Lex Icon Lexargy

It's the End of the World as we Know It and I Feel Fine

Here are some reasons to be concerned:

1. Fact 1: The European debt crisis has taken a turn for the worse.
2. Fact 2: Problems with banks have re-emerged.
3. Fact 3: Money markets are seizing up
4. Fact 4: The broader economic environment is deteriorating.

For more detail, click the article at the link I put in the first line.

Not everyone is on a panic,however. Warren Buffet, for one, seems unconcerned.

Oh, to sleep at night knowing that if I screwed up on a $5 billion deal tomorrow, my life wouldn't materially change....

Linda Sanchez: "I live paycheck to paycheck" Waaaaaa!

Asked if she would volunteer to eschew her salary during the potential federal government shutdown, Representative Linda Sanchez, the member of Congress who represents my hometown, and makes $174,500 a year in salary, plus Congress's generous perqs, says:

“I have to tell you that I live paycheck-to-paycheck, like most Americans,” Sánchez said. “I’m still paying off my student loans. I have a 2-year-old son who I have to support, and I have to maintain residences on both coasts. It’s very difficult for me to say, ‘Hey, I can give up my paycheck,’ because the reality is, I have financial obligations that I have to meet on a month-to-month basis that doesn’t make it possible for me.”

This is the same moron who would be quick to make fun of you if you said that making $250,000 doesn't mean you are rich and that you can afford to pay a bunch of extra money in taxes without feeling it. Yeah, $250,000 and paying for your own healthcare, your own retirement, plus self-employment taxes, makes you "rich", but $174,500, plus generous benefits and no self-employment taxes means you are just living paycheck-to-paycheck, like most Americans. That $174K number assumes, of course, that her lobbyist husband, Jim Sullivan, makes nothing.

Now that's rich.

Logo suggestion for the Jerry Brown campaign

It captures the spirit of the campaign, no?

Go Moonbeam!

How Times Have Changed

Old and busted: "Ask not what your country can do for you."

New hotness: "Demand affordable healthcare from your country."

Remember How Obama Said No New Taxes Except for "the Rich"? LOL

From my Congressman:

The “final” bill came out yesterday afternoon. Here is a partial list of the tax increases included in this reprehensible and immoral bill:

• A new 3.6% tax on all investment income including capital gains. That means that the capital gains tax rate (including California state tax) will rise to 33.9%. The tax on dividend income will rise from 15% today to 53.7% including California tax. 
• Additional Medicare tax on self employment income and wages.  This removes the current cap on wages subject to this tax and it will effectively move the top income tax rate from 35% to 43.4% within a couple of years. Add in the California tax again and would then be close to a 54% marginal tax rate.  I believe that this is the highest of any major industrialized country. But because spending is so high we would still have $1 trillion dollar annual deficits even after this tax.
• There is a 2.9% tax on all medical “devices”, which basically means everything used in a doctor’s office or hospital. Including gowns, syringes, and the like.  This will increase health care costs for everyone who does not get free government insurance.
• The deduction for Medical expenses is currently limited to those expenses that exceed 7.5% or your income. This will be raised to a threshold of 10% of your income. This means that fewer people will get any tax relief from medical expenses they pay for themselves.
• There are various taxes on anything a person might do to pay for their own medical expenses. Things like Health Savings Accounts, Cafeteria Plans, and Flexible Savings Accounts are ways for people to save their OWN money for their OWN medical care on a pre-tax basis will be limited and taxed. This is all part of the way that President Obama gets to government run health care by making it illegal or costly to pay for your own care so you have to go to the government.
• A 10% tax on tanning services. I call this the “Jersey Shore tax”. This one has to be really upsetting to ‘The Situation’, Snookie, and Pauly D.
• A tax on self-insured health plans. This is another penalty on those who try to pay for their own health care.
• A new tax on pharmaceutical manufacturers. This will raise the price of drugs for everyone who does not get them from the government for free.
• A new tax on “Cadillac” health plans. This is an up to 55% tax on any health insurance that costs over about $800 per month including employee and employer contributions. This tax does not apply if you are a union member or your plan is from AARP or Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. These are major Democratic constituencies and they exempted them. For everyone else, this discourages comprehensive health coverage. Isn’t that what the President says he is trying to achieve? Like most of what the President says, his actions are not even close to his words.
• There is a new tax on all 'for-profit' health insurance companies (except for a few favored ones).  This will also raise the costs of premiums for everyone not getting free care from the government.
• If you don’t buy health insurance (as dictated acceptable by a new federal czar), you will be fined up to 2.5% of your income even if you pay all of your medical expenses yourself. If your company does not provide said health insurance to all employees, the company will be fined up to $2,000 per employee.

Does the Nobel Committee Think That a Good Speech is Better Than an Accomplishment?

What has Barack Obama done to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?

