Minimum Wage Was Never Meant to Be the Destination

 For some unknown reason, many on the political left have come to believe that a minimum-wage job is supposed to be a career. It isn't. It never was.

The very phrase minimum wage implies the starting point on the employment ladder, not the top rung. These are entry-level jobs intended for people with little or no marketable experience: students, young adults entering the workforce, people re-entering after an absence, or those changing careers. Their primary value isn't just the paycheck—it's the opportunity to learn.

A first job teaches far more than how to stock shelves or run a cash register. It teaches punctuality, responsibility, customer service, teamwork, problem-solving, and the simple reality that employers pay for value. Those lessons become the foundation for developing skills that are worth more in the marketplace.

The expectation should be straightforward: gain experience, acquire new skills, improve yourself, and then move on to a better-paying position. When you do, you leave that entry-level job open for someone else who is just beginning the same journey.

That's how economic mobility is supposed to work.

Think of the labor market as a plumbing system.

Entry-level workers enter the pipe at one end. They gain experience, learn valuable skills, and gradually move through the system. As they become more productive, they leave entry-level positions for better-paying jobs. Their departure creates openings for the next generation of inexperienced workers to begin the same journey.

The entire system depends on movement.

When that flow slows or stops, the pipeline begins to clog. Entry-level positions become long-term destinations rather than stepping stones. Fewer openings exist for those trying to enter the workforce, and the normal progression from inexperienced worker to skilled employee becomes more difficult.

Like any plumbing system, a blockage doesn't simply affect the obstruction itself—it reduces the efficiency of everything upstream. In the labor market, the result is fewer opportunities for those just entering the workforce, the very people entry-level jobs were created to help.

When we instead insist that every minimum-wage position should provide the income necessary to support a lifelong career, we risk changing the purpose of those jobs entirely. Employers faced with significantly higher labor costs often respond by raising prices, reducing hiring, cutting employee hours, or investing in automation. The people most likely to feel those effects are often the very workers trying to get their foot in the door.

A healthy economy depends on movement. Workers improve their skills and advance. Businesses fill entry-level positions with new employees eager to learn. Experience leads to greater productivity, greater productivity leads to higher wages, and higher wages reflect the greater value those workers now bring to the marketplace. That cycle has helped generations of Americans climb the economic ladder.

The goal should not be to remain at the bottom rung and demand that it be raised to the top. The goal should be to climb.

There is nothing demeaning about beginning at the bottom. Every accomplished craftsman, engineer, manager, entrepreneur, physician, and executive was inexperienced at some point. The purpose of an entry-level job is not to define your future—it is to launch it.

A society that encourages people to advance will always create more opportunity than one that encourages them to remain where they started. The real measure of success is not how comfortable we can make the first rung of the ladder. It is how many people we help climb to the second, the third, and eventually to the top.

Trump's MOU with Iran is a Mistake of Epic Proportions

 This proposed MOU with Iran may be one of the biggest mistakes of Trump's presidency.

I supported Donald Trump every time he was on the ballot, and I continue to support many of his policies. On Iran, however, I believe he is profoundly wrong.

The current Iranian regime should not be rewarded, accommodated, or rehabilitated before it fundamentally changes its behavior. Any reconstruction assistance or normalization of relations should come only after a clear and unconditional abandonment of its hostile policies—not as an incentive in hopes that the regime will suddenly become cooperative.

After World War II, the United States helped rebuild Germany and Japan, but only after their unconditional surrender and complete defeat. We did not provide aid as a bargaining chip to persuade them to behave responsibly. Iran today is nowhere near that point, and there is little evidence that its leadership intends to move in that direction.

Since the 1979 revolution, the Iranian regime has consistently supported militant proxies, sponsored regional instability, and pursued policies openly hostile to both Israel and the United States. Its backing of Hezbollah is only one example. Given that record, any agreement with Tehran should be viewed with extreme skepticism.

The prospect of such a regime acquiring nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Iran's leaders have repeatedly demonstrated hostility toward Israel and the broader West, and their actions have done little to inspire confidence that they can be trusted with capabilities of that magnitude.

This MOU should be rescinded immediately. The United States should pursue a policy that recognizes the nature of the current Iranian regime rather than placing faith in promises that history suggests are unlikely to be kept.

US Lithium

 America needs to stop pretending that critical minerals magically appear on store shelves. If we are serious about energy independence, national security, advanced manufacturing, and even the future of electric vehicles, then we need to be serious about mining and processing the materials that make those things possible.

A recent report from the United States Geological Survey estimates that more than two million metric tons of lithium may lie beneath the Appalachian region. That is not a trivial discovery. It represents a potentially massive strategic resource sitting right here inside the United States.

