The court certainly has a taste for drama. Today's decision on Obamacare is just the appetizer. The main course and desert are yet to come.
Gay Marriage
This is the 1st biggie. The court must actually rule on two questions.
(1) - Whether states can ban Gay Marriage or whether it is a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment
(2) - Whether states must recognize Gay Marriages performed in other states
Of course if the court rules that Gay Marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment, the 2nd question becomes sort of obvious.
Regardless of whether you support or oppose gay marriage you have to recognize that it would be irresponsibility of the 1st order for the court to have refused to review lower court decisions until a split occurred, while allowing gay marriages to proceed, and then to reverse now.
The court should have stepped in immediately after the initial appeals court ruling. To try and roll back the clock now would be insanity and cause a level of legal chaos rarely before seen in this country. The costs alone associated with untangling things would be horrendous and that's not to mention the emotional toll.
Which doesn't mean a court with the likes of the Little Onion and Thomas the Obscure couldn't manage it but I can't believe Chief Justice Roberts would allow this on his watch.
My Opinion: The court should legalize Gay Marriage as a right under the 14th Amendment and require cross state recognition of Gay Marriages performed in other states and abroad.
What I Expect: I have a bad feeling about this one that we're going to get some sort of twisted legal abomination of a decision that's going to make the Dred Scott decision look like legal brilliance.
Redistricting
This one could easily have the single largest impact on the political structure of the Federal Government. Arizona voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2000 stripping the Legislature of the power to draw districts and giving it to an independent redistricting commission to avoid "gerrymandering," the practice of the majority party in the legislature drawing weird shaped districts to give it a political advantage.
The Legislature went to court, pointing out that Article I of the Constitution specifies that "the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof."
Except of course the election districts aren't part of the "the times, places and manner of holding elections" and gerrymandering violates the fundamental concept of fair elections.
My Opinion: Not only should independent redistricting commissions be allowed they should be required!
What I Expect: Given the conservative nature of the court I expect the Arizona Legislature to win on this one and we will gerrymander on.
Lethal Injection
A challenge over the sedative used by several states in executions. The claim is that it merely paralyzes and doesn't protect from "cruel and unusual punishment" as advertised.
My Opinion: Since I'm opposed to Capital Punishment I'd like to see the court ban as many execution drugs as possible and make it harder and more expensive to continue with Capital Punishment.
What I Expect: I honestly don't know what to expect here. Could go either way.
Violent Crime
A challenge to a federal law that sets mandatory minimum sentences for federal firearms offenders who already have three convictions for "violent felonies."
Advocates argue that the law is too vague in defining what is a "violent felony."
My Opinion: I don't know enough about this to have an opinion.
What I Expect: I don't know enough about this to have any idea what to expect.
Power Plant Pollution
Three cases asking the court to force the Environmental Protection Agency to consider the economic cost of complying with regulations limiting emissions from power plants before it issues any rules.
Of course since the EPA has never been asked to consider costs before, this could have far reaching implications if it goes the wrong way.
My Opinion: Cost should not be a factor in EPA decisions.
What I Expect: I expect the court to order the EPA to consider cost. Hopefully it will be a narrow decision and not set a precedent that would effectively cripple the EPA.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
King v. Burwell
In a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacare tax credits can be available on both the federal healthcare.gov exchange and exchanges established by the individual states.
Conservatives had argued that the letter of the law allowed tax credits only on exchanges established by the states despite both the GAO and IRS ruling otherwise.
The intent of the law was never really in question. What was in question was the sloppiness of the language.
This was far and away the most mean spirited law suit I've ever heard of. It was solely aimed at taking critically needed health care away from people while providing no benefit to anyone.
Anyway, with Roberts and Kennedy joining the four liberals, the Supreme Court has done the right thing. Based upon the tone of his dissent, the Little Onion must be foaming at the mouth.
Conservatives had argued that the letter of the law allowed tax credits only on exchanges established by the states despite both the GAO and IRS ruling otherwise.
The intent of the law was never really in question. What was in question was the sloppiness of the language.
This was far and away the most mean spirited law suit I've ever heard of. It was solely aimed at taking critically needed health care away from people while providing no benefit to anyone.
Anyway, with Roberts and Kennedy joining the four liberals, the Supreme Court has done the right thing. Based upon the tone of his dissent, the Little Onion must be foaming at the mouth.
Monday, June 22, 2015
The Latest Republican List
The big news of course is that Jeb Bush has officially declared his candidacy and, get ready, here it comes, Donald Trump has also declared he's running.
In the wake of the tragedy in Charleston where a white supremacist walked into a black church and killed nine people, we have words from some Republicans about the incident and about the flying of the Confederate flag in the South Carolina capital.
#1 - George Patacki* - The man is actually sane and did a pretty good job as governor of New York. I don't see how the hell he's going to win a Republican primary but you never know. This might be the guy the money can combine behind.
#2 - Jeb Bush* - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya. But the man needs to learn that he's not Hispanic as he claimed once. Jeb doesn't really seem to understand what's going on in Iraq either. Still, after thinking about it I think I prefer him over Rubio.
#3 - Marco Rubio* - I don't agree with Rubio on a lot but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy like a few of the others in this field. One big problem with Marco is he seems to be intent on avoiding difficult questions rather than addressing them. Not a terribly encouraging trait for a potential president.
#4 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell. If it weren't for his idiotic deal with Exxon-Mobil, I might even list him higher.
#5 - Rand Paul* - Like his dad, not only does Paul not have any solutions, he doesn't even understand the questions. This is a man that wants to eliminate Meals on Wheels because seniors that can't afford food should depend upon charity. His stand against the Patriot Act however moves him ahead of Cruz.
#6 - Carly Fiorina* - There's a reason she's an ex-CEO. Aside from missing all sorts of earning goals while at HP she was known as a divisive factor and laid off thousands of workers while sending jobs overseas. Eventually the HP board had enough and booted her ass out. But I had to move her above the Fudd line. She's just incompetent and probably not crazy.
#7 - Donald Trump* - The man may not have any political experience but he knows his way around finances. He has a tendency to say some strange stuff but he's not loony toons. It's a toss-up between him and Fiorina but she at least has run a political campaign.
#8 - Rick Perry* - OK, look, Perry sounds loony toons but I don't think he's really that crazy. He's certainly not as crazy as Cruz or Santorum so I'm sliding him in pretty low but above the Elmer Fudd Line. Perry thinks the Charleston shooting was an "accident." How did Texas survive having this yahoo as governor?
#9 - Lindsey Graham* - I can go with about 50% of what I've heard this guy say which is much better than most of these turkeys. Unfortunately Lindsay thinks the Confederate Flag is part of "who we are" even though it's been used in a "racist way." I can't condone that sort of attitude so Graham drops big time.
=====THE ELMER FUDD LINE====
#10 - Ted Cruz* - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse! Even so he continues to slide rapidly.
#11 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The more this guy opens his mouth the more of a clown he makes himself out to be.
#12 - Bobby Jindel - Undoubtedly the worst of the people that might actually be considered qualified. Look what a "great" job he did in Louisiana where the economy is in a shambles. Why would anyone vote for this turkey? The legislature refused to pass an RFRA due to pressure from the business community so Jindel issued an executive order to accomplish essentially the same thing. The mayor of New Orleans promptly issued a counter executive order. Nothing like a little chaos on the Bayou.
#13 - Rick Santorum* - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse than Walker and Jindel. He's worse because I don't even consider this ass wipe qualified for the job. Santorum also side stepped the Confederate flag question. Yes Rick, it's an issue for the state but you must have some sort of personal opinion.
#14 - Ben Carson* - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems. I hope he gets regular brain scans just in case there's something growing up there. Supposedly Carson won a straw poll in South Carolina which goes to show you how dumb they are in South Carolina. However, Huckabee had the poor judgement to appear in Janet Porter's latest anti-gay propaganda film. Carson at least isn't that dumb.
#15 - Mike Huckabee* - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so. He's dropped in my list because after thinking about who might be at least qualified to be president from this list, I can't honestly say I consider Huckabee, despite his stint as governor of Arkansas, to be qualified. Huckabee has at least posted his positions. Wilson had 14 points, God had ten commandments but Huckabee's got 18 pledges. To be honest I don't agree with many of them. Huckabee's latest nonsense is refusing to express an opinion on the Confederate Flag issue. Yes Mike, it's an issue for the state but you must have some sort of personal opinion.
In the wake of the tragedy in Charleston where a white supremacist walked into a black church and killed nine people, we have words from some Republicans about the incident and about the flying of the Confederate flag in the South Carolina capital.
#1 - George Patacki* - The man is actually sane and did a pretty good job as governor of New York. I don't see how the hell he's going to win a Republican primary but you never know. This might be the guy the money can combine behind.
#2 - Jeb Bush* - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya. But the man needs to learn that he's not Hispanic as he claimed once. Jeb doesn't really seem to understand what's going on in Iraq either. Still, after thinking about it I think I prefer him over Rubio.
#3 - Marco Rubio* - I don't agree with Rubio on a lot but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy like a few of the others in this field. One big problem with Marco is he seems to be intent on avoiding difficult questions rather than addressing them. Not a terribly encouraging trait for a potential president.
#4 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell. If it weren't for his idiotic deal with Exxon-Mobil, I might even list him higher.
#5 - Rand Paul* - Like his dad, not only does Paul not have any solutions, he doesn't even understand the questions. This is a man that wants to eliminate Meals on Wheels because seniors that can't afford food should depend upon charity. His stand against the Patriot Act however moves him ahead of Cruz.
#6 - Carly Fiorina* - There's a reason she's an ex-CEO. Aside from missing all sorts of earning goals while at HP she was known as a divisive factor and laid off thousands of workers while sending jobs overseas. Eventually the HP board had enough and booted her ass out. But I had to move her above the Fudd line. She's just incompetent and probably not crazy.
#7 - Donald Trump* - The man may not have any political experience but he knows his way around finances. He has a tendency to say some strange stuff but he's not loony toons. It's a toss-up between him and Fiorina but she at least has run a political campaign.
#8 - Rick Perry* - OK, look, Perry sounds loony toons but I don't think he's really that crazy. He's certainly not as crazy as Cruz or Santorum so I'm sliding him in pretty low but above the Elmer Fudd Line. Perry thinks the Charleston shooting was an "accident." How did Texas survive having this yahoo as governor?
#9 - Lindsey Graham* - I can go with about 50% of what I've heard this guy say which is much better than most of these turkeys. Unfortunately Lindsay thinks the Confederate Flag is part of "who we are" even though it's been used in a "racist way." I can't condone that sort of attitude so Graham drops big time.
=====THE ELMER FUDD LINE====
#10 - Ted Cruz* - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse! Even so he continues to slide rapidly.
#11 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The more this guy opens his mouth the more of a clown he makes himself out to be.
#12 - Bobby Jindel - Undoubtedly the worst of the people that might actually be considered qualified. Look what a "great" job he did in Louisiana where the economy is in a shambles. Why would anyone vote for this turkey? The legislature refused to pass an RFRA due to pressure from the business community so Jindel issued an executive order to accomplish essentially the same thing. The mayor of New Orleans promptly issued a counter executive order. Nothing like a little chaos on the Bayou.
#13 - Rick Santorum* - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse than Walker and Jindel. He's worse because I don't even consider this ass wipe qualified for the job. Santorum also side stepped the Confederate flag question. Yes Rick, it's an issue for the state but you must have some sort of personal opinion.
#14 - Ben Carson* - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems. I hope he gets regular brain scans just in case there's something growing up there. Supposedly Carson won a straw poll in South Carolina which goes to show you how dumb they are in South Carolina. However, Huckabee had the poor judgement to appear in Janet Porter's latest anti-gay propaganda film. Carson at least isn't that dumb.
#15 - Mike Huckabee* - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so. He's dropped in my list because after thinking about who might be at least qualified to be president from this list, I can't honestly say I consider Huckabee, despite his stint as governor of Arkansas, to be qualified. Huckabee has at least posted his positions. Wilson had 14 points, God had ten commandments but Huckabee's got 18 pledges. To be honest I don't agree with many of them. Huckabee's latest nonsense is refusing to express an opinion on the Confederate Flag issue. Yes Mike, it's an issue for the state but you must have some sort of personal opinion.
Thursday, June 04, 2015
Let's Talk Jenner
I haven't said anything about the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner story because, to be completely honest, I don't really know what to say about it.
Even when I read descriptions from people like the American Psychological Association, it makes little or no sense to me.
"Sex is assigned at birth, refers to one’s biological status as either male or female, and is associated primarily with physical attributes such as chromosomes, hormone prevalence, and external and internal anatomy. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men or girls and women."
Seriously? So your plumbing and chromosomes don't define your gender? Your gender is defined by the roles, behaviors and activities expected by society?
So does the definition of gender change over time? Would that mean if you were to be time ported into the past (or future) you might have a gender identity problem? Perhaps some of us wouldn't be looked upon as male in ancient Sparta because the roles, behaviors and activities expected of ancient Spartan males we might find somewhat repulsive?
Then there's sexual orientation.
"Sexual orientation refers to an individual’s enduring physical, romantic, and/or emotional attraction to another person, whereas gender identity refers to one’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else."
Something else? You know, I'm just going to let that one slide.
So, if your sex is male, gender identity is female and sexual orientation is male, you're apparently considered heterosexual. However if your sex is male, gender identity is female and sexual orientation is female, you're apparently considered a lesbian.
Sure that make perfect sense to me. Well, not really.
Here's my problem. I'm having a hard time buying that gender is simply a societal definition. Does anyone seriously think if we were to start an isolated society someplace and totally reversed the definition of gender roles that it would work?
I don't understand but I suppose that doesn't really matter. My lack of understanding is no reason for me to judge so I suppose I'll just shrug my shoulders and go with the flow.
Even when I read descriptions from people like the American Psychological Association, it makes little or no sense to me.
"Sex is assigned at birth, refers to one’s biological status as either male or female, and is associated primarily with physical attributes such as chromosomes, hormone prevalence, and external and internal anatomy. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men or girls and women."
Seriously? So your plumbing and chromosomes don't define your gender? Your gender is defined by the roles, behaviors and activities expected by society?
So does the definition of gender change over time? Would that mean if you were to be time ported into the past (or future) you might have a gender identity problem? Perhaps some of us wouldn't be looked upon as male in ancient Sparta because the roles, behaviors and activities expected of ancient Spartan males we might find somewhat repulsive?
Then there's sexual orientation.
"Sexual orientation refers to an individual’s enduring physical, romantic, and/or emotional attraction to another person, whereas gender identity refers to one’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else."
Something else? You know, I'm just going to let that one slide.
So, if your sex is male, gender identity is female and sexual orientation is male, you're apparently considered heterosexual. However if your sex is male, gender identity is female and sexual orientation is female, you're apparently considered a lesbian.
Sure that make perfect sense to me. Well, not really.
Here's my problem. I'm having a hard time buying that gender is simply a societal definition. Does anyone seriously think if we were to start an isolated society someplace and totally reversed the definition of gender roles that it would work?
I don't understand but I suppose that doesn't really matter. My lack of understanding is no reason for me to judge so I suppose I'll just shrug my shoulders and go with the flow.
They Just Keep Coming
Rick Perry has now officially declared so he gets a shiny asterisk and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, who I completely forgot about, also declared. I listened to Graham's speech and I could relate to about 50% which is way better than most of these lunatics.
That gives me an idea. I'm going to introduce an "Elmer Fudd" line like the Mendoza line in baseball except instead of batting averages, it will mark the "Loony Tunes" line!
In the meantime I'm going to slide Graham in at #2.
