Tuesday, August 11, 2015
James Woods
Monday, August 10, 2015
Massachusetts Republicans are more liberal than Arkansas Democrats
Massachusetts Republicans like Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito and Gov. Charlie Baker are comparatively moderate.
The Boston Globe
Those of us in the Bay State know that Republicans in Massachusetts aren’t like those more conservative politicians yakking it up on Fox News. Now there’s firm statistical proof of that.
Massachusetts Republican state legislators are more liberal than Republicans in every other state legislature, and they are even more liberal than Democrats in Arkansas, according to a data-heavy political study from Princeton and Georgetown University researchers.
As The Boston Globe explains, the researchers culled roll call votes of legislatures in every state. They then compared those votes to how those across the political spectrum voted in similar topics. Politicians who vote along similar lines were grouped together.
“Strictly speaking, then, this data doesn’t show that Massachusetts legislators hold a particularly liberal set of beliefs,” the Globe writes. “Rather, it shows that they support the types of policies that are embraced by California and Connecticut, contested in much of the country, and anathema in Oklahoma and Missouri. That, by itself, turns out to be a pretty good definition of liberalism.”
Massachusetts Democrats aren’t radically liberal compared to Democrats in states like California or New York, according to the study. Instead, it’s Republicans’ moderate positions that make the state shift so far to the left.
Hillary's Poll Numbers Continue Slide
Hillary Clinton’s free-falling public image poll numbers have impelled the often rigid and robotic presumed Democratic nominee to adopt a more aggressive tack, according to The Washington Post.
The former secretary of state’s new posture, according to the Post, has included "almost daily attacks on the better-known contenders among the wide Republican field," the "surprise release of her health and tax information late last month on the same day as a very public airing — in the home state of [former Florida Gov. Jeb] Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — of her policy reversal on U.S. relations with Cuba," and "a preemptive spin campaign" ahead of the first GOP debate.
Just before the "happy hour" debate kicked off at 5 p.m. Thursday, Clinton blasted a needling message on Twitter, one that embodied the tone of her new demeanor.
Wrote Clinton in a Twitter message typical of her recent postings:
Hillary Clinton
“Republicans are systematically...trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting. What part of democracy are they afraid of?”—HRC
The "elbows-out approach" by the "no-false-moves" candidate is designed to counter critics within her party that "despite posturing as a fighter, she has rarely taken the gloves off," the Post reports.
She’s also been forced to take more risks as a result of the unforeseen popularity of progressive Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and rumblings that Vice President Joe Biden may get into the race.
A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that Clinton’s favorability rating dropped to 37 percent, from 44 percent, between June and July, according to the Post, while other surveys saw Clinton’s lead over Sanders' diminishing.
A June piece by the Post reported on the results of a Post-ABC poll that found Clinton’s favorability ratings had fallen to their lowest since April 2008, when she first ran for president.
The poll found that 52 percent of Americans said Clinton is not trustworthy, "a 22-point swing in the past year," according to the Post, which noted that Clinton support from both independents and Democrats had diminished.
In July, The Hill reported on a Quinnipiac University survey of voters in Colorado, Iowa and Virginia. The results were staggering.
When tested against leading Republican contenders — Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — Clinton lost every state to every opponent.
"President [Barack] Obama won all three states in both of his presidential election victories, but they went for former President George W. Bush almost as uniformly in 2004 and 2000," according to The Hill.
Clinton allies tell the Post that the "new injection of energy is partly an effort to counter negative coverage of her email foibles and her falling poll numbers" while her campaign maintains that a decline in polling numbers is expected as the race moves into full swing.
The campaign insists its recent launch of a $2 million advertising campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire — spots that cast Clinton as a "champion for working people and families" — had already been in the works and are in no way a reaction to the falling numbers.
"You’re going to get nicked up a bit" over a long campaign, chief strategist and pollster Joel Benenson said Wednesday. "This is a marathon, not a sprint."
[VIDEO] Hillary has to run ads because she has NO tangible accomplishments – WaPo’s Tumulty
The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty commented on the remarkable lack of tangible accomplishments for Hillary as U.S. Senator and as the Secretary of State this morning on MSNBC.
“Hillary Clinton, assuming she gets the nomination as we do, is likely to be running against a governor or a senator or someone who can point to a lot of very tangible accomplishments in their career, and Hillary Clinton, from her time in the senate, there really were no landmark pieces of legislation with her name on them,” she said.
