People were asking the same question in 2008 remember? We all know how that worked out.
The candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton will be the candidate that can focus the country on financial issues and keep the social issues, like gay marriage and abortion access, off the table or at least very far in the background.
I suspect by 2016 the Stock Market will have "corrected" and there won't be much economic improvement. That makes any candidate that can be associated with the "current administration" vulnerable, which is probably why Hillary bailed out. She'll be less vulnerable.
Let's understand the country as it is today and will probably be in 2016. You need a reasonably center of the road candidate who (1) doesn't scare Blacks and Latinos, (2) single women can live with, (3) can't be branded as a complete kook because of things he or she has said or done in the past.
Hillary Clinton meets that profile but who else?
The profile pretty much lets out Joe Biden as well as far left people such as Bill DeBlasio and Mario Cuomo of New York on the Democratic side and just about all of the extreme Right Wing types such as Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Ted Cruz and Rick Perry on the Republican side.
The Democrats wouldn't be able to win the nomination and the Republicans wouldn't be able to win the general election.
Chris Christie looked like an interesting possibility but he might be self-destructing. Besides, exit polls in 2013, an election Christie won easily and in which many Democrats didn't even bother to vote, showed he would LOSE New Jersey to Hillary Clinton.
Jon Huntsman would probably have a good chance in a national election but look how well he did in the Republican primaries last year.
So who's left? I don't know but I didn't think Barack Obama could pull off what he did in 2008 either.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Oklahoma Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down
A federal judge (activist judge?) has struck down the Oklahoma ban on gay marriage but has stayed the decision pending appeal which means, at least for now, there won't be any gay marriages in Oklahoma.
US District Judge Terrance Kern described the Oklahoma ban as "an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit."
Gee, ya think?
This is further fallout from the Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. Not only are we talking about an abstract right, we're talking about concrete measurable benefits.
I can hear the howling from the Conservative pig sties already.
We're heading toward a collision in the US Supreme Court. They're the only ones that can resolve this.
Either states can, or cannot, prohibit gay marriage. That the states regulate marriage is not at issue. But that regulation is not unlimited. State regulations cannot deny rights and benefits that people are otherwise entitled to under the US Constitution.
The good news is the Conservative dream of a national prohibition on gay marriage is dead. That means either rapid legalization, if the Supreme Court says a state cannot prohibit it, or a slow painful legalization state by bloody state.
I cannot believe, given the mood in the country, that the SCOTUS is stupid enough to allow this slow agonizing conflict to continue. Better to legalize it across the board and get the screaming and yelling over with.
Besides, it's the right thing to do.
US District Judge Terrance Kern described the Oklahoma ban as "an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit."
Gee, ya think?
This is further fallout from the Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. Not only are we talking about an abstract right, we're talking about concrete measurable benefits.
I can hear the howling from the Conservative pig sties already.
We're heading toward a collision in the US Supreme Court. They're the only ones that can resolve this.
Either states can, or cannot, prohibit gay marriage. That the states regulate marriage is not at issue. But that regulation is not unlimited. State regulations cannot deny rights and benefits that people are otherwise entitled to under the US Constitution.
The good news is the Conservative dream of a national prohibition on gay marriage is dead. That means either rapid legalization, if the Supreme Court says a state cannot prohibit it, or a slow painful legalization state by bloody state.
I cannot believe, given the mood in the country, that the SCOTUS is stupid enough to allow this slow agonizing conflict to continue. Better to legalize it across the board and get the screaming and yelling over with.
Besides, it's the right thing to do.
Wednesday, January 08, 2014
Cold Weather and Global Warming
No, really cold weather or major snow storms DO NOT disprove Global Warming.
There is a difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER.
Not only that, Global Warming is expected to produce greater extremes. That means the possibility of unusually frigid weather at times in the winter or larger, more brutal blizzards.
Conservatives who deny Climate Science are just like the Conservatives that deny Evolution. They don't make any effort to understand the science and base their opinions on how they want things to be rather than how they really are.
Is it possible the Climatologists are wrong and this is just a passing phase? Yes it is but it's looking less and less likely that's the case.
There is a difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER.
Not only that, Global Warming is expected to produce greater extremes. That means the possibility of unusually frigid weather at times in the winter or larger, more brutal blizzards.
Conservatives who deny Climate Science are just like the Conservatives that deny Evolution. They don't make any effort to understand the science and base their opinions on how they want things to be rather than how they really are.
Is it possible the Climatologists are wrong and this is just a passing phase? Yes it is but it's looking less and less likely that's the case.
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
The Latest Poll on Evolution
While I find it terrifying that we still have to ask this question in the 21st Century, Pew Research released a new public opinion poll on Evolution on December 30th.
Overall 60% of the public accepts the Evolution of humans while 33% reject it and say we've existed in our present form since the "beginning" (whenever that was).
What's interesting is the variation based upon political affiliation. Democrats by 67%-27% and Independents by 65%-28% accept Evolution. But that's a minority position among Republicans where only 43% accept Evolution while 48% reject it.
