I keep running into pronouncements about how much Obama has increased the National Debt. It's as if these people think the President controls all spending.
Of course what they really mean in their confused little brains is how much the National Debt has increased while Obama has been president.
The latest pronouncement I've run into stated confidently that he has added $9 trillion and counting to the National Debt.
Let's take a closer look shall we.
Barack Obama took office in January of 2009 so I suppose it's safe to say that even the dumbest wing nut would concede that he's not responsible for any debt accrued prior to FY 2009. So let's look at the federal deficits between FY 2009 and FY 2015.
FY 2009 - $1.41 trillion
FY 2010 - $1.29 trillion
FY 2011 - $1.30 trillion
FY 2012 - $1.09 trillion
FY 2013 - $0.68 trillion
FY 2014 - $0.48 trillion
FY 2015 - $0.43 trillion
That comes out to $6.68 trillion. Already this is a lot less than $9 trillion.
But let's talk about FY 2009. This was a Bush budget calling for $3.1 trillion in expenditures and had some $240 billion added as a result of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in late 2008 and $200 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also known as The Stimulus, in 2009. So Obama is really only accountable for the $200 billion from ARRA.
That makes the total now $5.48 trillion. But let's remember that your starting point is important and the Obama Administration started with a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit and a shrinking economy in the throes of the Great Recession.
But let's continue a bit. The federal budget is divided into two parts. One part is Mandatory Spending, such as Social Security and Medicare, which MUST be spent by law. This is long term stuff that presidents don't control. The other part which changes from year to year is Discretionary Spending.
Mandatory Spending has been increasing at a steady rate since the mid-1980s not only in total amount but in percentage of the federal budget. This is a problem that requires a combined rational approach from both Congress and the president but is sort of beyond the current topic.
During FY 2010 through FY 2015 Mandatory Spending accounted for an average of about 58% of the federal budget. So it's reasonable to say it accounted for 58% of the deficits. That leaves us with $2.30 trillion.
But the Obama Administration also inherited two wars and a military budget of $661 billion including $145 billion allocated to the "War on Terror." This number has since declined to $597 billion in 2015 but still represents about 50% of all discretionary spending so we're now down to about $1.15 trillion over six years or about $200 billion per year in deficits that the man had any control over.
Personally I would have liked to see the deficit come down even faster. A balanced budget by now would have made me a happy man but to try and pin $9 trillion in additional debt on the president is simply nonsense.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
The Middle East
What an absolute mess. This is the Balkans of the 21st Century.
Now apparently Iran is sending fighters to Syria to join the Russian ones already there. I think we should quietly sneak out while the sneaking is good and duck.
We've got constant war in both Iraq and Syria and that's not to mention the sniping going on between Israel and the Palestinians.
The problem with toppling a dictator, such as we did with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and people are trying to do with Assad in Syria, is if you succeed, somebody or something is going to fill the power vacuum.
Throw in a medieval mentality and a religion with a streak of militant jihad and this is just asking for trouble.
At least it's the countries in the immediate vicinity of ISIS that are taking on the fight. With the shorter supply lines and more at stake one would think they would by more effective.
Send weapons but bring any remaining troops, including aircraft, home already and feed some of the money we save into the economy through middle class tax cuts.
Now apparently Iran is sending fighters to Syria to join the Russian ones already there. I think we should quietly sneak out while the sneaking is good and duck.
We've got constant war in both Iraq and Syria and that's not to mention the sniping going on between Israel and the Palestinians.
The problem with toppling a dictator, such as we did with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and people are trying to do with Assad in Syria, is if you succeed, somebody or something is going to fill the power vacuum.
Throw in a medieval mentality and a religion with a streak of militant jihad and this is just asking for trouble.
At least it's the countries in the immediate vicinity of ISIS that are taking on the fight. With the shorter supply lines and more at stake one would think they would by more effective.
Send weapons but bring any remaining troops, including aircraft, home already and feed some of the money we save into the economy through middle class tax cuts.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Three Months Later
Almost three months have passed since the Supreme Court made Gay Marriage legal in all 50 states and the echoes of descent are dimming but not quite out.
Yes Kim Davis became a Right Wing Darling for refusing marriage licenses in Kentucky but everyone else has pretty much ignored aberrations like this and moved on.
Which is not to say that some Republican politicians and Right Wing groups aren't attempting to make political capital or cash capital out of the decision by trying to bilk the under 80 IQ trailer park set that represents the Conservative base.
I expect the whining and occasional tantrum to continue for quite but I doubt it will ever have the emotional power of an issue like abortion. I suppose we shall see what we shall see.
Yes Kim Davis became a Right Wing Darling for refusing marriage licenses in Kentucky but everyone else has pretty much ignored aberrations like this and moved on.
Which is not to say that some Republican politicians and Right Wing groups aren't attempting to make political capital or cash capital out of the decision by trying to bilk the under 80 IQ trailer park set that represents the Conservative base.
I expect the whining and occasional tantrum to continue for quite but I doubt it will ever have the emotional power of an issue like abortion. I suppose we shall see what we shall see.
Monday, September 21, 2015
So Much for Walker
Apparently it's now official, Walker is out of the race.
That's good. Now if we can get rid of the rest of the dead weight that would be an accomplishment.
I'd like to see the Republican field get down to Trump, Bush, Fiorina, Kasish and Rubio. At least then we might have a chance at a rational conversation. I leave Trump in simply because he makes people face up to ideas they're uncomfortable with.
I still think Bush wins this especially now that a lot of the money that was backing Walker is looking for a new puppet.
That's good. Now if we can get rid of the rest of the dead weight that would be an accomplishment.
I'd like to see the Republican field get down to Trump, Bush, Fiorina, Kasish and Rubio. At least then we might have a chance at a rational conversation. I leave Trump in simply because he makes people face up to ideas they're uncomfortable with.
I still think Bush wins this especially now that a lot of the money that was backing Walker is looking for a new puppet.
The Presidential Race
It's been over two months since I've tried to untangle what the hell is going on in the presidential races.
The Republican race is like watching a bunch of zoo animals on a roller coaster and the Democratic race, and yes it now appears to be a race, seems to be morphing into the Wise Old Wizard vs. the Wicked Witch with Uncle Joe sipping beer in the corner.
First the Republicans. When last we met back in August I had divided the 17 candidates into two groups. The top contenders made up "The Terrible Ten" and the rest "The Trash Heap Seven." I then listed candidates based upon a combination of "sane enough put up with" and "probability of winning."
Well there have been some changes since then.
First Rick Perry quit the race so now it's "The Trash Heap Six" at least temporarily. I've put the latest poll numbers in parentheses.
The Terrible Ten
#1 - Donald Trump (#1 - 24%)- Still at the head of the pack. Unfortunately his statements have gotten more and more outrageous as time has gone on. While I'm willing to give a businessperson a chance instead of another politician Trump is beginning to wear on me.
#2 - Jeb Bush (#5 - 9%)- There are a lot of things I don't like about Bush and he's probably incompetent but at least he's not crazy. I still think he's got the inside track because he's the man the corporate men like.
#3 - Carly Fiorina (#2 - 15%) - Ms Fiorina has done VERY well in the debates and it has catapulted her into the big time. Her tenure at HP could still become a milestone around her neck but this is getting interesting.
#4 - Ben Carson (#3 - 14%) - Mister Delusional himself. If he were to somehow end up in the White House I'd move to Scandinavia. His latest nonsense is saying that a Muslim should never be president. Now, I probably wouldn't vote for a Muslim either but if Carson can exclude one group then any group can be excluded. This is a bad precedent to set.
#5 - Marco Rubio (#4 - 11%) - He's done well in the debates as well and I'm pretty sure he's not crazy.
#6 - John Kasich (#10 - 2%) - Like Rubio he benefits from the benefit of the doubt. He might not be crazy.
#7 - Chris Christie (#9 - 3%) - I think Christie is a complete ass-hole so you can imagine what I think of the ones below.
#8 - Ted Cruz (#6 - 6%) - He's crazy and he's still ahead of a bunch of the field.
#9 - Rand Paul (#8 - 4%) - Like his dad, not only doesn't he have any answers but he doesn't even understand the questions.
#10 - Mike Huckabee (#7 - 6%) - Huckabee is a complete lunatic and he demonstrated it again making nice with the Kentucky clerk defying the Supreme Court. Can someone please run him over with a truck?
The Trash Heap Six
#11 - Scott Walker (< 1%) - I told you it was just a matter of time before this dum-dum started dribbling at the mouth. The rumor is that he's ready to drop hell.
#12 - George Patacki (< 1%) - Patacki could be a reasonable president but I think he has no chance.
#13- Lindsay Graham (< 1%) - Same as Patacki, no chance.
#14 - Jim Gilmore (< 1%) - The governor of Virginia has no chance but I'll take him over Jindel and Santorum.
