Lex Icon Lexargy

Hillary's Basket Case

I loved this quote:

"You actually can unpack those numbers," he said. "It's really quite shocking. Something like 62% of white voters have these sorts of sentiments, and by better than two-to-one, they vote Republican."

So ... if half of the Trump supporters are from the "basket of deplorables", does that mean that the same is true of 25% of the Hillary supporters?

Free College Pays a 613% Return on Investment?

Saw this on Reddit, from user mnemonum.It sounds logical enough to me. What do you thin?

The average high school graduate's annual income = $30,000.

Lifetime income = $1,200,000.

Average AGI income tax rate = 3.3%.

Taxes over lifetime = $39,600.

The average college graduate's annual income = $52,500.

Lifetime income = $2,100,000.

Average AGI income tax rate = 14.3%.

Taxes over lifetime = $300,300.

Therefore the government makes $260,700 more in taxes from a college graduate over their lifetime.

The average tuition to university in state = $9,139 per year. Over 4 years it is $36,556.

The Return on $36,556.00 tuition investment = $224,144 per person.

That is a 758% increase in tax revenue per citizen given "free" college.

That is a 613% return on investment.

Not to mention, the unemployment rate is twice as high among Americans without a college degree.

What's Bernie Sander's plan for public colleges and universities:

MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES!

This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. In fact, it’s what many of our colleges and universities used to do. The University of California system offered free tuition at its schools until the 1980s. In 1965, average tuition at a four-year public university was just $243 and many of the best colleges – including the City University of New York – did not charge any tuition at all. The Sanders plan would make tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout the country.

[A Note on the Opposition] The primary and most supported attacks against this article have stated that the job market will be saturated with college graduates and therefore diminish a degrees value. This has nothing to do with the information presented here. Bernie's plan does not invite 100% of Americans to suddenly go to college. It offers student debt reduction and free tuition at public colleges and universities. This does not mean that suddenly everyone will have a degree and thereby reduce a degrees value. That is pure fiction used to undermine the value of his plans for students. The numbers presented here reflect the value of each student that we invest in. That means whatever amount of students his policy allows to attend public colleges and universities will individually be profitable to the US treasury. In no way does this article state that all Americans will instantly be going to college and drastically changing the job market. It is pure misinformation.

Source College tuition fees http://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10064

High school and college lifetime earnings http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/edandearnings.htm

Percentage of AGI paid in income tax http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/31/the-average-american-pays-this-much-in-income-taxe.aspx

When We Sit Decides Where We Stand Too Often

Liberals after the Tennessee shooting: crickets

Conservatives after the Tennessee shooting: Pray for the victims of the shooting! Lower the flag! You better call this terrorism!

Liberals after the Louisiana shooting: Shameful! We need gun control! We need healthcare spending! Look, it was a Tea Party guy!

Conservatives after the Louisiana shooting: crickets.

Strange how political beliefs shape our reaction to people's lives coming to a tragic end, isn't it?

We Should Have Been Planning Since the Last Big Drought

There's not much the state can do to fix a drought once we're in one, but I hope we've learned our lesson this time, and we can now start actually preparing for the next inevitable drought to hit California.

This is Jerry Brown's second chance to watch a climate disaster unfold and start doing at least some reacting for the future. The time to build cisterns, dams and desalinization plants is now. The time to build trains that will bounce from the north to the south half-empty is later.

I Love the New Facebook Rainbow Profile Pic App

I changed my profile pick to Mike Huckabee for about two minutes so that I could enjoy seeing a Mike Huckabee rainbow profile pic. Enjoy.

He's Not a Hypocrite, He's Just an Asshole

"The Republican presidential candidate had called Barack Obama the country’s ‘least transparent president’ for refusing to release the same documentation."

Yeah, and IF he wins, you all can call him a hypocrite. Until then, he's still just an in-your-face bunghole.

Sorry if I just made you envision a bunghole in your face.

How to Kill a Consumer-Friendly Initiative That Voters Would Actually Like

My political post of the month: Props 45 and 46 are laws written to protect you and I - the consumer, the common person.. They are opposed by large profitable corporate interests. They are deceiving you into thinking these laws are about something that they are not and if you only watch the TV ads, you're going to vote against these propositions even if you are actually in favor of their goals.

This article explains it brilliantly.

Hypocrisy is Funny

So this was floating around my Facebook feed today:

And I thought, "I'd bet a large sum of money that this person has publicly commented at least once about a person's appearance." So I went to her Twitter account and did a quick search for the term "Limbaugh". Sure enough, the first hit was a jab at his looks.

