Thoughts on SCOTUS and the Healthcare Bill

Washington Post article: Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health-care law


Thursday's ruling on the Healthcare bill was strange.

The court is predominately conservative right now, with the majority being Republican appointees.  Recent rulings have tended to support Republican positions with a bit of a "strict Constitutionalist" theme.

Justice Kennedy tends to vote according to his perception of personal liberty.  Justice Thomas usually votes according to a strict interpretation of the letter of the law.  The other 5 conservatives seem to fall somewhere in between, and seem to be more influenced by politics than these two.  The four liberal jurists seem to trend the same, but from a Democrat/liberal perspective.

Justice Roberts deviated greatly from the court's typical trends with his decision.  He basically rewrote the bill's debate and language in order to shoe-horn it into a very tenuous interpretation of Constitutionality.  He is being applauded by the more liberal politicians, lawyers, and judges, but the more intellectually honest folks are left scratching their heads.  The majority opinion seems to have been written, not to discover the answer, but to support the preconception; to push an agenda.

The problem is, we're left with no idea what that agenda is.  Roberts made a real effort to avoid expanding the commerce authority of Congress.  He criticized the legislation in general.  He seemed to criticized the general public for electing people who would frame this kind of legislation.  It almost seems like he upheld the bill against his better judgement.

I can't help but wonder if Roberts has been subjected to some kind of extreme political pressure, bribed, or blackmailed.  He hasn't been in office long enough to judge him decisively, but the ruling seems to be out of character.  Justice Kennedy is reported to have appeared outwardly angry with Roberts during the reading of the decision.

I also can't figure out who benefits from this decision.  Obama has certainly won a political victory.   The fallout from this victory, however, may benefit Republicans in the fall's elections.  The TEA party movement gained popularity as a direct result of the healthcare bill.  The SCOTUS decision has already begun to rally TEA party supporters and to fill Republican and conservative candidate coffers.

On the other hand, Obama and Democrat senators can point to this piece of signature legislation as a significant victory.  They can claim to have kept promises and to have benefited a large segment of society (a controversial claim, but one that many voters will respond to).

I guess we'll just have to watch it all unfold. 

SCOTUS Got it Right

Read the Supreme Court's decision here:  ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law is right on.  The original law included several parts that usurped or superseded Federal law.  These had to be eliminated.  I have never supported the part of the bill that allowed police profiling for the investigation of immigration status.  This kind of activity would be fine if it only affected illegals, but it’s probable that such a policy would also affect legal residents and citizens.

The Supreme Court did not strike down the portion of the bill allowing for the verification of immigration status secondary to detainment or arrest for another infraction.  This is completely in line with accepted practice.  Currently, an officer running an ID during a traffic stop, for instance, will check for warrants.  Adding immigration status to this check is completely appropriate.  Will it be abused?  Yes.  Authority is always subject to some abuse.  But it won’t see a greater level of abuse than warrant checks.

Unfortunately, some of the news media sources are misreporting this decision.  The Supreme Court has not upheld the secondary immigration check in the bill, it has simply chosen not to strike it down.  It has sent this portion back to the lower court to monitor for abuse.  If abuse occurs, this portion of the law can still be struck.  Also, they have not allowed for profiling as reported yesterday by the BBC.  This portion of the bill was struck down.

As for the Federal Government’s failure to uphold our nation’s immigration laws…  I’ll have to address that in another post.

BTW: For the record:  Illegal aliens are “illegal aliens” or “illegals”.  They are in this country in violation of the law, regardless of age or circumstance.  They are not “undocumented workers”, or “undocumented immigrants”.  They are non-citizens engaged in illegal behavior.  We can offer amnesty, we can change our laws, but we cannot change the fact that these individuals are violating our current law.

Censoring Google

US News and World Report article:  Should Google Comply With Government Censorship Requests?

Google's Government Transparency Report

Comment from Dorothy Chou, Google's Senior Policy Analyst

Our First Amendment to the US Constitution severely hinders the US government's ability to censor the exchange of information and ideas.  Unfortunately, this limitation is somewhat unique to the US, and even here, those limitations can be challenged.

Google is the most successful corporate presence in the internet.  It's basically the glue that holds it all together.  This results in gross attempts by the world's governments, including the US, to limit and control the information and content Google makes available to its users.  Sometimes, government requests for the elimination of content or data makes sense.  Sites engaged in illegal activity can and should be shut down.  Unfortunately, governments don't tend to stop there, often requesting the elimination of sites that criticize or challenge political entities or public figures.  These kinds of attempts to protect the government from the people should never be tolerated.

