tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-149842612024-03-07T18:28:30.037-08:00Cynicus PrimeMatthew DesOrmeauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09355478468204563335noreply@blogger.comBlogger174125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-59953079862269163162013-08-16T09:22:00.005-07:002013-08-16T09:22:47.285-07:00I've moved!I have taken the advice of some people smarter than me on this and moved my blog to Wordpress.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cynicusprime.wordpress.com/">cynicusprime.wordpress.com</a></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-34178567883698914622013-08-09T09:18:00.001-07:002013-08-09T09:18:20.018-07:00When "religious liberty" isn't<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXe9OUDUgoNauLS9ZFHQh9VLAHsDqtph9_NUvHEKweLG0-hbCRVs6yZHXOZSOEUon3iI90th0S9DkSjzh42ZraXcU4kJpCNSVFCBrBze_Vj5b4CSwJBoXjUw9kSw_5QnCzPoS02w/s1600/religious-liberty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXe9OUDUgoNauLS9ZFHQh9VLAHsDqtph9_NUvHEKweLG0-hbCRVs6yZHXOZSOEUon3iI90th0S9DkSjzh42ZraXcU4kJpCNSVFCBrBze_Vj5b4CSwJBoXjUw9kSw_5QnCzPoS02w/s200/religious-liberty.jpg" width="175" /></a>In the wake of electoral and Supreme Court defeats, some social conservatives are <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/republicans-take-up-cause-of-religious-liberty-and-ditch-fam">retreating</a> from their crusade against the freedom to marry to the safer ground of religious liberty. In theory, this is both a smart and fortunate move. Same-sex marriage bans have both legal and political problems, the combination of which will make the position <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marriage-states.aspx">completely untenable</a> within a few short years. In practice, however, claims of "religious liberty" very frequently aren't. They instead cloak their existing bigotry in this claim, effectively asking for the freedom to illegitimately discriminate.<br />
<br />
There are some social conservatives who plan to propose a <a href="http://www.jagtv.com/same-sex-marriage-religious-liberty-and-extremism-from-both-sides-of-the-aisle/">constitutional amendment</a> to protect this type of "religious liberty":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>“A religious organization, religious association, religious society or any person acting in a role connected with such organization, association or society and shall not be required to solemnize, officiate in, or recognize any particular marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of its constitutional right of conscience or its free exercise of religion.”</i></span></span></blockquote>
Again, this is a great concept in theory (ignoring the fact that the First Amendment makes it wholly unnecessary), but the ways it would be used undermine its innocent appearance. Before and after Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court case that overturned state bans on interracial marriage, the same argument was made. Religious reasons were given to ban interracial marriage, and religious liberty was claimed after the bans were overturned so that churches wouldn't have to perform interracial marriage. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.<br />
<br />
People have their marriages performed in their church. If they don't go to a church, they have it performed in a public place by a public official. If a same-sex couple requests that a church perform their marriage, they were almost certainly already parishioners of that church, in which case the church is already accepting of their relationship and union. No one is going to go into a church they have no relationship with and ask to have their wedding performed by someone who doesn't approve of it. People are asking for this type of religious "liberty" to protect them from something that is entirely fictional.<br />
<br />
But this isn't only about marriages. Religious liberty is self-evidently important, since it also includes the broader freedom of conscience. However, as with any liberty, yours ends where it infringes on another. Religious liberty doesn't allow you to commit crimes by claiming your religion allows it, nor should it allow you to exclude certain <i>people</i> (not actions) from your association. The Boy Scouts (<a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18447459-boy-scouts-vote-to-lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite">before this year</a>) are a perfect example. They claimed the right to exclude gays from their organization because of their religious opposition to homosexuality. This claim undermines itself. Of course homosexual activity can be banned by a private organization, especially since they also ban <i>heterosexual</i> activity within the organization. However, to ban <i>people</i> with a homosexual or bisexual <i>orientation</i> crosses the line. They're not being prevented from practicing their religion or holding any religious or non-religious opinion by having to simply allow certain types of people in their organization.<br />
<br />
If your religion opposes eating lobster (which Biblical religions <a href="http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things_The_Bible_Bans,_But_You_Do_Anyway">technically do</a>), you can ban <i>eating lobster</i> at your church, but you can't ban <i>people</i> from your church who happen to like eating lobster.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-33407163866042847392013-07-31T08:50:00.000-07:002013-07-31T08:50:00.923-07:00Hillary vs Rand, the coming political realignmentWhile many are focused on the Christie vs Rand front of the pre-2016 war, a new rift emerged this morning that could have much more significant consequences.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2N60hvJGtfZKAoiM169vuVFqVJMPUD-TyKcBgDXXOTArmdzhxYcEG328A3au7sFs2V7K7TFkixx3Akog_vMQCc_2PBMKAHRzbsKWqmKd2phaAHrVVr4x-fA4MTKw_yCrN0_EmNA/s1600/image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2N60hvJGtfZKAoiM169vuVFqVJMPUD-TyKcBgDXXOTArmdzhxYcEG328A3au7sFs2V7K7TFkixx3Akog_vMQCc_2PBMKAHRzbsKWqmKd2phaAHrVVr4x-fA4MTKw_yCrN0_EmNA/s320/image.jpg" width="320" /></a>John McCain, 2008 Republican nominee for President and long-term thorn in the side of both right and left, joked that he would would have a "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/31/hillary-vs-rand-paul-would-be-tough-choice-mccain-quips/">touch choice</a>" if the nominees in 2016 were Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul. He clarified that he thinks Rand is evolving his father's particular brand of crazy into something more respectable, but went on to praise Hillary's term as Secretary of State and her stature in the world. A few background notes elucidate these comments: earlier this year McCain <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/john-mccain-lindsey-graham-blast-rand-paul-filibuster-88564.html">brutally lashed</a> Rand on the floor of the Senate over his anti-drone filibuster, as the 2008 nominee McCain <a href="http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=2008&elect=1">nearly faced</a> Hillary in that Presidential election, but more recently McCain has been a <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-mccain-confronts-hillary-clinton-on-benghazi-your-answers-are-not-satisfactory/">vocal critic</a> of Hillary's handling of Benghazi in Congressional testimony. So it's quite something that McCain would even joke about supporting Hillary Clinton over his own party's nominee for President.<br />
<br />
However, if he wasn't joking, and I suspect not, McCain's comments hint at a possible coming political realignment like our nation hasn't seen since the mid-20th Century. Since the Reagan era the parties have been viewed on opposite sides of two major issue spectrums, Republicans have generally been for small(er) government and big security, while Democrats have generally been for big(ger) government and less security. If the parties choose Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul as their respective nominees, this ideological polarity will have reversed on the security spectrum. While she grew up in the anti-war 60s and was seen in the 90s as the doctrinaire liberal to husband Bill's triangulating centrism, since her time in the Senate, Hillary has emerged as a more globally interventionist hawk than even some Republicans. On the other hand, labeling himself a "libertarian Republican", and with his anti-drone filibuster and opposition to NSA surveillance and most foreign aid, Rand Paul is one of the leading voices for American non-interventionism.<br />
<br />
If this realignment on security occurs, it will put the parties on a more clear liberty vs security axis. On all but social/moral issues, which are becoming increasingly state-based anyway, Republicans would be the party of liberty, and Democrats would be the party of security, both economic and national. (I would love to see the social/moral spectrum realign as well, of course, but that will take <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/12/gay-rights-gop_n_3586964.html">much more work</a>.) As McCain suggests, Republican national security and foreign policy hawks might have a hard time supporting Rand Paul. To be sure, most would also have a hard time supporting the party's arch-enemy for the last 30 years too, but sometimes the easiest hurdle to cross is the tallest one if it's also the first one. McCain's open praise for Hillary as a competent leader and globally respected personality would be the basis for his and other Republican defections.<br />
<br />
Now, all of this assumes that the realignment occurs in both directions. If Republican hawks move to Hillary, but no Democrat doves move to Rand, then we would have more of a one-sided collapse than a realignment. But there are plenty of Democrats who have made similar moves <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/17/us-usa-politics-lieberman-idUSN1634401920071217">in the past</a>, and more recently <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/06/democratic-sen-ron-wyden-joins-rand-pauls-filibuster/">explicitly aligned</a> with Rand on security issues.<br />
<br />
So if a Hillary vs Rand election happens (and way <i>way</i> <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/2016-republican-primary-poll-rand-paul-94756.html">early polls</a> suggest it might), and a realignment begins, I will welcome it. We've been dealing with contradictory party philosophies for far too long. We need an explicit party alignment on the liberty vs security axis, not issue-dependent positions on that spectrum. Even if we lose that fight, it's one worth having.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Full disclosure:</b> I'm <a href="http://cynicusprime.blogspot.com/2012/11/gutcast-2012.html">terrible at predictions</a>.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-78908462138797527552013-07-25T21:40:00.003-07:002013-07-26T05:55:42.182-07:00Christie orders a new meal: roasted libertarian dove<span style="font-family: inherit;">At a Republican Governors Association event tonight, Chris Christie <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/25/christie-goes-after-libertarians-hard/">identified a new target</a> in his neverending branding campaign to be Brow-Beater-in-Chief, but this time on his own side - libertarians. </span><br />
