Votes vs. Soundbites

Congress has passed an increase to the minimum wage. Workers who now make $5.15 an hour will see their paychecks go up by 70 cents per hour before the end of the summer. Another 70 cents will be added next year, and by summer 2009, all minimum-wage jobs will pay no less than $7.25 an hour.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, called the increase one of Òthe proudest achievements of this new Congress.Ó

Kennedy said. ÒDemocrats stood together, and stood firm, to say that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty.Ó

So what's the problem with this? What Kennedy isn't saying is that he voted against the bill. So did Senators Clinton, Obama, and Dodd. Why? The minimum wage was raised as part of the bill that funded our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to a CBS/New York Times poll, 87% of Americans said we should finance the war and 69% said we should have benchmarks. So we have a bill that 87% of Americans support, that provides funds for our troops AND raises the minimum wage, and four of the most vocal Senators, three of whom are running for President, voted against it.

They voted against "the proudest moment of this new Congress." We should not forget this.

To vote or not to vote?

Democratic presidential hopefuls are wavering in their support for our troops. They know that not passing a funding bill will put our troops in graver danger than they are already in, but they are more concerned about how their vote will affect their election chances.

Democrats have to weigh doing what is right with doing what is popular. The main problem is that they're not sure they want to vote for funding that doesn't tell the enemy when we're leaving. If this is confusing for them, I don't want them in the White House.

The Good, The Bad, and The Idiocy

The Pew Research Center released a survey yesterday of Muslim-Americans that has been covered in the press. Most of the coverage runs under headlines such as "Muslim Assimilate Better In US" and Most US Muslims Reject Suicide Bombings." While I am relieved to know that "most" reject suicide bombings, I find the results as a whole disconcerting, moreso since the media seems to be ignoring that part of the story.

According the survey, "many doubt that Arabs were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Just 40% of Muslim Americans say groups of Arabs carried out those attacks." Given that Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, isn't this like saying 40% of Muslim Americans don't believe the sky is blue?

What I find more disturbing is that "younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified." NO!!! Suicide bombings are NEVER justified. If you feel oppressed, or believe that something is wrong, vote, protest, lobby, or do any one of dozens of options that don't involve taking innocent lives. Most people killed in suicide bombings have nothing to do with the conflict that the bomber is interested in. This is NEVER acceptable.

Additionally, according to the survey, "Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda." These are people born in the United States, with more rights and freedoms than any other country on the planet. Yet something in these people believe that Al Qaeda might be right.

It is inconceivable that people can read these numbers and think that the news is good because it isn't "most" Muslim Americans.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill

Hey Parents, Leave Those Kids Alone

A disturbing trend is appearing in workplaces. Job applicants are appearing at interviews with their parents. This is a result of the smothering of Gen Y. These children have been scheduled and protected within an inch of their life, and now they have to face the real world.

Parents seem to think they're doing their kids a favor by coming to the interview. They're protecting them. No. The message this sends to an employer is that this is someone who can't make a decision without mommy and daddy and therefore has no place in business. If mommy thinks she needs to interfere in her child's work life, she is sadly mistaken. (The same applies to fathers but the trends show it's mostly the mother who is guilty of this behavior.)


When a person enters the workplace, it's time to grow up. Mommy and daddy are just going to weigh them down on the way up the corporate ladder. No one is going to respect a worker who needs mommy to fight their battles for them.

So parents, get over yourselves. They're not your babies anymore and they need to be treated like (and act like) adults.

Bush Bashing Becomes National Sport

It seems that bashing George W. Bush has become the national pastime. Over the past few days, Jimmy Carter took potshots at him, Al Gore has published a book taking aim at the president, and Hillary Clinton couldn't help but get her own few words in.

Jimmy Carter, who the White House has called "irrelevant" in response to his comments, started this round in interviews with the BBC and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. He stated, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." He later backtracked when the story was picked up, saying he was only referring to foreign policy, not the administration in general. Even that boggles the imagination. How does the man who allowed Iran to run roughshod over this country for 444 days believe himself to be a credible critic of someone else's foreign policy? He showed his ignorance more recently by publishing a book attempting to revise the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to make the Palestinians out to be victims, this as the headlines show them trying to kill themselves because they can't even resolve internal differences peacefully.

When asked about Carter's comments, Hillary Clinton stated, "I've had a lot of criticism of the Bush administration as well, and have used some strong descriptions," Clinton said. "I am going to continue to criticize the President. I think it is the duty of every American to speak out when you feel strongly that your president is heading in the wrong direction. I think we need a debate in this country, and I think that's what is going on ... I welcome everyone for that."

It is the inalienable right of everybody in this country to speak up if they feel something is wrong. Having Hillary Clinton say this, however, as she refuses to take phone calls from reporters who have criticized her husband is simply hypocrisy. It's all or nothing. Either every president can be criticized or none of them can.

Meanwhile, Al Gore has published his new book, "The Assault on Reason: How the Politics of Fear, Secrecy, and Blind Faith Subvert Wise Decision Making, Degrade Our Democracy, and Put Our Country and Our World in Peril. It's his latest salvo in his campaign to not run for president. This is a man who backed Howard Dean for president and has scientists that worked with him on "An Inconvenient Truth" pointing out that the movie was an exaggeration. He criticizes the way Bush has responded to crises, although his track record isn't any better. As part of the Clinton administration, he has to take some responsibility for letting Osama bin Laden walk away after the bombing of the USS Cole. It is well documented that the Clinton administration knew where he was, and chose not to get him.

The problem with all of this isn't the criticism. It's the fact that none of it is constructive criticism. You don't like the way a situation has been handled? Fine. Come up with a better solution. Don't just complain that you don't like what was done. If you don't offer a feasible solution, then it's just another rant.