Thursday, May 21, 2015

$15 Minimum Wage Will Hurt Workers

You think?

From Megan McArdle, at Bloomberg":
So Los Angeles is raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020, and then indexes the wage to inflation, so that it will never fall below this level in real terms. The politicians who have passed this law are understandably very excited that many low-wage workers -- perhaps almost half of the city's labor force -- will be getting raises, some from the current minimum of $9. I'm sure the workers themselves are pretty excited about having more money in their pockets. What's less clear is what happens next.

As I've written before, the existence of studies that seem to show minimal economic impact from minimum wage increases has caused many policy advocates to act as if we can assume that very high increases, like this one, can transfer money from the pockets of the affluent into the pockets of the poor without causing big disruptions. This is wildly beyond what that evidence shows, or could show. The studies in question covered small increases in the minimum wage, over short time frames. They cannot tell us what will happen with big increases over longer time frames (and neither can flat international comparisons, which get influenced by local economic conditions--for example Australia, frequently cited by proponents of the minimum wage, has been having a decades-long commodity boom that is now ending). This matters. It is over longer periods that a minimum wage hike is likely to be most disruptive.

When the minimum wage goes up, owners do not en masse shut down their restaurants or lay off their staff. What is more likely to happen is that prices will rise, sales will fall off somewhat, and owner profits will be somewhat reduced. People who were looking at opening a fast food or retail or low-wage manufacturing concern will run the numbers and decide that the potential profits can't justify the risk of some operations. Some folks who have been in the business for a while will conclude that with reduced profits, it's no longer worth putting their hours into the business, so they'll close the business and retire or do something else. Businesses that were not very profitable with the earlier minimum wage will slip into the red, and they will miss their franchise payments or loan installments and be forced out of business. Many owners who stay in business will look to invest in labor saving technology that can reduce their headcount, like touch-screen ordering or soda stations that let you fill your own drinks. These sorts of decisions take a while to make. They still add up, in the end, to deadweight loss -- that is, along with a net transfer of money from owners and customers to employees, there will also simply be fewer employees in some businesses. The workers who are dropped have effectively gone from $9 an hour to $0 an hour. This hardly benefits those employees. Or the employee's landlord, grocer, etc.
More.

Leftists are idiots. Los Angeles has already had businesses move out of town with the threats of higher costs.

Kansas-Nebraska Act Set the Stage for Civil War

At the Smithsonian Magazine, from 2004, "The Law that Ripped America in Two" (via RealClearHistory):
Abolitionist John Brown—failed businessman, sometime farmer and fulltime agent, he believed, of a God more disposed to retribution than mercy— rode into the Pottawatomie Valley in the new territory of Kansas on May 24, 1856, intent on imposing “a restraining fear” on his proslavery neighbors. With him were seven men, including four of his sons. An hour before midnight, Brown came to the cabin of a Tennessee emigrant named James Doyle, took him prisoner despite the pleadings of Doyle’s desperate wife, and shot him dead. After butchering Doyle and two of his sons with broadswords, the party moved on to kill two other men, leaving one with his skull crushed, a hand severed and his body in Pottawatomie Creek.

In a sense, the five proslavery settlers were casualties not merely of Brown’s bloody-mindedness but also of a law described by historians William and Bruce Catton as possibly “the most fateful single piece of legislation in American history.” Ironically, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, passed by Congress 150 years ago this month (100 years to the week before the landmark Supreme Court decision—Brown v. Board of Education—barring school segregation), was meant to quiet the furious national argument over slavery by letting the new Western territories decide whether to accept the practice, without the intrusion of the federal government. Yet by repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had outlawed slavery everywhere in the Louisiana Purchase north of Missouri’s southern border (except for Missouri itself), the new law inflamed the emotions it was intended to calm and wrenched the country apart.

As a result of the legislation’s passage, resentments became bloody hostilities, the Democratic Party lay shattered, a new Republican Party was created and an Illinois lawyer named Abraham Lincoln embarked on the road to the presidency. Had the law made civil war unavoidable? “I’d put it this way,” says historian George B. Forgie of the University of Texas. “Whatever the chances of avoiding disunion before Kansas-Nebraska, they fell dramatically as a result of it.”
Continue reading.