I applaud Google for the stand they have made.  Government requests are considered and, where appropriate, complied with.  Inappropriate requests, however, are ignored, even when submitted in the guise of court orders.  I consider this policy to be responsible and ethical.

Global Warming

Article: Green ‘drivel’ exposed

Michael Creighton Speech


The global climate is changing, just as it has for the last four or five billion years.  Thank God.

Our earth didn't have an atmosphere capable of sustaining life until about 500 million years ago.  If not for global climate change, we wouldn't be here!

Our world is an evolving planet.  The atmosphere, magnetic fields, temperatures, orbital path, etc. all change continuously.  In just the short period of time humans have been recording our history, we have seen evidence of fantastic changes.

In recent history, we humans have added some additional greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.  We know this is true because we can measure it.  What we absolutely do not know is what effect this has on the environment.  There is simply not enough data to predict whether human contribution will help, hurt, or fail to effect the environment.

Fortunately, the Global Climate Change religion is fast losing ground.  The zealots are losing support as more and more people come to realize they have been duped by the pseudo-science political machine.  Objective scientists are finally taking an unbiased look at this field of study.

Is mankind hurting the environment in a way that will cause it to affect our ability to live here?  No one knows.  Should we study the issue and make appropriate changes?  Absolutely.  Should we make unwise, reactive decisions in response to emotional hysteria and junk science?  Absolutely not!

MSNBC: Yellow Journalism at its worst.

Video: NBC edits Romney rally speech to portray candidate as out of touch

yellow journalism

n.

Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers.

 

 

Yellow journalism is not necessarily media bias.  Media usually is somewhat biased.  A bit of bias allows the reader or viewer to seek news sources that are less challenging to his or her own views, making the coverage more comfortable.  This is common across the news spectrum.

Yellow journalism is the distortion of news for a defined purpose.

In the above link, MSNBC uses creative editing to remove the context of a Mitt Romney speech.  This causes the video to have a completely new meaning that is presented as news.  The result is a clear attempt to sway public opinion about the credibility of a political candidate.  The sensational nature of the distorted story appeals to Romney detractors, helping MSNBC to maintain viewership.  This is a clear violation of news media integrity.

 

Of the major players, CNN and FOX are consistently the least biased.  CNN leans slightly left in the news coverage, FOX, slightly right.  Editorial content is somewhat left at CNN, and decidedly right at FOX.  Other news agencies tend to lean left with MSNBC being the most liberal.  I'm actually OK with this.  Anyone wanting a real balance of news can switch between channels for different perspectives to create a clearer picture.  I personally toggle between CNN and FOX with a bit of BBC thrown in for a better global perspective.

What MSNBC has done here, however, is not simple bias.  This is grossly irresponsible reporting.  They should be ashamed.

Respect the Vets

Video: Thank You For Your Service (A Moment of Truth)



I love the fact that we Americans are showing respect for our active service men and women.  I like the way they are given special attention while in uniform.  I'm glad they can return from overseas deployment to a thankful nation that values their efforts and sacrifices.

But I feel for the veterans.  Former service men and women who left their families to fight in wars sometimes came home to a hostile nation that held the uniform in disdain.  As we celebrate the active military, we often forget the unsung sacrifices of a whole generation of heroes.

Thank a vet.

Stylish Pooches

See article here: The dog that's just dyeing to be a tiger


My first reaction was a bit of disgust.  But then I thought about it.

The recent up-scale trend in China is to take your dog to a hair stylist.  Dogs are transformed into panda bears (real pandas are illegal to own in China), tigers, lions, camels, or whatever the owner and stylist can dream up.

It seem incredibly indulgent, and maybe a bit weird, but I'm guessing the dogs like it.  Aside from the occasional costume prop, they probably don't notice their new style.  But I'm sure they notice the attention they get.  Dogs are social creatures.  I'm guessing these pooches aren't filing any complaints.

Style on, Fido.  You look marvelous.  And remember, as Fernando said, "It's better to look good than to feel good, darlin'".

Ford Rocks.

Ford is the best car company these days.

My dad retired from GM Truck & Bus, and I've owned more GM products than all other brands combined, but Ford wins.

Yes.  I have owned Japanese and German.  Nice cars, but no better than American.  It's more hype than anything else.  American cars easily compete with foreign these days.

