Prominent Non-Governmental Conservatives in Freedom Federation Vow to Fight Any Ruling That Legalizes Same Sex Marriage

Exactly How They Are Going to Fight  - Read On

With the Supreme Court ruling on several cases involving same sex marriage expected to be released in the coming week, a group of hard line conservatives have issued an ultimatum, although we have no idea what their ultimatum means.

"As Christians united together in defense of marriage, we pray that this will not happen. But, make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross."

Now those seem to be fighting words, abut exactly how they intend to fight was not made clear.  So here is what we think will happen.

A group of religious conservatives banded together under the organizational umbrella of the Freedom Federation and declared that they will fight the right to marriage equality and the right of same sex couples to marry by utterly and totally refusing to marry a person of the same sex.

“We are taking this drastic step to save America” declared a spokesman for the group “and under no conditions, regardless of the use of force, torture or the withholding of pie will we ever relent and marry a person of the same sex.  Any attempts to force any of us to marry a person who is not of the opposite sex will be met with our steady resolve and the invocation of the Almighty to rain down fire and brimstone, whatever the heck brimstone is,  on those who would force us to wed against our moral principles.”

A spokesman for a coalition of religious group supporting tolerance and freedom and equality when asked to comment said “What the hell, pardon the profanity, are these people talking about?” and went on to raise the question “are these people nuts?”  Later in the day an informal committee of mental health experts confirmed that yes, these people were, to use the clinical terminology, ‘crazy as bats’.  They later retracted that statement when bats complained about being lumped together with the Freedom Federation folks.

Free Market Republicans (And Democrats) Vote to Restrict Free Markets – Keep Tesla Autos From Being Sold Direct

Is There Any of Their So-Called Principles That Conservatives Will Not Violate

The bedrock of modern Conservatism is cutting taxes for wealthy people, but in second place is devotion to free enterprise.  Economic activity should be controlled by market forces according to Conservatives, and government intervention should almost never take place.  So if Tesla Motors, a company that markets a very pricey electric car wants to sell it autos directly to consumers without having local auto dealers, then it should be able to , right?

No, wrong, at least not in North Carolina where Republicans have taken over state government and are imposing the Republican style of things on the citizens of that state.  And so when Tesla wanted to sell directly to consumers in North Carolina, Republicans (and Democrats) moved heaven and earth to say NO NO NO.  If you want to sell autos in North Carolina  you have to have local dealerships.

Elon Musk made a fortune disrupting the status quo in online shopping and renewable energy. Now he's up against his toughest challenge yet: local car dealers.

Mr. Musk, the billionaire behind PayPal and now Tesla Motors Inc.,  wants to sell his $70,000 Tesla electric luxury vehicles directly to consumers, bypassing franchised automobile dealers. Dealers are flexing their considerable muscle in states including Texas and Virginia to stop him.

The latest battleground is North Carolina, where the Republican-controlled state Senate last month unanimously approved a measure that would block Tesla from selling online, its only sales outlet here. Tesla has staged whiz-bang test drives for legislators in front of the State House and hired one of the state's most influential lobbyists to stave off a similar vote in the House before the legislative session ends in early July.

The rationale of course is a desire to protect consumers (yeah Republicans can say that with a straight face) but really, no one who can afford a $70,000 car needs much consumer protection.  The real motivations is protection of existing car dealerships, so if that means massive intrusion by government into what should be an open and free and no-entry barrier market, well, that’s just Republicans being Republicans, or as it is spelled in the Tar Heel State, h y p o c r i t e s.  And if Democrats are going along, well, why fight a losing battle and make enemies of powerful business groups.

Stephen Voss for The Wall Street Journal

Tesla 'galleries' such as this one in

 McLean, Va., can show but not sell cars.

The protectionists are not winning everywhere.

Many more battles remain. Tesla defeated a bill in Minnesota that would have blocked sales. But in Virginia, the state Department of Motor Vehicles has so far refused to issue Tesla a license to operate a company store.

Hm, let’s see.  Minnesota is run by Democrats, but in Virginia radical conservatives control state government.  What does that tell you about Republican principles?  Assuming of course, you could locate some.

