It doesn’t seem like it but it has actually been a very slow news week. Given the shooting, the ensuing Confederate flag controversy, and the Pope’s Laudato Si it seems big. But those have been the only big news stories this week and we’ve pretty much covered them to the point that I’m sure you are all sick of them.
So, instead I talk about why the Republicans will not act against Civil Asset Forfeiture (though they should), what do we call the current war involving ISIS, and a series of links catching you up on some foreign affairs you might have missed, starting with one of the weirdest stories out of Russia.
Why Republicans Will Not Repeal Civil Asset Forfeiture
Quite a few conservative groups are calling for the government repeal or at least roll back Civil Asset Forfeiture. It has evolved into something that basically allows law enforcement to seize property on little more than the suspicion that it might be used in criminal activity and use said property finance themselves. Anyone with a basic understanding of human nature can see the danger inherent in such a system. Police are abusing it to increase the funds of the department.
Most conservatives have called it blatantly unconstitutional.
Freedomworks and last year the Heritage Foundation held a panel attacking it.
Yet don’t expect most Republicans to push against it.
Yes, Mike Lee wants it to be reformed but the moment a fight begins over repeal expect an army of police unions, prosecutors, and department representatives to come out and call it a “necessary and important tool for law enforcement” and without it there would be chaos on the streets with drugs flowing like Molasses flowed through the streets of Boston in 1919.
And the Republican Party will buy it. Hook, line, and sinker.
What Should We Call the Current Iraq War?
Really, that is something I want to know!
Wikipedia calls it “Iraq War (2014—Present)” but I don’t think that works as a name for a war. I don’t want to go around saying, “Iraq War Twenty-fourteen to Present” every time I discuss it.
So, what do we call it?
The 3rd Iraq War? The 2nd Iraq War? The ISIS War? The ISIL War? The Daesh War?
I honestly prefer the last one. Even though Daesh is nearly impossible for English speakers to pronounce. It’s used by a lot of anti-ISIS fighters, it’s the Arabic acronym for ISIS/ISIL, and, DAMMIT, the show Archer deserves better than to be associated with a bunch of medieval barbarians!
Also, "ISIS War" and “ISIL War” just don’t roll off the tongue as easily as “Daesh War”. At least for me.
“DANGAH ZONE!”
Miscellaneous
The Russians can apparently read minds. We must stop the Mind Reading Gap! Ok, I kid. It was a statement made by a nutty Russian general but it actually has some real ramifications. He claimed that not only did they read Madeline Albright’s mind but that she also believed that "Russia should not exist as a state at all" and that Siberia should not belong to Russia.
Now, you may be asking, so what?
Well, Russian politicians (including Putin) love to throw around those “comments” by Albright about Siberia to incite anti-American sentiment and “prove” that America secretly wants to destroy Russia—never mentioning that only the source is a nutty Russian general. And Russians believe it.
LINK
Pro-EU parties win big in Moldovan local elections. Another pushback against Putin’s hyper-aggressive stance towards Eastern European countries.
LINK
Protests in Armenia against the rate-hikes by the Russian-owned energy company Yerevan continue.
LINK
The Islamic State (or Daesh) blew up two historic mausoleums. Because, why not? They’re not only a bunch of a-holes, they’re 100% dick.
LINK
As if to prove my above statement, ISIS recently announced they would be offering sex slaves to winners of a Koran memorization contest. I have to give them credit here. They keep finding new and innovative ways to shock, horrify, and even surprise us. Again, they are a bunch of a-holes who really are 100% dick.
LINK
As for the rest of the population of Iraq: 3 Million Iraqis have been displaced by current war. But at least Bush ain’t running things.
LINK
Back at home: According to Andrew McCarthy, the “Freddie Grey autopsy Report Deals Blow to Murder Charges.”
LINK
Film legend Toshiro Mifune, star of Seven Samurai, Shogun, and The High and The Low, will get a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He deserves one. I think it was when watching Yojimbo (later remade as Fistful of Dollars) that I realized just how good an actor he was. He could completely disappear into a role yet still manage to maintain the gravitas of a leading man. Not many film actors can do that. LINK
The autopsy report coupled with Mosby bragging about helping stop the riots indicates a politically motivated overcharging of the officers.