I've always said the Republicans were stuck in the 1950s. Guess I'm wrong, most are stuck in the 1850s.
The good news is that rejection of Evolution, like rejection of Gay Marriage, appears to be a literally dying position. While in all age groups a majority accept Evolution, the amount decreases by age as follows:
Age 18-29: 68%-28%
Age 30-49: 60%-33%
Age 50-64: 59%-35%
65 & Older: 49%-36%
Education makes a big difference. Those with at least a college degree accept Evolution by 72%-24%; those with at least some college accept it by 62%-33 and those with HS or less by only 51%-38%.
By religion, White Evangelical Protestants, also known as the village idiots, REJECT Evolution by 64%-27%, as do Black Protestants by 50%-44%. At the other extreme White Mainline Protestants accept Evolution by 78%-15%, the Unaffiliated by 76%-20% and White Catholics by 68%-26%. Hispanic Catholics accept it by 53%-41%.
Someone should tell Catholics that Evolution is the "accepted" position of the Catholic Church. I put "accepted" in quotes because I suspect that 83% of Jesuits are working night and day to keep it that way.
One surprising difference is that while men accept Evolution by 65%-28%, women only accept it by 58%-38%.
Overall 60% of the public accepts the Evolution of humans while 33% reject it and say we've existed in our present form since the "beginning" (whenever that was).
What's interesting is the variation based upon political affiliation. Democrats by 67%-27% and Independents by 65%-28% accept Evolution. But that's a minority position among Republicans where only 43% accept Evolution while 48% reject it.
I've always said the Republicans were stuck in the 1950s. Guess I'm wrong, most are stuck in the 1850s.
The good news is that rejection of Evolution, like rejection of Gay Marriage, appears to be a literally dying position. While in all age groups a majority accept Evolution, the amount decreases by age as follows:
Age 18-29: 68%-28%
Age 30-49: 60%-33%
Age 50-64: 59%-35%
65 & Older: 49%-36%
Education makes a big difference. Those with at least a college degree accept Evolution by 72%-24%; those with at least some college accept it by 62%-33 and those with HS or less by only 51%-38%.
By religion, White Evangelical Protestants, also known as the village idiots, REJECT Evolution by 64%-27%, as do Black Protestants by 50%-44%. At the other extreme White Mainline Protestants accept Evolution by 78%-15%, the Unaffiliated by 76%-20% and White Catholics by 68%-26%. Hispanic Catholics accept it by 53%-41%.
Someone should tell Catholics that Evolution is the "accepted" position of the Catholic Church. I put "accepted" in quotes because I suspect that 83% of Jesuits are working night and day to keep it that way.
One surprising difference is that while men accept Evolution by 65%-28%, women only accept it by 58%-38%.
Friday, January 03, 2014
Utah Man on Hunger Strike
A gentleman by the name of Trestin Meacham has been on a hunger strike since December 20th to protest gay marriage in Utah.
Apparently Meacham is an advocate of "nullification," the Right Wing idea that somehow the states can refuse to obey federal laws or court decisions.
According to Meacham, and others, the courts are packed full of "activist judges" that don't obey the constitution.
First let's talk about "nullification."
Article III of the US Constitution states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
On top of this the 14th Amendment guarantees the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" against actions by the states.
Meacham might want to ask Orval Faubus how well ignoring a court order to integrate schools in Little Rock Arkansas worked out for him in 1957. The idea that "nullification" by the states might be legal died with slavery in the Civil War.
Given how much Conservatives claim to revere the US Constitution, perhaps they should actually READ it to understand what it actually says rather than basing everything upon what they wish it said.
Now let's consider Meacham's claim that the courts are filled with "activist judges" that don't obey the constitution.
This is by definition false. The courts decide what the law is and the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws and lower court decisions.
Allow me to quote Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
Meacham is within his rights to disagree with the court decision, exercise his right of free speech to criticize that decision and take any legal action, including starving himself, to emphasize that disagreement. However, the officials of the state of Utah can't ignore the court order; they can only appeal it.
So, as usual, Conservatives have their heads up their asses. After they read the Constitution to see what it says, they might want to read the case law to understand what it means.
Apparently Meacham is an advocate of "nullification," the Right Wing idea that somehow the states can refuse to obey federal laws or court decisions.
According to Meacham, and others, the courts are packed full of "activist judges" that don't obey the constitution.
First let's talk about "nullification."
Article III of the US Constitution states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
On top of this the 14th Amendment guarantees the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" against actions by the states.
Meacham might want to ask Orval Faubus how well ignoring a court order to integrate schools in Little Rock Arkansas worked out for him in 1957. The idea that "nullification" by the states might be legal died with slavery in the Civil War.
Given how much Conservatives claim to revere the US Constitution, perhaps they should actually READ it to understand what it actually says rather than basing everything upon what they wish it said.
Now let's consider Meacham's claim that the courts are filled with "activist judges" that don't obey the constitution.
