The term "gun violence" needs to be banned. It shifts the focus from the perpetrator to their weapon of choice. It impregnates independent action where none exists. It personalizes an object while objectifying a person. In doing so it allows the concept of "gun control" to attain a level of logic void of reality, swaddled in emotion and nourished with fear.

Newton's First Law of Motion should be read aloud before one is allowed to opine on violence in which a gun is used; An object at rest stays at rest...unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. I own 5 firearms and have for over 20 years. In all that time not a single one of them has violated Sir Newton's law. And I don't think my guns are exceptionally well behaved - it is an immutable, absolute and unwavering fact that all 310,000,000+ guns in America are "well regulated" by Newton's laws.

I understand why those desiring more laws restricting the 2nd Amendment use the term "gun violence"...obviously if a gun is violent it needs to be controlled.  It makes for good talking points, bumper stickers and campaign speeches.  Perhaps I would hold the term in higher regard if its authors used the same logic for muggings, rapes and stabbings;  "fist violence", "penis violence" and "knife violence".

So stop focusing on the object at rest, the mechanism of hate, and deal with the unbalanced forces acting upon it.  A good start is to replace "gun violence" with "criminal violence"....at least that's based in scientific fact.

How Isolated was Ms. Clinton?

The former Secretary of State has stated, repeatedly, that she neither sent nor received classified emails on her secret burnerserver.  She also maintains she exclusively used her bathroom server, and no other one.  Which raises a pretty obvious question.  Why not?  How in the world can the USA SoS go 3-4 years without ever being sent, or needing to send, a classified email?   Just look at few of the major foreign policy issues that happened during her tenure;

• Day 2 on the job the POTUS orders all the "black sites" the CIA has around the world closed.
• Feb - POTUS signs a memo promising $20,000,000 in aid to Gaza. GTMO trials are halted. POTUS gives SOTU address to Congress. POTUS gives speech to Marines announcing his plans to pull all troops out of Iraq.
• Mar - PM of the UK visits the USA. Russia goes public with a letter the POTUS wrote and misstates what it says. POTUS sends video to the leadership of Iran. POTUS announces new strategy for Iraq & Afghn.
• April - G20 summit. N.Korea violates testing ban and fires a nuke capable missile. POTUS speaks to Turkish parliament. POTUS visits Iraq. POTUS orders release of "torture" memos and announces no prosecutions will happen. POTUS goes to Summit of Americas.
• May - POTUS fires commanding general in Afghn. Blocks release of "torture" pics.

That's just the first 3+ months on the job and, according to Ms. Clinton, she never sent nor received any classified material during her entire tenure?  Nobody in the CIA, NSA, State Department, White House, Congress, the Pentagon or any of our allies sent her a single classified email on any of the topics?

So, how isolated was Ms. Clinton?

Either she's lying about classified information or nobody trusted her with classified information. 

Minimum Wage Confusion...

Interesting interview and I think he's right in one regard. Forcing fast-food employers to pay unskilled new hires $31,200 (FT) a year is outrageous...and counterproductive.

Average starting pay at Starbucks is $9.50. Average customer spend per visit (beverage only) was around $4.30 in 2014. If the average spend went up at the same rate as the proposed MW increase (58%) the average customer would be forced to pay $6.80 for the exact same beverage(s) they purchased the day before...for $2.50 less. The quality of the product didn't go up and neither did the quantity. The quality of the service didn't go up and the wait time didn't go down. The only guaranteed change was Starbucks would have to pay new hires 58% more.

Now extrapolate that dynamic across the entire fast-food industry. An industry that has a disproportionately high lower-income customer demographic. An industry that frequently is the only restaurant option in otherwise 'food deserts'. An industry that frequently offers one of the only 'real' job opportunities for the unskilled in fly-over country and on the ends of the American loaf.

Let's be honest, the 1% couldn't ID a fast food restaurant if their limo driver ran into one. And a cursory look at McDonald's financials over the last 3 years demonstrates how fast middle-income Americans are jumping from the arches. If it weren't for the "47%", none of these FF joints would stay open long...well...maybe Starbucks. So who is going to feel the brunt of the Democrat mantra that the minimum wage should also be a 'living wage'? The poor, the lower income and those living in 'food deserts'. Probably not the folks who voted Republican in the last election.

I'm all for having a debate regarding a 'living wage' based on age, education and other employment related factors. But that's a whole lot different than legislating McDonald's starts the french fry dude at the equivalent of what a sergeant with over 5 years in the Army makes.


Dunkin Donut's CEO & Minimum Wage