Dumb Arguments About Out-of-Wedlock Births

I frequently comment on the silliness perpetually on display at Pandagon, but this has to be one of the dumbest.

Amanda has a post about the non-relationship (in her opinion) between morality and illegitimacy. She is criticizing Heather McDonald for stating that 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock.

I won't bother arguing about the morality or lack thereof of having children outside of marriage, but there was this eyebrow raiser that I thought was interesting:

There are many assumptions you have to hold and carefully refrain from questioning in order to fall for this line, not the least of which being that there’s a causal relationship between having a baby while not being married and poverty, when it could be correlative or, since she references race and not class, it might not even be as correlative as she implies. But more insidious implication behind this standard issue rant is that there’s something wrong with a woman who doesn’t get married.

It is incredible to me that anyone would write something like this and say they are an advocate for women.

First, there's the skepticism that there is a causal relationship between illegitimacy and poverty. There are many studies linking teenage motherhood with poverty.

"People love to argue about how to prevent teen pregnancy, but sometimes we fail to shine enough light on the basic problem," Sarah S. Brown, director of the campaign, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization, said. "Teen pregnancy is a major contributor to poverty, single parenthood, and limited futures for adolescents and their children."

And it isn't just teenagers having babies that face more poverty. Certainly, there are other factors involved in poverty rates for unwed mothers besides just their non-marital status. But it's hard to ignore giving birth to children outside of marriage as a source of poverty when there are stories like this one.

Half of unmarried women who gave birth in the United States in the past year lived below the poverty level, compared with 12 percent of married mothers, U.S. Census Bureau data show...

The analysis found that 29.1 percent of women who had a birth in the past year were not married and that 50 percent of such unmarried mothers were living below the poverty level. That means they had an income of less than $19,900 for a family of four. In contrast, only 12 percent of married mothers with new babies had incomes below the poverty line.

Amanda was using the 70% of black babies born out of wedlock statistic to make a different point: that women shouldn't be expected to be married before giving birth (and that, in fact, they aren't waiting until marriage to have kids). I guess that's where the morality question would come into play and Amanda doesn't really like to discuss morality unless it is to bash anyone who thinks some choices are better in life (personally and for society) than others.

It was astonishing to me to see any woman make this sort of argument when there is a world full of low-paid single mothers to prove the opposite point. If all single moms were Murphy Brown, in a higher-paying profession which seemed flexible enough to work with a single woman's childcare situations.

But the real world doesn't present such a pretty picture for single mothers, who are most frequently working at low-skill, low-pay jobs. This isn't a problem that could be solved simply with government-mandated universal preschool or required family-friendly policies for businesses. While those theories might help with the work side of the working mom, it doesn't deal with the multitude of issues that go with raising any child: nurturing, feeding, clothing, etc.

There are several snarky comments on the Pandagon thread that go like this: "Marriage sucks. I know people who are in terrible marriages and their children would be better off with one parent. I also know unmarried couples together who have a great relationship. Marriage is just a legal contract between adults."

That might be true to gay marriage supporters, for instance, but for most folks, marriage and children goes together because marriage still provides the most stable situation in which to raise children. Is it possible for single mothers to raise good kids? Absolutely. But it seems silly to condemn marriage as patriarchal slavery until one has had to deal with all the problems of parenthood without a spouse.

No Blood for Votes!

Ace of Spades has a post on Jonah Goldberg's and William Kristol's columns (the link is broken and I can't find Kristol's link) discussing the Democrat plans for Iraq. Their characterizations leave Dems looking even less impressive than before.

Says Ace:

I'm not calling them cowards because they won't support the war. They're liberals -- they don't believe in war. They believe in "aggressive, take-no-prisoners diplomacy."

I'm calling them moral cowards, consigning hundreds of men to die for a "lie," because they believe (they say) the war is unwinnable and yet will not actually act to spare any of these men.

They'd like Bush to do their cutting and running for them -- so they don't get blamed for a loss. But if Bush won't oblige them, well then, those several hundred new US casualties will just have to die for nothing at all in order to vindicate the greater cause of electing a Democratic president in '08.

At least President Bush wants to send additional troops to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. But what the Dems are doing could be worse.

Golly Excitement

They are called gollies, or golliwogs, and they date back to a series of children's books in the early 20th century, resembling the black-faced minstrels of American vaudeville shows.