<a href="http://www.dailyherald.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=DA&Date=20120829&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=708299930&Ref=AR&maxw=430&maxh=370&Q=70&&updated=" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="273" src="http://www.dailyherald.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=DA&Date=20120829&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=708299930&Ref=AR&maxw=430&maxh=370&Q=70&&updated=" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The governor labeled a "dangerous thought" the libertarianism making headlines on national security, most recently the Justin Amash and John Conyers <a href="http://americablog.com/2013/07/amash-conyers-anti-nsa-amendment-lost-by-12-votes-205-217.html">effort to defund</a> the National Security Agency over its flagrant 4th Amendment violations. He even morbidly used the "widows and the orphans" of 9/11 to buttress his police-statist policy preference, barely losing out in the dance macabre competition to President Obama and Senator Diane Feinstein's recent <a href="http://cynicusprime.blogspot.com/2013/04/corpse-parade.html">corpse parade</a> for gun control.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Christie's friendly fire operation is dumb, short-sighted, and just plain wrong for several reasons.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is a hypothesis, not a conclusion, that a universal surveillance state has prevented "another one of those attacks that cost thousands and thousands of lives", as Christie put it. It is true that we have not had another attack on that scale, but we hadn't had one in the entirety of our nation's history before that either (Pearl Harbor doesn't count, internal vs external surveillance). If an all-inclusive citizen monitoring program (that didn't start until 2001) is all that has prevented a massive terrorist attack since 9/11, what prevented one before we had that? And to go even further, the surveillance state's efficacy in preventing another 9/11 isn't even certain, since <a href="http://digitaljournal.com/article/352455">we now know</a> that the NSA began its data-mining several months <i>before</i> 9/11. If it didn't stop 9/11, how can you be so certain that it has stopped another one?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
Christie also misfires in the political calculus here (though he will of course claim that he had none). While libertarians share some individual views from both the right and left side of the political spectrum, they align <a href="http://cynicusprime.blogspot.com/2012/09/libertarians-vs-libertarians-on.html">almost exclusively</a> with the right overall. Christie is going the opposite way - toward the middle. He actively cleaves and both left and right "extremes" and carves out a path straight up the middle of the aisle. It has worked in Republican primaries before (McCain, Romney, Dole), but almost never in the general election. A lot of the post-2012 Republican calculus has focused on the <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/21/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_revisited_118893.html">disaffected blue-collar white voters</a> who didn't show up in the polls. While Christie's straight-talk persona might attract these voters back, he'll keep libertarians either voting third party or staying home instead. That's a risky trade-off, especially if the <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/07/paul-leads-gop-primary-but-christie-best-bet-against-clinton.html">ever-popular</a> Hillary Clinton is his opponent. Even outside of specific voting blocs, the population in general is becoming <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/24/poll-47-percent-of-americans-unconvinced-nsa-snooping-makes-us-safer/">more dovish</a> on national security. Christie should move ahead of the public on these issues, not lagging behind.<br />
<br />
Many pundits saw Christie's assault tonight as an early salvo in the 2016 GOP primary. As Allahpundit <a href="https://twitter.com/allahpundit/status/360583424370688000">pointed out</a>, Rand Paul, one of his likely opponents in that campaign, had his own <a href="http://www.policymic.com/articles/23609/rand-paul-slams-chris-christie-for-being-too-liberal-election-2016-just-got-under-way">shot across the bow</a> a few months ago. Rand said Christie was probably turning off primary voters with a few of his more liberal views and his embrace of President Obama after Hurricane Sandy ravaged his state. If Christie was firing back in kind, he should have gone with a more proportional response. Rand said Christie's beliefs might hurt him electorally; Christie said Rand's beliefs might lead to another 9/11. Not exactly a fair battle.<br />
<br />
As I've often <a href="http://cynicusprime.blogspot.com/2013/06/christies-gambit.html">pointed out</a>, Chris Christie is an incredibly gifted politician, able to find <a href="https://twitter.com/cynicusprime/status/359707718975619072">approval</a> in <a href="https://twitter.com/Brand_Allen/status/357217588067049472">places</a> other Republicans only <a href="https://twitter.com/Brand_Allen/status/355696767427280896">dream</a> of. So maybe he's outsmarting us all yet again. But is it ever advisable to so savagely attack your own side <i>before </i>you ask them to vote for you?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-22361659006825652252013-07-18T14:32:00.000-07:002013-07-18T14:32:42.514-07:00Planned Parenthood chooses politics over health care<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAiegX_w0WqAQziDCNUY4vReuhVehnIvegmWnPYx7CLpQbtrm6DIc2nlmLXR_e8e5TZpNdmHZKWd1j60OfC7hXjQExT_5KIMW91srWp9CEMcSJw7LkmpudDwORPFs-XvGctwKEEQ/s1600/notyourbodynotyourchoiceabortionismurder_zps464aedad.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAiegX_w0WqAQziDCNUY4vReuhVehnIvegmWnPYx7CLpQbtrm6DIc2nlmLXR_e8e5TZpNdmHZKWd1j60OfC7hXjQExT_5KIMW91srWp9CEMcSJw7LkmpudDwORPFs-XvGctwKEEQ/s200/notyourbodynotyourchoiceabortionismurder_zps464aedad.jpg" width="200" /></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">Today, Planned Parenthood <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/planned-parenthood-texas-_n_3617299.html">announced</a> that it will close three Texas clinics, after state budget cuts and the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/rick-perry-abortion-bill_n_3613158.html">new Texas law</a> restricting abortion to 20 weeks and mandating safety standards for clinics that perform abortion. Coming on the same day that Rick Perry signed the new law, and only days after that law was passed during protests at the state capitol, this can only be seen in the lucid world as a purely political move.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The funding that PP Gulf Coast says was cut, forcing these closures at the end of August this year, was done in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/us/texas-lawmakers-set-to-restore-womens-health-financing.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">2011</a> legislative session. So their 12 Texas and Louisiana clinics have been operating without any state funding for two years and just now have to close? Doubtful.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Fortunately, since the Texas legislature increased funding for the Women's Health Program by $71 million this year, affordable care for low income Texas women won't suffer. Also, since Obamacare now mandates that insurance companies provide <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/03/20130318a.html">preventative</a> and <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/06/20130628a.html">contraceptive</a> care free of copay or deductible, Texas women have even less reason to worry about losing out on the things that Planned Parenthood has been providing them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">While PPGC CEO <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 20px;">Melaney Linton says the closures are </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 20px;">“a completely separate issue” from the new law, their announcement and Perry's signing occuring on the same day is obviously not coincidental. Linton says that Texas not expanding Medicaid under Obamacare was </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 20px;">“the final straw” that made them choose to close the clinics. However, the Medicaid issue <a href="http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/06/07/texas-medicaid-expansion-attempt-defeated">was decided</a> more than a month ago. If the closures were "a long time coming", then it shouldn't have taken more than a month to announce, if Medicaid was the "final straw".</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">What makes this PR move even more ironic is that only one of the three clinics that are closing performed abortions. That means only one would have had to meet the new safety standards by September 2014. There would have been absolutely no change for the other two, and any other clinics that don't (or now choose not to) perform abortions.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Sidebar: With all its complaining about public funding, it's ironic that Planned Parenthood itself doesn't even meet the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/18/the-obamacare-provision-that-terrifies-insurers/">80% threshold</a> that Obamacare mandates for health insurance companies to spend on medical care. PP only spends about <a href="http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_ar_2012_121812_vf/1?e=1994783/1441572">two-thirds</a> of its annual budget on medical care, the rest is overhead, "education", and "public policy work" (read: lobbying). Perhaps if they started worrying less about trying to get laws changed to loosen restrictions on them and more about providing actual health care to women, they could afford to do more of the latter.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-68834997421689642292013-07-11T13:58:00.002-07:002013-07-11T13:58:46.794-07:00Why is America so "conflicted" about abortion? Political correctnessConfirming every <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/162374/americans-abortion-views-steady-amid-gosnell-trial.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication">previous poll</a> taken <a href="http://laits.utexas.edu/txp_media/html/poll/features/201306_abortion_fetal_pain/slide1.html">on the subject</a> in the last 50 years, the Huffington Post has <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/abortion-poll_n_3575551.html">a poll</a> out today showing that Americans don't approve of late term abortion. In fact, they don't approve of abortion period. 49% consider the practice itself morally wrong, while only 12% consider it morally acceptable (nauseatingly, another 24% don't consider it a moral issue at all).<br />
<br />
The really confusing thing, and the only saving grace for HuffPo's absurdly leftist readers (see <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/abortion-poll_n_3575551.html">embedded poll</a> comparing overall vs reader responses) is the seeming contradiction between respondents personal opinion about abortion and their allowance for the decision to be between the woman and her doctor (63% support).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-07-10-abortionmoralitygovernment.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-07-10-abortionmoralitygovernment.png" /></a></div>
<br />
However, the likely reason for this apparently conflict is pure political correctness. When confronted with the question of whether a medical decision should be between a patient and doctor, or a government dictate, the vast majority of people will allow the individual decision. This is reflected in constant political rhetoric about healthcare in general.<br />
<br />
However, the validity of that question is undermined by the rest of the poll. While only 26% say the government should pass restrictions on abortion, 59% (!) favor a federal (!) ban on abortion after 20-weeks, 43% think there aren't enough restrictions on abortion, and only 19% think abortion should always be legal. If 63% of the country really thought the decision should be only between the woman and doctor, then that same 63% would say it should always be legal, otherwise it's not just between the woman and doctor.<br />
