So essentially, Obama doesn't pay police enough respect. I can appreciate that on some level. On another, I think "Is that what you got in this for? For the president to pat you on the head and say 'good boy!'?"

I get the waving. That's an easy to do, and seems like common courtesy. I would ask if shaking the hands of every officer in every escort is standard protocol though, or even an efficient use of time. I'd imagine presidents ride in a LOT of motorcades. I do see how the gesture would go a long way towards ingratiating yourself to someone (aside: my FIL has a picture of Reagan shaking his hand, when he was pulling duty I *think* as the pilot for the presidential press core, and it is a very cool thing to see in someone's home office). Is not doing it necessarily a slight? What was Bush protocol?

I can empathize on having to pull overtime or rearrange vacation schedules. But...I don't know that I'd lay that at the president's feet? It's not as if he checks the Outlook calendar and says "oh, you know what? illinifan has off that day - cancel the ride down to _____." Also, that's not just you who has to do those things. Many, probably too many, American workers have to put up with that stuff. It's not unique to police. A lot of positions are overworked and understaffed. With the new SC, we should probably prepare for more of that sort of thing.

Ok, this: "so you could invite a rapper who chose to write a song commemorating a convicted cop killer." I had to look this up, as I wasn't familiar with it (in full disclosure...I was only tangentially aware of "Police Week," and that is largely because of the complaint when Obama didn't attend it). Common IS a rapper. Though his own site describes him as "an American hip hop recording artist, actor, film producer and poet." But "rapper" - that carries a certain connotation, doesn't it? It's one thing if the president hosts an actor, or a poet, or a film producer. But a rapper. That in an of itself is bad, isn't it? As for the song - I can appreciate not being thrilled about a song which lionizes someone convicted of aiding and abetting the murder of a state trooper. I think the point of the song is to speak to a perceived injustice - that she was wrongfully convicted (per wiki, medical forensics backed her assertion that she was shot while holding her hands up, and there was no gun residue on her hands). We'll never know what really happened that night - police word against that of BLA members. But Common had his doubts - and given today's cilmate, body cam evidence, etc - can you blame him? I'm sorry, but the word of police isn't unassailable.

But yes, I get why this would be a sore point. I'm from Philly - there are still plenty of bad feelings regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal and the Daniel Faulkner killing. I'd imagine police would be pretty pissed if Rage Against the Machine were invited to the White House.

Could Obama have picked a better week for this? Certainly.

Regarding Obama "calling police officers racist" - I'l appreciate help with this reference, and maybe a quote. I know he wasn't happy about the Henry Louis Gates arrest, but don't know if he ever used the term "racist" ("stupid" I think I've seen referenced). Was it something he said in Dallas?

That's how a democracy works, but we've been using the term incorrectly for as long as our country has existed. We are not a direct democracy and havent been ever.

Of course not, but people notice things. And when someone does something while another does not, it paints the picture.


No idea, I can only compare Obama and Trump.




Huh?


Exactly.


During the memorial service for the Dallas officers killed.

Thanks for the quote. I interpret these words different from what you do. I hear him saying that we all have racial biases, and that we all have to be aware of them and fight against them. That includes police. Perhaps more importantly than most, given the power that they have.

And if there's a group that claims they are being affected by these biases, it is important to listen to them

I can appreciate the statement. I have a problem with choosing a memorial service for murdered police officers as the place and time to make the statement.

Understood.

In that same service he said this:


Shouldn't we look at the totality of his remarks and not just those that you most disagree with?

or this:

Well Hillary Clinton was proposing "free" college to help people like you, not to mention expanded healthcare which you seem to support.

But you were the cool kid and voted for Gary Johnson. I mean he offered...what exactly?

Pot.

This really isn't accurate. Expanded healthcare, free college, and a $15 minimum wage are boosts to the middle class. The $15 minimum wage thing is misrepresented as helping the poor, but the ultimate goal is to boost middle class wages which have stagnated in recent years and are actually dropping under the current administration (in relation to inflation).