Gollies were well-loved in Europe and in the 1910 became associated with a British jam manufacturer who used one named Golly as a mascot to sell his products. Golly was such a successful mascot that the manufacturer produced Golliwogg badges which became exceedingly popular by the 1950s.

Alas, as with many cultural icons of yesteryear, the Golliwogg is now considered racist and not for public consumption.

The private collection on display in Westbury Manor Museum in Fareham has been criticised for its perceived racist connotations.

Dr John Molyneux, from the University of Portsmouth, said the items should not be regarded simply as a childhood pastime or hobby.

But Nick Martin who owns the collection said the exhibition had been very popular and no-one had complained.

I think it's important for people to see all sorts of cultural icons for what they actually were, without any updating (for instance, Tom and Jerry cartoons have been revamped so the black housekeeper doesn't have the same voice). To me, it's a teachable moment both for adults and children. I'm fascinated by the darky iconography, partly because it is so shockingly and offensively stereotyping. But I also find it interesting because it is so painfully different from other stereotypes faced by other groups of the same time period.

For example, Wikipedia points out that minstrel shows contained a variety of stereotypes including the drunken Irishman, the cheap Scotsman, the venal Jew, etc. But it's the blackface stereotype that stuck and, in fact, was carried around the world. It seems to me that exposure to these objects, posters, and other images can be very enlightening if in the right context.

Why the Christian Left Isn't Christian

Kevin McCullough uses that as his thesis in a column at townhall.com.

Unity, forgiveness, mercy, and constant appeasement are to be more highly favored than righteousness, holiness, faithfulness, and obedience.

I call this more of the "feel good" Christianity that is prevalent in a lot of megachurches. There's an emphasis on personal fulfillment over holiness, obedience, or righteousness. The difference I see is that lefty churches emphasize more recycling and righty churches emphasize more family nights.

Of course, that's oversimplifying the differences, I realize. The new star of the Christian Left is Rick Warren, whose The Purpose Driven Life books fit nicely with my characterization of righty churches who are more about personal fulfillment.

McCullough states more clearly the difference between the Christian Left and the Religious Right:

The American political left believe that only Americans should have the right to live in freedom, thus their hesitation and belligerence in advancing freedom in other corners of the globe. But is not freedom a gift from God, for his creation? The American political left is not concerned with the freedom and liberation of the unborn child - but they will speak at length about the evil of slavery that ended in the 1800's. It was not leftists that marched for full civil rights in the 1960's and it was not democrats who granted full civil rights in the 1870's.

(Jim) Wallis and company will argue for the relief of poverty but give political support to liberals in America who seek to keep the poor impoverished, and dependent upon government for the well being of their family, and future. Conservatives are the ones who wish to see taxes reduced, so that government revenues increase, safety net programs insured - and fewer people needing them in the first place.

McCullough also points out that tsunami aid and aid for the Katrina victims came not from the left but from the religious right, who take seriously Jesus's admonition to care for the poor and those in need.

Jesus said that by their works you shall know them. Examining their works makes that pretty easy.

More Democrat Civility on Display: "My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass"

Democrat Civility on Display is a regular feature of Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.

The quote in the headline is from this post at the Raw Story:

According to conservative columnist Robert Novak, a freshman Democratic Congressman confronted the top GOP election strategist nicknamed "Bush's Brain" in a White House bathroom, and taunted him for failing to beat him in November.

But in a statement released on Friday, the White House dismissed the report as "ridiculous."

"Newly elected Rep. Steven Kagen, a rich allergist who self-financed his campaign in Wisconsin, by his own account taunted President and Mrs. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and presidential adviser Karl Rove during a White House function for new members of Congress in December," Novak writes...

"You're in the White House and you think you're safe," Kagen allegedly said. "My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass."

And these are the same people complaining at a well-placed epithet from the Vice President to Patrick Leahy.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

UPDATE: Dana questions the validity of the story based on the fact that the White House denies it. But Betsy has an interesting point about the story:

So we're left with two choices. The guy is a churl and proud of it. Or the guy is a liar who enjoys making up stories about his own imagined rude grandiosity and bragging about how he was deliberately rude to the Mrs. Bush. Charming either way.

Yes, indeed.

