VP Debate: A Review

VP debate at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky:

So Joe Biden and Paul Ryan had their debate last night.  Generally speaking, the VP debate has virtually no impact on the outcome of elections.  They usually are just a drumbeat of what the top of the ticket pushes in their own debates.  What you do have the opportunity to get is a feel for the intellect and temperament of the potential presidents, poised to assume power should the unfortunate happen to the man on the throne.  So how did the evening go?

Joe Biden’s job in this debate was primarily to energize the base of the Democratic party, who are still fuming over Obama’s abject failure to project a pulse in the first presidential debate.  The party was offended by the failure, and Biden was the punch back, and Biden was happy to comply.  He was aggressive, commanding, and did his best to keep Ryan on his heels.  He did tell some whoppers, particularly about the terrorist attack in Libya.  Not sure Biden paid much attention to the news of the day before the debate, because the State Department flatly contradicted everything he claimed last night.  Someone should have told him, because anyone who knew of the SD statements watched the lie snowball with every sentence.  The White House had to execute the requisite spin and roll it back after the debate, saying that Biden was only referring to himself and Obama, not the administration.  But he also was shockingly rude, unprofessional and condescending – not something I expected, even with Biden’s propensity for running his mouth without using his brain.  I thought Biden would be what made the debate fun to watch, but I found myself more put off and offended the longer the debate went on.  The non-stop interruptions, the condescending laughter while shaking his head, the retorts that flirted with being obnoxiously loud, all of it made Biden look unprofessional.  And that may have backfired for him, as independents and women tend to despise that exact attitude.  It’s fortunate that the VP debate has little impact on the election.  That said, Biden was successful in accomplishing his goal, which was energizing the base.  No tangible impact will come of it, but he did what was expected.  Grade:  B+

Paul Ryan is clearly the novice in these circumstances and, as such, Biden did his best to smack him around.  Ryan never got flustered, he was even tempered and measured, even when Biden was overpowering him and talking over him loudly.  He seemed to consciously restrain himself a few times, when it appeared he was going to run over Biden for interrupting him AGAIN.  But he kept his cool, and just plugged along.  He was at a distinct disadvantage, with the moderator Radditz interrupting him as well, and allowing Biden free reign in his treatment of Ryan.  As for his substance, I will say I was pleasantly surprised at Ryans’s competence on military issues and foreign affairs.  His specialty is economics, finance and taxation, so a deft touch with foreign affairs is a definite plus for Romney.  But he still wouldn’t give specifics in his economic plan, and that’s been a sticking point with independents.  I don’t think it hurt him, but it didn’t help.  In general he did a good job, and he was respectful of everyone, which is more than can be said for Biden.  Grade:  A

Martha Radditz is ABC's Chief Foreign Correspondent for the State Department, who specializes on national security and foreign affairs, who spends most of her time overseas with the military.  Her moderation was appropriate, being that she probably knows more about foreign affairs than Biden and Ryan combined.  I  laud her ability to keep the debate moving along, something Jim Lehrer had difficulty accomplishing.   But she is very liberal, and she appeared to favor Biden most of the night.  She did nothing to stop Biden from belittling and interrupting Ryan, never even trying to quiet him down when he was overly loud with his interjections.  She also interrupted Ryan herself several times, demanding a specificity she never demanded of Biden.  And with her foreign affairs acumen, she mostly focused on her specialty, the Middle East.  She never talked China or Latin America, and only tapped domestic policy sparingly, covering Medicare and Social Security under the same topical segment.  It was generally hit and miss with her.  Overall she was okay, but she will never moderate another debate.  Republicans were angry with her tactics and free reign allowed to Biden’s behavior, so she’ll likely never get approval from the GOP to moderate again.  Grade:   B-

The debate was mostly a wash.  I graded Ryan a little higher than Biden, mostly on attitude grounds, but I give a sliver of an edge to Biden as the winner - barely.  The simple fact is that, while Biden's behavior was poor, Democrats wanted to see some fight in their candidates.  Biden went overboard, but he did what they wanted, making his night a success.  Ryan had nothing to really gain, but plenty to lose on Romney's success last week.  He really just needed to maintain, and he did that very well.

