A tenured political science professor at Wheaton College, an evangelical university outside Chicago, has been suspended after she wrote in a Facebook post that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.
Dr. Larycia Hawkins went on to say that she was donning the hijab during Advent as a sign of solidarity with Muslims.
Well now, isn't this special?
Wheaton College said that she was on administrative leave "In response to significant questions regarding the theological implications of statements that Associate Professor of Political Science Dr. Larycia Hawkins has made about the relationship of Christianity to Islam..."
According to the college when they participate in causes, faculty and staff must faithfully represent the school's evangelical statement of faith. I suspect that it is the first part of the first paragraph of that statement of faith that Hawkins may have run afoul of.
"WE BELIEVE in one sovereign God, eternally existing in three persons: the everlasting Father, His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, and the Holy Spirit, the giver of life;"
Muslims think the concept of the Trinity is illogical, lacks common sense and is even blasphemous. I certain agree that it's illogical and lacks common sense. Three isn't one and one isn't three. I might point out that Jews don't think much of the Trinity either but no one questions the idea that the Jewish God and the Christian God are the same God.
Let's understand that Wheaton College is a hotbed of lunacy. A hive of scum, villainy and ignorance that pollutes the country with its idiocy. We'd all be better off if they shut it down but, that's not likely to happen.
How an institute of "higher education" can declare the following, also in its statement of faith, simply boggles the mind.
"WE BELIEVE that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race; and that they were created in His own image, distinct from all other living creatures, and in a state of original righteousness."
Then there's this one from the same statement of faith.
"WE BELIEVE in the existence of Satan, sin, and evil powers, and that all these have been defeated by God in the cross of Christ."
Well then why the fuck is sin and evil, mostly perpetrated by Christians, still alive and kicking?
Given this sort of crap it's terrifying to think how they're "educating" their students. I can only imagine what their biology classes look like.
OK, enough bashing of Christian "education."
"Allah" is simply the word for God like "Dios" in Spanish and "Dieu" in French. Here's a hint, these are not four different "Gods." Even Arabic speaking Christians would call "God" "Allah" and the word was used by Arabic Christians long before Islam.
I never thought there was much question among educated people that the God of Jews, Christians and Muslims was the same "God" and it was only the under 80 IQ Republican base that thought otherwise.
Apparently Wheaton College isn't so sure either.
Now personally I don't give a crap if we're talking about one imaginary friend or two different imaginary friends. I'm just stunned to see how far into ignorance we've fallen.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Wednesday, December 09, 2015
No Muslims Allowed?
Apparently Donald Trump thinks it would be a good idea if Muslims weren't allowed entry into the US. The man is afraid there might be a terrorist or two hiding among the student visa applicants.
I suppose next would be not allowing Muslims who are US citizens and living in the US to leave. I mean there's no guarantee they're not going to be turned into wide eyed radicals while they're out of the country.
Come to think of it, how can we trust them even while they're in the country? I know, how about we round them up and put in special places where we can keep an eye on them. We'll call the special places Concentration Camps...oh wait.
I prefer to judge each individual on his or her own merits. I have no patience for Islam just like I have no patience for any religion but you could make a case that aspects of Islam make it worse than most other religions given it's history of militant jihad and little associated cultural gems such as honor killings.
But I draw the line at guilt by association. There are realistic and unrealistic concerns. What is it about conservatives that they seem to have a pathological need to constantly be afraid?
In the meantime Cruz and Huckabee think they can simply ignore Supreme Court decisions. Cruz wants to extend 14th Amendment rights to fetuses which he thinks would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade.
Of course it wouldn't because no legislative law can overrule the Constitution. You would need some sort of Constitutional amendment. I find it hard to believe Cruz has a law degree.
Huckabee thinks he can eliminate abortions and gay rights through executive order.
Huckabee and Cruz are both idiots.
Even Jeb Bush, who I thought might be an adult, suggests we allow only Christian Syrian refugees to enter the country. When asked how he was going to tell the difference, he went hem, haw, hem, hem.
The one good thing about Trump is he is pulling all the racists and bigots out of the closet. He's like sugar being dropped on the floor of a roach infested kitchen. He's making it "OK" for the scum of the country to show their true colors.
I suppose next would be not allowing Muslims who are US citizens and living in the US to leave. I mean there's no guarantee they're not going to be turned into wide eyed radicals while they're out of the country.
Come to think of it, how can we trust them even while they're in the country? I know, how about we round them up and put in special places where we can keep an eye on them. We'll call the special places Concentration Camps...oh wait.
I prefer to judge each individual on his or her own merits. I have no patience for Islam just like I have no patience for any religion but you could make a case that aspects of Islam make it worse than most other religions given it's history of militant jihad and little associated cultural gems such as honor killings.
But I draw the line at guilt by association. There are realistic and unrealistic concerns. What is it about conservatives that they seem to have a pathological need to constantly be afraid?
In the meantime Cruz and Huckabee think they can simply ignore Supreme Court decisions. Cruz wants to extend 14th Amendment rights to fetuses which he thinks would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade.
Of course it wouldn't because no legislative law can overrule the Constitution. You would need some sort of Constitutional amendment. I find it hard to believe Cruz has a law degree.
Huckabee thinks he can eliminate abortions and gay rights through executive order.
Huckabee and Cruz are both idiots.
Even Jeb Bush, who I thought might be an adult, suggests we allow only Christian Syrian refugees to enter the country. When asked how he was going to tell the difference, he went hem, haw, hem, hem.
The one good thing about Trump is he is pulling all the racists and bigots out of the closet. He's like sugar being dropped on the floor of a roach infested kitchen. He's making it "OK" for the scum of the country to show their true colors.
Tuesday, December 08, 2015
College Football Poll 12/8/2015
OK, so they had to toss in one little wrinkle. They moved Michigan State ahead of Oklahoma.
#1 - Clemson (13-0)
#2 - Alabama (12-1)
#3 - Michigan State (12-1)
#4 - Oklahoma (11-1)
Honestly, that makes no sense to me whatsoever. If Oklahoma was ahead of Iowa, why does Michigan State jump ahead of Oklahoma for beating Iowa?
I suppose it has something to do with Michigan State having a tougher schedule than Iowa which was my rationale for picking them to win in the first place.
Anyway, we're set to go.
Oklahoma will play Clemson in the Orange Bowl on Dec. 31 at 4 PM and Michigan State will play Alabama on the same day in the Cotton Bowl at 8 PM. Of course you'll need access to ESPN to watch the games.
The Championship Game will be on Jan. 11 in Glendale at University of Phoenix Stadium. I'm going to go with Clemson and Alabama meeting in this game.
#1 - Clemson (13-0)
#2 - Alabama (12-1)
#3 - Michigan State (12-1)
#4 - Oklahoma (11-1)
Honestly, that makes no sense to me whatsoever. If Oklahoma was ahead of Iowa, why does Michigan State jump ahead of Oklahoma for beating Iowa?
I suppose it has something to do with Michigan State having a tougher schedule than Iowa which was my rationale for picking them to win in the first place.
Anyway, we're set to go.
Oklahoma will play Clemson in the Orange Bowl on Dec. 31 at 4 PM and Michigan State will play Alabama on the same day in the Cotton Bowl at 8 PM. Of course you'll need access to ESPN to watch the games.
The Championship Game will be on Jan. 11 in Glendale at University of Phoenix Stadium. I'm going to go with Clemson and Alabama meeting in this game.
Sunday, December 06, 2015
College Football Poll 12/5/2015
Well Alabama took care of business in the early game beating Florida 29-16.
The game between Iowa and Michigan State was a beaut coming down to trench play inside the 5 yard line with State trying to punch it in and Iowa trying to hold on. Ultimately it was too much to ask of the Iowa defense and Michigan State won 16-13.
Clemson held on over North Carolina 45-37. Things might have gotten scary is NC had managed to recover the onside kick but it was not to be.
So it's all over but the kicking and screaming and it's time for the fat lady to get ready to sing. It's going to be:
#1 - Clemson (13-0)
#2 - Alabama (12-1)
#3 - Oklahoma (11-1)
#4 - Michigan State (12-1)
Gee, where Have I seen that before? Any other alignment would make no sense whatsoever.
The game between Iowa and Michigan State was a beaut coming down to trench play inside the 5 yard line with State trying to punch it in and Iowa trying to hold on. Ultimately it was too much to ask of the Iowa defense and Michigan State won 16-13.
Clemson held on over North Carolina 45-37. Things might have gotten scary is NC had managed to recover the onside kick but it was not to be.
So it's all over but the kicking and screaming and it's time for the fat lady to get ready to sing. It's going to be:
#1 - Clemson (13-0)
#2 - Alabama (12-1)
#3 - Oklahoma (11-1)
#4 - Michigan State (12-1)
Gee, where Have I seen that before? Any other alignment would make no sense whatsoever.
Friday, December 04, 2015
An ISIS Connection?
Updated information about the San Bernadino shooting has verified that one of the shooters was indeed Syed Farook who worked for the Inland Regional Center and the other was his wife Tashfeen Malik.
There are rumors that Malik, who was Pakistani and met Farook in Saudi Arabia, had "pledged allegiance" to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a Facebook posting Wednesday.
Other reports claim that Farook destroyed computer hard drives and other electronics prior to the attack and had left the party at the social services center after an argument with someone who supposedly denounced the "inherent dangers of Islam."
Now, let's note that none of these reports have been substantiated regardless of the fact they are claimed to be from US government sources but Fox News is already broadcasting the Malik pledge as fact.
Assuming that these reports if not 100% accurate are at least close to the truth, then we have a case of radicalized Muslims at least sympathetic to ISIS possibly being set off by a workplace argument.
Whether there was any formal contact between Malik and ISIS is yet to be seen.
This is an attack on a soft target consistent with the attacks in Paris so it wouldn't particularly surprise me if it was at least indirectly related to an ISIS campaign even though the precise target and timing may have been triggered by the argument.
You cannot protect all of the soft targets. There are simply too many of them. You have to focus on not allowing potential terrorists to amass the means to make such an attack.
Unfortunately that's a lot easier said than done.
There are rumors that Malik, who was Pakistani and met Farook in Saudi Arabia, had "pledged allegiance" to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a Facebook posting Wednesday.
Other reports claim that Farook destroyed computer hard drives and other electronics prior to the attack and had left the party at the social services center after an argument with someone who supposedly denounced the "inherent dangers of Islam."
Now, let's note that none of these reports have been substantiated regardless of the fact they are claimed to be from US government sources but Fox News is already broadcasting the Malik pledge as fact.
Assuming that these reports if not 100% accurate are at least close to the truth, then we have a case of radicalized Muslims at least sympathetic to ISIS possibly being set off by a workplace argument.
Whether there was any formal contact between Malik and ISIS is yet to be seen.
This is an attack on a soft target consistent with the attacks in Paris so it wouldn't particularly surprise me if it was at least indirectly related to an ISIS campaign even though the precise target and timing may have been triggered by the argument.
You cannot protect all of the soft targets. There are simply too many of them. You have to focus on not allowing potential terrorists to amass the means to make such an attack.
Unfortunately that's a lot easier said than done.
Wednesday, December 02, 2015
Another Mass Shooting
This one in San Bernadino California where two, and perhaps three, people armed with rifles opened fire at a holiday party for county health workers.
At least 14 people were killed and 17 wounded.