#1 - George Patacki* - The man is actually sane and did a pretty good job as governor of New York. I don't see how the hell he's going to win a Republican primary but you never know. This might be the guy the money can combine behind.
#2 - Lindsey Graham* - I can go with about 50% of what I've heard this guy say which is much better than most of these turkeys.
#3 - Marco Rubio* - I don't agree with Rubio on a lot but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy like a few of the others in this field. One big problem with Marco is he seems to be intent on avoiding difficult questions rather than addressing them. Not a terribly encouraging trait for a potential president.
#4 - Jeb Bush - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya. But the man needs to learn that he's not Hispanic as he claimed once. Jeb doesn't really seem to understand what's going on in Iraq either so he falls to #4.
#5 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell. If it weren't for his idiotic deal with Exxon-Mobil, I might even list him higher.
#6 - Rand Paul* - Like his dad, not only does Paul not have any solutions, he doesn't even understand the questions. This is a man that wants to eliminate Meals on Wheels because seniors that can't afford food should depend upon charity. His stand against the Patriot Act however moves him ahead of Cruz.
#7 - Rick Perry* - OK, look, Perry sounds loony tunes but I don't think he's really that crazy. He's certainly not as crazy as Cruz or Santorum so I'm sliding him in at #7.
#8 - Carly Fiorina* - There's a reason she's an ex-CEO. Aside from missing all sorts of earning goals while at HP she was known as a divisive factor and laid off thousands of workers while sending jobs overseas. Eventually the HP board had enough and booted her ass out. But I had to move her above the Fudd line. She's just incompetent and probably not crazy.
=====THE ELMER FUDD LINE====
#9 - Ted Cruz* - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse! Even so he continues to slide rapidly.
#10 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The more this guy opens his mouth the more of a clown he makes himself out to be.
#11 - Bobby Jindel - Undoubtedly the worst of the people that might actually be considered qualified. Look what a "great" job he did in Louisiana where the economy is in a shambles. Why would anyone vote for this turkey? The legislature refused to pass an RFRA due to pressure from the business community so Jindel issued an executive order to accomplish essentially the same thing. The mayor of New Orleans promptly issued a counter executive order. Nothing like a little chaos on the Bayou.
#12 - Mike Huckabee* - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so. He's dropped in my list because after thinking about who might be at least qualified to be president from this list, I can't honestly say I consider Huckabee, despite his stint as governor of Arkansas, to be qualified. Huckabee has at least posted his positions. Wilson had 14 points, God had ten commandments but Huckabee's got 18 pledges. To be honest I don't agree with many of them.
#13 - Rick Santorum* - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse than Walker and Jindel. He's worse because I don't even consider this ass wipe qualified for the job.
#14 - Ben Carson* - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems. I hope he gets regular brain scans just in case there's something growing up there. Supposedly Carson won a straw poll in South Carolina which goes to show you how dumb they are in South Carolina.
That gives me an idea. I'm going to introduce an "Elmer Fudd" line like the Mendoza line in baseball except instead of batting averages, it will mark the "Loony Tunes" line!
In the meantime I'm going to slide Graham in at #2.
#1 - George Patacki* - The man is actually sane and did a pretty good job as governor of New York. I don't see how the hell he's going to win a Republican primary but you never know. This might be the guy the money can combine behind.
#2 - Lindsey Graham* - I can go with about 50% of what I've heard this guy say which is much better than most of these turkeys.
#3 - Marco Rubio* - I don't agree with Rubio on a lot but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy like a few of the others in this field. One big problem with Marco is he seems to be intent on avoiding difficult questions rather than addressing them. Not a terribly encouraging trait for a potential president.
#4 - Jeb Bush - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya. But the man needs to learn that he's not Hispanic as he claimed once. Jeb doesn't really seem to understand what's going on in Iraq either so he falls to #4.
#5 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell. If it weren't for his idiotic deal with Exxon-Mobil, I might even list him higher.
#6 - Rand Paul* - Like his dad, not only does Paul not have any solutions, he doesn't even understand the questions. This is a man that wants to eliminate Meals on Wheels because seniors that can't afford food should depend upon charity. His stand against the Patriot Act however moves him ahead of Cruz.
#7 - Rick Perry* - OK, look, Perry sounds loony tunes but I don't think he's really that crazy. He's certainly not as crazy as Cruz or Santorum so I'm sliding him in at #7.
#8 - Carly Fiorina* - There's a reason she's an ex-CEO. Aside from missing all sorts of earning goals while at HP she was known as a divisive factor and laid off thousands of workers while sending jobs overseas. Eventually the HP board had enough and booted her ass out. But I had to move her above the Fudd line. She's just incompetent and probably not crazy.
=====THE ELMER FUDD LINE====
#9 - Ted Cruz* - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse! Even so he continues to slide rapidly.
#10 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The more this guy opens his mouth the more of a clown he makes himself out to be.
#11 - Bobby Jindel - Undoubtedly the worst of the people that might actually be considered qualified. Look what a "great" job he did in Louisiana where the economy is in a shambles. Why would anyone vote for this turkey? The legislature refused to pass an RFRA due to pressure from the business community so Jindel issued an executive order to accomplish essentially the same thing. The mayor of New Orleans promptly issued a counter executive order. Nothing like a little chaos on the Bayou.
#12 - Mike Huckabee* - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so. He's dropped in my list because after thinking about who might be at least qualified to be president from this list, I can't honestly say I consider Huckabee, despite his stint as governor of Arkansas, to be qualified. Huckabee has at least posted his positions. Wilson had 14 points, God had ten commandments but Huckabee's got 18 pledges. To be honest I don't agree with many of them.
#13 - Rick Santorum* - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse than Walker and Jindel. He's worse because I don't even consider this ass wipe qualified for the job.
#14 - Ben Carson* - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems. I hope he gets regular brain scans just in case there's something growing up there. Supposedly Carson won a straw poll in South Carolina which goes to show you how dumb they are in South Carolina.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Huckabee's 18 Pledges
I thought it was 16 but I must have miscounted the last time. Wilson had 14 points, God had ten commandments and Huckabee has 18 pledges.
OK, here we go. Let's remember that this is a man that thinks he should be President of the United States.
Not everything he says I disagree with but the problem is simply stating that you will do something without any indication as to HOW you expect to go about it only addresses the first part of the question. We can talk whether or not this is a good objective or a bad objective but even the best of intentions can become a big problem with a lousy implementation.
I will adhere to the Constitution of the United States.
Actually you would be taking an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. The problem here is agreeing on what the Constitution means. I don't think most Americans would be willing to accept your interpretation Huck. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't.
The next three pledges are related so I'm going to talk about them together.
I will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.
I will advocate for a complete overhaul of our tax system. This means passing the FairTax and abolishing the IRS.
I will support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
Just about every reputable organization that has looked at the US budget situation agrees that a combination of new taxes and spending cuts is necessary.
The basic argument is who gets cut and who gets additional taxes?
To say you're going to balance the budget but at the same time declare no new taxes is wishful thinking. But, show me the math and I can perhaps be convinced.
I've looked at the Fair Tax and I'm pretty sure it's anything but fair and would most likely lead to a tremendous revenue shortfall.
The basic idea of the Fair Tax is to replace both payroll and income taxes with a consumption tax and something called a prebate. A prebate is sort of a necessities allowance that everyone receives to cover the consumption tax on necessities. Including people making billions of dollars which strikes me as more than a little ridiculous.
Also tuition, interest payments, local taxes and savings and investments are tax free. This implies to me that capital gains taxes are gone. Corporate income taxes are also eliminated. The consumption tax is set to 23% based upon a typical 15% income tax bracket, 6.2% in Social Security Tax and 1.4% in Medicare taxes. The 23% is INCLUSIVE so that makes it similar to a 30% sales tax.
Here are the immediate problems I see with the Fair Tax. One caveat is there may in fact be resolutions to some of these questions. I just may not be aware of them.
- What happens to the 6.2% Social Security and 1.4% Medicare employer matching funds? As far as I can see they're gone with nothing to replace them.
- The 0.9% additional Medicare tax on high earners (over $250k filing jointly) also appears to have disappeared. What's replacing that?
- I did a check on their Fair Tax Calculator and I would be entitled to about a $460 prebate per month. All of this money comes off the top. What's replacing it?
- What revenue stream replaces corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes?
- If you make less than $44,000 and are on Social Security, at least 50% of your Social Security is not currently taxed. But under the Fair Tax, if you spend it, it's taxed. I see no allowance for Social Security in the prebate calculator.
- Here's some simple math. If your tax bracket is 15% then you end up paying more tax because you don't pay 15% on everything. The first $18,000 is taxed at 10% for those filing jointly. If your tax bracket is higher than 15% then you're definitely getting a tax reduction. If you invest a lot of your salary, like most rich folks do, then you're getting a huge tax cut.
In general, if you spend almost all of your salary you pay the tax on everything. if you don't spend it, or spend it outside the US, then you're not taxed on it. Guess who spends most or all of their salary and guess who spends not all or most of their salary?
The bottom line is the math screams to me that this is a scheme for getting the poor and the middle class to further subsidize the rich.
I will now, and will for the duration of my presidency, promote and sign all measures leading to Obamacare’s defunding, deauthorization, and repeal.
What is it that Republicans have against (a) getting people health care and (b) slowing the growth of health care costs? The ACA can be improved but it's a good start.
I will oppose amnesty and government benefits for illegal immigrants who violated our laws, repeal President Obama's unconstitutional executive orders, and secure our borders.
This issue is more complicated than it looks and I would like to see real bipartisan immigration reform. This sort of statement doesn't accomplish anything. I have a serious problem with young adults brought here by their parents as children and living most of their lives as Americans being booted out of the country because of something their parents did wrong. That's not justice.
I will stand for the sanctity of all human life from the moment of conception until the grave. Taking this unequivocal stand includes fighting to defund Planned Parenthood.
Politicians seriously need to get their noses out of people's private health issues. Only about 3% of Planned Parenthood services are abortion services. 80% help reduce unplanned pregnancies which actually REDUCES abortions. If you "defund Planned Parenthood" the number of abortions might actually skyrocket.
I will stand for the Institution of Marriage and vigorously oppose any redefinition.
Blah, blah, blah. It's time to come to grips with the simple fact that this ship has probably sailed. If the SCOTUS rules for marriage equality in June it will be long gone.
I will defend our 2nd Amendment rights and oppose gun control legislation.
If you don't think we should be keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill and people just too plan stupid to handle them, then you're not thinking this through. Gun control legislation is intended to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them.
I will fight for the United States military to be the most feared, respected, and capable fighting force the world has ever known.
And here I always thought it already was.
I will restore our military infrastructure after years of abuse and neglect.
I'm all for common soldiers getting paid better and having better benefits. Soldiers should not have to rely on food stamps to feed their families and they should have better housing. Beyond that, you'll have to get more specific about this one. If you're talking about White Sands Missile Range, the place could definitely use some sprucing up
I will stand with our friend and ally Israel in our shared fight against Radical Islam.
Then you better tell Netanyahu to get his act together or you might find yourself getting very lonely in the support for Israel club.
I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capability.
I agree with the objective but we'll have to see about the approach.
I will end the national disgrace of failing to properly care for our veterans.
I agree 100% and note the point above about soldier salaries, benefits and housing.
I will protect Social Security and Medicare and never rob seniors of the benefits they were promised and forced to pay for.
I agree again but seniors look like they would take a bath with the so-called Fair Tax. You're going to have to fit this in with the rest of your tax ideas. Unfortunately all of those look really bad so why do I suspect this one will be just as bad?
I will fight to kill Common Core and restore common sense. Education is a family function - not a federal function.
Clearly you don't understand Common Core. It's not a federal function. It was put together by the states in order to try and introduces standards across the country. The federal government simply put a monetary incentive on the table. The objective is good, standards work, but if the implementation can be better, then let's improve it. By the way, what the hell does "Education is a family function" mean?
I will support the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices. They must be committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench.
Great, just what we need. A bunch of dinosaurs like Scalia and Thomas driving us back into the 1950s.
I will fight for term limits for members of Congress and judges.
I agree with this as well but, once again, the devil is in the details.
Huckabee is basically tossing out pledges to do what he thinks the under 80 IQ Republican base wants to hear. He clearly hasn't thought a lot of this through. If he was a tad less doctrinaire I would feel more comfortable,
For example, if he said he was going to focus on balancing the budget primarily through cost cutting and tax reform, I wouldn't argue with it. But to declare a solution, no taxes, the Fair Tax and a balanced budget amendment, that are very probably mutually exclusive doesn't fill me with a whole lot of confidence.
I suppose that's why I have him all the way down at #10 in the Republican menagerie.
OK, here we go. Let's remember that this is a man that thinks he should be President of the United States.
Not everything he says I disagree with but the problem is simply stating that you will do something without any indication as to HOW you expect to go about it only addresses the first part of the question. We can talk whether or not this is a good objective or a bad objective but even the best of intentions can become a big problem with a lousy implementation.
I will adhere to the Constitution of the United States.
Actually you would be taking an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. The problem here is agreeing on what the Constitution means. I don't think most Americans would be willing to accept your interpretation Huck. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't.
The next three pledges are related so I'm going to talk about them together.
I will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.
I will advocate for a complete overhaul of our tax system. This means passing the FairTax and abolishing the IRS.
I will support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
Just about every reputable organization that has looked at the US budget situation agrees that a combination of new taxes and spending cuts is necessary.
The basic argument is who gets cut and who gets additional taxes?
To say you're going to balance the budget but at the same time declare no new taxes is wishful thinking. But, show me the math and I can perhaps be convinced.
I've looked at the Fair Tax and I'm pretty sure it's anything but fair and would most likely lead to a tremendous revenue shortfall.
The basic idea of the Fair Tax is to replace both payroll and income taxes with a consumption tax and something called a prebate. A prebate is sort of a necessities allowance that everyone receives to cover the consumption tax on necessities. Including people making billions of dollars which strikes me as more than a little ridiculous.
Also tuition, interest payments, local taxes and savings and investments are tax free. This implies to me that capital gains taxes are gone. Corporate income taxes are also eliminated. The consumption tax is set to 23% based upon a typical 15% income tax bracket, 6.2% in Social Security Tax and 1.4% in Medicare taxes. The 23% is INCLUSIVE so that makes it similar to a 30% sales tax.
Here are the immediate problems I see with the Fair Tax. One caveat is there may in fact be resolutions to some of these questions. I just may not be aware of them.
- What happens to the 6.2% Social Security and 1.4% Medicare employer matching funds? As far as I can see they're gone with nothing to replace them.
- The 0.9% additional Medicare tax on high earners (over $250k filing jointly) also appears to have disappeared. What's replacing that?
- I did a check on their Fair Tax Calculator and I would be entitled to about a $460 prebate per month. All of this money comes off the top. What's replacing it?
- What revenue stream replaces corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes?
- If you make less than $44,000 and are on Social Security, at least 50% of your Social Security is not currently taxed. But under the Fair Tax, if you spend it, it's taxed. I see no allowance for Social Security in the prebate calculator.
- Here's some simple math. If your tax bracket is 15% then you end up paying more tax because you don't pay 15% on everything. The first $18,000 is taxed at 10% for those filing jointly. If your tax bracket is higher than 15% then you're definitely getting a tax reduction. If you invest a lot of your salary, like most rich folks do, then you're getting a huge tax cut.
In general, if you spend almost all of your salary you pay the tax on everything. if you don't spend it, or spend it outside the US, then you're not taxed on it. Guess who spends most or all of their salary and guess who spends not all or most of their salary?
