Getting my news from the most reliable sources, founder of Daily Kos Markos Moulitsas was interviewed on the Colbert Report where he ended up giving the Nazi Arm to the camera.



Even though crazy liberal bloggers are not my friend, it was nice to hear Moulitsas talk about blogging as allowing people to express their political opinion...and even though when he said that about "Daily Kos and other sites like it," he was probably only meaning liberal sites, I can pretend he was talking about Townhall as a conservative equivilant for the opportunity.

Okay, I have to say I freakin' love Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" with Host Stephen Colbert.  Not only does he make politics interesting and downright hilarious to learn about, but he is actually giving his young, developing audience real political news amongst his humor.



"I believe in demolution...evolution says we once were monkeys and we turned into people.  I've been watching Congress and I'm convinced we once were people and if you watch Congress, we're turning into monkeys."

Tonight, Colbert had Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on The Report.  When Colbert asked Huckabee if he believed in evolution, Huckabee said "I believe in demolution...evolution says we once were monkeys and we turned into people.  I've been watching Congress and I'm convinced we once were people, and if you watch Congress, we're turning into monkeys." Colbert's response: "I've interviewed about 50 of them and I can say that is true."

BTW --- this is what I was talking about appeal!!!! Sure, The Colbert Report is not the highest reliable source of news.  But it's funny - it's popular in the young crowd - and Mike Huckabee went on and got his face out to the media more when top-tier candidates declined their invitations.



In regards to the 50 interviews, Colbert is referring to his 434-part series "Better Know a District" - his goal is to interview every district representative in the country.  He's done very well so far, considering Pelosi blasted him and said he'd never make it through all of them.  He's only got about 50 so far, but if congressmen (and women) continue accepting his interview requests, the further he will go.  What's hilarious about these segments is the idiotic responses the representatives give.  They are not dubbed or fixed - they are not forced to say or answer in any specific way --- and they make idiots of themselves.

The interview that has gotten the most (and pretty much only) media attention from big news channels is the one with Florida's representative of their 19th Congressional district, Robert Wexler, when he says "I enjoy cocaine because it's the right thing to do."



Do I agree with everything Colbert says and/or jokes about?  Of course not.  But do I believe his program is a good thing?  Absolutely - it's funny.  It gives young people a way to learn about politics and political issues in a way that won't bore them to death.  And come on, sometimes stiff-neck politicos - whether conservative or liberal - just need to laugh for goodness sake.

Colbert even highlighted my old congressional district in Pittsburgh where I went to high school, and made Democrat Jason Altmire look pretty dumb.  (PS - I am NOT amish lol - when I lived in Ann Arbor, MI, my friends heard I was from PA and they said, "nice to meet you, amish" --- Pittsburgh is totally amish-less....but an hour north where my college is and where this district stretches up to does have it's amish citizens...but don't judge me and/or the best city in the world lol -- I love Pittsburgh!)

During the LOGO/HRC democratic debate last Thursday, I almost fell off my chair when I heard Mike Gravel state that as president he'd make sure marijuana could be sold next to alcohol in liquor stores.

This comment was made towards the end of his time in the debate.  Before that I was just thinking to myself, "Gravel is a cute old man - very sincere and accepting of everyone."  Well no doubt he is accepting to weed.  I just couldn't believe he would say that!  With the major, MAJOR drug problem in the US, his answer is to decriminalize illegal drugs of all kinds, and make them all available to the public?!?!? 

The only way legalizing illegal drugs would help crime rates is it would make all the current illegal action legal - however, as a result, drug use would increase, violence would increase, hurting cities would stay in a lower, dangerous status....shall I continue???

Gravel, I was on your side.  And I still think you're not that bad of a guy.  But I can't imagine how you will/could defeat any of the other candidates on the Left.  I'm sorry, sir, but I doubt you'll ever run this country - and with your stance on drugs, that's probably a very good thing.

 

 

I was inching through traffic in D.C. the other day, and to give my vocal chords a break from singing, I turned on the radio to listen to DC101.1. Elliot in the Morning, a crazy morning radio show host who delivers an equally crazy but hilarious show, makes my desire to monster-truck over the bumper-to-bumper traffic slowly cease which is always a good thing.

Eliot's topics of choice are usually crude and sometimes disgusting, making any moral person contemplate selling their soul to the devil to join in on the fun - after the initial shock you come to terms with the fact that this guy is really funny. I tuned in half-way through a discussion about teachers putting up with horrible students in the classroom.

There were several callers representing most of the greater D.C.-area who all had scary student stories. The majority of the callers were teachers, complaining about how their students cuss them out and do whatever they want because they know the teachers can't enforce any type of corporal punishment. Their stories, although quite humorous to listen to at first, did make me realize how depressing that is - when I was in school we all chuckled at a student's lame attempt to smart-mouth a teacher, but now thinking of the great extent of profanity and crazy activity of students I hear about, I'm getting kind of scared for the future generation of kids that go through our educational system in the country in general.