Major Victory for All Americans as House Rejects Farm Bill –

A Legislative Proposal That Was Probably One of the Worst Ever

Normally when the Republican controlled House blocks legislation the nation suffers, but in the case of the Senate passed 10 year Farm Bill, rejection by the House was just a huge plus for the American people  This bill was one of the worst ever considered in Washington, and its defeat will hopefully mean that real farm reform legislation can take place and that adequate funding for nutrition needs can be provided. 

Why was the bill so bad?  Consider these things.

The House bill would have cut projected spending in farm and nutrition programs by nearly $40 billion over the next 10 years. Just over half, $20.5 billion, would have come from cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps. The House bill, like the Senate’s version, would have eliminated $5 billion a year in direct payments to farmers, which are made annually whether or not they grow crops.

Billions of dollars saved by eliminating the payments would be directed into a $9 billion crop insurance program. New subsidies would be created for peanut, cotton and rice farmers. Lawmakers left intact the sugar program, keeping price supports and restrictions on imports.

The subsidies for crop insurance would have meant billions going to very wealthy farmers, and little benefit for the so-called family farms, many of which no longer exist.  Subsidies for various crops, all supported by so-called Conservatives would have remained in place and nutrition assistance in the form of food stamps for those who literally cannot afford to buy enough to eat would have been drastically cut.

No one is sure what will happen as current farm legislation expires.  But whatever happens it is hard to see how it could be worse than what the Senate passed and the House rejected.

Thanks Republicans, sometimes you help the nation in spite of yourselves.

Republicans Want Illegal Immigrants to Confess to Their Horrible Criminal Activity Before Walking the Path to Citizenship

An Agenda of Humiliating Three Year Olds – Just What One Would Expect from the GOP

As immigration reform makes its painful way through the Senate towards its expected death in the House, Republicans who are willing to vote for some type of reform are making their views known.  Here is a brief snippet about a Texas Representative.

Within the past couple of weeks, Mr. Carter was laying out a far different point of view to his central Texas constituents. Six years after his debates with Mr. Rove, Mr. Carter is not only backing a broad reworking of immigration laws but helping to craft a bill and to guide it through the House.

Okay, that sounds good.  Oh wait a minutes,  there is this.

To honor the rule of law, Mr. Carter says, the House legislation would likely require illegal immigrants who want legal status to declare in court that they had broken the law. The bipartisan Senate bill doesn't include that provision.

Now a huge number of these people are either children, or were children when they were brought to this nation, and are hardly criminals.  One can imagine Republicans wanting a statement that is something like this

I am 7 years old.  When I was 3 I became a hardened, horrible criminal by entering the United States illegally.  Even though I had no choice in the manner, and had no idea of even what I was doing or that it was illegal, I am a horrible person, a law breaker, a criminal, one of the worse people to exist.  I can only hope that Republicans everywhere will forgive me, and that going forward I will try to be someone who supports cutting education spending, increasing pollution and fighting for lower taxes for wealthy people so that I can be a person Republicans will let stay in the country and cut their lawns or clean their houses.

Yep, that’s probably what they want alright.  Fortunately most Americans don't feel that way, but then when Americans actually focus on and know what Republicans want to do, most of them do not support the GOP

Google Buys Waze for About $1 Billion – Or In Google World, Spare Change

No It Doesn’t Make Any Money –

Here’s how to make $1 billion.  First of all, find someone with $1 billion who is willing to part with it.  That’s easy, Google comes to mind.  The company has about $50 billion in cash, much of its offshore which it cannot return to the U. S. because it would actually have to pay its fair share of taxes on the money.  The $1 billion is 2% of Google’s cash.  This is the equivalent of a person with $10,000 in the bank taking out $200.00 to spend on smething.

A screen shot of the Android version of Waze, a social mapping
service used by millions of drivers around the world.

Second, develop a social network app.  This is also easy.  Everyone seems to be doing it.  And the best part, it does not have to make any money, in fact if it can be downloaded and used for free, all the better.

