I oppose the so called health care reform non-legislation currently pending in the Senate. It is unConstitutional - who gave you the authority to demand I purchase health insurance?? Auto insurance is part of the priviledge of driving - NOT the same thing.
Who gave the Congress the authority to provide for the individual? This is not a federal issue? Common welfare relates to the UNITED STATES....not the citizens.
I oppose the bill in the Senate and by your own statements - you should also.
Where is the transparency? Where is the opportunity to review the legislation prior to voting? Where is the LEGISLATION??? This is the worse type of closed doors, back room deal making the Senate has engaged in. You and your fellow senators are NOT doing the people's work. This is bribes and extortion. Why do the people of Wisconsin have to protect the people of Nebraska's medicare costs?
After years of demanding Medicare and Medicad cuts due to fraud that have NEVER occurred, we expect to find $500b NOW?
This non-legislation is a lie. It is a lie in what it will cost; it is a lie in what it will promote; it is a lie in what it will cover; it is a lie that it is for the good of all Americans.
Vote against it. It is wrong and to vote for it violates the very oath of office you swore to.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Individual rights, until....
Doug Hoffman is a conservative running for Congress in the NY 23rd District. Not as a Republican, as an independent. The Republican is a liberal in RINO clothing. I am supporting him despite the fact that one of the items on his plank is 'traditional marriage'. He doesn't claim anything further, so I don't know, but expect, that he supports DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). He might not. He seems to be a big fan of individual rights. That's right. I believe you can not support DOMA, and be opposed to gay marriage, IF you support individual rights and the Constitution. Those positions are mutually exclusive.
Many of my friends in the Conservative movement 'agree' with me that gay marriage does not belong in the Federal or national political arena. I do not for a moment believe the majority of them hold that position because of a fundamental principle of individual rights. No, they are quick to join me that the topic doesn't belong at the national level. But, when a state Supreme Court has overturned state bans on gay marriage, I have heard NONE OF THEM support that result. In every case, they have joined the chorus of 'judicial activism'. Further, to those that voiced an opinion to me (and many did not), they supported the movement in California to place the ban of gay marriage into the California Constitution. So much for individual rights.
So. Lets cover how Iowa's Supreme Court dealt with the common issues raised against gay marriage:
With the exception of the gender of one of the parties, we have a marriage in everything but name. Raising kids, legal and life issues, economic and political issues. Community and religious issues. There tends to be no daylight between the life of a straight couple and the life of a gay couple of similar circumstances. So the Court found:
Every conversation I have had with Conservatives starts with the agreement that individual rights are the cornerstone of our country. But, bring up gay marriage and individual rights go right out the door. Back to Iowa for one more issue:
Finally, there is one piece left:
Conservatives WANT to address each issue individually. It prevents a result they oppose. But how can a Conservative, one that strongly supports individual rights, so resolutely dismiss them in this area? I don't know. Every conversation returns to something OTHER than individual rights.
Be it tradition, or procreation, or definition, the individual right to marry a person of my choice is not one Conservatives are willing to accept, nor defend. They will not address the issue. Individual rights are subordinate to 'tradition', or arguments that at the state level, a majority oppose it - as if "well, there you have it. The majority oppose it, so, the hell with individual rights" is some type of excuse for THEM.
There are millions of Conservatives. Most will quickly agree that individual rights are inherent, that the Constitution is a document to prevent government from unduly restricting those rights, but when those individual rights include actions they disagree with, they will latch on anything and everything as justification to restrict those 'fundamental individual rights' to 'acceptable norms'.
I have decided and stated to a number of people that we have bigger problems than a lack of gay marriage in this country. And as such, gay marriage will not be a litmus test for me in supporting conservatives needed to repair the damage Obama and Co (and Bush and Co before them) are doing. But don't for a second think that I am willing to concede MY individual rights, nor the fundamental premise that those rights are inherent and the Constitution is designed to PROTECT them, not restrict them.
In the area of gay marriage, the Conservative movement is statist. The state, used by society, is an appropriate tool to restrict the rights and freedoms of a small group because the majority wishes to do so. The Constitution of California was changed to explicitly restrict the liberty of a minority based on the desires of a majority. No greater threat to us as a people, to us as a Nation exists than the desire and use of 'legal measures' to keep a minority limited in their freedoms.
I stand for individual rights. A classical liberal in the same mold as our Founding Fathers can hold no better position than to state the use of government against the individual is an evil the Founding Fathers attempted to avoid by giving us a Constitution specifically created to prevent such a use.
I stand for individual rights. Every Conservative that opposes the Lefts attempts to use the power of the state to force a minority group to fund it's every whim, should oppose any attempt of a majority to impose upon a minority restrictions in their liberties because they think it is just.
I stand for individual rights at the national level, at the state level, at the local level and in my neighborhood. That is the characteristic of a 'principle'. That it applies everywhere, to everyone. A principle of convenience, of tradition, is no principle at all.
I stand for individual rights, the question for the Conservative movement is, why don't you?
Many of my friends in the Conservative movement 'agree' with me that gay marriage does not belong in the Federal or national political arena. I do not for a moment believe the majority of them hold that position because of a fundamental principle of individual rights. No, they are quick to join me that the topic doesn't belong at the national level. But, when a state Supreme Court has overturned state bans on gay marriage, I have heard NONE OF THEM support that result. In every case, they have joined the chorus of 'judicial activism'. Further, to those that voiced an opinion to me (and many did not), they supported the movement in California to place the ban of gay marriage into the California Constitution. So much for individual rights.
So. Lets cover how Iowa's Supreme Court dealt with the common issues raised against gay marriage:
Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage
laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to
heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships,
many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official
recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their
fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for
heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing samesex
couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the
power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it
does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples
With the exception of the gender of one of the parties, we have a marriage in everything but name. Raising kids, legal and life issues, economic and political issues. Community and religious issues. There tends to be no daylight between the life of a straight couple and the life of a gay couple of similar circumstances. So the Court found:
Therefore, with respect to the government’s purpose of “providing an institutional basisHere are the most common arguments against gay marriage, made in the Iowa case:
for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of
persons,” same–sex couples are similarly situated to opposite–sex couples.9
The County has proffered a number ofWhile I could recount the 30 pages the Court uses to dismantle the arguments made, here is their summary:
objectives supporting the marriage statute. These objectives include support
for the “traditional” institution of marriage, the optimal procreation and
rearing of children, and financial considerations.24
Having examined each proffered governmentalThe Court however, recognized that there was one argument against gay marriage that had been left out of the case, and they considered it to be a fundamental objection and wanted to raise it, and deal with it:
objective through the appropriate lens of intermediate scrutiny, we conclude
the sexual-orientation-based classification under the marriage statute does
not substantially further any of the objectives. While the objectives asserted
may be important (and many undoubtedly are important), none are
furthered in a substantial way by the exclusion of same-sex couples from
civil marriage. Our equal protection clause requires more than has been
offered to justify the continued existence of the same-sex marriage ban
under the statute.
I. Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. Now that we haveThe key point is that individual rights are not subject to the whims of tradition. Standing for individual rights means STANDING FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
addressed and rejected each specific interest advanced by the County to
justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for
the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by
the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The County’s silence
reflects, we believe, its understanding this reason cannot, under our Iowa
Constitution, be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage.
While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if
not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the
views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the
notion of same-sex marriage unsettling.29 Consequently, we address the
religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate as a means
to fully explain our rationale for rejecting the dual-gender requirement of the
marriage statute.
It is quite understandable that religiously motivated opposition to
same-sex civil marriage shapes the basis for legal opposition to same-sex
marriage, even if only indirectly. Religious objections to same-sex marriage
are supported by thousands of years of tradition and biblical
interpretation.30 The belief that the “sanctity of marriage” would be
undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples bears a striking
conceptual resemblance to the expressed secular rationale for maintaining
the tradition of marriage as a union between dual-gender couples, but better
identifies the source of the opposition. Whether expressly or impliedly,
much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—
even fundamental—religious belief.
Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As
demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in
Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the
opposite conclusion.31
This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of
any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex
marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government
to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of
ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general
assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”).
The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage
for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil
contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus,
in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed
from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept
of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class
of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil
marriage.
We, of course, have a constitutional mandate to protect the free
exercise of religion in Iowa, which includes the freedom of a religious
organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and
a woman. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no
law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . .”). This mission to
protect religious freedom is consistent with our task to prevent government
from endorsing any religious view. State government can have no religious
views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation.
Knowlton v. Baumhover, 182 Iowa 691, 710, 166 N.W. 202, 208 (1918). This
proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.
