Bad Logic

This kind of populist rhetoric just makes me angry:

"At least within this past decade, employers didn't feel any pressure to have to hire more workers and entice them with higher wages," says Harry Holzer, a former chief economist with the Labor Department...

This was from a story on NPR. To NPR's credit they point out:

"Employers...have to concern themselves with total compensation packages – not just wages."

This is what people need to realize: For the past decade workers' compensation has not been stagnating, it has been increasing significantly but almost all of that increase is going into their health care costs.

Again, we need to get rid of the idea of companies paying for their employees' health care costs. Then you would see a significant rise in employee pay and, in my opinion, a pretty significant drop in health care costs and, hence, health care insurance costs.

Prisoners of War...Really?

So I've been thinking about this whole business with trying "terrorists" in military courts. I use quotes around "terrorists" because if we are to treat them as foreign combatants what we're really calling them is "warriors". A title I hold in far too high esteem for the men that indiscriminately try to kill innocent civilians around the world, treat women like dogs in their own countries, and who riot over cartoons.

I'm not following along with the 70%+ of Americans that think that Khalid Sheik Mohammed (one of the masterminds of 9/11) or the Christmas Day underwear bomber should be given the reverence of enemy combatants. They're not. They are thugs and criminals that should not be afforded the rights of military combatants.

I think that most Americans believe that if we try these guys in military courts we can somehow completely disregard any rights for them at all. That's not the case. Now I'm not a legal expert but it would seem obvious to me that if you label them as military combatants, we're expected to give them the rights afforded prisoners of war under the Geneva convention.

Do we really want to do that?

Again, I'm not an expert but I think the following few provisions of the Geneva convention are pretty clear:

Article 109

...Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel...

Article 115

No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.

Article 118

Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.

In other words, these articles all dictate that a prisoner of war: Has to be released if he's terminally ill even if he hasn't finished his sentence and, as soon as the "war" is over, he has to be sent home.

Is that what people really want? I don't. I prefer to see these men locked up for the rest of their lives regardless of the outcome of our battle with Islamic Terrorists.

So please, everyone, come to your senses and realize that these men are not soldiers, they are murderers and criminals and we should treat them as such.

GOP Wants to be Bribed, Too

Feeling left out in the wake of the attempted Democratic bribery of Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, the Republicans have decided to show that they, too, are not only happy to seek bribes but will actively pursue them:

Read this story about Republican senator Richard Shelby from Alabama.

Here's the Cliff's Note version: He is holding up legislation on 70 nominations on the house floor until the rest of the senate approves some earmarks for his home state. If this is the way business is done in Washington (by either party), we need to seriously considering reforming the way legislation gets through the House and Senate.