<br />
But Americans are notoriously inconsistent. Or at least they usually are. On abortion, they're remarkably <i>consistent</i>. Almost no one thinks abortion should always be available to anyone no matter what. That's what is going on in places like <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/texas-abortion-bill-93932.html">Texas</a> and <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9168946">North Carolina</a>, not "<a href="http://syndicatednewsservices.com/2013/07/02/ohio-gov-signs-extreme-anti-choice-bill/">extreme anti-choice</a>" radicalism.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-72105236402380426212013-07-06T21:46:00.000-07:002013-07-08T06:04:36.715-07:00Texas SB1 vs European abortion lawsThe American left celebrates Europe as a Platonic ideal society toward which we should strive. They tout the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/">universal healthcare</a>, <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/international_papers/1999/04/american_guns_stun_europeans.html">strict gun laws</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27iht-shift.4.19719958.html?pagewanted=all">generous social welfare</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/business/global/for-europes-economy-a-lost-decade-looms.html?pagewanted=all">economic progressivism</a>, <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/09/the_vile_anti_muslim_video_and_the_first_amendment_does_the_u_s_overvalue_free_speech_.html">speech codes</a>, and <a href="http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/as-u.s.-transit-fares-increase-europe-starts-to-make-it-free">mass transit infrastructure</a>. So surely Europe must have equally progressive abortion laws (i.e., none at all), right? <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm">Wrong</a>. In fact, Europe's various restrictions on abortion make the proposed law in Texas seem positively laissez-faire in comparison.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/image_maps/07/1168000000/1168858931/img/europe_abort416x416.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/image_maps/07/1168000000/1168858931/img/europe_abort416x416.gif" width="320" /></a><br />
Of the 27 European Union nations, 18 permit abortion on demand, but almost all only up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. After that, nearly all require there be a threat to the life, health of the mother, or incurable ailment present in the child. Not a single European nation allows abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy for any reason.<br />
<br />
Ireland allows abortion only to save the life of the mother. Portugal, Spain, and the Czech Republican allow it only to preserve the mother's life or health. Many other European countries require specific economic or "social" reasons, but still have restrictions on when it can be performed. Malta bans abortion altogether.<br />
<br />
More than half of EU nations have restrictions on the reasons abortions are allowed, where they can be performed, and what procedures must be followed beforehand. Five nations, including socialist haven Sweden, require counseling. Germany even requires that counseling to include that the child has the right to be born, and others require providing information about other options to spare his life. Eight, including the UK, require abortions be performed in a hospital or other approved facility. Three require a 7 or 5-day waiting period for reflection before receiving an abortion.<br />
<br />
So despite their status as a <a href="http://cynicusprime.blogspot.com/2013/05/what-america-really-thinks-about.html">tiny fringe minority</a>, the American abortion-industrial complex treats the Texas proposal for a 20-week limit (with exceptions further along) and safety regulations as an unprecedented attack on the "rights" of women. In fact, Texas is really just following the example of enlightened Europe.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-48255538509672262142013-07-02T19:33:00.000-07:002013-07-08T14:08:54.366-07:00New anti-Obamacare irony offensive: We Can't WaitIf I were a <a href="http://americarisingpac.org/">savvy</a>, <a href="http://www.aei.org/">well funded</a> <a href="http://www.heritage.org/">political</a> <a href="http://freebeacon.com/">organization</a>, I would be busy tonight. Given the <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/health-law-employer-mandate-said-to-be-delayed-to-2015.html">breaking news</a> today that the Obamacare employer mandate passed by Congress is being unilaterally delayed by the Obama administration, the following is a list of steps that I would be taking if I were such an organization.<br />
<br />
<ol><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGKV8XGdqehyphenhyphenvpw69CTxbKoRcxQHe-0iJJk85C9FgWRNiRFWHUH52PfhSONUOzIVJXgbKzk3Fuz1ffqydmCyZfopcyjnqfDRXJ54Y4CYE0pRBfiTlRpT17yORZdELG5F3mufQ5Gg/s190/screen-shot-2013-07-02-at-5-02-09-pm.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGKV8XGdqehyphenhyphenvpw69CTxbKoRcxQHe-0iJJk85C9FgWRNiRFWHUH52PfhSONUOzIVJXgbKzk3Fuz1ffqydmCyZfopcyjnqfDRXJ54Y4CYE0pRBfiTlRpT17yORZdELG5F3mufQ5Gg/s1600/screen-shot-2013-07-02-at-5-02-09-pm.png" /></a>
<li>Buy <a href="http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=wecantwait.org">wecantwait.org</a></li>
<li>Create hip "We Can't Wait" logo</li>
<li>Build a database of press releases, sound bites, stump speeches, and interviews of Democrats and "experts" in 2009-2010 defending Obamacare and its provisions, especially things like "urgent", "emergency", "people dying in the streets", etc</li>
<li>Starting with the employer mandate, make a list of every health care regulation, deadline, or mandate that's been missed, skipped, or waived</li>
<li>Start issuing press releases (and make a <a href="http://tumblr.com/">Tumblr</a>) taking the Obama administration to task for these implementation failures based on its supporters rhetoric</li>
<li>Recruit volunteers to attend Congressional town hall meetings in their local districts and arm them with similar rhetoric and demands</li>
<li>Print posters and signs for citizens to bring to political events with the logo and various 2009-2010 supporter quotes</li>
<li>Enlist willing Congressmen and Senators to sponsor legislation mandating that Obamacare be implemented in full, on time, as enacted in 2010</li>
<li>Petition the CBO to revise their scoring of Obamacare based on delays and waivers</li>
<li>If necessary, file lawsuits to force implementation in full, on time</li>
</ol>
<br />
In short, troll the hell out of them. Democrats aren't going to support their own bill if it's the White House that's screwing it up, so someone has to do it. Even if it is ironically.<br />
<br />
Again, <i>if</i> I were a savvy, well funded political organization.<br />
(ProTip: I can be <a href="mailto:mpdesormeaux@gmail.com">available</a> in approximately two weeks. Thanks, Mgmt.)<br />
<br />
UPDATE: Shortly after the employer mandate news broke, another delay was <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-insurance-marketplaces-will-not-be-required-to-verify-consumer-claims/2013/07/05/d2a171f4-e5ab-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html">announced</a>. Since employer data will not be available for another year, the health insurance exchanges won't have any way to verify information individuals put in their applications about their employer coverage, so...they just won't. Another reason that "We Can't Wait" is so urgently needed.<br /><br />Heritage has also provided <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/08/morning-bell-obamacares-dirty-dozen-implementation-failures/">many more examples</a>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-9885308427602485002013-06-27T11:03:00.000-07:002013-06-27T11:08:10.467-07:00Wendy Davis BaratheonOn Tuesday, Texas state senator Wendy Davis <a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/ap/legislative/ex-teen-mom-heads-filibuster-versus-abortion-limit/nYWcg/">took to the floor</a> to filibuster Senate Bill 5, which would restrict abortions to 20 weeks of pregnancy and mandate certain safety requirements for clinics that perform them. She was joined in the chamber by a rowdy mob who, though the filibuster itself failed, succeeded in delaying the vote on the bill until just after midnight, thus negating it and ending the special legislative session.<br />
<br />
The filibuster and mob tactics drew national media attention and subsequent <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/its_a_wendy_davis_nation_now/singleton/">fawning</a> admiration. Internet memes were (ironically) birthed. Probably the simplest and most powerful shows Davis with a dragon on her shoulder.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/6/26/1/enhanced-buzz-9023-1372223315-5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/6/26/1/enhanced-buzz-9023-1372223315-5.jpg" width="362" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
For my non-geek readers, this is an adaptation of <a href="http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/23100000/Daenerys-Targaryen-game-of-thrones-23107710-1600-1200.jpg">Daenerys Targaryen</a>, from HBO's <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hbo.com%2Fgame-of-thrones%2Findex.html&ei=0GHMUfuEOorIywG1p4HwAg&usg=AFQjCNEnwUKCOSGYIaCBknLI7fVJZnjD4w&sig2=LhSvoaH9xKFBb9-V3ocObw&bvm=bv.48340889,d.aWc">Game of Thrones</a>. The character is a teenage female who is sole heir to her family's dynasty and becomes leader of a vast army partly through the power and majesty of her three newly hatched dragons. Whether you agree with her or not, the image and comparison is striking.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Unfortunately, it's also hilariously wrong. Daenerys suffered through famine and death in the wilderness and freed hundreds of thousands of slaves from bustling slaver ports in the fantasy realm of Essos. Wendy Davis, on the other hand, stood up for a few hours in an air conditioned, well-furnished legislative chamber in order to ensure that the wanton slaughter of viable unborn children would go on unimpeded. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Actually, there is a much more apt comparison for Wendy Davis in Game of Thrones: Joffrey Baratheon, the uncontrollably violent boy king. Specifically in one episode of the second season, Joffrey orders all black-haired young boys in the city, from infants to teens, slaughtered in order to prevent possible bastard offspring of his late father from challenging his own claim to the throne. The ensuing montage of infanticide is brutal to watch, but that fictional horror doesn't even come close to what goes on in abortion clinics across the country on a daily basis. Wendy Davis is now the face of this morbid crusade. All that's missing is the <a href="http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/26/wendy-davis-next-texas-governor/">golden antlered crown</a>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120507065212/villains/images/9/9f/Joffrey_Baratheon_on_the_Iron_Throne_HBO.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="224" src="http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120507065212/villains/images/9/9f/Joffrey_Baratheon_on_the_Iron_Throne_HBO.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-24224131947229070322013-06-18T14:19:00.000-07:002013-06-18T14:19:11.681-07:00BOMBSHELL STUDY: Twins socially interact in the wombWe already know that fetuses <a href="http://anes-som.ucsd.edu/vp%20articles/topic%20c.