#15 - Bobby Jindel (< 1%) - This guy is the world's biggest loser but I would still take him over Carson, Huckabee and Santorum because they're completely crazy.
#16 - Rick Santorum (#11 - 1%) - He's not as crazy as Huckabee but he's still crazy.
The Scrap Heap
Rick Perry - Has thrown in the towel.
The scariest development here is Carson. He's in the Huckabee/Santorum lunatic category yet 14% of Republican voters apparently think he should be president.
On the Democratic side Bernie Sanders, The Wise Old Wizard, just won't go away. Rumor has it that he's competitive if not ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire. Can Sanders win a National Election? Can Clinton win a National Election? Does anyone want them to win a National Election?
2016 is shaping up as a really screwed up election.
The Republican race is like watching a bunch of zoo animals on a roller coaster and the Democratic race, and yes it now appears to be a race, seems to be morphing into the Wise Old Wizard vs. the Wicked Witch with Uncle Joe sipping beer in the corner.
First the Republicans. When last we met back in August I had divided the 17 candidates into two groups. The top contenders made up "The Terrible Ten" and the rest "The Trash Heap Seven." I then listed candidates based upon a combination of "sane enough put up with" and "probability of winning."
Well there have been some changes since then.
First Rick Perry quit the race so now it's "The Trash Heap Six" at least temporarily. I've put the latest poll numbers in parentheses.
The Terrible Ten
#1 - Donald Trump (#1 - 24%)- Still at the head of the pack. Unfortunately his statements have gotten more and more outrageous as time has gone on. While I'm willing to give a businessperson a chance instead of another politician Trump is beginning to wear on me.
#2 - Jeb Bush (#5 - 9%)- There are a lot of things I don't like about Bush and he's probably incompetent but at least he's not crazy. I still think he's got the inside track because he's the man the corporate men like.
#3 - Carly Fiorina (#2 - 15%) - Ms Fiorina has done VERY well in the debates and it has catapulted her into the big time. Her tenure at HP could still become a milestone around her neck but this is getting interesting.
#4 - Ben Carson (#3 - 14%) - Mister Delusional himself. If he were to somehow end up in the White House I'd move to Scandinavia. His latest nonsense is saying that a Muslim should never be president. Now, I probably wouldn't vote for a Muslim either but if Carson can exclude one group then any group can be excluded. This is a bad precedent to set.
#5 - Marco Rubio (#4 - 11%) - He's done well in the debates as well and I'm pretty sure he's not crazy.
#6 - John Kasich (#10 - 2%) - Like Rubio he benefits from the benefit of the doubt. He might not be crazy.
#7 - Chris Christie (#9 - 3%) - I think Christie is a complete ass-hole so you can imagine what I think of the ones below.
#8 - Ted Cruz (#6 - 6%) - He's crazy and he's still ahead of a bunch of the field.
#9 - Rand Paul (#8 - 4%) - Like his dad, not only doesn't he have any answers but he doesn't even understand the questions.
#10 - Mike Huckabee (#7 - 6%) - Huckabee is a complete lunatic and he demonstrated it again making nice with the Kentucky clerk defying the Supreme Court. Can someone please run him over with a truck?
The Trash Heap Six
#11 - Scott Walker (< 1%) - I told you it was just a matter of time before this dum-dum started dribbling at the mouth. The rumor is that he's ready to drop hell.
#13- Lindsay Graham (< 1%) - Same as Patacki, no chance.
#14 - Jim Gilmore (< 1%) - The governor of Virginia has no chance but I'll take him over Jindel and Santorum.
#15 - Bobby Jindel (< 1%) - This guy is the world's biggest loser but I would still take him over Carson, Huckabee and Santorum because they're completely crazy.
#16 - Rick Santorum (#11 - 1%) - He's not as crazy as Huckabee but he's still crazy.
The Scrap Heap
Rick Perry - Has thrown in the towel.
The scariest development here is Carson. He's in the Huckabee/Santorum lunatic category yet 14% of Republican voters apparently think he should be president.
On the Democratic side Bernie Sanders, The Wise Old Wizard, just won't go away. Rumor has it that he's competitive if not ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire. Can Sanders win a National Election? Can Clinton win a National Election? Does anyone want them to win a National Election?
2016 is shaping up as a really screwed up election.
Thursday, September 03, 2015
Let's Talk About Kim Davis
Kim Davis is the Kentucky county clerk that has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. As a matter of fact she hasn't been issuing them to anyone and is being sued by two gay and two heterosexual couples.
Basically Davis is claiming religious freedom. She claims that issuing a marriage license which "conflicts with God's definition of marriage" "would violate my conscience." She has also expressed the position that this is a "Heaven or Hell" decision for her.
"To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word. It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment..."
There are several issues with Davis' position.
The first issue is there is a legal difference between the person of Kim Davis and the person of the Rowan County Clerk. Davis is protected under the 1st Amendment but the county clerk is not. The county clerk has to obey the law. Davis cannot extend her religious beliefs unto the legal person of the county clerk.
The second issue is the marriage we're talking about is a civil marriage which is a construct of the state. It's essentially a legal contract. It is a secular state issue that "God" has nothing to do with.
The third and final issue is that obeying the law, as required by Romans 13:1-5, would not in any way reflect upon Davis' opinions, beliefs or conscience. Romans 13:1-5 is essentially a "get out of jail free card" for members of the church living under oppressive or heretical regimes.
Davis is also probably getting lousy advice from her lawyers since seeing her in jail better fits their agenda.
And that's where Davis is at the moment. In jail. In the meantime her deputies at the county clerk's office were given the option by Judge Bunning of joining her in jail or issuing the marriage licenses.
Apparently all but one of the deputies agreed to do their job. One, her son I believe, demurred. Whether he will join his mother in jail is unclear but as long as someone is obeying the law and issuing licenses it's really not necessary.
Of course the Right Wing is going ape shit over this and comparing her to Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. I think they're glad she's in jail as they think it gives them a potential martyr and a rallying point.
I suspect in the final analysis this is going to backfire on them since there are still a lot more sane people in this country than bat-shit crazy ones and they expect public officials to obey the law or resign.
Basically Davis is claiming religious freedom. She claims that issuing a marriage license which "conflicts with God's definition of marriage" "would violate my conscience." She has also expressed the position that this is a "Heaven or Hell" decision for her.
"To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word. It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment..."
There are several issues with Davis' position.
The first issue is there is a legal difference between the person of Kim Davis and the person of the Rowan County Clerk. Davis is protected under the 1st Amendment but the county clerk is not. The county clerk has to obey the law. Davis cannot extend her religious beliefs unto the legal person of the county clerk.
The second issue is the marriage we're talking about is a civil marriage which is a construct of the state. It's essentially a legal contract. It is a secular state issue that "God" has nothing to do with.
The third and final issue is that obeying the law, as required by Romans 13:1-5, would not in any way reflect upon Davis' opinions, beliefs or conscience. Romans 13:1-5 is essentially a "get out of jail free card" for members of the church living under oppressive or heretical regimes.
Davis is also probably getting lousy advice from her lawyers since seeing her in jail better fits their agenda.
And that's where Davis is at the moment. In jail. In the meantime her deputies at the county clerk's office were given the option by Judge Bunning of joining her in jail or issuing the marriage licenses.
Apparently all but one of the deputies agreed to do their job. One, her son I believe, demurred. Whether he will join his mother in jail is unclear but as long as someone is obeying the law and issuing licenses it's really not necessary.
Of course the Right Wing is going ape shit over this and comparing her to Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. I think they're glad she's in jail as they think it gives them a potential martyr and a rallying point.
I suspect in the final analysis this is going to backfire on them since there are still a lot more sane people in this country than bat-shit crazy ones and they expect public officials to obey the law or resign.
Tuesday, September 01, 2015
The Idiocy of the Right Wing
There has been a minor dispute going on about the name of a mountain in Alaska named Mt. McKinley.
The mountain, at 20,237 feet, is the highest in North America and received its current name in 1917 in honor of President William McKinley. The local Koyukon Athabaskans had always called the mountain Denali which was based upon their word for high or tall.
Alaska has long maintained that the mountain's name be officially changed back to Denali since that's what it's called locally. The Alaska Board of Geographic Names changed the name of the mountain to Denali in 1975 but a request by the Alaskan state legislature to the US Board of Geographic names was blocked by an Ohio congressman from McKinley's home town of Canton.
I suppose having the Pro Football Hall of Fame wasn't enough.
However the federal government has finally caught up and announced in August of 2015 that the name will officially be changed on the federal level to Denali in order to line up with what Alaska calls the mountain.
I mean, remember that 10th Amendment that conservatives keep crying about? I would think that naming your own landmarks would be covered under that.
Alas, not in today's contentious world. Incredibly, politicians in Ohio are up in arms over the change to the name of a mountain in Alaska that was named by a prospector for a president most of them probably didn't know came from Ohio before the name change was announced.