As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional
standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the
religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or
denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in
marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the
constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal
protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our
constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.The only legitimate inquiry we can make is whether [the statute]Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 483, 54 S. Ct. 231, 256,
is constitutional. If it is not, its virtues . . . cannot save it; if it
is, its faults cannot be invoked to accomplish its destruction. If
the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they
pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be
abandoned.
78 L. Ed. 413, 452 (1934) (Sutherland, J. dissenting).
In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the
issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our
constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize
both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views
contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to
associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious
denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a
woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or
other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does
not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.
The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the
same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil
marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete
understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our
constitution requires.
Every conversation I have had with Conservatives starts with the agreement that individual rights are the cornerstone of our country. But, bring up gay marriage and individual rights go right out the door. Back to Iowa for one more issue:
This precise situation is presented by the County’s claim that theConservatives hold that because the tradition is one of discrimination, that the historical definition encompasses a restriction on individual rights, that individual rights are trumped because they were in the past. Gays can't marry now, because they never were allowed in the past. Great argument to justify virtually ANY long standing discrimination or restriction on individual rights.
statute in this case exists to preserve the traditional understanding of
marriage. The governmental objective identified by the County—to maintain
the traditional understanding of marriage—is simply another way of saying
the governmental objective is to limit civil marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Opposite-sex marriage, however, is the classification made under the
statute, and this classification must comply with our principles of equal
protection. Thus, the use of traditional marriage as both the governmental
objective and the classification of the statute transforms the equal protection
analysis into the question of whether restricting marriage to opposite-sex
couples accomplishes the governmental objective of maintaining opposite-sex
marriage.
This approach is, of course, an empty analysis. It permits a
classification to be maintained “ ‘for its own sake.’ ” Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at
478 (quoting Romer, 517 U.S. at 635, 116 S. Ct. at 1629, 134 L. Ed. 2d at
868). Moreover, it can allow discrimination to become acceptable as
tradition and helps to explain how discrimination can exist for such a long
time. If a simple showing that discrimination is traditional satisfies equal
protection, previous successful equal protection challenges of invidious
racial and gender classifications would have failed. Consequently, equal
protection demands that “ ‘the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay
[persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate
from the classification itself.’ ” Id. (quoting Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d
1, 33 (N.Y. 2006) (Kaye, C.J., dissenting)); see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 635,
116 S. Ct. at 1629, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 868
Finally, there is one piece left:
Of course, “[r]eform may take one step at a time, addressing itself toI can not take Victoria to court should she seek to prevent me from seeing CJ. Wisconsin has determined I do not have standing even to make a motion to seek visitation. Almost every Conservative I have ever talked to about this situation says that it is wrong, and that it could be addressed without full fledged marriage. How many issues will we address (times 50 states) individually instead of one change, all done?
the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.”
Knepper v. Monticello State Bank, 450 N.W.2d 833, 837 (Iowa 1990) (citing
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., 348 U.S. 483, 489, 75 S. Ct. 461, 465, 99
L. Ed. 563, 573 (1955)). Thus, “[t]he legislature may select one phase of one
field and apply a remedy there, neglecting the others.” Williamson, 348 U.S.
at 489, 75 S. Ct. at 465, 99 L. Ed. at 573. While a statute does not
automatically violate equal protection merely by being under-inclusive, the
degree of under-inclusion nonetheless indicates the substantiality of the
relationship between the legislative means and end.
Conservatives WANT to address each issue individually. It prevents a result they oppose. But how can a Conservative, one that strongly supports individual rights, so resolutely dismiss them in this area? I don't know. Every conversation returns to something OTHER than individual rights.
Be it tradition, or procreation, or definition, the individual right to marry a person of my choice is not one Conservatives are willing to accept, nor defend. They will not address the issue. Individual rights are subordinate to 'tradition', or arguments that at the state level, a majority oppose it - as if "well, there you have it. The majority oppose it, so, the hell with individual rights" is some type of excuse for THEM.
There are millions of Conservatives. Most will quickly agree that individual rights are inherent, that the Constitution is a document to prevent government from unduly restricting those rights, but when those individual rights include actions they disagree with, they will latch on anything and everything as justification to restrict those 'fundamental individual rights' to 'acceptable norms'.
I have decided and stated to a number of people that we have bigger problems than a lack of gay marriage in this country. And as such, gay marriage will not be a litmus test for me in supporting conservatives needed to repair the damage Obama and Co (and Bush and Co before them) are doing. But don't for a second think that I am willing to concede MY individual rights, nor the fundamental premise that those rights are inherent and the Constitution is designed to PROTECT them, not restrict them.
In the area of gay marriage, the Conservative movement is statist. The state, used by society, is an appropriate tool to restrict the rights and freedoms of a small group because the majority wishes to do so. The Constitution of California was changed to explicitly restrict the liberty of a minority based on the desires of a majority. No greater threat to us as a people, to us as a Nation exists than the desire and use of 'legal measures' to keep a minority limited in their freedoms.
I stand for individual rights. A classical liberal in the same mold as our Founding Fathers can hold no better position than to state the use of government against the individual is an evil the Founding Fathers attempted to avoid by giving us a Constitution specifically created to prevent such a use.
I stand for individual rights. Every Conservative that opposes the Lefts attempts to use the power of the state to force a minority group to fund it's every whim, should oppose any attempt of a majority to impose upon a minority restrictions in their liberties because they think it is just.
I stand for individual rights at the national level, at the state level, at the local level and in my neighborhood. That is the characteristic of a 'principle'. That it applies everywhere, to everyone. A principle of convenience, of tradition, is no principle at all.
I stand for individual rights, the question for the Conservative movement is, why don't you?
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Anti
I have been dealing with three different political issues that are not things I can change (ha!) or even necessarily address, but they are creating disturbances in the Force!
First. The left has been trying to smear the Tea Party movement with racism charges almost since the beginning. There are always fringe elements in politics. We have accused the left because of them, so we are getting the same treatment. However, the difference is that mainstream leftists have a tendency to accept the fringe element as the 'speaking truth to power'. We need to disavow the right fringe, but we have a problem. What IS the fringe? Ignore the stupid 'hitler' bunch - most of them are Lefty Democrat LaRouches that are opposing Obama because he is black. Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
My problem is the ID/Creationist wing of the the Right. ID is NOT science. It is saying that what can't be explained is obviously the result of 'intelligent design'. The problem is that we are imbeciles. We have two chapters of the book of life and think we KNOW something of the Universe. We have one example of life on a planet and think that we can point to a universe of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets similar to ours and KNOW anything. Two thousand years ago, we were the center of the Universe. A thousand years ago, demons inhabited the mentally ill - hell, that was 150 years ago. We think today we are the pinnacle of human evolution and knowledge but we infants in the Universe. Microscopic amoebas.
"Intelligent design" is the current age version of the pagans worshiping the Sun and nothing more.
I believe people NEED their belief systems. What I don't want and what we don't need is to use those belief systems to determine our secular systems. But it appears that is not possible for many on the Right. So it puts me in a quandary. I have argued that it is Conservative, in a founding fathers, individual rights way to promote individual liberty and responsibility, to limit government to those specific responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. That conserving traditions and allowing society to trump individual liberties is a classical conservative position that is INCOMPATIBLE with such an individual liberty political system.
We have two political parties that are illiterates, economically, scientifically and socially. To the Left, government can fix all our problems. To the Right, getting right with God takes care of the issues. Neither position lays the responsibility ON US, as individuals to do the adult things. Both want to use government to 'fix' us. The only difference is what fix will be forced upon the rest of us. All of what is wrong with capitalism has set the table for a nightmare banquet of financial disasters that will reduce our economy to ashes. However, the saviors of the Left, are going to take every disproven, failed policy ever tried in these situations and apply them at ten times the rate ever before tried and we are going to gorge ourselves on the carcass of our economy. The planet will suffer and it will take decades to recover.
We don't need an asteroid the size of Manhattan, or a swine-flu pandemic with 80% fatality rate, or aliens to come and destroy our society - we are doing everything in our power to do it to ourselves!
The right fix is for government to get out of the way. For the Left to stop trying to make us better people, for the Right to stop trying to makes us all, righteous people. Individual choice MEANS individual choice - to decide what each of us wants to do, even if everyone around is calling it 'wrong'.