This is by definition false. The courts decide what the law is and the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws and lower court decisions.
Allow me to quote Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
Meacham is within his rights to disagree with the court decision, exercise his right of free speech to criticize that decision and take any legal action, including starving himself, to emphasize that disagreement. However, the officials of the state of Utah can't ignore the court order; they can only appeal it.
So, as usual, Conservatives have their heads up their asses. After they read the Constitution to see what it says, they might want to read the case law to understand what it means.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Utah Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down
A federal judge has declared the Utah law passed by voters in 2004 that bans gay and lesbian marriages unconstitutional because it violates the right to due process and equal protection under the law.
Judge Robert J. Shelby said the state failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way and that the state's unsupported fears and speculations were insufficient to justify not allowing same-sex marriages.
Can you say "move out of the way of the avalanche" quickly three times?
I think it's safe to say that the state of Utah will appeal the decision. Let's see the Supreme Court duck making an ultimate decision if and when this puppy gets there.
Judge Robert J. Shelby said the state failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way and that the state's unsupported fears and speculations were insufficient to justify not allowing same-sex marriages.
Can you say "move out of the way of the avalanche" quickly three times?
I think it's safe to say that the state of Utah will appeal the decision. Let's see the Supreme Court duck making an ultimate decision if and when this puppy gets there.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty
I've never seen the show "Duck Dynasty." I'll admit that I'm something of an intellectual snob and have absolutely no interest in the show.
The other day, in an interview for GQ, the Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson made what many people consider to be homophobic remarks. Basically he said that the Bible declares homosexuality a sin, he believes in the Bible and therefore he believes homosexuality is a sin and gays won't go to heaven.
As a result A&E suspended him indefinitely from the show. Needless to say the loony toons on the right are all up arms yelling "Freedom of Speech!"
Let's understand something. The 1st Amendment protects you from retribution by the government for expressing your opinion. It doesn't protect you from criticism or retribution from private individuals or companies. They have as much right to express their Freedom of Speech by telling you that you have your head up your ass and, if they find what you say offensive enough, making you pay for it in some way, shape or form.
The A&E Network, since it is a private company, is well within its rights to suspend Robertson for his remarks assuming the action doesn't breach some contractual obligation. I just think it's sort of silly for them to do so.
Robertson didn't say anything other so-called Christians haven't been saying for as long as I can remember. Who cares? By suspending Robertson you're making it look like what he thinks matters. It doesn't so I'd reinstate the man and move on.
The other day, in an interview for GQ, the Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson made what many people consider to be homophobic remarks. Basically he said that the Bible declares homosexuality a sin, he believes in the Bible and therefore he believes homosexuality is a sin and gays won't go to heaven.
As a result A&E suspended him indefinitely from the show. Needless to say the loony toons on the right are all up arms yelling "Freedom of Speech!"
Let's understand something. The 1st Amendment protects you from retribution by the government for expressing your opinion. It doesn't protect you from criticism or retribution from private individuals or companies. They have as much right to express their Freedom of Speech by telling you that you have your head up your ass and, if they find what you say offensive enough, making you pay for it in some way, shape or form.
The A&E Network, since it is a private company, is well within its rights to suspend Robertson for his remarks assuming the action doesn't breach some contractual obligation. I just think it's sort of silly for them to do so.
Robertson didn't say anything other so-called Christians haven't been saying for as long as I can remember. Who cares? By suspending Robertson you're making it look like what he thinks matters. It doesn't so I'd reinstate the man and move on.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Part of Utah Polygamy Law Struck Down
A federal court declared a part of the Utah law against polygamy as unconstitutional so of course all of the religious right morons are saying "See we told you so, a slippery slope. Allow Gay Marriage and before you know it people will be marrying their dogs."
Which is of course total nonsense.
The judge's ruling had to do with the co-habitation part of the law. The basic question he asked was what's the difference between a married man living with his wife and two women who are not his wife and a man living with three women none of which are his wife?
The state blew it because there IS a fundamental difference. When the state issues a marriage license, it confers financial and legal benefits upon the two parties and it has a reasonable expectation that the couple will form a two adult relationship. If no marriage certificate has been issued, then the state confers no benefits and has no expectations.
The ruling does not legalize polygamy. You still cannot be legally married, with all of the rights, obligations and privileges that entails, to more than one person.
Which is of course total nonsense.
The judge's ruling had to do with the co-habitation part of the law. The basic question he asked was what's the difference between a married man living with his wife and two women who are not his wife and a man living with three women none of which are his wife?
The state blew it because there IS a fundamental difference. When the state issues a marriage license, it confers financial and legal benefits upon the two parties and it has a reasonable expectation that the couple will form a two adult relationship. If no marriage certificate has been issued, then the state confers no benefits and has no expectations.
The ruling does not legalize polygamy. You still cannot be legally married, with all of the rights, obligations and privileges that entails, to more than one person.
About Pope Francis
This guy is beginning to appeal to me.