The bottom line is the math screams to me that this is a scheme for getting the poor and the middle class to further subsidize the rich.
I will now, and will for the duration of my presidency, promote and sign all measures leading to Obamacare’s defunding, deauthorization, and repeal.
What is it that Republicans have against (a) getting people health care and (b) slowing the growth of health care costs? The ACA can be improved but it's a good start.
I will oppose amnesty and government benefits for illegal immigrants who violated our laws, repeal President Obama's unconstitutional executive orders, and secure our borders.
This issue is more complicated than it looks and I would like to see real bipartisan immigration reform. This sort of statement doesn't accomplish anything. I have a serious problem with young adults brought here by their parents as children and living most of their lives as Americans being booted out of the country because of something their parents did wrong. That's not justice.
I will stand for the sanctity of all human life from the moment of conception until the grave. Taking this unequivocal stand includes fighting to defund Planned Parenthood.
Politicians seriously need to get their noses out of people's private health issues. Only about 3% of Planned Parenthood services are abortion services. 80% help reduce unplanned pregnancies which actually REDUCES abortions. If you "defund Planned Parenthood" the number of abortions might actually skyrocket.
I will stand for the Institution of Marriage and vigorously oppose any redefinition.
Blah, blah, blah. It's time to come to grips with the simple fact that this ship has probably sailed. If the SCOTUS rules for marriage equality in June it will be long gone.
I will defend our 2nd Amendment rights and oppose gun control legislation.
If you don't think we should be keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill and people just too plan stupid to handle them, then you're not thinking this through. Gun control legislation is intended to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them.
I will fight for the United States military to be the most feared, respected, and capable fighting force the world has ever known.
And here I always thought it already was.
I will restore our military infrastructure after years of abuse and neglect.
I'm all for common soldiers getting paid better and having better benefits. Soldiers should not have to rely on food stamps to feed their families and they should have better housing. Beyond that, you'll have to get more specific about this one. If you're talking about White Sands Missile Range, the place could definitely use some sprucing up
I will stand with our friend and ally Israel in our shared fight against Radical Islam.
Then you better tell Netanyahu to get his act together or you might find yourself getting very lonely in the support for Israel club.
I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capability.
I agree with the objective but we'll have to see about the approach.
I will end the national disgrace of failing to properly care for our veterans.
I agree 100% and note the point above about soldier salaries, benefits and housing.
I will protect Social Security and Medicare and never rob seniors of the benefits they were promised and forced to pay for.
I agree again but seniors look like they would take a bath with the so-called Fair Tax. You're going to have to fit this in with the rest of your tax ideas. Unfortunately all of those look really bad so why do I suspect this one will be just as bad?
I will fight to kill Common Core and restore common sense. Education is a family function - not a federal function.
Clearly you don't understand Common Core. It's not a federal function. It was put together by the states in order to try and introduces standards across the country. The federal government simply put a monetary incentive on the table. The objective is good, standards work, but if the implementation can be better, then let's improve it. By the way, what the hell does "Education is a family function" mean?
I will support the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices. They must be committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench.
Great, just what we need. A bunch of dinosaurs like Scalia and Thomas driving us back into the 1950s.
I will fight for term limits for members of Congress and judges.
I agree with this as well but, once again, the devil is in the details.
Huckabee is basically tossing out pledges to do what he thinks the under 80 IQ Republican base wants to hear. He clearly hasn't thought a lot of this through. If he was a tad less doctrinaire I would feel more comfortable,
For example, if he said he was going to focus on balancing the budget primarily through cost cutting and tax reform, I wouldn't argue with it. But to declare a solution, no taxes, the Fair Tax and a balanced budget amendment, that are very probably mutually exclusive doesn't fill me with a whole lot of confidence.
I suppose that's why I have him all the way down at #10 in the Republican menagerie.
Muhammad Cartoons on Buses
Pamela Geller is the head of an anti-Islamic group called the American Freedom Defense Initiative. I was familiar with Geller from Right Wing Watch but she got a lot of free publicity when two Islamic sympathizers tried to crash her contest in Texas about drawing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad and got themselves killed.
Geller is loony tunes and utterly delusional with respect to Islam. She has no idea what Sharia Law actually is but is convinced it's somehow taking over here in the states. She's a nut that trivializes real issues and deserves to be ignored.
Unfortunately the incident in Texas has gotten her attention that she doesn't deserve.
Her latest idea is to publish the winning cartoon on buses in Washington DC claiming it's free speech.
Now, I published a few of the Danish cartoons that caused all that trouble and proudly proclaimed Je Suis Charlie as well so I'm not one that's been terribly careful about upsetting Muslim sensibilities.
But Geller isn't in the publishing or satire business and this idea strikes me as having the sole purpose of insulting Muslims and attempting to incite a reaction.
Fighting Words, speech or print intended to invoke hatred or violence are NOT covered by the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech and this idea strikes me as being perilously close to Fighting Words if it's not over the line.
Geller is loony tunes and utterly delusional with respect to Islam. She has no idea what Sharia Law actually is but is convinced it's somehow taking over here in the states. She's a nut that trivializes real issues and deserves to be ignored.
Unfortunately the incident in Texas has gotten her attention that she doesn't deserve.
Her latest idea is to publish the winning cartoon on buses in Washington DC claiming it's free speech.
Now, I published a few of the Danish cartoons that caused all that trouble and proudly proclaimed Je Suis Charlie as well so I'm not one that's been terribly careful about upsetting Muslim sensibilities.
But Geller isn't in the publishing or satire business and this idea strikes me as having the sole purpose of insulting Muslims and attempting to incite a reaction.
Fighting Words, speech or print intended to invoke hatred or violence are NOT covered by the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech and this idea strikes me as being perilously close to Fighting Words if it's not over the line.
Patacki Joins the Crowd
I'm starting to lose track of who has actually declared themselves a candidate but I'll do the best I can. George Pataki has declared his candidacy and Rick Perry is making noises like he'll declare any day now so I've added him as well. An asterisk indicates I think he or she has formally declared.
#1 - George Patacki* - The man is actually sane and did a pretty good job as governor of New York. I don't see how the hell he's going to win a Republican primary but you never know. This might be the guy the money can combine behind.
#2 - Marco Rubio* - I don't agree with Rubio on a lot but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy like a few of the others in this field. One big problem with Marco is he seems to be intent on avoiding difficult questions rather than addressing them. Not a terribly encouraging trait for a potential president.
#3 - Jeb Bush - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya. But the man needs to learn that he's not Hispanic as he claimed once. Jeb doesn't really seem to understand what's going on in Iraq either so he falls to #3.
#3 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell. If it weren't for his idiotic deal with Exxon-Mobil, I might even list him higher.
#4 - Rand Paul* - Like his dad, not only does Paul not have any solutions, he doesn't even understand the questions. This is a man that wants to eliminate Meals on Wheels because seniors that can't afford food should depend upon charity. His stand against the Patriot Act however moves him ahead of Cruz.
#5 - Rick Perry - OK, look, Perry sounds loony tunes but I don't think he's really that crazy. He's certainly not as crazy as Cruz or Santorum so I'm sliding him in at #5.
#6 - Ted Cruz* - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse! Even so he continues to slide rapidly.
#7 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The more this guy opens his mouth the more of a clown he makes himself out to be.
#8 - Bobby Jindel - Undoubtedly the worst of the people that might actually be considered qualified. Look what a "great" job he did in Louisiana where the economy is in a shambles. Why would anyone vote for this turkey? The legislature refused to pass an RFRA due to pressure from the business community so Jindel issued an executive order to accomplish essentially the same thing. The mayor of New Orleans promptly issued a counter executive order. Nothing like a little chaos on the Bayou.
#9 - Carly Fiorina* - There's a reason she's an ex-CEO. Aside from missing all sorts of earning goals while at HP she was known as a divisive factor and laid off thousands of workers while sending jobs overseas. Eventually the HP board had enough and booted her ass out.
#10 - Mike Huckabee* - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so. He's dropped in my list because after thinking about who might be at least qualified to be president from this list, I can't honestly say I consider Huckabee, despite his stint as governor of Arkansas, to be qualified.
Huckabee has at least posted his positions. Wilson had 14 points, God had ten commandments but Huckabee's got 17 pledges. To be honest I don't agree with many of them.
#11 - Rick Santorum* - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse than Walker and Jindel. He's worse because I don't even consider this ass wipe qualified for the job.
#12 - Ben Carson* - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems. I hope he gets regular brain scans just in case there's something growing up there. Supposedly Carson won a straw poll in South Carolina which goes to show you how dumb they are in South Carolina.
#1 - George Patacki* - The man is actually sane and did a pretty good job as governor of New York. I don't see how the hell he's going to win a Republican primary but you never know. This might be the guy the money can combine behind.
#2 - Marco Rubio* - I don't agree with Rubio on a lot but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy like a few of the others in this field. One big problem with Marco is he seems to be intent on avoiding difficult questions rather than addressing them. Not a terribly encouraging trait for a potential president.
#3 - Jeb Bush - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya. But the man needs to learn that he's not Hispanic as he claimed once. Jeb doesn't really seem to understand what's going on in Iraq either so he falls to #3.
#3 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell. If it weren't for his idiotic deal with Exxon-Mobil, I might even list him higher.
#4 - Rand Paul* - Like his dad, not only does Paul not have any solutions, he doesn't even understand the questions. This is a man that wants to eliminate Meals on Wheels because seniors that can't afford food should depend upon charity. His stand against the Patriot Act however moves him ahead of Cruz.
#5 - Rick Perry - OK, look, Perry sounds loony tunes but I don't think he's really that crazy. He's certainly not as crazy as Cruz or Santorum so I'm sliding him in at #5.
#6 - Ted Cruz* - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse! Even so he continues to slide rapidly.
#7 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The more this guy opens his mouth the more of a clown he makes himself out to be.
#8 - Bobby Jindel - Undoubtedly the worst of the people that might actually be considered qualified. Look what a "great" job he did in Louisiana where the economy is in a shambles. Why would anyone vote for this turkey? The legislature refused to pass an RFRA due to pressure from the business community so Jindel issued an executive order to accomplish essentially the same thing. The mayor of New Orleans promptly issued a counter executive order. Nothing like a little chaos on the Bayou.
#9 - Carly Fiorina* - There's a reason she's an ex-CEO. Aside from missing all sorts of earning goals while at HP she was known as a divisive factor and laid off thousands of workers while sending jobs overseas. Eventually the HP board had enough and booted her ass out.
#10 - Mike Huckabee* - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so. He's dropped in my list because after thinking about who might be at least qualified to be president from this list, I can't honestly say I consider Huckabee, despite his stint as governor of Arkansas, to be qualified.
Huckabee has at least posted his positions. Wilson had 14 points, God had ten commandments but Huckabee's got 17 pledges. To be honest I don't agree with many of them.
#11 - Rick Santorum* - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse than Walker and Jindel. He's worse because I don't even consider this ass wipe qualified for the job.
#12 - Ben Carson* - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems. I hope he gets regular brain scans just in case there's something growing up there. Supposedly Carson won a straw poll in South Carolina which goes to show you how dumb they are in South Carolina.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Ireland Approves Gay Marriage
Ireland became the 1st country to approve Gay Marriage by popular vote.
Despite strong lobbying by the Catholic Church the Irish voted for marriage equality by a solid 62-38 majority.
Can you hears the walls of bigotry crumbling?
As for the Church, the dinosaur inched closer to extinction.
Despite strong lobbying by the Catholic Church the Irish voted for marriage equality by a solid 62-38 majority.
Can you hears the walls of bigotry crumbling?
As for the Church, the dinosaur inched closer to extinction.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Another Prediction of Violence
The Religious Right continues to predict violence if the SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage. This time PFAW is reporting that it's Bryan Fischer.
Fischer called upon state legislatures to pass resolutions declaring that they will not abide by any supreme court ruling that legalizes gay marriage.
"If the Supreme Court continues to overreach and they aren't checked, we are headed towards civil unrest, I don't think there is any other way around it. If it's not stopped and reversed, the tyrannical overreach of the Supreme Court, we are to have social dislocation and I believe we are going to have violence as a result."
According to PFAW Fischer declared that states "have every moral and legal right to ignore the federal government."
So what to make of all this?
First of all there's isn't going to be any violence. That's just absurd. there aren't enough people that care enough about this issue to get all storm the Bastille about it. Even if there were, they would find out pretty quickly what a painful experience it's going to be.
As for Fischer's idea that states have the legal right to ignore the federal government, I wish people who claim to support the Constitution would actually read it.
First of all there is the Supremacy Clause. Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
This includes INTERPRETATIONS of the Constitution or federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Article 3 of the Constitution:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..."
So Fischer and Ben Carson, who somehow thinks the Supreme Court can be ignored, are both wrong. If any state, including Alabama and Texas, wants to argue about it, I have two words for them. Those two words are ORVAL FAUBUS.
The only thing ignoring federal law will accomplish is meeting the 101st Airborne or 4th Infantry Division up close and personal. Assuming Obama has the balls to do what needs to be done of course. If he doesn't, the SCOTUS can always direct him to take the appropriate action to enforce the law.
Of course I'd be very surprised if it came to that.
Fischer called upon state legislatures to pass resolutions declaring that they will not abide by any supreme court ruling that legalizes gay marriage.
"If the Supreme Court continues to overreach and they aren't checked, we are headed towards civil unrest, I don't think there is any other way around it. If it's not stopped and reversed, the tyrannical overreach of the Supreme Court, we are to have social dislocation and I believe we are going to have violence as a result."
According to PFAW Fischer declared that states "have every moral and legal right to ignore the federal government."
So what to make of all this?
First of all there's isn't going to be any violence. That's just absurd. there aren't enough people that care enough about this issue to get all storm the Bastille about it. Even if there were, they would find out pretty quickly what a painful experience it's going to be.
As for Fischer's idea that states have the legal right to ignore the federal government, I wish people who claim to support the Constitution would actually read it.
First of all there is the Supremacy Clause. Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
This includes INTERPRETATIONS of the Constitution or federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Article 3 of the Constitution:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..."
So Fischer and Ben Carson, who somehow thinks the Supreme Court can be ignored, are both wrong. If any state, including Alabama and Texas, wants to argue about it, I have two words for them. Those two words are ORVAL FAUBUS.
The only thing ignoring federal law will accomplish is meeting the 101st Airborne or 4th Infantry Division up close and personal. Assuming Obama has the balls to do what needs to be done of course. If he doesn't, the SCOTUS can always direct him to take the appropriate action to enforce the law.
Of course I'd be very surprised if it came to that.
Pew Research Religious Landscape Survey
Pew Research has published it's findings in a new majority religious landscape survey. Their last survey was in 2007.
Key findings based upon interviewing 35,000 adults.
- The number of people identifying as Christian decreased from 78.4% to 70.6%
--- Protestants 2007: 51.3% 2014: 46.5%
------ Evangelical 2007: 26.3% 2014: 25.4%
------ Mainline 2007: 18.1% 2014: 14.7%
------ Historical Black 2007: 6.9% 2014: 6.5%
--- Catholics 2007: 23.9% 2014: 20.8%
--- Orthodox 2007: 0.6% 2014: 0.5%
--- Mormon 2007: 1.7% 2014: 1.6%
--- Jehovah's Witness 2007: 0.7% 2014: 0,8%
--- Other Christian 2007: 0.3% 2014: 0.4%
- Non-Christian faiths increased from 4.7% to 5.9%
--- Jewish 2007: 1.7% 2014: 1.9%
--- Muslim 2007: 0.4% 2014: 0.9%
--- Hindu 2007: 0.4% 2014: 0.7%
--- Buddhist 2007: 0.7% 2014: 0.7%
--- Other 2007: 1.5% 2014: 1.8%
- the unaffiliated (the Nones) went from 16.1% to 22.8%
--- Atheists 2007: 1.6% 2014: 3.1%
--- Agnostics 2007: 2.4% 2014: 4.0%
--- Nothing in Particular 2007: 12.1% 2014: 15.8%
This makes the Nones now the second largest group only an eyelash behind evangelicals.
