Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too 2

A great analysis of the effects of a minimum wage hike was written in 1996 by the "Joint Economic Committee."

Particularly enlightening was the debunking of the myth of the "minimum wage worker trying to support a family."

Turns out that only 2.8 percent of workers earning less than minimum wage are single parents. Only 1.2 percent of all minimum wage workers were adult heads of households with incomes less than $10,000. Fifty-seven percent of minimum wage workers are single individuals, many of them living with their parents.

Check it out.

Liberals and OPM, Part 2

Recently the Congress passed legislation regarding a higher minimum wage. I’ve addressed some of the arguments about this before ("A Zero-Sum Wage" July 28, 2006; "First Post of 2007" January 5, 2007.) This legislative session, however, had a few quirks.

Tunagate
Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi represents California’s 8th district, which includes San Francisco. She has pushed hard for the 40% increase in the minimum wage. This federal minimum wage is supposed to affect all U.S. states, territories and possessions.

Segue to Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, the non-voting Democrat representative from Samoa. He requested an exemption for Samoa. It seems that 80% of the employment in Samoa is with two tuna processing plants, one of which belongs to StarKist tuna. The increase in the minimum wage, he said, would be devastating to his country’s economy.

The minimum wage legislation as initially proposed and promoted by Nancy Pelosi included this exemption. No other states, territories or possessions were exempt. Only Samoa.

As it turns out, StarKist tuna is owned by the Del Monte company. And the Del Monte’s company headquarters are in....San Francisco.

There was enough of an uproar by Republicans over this barefaced double standard that Pelosi was forced to back down, and Samoa is now covered by the minimum wage law. Pelosi, however, has been exposed as the fraud she is. She ignored her own arguments about "human suffering" in her zeal to protect the profits of the corporation in her district.

Also, by attempting this piece of underhanded chicanery, she acknowledged that raising the minimum wage is harmful to the economy. If it was bad for Samoa, won’t it be bad for America?

Democrats are eager to take credit for projects and programs that other people pay for. But when there’s a risk that they will have to pick up the tab, they quickly look for a way to change the rules. To Democrats, there’s no such thing as "take home pay" - it all belongs to them. They love OPM.

***
An addendum to highlight how the Democrats work: Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina asked a question of Democrat Barney Frank, who was in the House chair (to temporarily lead the House.) The topic was stem-cell research. McHenry began to ask about the possibility of exempting Samoa from the stem cell bill, but before he could complete his question, Frank interrupted him, and would not allow him to speak. The exchange went on for nearly five minutes, but Frank refused to allow McHenry to speak. (In all fairness, the question was one of parliamentary procedure, but Frank's refusal to let him speak was despotic.)

That's how the party in control of Congress should act. Republicans, pay attention.

Liberals and OPM, Part 1

Recently in another blog, the self-professed Liberal writer has made a large deal out of bonuses and salaries paid to businessmen (and Howard Stern.) He highlighted the sinfulness of their income by juxtaposing it with a photo of a homeless person and a cloying paragraph about how our "country is broken," and that "there are almost a million people homeless because we don't care."

The writer of this message is a lawyer who loves to highlight his toys and his trips to attend college and pro football games out of town. This Liberal lawyer lives a lifestyle that most of us would love to be able to afford. Yet he complains about others making too much money.

By all accounts, this Liberal lawyer is a nice enough guy personally. What I find offensive, though, is that he loves to point out any instance of perceived hypocrisy by church or religious leaders, while at the same time not seeing anything wrong in his own stance. This is typical of the Liberal "somebody should do something" crowd -- always eager to take control of OPM (Other People's Money.)

The Church, The State and Common Sense

Sometimes you have to go back a few years to get the right perspective on what's happening in America today.

" The First Amendment does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other.

"That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.

"Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution.

"Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment.

"A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion."
-- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, expressing the majority opinion in Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

The modern court's hostility to Christianity is a very recent (and un-Constitutional) invention.

The Best Nutrition Website on the Internet

With the onset of the new year and its attendant resolutions, many people are going on diets. Low-calorie, low-fat, low-carb -- almost all dieters (and many folks who aren't on a diet) are reading those ubiquitous nutrition labels on packaged foods.

