…………….that i don’t agree with the minimum wage increase we have here in IL???

Well, read this journal first, then back here for more info.

OK, so hopefully you read the article (or read it a second time). Now, yesterday, here in IL the minimum wage went up again from $7.50 -> $7.75 an hour. Before that increase, it was $6.50\hr. By 2010, it will be $8.25\hr.

Pretty much, i’m against it because minimum wage was suppose to be for high school people working after school for a car or college. It could also be used for college students working to help pay for college. It was not suppose to be a job where one could make a living (or somewhat of a living). This increase does two things: 1 – it helps the poor people who work these jobs get more money; and 2 – it hurts the middle-class people.

Let’s break this down: It helps the poor people who work these jobs. Yes, it does help somewhat, but in reality and the big picture, they will either break even or in the hole becuase to make more money something has to change. That change comes from the EMPLOYER, by doing a number of different things, which include, but not limited to: laying off people and making people work longer hours; raising prices on goods sold to consumers; or a combination of options. So, really they are not making more money. However most of the people don’t see it that way, they see it as i’m taking home more money, and that’s that.

Number Two – it hurts the middle class. When you raise the wage, it makes the people who are making a little more than minimum wage ($8.00 \hr- ?) that much closer to minimum wage and\or poverty level. So, if a person whose job requires a college degree only makes $8.00, and the temp worker is making $7.75\hr, what would your reaction be if you are the one who is making $8\hr. Would you feel like you need a raise to stay above the worker who is making minimum wage and does not have a college degree to do their job, but you as a full time worker need a college degree to perform your job duties?

When the wage goes up, everything else goes up except the wage of the middle class worker. The upper-class do not have to worry, becuase it doesn’t effect them, but we in the middle class are becoming closer and closer to poverty level because when the minimum wage goes up, everything goes up and we are the ones who suffer the most. In fact, there was an article in our local paper, and our governor made the comment: ” Thousands of workers struggle each day at work to provide for their families and will get help as the minimum wage rises.”

Those jobs were not meant to be FULL TIME JOBS. they were only meant to be part time job or a short-term job to be able to move on to a better life with a better-paying job. So, where does the increase stop? Apparently, in three years in will be over $8\hr (which was the amount i was paid for my first FULL TIME job, and my second FULL-TIME job). Will minimum wage be $10\hr or higher, only time will tell. I keep telling myself, soon i won’t even be able to eat fast food because it will be just as expensive or higher as what a decent sit-down restaurant is today.

it’s the 100-year flood 15 years after our last 100-year flood. I think they should say we will have one of these every 15-20 years. The last one before 1993 was in 1973. My uncle owns a firework stand which is now under water. He build a new one a few years after the 93 flood several feet higher than his previous stand. Shown in this picture is both stands. The shot is an aerial picture, and is a little hard to tell how high the water actually is. However the one on the left is the new one and the one on the right is several feet lower than the current firework stand. Oh, once the water does go down, it’s not fun cleaning the mess up. Been there, done that a few times in 1993.

My dad’s sister and family live a few miles west, and as of yesterday, they had 8″ of water in their basement. They got most of their things moved up into their garage or totally out of the area. As well, the only way in is by boat.

My parent’s live in Canton, Mo which the levee is still holding ,but they live on the bluff and not downtown, where there is a volunteer evacuation. Click here for more info. Click here for some pictures in Canton.

Moving south to the Quincy area now. The city itself sits mostly on a bluff, but there are some parts that are under water, like the riverfront, and one of the two bridges are closed due to high water. The east-bound traffic bridge is closed and the west-bound traffic bridge is now doing both lanes. Since there are several different photo albums of the flood waters in Quincy, here’s the link to the different ones. Can’t remember which one has it, but one of them shows a closeup of the east-bound bridge and how close the water was when the pic was taken.

Finally, moving south to Hannibal, MO and Mark Twain Country and some pics from them can be found here. The river isn’t suppose to crest here in Q-Town until later this week at 32ft. Now it’s just a waiting game for most of the area.

I came across the following article and thought that the people that come up with crap like this have little or none common sense. But then again, what government agency does have common sense?