The right will tell you that helping the rich means the middle class will eventually get help in the form of better wages, benefits, ect but trickle down economics is incredibly flawed from a very basic economic standpoint. It never happens that way.

I completely understand that neither party offers the best of everything or even most things to very many people right now, but if finances are your (and I mean collective your not you specifically) primary factor when voting then I don't understand how any middle class or poor person could vote GOP.

People hear what they want to hear.

No? There's no reason to make that statement at the memorial service for murdered police officers.

Guess so.

dola

Happy 17th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan!

My dad is a retired pastor. For my whole life, there was a bright line in my family between duty to God and duty to country. I mean, you were supposed to do both, but the order of priority was clear.

And today on FB, he posts: "As for me and my house, we will Salute the Flag, Stand for the National Anthem, Kneel before the Cross, and Serve the Lord."

I knew my parents were conservative. I knew that their politics are, in essence, abortion uber alles.

But this shit...this shit I just do not understand. I'm going to have to put it right up there with the weekend my dad spent in tears and prayer because I'd started listening to the 77's and Undercover and I was inviting the devil's music to infiltrate our house.

:bowdown:

Haley is out.

We won't see anyone like her come our way for another 74 years...

Dola...



The beginning of Haley 2020, or some scandal? Seems like an odd timing.

She might think she wants to run in 2020, but people will not forget how she became yet another adoring puppet of Trump after he won. Or at least I hope they do.


There's been a little talk about the ethical use of private planes, but I doubt that would get her to resign.

Is Trump just hyping a resignation or is Haley getting a different job?

I'm sure reporters everywhere are looking for leaks of the real reason.

Crazy speculation from the right-Graham will replace Sessions as Attorney General and Haley will replace Graham.

Surely it won't take 74 more years for the Republicans to put a woman of color in any kind of leadership situation.

Just a Halley's comet joke.;)

Maybe it is as simple as she wants out before Trump kills her future.

That's what I mean by timing. If that were the case, then why now? Why not before she sat in on that round table of praise? Why not right after he did something especially egregious? And if she doesn't want to be tethered to Trump, why say she's going to campaign for him?

Tom Nichols speculated that now is a good time because it can't be tied to anything. She isn't making any statement by leaving at this time. Maybe.

There is an ethics investigation, so maybe she's bailing before that finds something damaging. Who knows?

I really don't think it's uncommon for a person in her position to leave after a couple years. Especially if she has designs on something in 2020.

This goes along with my line of thinking. Supposedly the Mueller investigation is winding down and I believe she'll want to bail before it ends. Right now she's leaving on her terms.

An admin official leaving the admin and then primarying the President would be very unusual.

And I can't see that happening. She might run if Trump doesn't, but challenging Trump is a sure way to end your career in this GOP.

I don't think a Presidential run in 2020 would be in her plan. I'd say she's more likely to make a Congressional run, then try for Presidency in 2024.

She'll definitely be back at some point. I think she wants to be able to say she was pro-Trump, but also be able to say she wasn't really if the shit really hits the fan. She certainly doesn't want to have to answer any questions after the Mueller report drops.

That's my guess. Also maybe she got the heads up that Graham isn't going to run again in 2020 and figures the Senate seat is hers which she can parlay into a run for President in 2024.

Yes I assume she's still quote popular in South Carolina, and UN ambassador has always been a transient position. Clinton had 3, Bush 4, Obama 2, overall it's 26 in 56 years since the only one who served more than 4 years (Henry Cabot Lodge). There's also even the rumors of Graham taking over as AG for Sessions, in which case I assume the acting Governor would happily appoint Haley if she wants it, so she doesn't run against him & beat him again.

If she was resigning effective immediately I'd be more apt to believe there's smoke, but doing it after midterms makes sense for someone with higher ambitions.

Amazon raises minimum wage to $15/hr... and people complain? Guess you can't win. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/t...pay-raise.html

I'd love to see the breakdown on how many part time & seasonal workers benefit from these changes vs how many multi year workers are actually seeing a decrease in pay.