Nutritiondata.com does a much, much more thorough job. The site analyzes a bazillion different foods, including fast foods, for not only nutrition, but also how a food fits into a particular kind of diet.

An unusual feature is the "fullness factor" that measures satiety against nutrition. (Along with cool full color graphs.)

For people who are interested in what they're eating, this site can't be beat.

Bon appétit.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too

"To suggest that combatants who fight without a flag or a uniform; who wipe their feet on the Geneva Convention; who disguise themselves as women; who hide in mosques and marketplaces; who slice off the heads of their prisoners; and who use children as shields; are entitled to the same safeguards as soldiers is sheer lunacy."
-- Burt Prelutsky

First Post of 2007

...So I'm working on a scene-by-scene revision of the novel, and I suddenly realize that I haven't posted on my own blog for several weeks, although I've contributed to another blog quite energetically (check the "comments" sections of anything remotely political.)

Conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on the idea that governments, institutions and leaders are competent enough to successfully engineer a conspiracy. I'm starting to believe that any kind of competence by those parties is doubtful, if not impossible.

Case in point: Saddam Hussein's execution. Justice is finally meted out and, with the exception of the usual anti-capital punishment crowd, mostly popular. Then the cell phone video turns up, showing the sectarian chants and gauche taunting of Saddam before he was executed. Suddenly, what should have been a satisfactory ending to the story becomes propaganda for our enemies. Once again.

Wouldn't an occasion that solemn and important call for searches before anyone was allowed inside? Or the ubiquitous announcement "Please turn off any pagers, cell phones, recorders..."? Apparently not.

***
As of this writing, the Democrats appear poised to force through a higher minimum wage, which I have addressed before. ("A Zero-Sum Wage," July 28, 2006.) The proposed minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, an increase of $2.10. This means that those companies that employee workers at minimum wage (or above; workers who were already paid $7.25 will insist on the same increase as those who were only earning the minimum) will experience a government-mandated forty percent increase in labor costs.

Let's say a businessman runs a small, family-owned restaurant, where he employees ten people at minimum wage. If all those employees work 40 hours a week, his increased weekly labor cost is $840.


Congratulations, you've just taxed the small business owner an extra $43,680 per year.

There will be a lot of meetings that culminate in "I'm sorry, but I have to let you go. I can't afford you." The workers who are fortunate enough to keep their jobs will pay more for meals at the restaurant, due to higher prices to offset the increased labor cost. Additionally, they'll pay more for all other goods and services that depend on minimum-wage workers. Not to mention the $334 more they'll pay each year in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

But the politicians can feel good about themselves, and read all the complimentary stories in the newspapers. Isn't that really what's important?

***
The world's crazy. I can only hope to carve out my own little pocket of sanity...then fortify it.

Imam Update

(See my December 5 post under "Latro Ergo Sum #2: 'The Six Imams'" for the story on these guys.)

According to a report by UPI, five of the six imams who were removed from a US Airways flight now want money from the airline for the "ordeal."

The imams are represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR claims the men were handcuffed for several hours, but one of the imams told the Times he was only handcuffed for "10 or 15 minutes" and that the imams were not led off the plane in handcuffs.

So much for CAIR's credibility.

Keep an eye on this one.

Two Views of Global Warming: The Pogrom and the Skeptic's Guide

The Pogrom
"pogrom - n. An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group"

A letter, dated October 27, 2006, was sent to ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson. The letter came from John D. Rockefeller IV and Olympia Snowe, both U.S. senators.

If an individual had written and sent such a letter, he would be indicted for extortion and blackmail.

The letter condemns ExxonMobil’s support of scientific researchers and organizations that dispute global warming. The senators actually introduce a word into the argument - climate change "deniers" and "denial strategy." These terms are applied to anyone who disputes any of the following: a) Global warming is happening; b) Global warming will result in catastrophe; c) Global warming is due to mankind’s activities; d) Global warming is a fact, not a theory.