%20anand.pdf">feel pain</a> as early as 17 weeks. We also know that twins in the womb demonstrate <a href="http://www.ijgo.org/article/S0020-7292(09)00585-2/abstract">physical contact</a> as early as 11 weeks. <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/baby-brain-activity-sleep/">Mental activity</a> can be detected as early as 20 weeks. But a little-covered <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013199">scientific study</a> published in 2010 in Italy (noted only in <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/social-babies/">Wired</a> as far as I can tell) concluded that much of the physical contact between fetal twins is actually social and interactive in nature, not just reactive or reflexive.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">Newborns come into the world wired to socially interact. Is a propensity to socially oriented action already present </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">before</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;"> birth? Twin pregnancies provide a unique opportunity to investigate the social pre-wiring hypothesis. Although various types of inter-twins contact have been demonstrated starting from the 11</span><span style="background-color: white; bottom: 1ex; color: #333333; position: relative; vertical-align: 0px;">th</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;"> week of gestation, no study has so far investigated the critical question whether intra-pair contact is the result of motor planning rather then the accidental outcome of spatial proximity.</span></i></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Kinematic profiles of movements in five pairs of twin foetuses were studied by using four-dimensional ultrasonography during two separate recording sessions carried out at the 14<span style="bottom: 1ex; position: relative; vertical-align: 0px;">th</span> and 18<span style="bottom: 1ex; position: relative; vertical-align: 0px;">th</span> week of gestation. We demonstrate that by the 14th week of gestation twin foetuses do not only display movements directed towards the uterine wall and self-directed movements, but also movements specifically aimed at the co-twin, the proportion of which increases between the 14<span style="bottom: 1ex; position: relative; vertical-align: 0px;">th</span> and 18<span style="bottom: 1ex; position: relative; vertical-align: 0px;">th</span> gestational week. Kinematic analysis revealed that movement duration was longer and deceleration time was prolonged for other-directed movements compared to movements directed towards the uterine wall. Similar kinematic profiles were observed for movements directed towards the co-twin and self-directed movements aimed at the eye-region, i.e. the most delicate region of the body.</i></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b>We conclude that performance of movements towards the co-twin is not accidental: already starting from the 14th week of gestation twin foetuses execute movements specifically aimed at the co-twin.</b></i></span></blockquote>
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="" id="article1.front1.article-meta1.abstract1.sec3.p1" name="article1.front1.article-meta1.abstract1.sec3.p1" style="background-color: white; color: #3c63af; line-height: 18px;"></a></span></i><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">There are mounds of scientific evidence to suggest that fetuses are living, feeling, aware human beings very early on in pregnancy. This study seems to be a conclusive flag planted on top of that mound. Anyone who continues to call unborn children a "<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naral.org%2F&ei=HMzAUf_CIYGgrgGo9oDwAg&usg=AFQjCNFzeiz4y6hMCaOeb9B5q_Nyoj4lZQ&sig2=2de5afQcPOXaN9rW2Ifulw&bvm=bv.48175248,d.aWM">choice</a>", a "mass of tissue", a "<a href="http://clinicquotes.com/judge-calls-unborn-baby-a-growth/">growth</a>", or says that whether it's life or not is "<a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2008/08/16/obama-says-pointed-abortion-query-above-his-pay-grade/">above my pay grade</a>" should no longer be taken seriously on the issue. <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-12-global-warming-cover_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA">The debate is over</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/The_science_is_settled">The science is settled</a>. A fetus is alive and should be treated as such.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-79180893271092466722013-06-12T09:51:00.002-07:002013-06-12T09:51:29.253-07:00The law-breaking canard against immigration reformThere are lots of well-intentioned conservatives against immigration reform. Then there are simple haters. I'm not sure which group the "law-breaker" peddlers fall into, but they're really irritating me lately.<br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/37/Cumberland_School_of_Law_Justice_and_Mercy_2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/37/Cumberland_School_of_Law_Justice_and_Mercy_2.JPG" width="200" /></a><br />
When arguing against any type of legal status for currently illegal immigrants, <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/340830.php">these people</a> claim that since breaking the law was someone's "first act" in our country, they are apparently forbidden from ever having a meaningful life as an immigrant or otherwise in America. Of course we are a country of laws and our society breaks down when those laws are flaunted, but what about when the laws themselves are...broken?<br />
<br />
One argument often used is that since there are over <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/02/22/172622730/the-line-for-legal-immigration-is-already-about-4-million-people-long">4 million people</a> waiting to immigrate here legally, we shouldn't reward the ones that have "cut in line" ahead of them illegally. This also argues <i>for</i> reform<i>.</i> The fact that there are over 4 million people waiting for years to immigrate legally is a point in favor of reform, not against it. We should make it easier for <i>everyone</i> to come here legally, not add more people to the already absurdly long line.<br />
<br />
But more simply, the argument that breaking an administrative rule by skirting the immigration system should bar you from any rights and privileges as an American in the future is absurd. We can't possibly enforce the laws as they are, the numbers simply prohibit it, and the numbers also prove the need for reform.<br />
<br />
I realize this is a mostly libertarian argument, so not everyone will agree to it, but it seems like a speeding ticket to me. Speeding itself doesn't harm anyone. Why is it illegal? Because it increases the <i>potential</i> for harm. Unauthorized immigration itself doesn't actually harm anyone. Sometimes those who do it also break <i>other</i> laws and do harm, but that has nothing to do with their immigration status. Having this hugely complex immigration process seems as pointless as speed limits. People who intend to break them will do so, while the rest of us will drive at relatively safe speeds for its own sake, not because it's the law.<br />
<br />
There is a fundamental argument about the purpose of the law under this debate. Should the law be massive and confusing in order to prevent any possible negative event, or should it be simple and predictable and have a net positive effect on society?<br />
<br />
And when the law itself is bad, should we really punish people for working around it? Where is the line between justified civil disobedience and lawlessness?<br />
<br />
SHORTER: When everyone agrees that the law is a mess and needs fixing, why is someone having already broken it an argument against doing so?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-45674850289021047522013-06-11T14:32:00.001-07:002013-06-12T12:10:38.646-07:00Bush > Obama, OfficiallyShot:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx"><img border="0" src="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jvfnxpfw5kcheyzn8qclzg.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Chaser:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252626; line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Americans' views of former president George W. Bush <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/163022/former-president-george-bush-image-ratings-improve.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics">have improved</a>, with 49% now viewing him favorably and 46% unfavorably. That is the first time since 2005 that opinions of him have been more positive than negative.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Whether it's because of recent scandals or the favorable passage of time, </span>it is now official: George W Bush is more popular than Barack Obama.<br />
<br />
UPDATE: Another day, another <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx">three points down</a> for Obama, now at 45% approval on the 3-day rolling average (different than the weekly average shown above). Bush now leads him by 4% instead of 1%.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-28728356490851452502013-06-11T13:03:00.000-07:002013-06-11T13:03:19.377-07:00The Immigration GameImmigration is to 2014 as Obamacare was to 2010, whether it passes or fails.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://senoritaruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/border_crossing_sign.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="183" src="http://senoritaruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/border_crossing_sign.jpg" width="200" /></a>After a year of debate, Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. The resulting outrage swept the Democrats from power in the House and nearly the Senate in the November 2010 midterm elections. Immigration reform may have the same effect on next year's election, in one of two directions. It will pass the Senate, but its fate in the House is the real question. If it gets full Democrat support and a few Republicans, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/its-over-comprehensive-immigration-reform-is-going-to-pass-2013-6">it will pass the House</a>. It then becomes a GOP target for rallying the base to the midterm election (along with the IRS, NSA, EPA, and other scandals), possibly helping Republicans take back the Senate.<br />
<br />
However, if it fails it will have the opposite effect, this time for Democrats. If the GOP stands united against it, and it doesn't pass the House, President Obama gets to rally <i>his</i> base against the "hateful, bigoted, xenophobic, backwards" Republicans. There's not much of a chance of Democrats taking back the House in 2014, but an energized Democrat base could at least hold their Senate majority.<br />
<br />