But, you know, this is just people being silly. For Republicans anything the Obama administration does is bad. He could cure cancer, resolve the debt, end poverty and bring about world peace and they would still find something to complain about.
You sort of expect it by now. It's like background noise to anyone with more than half a brain.
But Mike Huckabee brings stupidity to a whole new level. He's called the move "outrageous," claims it shows the president doesn't think there is any limits on his power and called upon Republicans in Congress to block the move.
How can anyone take people like this twit Huckabee seriously?
The mountain, at 20,237 feet, is the highest in North America and received its current name in 1917 in honor of President William McKinley. The local Koyukon Athabaskans had always called the mountain Denali which was based upon their word for high or tall.
Alaska has long maintained that the mountain's name be officially changed back to Denali since that's what it's called locally. The Alaska Board of Geographic Names changed the name of the mountain to Denali in 1975 but a request by the Alaskan state legislature to the US Board of Geographic names was blocked by an Ohio congressman from McKinley's home town of Canton.
I suppose having the Pro Football Hall of Fame wasn't enough.
However the federal government has finally caught up and announced in August of 2015 that the name will officially be changed on the federal level to Denali in order to line up with what Alaska calls the mountain.
I mean, remember that 10th Amendment that conservatives keep crying about? I would think that naming your own landmarks would be covered under that.
Alas, not in today's contentious world. Incredibly, politicians in Ohio are up in arms over the change to the name of a mountain in Alaska that was named by a prospector for a president most of them probably didn't know came from Ohio before the name change was announced.
But, you know, this is just people being silly. For Republicans anything the Obama administration does is bad. He could cure cancer, resolve the debt, end poverty and bring about world peace and they would still find something to complain about.
You sort of expect it by now. It's like background noise to anyone with more than half a brain.
But Mike Huckabee brings stupidity to a whole new level. He's called the move "outrageous," claims it shows the president doesn't think there is any limits on his power and called upon Republicans in Congress to block the move.
How can anyone take people like this twit Huckabee seriously?
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Birthright Citizenship
Birthright Citizenship simply refers to the principle that if you are born in the US then you are a US citizen. This has been the traditional interpretation of the 14th Amendment which states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Of course Trump and the other Republican nominees that are calling for an end to Birthright Citizenship don't read the Constitution,
Or, if they do read the Constitution, they don't read case law.
The argument is that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants.
This issue was resolved in 1898. In the landmark case “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment must be interpreted based upon English Common Law and included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.
So, unless someone would like to claim that illegal immigrants are "enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation" ending Birthright Citizenship would require either (a) the Supreme Court to overturn “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” or a constitutional amendment.
I suspect that none of the Republican bozos supporting this idea would bother to go this far. They're just playing off the god awful ignorance of the Republican base.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Of course Trump and the other Republican nominees that are calling for an end to Birthright Citizenship don't read the Constitution,
Or, if they do read the Constitution, they don't read case law.
The argument is that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants.
This issue was resolved in 1898. In the landmark case “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment must be interpreted based upon English Common Law and included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.
So, unless someone would like to claim that illegal immigrants are "enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation" ending Birthright Citizenship would require either (a) the Supreme Court to overturn “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” or a constitutional amendment.
I suspect that none of the Republican bozos supporting this idea would bother to go this far. They're just playing off the god awful ignorance of the Republican base.
Friday, August 14, 2015
The Colorado Cake Case
An appeals court in Colorado has upheld an administrative law judge's decision that refusing to bake a cake for a same sex wedding violated the Colorado Anti-Descrimination Act (CADA).
Masterpiece Cakeshop had claimed that requiring them to provide such a wedding cake violates their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
The court disagreed.
"...CADA does not compel Masterpiece to support or endorse any particular religious views. The law merely prohibits Masterpiece from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation."
The court also specifically related this to discrimination against blacks and quoted from Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc.
"Undoubtedly defendant . . . has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This Court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishment upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs."
Masterpiece also claimed that they discriminated not because of the sexual orientation but simply because they're opposed to same sex marriage.
"Masterpiece thus distinguishes between discrimination based on a person’s status and discrimination based on conduct closely correlated with that status. However, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that such distinctions are generally inappropriate."
Both of these points are well established law with multiple precedents that should have been known by the legal team representing Masterpiece. The fact that they proceeded with the case anyway makes me wonder if they are incompetent or dishonest.
Masterpiece Cakeshop had claimed that requiring them to provide such a wedding cake violates their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
The court disagreed.
"...CADA does not compel Masterpiece to support or endorse any particular religious views. The law merely prohibits Masterpiece from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation."
The court also specifically related this to discrimination against blacks and quoted from Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc.
"Undoubtedly defendant . . . has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This Court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishment upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs."
Masterpiece also claimed that they discriminated not because of the sexual orientation but simply because they're opposed to same sex marriage.
"Masterpiece thus distinguishes between discrimination based on a person’s status and discrimination based on conduct closely correlated with that status. However, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that such distinctions are generally inappropriate."
Both of these points are well established law with multiple precedents that should have been known by the legal team representing Masterpiece. The fact that they proceeded with the case anyway makes me wonder if they are incompetent or dishonest.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Kentucky Clerk Case
A court clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis by name, that has refused to issue marriage licenses to Gay Couples despite directions by the governor of Kentucky to do so.
With the help of Liberty Counsel she brought suit in federal court claiming to issue licenses her rights under the 1st Amendment and violated Article 6 of the Constitution forbidding any religious test to hold government office.
Today Justice David Bunning issued a preliminary injunction ordering her to do her job.
Judge Bunning summarized the question as "Does the Free Exercise Clause likely excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a religious objection to same sex marriage?"
He decided that the "Court answers this question in the negative."
The judge then went on to articulate the reasons for his decision.
"The Court must again point out that the act of issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple merely signifies that the couple has met the legal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval."
Approval of the marriage is NOT a prerequisite to issuing a license. No one is asking the clerk not to disapprove.
"...Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities."
Issuing a license to a same sex couple in no way restricts someone from practicing their religion.
"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs...However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."
If you can't perform the job requirements due to religious convictions, you can't expect the job requirements to be changed to accommodate your beliefs.
Liberty Counsel has advised Davis to ignore the court ruling and has issued an appeal.
The problem here of course is that this is standing in the way of the right of others to get married. What's the old saying? Your rights end where the next guy's rights begin?
This is essentially someone throwing a tantrum because they can't have their way. It's childish and immature. As for Liberty Counsel, they're giving their client lousy advice.
It should be interesting to see how Judge Bunning responds. He can't allow the rights of gay couples to be trampled on pending appeal can he?
With the help of Liberty Counsel she brought suit in federal court claiming to issue licenses her rights under the 1st Amendment and violated Article 6 of the Constitution forbidding any religious test to hold government office.
Today Justice David Bunning issued a preliminary injunction ordering her to do her job.
Judge Bunning summarized the question as "Does the Free Exercise Clause likely excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a religious objection to same sex marriage?"
He decided that the "Court answers this question in the negative."
The judge then went on to articulate the reasons for his decision.
"The Court must again point out that the act of issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple merely signifies that the couple has met the legal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval."
Approval of the marriage is NOT a prerequisite to issuing a license. No one is asking the clerk not to disapprove.
"...Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities."
Issuing a license to a same sex couple in no way restricts someone from practicing their religion.
"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs...However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."
If you can't perform the job requirements due to religious convictions, you can't expect the job requirements to be changed to accommodate your beliefs.
Liberty Counsel has advised Davis to ignore the court ruling and has issued an appeal.
The problem here of course is that this is standing in the way of the right of others to get married. What's the old saying? Your rights end where the next guy's rights begin?
This is essentially someone throwing a tantrum because they can't have their way. It's childish and immature. As for Liberty Counsel, they're giving their client lousy advice.
It should be interesting to see how Judge Bunning responds. He can't allow the rights of gay couples to be trampled on pending appeal can he?
Friday, August 07, 2015
Post the Debate
OK, so the first "debate" is over. There were no real surprise. Trump and Christie were abrasive. Huckabee, Walker, Cruz and Carson were delusional, Rubio, Paul and Bush seemed lost in space but Rubio did better than the others and Kasich showed up and made some noise..
From now on I think I will treat this circus in two parts. The "Terrible Ten" and the "Trash Heap Six." Or is it seven? Didn't some other turkey join in? Maybe I should ignore him for the moment?
Also my order of preference will be based upon a combination of "sane enough to put up with" and "probability of winning" the nomination within the group the candidate is currently in.
The Terrible Ten
#1 - Donald Trump - I don't think what he's saying is that outrageous although the way he puts it is a bit crude. I'm willing to give a businessperson a chance instead of another politician.
#2 - Jeb Bush - He's probably incompetent but at least he's not crazy. I still think he's got the inside track.
#3 - Marco Rubio - He ranks this high because I don't know that much about him. The others I'm sure are loony toons.
