Sunday, March 19, 2017

The Horror!!!!!

If I had Secret Service drivers and lead, trail, and outrider vehicles to stop cross traffic, i would not use carseats either. Hell, i would forego  seat belts too.

Well, maybe not on the Beltway-those drivers are crazy. https://acculturated.com/ivanka-trumps-car-seat-scandal/

Saturday, March 18, 2017

WaPo Fake News

So. A significant paper makes a who purports to be a non-partisan  reporter of news makes a claim that is unsubstantiated by facts.

But it is not "fake news." http://freebeacon.com/issues/wapo-reports-immigrants-going-hungry-because-trump/

Color Me Shocked

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=368901

Friday, March 17, 2017

President Trump's Budget

Trump’s budget

Everywhere I turn, I am seeing cries and lamentations about President Trump’s first budget. First of all let’s be clear about what we are talking about. What was issued in the press is what is referred to as a “skinny budget” meaning there are no details only large-scale bottom-line numbers. So the devil will be in the details in the full budget released in the coming months.

Talking about the substance of the budget is likely to get people who are fiscally conservative into a great deal of hot water. Cries about cutting the NDA or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or the EPA or any number of smaller budget items is likely to drown out any sort of logical discussion of the size and scope of the federal government and therefore its budget. But what is interesting is the fatal lack of understanding of the federal budget. There are so many programs that overlap other federal programs, state and local programs, and even private efforts that cutting most of these budgets won’t have any effect on the folks who supposedly receive federal funding. For example the NEA’s relatively small budget is used support museums, libraries, research, and other activities. But the truth of the matter is, like any other large organization, a large chunk of money goes to pay salary for employees. To be fair though, only about 20% of the NEA’s budget goes to salaries and program support, which is really good for any organization. But the NEA is an organization dedicated to spending tax dollars on, let’s be honest here, largely left wing and liberal meaning concerns. Politically, among Trump supporters and fiscal conservatives, this does not sit well with probably a majority of Americans.

As for the notion that cutting meat NEA is going to close museums across the country nothing could be further from the truth. A little less than half of the NEA budget, about $72 million in fiscal year 2017, is given out in direct grants. There are, according to Google, more than 35,000 museums in the United States. Even assuming every museum applies for indirect grant from the NEA each museum would receive a paltry $2,057.14. That’s it. For most museums that won’t even pay the electric bill for a year. Of course, not all museums apply for NEA support, and any museum that relies solely on funding from one source, probably does not deserve to remain open.

So let’s not kid ourselves that cutting the NEA means that even one museum will close. Yes, I know support for the humanities is important. Yes, I know that museums are important. But that does not mean the federal government should be taking tax dollars in spending on supporting museums.
Of course the NEA is but one victim of President Trump’s budget suggestion. I could spend several posts talking about and defending the budget cuts why they should be done and what the marginal effect would be. But politically, people need to understand, this is not going to be the final budget not by any stretch of the imagination. This is a negotiating tool. That is it. If more people took the time to read Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal” they would have a far better understanding of how the president works. He knows he’s not going to get all of this. He knows that things that he wants to cut will be put back into the budget. But the document does do several things: it shows his base, his voters, that he is doing what he said he would do. Politically it’s refreshing. For far too long Congress and the president have tried to tinker around the edges of budgets but never really reducing anything. At least this president is willing to wield a mighty axe in the budget process. It takes bold stances to affect change.

Personally, I would like to see Pres. trump and Congress tackle what is really going to break the bank from a budget standpoint and that his entitlements. But to do that is going to take an absolute willingness to take a beating personally and professionally in the press and before voters. That may take more courage than anyone in the elective office currently has. But we certainly need someone to do that.


Never fear, this skinny budget is just one step in the process, a process that is ultimately and finally controlled by Congress. The question will be, does the President have the guts to veto spending bills that completely disregards his priorities? That will be an interesting test.

__________________________________
Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Why CalExit will Never Happen

California submit $100 billion dollar transporation wish while ignoring federal regulations.

Wednesday, February 08, 2017

I'mmmmm Baaaccckkk

According to the information on this blog, it has been nearly 4 years since I posted here. So clearly the question is why now.

Well, simple...Donald Trump was elect3d President and so many liberals, including many of my close friends an family have gone absolutely bonkers with fear, anger, depression and sonforth, that in orderbtonsave my sanity for a while, I have to have a space where I can work put my thoughts on issues with out causing a fight or a divorce.

So some of this contwnt will not be fully formed or even coherent. But you are free to l look around.

Not sure if I will go back to soccer blogging, bit I might.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

The Procreation Question

When you talk to traditional marriage advocates, there is always the procreation question.  That is, allowing gays or lesbians to get married cannot lead to naturally conceived children.  If the only purpose of marriage in this scenario is to procreate, then under that rhubric, only heterosexual couples who can reproduce should be allowed to marry.  So if a couple can't have kids should be forced to get divorced?