My last few cars have been a Chrysler, a Toyota, a Ford, a Buick, and four Chevy's.  I love GM products.  Driving a Chevy is like coming home.  But my Ford Five Hundred was perhaps the best car I've ever owned.  Reliable, comfortable, loaded with amenities, just an all around great car.  I love the Suburban I'm driving now, but that Ford had it all together.

I recently rented a Chrysler 300.  Overall, I liked it, but the fit and finish was just not up to modern standards.  That's entirely inexcusable.

I travel a lot, so I've driven Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Mercedes, BMW...

In the end, I'm still a loyal GM guy.  But if I have to make an objective decision, and choose the best over-all brand, it's Ford.

2012 Graduates

See video here: Speech

In David McCullough's 2012 commencement speech to Wellesley High School graduates, he tells the outgoing students that they are not special.

I agree.

The world tends to be a very tough place.  Unfortunately, we don't seem to do a very good job, anymore, of preparing our kids for this reality.  We often protect and pamper them, never letting them see the unfairness, ugliness, and selfishness that is so often present in the life of an adult.

Most people graduate from high school.  Virtually everyone holds a job at some point in their life.  Most people register to vote.  Most get married and have kids.  None of these things is special.

What makes us special, what makes us stand out in the world, is our ability to do what others cannot.

A soldier, fire fighter, or police officer who has the courage to place another's life above his or her own is special.  A doctor or nurse who forgoes food and sleep to care for victims of a tragedy is special.  A teacher, pastor, or counselor who makes the time and effort to get through to a troubled teen, the entrepreneur who risk financial security to chase a dream the politician who goes against his or her party to stand up for what's right, these people are special. These are the people deserve our regard, respect, and appreciation.

Specialness is earned; it's not inherent.  You can't be born special.  So one else can make you special.

Anyone who wants to be special must take the risk, make the sacrifices, and do the work.  You will get help along the way, but you will also find obstacles.  You will experience failure.  You will be rejected, betrayed, and ridiculed.  It's the courage and tenacity to strive on, regardless of the cost that leads to specialness.

Be special.  And God bless.

Aliens must exist.

There are approximately 300 sextillion (that's a '3' followed by 23 zeroes) stars in the universe.  That's a lot of stars.  There are estimated to be around 100 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone.  And there may be as many as 500 billion galaxies!

If only one in a billion Earth-like planets had the correct conditions for life, that would leave 50 trillion planets.  If only one of these planets in a million actually formed life, that would be 50 million planets. 

50 million.

And that's a really, really, really conservative estimate.

I think the odds are that alien life exists.  It's mathematically improbable that we are alone in the universe.

The Bible is Historically Reliable

“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.”  --The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology

"[A]rchaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and use it many times for geographical relationships, old names and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible. -- Dr. George Stuart, National Geographic Society

It amuses and saddens me when secular critics discard the Bible as an historical reference.  The Bible was never compiled to be a history text, but several of its books are deliberate chronicles of history and are at least as credible as other historical documents such as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, or the Code of Hammurabi.  In many cases, Old Testament Jewish documents have survived in far larger quantities than other documents that are sometimes given more credence.

There are events in the Bible that are not supported by independent documents.  These events are often disregarded and labeled as myth.  Other, secular documents, on the other hand, are often considered credible without independent supporting evidence.  It's intellectually dishonest for some historians to ignore the Bible as a relevant historical document.

I feel a bit guilty about it, but I get a certain sense of satisfaction when archeology verifies a Biblical event.  King David was considered to be a mythical figure by secular historians until an archeological dig in 1993 discovered a clear reference to the House of David while proclaiming a battle victory over the King of Israel.

The Bible was given to us so that we could understand our relationship with God and His will for our lives.  The history in the text is only spiritually significant in that it helps us understand these things in a way He intends.  The Bible is not a history text.  That said, the history contained in the Bible is reliable and should be granted the same credibility and respect given to other ancient documents.

Under. Not over.

Why do so many people hand their toilet paper wrong?

The correct way is under, like in the above picture.

With the TP hung under, you can stabilize the roll with one hand and tear.  Hanging it over often causes the paper to fail to tear, giving you much more than you wanted.

Also, if you have a cat, hanging the TP over gives him a great toy that often results in a pile of unrolled TP on the floor.  Usually with cat claw and bite marks in it. 

How does over make sense?  Really...

Hurray for Walker... I Think...

Article: Walker wins recall race over Barrett



I am generally happy that Scott Walker won this week's recall election in Wisconsin.  Walker campaigned on a platform promising financial reforms and he has kept those promises.  He has taken on Union corruption, and has succeeded in reducing the state's deficit.  The current budget deficit is expected to be completely eliminated by 2013 because of his efforts.