#4 - John Kasich - Like Rubio he benefits from the benefit of the doubt. He might not be crazy.
#5 - Chris Christie - I think Christie is a complete ass-hole so you can imagine what I think of the other five.
#6 - Rand Paul - Like his dad, not only doesn't he have any answers but he doesn't even understand the questions.
#7 - Ted Cruz - He's crazy and he's still ahead of three others.
#8 - Scott Walker - I'm surprised this dum-dum isn't dribbling at the mouth yet. I suppose I should just give it time.
#9 - Ben Carson - Mister Delusional himself. If he were to somehow end up in the White House I'd move to Scandinavia.
#10 - Mike Huckabee - Huckabee is a complete lunatic and he demonstrated it again last night with his personhood idiocy. Can someone please run him over with a truck?
The Trash Heap Six or Seven
#11 - Rick Perry - I don't think Perry is as crazy as he sometimes pretends. He might in fact make a pretty good president.
#12 - Carly Fiorina - Similar rationale as with Trump. Maybe we should let a pure businessperson take a shot? The big question is how good a businessperson is Fiorina?
#13 - George Patacki - Patacki could be a reasonable president but I think he has no chance.
#14 - Lindsay Graham - Same as Patacki, no chance.
#15 - Jim Gilmore - The governor of Virginia has no chance but I'll take him over Jindel and Santorum.
#16 - Bobby Jindel - This guy is the world's biggest loser but I would still take him over Carson, Huckabee and Santorum because they're completely crazy.
#17 - Rick Santorum - He's not as crazy as Huckabee but he's still crazy.
One would hope that people will start dropping out soon.
From now on I think I will treat this circus in two parts. The "Terrible Ten" and the "Trash Heap Six." Or is it seven? Didn't some other turkey join in? Maybe I should ignore him for the moment?
Also my order of preference will be based upon a combination of "sane enough to put up with" and "probability of winning" the nomination within the group the candidate is currently in.
The Terrible Ten
#1 - Donald Trump - I don't think what he's saying is that outrageous although the way he puts it is a bit crude. I'm willing to give a businessperson a chance instead of another politician.
#2 - Jeb Bush - He's probably incompetent but at least he's not crazy. I still think he's got the inside track.
#3 - Marco Rubio - He ranks this high because I don't know that much about him. The others I'm sure are loony toons.
#4 - John Kasich - Like Rubio he benefits from the benefit of the doubt. He might not be crazy.
#5 - Chris Christie - I think Christie is a complete ass-hole so you can imagine what I think of the other five.
#6 - Rand Paul - Like his dad, not only doesn't he have any answers but he doesn't even understand the questions.
#7 - Ted Cruz - He's crazy and he's still ahead of three others.
#8 - Scott Walker - I'm surprised this dum-dum isn't dribbling at the mouth yet. I suppose I should just give it time.
#9 - Ben Carson - Mister Delusional himself. If he were to somehow end up in the White House I'd move to Scandinavia.
#10 - Mike Huckabee - Huckabee is a complete lunatic and he demonstrated it again last night with his personhood idiocy. Can someone please run him over with a truck?
The Trash Heap Six or Seven
#11 - Rick Perry - I don't think Perry is as crazy as he sometimes pretends. He might in fact make a pretty good president.
#12 - Carly Fiorina - Similar rationale as with Trump. Maybe we should let a pure businessperson take a shot? The big question is how good a businessperson is Fiorina?
#13 - George Patacki - Patacki could be a reasonable president but I think he has no chance.
#14 - Lindsay Graham - Same as Patacki, no chance.
#15 - Jim Gilmore - The governor of Virginia has no chance but I'll take him over Jindel and Santorum.
#16 - Bobby Jindel - This guy is the world's biggest loser but I would still take him over Carson, Huckabee and Santorum because they're completely crazy.
#17 - Rick Santorum - He's not as crazy as Huckabee but he's still crazy.
One would hope that people will start dropping out soon.
Tuesday, August 04, 2015
The Terrible Ten
The lineup is set for the 1st Republican Primary debate and the cast of characters would frighten any sane man. Unfortunately there aren't many sane men in the Republican Party.
Are you ready? Here's the 10 that made the cut.
#1 - Mr. Immigration. He of the rotten toupee, DONALD "THE BOSS MAN" TRUMP!
#2 - The man with all the money and looking to make it a bushy three, JEB "LET'S SCRAP MEDICARE" BUSH!
#3 - The man with no degree that has driven Wisconsin into the 3rd world, SCOTT "DUM-DUM" WALKER!
#4 - The biggest religious fruitcake in the race. The man who's going to use federal troops to stop abortions, MIKE "HUCKLEBERRY HOUND" HUCKABEE!
#5 - Mr. Delusional himself, BEN "NO BRAINS" CARSON!
#6 - The man who doesn't understand the Internet, TED "MY DAD"S CRAZY" CRUZ!
#7 - A man with an R on his right hand and an L on his left but still gets them confused, MARCO "I DIDN'T KNOW THAT" RUBIO!
#8 - The man who thinks there's a plot to merge the US with Canada and Mexico, RAND "SECRET PLOT" PAUL!
#9 - The man's who's hated by just about everyone in his home state, CHRIS "BRIDGEGATE" CHRISTIE!
#10 - Last, and probably least, the man who has been watching Ohio fall apart all around him and who says he don't need no black folks, JOHN "GHETTO MAN" KASICH!
The big question of course is how are these certifiable lunatics going to act on national TV. I'm sure you won't be hearing any of the loony toons comments we've been hearing. I'm betting all ten will spend all night attacking the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.
I can see it now.
Fox Moderator: Senator Cruz, what programs would you propose to generate more jobs?
Ted Cruz: Well first we'll have to repeal that Obamacare and undo the racial animosity generated by the current administration because, as you know, net neutrality is a Communist plot and there's this terrible assault on Religious Freedom because an activist Supreme Court has redefined marriage. Then, of course, there's Benghazi. And that's not to mention the millions of illegal immigrants crossing the border every day and taking away what few jobs we have left.
Fox Moderator: Very insightful and I'm sure you speak for all the candidates when you say Obama has squandered the prosperity of the Bush years and Hillary Clinton is most likely a mole for the Muslim Brotherhood.
(Nine bobble heads nod)
Are you ready? Here's the 10 that made the cut.
#1 - Mr. Immigration. He of the rotten toupee, DONALD "THE BOSS MAN" TRUMP!
#2 - The man with all the money and looking to make it a bushy three, JEB "LET'S SCRAP MEDICARE" BUSH!
#3 - The man with no degree that has driven Wisconsin into the 3rd world, SCOTT "DUM-DUM" WALKER!
#4 - The biggest religious fruitcake in the race. The man who's going to use federal troops to stop abortions, MIKE "HUCKLEBERRY HOUND" HUCKABEE!
#5 - Mr. Delusional himself, BEN "NO BRAINS" CARSON!
#6 - The man who doesn't understand the Internet, TED "MY DAD"S CRAZY" CRUZ!
#7 - A man with an R on his right hand and an L on his left but still gets them confused, MARCO "I DIDN'T KNOW THAT" RUBIO!
#8 - The man who thinks there's a plot to merge the US with Canada and Mexico, RAND "SECRET PLOT" PAUL!
#9 - The man's who's hated by just about everyone in his home state, CHRIS "BRIDGEGATE" CHRISTIE!
#10 - Last, and probably least, the man who has been watching Ohio fall apart all around him and who says he don't need no black folks, JOHN "GHETTO MAN" KASICH!
The big question of course is how are these certifiable lunatics going to act on national TV. I'm sure you won't be hearing any of the loony toons comments we've been hearing. I'm betting all ten will spend all night attacking the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.
I can see it now.
Fox Moderator: Senator Cruz, what programs would you propose to generate more jobs?
Ted Cruz: Well first we'll have to repeal that Obamacare and undo the racial animosity generated by the current administration because, as you know, net neutrality is a Communist plot and there's this terrible assault on Religious Freedom because an activist Supreme Court has redefined marriage. Then, of course, there's Benghazi. And that's not to mention the millions of illegal immigrants crossing the border every day and taking away what few jobs we have left.
Fox Moderator: Very insightful and I'm sure you speak for all the candidates when you say Obama has squandered the prosperity of the Bush years and Hillary Clinton is most likely a mole for the Muslim Brotherhood.
(Nine bobble heads nod)
Sunday, August 02, 2015
Defending Evolution
One of the things I find utterly appalling is the number of people in the US that reject the Theory of Evolution.
Every once in a while I will make the mistake of responding to a video or opinion piece which purports to "disprove" Evolution and I will get into an extended exchange of posts with someone of that ilk. I used to do this more often when I was naive enough to still think that evidence mattered.
I know it's a waste of time but I get sucked in until I finally throw my hands up and exit the conversation.
It's unbelievable, it really is, how misinformed people are about science in general and evolution in particular. I suspect one reason for this is that in many areas of the country the topic is so fraught with peril that the schools gloss over it.