- Evangelicals - 25.4%
- Nones - 22.8%
- Catholics - 20.8%
Atheists and Agnostics now at 7.1% of the population outnumber all non-Christian faiths at 5.9% combined. There are more than three times as many Atheists and Agnostics as Jews, four times as many as Mormons and almost eight times as many as Muslims.
Much of the change is related to age. The youngest Americans are by far the least religious with a solid 36% of Young Millennials (born 1990 to 1996) identifying as unaffiliated as compared to only 11% of the Silent Generation (born 1928 to 1945) and 17% of Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964).
Based upon these numbers perhaps there's some hope for the human race yet.
Key findings based upon interviewing 35,000 adults.
- The number of people identifying as Christian decreased from 78.4% to 70.6%
--- Protestants 2007: 51.3% 2014: 46.5%
------ Evangelical 2007: 26.3% 2014: 25.4%
------ Mainline 2007: 18.1% 2014: 14.7%
------ Historical Black 2007: 6.9% 2014: 6.5%
--- Catholics 2007: 23.9% 2014: 20.8%
--- Orthodox 2007: 0.6% 2014: 0.5%
--- Mormon 2007: 1.7% 2014: 1.6%
--- Jehovah's Witness 2007: 0.7% 2014: 0,8%
--- Other Christian 2007: 0.3% 2014: 0.4%
- Non-Christian faiths increased from 4.7% to 5.9%
--- Jewish 2007: 1.7% 2014: 1.9%
--- Muslim 2007: 0.4% 2014: 0.9%
--- Hindu 2007: 0.4% 2014: 0.7%
--- Buddhist 2007: 0.7% 2014: 0.7%
--- Other 2007: 1.5% 2014: 1.8%
- the unaffiliated (the Nones) went from 16.1% to 22.8%
--- Atheists 2007: 1.6% 2014: 3.1%
--- Agnostics 2007: 2.4% 2014: 4.0%
--- Nothing in Particular 2007: 12.1% 2014: 15.8%
This makes the Nones now the second largest group only an eyelash behind evangelicals.
- Evangelicals - 25.4%
- Nones - 22.8%
- Catholics - 20.8%
Atheists and Agnostics now at 7.1% of the population outnumber all non-Christian faiths at 5.9% combined. There are more than three times as many Atheists and Agnostics as Jews, four times as many as Mormons and almost eight times as many as Muslims.
Much of the change is related to age. The youngest Americans are by far the least religious with a solid 36% of Young Millennials (born 1990 to 1996) identifying as unaffiliated as compared to only 11% of the Silent Generation (born 1928 to 1945) and 17% of Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964).
Based upon these numbers perhaps there's some hope for the human race yet.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Deflategate
I'm going to put my 2 cents in about the apparent deflating of footballs during the AFC Championship game last January.
At the time I said that the whole thing sounded silly but predicted that they would "through (sic) some poor schnook under the bus so the team and the league could live happily ever after." OK, so I can't spell "throw."
After an investigation concluded that the balls were most likely deflated on purpose by two Patriot's equipment staffers and that Tom Brady most likely knew about the shenanigans, the NFL handed down the following punishment.
1. Tom Brady is suspended for the first four games of the 2016 season.
2. The team was fined $1 million.
3. The Patriots will lose a 2016 1st round draft pick and a 2017 4th round draft pick.
4. The two equipment staffers were suspended indefinitely.
Well, at least I got the throwing under the bus part right.
Brady has three days to appeal the suspension.
This is less severe than the punishment handed out to the New Orleans Saints in "Bountygate" a few years ago but at least in this case it wasn't a matter of trying to physically hurt other players so I don't have an issue with that.
I think a $1 million fine is a joke but the loss of draft choices and suspension time strikes me as about right.
At the time I said that the whole thing sounded silly but predicted that they would "through (sic) some poor schnook under the bus so the team and the league could live happily ever after." OK, so I can't spell "throw."
After an investigation concluded that the balls were most likely deflated on purpose by two Patriot's equipment staffers and that Tom Brady most likely knew about the shenanigans, the NFL handed down the following punishment.
1. Tom Brady is suspended for the first four games of the 2016 season.
2. The team was fined $1 million.
3. The Patriots will lose a 2016 1st round draft pick and a 2017 4th round draft pick.
4. The two equipment staffers were suspended indefinitely.
Well, at least I got the throwing under the bus part right.
Brady has three days to appeal the suspension.
This is less severe than the punishment handed out to the New Orleans Saints in "Bountygate" a few years ago but at least in this case it wasn't a matter of trying to physically hurt other players so I don't have an issue with that.
I think a $1 million fine is a joke but the loss of draft choices and suspension time strikes me as about right.
Monday, May 04, 2015
The Republican 2016 Field Expands
Ben Carson has made it official and Carly Fiorina, the ex-CEO of Hewlett Packard and one time senate candidate, has become the first Republican woman to declare her candidacy.
In the meantime I got a whiff of Christie's ideas on Social Security which really suck so he drops to #3 and Rubio moves up to #2. Fiorina I'm going to slide in at #8 since she does have some executive experience. Of course she screwed up at HP so badly that nobody else wants her.
#1 - Jeb Bush - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya. But the man needs to learn that he's not Hispanic as he claimed once.
#2 - Marco Rubio* - I don't agree with Rubio on a lot but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy like a few of the others in this field.
#3 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell. If it weren't for his idiotic deal with Exxon-Mobil, I might even list him as #1.
#4 - Ted Cruz* - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse!
#5 - Rand Paul* - Like his dad, not only does Paul not have any solutions, he doesn't even understand the questions. This is a man that wants to eliminate Meals on Wheels because seniors that can't afford food should depend upon charity.
#6 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
#7 - Bobby Jindel - Undoubtedly the worst of the people that might actually be considered qualified. Look what a great job he did in Louisiana. Why would anyone vote for this turkey?
#8 - Carly Fiorina* - There's a reason she's an ex-CEO. Aside from missing all sorts of earning goals while at HP she was known as a divisive factor and laid off thousands of workers while sending jobs overseas. Eventually the HP board had enough and booted her ass out.
#9 - Mike Huckabee - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so. He's dropped in my list because after thinking about who might be at least qualified to be president from this list, I can't honestly say I consider Huckabee, despite his stint as governor of Arkansas, to be qualified.
#10 - Rick Santorum - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse than Walker and Jindel. He's worse because I don't even consider this ass wipe qualified for the job.
#11 - Ben Carson* - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems. I hope he gets regular brain scans just in case there's something growing up there.
In the meantime I got a whiff of Christie's ideas on Social Security which really suck so he drops to #3 and Rubio moves up to #2. Fiorina I'm going to slide in at #8 since she does have some executive experience. Of course she screwed up at HP so badly that nobody else wants her.
#1 - Jeb Bush - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya. But the man needs to learn that he's not Hispanic as he claimed once.
#2 - Marco Rubio* - I don't agree with Rubio on a lot but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy like a few of the others in this field.
#3 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell. If it weren't for his idiotic deal with Exxon-Mobil, I might even list him as #1.
#4 - Ted Cruz* - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse!
#5 - Rand Paul* - Like his dad, not only does Paul not have any solutions, he doesn't even understand the questions. This is a man that wants to eliminate Meals on Wheels because seniors that can't afford food should depend upon charity.
#6 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
#7 - Bobby Jindel - Undoubtedly the worst of the people that might actually be considered qualified. Look what a great job he did in Louisiana. Why would anyone vote for this turkey?
#8 - Carly Fiorina* - There's a reason she's an ex-CEO. Aside from missing all sorts of earning goals while at HP she was known as a divisive factor and laid off thousands of workers while sending jobs overseas. Eventually the HP board had enough and booted her ass out.
#9 - Mike Huckabee - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so. He's dropped in my list because after thinking about who might be at least qualified to be president from this list, I can't honestly say I consider Huckabee, despite his stint as governor of Arkansas, to be qualified.
#10 - Rick Santorum - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse than Walker and Jindel. He's worse because I don't even consider this ass wipe qualified for the job.
#11 - Ben Carson* - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems. I hope he gets regular brain scans just in case there's something growing up there.
And the name of the Princess is...
Charlotte Elizabeth Diana.
Well, at least I got the Diana part right.
Well, at least I got the Diana part right.
Sunday, May 03, 2015
It's a Princess
The Duchess of Cambridge has given birth to a baby girl (awww). The new little princess is going to be an absolute boon to the British economy as she becomes the fashion trend setter of the English speaking world and probably most of western civilization.
All I can say is happy, happy, joy, joy.
Too bad tomorrow it'll be back to death, ignorance, bigotry and destruction as usual.
Now we wait to see what name William and Kate choose. I hear Charlotte has overtaken Alice as the betting favorite. Then there's Victoria Olivia and Diana also in the running. The little lady will probably get at least three names so I'n betting Diana, if not the first name, will be in there somewhere.
How about Victoria Diana Alice? Or maybe Charlotte Alice Diana? I don't really care for Olivia. How about Alice Victoria Diana?
All I can say is happy, happy, joy, joy.
Too bad tomorrow it'll be back to death, ignorance, bigotry and destruction as usual.
Now we wait to see what name William and Kate choose. I hear Charlotte has overtaken Alice as the betting favorite. Then there's Victoria Olivia and Diana also in the running. The little lady will probably get at least three names so I'n betting Diana, if not the first name, will be in there somewhere.
How about Victoria Diana Alice? Or maybe Charlotte Alice Diana? I don't really care for Olivia. How about Alice Victoria Diana?
Monday, April 27, 2015
The 2015 NFL Draft
Only a couple of days to go until the NFL Draft.
The NFL and the need for SOMETHING to talk about in the spring has managed to get this thing into one of the bigger sports soap operas around.
Every year now mock drafts and analysis by "experts" whip things up into a frenzy. Last year it was the saga of Johnny Football. This year it's a tale of two quarterbacks.
The two quarterbacks are Jameis Winston from Florida St. and Marcus Mariota from Oregon.
Winston is physically everything you want in a QB. He's 6'4", 230 lbs and has a BIG arm. He's got a National Championship under his belt and comes from a school which runs a pro style offense. Draft 2015 compares him to Eli Manning which, given the two Super Bowl rings Eli has, ain't a bad comparison.
That's the good news.
On the other side of the coin, like Eli, he's known for forcing the ball into impossibly tight windows leading to a lot of interceptions and he's not really very mobile so he's not going to be able to scramble around and extend the play.
That's the bad news.
The ugly news is Winston has a penchant for getting into trouble off the field. It's unclear whether he's actually a problem or just has a knack for attracting trouble. Either way this isn't what you want to hear when you're shopping for a franchise quarterback.
Mariota is 6'4" and 220 lbs, and can throw and run. Draft 2015 compares him to Colin Kaepernick which, given Kaepernick's inconsistency last year, could be good or bad.
Coming from a spread offense Mariota could have some issues fitting into a pro style offense right away unless he ends up in Philadelphia with Chip Kelly who is in the process of changing the NFL offensive culture. Mariota played for Kelly at Oregon so that would be a match made in heaven for the Eagles and a potential nightmare for the rest of the NFC East.
Off the field he's just about perfect. No problems, no troubles and he even helps little old ladies across the street.
The consensus of opinion is that Tampa Bay, with the 1st pick, is going to take Winston. Tennessee has the 2nd pick and has been shopping around for a trade.
Teams that have been mentioned, besides the Eagles, are the Chargers, Jets and Browns.
I don't see the Browns giving up on Manziel just yet so I don't think they're going to pay the Titan's price. I don't see the Jets ponying up either. The Chargers and the Eagles maybe.
The Chargers would probably offer Phillip Rivers plus draft choices and the Eagles Sam Bradford or Mark Sanchez and draft choices. Rivers would be the better deal than Bradford or Sanchez but I'm betting Chip Kelly of the Eagles is willing to offer more in the way of draft picks.
If they don't make a deal, the Titans should take Mariota themselves and keep working the trade angle. Either way, Mariota is the 2nd pick.
The Jaguars have the 3rd pick and will probably take a defensive player. Either DE Leonard Williams of USC or Dante Fowler Jr. of Florida. My be would be Leonard Williams.
The Raiders have the 4th pick and I'm betting they'll look for a WR to give Derek Carr an additional weapon. That could be either Amari Cooper from Alabama or Kevin White from West Virginia.
The Redskins have the 5th pick and will probably take whichever defensive standout the Jaguars didn't take.
The Giants have the 9th pick and it will depend upon who's still on the board. Way to much could happen to make any predictions.
The NFL and the need for SOMETHING to talk about in the spring has managed to get this thing into one of the bigger sports soap operas around.
Every year now mock drafts and analysis by "experts" whip things up into a frenzy. Last year it was the saga of Johnny Football. This year it's a tale of two quarterbacks.
The two quarterbacks are Jameis Winston from Florida St. and Marcus Mariota from Oregon.
Winston is physically everything you want in a QB. He's 6'4", 230 lbs and has a BIG arm. He's got a National Championship under his belt and comes from a school which runs a pro style offense. Draft 2015 compares him to Eli Manning which, given the two Super Bowl rings Eli has, ain't a bad comparison.
That's the good news.
On the other side of the coin, like Eli, he's known for forcing the ball into impossibly tight windows leading to a lot of interceptions and he's not really very mobile so he's not going to be able to scramble around and extend the play.
That's the bad news.
The ugly news is Winston has a penchant for getting into trouble off the field. It's unclear whether he's actually a problem or just has a knack for attracting trouble. Either way this isn't what you want to hear when you're shopping for a franchise quarterback.
Mariota is 6'4" and 220 lbs, and can throw and run. Draft 2015 compares him to Colin Kaepernick which, given Kaepernick's inconsistency last year, could be good or bad.
Coming from a spread offense Mariota could have some issues fitting into a pro style offense right away unless he ends up in Philadelphia with Chip Kelly who is in the process of changing the NFL offensive culture. Mariota played for Kelly at Oregon so that would be a match made in heaven for the Eagles and a potential nightmare for the rest of the NFC East.
Off the field he's just about perfect. No problems, no troubles and he even helps little old ladies across the street.
The consensus of opinion is that Tampa Bay, with the 1st pick, is going to take Winston. Tennessee has the 2nd pick and has been shopping around for a trade.
Teams that have been mentioned, besides the Eagles, are the Chargers, Jets and Browns.
I don't see the Browns giving up on Manziel just yet so I don't think they're going to pay the Titan's price. I don't see the Jets ponying up either. The Chargers and the Eagles maybe.
The Chargers would probably offer Phillip Rivers plus draft choices and the Eagles Sam Bradford or Mark Sanchez and draft choices. Rivers would be the better deal than Bradford or Sanchez but I'm betting Chip Kelly of the Eagles is willing to offer more in the way of draft picks.
If they don't make a deal, the Titans should take Mariota themselves and keep working the trade angle. Either way, Mariota is the 2nd pick.
The Jaguars have the 3rd pick and will probably take a defensive player. Either DE Leonard Williams of USC or Dante Fowler Jr. of Florida. My be would be Leonard Williams.
The Raiders have the 4th pick and I'm betting they'll look for a WR to give Derek Carr an additional weapon. That could be either Amari Cooper from Alabama or Kevin White from West Virginia.