One of the callers on Elliot's radio show was a 13-year old boy who said that one day in class his teacher told him to flip his t-shirt inside-out because it had a picture of a girl in a bikini on it. He called his teacher something equivalent to a cow with the f-bomb dropped in. She proceeded to say to him, "boy, I will [mess] you up!" - the teacher not only threatened him but dropped the f-bomb right back. Elliot from the radio show was very pleased to hear of a teacher fighting back for once, even if it did involve swearing at a student (as well as threatening them). The teacher's attitude seemed to do the trick - the teen caller admitted that once he heard that, he immediately cleaned up his act and gave the teacher no trouble.

Here's what I don't understand - why a teacher would be led to that in the first place. Imagine how much other crap she (yes, it was a female teacher) had to put up with to get to that breaking point. I'm certainly not condoning a teacher acting so foully, but I certainly do support a teacher taking a stand and forcing a child to pull rank in a reasonable manner.   None of my teachers in high school or middle school would ever take more than 1.2-seconds of a kid acting up before that student was gone from the room - it simply was not tolerated.  What has happened to teachers that their authority and power in the classroom has turned into a joke?

When I was in high school, no one ever dared to push a teacher's buttons much farther than the occasional class-clown act out. Being a youth leader these past few years has unfortunately opened my eyes to the frightening stories about what is currently going on in high schools. Almost all college students (that haven't been out of high school too long) say that we have absolutely no idea the extent of current high school students' activities - from drugs and alcohol to sexual activity and profanity. Depending on you're from I understand that at one point or another any person that has walked into a high school has experienced one of these issues to varying degrees.  However, return to your high school alma mater today and I can guarantee that the extent to which these issues are visible has gone up about 300% - and it's still growing.

However, if kids today are so much worse than we were back in the day that you and me were in high school, why are vital statistics, like teen drug use, sexual activity, pregnancy, and birth rates, decreasing? Maybe it's because even though the activities are statistically going down, kid's mouths are running a mile a minute on these once-taboo subjects. Even though I know I never would have been in a classroom situation like Eliot's 13-year old caller was in, I am smart enough to know that the majority of my classmates had a bad potty mouth - it just  wasn't directed at the teacher. That doesn't make my graduating class any better than the current. Now, it's at the point that a teacher swearing back a student isn't so shocking to the students; in fact, it unfortunately does the equivalent to what a trip to the office would do for my class (or a good paddling would do for my parent's class).

Any person you talk to - whether they've been out of high school for one year or forty - will tell you how much our youth is going down the societal drain. I can never argue against the value of investing in our nation's youth to attempt to have a successful future - however, the one thing kids need to know today is to keep their mouth shut. I think the verbalization of these events are making us look worse than we really are.  Just by going on word-of-mouth, you would think that every teenager you meet is a doped up, vulgar sex fiend with no care about anything. 

But the facts tell a different story.  Look, kids are kids, no matter is they're 12 or 20.  What's every young person's goal (whether they admit it or not)? To be cool - and to be cool, you must act "older" and "mature" for your age.  Maybe it's not the teens fault that their perspection of what makes you adult and mature is false - maybe it's the people that aren't teens that these kids are looking up to - aka you and me. 

Every generation has gone through the same adolescent issues that our current youth face, but this is the first generation that has been completely open with what has usually been going on behind the scenes. If anything, maybe this will give an opportunity for the people that have been in denial that this type of behavior occurs to try to finally put an end to this on-going foul behavior in our nation's youth.  Unfortunately, all I see it doing as of now is to give adults (both young and old) to complain about kids more than they have to.

 

found on google search

While I worked at JCPenney Friday night, I was covering someone's break in home fashions when a married couple in their late-50's came up to the counter to buy a rug.  They were nice, normal customers - and definitely refreshing from the complete whacks that come in and blame the problems of the world on me while I'm ringing up their St. John's Bay trouser socks...

Anyway, this couple buying the rug was pleasantly surprised when I told them the rug was less expensive than they originally thought.  As I completed their transaction and was handing the wife their bag, she said to me, "I think that's worth a million bucks," and she handed me a one million dollar bill.  At first I thought I was getting a really big tip, but when I mentally confirmed that million dollar bills don't really exist (at least ones with monetary value), I just awkwardly smiled at them, humoring their obvious need to feel satisfied in what I thought was them just being weird.

As the couple walked away, I turned the bill around and noticed small print surrounding the outside edge.  It read,

         "The million-dollar question: Will you go to Heaven?  Here's a quick test.  Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used God's name in vain?  Jesus said, "Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  Have you looked with lust?  Will you be guilty on Judgement Day?  If you have done those things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer-at-heart.  The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell.  That's not God's will.  He sent His Son to suffer and die on the cross for you.  Jesus took your punishment upon Himself: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."  Then He rose from the dead and defeated death.  Please, repent (turn from sin) today and trust in Jesus, and God will grant you everlasting life.  Then read your Bible daily and obey it."

How lovely.  My first reaction to this as a Christian is --- God, I hate when people do this.