Crane Fights Tigers at Fuyang Wildlife Park in China

Wild.

At London's Daily Mail, "Don't mess with a crane! Fearless bird fight off pair of attacking tigers after accidentally landing in their enclosure at wildlife park."



ISIS Fighters Seize Control of Syrian City of Palmyra, and Ancient Ruins

At the New York Times.

Plus, video at Telegraph UK, "Airstrikes as Islamic State advances on Palmyra."

And from Peter Wehner, at Commentary, "Obama’s Orwellian World."

Smokin' Jennifer Lopez Cutout Bathing Suit for Us Weekly Cover Photo

Nice!



How One World Trade Center is Bringing New Energy to Lower Manhattan

I can't wait to get to New York again to visit the 9/11 Memorial Museum, and of course the One World Trade Center tower, with its new observatory open to the public May 29th.

CBS This Morning, my favorite morning news show, broadcast from the top of the tower yesterday.

More: "'CBS This Morning' makes history with first broadcast from One World Observatory"; "Take a tour of new One World Observatory"; "Bird's-eye views of NYC under your feet at One World Trade Observatory"; and "Take an interactive, guided tour of New York City with One World Observatory's City Pulse."



FHM Girlfriend Natalia on How Not to Blow the Morning After

"It's the morning after. You've woken up next to a beautiful woman. You wish every morning was like this and don't want to put a foot wrong. Luckily, our FHM Girlfriend is kindly on hand to offer you some very useful advice..."



Taylor Swift Named Number One in Maxim's Hot 100

At Maxim, "Taylor Swift Tops the 2015 Maxim Hot 100."



Baseball is Losing Children

At Instapundit, "NATION’S PASTIME IS PAST ITS TIME: Why children are abandoning baseball. Sadness. I think it’s just too slow paced for the multi-tasking, frenetic, technology-obsessed generation."

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Surprise Rolling Stones Concert in Hollywood

The Stones did a surprise gig in L.A. a couple of years ago. And they did it again tonight.

At CBS Los Angeles, "Rolling Stones to Play ‘Secret’ LA Show – But You’re Probably Not Going."

And at KTLA 5 Los Angeles, "Lucky Fans Line Up for Surprise Rolling Stones Concert in Hollywood."



The intimate performance was a celebration of the June 9th re-issue of the Sticky Fingers album, one of the most revered albums in the band’s storied catalog, the 1971 classic features timeless tracks such as ‘Brown Sugar,’ ‘Wild Horses,’ ‘Bitch,’ ‘Sister Morphine’ and ‘Dead Flowers’. The Stones will kick off their 15-city North American ZIP CODE Tour at Petco Park in San Diego on Sunday, May 24.

Jackie Johnson's Got Your Weekend Weather

Not enough moisture for more rain this weekend, but it's definitely typical overcast weather (with some partial clearing) for the end of May.

At CBS Los Angeles, "Jackie Johnson's Weather Forecast (May 20)."

#MattressGirl Fake Rape: 'Pretty Little Liar' Posters Protest Columbia Student Emma Sulkowicz

Heh.

Interesting day in bogus rape culture.

First, check Ian Tuttle, at National Review, "‘Mattress Girl’ Is a Perfect Icon for the Feminist Left" (via Instapundit).

And then check "Fake Rape" on Twitter, campaigners who launched the "Pretty Little Liars" protest today in New York:



Rachel Hilbert

Some long-delayed Rule 5 action.

At Egotastic!, "Rachel Hilbert Plays Pool, Happy Balls in Corner Pocket."

And at Sports Illustrated, "RACHEL HILBERT: LOVELY LADY OF THE DAY."

Hillary's Sidney Blumenthal Memos Demand Criminal Investigation

A great piece, from the editors at WSJ, "Who Is Sidney Blumenthal?":
Mrs. Clinton emerged from a month of silence Tuesday to declare that “I want those emails out,” though she’s helpless because “they’re not mine. They belong to the State Department.” Yet even the details we know offer broader lessons about the Clinton political method.

***
They reinforce, for starters, that the Clinton Foundation is not and never has been a charity. Bill and Hillary created it in 2001 as a vehicle to assist their continuing political ambitions, in particular Mrs. Clinton’s run for the White House. Any good the foundation does is incidental to its bigger role as a fund-raising network and a jobs program for Clinton political operatives.