• Increase troop levels in Afghanistan?
• Remove peacekeeping forces in Iraq?
• Talk about nuclear disarmament without actually making progress toward it?
• Promise to close a POW camp without actually doing it?
• Apologize for the U.S. being a bad country from 2001 to 2009?
• Wish for better relations between Israel and Palestine?
• Let Iran build The Bomb?
• Let North Korea test long-range missiles without consequence?
• Invite a policeman and the black professor he arrested to the White House for a beer?
• Help South America get an Olympiad?
• Kill (almost) a boatload of pirates?
• Mention Darfur a few times?
• Give good speeches?
• Bomb the moon?

• Not be George W. Bush?

Good grief, he hadn't even been president for two weeks when he got nominated. I know he talks a good talk about world peace, but so do most beauty pageant winners. That's not Nobel Prize caliber achievement. Giving Barack Obama a Nobel Peace Prize at this stage in his presidency is the peace equivalent of giving a scientist a Nobel Prize in Physics for declaring that he is going to invent a teleportation device.

My esteem for the Nobel Peace Prize is gone.

Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8, Upholds Gay Marriages Pre-dating Prop 8

This morning, in Strauss v. Horton (2009) __ Cal.4th __, and related cases, the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8, but has ruled that gay marriages that were entered into on or before election day shall remain valid. Here's the heart of the holding, which can be found on pages 12 and 13 of the majority opinion:

Accordingly, we conclude that each of the state constitutional challenges to Proposition 8 advanced by petitioners and the Attorney General lacks merit. Having been approved by a majority of the voters at the November 4, 2008 election, the initiative measure lawfully amends the California Constitution to include the new provision as article I, section 7.5.

...

Finally, we consider whether Proposition 8 affects the validity of the marriages of same-sex couples that were performed prior to the adoption of Proposition 8. Applying well-established legal principles pertinent to the question whether a constitutional provision should be interpreted to apply prospectively or retroactively, we conclude that the new section cannot properly be interpreted to apply retroactively. Accordingly, the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid and must continue to be recognized in this state.

The majority opinion, 5-2 with Justices Kennard and George joining the three dissenters (Baxter, Chin and Corrigan) from In re Marriage Cases, is 136 pages long. Justice Kennard wrote a concurring opinion that added some analysis that was not included in the majority opinion. Justice Werdegar (who did not sign the majority opinion) wrote a concurring opinion in which she agreed that Prop 8 was valid, and that existing marriages are not to be retroactively voided, but disagreed with the most of the majority's analysis. Justice Moreno wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion in which he agreed with the part of the decision that validated the existing marriages, but disagreed that Prop 8 was a valid revision to the constitution. So the vote was 5-2 on the majority opinion, but on the issues, it was 7-0 on keeping existing gay marriages in place, and 6-1 in favor of upholding Prop 8 as a valid amendment to the Constitution.

The majority went to great lengths to say how they were forced to come to this conclusion even though they may disagree with the people's decision.

In addressing the issues now presented in the third chapter of this narrative, it is important at the outset to emphasize a number of significant points. First, as explained in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at page 780, our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.

Second, it also is necessary to understand that the legal issues before us in this case are entirely distinct from those that were presented in either Lockyer or the Marriage Cases. Unlike the issues that were before us in those cases, the issues facing us here do not concern a public official’s authority (or lack of authority) to refuse to comply with his or her ministerial duty to enforce a statute on the basis of the official’s personal view that the statute is unconstitutional, or the validity (or invalidity) of a statutory provision limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman under state constitutional provisions that do not expressly permit or prescribe such a limitation. Instead, the principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution.

In considering this question, it is essential to keep in mind that the provisions of the California Constitution governing the procedures by which that Constitution may be amended are very different from the more familiar provisions of the United States Constitution relating to the means by which the federal Constitution may be amended. ... 

To get to the opinions page, go here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi

To download the opinion in MS-Word, right click here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.DOC

To download the opinion in PDF, right click here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF

The Court's press release on the opinion can be read here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR29-09.PDF

I voted against Proposition 8, and feel terrible for my gay family and friends, but I don't blame the Supreme Court for this one bit. The majority opinion was correct. The court really had no choice but to uphold Proposition 8.

These People Are Idiots

Senator Claire McCaskill proposes to limit executive pay to what the President earns for as long as a company is getting federal loans.

Interesting point, but how will they keep top talent? My guess is that the pay cap will give them a huge competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring executives. Salary and talent is never a perfect correlation, but when you lower salaries, that tends to lead to "bright-sizing", where all your best and brightest move on to higher paying positions, because they can, and you are left with the ones who don't have the skills, experience and talent to find something better. If she thinks these people are idiots, wait until you see the folks who replace them.

Racism Against Michael Steele is OK, Because He's GOP

After looking over all the racial-themed attacks on Steele by left-leaning pundits and bloggers (Michelle Malkin THE VILE BILE WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH), I can't help but wonder if this means it is no longer considered racist to pass around Obama bucks (Obama Bucks Food Stamps: Diane Fedele Right Pundits) and joke about Watermelon One (Obama's Air Force One: Watermelon One.) Can someone explain why anyone would feel justified in propogating one while condemning the others?

