It Keeps Rolling In...

Nancy Pelosi has once again raised eyebrows with the Democrats' new minimum-wage legislation (H.R. 2), which will increase the federal wage floor from $5.15/hr to $7.25/hr over two years. In addition, the minimum wage will now--for the first time--be applied to all US territories.

All, that is, with the notable exception of American Samoa :

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.

"There's something fishy going on here," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.

During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill."

A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."

"So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed.

"The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.

I hear a lot on Law & Order about avoiding "even the appearance of impropriety," but apparently the concept doesn't resonate with the new Congressional Majority.

Now to be fair, the issue is not really that simple, as this article demonstrates. Having been long exempted from minimum-wage requirements, territories such as American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) have seen an influx of employers looking to take advantage of the opportunity to lower costs. In the wake of the new legislation, American Samoa may continue to negotiate minimum levels with the federal government through a wage board, while the CNMI is left to swing in the wind. Not surprisingly, they are extremely anxious about what will happen under the Democrats' recently enacted plan:

The bill would increase the islands’ minimum wage to $7.25 over the next four years, compared to the two years and two months it gives other U.S. employers to phase in the increase...

“What business could handle the doubling of their minimum wage in just a few years’ time?” [CNMI spokesperson Melinda Matson] asked. ...

“We’re really concerned that we’re going to have businesses fail and the only safety net that we have is food stamps,” Matson said.

Excellent points, Ms. Matson. Too bad your islands don't have business interests headquartered in Nancy Pelosi's district.

Technorati Tags:
Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, American Samoa, Samoa, Minimum Wage, CNMI, StarKist, DelMonte, Congress, Democrats, Reform

In the Democrats' World, 100 <> 100

I've been following the start of the 110th Congress like a hawk and...OK, that's not remotely correct. I suppose (and so does the media) there are those out there--on both sides of the aisle--with stopwatches and checklists. I am not one of them, but this AP piece got at least a bit of my attention.

During the 2006 campaign, you may have heard the Democrats talking about all the good they were going to do in the first 100 hours of a Democratically controlled Congress. Indeed, the front page of Nancy Pelosi's site currently says:

In the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we will pass the elements of our “Six for ‘06” agenda to meet the everyday needs of all Americans.

There is even a cute little javascript-type clock which ticks off the seconds labeled "Time elapsed in the first 100 legislative hours." Apparently, in the eyes of the Speaker, this is an important distinction--for while the House has been in session (at this point) for close to 50 hours, Pelosi's clock has only ticked off about 18 1/2 hours. The Democrats are keeping track of not what actually goes on in 100 hours' time, but of how long it takes to get their six pet bills passed.

Now, this sort of public-relations-by-careful-definition is nothing new to the political arena. But it's only been a couple of weeks, and the Democrats have already shown how hollow some of their principles and pronouncements are:

• A super-ethical Congress? How about if we appoint John "Abscam" Murtha and convicted perjurer Alcee Hastings to positions of power?
  
• Noses to the grindstone? Let's announce a five-day workweek, then postpone the start of the session so we can attend a college football game.
  
• Undoing the "culture of corruption"? Let's campaign on earmark reform, but vote to block it in the event a robust reform plan emerges.
  

Pelosi calls this "A New Direction for America." Sounds like more of the same to me.

Technorati Tags:
Congress, 100 hours, Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, Earmark, Murtha, Hastings, BCS, Corruption, 110th Congress, Democrats, Speaker of the House

"It's absurd," say some experts, except for the fact that it might be true.

The Bush Administration has made the claim that, should we establish a "date certain" for withdrawing US troops from Iraq, the militias will simply move underground and wait until we're gone to reassert themselves. I've read essays, in more than a few places, saying what an absurd idea this is.

So imagine my surprise when I heard this story on NPR's All Things Considered yesterday afternoon. At about 3:35 into the piece, a resident of Sadr City, discussing the probable tactics of the Mahdi Army should the US launch a campaign against them, says this:

Yesterday, the Mahdi Army decided that, when the Americans enter, we will not shoot at them; because if we do, the Americans will shoot the houses and carry out raids. The Mahdi Army will hide its weapons until the Americans are gone. [emphasis and transcription are mine]

A very interesting feature of this story is that the speaker is identified more or less as a "man on the street"; this despite the fact that he appears to be speaking on the militia's behalf.