Unions have rallied their memberships against Walker.  He has made some changes to the benefits packages of state workers, bringing them more in line with the private sector.  He has also changed regulations allowing local governments to shop out benefits packages resulting in a great reduction in cost.  Unfortunately for the unions, these changes have significantly reduced their control of state dollars, limiting their political strength.

The struggle in Wisconsin was never about workers' rights or government overreach.  It has, all along, been about power.  Union bosses had it and didn't want to give it up.  Walker took it from them.  Why union members allow their union leadership to have such control over the society they live in is completely beyond me.  Politicians are generally corrupt, but union bosses often take corruption to new levels.

What troubles me about this recall election is the amount of out-of-state money spent by the Republicans during the campaign.  They outspent the Democrats more than 2 to 1, with most of the contributions coming from non-Wisconsin supporters.  I don't like to see local elections influenced so heavily by non-local dollars.

On the other hand, Walker beat Barrett by roughly the same margin as the original election.  It appears that the public has not changed it's opinion.  Wisconsin really does want these reforms.

Worship Darwin. Or Else.

Article: Ex-NASA worker: Firing was over intelligent design

David Coppedge claims he was fired from NASA for expressing a belief in intelligent design.  NASA claims Coppedge was simply downsized.

The courts will figure out the Coppedge case, but we'll be left with an important question.

Can intelligent, educated people believe in a Creator and still be relevant?

Personally, as a Christian, I don't care if the universe was created in six days or in 16 billion years.  I believe God did it, whatever method he chose.  I've studied the issue enough to be convinced that our observable environment is more than six to ten thousand years old.  A literal Creation belief of a six day event doesn't make sense to me.  But I won't discount God's ability to have done it that way.  God's great.  He created the Heavens and the Earth.  Enough said.  I guess that puts me in the Intelligent Design camp.

To completely discount an intelligent architect seems reckless.  That much randomness is implausible.  Belief in pure Darwinism takes as much faith as a belief in a six day Creation.  It's a religion in itself.

So can a reasonably intelligent, educated person believe in a Creator God?

Yes I do.

No 1st Amendment for Obama Critics

Video: Teacher yells at student because of a question he asked about Obama

Apparently, we're not allowed to criticize the president.  Or this president, at least.

In the above video, we hear a social studies teacher berating a student for making a marginally critical comment about President Obama.  The rant is incredibly biased, oppressive, and demonstrates some remarkable ignorance on the part of the teacher.

Recently, a bill has been passed making it unlawful to protest in Secret Service secured areas (read: "where the president can hear you").  Now a school is being used to suppress student opinions that would challenge Obama.

I'm worried.  This is not OK. 

Zombies Are Real

Zombies are real.  Not only are they real, but the possibility of a zombie uprising threatening the general public is so prevalent, the US Center For Disease Control has a webpage dedicated to zombie awareness.

Russia is developing technology to turn people into zombies.

Last week, a Maryland man was arrested for eating brains.


In a separate incident, a Miami man was shot and killed while eating a man's face.


A British paper reports Luke Magnotta is still on the run after killing and eating his partner.

The ammunition manufacturer Hornady has responded with a specialized shotgun load called Zombie Max.

How much more evidence do we need?  The government, the gun industry, the press in two major Western nations, and the former Soviet Union all acknowledge the existence of Zombies.  They're real.  And we should be prepared for the coming apocalypse.

So gas up the chain saw.  Sharpen the machete.  Load some Zombie Max shells in your shotgun, board up the windows, and barricade the doors.


They're real.  And they're coming.  For you.

He's Making a List and Checking It Twice

Article: Strassel: The President Has a List

Remember Nixon?

President Obama is giving the appearance of Nixon-like abuse of presidential power to secure his own election.

GOP and Romney campaign contributors are being targeted for aggressive attack campaigns by KeepingGOPHonest.  These are not political activists who put themselves in the limelight through press releases, protest marches, and campaign events.  They are simple contributors whose only offenses are that they signed checks to the GOP.  For daring to support the opposing team, Obama supporters have started a campaign to smear these donors and disrupt their ability to do business.

This type of intimidation is simply bad politics.  It's corrupt.  It disrupts the democratic process.

When considered with other tactics used by this administration, such as the rewriting of American history on the White House website, or the recent bill limiting free speech in areas secured by the Secret Service, it starts to paint a fairly unflattering picture for this president's ethics.

I want a fair election that allows for a traditional democratic process.  I don't see that coming from this administration.