The next presidential debate is October 16, 2012 at Hofstra University in New York.

Debate #1: Domestic Policy - A Review

OKAY!  Debate #1 was last night.  How did it go?

Well for starters, full disclosure:  I am a registered Republican, but not a fan of either candidate.  I have not been happy with some of President Obama’s policies, in particular his handling of foreign affairs.  I don’t like his playing with our civil liberties as if he’s King of the Mountain.  Asserting his right to order the death of any and all Americans he deems “terrorists,” with no due process (bad precedent to set, yes?), is right at the top of the list.  He is also killing thousands of innocent women and children with his massively under-reported drone war in Waziristan (NW territory of Pakistan).  And the calamity that is his botched handling (some say outright lies) of the terrorist attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi makes me want to punch something.  There are a number of moral issues in play with the president's foreign affairs, and that pretty much makes him a no-go as far as I'm concerned.  I have already discussed the health care situation in previous posts, so please feel free to peruse them if you have any interest.

Mitt Romney has been an empty shirt.  I have referred to him several times as 2012’s John Kerry.  Essentially a suit with a spray tan, great smile, and not much else.  I’ve never doubted his business acumen, he has a reputation of strong business skills, knowledge and intellect - if he were not a Mormon, he would have been the VP candidate for McCain in ’08.  I generally ignore the Bain Capital garbage because anyone who’s ever invested in any company has contributed to the closing of failing businesses and lost jobs.  I will say Bain’s willingness to support a failing company long enough to secure loans and extended financing – and then let the failing company fail anyway, pocketing the difference as profit on the failure – does give me some pause, but it’s not an uncommon business tactic for corporate raiders.  Sad but true.  But on the whole, I haven’t seen anything from Romney that tells me I should vote for him – rather, I’m wishing in general that both candidates would stop giving me reasons to NOT vote for them.  My candidate would be a cross between Jill Stein (Green Party, Mass.) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party, NM).  But neither of them will win, so we’ll just move on.  On to the debate…

Jim Lehrer retired from doing debate moderating after the 2008 debates, only to be lured back by the prospects of a different, not often used format:  Six segments on separate-but-related topics of domestic policy.  2-minute answer, 2-minute response, and then an 11-minute free flow discussion, with the candidates handling the discussion on their own – with Lehrer cutting into to move the discussion along or move on to the next segment.  Nice idea, gives the candidates a chance to riff off of each other.  But ultimately we got a back and forth of repeating themselves like broken records, and each one cutting off Lehrer when he tried to manage the time.  Lehrer liked the format because he likes “officiating,” rather than dictating the discussion.  So he did give them leeway when they cut him off, provided they stayed at least in the ballpark of “on topic.”  The problem with this, is it limited his ability to inject new questions into the discussion, often only asking how one candidate's view differ from the other one.  And because they focused so heavily on the fiscal, domestic social issues were left out, like gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and immigration (hopefully, the town-hall format on the 16th at Hofstra will allow audience members to inject some of these topics into the debate).  The free discussion was just asking for the time to get away from them, and it eventually did.  They ended up with only THREE total minutes between both candidates to discuss their views on partisan gridlock.  I personally think this was the most important issue on the docket, as it has frozen our country in it’s tracks – if they can’t fix that, their views on anything else are irrelevant, because the next four years will be the same as the last four, and we can’t afford that.  So I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that 90 seconds apiece usually gets you nothing of substance.  So Lehrer, while relatively successful in keeping them talking, let the time get away – the only real “failure” in his moderation.  For a format that was sure to cause this problem, he did okay.  Grade:  B-

