly we don't want anyone suffering at work or being forced to work hours without rest or pay. But for those sweat shops that treat the workers humanely and keep children (and some adults for that matter) out of trouble, I say we should support them. That is why I stand behind Kristof and say "Two Cheers for Sweat Shops!"