Third, sell the company to Google.

Really, that’s all there is to it.  (And you thought it would be much harder, didn’t you.)

 Still in doubt, the gibberish on the left looks like a $billion to Google.

A Big Wins in the Supreme Court for Basic Voting Rights

But Look Out – Evisceration of Civil Rights and Voting Rights is Coming to a Supreme Court Near You

This Forum has often castigated Supreme Court Justice Scalia, but he has written the majority opinion saying that no, Arizona cannot demand proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.  Federal law is clear here, the Feds say that a person need only affirm that they are a citizen under penalty of perjury, and federal law trumps state law.

Arizona Republicans apparently admire the late state of East Germany and other totalitarian regimes that have thuggish police going around and “demanding papers”.  They have enacted several laws to that effect, one of which was that voters had to produce ‘papers’ to show they were citizens when they went to register to vote.  Obviously this was a ploy to deny voting rights to people with foreign sounding names, people who might not vote the right way, the Republican way.

Justice Scalia writing for a majority in the Supreme Court said, no, federal law governs the requirements for elections and federal law does not allow state laws to make onerous conditions for voting.  Here is a bunch of legalese which says Arizona cannot pre-empt federal law.

The power the Elections Clause confers is none other than the power to pre-empt. Because Congress, when it acts under this Clause, is always on notice that its legislation will displace some element of a pre-existing legal regime erected by the States, the reasonable assumption is that the text of Elections Clause legislation accurately communicates the scope of Congress’s pre-emptive intent.

But before the celebrations begin everyone should know that the Supreme Court is soon to rule on whether or not colleges can take race into account in admissions, and whether or not the Voting Rights Act can be used to ensure voting rights.  The almost certain conclusion is that the decisions will be ‘no’ and ‘no’.  The Court will likely strike down the use of any racial criteria in college admissions, (after all that is discrimination against white people; historical discrimination against black people and its lingering effects, never mind).  The Court will also likely strike down the key portions of the Voting Rights Act.  After all Republicans must be given a free hand to rig elections so that the minimum number of Democrats and minorities are represented, particularly if they cannot intimidate minority voters by demanding their papers.

Conservative Moderate (Yeah, Sort of) David Frum is Withdrawing From His Frum Forum Blog

And Leaves Us With a Puzzling Statement

One of the Conservatives that Conservatives hate is David Frum.  A former Bush advisor and Wall Street Journal editorial writer, Mr. Frum has from time to time tried to be reasonable and address reality.  Although he supports many conservative positions, it seems he tries to do so without hate, something that Conservatives just cannot stand.  Modern Conservatism without hatred is not Modern Conservatism.

After a death in his family Mr. Frum has decided to scale back his public commentary.

So it's been a rough month for my family and me. It's been a rough month for the blog too. I'm well aware that people come here to read about public affairs, not personal losses.

Unfortunately, family and personal matters must claim my attention for some time to come. I won't be able to write as much or as well as required to produce a blog worth reading. I've long been a proponent of term limits for pundits and columnists. At least for the time being, my term has expired.

 and that is not a good thing because sometimes he has good thoughts.  And though it would be insensitive to criticize him at this time, the following comments in his farewell post require everyone to say “Huh?”

This summer seems an especially propitious time for a hiatus. As Ross Douthat has perceptively observed, the cause of conservative reform has gained increasing coherence and force since the 2012 election. More and more good work is being done by more and more people.

What Mr. Frum is apparently doing is simply ignoring much of the reality of what has happened since the last election.  Intolerant conservatives such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have taken over the stage, and produced a great deal of political invective.  In Virginia Republicans are turning so radical they may even lose an election to a Democratic ticket headed by Terry McAuliffe, a man who is a non-entity as a politician.