(The use of the term denier is important. It tries to evoke a comparison to the term "Holocaust denier," one of those people who refuse to acknowledge that the extermination of six million Jews ever happened. Obviously there's no comparison between debatable science and photos of corpses. However, setting the terminology is an important part of a propaganda war. Look for the word "denier" to become more prevalent.)

In this letter, the senators insist that ExxonMobil 1) Immediately stop funding anyone who disputes or questions global warming findings and admit that "global warming" is a fact; 2) "Come clean" to the public about its support for these people; 3) Repudiate all the information that has been discovered by these people; 4) Start giving money to the pro-global warming groups.

The senators even go so far as to compare ExxonMobil to the tobacco industry. This is a not-so-subtle reminder to Tillerson of what the government can do to a company or an industry if it so chooses.

Translated from bureaucrat-ese, the letter boils down to this: "Say what we want you to say, and give us your money, or we will destroy you." This letter and maneuver is so outrageous that even some of the Washington inside-the-Beltway crowd is tsk-ing over the sheer gall these senators displayed.

The most frightening aspect of this is that the pro-global warming people don’t even want the debate, and will use the politicians that they have in their pocket to quash our First Amendment rights. They want to completely eradicate those who oppose them.

The Skeptic's Guide

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works just released a 64-page booklet entitled "A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming." The book is available online for download.

In this booklet, almost all of the major claims of the pro-global warming people are proven to be in dispute or as completely wrong. Some of the claims disputed are the "hockey stick" theory; the statement that "90’s was the hottest decade on record;" that the polar ice caps are melting, and much more. The booklet gives links to all supporting documentation.

The main thrust of the booklet is how the media have chosen the pro-global warming side of the argument, and provide a completely one-sided picture in their coverage. (What a surprise.)

The hero of this little booklet is Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. The full text of a speech he gave to the Senate is presented.

Senator Inhofe said it best: "The American people are fed up with the media for promoting the idea that former Vice president Al Gore represents the scientific "consensus" that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a ‘climate emergency’ that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve."

Allow me this brief moment of glory

At 8:00 p.m. Wednesday, November 29, I validated my manuscript for the official count of 50,000 words.

Now I can get back to my (semi-)normal life.

Why I Haven't Posted in a While

I'm participating in National Novel Writing Month (NaNo WriMo). The objective is to write 50,000 words of new fiction during the month of November.

I decided to dump all of Blood Debt and start over. So far I've written a little over 30,000 words. We'll see how it goes. When December 1 comes, I'll start posting more often.

The American Military Strikes Back

John Kerry on Success

The Ridiculousness Continues

This is Bianca Ryan, who BEAT the girl from the last post.

11-Year-Old Yodeler

I normally hate this kind of video ("Star Search," "American Idol," etc.) but this girl is so good it's ridiculous.

Like Giving a Child a Loaded Gun

This picture was made courtesy of wigflip.com. I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing more of their handiwork in the future.

Since I'm on a Rant - Liability Insurance

I'm willing to be convinced on why, in the state of Texas, we are required to buy liability insurance to protect the other person's vehicle.

Why couldn't each person have the option of purchasing insurance to protect his own vehicle? It would of course be a better practice to carry the insurance, so that you're insured. And of course banks could still require full coverage on any vehicles that are financed. Being uninsured is not the goal. It's giving people a choice.

Even better, what if each person could get an insurance card that he carried with him, so that it protected whatever vehicle he was driving? Coverage on your own vehicles could still be available, in case of theft, etc.

With my proposed system, no one would have to worry about having an accident with an uninsured motorist. And if a person didn't have insurance, then they would not be protected. Unwise, sure, but each person would have that option.

I don't understand how our present system is the best -- other than as a revenue source, a golden goose to fill the state coffers by fining people exorbitantly for not having liability insurance.

I'm willing to be convinced, but it better be good.

