We are on vacation and visiting with family in Cincinnati. We dropped into a grocery store and, wondrous to behold, our stuff was put into plastic bags and I could loop them all over my forearms and make a single trip to the car instead of carrying two bags at a time in my arms with three trips to the car.
Cool!
I know, I know. In Portland we know that using paper bags is good and plastic bags are evil, but I don't care. I like plastic; I'm a wild man and I cannot be restrained.
Friday, July 05, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
The Death of DOMA, and another fine mess you've gotten us into . . .
It's the latest, most important news. DOMA is toast.
I never knew where Congress got the authority to create a restrictive definition of marriage in the first place. It sure isn't in the enumerated powers. What, the interstate commerce clause? That means if a homosexual couple gets married in a state which permits such marriages, they are married for purposes of federal law, and have the benefits and obligations that arise under federal law.
Well, if the Defense of Marriage Act is toast, does that mean that states now have to recognize homosexual marriage relationships created under other state's laws? Or can the states say that a marriage that would be contrary to law in one state isn't automatically made lawful because some other state let it happen under more liberal laws? In other words, may states now question the legitimacy of actions of other states, when citizens move from state to state?
Further, there is the Prop 8 clusterf*ck the court is dealing with. California voters passed Prop 8, saying, no homosexual marriage. Some people sued the state, saying that Prop 8, enforced by the state, would violate some sort of rights they imagined they had, just as if a right is some sort of biological appendage rather than a condition created by government action. Anyhow, the political masters of California, who didn't like Prop 8 much in the first place mostly because they don't like the idea of citizens getting all uppity and thinking they should be considered, decided not to defend the case brought by the people who were suing to claim Prop 8 was a violation.
So, how tough is it to win a lawsuit, when the defendant doesn't show up?
To avoid a default position, the original proponents of Prop 8 stepped in and nominated themselves as defendants. The plaintiffs, suing the state, wanted them kicked out of court, saying, "We aren't suing you, we're suing California and you have no right to be here." The problem went to the 9th circuit judges who said citizens can defend a lawsuit when the state defendant won't. Contrarily, the Supreme Court has ruled that citizens cannot appear and defend if the state, as defendant, won't.
I guess that means that the challenge to Prop 8 will be upheld because the political masters of California are going to take a dive on the issue, and the voters who voted and passed Prop 8 can pretty much go pound sand, for all that they matter. Governor Brown wants queer marriage in California, and his will be done.
So where does that leave us? Who the hell knows. More litigation will ensue, for sure, for sure, and speeches will be made, politicians will weep phony tears, activists of one sort or another will activate, and pulpits will roar with righteousness. And all the sturm und drang will be in aid of homosexual marriage.
Hey, what percentage of Americans are exclusively homosexual in the first place? Maybe 5%, if that? And what percentage of those want the right to marry? Certainly not all. After all, a helluva lot of straight people have determined that marriage isn't all that. So we have all this attention paid to something that will benefit only a fraction of a very small minority.
Thanks Supremes. You made the mess worse. Gah!
I guess that the issues of government surveillance of citizens without probable cause, contrary to the 4th Amendment, can be safely ignored. And no need to concern ourselves with the politicizing of IRS decision making. And we needn't be concerned about who decided to let Americans die without even trying to do something about it in Bengahzi. And nothing to look at when Kathleen Sibelius tries to shake down constituents. No need to wonder about the EPA's violation of administration rule making rules. Homeland Security's heavy handed violation of travelers means nothing. A porous border with the federal government declining to enforce its own laws is something we should welcome in the name of diversity and social progress. And don't speak of the threat of militant Islamism which has declared war on us and shown over the years that attacks can be made within our borders with impunity.
None of that dreck is all that important, compared to the rights of homosexuals to fulfill their heart's desire to prance down a wedding aisle with a white veil masking a heavy beard, all with the approval and support of loving government busybodies.
Don't get me wrong. Homosexuals are wronged by the present state of the law. Well. Fix that. Let's get it done clearly and without confusion, and let's stop screwing over the icky queers, if that's our thing, and let's get on with the real challenges to our republic.