Conservatives in the US have been jumping all over his statement criticizing Capitalism. When asked about being called a Marxist by these folks, simply because he urged a socialist like approach toward insuring care for the poor, Francis came up with the best description of the "trickle-down" myth I've ever seen.
"...'trickle-down theories' which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world.
The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefiting the poor.
But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor."
Not only is the theory bogus, most people advocating it know damn well it's bogus. The only ones stupid enough to actually believe it are those that have been convinced to wait, panting and voting Republican, for the overflow that's never allowed to come.
Conservatives in the US have been jumping all over his statement criticizing Capitalism. When asked about being called a Marxist by these folks, simply because he urged a socialist like approach toward insuring care for the poor, Francis came up with the best description of the "trickle-down" myth I've ever seen.
"...'trickle-down theories' which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world.
The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefiting the poor.
But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor."
Not only is the theory bogus, most people advocating it know damn well it's bogus. The only ones stupid enough to actually believe it are those that have been convinced to wait, panting and voting Republican, for the overflow that's never allowed to come.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Homosexuality and the Vulnerability of Christianity
I'm not naive enough to think that Christianity will disappear anytime soon but I think it's more vulnerable right now than it's been in a while.
Why do people turn away from Christianity? It's been my experience that it's not usually triggered by a logical evaluation. That comes later. More often than not it's triggered by an emotional disagreement with Christianity on some issue. This begins the unraveling.
For many people the issue was contraception. For others it was abortion access. I personally first began to question my religion given its continued reluctance to fully accept the Theory of Evolution.
Today I think the issue of homosexuality and gay rights is driving wedges between people and the religion.
Who's hammering those wedges? Typically it's people that claim to be Christians.
Conservative Christians are doing more damage to the Christian religion than a thousand Richard Dawkins' or Sam Harris' could ever do.
A lot of people don't really understand what the hell those guys are saying but just about everyone gets the idea that's there is something unfair about the Christian assault on people that just want to be who they are.
The whole idea of trying to turn things around and claim it's Christians or religious freedom under assault by the big, bad gay lobby is so ludicrous as to simply manage to cause further damage.
When a Christian says that he's being denied religious freedom by not being allowed to discriminate against gays or bully gays it has to make one wonder what the hell is wrong with his religion? It's a club that most people would be embarrassed to be a part of.
Yes, yes, I understand that there are hundreds of Christian sects and not all of them are homophobic. The problem it that far too many of them, including the loudest, damn well are.
Why do people turn away from Christianity? It's been my experience that it's not usually triggered by a logical evaluation. That comes later. More often than not it's triggered by an emotional disagreement with Christianity on some issue. This begins the unraveling.
For many people the issue was contraception. For others it was abortion access. I personally first began to question my religion given its continued reluctance to fully accept the Theory of Evolution.
Today I think the issue of homosexuality and gay rights is driving wedges between people and the religion.
Who's hammering those wedges? Typically it's people that claim to be Christians.
Conservative Christians are doing more damage to the Christian religion than a thousand Richard Dawkins' or Sam Harris' could ever do.
A lot of people don't really understand what the hell those guys are saying but just about everyone gets the idea that's there is something unfair about the Christian assault on people that just want to be who they are.
The whole idea of trying to turn things around and claim it's Christians or religious freedom under assault by the big, bad gay lobby is so ludicrous as to simply manage to cause further damage.
When a Christian says that he's being denied religious freedom by not being allowed to discriminate against gays or bully gays it has to make one wonder what the hell is wrong with his religion? It's a club that most people would be embarrassed to be a part of.
Yes, yes, I understand that there are hundreds of Christian sects and not all of them are homophobic. The problem it that far too many of them, including the loudest, damn well are.
Hobby Lobby, Jim Dobson and the Contraception Mandate
I see Jim Dobson is now filing a lawsuit challenging the Contraception Mandate of the Health Care Law. Didn't anyone tell little Jimmy that Hobby Lobby had already done so and that their case was fairly advanced by now?
However, there's a problem here. Saying that this is about the "Contraception Mandate" is misleading.
Both Hobby Lobby and Dobson's lawsuit address one specific type of contraception know as the "Morning After Pill," Plan B or Levonelle. The lawsuits describe this as an "abortion pill."
Let's remember that abortion coverage is not allowed as part of a Health Care Plan so if Plan B is "abortion," then covering it is illegal.
But is it "abortion?"
Unfortunately, the answer is "maybe."
If a woman is already pregnant, Plan B has no effect so calling it an "abortion pill" is a bit misleading also. It doesn't abort an existing pregnancy, it prevents one from occurring. The question is how?
The problem is no one really understands exactly how Plan B works. There are three ways a drug could prevent or reduce the risk of pregnancy.
(1) It could kill all the sperm. Plan B doesn't do that so depending upon sperm quality, the little trouble makers could live from three to five days.
(2) It could delay or prevent ovulation. A delay of five days or so (see above) would be very effective. Preventing ovulation would be 100% effective, if it hasn't already occurred. Note that simply delaying ovulation until the sperm are kaput isn't "abortion."