Just when I thought I had my share of a little weekend gospel, I went to get into my car Saturday night in the mall parking lot, and I was greeted by a business card stuck into the crease of my window that said,

        "WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR LIFE?  DO YOU KNOW GOD'S WILL FOR YOUR LIFE?  IS JESUS CHRIST YOUR SAVIOR? WHEN YOU DIE, WOULD YOU HAVE INSURANCE FOR YOUR SOUL?

Okay, twice in one weekend is just too much.  After receiving these spiritual messages, I thought to myself, did I look like a heathen to that couple who handed me that million dollar bill?  Does my messy car look like one an atheist would drive?  I have a Jesus fish on my car for heaven's sake!  What made these people judge me as a person in need?

These religious encounters made me start thinking about where "my walk" is with God - a horribly overused phrase that has as little meaning anymore as someone calling themself a Christian. 

It seems that in our country you’re either one of two extremes: an outspoken evangelical or socially secular.  Outspoken evangelicals look at everyone else - whether Christian, atheist, etc. - as socially secular, for if you are indeed religious then you have to tell everyone in the world, and if you aren't talking, then you must be godless.  On the other hand, if a “secular” person hears someone say they're a Christian, the first stereotype placed on them is outspoken evangelical – even though that person might not have set foot in a church for years. 

Where’s the middle ground?  I’ve been wrongly stereotyped as an outspoken evangelic too many times – and I don’t want to be placed in a category with Christians who feel the way to “get people to Jesus” is a public flashing: spiritual style.  I’d like a label that fits my lifestyle and personal attitude towards God and society.

Of course my search prompted me to visit my favorite handy website, dictionary.com:

evangelical:
1. belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ.
2. marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.

Theist: the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation

But I was bothered when I came to find two different definitions for one same word:

Christian:
1. a person who believe in Jesus Christ
2. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ

I’ve solved the problem with what’s wrong in our society!!! When you meet someone and they say they’re a Christian, you kind of picture this little glowing halo atop their head with that heavenly music quietly playing in the background.   And because you are a Christian, you must obey everything the Bible says…but then as soon as that person does one thing “wrong”, then the halo bursts into flames and becomes two red devil ears.  Then you feel they’re a hypocrite because they said they’re a Christian, yet they are doing these “bad” things…

If a person calls themself a Christian, there should be no stereotype placed on that person of how they should act, what they should and shouldn’t do.  As clearly stated from the place where we seek definitions for words used in our society, to be a Christian, all you have to do is believe in Jesus Christ.  Does that mean that people are in the clear for any sinful actions desired?  Not exactly, but if those “sinful acts” do not involve any illegal activity or put others in danger, then we need to leave them alone…you’re allowed to be a Christian and not be a golden child. 

The case most Christians (and mainly evangelicals) make to justify their judgements on sinners is the call to hold eachother accountable.  I hold myself and my friends accountable.  People who I know -  their background, their life, their M.O. - that I can personally see that me saying something to them will be valued as help instead of assumed as judgement from a stranger...and when I have no business budding in in the first place.

No one asked you to judge them (and actually God told you not to judge them), but you choose to do it any – go ahead, make that person feel guilty for lying, or not going to church, or having sex before marriage….see what direction you drive them --- I can tell you it won’t be towards the church or towards God…

I know this from personal experience – I very much used to be the type of person I’m complaining about: striving for a sinless life, pointing out others’ sins while pretty much just hiding my own without repent, and all the while trying to spread the gospel to as many as I could, whether they wanted it or not. 

But I saw a difference in me versus the people that were doing this with me: I never thought it was right.  I never had this “okay” feeling about it – it was always uneasiness.  But I did it anyway because I thought that was what I had to do in order for God’s will to be carried out.  Being by myself for the first time this summer allowed me to start thinking for myself without the influence of any congregation or group of Christian people.  And what I discovered was my personal actions were not done to please God – they were to please others in my circle that would think of me positively.  And that’s when I realized I could finally cut this crap and stop trying both manipulate and down-grade others’ lives to make my own seem better.

I believe people such as evangelicals that are attempting (or claiming to attempt) to live a “Christ-centered life” need to start practicing what they preach: do not judge (Matthew 7:1).  What? – You’ve never heard that before?  That’s probably because Christians are the ones doing the judging and use the words of God and the Bible to throw people into a guilt trip for how horribly they are living their lives.  Yet, if we used more verses like Matthew 7:1, a lot more acceptance would be going on in the world.  That is one of my favorite Bible passages, because it tells me that I’m not wrong in letting other people live a life that I may not totally understand or comprehend – but I know that God wants us to coexist together peacefully and without ridicule. 

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 

 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.  - Matthew 7:1-5

Many God-fearing Christians like to use the Bible to claim that we should hate sinners, such as liars, thieves, sluts, and adulterors, for their behavior and that they should die a horrible death.  Or they use the Bible to make themselves feel higher than everyone else.  OR they feel that because they’ve walked around a mall and passed out spiritual literature that they are doing God’s will.  It may be a combination of me feeling ridiculous and not wanting to annoy people, but I don’t see my job as a Christian to be bombarding strangers with Jesus take-home packets.  I don’t see my job as a Christian to convert another godless creature to add another mark to the “saved” column on my church’s list of “how many more heathens we saved compared to other churches”. 