The Redskins have the 5th pick and will probably take whichever defensive standout the Jaguars didn't take.
The Giants have the 9th pick and it will depend upon who's still on the board. Way to much could happen to make any predictions.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Washington Post/ABC Poll on Gay Marriage
Just a few days before the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on gay marriage a new poll is showing record support.
Overall, do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?
All Respondents
Support: 61% Oppose: 35%
By Education
HS or Less - Support: 54% Oppose: 41%
Some College - Support: 62% Oppose: 35%
College Graduate - Support 73% Oppose 25%
Post Grad - Support 74% Oppose 24%
By Household Income
Less than $50k - Support 60% Oppose 36%
$50k - $100k - Support 61% Oppose 35%
Greater than $100k - Support 76% Oppose 21%
By Region
Northeast - Support 68% Oppose 28%
Midwest - Support 57% Oppose 40%
South - Support 57% Oppose 39%
West - Support 65% Oppose 30%
By Age
18-39 - Support 74% Oppose 24%
40-64 - Support 56% Oppose 39%
65+ - Support 46% Oppose 49%
By Ideology
Liberal - Support 83% Oppose 16%
Moderate - Support 69% Oppose 26%
Conservative - Support 39% Oppose 56%
I'm going to say that the Support numbers sound a bit high but there is a margin of error in the 3.5% range. I'm especially surprised by the numbers from the South. Even so these numbers make it clear to anyone in touch with reality that this is a done deal as far as the American public is concerned.
The best thing the SCOTUS can do is put the final nails in the coffin as quickly as possible. The screaming, yelling and gnashing of teeth isn't going to go away immediately but, like integration, when it becomes obvious that all the fear mongering was just a load of total crap, hopefully things will settle down.
Overall, do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?
All Respondents
Support: 61% Oppose: 35%
By Education
HS or Less - Support: 54% Oppose: 41%
Some College - Support: 62% Oppose: 35%
College Graduate - Support 73% Oppose 25%
Post Grad - Support 74% Oppose 24%
By Household Income
Less than $50k - Support 60% Oppose 36%
$50k - $100k - Support 61% Oppose 35%
Greater than $100k - Support 76% Oppose 21%
By Region
Northeast - Support 68% Oppose 28%
Midwest - Support 57% Oppose 40%
South - Support 57% Oppose 39%
West - Support 65% Oppose 30%
By Age
18-39 - Support 74% Oppose 24%
40-64 - Support 56% Oppose 39%
65+ - Support 46% Oppose 49%
By Ideology
Liberal - Support 83% Oppose 16%
Moderate - Support 69% Oppose 26%
Conservative - Support 39% Oppose 56%
I'm going to say that the Support numbers sound a bit high but there is a margin of error in the 3.5% range. I'm especially surprised by the numbers from the South. Even so these numbers make it clear to anyone in touch with reality that this is a done deal as far as the American public is concerned.
The best thing the SCOTUS can do is put the final nails in the coffin as quickly as possible. The screaming, yelling and gnashing of teeth isn't going to go away immediately but, like integration, when it becomes obvious that all the fear mongering was just a load of total crap, hopefully things will settle down.
Pitchforks and Torches
The delusion of the far right is utterly fascinating. I don't understand where they get their ideas from.
PFAW reports that according to Scott Lively, who has been known to fling an anti-LGBT diatribe or two, the only way yo stop gay marriage is via an "angry mob" that will take to "the streets, pitchforks and torches held aloft, ready to tear down Frankenstein's castle with their bare hands if need be."
Lively appears to believe that "the only way to deter the elites is with the threat of the mob."
The "elites?" You mean intelligent. rational people as opposed to the ignorant, superstitious scum that support your position?
Yo, Scott, the majority of the American population support gay marriage and even among those that don't very few appear willing to go out of their way to prevent its legalization. Certainly they're not going to get all "storm the Bastille" about it.
The simple fact is that with gay marriage a reality in so many places with no ill affects even the dumbest of the non-evangelical Christian types now recognizes your fear and hate mongering rhetoric for the load of complete crap that it is.
Evangelical Christians are pretty much beyond hope as long as they stay Evangelical Christians but even they're not about to get violent over this issue.
There aren't enough people that are that upset about it Scott. So go in the corner and STFU already.
PFAW reports that according to Scott Lively, who has been known to fling an anti-LGBT diatribe or two, the only way yo stop gay marriage is via an "angry mob" that will take to "the streets, pitchforks and torches held aloft, ready to tear down Frankenstein's castle with their bare hands if need be."
Lively appears to believe that "the only way to deter the elites is with the threat of the mob."
The "elites?" You mean intelligent. rational people as opposed to the ignorant, superstitious scum that support your position?
Yo, Scott, the majority of the American population support gay marriage and even among those that don't very few appear willing to go out of their way to prevent its legalization. Certainly they're not going to get all "storm the Bastille" about it.
The simple fact is that with gay marriage a reality in so many places with no ill affects even the dumbest of the non-evangelical Christian types now recognizes your fear and hate mongering rhetoric for the load of complete crap that it is.
Evangelical Christians are pretty much beyond hope as long as they stay Evangelical Christians but even they're not about to get violent over this issue.
There aren't enough people that are that upset about it Scott. So go in the corner and STFU already.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
The NFL Schedule
Speaking of the NFL schedule, greed really sucks. These night games are killing me.
Four of the first six Giants games are at night. They start out Sunday night in Dallas; two weeks later there's a Thursday night game against the Redskins at home; two weeks after that there's a Sunday night game against the 49ers at home and the following week a Monday night game against the Eagles in Philadelphia.
So, do you think the NFC East is a big draw?
Then there's one more Monday night game in Miami in mid December.
Of course five of the last six games are so called "flexible schedule" so they can be changed if the game turns out to be "important." Included are games against the Redskins, Panthers, Jets and Eagles.
If the Giants have a decent year I'd bet at least one of these games gets moved to a night game. If they have a decent year. If they don't pick up some offensive line and linebacking help in the draft I wouldn't count on it though.
Four of the first six Giants games are at night. They start out Sunday night in Dallas; two weeks later there's a Thursday night game against the Redskins at home; two weeks after that there's a Sunday night game against the 49ers at home and the following week a Monday night game against the Eagles in Philadelphia.
So, do you think the NFC East is a big draw?
Then there's one more Monday night game in Miami in mid December.
Of course five of the last six games are so called "flexible schedule" so they can be changed if the game turns out to be "important." Included are games against the Redskins, Panthers, Jets and Eagles.
If the Giants have a decent year I'd bet at least one of these games gets moved to a night game. If they have a decent year. If they don't pick up some offensive line and linebacking help in the draft I wouldn't count on it though.
Tim Tebow is Back!!!
Tim Terrific has returned!
Which goes to show you that he's at least more reliable than Jesus.
No, seriously, Tim has signed with the Philadelphia Eagles. So he joins Sam Bradford, Mark Sanchez, Matt Barkley and rumors about the imminent arrival of Marcus Mariota in Chip Kelly's stable of quarterbacks.
So what the hell is going on?
I think Chip Kelly has a vision of an offense but it's not a one quarterback can do everything sort of scheme. Kelly must be working on a "Quarterback Situational Offense" or QSO.
He needs lots of quarterbacks because he needs to plug in the right kind of guy in the right situation.
Hey. obviously I'm kidding except for the part about Kelly having a vision. He's knows what he wants to do and he's going about assembling the team he thinks can do it.
Whether Tebow becomes a part of that vision is yet to be determined. I think it would be fun having him back.
The NFL schedules came out yesterday and the Eagles and Giants meet once again in the finale at the Meadowlands. Here's hoping that game is a meaningful one.
Which goes to show you that he's at least more reliable than Jesus.
No, seriously, Tim has signed with the Philadelphia Eagles. So he joins Sam Bradford, Mark Sanchez, Matt Barkley and rumors about the imminent arrival of Marcus Mariota in Chip Kelly's stable of quarterbacks.
So what the hell is going on?
I think Chip Kelly has a vision of an offense but it's not a one quarterback can do everything sort of scheme. Kelly must be working on a "Quarterback Situational Offense" or QSO.
He needs lots of quarterbacks because he needs to plug in the right kind of guy in the right situation.
Hey. obviously I'm kidding except for the part about Kelly having a vision. He's knows what he wants to do and he's going about assembling the team he thinks can do it.
Whether Tebow becomes a part of that vision is yet to be determined. I think it would be fun having him back.
The NFL schedules came out yesterday and the Eagles and Giants meet once again in the finale at the Meadowlands. Here's hoping that game is a meaningful one.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Just when you thought...
Just when you thought Republicans couldn't get any crazier they prove you wrong.
Let's start with Minnesota loony tunes lady Michelle Bachmann. According to Ms. Bachmann the END TIMES have arrived!
Rapture and fire and death, oh my!
And of course it's all Obama's fault. He's brought it on thanks to his support for Gay Marriage and "his" nuclear negotiations with Iran. I put "his" in quotes because, lest we forget, the Russians, the Chinese, the British and the French are also involved. The last I looked these countries didn't take orders from the US president.
Supposedly we've "reached the midnight hour" and Jesus Christ will be returning any day now. *YAWN* Right, any day now. Would you like to place a small wager on that?
Elsewhere in la-la land, Rick Santorum claims that religious liberty is under assault from the secular theocracy created by Obama. Wow, I tell you, this boy has been busy. Look at all the stuff he's managed to accomplish despite constant resistance from the Republicans.
According to Santorum, military chaplains are being dismissed for refusing to accept this secular orthodoxy.
I'm aware of one chaplain who was dismissed, in the words of the Navy, for "failure … to comfort and counsel in a manner that was respectful.”
According to the Chief of Navy Chaplains “At commissioning, we each agreed to serve in this pluralistic environment and to treat each person with dignity, respect, and compassion, irrespective of differences in religious beliefs.”
This chaplain apparently admitted that he wanted to only preach the Bible despite what effect that might have on non-Christians. In other words, he wasn't living up to his oath so he was dismissed when he refused to change his ways.
So, as usual, when one looks into these stories of Christian persecution, it's not at all what it's claimed to be. I'm not sure if Conservative Christians are incapable of understanding reality or incapable of telling the truth.
By the way Rick, "Secular Theocracy" is an oxymoron. You know, like "Honest Christian" and "Trustworthy Republican."
Then there's Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa who claims that people need to pray “that God raises up a president whom he will use to restore the soul of America” after the country has been “deconstructed from the White House” by “a man who is taking on the pillars of American exceptionalism with…a procedural jackhammer.”
I told you the man has been busy. I didn't even know that he could use a jackhammer.
The problem of course is what King calls the "soul of America" is a fictional time in the dim past when everyone else in the world was starving and "Merica" was run by true white Christians who feared God, everyone went to church every Sunday, gays stayed in the closet and TRUE AMERICANS kept Commies, Liberals and darkies in their place.
Then there came the 1960s with its civil rights marches and anti-war freaks and everything started to go to hell. That's why God sent his prophet Ronald Reagan. Then them damn Clintons and Obama ruined it all.
You'll excuse me but personally I have no use for King's mythical vision.
Let's start with Minnesota loony tunes lady Michelle Bachmann. According to Ms. Bachmann the END TIMES have arrived!
Rapture and fire and death, oh my!
And of course it's all Obama's fault. He's brought it on thanks to his support for Gay Marriage and "his" nuclear negotiations with Iran. I put "his" in quotes because, lest we forget, the Russians, the Chinese, the British and the French are also involved. The last I looked these countries didn't take orders from the US president.
Supposedly we've "reached the midnight hour" and Jesus Christ will be returning any day now. *YAWN* Right, any day now. Would you like to place a small wager on that?
Elsewhere in la-la land, Rick Santorum claims that religious liberty is under assault from the secular theocracy created by Obama. Wow, I tell you, this boy has been busy. Look at all the stuff he's managed to accomplish despite constant resistance from the Republicans.
According to Santorum, military chaplains are being dismissed for refusing to accept this secular orthodoxy.
I'm aware of one chaplain who was dismissed, in the words of the Navy, for "failure … to comfort and counsel in a manner that was respectful.”
According to the Chief of Navy Chaplains “At commissioning, we each agreed to serve in this pluralistic environment and to treat each person with dignity, respect, and compassion, irrespective of differences in religious beliefs.”
This chaplain apparently admitted that he wanted to only preach the Bible despite what effect that might have on non-Christians. In other words, he wasn't living up to his oath so he was dismissed when he refused to change his ways.
So, as usual, when one looks into these stories of Christian persecution, it's not at all what it's claimed to be. I'm not sure if Conservative Christians are incapable of understanding reality or incapable of telling the truth.
By the way Rick, "Secular Theocracy" is an oxymoron. You know, like "Honest Christian" and "Trustworthy Republican."
Then there's Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa who claims that people need to pray “that God raises up a president whom he will use to restore the soul of America” after the country has been “deconstructed from the White House” by “a man who is taking on the pillars of American exceptionalism with…a procedural jackhammer.”
I told you the man has been busy. I didn't even know that he could use a jackhammer.
The problem of course is what King calls the "soul of America" is a fictional time in the dim past when everyone else in the world was starving and "Merica" was run by true white Christians who feared God, everyone went to church every Sunday, gays stayed in the closet and TRUE AMERICANS kept Commies, Liberals and darkies in their place.
Then there came the 1960s with its civil rights marches and anti-war freaks and everything started to go to hell. That's why God sent his prophet Ronald Reagan. Then them damn Clintons and Obama ruined it all.
You'll excuse me but personally I have no use for King's mythical vision.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Hillary Announces
To absolutely no one's surprise Hillary Clinton has announced that she is running for president.
I'm still a bit pissed at Hillary for never admitting that voting to authorize the war in Iraq was a mistake. I've always suspected her of being about as close to Hawk as a Democrat can get.
I also seem to remember that the last time around we didn't see eye to eye on opposition to the Death Penalty or support for Gay Marriage but eight years is a long time.
I suppose I should keep a running Democratic Party list like I have a Republican Party list.
#1 - Hillary Clinton* - I still haven't forgiven her for not owning up to the fact that the Iraq War was a big mistake but she's got all the right ducks lined up on the economy. Besides, what choice do I have?
I'm still a bit pissed at Hillary for never admitting that voting to authorize the war in Iraq was a mistake. I've always suspected her of being about as close to Hawk as a Democrat can get.
I also seem to remember that the last time around we didn't see eye to eye on opposition to the Death Penalty or support for Gay Marriage but eight years is a long time.
I suppose I should keep a running Democratic Party list like I have a Republican Party list.
#1 - Hillary Clinton* - I still haven't forgiven her for not owning up to the fact that the Iraq War was a big mistake but she's got all the right ducks lined up on the economy. Besides, what choice do I have?
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
The Religious Freedom Argument
This is the current favorite argument of the religious right in the battle against gay marriage.
Let's dissect this a bit.
First of all the argument isn't about gay marriage per se but rather some of the implications resulting from making gay marriage legal.
The argument actually focuses on the question of who can refuse service to who and for what reasons.
Clearly a vendor or store owner can refuse service for specific actions. This is the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" argument and the reason why a Jewish store owner can refuse service to a Neo-Nazi. It's not unknown for store owners or restaurants to eject rude or rowdy customers. As a society we accept this sort of thing. As a matter of fact we actually applaud it.
At the other extreme we do not condone refusing to serve blacks at a lunch counter simply because they're black. As a society we have decreed that you cannot refuse service to someone because you don't like who they are. This includes race, religion and national origin.
In some states it also includes gender orientation and gender identity. In other words just like you cannot discriminate against someone simply because they are black, you also cannot discriminate against someone simply because they are homosexual or transgender.