Police have reportedly killed two suspects and arrested a third person. One police officer was wounded in the shootout.
Those are the basics as they are understood at this moment.
Other reports claim that there was an argument at a party and one person left. If that person was one of the gunman is not known. Police identified one of the suspects as one Syed Farook. A Syed Farook apparently worked at the center where the shooting took place but no one has verified they're the same person.
I'd say it's pretty likely. How many Syed Farooks you think there are in San Bernadino?
I'm not going to go into the whole gun control thing. I can't wait to hear the wing nuts say more guns are the solution because if people at the center had been armed then yada, yada, yada.
This whole cowboy mentality doesn't work. If everyone pulls out a gun how do you tell the so-called "good guys" from the "bad guys?"
Then again no one ever accused conservatives of being capable of performing even the most rudimentary logical analysis when it comes to one of their wing nut issues.
And please don't tell me "guns don't kill people kill." Because without the guns, people wouldn't be able to kill this way. Yes you can kill with other stuff but only guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing.
I haven't heard anything about motive. One would think it would have to have been a really big argument to lead to this sort of nonsense but I suppose it's possible. I'm sure we'll learn more in the coming days.
At least 14 people were killed and 17 wounded.
Police have reportedly killed two suspects and arrested a third person. One police officer was wounded in the shootout.
Those are the basics as they are understood at this moment.
Other reports claim that there was an argument at a party and one person left. If that person was one of the gunman is not known. Police identified one of the suspects as one Syed Farook. A Syed Farook apparently worked at the center where the shooting took place but no one has verified they're the same person.
I'd say it's pretty likely. How many Syed Farooks you think there are in San Bernadino?
I'm not going to go into the whole gun control thing. I can't wait to hear the wing nuts say more guns are the solution because if people at the center had been armed then yada, yada, yada.
This whole cowboy mentality doesn't work. If everyone pulls out a gun how do you tell the so-called "good guys" from the "bad guys?"
Then again no one ever accused conservatives of being capable of performing even the most rudimentary logical analysis when it comes to one of their wing nut issues.
And please don't tell me "guns don't kill people kill." Because without the guns, people wouldn't be able to kill this way. Yes you can kill with other stuff but only guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing.
I haven't heard anything about motive. One would think it would have to have been a really big argument to lead to this sort of nonsense but I suppose it's possible. I'm sure we'll learn more in the coming days.
College Football Poll 12/1/2015
As expected the top four remained unchanged at:
#1 - Clemson (12-0)
#2 - Alabama (11-1)
#3 - Oklahoma (11-1)
#4 - Iowa (12-0)
The key conference championship games this week will be:
#1 - Clemson (12-0) will host North Carolina (11-1)
#2 - Alabama (11-1) will host Florida (10-2)
#4 - Iowa (12-0) will host Michigan State (11-1)
Oklahoma is finished and should secure a playoff birth. The winner of Iowa vs Michigan State should the second birth. If Clemson and Alabama win they will have the final two births.
If Alabama loses to Florida, I don't see Florida leaping up from #18. In this event I would expect Ohio State to sneak back in or possibly Stanford if they have a big day against USC in the PAC-10 championship.
If Clemson loses, things get interesting. You could make a case for North Carolina, Ohio State, Stanford if they win big over USC or even simply dropping Clemson to the #4 spot.
I expect the day to end up as follows:
#1 - Clemson (13-0)
#2 - Alabama (12-1)
#3 - Oklahoma (11-1)
#4 - Michigan State (12-1)
#1 - Clemson (12-0)
#2 - Alabama (11-1)
#3 - Oklahoma (11-1)
#4 - Iowa (12-0)
The key conference championship games this week will be:
#1 - Clemson (12-0) will host North Carolina (11-1)
#2 - Alabama (11-1) will host Florida (10-2)
#4 - Iowa (12-0) will host Michigan State (11-1)
Oklahoma is finished and should secure a playoff birth. The winner of Iowa vs Michigan State should the second birth. If Clemson and Alabama win they will have the final two births.
If Alabama loses to Florida, I don't see Florida leaping up from #18. In this event I would expect Ohio State to sneak back in or possibly Stanford if they have a big day against USC in the PAC-10 championship.
If Clemson loses, things get interesting. You could make a case for North Carolina, Ohio State, Stanford if they win big over USC or even simply dropping Clemson to the #4 spot.
I expect the day to end up as follows:
#1 - Clemson (13-0)
#2 - Alabama (12-1)
#3 - Oklahoma (11-1)
#4 - Michigan State (12-1)
Sunday, November 29, 2015
College Football Poll 11/29/2015
Well, the last full schedule of games is over with the following results.
#1 - Clemson (12-0) beat South Carolina (3-8) 37-32
#2 - Alabama (11-1) beat Auburn (6-6) 29-13
#3 - Oklahoma (11-1) beat Oklahoma State (10-2) 58-23
#4 - Iowa (12-0) beat Nebraska (5-7) 28-20
#5 - Michigan State (11-1) beat Penn State (7-5) 55-16
#6 - Notre Dame (10-2) LOST to Stanford (10-2) 38-36
#7 - Baylor (9-2) LOST to TCU (10-2) 28-21
#8 - Ohio State (11-1) beat Michigan (9-3) 42-13
#9 - Stanford (10-2) beat Notre Dame (10-2) 38-36
#10 - Michigan (9-3) lost to Ohio State 42-13
I see any reason to change the top four so I'm thinking they stay the same. Next week are the conference championship games and Clemson, Alabama and Iowa are all playing.
#1 - Clemson (12-0) will host North Carolina (11-1)
#2 - Alabama (11-1) will host Florida (10-2)
#4 - Iowa (12-0) will host Michigan State (11-1)
Clearly the most interesting game here is Iowa vs. Michigan State. With State hovering just outside playoff territory and #5 the winner secures a birth. I doubt that either Clemson or Alabama are going to get tripped up but you never know.
I suppose Oklahoma is in since they're done with their schedule. For them to lose a spot now would make just about everyone question the sanity of the playoff committee process.
Of the teams sitting on the fringe I suspect that Ohio State has the best long shot of getting in if Alabama loses to Florida.
Assuming Clemson and Alabama win then the final four should be a non-controversial no-brainer with Clemson, Alabama, Oklahoma and the winner of Iowa vs Michigan State.
#1 - Clemson (12-0) beat South Carolina (3-8) 37-32
#2 - Alabama (11-1) beat Auburn (6-6) 29-13
#3 - Oklahoma (11-1) beat Oklahoma State (10-2) 58-23
#4 - Iowa (12-0) beat Nebraska (5-7) 28-20
#5 - Michigan State (11-1) beat Penn State (7-5) 55-16
#6 - Notre Dame (10-2) LOST to Stanford (10-2) 38-36
#7 - Baylor (9-2) LOST to TCU (10-2) 28-21
#8 - Ohio State (11-1) beat Michigan (9-3) 42-13
#9 - Stanford (10-2) beat Notre Dame (10-2) 38-36
#10 - Michigan (9-3) lost to Ohio State 42-13
I see any reason to change the top four so I'm thinking they stay the same. Next week are the conference championship games and Clemson, Alabama and Iowa are all playing.
#1 - Clemson (12-0) will host North Carolina (11-1)
#2 - Alabama (11-1) will host Florida (10-2)
#4 - Iowa (12-0) will host Michigan State (11-1)
Clearly the most interesting game here is Iowa vs. Michigan State. With State hovering just outside playoff territory and #5 the winner secures a birth. I doubt that either Clemson or Alabama are going to get tripped up but you never know.
I suppose Oklahoma is in since they're done with their schedule. For them to lose a spot now would make just about everyone question the sanity of the playoff committee process.
Of the teams sitting on the fringe I suspect that Ohio State has the best long shot of getting in if Alabama loses to Florida.
Assuming Clemson and Alabama win then the final four should be a non-controversial no-brainer with Clemson, Alabama, Oklahoma and the winner of Iowa vs Michigan State.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
College Football Poll 11/24/2015
Wow Notre Dame's lackluster performance against Boston College really did hurt then. In the new poll they dropped behind Oklahoma, Iowa and Michigan State. Florida got hurt big time as well dropping out of the top 10 altogether.
Ok, in the latest poll things look like this:
#1 - Clemson (11-0) (NC)
#2 - Alabama (10-1) (NC)
#3 - Oklahoma (10-1) (+4)
#4 - Iowa (11-0) (+1)
#5 - Michigan State (10-1) (+4)
#6 - Notre Dame (10-1) (-2)
#7 - Baylor (9-1) (+3)
#8 - Ohio State (10-1) (-5)
#9 - Stanford (9-2) (+2)
#10 - Michigan (9-2) (+2)
I have to admit that I don't see why Oklahoma State dropped all the way to 11th behind two 9-2 teams because of a loss to Baylor nor why Stanford's win over unranked California and Michigan's win over unranked Penn State was enough to allow them to break into the top 10. Neither the AP nor USA Today polls had that sort of volatility.
Anyway, like I said, it ain't up to me. So what are the games this week?
#1 - Clemson (11-0) is at South Carolina (3-8)
#2 - Alabama (10-1) is at Auburn (6-5)
#3 - Oklahoma (10-1) is at Oklahoma State (10-1)
#4 - Iowa (11-0) is at Nebraska (5-6)
#5 - Michigan State (10-1) is at Penn State (7-4)
#6 - Notre Dame (10-1) is at Stanford (9-2)
#7 - Baylor (9-1) is at TCU (9-2)
#8 - Ohio State (10-1) is at Michigan (9-2)
#9 - Stanford (9-2) will host Notre Dame (10-1)
#10 - Michigan (9-2) will host Ohio State
Oh aren't there some interesting ones this weekend? Oklahoma vs Oklahoma State should be fascinating as should Notre Dame vs Stanford and then there's always Ohio State vs Michigan.
Best chances for a big upset? I'm thinking Baylor vs TCU and Iowa vs Nebraska.
This is really the last full schedule. The following week there are conference championship games and Clemson and Baylor both have final games which could be significant if something weird happens.
The final week is reserved for Army vs Navy and I don't see 2-9 Army having much of a shot against 9-1 Navy so I'm guessing Navy gets to sing 2nd for the 14th straight season.
But hey, you never know. That's why you have to play the game.
Ok, in the latest poll things look like this:
#1 - Clemson (11-0) (NC)
#2 - Alabama (10-1) (NC)
#3 - Oklahoma (10-1) (+4)
#4 - Iowa (11-0) (+1)
#5 - Michigan State (10-1) (+4)
#6 - Notre Dame (10-1) (-2)
#7 - Baylor (9-1) (+3)
#8 - Ohio State (10-1) (-5)
#9 - Stanford (9-2) (+2)
#10 - Michigan (9-2) (+2)
I have to admit that I don't see why Oklahoma State dropped all the way to 11th behind two 9-2 teams because of a loss to Baylor nor why Stanford's win over unranked California and Michigan's win over unranked Penn State was enough to allow them to break into the top 10. Neither the AP nor USA Today polls had that sort of volatility.
Anyway, like I said, it ain't up to me. So what are the games this week?