Overused Word of 2009 - Bailout

I never liked the concept, now I hate the word even more. Popularized in the 4th quarter of 2008, the word bailout has now become omnipresent in nearly every political conversation. According to opponents of various pieces of legislation, it would appear that every law that benefits anyone from here on out is a "bailout."

For example, a bill that helps unions by allowing their to organize through signature-gathering campaigns is suddenly a "union bailout." It doesn't include big fat government checks being written to save unions from their own business decisions, and it won't raise your taxes, but somehow, it's a "bailout."

As a further example, the Ledbetter Act, allowing women who are discriminated against to sue under the law that prohibits wage discrimination without having to discover the first act of discrimination within their first 180 days of work, is not a bill to allow the Equal Pay Act to actually compel employers to obey it. No. It's a "bailout for trial lawyers."

If those two cases meet the definition of a "bailout," then get ready for more bailouts. We might see several thousand of them across the country this year.

Quick, someone stop the word bailout. Kill it with fire. Bury it. Forget about it. Please.

What is Caroline Kennedy Ready For?

Caroline Kennedy stopped angling for Hillary Clinton's vacant Senate seat in New York because of a "tax problem" and "potential nanny issue," according to a source close to Governor Paterson. I don't know if it's true, but if it is, she clearly is not qualified to take office as an appointed senator from the great state of New York.

However, she is definitely qualified to serve as Secretary of the Treasury. As long as she says she's sorry and claims that it was all just an incompetent mistake. Honest and complete tax returns not necessary.

Defeat All White Male Construction Workers

Barack Obama's economic advisor, Robert Reich, likes the idea of an Obama stimulus package. An $800 billion stimulus plan might create 3.675 million jobs, including many in the construction sector, which will be called upon to construct great public works of improvement. The important thing, however, is to make sure that the stimulus money goes to create jobs for someone other than white male construction workers. 

Here's the quote in question:

I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. … I have nothing against white male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. … Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.

We need to spread the wealth. And white male construction workers have way too much of it already, right? After all, white males construction workers are among the most pampered and privileged people in our society. If we decide to make sure that they aren't invited to the big stimulus party, who cares? It's not like they aren't already swimming in cash and laughing at the rest of us saps already. It's time to heal this nation, and the way to do it is to soak the white males construction workers.

Next target: Mexican male construction workers. Those guys have it pretty good, too.

The Enormity of it All

Maya Angelou, former PLOTUS (Poet Laureate of the United States), on Barack Obama taking office:

I cannot describe the enormity of President Obama sitting in the White House with his wife, his two children and his mother-in-law. And the hopes of many millions...."

Could not a PLOTUS find a better word than "enormity?" Here is the Merriam Webster dictionary's definition of "enormity:"

Main Entry: enor·mi·ty 
Pronunciation: \i-ˈnȯr-mə-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural enor·mi·ties
Date: 15th century
 
1: an outrageous, improper, vicious, or immoral act
2: the quality or state of being immoderate, monstrous, or outrageous ; especially : great wickedness
3: the quality or state of being huge : immensity
4: a quality of momentous importance or impact

While her use of the word was not actually incorrect, I would expect better from a former Poet Laureate of the United States. Such a talented wordsmith could certainly come up with a word that does not have, as its primary meaning, such a strong and negative connotation.

So eager to lash out at Bush, aren't we?

I loved this blog post by Jane Hamsher, over at Firedoglake:

"The Wall Street meltdown isn't his fault, he tells Charles Gibson:

"I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived," he said.

Decade ago. . . lemme sharpen my pencil. . . 1990. . . that would be Bush Sr. at the helm."

Instead of sharpening that pencil, Jane, you should have sharpened your analysis. The quote is a bit vague, and susceptible to two interpretations, but neither of those interpretations put the timetable for those decisions around 1990. President Bush didn't quite step in the turd you think he stepped in.

A decade or so ago, George H.W. Bush was not the president, and if it was "a decade or so" of decision-making, most, if not all, of that came under Bill Clinton. That the decisions "took place over a decade or so, before [he] arrived" means that they took place over many years, before he arrived, not that it occurred precisely ten years before his inauguration (which, FWIW, was in 2001, not 2000), at least it does for those of us who understand the meaning of a comma.

I can think of a few things he might have been talking about, e.g., the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, that wouldn't have been done on his father's watch, even in part.

Lawyer Blogs Foresee President Obama

A couple of the blogging lawyers I follow saw Barack Obama as president a long time ago. Check out this 2004 post from Ernie the Attorney, and a 2005 post from the Angry Pregnant Lawyer. The comments were priceless, too. It wasn't entirely unforeseeable to anyone who watched Obama deliver the Democrats' keynote speech at the 2004 DNC, but these were still some early, accurate posts.

Peas and Carrots

Don't they look practically like brothers?

Left or Right?

Go left! No, right! Oh, I get it. Go left, then right. I hope Obama drives down this road.