It's also incredible about the things they "know" to be true that are just flat out wrong. You run into the same objections over and over again. That groaning sound you hear is me being told for the umpteenth time that "there are no Transitional Fossils" or "Radiometric Dating doesn't work" or "the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution" or "a cat can't give birth to a dog" or simply "that (whatever evidence it may have been) still doesn't prove Evolution."
Yes there are Transitional Fossils. Hundreds of them in fact but one has to understand what constitutes a Transitional Fossil. It is not a creature that's half of one species and half of another. It's a fossil that has the traits of different types of animals. For instance a fish with feet (Tiktaalik) or a reptile with the features of a bird (Archaeopteryx) to name two of the more famous.
Yes Radiometric Dating works. There are between 35 and 40 methods and they all agree within 3%-5% of each other. This validates the one critical assumption that radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate per isotope. The common objections such as the unknown starting quantities and possible contamination can be eliminated by using the slightly more complicated Isochron Dating method.
No the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't disprove Evolution because the Earth's Biosphere is not a closed system. It is constantly importing energy from the sun. If that weren't the case a seed couldn't grow into a plant; a fetus couldn't develop into a baby and a baby couldn't mature into an adult.
It's a true statement that a cat can't give birth to a dog and Evolution doesn't say it can. As a matter of fact if a cat ever gave birth to a dog the entire fabric of Evolution would unravel because the theory says that can't happen. But, based upon the differences in DNA, cats and dogs had a common ancestor about 55 millions years ago that was not a cat or a dog.
As for "proving Evolution," technically you can't PROVE anything outside of the realm of mathematics. The Natural Sciences work with probability. What one can do is pile up evidence so high that it would be irrational not to accept something as true.
And so on and so forth. I'm not a biologist but I've educated myself adequately to understand what Evolution actually claims and why the evidence is so strong.
Every once in a while I will make the mistake of responding to a video or opinion piece which purports to "disprove" Evolution and I will get into an extended exchange of posts with someone of that ilk. I used to do this more often when I was naive enough to still think that evidence mattered.
I know it's a waste of time but I get sucked in until I finally throw my hands up and exit the conversation.
It's unbelievable, it really is, how misinformed people are about science in general and evolution in particular. I suspect one reason for this is that in many areas of the country the topic is so fraught with peril that the schools gloss over it.
It's also incredible about the things they "know" to be true that are just flat out wrong. You run into the same objections over and over again. That groaning sound you hear is me being told for the umpteenth time that "there are no Transitional Fossils" or "Radiometric Dating doesn't work" or "the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution" or "a cat can't give birth to a dog" or simply "that (whatever evidence it may have been) still doesn't prove Evolution."
Yes there are Transitional Fossils. Hundreds of them in fact but one has to understand what constitutes a Transitional Fossil. It is not a creature that's half of one species and half of another. It's a fossil that has the traits of different types of animals. For instance a fish with feet (Tiktaalik) or a reptile with the features of a bird (Archaeopteryx) to name two of the more famous.
Yes Radiometric Dating works. There are between 35 and 40 methods and they all agree within 3%-5% of each other. This validates the one critical assumption that radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate per isotope. The common objections such as the unknown starting quantities and possible contamination can be eliminated by using the slightly more complicated Isochron Dating method.
No the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't disprove Evolution because the Earth's Biosphere is not a closed system. It is constantly importing energy from the sun. If that weren't the case a seed couldn't grow into a plant; a fetus couldn't develop into a baby and a baby couldn't mature into an adult.
It's a true statement that a cat can't give birth to a dog and Evolution doesn't say it can. As a matter of fact if a cat ever gave birth to a dog the entire fabric of Evolution would unravel because the theory says that can't happen. But, based upon the differences in DNA, cats and dogs had a common ancestor about 55 millions years ago that was not a cat or a dog.
As for "proving Evolution," technically you can't PROVE anything outside of the realm of mathematics. The Natural Sciences work with probability. What one can do is pile up evidence so high that it would be irrational not to accept something as true.
And so on and so forth. I'm not a biologist but I've educated myself adequately to understand what Evolution actually claims and why the evidence is so strong.
Monday, July 27, 2015
BSA Votes to Lift Ban on Gay Leaders
The Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts of America has voted to lift its ban on gay leaders and will no longer allow discrimination based upon sexual orientation for paid employees or workers at BSA owned facilities.
Local troops and councils will still have the authority to restrict gay leaders.
Another domino of ignorance and bigotry falls.
There's a ways to go yet and the war is far from over but perhaps someday we'll see the end of discrimination against those who just happen to be different.
Local troops and councils will still have the authority to restrict gay leaders.
Another domino of ignorance and bigotry falls.
There's a ways to go yet and the war is far from over but perhaps someday we'll see the end of discrimination against those who just happen to be different.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
David Barton
I'm not a fan of David Barton. Barton styles himself a historian but often what history he quotes is closer to fantasy or perhaps wishful thinking.
This is a man that wrote a book about Thomas Jefferson called "The Jefferson Lies" that has been so criticized by real historians that his publisher pulled the book.
This is a man that has claimed that there will never be an AIDS vaccine because the disease is God's punishment for homosexuality and that the three branches of US government are based upon the Bible.
Not only does Barton seem to be delusional about American history but on occasion has made claims about his own background that don't appear to bear out under scrutiny such as he smuggled Bibles into the Soviet Union and played on the Oral Roberts varsity basketball team.
So imagine my surprise when Right Wing Watch reported that Barton ripped a caller that claimed the Civil War was fought over states rights a new one. Some Barton quotes.
"It was not about states' rights, it was about slavery..."
This just goes to show you why you have to consider everything anyone says on its own merits. Even someone that is almost always wrong can sometimes be right. The one possible exception to this rule is Tony Perkins. Perkins will probably never be right about anything.
"What we've seen as a result of this is a lot of revision of history. And today, it literally appalls me to see that throughout the south, they still have elementary schools named after Nathan Bedford Forrest..."
This is irony of the 1st magnitude. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
..."(Forest) was one of the great Confederate generals in the Civil War. But you know, Nathan Bedford Forrest was also the founder of the Ku Klux Klan ... We've got elementary schools named after a great murderer?"
Barton then went on to cite the massacre at Fort Pillow where confederate soldiers murdered surrendering black Union troops.
"When the blacks surrendered...they slaughtered them on the spot. I mean, ISIS-like atrocities: they skinned 'em, they burned them alive, the buried 'em, they drowned 'em, the drug 'em, they hung 'em. These were guys who surrendered, they were prisoners of war."
David Barton telling it like it was.
"The Confederacy had a standing order that any black that you capture is to be killed on the spot. That's not similar values to the north, we're not talking the same value base here."
This was a shock but I give the man credit for having the courage to speak the truth. I can't wait to hear all the right wing whack jobs accuse Barton of "Cultural Cleansing."
This is a man that wrote a book about Thomas Jefferson called "The Jefferson Lies" that has been so criticized by real historians that his publisher pulled the book.
This is a man that has claimed that there will never be an AIDS vaccine because the disease is God's punishment for homosexuality and that the three branches of US government are based upon the Bible.
Not only does Barton seem to be delusional about American history but on occasion has made claims about his own background that don't appear to bear out under scrutiny such as he smuggled Bibles into the Soviet Union and played on the Oral Roberts varsity basketball team.
So imagine my surprise when Right Wing Watch reported that Barton ripped a caller that claimed the Civil War was fought over states rights a new one. Some Barton quotes.
"It was not about states' rights, it was about slavery..."
This just goes to show you why you have to consider everything anyone says on its own merits. Even someone that is almost always wrong can sometimes be right. The one possible exception to this rule is Tony Perkins. Perkins will probably never be right about anything.
"What we've seen as a result of this is a lot of revision of history. And today, it literally appalls me to see that throughout the south, they still have elementary schools named after Nathan Bedford Forrest..."
This is irony of the 1st magnitude. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
..."(Forest) was one of the great Confederate generals in the Civil War. But you know, Nathan Bedford Forrest was also the founder of the Ku Klux Klan ... We've got elementary schools named after a great murderer?"
Barton then went on to cite the massacre at Fort Pillow where confederate soldiers murdered surrendering black Union troops.
"When the blacks surrendered...they slaughtered them on the spot. I mean, ISIS-like atrocities: they skinned 'em, they burned them alive, the buried 'em, they drowned 'em, the drug 'em, they hung 'em. These were guys who surrendered, they were prisoners of war."
David Barton telling it like it was.
"The Confederacy had a standing order that any black that you capture is to be killed on the spot. That's not similar values to the north, we're not talking the same value base here."
This was a shock but I give the man credit for having the courage to speak the truth. I can't wait to hear all the right wing whack jobs accuse Barton of "Cultural Cleansing."