#1 - Clemson (11-0) is at South Carolina (3-8)
#2 - Alabama (10-1) is at Auburn (6-5)
#3 - Oklahoma (10-1) is at Oklahoma State (10-1)
#4 - Iowa (11-0) is at Nebraska (5-6)
#5 - Michigan State (10-1) is at Penn State (7-4)
#6 - Notre Dame (10-1) is at Stanford (9-2)
#7 - Baylor (9-1) is at TCU (9-2)
#8 - Ohio State (10-1) is at Michigan (9-2)
#9 - Stanford (9-2) will host Notre Dame (10-1)
#10 - Michigan (9-2) will host Ohio State
Oh aren't there some interesting ones this weekend? Oklahoma vs Oklahoma State should be fascinating as should Notre Dame vs Stanford and then there's always Ohio State vs Michigan.
Best chances for a big upset? I'm thinking Baylor vs TCU and Iowa vs Nebraska.
This is really the last full schedule. The following week there are conference championship games and Clemson and Baylor both have final games which could be significant if something weird happens.
The final week is reserved for Army vs Navy and I don't see 2-9 Army having much of a shot against 9-1 Navy so I'm guessing Navy gets to sing 2nd for the 14th straight season.
But hey, you never know. That's why you have to play the game.
The Syrian Refugee Question
Let's start with an observation. Conservatives are afraid of their own shadows. They seem to have a psychological need to be afraid of something.
They're afraid of going to hell. A place for which there is zero evidence that it exists.
They're afraid of racial diversity.
They're afraid of gays marrying.
They were utterly terrified of Ebola.
They're afraid of immigrants.
They're afraid of Muslims.
And now they're apparently afraid of Syrian refugees including 5 year old orphans.
Look, you can come up with nightmare scenarios easily enough. The question becomes how realistic are those scenarios? Are your fears rational or irrational?
Life has risks. You can't eliminate every risk. You can mitigate them and you can take reasonable precautions but if you allow yourself to give in to irrational fears you'll paralyze yourself.
Some of the analogies have been utterly ridiculous. Mike Huckabee asked if 3% of the peanuts in a bag were poisonous would you let your children eat a peanut out of that bag?
The answer is obviously no but, and this is the big but, the odds presented by Huckabee are several orders of magnitude higher than the risk of a terrorist sneaking in with refugees and, while Huckabee's example results in a certain bad result, even if a terrorist got in it doesn't mean he's going to successfully cause a problem.
In other words while 3% poison peanuts is a rational fear, the fear of 5 year old Syrian orphans is just plain irrational.
I saw a video of a Republican politician whining about not knowing the vetting process. Well John Oliver on HBO appears to know what it is and gave a summary of it the other night. I'm not sure I could pass that process.
Tell you what. Why don't you "big," "brave" (*cough, cough) gun nuts go hide in the closet and shiver in terror. We'll protect you and tell you when it's safe to come out. That will probably be a week or two after the next election.
They're afraid of going to hell. A place for which there is zero evidence that it exists.
They're afraid of racial diversity.
They're afraid of gays marrying.
They were utterly terrified of Ebola.
They're afraid of immigrants.
They're afraid of Muslims.
And now they're apparently afraid of Syrian refugees including 5 year old orphans.
Look, you can come up with nightmare scenarios easily enough. The question becomes how realistic are those scenarios? Are your fears rational or irrational?
Life has risks. You can't eliminate every risk. You can mitigate them and you can take reasonable precautions but if you allow yourself to give in to irrational fears you'll paralyze yourself.
Some of the analogies have been utterly ridiculous. Mike Huckabee asked if 3% of the peanuts in a bag were poisonous would you let your children eat a peanut out of that bag?
The answer is obviously no but, and this is the big but, the odds presented by Huckabee are several orders of magnitude higher than the risk of a terrorist sneaking in with refugees and, while Huckabee's example results in a certain bad result, even if a terrorist got in it doesn't mean he's going to successfully cause a problem.
In other words while 3% poison peanuts is a rational fear, the fear of 5 year old Syrian orphans is just plain irrational.
I saw a video of a Republican politician whining about not knowing the vetting process. Well John Oliver on HBO appears to know what it is and gave a summary of it the other night. I'm not sure I could pass that process.
Tell you what. Why don't you "big," "brave" (*cough, cough) gun nuts go hide in the closet and shiver in terror. We'll protect you and tell you when it's safe to come out. That will probably be a week or two after the next election.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
College Football Poll 11/22/2015
Going into Saturday's games we had the top ten as:
#1 - Clemson (NC)
#2 - Alabama (NC)
#3 - Ohio State (NC)
#4 - Notre Dame (NC)
#5 - Iowa (NC)
#6 - Oklahoma State (+2)
#7 - Oklahoma (+5)
#8 - Florida (+3)
#9 - Michigan State (+4)
#10 - Baylor (-4)
But given the results there are about to be some changes.
Michigan State (10-1) beat Ohio State (10-1) on a last second field goal 17-14
Baylor (9-1) beat Oklahoma State (10-1) 45-35.
Oklahoma (10-1) beat TCU (9-2) 30-29
Notre Dame (10-1) squeaked by Boston College (3-8) 19-16
Florida (10-1) needed OT to beat Florida Atlantic (2-9) 20-14
Elsewhere things went about as expected.
Clemson (11-0) beat Wake Forest (3-8) 33-13
Alabama (10-1) steamrolled Charleston Southern (9-2) 56-6
Iowa (11-0) beat Purdue (2-9) 40-20
So now what? Notre Dame played ugly with five turnovers but they did win and Florida played almost as ugly but they also managed to win. Do you penalize them for playing ugly against opponents they should have handled more easily? Do you promote Michigan State over Iowa?
If it were up to me I'd go with:
#1 - Clemson (11-0) (NC)
#2 - Alabama (10-1) (NC)
#3 - Notre Dame (10-1) (+1)
#4 - Iowa (11-0) (+1)
#5 - Michigan State (10-1) (+4)
#6 - Oklahoma (10-1) (+1)
#7 - Ohio State (10-1) (-4)
#8 - Baylor (9-1) (+2)
#9 - Oklahoma State (10-1) (-3)
#10 - Florida (10-1) (-2)
Luckily it's not up to me.
#1 - Clemson (NC)
#2 - Alabama (NC)
#3 - Ohio State (NC)
#4 - Notre Dame (NC)
#5 - Iowa (NC)
#6 - Oklahoma State (+2)
#7 - Oklahoma (+5)
#8 - Florida (+3)
#9 - Michigan State (+4)
#10 - Baylor (-4)
But given the results there are about to be some changes.
Michigan State (10-1) beat Ohio State (10-1) on a last second field goal 17-14
Baylor (9-1) beat Oklahoma State (10-1) 45-35.
Oklahoma (10-1) beat TCU (9-2) 30-29
Notre Dame (10-1) squeaked by Boston College (3-8) 19-16
Florida (10-1) needed OT to beat Florida Atlantic (2-9) 20-14
Elsewhere things went about as expected.
Clemson (11-0) beat Wake Forest (3-8) 33-13
Alabama (10-1) steamrolled Charleston Southern (9-2) 56-6
Iowa (11-0) beat Purdue (2-9) 40-20
So now what? Notre Dame played ugly with five turnovers but they did win and Florida played almost as ugly but they also managed to win. Do you penalize them for playing ugly against opponents they should have handled more easily? Do you promote Michigan State over Iowa?
If it were up to me I'd go with:
#1 - Clemson (11-0) (NC)
#2 - Alabama (10-1) (NC)
#3 - Notre Dame (10-1) (+1)
#4 - Iowa (11-0) (+1)
#5 - Michigan State (10-1) (+4)
#6 - Oklahoma (10-1) (+1)
#7 - Ohio State (10-1) (-4)
#8 - Baylor (9-1) (+2)
#9 - Oklahoma State (10-1) (-3)
#10 - Florida (10-1) (-2)
Luckily it's not up to me.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
College Football Poll 11/17/2015
In the 11/10 poll the top ten schools were (change in parentheses):
#1 - Clemson (NC)
#2 - Alabama (NC)
#3 - Ohio State (NC)
#4 - Notre Dame (NC)
#5 - Iowa (NC)
#6 - Oklahoma State (+2)
#7 - Oklahoma (+5)
#8 - Florida (+3)
#9 - Michigan State (+4)
#10 - Baylor (-4)
If it looks familiar it's because it's exactly what I predicted the other day. See, anybody can get lucky on occasion.
So, what are the big games this weekend?
#1 - Clemson (10-0) will host Wake Forest (3-7)
#2 - Alabama (9-1) will host Charleston Southern (9-1)
#3 - Ohio State (10-0) will host Michigan State (9-1)
#4 - Notre Dame (9-1) will host Boston College (3-7)
#5 - Iowa (10-0) will host Purdue (2-8)
#6 - Oklahoma State (10-0) will host Baylor (8-1)
#7 - Oklahoma (9-1) will host TCU (9-1)
#8 - Florida (9-1) will host Florida Atlantic (2-8)
#9 - Michigan State (9-1) is at Ohio State (10-0)
#10 - Baylor (8-1) is at Oklahoma State (10-0)
All the top ten games are important but the big ones have to be:
Michigan State at Ohio State
Baylor at Oklahoma State
TCU at Oklahoma
If you're looking for big upset territory I'd keep an eye on Purdue at Iowa and Boston College at Notre Dame. I doubt that Clemson, Alabama or Florida will work up much of a sweat but, hey, you never know. That's why you have to play the game.
#1 - Clemson (NC)
#2 - Alabama (NC)
#3 - Ohio State (NC)
#4 - Notre Dame (NC)
#5 - Iowa (NC)
#6 - Oklahoma State (+2)
#7 - Oklahoma (+5)
#8 - Florida (+3)
#9 - Michigan State (+4)
#10 - Baylor (-4)
If it looks familiar it's because it's exactly what I predicted the other day. See, anybody can get lucky on occasion.
So, what are the big games this weekend?
#1 - Clemson (10-0) will host Wake Forest (3-7)
#2 - Alabama (9-1) will host Charleston Southern (9-1)
#3 - Ohio State (10-0) will host Michigan State (9-1)
#4 - Notre Dame (9-1) will host Boston College (3-7)
#5 - Iowa (10-0) will host Purdue (2-8)
#6 - Oklahoma State (10-0) will host Baylor (8-1)
#7 - Oklahoma (9-1) will host TCU (9-1)
#8 - Florida (9-1) will host Florida Atlantic (2-8)
#9 - Michigan State (9-1) is at Ohio State (10-0)
#10 - Baylor (8-1) is at Oklahoma State (10-0)
All the top ten games are important but the big ones have to be:
Michigan State at Ohio State
Baylor at Oklahoma State
TCU at Oklahoma
If you're looking for big upset territory I'd keep an eye on Purdue at Iowa and Boston College at Notre Dame. I doubt that Clemson, Alabama or Florida will work up much of a sweat but, hey, you never know. That's why you have to play the game.
Jindel is Out
Bobby Jindel finally figured out that not even Republicans are stupid enough to think he should be president and has dropped out of the race.
So who's left?
In alphabetical order on the Republican side:
1. Jeb Bush - Mr. Snooze
2. Ben Carson - Mr. Delusional
3. Chris Christie - Mr. Stay out of NJ
4. Ted Cruz - Mr. Whack Job
5. Carly Fiorina - Ms. I Screwed HP
6. Lindsay Graham - Mr. Forlorn Hope
7. Mike Huckabee - Mr. Big Moron
8. John Kasich - Mr. Unreadable
9. George Patacki - Mr. Silence
10. Rand Paul - Mr. Loopy as Daddy
11. Marco Rubio - Mr. Kid with a Charge Card
12. Rick Santorum - Mr. Upchuck
13. Donald Trump - Mr. Boss
On the Democrat side:
1. Hillary Clinton - Ms. Benghazi Kid
2. Martin O'Malley - Mr. Who?
3. Bernie Sanders - Mr. Das Kapital
I'm still betting it will be Bush and Clinton.
