In Maine Republican Governor Paul LePage Exhibits the Standard Tea Party Bullying Style of Government

So Even Republican Legislators May Not Be On His Side

As this Forum has previously noted, in New Jersey the abrasive style f Republican Gov. Chris Christie has the socially redeeming undertone of a man of principle.  In Maine the same style that personifies Republican Gov. Paul LePage has the un-redeeming undertone of just a plain mean and nasty person.

Maine has returned control of the legislature to Democrats, and like a spoiled, petty child the Governor has decided that he just will not work with Democrats, or even talk with them.

The governor, Paul R. LePage, a Republican who won office in 2010 with the backing of the Tea Party, has been giving the Democratic leaders the cold shoulder. He has refused to meet or speak with them since the Democrats took back the Legislature in November.

Joel Page/Associated Press

Gov. Paul R. LePage of Maine, a Republican,

 has refused to speak with Democratic leaders 

in the State Legislature. (NYT)

The problem it seems is that during the recent election somebody with a camera was following Gov. LePage.  And of course in Mr. LePage’s view being an elected official means that he should not have to allow any access to the public.  And like most Conservatives, Mr. LePage doesn’t let the lack of truth get in the way of his positions or pronouncements.

In early December, the governor was set to meet with the new Democratic leaders, the Senate president, Justin Alfond, and speaker of the House, Mark Eaves. But he canceled, saying he objected to the cameraman, who, he said, filmed him at a Veterans Day event in November while he was talking with an elderly veteran in ill health. Mr. LePage said the people of Maine should not be used as “props” to score political points.

The video, released by the Democrats, showed no such encounter between Mr. LePage and an elderly veteran. 

Democrats have tried to make it up with the Governor,

Shortly afterward, Mr. Alfond sent the governor a handwritten invitation to dinner. But the invitation landed in the hands of the news media before it got to the governor, prompting the governor’s office to brand the invitation a stunt.

And the Governor has acted so offensively that not only is he losing the support of some independent lawmakers,

The rising tensions over the budget were evident last week when the governor met with three independent House members who do not caucus with either the Democrats or Republicans. When they told Mr. LePage that municipalities could be forced to raise property taxes by hundreds of dollars, the governor grew angry, pounded the table, called them “idiots” and later swore at them, according to The Bangor Daily News.

“He went right through the roof when I asked him the question,” Representative Jeff Evangelos told the newspaper. “He flew up like a jack-in-the-box and ran out of the room and slammed the door.”

even some Republicans have abandoned him.

Senator Roger Katz, the assistant minority leader, has complained before about Mr. LePage’s approach to governance. He wrote a column in 2011, signed by some fellow Republicans, saying that Mr. LePage’s penchant for demeaning comments lowered the bar for civil discourse.

Mr. Katz said last week that the governor’s problem was still one of tone, though he was unhappy with the budget proposal too. “As a general rule,” Mr. Katz said, “the more people of good will talk to each other, the better. I don’t know why it hasn’t happened yet.”

Of course, the real news is why anyone would expect ideologically driven Tea Party politicians, the ‘my way or the highway’ crowd to act any differently.  And the situation in Maine may show that the real way to defeat these people is to let them win a few elections so the voters can see what they really are.  That reality is the most powerful weapon against them, as evidence by the fact that just a few years after Maine put Mr. LePage in office they turned the state legislature back to Democrats.  Sometimes voters have to see to believe.

Gay Republican Kevin James Running for Mayor Of Los Angeles Raises a Lot of Questions

 Like “Can Anyone This Blind to Self Interest Be Qualified for Public Office?”

With national elections off the radar until 2014 those interested in the political aspect of government have to turn their attention to state and local offices.  And so the New York Times reports that, unknown to the rest of us, there is a Republican running for the office of Mayor of Los Angeles who is openly gay.

Kevin James appears to be a serious candidate.

Michal Czerwonka for The New York Times

Kevin L. James, a conservative talk

 show host, is making his first bid 

for office in a field of establishment

 Democrats in the Los Angeles mayor’s race.

Yet in the first major election since President Obama’s victory in November — voting that relegated the CaliforniaRepublican Party to the margins — Mr. James has become, at least for a few national Republicans, something of a lifeline. They see in his candidacy in the March 5 vote an outside chance to grab what could be a spirit-lifting victory, and perhaps even signal a way to get back in the game in California.

Fred Davis, a Republican ad producer based in the Hollywood Hills who worked for the presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, created a political action committee to finance an advertising campaign to help Mr. James compete with his better-financed competitors. Mr. Davis was looking to raise $4 million from Republicans across the nation; he has since scaled back that goal a bit (he had raised $700,000 as of Friday).

And Mr. James has retained John Weaver, a Republican political consultant who has long advised Mr. McCain, as his senior political adviser. Mr. Weaver has increasingly warned that Republicans are marginalizing themselves by moving to the right on issues like abortion, gay rights and immigration.

