The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

Alex · 01-14-2007, 05:14 PM

If it's rhetorical, then what is the avenue of discussion?

Whether AS should receive a minimum wage of $7.15 is not the issue you raised (though it is an issue I addressed in my last post), you raised the issue of whether it is unseemly that AS is exempted from the blanket minimum wage law. My response is no, it is not unseemly because the geographical, political, and economic circumstances of America Samoa place it well outside the mainstream of American conditions.

Wage protection laws do not currently exempt America Samoa from the idea that there is a minimum acceptable wage. What it does is say that the circumstances that determine what that minimum acceptable wage are sufficiently unique that a different approach is needed.

Now, I'm an opponent of a federal minimum wage (except maybe for federal employees) and think it should be addressed at the state level. But to me, there is no "outrage" in the fact that America Samoa is exempt from the increase the House passed, which is the is the issue you raised.

So, first, before considering being outraged that Pelosi got some special treatment for Sunkist Tuna, it would be nice if someone offered some evidence that such a thing happened when all that is currently visible is that the same examption that has existed since the end of WWII when America Samoa come under our protectorate has continued.

As for Boxer, it is a valid question: are those who have no personal familiar risk from war more callous in making war? It isn't offensive, though it is perfectly reasonable to response "no, I don't think so." Which is what Rice did. Disagreement is not offensive.

You say that if the parties had been reversed that there would be big cries of outrage. Maybe that's true and those people not outraged now are hypocrites. But I also suspect that if those cries went up those now calling for outrage would be arguing that these cases aren't really that big of a deal. Hypocrites as well? That is the kabuki of a change in party power: on the vast majority of issues the participants switch sides seamlessly and without apparent cognitive disconnect and call the other side a bunch of hypocrites for doing so.

ETA: Just realized I had a brain fart on some history. We got America Samoa as part of the Spanish-American War, not the post-WWII protectorate divvying. So America Samoa has likely been exempted from minimum wage laws since nearly the beginning of them under FDR.

01-14-2007, 05:14 PM	#11
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	If it's rhetorical, then what is the avenue of discussion? Whether AS should receive a minimum wage of $7.15 is not the issue you raised (though it is an issue I addressed in my last post), you raised the issue of whether it is unseemly that AS is exempted from the blanket minimum wage law. My response is no, it is not unseemly because the geographical, political, and economic circumstances of America Samoa place it well outside the mainstream of American conditions. Wage protection laws do not currently exempt America Samoa from the idea that there is a minimum acceptable wage. What it does is say that the circumstances that determine what that minimum acceptable wage are sufficiently unique that a different approach is needed. Now, I'm an opponent of a federal minimum wage (except maybe for federal employees) and think it should be addressed at the state level. But to me, there is no "outrage" in the fact that America Samoa is exempt from the increase the House passed, which is the is the issue you raised. So, first, before considering being outraged that Pelosi got some special treatment for Sunkist Tuna, it would be nice if someone offered some evidence that such a thing happened when all that is currently visible is that the same examption that has existed since the end of WWII when America Samoa come under our protectorate has continued. As for Boxer, it is a valid question: are those who have no personal familiar risk from war more callous in making war? It isn't offensive, though it is perfectly reasonable to response "no, I don't think so." Which is what Rice did. Disagreement is not offensive. You say that if the parties had been reversed that there would be big cries of outrage. Maybe that's true and those people not outraged now are hypocrites. But I also suspect that if those cries went up those now calling for outrage would be arguing that these cases aren't really that big of a deal. Hypocrites as well? That is the kabuki of a change in party power: on the vast majority of issues the participants switch sides seamlessly and without apparent cognitive disconnect and call the other side a bunch of hypocrites for doing so. ETA: Just realized I had a brain fart on some history. We got America Samoa as part of the Spanish-American War, not the post-WWII protectorate divvying. So America Samoa has likely been exempted from minimum wage laws since nearly the beginning of them under FDR.
	Submit to Quotes