Impeachment Websites

Now that Barack Obama is set to become the next president, there are undoubtedly some crazy folks who are thinking they'd like to see him impeached. It might be fun to register a website like www.impeachobama.com or www.impeachbarackobama.com right? Too late. ImpeachObama and ImpeachBarackObama were registered on July 15, 2004. In other words, Senator Obama, or someone close to him, thought far enough ahead to snap up that website from pretty much the moment he was chosen to be the keynote speaker at the July 2004 Democratic National Convention.

They weren't so quick with some common variations. ImpeachObamaNow wasn't registered until January 2007; same with ImpeachBarack. ObamaImpeachment wasn't registered until February 2008, and ImpeachBarackHusseinObama wasn't registered until May 2008. Most of the same combinations with Joe Biden are also taken.

If you are the guy who registered ImpeachPalin.com in August, you probably wasted twenty bucks, but hey, it was worth a shot, right?

I Did.

Did you?

The Redskins Rule Predicts Obama Victory

The Redskins Rule has correctly predicted the victor in 16 of the last 17 U.S. presidential elections. The rule says that if the Washington Redskins win their last home game before Election Day, the incumbent party will keep the White House. If not, they won't. Last night, the Redskins lost at home on Monday Night Football to the Pittsburgh Steelers, 23-6.

Free Election Day Stuff

I'm not sure if any of these deals are legal (See California Elections Code § 18521(b)), but a bunch of companies are offering freebies to people who have an "I Voted" sticker, or who say that they voted:

• Starbucks: free Tall coffee on Nov. 4 (http://www.youtube.com/starbucks)
• Ben & Jerry's: Free ice cream between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m.
• Anaheim White House: Diners ages 21+ get free champagne with two meals.
• Krispy Kreme: free star-shaped doughnut to voters.
• Pizza Hut: 20% off on-line orders for Nov. 4 (weak)
• Pat & Oscar’s: Voters get 20% off on Nov. 4.
• Zov’s: Voters can get a free slice of Apple Pie with purchase.
• Daily Grill: From 4 p.m. to 11 p.m., free appetizer to voters, and extended Happy Hour
• Salt Creek Grille (Dana Point): $3 beers. Free Brandt beef sliders and house-made chips
• Scott’s Seafood: $10 off your lunch or dinner check.
• Morton’s The Steakhouse: Presidential Martinis will cost $11, instead of $12.50 (weak)
• California Tortilla Kitchen: free burrito (unconfirmed)
• Mac n Madi: free webkinz elephant or donkey (unconfirmed)
• In-n-Out is NOT giving away free burgers. That rumor is false.

Salt Creek Grille also apparently has an Ahi appetizer you can eat, get sick from, and win a few million bucks in court.

California Elections Code § 18521:

A person shall not directly or through any other person
receive, agree, or contract for, before, during or after an election,
any money, gift, loan, or other valuable consideration, office,
place, or employment for himself or any other person because he or
any other person:
   (a) Voted, agreed to vote, refrained from voting, or agreed to
refrain from voting for any particular person or measure.
   (b) Remained away from the polls.
   (c) Refrained or agreed to refrain from voting.
   (d) Induced any other person to:
   (1) Remain away from the polls.
   (2) Refrain from voting.
   (3) Vote or refrain from voting for any particular person or
measure.
   Any person violating this section is punishable by imprisonment in
the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.

Personal Campaigning

Phillip "Dos Reyes" Sallaway was out waving to voters, trying to drum up support for his school board position, or waterboard position. I cannot recall which.

Old and Busted: Recalling the Governor over High Electricity Prices. New Hotness: Obama

Remember when we recalled a California Governor because of the electricity prices? Apparently, California voters are ready to embrace high electricity prices. Listen to this interview of Barack Obama:

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket ... because I'm capping greenhouses gases .... "

No, it is not a quote taken out of context. Maybe I should take the time to learn how to short some investments, like everything that has anything to do with coal.

 

Seeing All The Silly Protestors Reminded Me

Of this jackass who sometimes wasted a perfectly good afternoon standing outside Angel Stadium telling people about how God doesn't love us because we are miserable sinners. What an ass. (The dude, not God).

 

So many protesters are just idiots who need attention.

On Joe the Plumber

I am sick of Joe the Plumber. Every time I see him on TV again, I wonder whether I'm watching The Onion TV. But I'm even more sick of the way the left is spinning his celebrity status. In particular, I'm appalled by two attacks I keep hearing over and over: (i) that the Republicans failed to properly "vet" Joe the Plumber, and (ii) that the Republicans are talking about Joe the Plumber rather than "the real issues in this campaign."