In the Congress the Republicans seems so enthralled with investigations that they refuse to govern.  Conservatives are leading the charge to involve the United States in another war in the Middle East, and want the U. S. to support terrorist based radical Islamic Groups in Syria in the name of trying to end the carnage in that country.  In the coming months Conservatives will block immigration reform, they will try to make the U. S. default on its debts by trying to block raising the debt ceiling, they will want to pass a Farm Bill that increases aid to wealthy corporate farms and cuts food and nutrition assistance for low income people, they will want to increase the interest rate on student loans and a whole bunch of other things.  Mr. Frum sees none of this because he does not want to see any of this.

It is okay for Mr. Frum to ignore some of the radical elements in his party, Democrats do the same thing.  But to argue that somehow Conservatism is doing good work is to ignore the entire movement, where it is going, and how ugly a road (see homophobic rants, for example) it is taking to get there.

And as for Mr. Douthat and his ideas that conservative reform is gaining “coherence and force”, well we will take a look at his thoughts in another post.  We don't expect to find much.

DNA Testing is Ok For the State – But Not Ok for Prisoner Who Wants to Prove His Innocence

Why the Supreme Court Gets It Wrong

Recently the Supremes said that it was Constitutional for law enforcement to take a DNA sample from a person arrested on suspicion of committing a felony.  This Forum reluctantly agrees with that decision.  One of the great horrors would be if a person were arrested, not tested and later it was found out that the person was a violent felon wanted for vicious attacks who went on to commit horrendous crimes.

The feeling here is that once you allow things like fingerprinting taking DNA is just a logical extension.  Government has the right to take fingerprints and run them through a data base to see if the arrested person should be retained on other charges.  Using DNA is just another means to the same end.

But an attorney who works on proving innocent people are in jail, and who so far has exonerated over  300 jailed felons who were shown to be innocent by DNA testing raises a valid point about hypocrisy on the Supreme Court.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the five-justice majority, drew on a 2000 book by the founders of the Innocence Project and a newspaper columnist to explain why this was a good idea.

“In the interests of justice, the identification of an arrestee as the perpetrator of some heinous crime may have the salutary effect of freeing a person wrongfully imprisoned for the same offense,” Justice Kennedy wrote. Then he quoted from the book, “Actual Innocence.”

Ok, that sounds good, but but but

Justice May be
blind, but Conservatives on the
Supreme Court are
deaf and dumb

In 2009, Justice Kennedy joined the majority opinion in a 5-to-4 decision that said prisoners had no constitutional right to DNA testing that might prove their innocence. Mr. Neufeld, who founded the Innocence Project with Barry Scheck, represented the prisoner on the losing end of that case, District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne.

But last week, Mr. Neufeld said, Justice Kennedy concluded that “it’s O.K. for the state to take DNA, without a warrant, from mere arrestees, who may ultimately have their charges dismissed.”

The combination of the two decisions baffled Mr. Neufeld. “That is quite a worldview,” he said of a jurisprudence that allows nonconsensual testing of people presumed innocent but denies voluntary testing to people who insist that they really are innocent.

The idea that a prisoner, even after he or she is convicted, cannot use all means to prove innocence is just baffling.  The 14^th amendment guarantees due process, but a Supreme Court that is hostile to rights refuses to provide convicted prisoners with the right to show innocence, even after technology has been developed that wasn’t available to that prisoner before.

That statue of blind justice over the Supreme Court building must cringe every time Scalia, Kennedy and company enter.

Tyler Cowen Joins the Economic Optimists Club

And Makes This Amazing Prediction

To the amazement of many of us, and to the horror of conservatives the future economic conditions in America look more promising rather than less promising.  This is a result of many things, most of them somewhat accidental and beyond the control of politicians.  For example, the U. S. is having huge oil and natural gas production increases, health care costs are slowing their inexorable rise and because the U. S. did not go the way of Europe and implement austerity until later in the recovery, growth is positive and the deficit is falling.

Tyler Cowen, one of the more articulate conservative economists is quoted this way (on Tyler’s web site of course).

“The great stagnation will end for a lot of people but not everyone,” Mr. Cowen said. “I think there will be great breakthroughs but the distribution of those gains will go to owners of capital and intellectual property.”

Mr. Cowen also added that “water is wet, the sun rises in the east and anything that does not change is likely to remain the same.”