The second political issue is 'others'. We have a couple morons running around creating havoc in their neighborhoods. First, we have Iran and the Taliban and the Saudi's. Either we impose our power and will on that part of the world, or we help Israel against all foes and otherwise get the hell out. I am opposed to pulling out - but Obama's dithering is killing people and WE have to call him on it. Further, Chavez is mucking up South America and needs to have his head handed to him. Playing some pathetic 'hands off' crap is going to create more problems, not solve any. The rest of the world could pretend to be morally superior to the US, wring it's hands at our obviously 'cowboy' ways because it KNEW we were going to in the end do the right thing alone and they could just smirk and relax. Well, we have a pansy, a ball-less wonder at the helm and he just might let the Europeans hang in the wind. Maybe it will wake them up, but I doubt it. The few that know the world is stable because WE take responsibility for it, will try to warn of the danger of a wimpy US, but others will think we finally are acting appropriately and wonder what hit them.
Finally, I am tired of the children running the insane asylum. There has to be a way to establish adulthood prior to anyone accepting (or being offered) any positions of authority. It is time this human race began to grow up, and I'd like to see it in my lifetime.
First. The left has been trying to smear the Tea Party movement with racism charges almost since the beginning. There are always fringe elements in politics. We have accused the left because of them, so we are getting the same treatment. However, the difference is that mainstream leftists have a tendency to accept the fringe element as the 'speaking truth to power'. We need to disavow the right fringe, but we have a problem. What IS the fringe? Ignore the stupid 'hitler' bunch - most of them are Lefty Democrat LaRouches that are opposing Obama because he is black. Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
My problem is the ID/Creationist wing of the the Right. ID is NOT science. It is saying that what can't be explained is obviously the result of 'intelligent design'. The problem is that we are imbeciles. We have two chapters of the book of life and think we KNOW something of the Universe. We have one example of life on a planet and think that we can point to a universe of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets similar to ours and KNOW anything. Two thousand years ago, we were the center of the Universe. A thousand years ago, demons inhabited the mentally ill - hell, that was 150 years ago. We think today we are the pinnacle of human evolution and knowledge but we infants in the Universe. Microscopic amoebas.
"Intelligent design" is the current age version of the pagans worshiping the Sun and nothing more.
I believe people NEED their belief systems. What I don't want and what we don't need is to use those belief systems to determine our secular systems. But it appears that is not possible for many on the Right. So it puts me in a quandary. I have argued that it is Conservative, in a founding fathers, individual rights way to promote individual liberty and responsibility, to limit government to those specific responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. That conserving traditions and allowing society to trump individual liberties is a classical conservative position that is INCOMPATIBLE with such an individual liberty political system.
We have two political parties that are illiterates, economically, scientifically and socially. To the Left, government can fix all our problems. To the Right, getting right with God takes care of the issues. Neither position lays the responsibility ON US, as individuals to do the adult things. Both want to use government to 'fix' us. The only difference is what fix will be forced upon the rest of us. All of what is wrong with capitalism has set the table for a nightmare banquet of financial disasters that will reduce our economy to ashes. However, the saviors of the Left, are going to take every disproven, failed policy ever tried in these situations and apply them at ten times the rate ever before tried and we are going to gorge ourselves on the carcass of our economy. The planet will suffer and it will take decades to recover.
We don't need an asteroid the size of Manhattan, or a swine-flu pandemic with 80% fatality rate, or aliens to come and destroy our society - we are doing everything in our power to do it to ourselves!
The right fix is for government to get out of the way. For the Left to stop trying to make us better people, for the Right to stop trying to makes us all, righteous people. Individual choice MEANS individual choice - to decide what each of us wants to do, even if everyone around is calling it 'wrong'.
The second political issue is 'others'. We have a couple morons running around creating havoc in their neighborhoods. First, we have Iran and the Taliban and the Saudi's. Either we impose our power and will on that part of the world, or we help Israel against all foes and otherwise get the hell out. I am opposed to pulling out - but Obama's dithering is killing people and WE have to call him on it. Further, Chavez is mucking up South America and needs to have his head handed to him. Playing some pathetic 'hands off' crap is going to create more problems, not solve any. The rest of the world could pretend to be morally superior to the US, wring it's hands at our obviously 'cowboy' ways because it KNEW we were going to in the end do the right thing alone and they could just smirk and relax. Well, we have a pansy, a ball-less wonder at the helm and he just might let the Europeans hang in the wind. Maybe it will wake them up, but I doubt it. The few that know the world is stable because WE take responsibility for it, will try to warn of the danger of a wimpy US, but others will think we finally are acting appropriately and wonder what hit them.
Finally, I am tired of the children running the insane asylum. There has to be a way to establish adulthood prior to anyone accepting (or being offered) any positions of authority. It is time this human race began to grow up, and I'd like to see it in my lifetime.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Hey Tammy....
You asked me to complete your survey. I did. I also sent you an email, reproduced below. What is your response?
I oppose the Fed Gov providing health care of any form to individuals - and any attempt to provide 'insurance' in competition with private insurers is, in my opinion, so unconstitutional as to be a violation of your oath of office.
My partner needs health care insurance and if YOU and Congress would offer pool insurance to the uninsurable, many, probably a super majority, would support that, but the 'Obamacare' is an affront to American values and our system of government.
Come out and meet with your constituents. I will be happy to be there and NO ONE will be paying me to be there - but we do pay for YOU to be there.
--------------
I'll be waiting.....
I oppose the Fed Gov providing health care of any form to individuals - and any attempt to provide 'insurance' in competition with private insurers is, in my opinion, so unconstitutional as to be a violation of your oath of office.
My partner needs health care insurance and if YOU and Congress would offer pool insurance to the uninsurable, many, probably a super majority, would support that, but the 'Obamacare' is an affront to American values and our system of government.
Come out and meet with your constituents. I will be happy to be there and NO ONE will be paying me to be there - but we do pay for YOU to be there.
--------------
I'll be waiting.....
Sunday, July 05, 2009
I'll work with you
Dear Sarah Palin,
I will work with you on bringing American values back into the political process.
I will work with you on restoring America.
Tracy Coyle
I will work with you on bringing American values back into the political process.
I will work with you on restoring America.
Tracy Coyle
Thursday, July 02, 2009
A thought experiment
If I fill a large cup with water to about 1/2" below the rim, then add a large ice cube to the cup so that the water is just below the rim.
Now, wait.
As the ice cube melts, will the cup overflow?
The vast majority of the Arctic and Antarctic Ice Sheets ARE on water. If they melt...the oceans won't rise.....right?
Now, wait.
As the ice cube melts, will the cup overflow?
The vast majority of the Arctic and Antarctic Ice Sheets ARE on water. If they melt...the oceans won't rise.....right?
Monday, June 29, 2009
End of the world, comin' round the mountain...
Today we were at 341 meetings. For those that do know, 341 refers to the section of the bankruptcy code that gives creditors an opportunity to question debtors that have filed bankruptcy. Generally, no creditor bothers in Chapter 7. The hearings are administrative (generally) and a formality. The average hearing lasts less than 5 minutes including the swearing in part.
I listened to about a dozen. Only one or two did not own real estate, the rest were all way underwater on their homes. Only a couple were losing their homes, most were going to be able to keep them - but you have to wonder....
10 to 20% underwater appeared to be average. I would be willing to bet a bunch of them were in adjustable rate mortgages which have NOT been failing as much as predicted over the last several months BECAUSE interest rates have been so low. But rates are going to go up long before prices recover and all those people are going get squeezed big time. Filing bankruptcy now will probably keep some of them in their homes, others will be able to hang on longer, but the majority of them will still end up losing their home and largest investment before this is over.
The housing problem is not over. It is not even stabilizing. It is a pause, the eye of the hurricane. People buying homes right now in many places figure that at worse they might lose a couple of percentage points but "no one can pick the bottom right?" Right.
I listened to about a dozen. Only one or two did not own real estate, the rest were all way underwater on their homes. Only a couple were losing their homes, most were going to be able to keep them - but you have to wonder....
10 to 20% underwater appeared to be average. I would be willing to bet a bunch of them were in adjustable rate mortgages which have NOT been failing as much as predicted over the last several months BECAUSE interest rates have been so low. But rates are going to go up long before prices recover and all those people are going get squeezed big time. Filing bankruptcy now will probably keep some of them in their homes, others will be able to hang on longer, but the majority of them will still end up losing their home and largest investment before this is over.
The housing problem is not over. It is not even stabilizing. It is a pause, the eye of the hurricane. People buying homes right now in many places figure that at worse they might lose a couple of percentage points but "no one can pick the bottom right?" Right.
Friday, June 26, 2009
From one polluter to another....
Dear Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin:
Congratulations on your vote for the largest tax increase on the American Economy EVER! It will be great to see all the new jobs that Wisconsin will get building windmills and solar panels! I heard there is a big factory in Janesville available! And the BUREAUCRACY this bill will create should be good for at least 10,000 new jobs in Wisconsin to oversee the CO2 polluters adherence to government mandates - I did want to know if people that run will be taxed higher than people that walk...??