These are things I feel as a Christian I need to do or remember:

- survive life without stepping on too many toes purposefully

- to know that to be a “good Christian” I don’t have to work in a church – I can coexist as a Christian in our secular society

- to know that I don’t have to let people walk all over me

- to be able to swear or throw something if I’m angry (and know it’s okay to be angry)

- to know that messing up is okay, regardless of anyone on earth telling me it’s not

- to build strong relationships with my friends – and not having to be everyone’s friend – that will allow an opportunity to share my faith with the people I know, trust, and love --- not strangers who aren’t seeking my guidance

We are called a Christian nation, and even though we are one country, under God, indivisible, Christians do not all fit the same mode.  It’s just like politics – Edwards is a democrat who is against gay marriage.  Giuliani is a republican that is pro-choice.   I happen to be a conservative republican who feels our society needs to do something to give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals (I say something because I honestly don’t know what that could entail…I don’t think we’ve figured it out…yet).  And even though there are people that disagree with Edwards, Giuliani, me, you, and pretty much every person alive, the person disagreeing with you probably is grouped in the same societal category as you, whether that category involves religion, politics, age, gender, etc. 

And there’s really nothing you can do to change that.  Just like I can’t change the fact that Evangelicals, Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, and people that haven’t gone to church in 20 years are all called Christians as one body when they all have very different views and rituals.  But that’s something we just have to live with. 

So I guess I’m not getting a label that fits me specifically after all.  Well, I take that back – I have one all to my own.  It’s Kelley Smith – it’s me.  I know the name’s pretty common, but I can assure you that I am not -- and God loves me just the way I am and that feels fantastic.

The important thing is not how you hold up in your congregation or in the spiritual responsibilities places upon you.  What’s important is how you hold yourself up in a society where no one person is the same.  Will you mess up?  Of course - everything you do is a mess up to someone or possibly to yourself.  But that doesn’t matter – nor does it matter if someone thinks you’re not a Christian – if you are, you are.  And if you're not, then you're not.  No one can define what that means to you, except you.

usinfo.state.gov

For his more than 50 years in the mainstream media, Robert Novak never seemed to have a problem telling and revealing both the truth and his own personal opinions, always respectfully separating the two.  And just when it feels safe to assume that there couldn’t possibly be anything else to tell, Novak’s newly released memoir, “The Prince of Darkness,” suggests otherwise.

His new book highlights the last half century in Washington politics, media and his own involvements and perspectives, many of which have never been written about before.  Novak’s life has been politics, news, and commentary – his dedication to the facts and finding answers has contributed greatly to the American public’s attainable wealth of knowledge.  And whether your relationship with Novak is either love or hate, his memoir deserves the respect from conservatives, liberals and anyone in-between.

Novak takes the reader through his extensive and vibrant career in Washington and also describes his highs and lows as a political reporter and commentator.  Some stories are quite surprising and include significant political players and journalists such as National Review Contributing Editor David Frum, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, Former President Lyndon B. Johnson and many more.  Even in his first words of the book Novak tells the story of his first experience with observing Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame, in the NBC Meet the Press green room in 2003. 

While reading, it seems as if with each page the reader finds a new revelation – about both events in history and Novak’s reactions and thoughts – bringing truth out of the dark and into the light.  Not only does the reader discover hidden sources and freshly revealed information, we get to see even further into the man who is known as, “The Prince of Darkness.”

It’s evident through the content that Novak’s intentions are to give the reader never-before seen, insider information.  “I had a lot of fun stories in my life that didn’t get in print…I try to tell a lot of these stories [in the book],” Novak told Townhall’s National Political Reporter Amanda Carpenter during a phone interview on Monday. “A lot of journalists write memoirs and they don’t tell you anything that you don’t [already] know.”

From humorous tales of a drunken Lyndon B. Johnson to intimate details of his role in the Valerie Plame CIA scandal, “The Prince of Darkness” proves to be both an intriguing and enjoyable read.  Don’t let the 600+ pages feel overwhelming at first glimpse – Novak’s writing style and storytelling make you wish his writings never ended.  And as you read, it is clear why he’s so nationally known and respected and particularly prominent in Washington D.C.

“While writing, he told one and all he intended to use his memoir to clear up some matters and settle some accounts.  He does not disappoint,” Author and Founding Editor of The American Conservative Magazine Pat Buchanan recently wrote of Novak and his new book.  “That he has survived so long, after having enraged so many, is testimony that when Novak is denounced or disputed by some powerful figure, his editors believe him, not them.”

On June 14, Ben Wattenberg asked Robert Novak onto his PBS show, Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg.  He sought after Novak’s thoughts on an array of political issues and players.