So that's the game. Some even suggest the bill is <i><a href="https://twitter.com/CarrieNBCNews/status/344538422767132674">designed</a></i> to fail for these electoral reasons. I call myself cynical, but even I'm not that cynical. I think immigration reform is the right thing to do, for many, <i>many</i> reasons, though I don't think the bill is perfect (is any?). But we'll never get a perfect bill, and until then millions of people from other countries who just want a better life for themselves and their children are pushed to undermine our legal system. So screw the politics, let's fix the system.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-14934924477289021352013-06-06T21:02:00.002-07:002013-06-06T21:28:04.020-07:00The NSA excuse only goes halfwayIn response to the collective outrage that the National Security Agency <a href="https://twitter.com/nbcnightlynews/status/342771225195597824">collects records</a> on <i>every phone call made in the US every day</i>, the Obama administration has <a href="http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/06/obama-administration-declassifies-phone-records-seizures-condemns-leaks/">declassified some details</a> about the program in an attempt to explain it and douse the flames. In short, the program is approved by the secret FISA court, reviewed periodically for abuse, and does not actually use the data except when specific threats or information arise. While this might make them, and even some outraged citizens, feel better, it does not make it any less unconstitutional.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKLR6WFtXdqo7hHr0uaR4oA9C5-YzB53ME9-AQAlK-g-P3c6eYhNCJITZm-W9IQn8Wnj2DjK_JfbTJY-OZe4JODx8Qlqh0NPxGIphhglYgqe7PIDfKN9xg9ZSCJrRSWlr3uDL1fg/s1600/nsa_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="197" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKLR6WFtXdqo7hHr0uaR4oA9C5-YzB53ME9-AQAlK-g-P3c6eYhNCJITZm-W9IQn8Wnj2DjK_JfbTJY-OZe4JODx8Qlqh0NPxGIphhglYgqe7PIDfKN9xg9ZSCJrRSWlr3uDL1fg/s200/nsa_2.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Fourth Amendment</a> states:<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.1875px;"><i>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, <b>against unreasonable searches and seizures</b>, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</i></span></span></blockquote>
<br />
The administration argues that since they do not actually look at or use the data without probable cause, the program is valid. They are saying that they have probable cause when they do a <i>search </i>on the data. The problem is that they don't have probable cause when they <i>seize</i> the data. There cannot possibly be probable cause to seize phone records for the entire country. This is by definition unreasonable, and thus prohibited by the Constitution that the congressmen who created the legal authority for, bureaucrats who administer, and judges who sign off on this program swore to protect and uphold.<br />
<div>
<br />
UPDATE:<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/868-dni-statement-on-recent-unauthorized-disclosures-of-classified-information">full statement</a> by James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, has one statement that I think deserves extra scrutiny.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>The collection is broad in scope because more narrow collection would limit our ability to screen for and identify terrorism-related communications.</i></span></span></blockquote>
Quite simply, too bad. I'm sure there are lots of unconstitutional things the government could do to keep us safe. They still aren't and shouldn't ever be allowed to do them.<br />
<br />
The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a former FBI agent, Mike Rodgers, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/administration-lawmakers-defend-nsa-program-to-collect-phone-records/2013/06/06/2a56d966-ceb9-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html?hpid=z1">went even further</a> today and said that we have already thwarted a domestic terrorist attack because of this program. Again, too bad. We could thwart even more terrorist attacks if we <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">quartered soldiers</a> in citizens' homes or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act">conducted military operations</a> in American cities, but that doesn't mean we should. Part of the byproduct of living in a free republic is the risk of occasional harm. We formed the federal government to protect our liberties from infringement by others within a framework of laws, not to prevent that harm by any means necessary.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-4877534158429053792013-06-04T13:26:00.001-07:002013-06-04T13:26:24.028-07:00Christie's gambit<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2012/11/121123_christie_booker_3_ap_605_605.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="108" src="http://images.politico.com/global/2012/11/121123_christie_booker_3_ap_605_605.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Robert Costa <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/350108/christie-rejected-2014-option-robert-costa">at NRO</a> and others make the case that Governor Chris Christie has sold out the GOP for his own aspirations (?) with his decision to hold a special election to fill Lautenberg's vacated Senate seat in October 2013 instead of allowing his soon-to-be-appointed interim choice remain in the seat until the end of Lautenberg's term in 2014. This objection is wrong on both counts.<br />
<br />
First, it isn't necessarily Christie choosing himself (or Democrat electoral chances?) over GOP chances. The only Republican that would be allegedly helped by having the interim appointment serve until 2014 is that appointed candidate, or one Senate seat. Conversely, there are lots of Republicans who could be helped by keeping the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/10/poll-voters-like-booker-more-than-lautenberg/">extremely popular</a> and charismatic like Democratic nominee, Newark mayor Cory Booker, off the November 2014 ballot. Christie himself will likely inflate GOP turnout in November 2013, which will help Republicans running for the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/State_legislative_elections,_2013#New_Jersey">other state offices</a> in that election. Christie won't be on the ballot in 2014, but had he not made this decision, Booker would be, which would probably have inflated Democrat and specifically black turnout, dragging down other potential New Jersey Republicans running for the House. So yes, he may have traded away Republican chances for one more Senate seat in 2014, but really how good were those chances going to be anyway?<br />
<br />
It turns out that with an interim appointed Senator, not very good. And that's the second part Costa and others get wrong. Having a Republican appointed to Lautenberg's seat for the next 18 months <i>does not</i> increase the chances of a Republican keeping that seat in 2014. It turns out that interim appointees have a <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/how-christie-can-maximize-the-g-o-p-s-chances-in-new-jersey/">very hard time</a> holding onto their seat in the next election historically. Given that this election would have been against Cory Booker and his +60% approval rating anyway, Christie would be trading 18 months of an extra Republican in the Senate for...nothing really.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-37648297253105749802013-05-27T21:05:00.000-07:002013-05-27T21:05:03.741-07:00"Crumbling roads and bridges": A lesson in finger pointingAfter last week's <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/26/18513234-collapsed-washington-bridge-has-history-of-mishaps?lite">bridge collapse</a> in Washington State (and <a href="http://www.startribune.com/projects/11608881.html">the one in Minneapolis</a> before it), the knee jerk reaction is to blame our nation's "<a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/05/real-news-uncovers-another-oft-repeated-obama-mantra-crumbling-roads/">crumbling roads and bridges</a>" on a lack of funding, and by extension miserly Republicans who want to cut spending. And while there is a <a href="http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/24/bridge-repairs-compete-with-sexy-new-infrastructure-projects/">case to be made</a> that a lot of our highway system needs repair, that is neither because of a lack of funding, nor Republicans standing in the way.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIy9umjvTXLioxNvXoSo4ZSE5noZl2Zq-mNA5_9Sth1NixyR_wDirxkBYisEwy_6kwwgiMDgOaobwKYBe-Rhz_bLAHQCP4jQdJp82ip4cFCnQxS-iwEa4HBRd_lFLK1M2S0XJooA/s1600/construction.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIy9umjvTXLioxNvXoSo4ZSE5noZl2Zq-mNA5_9Sth1NixyR_wDirxkBYisEwy_6kwwgiMDgOaobwKYBe-Rhz_bLAHQCP4jQdJp82ip4cFCnQxS-iwEa4HBRd_lFLK1M2S0XJooA/s320/construction.jpg" width="320" /></a>Between 2002 and 2006 when we had a Republican in the White House and Republican majorities in Congress, <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PBHWYCONS/downloaddata?cid=32436">total public construction spending on roads</a> went from $62,553,000,000 to $78,215,000,000, an increase of 25%. At the same time, we were fighting two wars, creating new national education and Medicare programs, and cutting taxes. Lest anyone think Republicans are anarchistic social Darwinists.<br />
<br />
Between 2007 and 2010 the Republican was succeeded by a Democrat in the White House and Democrats took over both houses of Congress. Public spending on roads went from the previous $78,215,000,000 to $80,100,000,000, an increase of...wait for it...2%. Certainly it hasn't risen anymore since Republicans took back the House at the end of 2010, but if you're only going to increase it by 5% over 4 straight years of Democratic control, any argument about what the other guys do is hilariously hypocritical.<br />
<br />
The really insidious thing about this data is what occurred right in the middle of that second time period: Stimulus! The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009">American Recovery and Reinvestment Act</a> passed in February 2009 by the Democrat-led Congress and signed by President Obama was sold as an "emergency" measure designed to jump start our economy primarily by funding "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O55aRrvXtio">shovel-ready</a>" (HA HA HA HA HA) infrastructure projects and green energy investment. It did neither. The month the stimulus was passed, public spending on roads was $81,762,000,000. One year later it was 5% <i>lower </i>at $77,779,000,000 and didn't peak until May 2010 at $86,203,000,000.<br />
<br />
The main thing the stimulus did (apart from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Tax_incentives">cutting taxes</a>, which I could have sworn was a <a href="http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/tax-law-tax-relief/11748893-1.html">bad thing</a>...) is create a massive slush fund for public sector unions. At a time when tax revenues were down during and immediately after the recession, states took a hit to their bottom line and faced cutting employees. Given the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=P04">overwhelmingly Democratic leanings</a> of public employees, that just wasn't an option. So the stimulus basically propped up state budgets to <a href="http://www.nea.org/home/36531.htm">keep their employees working</a> (and contributing to their unions). That's why Department of Education appropriations from the stimulus were <a href="http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/Pages/FundsNotSpent.aspx">twice as high</a> as Department of Transportation. Instead of repairing old bridges, we kept school administrators comfortable. Instead of repaving roads, the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/obamas-stimulus-education-union_n_858664.html">NEA stayed happy</a>.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
There is certainly an argument to be made (though not one I'd agree with) for maintaining state employment during tough economic times with massive infusions of federal tax dollars. But that's not the argument that was presented to the American people. Instead we were told that all our infrastructure problems would be solved and the economy would bounce back. Neither happened.</div>