Now we have no idea which unnamed national Republicans see this as a plus, as at the same time the NY Times story appeared there was also this story from the Washington Post.

President Obama is aiming to grant same-sex couples such as Oliveira and his American husband, Tim Coco, equal immigration rights as their heterosexual counterparts. The proposal could allow up to 40,000 foreign nationals in same-sex relationships to apply for legal residency and, potentially, U.S. citizenship.

because  this is violently opposed by Republicans and the issue could derail comprehensive immigration reform.  And then there is this from the Republican Governor of Texas.

Mr. Perry, the country’s longest-serving governor, is an Eagle Scout, and in 2008 he wrote the book “On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For.” It detailed his deep love for the organization and explained why it should continue to embrace traditional conservative values — including excluding openly gay members and leaders.

How’s that sound to you Mr. Gay Republican Candidate?  Don’t be offended when Mr. Perry refuses to shake hands with you, he would not want to be defiled, or even worse, catch some “gay” genes.

And since Republicans hate that equality thing,

(yes they would have changed the Declaration of Independence to “all men are created equal, except blacks, Jews, women, gays, Muslims, illegal immigrants and people with funny names”)

particularly with respect to people who live lives in a way Republicans think they should not, they would scuttle immigration reform in order to pursue their bigotry and biases.

But the measure has inspired fierce pushback from congressional Republicans and some religious groups, who say it could sink hopes for a comprehensive agreement aimed at providing a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants.

As for Mr. James, really sir, if you are so  ignorant as to be running as a Republican when that party regards you not just as ‘persona non grata’ but also a person who is evil, why on earth do you think you have enough intelligence to be Mayor?

Advocates of Turning the U. S. – Mexican Border Into a Semi Police State Need to Live There

Military Tactics to Control the Border Result in Military Occupation

Those people who become crazed about illegal immigration and the need for the United States to turn into what was formerly East Germany need to understand what that does to the people living on the front lines.  It turns the communities into a version of that despicable East German state.

This what you want your neighborhood to look like?

BISBEE, Ariz. — For the last 20 years, they have descended on the sun-bleached desert lands in southeastern Arizona near the Mexican border.

Longtime locals say they damage irrigation lines, tread on land without permission, alienate merchants and contribute to a sense of unease that didn't use to exist.

But lately these complaints are aimed not so much at people arriving illegally from Mexico as they are at the federal forces sent to stop them.

Residents say the deployment of hundreds of agents — armed, uniformed and omnipresent — and millions of dollars in new infrastructure have created a military-like occupation in their once-sleepy hamlets.

This should not be a surprise.  The government and the military are not the way to control illegal immigration.  The way to control illegal immigration is to help the source countries become reasonable places to live, so that the incentive to leave is reduced, and to have a rationale immigration process for those who want to leave.

Instead we have fanatics claiming that the United States is threatened by poor immigrant families entering the U. S. for the same reason that poor immigrant families have always entered the U.S, to get a better life.  Give them the opportunity (not the guarantee, just the opportunity) for a better life where they currently live and they will stop coming here illegally.

Really, it’s that simple.

Laws on Illegal Immigration in Kansas Show the Hard Road Republicans Need to Travel

A Huge Divide Between the Leadership (Occasionally Rational) and the Base (Total Irrational)

Kansas is considering changing its laws with respect to illegal immigrants working in the state, and the process is not going well.

A coalition of powerful business groups, including the Farm Bureau and the conservative Kansas Chamber of Commerce, is proposing a guest-worker program that would turn the state into one of the most welcoming in the country for undocumented immigrants. Backing the effort are national conservatives, local faith groups and a number of law-enforcement officials.

Well that definitely sounds good, what’s the problem.  Oh. 

Associated Press

Secretary of State Kris Kobach wants to crack down on illegal workers.

(So far he is silent on shooting them like feral hogs.)

But lined up against them is Kansas' ambitious Republican secretary of state, Kris Kobach, who is promoting a series of measures in the legislature to crack down on illegal workers and their employers.

An adviser to Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign, Mr. Kobach became a national lightning-rod after he helped draft tough immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama, the first of which sparked a Supreme Court brawl for the Obama administration.

Mr. Kobach calls the business coalition's plan "dead on arrival" and has the support of a large faction within the GOP-dominated Kansas legislature, which is expected to wade into the immigration fight this spring.

And what about Kansas’s ultra-conservative Governor.  He’s looking to run away from the issue as fast as he can.

Caught in the middle, and wishing it would all go away, is Gov. Sam Brownback, who earned a reputation while in the U.S. Senate as one of the GOP's leading advocates for immigrant rights. Now he wants nothing to distract from his overarching goals of cutting taxes and government spending.

So all that talk by Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep.Paul Ryan about making the Republican party more conducive to immigrants.  Well, the following sorta sums up the problem.

Predicting where the debate will go is tricky. Last year, Republicans buried the issue after one GOP member said at a hearing that illegal immigrants should be shot "like feral hogs." 

Yeah, sorry Republicans, look like you still have a ways to go.