Monday, July 20, 2015
A New Republican Poll
An ABC News/Washington Post Poll shows Trump still on top of the heap. As a matter of fact he appears to have gained some. It should be noted however that the poll was taken before his criticism of John McCain's war record.
The poll shows nine candidates. The plus or minus indicates the change from the last ABC News/Washington Post Poll in May.
#1 - Trump - 24% (+20%)
#2 - Walker - 13% (+2%)
#3 - Bush - 12% (+2%)
#4 - Huckabee - 8% (-1%)
#5 - Rubio - 7% (-3%)
#6 - Paul - 6% (-5%)
#7 - Carson - 6% (-2%)
#8 - Cruz - 4% (-4%)
#9 - Perry - 4% (+2%)
I assume the remaining 16% are divided up among the other seven candidates but with no one getting at least 4%.
I'm still convinced that Bush ends up with the nomination. Trump can't help putting his foot in his mouth. Maybe he can be convinced to run as a 3rd party candidate? That might pretty much sink any Republican chances.
Trump can't win a general election and the Republican Party brass knows that. Jeb Bush can win a general election and probably has the best chance of doing so. The Republican Party brass knows that as well. I think Marco Rubio has the 2nd best chance of winning a general election.
On the Democratic side it looks like Hillary Clinton all the way.
#1 - Clinton - 63%
#2 - Sanders - 14%
#3 - Biden - 12%
The poll shows nine candidates. The plus or minus indicates the change from the last ABC News/Washington Post Poll in May.
#1 - Trump - 24% (+20%)
#2 - Walker - 13% (+2%)
#3 - Bush - 12% (+2%)
#4 - Huckabee - 8% (-1%)
#5 - Rubio - 7% (-3%)
#6 - Paul - 6% (-5%)
#7 - Carson - 6% (-2%)
#8 - Cruz - 4% (-4%)
#9 - Perry - 4% (+2%)
I assume the remaining 16% are divided up among the other seven candidates but with no one getting at least 4%.
I'm still convinced that Bush ends up with the nomination. Trump can't help putting his foot in his mouth. Maybe he can be convinced to run as a 3rd party candidate? That might pretty much sink any Republican chances.
Trump can't win a general election and the Republican Party brass knows that. Jeb Bush can win a general election and probably has the best chance of doing so. The Republican Party brass knows that as well. I think Marco Rubio has the 2nd best chance of winning a general election.
On the Democratic side it looks like Hillary Clinton all the way.
#1 - Clinton - 63%
#2 - Sanders - 14%
#3 - Biden - 12%
Saturday, July 18, 2015
So who will be the Republican Nominee?
It's going to be Jeb Bush.
Jeb has amassed a $114 million dollar war chest and is capable of drowning all the other candidates in greenbacks. Let's go through the list. The order is my order of preference. * = has officially declared. (x%, y%) = 1st and 2nd percentages of most recent poll I saw.
#1 - George Patacki* (0%/0%) - At 0% in the polls should be closing down shop any time now.
#2 - Jeb Bush* (11%/7%) - Given his war chest and name, barring some catastrophe, should win the nomination sooner rather than later.
#3 - John Kasich (2%/2%) - Should be dropping out about the same time as Patacki.
#4 - Donald Trump* (15%/12%) - Trump is a flash in the pan that neither the Republican Party nor the country can afford. His recent criticism of John McCain's war record should speed his decent to the trash heap.
#5 - Marco Rubio* (9%/7%) - I expect Rubio to be around for a while but will ultimately lose to Bush.
#6 - Chris Christie* (6%/8%) - He'll hang around 6%-8% for a while but will quickly disappear once things get serious.
#7 - Rand Paul* (11%/7%) - Probably has more staying power than Christie but has no chance against Bush.
#8 - Carly Fiorina* (3%/5%) - Should be done after Iowa and possibly before.
#9 - Rick Perry* (3%/5%) - In the same boat as Fiorina.
#10 - Lindsey Graham* (0%/1%) - Has no realistic chance of even making the 1st debate cut.
#11 - Ted Cruz* (4%/7%) - Expect Cruz to hang around to the bitter end.
#12 - Scott Walker* (9%/8%) - Same with Walker. He's going to be around for a while if for no other reason than the Koch brothers appear to like him.
#13 - Bobby Jindel* (2%/4%) - Should disappear about the same time as Fiorina if not before.
#14 - Rick Santorum* (2%/4%) - Like an unwanted house guest will probably outstay his welcome just like 2012.
#15 - Ben Carson* (7%/7%) - Gone after New Hampshire as he should get about 4 votes in that state.
#16 - Mike Huckabee* (9%/6%) - Will be on the same bus out of town as Carson if not sooner.
Jeb has amassed a $114 million dollar war chest and is capable of drowning all the other candidates in greenbacks. Let's go through the list. The order is my order of preference. * = has officially declared. (x%, y%) = 1st and 2nd percentages of most recent poll I saw.
#1 - George Patacki* (0%/0%) - At 0% in the polls should be closing down shop any time now.
#2 - Jeb Bush* (11%/7%) - Given his war chest and name, barring some catastrophe, should win the nomination sooner rather than later.
#3 - John Kasich (2%/2%) - Should be dropping out about the same time as Patacki.
#4 - Donald Trump* (15%/12%) - Trump is a flash in the pan that neither the Republican Party nor the country can afford. His recent criticism of John McCain's war record should speed his decent to the trash heap.
#5 - Marco Rubio* (9%/7%) - I expect Rubio to be around for a while but will ultimately lose to Bush.
#6 - Chris Christie* (6%/8%) - He'll hang around 6%-8% for a while but will quickly disappear once things get serious.
#7 - Rand Paul* (11%/7%) - Probably has more staying power than Christie but has no chance against Bush.
#8 - Carly Fiorina* (3%/5%) - Should be done after Iowa and possibly before.
#9 - Rick Perry* (3%/5%) - In the same boat as Fiorina.
#10 - Lindsey Graham* (0%/1%) - Has no realistic chance of even making the 1st debate cut.
#11 - Ted Cruz* (4%/7%) - Expect Cruz to hang around to the bitter end.
#12 - Scott Walker* (9%/8%) - Same with Walker. He's going to be around for a while if for no other reason than the Koch brothers appear to like him.
#13 - Bobby Jindel* (2%/4%) - Should disappear about the same time as Fiorina if not before.
#14 - Rick Santorum* (2%/4%) - Like an unwanted house guest will probably outstay his welcome just like 2012.
#15 - Ben Carson* (7%/7%) - Gone after New Hampshire as he should get about 4 votes in that state.
#16 - Mike Huckabee* (9%/6%) - Will be on the same bus out of town as Carson if not sooner.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
The Nuclear Deal with Iran
I read through the summary and the deal looks reasonable to me but, and this is the big but, this isn't my area of expertise so I'll be curious to hear from more knowledgeable folks over the next couple of days.
Of course just about every Republican candidate is criticizing the agreement but they're criticizing it as a matter of policy in broad generalities not as a matter of substance. I've yet to hear anything about any specific issues.
Of course if you're convinced Iran should remain permanently economically hobbled then no agreement is a good deal.
The problem is that such a position is very short sighted and very dangerous. We need to get Iran back into the community of nations and we need them to get more involved in the fight against ISIS.
Of course we can expect Netanyahu to go ape shit over this regardless but I doubt he'll do anything beyond whine and cry persecution. See why he gets along so well with Republicans?
Of course just about every Republican candidate is criticizing the agreement but they're criticizing it as a matter of policy in broad generalities not as a matter of substance. I've yet to hear anything about any specific issues.
Of course if you're convinced Iran should remain permanently economically hobbled then no agreement is a good deal.
The problem is that such a position is very short sighted and very dangerous. We need to get Iran back into the community of nations and we need them to get more involved in the fight against ISIS.
Of course we can expect Netanyahu to go ape shit over this regardless but I doubt he'll do anything beyond whine and cry persecution. See why he gets along so well with Republicans?
Religious Freedom and the Law
Religious Freedom doesn't mean your religious beliefs trump the law. As a matter of fact, if there is a conflict, the law usually wins.
For instance, Deuteronomy 22 says you should stone to death brides that can't demonstrate their virginity. The law says nah, you can't do that. That is not a violation of your religious freedom.
Of course that doesn't mean laws that directly impact religion always win. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) restricts 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."
However even then it's not absolute. There is 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.
This why clerks who are claiming that issuing marriage licenses to gay couples because of religious objections are wrong. The law both meets a "compelling government interest," equal protection under the law, and using the same procedures in place for currently issuing marriage licenses is about the simplest way to implement it.
My "religion" disagrees with the law is not a valid exception as long as the two conditions are met. This is why clerks which tried to claim a religious exemption from issuing licenses to inter-racial couple got absolutely no where.
This is just another demonstration that conservative evangelical Christianity is an ignorant, bigoted and hateful philosophy that deserves neither adherence or respect.
For instance, Deuteronomy 22 says you should stone to death brides that can't demonstrate their virginity. The law says nah, you can't do that. That is not a violation of your religious freedom.