Rearranging Chairs on the Titanic

That's pretty much what Michael Nifong is doing with the Duke lacrosse rape--er, sexual offense and kidnapping case.

The district attorney has asked the state attorney general to take over prosecution of the sexual offense and kidnapping case against three Duke University lacrosse players, an official involved in the case said today.

As Patterico points out,

It’s the weasel’s way out. He can’t go forward, but he doesn’t want to step up and dismiss the charges himself.

Contemptible.

Democrat Rules of Civility Lesson No. 1

One may only shape policy which will affect one directly.

This is, naturally, the implication of Barbara Boxer's inappropriate remarks to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

I guess Ms. Boxer will excuse herself from anymore gum-flapping about the war since she just admitted she has no family there.

I, on the other hand, have just been elevated to honorary opinion giver, since my niece's husband is a Marine stationed in Iraq. Or is niece's husband not close enough?

This line of reasoning could become quite fun. It could disqualify all sorts of people from voting on legislation or expressing opinions. For example, only women could discuss abortion limitations since only women have abortions.

Those without business experience could not be involved in that legislation.

Only gay people could discuss homosexual rights.

Only those with children could write education legislation.

Only those with experience in oil and gas could be involved in CAFE standards legislation.

Only lawyers...oh, we see where this could lead.

UPDATE: Allahpundit at Hot Air has more on Boxer's blabbering.

"There are Klingons in the White House."

So says Democrat David Wu of Oregon. Hot Air has the video.

I heard this on the radio this morning as I drove my oldest daughter to school. My first thought was, "OMG, he just lost any credibility he had." But then I reminded myself that he's a Democrat. This might actually boost his credibility.

Al Qaeda Re-building in Pakistan

According to this story from the BBC:

National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said al-Qaeda was strengthening its ties across the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.

Pakistan rejected the comments, which are the most specific on the issue yet...

The BBC's James Westhead in Washington says that until now the US has not been so specific about where it believes al-Qaeda's leaders are hiding.

Such a claim will be embarrassing for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who Mr Negroponte described as a key partner in America's war on terror, our correspondent says.

Now the question is, what are we going to do about it.

Majority Power in Action

Remember the arguments for raising the minimum wage? They ran along the lines of "It's unfair for some people to be paid so little and others so much," or "These multi-billion dollar corporations aren't even paying a living wage to their employees," and so on.

Fortunately for that tiny fraction of the American workforce, Congress has passed an increase in the minimum wage. So, workers will enjoy an almost $2 per hour increase in pay real soon, right?

Well, unless you work for the major tuna producer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district.

"I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."

...The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.

Pelosi says she was never lobbied to exclude American Samoa from the bill, but I have to admit it smells a little fishy.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Did the President Declare a Secret War against Iran and Syria?

Steven C. Clemons writes about this possibility in his column today.

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.

The argument is that the President did this during his speech Wednesday night, and that speculation grew after U.S. forces raided the Iranian Consulate in Iraq.

The Moderate Voice says that if this is true, it would be a rejection of both the Baker-Hamilton Group recommendations and the concept of consulting Congress.

It's hard to believe that the POTUS would do such a blatant in-your-face thing to Congress. It would completely ruin any possibility of cooperation with Congress now that it is in Democrat hands. But as Joe Gandelman says, you can see the seeds of major conflict in this confrontation at Senate hearings yesterday:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden bluntly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he did not think Bush had the authority to launch attacks to stamp out militant networks in Iran and Syria.

"If the president concluded he had to invade Iran ... or Syria in pursuit of these networks, I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that and he does need congressional authority to do that," said Biden.

"I just want to set that marker," added the Delaware Democrat, who later wrote Bush a letter asking for an "authoritative answer" on whether he believed U.S. forces could cross into Iran or Syria without congressional authorization.

In a testy hearing about Bush's new plan for Iraq, Rice said she did not want to speculate on the president's constitutional authority for such action.

"Obviously, the president isn't going to rule anything out to protect our troops, but the plan is to take down these networks in Iraq," she said.

Congress will want specifics, not more tap-dancing.

English Speakers to the Back of the Bus

This is a weird story, I'll admit, but interesting if you read it to the end.

Imagine sending your kids off to school, but when they get to the bus they are told they can't get on because they speak English.