The Times reports that Mr. Blumenthal was paid to do “research, ‘message guidance,’ and the planning of commemorative events.” Was he also paid by the Clinton Foundation—which is funded in part by foreign governments—to write memos for the Secretary of State?

We are also learning more about other appendages of the Clinton campaign machine, including so-called progressive “watchdog” groups. The Times reports that Mr. Blumenthal was also cashing paychecks from Media Matters and the liberal Super Pac American Bridge, both of which happen to be founded by Blumenthal protégé and professional Clinton hit man David Brock.
American Bridge describes itself as a “communications organization committed to holding Republicans accountable,” which is another way of saying it works—under Mr. Blumenthal’s tutelage—as Mrs. Clinton’s attack machine. Media Matters is a propaganda operation that got its start with help from the Center for American Progress, which was founded by John Podesta, who is now chairing Hillary’s presidential campaign.

The Blumenthal Files are the latest reminder that Mrs. Clinton’s email deletions deserve a criminal investigation. Recall that Mr. Blumenthal was barred by the Obama Administration from working at the State Department, despite Mrs. Clinton’s request to hire her old pal. We now know she worked with him anyway, potentially in violation of State rules, and that both used private email addresses.

The only reason we know this, however, is because a Romanian hacker a few years back infiltrated Mr. Blumenthal’s email and posted some correspondence with Mrs. Clinton online. Mrs. Clinton has now turned over (some of) her Blumenthal correspondence to the State Department. How many other private emails, which weren’t exposed through a hack, did Mrs. Clinton delete?

The Blumenthal memos also deserve Justice Department scrutiny. Team Clinton wants the world to think Mr. Blumenthal was simply offering his old friend some helpful intelligence gleaned in the course of his Libya work. A less charitable view is that Mr. Blumenthal was funneling information to the nation’s top diplomat in hopes that it would trigger actions to benefit his business interests.

The Times reports that in one memo Mr. Blumenthal provided Mrs. Clinton the name of what he viewed to be one of the “most influential” advisers to the new Libyan government. It happens this was also the adviser the Blumenthal business group was hoping would provide it with financing. Even as Mr. Blumenthal was whispering in Mrs. Clinton’s ear, one of his business associates reached out to a senior Clinton aide to “introduce the venture” and seek a meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Libya.

Meanwhile, among the details in the hacked Blumenthal emails is that he passed along a memo to Mrs. Clinton from an adviser to Georgia billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili—then running for prime minister, opposed by President Mikheil Saakashvili—asking the State Department to give support to his candidate. Mr. Blumenthal warned in his memo that Georgia could be “a potential hot spot a month before the [2012] US elections,” leaving the impression he thought she should take the plea seriously.

This is highly dubious behavior. In early April a conservative-leaning ethics group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, requested that the Justice Department investigate whether Mr. Blumenthal had violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act. This is the law requiring that anyone lobbying—defined broadly—for a foreign government must register with the Attorney General. Justice brushed off the request, as it always has during this Administration, but the query ought to be renewed in light of Mr. Blumenthal’s work regarding Libya.

***
House investigators now intend to interview Mr. Blumenthal, and let’s hope they can uncover more about this pal of Hillary’s job as unofficial political and foreign-policy adviser to a Secretary of State.

The broader point is that this is how the Clintons operate—on the edge of the law, mixing business and politics, the personal with the official, in a way designed to help the Clintons and their friends profit from both.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Kimberly Guilfoyle Has a New Book Coming Out

The publisher's sending me a copy. It's out on May 26th.

Pre-order at Amazon, Making the Case: How to Be Your Own Best Advocate.

Also, Father's Day Gifts in Tools.

More blogging tonight!

Sidney Blumenthal Emails to Hillary Clinton at State Department

If this is the beginning of some genuine reporting at the New York Times --- genuine and hopefully sustained investigative reporting --- the Clinton campaign's in for a whole lotta hurt. Don't hold your breath, obviously. Gawker's been running reports on the Blumenthal emails for years. But should disgust at the Clinton cash corruption finally shake loose the blinders among the journalist-cadres at the Old Gray Lady, all hell could break out across the Democrat-Media-Complex.