I hate the word "vet", and I'm disgusted by the use of the term as it applies to Joe the Plumber. Why in the world should anyone have vetted Joe the Plumber? Joe became famous not so much because of Joe, but because of Obama's "share the wealth" response. This wasn't a guy who was set up by the campaigns to tell a sad sad story. He was just a guy who didn't see Obama eye-to-eye, but who was minding his own business when Obama entered his domain. Joe said he’d like to be more successful and think about buying his own business, and asked Obama why that meant he should have to pay higher taxes, and Obama answered with “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” That question and, more so, that response, struck a chord. It wasn't about Joe himself. So why attack McCain for failing to “vet” the guy?

They should have vetted him better? Seriously? Have the Obamaphiles actually thought about the implications of that statement? Because when you think about it, what you are really saying is this: Knowing Barack Obama's supporters, the McCain campaign should have known to anticipate ad hominem attacks on this guy, and because of this, they should have just kept quiet until Obama stumbled upon a better citizen with a cleaner background and hoped that he or she could catch Obama talking about "spreading the wealth around" a second time.

If you are doing it on purpose, it takes some jumbo coconut balls to make that argument with a straight face. What was wrong with talking about some guy and his question without vetting the guy? You only need to vet someone like this if you know you are going to need to respond to ad hominem attacks. Granted, the MSM and Obama groupies did do a lot of that. Ben Smith looked into his voter registration. The MSM dug up tax liens on him and questioned his licensing as a plumber and persuaded government officials to look into his business, leftist blogs published his home address and checked his family tree. And it was, arguably, foreseeable. But really, who does all this say more about, McCain's people or Obama's people?

And while I understand that talking about Joe's license is a distraction from the real issues in this campaign, Joe's question and Obama's answers are interesting and important and represent a bona fide focus on bona fide issues, and this would remain true even if Joe was a McCain supporter from day one, even if the guy was a felon, even if he didn't make more than twenty grand a year, and even if he smoked drugs and dated ugly married women. Why and how Barack Obama wants to spread the wealth is a legitimate discussion of "the issues", and for some reason, Joe has become some sort of poster boy for that discussion. Silly, yes, but the discussion itself is not.

I can't wait for this election to be over.

ABC News Blog Inaccurately Calls Sarah Palin's Words Inaccurate

The ABC News political blog "Political Radar" had this post yesterday:

ABC News' Imtiyaz Delawala Reports: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin went beyond her running mate's recent attack on Sen. Barack Obama -- inaccurately claiming that Obama called the lack of "redistributive change" during the civil rights movement a "tragedy" -- and used Obama's 2001 interview to insinuate that he wants to re-write the U.S. Constitution and appoint radical Supreme Court justices and judges who would confiscate the property of American citizens.

You can play the video link below and listen to this audio clip from that 2001 radio interview with Barack Obama for yourself. I'm not sure how calling it "one of the tragedies" is any different from calling it a tragedy, but beyond that, I listened to it, and it scared the hell out of me.

Here is the pertinent quote:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

Those words frighten me. The man wants to be elected so he can swear an oath to defend the Constitution, but what he is really saying is that the Constitution, with respect to its protection of property rights, is a flawed instrument because it does what the Founding Fathers wanted it to do. To the Founding Fathers and to most intellectually honest scholars, the Constitution is primarily about the protection of life, liberty and property from the tyranny of the majority or a corrupt government. What Obama is talking about is building a majority strong enough and tyrannical to take property rights away from those from whom they can, and to use those property rights for purposes they think is more fair. What is fair, of course, is what the majority determines to be fair.

How is that defending the Constitution?

Proselytizing Prop Proponents

This is my front porch. The USC welcome mat is mine. The Yes On 8 banner was left for me by someone who assumes that because I live in a nice neighborhood in the OC, I must be in favor of amending the Constitution to eliminate gay marriage in California. The big sign is supposed to go on my lawn, I assume. I'm not sure why. I live at the end of a cul-de-sec in a gated community. Who would even see it? The stickers go on the car. Even if I was in favor of this measure, I would never in a million years slap that thing on my bumper.

P.S. Vote McCain!

A Sarah Palindrome

"Wassilla's all I saw." Heh.

[Hat tip: Sparkwood & 21]

Prop 8 Gets Them Out

People in my hometown were at all four corners of some of our main drags this morning and last night with Pro-Prop 8 banners. They included "Prop 8 = Religious Freedom", "Prop 8 = Less Government", "Prop 8 = Parental Rights", Prop 8 = Free Speech" and "Yes on Prop 8 - Bring Back Marriage."

People, please. Prop 8 means gay people can't call their marriages marriages, and can't have quite all of the benefits of marriage. It's more government, not less. It's not about schools or parental rights. It's not about suppression of speech or free speech. It's not about religious freedom. It's not about bringing back marriage rights that were lost. It's about going back to denying gays the right to be in a marriage.

If you think that's good for society, vote accordingly, but please don't carry bullshit signs that try to tell me it's about safe schools and religious freedom and the first amendment.

It's Idiots Like This Who Make Our Laws

A judge threw out a Nebraska legislator's lawsuit against God, on the ground that the defendant cannot be served. The plaintiff, State Senator Ernie Chambers, sought a permanent injunction against God for causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants." He claims the suit was intended to demonstrate that anyone can sued anyone for anything.