Admittedly, Limbaugh is not a handsome man, but if you're going to have standards, one is better than two. Or, as Erin Gloria Ryan should say, you may not agree with a man, but to criticize his appearance - as opposed to his ideas or actions - isn't doing anyone any favors, least of all you....

Where Are The WMDs?

Wife-beater Sean Penn asked "Where are the WMDs?"

He should have just asked the terrorists. They seem to be better at finding this stuff.

What the Hobby Lobby Case Actually Says

There is a lot of hysteria about today's SCOTUS opinion on employer-provided health care. Some things the Supreme Court did not hold:

1. That your employer can decide what medical care you can and can't have
2. That every employer has the right to opt out of any legal requirement as long as it claims a religious objection
3. That employers can decide not to cover cancer by claiming a bogus anti-cancer treating religious view
4. That employers can dictate that insurance companies not cover things like vaccinations or blood transfusions
5. That employers have the right to discriminate on the basis of gender when deciding what medical benefits to offer their employees
6. That large corporations can use religion to restrict what their health care plans provide
7. That your employer is allowed to know what health care you are receiving
8. That policies purchased through ACA marketplaces might not include contraception
9. That employers can prohibit their workers from buying or using contraception
10. That the Affordable Care Act is dead

Here's the actual holding from Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (US 13–354 6/30/14):

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicabil­ity” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling govern­mental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious be­lief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,”42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Ibid. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Admin­istration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate. HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accom­modation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost­ sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its em­ployee beneficiaries.

In these cases, the owners of three closely held for-profit corpora­tions have sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point. In separate actions, they sued HHS and other federal officials and agencies (collectively HHS) under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause, seeking to enjoin application of the contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health coverage for the four objectionable contraceptives. In No. 13–356, the District Court denied the Hahns and their compa­ny—Conestoga Wood Specialties—a preliminary injunction. Affirm­ing, the Third Circuit held that a for-profit corporation could not “en­gage in religious exercise” under RFRA or the First Amendment, and that the mandate imposed no requirements on the Hahns in their personal capacity. In No. 13–354, the Greens, their children, and their companies—Hobby Lobby Stores and Mardel—were also denied a preliminary injunction, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons” under RFRA, and that the cor­porations had established a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their ex­ercise of religion and HHS had not demonstrated a compelling inter­est in enforcing the mandate against them; in the alternative, the court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest.

Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations im­posing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49.

(a) RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mar­del. Pp. 16–31.

(1) HHS argues that the companies cannot sue because they are for-profit corporations, and that the owners cannot sue because the regulations apply only to the companies, but that would leave mer­chants with a difficult choice: give up the right to seek judicial protec­tion of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits of operating as cor­porations. RFRA’s text shows that Congress designed the statute t provide very broad protection for religious liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice. It employed the familiar legal fic­tion of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including sharehold­ers, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them. Pp. 16–19.

(2) HHS and the dissent make several unpersuasive arguments. Pp. 19–31.

(i) Nothing in RFRA suggests a congressional intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition of “person,” which “include[s] cor­porations, . . . as well as individuals.” 1 U. S. C. §1. The Court has entertained RFRA and free-exercise claims brought by nonprofit cor­porations. See, e.g., Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficiente União do Vegetal, 546 U. S. 418. And HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; noconceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and non­profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations. Pp. 19–20.

(ii) HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot “exercise . . . religion.” They offer no persuasive explanation for this conclusion. The corporate form alone cannot explain it because RFRA indisputably protects nonprofit corporations. And the profit­making objective of the corporations cannot explain it because the Court has entertained the free-exercise claims of individuals who were attempting to make a profit as retail merchants. Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599. Business practices compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understand­ing of the “exercise of religion” that this Court set out in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 877. Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercis­ing religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law. States, including those in which the plaintiff corporations were incorporated, authorize corporations to pursue any lawful purpose or business, including the pursuit of profit in conformity with the owners’ religious principles. Pp. 20–25.

(iii) Also flawed is the claim that RFRA offers no protection be­cause it only codified pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause precedents, none of which squarely recognized free-exercise rights for for-profit corporations. First, nothing in RFRA as originally enacted suggested that its definition of “exercise of religion” was meant to be tied to pre­-Smith interpretations of the First Amendment. Second, if RFRA’s original text were not clear enough, the RLUIPA amendment surely dispels any doubt that Congress intended to separate the definition ofthe phrase from that in First Amendment case law. Third, the pre-Smith case of Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc., 366 U. S. 617, suggests, if anything, that for-profit corporations can exercise religion. Finally, the results would be absurd if RFRA, a law enacted to provide very broad protection for religious liberty, merely restored this Court’s pre-Smith decisions in ossified form and re­stricted RFRA claims to plaintiffs who fell within a category of plain­tiffs whose claims the Court had recognized before Smith. Pp. 25–28.