As Ann Althouse pointed out, Justice Breyer went after this concept?

In this view, marriage is about children and not adult desire because it is a device to rein in male desire, to keep men from fathering children they aren't going to raise. It's not that marriage can keep that bad thing from happening. It just makes it less likely, because the marriage norm is fidelity.
Obviously, fornication and adultery go on despite this marriage norm, and it's hard to see why letting gay people marry would mess up the norm. I'm trying to picture this man at the heart of Cooper's vision of society: He's true to his wife, because he's gotten the message that's the norm, but if some gay people can marry, then he's going to start cheating, knocking up some other woman, and it's because of this guy that gay people can be excluded from marriage?
What a nutty set of things we're asked to believe! Who the hell is this stereotypical married man, constrained by what other people are forbidden to do? And why should his ridiculous, tenuous connection to norms carry the day? And how can obsessing over what makes him tick work to keep marriage focused on the raising of children and not on the emotional needs and desires of adults? It seems to be all about the needs and desires of adults — really ridiculous heterosexual male adults.
Who are these people?!

__________________________________
Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

"America’s problem isn’t gay marriage; it’s marriage."


Roger Simon argues that those among the gay/lesbian community who seek to get married are just as bourgeois as those middle class heterosexuals who want to get married.  These are people who are committed to what Simon rightfully calls a struggle to remain committed.  But when so many heterosexuals are calling it quits on marriage (and there are lots of them), conservatives should embrace those gays who want to keep the institution alive.  After all, with some many problems with the institution of marriage in this country, allowing a minority who WANTS the institution in their lives would seem a much wiser course, after all, allowing two gays/lesbians to get married has not impacted at all the ability of two heterosexuals to get married at all.  As Simon notes:

"And guess what — nothing has happened to the institution of marriage, except, sadly, from those heterosexuals deserting it.  And that is clearly not the homosexuals’ fault.....I would remind them to concentrate on the real problem.  Marriage is in serious jeopardy.  Pay more attention to that, not to a tiny minority who seek what you already have."

Important thoughts.


__________________________________
Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

More on Gay Marriage

I have posted a few pieces on gay marriage on this site and including one before the election on the parade of horribles that a fair number of social conservatives raise when it comes to the issue.  If you are looking for one guy's thoughts on the matter, check that out there.  My thoughts on the legal and moral underpinnings of the "gay marriage debate" have not changed, indeed they have probably become firmer if anything.

But today and tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on two cases regarding the gay marriage debate.  Today's case deals with Proposition 8 in California.  Tomorrow's case deals with the Defense of Marriage Act, that rather poorly thought out piece of legislation (the norm for most legislation in the past 20 years out of Congress).  the Prop 8 case is not going to satisfy very many people, other than us geeky Supreme Court watchers because its resolution is likely to turn on procedural matters, such as whether the petitioners have the right to actually bring the case.  Check out this summary from noted Supreme Court practitioner and watcher Tom Goldstein.

The DOMA case maybe different, but even there, I could see the Supreme Court looking for an easy way out, some procedural quirk or some substantive matter that would allow them to dispose of the case without reaching the merits or a ruling on whether gay marriage is constitutionally protected or not.

The fact of the matter is, I don't think that many gays in this country are going to be particularly happy with the rulings on these cases when the opinions come out in June (most likely June).  The fundamental truth is that we are still having a debate in this country.  While my opinions are pretty clear, let me restate them,

I do not believe that the government of any level should have a role in defining marriage other than certain proscriptions--i.e. you have to be at least 18 and matters of consanguinity.  Outside of that, government should get out of the business of saying who can be married and who can't.

But do I expect the Supreme Court to say that this year?  Nope.

And to my dear friends who are hoping for such a ruling, I say this, it must be nice to live in that rosy place.

We should be honest, while I believe the gay/lesbian community is making great strides in making a solid moral and legal case for themselves, I do not believe that these two cases are going to provide any sort of "home run" ruling.  But what must be made clear is my admonition from many years ago.  Whining like a six year old who is denied their favorite ice cream is not going to win any friends.  Take the opinions and then continue your work, because it is not over.

For opponents of gay marriage out there, you too have much to examine.  You too cannot whine about the "decay" of our society if you think two people getting married is worse than two people living together.  If you have a moral and legal foundation, you need to explain it in those terms, do NOT talk about homosexuality as some sort of abomination before God since that comes across as hyocritical--perhaps not to the extent of Christians who kill abortion doctors, but in the same ballpark.

The fact is, I just don't see any sort of "victory" for either side.  In the end, the Supreme Court is a poor arena for this fight.  It needs to be fought in the legislatures, in the neighborhoods and in our own minds and hearts.

__________________________________
Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers