Nicholas Stix tears into Tina Brown, calling her a spoiled, serial killer of magazines. He’s not much easier on all of the softheaded liberal moneybags who continue, inexplicably, to worship and fund her (though maybe Talk will be the last straw).
When poor folks think the world owes them a living, we call that a welfare mentality. And when rich folks think the world owes them a living, I call it a … welfare mentality.
First New York, now California. The folks over at Free Republic have a name for people like Michael Bloomberg and Dick Riordan–Republicans In Name Only (RINO).
In today’s LA Times, Mr. Riordan, who is running for the Republican nomination for California governor, opines that “you can’t live on minimum wage.” I expect this kind of nonsense from a Democrat, but when a so-called Republican says it, I wonder what the point is of having two parties. In fact, as much as I think that Gray Davis is a political abomination, I’m wondering in what way that Dick Riordan would be an improvement. I suppose it doesn’t matter, because even though I own property in California, I don’t vote there. Unfortunately, I do pay property taxes, and I’m sure that I’ll eventually regret the outcome, either way. I was encouraged to see Rudy Giuliani endorse his former assistant Bill Simon in the race, but I suspect that such an endorsement will be of more benefit in the general election than in a Republican primary, since Rudy is somewhat of a RINO himself…
Oh, and why was what Riordan said nonsense, you ask? First of all, because it’s not true, there are places where one can live simply but comfortably, even in California, on the minimum wage.
But more to the point, no one is supposed to live on a minimum wage. If you have to support yourself, or a family, it is your responsibility to improve yourself, through education. experience and/or skills development, so that you’re worth more than that. No one is entitled to a given wage simply because they can fog a mirror.
What driving up the minimum wage does is throw people out of work whose labor is only worth minimum wage or less, (e.g., teenagers after school). When one considers the devastating unemployment rate of African Americans in the inner city, the minimum wage should be properly viewed as a racist plot to keep young blacks and hispanics out of the job market and force them into drug pushing and prostitution, where no one in Sacramento worries overmuch about their wages. I’ve never heard that argument made in either the LA or New York Times, though…
This is pretty cool. Sandia has come up with a microchain for transmitting mechanical power.
And in this corner…
Today’s Opinion Journal has a little story about a wiccan who’s suing a congregation of the Unitarian church for, among other things, calling her a “humpbacked, toothless, redneck hillbilly witch.” (Hmmmm…wonder what she names her place?).
They were upset with her because she refused to teach them wiccan rituals, and also because she refused to conform to their new-age feminist stereotypes. Pretty amusing stuff if you’ve ever had much dealings with Unitarians. I used to be one until I realized (in my youth) that, in many ways, their (non)religion was the wackiest of them all.
In an article titled “The Enron Box,” author Matt Bivens and The Nation attempts once again to pin the tail on the elephant.
Here’s the lead sentence:
When George W. Bush co-owned the Houston Astros and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron.
Only one problem. Bush co-owned the Texas Rangers, not the Houston Astros.
Do you, like me, wonder what else they got wrong? Considering the source, is it even worth bothering to read the rest?
In an article titled “The Enron Box,” author Matt Bivens and The Nation attempts once again to pin the tail on the elephant.
Here’s the lead sentence:
When George W. Bush co-owned the Houston Astros and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron.
Only one problem. Bush co-owned the Texas Rangers, not the Houston Astros.
Do you, like me, wonder what else they got wrong? Considering the source, is it even worth bothering to read the rest?
In an article titled “The Enron Box,” author Matt Bivens and The Nation attempts once again to pin the tail on the elephant.
Here’s the lead sentence:
When George W. Bush co-owned the Houston Astros and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron.
Only one problem. Bush co-owned the Texas Rangers, not the Houston Astros.
Do you, like me, wonder what else they got wrong? Considering the source, is it even worth bothering to read the rest?
Both Matt Welch and Glenn Reynolds go after Wyche Fowler for his extreme Saudi apologia. Actually, he’s doing about what I’d expect. What’s noteworthy to me is the utter lack of tough follow-up or challenging with facts by the reporters in the various interviews that Matt cites.
Hmmm, on second thought, maybe that’s not particularly noteworthy either…
Sounds like Bill’s legacy polishing isn’t going all that well. According to Gallup:
About 4 out of 10 Americans currently say that Bill Clinton will go down in history as an outstanding or above average president [emphasis mine].
Interesting way of putting it (even ignoring the probably-unintentional double entendre). I wonder if they’d say it that way if it were Reagan with the same data?
I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure that it would say, “About 6 out of 10 Americans currently say that Ronald Reagan will go down in history as an average or below-average president.” Which, of course, would be an exactly equivalent statement, logically, but it wouldn’t have the right spin factor…
Kudos to John Weidner, for pointing out one of my chronic kvetches.
Yes, Virginia, there is no such thing as a rocket scientist. I know because I used to be one (if that makes any sense). Rockets are designed by engineers, not by scientists.