Or could it be that our government masters welcome and promote the distraction provided by minor issues, like homosexual marriage, so that attention will be directed away from some the concerns noted above, all of which arise in the first place mostly because many of our government masters are not fundamentally in favor of a republican form of government which essentially empowers the little people to resist the depredations of solipsistic politicians?
Nah, surely not that.
I never knew where Congress got the authority to create a restrictive definition of marriage in the first place. It sure isn't in the enumerated powers. What, the interstate commerce clause? That means if a homosexual couple gets married in a state which permits such marriages, they are married for purposes of federal law, and have the benefits and obligations that arise under federal law.
Well, if the Defense of Marriage Act is toast, does that mean that states now have to recognize homosexual marriage relationships created under other state's laws? Or can the states say that a marriage that would be contrary to law in one state isn't automatically made lawful because some other state let it happen under more liberal laws? In other words, may states now question the legitimacy of actions of other states, when citizens move from state to state?
Further, there is the Prop 8 clusterf*ck the court is dealing with. California voters passed Prop 8, saying, no homosexual marriage. Some people sued the state, saying that Prop 8, enforced by the state, would violate some sort of rights they imagined they had, just as if a right is some sort of biological appendage rather than a condition created by government action. Anyhow, the political masters of California, who didn't like Prop 8 much in the first place mostly because they don't like the idea of citizens getting all uppity and thinking they should be considered, decided not to defend the case brought by the people who were suing to claim Prop 8 was a violation.
So, how tough is it to win a lawsuit, when the defendant doesn't show up?
To avoid a default position, the original proponents of Prop 8 stepped in and nominated themselves as defendants. The plaintiffs, suing the state, wanted them kicked out of court, saying, "We aren't suing you, we're suing California and you have no right to be here." The problem went to the 9th circuit judges who said citizens can defend a lawsuit when the state defendant won't. Contrarily, the Supreme Court has ruled that citizens cannot appear and defend if the state, as defendant, won't.
I guess that means that the challenge to Prop 8 will be upheld because the political masters of California are going to take a dive on the issue, and the voters who voted and passed Prop 8 can pretty much go pound sand, for all that they matter. Governor Brown wants queer marriage in California, and his will be done.
So where does that leave us? Who the hell knows. More litigation will ensue, for sure, for sure, and speeches will be made, politicians will weep phony tears, activists of one sort or another will activate, and pulpits will roar with righteousness. And all the sturm und drang will be in aid of homosexual marriage.
Hey, what percentage of Americans are exclusively homosexual in the first place? Maybe 5%, if that? And what percentage of those want the right to marry? Certainly not all. After all, a helluva lot of straight people have determined that marriage isn't all that. So we have all this attention paid to something that will benefit only a fraction of a very small minority.
Thanks Supremes. You made the mess worse. Gah!
I guess that the issues of government surveillance of citizens without probable cause, contrary to the 4th Amendment, can be safely ignored. And no need to concern ourselves with the politicizing of IRS decision making. And we needn't be concerned about who decided to let Americans die without even trying to do something about it in Bengahzi. And nothing to look at when Kathleen Sibelius tries to shake down constituents. No need to wonder about the EPA's violation of administration rule making rules. Homeland Security's heavy handed violation of travelers means nothing. A porous border with the federal government declining to enforce its own laws is something we should welcome in the name of diversity and social progress. And don't speak of the threat of militant Islamism which has declared war on us and shown over the years that attacks can be made within our borders with impunity.
None of that dreck is all that important, compared to the rights of homosexuals to fulfill their heart's desire to prance down a wedding aisle with a white veil masking a heavy beard, all with the approval and support of loving government busybodies.
Don't get me wrong. Homosexuals are wronged by the present state of the law. Well. Fix that. Let's get it done clearly and without confusion, and let's stop screwing over the icky queers, if that's our thing, and let's get on with the real challenges to our republic.
Or could it be that our government masters welcome and promote the distraction provided by minor issues, like homosexual marriage, so that attention will be directed away from some the concerns noted above, all of which arise in the first place mostly because many of our government masters are not fundamentally in favor of a republican form of government which essentially empowers the little people to resist the depredations of solipsistic politicians?
