Colorado’s minimum wage is dropping three cents, to $7.25 per hour. It is tied to inflation, and would actually drop more if not for the unconstitutional federally-mandated minimum wage of the same amount.
I have no problem with this. Since it is tied to the actual cost of goods, the net effect should be, more or less, zero. But don’t let that stop a reporter from zeroing in on the pain and suffering it will surely inflict on those unfortunate enough to still be making minimum wage. A quote from the article:
“Yeah, it’s 3 cents an hour. But that 3 cents an hour adds up at the end of 12 months,”
Does it? Let’s see. Three cents an hour in a forty hour work week adds up, before tax, to $1.20, or about the cost of a Coke at Wendy’s. Over a year, it adds up to $62.40. That’s about the cost of a newly-released Xbox 360 game.
So, what does it add up to? Not a lot.
My point: it takes about 20 seconds to open up Windows calculator and do the math required to put this in proper perspective. That’s 2o seconds that the AP, apparently, couldn’t spare.
Feel free to cast me as someone who hates the poor. If you can make that illogical leap, well, then quite frankly I don’t care what you think of me.
My bride and I just went to see Avatar in 3D and all I can is…
.jpg "Does this color blue make me look oppressed?"){kind=avatar}
Stop me before I utter another inane cliche!
…Wow!
That was really, really bad!
Not all the computer animation in the world can make up for the fact that this was a not-subtle-at-all liberal propaganda film.
- Anti-capitalist? Check. Those evil corporate money-grubbers will stop at nothing in their lust. And, it’s handy to have a marine battalion in your back pocket.
- Race card? Check. Blue is the new (American Indian) red.
- Anti-American? Check. Everyone can identify with the “aliens” being analogous to the imperialist Americans currently occupying countries worldwide.
- Tree-huggers? Check. They don’t just hug trees, they worship at their feet. Literally.
- Military haters? Check. Never have marines been made to look so dumb – and unprincipled – for so long.
Now, it isn’t as if we weren’t prepared for it. We were. But I resented Hollywood for failing to produce an Epic Movie this year, so we went anyway, hoping that the message would be slightly more subtle. So, I share some of the blame.
To top it off, the script was terrible. I counted (and yes, it got so bad I started to count) no less then 40 verbal cliches, to go along with all of the visual and plot cliches that were already there. Let’s go girls. Shock and awe. Treehuggers. You’re not in Kansas anymore. Fight terrorism with terrorism. I want to be home for dinner.
Good God make it stop. And while we’re talking about things that must stop, how about those outfits on the natives! If the natives were white instead of blue, this would have been rated NC-17. Skin, skin everywhere.
Two and a half hours trapped in the middle of this propaganda film seemed like days. Ironically, there were two groups that couldn’t possibly be pleased with the effort: PETA and the peace-loving hippies. How instructive that a film made by liberals for liberals about liberal struggles ends with a victory achieved not through diplomacy, but a violent battle and animals dropping left and right.
Avatar. We went so you don’t have to.
I don’t know Jim Renacci. I have met him only once. I don’t know his values, history, philosophies, or tactics. I know nothing about the man. But he is the frontrunner for the Republican nod for Ohio’s 16th Congressional District, and I think we ought to find out why. It doesn’t appear to be anything remarkable that he himself has done. Nothing personal Jim, but all indications are that your frontrunner status has less to do with you and more to do with the motivations of four county party chairmen, regardless of how pure those motivations happen to be.
And I have a problem with that.
So the questions aren’t about Jim Renacci. They are about the process used that resulted in Renacci transforming from “Republican hopeful” to “Republican frontrunner.” That’s what I’m interested in. Process is paramount.
- What was the process? All indications are that the four GOP party chairs in the four counties that represent the 16th District asked each prospect to undergo a vetting process. Now, a vetting process is normal and necessary. But were those candidates asked to participate in the process with the understanding that they would bow out if the four county chairs did not “select” them?
- What was the criteria used in the selection process? What made Renacci the last man standing? Was it Principles? Money? Friends? Promises?
- What’s the difference been “select” and “endorse?” As I understand it, party chairs are prohibited from endorsing candidates prior to the primary. But isn’t a selection an endorsement? Isn’t it a distinction without a difference?