So who's left?
In alphabetical order on the Republican side:
1. Jeb Bush - Mr. Snooze
2. Ben Carson - Mr. Delusional
3. Chris Christie - Mr. Stay out of NJ
4. Ted Cruz - Mr. Whack Job
5. Carly Fiorina - Ms. I Screwed HP
6. Lindsay Graham - Mr. Forlorn Hope
7. Mike Huckabee - Mr. Big Moron
8. John Kasich - Mr. Unreadable
9. George Patacki - Mr. Silence
10. Rand Paul - Mr. Loopy as Daddy
11. Marco Rubio - Mr. Kid with a Charge Card
12. Rick Santorum - Mr. Upchuck
13. Donald Trump - Mr. Boss
On the Democrat side:
1. Hillary Clinton - Ms. Benghazi Kid
2. Martin O'Malley - Mr. Who?
3. Bernie Sanders - Mr. Das Kapital
I'm still betting it will be Bush and Clinton.
Monday, November 16, 2015
The Attacks in Paris
ISIS has taken "credit" for a series of terrorist attacks in Paris that's left some 130 dead.
The dead are unarmed civilians at soft targets of no military value. Attacks were staged at a rock concert and two restaurants.
In response the gun nuts are implying that somehow if the Parisians were armed things would have been better. The fact is that when people start pulling out guns how do you tell the difference between a terrorist and someone else that pulled out a gun?
ISIS is threatening to attack Washington D.C. next.
The problem of course is that soft targets are almost impossible to defend. There are too many of them and they're too vulnerable. At Sunday's NFL game between the Patriots and Giants there were noticeably more state troopers but they can't be everywhere.
Logically they would tend to congregate near the stadium. It would be almost impossible to get weapons or a bomb through the security checkpoints but someone could easily open fire in the parking lots. It would just cost $30 to get in.
I'm wondering if these attacks and threats are a sign of growing strength or a sign of desperation?
They have to know there's going to be increased military action in response.
Something like ISIS was always the danger in kicking out Saddam Hussein. Granted his time was numbered in any event and an ISIS was always a possibility when he was eventually booted out of office.
I sort of have the same opinion about Assad. What do you think is going to replace him?
The dead are unarmed civilians at soft targets of no military value. Attacks were staged at a rock concert and two restaurants.
In response the gun nuts are implying that somehow if the Parisians were armed things would have been better. The fact is that when people start pulling out guns how do you tell the difference between a terrorist and someone else that pulled out a gun?
ISIS is threatening to attack Washington D.C. next.
The problem of course is that soft targets are almost impossible to defend. There are too many of them and they're too vulnerable. At Sunday's NFL game between the Patriots and Giants there were noticeably more state troopers but they can't be everywhere.
Logically they would tend to congregate near the stadium. It would be almost impossible to get weapons or a bomb through the security checkpoints but someone could easily open fire in the parking lots. It would just cost $30 to get in.
I'm wondering if these attacks and threats are a sign of growing strength or a sign of desperation?
They have to know there's going to be increased military action in response.
Something like ISIS was always the danger in kicking out Saddam Hussein. Granted his time was numbered in any event and an ISIS was always a possibility when he was eventually booted out of office.
I sort of have the same opinion about Assad. What do you think is going to replace him?
College Football Poll 11/14/2015
Going into today we had the Top 10 as:
#1 - Clemson (NC)
#2 - Alabama (+2)
#3 - Ohio State (NC)
#4 - Notre Dame (+1)
#5 - Iowa (+4)
#6 - Baylor (NC)
#7 - Stanford (+4)
#8 - Oklahoma State (+6)
#9 - LSU (-7)
#10 - Utah (+2)
The game results were as follows:
#1 - Clemson (10-0) beat Syracuse (3-7) 37-27
#2 - Alabama (9-1) beat Mississippi State (7-3) 31-6
#3 - Ohio State (10-0) beat Illinois (5-5) 28-3
#4 - Notre Dame (9-1) beat Wake Forest (3-7) 28-7
#5 - Iowa (10-0) beat Minnesota (4-6) 40-35
#6 - Baylor (8-1) LOST to Oklahoma (8-1) 44-34
#7 - Stanford (8-2) LOST to Oregon (7-3) 38-36
#8 - Oklahoma State (10-0) beat Iowa State (3-7) 35-31
#9 - LSU (7-2) LOST to Arkansas (6-4) 31-14
#10 - Utah (8-2) LOST to Arizona (6-5) 37-30
With four of the top 10 schools losing on Saturday we can expect some shuffling in the #6 through #10 slots. I would think Oklahoma with it's defeat of Baylor should take a jump along with Michigan State. TCU was unimpressive beating a winless Kansas 23-17 but a win is a win.
I don't see the top five changing so let's predict the top 10 as:
#1 - Clemson
#2 - Alabama
#3 - Ohio State
#4 - Notre Dame
#5 - Iowa
#6 - Oklahoma State
#7 - Oklahoma
#8 - Florida
#9 - Michigan State
#10 - Baylor
You could make an argument that #10 should be TCU rather than Baylor but, like I said, they weren't very impressive against Kansas. One could also argue that Oklahoma State should be higher but I don't see that sort of change yet.
#1 - Clemson (NC)
#2 - Alabama (+2)
#3 - Ohio State (NC)
#4 - Notre Dame (+1)
#5 - Iowa (+4)
#6 - Baylor (NC)
#7 - Stanford (+4)
#8 - Oklahoma State (+6)
#9 - LSU (-7)
#10 - Utah (+2)
The game results were as follows:
#1 - Clemson (10-0) beat Syracuse (3-7) 37-27
#2 - Alabama (9-1) beat Mississippi State (7-3) 31-6
#3 - Ohio State (10-0) beat Illinois (5-5) 28-3
#4 - Notre Dame (9-1) beat Wake Forest (3-7) 28-7
#5 - Iowa (10-0) beat Minnesota (4-6) 40-35
#6 - Baylor (8-1) LOST to Oklahoma (8-1) 44-34
#7 - Stanford (8-2) LOST to Oregon (7-3) 38-36
#8 - Oklahoma State (10-0) beat Iowa State (3-7) 35-31
#9 - LSU (7-2) LOST to Arkansas (6-4) 31-14
#10 - Utah (8-2) LOST to Arizona (6-5) 37-30
With four of the top 10 schools losing on Saturday we can expect some shuffling in the #6 through #10 slots. I would think Oklahoma with it's defeat of Baylor should take a jump along with Michigan State. TCU was unimpressive beating a winless Kansas 23-17 but a win is a win.
I don't see the top five changing so let's predict the top 10 as:
#1 - Clemson
#2 - Alabama
#3 - Ohio State
#4 - Notre Dame
#5 - Iowa
#6 - Oklahoma State
#7 - Oklahoma
#8 - Florida
#9 - Michigan State
#10 - Baylor
You could make an argument that #10 should be TCU rather than Baylor but, like I said, they weren't very impressive against Kansas. One could also argue that Oklahoma State should be higher but I don't see that sort of change yet.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
College Football Poll 11/10/2015
I suppose it's a good thing I'm not a betting man. In the 11/10 poll the top ten schools were (change in parentheses):
#1 - Clemson (NC)
#2 - Alabama (+2)
#3 - Ohio State (NC)
#4 - Notre Dame (+1)
#5 - Iowa (+4)
#6 - Baylor (NC)
#7 - Stanford (+4)
#8 - Oklahoma State (+6)
#9 - LSU (-7)
#10 - Utah (+2)
I have to admit I didn't think LSU would drop seven spots for losing to Alabama and I'm a bit mystified as to why Iowa jumped ahead of Baylor but what do I know?
The AP poll is still pretty different but at least there's now agreement on #1 and Alabama is in the top four.
#1 - Clemson (+2)
#2 - Ohio State (-1)
#3 - Alabama (+5)
#4 - Baylor (-2)
#5 - Oklahoma State (+7)
#6 - Notre Dame (+2)
#7 - Stanford (+2)
#8 - Iowa (+2)
#9 - LSU (-5)
#10 - Utah (+3)
The most interesting game coming up this weekend looks to be Baylor vs Oklahoma. Another possible interesting one could be Alabama vs Mississippi State. The rest of the top ten teams appear to be playing games they should win handily but, you never know. That's why you have to play the game.
#1 - Clemson (NC)
#2 - Alabama (+2)
#3 - Ohio State (NC)
#4 - Notre Dame (+1)
#5 - Iowa (+4)
#6 - Baylor (NC)
#7 - Stanford (+4)
#8 - Oklahoma State (+6)
#9 - LSU (-7)
#10 - Utah (+2)
I have to admit I didn't think LSU would drop seven spots for losing to Alabama and I'm a bit mystified as to why Iowa jumped ahead of Baylor but what do I know?
The AP poll is still pretty different but at least there's now agreement on #1 and Alabama is in the top four.
#1 - Clemson (+2)
#2 - Ohio State (-1)
#3 - Alabama (+5)
#4 - Baylor (-2)
#5 - Oklahoma State (+7)
#6 - Notre Dame (+2)
#7 - Stanford (+2)
#8 - Iowa (+2)
#9 - LSU (-5)
#10 - Utah (+3)
The most interesting game coming up this weekend looks to be Baylor vs Oklahoma. Another possible interesting one could be Alabama vs Mississippi State. The rest of the top ten teams appear to be playing games they should win handily but, you never know. That's why you have to play the game.
Sunday, November 08, 2015
College Football Poll #2
The 1st College Football Playoff Poll had the following schools in the top 10.
#1 - Clemson (8-0)
#2 - LSU (7-0)
#3 - Ohio State (8-0)
#4 - Alabama (7-1)
#5 - Notre Dame (7-1)
#6 - Baylor (7-0)
#7 - Michigan State (8-0)
#8 - TCU (8-0)
#9 - Iowa (8-0)
#10 - Florida (7-1)
Only the top four will make it to the National Championship playoff. The AP list was slightly different.
#1 - Ohio State (8-0)
#2 - Baylor (7-0)
#3 - Clemson (8-0)
#4 - LSU (7-0)
#5 - TCU (8-0)
#6 - Michigan State (8-0)
#7 - Alabama (7-1)
#8 - Notre Dame (7-1)
#9 - Stanford (7-1)
#10 - Iowa (8-0)
Here's how things went for the top 10 teams yesterday.
#1 - Clemson (9-0) beat Florida State (7-2) - 23-13
#2 - LSU (7-1) lost to #4 Alabama (8-1) - 30-16
#3 - Ohio State (9-0) beat Minnesota (4-5) - 28-14
#5 - Notre Dame (8-1) beat Pittsburgh (6-3) - 42-30
#6 - Baylor (8-0) beat Kansas State (3-5) - 31-24
#7 - Michigan State (8-1) lost to Nebraska (4-6) - 39-38
#8 - TCU (8-1) lost to Oklahoma State - 49-29
#9 - Iowa (9-0) beat Indiana (4-5) - 35-27
#10 - Florida (8-1) beat Vanderbilt (3-6) - 9-7
So Bama should move up and TCU and Michigan State should drop out of the top 10. Baylor didn't do much for its case and neither did Florida. If I was a betting man I would expect the top four next week to be:
#1 - Clemson (9-0)
#2 - Ohio State (9-0)
#3 - Alabama (8-1)
#4 - LSU (7-1)
There's an outside chance of Notre Dame taking over the #4 spot but I doubt it. I imagine Baylor isn't real happy being at #6 but I don't see that a 31-24 win over Kansas State does much for arguing they should move up.