Barack Obama did not want to be in the room last night.  I’ve always gotten the impression from him that he just tolerates people – he doesn’t want to justify himself to anyone, and his attitude betrays that.  You can see this same attitude in many of his press conferences.  He just looks offended that someone calls him out to account for anything.  I’ve often wondered if he likes the power and title and of President of the United States, but doesn’t really want the job.  He spent most of the debate looking down at his podium, appearing to take notes.  But as predictable as most of the answers were going to be, I suspect he may have just been doodling… or playing Sudoku… or a crossword.  He was completely disengaged, and he kept giving that now very well known smile of condescension he gives while looking down, when he disagrees with something someone says.  You know, that “Oh-aren’t-you-cute-with-the-thinkin’“ smile.  He did the exact same thing to John McCain in the 2008 debate.  That attitude didn’t hurt him in 2008 because people didn’t know him yet, and McCain wasn’t going to win the election.  Bush had soured so much of the country on the Republican party that all Obama had to do was not give them ammunition that could be used against him.  Very little vetting of him was done in ’08, and so little was known about who he really was, that they didn’t have much to go after him with.  How do argue against “HOPE and CHANGE”?  There was simply no where to go, and McCain was fighting a losing battle, unable to shed the coattail of Bush.  But it’s 2012, there’s now 3½ years of his decisions and policies and actions (and inactions) to hit him with, and he simply doesn’t want to justify himself.  Instead of attacking Romney on philosophical things that were supposed to hang him out to dry (Bain Capital, the 47% comment, etc.), Obama kept bringing up the same "$5 trillion in tax cuts, $1 trillion in extending the Bush tax cuts, and $2 trillion in military spending “that the military didn’t even ask for.”  Even when Romney rebutted him, he just kept saying the same thing over and over.  With every repetitive rebuttal, Romney’s position bolstered.  He couldn’t have helped Romney more.  Major debate no no – try it once, but never give your opponent a chance to strengthen his position.   Ironically, that last 3 minutes, that normally would give no room for substance, was the only substance (albeit minimal) to come out of the debate, because it was about philosophy and mindset.  Romney stated that, as Governor of Massachusetts, 87% of his legislature were Democrats – but he still managed to accomplish a lot by getting them to work with him and the Republicans to move the state forward.  What was Obama’s response?  After saying he listens to all suggestions that come his way, and another 45 seconds about the handful of successes, he said “…occasionally you have to say no.”  He quickly added “…to folks, both in your own party and in the other party.”  The sentiment reminded me immediately of his first State of the Union, when he told the country that if he doesn’t get what he wants from Congress, he’ll issue executive orders.  He has said he’ll go it alone many times, and that attitude has cost him in his first term.  His obvious disinterest in this debate showed, and he angered even his own party with it.  This was supposed to separate the men from the boys.  He was supposed to run Romney over and end the election right now.  In that endeavor, he could not have done worse.  Grade:  C-

Mitt Romney was not supposed to even be in this, let alone perform well.  In the last two weeks, I heard and read many comments from the DNC and Obama himself, attempting to pump up expectations for Romney (calling him a masterful and skilled debater) and lower them for the president (saying he was an okay debater, and was practicing hard to compete well).  Not caring about either candidate, I laughed it off as posturing for the sake of gamesmanship.  I was wrong.  Romney came out swinging and swinging hard.  His points also lacked the same substance as Obama’s, but in presentation of canned rhetoric and live stump speech and ad quotes, he could not have performed better.  While the president looked down at his podium dismissively, Romney maintained consistent eye contact, attempting to engage the president over and over, despite Obama’s unwillingness to be engaged.  Romney did dismiss Lehrer a couple of times when Lehrer tried to move along – likely unintentional, but no less unprofessional, and easily corrected before the next debate.  He clearly relished Obama gift-wrapping him those repetitive rebuttals, growing more confident, pointed and determined with each one.  He lucked out, Obama never forcing him into discussions about Bain or the 47%, although it probably good that Obama left the 47% thing alone.  Giving Romney another rebuttal to knock out of the park (and you know he had one) would have just bitten him in the rear again – and Obama’s too slender for that many bites.  If he wins the election, Romney owes a Director of Communications job to whoever is schooling him, especially if he can deliver in the next two debates.  Not a fan of his, but Romney owned Obama last night – one hell of a job, and his polls and money will likely reflect that.  And worse for Obama, the Foreign Policy debate will give Romney a Gallagher-size Sledge-O-Matic to hammer him with.  This election was supposed to be over last night – clearly, it just started.   Grade: A