Justice Scalia Finally Reveals the True Depth and Profound Amount of His Ignorance of Law and the Constitution

Indisputable Proof of the Justice’s Total Lack of Understanding – From the Justice Himself

There are two defining characteristics of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  The first is that the Constitution is a literal document and that original intent of the authors is the sole guiding legal principle, and the second is that only he, Justice Scalia can know and properly interpret what the original intent of the authors was.  And not surprisingly the original intent according to Justice Scalia fits nicely with Justice Scalia’s ultra conservative views.

 Kye R. Lee/Staff Photographer

“The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge,” said Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (right), with law professor Bryan A. Garner on Monday. 

Final conclusive evidence of this position was revealed recently by Justice Scalia himself.

He spoke of schoolchildren coming to visit the Supreme Court and calling the Constitution a “living document.”

“It’s not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead,” he said.

By this the Justice presumably means that only a literal reading of the Constitution is acceptable.  But that is not possible.  The Constitution lays out specific procedures (how to elect a President, how to appoint judges etc) but it also lays out a set of principles of government, and those principles must be applied by the legislature, the executive branch and the judiciary.  But Justice Scalia is blind to this aspect of the Constitution, it is as though he has never read it.

For example, the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but that is a principle and the authors surely knew that the standard would change over time, which is why they wrote it that way instead of naming specific punishments they would prohibit.  But if Justice Scalia is correct, the Constitution means that only punishments that were cruel and unusual in 1787 are prohibited, meaning that hanging, flogging, and other practices we now recognize as hideous are Constitutional. 

Similarly, under the interpretation of Justice Scalia only those firearms present in 1787 receive protection, and the government would be Constitutionally free to control or even ban every type of weapon developed since then.  Of course Justice Scalia would never support such a position, as it would conflict with his personal beliefs which he values above all else, even the Constitution.

A real test for Justice Scalia will come in a upcoming decision on whether or not the Federal government can regulate marriage.  There is no basis for that in the Originalist thinking on the Constitution, but of course Justice Scalia wants to have the Federal government have that power, so it can persecute the gay and lesbian community, so look for him to want to write a significant new expansion of Federal authority into the Constitution, all by himself.

America’s March Towards Overwhelming College Students With Debt Takes a Giant Step Forward

Is Indentured Servitude or Debtor’s Prison in the Future?

Decades from now historians and social scientists will look back at the way college finances were set up in the late 20^th/early 21^st centuries and wonder just how a supposedly benign people could do something so cruel to its young people.  Basically what has happened is

1. A college education is a near necessity for economic advancement for the middle class and the wanna be middle class.
2. State governments have consistently cut back support for higher education to keep taxes low.
3. Productivity associated with higher education has plummeted as the schools add administrative costs along with less work time for the senior faculty.
4. Tuition and fees, particularly fees rise far faster than inflation.
5. The Federal government, instead of helping,  provides student loans to accommodate the higher costs, thus allowing colleges to raise costs even faster.

So much of the entire student body leaves school with a massive amount of debt.  Debt that they cannot pay.

When their student loans come due, many borrowers have no choice but to postpone the inevitable. As of March, 51% of student loans were in deferment or forbearance — periods when, owing to financial hardship, borrowers are not required to make payments — up from 44.3% a year prior, according to a study released today by credit bureau TransUnion. (These figures include deferments for students who are still in school.) And the amount they’ve postponed paying jumped 70% to $388 billion from March 2007 to March 2012.

So this deferment thing, does that help.  Well maybe, maybe not.

Borrowers encounter several problems when they come out of long periods of deferment or forbearance. With the exception of subsidized federal loans, interest on student loans continues to accrue during these periods, so that when borrowers do eventually start repaying their loans, they’ll be facing a bigger balance than when they entered into these programs. Also, delaying repayment for a longer period increases the chances that they’ll carry this debt later on into life. That’s partly why the number of people ages 40 to 49 still repaying their student loans totaled 5.7 million during the first quarter of 2012, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That’s up from 3.3 million seven years prior.

So now 40-49 year olds have huge student debts.  Soon it will be 50-59 year olds.  And after that expect the following notices in the Obituaries

Charlie Jones, aged 93 died last night.  He is survived by his wife of 47 years Shelia Jones, three children, six grandchildren and his student loan of $54,000.

Mitt’s Son Tagg Romney is Apparently Considering Running for the Senate

The Romney Family – The Political Gift That Keeps On Giving

[Editor's note:  Tagg Romney has since made a statement declining to run.  Reports that he said "I am not running for Senate, I am a Romney, I am a very wealthy financial manager and I am entitled to run for a higher office, like Ruler of the World or Emperor.  That way I can get rid of the 47% of the people who think they are entitled" have not been confirmed)

This Forum has roundly condemned potential Democratic Senate candidates who are not qualified and who are taken seriously only because of their fame or family.  For example Ted Kennedy’s son is not qualified to run for the Senate, nor is his widow.  And Actors Ashley Judd and Ben Affleck are to be roundly criticized were they to enter a Senate race for the Democrats (Affleck to his credit has already said no).

