Jim Geraghty, "Campaign Spot" @ National Review
I find myself strangely bummed about the news of the impending separation of Al and Tipper Gore. Oh, I've chuckled at the man's ability to embody the walking antidote to charisma and sworn at his unprecedented and divisive refusal to accept defeat during the 2000 recount, but nobody deserves the pain that comes with the ordeal of the end of a marriage, even under reasonably amiable circumstances. And it's a bit surprising to watch a couple split after they've experienced everything the Gores have -- raising children, a rise to prominence in the Senate, the national spotlight during the 1992 campaign, eight years a heartbeat away from the presidency, the bitter defeat of the 2000 campaign, the cavalcade of awards for a documentary -- Oscar, Nobel -- and then... with their lives actually rather quiet, then they find they can't live with each other anymore? They could handle everything except circumstances that almost resembled normal life?
But then again, perhaps when you're in the white-hot spotlight of national politics, the sense that it's the two of you against the world can keep you together. A divorce during his vice-presidency would have complicated Gore's 2000 bid; a divorce in the years after his defeat would have left folks whispering that the experience tore them apart. Throughout it all, they probably needed each other. Today, with some space, and with the national political press largely considering them an afterthought... the circumstances are different. Sad, nonetheless. I'm as quick to mock AlGore as the next Rantburger, but Mr. Geraghty is right. It is sad. Just sad.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/01/2010 18:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11124 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sad for the children, and perhaps Tipper.
Al is a liar, a hectoring hypocritical nag, and a base person with few positive characteristics. See: base greed and grasping for power. He nearly destroyed our nation's traditions of law and peaceful transitions of power in his quest for the Presidency. No sympathy for big dumb Al
He can GTH for all I care
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/01/2010 19:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think Tipper suffers from depression.
Maybe the distance from policy stuff will help her cope.
Posted by: lord garth ||
06/01/2010 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
Hidden inside the latest Democratic spending bill is an $18 million taxpayer handout to American Samoa. How did that get in there? Read on for another lesson in the uncreative jobs destruction of the minimum wage.
When Democrats in Congress increased the minimum wage in 2007, the U.S. territory of 65,000 in the South Pacific pleaded for its traditional exemption from the wage law to prevent job losses. But Democrats followed union orders and said that if multinational companies like StarKist, one of Samoa's largest employers, could pay its CEO millions it could afford to pay workers $7.25 an hour. So they raised the minimum wage for low-skilled Samoan workers from $3.26 an hour to $5.25 today and by 2015 it will rise to the current U.S. minimum of $7.25.
Job losses have followed the way that any economics 101 student would expect. Last September Chicken of the Sea closed its tuna canning operation in the territory, leaving more than 2,000 Samoans jobless.
Then last month StarKist announced it will lay off as many as 800 workers, bringing its work force there from 3,000 before the minimum wage hike to 1,200 by 2011. StarKist explained that because of the minimum wage hike Samoa is no longer competitive with other tuna canning countries. American Samoa's unemployment rate, which was less than 10% in 2003, has climbed to some 30% or more today. Sorry, Charlie.
The Government Accountability Office recently surveyed businesses and workers in the territory and found that many firms will be "leaving American Samoa or closing by the end of 2010." Because of the job losses, real incomes declined by 6% from 2006 to 2008 in the territory. As the jobs disappear, GAO also found that worker support for the minimum wage had "dwindled." Samoan workers apparently would rather have a secure job at $3 or $4 an hour than no job at $7.25 an hour.
Which brings us to the $18 million that Democrats have earmarked for American Samoa. Congressman Eni Faleomavaega explained in a May 20 press release that IRS business tax credits for operating on the island are "no longer useful to companies doing business in American Samoa because a company can only take advantage of the credit if the company is operating at a profit. StarKist, American Samoa's largest private-sector employer, is operating at a loss."
Why? Because, he added, the firm "can no longer compete against low-wage rate countries like Thailand that pay fish cleaners $0.75 and less per hour." Without this money, the Congressman warned, "StarKist will be forced to close its operations in American Samoa and, if this happens, the Territory's economy, which is barely hanging by a thread, will collapse."