“As secretary of state, she was largely involved in strengthening relationships with people around the world, but again, there will be not a singular accomplishment like, say, this Iranian arms deal was for John Kerry. When she tried to reform the health system, she failed. When she ran for president, she failed. So, again, the extraordinary part of it is that a woman who has been part of all our lives for this long still feels she has to introduce herself.”
That’s Not Funny! Today’s college students can’t seem to take a joke.
Three comics sat around a café table in the chilly atrium of the Minneapolis Convention Center, talking about how to create the cleanest possible set. “Don’t do what’s in your gut,” Zoltan Kaszas said. “Better safe than sorry,” Chinedu Unaka offered. Feraz Ozel mused about the first time he’d ever done stand-up: three minutes on giving his girlfriend herpes and banging his grandma. That was out.
This was not a case of professionals approaching a technical problem as an intellectual exercise. Money was riding on the answer. They had come to Minneapolis in the middle of a brutal winter for the annual convention of the National Association for Campus Activities (NACA), to sell themselves and their comedy on the college circuit. Representatives of more than 350 colleges had come as well, to book comics, musicians, sword swallowers, unicyclists, magicians, hypnotists, slam poets, and every kind of boat act, inspirational speaker, and one-trick pony you could imagine for the next academic year.
For the comics, the college circuit offers a lucrative alternative to Chuckle Hut gigs out on the pitiless road, spots that pay a couple hundred bucks and a free night in whatever squat the club owner uses to warehouse out-of-town talent. College gigs pay easily a grand a night—often much more—and they can come in a firecracker string, with relatively short drives between schools, each hour-long performance paid for (without a moment’s ugliness or hesitation) by a friendly student-activities kid holding out a check and hoping for a selfie. For all these reasons, thousands of comics dream of being invited to the convention.
The colleges represented were—to use a word that their emissaries regard as numinous—diverse: huge research universities, tiny liberal-arts colleges, Catholic schools, land-grant institutions. But the students’ taste in entertainment was uniform. They liked their slam poets to deliver the goods in tones of the highest seriousness and on subjects of lunar bleakness; they favored musicians who could turn out covers with cheerful precision; and they wanted comedy that was 100 percent risk-free, comedy that could not trigger or upset or mildly trouble a single student. They wanted comedy so thoroughly scrubbed of barb and aggression that if the most hypersensitive weirdo on campus mistakenly wandered into a performance, the words he would hear would fall on him like a soft rain, producing a gentle chuckle and encouraging him to toddle back to his dorm, tuck himself in, and commence a dreamless sleep—not text Mom and Dad that some monster had upset him with a joke.
Two of the most respected American comedians, Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld, have discussed the unique problems that comics face on college campuses. In November, Rock told Frank Rich in an interview for New York magazine that he no longer plays colleges, because they’re “too conservative.” He didn’t necessarily mean that the students were Republican; he meant that they were far too eager “not to offend anybody.” In college gigs, he said, “you can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.” Then, in June, Seinfeld reopened the debate—and set off a frenzied round of op-eds—when he said in a radio interview that comics warn him not to “go near colleges—they’re so PC.”
When I attended the convention in Minneapolis in February, I saw ample evidence of the repressive atmosphere that Rock and Seinfeld described, as well as another, not unrelated factor: the infantilization of the American undergraduate, and this character’s evolving status in the world of higher learning—less a student than a consumer, someone whose whims and affectations (political, sexual, pseudo-intellectual) must be constantly supported and championed. To understand this change, it helps to think of college not as an institution of scholarly pursuit but as the all-inclusive resort that it has in recent years become—and then to think of the undergraduate who drops out or transfers as an early checkout. Keeping hold of that kid for all four years has become a central obsession of the higher-ed-industrial complex. How do you do it? In part, by importing enough jesters and bards to keep him from wandering away to someplace more entertaining, taking his Pell grant and his 529 plan and his student loans with him.
But which jesters, which bards? Ones who can handle the challenge. Because when you put all of these forces together—political correctness, coddling, and the need to keep kids at once amused and unoffended (not to mention the absence of a two-drink minimum and its crowd-lubricating effect)—the black-box theater of an obscure liberal-arts college deep in flyover territory may just be the toughest comedy room in the country.