Oh, I just wanted to know your reading speed...1000 pages plus another 300 today...wow! Amazing.
Can you tell me what part you found most interesting? The hampering of economic growth or the part where this law will reduce the TEMPERATURE of the planet..you know, more than the SUN has done in the last 8-9 years?
I am sure many of my fellow Wisconsin 2nd district citizens are going to be amazed at your explanation for higher electric bills, higher taxes and higher costs in general! After all, if Washington can't fix the economy, well, IT CAN'T.
I am extremely disappointed in your vote today - it was ill-informed and NOT beneficial to your constituents. But you probably got a thank you from Speaker Pelosi...right? I mean, she at least NODDED in your direction.
I am off to lower my carbon footprint....for 30 seconds or so as I hold my breath to stop from screaming at this message.
Your fellow Wisconsin 2nd district resident (oopppss - yea, I LIVE here....)
Tracy Coyle
too much snark?
Congratulations on your vote for the largest tax increase on the American Economy EVER! It will be great to see all the new jobs that Wisconsin will get building windmills and solar panels! I heard there is a big factory in Janesville available! And the BUREAUCRACY this bill will create should be good for at least 10,000 new jobs in Wisconsin to oversee the CO2 polluters adherence to government mandates - I did want to know if people that run will be taxed higher than people that walk...??
Oh, I just wanted to know your reading speed...1000 pages plus another 300 today...wow! Amazing.
Can you tell me what part you found most interesting? The hampering of economic growth or the part where this law will reduce the TEMPERATURE of the planet..you know, more than the SUN has done in the last 8-9 years?
I am sure many of my fellow Wisconsin 2nd district citizens are going to be amazed at your explanation for higher electric bills, higher taxes and higher costs in general! After all, if Washington can't fix the economy, well, IT CAN'T.
I am extremely disappointed in your vote today - it was ill-informed and NOT beneficial to your constituents. But you probably got a thank you from Speaker Pelosi...right? I mean, she at least NODDED in your direction.
I am off to lower my carbon footprint....for 30 seconds or so as I hold my breath to stop from screaming at this message.
Your fellow Wisconsin 2nd district resident (oopppss - yea, I LIVE here....)
Tracy Coyle
too much snark?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Comparative Culture Analysis
For many years we have been told that our culture is no better or worse than another country's culture - that all are equally valid. I have routinely said 'bullshit' to anyone stupid enough to offer that crap in my presence or earshot.
The culture of the United States, our society, stands heads and shoulders above virtually every other culture or society on the planet - I will concede that Australia, parts of Canada, England, and Israel and maybe a part of ...no, not them... have many of the same benefits, characteristics and values we share. Maybe France and Germany have a chance if their current leaders can effect permanent change...
Compare the United States to Iran and the differences are so apparent you'd need to have the IQ of a hot dog not to see them. It is pathetic to call a country sovereign and then ignore its brutality and EVIL system. Iran is an evil country - that there are non-evil citizens there doesn't change it. Lot and his family lived in Sodom.
Our Country IS BETTER than other countries. Our Culture IS BETTER than others. I am tired of people holding out a plate of shit and asking me to pretend it is pâté.
The culture of the United States, our society, stands heads and shoulders above virtually every other culture or society on the planet - I will concede that Australia, parts of Canada, England, and Israel and maybe a part of ...no, not them... have many of the same benefits, characteristics and values we share. Maybe France and Germany have a chance if their current leaders can effect permanent change...
Compare the United States to Iran and the differences are so apparent you'd need to have the IQ of a hot dog not to see them. It is pathetic to call a country sovereign and then ignore its brutality and EVIL system. Iran is an evil country - that there are non-evil citizens there doesn't change it. Lot and his family lived in Sodom.
Our Country IS BETTER than other countries. Our Culture IS BETTER than others. I am tired of people holding out a plate of shit and asking me to pretend it is pâté.
Monday, June 22, 2009
A comment on 'The Correct Response'
I attempted to answer wdporter's comment on the post and got stymied by the comment limit...so, here is my comment:
Eventually, I return.
Your First paragraph: I have the right to marry whomever I want - neither you, nor the government can stop me. However, the government bestows upon couples it recognizes as married certain benefits and how and when and why it bestows those benefits by it's recognition is the issue.
As you suggest, I can not demand recognition, however, I can and do demand that government treat married couples equally AND if it established criteria for that definition, I can and do demand it do so in a non-discriminatory way. Let me define 'non-discriminatory' so that we are clear: the state MAY discriminate among groups and classes when it has a compelling interest in doing so - such that it can establish age cohorts for legal contracts, government benefits and the exercising of certain rights and privileges. When it has no compelling interest, it can not discriminate.
In this case, the government must show a compelling interest to discriminate against gay couples that marry and seek those government benefits. As the Iowa Supreme Court found, there is no compelling interest found in such a discrimination in the area of gay vs straight marriage.
Your opening paragraph: if I am asking for recognition, but I don't have the right to ask for recognition, then when recognition is denied, I am not being discriminated is a nice piece of circular logic. If recognition is being denied, I ask what is the reason - your response is I don't have the right to ask for it. If I ask why I do not have the right to ask for recognition, you seem to suggest I that I am not being discriminated against.
Comparing gay to interracial marriage is less foolishness than you allow. I am sure you, from this safe distance in time, believe that 'of course' interracial marriage should be allowed on the basis of...what? Man and woman? Are you suggesting that for centuries here in the United States, the people of those days could not distinguish between men and women of different races? Of course not. Everyone knew a black man and a black woman were EXACTLY the same as a white man and a white woman...except, you know, their 'color' and their 'sensibilities' and their 'intelligence'...right? So it was not a man/woman issue, or even a shssshhh sexual issue, but rather...the children would be well, not white. It was absolutely a procreation issue, not that they couldn't, but that they COULD! And that couldn't be allowed. Until it was - by judicial activism. And for many years (in some places still) bi-racial couples were treated terribly by both races as race traitors. The issue was: can someone marry whom they choose or not and would the state recognize that marriage.
Our issue is much smaller than 'civil rights', it is government discrimination. Now, some people will either dismiss my claim of the right to marry whomever I want BECAUSE, to them, such a right without government recognition is meaningless. I want you to think about that for a moment - a right is meaningless unless and until government recognizes it. Is that what is meant by 'they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights'? No, not at all. It means before there is government recognition, before there is government, our rights exist.
Let me address the "has to do with evolution and the propagation of the damn species". One, gay marriage - hell, any marriage is not required to propagate the damn species: Palin/Johnson proves that, and so do the other 40% of births out of wedlock. Human beings create human beings, now, and for millions of years, without the benefit of a government recognized marriage. Whether gays marry or not will not change that. So, as Iowa Supreme Court found, straights will continue to get married, continue to have children, the species will continue to live and EVEN if that were absolutely false in the United States, there are WHOLE continents where marriages barely exist and species propagation is flourishing.
But, you seem hell bent on keeping the issue marriage and children, "disconnecting MARRIAGE and CHILDREN, in my opinion is not a good sign in a society" absolutely IGNORES the fact that gays are raising children and seek 'government recognition' in many cases FOR THE BENEFIT of those children!
But the children/marriage issue is really just another non-issue, otherwise, why allow seniors to get married? Or those not capable of having children? or WORSE, people that want to get married BUT DON'T WANT CHILDREN!
Not a single straight marriage is prevented by gay marriage. Not a single straight couple seeking to have children, will be prevented from having children by gay marriage. Not a single child, born of straight, married parents, will be left homeless and destitute because of gay marriage.
And because millions of straight couples will continue to marry, have children and gay couples will marry, and have children, the family unit will be strengthened. The alternative is a whole generation will grow up and say:
my parents got divorced and it was a mess - who wants that,
or
my parents never got married and I turned out ok, why bother...
Oh wait...we already HAVE that...long before gay marriage was on the radar. Marriage sucks, let's oppose more people WANTING it! Brilliant idea. How about letting MORE people that want marriage HAVE marriage - maybe we will have less people going it alone.... or without...
My rights are not being abridged, but I am being discriminated against. The government confers benefits to one couple and denies them to another couple on the basis of a biological characteristic. There is no compelling reason made why such discrimination is necessary.
As for the suggestion that I move to find more respect - why isn't that just peachy! If we could just put all 'those types' over there somewhere out of sight, out of mind and let us be....
How about just end the discrimination instead of pretending it doesn't exist by banishing those that seek to end it...