When Wattenberg spoke the words, “Hillary Clinton,” Novak’s response was: “A very unlikable person.  I think you have to be likeable to be in politics, Ben.  That’s why you’ve never gone into politics.”  His whole career Novak has raised both the bar and eyebrows of many, and that is something we can all expect to see continuing even after he leaves the world of mainstream media.

Being a young, aspiring political journalist, Novak’s memoir was both a sea of information and work of inspiration.  With the severe liberal bias in the media, journalism is an intimidating field.  If I could in my lifetime acquire a fraction of his experiences, his complete honesty, and his love of politics and media, I know I can have a meaningful and worthwhile career that will make a difference to both parties as Novak did.  All readers - whether a long-time Novak-follower or a curious new admirer - will each get something unique and meaningful from Novak’s veracity and intellect expelled in “The Prince of Darkness.”

 

The minimum wage went up to $5.85 yesterday, a current $0.70 increase in the ultimate $2.10 increase thanks to Bush signing the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. 
 
I know I’m probably hurting the feelings of both high school dropouts and high school students who need an after school job, but I do not see the benefits of raising the minimum wage.
 
The main reason I don’t appreciate the minimum wage raise is there will be an increase in unemployment.  Some companies can’t afford to pay their workers more than the minimum wage, and the only way to make up for the forceed pay increase would be to lay off other workers to balance out the wage spendings. 
 
Let’s have some fun with math: 
 
One hundred people work for a company for 40 hours per week. 
 
        100 x 40 = 4000 hours of work per week
 
If they’re paid the minimum wage, the company dishes out $20,600 each week to pay those employees.
 
        4000 x $5.15 = $20,600 per week
 
So every year, that company has to pay their employees $1,030,000 for their work at the company.
 
        $20,600 x 50 weeks per year = $1,030,000 in wages paid per year
 
Now, say for example, that same company starts paying those same 100 workers the new minimum wage, $5.85 per hour.
 
        4000 hours of work per week x $5.85 = $23,400 per week
 
        $23,400 x 50 weeks per year = $1,170,000 in wages paid per year
 
The company is forced to cough up an extra $140,000 per year.  
 
        $1,170,000 - $1,030,000 = $140,000 difference in wages per year
 
What if the company says to itself, “well we don’t have an extra $140,000 a year to pay everybody….we’ve only budgeted $1,030,000 for wages.”?
 
The answer to that is to cut 12% of your staff:  for the 100 employees, that’s 12 people.
 
        88 workers x $5.85 per hour x 40 hours per week x 50 weeks per year = $1,029,600 wages paid per year.
 
Where’s the 12% going to go for another job?  If everyone has to cut back, unemployment will be through the roof!  Not only that, but the remaining 88 people in our example have to do the work meant for 100 --- in the same 40 hours per week, how fun for them!!!
 
What’s worse?  When the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, the company would have to lay off 20% of the remaining staff getting paid $5.85 in order to maintain the same original wage budget, bringing the total work force down to 71% from the beginning:
 
        71 workers x $7.25 per hour x 40 hours per week x 50 weeks per year = $1,029,500 wages paid per year
 
If that company wants to stay within its original wage budget of $1,030,000, they’ll have to have 71 employees doing the work meant for 100.
 
Trust me, I’m trying to think realistically – if we’re talking about a company with 100 employees then that’s a small company.  Plus, I understand that one way to make up for the extra money paid in wages would be to inflate prices of your product.  This is happening every day.  But bear in mind it’s a lot harder for a small business to raise its prices and still stay in competition with your local Walmart, Target, etc.
 
Not only would companies to turn having a smaller staff and making less people do more work, the idea of a minimum wage increase at the present time is not necessary.  When I was 14, I got a job at my local Burger King in Pittsburgh.  The minimum wage at the time was $5.15.  They offered me $5.25, above the minimum wage with absolutely no prior work experience, and I also work my way up to $6.00 per hour very fast.  It is extremely rare these days (well I should say the days before yesterday) to find a company that will only start off paying the minimum wage or close to it (unless you’re interning…lucky me).  A lot of people are already getting paid well over the minimum wage, so increasing it would mean nothing to those at the top of the pay scale.  And the majority of people at the bottom are normally younger with limited job experience and educational background.  Should we reward these people and motivate them to stay at the bottom of the pay scale by increasing the bottom dollar?  And by eliminating the lowest pay category, you’ve just bumped everyone a notch lower too. 
 
I used to think I was rolling in the dough as a teenager in high school making $6.50 at a Sears store….but when Pennsylvania raised its minimum wage to 6.25, I felt like equivalent to a homeless person making no money – I was building a reputation with a company, had job experience under my belt, but barely clearing minimum wage?  I was insulted…

Let me end this rant with a finally issue the raising the minimum wage will inflame – more illegal workers getting jobs.  Everyone that is for raising the minimum wage has to stop complaining about illegal workers “stealing our lower class jobs” because the federal government is making it too easy, too tempting, and too necessary for companies to pay a motivated illegal under the table five bucks an hour than paying a snot-nosed teenager seven for the same job.
 
Wage increases: friend or foe?