Nah, surely not that.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Big Alterna . . .
Got some unsolicited stuff in the mail, as we do, now that my bride has subscribed to some information services promoting good health.
It occurs to me that providing for alternative medical practices and ingestible supplements is a big business, bringing in big, big bucks, when you figure that on top of all the stuff being sold, there's a whole arkload of alternative treatment practitioners, healers, spiritual advisors, swamis, consultants, and suchlike, from acupunctuationists to rolfbrokers, to reikipilots, and all notional practitioners in-between.
And every damn one of them shares to following two points.
In that regard, Big Pharma is indistinguishable from Big Alterna, and don't think otherwise.
But hey, if you believe that a $139.00 hat with earflaps, made out of a sun activated corn silk and mole fur blend derived from ranch-raised moles, will cure migraines and ice-cream headaches, well, go for it.
It probably won't make any difference, in Darwinian terms, anyhow.
It occurs to me that providing for alternative medical practices and ingestible supplements is a big business, bringing in big, big bucks, when you figure that on top of all the stuff being sold, there's a whole arkload of alternative treatment practitioners, healers, spiritual advisors, swamis, consultants, and suchlike, from acupunctuationists to rolfbrokers, to reikipilots, and all notional practitioners in-between.
And every damn one of them shares to following two points.
- They aren't doing what they do or distributing what they deliver for no charge.
- They all hate and despise what they contemptuously call Big Pharma, by which they mean protocols and substances that have been developed with more than a passing familiarity with the scientific method.
In that regard, Big Pharma is indistinguishable from Big Alterna, and don't think otherwise.
But hey, if you believe that a $139.00 hat with earflaps, made out of a sun activated corn silk and mole fur blend derived from ranch-raised moles, will cure migraines and ice-cream headaches, well, go for it.
It probably won't make any difference, in Darwinian terms, anyhow.
Monday, June 10, 2013
The NSA, that is, National Spy Agency . . .
There are reasons for being suspicious of our government. And keep in mind that being against the government is not the same thing as being against the country. We're just talking about the guys running the place, you know, the current four branches of government, the judiciary, the legislature, the executive, and the vast unelected civil service. (Yeah, there's four, that is, one more than your teacher, who didn't know any better, told you about in the seventh grade.)
Let's see. There's Fast and Furious. There's Sibelius. There's Bengahzi. Then there's the Bengahzi cover-up. There's the IRS being politicalized. And there's the NSA wiretapping deal. There may be more that I've forgotten. Any of these could be enough to shake up the White House. After all, with Nixon, the problem was bugging just the Democratic campaign offices, and that was enough. But the NSA has bugged the entire country, including your voice calls, email, texts, etc. A ginormously huge data center is being built in Utah to store everything the NSA gets.
And this is potentially the worst of all. First, I'm pretty sure there are hackers in China and Russia, and maybe Iran, who can't wait to hack into all this NSA data. If they haven't already. And of course, we have our own domestic hackers to worry about, not the mention the various government busybodies who are going to check you out. And if they are collecting information from everybody, then everybody is the potential target, and it has nothing to do with actual guilt or 4th Amendment probable cause.
Do you think that girl you dumped in your senior year has forgotten about it, now that she works for the Veteran's Administration where you just happen to be applying for benefits? Let's just check you out.
But that isn't the worst of it because, second, there's a million dedicated, crazy conspiracy-theory paranoids out there, slapping their knee right now and saying, "I knew it!"
We have a whole lot of crazy people running around loose, since the great psychiatric insight of the seventies -- that the best and most humane treatment for crazy people is to pretend they can function in normal society and to ignore them and their emotional pain until they commit a serious crime that gets them locked up for a time.
So here's a little message for all the crazy people.
Boys and girls, just because it's true that the NSA really is collecting all sorts of information about everybody, not just foreign transactions, doesn't mean you haven't been crazy all this time. You just caught a lucky break, but you are still crazy. Even though all the electronic data is being collected, the government is still not spying on you and watching what you do through the light bulbs, not now and never was
At least not the old kind.
I'm not so sure about those new curly compact florescent kind.