#1 - Clemson (8-0)
#2 - LSU (7-0)
#3 - Ohio State (8-0)
#4 - Alabama (7-1)
#5 - Notre Dame (7-1)
#6 - Baylor (7-0)
#7 - Michigan State (8-0)
#8 - TCU (8-0)
#9 - Iowa (8-0)
#10 - Florida (7-1)
Only the top four will make it to the National Championship playoff. The AP list was slightly different.
#1 - Ohio State (8-0)
#2 - Baylor (7-0)
#3 - Clemson (8-0)
#4 - LSU (7-0)
#5 - TCU (8-0)
#6 - Michigan State (8-0)
#7 - Alabama (7-1)
#8 - Notre Dame (7-1)
#9 - Stanford (7-1)
#10 - Iowa (8-0)
Here's how things went for the top 10 teams yesterday.
#1 - Clemson (9-0) beat Florida State (7-2) - 23-13
#2 - LSU (7-1) lost to #4 Alabama (8-1) - 30-16
#3 - Ohio State (9-0) beat Minnesota (4-5) - 28-14
#5 - Notre Dame (8-1) beat Pittsburgh (6-3) - 42-30
#6 - Baylor (8-0) beat Kansas State (3-5) - 31-24
#7 - Michigan State (8-1) lost to Nebraska (4-6) - 39-38
#8 - TCU (8-1) lost to Oklahoma State - 49-29
#9 - Iowa (9-0) beat Indiana (4-5) - 35-27
#10 - Florida (8-1) beat Vanderbilt (3-6) - 9-7
So Bama should move up and TCU and Michigan State should drop out of the top 10. Baylor didn't do much for its case and neither did Florida. If I was a betting man I would expect the top four next week to be:
#1 - Clemson (9-0)
#2 - Ohio State (9-0)
#3 - Alabama (8-1)
#4 - LSU (7-1)
There's an outside chance of Notre Dame taking over the #4 spot but I doubt it. I imagine Baylor isn't real happy being at #6 but I don't see that a 31-24 win over Kansas State does much for arguing they should move up.
Saturday, November 07, 2015
College Football Poll
The 1st FBS College Football Playoff poll has been published.
I'm not a huge College Football fan but I do indulge occasionally. I think the college playoff system is a step in the right direction but given the subjectivity of the voting I don't think four spots is enough. Personally I think eight slots would be more representative.
Let's look at the initial 2015 poll. The top four schools were:
#1 - Clemson (8-0)
#2 - LSU (7-0)
#3 - Ohio State (8-0)
#4 - Alabama (7-1)
The next four were:
#5 - Notre Dame (7-1)
#6 - Baylor (7-0)
#7 - Michigan State (8-0)
#8 - TCU (8-0)
Now let's compare the latest AP Poll. The top four were:
#1 - Ohio State (8-0)
#2 - Baylor (7-0)
#3 - Clemson (8-0)
#4 - LSU (7-0)
The next four were:
#5 - TCU (8-0)
#6 - Michigan State (8-0)
#7 - Alabama (7-1)
#8 - Notre Dame (7-1)
The USA Today Coaches Poll had for the top four:
#1 - Ohio State (8-0)
#2 - Baylor (7-0)
#3 - TCU (8-0)
#4 - LSU (7-0)
The next four were:
#5 - Clemson (8-0)
#6 - Michigan State (8-0)
#7 - Alabama (7-1)
#8 - Stanford
So Clemson, ranked #1 in the FBS Poll didn't even make the top four in the Coaches Poll. Alabama, ranked #4 in the FBS Poll is 7th in both of the other two polls.
Now, granted it's still early so we shall see what we shall see. Notice that in an eight team playoff things would be consistent except for Stanford replacing Notre Dame in the Coaches Poll.
I'm not a huge College Football fan but I do indulge occasionally. I think the college playoff system is a step in the right direction but given the subjectivity of the voting I don't think four spots is enough. Personally I think eight slots would be more representative.
Let's look at the initial 2015 poll. The top four schools were:
#1 - Clemson (8-0)
#2 - LSU (7-0)
#3 - Ohio State (8-0)
#4 - Alabama (7-1)
The next four were:
#5 - Notre Dame (7-1)
#6 - Baylor (7-0)
#7 - Michigan State (8-0)
#8 - TCU (8-0)
Now let's compare the latest AP Poll. The top four were:
#1 - Ohio State (8-0)
#2 - Baylor (7-0)
#3 - Clemson (8-0)
#4 - LSU (7-0)
The next four were:
#5 - TCU (8-0)
#6 - Michigan State (8-0)
#7 - Alabama (7-1)
#8 - Notre Dame (7-1)
The USA Today Coaches Poll had for the top four:
#1 - Ohio State (8-0)
#2 - Baylor (7-0)
#3 - TCU (8-0)
#4 - LSU (7-0)
The next four were:
#5 - Clemson (8-0)
#6 - Michigan State (8-0)
#7 - Alabama (7-1)
#8 - Stanford
So Clemson, ranked #1 in the FBS Poll didn't even make the top four in the Coaches Poll. Alabama, ranked #4 in the FBS Poll is 7th in both of the other two polls.
Now, granted it's still early so we shall see what we shall see. Notice that in an eight team playoff things would be consistent except for Stanford replacing Notre Dame in the Coaches Poll.
Friday, November 06, 2015
Ben Carson, lies, lies and more lies.
It seems every day a new allegation appears about a lie told by Ben Carson.
He was lying about his childhood.
He was lying about facing a gun wielding hold-up guy.
He was lying about his involvement with a rather suspect pharmaceutical company.
And now it appears he was lying about being accepted to West Point.
It also appears he thinks that the Great Pyramids in Egypt were for grain storage rather than being tombs for Pharaohs.
So Carson thinks he knows more about Ancient Egypt than Egyptologists. He rejects Evolution so he thinks he knows more about biology than Biologists and he can't do basic arithmetic because he thinks that a 10% flat tax at the federal level makes any sort of sense.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I believe that Carson is mentally ill and incapable of telling fact from fantasy. He should be under a doctor's care.
The fact that a plurality of Republicans seem to think he should be president should give you a pretty good idea of the idiocy of people who vote Republican.
He was lying about his childhood.
He was lying about facing a gun wielding hold-up guy.
He was lying about his involvement with a rather suspect pharmaceutical company.
And now it appears he was lying about being accepted to West Point.
It also appears he thinks that the Great Pyramids in Egypt were for grain storage rather than being tombs for Pharaohs.
So Carson thinks he knows more about Ancient Egypt than Egyptologists. He rejects Evolution so he thinks he knows more about biology than Biologists and he can't do basic arithmetic because he thinks that a 10% flat tax at the federal level makes any sort of sense.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I believe that Carson is mentally ill and incapable of telling fact from fantasy. He should be under a doctor's care.
The fact that a plurality of Republicans seem to think he should be president should give you a pretty good idea of the idiocy of people who vote Republican.
Supreme Court to Rule on Contraception Mandate
Is it too much to ask a religious non-profit to submit a form in order to be exempt from providing contraception as part of its health care offering?
At least 10 religious non-profits claim that it is and that even submitting a form makes them complicit in contraception.
Up until recently the appeals courts have sided with the idea that submitting a form isn't too much to ask but now the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has come down on the other side saying that forcing participation in the process under threat of a financial penalty violates the 1st Amendment.
This is a ridiculous argument. In any event these organizations are exempt from providing contraception. The only issue is whether they need to tell the government that. I don't see why the filing of the form can't be the responsibility of the employee seeking contraception. I would think that would resolve the issue.
At least 10 religious non-profits claim that it is and that even submitting a form makes them complicit in contraception.
Up until recently the appeals courts have sided with the idea that submitting a form isn't too much to ask but now the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has come down on the other side saying that forcing participation in the process under threat of a financial penalty violates the 1st Amendment.
This is a ridiculous argument. In any event these organizations are exempt from providing contraception. The only issue is whether they need to tell the government that. I don't see why the filing of the form can't be the responsibility of the employee seeking contraception. I would think that would resolve the issue.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Obama's Debt Increase
I keep running into pronouncements about how much Obama has increased the National Debt. It's as if these people think the President controls all spending.
Of course what they really mean in their confused little brains is how much the National Debt has increased while Obama has been president.
The latest pronouncement I've run into stated confidently that he has added $9 trillion and counting to the National Debt.
Let's take a closer look shall we.
Barack Obama took office in January of 2009 so I suppose it's safe to say that even the dumbest wing nut would concede that he's not responsible for any debt accrued prior to FY 2009. So let's look at the federal deficits between FY 2009 and FY 2015.
FY 2009 - $1.41 trillion
FY 2010 - $1.29 trillion
FY 2011 - $1.30 trillion
FY 2012 - $1.09 trillion
FY 2013 - $0.68 trillion
FY 2014 - $0.48 trillion
FY 2015 - $0.43 trillion
That comes out to $6.68 trillion. Already this is a lot less than $9 trillion.
But let's talk about FY 2009. This was a Bush budget calling for $3.1 trillion in expenditures and had some $240 billion added as a result of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in late 2008 and $200 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also known as The Stimulus, in 2009. So Obama is really only accountable for the $200 billion from ARRA.
That makes the total now $5.48 trillion. But let's remember that your starting point is important and the Obama Administration started with a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit and a shrinking economy in the throes of the Great Recession.
But let's continue a bit. The federal budget is divided into two parts. One part is Mandatory Spending, such as Social Security and Medicare, which MUST be spent by law. This is long term stuff that presidents don't control. The other part which changes from year to year is Discretionary Spending.
Mandatory Spending has been increasing at a steady rate since the mid-1980s not only in total amount but in percentage of the federal budget. This is a problem that requires a combined rational approach from both Congress and the president but is sort of beyond the current topic.
During FY 2010 through FY 2015 Mandatory Spending accounted for an average of about 58% of the federal budget. So it's reasonable to say it accounted for 58% of the deficits. That leaves us with $2.30 trillion.
But the Obama Administration also inherited two wars and a military budget of $661 billion including $145 billion allocated to the "War on Terror." This number has since declined to $597 billion in 2015 but still represents about 50% of all discretionary spending so we're now down to about $1.15 trillion over six years or about $200 billion per year in deficits that the man had any control over.
Personally I would have liked to see the deficit come down even faster. A balanced budget by now would have made me a happy man but to try and pin $9 trillion in additional debt on the president is simply nonsense.
Of course what they really mean in their confused little brains is how much the National Debt has increased while Obama has been president.
The latest pronouncement I've run into stated confidently that he has added $9 trillion and counting to the National Debt.
Let's take a closer look shall we.
Barack Obama took office in January of 2009 so I suppose it's safe to say that even the dumbest wing nut would concede that he's not responsible for any debt accrued prior to FY 2009. So let's look at the federal deficits between FY 2009 and FY 2015.