Anti-Enthusiasm

My local small-town grocery store is pulling a bait-and-switch on us customers. The grocery circular came out a few days ago, and there are yellow pricetags highlighting the specials everywhere, including the meat department. In the meat department there is a big, bright yellow tag advertising "Chuck Roast - Bone" for $1.99 a pound. Immediately above the tag in the meat case are several packages of "Chuck Roast," but it's boneless. It's also $2.89 a pound. I looked through the meat case, searching for the $1.99 meat, and it's nowhere to be found. I wonder how many people see "Chuck Roast" on the tag, see "Chuck Roast" on the packages of meat, and never notice that they're paying $.90 a pound -- nearly 50 percent -- more than they think they are?

I asked an employee where the $1.99 meat was. He got the meat market guy, who I asked for about six pounds of roast, as I needed four pounds of edible meat for my recipe. Meat Market Guy very willingly went in back to cut some roasts. After several minutes, he comes back with 4.59 lbs. in the form of two roasts. I notice the meat is kind of dark, but I'm cooking in a slow cooker, so no big deal.

However....when I get home, the meat is full of bone -- not just the big bones I expected, but small chards and chunks of bone. There is also sinew and gristle throughout the meat. It's the crappiest piece of meat I've ever bought on purpose. I lost 1.5-2 pounds in waste.

So 1) They put the price tag directly under a similar, but different higher-priced product; 2) The advertised item wasn't available in the meat case at all; then 3) They sell me the worst quality meat ever.

Unless I'm forced to by circumstances beyond my control, I'll never buy meat at the Lowe's Supermarket/Pay-n-Save again.

Enthusiasms

"A man becomes preeminent,he's expected to have enthusiasms.
Enthusiasms...
Enthusiasms...
What are mine? What draws my admiration?
What is that which gives me joy?"
-- Al Capone (Robert deNiro) "The Untouchables" 1987

It was made clear to me recently that not everyone shares my level of fascination with all the things that I'm enthusiastic about. Take, for example, Plochman's Chili Dog Mustard. (September 13, 2006 blog.) To me, it's almost magical. It's mustard.....that tastes like a chili dog! After a couple of days of eating hot dogs adorned with this mustard, my family shrugged and acted like it was no big deal. My brother came to our house to visit, and I insisted that he try it. "Yep, it tastes like chili." I'm surrounded by philistines.

Herewith a listing of some of my other enthusiasms:

Cigars. I realized recently that I've been smoking cigars for twenty-five years or more. When I say cigar, I don't mean your King Edward or White Owl or any other cigar where "paper" is listed as an ingredient. The cigars I smoke are 100% tobacco. Unfortunately, I don't get to the Bahamas or Costa Rica or even Mexico often enough to buy Cuban cigars. Of the three cigars I have smoked that were "Cubans," only one was authentic; the other two were counterfeits. (Isn't it weird that counterfeiting cigars is a big business?) My stick of choice recently has been the Hoyo de Monterrey Excalibur No. 3, with the natural wrapper.

Kitchen gadgets. It would be easy to blame this on the Food Network, and I have to admit that Alton Brown has become one of my heroes. Before I ever had DirecTV, though, I had a bunch of pieces of plastic and metal that were supposed to make food preparation easier. Most of them lasted about one use and then broke. Nonetheless, I still want to make a Blooming Onion at home, or curly fries. Nowadays I'm trying to get good traction out of my kitchen purchases, and AB's book really helped a lot. And ingenuity means something, after all. For instance, when Kathy asked me to slice some new potatoes (those little white ones that come in a can,) I didn't feel like messing around for an hour trying to hold the little devils. So I used our egg slicer to slice them; they were perfectly sliced, and it only took me about ten minutes to do four cans of them. God bless Ron Popeil.

The Bob and Tom Show. I enjoy comedy and comedians a lot. Bob Kevoian and Tom Griswold, broadcasting out of Indianapolis, have been in the radio business for nearly thirty years, and featuring comedians all along. Other cast members are Chick McGee and Kristi Lee, and producer Dean Metcalf. Since I'm up at 5:00 a.m. every day, and that's when their show starts, it's great. Mornings are much more pleasant, and I start my day smiling. Some of my new favorite comedians are Drew Hastings, Greg Hahn, Mike Armstrong, Mike Birbiglia, Augie Smith.....if I ever win the lottery, I'm opening a comedy club in Lubbock. Meanwhile, it's Bob and Tom for me.