(3) Finally, HHS contends that Congress could not have wanted RFRA to apply to for-profit corporations because of the difficulty of ascertaining the “beliefs” of large, publicly traded corporations, but HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would like­ly prevent that from occurring. HHS has also provided no evidence that the purported problem of determining the sincerity of an assert­ed religious belief moved Congress to exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA’s protection. That disputes among the owners of corpora­tions might arise is not a problem unique to this context. State cor­porate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by, for example, dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure. Courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving disputes. Pp. 29–31.

(b) HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exer­cise of religion. Pp. 31–38.

(1) It requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at con­ception. If they and their companies refuse to provide contraceptive coverage, they face severe economic consequences: about $475 million per year for Hobby Lobby, $33 million per year for Conestoga, and $15 million per year for Mardel. And if they drop coverage altogeth­er, they could face penalties of roughly $26 million for Hobby Lobby,$1.8 million for Conestoga, and $800,000 for Mardel. P. 32.

(2) Amici supporting HHS argue that the $2,000 per-employee penalty is less than the average cost of providing insurance, and therefore that dropping insurance coverage eliminates any substan­tial burden imposed by the mandate. HHS has never argued this and the Court does not know its position with respect to the argument. But even if the Court reached the argument, it would find it unper­suasive: It ignores the fact that the plaintiffs have religious reasons for providing health-insurance coverage for their employees, and it is far from clear that the net cost to the companies of providing insur­ance is more than the cost of dropping their insurance plans and pay­ing the ACA penalty. Pp. 32–35.

(3) HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses. But RFRA’s question is whether the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the objecting parties’ ability to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs. The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and im­portant question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the cir­cumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facili­tating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief  reflects “an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distin­guished. Pp. 35–38.

(c) The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Pp. 38–49.

(1) The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA. Pp. 39–40.

(2) The Government has failed to satisfy RFRA’s least ­restrictive-means standard. HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The Government could, e.g., as­sume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with re­ligious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that providing in­surance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS’s stated interests. Pp. 40–45.

(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man­dates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, which up­held the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s reli­gious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there isno less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes. Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate.  Pp. 45–49.

No. 13–354, 723 F. 3d 1114, affirmed; No. 13–356, 724 F. 3d 377, re­versed and remanded.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to all but Part III–C–1. BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opin­ion.

 

Headline Writers Showing Their Bias Again

Media take:

"Google revealed Wednesday how very white and male its workforce is."

Actual data:

Google's workforce is 61% white.

The U.S. population is 63% white.

The real issue: Google's workforce is heavily overrepresented by Asians. If you have difficulty understanding why, pop in on a computer science class at a university near you and observe the racial makeup of the kids taking these classes. That's who Google will have to choose from when interviewing for entry-level positions in the next four years.

Self-Loathing Gun Control Extremists!

You know how so many of the strongest anti-gay Republican politicians end up getting caught sleeping with men? The Democrats have an equivalent, but instead of sleeping with their own gender,

they traffic in illegal guns.

Democrats Responding to Donald Sterling

"Fine him!"

They did.

"Oh. Then make him sell the Clippers."

They are.

"Oh."

"Then let's make him pay more in taxes."

Brilliant. Only the cleverest Democrats know how to turn a racist remark by one rich asshole into a cry for increased taxes.

RSPECT!

Here's Barack Obama the other night, leaving a letter out of Aretha Franklin's R-E-S-P-E-C-T (Obama Misspells 'Respect' While Honoring Aretha Franklin) [Video courtesy of Ebaum's World, which to my surprise, still exists]

I'm not one of those who thinks this is proof that Obama is a moron who can't spell, but it was funny. It would have been ten times funnier, though, if Dan Quayle was in the audience, and he had stood up and yelled "I think you forgot an 'E' there!"  Good times...

Speaking of Quayle, I wonder if he finally started looking like a grown-up? Has anyone seen a recent photo of Quayle?

 

Budgets and Deficits are not the Same Thing

Saw this from a friend who blames Fox News for everyone thinking Obama is a big spender.

I'd venture to say that most of those 54% don't understand the difference between a budget deficit and the national debt, and that most of those, and maybe a lot of the other 46% think that the president, rather than Congress, determine the budget. In fact, unless the same party holds both the House and the Senate, the process goes like this: the president proposes a budget. One or both houses of Congress laugh at him and then fight among themselves to decide what the budget will actually be.