For years, America has allowed itself to become dangerously dependent on foreign supply chains for critical minerals. China, in particular, has spent decades securing dominance over rare earth processing and battery material production. That dependence creates obvious risks. Any nation that controls the supply of strategic minerals controls leverage over the industries and technologies that depend on them.

Lithium is no longer some niche industrial material. It is now a cornerstone resource for modern technology. Batteries for laptops, phones, tools, grid storage systems, military hardware, and electric vehicles all rely heavily on lithium. Yet despite having domestic resources, the United States currently produces only a tiny fraction of global lithium output.

That is a problem entirely of our own making.

America used to lead the world in lithium production. We had the industrial capability, the refining infrastructure, and the engineering expertise. Over time, however, environmental litigation, regulatory overreach, and political hostility toward domestic extraction hollowed much of that capability out. Meanwhile, other nations — particularly China — stepped in to fill the gap.

The irony is impossible to ignore. Many of the same groups pushing aggressive electrification policies also oppose nearly every mining project required to support those policies. Electric vehicles, battery storage, and renewable infrastructure all require enormous quantities of mined materials. There is no “green” future without mining. The only real question is whether Americans want those resources produced under American environmental standards and labor laws, or outsourced to countries with far weaker protections.

Appalachian lithium offers an opportunity to reverse course.

The Appalachian region already possesses generations of industrial experience, transportation infrastructure, energy access, and skilled labor. Mining and processing lithium there could help revitalize communities that have spent decades watching manufacturing and extraction industries disappear. These are regions that understand heavy industry and know how to build things.

Just as important, domestic mining strengthens national resilience. Supply chain disruptions over the past several years exposed how vulnerable the United States has become when critical goods and materials are sourced overseas. Depending on geopolitical rivals for strategic minerals is not a long-term strategy. It is a liability.

That does not mean mining projects should ignore environmental concerns. Responsible extraction matters. Land reclamation matters. Water protection matters. But responsible development and outright obstruction are not the same thing. Too often, projects in the United States become trapped in endless lawsuits, regulatory delays, and activist opposition designed not to improve projects, but to stop them entirely.

At some point, the country has to decide whether it actually wants domestic industry.

If America wants advanced manufacturing, battery production, technological leadership, and energy security, then it must also want the mines, refineries, and processing facilities that make those goals possible. You cannot have one without the other.

The lithium beneath Appalachia is more than just a geological discovery. It is a test of whether the United States still has the will to develop its own resources, build its own supply chains, and secure its own future.

Public Services Aren’t Socialism — And Words Matter

One of the more persistent arguments I encounter goes something like this:

“If you oppose socialism but support police, fire departments, or public roads, you’re a hypocrite.”

It sounds clever on the surface. It isn’t.

The confusion comes from blurring two very different concepts: public services and an economic system.

Public services are limited functions funded collectively because they address shared needs — emergency response, law enforcement, infrastructure, courts. These are core civic responsibilities that most societies have recognized for centuries. Supporting them does not require government ownership of businesses, farms, factories, or private enterprise.

Socialism, by contrast, is an economic system in which the state owns or controls the means of production and directs economic activity. It moves decision-making away from markets and individuals and into centralized authority.

Those are not the same thing.

Paying taxes for police and fire protection does not mean endorsing state control of industry. Supporting roads does not mean supporting government management of grocery stores, housing, or energy production. A limited government providing defined civic functions is categorically different from a government that directs the economy.

We can debate how large government should be. We can debate how efficiently public services operate. Those are worthwhile discussions.

But equating basic public infrastructure with socialism collapses meaningful distinctions. And when distinctions disappear, so does productive dialogue.

If we want serious conversations about political philosophy, we have to start by using words accurately.

On Iran, Iraq, and the Moral Clarity of Just War

Well, it's been a while—eight years since my last post—but the urge struck me again in the midst of learning how to create models in Blender for my new Anycubic Kobra S1 3D printer. Time has flown by—hours and days passing while working in Blender without my noticing them at all.

Anyway, here are my thoughts on the current threat of Iran, in the context of how we responded to Iraq during their invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

---

In today’s geopolitical landscape, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran—a nation that has made direct threats against Israel and, at times, the United States—forces us to confront hard questions about preemptive action, national defense, and moral restraint.

Often, critics of military force invoke Christian teachings—particularly the words of Jesus—as if they require absolute pacifism. But that’s an incomplete reading. When Christ drove the money changers from the Temple, it was not a violent riot, but a targeted act of moral confrontation. He condemned corruption hidden under religious pretense, and he did so forcefully. This wasn’t about losing control—it was about demonstrating righteous anger in the face of institutional exploitation.