See, "Clinton Friend’s Memos on Libya Draw Scrutiny to Politics and Business," and "What Sidney Blumenthal's Memos to Hillary Clinton Said, and How They Were Handled." There's a motherload of damaging information here, but just to pick out one nugget:
In May 2011, Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a memo reporting that affiliates of Al Qaeda in Libya were plotting attacks in revenge for the United States’ killing of Osama bin Laden. Mrs. Clinton forwarded the email to Mr. Sullivan, saying that it was “disturbing, if true.” [Clinton aide] Mr. [Jake] Sullivan questioned its accuracy, but said he would share with others. (Pages 4-5)
Mindboggling, really.


It's easy to see why Hillary wanted to deep six all her private email communications. They're the smoking guns of a Watergate-scale scandal.

More at Hot Air, "NYT: Banned from State Dep’t, Clinton Foundation crony advised Hillary on Libya anyway — while pursuing business there; Update: Another e-mail lie."

And at Politico, "State Department won't release Hillary Clinton's emails until January 2016." (At Memeorandum.) The timing's not so great on that, actually. January's when the primaries kick off. And if Bernie Sanders catches some fire, he could cause bloody havoc for the Clintons --- and he'd be tickled pink doing it.

Read some of these emails at NYT, "Selected Libya-Related Messages From Hillary Clinton’s Personal Email Account."

'This is the second time in a week that I have answered, point-by-point, a lengthy exercise in character assassination against Pamela Geller and me written by Cathy Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine and a longtime apologist for jihad terror...'

From Robert Spencer, at Jihad Watch, "Cathy Young is a terrible poster child for journalism."

Irish Voters Set for Referendum on Homosexual Marriage

At WaPo, "Ireland could be first nation to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote":


DUBLIN — Catholic and deeply conservative, Ireland was long known as one of the toughest places in the Western world to be gay. Homosexuality was decriminalized here only in 1993, after years of pressure from European authorities.

But now Ireland may be preparing for its coming-out party, with a referendum on Friday that could make it the world’s first country to approve same-sex marriage in a popular vote.

That such a momentous event in the gay rights struggle could happen here, of all places, reflects the breathtaking social change that has swept Ireland in recent years — and the weakening hold of the scandal-scarred Catholic Church.

The church has come down firmly against the referendum. But in a country where priests once held unquestioned sway and where 85 percent of the nation still identifies as Catholic, a large majority of Ireland appears ready to defy church teachings and vote to give same-sex partners the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.

“It’s a different era,” said Pat Carey, a former government minister who came out as gay in February, at age 67, and is campaigning for a yes vote. “There’s a whole new demographic out there that has a vision of an Ireland that’s kinder, more inclusive and more tolerant.”

The change to Ireland’s constitution could reverberate well beyond this island nation’s borders as other countries, the United States among them, are wrestling with the issue in legislation and in the courts.

Unlike in the United States, where nine Supreme Court justices will soon give their ruling, Ireland has placed the choice in the hands of its 4.5 million people — leading to a passionate and colorful campaign that has made a once-taboo subject the focus of a national debate.

Supporters say a yes vote could inspire popular movements in other countries where same-sex rights had once seemed inconceivable.

“It will show that if this society can change in that way — so quickly, so radically — then other places, places that seem very conservative at the moment, that they can also change,” said Colm Toibin, one of Ireland’s foremost writers, who left the country as a young man in part because of rampant homophobia. “It would be an example to the world.”

But to referendum opponents, a yes vote would be a deeply unsettling symbol of a society transformed beyond recognition. Abortion is still prohibited in Ireland. But same-sex marriage is seen by traditionalists as perhaps the ultimate concession to cultural relativism in a country where divorce was illegal and the sale of condoms was tightly regulated until the mid-1990s.

“We’re no longer Catholic ­Ireland,” said Evana Boyle, an organizer of Mothers and Fathers Matter, a group campaigning for a no vote. “We’re changing the ­essence of an institution that has been known as one man and one woman since the beginning of time.”

Boyle’s group has plastered this city, and much of the country, with posters showing opposite-sex parents kissing a cherub-faced baby along with the words “Don’t deny a child the right to a mother & a father. Vote No.”