 

Courtesy of Google Search 

 

 

 

 

 

The internet should never be an option to store anything incriminating - just ask Amy Polumbo, or the boy biting her chest in her facebook photo:  

 
Courtesy of the Today Show

Last week as I did my get-out-of bed routine at the crack of dawn (PS for an aging teenager the crack of dawn is 7am), I had to go through the saga of the Miss New Jersey Facebook-blackmail scandal as I watched the Today Show on NBC.

For those of you non-hipsters out there, Facebook is a website that was started for college students but has now opened up for anyone to be able to use and view. All you need is an email address and a busy life that you want to avoid by wasting away on your computer all day.

Facebook has evolved a lot in terms of security since it's start in 2004 -- you can select who sees what on your Facebook page including personal info, photos, notes you write, etc. However, one can gain access to your address, relationship status, work and school information, and whatever else you decide to put out there.

According to the website itself:

“Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep up with friends, upload an unlimited number of photos, share links and videos, and learn more about the people they meet.

At Facebook, we believe that people should have control over how they share their information and who can see it. People can only see the profiles of confirmed friends and the people in their networks. You can use our privacy settings at any time to control who can see what on Facebook.”

And the unlimited number of photos - yes, both you and your friends can post wonderfully beautiful photos of you at memorable times in your life - prom, graduation, or a drunken night out with friends:

Courtesy of the Today Show

Amy Polumbo (the girl in the center with the pink bra), recently-crowned Miss New Jersey on her way to the Miss America pageant, announced early last week that a blackmailer was sending photos they found on her Facebook page to pageant officials in hopes that her title would be revoked.

At first, no one knew what the pictures looked like or what they contained. But by the end of last week, Polumbo made a second appearance on the Today Show revealing all the pictures and their embarrassing glory:


Courtesy of the Today Show

Courtesy of the Today Show

Courtesy of the Today Show

Polumbo claims all the photos were meant for close friends and family members and no one else had access to them on there.

On the today show, Polumbo excused her actions by saying, "I’m not a robot. I’m a human being." Funny - last time I checked, I’m not a robot. And I’m human. But I do not define my actions as a living being to find time for my boyfriend to chomp on my boob in a public place or let alone have it documented by a photo that is displayed proudly on the internet.

The officials decided late last week to allow Polumbo to keep her title and compete in the Miss America pageant. Not surprising, especially after Miss USA Tara Connor was pardoned by Donald Trump even after her underage drinking binge came out to the public eye.

To me the question isn’t whether she should get in trouble. My question to everyone is, "who would be so incredibly stupid to put incriminating photos on a public website?!"

To be Miss New Jersey or Miss Any-State, a Christian background is not required.  So this isn't even a matter who morals.  Sure I saw some of those photos and chuckled because they were funny.   But a level of common decency and a respectful representation of a state (and potentially the country) are expected if one is seeking a place in beauty pageant glory. If a young woman partakes in these activities that is one thing; but someone who is so careless and dumb to incriminate herself by displaying these photographs proudly should be ashamed and be ready to accept the consequences.

Hopefully the public embarrassment of the entire country seeing her moronic actions will make her think twice before she either (a) does them again or (b) provides evidence for them.

The internet can be dangerous and is definitely in no way a private place. Anyone can see what you post, where you visit, anything. I never put anything up there that I don’t want anyone seeing.

I got a good reminder of that this spring. I was at my church waiting with a teen girl whose mom hadn’t picked her up from youth group yet. She was talking about Myspace (a website similar to Facebook) and just then the 30-year old youth pastor came in and didn’t know about Myspace. The girl took the youth pastor to his computer and showed him her Myspace page, which contained nothing but innocent pictures, songs, sayings, etc.

Then the youth pastor said, "I want to see Kelley’s Myspace page," and my heart almost stopped because I couldn’t remember if I had anything bad on it or not. Since the girl was my "Myspace friend," she just clicked on my name and opened up my page. Luckily, I had nothing to worry about because I had nothing at all bad on there for him to see. But what if I had? I was a youth leader! That would have been bad in too many ways. And I would have no one but myself to blame unfortunately. But I saved myself a lot of embarrassment and trouble by not being stupid in the first place.

So this is a warning to all you beauty queens, friends of friends, or anybody else - you never know who is viewing your things on the internet; parents, coworkers, boyfriends, girlfriends. Take my advice and live by my motto: never do (or in this case, post) anything that you’d be ashamed to tell (or show) your parents.

I remember one day watching the "Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" when I was in my very young teens on a relaxing summer day in Pittsburgh. One of the actors, Carlton, was making some kind of joke about death, and for some reason, at that moment I had an epiphany: one day I was going to die.