Let's see. There's Fast and Furious. There's Sibelius. There's Bengahzi. Then there's the Bengahzi cover-up. There's the IRS being politicalized. And there's the NSA wiretapping deal. There may be more that I've forgotten. Any of these could be enough to shake up the White House. After all, with Nixon, the problem was bugging just the Democratic campaign offices, and that was enough. But the NSA has bugged the entire country, including your voice calls, email, texts, etc. A ginormously huge data center is being built in Utah to store everything the NSA gets.
And this is potentially the worst of all. First, I'm pretty sure there are hackers in China and Russia, and maybe Iran, who can't wait to hack into all this NSA data. If they haven't already. And of course, we have our own domestic hackers to worry about, not the mention the various government busybodies who are going to check you out. And if they are collecting information from everybody, then everybody is the potential target, and it has nothing to do with actual guilt or 4th Amendment probable cause.
Do you think that girl you dumped in your senior year has forgotten about it, now that she works for the Veteran's Administration where you just happen to be applying for benefits? Let's just check you out.
But that isn't the worst of it because, second, there's a million dedicated, crazy conspiracy-theory paranoids out there, slapping their knee right now and saying, "I knew it!"
We have a whole lot of crazy people running around loose, since the great psychiatric insight of the seventies -- that the best and most humane treatment for crazy people is to pretend they can function in normal society and to ignore them and their emotional pain until they commit a serious crime that gets them locked up for a time.
So here's a little message for all the crazy people.
Boys and girls, just because it's true that the NSA really is collecting all sorts of information about everybody, not just foreign transactions, doesn't mean you haven't been crazy all this time. You just caught a lucky break, but you are still crazy. Even though all the electronic data is being collected, the government is still not spying on you and watching what you do through the light bulbs, not now and never was
At least not the old kind.
I'm not so sure about those new curly compact florescent kind.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Can you say "ersatz," boys and girls? . . .
I drink no-fat milk. I use whole wheat spaghetti noodles and pizza dough. I eat low fat cheese. I use turkey sausage, not pork. One morning, for breakfast, my wife made "pancakes" using grated apple, banana, and egg. (They were good.) I use artificial sweetener. My hamburgers have no burger in them, so they have soy and nuts instead. I think the little bits of bacon in my salad are really flavored bits of brown styrene. My buttery popcorn involves no actual butter.
I could have teeth "whiter than white" by use of an inexpensive product.
My shirts don't need ironing after washing.
My car shifts its own gears. The gasoline in its tank comes partly from corn alcohol. The fabric of my pants comes from an oil well.
So, it occurs to me that I am living an inauthentic life. And I'm not alone in that.
Is it then any wonder that we can hear the pitchman on television say, "Get the facts, just try it for yourself," and not even hear the clanking of the logic underneath that statement?
All the phony we live with has nourished our stupid quotient. (If you can have an intelligence quotient, I.Q., then you can have a stupid quotient.)
So, don't get me started on politicians.
I could have teeth "whiter than white" by use of an inexpensive product.
My shirts don't need ironing after washing.
My car shifts its own gears. The gasoline in its tank comes partly from corn alcohol. The fabric of my pants comes from an oil well.
So, it occurs to me that I am living an inauthentic life. And I'm not alone in that.
Is it then any wonder that we can hear the pitchman on television say, "Get the facts, just try it for yourself," and not even hear the clanking of the logic underneath that statement?
All the phony we live with has nourished our stupid quotient. (If you can have an intelligence quotient, I.Q., then you can have a stupid quotient.)
So, don't get me started on politicians.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Bad moon rising . . .
IRS is being sued for going far beyond the scope of a search warrant and seizing all sorts of patient treatment records, far in advance of 4th Amendment limits.
Keep in mind that IRS is given enforcement obligations for Obamacare.
If IRS won't "play by the rules," why are the citizens required to report honestly, on penalty of criminal punishment?
Are we getting closer to when massive and pervasive civil disobedience is in order?
Keep in mind that IRS is given enforcement obligations for Obamacare.
If IRS won't "play by the rules," why are the citizens required to report honestly, on penalty of criminal punishment?
