Well, this is one of the strangest claims that we’ve seen in a while. A group of far-Left House Democrats are pushing a resolution that says that women are disproportionately affected by global warming to the point where they could be pushed into a “transactional sex” (or prostitution). That’s not a joke — they’re apparently serious:
Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to “transactional sex” for survival.
The resolution, from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and a dozen other Democrats, says the results of climate change include drought and reduced agricultural output. It says these changes can be particularly harmful for women.
“[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health,” it says.
Climate change could also add “workload and stresses” on female farmers, which the resolution says produce 60 to 80 percent of the food in developing countries.
“So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment.” - Paul Krugman (1998)
During the State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called on Congress to pass an increase in the minimum wage to $9 an hour. This policy is one that is frequently pushed by the political left.
Because Democrats, who had complete control of Congress, were hesistant to continue funding military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, President George W. Bush agreed to an increase in the minimum wage to attract their votes. For Democrats, the minimum wage is a path to their ultimate goal of a so-called “living wage.” Labor unions, however, push the issue because many of their contracts are indexed to the minimum wage.
President Obama’s latest gimmick may sound good, but ultimately raising the minimum wage has the opposite of the intended effect. Looking at the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 5.2% of workers make at or below the minimum wage. That number is up some from recent years, which is due to lingering economic stagnation. Of that 5.2% of workers, 49.5% are between the ages of 16 and 24 — nearly one in four are between 16 and 19.
Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Every now and then I get hate mail. Most of it is innocuous. The person sending it just doesn’t seem to have much of an avenue to spew their dislike of what we do here at United Liberty. They’re rarely threatening, but almost always hateful. They’re never looking for a discussion. However, the e-mail I received yesterday shows how off the rails the left can get:
Republican Nazi pigs do not impose your shit Christian lifestyles at my children. I personally pray someone with a bushmaster goes into your place and opens fire and many die. That is my wish.. Pigs, Pigs Pigs. Did your mama have any children who lived? You all need to crawl, back into that nasty space you all dripped out of from some B—ach’es Vaginata/ Pigs, all of you Southern inbred creeps. Burn in hell and quit asking for money in the name of Jesus and God. You are the epitome of everything that is not American. I hope you and all your children die along with you.
Over the last few years, I’ve heard the left talk about how hateful conservatives can be. Being a libertarian, there have been plenty of occasions where I disagreed with conservatives in discussions on social issues, but I’ve never at any moment gotten to the point where they were berating me or wishing harm upon me.
Needless to say, I’m strongly considering sending this one to the police since the e-mail address, which I’ve left off the post, is from a legitimate account.
While thousands of left-leaning folks took to the street last year to decry corporatism via the Occupy movement, many have managed to miss the corporatism of the left.
MapLight has conducted an analysis of campaign contributions from key industry groups to members of the U.S. Senate (July 1, 2005 - June 30, 2011) and found that:
- Entertainment interest groups that support these bills gave 7.2 times as much ($14,423,991) to members of the U.S. Senate as Internet interest groups that oppose these bills ($2,011,332).
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has received 4.8 times as much from entertainment interest groups that support these bills ($571,500) as from Internet interest groups that oppose these bills ($118,050).
Now, is’nt that just fascinating?
President Obama has been taking a beating lately. His approval rating is pretty dismal. Unfortunately, as is clear from things that have only recently transpired, things ain’t exactly getting better.
You see, while Obama has held his own against a variety of GOP challengers in head to head polls, Rasmussen found that he has a 64% disapproval rating among undecided voters. Let’s face it folks, Democrats aren’t likely to abandon Obama and Republicans aren’t exactly lining up to jump ship for bluer waters. The battle is for the hearts and minds of the undecideds, and on that battleground Obama is clearly getting his butt kicked.
This comes amid news that left wing crusader and former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nadar is pushing for a primary challenger to hit Obama from the left. From the Washington Times:
“What we are looking at now is the dullest presidential campaign since Walter Mondale — and that’s saying something, believe me,” Mr. Nader told The Washington Times.
The group’s call has been endorsed by more than 45 other liberal leaders. They want to recruit six candidates who bring expertise ranging from poverty to the military.
Mr. Nader said the intent is not to defeat Mr. Obama but to make him focus on issues that might get lost in a purely Obama-versus-GOP discussion.
A primary challenge would definitely hurt Obama. As it is now, he can campaign against GOP talking points while the GOP is busy fighting itself to pick who will challenge him next November. Having to battle with the left wing of his own party would put him in the position of having to argue left wing policy. For the record, there are a lot of folks who aren’t crazy about left wing policy at the moment.
Progressives don’t like the new debt deal. What. A. Shock. However, on some level, they’re also looking at how that debt deal happened and what they can learn from it. At least one progressive blogger, Jane Hamsher, sees the Tea Party Movement as having been the biggest influence on the deal. Usually, when a progressive mentions the Tea Party, it’s with venom, but not this time.
This time, Hamsher seems to genuinely understand, at least in part, how the Tea Party got results:
It is unquestionable that the Tea Party moved the entire debt ceiling deal to the right. How did they do it? By taking out the people who failed them. Arlen Specter. Charlie Crist. Lincoln Chaffee. The people they felt betrayed their principles. Even if you don’t agree with those principles, their consistent adherence to them got results.
Whenever the talk of a primary comes up, I always ask “who is going to do this?” The answer is always someone like Bernie Sanders or Jan Schakowsky, the same people whose job it is to put the Good Liberal Housekeeping Seal of Approval on whatever piece of neoliberal s*** the White House cooks up to please the bond vigilantes. The people who suddenly become okay with war when the White House says so, who shake their fists in the air with outrage right before they fold, the people you can count on to always be there when there’s nothing they can do…and are nowhere to be found when they can.
We’re often told by the Left that all we need to do to solve our budget shortfalls is to raise taxes. But is that really the right course? In a new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Piyali Bhattacharya (Young Americans for Liberty) gives us seven reasons to oppose higher taxes hikes. The reasons range from the fact that tax hikes encourage more spending and discourage economic growth to how they encourge loopholes in the tax code and undermind competitiveness.