Boyle, a lawyer and a mother of four, said her side is counting on a backlash to a new era in which homosexuality has become “normalized.” When even Catholic schools plan lessons around LGBT Awareness Week, she said, she needs to be on guard against attempts to indoctrinate her own children. “The idea of having two dads, they just go, ‘Eww, that’s not right,’ ” she said.

But the no side’s message that defeat would be beneficial for kids is undermined by the near-unanimity of child welfare organizations in supporting the referendum’s passage. Beyond the Catholic Church, there is little opposition to the measure within the Irish establishment...
More.

Forget 2003. Jeb Bush Should Focus on Today's Iraq

Well that's for sure.

From Marc Thiessen, at the Washington Post:
Jeb Bush’s fumbled answer on Iraq is so troubling because the controversy is so unnecessary. The only people in the United States obsessed with re-litigating the 2003 decision to invade Iraq are on the left. Most Americans are far more concerned about what the next president is going to do about Iraq today.

And — news flash — the vast majority want to send ground forces to Iraq right now.

In March, a Quinnipiac University poll found that 62 percent of Americans support sending ground forces to Iraq to fight the Islamic State, while only 30 percent are opposed. Even a 53 percent majority of Democrats support sending ground troops to Iraq, along with 60 percent of independents. Among Republicans, support for boots on the ground is even higher, with 73 percent in favor and 18 percent opposed.

So let’s be clear: There is no groundswell among GOP primary voters for Bush or any of the Republican presidential candidates to disavow the 2003 invasion. What voters do want to hear from the presidential contenders is how they are going to deal with the terrorist threat from Iraq in the here and now. Just this weekend, the Islamic State captured Ramadi, capital of Anbar province, putting the terrorists just 80 miles from Baghdad. Despite months of U.S. airstrikes, the terrorists are on the offensive, gaining ground. President Obama’s strategy is failing, and his policy of retreat and withdrawal from Iraq is a disaster...
Well, yeah.

The only lying sacks are on the left. They're hateful lying scumbags.

Keep reading.

Democrats Sic Identity Politics on Their Own

It's come to this.

From Glenn Reynolds, at USA Today, "The left has handicapped its ability to debate policy, even among themselves":
They told me if I voted for Mitt Romney, we'd have a condescending president who looked down on his female critics as "little ladies" who didn't understand how the world works. And they were right! I voted for Romney, and, well, keep reading.

Sure, we wound up with President Obama, not with Mitt. But that didn't change how things turned out. Just ask National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill. Right before Obama's trade bill cratered in the Senate last week, Obama complained that its chief Senate critic, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., didn't understand the real world. O'Neill then chalked Obama's attitude up to sexism.

O'Neill told The Hill she took issue with Obama calling Warren by her first name during an interview with Yahoo News published May 9.

"Yes, I think it is sexist," O'Neill said. "I think the president was trying to build up his own trustworthiness on this issue by convincing us that Sen. Warren's concerns are not to be taken seriously. But he did it in a sexist way."

O'Neill said Obama's "clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn't know what she's talking about."

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, joined the chorus, also suggesting Obama's remarks were sexist, and then refused to apologize. Now some are tittering over Obama's supposed "seven-year history of sexism." This caused Twitter humorist David Burge to joke: "NAACP president: NOW president's critique of Obama's critique of Elizabeth Warren is racist."

Well, that's fair. The worst aspect of Obama's presidency has been the willingness of some defenders to characterize any and all criticisms of his policy or style as racist. With Warren (despite her denials) revving up for a potential 2016 presidential campaign — and already with Hillary Clinton's effort — we're seeing a new line of argument: That any criticism of a female politician is sexist. Apparently, the only kind of politician you can criticize on the merits in America nowadays is a white male.

The Democrats' tendency to argue identity politics over policy is more awkward when it's aimed at other Democrats. As The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin comments: "Is the 'war on women' being waged by the White House, or have Democrats become so accustomed to demonizing their opponents that they can't engage in civil debates even among themselves? It does not speak well of the Democrats' ability to persuade and lead. But it does portend a non-stop stream of gender bias claims in the 2016 presidential election."
Ugh. I'm dreading it!

Keep reading.