A Minimum-Wage Bungle in New York
New York's Fast Food Wage Board, a panel appointed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, has recommended increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour from $8.75 for quick-service restaurant businesses with 30 or more locations. The target, according to Mr. Cuomo, is “large, national companies which have been making extraordinary profits” while “underpaying their workers,” who are supported by public-welfare programs such as Medicaid.
But the higher labor costs that the New York state labor commissioner is expected to approve will not hit large companies. That’s because small business owners own and operate all of New York’s Burger King restaurants, and about 95% of its McDonald’srestaurants, as franchisees. These business owners set the compensation for the workers they employ. Burger King and McDonald’s, on the other hand, are paid a percentage (generally a 3% to 5% royalty fee) of the restaurant’s gross sales, regardless of the franchisees’ profits.
There are 7,303 franchised restaurants in New York operating under agreements with 116 brands, and like other restaurant owners, many pay some of their employees the starting wage of $8.75 an hour. Yet the owner of even a single franchised restaurant would automatically have to pay a minimum $15 an hour, simply because of his affiliation with a brand that has more than 30 restaurants nationwide. That’s not fair.
Could these restaurant owners cope with such a huge increase in operating costs by reducing their profits? Quick-service restaurant franchises operate on slim profit margins—on average 2 to 4 cents on the dollar according to an Employment Policies Institute study. And to the extent they make lower profits, these business owners will be less likely to open new restaurants. Restaurateurs who own more than 30 non-franchise quick-service establishments also will be put at a disadvantage with competitors not subject to the higher minimum wage.
To manage increased costs, franchisees instead may be forced to reduce their current staff or reduce their hours. They might even seek to automate some of their processes by implementing kiosks or mobile platforms for ordering food. The result would be fewer job opportunities for unskilled young men and women, who rely on these entry-level jobs to learn important work and life skills and to move up the employment ladder.
What about increasing prices? Certainly, consumers’ willingness to pay more for fast food would help offset the franchisees’ increased labor costs. However, increasing prices may result in losing customers who will seek lower-priced options. Two levels—one for franchises and another for other restaurant owners—will force some franchises to close.
State or local governments that raise the minimum wage across the board will help the lowest-wage workers who manage to keep their jobs. But the solution to the lack of quality jobs is not a massive minimum-wage increase for a subset of one industry, in an attempt to turn low-skilled entry-level jobs into middle-income jobs. The real culprit is six years of ineffective progressive economic policies. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 8.3 million Americans still unemployed and another seven million “marginally” employed, often working two or three part-time jobs to make ends meet. There are more than 550,000 fewer full-time jobs today than there were in December 2007, before the recession began.
The answer to the current drought in jobs with a good salary isn’t another well-intended but misguided government fix. Instead, it is economic growth that will create the kind of jobs that will permanently lift people out of poverty. A vibrant free-enterprise system is the only way to generate that kind of economic growth, not blatantly discriminatory social experiments conceived by union bosses.
Mr. Caldeira is the president and CEO of the International Franchise Association in Washington, D.C.
Ex-Air Force pilot in dogfight to save historic Boeing from scrapyard
This Boeing 707, which was used in operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Afghanistan, is in danger of being sent to the scrap yard.
A Pentagon plane whose cabin was used by top military brass to plot strategy during three wars is in danger of having a lot more than just its wings clipped.
One of two CENTCOM planes made to fly high-ranking U.S. military command and staff during the Gulf War, the 1990s Bosnian War and Iraqi Freedom is about to be turned into scrap metal despite its colorful history and a roster of passengers. A retired Air Force pilot who once flew the Boeing 707 is now fighting to save it, but the cost - an estimated $200,000 - could be too much.
“I’d like to see it saved because it has so much history,” retired Air Force Lt. Col. Gerald Roark to FoxNews.com. Roark currently works with Aviation Heritage Park, an aviation museum in Bowling Green, Ky.
Aviation Heritage Park hopes to land the historic plane, which flew such military luminaries as generals Norman Schwarzkopf and Tommy Franks. The plane is currently at Robins Air Base, in Warner Robins, Ga., which can’t afford to keep the plane on display.
“Maybe Robins would have a change of heart,” Roark said, “but I don’t see that happening.”