We've rarely seen a more devastating real world indictment of the impact of the minimum wage. Congress could simply lower the minimum wage to bring the jobs back, but instead taxpayers get to shell out $18 million to undo the damage that Congress's economic illiteracy has caused. Please remember this the next time a Member of Congress says the minimum wage helps "working families."
#1
It's like there's some sort of rule that say when the government says you have to pass a test to be employed (have productivity above the min wage) then unemployment increases.
#2
The concept of minimum wage has become a joke because of the reckless printing of currency. I entered the work force in 1962 and minimum wage was $2 per hour. I rented a 2 bedroom apartment for about $80 per month. My car payment was $67 per month. Gasoline was $.25 a gallon. In short it was possible to live on and fully support yourself on minimum wage. I could put money in savings. Now $7.25 per hour won't come close to supporting anyone. Now the same apartment I rented for $80 is renting for $1,350. Cars cost at least 10 times as much and gasoline is over $3 per gallon. If the idea of minimum wage was to set a standard by which an unskilled worker can be self supporting the concept has failed miserably. I'm still here in California and to live as I did in the 60s on minimum wage it would need to be about $22 per hour in todays money. The truth be told no business can afford to pay unskilled workers $22 per hour. There are also a lot of jobs that do not justify $7.25 per hour or $8.50 as it is here. These jobs are exported to 3rd world countries by manufacturers to stay competative. The cause of this is our government inflating the currency so much that the real buying power of the dollar has diminished far faster than wages have increased. Obummer's spending spree has doubled the money supply but the productive economy has decreased slightly making the money in circulation worth half as much. When that comes down to the level of the unskilled worker his $7.25 per hour will only buy half as much as it does now. That worker has been put way below the poverty level by our governments deficit spending.
Posted by: Dave ||
06/01/2010 12:09 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
06/01/2010 13:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe Israel is positioning subs off Iran because Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than has been previously thought. Israel has pretty good intelligence in the mideast.
H/T Puppy Blender
...Question: Israel is about to take a PR drubbing in Europe and America, and certainly at the left-wing and Muslim-dominated United Nations. Israel's cabinet knew that would happen. Why did they decide to stop the flotilla with commandos? There are more imaginative ways to do that.
I think the decision was deliberate, and it was not aimed at the blockade-running convoy. It was a signal to Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, and most of all the United States because we are in the midst of the most dangerous war confrontation in decades. This was also a signal for the Obama administration, which just stabbed Israel in the back at another UN phony peace' conference.
Everything being done by Israel and its enemies today has a double purpose: It is what it is, and it's also a strategic signal. This time the cabinet and PM decided to show their very sharp claws. It meant: This time we are willing to preempt you with gunfire. Take heed, because we are not interested in PR.
#1
When the wolves are at the door, screw PR. Survival should be the only focus for Israel and the US. Israel knows that. I don't know why we don't. Maybe because the U.S. has a weak president and our enemies know that. They have been emboldened. It doesn't help that BO has taken a petulent churlish attitude towards our only ally in the mideast; Israel.
Yeah, but on the other hand he has kissed the behinds of every ratbag dictator and america-hating commie leader in the world. Oh, wait! That's not good at all.
Jim Geraghty, "Morning Jolt" newsletter (Free subscription available at the link.)
. . . the world has a lot of Rachel Corries, doesn't it? An armored bulldozer with momentum is not persuaded by your shining moral clarity. Bullets do not alter their courses because you are an outsider trying to make a bold statement about the necessity of peace in a region that hasn't known it in centuries. And when the Israeli Navy says "Stop," they're not joking around. You may think their order to stop is the most unjust thing since the last issue that got you to stand around and chant at a building, but ignoring it brings predictable hard consequences. Reality doesn't care whether or not you think it's fair. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
06/01/2010 10:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If you start beating on soldiers with steel bars, sooner or later you will suffer bad consequences. And take note, the soldiers were there lawfully, the passengers and boat were not. And all the other bots had no problems at all like this. Only the boat where the "passengers" got violent were the ones where people were shot.
Posted by: No I am the other Beldar ||
06/01/2010 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I still think the Israelis should declare the 20 mile zone outside Gaza's waters to be a commercial ship free zone and any ship entering it will be detained with deadly force and/or sunk.
#3
I still think the Israelis should declare the 20 mile zone outside Gaza's waters to be a commercial ship free zone and any ship entering it will be detained with deadly force and/or sunk.