In the dismissal order, Douglas County District Court Judge Marlon Polk wrote that "Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice." Weird, right? It gets weirder.

Chambers, who graduated from law school but never took the bar exam, believes he found a basis for appeal in that order.

"The court itself acknowledges the existence of God. A consequence of that acknowledgment is a recognition of God's omniscience. Since God knows everything, God has notice of this lawsuit."

Sorry, Ernie. Acknowledging the existence of God is not the same as acknowledging that omniscience of God. You can acknowledge the existence of God without believing that God pays attention to the goings on of Earthlings, much less believing that God knows all and sees all. In other words, "God exists, therefore God knows about my lawsuit" is a great big logical failure.

Methinks I know why Chambers never took the bar exam. A man has to know his limits.

CBS's New Show Debuts October 29

The show is going to be thirty minutes of primetime TV, featuring nothing but Barack Obama telling us how it's gonna be. Ugh. At least it'll be a one-time shot.

Misleading Debate Poll Results

According to CNN, "a national poll of people who watched the first presidential debate suggests that Barack Obama came out on top, but there was overwhelming agreement that both Obama and John McCain would be able to handle the job of president if elected." That means Obama pretty much won the debate, right? Not so fast, my friend. There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. But look at the statistics and you'll see that the debate was watched more eagerly by Democrats, so the poll's sampling had 51% more Democrats than Republicans.

Quote:

Fifty-one percent of those polled thought Obama did the better job in Friday night's debate, while 38 percent said John McCain did better. The results may be favoring Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tuned in to the debate.

Quote:

Of the debate-watchers questioned in this poll, 41 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 27 percent as Republicans and 30 percent as independents.

In other words, if you assume that each candidate was supported by viewers from his own party, it means that:

• 10 out of 30 independents thought Obama did better, and
• 11 out of 30 independents thought McCain did better.

That looks to me more like a push, with a slight edge to McCain.

More on the Mortgage Mess - With Video

Someone else did a better job of pointing out the root cause of this mortgage mess than I did on Friday.

Memo to Sarah Palin, next time Katie Couric lobs you a softball like asking when, oh when, did John McCain propose more regulation, tell her "How about 'The Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005' Senate Bill S-190, Katie. That might have even prevented dis whole mess."

Blame Bush? Where was Barney Frank?

If you guessed that the Bush administration was the one pushing for less oversight when it came to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you guessed wrong. When the GOP pushed for more regulatory oversight five years ago, blowhard Barney Frank and the Democrats painted it as an attempt to prevent working class Americans out of the affordable housing market.

From the September 11, 2003 New York Times:

Quote:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - New York Times

Quote:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

I'll be watching the debate from Bubba Gump's and probably won't hear a damn thing, so this is all I have on the current, most relevant topic.

McCain Channels Bob Sugar

John McCain to Barack Obama:

"This must be a nice moment for you. I’ll let you have it."

Tomorrow, I start hogging as much attention as I can get.

They Said Lincoln Wasn't Prepared to Lead

I love this political ad from Barack Obama.

But if I was John McCain, I'd love it even more if, during a debate, Barack Obama goes to the "they said Lincoln was unprepared, too" card. Because if he does, John McCain could look back at him and say

"Senator, I served with Abe Lincoln. I knew Abe Lincoln. Abe Lincoln was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Abe Lincoln."

It would kill.

Politics and Baseball

Q: What's the difference between baseball and the 2008 Democratic ticket?

A: There's no crying in baseball.

Biden on Obama and McCain

This is a truly devastating political ad, unless Obama can come out with a response ad that shows that second quote to be taken wildly out of context.

Wow.

[Update: here is the context. Comedy Central's Jon Stewart: "You may end up going against a Senate colleague, perhaps McCain, perhaps Frist?" Sen. Biden: "John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off -- be well off no matter who..." Stewart: "Did I hear, Did I hear with?" Sen. Biden: "You know, John McCain and I think" Stewart: "Don't become cottage cheese my friend. Say it." Sen. Biden: "The answer is yes."]

Still a wow.

Wake Up! Wake Up! It's Biden!

I did not sign up for the Barack Obama text message announcing his choice for vice-president. I knew that it was just an excuse to get a list of text message recipients for the campaign to beg for money from, and I don't really need half a dozen "please send money" texts each day. But many people did, and some of those people do not put their phones on silent ring when they go to bed at night. So this morning, some of them were awakened at three o'clock in the morning by their cell phone ringing with a new text about Joe Biden.

I hate when the phone rings between midnight and 7 a.m. It's almost never good news, so I wake up and assume something terrible has happened. If it isn't something terrible, and you wake me up for it, I'm going to chew your ass out. I once bitched at my dad for calling me at two in the morning to tell me my aunt had won a spectacularly large slot machine payout. My philosophy is that good news can wait until morning. Always has. Always should. I'm not the only one who thinks like that.