(Apparently, California believes that the popular will is more important than individual rights - but we knew that was a fundamental problem with mob...er, majority rule...didn't we...)
Eventually, I return.
Your First paragraph: I have the right to marry whomever I want - neither you, nor the government can stop me. However, the government bestows upon couples it recognizes as married certain benefits and how and when and why it bestows those benefits by it's recognition is the issue.
As you suggest, I can not demand recognition, however, I can and do demand that government treat married couples equally AND if it established criteria for that definition, I can and do demand it do so in a non-discriminatory way. Let me define 'non-discriminatory' so that we are clear: the state MAY discriminate among groups and classes when it has a compelling interest in doing so - such that it can establish age cohorts for legal contracts, government benefits and the exercising of certain rights and privileges. When it has no compelling interest, it can not discriminate.
In this case, the government must show a compelling interest to discriminate against gay couples that marry and seek those government benefits. As the Iowa Supreme Court found, there is no compelling interest found in such a discrimination in the area of gay vs straight marriage.
Your opening paragraph: if I am asking for recognition, but I don't have the right to ask for recognition, then when recognition is denied, I am not being discriminated is a nice piece of circular logic. If recognition is being denied, I ask what is the reason - your response is I don't have the right to ask for it. If I ask why I do not have the right to ask for recognition, you seem to suggest I that I am not being discriminated against.
Comparing gay to interracial marriage is less foolishness than you allow. I am sure you, from this safe distance in time, believe that 'of course' interracial marriage should be allowed on the basis of...what? Man and woman? Are you suggesting that for centuries here in the United States, the people of those days could not distinguish between men and women of different races? Of course not. Everyone knew a black man and a black woman were EXACTLY the same as a white man and a white woman...except, you know, their 'color' and their 'sensibilities' and their 'intelligence'...right? So it was not a man/woman issue, or even a shssshhh sexual issue, but rather...the children would be well, not white. It was absolutely a procreation issue, not that they couldn't, but that they COULD! And that couldn't be allowed. Until it was - by judicial activism. And for many years (in some places still) bi-racial couples were treated terribly by both races as race traitors. The issue was: can someone marry whom they choose or not and would the state recognize that marriage.
Our issue is much smaller than 'civil rights', it is government discrimination. Now, some people will either dismiss my claim of the right to marry whomever I want BECAUSE, to them, such a right without government recognition is meaningless. I want you to think about that for a moment - a right is meaningless unless and until government recognizes it. Is that what is meant by 'they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights'? No, not at all. It means before there is government recognition, before there is government, our rights exist.
Let me address the "has to do with evolution and the propagation of the damn species". One, gay marriage - hell, any marriage is not required to propagate the damn species: Palin/Johnson proves that, and so do the other 40% of births out of wedlock. Human beings create human beings, now, and for millions of years, without the benefit of a government recognized marriage. Whether gays marry or not will not change that. So, as Iowa Supreme Court found, straights will continue to get married, continue to have children, the species will continue to live and EVEN if that were absolutely false in the United States, there are WHOLE continents where marriages barely exist and species propagation is flourishing.
But, you seem hell bent on keeping the issue marriage and children, "disconnecting MARRIAGE and CHILDREN, in my opinion is not a good sign in a society" absolutely IGNORES the fact that gays are raising children and seek 'government recognition' in many cases FOR THE BENEFIT of those children!
But the children/marriage issue is really just another non-issue, otherwise, why allow seniors to get married? Or those not capable of having children? or WORSE, people that want to get married BUT DON'T WANT CHILDREN!
Not a single straight marriage is prevented by gay marriage. Not a single straight couple seeking to have children, will be prevented from having children by gay marriage. Not a single child, born of straight, married parents, will be left homeless and destitute because of gay marriage.
And because millions of straight couples will continue to marry, have children and gay couples will marry, and have children, the family unit will be strengthened. The alternative is a whole generation will grow up and say:
my parents got divorced and it was a mess - who wants that,
or
my parents never got married and I turned out ok, why bother...
Oh wait...we already HAVE that...long before gay marriage was on the radar. Marriage sucks, let's oppose more people WANTING it! Brilliant idea. How about letting MORE people that want marriage HAVE marriage - maybe we will have less people going it alone.... or without...
My rights are not being abridged, but I am being discriminated against. The government confers benefits to one couple and denies them to another couple on the basis of a biological characteristic. There is no compelling reason made why such discrimination is necessary.
As for the suggestion that I move to find more respect - why isn't that just peachy! If we could just put all 'those types' over there somewhere out of sight, out of mind and let us be....
How about just end the discrimination instead of pretending it doesn't exist by banishing those that seek to end it...
(Apparently, California believes that the popular will is more important than individual rights - but we knew that was a fundamental problem with mob...er, majority rule...didn't we...)
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Iran, Democracy and Moslems
On the radio show on Tuesday I talked about my indifference to Iran as a blow up over the election between a really bad man and a really crazy man. It is clear that while that might have been day one or two, the IRANIANS realized that the fraud was the one the Mullahs perpetuated with the concept of free elections. The Iranian people have realized that 1) they WANT real democracy, not a false choice between two chosen candidates; 2) that their government ISN'T their government - it is a theocracy that imposes on the people what it will not abide upon itself, adherence to principles (not principles I would ever ascribe to, but the point of having principles is to live by them).
"Hey you cheated my candidate" has become "the whole thing is a farce - you have been cheating US."
I welcome such a change and with a nod to President Bush, acknowledge the principle that democracy is an inherent right and when people can see the benefits, they will want it. Establishing democracy in the heart of the Middle East is going to have positive results for a long time (before ANYONE suggests that democracy has been in the Middle East for a long time - namely Israel - Moslems don't recognize Jews as people and therefore would not want anything that Israel has except the land it sits on) But Moslems having democracy? Well, that is a different thing. Which brings me to my last point.
The most common thing Moslems - especially the fanatical types - do to other Moslems is kill them. Moslems kill and impoverish Moslems in much greater numbers than Jews or Christians do. At some point people, mostly Moslems, are going to realize that Jews and Christians have democracy and prosperity and if Islam is the right religion, something is very wrong.
Iranians have reached a point in their nation's life where they want what others have. Freedom and democracy and IF the President of the United States can't, or will not stand up for them, then something is very wrong here.
"Hey you cheated my candidate" has become "the whole thing is a farce - you have been cheating US."
I welcome such a change and with a nod to President Bush, acknowledge the principle that democracy is an inherent right and when people can see the benefits, they will want it. Establishing democracy in the heart of the Middle East is going to have positive results for a long time (before ANYONE suggests that democracy has been in the Middle East for a long time - namely Israel - Moslems don't recognize Jews as people and therefore would not want anything that Israel has except the land it sits on) But Moslems having democracy? Well, that is a different thing. Which brings me to my last point.
The most common thing Moslems - especially the fanatical types - do to other Moslems is kill them. Moslems kill and impoverish Moslems in much greater numbers than Jews or Christians do. At some point people, mostly Moslems, are going to realize that Jews and Christians have democracy and prosperity and if Islam is the right religion, something is very wrong.
Iranians have reached a point in their nation's life where they want what others have. Freedom and democracy and IF the President of the United States can't, or will not stand up for them, then something is very wrong here.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Apologies
Obama has spent the last 100 days apologizing for the United States behavior towards other countries (while ignoring what we have done for them) but based on HIS actions, we as a nation are going to spend the next decade apologizing for OBAMA.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
The Correct Response
On Tuesday (May 26), the California Supreme Court will issue it's opinion on the legality of Prop 8, an amendment to eliminate 'gay marriage' as allowed by the same California Supreme Court just last summer. Let's look at the possibilities:
If the Court rejects the amendment as inconsistent with the California Constitution, the Right will argue that it was judicial activism overturning popular will.
If the Court upholds the amendment, the Left will argue the Court succumbed to pressure and did not uphold it's mandate.
Both will be wrong.
First, the Court reads the law and applies it. I read the Supreme Court's decision last summer and it rested almost entirely on the fact, FACT, that the California Constitution does NOT allow separate but equal institutions and when the California Legislature created exactly equal systems for gays and straights to get married, but called one Civil Unions and the other Marriage, it created a separate but equal institution. The Court rightly called them on it.
The Right howled and put an amendment on the ballot that asked for people to, by popular vote, re institute a separate but equal system. The people of California did just that. And understand, it is clear that the California Constitution and the United States Constitution clearly allow popular will to create laws that are on their face discriminatory AND allow for the creation of laws that specifically deny fundamental rights.
I expect the Court to uphold Prop 8. Californians can, and have said that certain people can not be allowed to get married based solely on the sex of their partner of choice.