Debates are never a place to go for substance.  If you’ve seen their advertising campaigns, you generally have already seen the debate.  The hitch in this year’s set up is the format.  The 11-minute discussion period gives a hefty load of leeway for riffing off each other and jabs.  The substance overall will likely still lack, but they’ve found a way to possibly make it interesting.  I wasn’t looking forward to this debate – I had to convince myself to watch it, in fact – but I am looking forward to the next one.  And I am really looking forward to the VP debate next week (nine 10-minute segments) – who knows what comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth with this open format…

Akin a Microcosm of the Country

Todd Akin, as most people are aware, stepped in it pretty deep last weekend when, in the midst of an abortion discussion during an interview on Fox2's JACO Report, claimed that a woman's body has a mechanism for shutting down pregnancy during a "legitimate" rape.  For those who may have missed it, here is the short clip from YouTube:

Akin has been publicly eviscerated and flogged so many ways, it's bordering on sketch comedy at this point.  He's sworn to stay in the Senate race, despite the entire Republican Party and their presidential and vice presidential nominees making it known they want him gone.

It can be debated ad nauseum whether or not what he said is true.  He did say that he misspoke in using the term "legitimate," when he meant to say "forcible."  Even that drew contempt, as if he was implying that there is any rape that isn't "forcible."  For the record, there is - and the FBI has been using the term for decades - "statutory."  And they are the only two types of rape on the legal books.

There is also a basis for the comment, highlighted in a Tim Townsend article in USA Today, in which Townsend references the origin of the argument being made: a 1972 article by Dr, Fred Mecklenburg, where the doctor said that rape pregnancy was rare, and then listed several reasons why that appeared to be the case, including the hypothesis that trauma will prevent a woman from ovulating, even when she is scheduled to.  There is widespread debate, and doubt, in the medical establishment as to the veracity of such a comment, but it has been the fuel for arguments like Akin's ever since.

I can believe logically that trauma affects functions of the body, especially since trauma tends to affect the brain first, and most.  Ovulation is the result of of hormones being released in the brain that causes the ovary to release an egg.  It wouldn't be hard to imagine that extreme trauma could prevent that from happening.  Women do that exact thing with birth control pills every morning - surely it's not so out there to think that other influences in the extreme could do the same thing.  But I don't subscribe to this line of thinking, first because it's extremely difficult to define and prove, and second, the fact that it's estimated in Townsend's article that rape could be resulting in 32,000 pregnancies per year kind of shoots the "rarity" claim in the foot.  No matter how you try to delineate it, 32,000 is a lot of rape babies.

I don't have a problem with Akin making the statement.  Politicians always try to find a justifiable reason to make their argument true - appealing to the science (despite a lack of) is just one more way to sound relevant while saying nothing constructive.  My main problem was with what he said next: that "the punishment ought to be on the rapist, and not attacking the child."  While I agree with the sentiment, I noticed he never mentioned the woman.  Why is that?  The woman isn't being punished with a life long reminder of her rapist if she gets pregnant?  Why is the woman always left out of the conversation on abortion, except to call her a baby killer?  The continued treatment of women as simply the birthing unit has really started to get on my nerves, and comments like the rape debate drives that frustration home.  And my other problem is the lapse in logic - even if everything he said were 100% true, how does that give anyone the right to legally dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her body in regards to pregnancy?

This got me to thinking.  Why not mandate that all rapists be castrated?  You get convicted of rape, we remove your testicles and penis, insert a catheter into the bladder to urinate, and you no longer have genitalia for the rest of your life.  How would that go over, I wonder?  Probably not well, since the majority of lawmakers are men - and there's just no getting around the unwanted squeamish feeling of empathy.  And the "rights to your own fully functioning body" debate would ensue.  The government doesn't have the right to force an action onto a human body.  The implications of this could be extrapolated to the death penalty as well, but the person not surviving the assault on his body during execution would probably make the "rights" issue moot.