ReplyDeleteAnd in other news, abstinence-only advocate and single mom Bristol Palin is preggers again! ;-)
ReplyDelete(Truth be told, I have no dog in this fight but, like so much else, it's the hypocrisy that gets me.)
ISIS is closest to what happens when someone like Maury Povich gets to run a country...he has all these yuppie supporters, who get to dress up, kill people, play out their weird fantasies and not be held accountable..ISIS is a bunch of punk pirates....
ReplyDeleteThe.gov has been getting bigger, and bigger, and more intrusive for years, I think the GOP is as comfortable with it as the Dims...they all love power.
Bristol Palin has got to be an embarrassment to her parents, but at least she's not aborting the babies..which is what I figure the Dems want her to do. In some ways I don't get the scorn for the Palins, they're actually a pretty average family all in all....
In defense of Bristol, she's not an abstinence-only advocate, merely an abstinence advocate. I don't have a dog in the fight either, but false-dichotomization is my peeve.
ReplyDeleteHUGE OT: The Supreme Court had ruled that gays have a right to marry.
ReplyDeleteI've been expecting this, but not just yet. Thus, ends the issue for the public.
Scott, Why do you have to bring up Honey Boo Boo Jr.?
ReplyDeleteKit, Asset forfeiture laws are very dangerous, but the problem is that no politician ever got hurt promising the public more power.
tryanmax -
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected!
Andrew -
...Sorry. [said in the style of Belushi in Animal House after he smashes the guitar] :-)
Back on the gay thing, this is likely a Godsend for the right.
ReplyDeleteFirst, this will allow most GOP members to simply drop the issue and most GOP governors will be able to implement it without offending their constituents... "The Supreme Court made me do it." Essentially, this albatross goes away for most. That could lead to a revival for the GOP in the increasingly blue states like Colorado and Virginia and anything in the Northeast or West Coast.
It will also hurt the Democrats politically because it should result in gays leaving the election scene. They got what they wanted, once the benefits are equal, they have no reason to remain an interest group. That has always been the Democratic fear. The end result is that I would bet that 1% of Democratic support vanishes entirely and another 1% goes to the GOP. That's a 3% swing in a 50/50 electorate. That's huge.
Third, after a couple years of tantrums, this should result in the GOP abandoning the issue, which will help restore the GOP with women and moderate males (who far outnumber the anti-gay fringe). Some, like Santorum, will make this their new single issue obsession, but I suspect they will find no traction because of the impossibility of doing anything about this and because gay marriage has proven to be harmless wherever it's been tried. Hence, in a couple years, the public (even Republicans) will see this as windmill tilting.
The danger, of course, is that the GOP will decide to embrace its fringe even harder in a suicide pact, but I doubt it as the GOP seems to have decided to move beyond its fringe on pretty much every issue and because the young people moving up in the GOP favor gay marriage by overwhelming margins.
So essentially, this has given the GOP an out (no pun intended) and it has ended thee usefulness of the Democratic Alliance for gays.
I'm not a Palinista (quite the opposite) but I don't have a problem with Bristol. She did a lot of her growing up in the spotlight and history shows that is tough.
ReplyDeleteReally, how could the SC rule any other way. But I was hoping that they would wait until after Gay Pride weekend to announce it. It looks now specifically politically timed by the court for Gay Pride Day.
ReplyDeleteThe gay marriage ruling is fine by me. It's nice someone wants to get married nowadays :) . I know so many young guys 'unmarried with kids' it's ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteOh well, I doubt gays will be any better about staying together than straights are...although, I predict now that the gate is open we will see lawsuits for group marriages, etc....it won't end,,,the whackos are in charge now. Hell, there will be people wanting to marry their horse...
ReplyDeleteBev, I figured it was coming soon, but I thought they would wait a year or so. Basically, you having polling showing a broad consensus and approval in a good chunk of states with the rest slowing coming around either by elections or by courts. That's usually when the Supreme Court jumps to the head of the bandwagon.
ReplyDeleteOn the ruling, I don't think there was ever any doubt for the simple reason that IF the government is going to give a benefit (i.e. official recognition of marriage) then it can't pick and choose who gets that benefit.