Someone forgot to tell the empty suits in Obama Biden land. I guess they took those "It's 3 AM" ads too seriously, and for some reason, they thought, "the president is busy sending texts" was going to be an impressive answer.

My Once-Favorite Presidential Candidate

Barack Obama has chosen Joe Biden as his VP candidate. I really wanted John Edwards to be the next vice-president. There. I said it. Beyond that, I originally wanted him to be the next president. That was then. Now I think the man is too unprincipled and too foolish to be anything important.

I've heard people complain how disgusting it is that the news media has stooped so low as to consider the John Edwards affair "news", as if to say that we used to live in a grand age wherein such "news" was kept private. Those people are probably not old enough to recall the 1884 campaign slogan used by Grover Cleveland's opponents: "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha." Curious, eh? At first, the L.A. Times thought the John Edwards affair wasn't news, because he wasn't a candidate anymore, it hurt his sick wife, and it was just tabloid trash. He's still not a candidate, his wife is still sick, and the story is still tabloid fodder. But it became news, dinnit?

The candidate has little to complain about. Here's what John Edwards had to say last year about candidates' private lives:

"I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in, to look at, what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we'd make."

Beyond curious, Elizabeth Edwards's "diary" on the matter was downright bizarre. Essentially, she complains that the public is gobbling up her private embarrassment that is two years in the past, and that the new story is not news, and everyone should just try to understand and support her and John as she stands by her man. At least 99% of ordinary wives who had been cheated on in 2006, when confronted with the fact that her husband was flying across the country to meet with his "ex"-mistress in the wee hours of the morning wouldn't be supporting that asshole one little bit. But then again, less than 1% of wives have a scoundrel of a husband who has brought their family into the fold of America's ruling elite. Since I'm not part of that one percent, I don't understand the mindset.

Not surprisingly, the former mistress says she will not participate in DNA testing to establish the paternity of her daughter, even though her family wants to see it happen. Rielle Hunter's lawyer says she wishes to maintain the privacy of her and her daughter, so she is making no statement now or in the future and will not participate in DNA testing or any other invasion of her or her daughter's privacy now or in the future. Of course, nothing would bring more privacy to her and her daughter than a DNA test that said John Edwards was not the daddy.

I don't really care that John Edwards cheated on his wife. I care that he's a liar, a hypocrite, and a deluded narcissist who ran a campaign knowning damn full well that there was a ticking time bomb that could have blown up the election at any time. But soon, I just won't care about John Edwards anymore. She's just another empty suit. A good trial lawyer from a state in which I don't live, trying cases that have nothing to do with me. His 15 seconds are over.

Barack Obama - Just Words

Barack Obama is all about words. What does Barack Obama offer us, if not words? The man has accomplished little, if anything, in government. He sells us hope, wrapped in words. Little else. He's a great speaker, and his ability to charm people with his words is what makes him who he is today. But if words are just words, perhaps Senator Obama is just an empty suit.

"Don't tell me words don't matter", says Barack Obama, in this speech, supposedly his best speech ever (but borrowed without attribution from Deval Patrick).

"I have a dream" ... just words?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal" ... just words?

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" ... just words?

But how about this one: "I am my brother's keeper." Just words? Does it really matter that Barack Obama has a half-brother living in Kenya on a dollar a month? Some people say this is a total non-issue. He's not his brother's keeper. But is he? Let's ask Barack Obama. Start paying attention just before the three minute mark. Yes, he does say he is his brother's keeper, doesn't he? And that we are all our brother's keepers. And that this is what makes America so great.

"I am my brother's keeper." Just words? Yeah, just words.

That long journey of America helping develop foreign nations, as a good neighbor must, is a journey of 1000 miles that Obama should start with the single step of helping his dirt poor brother. Or, alternatively, and equally acceptable to me, he can shut the hell up about the debt that I owe to strangers, and how he is going to help me pay that debt. Barack Obama is just an empty suit. All he has are words. And they are just words.

Let Puppies Have Puppies, or Your Lipstick Prices Will Go Up

I am opposed to AB 1634, the proposed California Healthy Pets Act. If passed, AB1634 would require almost all dogs and cats in California to be spayed or neutered. I think that encouraging people to spay and neuter their pets is good. Giving people benefits for spaying or neutering is good. But making it so that no amateurs can ever breed a litter of puppies or kittens is an unreasonable restraint on personal freedoms. I've never abandoned a litter of puppies to a dog shelter, but if I want to breed my dog, I should damn well be allowed to do it.

But if personal freedom is not enough to inspire people, maybe fear tactics will work better. Because, as this recent blog post from the OC Register demonstrates, if this bill passes, your lipstick will become more expensive, and fish food will be affordable only to the super-elite.

Every week, a truck pulls up to the county Animal Shelter in Orange. The carcasses of some 400 dead dogs, cats, bunnies and other unlucky creatures are loaded up. Then the truck hauls them to the West Coast Rendering plant in Vernon.