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="240" mozallowfullscreen="" src="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_destruction.ogg?embedplayer=yes" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="320"></iframe></center>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-90633365093471410972013-05-24T08:21:00.002-07:002013-05-24T08:21:38.069-07:00New Cynicus Prime policy: Don't engage bigots and homophobesThirteen years after the Supreme Court <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale">affirmed</a> the Boy Scouts of America and other private organizations' right to limit their membership as they choose, delegates of the BSA <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18447459-boy-scouts-vote-to-lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite">voted yesterday</a> by 61-39% to allow gay scouts to join (up to age 18). The reaction among the neandercon religious right was predictably swift, vile, and unchristian. Jesus befriended prostitutes, gamblers, and soulless bureaucrats. But you demand the "freedom of association" to not allow teh gheyz in your group? Really?<br />
<br />
I've tried reasoning with these people in the past on this. I even tried last night in the fury of the immediate aftermath of the BSA decision. It's beyond futile. With polls <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx">rapidly leaving them</a> in the dirt, it is no longer worth anyone's time to intellectually engage on these issues. They're wrong, they'll never accept it, and their hateful, ignorant position will be all but extinct within a decade.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcFzO8F5nmaqa0voXEw8lkOrB6CLdsGEI0umN32cUoBqnLTmx1ymPEi_TkNosYizi1RNtoq-3r4OHpPLgU4CkuUOAxIN9xppVvBcXqymGtk_8QEtK5bcINagpzp0TlGtEoL8LNWg/s1600/tumblr_m2j1hcMTl21qfhnu0o1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcFzO8F5nmaqa0voXEw8lkOrB6CLdsGEI0umN32cUoBqnLTmx1ymPEi_TkNosYizi1RNtoq-3r4OHpPLgU4CkuUOAxIN9xppVvBcXqymGtk_8QEtK5bcINagpzp0TlGtEoL8LNWg/s1600/tumblr_m2j1hcMTl21qfhnu0o1_500.jpg" /></a></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-66147628053209921202013-05-22T09:32:00.000-07:002013-05-22T09:32:20.836-07:00No, an increase in 501c4 applications is not an excuse for IRS targetingMany Democrats on Congressional committees investigating the IRS discrimination against conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status have used an increase in these applications to excuse the discrimination itself. They suggest that applications "doubled" between 2009 and 2012, over the time the discrimination took place. Some go even further to suggest that the Supreme Court's decision in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission">Citizens United case</a>, decided January 2010, led immediately to the doubling of applications. They then ask if the resources allocated to the IRS to handle this "doubled" caseload was correspondingly increased.<br />
<br />
This all seems like a reasonable argument, but for one minor detail. The IRS began targeting in March 2010. The cases "doubled" <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/there-was-no-surge-in-irs-tax-exempt-applications-in-2010/275985/">between 2010 and 2012</a>, not 2009 and 2010. They only went up 30% the year <i>after</i> targeting began, and another 48% the year after that.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-17%20at%2012.46.35%20PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-17%20at%2012.46.35%20PM.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
IRS officials would have had to be able to predict only two months after Citizens United that their caseload was going to increase significantly over the next three years in order for their actions to be even marginally excusable from an efficiency standpoint. But as the Treasury Inspector General has testified, even in that case, the specific targeting of certain types of groups is unacceptable.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-54462504186077550672013-05-16T13:58:00.000-07:002013-05-16T14:02:42.167-07:00A rough timeline of the IRS harassment scandal5/13/09 - President Obama <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/obama-irs-joke-audit-2009-91496.html">jokes</a> about using an IRS audit to punish someone over an NCAA basketball tournament bracket.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GhQHeQy-xQI" width="420"></iframe></blockquote>
<br />
March 2010 - IRS begins <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/conservative-activist-green-name-gets-irs-stamp-approval-193457897.html">selectively</a> and <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/14/irs-gave-progressives-a-pass-tea-party-groups-put-on-hold/2159983/">purposefully</a> stalling hundreds of conservative groups' applications for non-profit status with <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-irs-denied-tax-exempt-status-to-pro-lifers-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/article/2529750?custom_click=rss">prohibitively</a> <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-irs-wants-you-to-share-everything-91378.html#ixzz2TMUi2VAa">detailed</a> <a href="http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/323502-letter-from-the-irs-to-tea-party-organizations.html">information requests</a>, while <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/">fast-tracking</a> liberal groups' applications.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
9/29/10 - Max Baucus (D-MT) <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5E41CEE1-9785-0887-0CE04321BF37A8DF">requests</a> IRS investigate political activity by conservative nonprofit groups.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations involved in political campaign activity to examine whether they are operated for the organization’s intended tax exempt purpose and to ensure that political campaign activity is not the organization’s primary activity."</i></blockquote>
October 2010 - Republicans <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/us/politics/07irs.html">complain</a> about IRS audits requested by Bau<span style="font-family: inherit;">cus.</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">"Leading Republicans are suggesting that a senior official in the Obama administration may have improperly accessed the tax records of Koch Industries, an oil company whose owners are major conservative donors.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">And the Republicans are also upset about an I.R.S. review requested by Senator <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/max_baucus/index.html?inline=nyt-per" style="color: #666699;" title="More articles about Max Baucus.">Max Baucus</a>, the Montana Democrat who leads the Finance Committee, into the political activities of tax-exempt groups. Such a review threatens to “chill the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,” wrote two Republican senators, <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/orrin_g_hatch/index.html?inline=nyt-per" style="color: #666699;" title="More articles about Orrin G. Hatch.">Orrin G. Hatch</a> of Utah and <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/jon_kyl/index.html?inline=nyt-per" style="color: #666699;" title="More articles about Jon Kyl.">Jon Kyl</a>of Arizona, in a letter sent to the I.R.S. on Wednesday."</span></i></blockquote>
<br />
10/25/10 - President Obama <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/25/obamas-turnout-pitch-to-latinos-get-out-there-and-punish-your-enemies/">implores</a> his supporters to "punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends".<br />
<br />
Winter 2012 - Conservative groups <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/us/politics/irs-scrutiny-of-political-groups-stirs-harassment-claim.html?gwh=B66BEB472495524E7E6060BFC5D4F3BA">complain</a> about IRS selective treatment.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"The Internal Revenue Service is caught in an election-year struggle between Democratic lawmakers pressing for a crackdown on nonprofit political groups and conservative organizations accusing the tax agency of conducting a politically charged witch hunt."</i></blockquote>
3/7/12 - New York Times applauds IRS for doing "its job" by harassing c<span style="font-family: inherit;">onservative groups.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>"Taxpayers should be encouraged by complaints from Tea Party chapters applying for nonprofit tax status at being asked by the Internal Revenue Service to prove they are “social welfare” organizations and not the political activists they so obviously are."</i></span></span></blockquote>
3/12/12 - Chuck Schumer <a href="http://www.schumer.senate.gov/Newsroom/record.cfm?id=336270">requests</a> more scrutiny of political nonprofits by IRS<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><i>"The senators said the lack of clarity in the IRS rules has allowed political groups to improperly claim 501(c)4 status and may even be allowing donors to these groups to wrongly claim tax deductions for their contributions. The senators promised legislation if the IRS failed to act to fix these problems."</i></span></blockquote>
Spring 2012 - Treasury Inspector General begins investigating reports of IRS harassment. Unclear if selective scrutiny actually stopped.<br />
<br />
4/22/13 - White House counsel was <a href="http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/05/white-house-counsel-told-of-irs-review-in-april-163858.html">advised</a> of IG investigation.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://cynicusprime.blogspot.com/2013/05/friday-may-10-2013-day-obama.html">5/10/13</a> - IRS <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/10/irs-apology-conservative-groups-2012-election/2149939/">apologizes</a> for specifically targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny in nonprofit applications.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/16/evan-mathis-shows-his-disdain-for-the-irs/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://larrybrownsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/evan-mathis-irs.jpg" width="300" /></a>5/14/13 - IRS releases Treasury Inspector General <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/141502643/AIG-aduit-of-IRS-abuses">report</a> about abuses.<br />
<br />
5/15/13 - President Obama <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-head-resigns-obama-condemns-inexcusable-actions/story?id=19187388">demands/receives</a> resignation of the acting IRS commisioner who was <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/resignation-fired-irs-commissioner-planned-leave-post-june/story?id=19193192#.UZVE77XvsmM">already scheduled to leave</a> in June.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 23px;">"Miller, a 25-year career IRS employee, was appointed acting commissioner on November 9, 2012. According to the </span><a href="http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/admin/Vacancies_Reform_Act1998.pdf" style="background-color: white; color: #336699; line-height: 23px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 23px;">, his 210-day term would have set his last day in that post as June 8."</span></i></span></blockquote>
Any questions?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-54591791031158632292013-05-16T09:23:00.000-07:002013-05-16T13:35:02.051-07:00Star Trek, Through the Looking Glass<div dir="ltr">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPghjmNkqGixZlPuPxRKpDX-yfDvW9cDfPvlHnqwroscAq4cnHvqjeCjPMN8pzjWgTQqYWDXr8cWpBtUn7nKT9WCvJsYkq4Tx6msVcyijGX8J93BN3mtFKXPNdV8BZyn7hQS-otg/s1600/star-trek-into-darkness-poster-benedict-cumberbatch-front.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPghjmNkqGixZlPuPxRKpDX-yfDvW9cDfPvlHnqwroscAq4cnHvqjeCjPMN8pzjWgTQqYWDXr8cWpBtUn7nKT9WCvJsYkq4Tx6msVcyijGX8J93BN3mtFKXPNdV8BZyn7hQS-otg/s400/star-trek-into-darkness-poster-benedict-cumberbatch-front.jpg" width="200" /></a>The latest Star Trek movie in JJ Abrams' rebooted franchise is titled 'Into Darkness'. It could just as easily be titled 'Through the Looking Glass'.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