That said, I think the polygamists will find the door shut to them because the benefit given is "marriage of two people" not "marriage" generally.
Critch,
ReplyDeleteI agree marriage or its absence doesn't turn a weak relationship strong or keep relationships from weakening. I know people that married with little thought and got divorced with just as little thought and I know people that have been faithful to each other outside of marriage for years and years.
Actually, it could work against the Dems if the gay rights advocates now move to crush those who do not want to participate. I predict that the legal cases of "discrimination" specifically targeted florists, bakers, and whoever conscientiously objects will skyrocket. Which is where the advocates lost me in the debate. When they started targeting and publicly shaming Mom and Pop stores into bankruptcy, I went all Switzerland on the issue.
ReplyDeleteCritch, I don't see any of that even getting out of the gate in all honesty. Not only are they legally very different, but there is negligible support for those other types of marriage.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of staying together, I suspect that the divorce rate for gay males will be around 98%. For lesbians, the statistics suggest a high rate of spousal abuse. I wonder how feminists will handle that? Should be interesting.
I also wonder what this will ultimately do to the number of gays. If being gay is genetic and gays marry each other rather than feeling like they need to hide in heterosexual relationships, the number of kids they have will dramatically reduce. Over time, I suspect that will lead to the breeding out of the gay gene... if there is such a thing. Again, should be interesting to watch.
"That said, I think the polygamists will find the door shut to them because the benefit given is "marriage of two people" not "marriage" generally."
ReplyDeleteAndrew - I actually think you are wrong. The entire issue has been about defining the family unit and who one chooses "to love". And since the Court defines "marriage" at all, makes it a legal definition.
If there are groups who choose to love each other and want their union legailized for government benefits, insurance, property transfers, spousal rights, and tax benefits, how can they be denied their legal standing in the same manner as same-sex couples.
BTW, Bev, I certainly didn't mean to downplay your sense yesterday that the world has gone insane. It has. The flag thing is one of those moments that prove just how stupid the human race can get. Indeed, that's how witches got burned, why 60 million Germans agreed that killing off their neighbors would be a good thing, why people have gone to war over arguments about the precise meaning of a man who preached peace and love, and so on. People get that way at time. They see a problem they can't understand and that makes them feel inadequate, so they accept the first stupid solution that comes along that places the blame for the problem on someone else and they form a mob.
ReplyDeleteIt sucks. I wish it wasn't true. But there is nothing we can do about it once idiot mode clicks on.
So I definitely don't mean to say that you are wrong, I just don't have any hope that people will snap out of it before the witch is dead.
Bev, I don't think so. Here's why.
ReplyDeleteWhen the court rules on limitations imposed on government benefits, it asks itself if there is a valid reason for the limitation. In this case, what gays were arguing is that the requirement that one person be male and the other be female was an irrelevant limitation and should be struck down.
I know that sound radical to a conservative, but it's not when it comes to government benefits... and that is what officially recognized marriage is, a benefit. What gays were asking piggy-backed on about seventy years of history where the court has essentially dropped the male/female limitations from all the laws, turning everything into "person one" and "person two." They also had overwhelming public support and about a decade of history to show that nothing bad happens when this passes.
Even more importantly, gays weren't asking to expand the benefit Congress had conveyed. In other words, letting gays marry changed nothing in terms of how marriage works or what it causes at the government level. Essentially, Congress set up a benefit that two people can claim which grants tax privileges, retirement rights, child ownership rights, etc. Gay weren't saying "expand" any of that, they were saying let us do it too on the same terms as everyone else.
Polygamists are in a very different class. By their very nature, they will be asking the court to expand the benefit to force the government to give out more benefits. Instead of asking to fit in like gays did, they will be asking the court to rule that Congress now needs to give benefits to an unlimited number of partners. That's a huge change in the benefit.
Change in benefit = bad
Access to the benefit = good
What's more they have zero history of the courts opening its laws in the way they are asking, and they have negligible public support.
Even worse for them, they won't have any allies. Liberals see polygamists as anti-woman because most are creepy religious types who live on compounds. So they won't help. Gays won't help because gays should now disappear as a political force and they don't care about helping others anyway. Some in Hollywood tried to make the issue cool, but the ratings showed a total lack of interest. Zero states are going to open the door to show this works.