Fifteen states prohibit discrimination based upon gender orientation and gender identity. An additional six states prohibit discrimination based upon gender orientation only. Ten other states have partial protection based upon gender orientation.
The other nineteen states have no specific discrimination protection for homosexuals or transgender people.
So, what does this have to do with gay marriage?
The question becomes is gay marriage a specific action or simply a part of who someone is.
Some Christians believe that gay marriage is immoral and that providing any sort of support for a gay wedding, flowers, a cake, photographs, is essentially condoning an action which violates their religious beliefs. Clearly they consider it a specific action.
But then the problem becomes why limit the objection to gay weddings? Gays who aren't married also most likely engage in specific actions some Christians would consider to be against their religion. So does that mean by extension someone can refuse service to someone simply because they're gay?
Do you see the conflict here?
Let's ignore that for a moment and focus on gay marriages. Can someone who considers a gay marriage immoral refuse to supply services for a gay wedding? In the states that prohibit discrimination based upon gender identify the answer is apparently no you cannot.
The two most well known cases of store owners getting into trouble because they refused service to a gay couple were in Oregon and New Mexico which are two of the fifteen states that prohibit discrimination based upon gender orientation and gender identity.
As for the states with no prohibition in place, I assume one can discriminate with impunity UNLESS there is some other law or constitutional provision that might apply. That would probably take a court case to determine.
Gay marriage becoming legal everywhere isn't going to change this much other than the simple fact that if gay marriage wasn't legal then no one would be asking anyone to supply services for a gay wedding.
Personally I would be willing to allow store owners to refuse services for gay weddings if they're willing to post a clear sign to that effect. If you're sure you're right then this shouldn't bother you at all and it would prevent the awkwardness of a gay couple trying to get services and then being refused.
Let's see how this one goes over shall we? Of course this might lose you other customers as well but why should anyone care about that when their eternal salvation is at stake?
Let's dissect this a bit.
First of all the argument isn't about gay marriage per se but rather some of the implications resulting from making gay marriage legal.
The argument actually focuses on the question of who can refuse service to who and for what reasons.
Clearly a vendor or store owner can refuse service for specific actions. This is the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" argument and the reason why a Jewish store owner can refuse service to a Neo-Nazi. It's not unknown for store owners or restaurants to eject rude or rowdy customers. As a society we accept this sort of thing. As a matter of fact we actually applaud it.
At the other extreme we do not condone refusing to serve blacks at a lunch counter simply because they're black. As a society we have decreed that you cannot refuse service to someone because you don't like who they are. This includes race, religion and national origin.
In some states it also includes gender orientation and gender identity. In other words just like you cannot discriminate against someone simply because they are black, you also cannot discriminate against someone simply because they are homosexual or transgender.
Fifteen states prohibit discrimination based upon gender orientation and gender identity. An additional six states prohibit discrimination based upon gender orientation only. Ten other states have partial protection based upon gender orientation.
The other nineteen states have no specific discrimination protection for homosexuals or transgender people.
So, what does this have to do with gay marriage?
The question becomes is gay marriage a specific action or simply a part of who someone is.
Some Christians believe that gay marriage is immoral and that providing any sort of support for a gay wedding, flowers, a cake, photographs, is essentially condoning an action which violates their religious beliefs. Clearly they consider it a specific action.
But then the problem becomes why limit the objection to gay weddings? Gays who aren't married also most likely engage in specific actions some Christians would consider to be against their religion. So does that mean by extension someone can refuse service to someone simply because they're gay?
Do you see the conflict here?
Let's ignore that for a moment and focus on gay marriages. Can someone who considers a gay marriage immoral refuse to supply services for a gay wedding? In the states that prohibit discrimination based upon gender identify the answer is apparently no you cannot.
The two most well known cases of store owners getting into trouble because they refused service to a gay couple were in Oregon and New Mexico which are two of the fifteen states that prohibit discrimination based upon gender orientation and gender identity.
As for the states with no prohibition in place, I assume one can discriminate with impunity UNLESS there is some other law or constitutional provision that might apply. That would probably take a court case to determine.
Gay marriage becoming legal everywhere isn't going to change this much other than the simple fact that if gay marriage wasn't legal then no one would be asking anyone to supply services for a gay wedding.
Personally I would be willing to allow store owners to refuse services for gay weddings if they're willing to post a clear sign to that effect. If you're sure you're right then this shouldn't bother you at all and it would prevent the awkwardness of a gay couple trying to get services and then being refused.
Let's see how this one goes over shall we? Of course this might lose you other customers as well but why should anyone care about that when their eternal salvation is at stake?
Monday, April 13, 2015
The Republican 2016 Field
I can hardly keep up.
Marco Rubio has announced his candidacy and I keep forgetting about Bobby Jindel (perhaps because he's so forgettable).
I think I need to also differentiate between those that have officially announced their candidacy and those that are simply acting like they're running. So here's my new and improved list. * = I believe he has "officially" announced his candidacy.
#1 - Jeb Bush - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya. But the man needs to learn that he's not Hispanic as he claimed once.
#2 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell. If it weren't for his idiotic deal with Exxon-Mobil, I might even list him as #1.
#3 - Marco Rubio* - I don't agree with Rubio on a lot but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy like a few of the others in this field.
#4 - Ted Cruz* - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse!
#5 - Rand Paul* - Like his dad, not only does Paul not have any solutions, he doesn't even understand the questions. This is a man that wants to eliminate Meals on Wheels because seniors that can't afford food should depend upon charity.
#6 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
#7 - Bobby Jindel - Undoubtedly the worst of the people that might actually be considered qualified. Look what a great job he did in Louisiana. Why would anyone vote for this turkey?
#8 - Mike Huckabee - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so. He's dropped in my list because after thinking about who might be at least qualified to be president from this list, I can't honestly say I consider Huckabee, despite his stint as governor of Arkansas, to be qualified.
#9 - Rick Santorum - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse than Walker and Jindel. He's worse because I don't even consider this ass wipe qualified for the job.
#10 - Ben Carson - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems. I hope he gets regular brain scans just in case there's something growing up there.
Marco Rubio has announced his candidacy and I keep forgetting about Bobby Jindel (perhaps because he's so forgettable).
I think I need to also differentiate between those that have officially announced their candidacy and those that are simply acting like they're running. So here's my new and improved list. * = I believe he has "officially" announced his candidacy.
#1 - Jeb Bush - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya. But the man needs to learn that he's not Hispanic as he claimed once.
#2 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell. If it weren't for his idiotic deal with Exxon-Mobil, I might even list him as #1.
#3 - Marco Rubio* - I don't agree with Rubio on a lot but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy like a few of the others in this field.
#4 - Ted Cruz* - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse!
#5 - Rand Paul* - Like his dad, not only does Paul not have any solutions, he doesn't even understand the questions. This is a man that wants to eliminate Meals on Wheels because seniors that can't afford food should depend upon charity.
#6 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
#7 - Bobby Jindel - Undoubtedly the worst of the people that might actually be considered qualified. Look what a great job he did in Louisiana. Why would anyone vote for this turkey?
#8 - Mike Huckabee - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so. He's dropped in my list because after thinking about who might be at least qualified to be president from this list, I can't honestly say I consider Huckabee, despite his stint as governor of Arkansas, to be qualified.
#9 - Rick Santorum - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse than Walker and Jindel. He's worse because I don't even consider this ass wipe qualified for the job.
#10 - Ben Carson - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems. I hope he gets regular brain scans just in case there's something growing up there.
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
The Restraining Order
Let's talk a little more about this idea of a "Restraining Order" to prevent the SCOTUS or other federal courts from ruling on gay marriage.
The basis for the idea comes from Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution which states:
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
So the idea is that congress could make rulings on marriage, including rulings on gay marriage, an exception.
The problem with that idea, and Ted Cruz should damn well know this, is that congress cannot limit the essential functions of the court including the function of the court to protect constitutional rights.
So, while congress might be able to restrict the court's jurisdiction on the non-constitutional aspects of marriage, gay rights/marriage IS a constitutional rights issue so restricting the courts appellate jurisdiction on it would be unconstitutional.
The basis for the idea comes from Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution which states:
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
So the idea is that congress could make rulings on marriage, including rulings on gay marriage, an exception.
The problem with that idea, and Ted Cruz should damn well know this, is that congress cannot limit the essential functions of the court including the function of the court to protect constitutional rights.
So, while congress might be able to restrict the court's jurisdiction on the non-constitutional aspects of marriage, gay rights/marriage IS a constitutional rights issue so restricting the courts appellate jurisdiction on it would be unconstitutional.
Rand Paul Throws His Hat in the Ring.
Rand Paul has announced that he's seeking the Republican presidential nomination. This is Mr. I can be Everything to Everyone. I have to believe that it's only a matter of time before he ends up skewering himself because of this.
I didn't include Paul in my Republican candidate list from last time so allow me to update it. I think I'll slide Paul in right after Cruz but before Huckabee.
#1 - Jeb Bush - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya.
#2 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell.
#3 - Ted Cruz - Cruz is hopeless but everyone else is even worse!
#4 - Rand Paul - Like his dad, not only does Paul not have any solutions, he doesn't even understand the questions.
#5 - Mike Huckabee - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so.
#6 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
#7 - Rick Santorum - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse than Walker.
#8 - Ben Carson - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems.
Other than brother Jeb or Christie it's utterly terrifying that one of these people could win the nomination of a major political party in this country. It's even more terrifying that Ted Cruz is #3!
I didn't include Paul in my Republican candidate list from last time so allow me to update it. I think I'll slide Paul in right after Cruz but before Huckabee.
#1 - Jeb Bush - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya.
#2 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell.
#3 - Ted Cruz - Cruz is hopeless but everyone else is even worse!
#4 - Rand Paul - Like his dad, not only does Paul not have any solutions, he doesn't even understand the questions.
#5 - Mike Huckabee - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so.
#6 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
#7 - Rick Santorum - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse than Walker.
#8 - Ben Carson - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems.
Other than brother Jeb or Christie it's utterly terrifying that one of these people could win the nomination of a major political party in this country. It's even more terrifying that Ted Cruz is #3!
Gay Marriage and Civil War
Right Wing Watch is reporting that James Dobson, in a recent ant-gay conference call, warned that a Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage could lead to civil war.
It could also lead to a rainfall of peppermint drops and is about as likely.
Dobson said that the gay rights issue has reached an unprecedented “level of intensity.” Jimmy baby, did you sleep through the civil rights and Vietnam eras?
The only reason the gays rights issue has reached any degree of intensity is the fear mongering by those using it as a cash cow.
The fact of the matter is there aren't enough people that give that much of a shit about the whole thing.
Those that do are more concerned about the dire predictions being tossed around by unscrupulous or clueless pundits. If people would stop and THINK for a second they would realize that none of these things have happened in the countries and states where gay rights, including gay marriage, currently exist.
Of course asking conservatives to "think" is invariably a losing proposition. I don't think they're capable of thinking for themselves.
Then we have Janet Porter who thinks getting Congress to issue a "restraining order" to stop the SCOTUS and other federal courts from ruling on gay marriage is a good idea. Ted Cruz has proposed something similar.
Aside from the fact that this is undoubtedly unconstitutional, it would be political suicide.
Both Dobson and Porter, like many extremists, are delusional. They're so wound up it their own extremism that they can't see that almost no one else shares their craziness.
I sincerely hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage. I'm not naive enough to think the issue will go away entirely but, when nothing bad happens, it will at least limit the ability of idiots like these two to threaten the end of civilizations because two gays are allowed to enter into the civil legal contract called marriage.
It could also lead to a rainfall of peppermint drops and is about as likely.
Dobson said that the gay rights issue has reached an unprecedented “level of intensity.” Jimmy baby, did you sleep through the civil rights and Vietnam eras?
The only reason the gays rights issue has reached any degree of intensity is the fear mongering by those using it as a cash cow.
The fact of the matter is there aren't enough people that give that much of a shit about the whole thing.
Those that do are more concerned about the dire predictions being tossed around by unscrupulous or clueless pundits. If people would stop and THINK for a second they would realize that none of these things have happened in the countries and states where gay rights, including gay marriage, currently exist.
Of course asking conservatives to "think" is invariably a losing proposition. I don't think they're capable of thinking for themselves.
Then we have Janet Porter who thinks getting Congress to issue a "restraining order" to stop the SCOTUS and other federal courts from ruling on gay marriage is a good idea. Ted Cruz has proposed something similar.
Aside from the fact that this is undoubtedly unconstitutional, it would be political suicide.
Both Dobson and Porter, like many extremists, are delusional. They're so wound up it their own extremism that they can't see that almost no one else shares their craziness.
I sincerely hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage. I'm not naive enough to think the issue will go away entirely but, when nothing bad happens, it will at least limit the ability of idiots like these two to threaten the end of civilizations because two gays are allowed to enter into the civil legal contract called marriage.
Saturday, April 04, 2015
Religious Freedom Restoration Acts
The idea behind the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was to restrict government from interfering with religious freedom. The key section states “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."
The law allows an exception if two conditions are met.
(1) The burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."
(2) The rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
In the Hobby Lobby case the SCOTUS found that (a) the closely held for profit corporation Hobby Lobby qualified as a "person;" (b) the contraception mandate of the ACA substantially burdened the "person's" exercise of religion and (c) the contraception mandate was not the least restrictive way to further the government interest.
In 1997 in City of Boerne v. Flores the federal RFRA was found unconstitutional with respect to the states but continued to be enforced for the federal government.
This decision led to 19 states issuing similar RFRA laws at the state level protecting religion from state and local government.
Fast forward now to Indiana and its version of the RFRA. If the federal government and 19 states already had such laws what was the big deal?
The big deal was that the Indiana law was different in two important ways.
The first difference was in Section 7 where the law defines a "person" as just about any conceivable entity including "a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint stock company, or an unincorporated association."
The second difference is while other RFRAs talk about obtaining appropriate relief against the government, the Indiana RFRA expands that to saying that a "person" "may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."
So despite what all the right wing media has been saying this version of an RFRA goes way beyond protecting against government overreach. It is clearly crafted to allow businesses to refuse service to people they don't like based upon religion.
I don't know why this is a surprise to Governor Pence considering that the executive director of a rabidly anti-gay hate group helped draft the bill and was standing behind him when he signed it.
At any rate, despite waffling by Governor Pence, the Indiana legislature, undoubtedly feeling the heat, amended the bill to prohibit using it as a basis for discrimination.
Then there is the case of Memories Pizza in Walkerton Indiana who said flat out they would refuse to provide pizzas for a gay wedding (who has pizza at a wedding?) based upon the law.
The backlash caused them to close shop and supposedly go into hiding. But in the meantime over $500,000 has been raised in their support on GoFundMe.com so they'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
I don't know if this is a case of someone really stupid getting really lucky or one of the greatest cons in recent memory.
The law allows an exception if two conditions are met.
(1) The burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."
(2) The rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
In the Hobby Lobby case the SCOTUS found that (a) the closely held for profit corporation Hobby Lobby qualified as a "person;" (b) the contraception mandate of the ACA substantially burdened the "person's" exercise of religion and (c) the contraception mandate was not the least restrictive way to further the government interest.
In 1997 in City of Boerne v. Flores the federal RFRA was found unconstitutional with respect to the states but continued to be enforced for the federal government.
This decision led to 19 states issuing similar RFRA laws at the state level protecting religion from state and local government.
Fast forward now to Indiana and its version of the RFRA. If the federal government and 19 states already had such laws what was the big deal?
The big deal was that the Indiana law was different in two important ways.