What a way to bring down a lazy afternoon. I think it was that day that I officially became afraid of death. What's really going to happen when we die? Will our souls really go somewhere? Will we start a new life incarnate as a horse or a fly, or a horsefly perhaps? Or when we die, will it be like the electricity going out late at night in your house -- you're sitting there, watching a good show when BAM. Nothing, but darkness. Obviously my Christian teachings tell about eternal life, but what if in the end that really doesn’t happen after all…of course we may not realize it because we’ll be dead, but --- who does really know? I guess this can be proof for any atheist to see that Christians don’t become Christians only so they don’t have to fear death…

I know - depressing right? Well despite where we end up, some people might be fine with the fact that we do all indeed die someday. I'm sorry but I really think that sucks ---who wants to die? Sure, my life is crazy and a little redundant right now, but I think it's a pretty amazing feeling to simply be alive. I know there are some people that feel the same way, and there are also people who would love to step in front of a moving bus at this very moment, but hey, not everyone can be happy.

I think the fact I don't want to grasp is that anyone at any age is at risk for death. As a young person, I, including my fellow youngsters, usually feel invincible to any danger. Not saying I feel confident to safely jump off a 13-story building and land on my feet (without a splat), but the idea of death is usually kept for your 90-year old grandma who's strapped to a nursing home bed unsure of what planet she's on.

But death hit me pretty hard the other day. I opened up my Grove City College email regretfully to find a message from the college president informing us that junior Sam Durdola had drown over the weekend in Sharon, Pennsylvania. Sam was a great guy - native of Nigeria, sweet to everyone, handsome, virtually indestructible in the eyes of the world.

From Facebook

There were no other details given in the email other than plans for a memorial service on campus in the fall. How awful. I read that in shock, thinking maybe it was some kind of joke and that there'd be a following message in my inbox saying "gotcha!" Unfortunately, it was true and it was real.

I didn't really know how to respond. The only person I lost that was particularly close to me was my grandma, but I was in 3rd grade at the time, and she wasn't a college-aged kid, so it wasn't too shocking. I wasn't even very close with Sam. But we were friends. It’s just almost too hard to believe that he’s really gone.

Sam was a part of my life. He was a living breathing person and now it’s as if he was never here. How incredibly strange. I feel like a little kid when your first fish dies and your parents quickly flush it down the toilet to avoid the realization that the fish is actually dead. Fortunately for a little kid a fish is easily replaceable; however, even though this world is populated with a diverse and rich culture of interesting people, I don’t think any one person can be replaced, Sam included.

I definitely learned from this experience that I don’t necessarily take life for granted, but I’m definitely a lot more careless than I’d like to admit, and I put myself in potentially fatal situations on an everyday basis.

Take driving for example – yes, of course everyone says how dangerous driving is. I drive like a maniac, I’ll absolutely admit. People drive fast all the time. But the reason I drive fast is because I don’t think about the chance that the person in front of me may slam on their brakes, sending my car crashing into theirs and ejecting me from the vehicle into oncoming traffic. Uncommon accident? Not really…I know people die everyday in car accidents…so what’s my problem…?

My problem is I have an expectation on the world to keep me safe. I expect the person in front of me to not slam on their brakes, or the person beside me to not veer into my lane, or for a driver to get out of my way if I’m in a hurry. But the things I didn’t think about before are the consequences I face for when the world does indeed let me down. I can’t put standards on everyone to do what they’re “supposed to” to keep me out of trouble. That’s not their job. It’s my job to protect me. Now of course there are pretty crappy situations sometimes that I simply cannot control…but most of the time, I can make life easier (and safer) if better decisions are made.

Take my drive to work yesterday morning. I was driving on a one-way street in Rosslyn, driving in the far-left lane of the four on the street. I had one car ahead of me and was slowing down to stop at the oncoming red light. To the left of me was a lane for parked cars, and when I got about 8 feet from the car in front of me sitting at the intersection, a giant SUV tries to cut me off and get in front of me, pulling out from the parked car lane. A combination of me not having enough time/space to let him and my annoyance with idiot drivers, I honked my horn to tell him in car language, “hey jerk – don’t even try it.” But he didn’t really care. By the time I was stopped at the light with one car in front of me and the SUV to my left about 5 inches from the side of my car, I looked up to see this incredibly angry man in the SUV shaking his hands and probably saying horribly bad things to me. I did the lady-like thing and ignored him --- I haven’t worked up enough courage to get into a verbal argument with a road-rager.

He kept inching toward me in the lane and I kept inching forward --- I came all this way there was no way in hell I was letting him in. When he got so close to my car that I thought he was about to hit me, I looked up and he was gesturing to me to roll down my window --- fearing a cuss-out and potentially a weapon pointed at me, luckily at that moment the light turned green and I swerved to the right a little bit (almost hitting the person on my other side) to avoid the SUV and sped away. Of course the SUV started following me, and I naturally of course felt like I was going to die. I was afraid because I was getting close to my parking garage and I didn’t want him to follow me in and block my escape or something crazy. Luckily he went straight as I turned off the street to my garage. I parked at the very bottom of the garage and waited for about five minutes in my car to ensure he hadn’t followed me down there. I was fearing my exit from work to come back and see that my tires had been slashed or he was hiding in my back seat. Or perhaps he watched me go into my building so now he’s waiting outside to beat me up. All because my cocky and aggressive driving.