Stop Smiling Tagg, We Are Laughing At You Not With You

So The Dismal Political Economist has mixed feeling on the news that Mitt Romney’s son Tagg is considering making a run for the Republican nomination to fill the vacant Senate seat of the new Secretary of State John Kerry.

Tagg Romney, son of former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, is considering a Senate run in Massachusetts’s upcoming special election, according to the Boston Herald.

The Herald reported Monday that Romney was considering a bid to replace John Kerry in the seat that opened up after Kerry became Secretary of State. The Herald would not identify the source of its information.

Now everybody agrees that Tagg is no more qualified to be a U. S. Senator than Lance Armstrong is qualified to be a spokesman for A Drug Free America.  But having Tagg in the race would be of such great entertainment value that it is hard for this Forum to entirely condemn his effort.

So in a mixed message we all say to Tagg, “No, you are not qualified to run just because your father is a one time Governor and two time failed Presidential candidate, but if you do, thanks for the memories to come.”

Illinois Prison Population of Ex Governors is Reduced by One

Another News Report That Needs No Commentary

Lost in the swirl of public events is this gem.

M. Spencer Green/Associated Press

George Ryan, the former governor of Illinois, arrived a halfway house in Chicago on Wednesday.

CHICAGO – George Ryan was released from a federal prison in the dark on Wednesday morning, and Illinois became a state with only one former governor behind bars.

Ohio Republican Governor John Kasich Illustrates All That is Wrong with Conservatives in Any Debate

They Claim that God is On Their Side – That They Are Holier Than Thou – That Opposition is Immoral

Compromise on legislation and in debate has been the reason that the United States has been a great democracy.  But to compromise one must be willing to accept that one’s beliefs may not be the correct ones, or that it is possible that other beliefs are superior.  If one believes that his or her position is ordained by heaven, that it is absolutely morally correct and that the other side is immoral then no compromise is possible.  And society factures.

Such is the case with modern Conservatives.  Their positions are founded on faith, not logic and data.  And positions based on faith cannot be challenged by the opposition or compromised by their supporters.  That such is the case is illustrated by comments of Ohio’s Republican Governor John Kasich on a state issue.

Gov. John Kasich said this morning that those suing him over JobsOhio “are going to have to answer to a much higher power than me” for their legal challenges against his privatized development agency. 

Kasich blasted the liberal policy group and two Democratic lawmakers who originally sued over JobsOhio in April, 2011 and are still seeking answers from the courts, calling them “nihilists” whose lawsuit “is about wrecking Ohio’s economy and destroying people’s jobs.” 

But Kasich, an openly religious man who often cites his faith as a reason for pursuing such initiatives as funding for the poor and job creation, said of his JobsOhio detractors: “These are people who are going to have to answer to a much higher power than me about why they have appealed and appealed and appealed.”

Now we have no idea what the issue is here, but it sounds like one over public policy with respect to employment.  And while we have no idea who is right, the fact that the Governor must support his position on a religious basis is a pretty strong indication that the policy he wants to implement is devoid of substance.

The target of Governor Kasich’s comments had the right response.

Brian Rothenberg, executive director for ProgressOhio, one of the plaintiffs in the JobsOhio suit, said: “As far as invoking God, I don’t believe that the good Lord is taking sides in John Kasich’s attempt to spend $1.5 billion. 

“I’m just as religious as he is, and I believe the good Lord is neutral as to who is right in this instance,” Rothenberg said. 

Sorry Brian, Conservatives cannot conceive of a situation where God is not on their side, and maybe that’s okay, since data, logic, analysis and common sense is often not.  Maybe God feels sorry for them.

New Rules on Providing Women Access to Reproduction Health Care Services Will Not Change Opposition by Conservatives

Their Agenda is to Impost Their Religious Beliefs on Others – Not to Secure Religious Freedom for Themselves

One of the great manufactured controversies of the past several years has been the provision in the health care reform act that group insurance companies provide access to reproduction services and products for women at no cost to them.  This provision is violently opposed by some religious groups and some employers who say such a provision violates their religious freedom.  Of course, it does not.

In an attempt to reach common ground with the opposition the Obama administration has revised the rules to allow insurance companies to provide the required coverage in separate policies. 

The Obama administration on Friday proposed yet another compromise to address strenuous objections from religious organizations about a policy requiring health insurance plans to provide free contraceptives,

Now none of this in any way impinges on anyone’s freedom of religion.  If a person does not believe in using any of the products or services of reproduction planning, they don’t have to.  They may refrain.  Nobody is forcing them to do anything.  If a person's religion forbids the eating of pork, they are free to not eat pork.  But they are not free to deny eastern North Carolina BBQ to the rest of the population simply because their religion does not allow consumption of it.

But the objective of those objecting  is not based on religious freedom, it is to prevent other people, people who do not share their beliefs, from having access to family planning like birth control.  They simply want to impose their own religion on others, and they want to use government forces to do so.  So no, they will not be placated or quieted unless they succeed in that goal.