The biggest mistake the Left can make on Tuesday and the days that follow is to give the Right ammunition for the argument that Gays can not be trusted to be full partners in society. And virtually ANY acts of anger will do so.
Too many people, especially on the Left think that judicial outcomes should be determined on the basis of what the outcome should be. The law is the law and judges, generally, adhere to it. There is as much judicial activism on the Right as there is on the Left.
However, too many people on the Right think that because a majority wills it, it is right. It is possible for the majority to be anti-minority and our Constitutions (state and federal) demand equality under the law for all.
Today, in every place in the United States I have the right to marry a member of the same sex. No one can stop us. However, I have no right to demand recognition of that marriage. If the State chooses to become involved in the process of recognizing that personal choice, it must do so for all couples without discrimination. The popular will of California is discrimination.
Throughout human history, slavery was practiced (it still is in a few places); just 150 years ago, our Country stopped the practice. Women did not have the right to vote until just about 100 years ago. 60 years ago, blacks and whites could not marry each other as if race had some meaningful distinction between humans. Human history is full of examples where basic rights were denied until upheaval in society forced change.
"After careful consideration" is the phrase used by 'conservatives' to demand change be withheld. Here is my final question: how long does careful consideration take? Just so I know whether I will benefit from the result, or if my grandchildren will.
If the Court rejects the amendment as inconsistent with the California Constitution, the Right will argue that it was judicial activism overturning popular will.
If the Court upholds the amendment, the Left will argue the Court succumbed to pressure and did not uphold it's mandate.
Both will be wrong.
First, the Court reads the law and applies it. I read the Supreme Court's decision last summer and it rested almost entirely on the fact, FACT, that the California Constitution does NOT allow separate but equal institutions and when the California Legislature created exactly equal systems for gays and straights to get married, but called one Civil Unions and the other Marriage, it created a separate but equal institution. The Court rightly called them on it.
The Right howled and put an amendment on the ballot that asked for people to, by popular vote, re institute a separate but equal system. The people of California did just that. And understand, it is clear that the California Constitution and the United States Constitution clearly allow popular will to create laws that are on their face discriminatory AND allow for the creation of laws that specifically deny fundamental rights.
I expect the Court to uphold Prop 8. Californians can, and have said that certain people can not be allowed to get married based solely on the sex of their partner of choice.
The biggest mistake the Left can make on Tuesday and the days that follow is to give the Right ammunition for the argument that Gays can not be trusted to be full partners in society. And virtually ANY acts of anger will do so.
Too many people, especially on the Left think that judicial outcomes should be determined on the basis of what the outcome should be. The law is the law and judges, generally, adhere to it. There is as much judicial activism on the Right as there is on the Left.
However, too many people on the Right think that because a majority wills it, it is right. It is possible for the majority to be anti-minority and our Constitutions (state and federal) demand equality under the law for all.
Today, in every place in the United States I have the right to marry a member of the same sex. No one can stop us. However, I have no right to demand recognition of that marriage. If the State chooses to become involved in the process of recognizing that personal choice, it must do so for all couples without discrimination. The popular will of California is discrimination.
Throughout human history, slavery was practiced (it still is in a few places); just 150 years ago, our Country stopped the practice. Women did not have the right to vote until just about 100 years ago. 60 years ago, blacks and whites could not marry each other as if race had some meaningful distinction between humans. Human history is full of examples where basic rights were denied until upheaval in society forced change.
"After careful consideration" is the phrase used by 'conservatives' to demand change be withheld. Here is my final question: how long does careful consideration take? Just so I know whether I will benefit from the result, or if my grandchildren will.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Activist judges
It is clear that there are judges that just ignore the law and rule according to their proclivities. We need not a one of them actually sitting on the bench, anywhere.
However, every time a ruling goes against your position on issues is not evidence that a judge, or judges are being activist.
I have read both the California Supreme Court decision overturning the ban on gay marriage and I have read the Iowa Supreme Court decision. The rulings are significantly different.
The California case: was it constitutional have a a civil union system for same-sex couples and a marriage system for opposite sex couples if they were fundamentally the same system, just called something different. This is the 'separate but equal' issue that is well established to be unconstitutional at the federal level, and the California court found it was also unconstitutional at the state level. There is no activism necessary to find that position. It is clear cut. The California Court did address other items that makes it an important part of the Iowa decision which went right to the issue of denying gays the right to marry because their choice of partner was same sex.
But both Courts make an assumption that those opposed to gay marriage seemingly refuse to consider:
The Court recognizes that at the core, sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of people and creating laws based on the characteristic is constitutionally flawed.
Recognizing the situation as presented is not activism, it goes to the heart of the issues. Finally, the reasons WHY there is an anti-gay marriage ban were addressed. I hear these reasons all the time and the court addresses them well.
I am not going into the Court's reasoning, in every case it is straight forward and clearly points out that the objectives are not met in any way by the law as written. In the most fundamental way, the Court asks the question: does the gay marriage ban protect or promote traditional marriage. The answer is clearly no to anyone that is willing evaluate consequences. Does the gay marriage ban encourage more people to marry? No. Does the gay marriage ban encourage more people to have children? No. Will gay marriage cause straight couples to avoid marriage? No. Will gay marriage cause straight couples to have less children? No. These are obvious to anyone willing to consider them.
My issue is always individual rights. Infringe on my rights to protect others. The gay marriage ban does not do that. The ban does not protect the rights of others. Gay marriage does not stop straight couples from marrying; gay marriage does not prevent straight couples from raising children. And arguments that gay marriage does not support the growth of healthy children ignores that many marriages - gay and straight, do not have children as a goal.
If you support bans on gay marriage, show me where the infringement of my rights is necessary to protect someone elses rights. Please, do not start with the argument that there is no Constitutional right to marriage. Your ignorance would be clear.
However, every time a ruling goes against your position on issues is not evidence that a judge, or judges are being activist.
I have read both the California Supreme Court decision overturning the ban on gay marriage and I have read the Iowa Supreme Court decision. The rulings are significantly different.
The California case: was it constitutional have a a civil union system for same-sex couples and a marriage system for opposite sex couples if they were fundamentally the same system, just called something different. This is the 'separate but equal' issue that is well established to be unconstitutional at the federal level, and the California court found it was also unconstitutional at the state level. There is no activism necessary to find that position. It is clear cut. The California Court did address other items that makes it an important part of the Iowa decision which went right to the issue of denying gays the right to marry because their choice of partner was same sex.
The County seeks to undercut the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim by asserting the plaintiffs are not similarly situated to heterosexuals.The County references this threshold test in this case and asserts the
plaintiffs are not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples so as to
necessitate further equal protection analysis because the plaintiffs cannot
“procreate naturally.”
Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage
laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to
heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships,
many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official
recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their
fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for
heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing samesex
couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the
power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it
does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.
In short, for purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, which are designed to
bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and
their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every
important respect, but for their sexual orientation. As indicated above, this
distinction cannot defeat the application of equal protection analysis
But both Courts make an assumption that those opposed to gay marriage seemingly refuse to consider:
The County initially points out that section 595.2 does not explicitly
refer to “sexual orientation” and does not inquire into whether either
member of a proposed civil marriage is sexually attracted to the other.
Consequently, it seizes on these observations to support its claim that the
statute does not establish a classification on the basis of sexual orientation
because the same-sex civil marriage ban does not grant or withhold the
benefits flowing from the statute based on sexual preference. Instead, the
County argues, section 595.2 only incidentally impacts disparately upon gay
and lesbian people.
The County’s position reveals the importance of accurately and
precisely defining the classification in analyzing all equal protection
challenges. The manner in which a classification is defined impacts the
utility of an equal protection analysis as a means of revealing discrimination.
Therefore, it is critical that a court reviewing the statute identify the true
nature of the classification.
It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and
lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry,
it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of
marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex
is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person
of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian
person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a
person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or
lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a
committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation,
and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.
The Court recognizes that at the core, sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of people and creating laws based on the characteristic is constitutionally flawed.
Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the
statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 441. The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 583, 123 S. Ct. at 2486, 156 L. Ed. 2d at 529 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (reviewing criminalization of homosexual sodomy and concluding that “[w]hile it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such
circumstances, [the] sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.”). The Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1996), supports this conclusion. Romer can be read to imply that sexual orientation is a trait that defines an individual and is not merely a means to associate a group with a type of behavior. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 632, 116 S. Ct. at 1627, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 865–66 (holding an amendment to a state constitution pertaining to “homosexual . . . orientation” expresses “animus toward the class that it affects”).