The point of my story is I put myself in that situation. I was thinking only about myself, not giving a hoot about how my driving could affect others around me. I could have hit him, the person in front of me, the person to my right whose lane I veered into, or an innocent pedestrian. Or that guy could have been a complete wacko and could have decided to stalk, hurt, shoot, or murder me. Doesn’t matter if I’m 19 or 91, the world is dangerous, and it’s really creepy to realize that I could indeed die any minute.

So what can I do to avoid this fact? Unfortunately nothing – I’m trying to be okay with the fact that life is short. However, I know that I am a major factor in determining the span of my life. Sure I can’t control the crazy psycho whose life goal is to be a serial killer. But I can try not to tick people off on the highway and slow down, or be healthy to try to avoid illness/injury, or to jumping off high buildings. I have more control than I think, and that control is more mental than anything physical, and it involves controlling my own actions, not the world’s.

I’d like to stay around as long as possible. After all, there’s definitely no one out there that can replace me. ;o)

You know that old saying, "Why buy the cow when you are get the milk for free?" Well, pretty soon it may be a lot cheaper to just buy the cow if you want some milk.

Americans are so wound up in complaining about gas prices (and all the while saying they don't conserve at all to compensate for the rising costs), but what we really should be expressing is praise that gasoline is coming out of those pumps at the gas station and not milk --- if it did, we'd be paying $5 a gallon to fill up our gas tank.

Instead, I'll have to pay $5 a gallon to ensure that, for now, osteoporosis doesn't sneak up on me - nothing's more unattractive than a 19-year old with a hump on her back (on top of my subtle but showing scoliosis curve).  However, I'm in a unique generation - I'm sure we can make back-humps the newest thing.  What do you think of, "Hump in my trunk"" --- I guess I should work on that if I want people on my side with this movement...

Anyway, analysts are predicting that one gallon of milk will cost $5 by summer's end.  Right now the price of milk is already higher than the national average of a gallon of gas.  Ridiculous! 

I've seen this in the news every now and then, but why the heck is this not a matter of concern to people!! I can hardly afford my own gas for my car!! How am I going to afford to nourish my body with everything rising except my low, pathetic paycheck!!

I guess I can keep my hopes up that farmers will feel generous and perhaps give away some milk for free - that will make buying the cow unnecessary at least.

In the mean time, I'm going to be happy with my viactiv calcium chew every morning because I can't afford $5 a gallon.


Found on google

So one of the Townhall users brought this new website to my attention:

http://www.southwest.com/gaytravel/

It seems that Southwest airlines is trying to target the gay and lesbian community for some extra profits.  This concept is so confusing to me - yes, I'll admit, it's a nice attempt for Southwest to try to get some extra business in the gay community over their competition, but I'm thinking once this word gets out many non-gay fliers are going to be pretty P-Oed.

The first question I have is why them?  Why single out the gay community and make them feel so special?  Maybe it's because according to the Association of Travel Marketing Executives, gay and lesbian travelers account for about 10 percent of the total travel market, spending $47.3 billion annually. It would make sense that Southwest wants a piece of that pie - but why are they trying to hide that by stating on their gay travel website "we take pride in partnering with you."  What a crock.  Southwest takes pride in making money, not in respecting the gay community.

The second question I have is why are they not targeting other big money-making groups?  When companies pull stunts such as this I can only predict their goal is publicity - and let's face it - who's going to care if Southwest dedicates a website to the elderly or married or straight people.  They want the WOW factor that supporting the gay community so bluntly provides. 

I thought this whole deal Southwest was pulling was pretty harmless - especially since it looks like they're not offering any real discounted prices for gay fliers; they're just displaying popular gay vacation spots - then I realized that they weren't the first ones to have this money-making idea.  Orbitz.com, the leading online travel company, also has a gay travel website:

http://www.orbitz.com/gaytravel/

Through Orbitz's gay and lesbian travel site, a gay flier actually can get reductions through special gay traveler's codes to enter when booking travel. 

This innovation leads me to a whole new slew of questions, the main ones being: how are they going to ensure only gay fliers are receiving these discounts?  Do you need to prove you're gay?  Will they stop you at the security desk?  Is their a big rainbow on the ticket? 

Trust me, I'm sure this might sound very anti-gay right now, and some of you very well may support that.  Actually, my goal of this is not gay-bashing at all.  Surprising to most, I don't despise homosexuals on any level, unlike many of my Christian brethren.  Quite frankly the whole homosexual topic is one I don't normally like to talk about because everyone expects me to want to them to die a horrible death, usually because what they read in the Bible.  Let me make something clear - I'm well aware of what the Bible says, and I'm shocked sometimes when I see people use it's verses totally out of context.  But because they do, we have Christians in our society that instead of loving their neighbor as themselves, they love the people they feel are equal and choose to discriminate against everyone else.

So what's my bottom line?  Although this is really surprising, and I'm sure once it becomes more well-known to the general public it will be a huge fiasco, the only thing that ticks me off about this is I can't get a discount on flying because I'm NOT gay.  When they make a straight fliers travel discount website, I'll let you know.


Found on google