In this country people who act this way are mainly called ‘Conservatives’.  In a country like Afghanistan they are called the 'Taliban'.  And in a country like Iran they are called 'Islamic Fundamentalists'.  In Israel they are called 'Ultra Orthodox'. And yes, in this aspect they are all the same thing.

U. S. GDP Down Slightly in the Last Quarter –

Reports of Exuberant Republican Celebrations Probably Not Entirely True

The preliminary report on the growth (or in this case the lack thereof) of the GDP in the October to December 2012 quarter is that the U. S. economy shrunk by .1%.

U.S. economic momentum screeched to a halt in the final months of 2012, as lawmakers' struggle to reach a deal on tax increases and budget cuts likely led businesses to pare inventories and the government to cut spending.

The nation's gross domestic product shrank for the first time in 3 1/2 years during the fourth quarter, declining at an annual rate of 0.1% between October and December, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.

It was the first time the broad measure of all goods and services produced by the economy contracted since the recovery from the financial crisis began. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected 1.0% annualized growth.

A lot of the blame is being put on the uncertainty that the idiots in Congress created over tax policy.

The decline reflects worries about the so-called fiscal cliff. The economy reversed from a 3.1% pace of growth in the third quarter largely because federal government spending fell by 15% and private business, likely fearing slack in demand, let inventories dwindle.

But not to worry, things are pretty good in the U. S. these days, particularly compared to the Europeans who are imposing Republican like austerity programs on the continent and expect growth and prosperity. 

"Think of it as a giant hand holding down the economy," said Tim Hopper, chief economist at TIAA-CREF. "The underlying fundamentals are quite strong."

With the worst effects of the pending budget cuts and tax increases averted after Congress and the White House reached an agreement this month, Mr. Hopper said he expects the economy to return to moderate growth this year.

Don’t expect Republicans to openly rejoice at the bad news, even they are not that transparently insane, but if you look closely you can see the glee on their faces. 

Democrats Get Lucky in Massachusetts as Former Senator Scott Brown Declines to Run for John Kerry’s Seat

The Chances of Holding the Senate in 2014 Improve

President Obama seems intent on turning the Democrat margin in the U. S. Senate into a negative.  His appointment of John Kerry to be Secretary State did very little to help the State Department, but it did open up his seat for a return by former and recently defeated Senator Scott Brown to the Senate. But now Mr. Brown has done the Democrats a huge favor.

Former Massachusetts Republican senator Scott Brown announced Friday that he will not run in the special election for outgoing Democratic Sen. John Kerry’s seat. Brown’s decision means Kerry’s seat is likely to remain in Democratic hands.

The excuse Mr. Brown gave was an unwillingness to become involved in another campaign, and that may be partly correct.  But hopefully it finally dawned on him that his only role in the Senate was that of Useful Idiot, providing a vote for Republicans when needed but getting nothing in return.

Goodbye to You Too Mr. Brown, Write if You Get Work

Whatever, so long Mr. Brown, here’s hoping you have a nice career as a lobbyist or something in the private sector or something anything else other than public service.  Really, you are not going to be missed.

New North Carolina Republican Governor Pat McCrory Campaigned as Moderate

Now Talks Like a Raving Idiotic Conservative

North Carolina is a neat state, it is southern but not a true southern state like Alabama, South Carolina or Georgia.  Tolerance and progressivism have been the hallmarks of the state since North Carolina was home to some of the more visible and vocal civil rights protests.  In terms of education, public safety, transportation and culture its governance has been mainstream and effective.

But Republicans, thanks to the near demise of the Democratic party in the state have now taken over, and the state elected Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory to be the new Governor.  Candidate McCrory ran on a platform of economic growth, and never mentioned the divisive social issues that Republicans like to run on and lose on. But now that he is safely in the Governor’s seat Mr. McCrory is coming out of the proverbial conservative closet.

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory - Appealing to the Worst 

The Governor is now attacking the North Carolina higher education system, a jewel of a system and something the state is justly proud of.  UNC Chapel Hill and its associated campuses have been a large part of the success of the state in the post 1960’s era.  But to Gov. McCrory they are just a bunch of elitists.  He went on an ultra conservative radio show (are there really any other kind?) and

On the show, McCrory said “educational elite” had taken over, offering courses that have no path to jobs. He said he instructed his staff Monday to draft legislation that could alter the state money that universities and community colleges receive “not based on how many butts in seats but how many of those butts can get jobs.”

And he continued his attack on the community college/technical college system in the state, which is one of the most successful educational programs in the nation.

McCrory also zeroed in on the fact that men are underrepresented in the state’s community college system.

“Most people don’t realize that two-thirds of my students are women,” McCrory said. “Most of them are either going into health care or taking junior college programs, when in fact, I’ve got a lot of unemployed men who typically go into technology or mechanics or welding or something. If they do, they can get six-figure pay right now but instead they’re on unemployment.”