As we can all likely agree that forced castration would probably never happen here, it leads me back around to women.  Forcing a woman to accept an imposition on her body is no different than forcing a rapist to accept an imposition on his body.  There is a difference, actually - the woman isn't a criminal.  And if the pregnancy is a result of rape, the imposition is exponentially compounded.  I just don't see how anyone gets around that simple fact.  I get that a fetus has no control over how it came into being, and I would never minimize that fact - but how do we leave women out of the equation, and then just expect them to act like grown ups, take it on the chin, and suck it up when we treat them like children who need to be told what they will and won't do with their bodies?  And that's exactly what we would be doing if Roe v. Wade were ever repealed.

Mr. Akin, a word of advice:  Better to be silent, and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove any doubt.

The Voter ID Farce

So the ballot initiatives for Voter ID has simply exploded in the politisphere lately, with supporters claiming a desire to keep illegals from voting, and critics claiming that the supporters are racist and trying to disenfranchise and suppress the vote of poor blacks, Hispanics and elderly people - the logic being that they are less likely to endure the hardship of riding buses, taxicabs, waiting in long lines, etc. to get to ID locations, when there is limited need for them to have one.  I'm thinking both sides are a bit full of it, to varying degree.  But first and foremost, let's accept that ID is required for almost everything we do anymore:

Social Security, Airports, DMV, Hospitals, Doctor's offices, Pharmacies, Jails, Court, Pawn Shops, Credit Card use, Check use, Adoptions, Blood Donation, Guns, Insurance, any phone call you ever make about an account of any kind.  Welfare, Food Stamps, and Medicaid all require ID.  ID is required for virtually everything. 

And statistically, the poor are the least likely to vote (in USA, we average 36.4%).  The numbers go up as income increases.  Education shows similar effect.  So what's to suppress?  They don't need ID for something they don't participate in, yes? 

I think the voter purging in Florida is complete garbage, and any Miamian knows, illegals go out of their way to avoid government.  This is why they've had almost no success finding illegals voting in Florida - THEY'RE NOT REGISTERED.  It's getting so deep in Rick Scott's office, you need hip boots and a bottle of Febreeze to keep the stink off of you.

Most of us should recognize that photo IDs are the most secure form of ID, since all other forms simply require information to fake.  There's a reason the REAL ID requirements were enacted, and I am of the opinion that everyone should have a photo ID, period.  And from a voting standpoint, if everyone has one, there's nothing to suppress, yes?

So if the problem is simply getting people to the places that issue photo IDs, I have a solution:  why not start issuing IDs in places that the poor would frequent... say, Welfare offices?  Most of the poor are on assistance of some kind.  They already have the documents in hand, because they have to if they're not using a photo ID to get benefits.  The benefits agent, upon verifying their documents for Welfare eligibility, has a webcam at their desk.  They take a photo, the photo ID is printed out at a central printer in the office by the time the lengthy benefits process is over with.  The ID information is forwarded to the state at the same time the benefits processing is (by way of their respective departments' secure web address).  Two birds, one stone.

This could also be accomplished in places where identification verification is required - like employers.  Every employer is required to file employment eligibility forms at the same time they file W-4s when they hire people.  Standard verification is a photo ID and a SS card (or green card), with other verification options if photo ID isn't available.  Once again, webcam - cheap, easy.  Take a picture, send it with the verification form.  State issues a photo ID, mails it to the employer within a couple of weeks, employee gets it with the next paycheck..  Not altogether different than getting a passport.  Two birds, one stone.

For the elderly, how about the doctor's office?  If their Medicare card legally verifies their ID as far as the feds are concerned, then it's simply a matter of obtaining a photo (webcam...) and submitting paperwork (done electronically these days, so no real hardship on the doctors' offices), state mails the ID to the home address, not unlike they do now for renewing drivers' licenses.  Two birds, one stone.

These cover the most likely scenarios for virtually everyone.  If they work, they can get ID through their employer.  If they don't, they're most likely on some kind of assistance, and they can get ID  at the same time they apply for benefits.  Elderly can use the other two options or their Medicare provider.  With almost everything being done on computers and internet, there's simply no reason an easier means of acquiring photo ID can't be accomplished.  Welfare offices are a state agency, so the same system security is available as at the DMV.  If employers are found to be misusing the system for fraud IDs, their occupational license is revoked, and any IDs applied for by the employer are re-verified for accuracy and validity, either through current employers or the Welfare office, if they are on assistance.  Same can apply for doctors' offices.