Of course that doesn't mean laws that directly impact religion always win. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) restricts 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."
However even then it's not absolute. There is 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.
This why clerks who are claiming that issuing marriage licenses to gay couples because of religious objections are wrong. The law both meets a "compelling government interest," equal protection under the law, and using the same procedures in place for currently issuing marriage licenses is about the simplest way to implement it.
My "religion" disagrees with the law is not a valid exception as long as the two conditions are met. This is why clerks which tried to claim a religious exemption from issuing licenses to inter-racial couple got absolutely no where.
This is just another demonstration that conservative evangelical Christianity is an ignorant, bigoted and hateful philosophy that deserves neither adherence or respect.
Friday, July 10, 2015
Two Events, One Day
In New York City the first ticker tape parade was held for a women's sport team as the city turned out for the US Women's National Soccer team, the 2015 Women's World Cup champions.
I didn't do much with the women's world cup because, OK I admit it, I'm a terrible male chauvinist when it comes to women's sports. Still, I did follow the final. Congratulations for a victory hard won and well fought.
In South Carolina they lowered the Confederate Flag that had flown on the capital grounds either above the statehouse or on the lawn for the last 50 or more years. I didn't say much about this either because it struck as a case of what the hell have we been waiting for? Congratulations for a victory hard won and well fought.
I didn't do much with the women's world cup because, OK I admit it, I'm a terrible male chauvinist when it comes to women's sports. Still, I did follow the final. Congratulations for a victory hard won and well fought.
In South Carolina they lowered the Confederate Flag that had flown on the capital grounds either above the statehouse or on the lawn for the last 50 or more years. I didn't say much about this either because it struck as a case of what the hell have we been waiting for? Congratulations for a victory hard won and well fought.
Thursday, July 09, 2015
The Republican Menagerie
Chris Christie and Bobby have officially announced and John Kasich, governor of Ohio has joined the fray. Plus, we have one of the first broad polls run by The Economist/YouGov. I've put the percentages the candidates was selected at the 1st or 2nd choice in parentheses.
Key: * = declared, (x%,y%) = most recent poll 1st and 2nd choice percentage, Italics = I consider them all but out of the race based upon the poll numbers. Elmer Fudd Line = People below this line I consider loony toons.
#1 - George Patacki* (0%/0%) - 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* (11%/7%) - Apparently Jeb thinks the way to grow the economy if for people to work longer hours. After being pinged on that he sort of revised it to earn more income. 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 - John Kasich (2%/2%) - this is a very preliminary positioning but given his fiscal conservative abd business background this guy might actually be interesting to consider. I don't go for his abortion position but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy. For a Republican he might actually be acceptable.
#4 - Donald Trump* (15%/12%) - I've moved Trump up because he's starting to grow on me. If nothing else he stands by what he says. 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.
#5 - Marco Rubio* (9%/7%) - 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.
#6 - Chris Christie* (6%/8%) - 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.
#7 - Rand Paul* (11%/7%) - 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.
#8 - Carly Fiorina* (3%/5%) - 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.
#9 - Rick Perry* (3%/5%) - 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?
#10 - Lindsey Graham* (0%/1%) - 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====
#11 - Ted Cruz* (4%/7%) - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse! Even so he continues to slide rapidly.
#12 - Scott Walker (9%/8%) - 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.
#13 - Bobby Jindel* (2%/4%) - 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.
#14 - Rick Santorum* (2%/4%) - 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.
#15 - Ben Carson* (7%/7%) - 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.
#16 - Mike Huckabee* (9%/6%) - 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.
So the top five would be considered to be:
#4 - Donald Trump* (15%/12%)
#2 - Jeb Bush* (11%/7%)
#7 - Rand Paul* (11%/7%)
#12 - Scott Walker (9%/8%)
#5 - Marco Rubio* (9%/7%)
Then we have Mike Huckabee an eyelash behind at in 6th #16 - Mike Huckabee* (9%/6%). However it should be noted that early polls are primarily based upon name recognition. Even so I think it's safe to say that Patacki and Graham look to be toast. So I'm going to put them in italics.
Key: * = declared, (x%,y%) = most recent poll 1st and 2nd choice percentage, Italics = I consider them all but out of the race based upon the poll numbers. Elmer Fudd Line = People below this line I consider loony toons.
#1 - George Patacki* (0%/0%) - 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* (11%/7%) - Apparently Jeb thinks the way to grow the economy if for people to work longer hours. After being pinged on that he sort of revised it to earn more income. 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 - John Kasich (2%/2%) - this is a very preliminary positioning but given his fiscal conservative abd business background this guy might actually be interesting to consider. I don't go for his abortion position but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy. For a Republican he might actually be acceptable.
#4 - Donald Trump* (15%/12%) - I've moved Trump up because he's starting to grow on me. If nothing else he stands by what he says. 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.
#5 - Marco Rubio* (9%/7%) - 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.
#6 - Chris Christie* (6%/8%) - 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.
#7 - Rand Paul* (11%/7%) - 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.
#8 - Carly Fiorina* (3%/5%) - 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.
#9 - Rick Perry* (3%/5%) - 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?
#10 - Lindsey Graham* (0%/1%) - 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====
#11 - Ted Cruz* (4%/7%) - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse! Even so he continues to slide rapidly.
#12 - Scott Walker (9%/8%) - 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.
#13 - Bobby Jindel* (2%/4%) - 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.
#14 - Rick Santorum* (2%/4%) - 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.
#15 - Ben Carson* (7%/7%) - 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.
#16 - Mike Huckabee* (9%/6%) - 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.
So the top five would be considered to be:
#4 - Donald Trump* (15%/12%)
#2 - Jeb Bush* (11%/7%)
#7 - Rand Paul* (11%/7%)
#12 - Scott Walker (9%/8%)
#5 - Marco Rubio* (9%/7%)
Then we have Mike Huckabee an eyelash behind at in 6th #16 - Mike Huckabee* (9%/6%). However it should be noted that early polls are primarily based upon name recognition. Even so I think it's safe to say that Patacki and Graham look to be toast. So I'm going to put them in italics.
Sunday, July 05, 2015
The Sweetcakes by Melissa Decision
Sweetcakes by Melissa, a bakery that specialized in wedding cakes and owned by MK and AK, refused to supply a wedding cake to a lesbian couple in January of 2013 citing their religious convictions.
The bakery had been approached by one of the women, RBC, and her mother, CM. because the bakery had supplied a cake for the mother's wedding and they had also been recommended by the venue where the wedding was to take place. However, after a cake tasting session, when one of the partners, AK, asked for the name of the bride and groom, and was informed that it was two women, he refused to supply the cake because they didn't make cakes for same sex ceremonies.
At the refusal RBC began crying and her mother escorted her to the car outside. The mother then returned to the store to try and change AK's mind. In response the store owner apparently implied to CM that "her children were an abomination unto God." Or at least he quoted a passage from Leviticus that said as much.
Ultimately RBC's partner, LBC, filed a complaint against Sweetcakes by Melissa with the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) for discrimination. The final decision was handed down by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI).
That's the 30,000 foot level and apparently the facts as stated above are not in dispute.
But other things happened.
The DOJ, following standard procedure, sent a copy of the complaint to the bakery and, observing that there were always two sides to every story, asked that they send a response to the complainant and send a copy to the DOJ.
The next day AK posred a copy of the first page of the complaint, which contained names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mails of both sides but not the details of the complaint, on his facebook page with the comment "this is what happens when you tell gay people you won't do your wedding cake."
When LBC was informed by friends of the facebook posting, she called her lawyer and the posting was taken down later that day.
It was apparently also AK and MK that first went to the media about the case including an interview on CBN where a picture of a note pinned to the store was shown which read in part:
"Closed but still in business...The fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong. Your religious freedom is becoming not free anymore. The LORD is good and we will continue to serve HIM with all our heart."
CM let the wedding venue, because they had recommended the bakery, know of the refusal so they wouldn't steer other same sex couple to the same place. She also posted a warning on the Sweetcakes facebook page.
Finally RBC filed a complaint with BOLI in August of 2013 that Sweetcakes by Melissa had discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation.
Ultimately AK was found to have violated ORS 659A.403 which prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation and both AK and MK were found to have violated ORS 659A.409 which prohibits posting or publishing a statement to the effect that services will be denied to someone based upon sexual orientation. Since they were partners in Sweetcakes for Melissa, they are equally responsible for the damages awarded which amounted to $135,000.
When I originally heard the number $135,000 my immediate reaction was that this sounded a bit extreme. However, after reading the decision and the issues caused over this nonsense, I'm not sure it is too extreme.
To people who continue to argue that they were just refusing to participate in a same sex wedding gay and not discriminating because the couple was gay, allow me to explain that legally there is no difference as stated in the decision.