(3) It could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. I think a strong argument could be made that this is a form of "abortion."
So what do we know that might help figure this out? First, the later the pill is taken the less effective it is, second, even if taken immediately it's only about 85% effective and third, as stated above, if a women is already pregnant the pill has no effect.
This information doesn't really help. It could still be (2) or (3) or a little of both.
Since one can't say with any certainty, I have to concede that Hobby Lobby and Dobson have a point. Plan B MAY be an abortion pill by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting and therefore should not be part of the contraceptive mandate.
However, there's a problem here. Saying that this is about the "Contraception Mandate" is misleading.
Both Hobby Lobby and Dobson's lawsuit address one specific type of contraception know as the "Morning After Pill," Plan B or Levonelle. The lawsuits describe this as an "abortion pill."
Let's remember that abortion coverage is not allowed as part of a Health Care Plan so if Plan B is "abortion," then covering it is illegal.
But is it "abortion?"
Unfortunately, the answer is "maybe."
If a woman is already pregnant, Plan B has no effect so calling it an "abortion pill" is a bit misleading also. It doesn't abort an existing pregnancy, it prevents one from occurring. The question is how?
The problem is no one really understands exactly how Plan B works. There are three ways a drug could prevent or reduce the risk of pregnancy.
(1) It could kill all the sperm. Plan B doesn't do that so depending upon sperm quality, the little trouble makers could live from three to five days.
(2) It could delay or prevent ovulation. A delay of five days or so (see above) would be very effective. Preventing ovulation would be 100% effective, if it hasn't already occurred. Note that simply delaying ovulation until the sperm are kaput isn't "abortion."
(3) It could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. I think a strong argument could be made that this is a form of "abortion."
So what do we know that might help figure this out? First, the later the pill is taken the less effective it is, second, even if taken immediately it's only about 85% effective and third, as stated above, if a women is already pregnant the pill has no effect.
This information doesn't really help. It could still be (2) or (3) or a little of both.
Since one can't say with any certainty, I have to concede that Hobby Lobby and Dobson have a point. Plan B MAY be an abortion pill by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting and therefore should not be part of the contraceptive mandate.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Satanism in Oklahoma
Christians never learn.
Conservatives in the Oklahoma legislature voted to place a privately funded monument of the Ten Commandments on state capital grounds. They did this despite criticism from legal experts that it was illegal.
The ACLU immediately filed suit but the Satanic Temple in New York saw an opportunity and notified the Oklahoma Capital Preservation Commission that it wants to donate a monument as well and will submit a design later this month.
Needless to say Christians are going absolutely ape shit over this. The basic argument that the Ten Commandments are OK but any other monument isn't is that the commandments of part of our history while there weren't any Satanists among the founding fathers.
Of course what they overlook is it doesn't matter. There weren't any Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims or Wiccans there either but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that all of these groups are protected by the first amendment.
No one ever accused Conservatives of being overly bright and this is just another example of pig headed arrogance and hubris ending up making them look like the complete assholes they are.
Conservatives in the Oklahoma legislature voted to place a privately funded monument of the Ten Commandments on state capital grounds. They did this despite criticism from legal experts that it was illegal.
The ACLU immediately filed suit but the Satanic Temple in New York saw an opportunity and notified the Oklahoma Capital Preservation Commission that it wants to donate a monument as well and will submit a design later this month.
Needless to say Christians are going absolutely ape shit over this. The basic argument that the Ten Commandments are OK but any other monument isn't is that the commandments of part of our history while there weren't any Satanists among the founding fathers.
Of course what they overlook is it doesn't matter. There weren't any Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims or Wiccans there either but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that all of these groups are protected by the first amendment.
No one ever accused Conservatives of being overly bright and this is just another example of pig headed arrogance and hubris ending up making them look like the complete assholes they are.
Monday, December 09, 2013
A Constitutional Convention
Article V of the US Constitution states:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments..."
No Constitutional Convention has ever been called so it's not even clear exactly what Congress would have to do to convene a convention but a number of people, mostly Conservatives, are beginning to seriously consider trying to get "two thirds of the several States" to apply for such a convention.
The objective would be to propose amendments near and dear to Conservatives hearts including a Balanced Budget Amendment and a Congressional Term Limit Amendment. These are two amendments that I am sympathetic toward by the way. But as they say, the devil is in the details and I'd have to know more about any such amendments because I could say for certain one way or the other.
The fear of course is that any convention would attempt veer into other areas such abortion access and gay marriage which would be a big mistake.
I suspect the effort is doomed to failure though because there are far too many open questions including how would representatives to the convention be chosen and what would the Rules of Order of the convention be?
Besides, I don't see why a convention would be any less politically gridlocked than Congress.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments..."
No Constitutional Convention has ever been called so it's not even clear exactly what Congress would have to do to convene a convention but a number of people, mostly Conservatives, are beginning to seriously consider trying to get "two thirds of the several States" to apply for such a convention.