Note the number of ways in which these comments are ignorant and uninformed and offensive.  The Governor is upset that there are more women in the system than men, he implies that men are not enrolled because they would rather sit at home on unemployment benefits than earn six figures jobs working (the fact that these jobs do not exist not being a factor in Mr. McCrory’s fantasy world of Conservatism).  And of course women are doing awful things in the community colleges, like just taking courses to become bed pan assistants or, horror, taking “Junior College” programs.

A state like North Carolina that had a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican Governor could do great things.  If the state turns out to have an ignorant out of touch ideologue Governor,  well, look for the Tar Heel state to join the ranks of Alabama and Mississippi.  And it sounds like that is where the new Governor is headed.

Massive Number of Lawsuits Seek to Impose Religious Beliefs of Employers on Employees

For Them, Freedom of Religion Means Freedom to Restrict Behavior of Others

As the ACA starts to be implemented the “should-not-be-but-is-controversial" provision that requires employers to include family planning services in employee health care has reared its ugly and divisive head in a multitude of lawsuits.  Employers of all types are trying to avoid offering employees contraception coverage in the rather strange belief that this somehow violates the employer’s freedom of religion.

In recent months, federal courts have seen dozens of lawsuits brought not only by religious institutions like Catholic dioceses but also by private employers ranging from a pizza mogul to produce transporters who say the government is forcing them to violate core tenets of their faith.

Although this Forum has absolutely zero understanding of how using contraception has anything to do with any religion, certainly everyone who believes that such usage is wrong has the right to refrain from doing so.  But that is not what this fight is about.  It is about preventing other who do not share their beliefs from doing so.

“Ninety-nine percent of women use contraceptives at some time in their lives,” said Judy Waxman, a vice president of the National Women’s Law Center, which filed a brief supporting the government in one of the cases. “There is a strong and legitimate government interest because it affects the health of women and babies.”

She added, referring to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Contraception was declared by the C.D.C. to be one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.”

And while we doubt the 99% number, there is no controversy over the fact that contraception is an important part of women’s health should they use to avail themselves of it.

As for Conservative attitudes, well here is what a prominent supporter of Rick Santorum said during the recently concluded campaign.

Friess also emerged as a prominent traveling surrogate for Santorum and became one of the faces of a new breed of big-money politics in which a single donor can essentially float a presidential campaign with unlimited contributions in outside groups, including super PACs.

But Friess also tripped up Santorum during the height of the primary with a television interview in which he was asked about whether the candidate’s conservative stances on contraception and other cultural issues could pose problems with general election voters.

“I get such a chuckle when these things come out,” he told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell. “And this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it’s such inexpensive. Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly,” he said in a comment that dominated the news, forcing Santorum to disavow it and Friess to apologize.

And about that so-called apology.

On Friday, Friess said he had no regrets and planned to support Santorum if he ran again and to also support congressional candidates in 2014.

Yes, the issue will go to the Supreme Court, and yes the Court is likely to have its conservative members side with the religious intolerant.  Why?  Because the conservatives consistently impose their own political, moral and personal beliefs on the populace through their decisions.  That’s what Scalia and Company do.  Hadn’t you noticed?

From Rush Limbaugh, via David Frum – Why Republicans Have an Uphill Road Winning the Hispanic Vote

Uh GOP, You Really Need to Stop This - We're Talking for Your Own Good Here

The recent election has taught Republicans that their messages on immigration and the Hispanic community has to change.  Well, that is it has taught some Republicans.  From David Frum we have this concerning Rush Limbaugh’s opinion on the subject.

During Rush Limbaugh's radio program on Wednesday, he made one of his infamous and rambunctious rants, this time saying that within the hispanic community, Mexican workers were somehow lazier than their Cuban counterparts.

"[T]he way the Republicans are looking at it is that they think that Hispanic immigrants are made-to-order conservatives. For some reason, culturally, they think that they're invested in hard work. And using the Cuban exile model, they're exactly right. But the Hispanic demographic, if you will, or population, has shifted. And the Cuban exile model is no longer the dominant model. The Mexican immigrant model is. And that -- they arrive with an entirely different view of America. And I'm sorry if this is offensive, but it's true."

And we are pleased to report that here is a case where everyone can agree Rush is partly right, that is the part where he says “this is offensive”.  Right on Rush.  As for the ‘true’ part, well not only is it not, but is there anything lazier than a person making a living by sitting in a chair three hours a day spouting nonsense?

And the next time you pass by a construction site take a close look and see if you can tell who is working the hardest.  Here's a clue, it's not an overweight bloviator.  

Michael Bloomberg (Progressive) and T. Boone Pickens (Conservative) Both Have Given Massive Sums to Their Alma Maters – Johns Hopkins and Oklahoma State

Guess Which School is a World Leader in Public Health and Which School Has Luxury Athletic Facilities

The philanthropy of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been legendary, but until now it has not been public that his gifts to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore will total over $1 billion. 