As Predicted, Sarah Palin is Back on Fox Making Outrageous Statements

And To Its Credit It Looks Like Major News Outlets Are Ignoring Her – The Unkindest Cut of All

With Sarah Palin back on Fox News Propaganda we now have the answer to two of the major questions vexing the universe. (see below for the questions that are now answered).  Ms. Palin’s return has been largely ignored except by the internet sites that write about politics, and they will probably drop items about her lame commentary as soon as the novelty wears off, or about 15 minutes from now.

This time Ms. Palin was after CBS News, for what to the rest of us seems like an overreach even by Palin standards.

On Monday, the former Alaska governor slammed CBS’ Elizabeth Palmer, who reported on the Iranian election this weekend and sparked controversy in conservative circles by saying “in U.S. terms it was as if all the candidates for the presidency came from the tea party,” as representative of the “out of touch,” “lamestream” media.

“Okay, Elizabeth, you just put the BS in CBS,” Palin said. “It’s things like that that people hear and see and realize how out of touch the lamestream, the mainstream media is. To compare, really, the Iranian revolutionaries with those who are patriots in America and just want government to live within its Constitution?”

Well let’s see.  Given that the candidates in Iran are all narrow minded intolerants intent on imposing religious laws and standards on an unwilling population, and that the Tea Party folks are  narrow minded intolerants intent on imposing religious laws and standards on an unwilling population it is kinda hard to see what exactly is upsetting to the former VP nominee.  If anyone should be upset at the comparison it should be the Iranians.

As for those two questions that are now answered, here they are with the answers.

Q1:  What is the easiest thing in the world to do?

A1:  Offend Sarah Palin

Q2:  What is the thinnest material in the universe?

A2:  Sarah Palin’s skin

There you have it, two more mysteries of the world solved.

Conservatives Still Piling on Mitt Romney – Complaining He Did Not Appeal to Working Class Voters

Uh Guys, What Exactly Did You Expect From “Multi-home Milt”?

Apparently former Pennsylvania Senator and Professional Hater of Gays Rick Santorum is not going away, and is gearing up for another run for the Presidency in 2016.  This is the classic good news/bad news information.  Good news because Mr. Santorum is so outrageous that his entertainment value is incredibly high and bad news because, well, Mr. Santorum is just bad news. 

This time around apparently Mr. Santorum is going the working class appeals route, where he thinks he has credibility because his grandfather did real work for a living.  This ignores the fact that Mr. Santorum himself has spent almost all of his working life either employed by government in elected positions, or peddling influence and making enough money to send his children to elite private schools.  But politics does not require consistency.

Santorum insisted that Republicans must talk to working-class people, not CEOs. | AP Photo

Hey Rick, How's that anti-gay, anti-gay marriage positioning going to work for you in 2016?

Mr. Santorum is concerned that Republicans did not feature working men and women at their convention.

The former Pennsylvania senator recalled all the business owners who spoke at the Republican National Convention.

“One after another, they talked about the business they had built. But not a single—not a single —factory worker went out there,” Santorum told a few hundred conservative activists at an “after-hours session” of the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in Washington. “Not a single janitor, waitress or person who worked in that company! We didn’t care about them. You know what? They built that company too! And we should have had them on that stage.”

Well no Rick, see when you do not have any policies that benefit working people, and when the policies that you do have are harmful to working people, policies like cutting spending on education, taking away the exclusion of health care insurance benefits, fighting anti-discrimination measures in the workplace and the like, you are not going to get many working people to support you.  Really, the janitors of the world were not  excited about the fact that Mitt Romney needed a tax cut to build another house.

So it looks like we are going to have Rick around in 2016, and it looks like Rick is going to try and run away from his divisive and mean and hateful views on social issues.  Like we said, good news and bad news.

Oh, and here is hopefully the final word on the Romney candidacy from conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg.

Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg said Romney did not run on ideas, but Hallmark slogans.

“He just seems fake, but that’s actually him,” said Goldberg. “Mitt Romney looks like the picture that came with the frame.”

Thanks Mr. Goldberg, since we could not have said it better ourselves we are happy to let you say it for us.