Rand Paul on political climate: 'I really worry that someone is going to be killed' | TheHill

Is Rand Paul going soft/liberal?

Soft in the head, maybe. Heather Heyer's mother is probably not impressed

I haven't seen Bloomberg in top 10 lists. All things held equal (hard to define of course), I prefer a successful business person over a professional politician and/or actor/actress.

It doesn't seem the broad Dem base would support him but just another contender to watch out for in the future.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/10/mike...president.html

If that fucker runs as an independent and helps re-elect Trump...

Well it was the next business day after Kavanaugh was approved. I know a lot of Republican women have rallied to his defense, but not all of them have. And since then Trump has made some pretty silly statements about Dr. Ford. In addition to all the other speculation it may have been the thing that made her go, you know I don't want to be tied to this stuff going forward.

You did read why, right?


I'd be pissed too if I was losing out on more lucrative stock grants and bonuses for a higher monthly pay just to make a few Senators happy.

A "bad" company would just stop paying out the bonuses and stock without giving a corresponding pay raise to even approach balancing it out.

The Amazon thing is going to really impact the lower-paid workers without those benefits. It's shaping up to be a big game changer at the Whole Foods where my girlfriend is a manager. It will be a lot easier to recruit and retain good employees, particularly in a geographic area where lots of service industry workers make at or close to minimum wage (though Whole Foods has always paid decently relative to similar employment). Of course there will be some wrinkles - people who took years to get to $15 and beyond are now basically in the same place they would be if they just showed up relative to others, and the overall compensation for the higher-paid workers will decrease both relative to others, and in some cases from where they were before. But this is what a lot of people want - the emphasis is on the lowest-paid workers and giving them a living wage. I was just in Boston and the Marriott strikers were very visible "One job should be enough." The lowest paid people getting more doesn't mean that everyone else will be bumped up too, it's going to mean the opposite in some cases, and certainly the lower-middle salary people are going to make much less relative to others if we have a bigger glut of employees all around that $15 mark that has become the rallying point.

I wonder if there will be a trend of low managers/salary folks actually asking to take a demotion /step back. If the pay is close enough id take less stress and responsibility every day.

I could see that happening at Whole Foods. Manager (or "Team Leader" as they call it there), is a very stressful job and there's high turnover. The pay is good by grocery store standards but not so high above $15 that it's worth it for everyone. I know people at Whole Foods can tend to shift around the store or even move to different stores in different geographic areas - when you find the right fit they're a great employer, but it's not always easy to find that fit.

There are going to be several unintended consequences. The big concern is inflation, it is basic economics, more dollars seeking the same amount of goods. Another concern, many workers who this would affect, are already seeing jobs threatened. McDonalds has more and more self serve kiosks at their stores. I greatly prefer ordering through the kiosk rather than wondering if the cashier is getting my order right. I can easily see more fast food joints going this route.

The best way to address pay is arm yourself with a skill set that makes you valuable to employers. The other side of the equation, HR departments need to quit setting ridiculous bars for positions. There are jobs that I held 10 years ago and was a top performer that I would not be considered for now due to my degree (sales vs engineering). This needs to stop as it hurts both the employer and the employee. The employer since they are not looking at all viable candidates and the employee because they are not being given a fair shake. But, if you have a skill set that is difficult to replace, employers will pay you more. I know plenty of people, even at big companies, that had positions created for them so they could work outside a normal pay structure to keep a valued individual.

That's fairly common in the grocery business, from what I observed from my wife and I having worked at grocery stores for about 10 years through high school and college/law school. Store managers would get moved around fairly often, while others in management would do months-long shifts in produce or bakery or customer service/front-end, or even night shift/stocking. Store managers moving around kinda reminded me of how churches would rotate pastors every few years, out of the blue.

My wife and I were just talking about this.

She is VP/ GM of sales for a Warren Buffet owned company. Her feeling is within 5-10 years the value of a college degree is going to be considerably lower.

That's what should happen, and then companies will have to offer higher wages/benefits to recruit managers. That's how raising wages at the bottom can lift those above them.