There, the remnants of Fido and Fluffy (alongside the carcasses of slaughtered cows, pigs, chickens and restaurant scraps) are essentially cooked at very high temperatures for hours. What happens then?

• Frothy fat floats to the top of the stew, eventually making its way into lipsticks, lubricants, polishes, waxes.
• The harder fats settle in the middle, eventually appearing in soaps, candles, drugs, gummy candies.
• The densest stuff falls to the bottom. It’s dried, squeezed, dried again and finely ground, to create a protein powder that becomes a key ingredient in animal feed. The meat and bone meal made from ”companion animals” isn’t supposed to make its way into feed in the U.S. But protein meal containing Fluffy and Fido sells overseas, where it’s apparently popular for fish feed on fish farms.

Wait. WTF? Did I read that right? Gummie candies? Our freaking gummy candies are made of fat from the boiled remains of animal shelter discards?

I think I'm about done eating delicious gummy candies.

Forget Clapton, It's Obama

From Obama's victory speech last night:

... I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal....

The nomination of Barry Obama will forever be remembered as the day the oceans stopped rising slowed their rise? Does this guy think he's Moses? Does he think he's GOD?

Hillary Clinton to Ask to be John McCain's Running Mate

Hillary Rodham Clinton told colleagues on Tuesday that she would consider joining Barack Obama as his running mate, and advisers said she was withholding a formal departure from the race partly to use her remaining leverage to press for a spot on the ticket. Even more interesting, although few are discussing it openly, is Clinton's plan to approach John McCain and seek a spot on the Republican ticket if she is rebuffed by the Obama camp.

"What an incredible ticket this would be!" suggested one high-ranking Clinton campaign official. "With Senator McCain's draw among Christians, wealthy Americans and right-wing wackos and dittoheads, and Senator Clinton's support among atheists, gays, middle-class Americans, hard-working white Americans, feminists and the left-wing nutjobs who don't hate America, Senator Obama would have difficulty winning even a single electoral vote." Another supporter added, "What are the Republicans going to do, vote for Obama? I don't think so."

Obama insiders consider the threat to be a bluff, and opine that Senator McCain is likely to reject the idea of a McCain-Clinton ticket. "That won't dissuade her," added the Clinton campaigner. "She's been advised that this is a possibility, and Senator Clinton is prone to believing what she wants to believe. Don't forget that this is the same woman who thought that the Monica Lewinsky allegations were part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, and who thinks that the possibility of a June assassination is a reason to continue campaigning."

Senator Clinton has made no formal comment regarding the rumors. Senator McCain, shown above admiring Mrs. Clinton at an earlier event, has also not denied the rumors. Stay here for further updates as they become available.

If the enemy of our enemy is our friend...

then the U.S. should probably start thinking about asking Al-Qaida out for a beer. Or maybe asking Iran out for a beer. But not both.

Hillary "Rocky" Clinton

Hillary has taken to calling herself the "Rocky" of the campaign. Aside from the fact that Rocky was a slow, dim-witted heavy old washed-up poor dude when he suddenly found success, it's a great comparison. Because in the end of the film, Rocky loses the decision to his black opponent.

New York Governor Admits Affairs

New York's new governor, David Patterson, wanted to get off to a clean start, so one of the first things he did as governor was tell the Daily News that he had extramarital affairs for a few years, back around 1999-2001,, in particular. He wants to make one thing abundantly clear: that motel room he was using on September 10, 2001 (and still on 9/11) was for official state business, not for sexy time with the mistress. So now that we know, he doesn't want anyone to get all impeachy on him. Fair 'nough?

Maybe It Would Be Better If Osama Was a Muslim

Do not lecture Barack Obama on Christianity. He has his own pastor, says the senator. Want to meet that pastor? Here he is:

You sing "God Bless America." He screams "God Damn America."

Now I understand better Mrs. Obama's world view that makes her proud to be an American for the first time in her adult life.

What's the Difference Between?

Q: What's the difference between a New York governor and a New York senator?
A: The senators don't have to pay $4,000 an hour to get some pussy.

Obama's Houston Campaign Run by Che Guevara Worshippers

So this news clip airs, discussing the opening of new Barack Obama campaign headquarters in Houston. People notice that the wall behind the desk has no American flags, but a Che Guevara communist flag.

The reaction is negative.

But wait. That banner was hung by a silly young person who doesn't know any better, right? Wrong. It was hung there by Maria Isabel, an older, Cuban-American (who should know better), who is the campaign "'precinct captain," co-chair of the Houston Obama Leadership Team, and someone who is well-connected enough in the campaign to meet and greet the candidate for some photo-ops.

So the local media seeks her out for an explanation. They get none. To paraphrase, she says she's too important a person, and too busy working on Senator Obama's campaign to answer silly questions like why the Obama campaign headquarters in Houston features the flag of a vicious communist murderer rather than the stars and stripes.

The reaction from the national Obama campaign was pretty mellow.

"We were disappointed to see this picture, because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama's views."

No resignations, reassignments, condemnations. Just "disappointment.