This is not a perfect solution, but it's an option.  It's certainly better than complaining that poor minorities might have to take a bus and stand in line.  Really?  That's the argument?  So any suggestion of utilizing a more secure form of ID besides a library card and a utility bill, and requiring it to vote, is simply racist and an attempt to suppress voter turnout?  The intellectual laziness is staggering...

I don't think voter fraud (at the polls, anyway) is a huge problem.  If photo IDs can cut down on the dead votes and double voting, great.  Not too worried about illegal immigrants - they pretty much avoid anything governmental the best they can anyway, so they're not showing up in voting booths, I don't care how hard you argue that - it's sounds ridiculous (because it is).  But identification security has become an increasing important issue, and has to be addressed.  Photo ID is the most efficient way to do it. 

And if everyone has one, then requiring it to vote, along with the myriad of other things we need ID for, is no big deal.

A Man's Take on Birth Control

Couple of things on birth control... 

While I am not a fan of the Affordable Care Act in general, the contraception mandate is very low down the list of aspects that bother me about ACA.  But since people have made a pretty large mountain from a relatively small molehill, allow me to inject a tiny bit of reality amidst the hype:

1.  One of the things that drive me crazy is people shouting without knowledge - or worse, in spite of it.  One of the most common rants I see and hear is the seeming belief by the religious (generally Christians) that they can't stop themselves from espousing in public:  that birth control kills potential babies.  Wow, I'm not sure people could be more wrong.  Ovulation is predicated upon a spike in estrogen levels mid-cycle, that activates the pituitary gland to release hormones that cause the ovary to release an egg.  Birth control stabilizes the estrogen levels to prevent the spike and, as a result, the pituitary gland never has the chance to cause the ovary to release an egg.  Everybody understand that last part?  The egg never releases.  Read that sentence again, it's pretty important.  No potential life is killed.  The egg is still right there, in the ovary, and can still be released at a later date when the woman stops the birth control.  The potential life is still there.  That's a whopper of a piece of information to not know, or get completely wrong, when you are brow-beating women on "ethical" grounds, over deciding to use contraception.

2.  Birth control helps women on numerous levels that have nothing to do with pregnancy, including consistently regulating and lessening the intensity (cramping) of menstruation, as well as minimizing the frequency of heavy bleeds.  It also significantly reduces the chances of developing ovarian cysts and cancer, endometriosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).  As often as not, women are prescribed contraception for these reasons alone.  This is no small point, since Viagra was designed for cardiac patients' regulation of heart valves - the point being, don't scoff at a drug simply because of one aspect you find questionable, when there are larger benefits involved.

3.  The only thing the religious hate more than contraception is abortion.  Well, if  woman can postpone pregnancy for a while (I reiterate, the eggs are still there for later use), elective abortion numbers will drop like a rock.  One would think that would be highly pleasing to those so adamantly against it, yes?  So please - try to see the forest from the trees.  With contraception, you postpone life, which vastly reduces the elimination of it after conception through abortion - a larger victory, maybe?

4.  Now for the financial aspect:  taxes will not go up as a result of this mandate... I repeat, taxes will not go up - insurance premiums will.  Now, before people blow their wads, pay attention to the estimated increase - the average increase will be $21.40 per person, per year.  That comes to $1.78/month, or for those of you on bi-weekly paychecks, 89 cents per pay period.  And the mandate doesn't just cover contraception.  It also covers domestic violence screening and counseling, breastfeeding supplies and annual preventive care, such as pap smears and pelvic exams.  The contraception and preventative care alone would reduce health costs over the long term, which could in turn reduce premiums.  Don't be short-sighted and frustrated - see the bigger long term picture.

I find it interesting that the people that bloviate the most about this stuff tend to be the same people who bloviate the most about their freedoms being derailed.  Well here you go.  You may not agree with the goals of the contraception mandate, but you still have the freedom to choose not to utilize whatever you don't want to.  And while you all have your panties in a twist about it, just remember that it could always be worse:  We could be China, murdering babies based on the gender and number of children in the family...

A Word on Chick-Fil-A...