Ghosthunters. I've written about these guys before also. (June 1, 2006.) I don't watch much TV, but I've recently tried to carve out 8:00 p.m. on Wednesdays to watch this show on the Sci-Fi network. I'm fascinated by the mysteries of the world, and these guys approach the subject with a hard-headed attitude. Make no mistake, they're believers in the paranormal, but they use gadgets and gizmos to prove their case. And once in a while they show something that....doesn't....quite.....look....right. Good stuff.


.

Clinton's Legacy

I’m anxious and scared, for multiple, complex reasons.

North Korea apparently detonated a nuclear bomb a few days ago. Their leader has been belligerent and pretty clear in his animosity toward the United States. They have ballistic missiles that can carry a warhead far enough to attack other countries, such as Japan. I’m not sure if they have anything that can reach the U.S., and I don’t have it in me to research that particular issue. I’m too full of despair.

While it’s pointless to assign blame for this situation, the Liberal Democrats have been shouting loudly that it’s Bush’s fault. I’ll respond in kind this once, for reasons I’ll mention in a moment.

Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Madeline Albright. The destruction of the world may be on their shoulders. They engineered the 1994 "Agreed Framework," in which North Korea agreed to not build nuclear weapons in exchange for economic assistance from the United States. They were told early on that North Korea was not trustworthy, but went ahead anyway. The economic assistance included aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor.

When Democrats boast about the "successful" Clinton negotiations, this is what they’re referring to: a program in which we paid an enemy not to arm himself. Incredibly, we gave him our entire portion up front, and without provisions for anything remotely resembling a method for verification or enforcement. As early as 1997 or 1998, North Korea picked up its nuclear weapon development where it left off. The biggest jaw-dropper of all is that American payments continued in the late 1990’s even after we discovered North Korea was breaking the agreement.

Now the Democrats want to blame Bush for not engaging in bilateral talks with North Korea, and for angering North Korea by naming it as part of the Axis of Evil.

The reason for my running battle against Liberal Democrats is that they are likely to get me killed. This isn’t a political disagreement about economic policy, or welfare, or how big government should be. This is literally life or death.

On this topic, I really, truly do not understand their position. What they have tried in the past has not worked. (That’s typical of Democrat policies: 40 years of Johnson’s unsuccessful "War on Poverty," and of programs designed to help blacks. According to Democrats, blacks still need help. Seems to me like blacks would get the message and try something else.) The old saying is "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." What can you say about the Clinton administration that was fooled over and over and over again? And why in the hell would anyone in his right mind want to follow such a staggeringly unsuccessful example?

With the recent Mark Foley scandal, the Democrats have likely secured the election this November. Democrats will control the House of Representatives, and maybe the Senate. They will engage in activities designed to destroy Bush and the Republicans, and they will ignore the defense of America. They will insist on following Clinton’s example in dealing with our enemies.

Disregarding the facts and history, Democrats will coddle, mollify, placate and appease. They will disarm America and our allies to show goodwill. Despite this, our enemies will continue their belligerence and aggression. One thing has changed now, thanks to Clinton, and this is why I’m pointing the finger: Our enemies now have the capability to destroy entire cities.

The Democrats, for some unfathomable reason, follow a policy that leads to American defeat and destruction. If and when they win in November, we will be on a road upon which my children and grandchildren will have to travel. With a Hillary Clinton presidential victory possible in 2008, we’re looking at a President who would allow (or even abet) an incredible amount of damage. America as we know it will be dramatically altered if that level of terrorism becomes possible.

Mark Foley’s sex scandal is not the deciding factor in a possible Republican defeat, but it’s part of it. Larger is the Republican House and Senate’s unwillingness to fight for Conservative principles, and to govern with strength and conviction. Although the Clinton administration structured the deal which armed our enemy, elected Republicans have, since then, betrayed us almost as much. They behaved in ways that may put lemmings in control of our government.

My children are just now becoming young adults. How do I explain to them that the tribulations they will face - the large, world-destroying ones - were to a large extent the fault of the people that I helped elect?

Republicans take heed. Scared, angry voters bury politicians.