"Respondents claim they are not denying service because of Complainants sexual orientation but rather because they do not wish to participate in their same sex wedding ceremony. The forum has already found there to be no distinction between the two. Further, to allow Respondents, a for profit business, to deny any services to people because of their protected class, would be tantamount to allowing legal separation of people based on their sexual orientation from at least some portion of the public marketplace. This would clearly be contrary to Oregon law as well as any standard by which people in a free society choose to treat each other."
The decision also explains the rationale for the decision beautifully.
"Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.
When Respondents denied RBC and LBC a wedding cake, their act was more than the denial of the product. It was and is, a denial of RBC’s and LBC’s freedom to participate equally. It is the epitome of being told there are places you cannot go, things you cannot do...or be. Respondent’s conduct was a clear and direct statement that RBC and LBC lacked an identity worthy of being recognized.
The denial of these basic freedoms to which all are entitled devalues the human condition of the individual, and in doing so, devalues the humanity of us all."
In other words Sweetakes by Melissa was not only discriminating against a gay couple, they were discriminating against all of us. You'll excuse me, but that's not part of religious freedom.
The bakery had been approached by one of the women, RBC, and her mother, CM. because the bakery had supplied a cake for the mother's wedding and they had also been recommended by the venue where the wedding was to take place. However, after a cake tasting session, when one of the partners, AK, asked for the name of the bride and groom, and was informed that it was two women, he refused to supply the cake because they didn't make cakes for same sex ceremonies.
At the refusal RBC began crying and her mother escorted her to the car outside. The mother then returned to the store to try and change AK's mind. In response the store owner apparently implied to CM that "her children were an abomination unto God." Or at least he quoted a passage from Leviticus that said as much.
Ultimately RBC's partner, LBC, filed a complaint against Sweetcakes by Melissa with the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) for discrimination. The final decision was handed down by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI).
That's the 30,000 foot level and apparently the facts as stated above are not in dispute.
But other things happened.
The DOJ, following standard procedure, sent a copy of the complaint to the bakery and, observing that there were always two sides to every story, asked that they send a response to the complainant and send a copy to the DOJ.
The next day AK posred a copy of the first page of the complaint, which contained names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mails of both sides but not the details of the complaint, on his facebook page with the comment "this is what happens when you tell gay people you won't do your wedding cake."
When LBC was informed by friends of the facebook posting, she called her lawyer and the posting was taken down later that day.
It was apparently also AK and MK that first went to the media about the case including an interview on CBN where a picture of a note pinned to the store was shown which read in part:
"Closed but still in business...The fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong. Your religious freedom is becoming not free anymore. The LORD is good and we will continue to serve HIM with all our heart."
CM let the wedding venue, because they had recommended the bakery, know of the refusal so they wouldn't steer other same sex couple to the same place. She also posted a warning on the Sweetcakes facebook page.
Finally RBC filed a complaint with BOLI in August of 2013 that Sweetcakes by Melissa had discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation.
Ultimately AK was found to have violated ORS 659A.403 which prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation and both AK and MK were found to have violated ORS 659A.409 which prohibits posting or publishing a statement to the effect that services will be denied to someone based upon sexual orientation. Since they were partners in Sweetcakes for Melissa, they are equally responsible for the damages awarded which amounted to $135,000.
When I originally heard the number $135,000 my immediate reaction was that this sounded a bit extreme. However, after reading the decision and the issues caused over this nonsense, I'm not sure it is too extreme.
To people who continue to argue that they were just refusing to participate in a same sex wedding gay and not discriminating because the couple was gay, allow me to explain that legally there is no difference as stated in the decision.
"Respondents claim they are not denying service because of Complainants sexual orientation but rather because they do not wish to participate in their same sex wedding ceremony. The forum has already found there to be no distinction between the two. Further, to allow Respondents, a for profit business, to deny any services to people because of their protected class, would be tantamount to allowing legal separation of people based on their sexual orientation from at least some portion of the public marketplace. This would clearly be contrary to Oregon law as well as any standard by which people in a free society choose to treat each other."
The decision also explains the rationale for the decision beautifully.
"Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.
When Respondents denied RBC and LBC a wedding cake, their act was more than the denial of the product. It was and is, a denial of RBC’s and LBC’s freedom to participate equally. It is the epitome of being told there are places you cannot go, things you cannot do...or be. Respondent’s conduct was a clear and direct statement that RBC and LBC lacked an identity worthy of being recognized.
The denial of these basic freedoms to which all are entitled devalues the human condition of the individual, and in doing so, devalues the humanity of us all."
In other words Sweetakes by Melissa was not only discriminating against a gay couple, they were discriminating against all of us. You'll excuse me, but that's not part of religious freedom.
Monday, June 29, 2015
The Party of Stupid on the Gay Marriage Decision
Let's look at what three of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination have had to say about the Supreme Court Gay Marriage decision.
First we have Mike Huckabee. Huckabee has urged state governors to defy the Supreme Court and order county clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. So much for Huckabee's pledge to adhere to the Constitution of the United States.
Huckabee's rationale is that the ruling violates the 1st Amendment. Of course the ruling abides by the 14th Amendment and since it has nothing to do with religion, the press, speech, assembly or petition, I don't see how it could possibly violate the 1st Amendment.
What Huckabee probably means is it runs counter to his religious teaching which is NOT a problem as long as Huckabee can continue to express his opinion. The state ALWAYS trumps religious doctrine.
The state also says you can't stone a bride who can't demonstrate her virginity to death despite what Deuteronomy 22 says.
Then we have Ben Carson. Carson thinks that Congress can come up with a "creative" law that would nullify marriage equality. So apparently Carson doesn't know that the Constitution, upon which the SCOTUS decision is based, trumps a law passed by Congress regardless of how "creative" it is.
But the best one of all comes from Bobby Jindal. Jindal thinks we should just get rid of the Supreme Court. One has to wonder how Jindal proposes to get around Article III of the Consitution?
Oh wait, that's right, Jindal is a fucking idiot.
It's a sad day when these three bird brains are considered as even remotely possible candidates for president by a major political party.
First we have Mike Huckabee. Huckabee has urged state governors to defy the Supreme Court and order county clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. So much for Huckabee's pledge to adhere to the Constitution of the United States.
Huckabee's rationale is that the ruling violates the 1st Amendment. Of course the ruling abides by the 14th Amendment and since it has nothing to do with religion, the press, speech, assembly or petition, I don't see how it could possibly violate the 1st Amendment.
What Huckabee probably means is it runs counter to his religious teaching which is NOT a problem as long as Huckabee can continue to express his opinion. The state ALWAYS trumps religious doctrine.
The state also says you can't stone a bride who can't demonstrate her virginity to death despite what Deuteronomy 22 says.
Then we have Ben Carson. Carson thinks that Congress can come up with a "creative" law that would nullify marriage equality. So apparently Carson doesn't know that the Constitution, upon which the SCOTUS decision is based, trumps a law passed by Congress regardless of how "creative" it is.
But the best one of all comes from Bobby Jindal. Jindal thinks we should just get rid of the Supreme Court. One has to wonder how Jindal proposes to get around Article III of the Consitution?
Oh wait, that's right, Jindal is a fucking idiot.
It's a sad day when these three bird brains are considered as even remotely possible candidates for president by a major political party.
Supreme Court Decisions
Gay Marriage
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
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.
The Court Ruled: As everyone knows by now the court ruled that Gays have the right to marry under the 14th Amendment and states must recognize gay marriages from other states. The vote was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy joining the Liberal faction.
Redistricting
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."
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.
The Court Ruled: Arizona voters have the right to decide how redistricting shall occur because based upon the Arizona Constitution it has equal law making authority with the legislature. The vote was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy joining the Liberal faction.
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.
The Court Ruled: The court decided that plaintiffs had not made the case for a violation of the ban against cruel and unusual punishment. The vote was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy joining the Conservative faction.
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.
The Court Ruled: The court ruled that adding an additional sentence violated due process. The vote was 8-1 with only Justice Alito dissenting.
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.
The Court Ruled: The court ruled that the EPA had erred by not taking cost into account. The vote was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy joining the Conservative faction.
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
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.
The Court Ruled: As everyone knows by now the court ruled that Gays have the right to marry under the 14th Amendment and states must recognize gay marriages from other states. The vote was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy joining the Liberal faction.
Redistricting
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."
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.
The Court Ruled: Arizona voters have the right to decide how redistricting shall occur because based upon the Arizona Constitution it has equal law making authority with the legislature. The vote was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy joining the Liberal faction.
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.
The Court Ruled: The court decided that plaintiffs had not made the case for a violation of the ban against cruel and unusual punishment. The vote was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy joining the Conservative faction.
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.
The Court Ruled: The court ruled that adding an additional sentence violated due process. The vote was 8-1 with only Justice Alito dissenting.
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.
The Court Ruled: The court ruled that the EPA had erred by not taking cost into account. The vote was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy joining the Conservative faction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