FY 2009 - $1.41 trillion
FY 2010 - $1.29 trillion
FY 2011 - $1.30 trillion
FY 2012 - $1.09 trillion
FY 2013 - $0.68 trillion
FY 2014 - $0.48 trillion
FY 2015 - $0.43 trillion
That comes out to $6.68 trillion. Already this is a lot less than $9 trillion.
But let's talk about FY 2009. This was a Bush budget calling for $3.1 trillion in expenditures and had some $240 billion added as a result of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in late 2008 and $200 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also known as The Stimulus, in 2009. So Obama is really only accountable for the $200 billion from ARRA.
That makes the total now $5.48 trillion. But let's remember that your starting point is important and the Obama Administration started with a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit and a shrinking economy in the throes of the Great Recession.
But let's continue a bit. The federal budget is divided into two parts. One part is Mandatory Spending, such as Social Security and Medicare, which MUST be spent by law. This is long term stuff that presidents don't control. The other part which changes from year to year is Discretionary Spending.
Mandatory Spending has been increasing at a steady rate since the mid-1980s not only in total amount but in percentage of the federal budget. This is a problem that requires a combined rational approach from both Congress and the president but is sort of beyond the current topic.
During FY 2010 through FY 2015 Mandatory Spending accounted for an average of about 58% of the federal budget. So it's reasonable to say it accounted for 58% of the deficits. That leaves us with $2.30 trillion.
But the Obama Administration also inherited two wars and a military budget of $661 billion including $145 billion allocated to the "War on Terror." This number has since declined to $597 billion in 2015 but still represents about 50% of all discretionary spending so we're now down to about $1.15 trillion over six years or about $200 billion per year in deficits that the man had any control over.
Personally I would have liked to see the deficit come down even faster. A balanced budget by now would have made me a happy man but to try and pin $9 trillion in additional debt on the president is simply nonsense.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
The Middle East
What an absolute mess. This is the Balkans of the 21st Century.
Now apparently Iran is sending fighters to Syria to join the Russian ones already there. I think we should quietly sneak out while the sneaking is good and duck.
We've got constant war in both Iraq and Syria and that's not to mention the sniping going on between Israel and the Palestinians.
The problem with toppling a dictator, such as we did with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and people are trying to do with Assad in Syria, is if you succeed, somebody or something is going to fill the power vacuum.
Throw in a medieval mentality and a religion with a streak of militant jihad and this is just asking for trouble.
At least it's the countries in the immediate vicinity of ISIS that are taking on the fight. With the shorter supply lines and more at stake one would think they would by more effective.
Send weapons but bring any remaining troops, including aircraft, home already and feed some of the money we save into the economy through middle class tax cuts.
Now apparently Iran is sending fighters to Syria to join the Russian ones already there. I think we should quietly sneak out while the sneaking is good and duck.
We've got constant war in both Iraq and Syria and that's not to mention the sniping going on between Israel and the Palestinians.
The problem with toppling a dictator, such as we did with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and people are trying to do with Assad in Syria, is if you succeed, somebody or something is going to fill the power vacuum.
Throw in a medieval mentality and a religion with a streak of militant jihad and this is just asking for trouble.
At least it's the countries in the immediate vicinity of ISIS that are taking on the fight. With the shorter supply lines and more at stake one would think they would by more effective.
Send weapons but bring any remaining troops, including aircraft, home already and feed some of the money we save into the economy through middle class tax cuts.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Three Months Later
Almost three months have passed since the Supreme Court made Gay Marriage legal in all 50 states and the echoes of descent are dimming but not quite out.
Yes Kim Davis became a Right Wing Darling for refusing marriage licenses in Kentucky but everyone else has pretty much ignored aberrations like this and moved on.
Which is not to say that some Republican politicians and Right Wing groups aren't attempting to make political capital or cash capital out of the decision by trying to bilk the under 80 IQ trailer park set that represents the Conservative base.
I expect the whining and occasional tantrum to continue for quite but I doubt it will ever have the emotional power of an issue like abortion. I suppose we shall see what we shall see.
Yes Kim Davis became a Right Wing Darling for refusing marriage licenses in Kentucky but everyone else has pretty much ignored aberrations like this and moved on.
Which is not to say that some Republican politicians and Right Wing groups aren't attempting to make political capital or cash capital out of the decision by trying to bilk the under 80 IQ trailer park set that represents the Conservative base.
I expect the whining and occasional tantrum to continue for quite but I doubt it will ever have the emotional power of an issue like abortion. I suppose we shall see what we shall see.
Monday, September 21, 2015
So Much for Walker
Apparently it's now official, Walker is out of the race.
That's good. Now if we can get rid of the rest of the dead weight that would be an accomplishment.
I'd like to see the Republican field get down to Trump, Bush, Fiorina, Kasish and Rubio. At least then we might have a chance at a rational conversation. I leave Trump in simply because he makes people face up to ideas they're uncomfortable with.
I still think Bush wins this especially now that a lot of the money that was backing Walker is looking for a new puppet.
That's good. Now if we can get rid of the rest of the dead weight that would be an accomplishment.
I'd like to see the Republican field get down to Trump, Bush, Fiorina, Kasish and Rubio. At least then we might have a chance at a rational conversation. I leave Trump in simply because he makes people face up to ideas they're uncomfortable with.
I still think Bush wins this especially now that a lot of the money that was backing Walker is looking for a new puppet.
The Presidential Race
It's been over two months since I've tried to untangle what the hell is going on in the presidential races.
The Republican race is like watching a bunch of zoo animals on a roller coaster and the Democratic race, and yes it now appears to be a race, seems to be morphing into the Wise Old Wizard vs. the Wicked Witch with Uncle Joe sipping beer in the corner.
First the Republicans. When last we met back in August I had divided the 17 candidates into two groups. The top contenders made up "The Terrible Ten" and the rest "The Trash Heap Seven." I then listed candidates based upon a combination of "sane enough put up with" and "probability of winning."
Well there have been some changes since then.
First Rick Perry quit the race so now it's "The Trash Heap Six" at least temporarily. I've put the latest poll numbers in parentheses.
The Terrible Ten
#1 - Donald Trump (#1 - 24%)- Still at the head of the pack. Unfortunately his statements have gotten more and more outrageous as time has gone on. While I'm willing to give a businessperson a chance instead of another politician Trump is beginning to wear on me.
#2 - Jeb Bush (#5 - 9%)- There are a lot of things I don't like about Bush and he's probably incompetent but at least he's not crazy. I still think he's got the inside track because he's the man the corporate men like.
#3 - Carly Fiorina (#2 - 15%) - Ms Fiorina has done VERY well in the debates and it has catapulted her into the big time. Her tenure at HP could still become a milestone around her neck but this is getting interesting.
#4 - Ben Carson (#3 - 14%) - Mister Delusional himself. If he were to somehow end up in the White House I'd move to Scandinavia. His latest nonsense is saying that a Muslim should never be president. Now, I probably wouldn't vote for a Muslim either but if Carson can exclude one group then any group can be excluded. This is a bad precedent to set.
#5 - Marco Rubio (#4 - 11%) - He's done well in the debates as well and I'm pretty sure he's not crazy.
#6 - John Kasich (#10 - 2%) - Like Rubio he benefits from the benefit of the doubt. He might not be crazy.
#7 - Chris Christie (#9 - 3%) - I think Christie is a complete ass-hole so you can imagine what I think of the ones below.
#8 - Ted Cruz (#6 - 6%) - He's crazy and he's still ahead of a bunch of the field.
#9 - Rand Paul (#8 - 4%) - Like his dad, not only doesn't he have any answers but he doesn't even understand the questions.
#10 - Mike Huckabee (#7 - 6%) - Huckabee is a complete lunatic and he demonstrated it again making nice with the Kentucky clerk defying the Supreme Court. Can someone please run him over with a truck?
The Trash Heap Six
#11 - Scott Walker (< 1%) - I told you it was just a matter of time before this dum-dum started dribbling at the mouth. The rumor is that he's ready to drop hell.
#12 - George Patacki (< 1%) - Patacki could be a reasonable president but I think he has no chance.
#13- Lindsay Graham (< 1%) - Same as Patacki, no chance.
#14 - Jim Gilmore (< 1%) - The governor of Virginia has no chance but I'll take him over Jindel and Santorum.
#15 - Bobby Jindel (< 1%) - This guy is the world's biggest loser but I would still take him over Carson, Huckabee and Santorum because they're completely crazy.
#16 - Rick Santorum (#11 - 1%) - He's not as crazy as Huckabee but he's still crazy.
The Scrap Heap
Rick Perry - Has thrown in the towel.
The scariest development here is Carson. He's in the Huckabee/Santorum lunatic category yet 14% of Republican voters apparently think he should be president.
On the Democratic side Bernie Sanders, The Wise Old Wizard, just won't go away. Rumor has it that he's competitive if not ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire. Can Sanders win a National Election? Can Clinton win a National Election? Does anyone want them to win a National Election?
2016 is shaping up as a really screwed up election.
The Republican race is like watching a bunch of zoo animals on a roller coaster and the Democratic race, and yes it now appears to be a race, seems to be morphing into the Wise Old Wizard vs. the Wicked Witch with Uncle Joe sipping beer in the corner.
First the Republicans. When last we met back in August I had divided the 17 candidates into two groups. The top contenders made up "The Terrible Ten" and the rest "The Trash Heap Seven." I then listed candidates based upon a combination of "sane enough put up with" and "probability of winning."
Well there have been some changes since then.
First Rick Perry quit the race so now it's "The Trash Heap Six" at least temporarily. I've put the latest poll numbers in parentheses.
The Terrible Ten
#1 - Donald Trump (#1 - 24%)- Still at the head of the pack. Unfortunately his statements have gotten more and more outrageous as time has gone on. While I'm willing to give a businessperson a chance instead of another politician Trump is beginning to wear on me.
#2 - Jeb Bush (#5 - 9%)- There are a lot of things I don't like about Bush and he's probably incompetent but at least he's not crazy. I still think he's got the inside track because he's the man the corporate men like.
#3 - Carly Fiorina (#2 - 15%) - Ms Fiorina has done VERY well in the debates and it has catapulted her into the big time. Her tenure at HP could still become a milestone around her neck but this is getting interesting.
#4 - Ben Carson (#3 - 14%) - Mister Delusional himself. If he were to somehow end up in the White House I'd move to Scandinavia. His latest nonsense is saying that a Muslim should never be president. Now, I probably wouldn't vote for a Muslim either but if Carson can exclude one group then any group can be excluded. This is a bad precedent to set.
#5 - Marco Rubio (#4 - 11%) - He's done well in the debates as well and I'm pretty sure he's not crazy.
#6 - John Kasich (#10 - 2%) - Like Rubio he benefits from the benefit of the doubt. He might not be crazy.
#7 - Chris Christie (#9 - 3%) - I think Christie is a complete ass-hole so you can imagine what I think of the ones below.
#8 - Ted Cruz (#6 - 6%) - He's crazy and he's still ahead of a bunch of the field.
#9 - Rand Paul (#8 - 4%) - Like his dad, not only doesn't he have any answers but he doesn't even understand the questions.
#10 - Mike Huckabee (#7 - 6%) - Huckabee is a complete lunatic and he demonstrated it again making nice with the Kentucky clerk defying the Supreme Court. Can someone please run him over with a truck?
The Trash Heap Six
#11 - Scott Walker (< 1%) - I told you it was just a matter of time before this dum-dum started dribbling at the mouth. The rumor is that he's ready to drop hell.