Related Image
Retired USAF Lt. Col. Gerald Roark, who worked on operations involving the aircraft has been trying to find a way to save the craft along with an aviation museum in Kentucky. (Courtesy of Gerald Roark)
The nonprofit Kentucky museum, which has saved other military aircraft from ending up in a scrap heap, can't afford to move the plane, which no longer can fly, some 400 miles north. The plane, which is 144 feet long and has a wingspan of 130 feet, must be dissembled into different sections and then loaded on a number of massive wide-load tractor trailers for a slow transport on highways and byways to its new home where it would then be reassembled and repainted.
“We talked about it and it’s more [money] than we can shed,” Roark said. "We really don’t have a cost effective way of transporting the plane.”
Schwarzkopf and Franks are the most notable USCENTCOM commanders to use the 707, which was primarily used for communication from a war zone. During the Gulf War, from 1990 to 1991, Schwarzkopf commanded the coalition forces that liberated Kuwait from Iraqi forces. Franks led the attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as well as the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
The aircraft was delivered to the U.S. Air Force in November 1961 as a C-135A "Stratolifter." In 1966, it was one of eight such planes converted into an EC-135N Apollo/Range Instrumentation Aircraft (A/RIA) for use two years later providing telemetry and communications support to the Apollo space missions.
Bowling Green residents expressed their desire to help raise funds for Aviation Heritage Park, but according to Roark, with costs being so high, it will likely never come to fruition.
“We quickly realized that it’s pretty tight and we wouldn’t be able to raise the money,” Roark said. “I’m just hoping that someone will save it from the shredder.”
Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at@perrych
[VIDEO] Fiorina: 'I Will Not Replace a Single' Retiring Federal Worker
(CNSNews.com) - "We have never succeeded in shrinking the size of government," Republican Carly Fiorina told "Fox News Sunday." She said she would do it.
"We have a bunch of baby boomers who are going to retire out of the federal government over the next five to six years. I will not replace a single one," she promised.
"And yes, we need to actually get about the business of reducing the size, the power, the cost, complexity and corruption of this federal government."
Host Chris Wallace played a video clip of Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) criticizing Fiorina for nearly driving Hewlett-Packard, a Fortune 500 company, "into the ground." Schultz noted that Fiorina "fired 30,000 people when she was CEO."
"You know, if you end up as Republican nominee, the Democrats are going to put that in every ad -- she fired 30,000 people," host Chris Wallace told Fiorina. "It's exactly the kind of thing, Ms. Fiorina, that sunk Mitt Romney."
Fiorina said she's "flattered" that the head of the DNC would come after me because it must mean she's "gaining traction."
"But here's the facts: I led Hewlett-Packard through a very difficult time, the dotcom bust post-9/11, the worst technology recession in 25 years. I would remind Debbie Wasserman Schultz that it has taken the NASDAQ 15 years to recover.
Sometimes in tough times, tough calls are necessary. However, we also took a company from $44 billion to almost $90 million. We quadrupled its growth rate, quadrupled its cash flow, tripled its innovation to 11 patents a day, and went from lagging behind to leading in every product category in every market segment.
And yes, I was fired at the end of that, in a boardroom, which I've been very open about. And I was fired because when you challenge the status quo, which is what leadership is about, you make enemies.
Steve Jobs was fired. Oprah Winfrey was fired. Walt Disney was fired. Mike Bloomberg was fired. I feel like I'm in good company. And we need somebody to challenge status quo of Washington, D.C. and get something done."
Wallace predicted that Democrats will find "that poor, unfortunate person" who was fired, and suffered, because of Fiorina's management.
She said there's nothing harder for a chief executive to do than to tell an employee, "we don't have a job for you."
"It's also true that the vast majority of Americans know that in tough times sometimes tough decisions have to be made. And what they're frustrated by is the federal government never makes a tough decision."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
Click here to view Video!! As the Obamacare website launch deadline approached, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebeli...
-
'It's A Great Opportunity For Me Personally, It's Great Opportunity For Our State' ASBURY PARK, N.J. (CBSNewYork) –... -
Los Angeles City Council President Herb Wesson made headlines earlier this month by declaring that Los Angeles lacks a strategy to attra...
-
In Part 1 of my interview with Rep. Alan Grayson published on Monday, we talked about Syria and national security policy. In Part 2, we t...
-
Weekly Address: It’s Time for Congress To Pass a Responsible Budget WASHINGTON, DC — In this week's address, the Pre...
-
With Speaker John Boehner embracing the push to defund Obamacare in the House bill to fund the government, the battle will soon be moving t...