Luke Sharrett for The New York Times

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, on the Johns Hopkins campus this month, is the most generous living donor to any education institution in the United States, according to university officials and philanthropic tallies.

On Sunday, as he makes a $350 million gift to his alma mater — by far the largest in its history — the New York City mayor, along with the president of the university, will disclose the staggering sum of his donations to Johns Hopkins over the past four decades: $1.1 billion.

What has been the impact of such generosity?

Johns Hopkins as it exists today is inconceivable without Mr. Bloomberg, whose giving has fueled major improvements in the university’s reputation and rankings, its competitiveness for faculty and students, and the appearance of its campus.

His wealth — not to mention a small army of his favored architects, art consultants and landscape designers — has bankrolled and molded the handsome brick-and-marble walkways, lamps and benches that dot the campus; has constructed a physics building, a school of public health, a children’s hospital, a stem-cell research institute, a malaria institute and a library wing; has commissioned giant art installations by Kendall Buster,Mark Dion and Robert Israel; and has financed 20 percent of all need-based financial aid grants to undergraduates over the past few years. (Even his ex-wife and in-laws make a campus cameo, on the dedication plaque for a science building he financed.)

Does Mr. Bloomberg get special treatment?  Well, yes.

Of course, certain courtesies are extended to a donor at Mr. Bloomberg’s level. When Dr. Miller realized that the Charlotte R. Bloomberg Children’s Center would be connected to a new tower named for Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan, the former president of theUnited Arab Emirates, he nervously called the mayor.

“Will you have a problem with this?” he asked Mr. Bloomberg.

The mayor thanked him for the call, but made clear he had no objection. “A Jew on one side, an Arab on the other,” he told Dr. Miller. “That’s what we should do in this world.”

Compare all this with another equally famous donor, T. Boone Pickens, a man of massive wealth from energy who has donated hundreds of millions to Oklahoma State University.  Some of Mr. Pickens' largesse has gone for academics, but a large portion of it has been dedicated to funding intercollegiate athletics.  As for Johns Hopkins, Mr. Pickens surely has great disdain for the school which doesn’t even field a Division I football team.

So at the end of the day the generosity of Mr. Bloomberg will ensure that millions of people world wide will lead better, longer and healthier, more productive lives. And the generosity of Mr. Pickens will ensure that the football team at Oklahoma State is guaranteed at least a bowl game appearance in Boise.

Whose values do you want influencing public policy?

Wall Street Journal Has a Hilarious Opinion Piece by Paul Christianson That Totally Contradicts WSJ Opinions on Unions

The Hilarious Part – They Don’t Even Know It

The Wall Street Journal editors hate.  They hate Mr. Obama, they hate Democrats, they hate minorities (except for the token Conservatives in those groups) and they hate France.  But most of all they hate unions.  And the emotion of hate can so blind opinion writers at the WSJ that they inadvertently support that which they hate.

Case in point is an opinion piece by Paul Christianson that advocates small employers avoid the ACA health care law by keeping employment under 50.  The way to do this, says Mr. Christianson is for the companies to have their employees form corporations and then the employer simply contracts for services with the corporation.  No employees, no need to provide health care insurance.

Owners of protean companies create a core of strategic employees who manage the big-picture elements of the enterprise—the culture, business model, product mix, vision, strategy, etc. This core then outsources the business tasks to other corporations.

Non-core tasks could include things like accounting, marketing, product development, manufacturing, IT, PR, legal, finance, etc. There is almost nothing that cannot be outsourced—including even the CEO function (which can already happen, e.g., when a company is in turnaround.)

Wow, what a great idea, here’s how it would work.

In the context of ObamaCare, a small business could go protean by offering current employees contracts for doing their current work as a corporate entity instead of as an employee. Entrepreneurial employees will jump at the chance to form a corporation and run their own business. Non-entrepreneurial employees can choose to move on and find other work—or work hard to join the core company.

Going protean won't work without a massive mental shift. A company no longer manages employees, but tasks and contracts instead—a quantum leap in management styles and process.

Okay everybody, let’s see what is going on with this.  A company does not have employees, there is a corporation that hired employees and then the corporation contracts with the company.  The contract would obviously describe the compensation, duties, protections etc that the employees of the corporation of employees would have.  Gosh, what does this sound like? 

It’s a union contract, the employees are now unionized without the union name you idiot.

That’s right what you have here is a union and a unionized work force in every aspect except the name  And this type of union would be free to operate without the current government controls which restrict union activity, as Mr. Christianson points out.

 When a person is an employee, he or she is, by definition, in partnership with the government—the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, etc.—and is subject to all the government's regulations. But when a protean corporation enters into a relationship with that same person, now a corporation, it is a purely contractual relationship with a fellow enterprise. As long as there is no fraud or breach of contract, and the agreement is legal, the government really has nothing to say.