The objective would be to propose amendments near and dear to Conservatives hearts including a Balanced Budget Amendment and a Congressional Term Limit Amendment. These are two amendments that I am sympathetic toward by the way. But as they say, the devil is in the details and I'd have to know more about any such amendments because I could say for certain one way or the other.
The fear of course is that any convention would attempt veer into other areas such abortion access and gay marriage which would be a big mistake.
I suspect the effort is doomed to failure though because there are far too many open questions including how would representatives to the convention be chosen and what would the Rules of Order of the convention be?
Besides, I don't see why a convention would be any less politically gridlocked than Congress.
Friday, December 06, 2013
the "War" on Christmas
I put "War" in quotes because it is purely imaginary. This is one of those Right Wing Myths that is used to keep the under 80 IQ trailer park set in constant state of consternation and contributing money, which they really can't afford to part with, to Right Wing organizations.
I agree that if you go back to the early sixties or 1950s, any holiday greeting other than Merry Christmas would have sounded strange. "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" were few and far between.
But as time moved on, the country became more mixed and the minority non-Christian groups became more of an economic force, the switch to the neutral terms of expression became more prevalent.
Personally, I don't really care what you say but there are some who might.
As I've said before, this is NOT the Holiday Season. It's the Christmas Season. Christmas is the big Kahuna. If you want to piggyback some other celebration onto the Christmas coattails, that's up to you.
Hanukkah occurred this year sometime around Thanksgiving. Besides, it's a very minor Jewish holiday and, if the truth must be told, a terrible thing to celebrate. It essentially commemorates the success of reactionary forces stifling the growth of culture, knowledge and democracy.
As for Kwanzaa, I still don't really know what the hell it is.
The Christmas Story is certainly a myth but that's no reason not to enjoy the story anyway.
I agree that if you go back to the early sixties or 1950s, any holiday greeting other than Merry Christmas would have sounded strange. "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" were few and far between.
But as time moved on, the country became more mixed and the minority non-Christian groups became more of an economic force, the switch to the neutral terms of expression became more prevalent.
Personally, I don't really care what you say but there are some who might.
As I've said before, this is NOT the Holiday Season. It's the Christmas Season. Christmas is the big Kahuna. If you want to piggyback some other celebration onto the Christmas coattails, that's up to you.
Hanukkah occurred this year sometime around Thanksgiving. Besides, it's a very minor Jewish holiday and, if the truth must be told, a terrible thing to celebrate. It essentially commemorates the success of reactionary forces stifling the growth of culture, knowledge and democracy.
As for Kwanzaa, I still don't really know what the hell it is.
The Christmas Story is certainly a myth but that's no reason not to enjoy the story anyway.
2014 World Cup Draw
Well, the madness is beginning.
Today was the final draw for the 2014 World Cup to establish the eight groups.
If there was a worse draw that the US could have come up with, its hard to imagine what it could have been. Not only was it a terrible draw, but as a bonus the US inherited the worst travel schedule. Ah well, what the heck.
The US gets not one but TWO top five teams in Germany and Portugal plus Ghana the team which eliminated the US in the last two World Cups. Getting to the knockout round of 16 doesn't look too good.
England has a tough road as well as they would have to beat out either Uruguay #6 or Italy #7. France has a good chance to make it to the knockout round as does Mexico and Russia. Iran is probably a long shot and Australia and Japan look like they're toast given the groups they drew.
Anyway, here are the groups with the current FIFA ranking in parens.
Group A: Brazil (10), Croatia (16), Cameroon (59), Mexico (20)
Group B: Spain (1), Netherlands (9), Chile (15), Australia (57)
Group C: Colombia (4), Greece (12), Ivory Coast (17), Japan (44)
Group D: Uruguay (6), Costa Rica (31), England (13), Italy (7)
Group E: Switzerland (8), Ecuador (22), France (19), Honduras (34)
Group F: Argentina (3), Bosnia-Herzegovina (21), Iran (49), Nigeria (33)
Group G: Germany (2), Portugal (5), Ghana (23), USA (14)
Group H: Belgium (11), Algeria (32), Russia (22), South Korea (56)
On the bright side let's not forget that there are no easy World Cup matches. So, time to make myself look foolish. My early predictions for the winners of the group stage.
Group A: Brazil (10), Mexico (20)
Group B: Spain (1), Netherlands (9)
Group C: Colombia (4), Greece (12)
Group D: Uruguay (6), England (13)
Group E: Switzerland (8), France (19)
Group F: Argentina (3), Nigeria (33)
Group G: Germany (2), Portugal (5)
Group H: Belgium (11), Russia (22)
If there was a worse draw that the US could have come up with, its hard to imagine what it could have been. Not only was it a terrible draw, but as a bonus the US inherited the worst travel schedule. Ah well, what the heck.
The US gets not one but TWO top five teams in Germany and Portugal plus Ghana the team which eliminated the US in the last two World Cups. Getting to the knockout round of 16 doesn't look too good.