Are we getting closer to when massive and pervasive civil disobedience is in order?
Freedom of speech . . .
The Homeowners Association said he couldn't have an American flag in his yard, so, as a good neighbor, he took the flag down and freshened the look of his home. Take a look.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
That'll show 'em who's boss . . .
So the acting head of IRS had turned in his notice that he was quitting in June. in response to the IRS scandals - one of the four breaking out in Washington at the moment - the President fired him. Two weeks before he was going to leave on his own.
The President wants us to know that sometimes doing the right thing means being a hard-ass.
The President wants us to know that sometimes doing the right thing means being a hard-ass.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Happy 21st Century Mothers Day
Mothers Day. Once, 'twas an honored and harmless commercial tradition of coercing males to spend money on useless trinkets, flowers, and over-priced buffets.
Now, in the politics is everything age, it is a splendid opportunity to increase breast cancer "awareness," whateverthehell "awareness" is supposed to actually mean. Also, a good time to celebrate and encourage abortion rights for reluctant breeders - they's kinda the same thing as mothers, right?
Fathers Day? The kids spend five minutes crayoning a card.
Increased awareness of prostate cancer?
Cue the sound of crickets.
Now, in the politics is everything age, it is a splendid opportunity to increase breast cancer "awareness," whateverthehell "awareness" is supposed to actually mean. Also, a good time to celebrate and encourage abortion rights for reluctant breeders - they's kinda the same thing as mothers, right?
Fathers Day? The kids spend five minutes crayoning a card.
Increased awareness of prostate cancer?
Cue the sound of crickets.
Monday, May 06, 2013
Hey, make me a sammitch . . .
Washington State Senator Jeannie Kohl-Welles
is sponsoring a six year effort to go through all the laws of Washington and remove all mentions of men, males, and suchlike so as to make all official language gender neutral. It's going to be a six year process to bugger the language so as to make men aware of their reduced status in a modern world run by women who are mighty. Hear them roar.
So, instead of watchman, we'll have watchperson. Also, there'll be firepersons on duty and people can make a living or just be fisherpersons for a hobby. Instead of penmanship, we'll have something horrible like good write-itude.
I guess Senator Jeannie Kohl-Welles has checked around and satisfied herself that having a hyphenated name entitles her to a mandate. I mean persondate.
And for manhood and womanhood, I guess we could go with "convexity" and "concavity" to refer to traits normally associated to distinguish gender behaviors.
One can make jokes about this endlessly, but I'm pretty sure Senator Jeannie Kohl-Welles would not "get" any of them.
The sad thing is that this sort of effort to achieve gender neutrality in the language can only grow out of a sense of inferiority. I suspect that women who are comfortable with themselves don't get their ears hurt when they hear the word "fireman."
So, instead of watchman, we'll have watchperson. Also, there'll be firepersons on duty and people can make a living or just be fisherpersons for a hobby. Instead of penmanship, we'll have something horrible like good write-itude.
I guess Senator Jeannie Kohl-Welles has checked around and satisfied herself that having a hyphenated name entitles her to a mandate. I mean persondate.
And for manhood and womanhood, I guess we could go with "convexity" and "concavity" to refer to traits normally associated to distinguish gender behaviors.
One can make jokes about this endlessly, but I'm pretty sure Senator Jeannie Kohl-Welles would not "get" any of them.
The sad thing is that this sort of effort to achieve gender neutrality in the language can only grow out of a sense of inferiority. I suspect that women who are comfortable with themselves don't get their ears hurt when they hear the word "fireman."
Saturday, April 27, 2013
This can't be the new normal, can it? . . .
The report says that a young woman couldn't enter a stranger's home in the ordinary way, like, maybe ringing the doorbell or knocking on the door. So the young woman, being unusually small, took off her black dress and crawled through the doggie door. The homeowners, hearing odd noises, investigated, and found her sitting in the bathtub, no water, naked. She was in due course arrested. When being taken into custody, she told the cops she didn't think she was doing anything wrong, sitting naked in a bathtub in a home she entered through the doggie door.
What do you say to an unknown naked girl in your bathtub?