#13- Lindsay Graham (< 1%) - Same as Patacki, no chance.
#14 - Jim Gilmore (< 1%) - The governor of Virginia has no chance but I'll take him over Jindel and Santorum.
#15 - Bobby Jindel (< 1%) - This guy is the world's biggest loser but I would still take him over Carson, Huckabee and Santorum because they're completely crazy.
#16 - Rick Santorum (#11 - 1%) - He's not as crazy as Huckabee but he's still crazy.
The Scrap Heap
Rick Perry - Has thrown in the towel.
The scariest development here is Carson. He's in the Huckabee/Santorum lunatic category yet 14% of Republican voters apparently think he should be president.
On the Democratic side Bernie Sanders, The Wise Old Wizard, just won't go away. Rumor has it that he's competitive if not ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire. Can Sanders win a National Election? Can Clinton win a National Election? Does anyone want them to win a National Election?
2016 is shaping up as a really screwed up election.
Thursday, September 03, 2015
Let's Talk About Kim Davis
Kim Davis is the Kentucky county clerk that has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. As a matter of fact she hasn't been issuing them to anyone and is being sued by two gay and two heterosexual couples.
Basically Davis is claiming religious freedom. She claims that issuing a marriage license which "conflicts with God's definition of marriage" "would violate my conscience." She has also expressed the position that this is a "Heaven or Hell" decision for her.
"To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word. It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment..."
There are several issues with Davis' position.
The first issue is there is a legal difference between the person of Kim Davis and the person of the Rowan County Clerk. Davis is protected under the 1st Amendment but the county clerk is not. The county clerk has to obey the law. Davis cannot extend her religious beliefs unto the legal person of the county clerk.
The second issue is the marriage we're talking about is a civil marriage which is a construct of the state. It's essentially a legal contract. It is a secular state issue that "God" has nothing to do with.
The third and final issue is that obeying the law, as required by Romans 13:1-5, would not in any way reflect upon Davis' opinions, beliefs or conscience. Romans 13:1-5 is essentially a "get out of jail free card" for members of the church living under oppressive or heretical regimes.
Davis is also probably getting lousy advice from her lawyers since seeing her in jail better fits their agenda.
And that's where Davis is at the moment. In jail. In the meantime her deputies at the county clerk's office were given the option by Judge Bunning of joining her in jail or issuing the marriage licenses.
Apparently all but one of the deputies agreed to do their job. One, her son I believe, demurred. Whether he will join his mother in jail is unclear but as long as someone is obeying the law and issuing licenses it's really not necessary.
Of course the Right Wing is going ape shit over this and comparing her to Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. I think they're glad she's in jail as they think it gives them a potential martyr and a rallying point.
I suspect in the final analysis this is going to backfire on them since there are still a lot more sane people in this country than bat-shit crazy ones and they expect public officials to obey the law or resign.
Basically Davis is claiming religious freedom. She claims that issuing a marriage license which "conflicts with God's definition of marriage" "would violate my conscience." She has also expressed the position that this is a "Heaven or Hell" decision for her.
"To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word. It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment..."
There are several issues with Davis' position.
The first issue is there is a legal difference between the person of Kim Davis and the person of the Rowan County Clerk. Davis is protected under the 1st Amendment but the county clerk is not. The county clerk has to obey the law. Davis cannot extend her religious beliefs unto the legal person of the county clerk.
The second issue is the marriage we're talking about is a civil marriage which is a construct of the state. It's essentially a legal contract. It is a secular state issue that "God" has nothing to do with.
The third and final issue is that obeying the law, as required by Romans 13:1-5, would not in any way reflect upon Davis' opinions, beliefs or conscience. Romans 13:1-5 is essentially a "get out of jail free card" for members of the church living under oppressive or heretical regimes.
Davis is also probably getting lousy advice from her lawyers since seeing her in jail better fits their agenda.
And that's where Davis is at the moment. In jail. In the meantime her deputies at the county clerk's office were given the option by Judge Bunning of joining her in jail or issuing the marriage licenses.
Apparently all but one of the deputies agreed to do their job. One, her son I believe, demurred. Whether he will join his mother in jail is unclear but as long as someone is obeying the law and issuing licenses it's really not necessary.
Of course the Right Wing is going ape shit over this and comparing her to Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. I think they're glad she's in jail as they think it gives them a potential martyr and a rallying point.
I suspect in the final analysis this is going to backfire on them since there are still a lot more sane people in this country than bat-shit crazy ones and they expect public officials to obey the law or resign.
Tuesday, September 01, 2015
The Idiocy of the Right Wing
There has been a minor dispute going on about the name of a mountain in Alaska named Mt. McKinley.
The mountain, at 20,237 feet, is the highest in North America and received its current name in 1917 in honor of President William McKinley. The local Koyukon Athabaskans had always called the mountain Denali which was based upon their word for high or tall.
Alaska has long maintained that the mountain's name be officially changed back to Denali since that's what it's called locally. The Alaska Board of Geographic Names changed the name of the mountain to Denali in 1975 but a request by the Alaskan state legislature to the US Board of Geographic names was blocked by an Ohio congressman from McKinley's home town of Canton.
I suppose having the Pro Football Hall of Fame wasn't enough.
However the federal government has finally caught up and announced in August of 2015 that the name will officially be changed on the federal level to Denali in order to line up with what Alaska calls the mountain.
I mean, remember that 10th Amendment that conservatives keep crying about? I would think that naming your own landmarks would be covered under that.
Alas, not in today's contentious world. Incredibly, politicians in Ohio are up in arms over the change to the name of a mountain in Alaska that was named by a prospector for a president most of them probably didn't know came from Ohio before the name change was announced.
But, you know, this is just people being silly. For Republicans anything the Obama administration does is bad. He could cure cancer, resolve the debt, end poverty and bring about world peace and they would still find something to complain about.
You sort of expect it by now. It's like background noise to anyone with more than half a brain.
But Mike Huckabee brings stupidity to a whole new level. He's called the move "outrageous," claims it shows the president doesn't think there is any limits on his power and called upon Republicans in Congress to block the move.
How can anyone take people like this twit Huckabee seriously?
The mountain, at 20,237 feet, is the highest in North America and received its current name in 1917 in honor of President William McKinley. The local Koyukon Athabaskans had always called the mountain Denali which was based upon their word for high or tall.
Alaska has long maintained that the mountain's name be officially changed back to Denali since that's what it's called locally. The Alaska Board of Geographic Names changed the name of the mountain to Denali in 1975 but a request by the Alaskan state legislature to the US Board of Geographic names was blocked by an Ohio congressman from McKinley's home town of Canton.
I suppose having the Pro Football Hall of Fame wasn't enough.
However the federal government has finally caught up and announced in August of 2015 that the name will officially be changed on the federal level to Denali in order to line up with what Alaska calls the mountain.
I mean, remember that 10th Amendment that conservatives keep crying about? I would think that naming your own landmarks would be covered under that.
Alas, not in today's contentious world. Incredibly, politicians in Ohio are up in arms over the change to the name of a mountain in Alaska that was named by a prospector for a president most of them probably didn't know came from Ohio before the name change was announced.
But, you know, this is just people being silly. For Republicans anything the Obama administration does is bad. He could cure cancer, resolve the debt, end poverty and bring about world peace and they would still find something to complain about.
You sort of expect it by now. It's like background noise to anyone with more than half a brain.
But Mike Huckabee brings stupidity to a whole new level. He's called the move "outrageous," claims it shows the president doesn't think there is any limits on his power and called upon Republicans in Congress to block the move.
How can anyone take people like this twit Huckabee seriously?
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Birthright Citizenship
Birthright Citizenship simply refers to the principle that if you are born in the US then you are a US citizen. This has been the traditional interpretation of the 14th Amendment which states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Of course Trump and the other Republican nominees that are calling for an end to Birthright Citizenship don't read the Constitution,
Or, if they do read the Constitution, they don't read case law.
The argument is that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants.
This issue was resolved in 1898. In the landmark case “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment must be interpreted based upon English Common Law and included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.
So, unless someone would like to claim that illegal immigrants are "enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation" ending Birthright Citizenship would require either (a) the Supreme Court to overturn “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” or a constitutional amendment.
I suspect that none of the Republican bozos supporting this idea would bother to go this far. They're just playing off the god awful ignorance of the Republican base.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Of course Trump and the other Republican nominees that are calling for an end to Birthright Citizenship don't read the Constitution,
Or, if they do read the Constitution, they don't read case law.
The argument is that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants.
This issue was resolved in 1898. In the landmark case “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment must be interpreted based upon English Common Law and included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.
So, unless someone would like to claim that illegal immigrants are "enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation" ending Birthright Citizenship would require either (a) the Supreme Court to overturn “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” or a constitutional amendment.
I suspect that none of the Republican bozos supporting this idea would bother to go this far. They're just playing off the god awful ignorance of the Republican base.
Friday, August 14, 2015
The Colorado Cake Case
An appeals court in Colorado has upheld an administrative law judge's decision that refusing to bake a cake for a same sex wedding violated the Colorado Anti-Descrimination Act (CADA).
Masterpiece Cakeshop had claimed that requiring them to provide such a wedding cake violates their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
The court disagreed.
"...CADA does not compel Masterpiece to support or endorse any particular religious views. The law merely prohibits Masterpiece from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation."
The court also specifically related this to discrimination against blacks and quoted from Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc.
"Undoubtedly defendant . . . has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This Court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishment upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs."
Masterpiece also claimed that they discriminated not because of the sexual orientation but simply because they're opposed to same sex marriage.
"Masterpiece thus distinguishes between discrimination based on a person’s status and discrimination based on conduct closely correlated with that status. However, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that such distinctions are generally inappropriate."
Both of these points are well established law with multiple precedents that should have been known by the legal team representing Masterpiece. The fact that they proceeded with the case anyway makes me wonder if they are incompetent or dishonest.
Masterpiece Cakeshop had claimed that requiring them to provide such a wedding cake violates their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
The court disagreed.
"...CADA does not compel Masterpiece to support or endorse any particular religious views. The law merely prohibits Masterpiece from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation."
The court also specifically related this to discrimination against blacks and quoted from Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc.
"Undoubtedly defendant . . . has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This Court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishment upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs."
Masterpiece also claimed that they discriminated not because of the sexual orientation but simply because they're opposed to same sex marriage.
"Masterpiece thus distinguishes between discrimination based on a person’s status and discrimination based on conduct closely correlated with that status. However, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that such distinctions are generally inappropriate."
Both of these points are well established law with multiple precedents that should have been known by the legal team representing Masterpiece. The fact that they proceeded with the case anyway makes me wonder if they are incompetent or dishonest.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Kentucky Clerk Case
A court clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis by name, that has refused to issue marriage licenses to Gay Couples despite directions by the governor of Kentucky to do so.
With the help of Liberty Counsel she brought suit in federal court claiming to issue licenses her rights under the 1st Amendment and violated Article 6 of the Constitution forbidding any religious test to hold government office.
Today Justice David Bunning issued a preliminary injunction ordering her to do her job.
Judge Bunning summarized the question as "Does the Free Exercise Clause likely excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a religious objection to same sex marriage?"
He decided that the "Court answers this question in the negative."
The judge then went on to articulate the reasons for his decision.
"The Court must again point out that the act of issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple merely signifies that the couple has met the legal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval."