The only individual who risked his neck to publicly and explicitly announce his rejection of Hezbollah arming itself was the leader of the Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea. As for the rest of the Sunni, Shiite, and Christian leaders, whether they are politicians or government officials, they all expressed their support in one way or another to the issue of Hezbollah arming itself.
Given the present circumstances, their support of Hezbollah's weapons is extremely dangerous. However regardless of this risk, they supported this arming; either out of fear of hypocrisy, and even though these weapons are a clear violation of the Taif Agreement and the principle of State sovereignty. They supported this even though these weapons are the direct cause for all the devastation wrought upon Lebanon by Israel, and despite the fact that this arming is taking place in the name of the resistance, at a time when no Lebanese territory is under Israeli occupation with the exception of the Shebaa Farms, which is still subject to dispute between Lebanon and Syria. They are supporting Hezbollah's arms even though everybody knows for sure that these are Iranian weapons, and that the order to use them will come from Tehran.
What is new is that supporting Hezbollah's right to arm itself has far more dangerous consequences today than the usual political prattle, for this gives Israel the justification to intensify its military strikes tomorrow. Lebanese politicians will also be unable to object to Hezbollah's right to undertake any action that could bring war upon Lebanon, for they cannot give their blessings to Hezbollah and legitimize its arms, and then protest its actions.
Lebanese state officials, the presidency, the government, and the politician, are giving Israel the pretext that it needs to launch a possible offensive against the Lebanese army which has crossed the Litani River, and taken up positions opposite the Israelis. Israel has deliberately avoided attacking the Lebanese army because Lebanon says it is not involved in the war [between Hezbollah and Israel] and because Israel knows that the army does not support Hezbollah. However today, thanks to the collective blessing given to Hezbollah's arms, and due to the Lebanese army's presence on the frontline, around15,000 poorly equipped Lebanese soldiers are in danger. This is in comparison to the Hezbollah militia which is far larger (around 40,000 fighters) and which possess a communication network, and is heavily armed with a variety of missiles.
If the war was confined between Hezbollah and Israel, perhaps the consequences risked by Lebanese politicians to their country, their cities, their villages, and their citizens, would be less dangerous with regards to supporting Hezbollah's right to bear arms. Their recent statements have given Hezbollah the right to declare wars, and this is something that gives Israel the pretext to destroy everything that is Lebanese!
The frightening thing is that there is that nobody amongst them, with the exception of the Hezbollah leadership, truly and sincerely supports Hezbollah's right to bear arms. Rather they are either afraid to say no to Hezbollah, or are agreeing to this for political reasons. Hezbollah's arms are illegitimate, as they are outside of the institution of the state, and Hezbollah's militia and arms outmatches those of the State. Hezbollah's arms previously implicated Lebanon in devastating external wars, and it also used these arms previously in internal clashes within Lebanon as well. Hezbollah shelled the Sunni districts of Beirut the day that it attacked western Beirut, and it also destroyed Druze villages in the mountains.
Israel doesn't care who will pay the price in Lebanon so long as they cut Hezbollah's military capabilities down to size, and this is something which is based upon the principle of hitting Hezbollah's arsenal whenever this exceeds a certain acceptable level. The Israelis believe that if Hezbollah is not concerned about the consequences of arming itself with missiles and rockets, then they similarly are unconcerned with who pay the price or this. In this scenario, the most likely victim will be the Lebanese people and economy. Hezbollah considers its arms and the right to bear arms a necessity for its continued existence as an ideological party, a political project, and the price for its special relationship with the Supreme Leader of Iran's regime, especially since in Iran today there is growing opposition to the idea of providing Hezbollah with arms. We understand Hezbollah's justification for arming itself, however what are the justifications of the Lebanese politicians who accept this?
Posted by: Fred ||
06/01/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11123 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
Very accurate analysis of the situation by a very perceptive Arab.
The only problem is that the Hezbolla and Iran dont give a hoot about his opinion and nobody is going to be able to do anything about it.
As usual in the next confrontation, the Lebanese army and citizens are going to have to pay the price of their indifference.
At least I hope my indolent government will have the balls to put an end to Syrian/Iranian domination of lebanon once and for all, whatever the cost.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
06/01/2010 7:12 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