And what's going on between the ears when a young woman thinks it's okay to take off all her clothes and crawl through the doggie door into a stranger's home?
I know, nobody is ever actually told, specifically, that as you go through life you should never take off all your clothes and crawl through a doggie door and go sit naked in a strangers' bathtub.
But we all pretty much agree that that's something not to do, without being told. Right?
I know this must be true, because in all these years I've never met an unknown naked woman in my bathtub. I have a camera for just in case.
What do you say to an unknown naked girl in your bathtub?
And what's going on between the ears when a young woman thinks it's okay to take off all her clothes and crawl through the doggie door into a stranger's home?
I know, nobody is ever actually told, specifically, that as you go through life you should never take off all your clothes and crawl through a doggie door and go sit naked in a strangers' bathtub.
But we all pretty much agree that that's something not to do, without being told. Right?
I know this must be true, because in all these years I've never met an unknown naked woman in my bathtub. I have a camera for just in case.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Where do terrorists come from? . . .
Many observers of public affairs express fear that all of the many no-neck mouthbreathers who make up the political right will collectively rise up against poor, pitiful not-hurtin-nobody Muslims, because said mouthbreathers are ignorant Americans, "clinging to their guns and religion."
No sign of it yet. Wonder here do we keep 'em?
Americans pretty much know that not all Muslims are terrorists, so there isn't any general persecution of Muslims forthcoming. And that's the truth.
On the other hand, while not all Muslims are terrorists, the terrorists have all been Muslim. Not one damn Buddhist in the lot. And that's also the truth.
So, if anybody is looking to find a terrorist, I wouldn't spend a lot of time looking at the membership of, say, some Presbyterian church.
No sign of it yet. Wonder here do we keep 'em?
Americans pretty much know that not all Muslims are terrorists, so there isn't any general persecution of Muslims forthcoming. And that's the truth.
On the other hand, while not all Muslims are terrorists, the terrorists have all been Muslim. Not one damn Buddhist in the lot. And that's also the truth.
So, if anybody is looking to find a terrorist, I wouldn't spend a lot of time looking at the membership of, say, some Presbyterian church.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
We need to do something . . .
It's far too easy for people to go to kitchen utensil conventions and to buy pressure cookers from unlicensed vendors there. We need tougher laws governing selling of pressure cookers, licensing, and background checks. Because if we can save one life, and because shut up.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Latest science news . . .
Some scientists have been studying vertebrate brain structure, and there are similarities, in all vertebrate nervous systems, no matter whether fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal. After much brilliant work with that part of the brain that deals with hoots and calls and language in humans, scientists can now understand the meaning of sparrow bird calls.
It turns out that "tweet tweet twitter peep twitter," doesn't mean, "good morning to all the world!"
It means, "Back off or die, motherfuck!"
It turns out that "tweet tweet twitter peep twitter," doesn't mean, "good morning to all the world!"
It means, "Back off or die, motherfuck!"
Friday, April 12, 2013
John Kerry be clowns himself again . . .
Kerry said that we are "all united," and North Korea will "never be accepted as a nuclear power."
Never be accepted!
He went to elite schools, was admitted into elite clubs, and has unwaveringly thought of himself as one of the superior, able to identify all who fail to measure up for membership in his exclusive digs.
Hey John. You don't get to say who gets to be a nuclear power. If the get ahold of a bomb, they're a nuclear power. Q. E. D.
Doofus!
Never be accepted!
He went to elite schools, was admitted into elite clubs, and has unwaveringly thought of himself as one of the superior, able to identify all who fail to measure up for membership in his exclusive digs.
Hey John. You don't get to say who gets to be a nuclear power. If the get ahold of a bomb, they're a nuclear power. Q. E. D.
Doofus!
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Just a little observation . . .
Have you noticed how frequently mouthbreathers and dropouts feel
the need to instruct others?
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
The Supreme Court prepares to screw up gay marriage . . .
Everybody has a right to get married. Nobody has the right to marry whoever or
whatever they choose. You can't marry
somebody who doesn't want to marry you back.
You can't marry somebody who is only six years old. You can't marry
somebody who is already married to somebody else. You can't marry more than one at a time. You can't marry your pet St. Bernard bitch,
no matter how comely she may be. You
can't marry a unicorn.