That's right, English.

It happened to a few children in St. Paul and now the school district is apologizing.

It turns out that the bus route serves one of three language academies in the St. Paul school district. Each academy has a separate bus route to keep the kids from the schools together, but the district never enforced the rule.

Until now.

On this particular day, Rachel Armstrong's kids took the bus they usually took to school, but weren't allowed to take that bus home because the district was enforcing the rules. Armstrong had to leave work to get her kids and that's where the fracas started.

The district apologized for the inconvenience, but pointed out, in a bit of irony, that Armstrong no longer lives in the school boundary and therefore her children aren't eligible for the bus service anyway. The district says her kids can still attend the school if they find their own transportation.

The President's Speech

Just some of the reactions:

Pejman Yousefzadeh at Red State: "The good news is that in this endeavor, the President will not succeed or fail based on the content or delivery of a single speech. Rather, his success depends on whether he will commit to repeated and sustained explanations regarding what is at stake in Iraq, along with the calls for public support that would naturally accompany such explanations."

BarbinMD at Daily KOS: "In the end, last night's speech was the same thing that George Bush has been saying for nearly four years."

From the Associated Press: "Winning support among Middle Eastern countries is part of President Bush's revised strategy for Iraq. But he pitched the new plan by leaving out a pertinent fact: Anti-U.S. rhetoric in those nations has grown increasingly hostile since the execution of a man Bush never mentioned — Saddam Hussein."

Hugh Hewitt said: "It was a good speech, and it sounds like a good strategy. The sacrifice it requires of the men and women in uniform will be high."

The Third Rail of Marital Politics

Amanda at Pandagon touches the third rail of marital politics: name-changing.

This doesn't seem to be as much of a problem these days as I've seen it in the past. Today, a woman changes her name or not and there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with it. I do remember, however, about 20 years ago when the Name War was huge. I almost didn't get married because of it (the first time). And he used some of the same reasons Amanda lists:

1. It’s better for everyone in the family to have the same last name.

2. What about the kids?

3. Hyphenation is stupid.

The best line used on me was that if we didn't have the same last name, the kids wouldn't know we loved each other. I pointed out that if the name was the only way our kids knew we loved each other, then there were bigger problems than the name.

Amanda's post concerns this lawsuit filed by the ACLU on sex discrimination claims because a man has a harder time changing his last name than a woman does in California.

I don't completely agree with her analysis of the situation. The law is skeptical of men changing their names because it hasn't been the norm, whereas a woman changing her name upon marriage has been typical. If a man wanted to change his name, it was assumed there was more to it. I'll admit this is sexist reasoning and the law should be changed to treat both sexes the same way.

The funniest part about the name-change argument is that I could never get anyone to explain to me why it was so important and exactly where this tradition came from. The fact is that the changing-one's-name tradition comes from a time in legal history when a man and woman married, forming one legal entity, or, as the legendary William Blackstone put it:

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything;...Upon this principle, of an union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities that either of them acquire by the marriage...A man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her, for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence...

Legally, of course, none of this still exists in a practical sense. It's only when one touches this third rail of marital politics that one sees the sparks fly.

More on Jefferson's Koran

Interesting media critique at GetReligion on the opening of the 110th Congress.

Detroit Free Press staff writer Niraj Warikoo summarized the event, focusing on Ellison’s belief that the Koran influenced the Founding Fathers:

The Quran is "definitely an important historical document in our national history and demonstrates that Jefferson was a broad visionary thinker who not only possessed a Quran, but read it," Ellison said in an interview with the Free Press. "It would have been something that contributed to his own thinking."

Ellison was criticized by some commentators for using the Quran during his oath off office. Ellison said he decided to use Jefferson’s Quran after receiving a letter from someone who told him about the copy, which is with the Library of Congress. U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, a Virginia Republican, slammed Ellison for using a Quran.

But Ellison said Friday that Jefferson’s Quran "shows that from the earliest times of this republic, the Koran was in the consciousness of people who brought about democracy."

Daniel Pulliam points out that the fact Jefferson had a Koran means no such thing.

It is one of those stories that begs for some additional research. Is there any real historical evidence that the Koran was even read by Jefferson? The man was known for buying books by the boatload.