So in my opinion, I don't see this happening. I see polygamists as asking for something completely different from a legal standpoint and doing so without the kind of public support it takes for the court to make significant changes.
Andrew - I didn't get that sense and maybe a calm voice of reason was needed...;-) But I think the world has gone insane, but then I don't think it has ever been collective very sane anyway.
ReplyDeleteBev, I'm glad. Re-reading my comments, I thought I might have come across as dismissive and that wasn't anything I wanted to convey.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the truth. There is a line in Men in Black that fits the human race perfectly: "A person is smart. People are panic and stupid." Yep.
Bev, Andrew, courts aside, plural marriage has gained a foothold in pop culture. Heck, it even has a preferred term in "plural marriage" as opposed to polygamy/polyandry. (I personally default to "plural marriage" for linguistic reasons.) HBO did Big Love. TLC has Sister Wives and My Five Wives. Not to mention countless segments on talk shows, news magazines and the like.
ReplyDeleteThe tact is interesting, too. The people are increasingly being portrayed as wholesome, upstanding, ordinary all-American families--as opposed to depraved, bizarre, zealous religious fanatics.
A big key in normalizing gay marriage was getting churches on board. Plural marriage just about has that licked. The TV programs show them praying all the time, reading/discussing the Bible with their kids, and--on TV at least--sexuality is very, very downplayed. (Though it's raised just enough to titillate the audience.) Given these, no church that opened up to gay marriage can be expected to bar plural marriage. In fact, I would expect many churches that barred the former will accept the latter--and eagerly claim progressive cred.
All in all, I'd say from a cultural standpoint, plural marriage is lining up to ride the fast-track to broad acceptance. Politically, plural marriage has a foothold of support from the right among libertarians. I doubt many on the left will oppose. The government in many ways has prodded the gay marriage issue along, but I anticipate they'll be playing catch-up to the plural marriage issue.
Andrew, I was typing while you were, so I missed your reply to Bev. I agree that polyamorists are asking to create something new, which from a legal standpoint might dismantle the whole marriage benefit in the end. Of that, I can't be sure. But I'm reading the cultural tea-leaves quite differently.
ReplyDeleteDiscussion of plural marriage is decidedly moving away from creepy religious woman abusers. In fact, the ladies that get interviewed have adopted pop-feminist rhetoric about their choices and how empowered they are by them, or whatever. Honestly, I think the Hollywood version (HBO/Big Love) tanked is because it presented that creepy version and people wanted the TLC version.
tryanmax, I guess we'll see, but I doubt this will ever achieve more than a freak show moment of appeal. The ratings on those shows are very tiny. The people who do it are constantly in the news being arrested for sexual abuse. People who have been in those situations and gotten out go on television and describe them as cults, complete with violence and sexual abuse.
ReplyDeleteThey're basically the marriage version of Scientology.
And I can tell you that the mommy-trackers (who are having a HUGE an massively widespread celebration of the gay marriage thing today on Facebook) get very angry when "plural marriage" comes up. They see gays as "born that way" and therefore deserving of equality. They see plural marriage advocates as sicko cultists and pedophiles.
As an aside, no one should make the mistake of thinking that this ruling is only something the left is embracing. Most of the mommy track women I have gotten to know are Republicans, and they are all ecstatic about this ruling as are all of their friends... and everyone at Starbucks.
Tryanmax,
ReplyDeleteI thought the Mormon church was polygamist from the start? I've seen no sign polygamy is spreading to other churches. In America the balance of power and numbers between modern men and woman is such that I judge such a shift unlikely.
tryanmax, Culture is hard to predict, so we won't know until it happens. You could be right, but I do get a different sense though.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, I don't see a legal change unless that becomes the majority view and the Congress makes the change. I don't think they'll ever have the support for that.
Anthony, It was. But then the Feds told them that if they want Utah to become a state, they need to change that. So (I have been told) God told them to change, and they made it illegal in Utah, and they became a state. It's only a fringe group who remain polygamist today.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, the preceding comment contains forward-looking statements that reflect current views about possible future outcomes. I'm not saying the shift has occurred, I'm saying that once a shift does occur, a number of churches will fall like dominoes because they've already set themselves on end with the gay marriage issue.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what the Mormon church teaches as polygamy is more specifically polygyny. They don't approve polyandry (multiple husbands). But if this takes a cultural foothold (which I assert it already has) we will eventually be discussing both as well as multiple husbands and wives.
