Category: Current Affairs

If you live in Detroit, your Whopper may soon be costing you more money:

"In an effort to curb a looming $300 million budget deficit, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick last month floated what he called a ‘different budget than has ever been presented to our city council.’

"The budget includes a proposed 2 percent tax that would be levied only on sales at fast-food restaurants, among other items that would generate additional revenue for the city."

The NRA is protesting. No, not the gun lobby; the restaurant lobby that goes by the same initials:

"If approved by city voters and the state legislature, Detroit would become the first locale in the nation to impose a tax on fast-food. Consumers already are charged an average nationwide rate of 6 percent on restaurant tax, according to the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

[…]

"’We think these type of restrictive tax penalizes consumers for enjoying their favorite foods,’ said Katherine Kim, spokeswoman for the NRA.

"’In a sense, it’s almost discriminatory,’ she added. ‘It targets just a section of the food services industry. The impression is that it will restrict consumers’ free choice in participating in a lifestyle they enjoy.’"

Oh, please, Ms. Kim. I like fast food as much as the next person, but an extra few cents for a Happy Meal is not going to restrict anyone’s "free choice" or "lifestyle." Granted, I think the proposed tax is ridiculous; but let’s argue the matter on the merits and not cloud the issue with claims of victimization.

GET THE STORY.

HERE’S A PIECE IN TIME THAT MAKES SEVERAL INTERESTING POINTS.

You may be suffering from cognitive dissonance at this point. What’s this? Liberal bastion Time Magazine stumping against Hillary?

It’s true!

But that’s not what’s interesting. It’s some of the individual points the author makes. For example:

She has a clenched, wary public presence, which won’t work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn’t a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her emotions. . . . It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So far, Senator Clinton hasn’t shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling.

Personally, I’ve been looking forward to the first (PRO-LIFE!) Madame President for the U.S. I’d have no problem voting for any smart, qualified, pro-life candidate for the presidency regardless of his or her sex.

But the Time editorialist has a point: Especially the first few times out, people will look at women running for president with extra scrutiny to see if they have the inner strength to do what is by everyone’s admission a very tough job (especially in today’s threat-filled environment). But in the process of projecting Strength, it can be difficult to also convey the warmth and personableness that Americans also like in their presidents.

The first few women running for president would have extra challenges to face in conveying both strength and warmth in a credible, authentic manner. I certainly can’t see Hillary doing it. Condi might be able to, though it’d be tough even for her (and there’s the problem that she ain’t pro-life, which is an auto-No for me).

Perhaps the best route to the presidency for the first woman to win the office would be to become vice president first, allowing the public long to get to know and get comfortable with her before running for the presidency directly.

Assuming she’s pro-life. Did I mention that?

HERE’S A PIECE IN TIME THAT MAKES SEVERAL INTERESTING POINTS.

You may be suffering from cognitive dissonance at this point. What’s this? Liberal bastion Time Magazine stumping against Hillary?

It’s true!

But that’s not what’s interesting. It’s some of the individual points the author makes. For example:

She has a clenched, wary public presence, which won’t work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn’t a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her emotions. . . . It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So far, Senator Clinton hasn’t shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling.

Personally, I’ve been looking forward to the first (PRO-LIFE!) Madame President for the U.S. I’d have no problem voting for any smart, qualified, pro-life candidate for the presidency regardless of his or her sex.

But the Time editorialist has a point: Especially the first few times out, people will look at women running for president with extra scrutiny to see if they have the inner strength to do what is by everyone’s admission a very tough job (especially in today’s threat-filled environment). But in the process of projecting Strength, it can be difficult to also convey the warmth and personableness that Americans also like in their presidents.

The first few women running for president would have extra challenges to face in conveying both strength and warmth in a credible, authentic manner. I certainly can’t see Hillary doing it. Condi might be able to, though it’d be tough even for her (and there’s the problem that she ain’t pro-life, which is an auto-No for me).

Perhaps the best route to the presidency for the first woman to win the office would be to become vice president first, allowing the public long to get to know and get comfortable with her before running for the presidency directly.

Assuming she’s pro-life. Did I mention that?

This isn’t exactly news, since this sub crash occurred some months ago, but it still baffles me. I really thought that for a modern multi-bazillion dollar attack sub like the one pictured (the USS San Francisco), it would be virtually impossible to just run into a mountain.

THIS BBC STORY reports that human error was the cause of the crash, because the crew failed to adequately examine their navigation charts.