I'll avoid direct spoilers here, but as many production details over the last year suggested, Into Darkness is a remake of sorts of Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. Except after the chronology break that occurred because of the time travel in the last movie, most of the important points are reversed. It's an innovative, but extremely risky move, especially since Wrath of Khan is viewed by many Trek fans as the best film in the over 30-year franchise. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
The plot of Into Darkness on paper is excellent. Everything fits into place in sequence and with a purpose, but most of it feels like a puzzle that's been fit together out of lots of shiny pieces rather than a picture that started off whole but made of individual components. Loud chase sequence(s), classic Trek villain, the Enterprise in peril, flagrant violation of Starfleet regulations, logic vs intuition debates, obligatory "GRAB MY HAND!1!!" falling scene, inappropriate one-liners, it's all there. But it doesn't feel like it comes together to make one cohesive whole.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
The perfect example of this is the opening sequence. The crew of the Enterprise is surveying a primitive alien planet and hides the ship...underwater just offshore of a massive volcano threatening all life on this world. Decisions are made (after much Vulcan protestation, of course), and the Enterprise emerges from the ocean in order to save the life of a crew member (JUST! IN! TIME!, complete with the first of several countdown clocks used in the film), exposing the pre-industrial civilization to the existence of the space ship, violating the Prime Directive of the Federation. It's done in a way that connects the dots, but it feels like just that. Like they wanted a land-based chase, a scary volcano eruption, the Enterprise floating up out of water, so they wrote a script that included all those things and made it work narratively. I realize that's probably how most movies are made these days. But the great ones don't feel like it.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i><b>Light spoiler territory below (not about the villain)</b></i></span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #f3f3f3;">In the end, a major problem here is also part of a larger trend in recent big action movies: no one important ever really dies. Sure they might "die", but, like Monty Python's plague victims, they get better. Yes, we're in sci-fi futuristic comic book territory where such things are technically possible, but they've been used as a crutch for lazy screenwriters in everything lately. Agent Coulson "died" in the Avengers last year, but he's coming back for the television series this fall. Pepper Potts and Happy Hogan seem to "die" in Iron Man 3, but both make a miraculous recovery just before the end. Batman sacrifices himself for Gotham at the end of The Dark Knight Rises, but then Bruce Wayne is back at the end. The same happens here. In the "original" Wrath of Khan, Spock sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise. He dies and is fired off the ship in a torpedo casket onto a planet being terraformed. We found out a few years later in The Search for Spock, that the Genesis project at work on that planet when Spock was laid to rest brought him back, in a sense. But at least we had to deal with the finality of his death for a while. That experience never lasts for more than a few minutes within modern sci-fi/fantasy/superhero movies.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #f3f3f3;">Now, there's plenty of anonymous mortal consequence. Buildings are destroyed, ships crash, terrorism occurs, but, with one relatively inconsequential exception, it's never anyone we know or care about. Just narrative collateral damage.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #cccccc;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Another risk taken in this Star Trek series, having other actors play iconic, stylized characters, is starting to take its toll in this second re-iteration. Some of the portrayals of the main Enterprise crew are becoming little more than impersonations. Kirk's character is the only one that I think is done properly. He has the same character traits as the original, but Chris Pine doesn't (or Abrams doesn't make him) copy William Shatner's mannerisms and speech patterns. To even attempt to do so after Shatner would be madness, but Abrams maintains it with the rest of the characters. Bones, Checkov, and Scotty are becoming nearly intolerable in their mimicry of the original actors voices and verbal ticks. Most of this is the script attempting to rely on nostalgia with these characters instead of moving them forward, as they do with Kirk and Spock. Uhura and Sulu are both used very well, but partially because they're both treated like blank slates, keeping almost nothing from their original iterations. If this series is to survive, it must start...boldly going where no one has gone before, rather than mirroring the fondly-remembered past and adding new computer tricks.</div>
Matthew DesOrmeauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09355478468204563335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-34262768843727547302013-05-15T08:49:00.004-07:002013-05-16T13:35:30.725-07:00Impeachment, the worst idea ever<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348351/chaffetz-doesnt-rule-out-impeachment-says-hes-not-seeking-it">Stop</a>. Seriously, <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-the-irs-scandal-should-lead-to-obamas-impeachment/">just stop</a>.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1nw-lGgfuwZWBxI92IvGX5Yj-nlBs5mqe0Fs5Q1LMNVFVlF52voaH5DMdmQFwVoI0dHki81l_iF51iSI3s9C5bApKpxn99pbYN1GeHyuCBzjNKVJs_kKeUy8kSVRSluH6b56V5w/s1600/ImpeachmentTicket.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1nw-lGgfuwZWBxI92IvGX5Yj-nlBs5mqe0Fs5Q1LMNVFVlF52voaH5DMdmQFwVoI0dHki81l_iF51iSI3s9C5bApKpxn99pbYN1GeHyuCBzjNKVJs_kKeUy8kSVRSluH6b56V5w/s320/ImpeachmentTicket.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
Impeachment is the civil punishment of a public official for "high crimes and misdemeanors". In the federal government it is voted on by the House of Representatives. The impeachment itself has no significant consequence. It is then followed by a trial in the Senate. If convicted, the possible punishment is removal from office and disqualification from future office. A regular criminal process can then take place.<br />
<br />
None of these aspects of the process is advisable right now in relation to the Benghazi, IRS, AP, EPA, or other <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/05/barack_obama_scandals_the_white_house_faces_controversies_over_benghazi.html">scandals</a>.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
Right now we have no information to show that President Obama was directly involved in any of it. Investigations are still going on, and only Benghazi has had congressional hearings so far. It's <i>way</i> too early to start drawing up walking papers for the President. Doing so now makes it look like a political vendetta rather than an honest quest for the truth.<br />
<br />
The House would vote on impeachment. Republicans control the House. It would probably pass, but with the narrative already in place for the last three years that Congress is engaged in little more than partisan bickering, an impeachment vote would be the massive constitutional cherry on top of the cake.<br />
<br />
The Senate would hold the trial. Democrats control the Senate (<a href="http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/ratings/senate">until maybe 2015</a>)<span id="goog_946423060"></span><span id="goog_946423061"></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/"></a>. It probably wouldn't even be initiated. So the impeachment vote in the House would be the end of it. It would accomplish nothing. Obama would still be President, Washington would be even more bitterly divided than it already is, and the public would be annoyed by the whole thing by the end.<br />
<br />
Only two Presidents have been impeached in our history: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson">Andrew Johnson</a> and Bill Clinton. Even after openly lying under oath, the public <a href="http://www.democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls">didn't support</a> impeaching Clinton at the time. The GOP-led House went ahead with it and <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/impeachment.01/">voted</a> <span style="background-color: white;">228-206 and </span><span style="background-color: white;">221-212</span> for two articles of impeachment (two others failed). The GOP-led Senate held the trial and <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/">voted</a> 55-45 against and 50-50 on the two counts and acquitted him. President Clinton's approval rating never got below 53% after impeachment, and he left office at 66%.<br />
<br />
I shudder to even mention it, as the thought is too horrifying for words, but there's one last reason not to impeach and remove President Obama. Two words: <i>President Biden</i>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-29472363211359749132013-05-13T14:09:00.001-07:002013-05-13T20:45:55.884-07:00Friday, May 10, 2013: The day the Obama administration came crumbling downIn April we had the <a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/jesus-this-week,32105/">Worst Week Ever</a>, including the Boston marathon bombing and West TX explosion. For the Obama administration, last Friday was the Worst Day Ever.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/103/740/Me%20Gusta.png?1318992465" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/103/740/Me%20Gusta.png?1318992465" width="193" /></a>The House Oversight Committee's hearing about the Benghazi terrorist attack was two days prior, and on Friday <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/">more details</a> came out about the changes made to the talking points used by various administration officials in the weeks to <a href="http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/10/from-fncs-james-rosen-state-offers-details-on-nuland-participation-in-benghazi-talking-points/">cover their tracks</a> following the attack.<br />
<br />
Later that day, the IRS <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=182856014">apologized</a> for specifically targeting "tea party" and "patriot" labeled groups in applying for non-profit status.<br />
<br />
Now we learn today that on Friday the <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe">AP was notified</a> by the DOJ that they had seized two full months of telephone records for 20 of their reporters' phone lines.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>I don't think the President will resign over any of this, nor will impeachment proceedings begin, but I think last Friday might actually be the day that the media turned on Obama and finally started treating him like any other President rather than <a href="http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/royal-obama-thanking-me-250x320.jpg">King Barack the Well-intentioned</a>, as they have to date.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-23835798381454973972013-05-10T22:20:00.001-07:002013-05-13T20:47:20.752-07:00What America really thinks about abortion might surprise youA large portion of the last presidential election cycle was spent talking about abortion. It wasn't always front and center (the "war on women" was basically a smokescreen for abortion), but it was there. President Obama was obviously on the side of abortion rights, and he won. So it might surprise you to know that a large majority of the country thinks abortion should be illegal under all or almost all circumstances.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ll4hl11kc0oymqw0rvldrw.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="157" src="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ll4hl11kc0oymqw0rvldrw.gif" width="200" /></a>According to a <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/162374/americans-abortion-views-steady-amid-gosnell-trial.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication">new Gallup poll</a> taken over the last week of 1500 adults, 58% of the country thinks abortion should be totally illegal or only legal in "a few circumstances" (presumably the standard exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother), essentially the Republican position. Only 39% think it should be legal in all or most cases, the Democrat position. How then was the President able to so effectively demagogue the issue in 2012?<br />