But polygyny is a good place to start to gaining mainstream acceptance because it's most easily framed as "wholesome." All the rest are basically cuckolds and swingers. And as the gays already learned, you have to downplay the sex before you find broad acceptance.
You guys know that polygamy is not just a Mormon thing, right? Multi-ethnic Islamic, African, and Asian cultures also practice polygamy. It is really only Judeo-Christian/Western cultures who have outlawed the practice.
ReplyDeleteIf you marry (no pun intended) this rights of Muslims who are a protected liberal underclass with their Civil rights to freedom to practice their religion, how can the SC not decide in favor of polygamy. It is as much discrimination as not allowing gays to marry.
Bev, Muslims are politically irrelevant in this country except when the right attacks them, which causes liberals to temporarily embrace them on whatever the current issue is... but that expires the moment the news cycle ends. No one wants to advocate anything they want. In fact, don't forget that feminists have been battling polygamy for decades and they despise Muslim sex practices such as polygamy and genital mutilation and its love of treating women as second class and keeping girls out of education. Muslims are also on the wrong side of gays and atheists.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, if you introduce Muslims or Africans into the equation you will lose all of whatever support you can get from the public. The same reason gays dropped child molesters and other unsavory groups, the polygamy movement will need to present itself as white, normal and middle class if they want the public's acceptance.
P.S. The right to believe anything is unlimited, but the right to practice as you wish is very limited. Trying to piggyback a change in marriage through a claim of religious discrimination is basically a non-starter because the government does not see marriage as a religious issue, so religion is not implicated.
ReplyDeleteOn polygamy marriage becoming legal, I think it's just a matter of time. 20-30 years perhaps, maybe longer, but it will come, IF the country continues in a leftward/libertarian direction.
ReplyDeleteWhile feminists are against it, they are a small subset of the left/libertarian left.
Hollywood and tv will show it more in a positive light, like they did with gays, and it will gain traction.
Lose 1, 2, or 3 more conservative Justices and I can see it hapoening. SCOTUS has already shown it's willingness to ignore the Constitution and rewrite laws, and the GOP controlled House and Senate won't stay that way indefinitely.
The religious angle may very well work to irt polygamy.
Hell, I never thought a soldier in the Army would get the right to wear a turbin while on active duty, and on the job (although it will be interesting to see how his head will fit in a helmet).
So yeah, I expect all kinds of crazy from future Congresses, Presidents, and SCOTUS.
Of course, I could be wrong, and I hope I am, so we will see.
Current climate, no way, but I think the culture will continue to get more permissive about this.
Andrew, I concur with you, if we have a sane SCOTUS, but I see increasing signs of SCOTUS insanity now, and on the horizon.
ReplyDeleteTwo things:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I posted things on Civil Asset Forfeiture (an important issue), what we should call the war involving ISIS, and some stuff about Russian mind reading operations and ISIS' latest depravity and we are all talking about polygamy.
Second, Polygamy is ALREADY de facto legal in most states. You can practice it as long as you don't seek legal recognition. Think a ménage à trois. There is no law barring you from doing that, nor is there any law barring you from calling the two women living with you your "wives" as long as you don't seek legal recognition of it from the state.
But since we are talking about polygamy, I give you one man's song of longing for his "two true loves." (Probably a bit NSFW)
ReplyDeleteLINK
Kit, I liked your link about the Russians reading minds. :)
ReplyDeleteIn terms of what to call the war with ISIS, I wouldn't call it anything. If you call it something, then people expect it to have an ending, which means it will be rushed. I also wouldn't dignify the idiots by raising them to the level of US v. ISIS. I would leave it as, "Oh, they're some thugs we bomb every so often when they misbehave."
BTW, your definition of polygamy kind of makes it an irrelevant issue people shouldn't worry about, doesn't it?
Sorry, Kit -
ReplyDelete1) We should call the war involving ISIS - World War 3 or World War III, if it is easier just WWIII. I am really leaning toward "Armaggedon" - but that may be too "biblical" for the atheists.