And how about the 27% who had no clue, but at least were honest enough to admit it. Those are probably mostly the "undecided" voters who actually make all of the important electoral decisions that run our country. If I'm right in that bit of speculation, it's kind of frightening, isn't it?

Yes, Virginia, You Can Keep Your Plan

Here was the President in February 2010:

"Actually, any insurance that you currently have would be grandfathered in so you could keep. And so you could decide not to get in the exchange the better plan -- I could keep my Acme insurance, just a high-deductible catastrophic plan -- I would not be required to get the better one. If I chose to get the better one, it would be 14 to 20 percent cheaper than if I were going into the individual market. I just wanted to clarify that issue."

(start watching around 1:12:48)

 

Every word of it was pure fantasy. He's a smart guy. There's no way he said this out of naivete or any other form of sincere belief. He knew this was BS. He knew that for a lot of people, this was not going to be true, because the whole system is built upon forcing young and healthy people to pay more for their health plans. If you are young and healthy, and had a "bare bones" plan because it was a more efficient health care financial plan than wasting a bunch of money on more insurance than you need, your ability to keep your plan was doomed under the structure of Obamacare, and you were destined to have to pay more going forward. In some cases, a lot more.

"No matter what you heard" ... unless you heard something truthful and thorough.

"Let me repeat this" ... because if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

"Let me be perfectly clear" ... not honest, but clear.

"We will keep this promise to the American people" ... or else we will apologize and that will be that.

I hope I never hear Barack Obama try to assure me that if I like my spouse and want to keep my spouse, I can keep my spouse.

First, The Plagiarism Nazis Came for Rand Paul, and I Did Not Speak Up, Because I Was Not Rand Paul.

As Steve Benen once wrote:

Just over the last week, evidence of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) presenting others’ work as his own has come to public light over and over and over and over and over again. This afternoon, Andrew Kaczynski found yet another instance in which part of the senator’s most recent book plagiarized an article from Forbes magazine.

With new revelations popping up at least once a day, the Kentucky Republican decided to address the controversy by talking to the New York Times.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who in recent weeks has had to explain a series of plagiarism charges, said in an interview Tuesday that he was being held to an unfair standard, but that there would be an office “restructuring” to prevent future occurrences.

Sitting in a conference room in his Senate office complex, Mr. Paul, drawn and clearly shaken by the plagiarism charges, offered a mix of contrition and defiance…. Acknowledging that his office had “made mistakes,” he said he was putting a new system in place to ensure that all of his materials are properly footnoted and cited.

The quotes in the Times piece are remarkable, in that it seems the senator feels put upon – as if having to play by the same rules as high-school kids who are taught not to present others’ work as their own is some kind of imposition. “What we are going to do from here forward, if it will make people leave me the hell alone, is we’re going to do them like college papers,” Paul told the Times.

Dear MSNBC. I think Rand Paul may have said that in comic sans.

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work.1/

But not every collection of words is worthy of being considered "an author's language, thoughts, ideas or expressions." Sometimes, they are just recitations of fact that can't be usefully expressed in much more than one way. And not all appropriations are "wrongful" and constitute purloining.

In a speech, an introductory sentence saying what a movie is about is not "presenting others' work as your own." If you ask me what Gattaca was, and I cut and paste from Wikipedia, I am not claiming that what I responded with is an original work of authorship. The only part of this whole "scandal" that I agree with is the criticism of using extended, unattributed quotes in his book. That is probably not cool. I say probably because I wasn't sufficiently intrigued to read the lifted passages or ponder whether they should be considered an instance of purloined authorship.

Even then, I don't really like the obsession over attribution, particularly as to small passages or generic descriptive statements. I find it tedious, as a reader or listener, to hear people say "as so-and-so said" or "as so-and-so wrote in his book "The Thingamajig". How annoying would it be to read an article about Death Valley that began with "Death Valley is a desert valley located in Eastern California. Situated within the Mojave Desert, it is the lowest, hottest and driest area in North America, according to its Wikipedia page" ? Pretty annoying, in my opinion.

1/ According to the Wikipedia article on plagiarism, citing the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary; see also Stepchyshyn, Vera; Robert S. Nelson (2007). Library plagiarism policies. Assoc of College & Resrch Libraries. p. 65. ISBN 0-8389-8416-9.

Some Surprising Facts About Budget Shutdowns

In my lifetime the government was shut down no less than 17 times.

Of those Democrats controlled the House for 15 of them.

Of those 17, 16 ended with a compromise. The one that did not ended with a congress overriding a Presidential veto.

Democrats contend that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has nothing to do with the budget.

The Affordable Care Act passed the Senate as part of a budget reconciliation process.

 The only President in my lifetime who did not have at least one government shutdown: George W. Bush

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?