By purposefully placing civil marriage outside the realistic reach of gay and lesbian individuals, the ban on same-sex civil marriages differentiates implicitly on the basis of sexual orientation. See Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 431 n.24; Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571, 605 (Md. 2007). Thus, we proceed to analyze the constitutionality of the statute based on sexual orientation discrimination.
Recognizing the situation as presented is not activism, it goes to the heart of the issues. Finally, the reasons WHY there is an anti-gay marriage ban were addressed. I hear these reasons all the time and the court addresses them well.
The County has proffered a number of objectives supporting the marriage statute. These objectives include support for the “traditional” institution of marriage, the optimal procreation and rearing of children, and financial considerations.
The first step in scrutinizing a statutory classification can be to determine whether the objectives purportedly advanced by the classification are important. “The burden of justification is demanding and it rests entirely on the State.”
I am not going into the Court's reasoning, in every case it is straight forward and clearly points out that the objectives are not met in any way by the law as written. In the most fundamental way, the Court asks the question: does the gay marriage ban protect or promote traditional marriage. The answer is clearly no to anyone that is willing evaluate consequences. Does the gay marriage ban encourage more people to marry? No. Does the gay marriage ban encourage more people to have children? No. Will gay marriage cause straight couples to avoid marriage? No. Will gay marriage cause straight couples to have less children? No. These are obvious to anyone willing to consider them.
My issue is always individual rights. Infringe on my rights to protect others. The gay marriage ban does not do that. The ban does not protect the rights of others. Gay marriage does not stop straight couples from marrying; gay marriage does not prevent straight couples from raising children. And arguments that gay marriage does not support the growth of healthy children ignores that many marriages - gay and straight, do not have children as a goal.
If you support bans on gay marriage, show me where the infringement of my rights is necessary to protect someone elses rights. Please, do not start with the argument that there is no Constitutional right to marriage. Your ignorance would be clear.
Leading Role
Our current President, 'in a leading role of a lifetime' continues to act poorly without the script right in front of him. To wit:
I must ask the question...actually, the statement BEGS the question: What leading role is Europe playing?
Economics? Nope.
Military? Nope.
Security and defense? Not even for itself.
Relief? Nope.
Well, maybe as a garden for cowards and ass-kissing girlie-men.
Neither in innovation, nor exploration.
Obama thinks Europe, I guess, is a unified nation, acting as one big offset to American hegemony. Put Germany, France and Great Britain in the same room and see what kind of...oh yea, we kinda did that this week and we saw outstanding leadership from...no one.
I can't think of a single thing that makes me think, "Europe does that so well, we should be doing that too!". Nothing. Obama of course thinks Europe does lots of things well - I guess. Ask him to name something Europe leads in and I can guarantee that a super-majority of Americans will say "and more power to them...no thanks!".
You know, come to think of it, if we HAD to have an 'actor' playing the leading role of President of the United States, we could pick from just about anyone that has played that part in the last 10 years and get lines delivered better and with more authority than the current understudy...
I have often been told this position is wrong, but experience says different. Leadership is an inherent quality - it can be nurtured, trained and directed, but it can not be taught or learned. Apparently, it can't be scripted on a teleprompter either.
In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world.
I must ask the question...actually, the statement BEGS the question: What leading role is Europe playing?
Economics? Nope.
Military? Nope.
Security and defense? Not even for itself.
Relief? Nope.
Well, maybe as a garden for cowards and ass-kissing girlie-men.
Neither in innovation, nor exploration.
Obama thinks Europe, I guess, is a unified nation, acting as one big offset to American hegemony. Put Germany, France and Great Britain in the same room and see what kind of...oh yea, we kinda did that this week and we saw outstanding leadership from...no one.
I can't think of a single thing that makes me think, "Europe does that so well, we should be doing that too!". Nothing. Obama of course thinks Europe does lots of things well - I guess. Ask him to name something Europe leads in and I can guarantee that a super-majority of Americans will say "and more power to them...no thanks!".
You know, come to think of it, if we HAD to have an 'actor' playing the leading role of President of the United States, we could pick from just about anyone that has played that part in the last 10 years and get lines delivered better and with more authority than the current understudy...
I have often been told this position is wrong, but experience says different. Leadership is an inherent quality - it can be nurtured, trained and directed, but it can not be taught or learned. Apparently, it can't be scripted on a teleprompter either.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Tea Party Focus
There is much discussion going on all over the place concerning the focus of Tea Parties - I brought up the issue in last night's radio show.
1. Tea Parties got their start on the anger over the Stimulus Package size and the amount of pork AND the absolute uselessness of it to actually address the issues facing the economy. Therefore, government spending in general, and pork/stimulus spending in particular need to be a primary focus. But Congress can either tax or demand printing for any amount of spending they want to do so just focusing on the spending is not enough.
2. Three things:
a. Freeze government spending at 2008 levels. Any extra spending necessary comes out of next years budget
b. Taxes: A one year moratorium of Federal taxes. Then, a flat tax (I don't have a problem with the just announced GOP plan of two versions)
c. A movement to replace every Congressperson that voted for the bailouts (2008 and after) and/or the Stimulus bill regardless of party.
3. The above addresses spending, income and the judgment displayed (or failed to be displayed) in matching the two.
4. Two of the items have immediate actions (Freeze and moratorium) and long term planning actions: tax code change and elections.
Let's go.
1. Tea Parties got their start on the anger over the Stimulus Package size and the amount of pork AND the absolute uselessness of it to actually address the issues facing the economy. Therefore, government spending in general, and pork/stimulus spending in particular need to be a primary focus. But Congress can either tax or demand printing for any amount of spending they want to do so just focusing on the spending is not enough.
2. Three things:
a. Freeze government spending at 2008 levels. Any extra spending necessary comes out of next years budget
b. Taxes: A one year moratorium of Federal taxes. Then, a flat tax (I don't have a problem with the just announced GOP plan of two versions)
c. A movement to replace every Congressperson that voted for the bailouts (2008 and after) and/or the Stimulus bill regardless of party.
3. The above addresses spending, income and the judgment displayed (or failed to be displayed) in matching the two.
4. Two of the items have immediate actions (Freeze and moratorium) and long term planning actions: tax code change and elections.
Let's go.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Pragmatism or Populism
I am sick and tired of one or both of the above coming from Conservatives - WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
Let me backtrack and lead you by the chin to the basis of my current disgust....
Last year, the financial markets began to crumble. The process was foreseen by those willing to look and ignore the anti-deniers ("You are just trying to talk down the economy. Look at the numbers, across the board the economy is strong and getting stronger.") No matter how much the voices in the wilderness suggested the foundation was rotten, cracked and sinking, the anti-denier argued the doom and gloom was unwarranted.
"The Washington Post had even run a column the day before Lehman's collapse ridiculing those who were making negative comments about the state of the economy."
Bear Stearns should have been allowed to fail. The die was cast and the 'moral hazard' argument won, too late though for the lesson to be correctly applied. Lehman Brothers was let fail and the repercussions scared the Politicians (probably the Fed too) into worrying that systemic failure would cause financial and structural collapse of the world economies. That belief is short-sighted and naive. Coming from the Fed and the Treasury, it can not be reassuring - and it is not.
With the failure of Lehman, no further failures would be allowed. Moral hazard was something that was 'academic', the Powers were dealing with real financial systems and real economies. Moral hazard lost it's ability to impose a check on improper behavior.
AIG. There are enough lessons for 20 or 30 books but the most important ones - from my perspective - are being ignored by many. I have said that freedom is messy. Bankers don't like messy. Especially when it comes to risk and any 'respectable' entity that tells them they can make risk less messy, more controllable is going to get a long look. AIG was offering financial managers a way to 'diversify and distribute' risk and this was paired with products that gave the illusion of AAA, almost Treasury safe, leveragable returns. How much AIG was involved with we will learn some time into the future, but my guess is somewhere around 45 TRILLION dollars of products/derivatives. With an exposure of .1 to 10% depending on the product, AIG had the potential to lose $450billion to $4.5 TRILLION. Obviously it did not have the ability to cover those losses and so their counter parties and clients would except....except. The Clients were people that were not free participants of capitalism. Most bankers are not and the financial markets have learned that they too dislike capitalism. See, capitalism can have winners AND losers. Win/win is not the normal of capitalist events. Risk means that there is a chance that investments fail. And despite AIG, failure was not only an option, but coming like an avalanche.
Who were the clients? Sovereign funds, hedge funds with 'serious' clients like Princes and National Banks. They couldn't lose...that was unheard of, and I think the Fed and the Treasury got a long lecture after Lehman about the viability of the American way of life if large holders of American Capital products in Europe, the Middle East and Asia were going to take big losses.