And how’s this for a follow-up question to Ellison: In what ways did the Koran affect Jefferson’s thinking and his writing of the Declaration of Independence? Reporters are not stenographers. They ask questions. They do research. They check facts.

I would be interested to know how much the Koran influenced the Founding Fathers, as well, given that certain lefty blogs went into absolute bliss at Ellison's use of Jefferson's Koran. Don't hold your breath waiting for reporters to track down that story.

Leak Probes Stymied, FBI Memos Show

Rush Limbaugh talked about this article in the New York Sun on his program today.

A lack of cooperation from one or more intelligence agencies led the FBI to abandon several recent criminal investigations into leaks of classified information to the press, records obtained by The New York Sun indicate.

In January 2005, a top FBI official asked the Justice Department to close three pending leak inquiries because the "victim agency" repeatedly refused to assist the probes. The FBI's contact at the agency "has been uncooperative with the investigating field office and on numerous occasions failed to return phone calls or provide the case agent with requested documents pertinent to the investigation," the memo said, adding that the agency "cancelled personnel interviews, security briefings and meetings at the last minute and failed to reschedule for another time."

"None of the cases can proceed without the cooperation of the substantive unit at the victim agency, therefore the FBI considers all logical leads covered," the FBI official wrote. Within days or weeks, the cases were closed.

That witnesses were uncooperative shouldn't have stopped the probes. It's important to know who decided to undermine the administration so blatantly.

The Surge Dirge

Slate has an interesting article on Ted *Hic* Kennedy's temper tantrum at the National Press Club the other day.

(I)n the U.S. Capitol, the new Senate Democratic leaders took their place before the microphones just off the Senate floor to put forward their plan: a bipartisan, nonbinding bill called the Pale Action and Timid Gesture Resolution. That wasn't the real name, of course, but it is exactly what Kennedy insisted Congress should not do. Afterward, I asked Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois what had happened to his own suggestion that Congress limit the number of troops that could fight in Iraq as a way to stop the surge. "That's Senator Kennedy's bill," said the second-highest-ranking Democrat. Yes, but didn't you suggest that troops be limited, I asked? "That's Senator Kennedy's bill." You're on your own, Ted.

Senate Democratic leaders say they are merely being sensible. They don't want an effort to stop funding for the new strategy to be misinterpreted as a lack of support for American troops. In two days of reporting on the House and Senate side, it is clear that Democratic leaders are more worried about being tagged as anti-G.I. than being penalized by liberals for not doing all they can to end the war. Their posture may change, but for now, what seems likely is that the Democrats will do no more than put together a nonbinding resolution that would show disapproval.

Democrats have a lot to lose if they push too hard against the President's new plan. If they cut off funding for the troops, it would be pretty difficult to argue that they support the troops but want to deny them body armor.

But as the article points out, the loony left doesn't care. They are sponsoring petitions and rallies to show how patriotic they are. Yeah, right.

UPDATE: BlackFive has more on Teddy's tantrum and points out that the additional 20,000 troops are only part of the President's plan.

Hot Air has Teddy's video.

Al Qaeda Militant Killed in Somalia

According to CNN, a senior al Qaeda suspect wanted for bombing U.S. embassies in East Africa has been killed.

Also Wednesday, Somalia's Deputy Prime Minister said American troops were needed on the ground to root extremists from his troubled country, and he expected the troops soon.

The death of al Qaeda suspect Fazul Abdullah Mohammed was detailed in an American intelligence report passed on to the Somali authorities. Mohammed, one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists who has evaded capture for eight years, was allegedly harbored by a Somali Islamic movement that had challenged this country's Ethiopian-backed government for power.

"I have received a report from the American side chronicling the targets and list of damage," Abdirizak Hassan, the Somali president's chief of staff, said. "One of the items they were claiming was that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed is dead."

In Washington, a U.S. intelligence official said Tuesday the U.S. killed five to 10 people believed to be associated with al Qaeda. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the operation's sensitivity, said a small number of others present, perhaps four or five, were wounded.

It sounds like good news to me and backs up the Bush Doctrine that we will fight terrorists anywhere.

But don't expect lefties to cheer the killing of our enemies. No, they're too busy telling us we are just like the terrorists.