I would like to take a moment to explain something about business, politics, and beliefs.  I recently had a harsh reaction to the CEO of Chick-Fil-A voicing his opinion on marriage in an interview with the Baptist Press:

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."


In any other situation, I would agree with the majority of his comments, and I have been taken to task a bit for holding the company's beliefs against them - that they should be free to think and believe whatever they want, as long as, in the operation of their business, they treat their customers fairly and with respect - and admittedly, the company has a reputation for stellar customer service, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, disability, and yes, sexual orientation.  I have also read columns denouncing boycotts of the company because Cathy never specifically says that he and/or the company are against gays, an argument I flatly disagree with.

A company CEO is not unlike the President of the United States - they are the face of the organization and tend to be experienced public speakers, keenly aware of the effect of publicity, both positive and negative.  They know how to say something without actually saying it.  When that person uses the phrase "the biblical definition of the family unit," as part of his beliefs, he is very specifically referring to gays in the negative, without voicing it specifically.  They can try to wave the "plausible deniability" flag, but there's simply no other implication that can be drawn from that.

And the thing is, I don't care that he's against gays.  He's one of millions.  He's free to think whatever he wants.  And if he kept it in his own house, I wouldn't have a problem with continuing to buy his food.  Here's where he lost me, and please make note of this, as it's the one context so often overlooked:

Chick-fil-A's WinShape Foundation gave $2 million to anti-gay organizations in 2010 (the most current year I've seen numbers for), most notably the Marriage & Family Foundation, Exodus International  and the Family Research Council, in a report issued by Equality Matters.  And David Badash of the New Civil Rights Movement reported that Chick-fil-A has donated an estimated $5 million to anti-gay organizations and hate groups between 2003 and 2010.

So what is really being said, without being "said," is that, while they are against gays and gay marriage, they are in full support of receiving gays' business.  And by releasing their charitable contributions, which detail the groups above, they are making it very clear that YOU and I are contributing to those organizations, through the purchase of their product - essentially saying that we fully support their efforts to ban gay marriage.  We didn't used to know this, but now that we do, I've made the conscious decision to no longer pad the coffers that they tap into to provide financial support to anti-gay organizations.  I've made this decision for me - everyone else is free to make their own decisions, and I don't hold them against anyone.  But having a lot of gay friends I care very much for, I simply can't give my money to them anymore.

So a business' beliefs and politics don't always overlap, and if they don't, no harm, no foul.  But when it's found to be funding politics and beliefs, you have to decide for yourselves if you want to be a part of their endeavors.  Jim Henson's company famously ended their business relationship with Chick-Fil-A, no longer providing the toys for the restaurant's kids' meals.  In response to that decision, someone visiting a Chick-Fil-A store recently posted this photo on a Wipe Out Homophobia page on Facebook:

Makes you wonder just how proud they are of those beliefs, or only insofar as it negatively impacts their business - then they simply trash another company with lies.  Interesting logic:  they want US to allow them their beliefs, but Henson's company gets trashed for doing the same.  Nice to see their business ethics on display.  Wonder what part of the Bible THAT came from...

What's That Smell?

So the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as ObamaCare, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts the deciding vote.  Obviously, the Democrats are largely cheering, the Republicans are largely booing, and the independents are deciding if they are going to vote for Obama in November (remember, this bill has had upwards of 70% of the country against it, and the independents are crucial for Obama’s re-election – so Obama may have just screwed himself with this victory he’s basking in right now). 

*Full Disclosure:  I have a financial consultant father, whose business was partly built on group health insurance.  So from a personal standpoint, my parents’ financial future going into their retirement years – which is negatively affected with every step closer we get to universal health care - is important to me.*

While this family concern matters, it doesn’t really play that big of a part in why I don’t like the bill.  I was wary of the bill right from the beginning, largely because it was thrown together very quickly, no one in Congress even read the bill (at 2700 pages, who could have?), and the administration itself didn’t know what was in it.  Many will remember that this is when Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We need to pass the bill, so that we can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy,” securing her position as one of the more prolific blowhards in American politics.  Apparently, it wasn’t important to make the American public knowledgeable about the bill – you know – to minimize that controversy, maybe?  Just pass the thing – we’ll tell you all about the ramifications later.  The level of arrogance was astounding, even by politicians’ standards.  The smell of BS just saturates…