But, charts aside, aren’t these things crammed with high-tech what-cha-ma-hoozits designed to prevent this sort of thing?

Didn’t they have sonar? Proximaty indicators? A mass pointer?

This makes me wonder, do you think maybe these guys, you know, like to hot-dog it once in a while? Could they have been zipping around down there playing a taxpayer-funded game of chicken? We may never know.

Oh, extra rations will be given to those who properly I.D. the two cultural references in the above post. Hint: one is from a movie, the other from a book.

This isn’t exactly news, since this sub crash occurred some months ago, but it still baffles me. I really thought that for a modern multi-bazillion dollar attack sub like the one pictured (the USS San Francisco), it would be virtually impossible to just run into a mountain.

THIS BBC STORY reports that human error was the cause of the crash, because the crew failed to adequately examine their navigation charts.

But, charts aside, aren’t these things crammed with high-tech what-cha-ma-hoozits designed to prevent this sort of thing?

Didn’t they have sonar? Proximaty indicators? A mass pointer?

This makes me wonder, do you think maybe these guys, you know, like to hot-dog it once in a while? Could they have been zipping around down there playing a taxpayer-funded game of chicken? We may never know.

Oh, extra rations will be given to those who properly I.D. the two cultural references in the above post. Hint: one is from a movie, the other from a book.

This may or may not be a sign of things to come, but

THE LIBERAL JESUIT EDITOR OF AMERICA MAGAZINE IS RESIGNING.

Get the story.

Yes! Instead of being placed in a pillory and pelted with rotten vegetables and subjected to public scorn as a prelude to being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, the Sith lord who presided over the Terri Schiavo case is being given an award by his colleagues for his service to the bench, including the Schiavo killing.

GET THE (REPUGNANT) STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)

Yes! Instead of being placed in a pillory and pelted with rotten vegetables and subjected to public scorn as a prelude to being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, the Sith lord who presided over the Terri Schiavo case is being given an award by his colleagues for his service to the bench, including the Schiavo killing.

GET THE (REPUGNANT) STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)

In the People’s Republic of Germany, homeschooling is illegal and parents face fines, imprisonment, lawsuits, state harrassment, and the possible loss of their children for the crime of seeking to educate their children themselves.

"A German mom has been sent to jail for six days and fined $115 US because she and her husband insist on home schooling their children, reports ASSIST News Service.

"Home schooling is illegal in Germany. Parents are obliged to send their children to state-registered schools. Parents may not educate their children at home, even for reasons of faith or conscience. Despite this, about 500 German children are home schooled.

"The jailed mom and her husband belong to a Baptist church. They regard religious instruction at school as too liberal and object to the sex-education program.

"Since October, seven other parents in Paderborn County have refused to send their children to public school for religious and ethical reasons. They have been fined $190 US each. The authorities have even threatened the parents, saying they could be taken to court or lose custody of their children if they do not comply with the law. "

GET THE STORY.

If you’re a homeschooler, you can keep an eye on the legal issues surrounding homeschooling at the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). It wouldn’t surprise me if the public-school establishment in the United States were looking abroad for anti-homeschooling laws that they could import.

…yet again.

Say what you like about the American spirit, one adjective that must describe it is persistent. Despite two failed attempts to interest Americans in the dollar coin, Congress is prepared to give the idea another stab. But will the third time charm? Given its history, I’d only be willing to bet a dollar coin.

"The recent history of the dollar coin in the United States is not a proud one.

"In 1979, the Treasury Department introduced the Susan B. Anthony dollar, and produced nearly one billion of them between 1979 and 1981.

"The Carter administration promoted it with a vengeance, calling it ‘the dollar of the future.’

"They hyped its cost-savings — metal lasts much longer than paper, so you don’t need to mint as often as you print.

"They hyped its subject — Anthony was the first woman (if you don’t count Lady Liberty) to appear on U.S. money since the early 19th century.

"They even hyped its design — the 11-sided polygon (a hendecagon) was meant to mark a clear difference between the coin and all others.

"Despite the fanfare, the public hated it. The Anthony dollar quickly became another quaint relic of the Seventies, like the AMC Pacer.

"In 1999, Treasury made another attempt at a dollar coin. This time, it honored the Shoshone woman who helped guide Lewis and Clark across the West.

"Boosters again made arguments about cost-savings and historical import. Americans again responded with vast national indifference.

"Three years after its introduction, a General Accounting Office poll found that 97 percent of American had not used the coin within the past month, and that 74 percent could not remember ever using one."

GET THE STORY.