- Why aren’t party chairs allowed to endorse anyone? What is the law trying to prevent? Is one of the goals to prevent signaling to donors who to send their money to?
- When was the selection made?
- Is there a cause and effect relationship between the announced selection and the timing, number and size of contributions to the person selected?
- Did the contributors who contributed after the selection process was complete deliberately wait for the selection? Were they asked to? Is that right? If so, does that mean that the “selection not endorsement” effectively skirted the law?
- Does a primary matter? Did the “selection not endorsement” short circuit the primary process?
- What other questions should be asked?
Why do I care? Because the appearance is thus: The Renacci Selection Process was meant to avoid a primary and, if one could not be avoided, render it meaningless by making the outcome a forgone conclusion. The party rank-and-file need not render an opinion; one has been rendered on their behalf.
Now, I know that there are valid arguments to be made about avoiding the primary process – something along the lines of it gives fodder to the democrat opponent. I get that. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. It’s time we as conservatives and Republicans realized that being so caught up in how your opponent is going to portray you is a recipe for failure. The opponent is always going to do that, no matter how much you try to appease them (re: McCain, 2008).
Now maybe I’m new here, but it seems to me that, especially in the current political climate, it is both unfair (to the other viable candidates and the party faithful) and unwise (considering the current weakness of the Republican brand), to not allow the primary process to take its course.
Rather than act as official party spokesmen for a “selected” candidate, the party chairs ought to instead make the integrity of the primary process their paramount responsibility.
Is it too late for that? Is it too much to ask for a political party, even at the most local level, to represent the unmanipulated will of its members?
We shall see. There are questions that need answers.
From Breitbart:
Why won't these people take a hint?
Glad to have you home, Congress! As you can see, we haven’t gone anywhere. We’re still here. We’re still waiting. We’re still angry as hell.
- Roll call here.
- Boccieri voted no. A hat tip to the Medina, Wayne, Stark, and Summit grassroots organizations.
This evening, literally in the dark of night, the House of Representatives passed the crown jewel of socialism: Universal Healthcare. Now, that doesn’t mean we’re out of options, but it does bring us one dangerous step closer to the almost unstoppable fall of the great American republic.
The sad, tragic fact is, this could have been avoided. Tonight, this vote could have failed (or, more realistically, never have been taken. Nancy won’t allow a vote that she knows will fail). This could have been avoided because the Republicans, led by John Boehner, failed to respect the Law of Unintended (but obvious) Consequences.
See, earlier in one of American’s darkest days, the Stupak-Pitts amendment was proposed and voted on. That’s an amendment to strip the funding of abortion from ObamaCare. In and of itself, conservatives should have hailed the amendment, enthusiastically backing it. But what if I told you that with abortion funding included, the overall bill would have failed? It’s true, it would’ve. But, since the amendment passed (not possible without Republican support), that allowed enough blue-dog democrats to switch their nay vote on the overall bill’s final passage to yea.
In our haste to save a tree, we lost the forest.
Seeking cover for their utter lack of strategic thinking, Boehner posted this:
“We believe in the sanctity of life, and the Stupak-Pitts Amendment addresses a moral issue of the utmost concern. It will limit abortion in the United States. Because of this, while we strongly and deeply oppose the underlying bill, we decided to stand with Life and support Stupak-Pitts.
“The danger of this bill passing without critical pro-life language was too great a risk to do otherwise. Indeed, a number of Democrat supporters of Stupak-Pitts had privately indicated to many of our colleagues that all they needed for “cover” was a vote, and they would support final passage even if the amendment failed.
“To be clear, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment’s passage is the right thing to do. We believe you just don’t play politics with life.
Naive. Allow me to make three further points:
- Really, a number of democrats would have voted for the bill anyway, even if the amendment failed? Do you always believe everything you’re told, John? Because that sounds like just the thing I’d tell you if I thought you’d believe it.
- The socialist-democrats made no assurances that the amendment would survive conference (where the Senate and House bills are combined). Even if they had, they’re not to be trusted.
- There is no guarantee that the amendment would survive a Supreme Court review.
So, even the tree they saved may later be cut down.
When will we learn.