In a major change of policy, the Transportation Security Administration has announced that passengers refusing to show ID will no longer be able to fly. The policy change, announced on Thursday afternoon, will go into force on June 21, and will only affect passengers who refuse to produce ID. Passengers who claim to have lost or forgotten their proof of identity will still be able to fly.

As long as TSA has existed, passengers have been able to fly without showing ID to government agents. Doing so would result in a secondary search (a pat down and hand search of your carry-on bag), but passengers were still permitted to board their flights. In some cases, taking advantage of this right to refuse ID came with fringe benefits–being bumped to the front of the checkpoint queue.

For a few years after September 11, 2001, TSA’s policies when it came to flying without ID were somewhat fuzzy. The agency, like many other parts of the Bush Administration, has hidden behind the shroud of classification–in TSA’s case, labeling everything Sensitive Security Information.

Seeking to clarify the rules, activist John Gilmore took the U.S. government to court in 2004. Gilmore chose to take a particularly hard line, by refusing to show ID to TSA and also by refusing to undergo the more thorough “secondary screening” search. He eventually lost his case before the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

While the judges were not willing to let Gilmore avoid the secondary screening search, they did at least recognize the right to travel without showing ID–providing that passengers are willing to be subject to a pat down and a bit of probing:

“The identification policy requires that airline passengers either present identification or be subjected to a more extensive search. The more extensive search is similar to searches that we have determined were reasonable and consistent with a full recognition of appellants constitutional right to travel.”

Since then, in at least two letters to citizens, TSA has re-affirmed this right. In March 2008, a TSA official wrote that:

“If a traveler is unwilling or unable to produce a valid form of ID, the traveler is required to undergo additional screening at the checkpoint to gain access to the secured area of the airport.”

A change in policy

In a press release issued on Thursday with little fanfare, TSA announced a major change in its rules.

“Beginning Saturday, June 21, 2008 passengers that willfully refuse to provide identification at security checkpoint will be denied access to the secure area of airports. This change will apply exclusively to individuals that simply refuse to provide any identification or assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity.”

This new procedure will not affect passengers that may have misplaced, lost or otherwise do not have ID but are cooperative with officers. Cooperative passengers without ID may be subjected to additional screening protocols, including enhanced physical screening, enhanced carry-on and/or checked baggage screening, interviews with behavior detection or law enforcement officers and other measures.”

To clarify: Passengers who refuse to show ID, citing a constitutional right to fly without ID will be refused passage beyond the checkpoints. Passengers who say they have left their ID at home, will be searched, and then permitted to board their flights.

While TSA’s announcement stated that the goal of the change was to “increase safety,” this blogger disagrees. The change of rules seems to be a pretty obvious case of security theater. Real terrorists do not refuse to show ID. They claim to have lost their ID, or they use a fake.

TSA’s new rules only protect us from a non-existent breed of terrorists who are unable to lie.

Fixing flaws vs. security theater

In a research paper published in 2007, I outlined a number of glaring loopholes allowing the total circumvention of the much criticized no-fly lists. The two main flaws were that passengers can modify boarding passes, and that they can refuse to show ID.

In December 2007, TSA began testing out a secure, authenticated, tamper-proof boarding pass scheme. It has since been rolled out to a number of major airports around the country.

With hundreds of millions of dollars having already been spent on the various no-fly lists, it is at least interesting to see that someone at TSA is now spending time on fixing the loopholes in the system. The most glaring of this has long been the fact that passengers can refuse to show (or claim to have forgotten) their ID. Simply put, without being able to know who is walking through a checkpoint, there is no way to know that the “bad guys” have been caught by the no-fly list.

TSA’s new rule, while perhaps motivated by a desire to beef up security, is significantly flawed. Terrorists will lie, and claim to have lost their ID–while law-abiding citizens wishing to assert their rights will be hassled, and refused flight.

Of course, all of this is premised on the idea that the no-fly list is actually a useful safety tool–something that I, and a number of other prominent security experts, strongly disagree with. Simply put, terrorists do not pre-register their intent.

As Bruce Schneier has noted before, the no-fly list is a collection of hundreds of thousands of people who are too dangerous to fly, but not guilty enough to be charged with a crime.

These are interesting times, indeed.