filed under: dignity and probity

Hasn't the Secret Service learned from their boss that you don't mix business and pleasure when on the tax payer dime? link link

filed under: mulligan

I wrote a little piece in And this week that argued the case of SCOTUS v. POTUS... not an earth-shaking piece, just a little look-see into what the President and his men were saying about the court in the wake of the healthcare case.

Now comes word that the Supreme Court didn't understand the provisions of the law.  And apparently the President's man didn't either, since he forgot, according to the article, to argue the Administration's case for "the bronze plan" in his defense. (The bronze plan is a catastrophic plan that is "skinny." It's low cost. It is lean.

Maybe Verilli was out playing golf with the President when this was covered in their Court prep day.  It sounds like now they want a mulligan.

But I guess my question would be: if I held one guy up for a thousand dollars and another guy up for a hundred... wouldn't I have robbed them both?  In other words, if something is illegal (read: unconstitutional), does it matter that it's going to cost you less?

The key sentence in the article: "The minimum that people will be required to buy under the health reform law is clearly a catastrophic plan," said Levitt.

The key phrase: "people will be required to buy"...

The bronze plan... ahh, the gilded age.

filed under: macaca

see the link. read about what she said. watch her apology. watch to see what happens.

that is all.

filed under: causes for cynicism

The President told reporters this week that what leads to a sense of cynicism among the American electorate is the fact that they report the news as though both parties are equally at fault for the mess we are in and the intransigence of our debate on issues. He went on to point out a number of items that were once Republican ideas that he has embraced, only to find that the Republicans have moved the goalposts, listing among those critical items such things as the budget and the individual mandate in his healthcare policy. (link) I do not disagree as far as he goes. But I would add that at least part of my own cynicism is that fact that he himself ran against the individual mandate when he was a candidate (link), pointing out that if the answer was to require people to buy insurance, we could solve homelessness buy requiring people to buy houses. So did he have a change of heart, or was he (is he) merely saying whatever he needs to say to increase his own power?

Unfortunately, none of the reporters in the room asked this question.

filed under: the dust up for today

Saw this link and thought the difference in interpretation of constitutional authority was fairly stark. There is a serious disagreement in our foreign policy that has not received the attention it deserves -- namely, the question of who controls our armed forces, who dictates the use of our resources. Panetta seems here to come down on the side of the international community. Those who still believe the national authority is constituted in the people may have a point when they argue that the Obama Administration (and liberals generally) see the Constitution as something to get around rather than as something that serves to form and constrain the federal government's power. 

filed under: It's a Man's World, part 2

I've always thought Maher and Limbaugh are both a little (or a lot, take your pick) misogynist... But they also tend to stand up (usually) for free speech.  Here Maher throws in on the side of being able to call women whatever names he wants to and get away with it, if he's ever questioned, with an apology...  link

filed under: It's a Man's World

Whoever said "it's a man's world" has not been to Family Court. This story from the Huffington Post (link) shows a court run amok, drunk on it own power, blinded by its own policy prejudices, captured by feminist propaganda.  I don't know the particulars of the story, obviously. I don't need to. I have been involved, as too many of us have, with divorce court and family court on occasion. A man walks in the door convicted on all counts. It is not a question of whether he will win... it's a question of how much can he afford to lose. I have had many people tied to the system tell me that a man has no choice. no chance in family court... people who are responsible for enforcing and adjudicating policy. It simply is.

Think I'm overreacting or simply wrong? Consider the following: A man has no say in whether a woman with whom he has had a one night fling and (let's say) the condom broke... he has no say in whether that woman should keep the child or abort, should she become pregnant. Nor should he. A woman has a right to her own body for those nine months of pregnancy. However... should the man not want a child, and the woman decide to keep it, she can sue him for child support and the court can award her part of the man's income for the next eighteen years. And it happens All The Time. So.. no one can tell the woman what to do with her body for nine months, but the court and the woman can tell the man what to do with his body for eighteen years.

Is that just?

Is the court's behavior and the woman's complaint in the linked story just? Does a man who complains about a court and implies without stating outright something about a former relationship owe his conscience to the court and apology to the woman? Especially considering the fact that under a protective order, as in this case, the woman can say whatever she wants about the man and can contact him at will? Protective orders generally don't work both ways and are generally given to the first one to cry foul. o you think the woman didn't say anything at all about the man to her girlfriends? Do you know any women?!

I understand there are two sides (or fourteen sides) to every story. Here the court has said there is only one. The woman's. The man's ability to state his opinion, even if that opinion only tangentially relates to the woman or the court... must be silenced

I know I sound like a crazy person here. Try going to divorce court as a man before you complain. Try going through the court system with a man's junk between your legs. There is an automatic presumption of guilt. How many men get their kids in custody battles? How many women pay alimony? How would you feel about this story if the facts remained exactly the same, but the genders of the party were switched?