England has a tough road as well as they would have to beat out either Uruguay #6 or Italy #7. France has a good chance to make it to the knockout round as does Mexico and Russia. Iran is probably a long shot and Australia and Japan look like they're toast given the groups they drew.
Anyway, here are the groups with the current FIFA ranking in parens.
Group A: Brazil (10), Croatia (16), Cameroon (59), Mexico (20)
Group B: Spain (1), Netherlands (9), Chile (15), Australia (57)
Group C: Colombia (4), Greece (12), Ivory Coast (17), Japan (44)
Group D: Uruguay (6), Costa Rica (31), England (13), Italy (7)
Group E: Switzerland (8), Ecuador (22), France (19), Honduras (34)
Group F: Argentina (3), Bosnia-Herzegovina (21), Iran (49), Nigeria (33)
Group G: Germany (2), Portugal (5), Ghana (23), USA (14)
Group H: Belgium (11), Algeria (32), Russia (22), South Korea (56)
On the bright side let's not forget that there are no easy World Cup matches. So, time to make myself look foolish. My early predictions for the winners of the group stage.
Group A: Brazil (10), Mexico (20)
Group B: Spain (1), Netherlands (9)
Group C: Colombia (4), Greece (12)
Group D: Uruguay (6), England (13)
Group E: Switzerland (8), France (19)
Group F: Argentina (3), Nigeria (33)
Group G: Germany (2), Portugal (5)
Group H: Belgium (11), Russia (22)
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Then there were Sixteen
Hawaii and Illinois have joined the list of states legalizing same sex marriage and the governor of Missouri has ordered same sex marriages recognized for the purpose of filing state tax returns.
And so the wall continues to crumble.
And so the wall continues to crumble.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
What is an Atheist?
This is a definition from the Supreme Court case Murray v. Curlett, one of the cases in which the Supreme Court in 1963 struck down both Bible reading and the Lord's Prayer in public schools as a violation of the 1st Amendment.
An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god.
An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now, here on earth, for all men together to enjoy.
An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it.
An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to reach a life of fulfillment.
Get it?
An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god.
An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now, here on earth, for all men together to enjoy.
An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it.
An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to reach a life of fulfillment.
Get it?
Friday, November 15, 2013
Virginia's Attorney General Update
A week after the election it appears that the Republican's didn't manage to hold the Attorney General's office in Virginia.
Less that 200 votes appear to have given the election to Democrat Mark Herring over Republican Mark Obershain.
According to the right wing nut jobs this is just further evidence of election fraud to add to Cuccinelli's loss, Romney's loss, McCain's loss...
Conservatives cannot tell the difference between fact and fantasy nor can they understand that many people simply DISAGREE WITH THEM!
Still, even with a zero for three showing in Virginia we're hearing it's because they weren't conservative enough. Welcome to the Republican Party, all lunatics welcome.
Less that 200 votes appear to have given the election to Democrat Mark Herring over Republican Mark Obershain.
According to the right wing nut jobs this is just further evidence of election fraud to add to Cuccinelli's loss, Romney's loss, McCain's loss...
Conservatives cannot tell the difference between fact and fantasy nor can they understand that many people simply DISAGREE WITH THEM!
Still, even with a zero for three showing in Virginia we're hearing it's because they weren't conservative enough. Welcome to the Republican Party, all lunatics welcome.
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Election 2013
For an off-year election this had some important "tend" style things going on.
In New Jersey what passes for a moderate Republican, Chris Christie, easily won re-election over the non-entity Barbra Buono. With 84% of the vote in Christie was ahead 60%-38%.
However a buzz kill for Christie's presidential hopes were in exit polls that showed he would lose New Jersey to Hillary Clinton.
In Virginia lunatic fringe candidate Republican Ken Cuccinelli lost the gubernatorial election to Democrat Terry McAuliffe by 47.5% to 45.9%. Libertarian Robert Sarvis managed 6.6%.
But more important than the governor's race was the race for lieutenant governor where certified lunatic Republican E.W. Jackson got trounced by Democrat Ralph Northam 55% to 45%.
So what's the key take away here? Cuccinelli was far more conservative than Christie and Jackson was much, much more conservative than even Cuccinelli. So, despite what the right wing lunatic fringe is saying, the more conservative you are, the more likely you are to get clobbered in the general election.
The Republican's might manage to hold Attorney General in Virginia as Mark Obershain leads Democrat Mark Herring 50.3% to 49.7%. This is sort of unfortunate as there isn't much to choose from between Cuccinelli and Obershain.
The only reason Jackson was on the ballot was the Virginia GOP went from a primary system to a convention. Jackson would never have won even a GOP primary. He's that loony toons.
In New York City, it wasn't even close. Bill DeBlasio is up by about 3-1. My concern with DeBlasio is all about finances. Personally I would have liked to see Mike Bloomberg made mayor for life.