So the critical issue for the Supremes to decide on was the Individual Mandate.  For anyone not up to speed, the Individual Mandate would require, as of 2014, anyone who does not have health insurance to buy some, through their employer (if available), or on their own through insurance exchanges (if established in time – unlikely, according to several states).  If you refuse to purchase insurance, you will be assessed a fine on your annual tax return, which can vary from $0 (under $9500 in income) to $4700 (over $200,000 in income) – PER PERSON (up to 3 people per household).

Now, here’s the legal rub that’s gotten everyone in a tizzy:  The Individual Mandate is not, and never was, a tax.  Obama and his administration swore up and down, over and over, that it was a penalty, not a tax.  And does anyone remember why they were so adamant that it wasn’t a tax?  Back when the bill was being debated in Congress, there were rumors going around that Obama wanted to include jail time as a possible penalty for non-compliance.  When asked, he said that it was mentioned as an idea, but never seriously discussed.  Then portions of the bill were being leaked, and one of the leaks involved the penalty being applied to our taxes, and that some 16,000 IRS agents would have to be hired to deal with compliance.  This had everyone in an uproar – that Obama really was going to put people in jail, but was going to do it through the back door, aka “tax evasion,” charged on anyone refusing to pay the penalty.  To quell the brewing firestorm, Obama mounted a campaign of denying that the penalty was a tax, and that tax evasion jail time was not going to be a punishing tactic.

But then the administration got it's rear handed to them by the Supremes on the Commerce Clause issue.  They only called it a tax because that's the only way it would be considered, rather than thrown out.  Once they start losing their shirts... then it's a tax.  Apparently, truth only really matters when the agenda isn't at risk, yes?

They got so wrapped up in winning the argument with the Supremes, they didn't bother to notice that, even if they did present the case as a tax, the tax would be illegal.  There are only three types of federal taxes:  Income, Excise, and Direct. 

Income is based on income, naturally (IM has nothing to do with income).
Excise is based on selected types of transactions (also sometimes referred to as an “event tax”), collected by the producer or retailer.  At the federal level, excise taxes are usually uniform – fuel, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are the exceptions that vary by state..  (IM is based on the LACK of a transaction, and the penalty varies based on regional location).
Direct is applied to persons and/or ownership of property, and is apportioned to each state based on population (IM involves no ownership of property, and is apportioned to the INDIVIDUAL, regardless of population).

Even John Roberts said in his opinion, ”A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax.”  So this would lead to the obvious question:  What kind of tax is it, since you've deemed it constitutional?  But as I described above, there is no tax that this mandate would apply under.  So if it is a tax, it's an illegal one.  And by the by, according to the rules of taxation in Congress, taxes can only originate in the House of Representatives.  As they only called it a tax out of thin air recently to get it upheld by the Supremes, there's no way this tax would be constitutional.  Which leaves Roberts' opinion severely lacking, and it has engaged the Supreme Court in re-writing a statute's verbage in order to uphold it, which is outside their scope.  They are only to judge based on the argument presented as written.  Changed arguments usually are denounced by the court.

But that's just semantics.  The administration wasn't concerned about legal, or fact - just about winning.  And the Supreme Court has once again insulted our intelligence (Citizens United and Scalia's opinion on immigration are other recent slaps to the face), playing politics instead correctly interpreting and applying the law, further tarnishing the integrity of the court.  The big winner in this isn't Obama or health care - it's John Roberts, who, with very deft political maneuvering, has essentially seized control of the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.  Siding with the opposition has rendered him "beyond reproach," claims of partiality and partisanship won't stick to him anymore - leaving him as the only member of the court with any perception of credibility.  The fact that he has positioned himself so advantageously while utilizing a complete lapse in logic to contradict his own argument, and then upholding the bill anyway, means he’s either a level of genius that we just can’t comprehend, or he really doesn’t hold our intelligence in much regard.  His little game will help the conservatives in the future, but right now, it just leaves a sour taste in the mouth...