2) I have no assets so I have nothing to forfeit, but gov't should not be able to seize your property without charging one with a crime.
3) Russians have been experimenting with"mind-reading" forever. As children we were told to be careful of the evil Ruskies and their "mind control" tactics. And the whole "the US wants to destroy Russia"...uh, that's actually no great mind reading revelation. It has true since the Cold War.
Kit, that's true on both counts. Specifically related to the second, Utah recently saw it's ban on multiple cohabitation struck down, so yes, that's now true everywhere.
ReplyDeletethe polygamy movement will need to present itself as white, normal and middle class if they want the public's acceptance. <-- That's what's happening on TLC and the talk shows.
On civil asset forfeiture, I can see the Republicans being dragged along. Unfortunately, the GOP is as beholden to police and fire unions as the Dems are to teachers' and labor unions. However, increased attention is being given to the subject in the liberal and libertarian presses. Libertarian GOP candidates looking to make a name for themselves could glom onto this issue with little fear of popular blowback. All it takes is one pitiful grandmother who had her condo seized b/c her grandson was carrying a dime-bag to make the police the villains. Plus, there's a lot of anti-cop sentiment these days on both sides.
ReplyDeletetryanmax, I get your point and I see what you see except the public acceptance. I can't say that you are wrong, obviously, but I just don't see it. And I think that once the dust settles from the gay issues, the other pervs will be shocked at how alone and ignored they are when it comes to public support.
ReplyDeleteBut I guess we'll see.
In the meantime, consider this... gays may have saved the Confederate Flag! LOL!
As for Iraqi refugees...interesting because I do not remember a lot of Iraqi OR Afghani refugees during the Bush years. But hey, if Bush hadn't gone into either place, there would be no refugees 6 years later.
ReplyDeleteLook what happens when we do nothing though - 3 million Iraqi refugees, 7.6million Syrian refugees and 1million Libyan refugees. And the hundreds of thousands of Africans fleeing to southern Europe, and many drowning in the Mediterranean
Clarification: many of these are "internal refugees" as in they had to flee their home or town, but still remain displaced withing the borders of their homeland.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI love the Russian mind-reading story, too. It shows just how paranoid the Russians are about America that they will push a story about Madeline Albright that comes from a quack Russian general who claimed he worked on an "occult mind-reading project".
I think the fighting against ISIS will eventually be called just the "Iraq War" with either 2 or 3 attached. And I think if we want to stop ISIS, we will have to put boots on the ground, eventually. Hopefully, it won't be too large but we will have to do it eventually.
As for Syria? Who knows?
"your definition of polygamy kind of makes it an irrelevant issue people shouldn't worry about, doesn't it?"
How so?
Bev,
ReplyDelete"interesting because I do not remember a lot of Iraqi OR Afghani refugees during the Bush years. But hey, if Bush hadn't gone into either place, there would be no refugees 6 years later."
I think there were a lot during 2003, prior to and during the invasion and during the civil war that enveloped Iraq prior to the surge.
Afghanistan has, since 9/11, had about 6 million flee over to Pakistan.
"Look what happens when we do nothing though - 3 million Iraqi refugees, 7.6million Syrian refugees and 1million Libyan refugees. And the hundreds of thousands of Africans fleeing to southern Europe, and many drowning in the Mediterranean "
Exactly. And look at how many hotspots we have to deal with: Libya, Syria, and Iraq.
Here is the current state of Libya: LINK
And Syria (green and yellow are our allies): LINK
"Clarification: many of these are "internal refugees" as in they had to flee their home or town, but still remain displaced withing the borders of their homeland."
Good point. Thanks for the clarification.
Kit, I would expect boots on the ground, but I still wouldn't call it anything... "Operation Bitchslap." Seriously, calling it a war brings expectations that add unneeded pressure. Look at the fight against the pirates. No name, so the public loses interest and they can do what needs to be done without calls to "end the War on Pirates!"
ReplyDeleteOn polygamy, if you concede that it's already here in substance and the only thing really missing is the official title, and the world hasn't ended, then why should people freak out about official recognition? That would just be a formality.
(BTW, I'm playing Devil's Advocate. I don't think it actually exists substantively. Right now, it's just a fantasy single people are playing and deluding themselves about.)