The last election of note is in the Alabama 1st District where a Republican run-off is taking place for the seat of the resigning Republican Representative. Both candidates are conservative whack jobs but we're talking about Alabama here so it's all relative. Apparently the establishment Republican Bradley Byrne is going to defeat his Tea Party challenger by 52.5% to 47.5%.
All in all a really bad night for the Tea Party and that's a good thing.
In New Jersey what passes for a moderate Republican, Chris Christie, easily won re-election over the non-entity Barbra Buono. With 84% of the vote in Christie was ahead 60%-38%.
However a buzz kill for Christie's presidential hopes were in exit polls that showed he would lose New Jersey to Hillary Clinton.
In Virginia lunatic fringe candidate Republican Ken Cuccinelli lost the gubernatorial election to Democrat Terry McAuliffe by 47.5% to 45.9%. Libertarian Robert Sarvis managed 6.6%.
But more important than the governor's race was the race for lieutenant governor where certified lunatic Republican E.W. Jackson got trounced by Democrat Ralph Northam 55% to 45%.
So what's the key take away here? Cuccinelli was far more conservative than Christie and Jackson was much, much more conservative than even Cuccinelli. So, despite what the right wing lunatic fringe is saying, the more conservative you are, the more likely you are to get clobbered in the general election.
The Republican's might manage to hold Attorney General in Virginia as Mark Obershain leads Democrat Mark Herring 50.3% to 49.7%. This is sort of unfortunate as there isn't much to choose from between Cuccinelli and Obershain.
The only reason Jackson was on the ballot was the Virginia GOP went from a primary system to a convention. Jackson would never have won even a GOP primary. He's that loony toons.
In New York City, it wasn't even close. Bill DeBlasio is up by about 3-1. My concern with DeBlasio is all about finances. Personally I would have liked to see Mike Bloomberg made mayor for life.
The last election of note is in the Alabama 1st District where a Republican run-off is taking place for the seat of the resigning Republican Representative. Both candidates are conservative whack jobs but we're talking about Alabama here so it's all relative. Apparently the establishment Republican Bradley Byrne is going to defeat his Tea Party challenger by 52.5% to 47.5%.
All in all a really bad night for the Tea Party and that's a good thing.
Friday, November 01, 2013
My 2 Cents on Obamacare
Ok, maybe it will be a nickle or maybe even a dime.
Let's start with the catastrophic roll-out web site screw-up. Granted that it's just a techie thing, and I've seen my share of techie foul-ups (I've even been a part of a few), but this is such a screw-up it leaves one breathless.
Yes, the technology is more complicated that it looks but they could at least have hired a contractor that had some vague notion of what they were doing. I would love to know how the selection process went on this puppy.
There is no question in my mind that Kathleen Sebelius should be canned. This is a foul-up of that kind of magnitude. She had ONE THING TO GET RIGHT and she blew it spectacularly.
Now let's talk about the fact that, despite constant assurances that you could keep the health care you had, apparently this wasn't true in all cases. Due to regulations instituted by the Department of Health and Human Services, many private policies aren't grandfathered because they don't meet the Health Care Law requirements.
What this means is a golden opportunity for insurance companies to (1) dump policy categories (and they must end a whole business area and not individual policies) that are unprofitable or are so piss poor they're law suits waiting to happen. The Health Care Law introduction gives them the perfect excuse.
AND OBAMA KNEW IT ALL ALONG. Where I come from we call that lying.
The solution is simple. Pass a law that guarantees people can choose to keep policies they had prior to March 2010 (the current grandfathering cut-off) unchanged if they're happy with it and regardless of how lousy the policy may be.
What do you figure the chances are Congress can do something BEFORE January 1 when the policies disappear?
Let's start with the catastrophic roll-out web site screw-up. Granted that it's just a techie thing, and I've seen my share of techie foul-ups (I've even been a part of a few), but this is such a screw-up it leaves one breathless.
Yes, the technology is more complicated that it looks but they could at least have hired a contractor that had some vague notion of what they were doing. I would love to know how the selection process went on this puppy.
There is no question in my mind that Kathleen Sebelius should be canned. This is a foul-up of that kind of magnitude. She had ONE THING TO GET RIGHT and she blew it spectacularly.
Now let's talk about the fact that, despite constant assurances that you could keep the health care you had, apparently this wasn't true in all cases. Due to regulations instituted by the Department of Health and Human Services, many private policies aren't grandfathered because they don't meet the Health Care Law requirements.
What this means is a golden opportunity for insurance companies to (1) dump policy categories (and they must end a whole business area and not individual policies) that are unprofitable or are so piss poor they're law suits waiting to happen. The Health Care Law introduction gives them the perfect excuse.
AND OBAMA KNEW IT ALL ALONG. Where I come from we call that lying.
The solution is simple. Pass a law that guarantees people can choose to keep policies they had prior to March 2010 (the current grandfathering cut-off) unchanged if they're happy with it and regardless of how lousy the policy may be.
What do you figure the chances are Congress can do something BEFORE January 1 when the policies disappear?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