The first difference was in Section 7 where the law defines a "person" as just about any conceivable entity including "a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint stock company, or an unincorporated association."
The second difference is while other RFRAs talk about obtaining appropriate relief against the government, the Indiana RFRA expands that to saying that a "person" "may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."
So despite what all the right wing media has been saying this version of an RFRA goes way beyond protecting against government overreach. It is clearly crafted to allow businesses to refuse service to people they don't like based upon religion.
I don't know why this is a surprise to Governor Pence considering that the executive director of a rabidly anti-gay hate group helped draft the bill and was standing behind him when he signed it.
At any rate, despite waffling by Governor Pence, the Indiana legislature, undoubtedly feeling the heat, amended the bill to prohibit using it as a basis for discrimination.
Then there is the case of Memories Pizza in Walkerton Indiana who said flat out they would refuse to provide pizzas for a gay wedding (who has pizza at a wedding?) based upon the law.
The backlash caused them to close shop and supposedly go into hiding. But in the meantime over $500,000 has been raised in their support on GoFundMe.com so they'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
I don't know if this is a case of someone really stupid getting really lucky or one of the greatest cons in recent memory.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Betty Bowers explains "Religious Freedom" Laws
According to Betty, if Christians discriminate against or criticize someone else, it's "Religious Freedom." But if anyone discriminates against or criticizes Christians, it's "Persecution."
See how simple that is?
See how simple that is?
What is Chip Kelly doing?
In the off season there is a mood of desperation to find stuff to talk about. The big news of course is the draft but before that is the free agency and trade circus.
To say that Chip Kelly, coach of the Eagles, has been raising some eyebrows with the moves he's been making would be a drastic understatement.
First he traded LeSean McCoy to Buffalo for LB Kiko Alonso. This trade also freed up a lot of cap space for the Eagles.
Then he sent Nick Foles plus a 4th round pick in 2015 and a 2nd round 2016 draft pick to the Rams for Sam Bradford and a 5th round pick in 2015. The kicker in this deal is that if Bradford doesn't start eight games for Philadelphia they'll get a 4th round pick in 2016. If he gets injured, they'll get a 3rd round pick in 2016.
The Eagles also have Mark Sanchez and Matt Barkley at QB and are rumored to be looking to move up in the draft for Marcus Mariota. The latest rumor is the Eagles would like to trade Barkley for a low round draft pick and sign Tim Tebow.
Finally he signed Demarco Murray from the Cowboys for the same amount of money that LeSean McCoy had been making and eliminated any cap space the first trade may have gained.
So, so far, we have McCoy, Foles, a 4th round 2015 pick and a second round 2016 pick gone and Alonso, Bradford, Murray and a 4th round pick in 2016 replacing them.
Kiko Alonso is a great pick-up that's going to cause NFC East rivals headaches for years to come and Murray is at least as good as McCoy. As for Bradford rather than Foles, we'll have to see.
Other possible moves would be Barkley replaced by Tebow and some low round pick from an unknown team and a trade to move up for Mariota.
Any team which would trade for Barkley would have to be really desperate at QB because Barkley hasn't exactly shown a lot in the way of potential. Any trade to move up for Mariota would cost a small fortune including at least 1st round picks for 2015 and 2016 and perhaps even a 1st or 2nd rounder for 2017.
Some football "pundits" have questioned Kelly's sanity but I suspect Kelly knows precisely what he wants and is simply going about getting it.
Watch the Eagles go for the Ttian's 2nd round pick in order to get Mariota. I don't think he's going to fall lower than that.
To say that Chip Kelly, coach of the Eagles, has been raising some eyebrows with the moves he's been making would be a drastic understatement.
First he traded LeSean McCoy to Buffalo for LB Kiko Alonso. This trade also freed up a lot of cap space for the Eagles.
Then he sent Nick Foles plus a 4th round pick in 2015 and a 2nd round 2016 draft pick to the Rams for Sam Bradford and a 5th round pick in 2015. The kicker in this deal is that if Bradford doesn't start eight games for Philadelphia they'll get a 4th round pick in 2016. If he gets injured, they'll get a 3rd round pick in 2016.
The Eagles also have Mark Sanchez and Matt Barkley at QB and are rumored to be looking to move up in the draft for Marcus Mariota. The latest rumor is the Eagles would like to trade Barkley for a low round draft pick and sign Tim Tebow.
Finally he signed Demarco Murray from the Cowboys for the same amount of money that LeSean McCoy had been making and eliminated any cap space the first trade may have gained.
So, so far, we have McCoy, Foles, a 4th round 2015 pick and a second round 2016 pick gone and Alonso, Bradford, Murray and a 4th round pick in 2016 replacing them.
Kiko Alonso is a great pick-up that's going to cause NFC East rivals headaches for years to come and Murray is at least as good as McCoy. As for Bradford rather than Foles, we'll have to see.
Other possible moves would be Barkley replaced by Tebow and some low round pick from an unknown team and a trade to move up for Mariota.
Any team which would trade for Barkley would have to be really desperate at QB because Barkley hasn't exactly shown a lot in the way of potential. Any trade to move up for Mariota would cost a small fortune including at least 1st round picks for 2015 and 2016 and perhaps even a 1st or 2nd rounder for 2017.
Some football "pundits" have questioned Kelly's sanity but I suspect Kelly knows precisely what he wants and is simply going about getting it.
Watch the Eagles go for the Ttian's 2nd round pick in order to get Mariota. I don't think he's going to fall lower than that.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Let the Games Begin!
Ted Cruz became the first official candidate for president in 2016 announcing his intent to run at Liberty University in Virginia.
It was a little hard to determine from his remarks if Cruz wanted to be president or Chief Pastor.
I can only assume that Ted is trying to garner some easy publicity before the adults come out to play. Let's remember that this is a man that campaigned to shut down the government in order to stop Obamacare when Obamacare, as part of mandatory spending, wouldn't be affected by such a shutdown.
He has also has repeated demonstrated that he has no idea what Net Neutrality is but he's against it anyway.
It's really going to be hard to determine which of the potential GOP candidates is the worst. In addition to Ted Cruz we have possible candidates in Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie.
If I had to rank this menagerie head to toe it would probably look something like this:
#1 - Jeb Bush - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya.
#2 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell.
#3 - Ted Cruz - Cruz is hopeless but everyone else is even worse!
#4 - Mike Huckabee - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so.
#5 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
#6 - Rick Santorum - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse.
#7 - Ben Carson - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems.
On the other side of the aisle there appears to be a wide range of choices. You can have Hillary. You can nominate Hillary. Or you can support Hillary.
Let's remember however that everyone was ready to crown her Democratic nominee in 2008 as well.
It was a little hard to determine from his remarks if Cruz wanted to be president or Chief Pastor.
I can only assume that Ted is trying to garner some easy publicity before the adults come out to play. Let's remember that this is a man that campaigned to shut down the government in order to stop Obamacare when Obamacare, as part of mandatory spending, wouldn't be affected by such a shutdown.
He has also has repeated demonstrated that he has no idea what Net Neutrality is but he's against it anyway.
It's really going to be hard to determine which of the potential GOP candidates is the worst. In addition to Ted Cruz we have possible candidates in Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie.
If I had to rank this menagerie head to toe it would probably look something like this:
#1 - Jeb Bush - Florida survived him as governor and he couldn't possibly be as bad as brother Dubya.
#2 - Chris Christie - Anything to get him out of New Jersey. Besides, Christie would at least be entertaining as hell.
#3 - Ted Cruz - Cruz is hopeless but everyone else is even worse!
#4 - Mike Huckabee - Mike has gone seriously down hill in the last eight years or so.
#5 - Scott Walker - Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
#6 - Rick Santorum - Yes, incredible as it may sound, there's someone even worse.
#7 - Ben Carson - This man is utterly delusional. I seriously believe that he has mental problems.
On the other side of the aisle there appears to be a wide range of choices. You can have Hillary. You can nominate Hillary. Or you can support Hillary.
Let's remember however that everyone was ready to crown her Democratic nominee in 2008 as well.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Civil Disobedience
A number of Religious Right types, including Rick Scarborough and James Dobson, are apparently pushing the idea of "civil disobedience" should the Supreme Court legalize gay marriage.
Exactly what form this "civil disobedience" would take is unclear but Scarborough is predicting that once gay marriage becomes the law of the land there will be mass arrests of Christians. Funny how that hasn't happened in any of the states where gay marriage is already legal.
Scarborough also claims that members of congress are lining up to sign a document pledging to commit this undefined "civil disobedience" in protest of a potential Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage.
I would assume if there are in fact any congressmen stupid enough to sign such a document that they would be from the Party of Stupid sometimes known as the GOP.
First of all I don't think it's a really good idea to essentially threaten the Supreme Court. Most judges tend to take a dim view of such shenanigans. Second, Scarborough is again severely overestimating the "who gives a shit" quotient on gay marriage.
Most people in the country, 55% at last count, favor gay marriage and I'm pretty sure a healthy share of the 44% that are opposed aren't about to go to jail over it.
I'm not sure if Scarborough and others of his ilk actually believe the nonsense they're spewing or are just whipping up their under 80 IQ trailer park fans in order to keep the donations flowing.
Exactly what form this "civil disobedience" would take is unclear but Scarborough is predicting that once gay marriage becomes the law of the land there will be mass arrests of Christians. Funny how that hasn't happened in any of the states where gay marriage is already legal.
Scarborough also claims that members of congress are lining up to sign a document pledging to commit this undefined "civil disobedience" in protest of a potential Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage.
I would assume if there are in fact any congressmen stupid enough to sign such a document that they would be from the Party of Stupid sometimes known as the GOP.
First of all I don't think it's a really good idea to essentially threaten the Supreme Court. Most judges tend to take a dim view of such shenanigans. Second, Scarborough is again severely overestimating the "who gives a shit" quotient on gay marriage.
Most people in the country, 55% at last count, favor gay marriage and I'm pretty sure a healthy share of the 44% that are opposed aren't about to go to jail over it.
I'm not sure if Scarborough and others of his ilk actually believe the nonsense they're spewing or are just whipping up their under 80 IQ trailer park fans in order to keep the donations flowing.
Netanyahu Wins
In a fairly surprising development Netanyahu's Likud Party experienced a last minute surge and won 30 seats in the Israeli elections.
Some analysts believe the surge can be traced to last minute hard line promises about expanding settlements in the occupied territories and even potentially annexing some of the disputed areas.
The victory probably assures a widening rift between Israel and her allies in Europe and the United States.
Part of the problem is the Israelis feel confident that the US isn't going to abandon them regardless of how foolish they act toward a long term peace settlement.
Netanyahu's policies are good for Netanyahu and Likud in the short term but in the long term they are a disaster for Israel and the region as a whole.
Likud keeps putting off any chance for a permanent solution in exchange for political benefit. It just goes to show that other electorates can be as dump as the American electorate.
Ultimately someone in Israel is going to have to figure out they're getting no where fast and a change of policy is required. Hopefully that will happen before too many more people get killed.
Some analysts believe the surge can be traced to last minute hard line promises about expanding settlements in the occupied territories and even potentially annexing some of the disputed areas.
The victory probably assures a widening rift between Israel and her allies in Europe and the United States.
Part of the problem is the Israelis feel confident that the US isn't going to abandon them regardless of how foolish they act toward a long term peace settlement.
Netanyahu's policies are good for Netanyahu and Likud in the short term but in the long term they are a disaster for Israel and the region as a whole.
Likud keeps putting off any chance for a permanent solution in exchange for political benefit. It just goes to show that other electorates can be as dump as the American electorate.
Ultimately someone in Israel is going to have to figure out they're getting no where fast and a change of policy is required. Hopefully that will happen before too many more people get killed.
Friday, March 13, 2015
The Party of Stupid
Yes, that's the Republicans.
The latest act of stupidity was an open later to Iran essentially saying it doesn't matter what kind of nuclear agreement you come up with we're going to win the next election and undo it anyway.
The letter was signed by 47 GOP senators supposedly to explain to the Iranians how the US Constitution works.
The Iranian response made it clear they understood the US Constitution better than the Republican senators and also understood International Law which the GOP didn't even seem to take into account.
Newspapers in the US and US Allies blasted the GOP action but in the arrogance of the Right Wing, they don't seem to care and neither do their trailer park base.
Like John Cleese says, they're just too fucking stupid to realize how stupid they are.
As for the Republican base, "hey, we're "mericans' and can do whatever we want" is their credo. Each and every one is a firm believer in American Exceptionalism. They're just opposed to everything that might make the country exceptional such as equal protection under the law and the separation of church and state.
Yes, I'm now no longer sticking by my "no foul language" rule. Screw it. I've fucking had it up to here with Right Wing lies, ignorance, backfire effect and just plain stupidity.
The latest act of stupidity was an open later to Iran essentially saying it doesn't matter what kind of nuclear agreement you come up with we're going to win the next election and undo it anyway.
The letter was signed by 47 GOP senators supposedly to explain to the Iranians how the US Constitution works.
The Iranian response made it clear they understood the US Constitution better than the Republican senators and also understood International Law which the GOP didn't even seem to take into account.
Newspapers in the US and US Allies blasted the GOP action but in the arrogance of the Right Wing, they don't seem to care and neither do their trailer park base.
Like John Cleese says, they're just too fucking stupid to realize how stupid they are.
As for the Republican base, "hey, we're "mericans' and can do whatever we want" is their credo. Each and every one is a firm believer in American Exceptionalism. They're just opposed to everything that might make the country exceptional such as equal protection under the law and the separation of church and state.
Yes, I'm now no longer sticking by my "no foul language" rule. Screw it. I've fucking had it up to here with Right Wing lies, ignorance, backfire effect and just plain stupidity.
Wednesday, March 04, 2015
Concept and Implementation
What do I mean by "Concept and Implementation?"
What I mean is that there are always two layers to any discussion. First there is the question as to whether the Concept or the intent is a good idea or not.
Let's consider Universal Health Care and start with the question, is providing universal access to health care a good thing or a bad thing?
This is where discussions have to start. First you have to decide if the objective is worthwhile or not.
Assuming there is agreement that the objective is worthwhile, then we can move on to how to implement it. That's the "Implementation" part.
Too often discussions get all jumbled up with issues of Concept and Implementation being mashed together in a confusing tangle.
The two conversations should be totally different. If you are opposed to Obamacare, Net Neutrality or Common Core, is it the objective that you are opposed to or the implementation?
Of course before you can even discuss whether the objective is worthwhile you have to understand what the objective is. I find too many people oppose things but don't have a clue what it is they're opposing.
What I mean is that there are always two layers to any discussion. First there is the question as to whether the Concept or the intent is a good idea or not.
Let's consider Universal Health Care and start with the question, is providing universal access to health care a good thing or a bad thing?
This is where discussions have to start. First you have to decide if the objective is worthwhile or not.
Assuming there is agreement that the objective is worthwhile, then we can move on to how to implement it. That's the "Implementation" part.
Too often discussions get all jumbled up with issues of Concept and Implementation being mashed together in a confusing tangle.
The two conversations should be totally different. If you are opposed to Obamacare, Net Neutrality or Common Core, is it the objective that you are opposed to or the implementation?
Of course before you can even discuss whether the objective is worthwhile you have to understand what the objective is. I find too many people oppose things but don't have a clue what it is they're opposing.
Netanyahu's Speech
The Israeli Prime Minister addressed a joint session of Congress yesterday in what is considered to be a double breach of etiquette.
First, Congress is not supposed to side step the State Department and invite foreign heads of state to speak. Second, it is standard policy not to meet with foreign dignitaries close to a election in their home country and Israeli elections are scheduled for mid-March.