No, we did it because our President claims we have the right to murder people in other countries if he decides he wants to do so. And we were in apparent violation of Security Council resolutions, which we helped pass, banning the introduction of weapons into Somalia from outside nations. We are an outside nation. In short, we attacked people in another country because we claim we don’t have to obey any laws anywhere — not ours, not theirs, not the UN’s. And that, my friends, is exactly the belief that terrorists everywhere hold.

But remember: don't question their patriotism.

Minimum Wage Sob Stories

I almost didn't give this post that title, knowing as I do that calling a spade a spade will get me called unsympathetic to the poor. But some things should be called by their rightful name, and sob stories about breadwinners making the minimum wage is one of those things.

This article by the Christian Science Monitor focuses on an Oklahoma man trying to raise a family of four on six bucks an hour.

It's a sad tale. In fact, it's the sort of sad tale that is trotted out frequently whenever raising the minimum wage goes up. Even though we know that half of all minimum wage earners are under 25 and most are not married and do not have children, it's not as compelling a story for raising the minimum wage as a devoted father and hard working adult.

The Christian Science Monitor story is chockfull of lines to tug at your heartstrings, including that according to this Economic Policy Institute calculator, a family of four in Muskogee, Oklahoma (the setting of the story) should make $33,000 for basic needs. You have to do a little digging to discover that, for the calculator, basic needs includes "housing, food, child care transportation, health care, other necessities, and taxes." While certainly shelter, food, and clothing are "basic necessities," child care doesn't have to be (if one family member stays home with children), and transportation, health care, and taxes are fungible.

On top of all this, the subject of the story, John Hosier, makes above the minimum wage anyway. He makes $6 an hour driving a truck for the Salvation Army. There's nothing in the article that explains how a hike in the minimum wage, which will take two years to go into full effect, will change his life much. Not to mention that prices will indeed go up and some jobs may go vacant.

I have said here and elsewhere that I don't mind them raising the minimum wage, largely because most places are paying more than $5.15 an hour as it is. It's a measure designed to make people feel like they are helping the poor without really doing anything and without having to get their hands dirty by really helping the poor (through charitable work, for example).

What I do mind is stories like this one which try to portray minimum wage workers as just hardworking folks who, but for a couple of breaks, could have been you or me. This is a false picture on several fronts.

* Of the 75.6 million American workers, only 479,000 make exactly $5.15.

* About 1.4 million make below minimum wage (usually food service jobs that include tips as wages or jobs that are seasonal)

* Half of all minimum wage earners are under 25.

* Part-time workers are more likely to make minimum wage than full-time workers.

* Fewer people make the minimum wage now than did in 1979, when data was first being collected.

These statistics aren't as compelling as the man from Muskogee, but at least they are an honest reflection of minimum wage workers.

Ted *Hic* Kennedy and the War

It's too bad somebody can't rein Ted Kennedy in, or at least stick some duct tape on his mouth before he completely embarrasses what passes for a Democrat these days. Today, Kennedy announced a resolution to force the president to get Congressional approval before sending any more troops to Iraq.

Putting aside for the minute whether or not such a resolution would be constitutional (it doesn't pass the smell test, but I'm not an expert), some oppose Kennedy's idea because it gives Congress too much power.

The idea of having Congress micromanage this war — or any war — is enough to make me shiver. Should the bill become law, it would instantaneously raise the issue of where to draw the line: what presidential actions would require approval? Would the president be able, on his own, to increase an American force level by x percent, but not by y percent? Would there be certain mitigating circumstances that would trump the requirement for Congressional approval? If so, what would they be?

Kennedy’s proposal is an extraordinarily bad idea.

According to the Moderate Voice, Talk Left agrees.

But even if such a veto could be overridden, the law would be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, impinging on the President's power as Commander in Chief in Wartime. In order to act in the manner Senator Kennedy wishes, the Congress must strip the President of the power the Congress granted him to wage war in Iraq.

Kennedy argues that Congress authorized President Bush to fight a war against Saddam Hussein, not to get involved in a civil war. This seems like a shaky argument, to me, since ousting Saddam (at least, according to war opponents) wasn't the end of the war. Remember the sneering about "Mission Accomplished"? How can you sneer at that, then say what has happened since Saddam's overthrow isn't part of the same war.

The Talk Left piece is an interesting bit of lawyerly argument about Kennedy's resolution and I recommend it highly.