So the union, now called a corporation can keep money, formerly called union dues, from everyone.  And everyone working now has to join the union-now-called-corporation, so goodbye all those so-called Right to Work laws. And the corporation/union makes the hiring decision.  This is not the Closed Shop that all employers hate, it is the Closed Closed Shop.

This proposal is a union organizer’s dream come true.  And since white collar workers would now be effectively unionized, all of the union organization attempts for those workers (and for any non-union companies) that costs money, takes time and requires Federally supervised elections would be gone. Instant unions!!

And the thing that makes the rest of us nearly split a gut laughing, Mr. Christianson and the WSJ have no idea that what they are proposing and supporting is diametrically opposed to their core beliefs.  Really, how stupid can they get!  (Answer, we don't know, apparently they have not reached the limit yet.)

Republican Leadership Urges Party Not to Be ‘Stupid’

When You Have To Do That The Only Conclusion is That You Are . . .

In the political news these days are many Republican leaders heaping advice on the Party.  For example, here is “Pardon Me, Sure” former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour said on Friday that “stupid” and “offensive” comments made by one candidate can have a negative affect on others in the same political party.

“The comments they made were stupid comments, offensive comments and in today’s world when a candidate in one state says something, the negative effect of that can spill over to other candidates,” Barbour, the former GOP governor of Mississippi, said on CBS’s “CBS This Morning.”

And here is current GOP Governor of Louisiana, Bobby “Tax the Poor” Jindal on the same subject.

Gov. Jindal - Replace The Federal Government with a Few Websites
Not His But Everyone Else's Definition of Stupid

The speech ended with a call for Republicans to make seven changes, including: Stop looking backward, compete for every single vote (“the 47 percent and the 53 percent”), reject identity politics, stop being “the stupid party” and “stop insulting the intelligence of voters.”

All of this says a couple of things, the most important of which is that even Republican leaders know that their party is the party being stupid.  And just to confirm that, here is what Mr. Jindal also said.

If any rational human being were to create our government anew, today, from a blank piece of paper — we would have about one-fourth of the buildings we have in Washington and about half of the government workers,” he said, according to a copy of the speech obtained in advance by POLITICO. “We would replace most of its bureaucracy with a handful of good websites.”

Yep, that’s about as stupid as you can get.  So we agree with Mr. Jindal, Republicans stop being stupid, and you can start with Mr. Jindal.

Uranium Mining Advocates in Virginia Claim They Can Do So Safely

But If Not, That's Okay, the Horrible Cost to the Environment Just Falls on Other People

[Update:  The bill authorizing mining has been pulled from consideration.  The issue is dead, at least at this time.  But with this much money involved this issue will never be truly deceased.]

In the middle of Virginia between Lynchburg and Danville is a large uranium deposit.  The people who own the land want the right to mine if, and to do so they need to change Virginia’s laws against uranium mining. 

Of course the proponents don’t mention the huge financial gains they would make, they argue that they are doing this for the good of the country and the economy.

Chatham, Virginia
A Nice Place to Make Into a
Radioactive Dump

Bills introduced last week would lift a moratorium on uranium mining at the site here, known as Coles Hill. Political supporters say that the mining would bring economic benefits and that risks from radioactive wastes, or tailings, can be safely managed. 

The tactics of the supporters of lifting the ban are right out of American politics 101.  Buy influence.

To influence lawmakers, Virginia Uranium has poured more than $600,000 into campaign contributions and lobbying since 2008, according to public records. For the current 45-day legislative session in Richmond, it has retained 20 lobbyists. . . .

In 2010 and 2011, Virginia Uranium paid $122,000 total to fly about two dozen members of the General Assembly to France to visit a tailings storage site, which critics quickly labeled a junket. The sponsor of the Senate bill that would lift the uranium ban, John C. Watkins, was among those traveling.

The opposition has a pretty strong case, that the environmental risks are huge and the result of mining could be highly destructive.

A National Academy of Sciences report in 2011 stopped the momentum in last year’s General Assembly for lifting the ban, imposed three decades earlier in the wake of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident. The report warned of “steep hurdles” to safe mining and “significant human health” dangers if a capped tailings pile leaks because of the state’s “frequent storms.”

And surprisingly the politics do not divide along party lines.  Here is a leading Democrat spouting an “I don’t care” message.

A prominent supporter is the minority leader of the State Senate, Richard L. Saslaw, a Democrat, who lives in the northern suburbs. Asked about buried uranium tailings that remain a risk for hundreds of years, Mr. Saslaw, who is known for unguarded statements, said in a radio interview, “I’m not going to be here.”

which is of course the sentiment of all those who hate protecting the environment from their own greedy clutches.  A Republican has a different take.

Delegate James E. Edmunds II, a Republican, said that in the event that radiation leaked into the groundwater, his district would be one of the first affected. “There’s no waiting for a big rain to clean it up,” he said. “I’m not going to have that as my legacy.”

The issue has turned many of the region’s elected Republicans, the party of “drill, baby, drill” and property rights, into mining opponents.

Yeah, funny how pollution and environmental destruction attitudes change when it is happening in your back yard.