Technorati Tags:Muqtada al-Sadr, Sadr, Sadr City, Surge, Troop Surge, Baghdad, Iraq, Militia, Withdrawal

A Revaluation of All Values

With the holidays behind us, it's time for some serious reflection. No, not upon the wonders or pains of last year, but on the things that annoyed us most and why we tolerate them.

Don't get me wrong: I had a terrific Christmas. But it's the season that brings certain well-entrenched social responsibilities, and these things always get me asking the question, "Why?"

Friedrich Nietzsche began his work Beyond Good and Evil with a question: "Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance?" The prejudice in favor of "truth" is so strong that we never even bother to ask why. And so, inspired by this and adopting a title reminiscent of Nietzsche's own all-questioning, I propose to undertake a reappraisal of all manners. This can hardly hope be exhaustive, or even terribly critical, but I feel that it must be done.

I shall endeavor, in this post and hopefully others, to describe some common features of polite society, undermine them, and reconstruct what I consider to be the correct behavior. Your comments, as always, are very welcome. Let's begin.

BEHAVIOR #1: SENDING CHRISTMAS CARDS
This is a time-honored and, let's face it, nice thing to do. It takes time, energy, and money to send out cards, and helps you stay in touch with friends and family. But if this is so, why do I receive so many effectively blank cards, the ones that only say something pre-printed like, "Merry Christmas! Love, The Smith Family"? These serve no function other than to say, "I am alive, and here is my current address." Even the ones with handwritten addresses and salutations are of little use--I appreciate the (modestly) personal touch, but how does this help me keep in contact with you? Better, and cheaper, to just send an email if all you want to do is say "Merry Christmas" and include no more information.

My family does send out cards with pre-printed labels. But we also enclose a current photo of the kids and a letter of how our year has gone. In this way we hope to add value to the communication. This, I feel, is a much better way to "keep in touch" with loved ones. Therefore,

Revised Behavior #1: When sending out Christmas/holiday cards, be sure to add value with a personal message, photo, or something similar. Otherwise, don't bother.

BEHAVIOR #2: DON'T START EATING UNTIL EVERYONE IS SERVED
This one has been bothering me for years. Clearly, you don't want to kill a pleasant conversation by being the only one to dive into your food, and you don't want to gloat about how you have food while others don't. Nevertheless, speaking as an entirely amateur cook, I think this one is misguided, for a couple of reasons:

• If a cook wanted you to begin at the same time, he would serve you at the same time. Sometimes this is not logistically possible; but I have had situations where people have let their meat get cold and tough rather than eating when I give them the prefectly cooked food. It's an affront to your host.
• Most importantly, it imposes an obligation on the foodless without their consent. It says, "Look at me, I'm sacrificing my food enjoyment so you won't feel bad." I don't know about you, but I don't want to incur debts this way, minor though they may be.

Revised Behavior #2: Use your judgment, but the default behavior should be "Eat when served." Consider suspending this guideline in locations where grace is said before eating.

BEHAVIOR #3: BRINGING FOOD OR WINE TO DINNERS OR PARTIES
This is widely regarded as the "Nice thing to do," since you're trying to relieve the stress of the host's duties. However, unless I'm throwing a potluck, I've planned what I want to serve and when I want to serve it. The insertion of foreign matter only complicates things. Not long ago we threw a hamburgers-and-hot-dogs barbecue to which one well-intentioned guest brought an entire chicken to roast. Even if it's just a matter of someone bringing over a plate of cookies, it's entirely possible that this will throw a carefully planned serving area out of whack.

Wine is the worst. I have some appreciation of wine; therefore, when I serve a meal I try to match the wine to the dish--almost as if it were its own course. So what should I do if, as a host, I'm serving a rib roast and someone brings a watery Sauvignon Blanc? The pressure to open and serve the proffered wine is strong.

Revised Behavior #3: Call your host well before the event and ASK if you can bring something. Do NOT bring food or beverage unless you are asked. If you absolutely must bring wine, be prepared for your host to consider it a present to be consumed at another time.

Many, many more such examples are possible...one day, we will be able to cast off the chains that have bound us and live again as free men and women in a society that will be thoughtfully polite.

Technorati Tags:
Politeness, Manners, Rude, Behavior, Entertaining, Nietzsche, Values