So, AIG would be unwound. It had to be done slowly, and the money would have to be given to make sure that AIG counter parties didn't get burned. The problem was, how much money? I am sure that AIG and others said that the markets were just disrupted and pricing products too harshly. If the markets could be calmed, the unwind could be done slowly with minimal losses...maybe less than a $100 billion. And if the economy had held on, that might have happened. But moral hazard has a dark side. It is bad enough to be caught violating it, it is much worse to be caught hiding that you might have violated it (regardless of the truth). The politicians and the Fed and the Treasury oversold the issue: imminent collapse, financial Armageddon. People shut down. The financial markets were houses of cards, one bankruptcy (AIG) away from disaster. People know people one paycheck away from disaster, they don't like to think of their national ECONOMY in the same position.
Like a tornado warning well heeded, people shuttered the windows, bolted the doors and headed for the cellar. Big ticket items died first as small stuff was stocked up on. What the financial markets feared was losses, what they got was rug pulled out of the economy.
How much of AIG is left is irrelevant. The multiple dips into the public trough put lie to all the claims that the situation was contained.
Now this is where I got pissed.
The Fed and the Treasury should never have bailed out AIG. Yes, I DO understand what the potential was, IS. YOU probably DON'T. 600 TRILLION in derivatives. The systemic failure of every major bank, most small COUNTRIES and a financial system a smoking ruin. Instead, we are going to burden the American People with bailing out anti-capitalists that believed they had a right to a free lunch - no risk.
And most conservatives are letting them get away with it.
AIG.
Should never have been bailed out. But was. And that did NOT give us the right to interfere private enterprise. If I borrow $20 from you, you do not get the right to check my pantry for expensive soup, or publicly call me out for my spending choices. Our agreement for the $20 is the extent of your involvement.
I don't care about AIG bonuses AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU. It is NONE of your business and take that 'but it is our money' crap and stick it. Shareholders do not get a say in the day to day running of a business and the capitalistic system is either an all in, or get out choice. Since the 1930s, we have been trying to have it both ways and the more it is tried, the worse the situation is getting.
Capitalism, like freedom is messy. Too many conservatives have forgotten and have looked at their 401ks and home values and quietly, hopefully, they have encouraged the Obamas and Geitners and Bernakes to succeed so that they will not have to suffer from the risk THEY wanted to benefit from, but also be protected against.
Choice has consequences. Demand to be protected from those consequences and you lose the freedom of choice.
Too many are seeking protection and I am damn tired of it.
Let me backtrack and lead you by the chin to the basis of my current disgust....
Last year, the financial markets began to crumble. The process was foreseen by those willing to look and ignore the anti-deniers ("You are just trying to talk down the economy. Look at the numbers, across the board the economy is strong and getting stronger.") No matter how much the voices in the wilderness suggested the foundation was rotten, cracked and sinking, the anti-denier argued the doom and gloom was unwarranted.
"The Washington Post had even run a column the day before Lehman's collapse ridiculing those who were making negative comments about the state of the economy."
Bear Stearns should have been allowed to fail. The die was cast and the 'moral hazard' argument won, too late though for the lesson to be correctly applied. Lehman Brothers was let fail and the repercussions scared the Politicians (probably the Fed too) into worrying that systemic failure would cause financial and structural collapse of the world economies. That belief is short-sighted and naive. Coming from the Fed and the Treasury, it can not be reassuring - and it is not.
With the failure of Lehman, no further failures would be allowed. Moral hazard was something that was 'academic', the Powers were dealing with real financial systems and real economies. Moral hazard lost it's ability to impose a check on improper behavior.
AIG. There are enough lessons for 20 or 30 books but the most important ones - from my perspective - are being ignored by many. I have said that freedom is messy. Bankers don't like messy. Especially when it comes to risk and any 'respectable' entity that tells them they can make risk less messy, more controllable is going to get a long look. AIG was offering financial managers a way to 'diversify and distribute' risk and this was paired with products that gave the illusion of AAA, almost Treasury safe, leveragable returns. How much AIG was involved with we will learn some time into the future, but my guess is somewhere around 45 TRILLION dollars of products/derivatives. With an exposure of .1 to 10% depending on the product, AIG had the potential to lose $450billion to $4.5 TRILLION. Obviously it did not have the ability to cover those losses and so their counter parties and clients would except....except. The Clients were people that were not free participants of capitalism. Most bankers are not and the financial markets have learned that they too dislike capitalism. See, capitalism can have winners AND losers. Win/win is not the normal of capitalist events. Risk means that there is a chance that investments fail. And despite AIG, failure was not only an option, but coming like an avalanche.
Who were the clients? Sovereign funds, hedge funds with 'serious' clients like Princes and National Banks. They couldn't lose...that was unheard of, and I think the Fed and the Treasury got a long lecture after Lehman about the viability of the American way of life if large holders of American Capital products in Europe, the Middle East and Asia were going to take big losses.
So, AIG would be unwound. It had to be done slowly, and the money would have to be given to make sure that AIG counter parties didn't get burned. The problem was, how much money? I am sure that AIG and others said that the markets were just disrupted and pricing products too harshly. If the markets could be calmed, the unwind could be done slowly with minimal losses...maybe less than a $100 billion. And if the economy had held on, that might have happened. But moral hazard has a dark side. It is bad enough to be caught violating it, it is much worse to be caught hiding that you might have violated it (regardless of the truth). The politicians and the Fed and the Treasury oversold the issue: imminent collapse, financial Armageddon. People shut down. The financial markets were houses of cards, one bankruptcy (AIG) away from disaster. People know people one paycheck away from disaster, they don't like to think of their national ECONOMY in the same position.
Like a tornado warning well heeded, people shuttered the windows, bolted the doors and headed for the cellar. Big ticket items died first as small stuff was stocked up on. What the financial markets feared was losses, what they got was rug pulled out of the economy.
How much of AIG is left is irrelevant. The multiple dips into the public trough put lie to all the claims that the situation was contained.
Now this is where I got pissed.
The Fed and the Treasury should never have bailed out AIG. Yes, I DO understand what the potential was, IS. YOU probably DON'T. 600 TRILLION in derivatives. The systemic failure of every major bank, most small COUNTRIES and a financial system a smoking ruin. Instead, we are going to burden the American People with bailing out anti-capitalists that believed they had a right to a free lunch - no risk.
And most conservatives are letting them get away with it.
AIG.
Should never have been bailed out. But was. And that did NOT give us the right to interfere private enterprise. If I borrow $20 from you, you do not get the right to check my pantry for expensive soup, or publicly call me out for my spending choices. Our agreement for the $20 is the extent of your involvement.
I don't care about AIG bonuses AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU. It is NONE of your business and take that 'but it is our money' crap and stick it. Shareholders do not get a say in the day to day running of a business and the capitalistic system is either an all in, or get out choice. Since the 1930s, we have been trying to have it both ways and the more it is tried, the worse the situation is getting.
Capitalism, like freedom is messy. Too many conservatives have forgotten and have looked at their 401ks and home values and quietly, hopefully, they have encouraged the Obamas and Geitners and Bernakes to succeed so that they will not have to suffer from the risk THEY wanted to benefit from, but also be protected against.
Choice has consequences. Demand to be protected from those consequences and you lose the freedom of choice.
Too many are seeking protection and I am damn tired of it.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Step One
Suspend all federal tax collections. No income tax, no business tax, no social security/medicare tax.
For one year.
At the end of the year, the Federal Government assesses each state the following:
$1.74 per acre
+ .35 per acre for debt reduction (not interest, principle)
-----
$2.09 per acre
Credit to be given for all federally owned lands in each state.
No new taxes, no new income rates. $2.09 per acre. That's all.
For one year.
At the end of the year, the Federal Government assesses each state the following:
$1.74 per acre
+ .35 per acre for debt reduction (not interest, principle)
-----
$2.09 per acre
Credit to be given for all federally owned lands in each state.
No new taxes, no new income rates. $2.09 per acre. That's all.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Punch Drunk or....
I watched part of the interview of Barak Obama from 60 minutes and it almost seemed as if there was a smile ready to break out at every serious moment. Steve Kroft began to wonder about the state of mind of Obama, I am only wondering at what he was/is taking to 'take the edge off'. We know he smokes, the question I have is, what?
After the latest foreign affairs gaff, there is ONLY on question left concerning Obama's Administration and our President himself: Dumb, or Dumber?
After the latest foreign affairs gaff, there is ONLY on question left concerning Obama's Administration and our President himself: Dumb, or Dumber?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)