OK, so much for that stuff. The simple fact is he came and he spoke so what really matters is what the man said.
Did he say anything earth shattering? Did he say anything that might influence the Obama administration's plans with respect to negotiations with Iran?
I'd have to say the answers are no and absolutely not. If anything Netanyahu probably made Kerry and the State Department MORE adamant about reaching an agreement. Since the Iranians aren't nearly as stupid as the Republicans in Congress, I'm sure they'll manage to use that to their advantage.
As far as I can tell Netanyahu's "strategy" with the Iranians is "keep kicking them until they see the error of their ways." The problem is I don't think any Iranian concession would satisfy the prime minister.
He spent the rest of the speech trying to talk Obama and the Democrats into not being really pissed off at him. I think he's pretty safe there at least as far as the Democrats in Congress are concerned.
I do believe he has hurt his position with a reasonable segment of the American Public but as soon as he loses the election in mid-March all will be forgiven as the new prime minister is sworn in.
Yes, that's a prediction or at least a hope.
So, what are my thoughts?
I still say that Netanyahu is playing with fire when he cuddles up with the right wing lunatic fringe in this country. I wonder if Israelis realize how he's damaging his image when he does that? I'm hoping they've figured it out and will boot his tail out.
I suppose we shall see what we shall see.
First, Congress is not supposed to side step the State Department and invite foreign heads of state to speak. Second, it is standard policy not to meet with foreign dignitaries close to a election in their home country and Israeli elections are scheduled for mid-March.
OK, so much for that stuff. The simple fact is he came and he spoke so what really matters is what the man said.
Did he say anything earth shattering? Did he say anything that might influence the Obama administration's plans with respect to negotiations with Iran?
I'd have to say the answers are no and absolutely not. If anything Netanyahu probably made Kerry and the State Department MORE adamant about reaching an agreement. Since the Iranians aren't nearly as stupid as the Republicans in Congress, I'm sure they'll manage to use that to their advantage.
As far as I can tell Netanyahu's "strategy" with the Iranians is "keep kicking them until they see the error of their ways." The problem is I don't think any Iranian concession would satisfy the prime minister.
He spent the rest of the speech trying to talk Obama and the Democrats into not being really pissed off at him. I think he's pretty safe there at least as far as the Democrats in Congress are concerned.
I do believe he has hurt his position with a reasonable segment of the American Public but as soon as he loses the election in mid-March all will be forgiven as the new prime minister is sworn in.
Yes, that's a prediction or at least a hope.
So, what are my thoughts?
I still say that Netanyahu is playing with fire when he cuddles up with the right wing lunatic fringe in this country. I wonder if Israelis realize how he's damaging his image when he does that? I'm hoping they've figured it out and will boot his tail out.
I suppose we shall see what we shall see.
Sunday, March 01, 2015
I Can't Take IT Anymore!
What's "IT" you ask? "IT" is the incredible ignorance of the American public.
Notice that I said "ignorance" and not "stupidity." We'll talk about stupidity some other time.
There is an old saying that you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts and what we're talking about here are simple facts.
When I read comments on the Internet I am literally flabbergasted at what people think is true. I don't know where they get some of their ideas. Even Faux News doesn't misinform this badly.
Look, you are entitled not to like something; you can even not like something for no particular reason but at least try to ascertain the facts.
I'm fascinated by this attitude that everything, no matter what it is, somehow is Obama's fault. Here are facts that some people don't seem aware off.
- The President doesn't make all the rules. Rules have been being made in this country for a couple of hundred years. Every new president doesn't rewrite all of them.
- The president's administration doesn't approve everyone that enters the country so the first patient diagnosed with Ebola in this country wasn't "let in" by the Obama administration.
- Obama did not only win the electoral vote in 2008 and 2012. In 2008 he won the popular vote 53%-46%. In 2012 he won it 51%-47%.
- The US is actively engaged in the fight against ISIS. US led coalition aircraft have executed some 5,000 sorties against ISIS forces.
- The 2009 budget deficit of $1.4 trillion was a Bush budget and not an Obama budget. Of course the deficits in 2010 and 2011 of $1.3 trillion were all his.
- The US, despite all of the spats, is still the best, and about the only, ally that Israel has left. The Europeans have already lost patience with Netanyahu,
-----Only the US and Australia voted against a security council Palestinian statehood resolution. Britain abstained. France, China and Russia all voted for it. Only a last minute decision by Nigeria to abstain prevented the US from having to use its veto.
-----It is a breach of protocol for congress to invite a foreign leader to speak.
-----It is US policy to never meet with a foreign leader close to election time in that leaders country.
Not that I expect any of these right wing fools to change their attitude after learning the facts. Psychological tests indicate that showing a conservative he's wrong simply makes him dig in his heels and become more insistent that he's right.
I've been wrong about quite a few things in my life but never so wrong as I was about Obama being able to somehow heal the discord in this country. To say things have gotten considerably worse would be a huge understatement.
Is it as bad as the 60s? We may not be literally fighting in the streets but I'm not sure I see a way out of this current conflict and this inability to agree on the facts is a big part of the problem.
The other big part is that social conservatives are just too plain stupid to realize what they think are the facts just ain't so.
Notice that I said "ignorance" and not "stupidity." We'll talk about stupidity some other time.
There is an old saying that you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts and what we're talking about here are simple facts.
When I read comments on the Internet I am literally flabbergasted at what people think is true. I don't know where they get some of their ideas. Even Faux News doesn't misinform this badly.
Look, you are entitled not to like something; you can even not like something for no particular reason but at least try to ascertain the facts.
I'm fascinated by this attitude that everything, no matter what it is, somehow is Obama's fault. Here are facts that some people don't seem aware off.
- The President doesn't make all the rules. Rules have been being made in this country for a couple of hundred years. Every new president doesn't rewrite all of them.
- The president's administration doesn't approve everyone that enters the country so the first patient diagnosed with Ebola in this country wasn't "let in" by the Obama administration.
- Obama did not only win the electoral vote in 2008 and 2012. In 2008 he won the popular vote 53%-46%. In 2012 he won it 51%-47%.
- The US is actively engaged in the fight against ISIS. US led coalition aircraft have executed some 5,000 sorties against ISIS forces.
- The 2009 budget deficit of $1.4 trillion was a Bush budget and not an Obama budget. Of course the deficits in 2010 and 2011 of $1.3 trillion were all his.
- The US, despite all of the spats, is still the best, and about the only, ally that Israel has left. The Europeans have already lost patience with Netanyahu,
-----Only the US and Australia voted against a security council Palestinian statehood resolution. Britain abstained. France, China and Russia all voted for it. Only a last minute decision by Nigeria to abstain prevented the US from having to use its veto.
-----It is a breach of protocol for congress to invite a foreign leader to speak.
-----It is US policy to never meet with a foreign leader close to election time in that leaders country.
Not that I expect any of these right wing fools to change their attitude after learning the facts. Psychological tests indicate that showing a conservative he's wrong simply makes him dig in his heels and become more insistent that he's right.
I've been wrong about quite a few things in my life but never so wrong as I was about Obama being able to somehow heal the discord in this country. To say things have gotten considerably worse would be a huge understatement.
Is it as bad as the 60s? We may not be literally fighting in the streets but I'm not sure I see a way out of this current conflict and this inability to agree on the facts is a big part of the problem.
The other big part is that social conservatives are just too plain stupid to realize what they think are the facts just ain't so.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Net Neutrality
Well, the FCC has taken the steps necessary to try and maintain Net Neutrality of the Internet.
Of course the Republicans and a number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are saying their going to fight it tooth and nail. Of course the under 80 IQ trailer park Republican base is cheering them on.
Wait until the yokels can't get to their porn any more.
This one strikes me as a no brainer. The very idea of allowing an ISP to regulate who gets to use the bandwidth THAT I'M PAYING FOR to provide content is insane.
That's basically the ability to determine what people can access.
Consider two shopping sites one of which pays for extra bandwidth and one which can't afford to. The site with the extra bandwidth is going to be faster and easier to use.
Which one would you use assuming the prices were comparable?
How long do you think it will be before they drive the slow internet competition out of business and get to raise their prices?
Verizon says they will sue the FCC. I think we should tell Verizon that no Net Neutrality, no Verizon customers.
Of course the Republicans and a number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are saying their going to fight it tooth and nail. Of course the under 80 IQ trailer park Republican base is cheering them on.
Wait until the yokels can't get to their porn any more.
This one strikes me as a no brainer. The very idea of allowing an ISP to regulate who gets to use the bandwidth THAT I'M PAYING FOR to provide content is insane.
That's basically the ability to determine what people can access.
Consider two shopping sites one of which pays for extra bandwidth and one which can't afford to. The site with the extra bandwidth is going to be faster and easier to use.
Which one would you use assuming the prices were comparable?
How long do you think it will be before they drive the slow internet competition out of business and get to raise their prices?
Verizon says they will sue the FCC. I think we should tell Verizon that no Net Neutrality, no Verizon customers.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Chaos in Alabama
You can't make this stuff up. If anyone had written a book with what's been going on in Alabama this week as a plot no one would have published it because it's too far fetched.
- Gay Marriage supposed to start Monday by federal court order.
- Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court orders probate judges to ignore federal court order. Says it only applies to executive branch.
- Most probate judges ignore Chief Justice instead.
- Some probate judges stop performing ALL marriages.
- Minister arrested in Autauga County Alabama because she offered to perform a same sex wedding at courthouse.
- Ku Klux Klan issues "Call to Arms!"
What's next? Is the ghost of George Wallace going to show up and stand in the courthouse door? What is wrong with these people?
- Gay Marriage supposed to start Monday by federal court order.
- Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court orders probate judges to ignore federal court order. Says it only applies to executive branch.
- Most probate judges ignore Chief Justice instead.
- Some probate judges stop performing ALL marriages.
- Minister arrested in Autauga County Alabama because she offered to perform a same sex wedding at courthouse.
- Ku Klux Klan issues "Call to Arms!"
What's next? Is the ghost of George Wallace going to show up and stand in the courthouse door? What is wrong with these people?
Monday, February 09, 2015
Judge Roy Moore of Alabama
You all remember Judge Roy Moore. He's the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who defied a federal court order to remove a monument of the 10 Commandments from the courthouse. As a result he was subsequently remove from his position as Chief Justice.
He then spent a few years trying to become governor but even the people in Alabama aren't that stupid and he usually lost big in the Republican primary.
Then the Republican Party nominated him again for Chief Justice and of course he won.
Now Roy Moore has the pleasure of residing over the establishment of gay marriage in Alabama. To say that he is kicking and screaming in an attempt to stop it from happening would be a serious understatement.
On Sunday night Moore sent a memo to all county probate judges in Alabama, the folks responsible for issuing marriage licenses and performing civil ceremonies, that they were not required to obey the directive handed down by a federal court stating that the laws banning same sex marriage in Alabama were not to be enforced.
Moore's rationale was that the court order was directed to the attorney general "...and all his officers, agents, servants and employees, and others in active concert or participation with any of them..." The attorney general is part of the executive branch while the probate judges are part of the judicial branch therefore they aren't bound by the court order.
And they wonder why people hate lawyers?
About 60% of the counties in Alabama appear to be ignoring Moore and issuing licenses and performing same sex weddings. The remaining counties appear to not be doing so. Whether that is in obedience to Moore or for some other reason is unknown.
So now we have the situation of a Chief Justice of a state supreme court claiming that a federal court order, the intention of which is perfectly clear even if one can nit pick the language, need not be obeyed by county probate judges and most of the county probate judges ignoring that directive from the Chief Justice of the state.
All I have to say to Judge Moore is Orval Faubus. He was the governor of Arkansas that made the mistake of trying to block a federal court order to integrate the schools using the Alabama National Guard. Faubus got to make the acquaintance of the 101st Airborne Division which President Eisenhower sent in to enforce the order after he nationalized the Alabama National Guard and ordered them to return to their armories.
I doubt that sort of action will be necessary here. Hopefully Governor Bentley of Alabama will figure out a way to shut Moore up and return some sanity to the situation.
He then spent a few years trying to become governor but even the people in Alabama aren't that stupid and he usually lost big in the Republican primary.
Then the Republican Party nominated him again for Chief Justice and of course he won.
Now Roy Moore has the pleasure of residing over the establishment of gay marriage in Alabama. To say that he is kicking and screaming in an attempt to stop it from happening would be a serious understatement.
On Sunday night Moore sent a memo to all county probate judges in Alabama, the folks responsible for issuing marriage licenses and performing civil ceremonies, that they were not required to obey the directive handed down by a federal court stating that the laws banning same sex marriage in Alabama were not to be enforced.
Moore's rationale was that the court order was directed to the attorney general "...and all his officers, agents, servants and employees, and others in active concert or participation with any of them..." The attorney general is part of the executive branch while the probate judges are part of the judicial branch therefore they aren't bound by the court order.
And they wonder why people hate lawyers?
About 60% of the counties in Alabama appear to be ignoring Moore and issuing licenses and performing same sex weddings. The remaining counties appear to not be doing so. Whether that is in obedience to Moore or for some other reason is unknown.
So now we have the situation of a Chief Justice of a state supreme court claiming that a federal court order, the intention of which is perfectly clear even if one can nit pick the language, need not be obeyed by county probate judges and most of the county probate judges ignoring that directive from the Chief Justice of the state.
All I have to say to Judge Moore is Orval Faubus. He was the governor of Arkansas that made the mistake of trying to block a federal court order to integrate the schools using the Alabama National Guard. Faubus got to make the acquaintance of the 101st Airborne Division which President Eisenhower sent in to enforce the order after he nationalized the Alabama National Guard and ordered them to return to their armories.
I doubt that sort of action will be necessary here. Hopefully Governor Bentley of Alabama will figure out a way to shut Moore up and return some sanity to the situation.
Sunday, February 01, 2015
Super Bowl XLIX
Malcolm Butler picks it off and the Pats win 28-24.
Why would anyone throw the ball into the middle of the field from the 3 yard line when you have Marshawn Lynch in the backfield? Wait a minute, this sounds familiar.
Let's go back to the championship game in 2013 and what I said then.
"Dear Pete Carrol, ...[you] didn't give it to Marshawn Lynch on 3rd and 1 AND didn't give it to Marshawn Lynch on 4th and 1. Pete, when you have a Marshawn Lynch you give him the freaking ball when you desperately need a yard."
Pete, when you're on the 3 yard line with under 30 seconds to play, the Super Bowl is on the line and you have a Marshawn Lynch in the backfield, YOU GIVE HIM THE FREAKING BALL!
Anyway, that makes me 10-1 for the NFL Playoffs this year. The only game I got wrong was the Colts and Broncos.
You'd almost think I know what I'm talking about. But not to worry, I'm not quitting my day job.
Why would anyone throw the ball into the middle of the field from the 3 yard line when you have Marshawn Lynch in the backfield? Wait a minute, this sounds familiar.
Let's go back to the championship game in 2013 and what I said then.
"Dear Pete Carrol, ...[you] didn't give it to Marshawn Lynch on 3rd and 1 AND didn't give it to Marshawn Lynch on 4th and 1. Pete, when you have a Marshawn Lynch you give him the freaking ball when you desperately need a yard."
Pete, when you're on the 3 yard line with under 30 seconds to play, the Super Bowl is on the line and you have a Marshawn Lynch in the backfield, YOU GIVE HIM THE FREAKING BALL!
Anyway, that makes me 10-1 for the NFL Playoffs this year. The only game I got wrong was the Colts and Broncos.
You'd almost think I know what I'm talking about. But not to worry, I'm not quitting my day job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