This example provides a useful framework for understanding Just War Theory, developed by theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, and central to Christian moral philosophy. Just War doctrine doesn’t forbid force—it regulates it. War must be:

• Waged for a just cause (not conquest),

• Declared by a legitimate authority,

• A last resort, after diplomatic efforts fail,

• Proportional in its force,

• And conducted with a realistic chance of success.

Now consider Iraq. In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait—unprovoked and brutal. It was a clear violation of international law and Christian morality. The U.S.-led coalition that expelled Iraq in 1991 did so with moral legitimacy: it was defensive, restrained, and backed by international consensus. The goal was not conquest, but liberation.

The ceasefire Iraq agreed to afterward, under UN Security Council Resolution 687, required proactive disarmament and unrestricted access for inspectors. Iraq failed on both counts. It obstructed, delayed, and deceived. It did not meet the burden of proof—it evaded it.

This failure sustained the just cause for continued pressure. While the 2003 invasion of Iraq is more controversial—especially given the flawed intelligence regarding WMDs—the moral groundwork had already been laid by Saddam’s consistent noncompliance, aggression, and brutal internal repression.

Critics of the Bush administration often claimed the war was about oil or revenge, but these accusations have little grounding in fact:

• Iraq retained control of its oil fields.

• U.S. oil companies did not walk away with spoils.

• The cost of the war far outweighed any conceivable resource gain.

Had a different administration been in power, many of these same critics may have viewed the situation differently. Political alignment often colors moral outrage.

Now, to Iran. Its regime sponsors terrorism, suppresses dissent, and has made explicit threats of annihilation. If it were to acquire and ready nuclear weapons, Just War principles could apply—if the threat is credible, imminent, and unavoidable by peaceful means. Christian moral tradition doesn’t require nations to sit idle while their cities face potential destruction. But it also doesn’t permit wars of conjecture or convenience.

Regime change, contrary to some interpretations, is permissible under Just War Theory, if the regime in question is itself a threat to peace and human dignity—just as Nazi Germany was. The morality of the act lies not only in the removal, but in the responsibility taken afterward to secure peace and stability.

The lesson from Iraq is not that action was unjustified—but that action must be matched by foresight. Intelligence must be solid. Planning must be thorough. And motives must remain rooted in justice, not pride or profit.

Ultimately, Christian doctrine compels us to ask:

• Is the danger real?

• Have we exhausted other options?

• Is our response aimed at peace?

If so, then action—even preemptive action—can be morally just. The challenge lies not in knowing whether evil should be resisted. The challenge lies in resisting it wisely.

USDA Employees Suggest Removing 'Climate Change' Term

So, no more "climate change."


Actually, who could deny "climate change?" Who would expect the climate to remain static, unchanging?


Of course, the climate's going to change. It has done nothing but change for the entire history of this planet even having a climate. Nature hates stasis, loves chaos. And, the climate is a product of Nature.


Now, whether or not Man has a meaningful effect on the climate is another thing. I contend that He does not. At least, that such an influence has yet to be proven in a manner that would meet the terms of the Scientific Method. A Method that seems to be among the unknown to the "scientists" of the Consensus.


So, the change embodied in the USDA emails would be more for the term as it is used in the anthropogenic global warming lexicon than for the meaning of the term itself.


Note: not just "global warming," because the world is warming as a by-product of the Sun aging. Eventually, the Sun will grow so large that it will engulf the Earth. But, long before that, the Earth will have been turned to a charred cinder. The term, "anthropogenic," must be included to properly note that the term applies to a warming caused by Man. Again, something not scientifically proven.

23 Million Would Lose Health Insurance Under Republican Bill

Prior to Obamacare, the story was that there were 47 million uninsured. Supposedly, this was why we so drastically needed the unconstitutional program.


Now, with repealing it, we only go back to 23 million uninsured. Looks like 24 million managed to find insurance. Why can't the remaining 23 million do what they did?


Anyway, the US has a population of 324 million. Why are 93% of the People being taxed just to provide 7% with insurance? Further, how many of that 7% are young, healthy individuals who feel they don't need insurance just yet, and would prefer getting a bigger paycheck, instead?


Even if the federal government had the authority to provide healthcare - they don't - why not simply address the alleged needs of that 7%, rather than screw up the insurance and healthcare plans of the remaining 93%?


Why not? Because the healthcare industry would lose their shirts being forced to cover "pre-existing conditions," unless EVERYONE is FORCED into the program.


Question: If one has no car insurance and gets into a wreck, is there a reasonable expectation that they can trot to an insurance company to buy insurance to cover that "pre-existing condition" for their car?


There is no "one size fits all" option here. And, that's all the feds can do, which is one reason why they are not authorized to meddle in healthcare.