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteFrom what I know polygamy is basically confined to a small group of Middle-Eastern and African immigrants and crazy, fringe Mormons.
Howdy, folks! Checking in to see if anybody's still in the market for someone like me. Easily ignored, but still loyal to anyone who loves me. Call me Fido if you must, still better than how that SOB Roberts treats me these days.
ReplyDeleteDear 10th Amendment,
ReplyDeleteThough we understand your issues, it has long been established that you are only allowed to speak through an learned interpreter who will let us know what he/she decides you really mean in a "good enough for government work"-ish kind of way. Now go back into your glass case like a good little amendment. Oh, and I would watch out for 2nd Amendment. I think he's looking a little frazzled these days. And I heard that 1st Amendment isn't speaking to any of the other Amendment.
Peace out,
The Management
{{{God I hate it when the Amendments start speaking for themselves}}}
Bev, You're talking to a ghost. The Tenth Amendment died decades upon decades ago.
ReplyDeleteWatch your tone, writer-man! I'm still friends enough with the 4th to take him out for drinks when you need him most.
ReplyDeleteFriends of mine from Utah tell me that the Mormon Church has done little more than wink at polygamy. The only reason they stopped polygamy was a regiment of US Cavalry outside Salt Lake City with orders to arrest Brigham Young and others..they had a talk with God and he said it wasn't necessary anymore.....BTW, same thing in the 60s when the Boy Scouts threatened them for not letting black people be leaders...they had a talk with God and he said it's cool beans.
ReplyDeleteEverybody just shut up!
ReplyDeleteI'm going to enter a small cave and wait until social conservatives across the media stop moaning about how Gay Marriage's legalization has outlawed Christian America or something.
ReplyDeleteFor the next 48 hours, things are going to be very depressing across many parts of the conservative blogosphere.
Personally, I'm more disturbed by the Obamacare ruling than the gay marriage ruling. But that is just me.
>>Personally, I'm more disturbed by the Obamacare ruling than the gay marriage ruling. But that is just me. >>
ReplyDeleteYou and me both.
Hang in there guys. Take a nice weekend, go read someone's brilliant review of Close Encounters, smell the roses and then realize that this will be for the best in the long run.
ReplyDeleteMight I also suggest a drink with an umbrella. Those are always good for the soul! :D
Seeing Ted 2 tomorrow, AP. Love him or hate Seth MacLane (and I'm no Family Guy fan -- see South Park analysis for why), but must admit that fuzzy and raunchy bear made me laugh quite a bit in the original.
ReplyDeleteSeeing Ted 2 tomorrow, AP. Love him or hate Seth MacLane (and I'm no Family Guy fan -- see South Park analysis for why), but must admit that fuzzy and raunchy bear made me laugh quite a bit in the original.
ReplyDeleteMacFarlane. Stupid auto-edit.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so upset by the Obamacare ruling. As I understand it, it actually robs it of some of its political weight. The intent of the law as written, as explained by the guy that caught on tape calling Americans idiots, was to put political pressure on states opting out of the exchange to eventually opt in on the basis that they would effectively be subsidizing the opted in states. The SCOTUS ruling– again, as I understand it– Flips that on its head by making the federal government responsible for those subsidies and now the opt in states are subsidizing the opt out states. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteTryanmax, that is an interesting analysis because the court in it's prior decision did uphold the states the right not to participate. But the danger in that is taking it to the next step which will be to federalize the healthcare system as in nationized Medicare for all. But that was the intent all along. It's the newly discovered invisible clause in our Constitution -the "Good Intentions" clause...
ReplyDeleteBev, that's obviously where far left wants to take it but I don't know that it's the next logical step.
ReplyDeleteOh, "logical" exited the building long ago...
ReplyDeleteEric, I thought it was ok, but it certainly wasn't nearly as funny as it should have been.
ReplyDeletetryanmax, That is true, and it's going to get worse too because as the years pass, the bill is supposed to shift to the states to cover most of Obamacare. Presumably, the feds or the blue states will still need to pick up the cost of those subsidies. So, for one, the blue states will be subsidizing red states.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of nationalizing, the next logical step is to take over the insurance providers.