<br />
Even more shocking, especially considering the campaign rhetoric last year, is the almost total lack of gender gap on the issue. Conventional wisdom is that women are more pro-choice than men. However, there is only a difference of 2% in the pro-life majority between men and women, with 59% of men and 57% of women opposing abortion in all or most cases.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Just as fascinating is the gender gap. While young voters (under 34) are just as pro-life as the overall population (57% under 34 vs 58% total), they are more polarized on the issue than the other age groups, with 23% opposing abortion in all cases (vs 20%) and 29% supporting it in all cases (vs 26%).<br />
<br />
The partisan divide, while unsurprisingly strong, also has an unusual tint. Republicans are far more pro-life than Democrats are pro-choice. A full 78% of Republicans oppose abortion in all or most cases, but only 54% of Democrats support abortion in all or most cases. Actually, 31% of Democrats oppose abortion in most cases. Interesting then that their party holds such a singular and unwavering view on the subject on the national level.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/raq2lvzpgei-nqopyqsuuw.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="120" src="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/raq2lvzpgei-nqopyqsuuw.gif" width="200" /></a>However, as in so many other areas perception does not always equal reality. When asked if they consider themselves pro-life or pro-choice, the numbers came out more even, with 48% identifying as pro-life and 45% as pro-choice. So even when 58% hold a pro-life position, 10% of them don't identify that way. This is frustratingly similar to <a href="http://cynicusprime.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-gop-image-problem-explained-in-one.html">ongoing identity problems</a> in <a href="http://cynicusprime.blogspot.com/2013/03/gop-image-problem-eavesdropping-edition.html">the GOP</a>, and most likely something that gets worked out organically as society evolves, hopefully by changing the image and not the position.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07497281794674998268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-55466872017990787422013-05-02T20:15:00.000-07:002013-05-13T20:48:13.733-07:00A progressively gayer flag<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiRROEEXS6PYuQsHUz2s3UYJwk280weGZ1nP3Izrh_gX6Knp4jigD1lEkMy16CqBcKBRzfPIN1clPGAUup7kxfbatNyrWEkhnPV3k_5Iqf53bVDfeew6d8tBp4OUueA2_-jPiz6A/s1600/americanflag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="123" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiRROEEXS6PYuQsHUz2s3UYJwk280weGZ1nP3Izrh_gX6Knp4jigD1lEkMy16CqBcKBRzfPIN1clPGAUup7kxfbatNyrWEkhnPV3k_5Iqf53bVDfeew6d8tBp4OUueA2_-jPiz6A/s200/americanflag.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
I love the American flag. It represents so many wonderful things about our nation - its values, its history, its individual member states' sovereignty, its unity among those states. Not that it needs to be changed, but I often daydream about ways to represent new ideas on the already powerful image of the flag. Back in my more naively anti-capitalist youth, I thought of replacing the stars on the flag with corporate logos. It turns out someone had <a href="http://www.corporateamericanflag.com/" target="_blank">already done that</a>.<br />
<br />
Just today I thought of a new one while thinking about the ongoing struggle for marriage equality in the various states. There is already a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag_(LGBT_movement)" target="_blank">rainbow flag</a>, and an <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Glory-Rainbow-Flag-Stripes-Embroidered/dp/B008N1U0TE" target="_blank">American flag with a rainbow</a> instead of 13 stripes. But what if certain stars were replaced with the rainbow instead, to show which states had legalized gay marriage?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>To get the full picture, let's look at a base version with the rainbow overlaid on all 50 stars, to represent the hopeful future when all 50 states recognize same-sex marriage:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtjXWdknH07OqT50XAFz0Ef674D45dxK69H9gXl_eSiS937qk9BfxBxCnLqbPG5DPRauhUeUOW4-DMc5WlVUL4hdIwJVE_g5JxZoan7VaOuE2HtNmGyRa6NJ88OWgO4UKExBwZbg/s1600/americanflag-rainbowstars-full.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtjXWdknH07OqT50XAFz0Ef674D45dxK69H9gXl_eSiS937qk9BfxBxCnLqbPG5DPRauhUeUOW4-DMc5WlVUL4hdIwJVE_g5JxZoan7VaOuE2HtNmGyRa6NJ88OWgO4UKExBwZbg/s400/americanflag-rainbowstars-full.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Then we show only those states that recognize full marriage rights, with the states listed in order of admission to the union (DE #1 at top left, HI #50 at bottom right):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoby7uqHHwUQfFqhInU4vOwk5UWu8mLmORBevj3XnNq2UbTClo0f490ETiC7kbdr6RbLCiFsX_cBPhSbI7nNQbP-HdTZJlB-lf4Y_cKPjI_pI6Hy0UB_hePOwW1-x1QHZI5XLEgA/s1600/americanflag-rainbowstars-10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoby7uqHHwUQfFqhInU4vOwk5UWu8mLmORBevj3XnNq2UbTClo0f490ETiC7kbdr6RbLCiFsX_cBPhSbI7nNQbP-HdTZJlB-lf4Y_cKPjI_pI6Hy0UB_hePOwW1-x1QHZI5XLEgA/s400/americanflag-rainbowstars-10.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Almost as many states recognize roughly equivalent civil unions or domestic partnerships, so I lowered the opacity on their stars to show the partial status of those states:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp0R4KAdd8MQa8cNdMjV1EoLG3rr5Graud4pnJtX5GmIJGCxSZv0isnzatqKNXn3qXjxcObZVtGq2-qUguWGLI-aDsG4gSKVvNopDGat_AGzM3jxXIR6SRJkjJbch-iNoQh8P1hg/s1600/americanflag-rainbowstars.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp0R4KAdd8MQa8cNdMjV1EoLG3rr5Graud4pnJtX5GmIJGCxSZv0isnzatqKNXn3qXjxcObZVtGq2-qUguWGLI-aDsG4gSKVvNopDGat_AGzM3jxXIR6SRJkjJbch-iNoQh8P1hg/s400/americanflag-rainbowstars.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Like the official flag itself in a more subtle way, this one is a beautiful tapestry showing the diversity of our federalist system. Each state governs these matters for itself, but hopefully they'll all come to the same conclusion soon, that everyone should have the right to marry, regardless of gender or orientation, and we can get back to that first fully-colored flag (or, really, the original Stars & Stripes itself).<br />
<br />
UPDATE: Apparently I screwed up the stars on the last two flags. North Carolina (#12) certainly doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. Edits to come later, also to include the newest member of the rainbow state family, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/minnesota-gay-marriage_n_3243594.html">Minnesota</a>.Matthew DesOrmeauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09355478468204563335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14984261.post-7951569484030990452013-05-01T12:17:00.001-07:002013-05-13T20:48:23.807-07:00Chris Broussard: Unknowing bigot or theological outlier?<div dir="ltr">
Yesterday on ESPN, reacting to Jason Collins coming out as the first gay NBA player, analyst and columnist Chris Broussard avoided the cultural and athletic angle and went straight for the theological.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HCOXBgBjDgY" width="420"></iframe>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Some <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/04/29/ESPN-Reporter-Questions-If-Collins-Can-Be-Gay-And-Christian" target="_blank">called him courageous</a> for his comments. Some <a href="http://signon.org/sign/tell-espn-dont-use-the" target="_blank">demanded his suspension</a>. I don't think Broussard should be either reprimanded or applauded for his comments. In terms of personal offensiveness, they were pretty tame. However, there are huge theological implications of what he said.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Personally, I don't believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle, or an openly, like, premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you're openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says 'you know them by their fruits.' It says, you know, that that's a sin. And if you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality; adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God, and to Jesus Christ, so I would not characterize that person as a Christian, because I don't think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian."</i></blockquote>
That's quite a statement. To summarize, anyone living in unrepentant sin can't be Christian. If that's true (essentially a theological <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman" target="_blank">No True Scotsman</a> fallacy), then based on the <a href="http://www.statisticbrain.com/infidelity-statistics/" target="_blank">statistics</a> about marital infidelity, premarital sex, and other "fornication", there must not be very many Christians left. Does this also mean that serial liars like politicians, pundits, and car salesmen also can't be Christian? What about people who openly flaunt their <a href="http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-11.htm" target="_blank">clothing made of mixed fabrics</a> or <a href="http://bible.cc/leviticus/11-10.htm" target="_blank">taste for catfish</a>?<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4_eve_KK300Q0L2qEyx2jo-bNiCLDJ9XxYcmxk1DFOvp3PngBG-V2QAjcYRTOcFi6242jW2LgMgGVUmaIcTzEZd3M-oCEl-x3M3OMxJBXL84ZNfuqwi65n2h84SoCDE27YzspZQ/s1600/god-hates-figs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4_eve_KK300Q0L2qEyx2jo-bNiCLDJ9XxYcmxk1DFOvp3PngBG-V2QAjcYRTOcFi6242jW2LgMgGVUmaIcTzEZd3M-oCEl-x3M3OMxJBXL84ZNfuqwi65n2h84SoCDE27YzspZQ/s200/god-hates-figs.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
But really, what would prompt a sports writer to go on television and <a href="http://bible.cc/john/8-7.htm" target="_blank">cast rhetorical stones</a> by literally judging the status of someone else's faith based on his perceived sins? It seems to me that, despite Broussard's many protestations to the contrary, someone who casts judgment on a person and their faith based on their own interpretation and opinion is quite literally the <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot" target="_blank">definition of a bigot</a>. Being nice to that person to their face while judging them behind their back (or on national television) doesn't make that any less so.<br />
<br />
But no, I don't think he should be suspended. I think bigots should be free to air their opinions as loudly as possible so that we may know them and shame them as necessary.</div>
Matthew DesOrmeauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09355478468204563335noreply@blogger.com0