The gummint gives specific legal rights to people who marry
according to the gummint's specific marital prescriptions, like rights to
consent, rights to pass on property, tax distinctions, etc. Rights are legal conditions created by
government. Not all rights belong to
everybody. If so-called rights to marry are extended beyond the boundaries of
the specific marital prescriptions, they cease to be rights. They become property.
The problem isn't that gay people are denied rights available to married, straight people. The problem is that special privilege has been granted to married people. Why should marriage, a public confession to strictly private behavior, be given any special privilege at all?
But at the state level, we get to vote. That's a hint that the right to marry is a
state issue, not a federal issue. Some states permit gay marriages; some don't
I don't see marriage as one of the enumerated powers of the
U.S. Constitution and it sure as hell isn't covered under the interstate
commerce dodge, where butthead progressive types seem to find justification for
most of their pet notions.
What to
do if you are gay, in a committed, loving relationship, and your state of
residence is not one of the states permitting gay marriage? Move to a more congenial state, and marry,
butthead. (I suggest that anybody
contemplating marriage, straight, gay, or just bent a little funny, should take
a look at divorce law while looking at marriage law.)
Thus Walt hath spoken, fully anticipating the Supreme Court
to pay no attention whatsoever to the words of Walt.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Science question . . .
Tardigrades. Okay, so I now know you can't drown them, freeze them, roast them, starve them, or dry them out, and they can survive in the cold vacuum of space. They will survive.
Can you squash the little buggers?
Can you squash the little buggers?
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Portland has an arts tax . . .
Portland, Oregon, has a permanent tax on everybody, for the arts. Every resident of Portland over age 18, who has income, must pay $35.00. Shut up and send the money in.
The revenue raised by the tax is going to be spent, half, to get more arts teachers in the schools. the other half will be spent for "the arts". I think that means for cronies, cuddle buddies and fellow travelers.
This tax was the result of a vote. Voters approved it. Wonder if the voters would be just as jazzed by the idea of a math tax, to hire more math teachers in the public schools, and the other half -- for math? Hey, where are people most limited, in their ability to appreciate artistic expressions, or in their ability to understand and use basic number relationships? What holds more people back in their prospects for a comfortable life, the inability to understand percentages or the inability to distinguish between crimson and scarlet?
How about this. I'll pay the tax and they won't have any problem with me. I like art and I can afford it.
But there is a whole 'nother issue. If this law is later held to be a head tax and therefore unconstitutional, as legally it ought to be, I'll expect my refund to be paid promptly without giving me any problems. But deep down, I expect that that's 35 dollars I'll never see again.
Because it truly isn't about the constitution or the arts; it's all about who gets to spend my money and what they choose to spend it on
The revenue raised by the tax is going to be spent, half, to get more arts teachers in the schools. the other half will be spent for "the arts". I think that means for cronies, cuddle buddies and fellow travelers.
This tax was the result of a vote. Voters approved it. Wonder if the voters would be just as jazzed by the idea of a math tax, to hire more math teachers in the public schools, and the other half -- for math? Hey, where are people most limited, in their ability to appreciate artistic expressions, or in their ability to understand and use basic number relationships? What holds more people back in their prospects for a comfortable life, the inability to understand percentages or the inability to distinguish between crimson and scarlet?
How about this. I'll pay the tax and they won't have any problem with me. I like art and I can afford it.
But there is a whole 'nother issue. If this law is later held to be a head tax and therefore unconstitutional, as legally it ought to be, I'll expect my refund to be paid promptly without giving me any problems. But deep down, I expect that that's 35 dollars I'll never see again.
Because it truly isn't about the constitution or the arts; it's all about who gets to spend my money and what they choose to spend it on
Friday, March 01, 2013
Just sayin' . . .
Have you seen the car commercial showing the doofus in the white shirt and necktie trying to teach his kid how to play catch? Doofus has to keep chasing the ball 'cause kid can't get the ball to him -- because the kid is throwing as awkwardly as his father. Dude throws like an African-Indonesian with a Hawaiian birth certificate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)