Scalia's opening paragraph of his dissent in King v. Burwell:
ReplyDelete"The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so."
Yes, Andrew, now that the health nsurance companies are only beholden to the Feds, Big Ins owns the system and can do what they choose.
ReplyDeleteKit, that is the unwritten complimentary "Or" clause that replaces thel iberal "But" clauses...all enshrined in the newly discovered "Good Intentions" clause of our Constitution.
ReplyDeleteBev, That's how you nationalize these days. Force everyone out of an industry except the biggest companies, then you regulate the biggest companies to "stop abuses" and you keep regulating until they basically become utilities.
ReplyDeleteHas it dawned on the Dims that Obama's foreign policy, or lack of it, has lost us the Middle East? And what in the Hell is Turkey's game in this? I can remember when the Turks would have kicked ass and taken names...
ReplyDeleteIf the Republicans win in 2016, what would stop them from wiping out Obamacare?
ReplyDeleteNothing if they do it right.
ReplyDelete"Nothing if they do it right."
ReplyDeleteSo… Obamacare is here to stay?
Remember the "Long March" of leftism: Incremental steps here and there; get the children brainwashed; take over the cultural institutions; lather, rinse and repeat.
ReplyDeleteIn know some of the commenters have discussed Alinsky here before. To me he is just a modern version of what the totalitarians have been doing for generations. Basically, since we are so smart (or at least smarter than the average bear---sorry, red state rubes) then we must use our Yale/Harvard/Columbia/Brown excellent educations to 'rule' the rubes. Some people just can't accept that other people just want to go about their lives providing for their loved ones. Think of Hogwallup in "Oh Brother"...."There's this here DEpression and I've got to take care of me and mine!"
So, exhibit 1: Cigarettes. I am old enough to remember when cig smoking was allowed on plane flights - both 'domestically' and internationally. Then the smart people said..."What's the harm with moving the smokers to the rear of the plane?" The rubes thought -- "Why there's nothing wrong with that. Makes sense." So they moved them. Then it was...."We shouldn't allow cigar smokers on planes." Rubes thought -- "That makes sense." Then -- No cig smoking on domestic flights. Then none on international. Then none in public buildings. Then none inside. Then smoking sections in restaurants. Then no smoking except in designated outside areas under the office entrance overhang. Then smoking areas at least 100 yards away from a building entrance.
So, the same incrementalism is always at play with these folks and the rest of us are left playing defense. Unless you are the Chicago Bears in the mid-80's, defense is not a winning strategy. Sometimes you have to try and push back a little bit! Score some points. As it is now, traditionalists are getting crushed. All the old standards and rituals that have developed over the history of mankind are being subsumed by the Left around the world.
What they don't realize is that this will end as it always does, with a jackboot stomping on the necks of the unenlightened forever.
One of the good things of getting older is that things become clearer and you know what side you are on.
As for me, I aim to misbehave.
Bob (Mal)
I think its interesting that smoking is declining in America. As a general rule, America drinks, snorts, shoots up and otherwise ingests whatever drug makes it to our shores but tobacco has been seriously declining.
ReplyDeletePart of it is due to restrictions on where it can be used, part of it is due to a very effective/graphic anti-smoking campaign (including but not limited to The Truth which has put out some devastating ads) and big part of it is due to taxation (the power to tax is the power to destroy and the government clearly wants to discourage tobacco use).
I'm fine with some of the restrictions (I doubt second hand smoke is good for you but I don't see why people can't smoke in designated areas).but I think making the rate of taxation high (say, New York levels) is just nutty. Either ban it (which would be stupid, unconstitutional and unfair) or keep the rate of taxation reasonable.
I'll observe that the cigarette industry and its pet congressmen did themselves no favors by pissing in the public's face and telling them it was raining up until the 1990's ('No tobacco isn't addictive').
Add that the high taxes disproportionally effect the poor, I am surprised that Diblasio and our city counsel haven't at least cut the city tax portion. But then again they are Dems, so there is no tax that is too high.
ReplyDeleteAmong my father's jobs besides being a mechanic, service station owner, part time lawman and truck driver, well, he ran cigarettes from the Carolinas to New York in the 1950s...he also ran booze during the Prohibition.....Dad said he made more money running cigarettes than booze....
ReplyDelete