Approval of the marriage is NOT a prerequisite to issuing a license. No one is asking the clerk not to disapprove.
"...Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities."
Issuing a license to a same sex couple in no way restricts someone from practicing their religion.
"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs...However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."
If you can't perform the job requirements due to religious convictions, you can't expect the job requirements to be changed to accommodate your beliefs.
Liberty Counsel has advised Davis to ignore the court ruling and has issued an appeal.
The problem here of course is that this is standing in the way of the right of others to get married. What's the old saying? Your rights end where the next guy's rights begin?
This is essentially someone throwing a tantrum because they can't have their way. It's childish and immature. As for Liberty Counsel, they're giving their client lousy advice.
It should be interesting to see how Judge Bunning responds. He can't allow the rights of gay couples to be trampled on pending appeal can he?
With the help of Liberty Counsel she brought suit in federal court claiming to issue licenses her rights under the 1st Amendment and violated Article 6 of the Constitution forbidding any religious test to hold government office.
Today Justice David Bunning issued a preliminary injunction ordering her to do her job.
Judge Bunning summarized the question as "Does the Free Exercise Clause likely excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a religious objection to same sex marriage?"
He decided that the "Court answers this question in the negative."
The judge then went on to articulate the reasons for his decision.
"The Court must again point out that the act of issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple merely signifies that the couple has met the legal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval."
Approval of the marriage is NOT a prerequisite to issuing a license. No one is asking the clerk not to disapprove.
"...Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities."
Issuing a license to a same sex couple in no way restricts someone from practicing their religion.
"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs...However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."
If you can't perform the job requirements due to religious convictions, you can't expect the job requirements to be changed to accommodate your beliefs.
Liberty Counsel has advised Davis to ignore the court ruling and has issued an appeal.
The problem here of course is that this is standing in the way of the right of others to get married. What's the old saying? Your rights end where the next guy's rights begin?
This is essentially someone throwing a tantrum because they can't have their way. It's childish and immature. As for Liberty Counsel, they're giving their client lousy advice.
It should be interesting to see how Judge Bunning responds. He can't allow the rights of gay couples to be trampled on pending appeal can he?
Friday, August 07, 2015
Post the Debate
OK, so the first "debate" is over. There were no real surprise. Trump and Christie were abrasive. Huckabee, Walker, Cruz and Carson were delusional, Rubio, Paul and Bush seemed lost in space but Rubio did better than the others and Kasich showed up and made some noise..
From now on I think I will treat this circus in two parts. The "Terrible Ten" and the "Trash Heap Six." Or is it seven? Didn't some other turkey join in? Maybe I should ignore him for the moment?
Also my order of preference will be based upon a combination of "sane enough to put up with" and "probability of winning" the nomination within the group the candidate is currently in.
The Terrible Ten
#1 - Donald Trump - I don't think what he's saying is that outrageous although the way he puts it is a bit crude. I'm willing to give a businessperson a chance instead of another politician.
#2 - Jeb Bush - He's probably incompetent but at least he's not crazy. I still think he's got the inside track.
#3 - Marco Rubio - He ranks this high because I don't know that much about him. The others I'm sure are loony toons.
#4 - John Kasich - Like Rubio he benefits from the benefit of the doubt. He might not be crazy.
#5 - Chris Christie - I think Christie is a complete ass-hole so you can imagine what I think of the other five.
#6 - Rand Paul - Like his dad, not only doesn't he have any answers but he doesn't even understand the questions.
#7 - Ted Cruz - He's crazy and he's still ahead of three others.
#8 - Scott Walker - I'm surprised this dum-dum isn't dribbling at the mouth yet. I suppose I should just give it time.
#9 - Ben Carson - Mister Delusional himself. If he were to somehow end up in the White House I'd move to Scandinavia.
#10 - Mike Huckabee - Huckabee is a complete lunatic and he demonstrated it again last night with his personhood idiocy. Can someone please run him over with a truck?
The Trash Heap Six or Seven
#11 - Rick Perry - I don't think Perry is as crazy as he sometimes pretends. He might in fact make a pretty good president.
#12 - Carly Fiorina - Similar rationale as with Trump. Maybe we should let a pure businessperson take a shot? The big question is how good a businessperson is Fiorina?
#13 - George Patacki - Patacki could be a reasonable president but I think he has no chance.
#14 - Lindsay Graham - Same as Patacki, no chance.
#15 - Jim Gilmore - The governor of Virginia has no chance but I'll take him over Jindel and Santorum.
#16 - Bobby Jindel - This guy is the world's biggest loser but I would still take him over Carson, Huckabee and Santorum because they're completely crazy.
#17 - Rick Santorum - He's not as crazy as Huckabee but he's still crazy.
One would hope that people will start dropping out soon.
From now on I think I will treat this circus in two parts. The "Terrible Ten" and the "Trash Heap Six." Or is it seven? Didn't some other turkey join in? Maybe I should ignore him for the moment?
Also my order of preference will be based upon a combination of "sane enough to put up with" and "probability of winning" the nomination within the group the candidate is currently in.
The Terrible Ten
#1 - Donald Trump - I don't think what he's saying is that outrageous although the way he puts it is a bit crude. I'm willing to give a businessperson a chance instead of another politician.
#2 - Jeb Bush - He's probably incompetent but at least he's not crazy. I still think he's got the inside track.
#3 - Marco Rubio - He ranks this high because I don't know that much about him. The others I'm sure are loony toons.
#4 - John Kasich - Like Rubio he benefits from the benefit of the doubt. He might not be crazy.
#5 - Chris Christie - I think Christie is a complete ass-hole so you can imagine what I think of the other five.
#6 - Rand Paul - Like his dad, not only doesn't he have any answers but he doesn't even understand the questions.
#7 - Ted Cruz - He's crazy and he's still ahead of three others.
#8 - Scott Walker - I'm surprised this dum-dum isn't dribbling at the mouth yet. I suppose I should just give it time.
#9 - Ben Carson - Mister Delusional himself. If he were to somehow end up in the White House I'd move to Scandinavia.
#10 - Mike Huckabee - Huckabee is a complete lunatic and he demonstrated it again last night with his personhood idiocy. Can someone please run him over with a truck?
The Trash Heap Six or Seven
#11 - Rick Perry - I don't think Perry is as crazy as he sometimes pretends. He might in fact make a pretty good president.
#12 - Carly Fiorina - Similar rationale as with Trump. Maybe we should let a pure businessperson take a shot? The big question is how good a businessperson is Fiorina?
#13 - George Patacki - Patacki could be a reasonable president but I think he has no chance.
#14 - Lindsay Graham - Same as Patacki, no chance.
#15 - Jim Gilmore - The governor of Virginia has no chance but I'll take him over Jindel and Santorum.
#16 - Bobby Jindel - This guy is the world's biggest loser but I would still take him over Carson, Huckabee and Santorum because they're completely crazy.
#17 - Rick Santorum - He's not as crazy as Huckabee but he's still crazy.
One would hope that people will start dropping out soon.
Tuesday, August 04, 2015
The Terrible Ten
The lineup is set for the 1st Republican Primary debate and the cast of characters would frighten any sane man. Unfortunately there aren't many sane men in the Republican Party.
Are you ready? Here's the 10 that made the cut.
#1 - Mr. Immigration. He of the rotten toupee, DONALD "THE BOSS MAN" TRUMP!
#2 - The man with all the money and looking to make it a bushy three, JEB "LET'S SCRAP MEDICARE" BUSH!
#3 - The man with no degree that has driven Wisconsin into the 3rd world, SCOTT "DUM-DUM" WALKER!
#4 - The biggest religious fruitcake in the race. The man who's going to use federal troops to stop abortions, MIKE "HUCKLEBERRY HOUND" HUCKABEE!
#5 - Mr. Delusional himself, BEN "NO BRAINS" CARSON!
#6 - The man who doesn't understand the Internet, TED "MY DAD"S CRAZY" CRUZ!
#7 - A man with an R on his right hand and an L on his left but still gets them confused, MARCO "I DIDN'T KNOW THAT" RUBIO!
#8 - The man who thinks there's a plot to merge the US with Canada and Mexico, RAND "SECRET PLOT" PAUL!
#9 - The man's who's hated by just about everyone in his home state, CHRIS "BRIDGEGATE" CHRISTIE!
#10 - Last, and probably least, the man who has been watching Ohio fall apart all around him and who says he don't need no black folks, JOHN "GHETTO MAN" KASICH!
The big question of course is how are these certifiable lunatics going to act on national TV. I'm sure you won't be hearing any of the loony toons comments we've been hearing. I'm betting all ten will spend all night attacking the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.
I can see it now.
Fox Moderator: Senator Cruz, what programs would you propose to generate more jobs?
Ted Cruz: Well first we'll have to repeal that Obamacare and undo the racial animosity generated by the current administration because, as you know, net neutrality is a Communist plot and there's this terrible assault on Religious Freedom because an activist Supreme Court has redefined marriage. Then, of course, there's Benghazi. And that's not to mention the millions of illegal immigrants crossing the border every day and taking away what few jobs we have left.
Fox Moderator: Very insightful and I'm sure you speak for all the candidates when you say Obama has squandered the prosperity of the Bush years and Hillary Clinton is most likely a mole for the Muslim Brotherhood.
(Nine bobble heads nod)
Are you ready? Here's the 10 that made the cut.
#1 - Mr. Immigration. He of the rotten toupee, DONALD "THE BOSS MAN" TRUMP!
#2 - The man with all the money and looking to make it a bushy three, JEB "LET'S SCRAP MEDICARE" BUSH!
#3 - The man with no degree that has driven Wisconsin into the 3rd world, SCOTT "DUM-DUM" WALKER!
#4 - The biggest religious fruitcake in the race. The man who's going to use federal troops to stop abortions, MIKE "HUCKLEBERRY HOUND" HUCKABEE!
#5 - Mr. Delusional himself, BEN "NO BRAINS" CARSON!
#6 - The man who doesn't understand the Internet, TED "MY DAD"S CRAZY" CRUZ!
#7 - A man with an R on his right hand and an L on his left but still gets them confused, MARCO "I DIDN'T KNOW THAT" RUBIO!
#8 - The man who thinks there's a plot to merge the US with Canada and Mexico, RAND "SECRET PLOT" PAUL!
#9 - The man's who's hated by just about everyone in his home state, CHRIS "BRIDGEGATE" CHRISTIE!
#10 - Last, and probably least, the man who has been watching Ohio fall apart all around him and who says he don't need no black folks, JOHN "GHETTO MAN" KASICH!
The big question of course is how are these certifiable lunatics going to act on national TV. I'm sure you won't be hearing any of the loony toons comments we've been hearing. I'm betting all ten will spend all night attacking the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.
I can see it now.
Fox Moderator: Senator Cruz, what programs would you propose to generate more jobs?
Ted Cruz: Well first we'll have to repeal that Obamacare and undo the racial animosity generated by the current administration because, as you know, net neutrality is a Communist plot and there's this terrible assault on Religious Freedom because an activist Supreme Court has redefined marriage. Then, of course, there's Benghazi. And that's not to mention the millions of illegal immigrants crossing the border every day and taking away what few jobs we have left.
Fox Moderator: Very insightful and I'm sure you speak for all the candidates when you say Obama has squandered the prosperity of the Bush years and Hillary Clinton is most likely a mole for the Muslim Brotherhood.
(Nine bobble heads nod)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