Justice Clarence Thomas Delivers an Intelligent, Thoughtful Opinion Upholding the Right to a Trial by Jury

The “Hang’em High” other Conservatives on the Court Must be Horrified

This Forum has been unrelenting in its criticism of Justice Clarence Thomas, but apparently even Justice Thomas does have it within him to ability to know that when the Constitution guarantees the right of the accused to trial by jury, it guarantees the right of the accused to trial by jury.

The situation in this case was very simple.  An individual was accused and convicted of using a gun in a criminal act.  The penalty is five years.  If the gun were ‘brandished’ this is a different crime and the penalty is seven years.  The jury found the defendant guilty of using but not brandishing a gun and sentenced him to five years.  The judge upped the sentence to seven years, apparently deciding that the gun was brandished and effectively overruling the jury.  This of course gave the defendant no chance to defend himself against the more severe charge and took the decision out of the hands of the jury.

Justice Thomas said no.  In very simple plain English his point was this.

As noted, the essential Sixth Amendment inquiry is whether a fact is an element of the crime. When a finding of fact alters the legally prescribed punishment so as to aggravate it, the fact necessarily forms a constituent part of a new offense and must be submitted to the jury. It is no answer to say that the defendant could have received the same sentence with or without that fact. It is obvious, for example, that a defendant could not be convicted and sentenced for assault, if the jury only finds the facts for larceny, even if the punishments prescribed for each crime are identical. One reason is that each crime has different elements and a defendant can be convicted only if the jury has found each element of the crime of conviction.

Similarly, because the fact of brandishing aggravates the legally prescribed range of allowable sentences, it constitutes an element of a separate, aggravated offense that must be found by the jury, regardless of what sentence the defendant might have received if a different range had been applicable. . . . The essential point is that the aggravating fact produced a higher range, which, in turn, conclusively indicates that the fact is an element of a distinct and aggravated crime. It must, therefore, be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.

In his dissent Judge Alito decried the overturning of precedent 

The Court overrules a well-entrenched precedent with barely a mention of stare decisis. See ante, at 16, n. 6. Stare decisis is, of course, not an “inexorable command” in the field of constitutional law. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 828 (1991) . Nevertheless, the Court ought to be consistent in its willingness to reconsider precedent. If Harris v. United States, 536 U. S. 545 (2002) , and McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79 (1986) , can be cast aside simply because a majority of this Court now disagrees with them, that same approach may properly be followed in future cases. See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U. S. 332–364 (2009) (Alito, J., dissenting).

but it seems clear that all he is doing is setting the scene to overturn Roe v. Wade when it comes before the Court again.

So Conservatives are once again thwarted in their efforts to remove basic Constitutional rights from the accused, simply because they, the Conservatives, believe that the police would not arrest someone who is not guilty.  The great irony here of course is that one of the most conservative members of the Court betrayed his brethern, and that is just the chocolate icing on the devil's food cake.

Turkey, Not Syria is the Major Problem in the Middle East

And Like in Syria, The United States Can Do Little But See It Play Out

The media, which is not made up of the sharpest knives in the drawer is currently focusing on Syria and the dilemma of the administration.  The dilemma is whether or not to intervene and see the violence increase, or stay out and see the violence increase.  Arming the rebels is a losing strategy, but then so is just about anything else.

The real problem in that area is Turkey.  Turkey has the potential to be a great economic and political success story, a Muslim nation but a secular one with great economic potential.  But current leader of the nation, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is trying to slowly subvert the secular nature of Turkey, and to slowly subvert the democratic process.  He is now engaged in a nasty dispute with protestors, and is resorting to force, the policy that almost always fails.

Turkey - not the picture of an admirable government

 Turkish government forces moved swiftly on Sunday to stamp out the vestiges of the protest movement against Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, chasing down antigovernment demonstrators into the stores and luxury hotels in Istanbul where they sought refuge after the park at the center of the unrest was cleared in violent clashes the night before.

If Turkey fulfilled its vast potential, it could become a member of the European Union, and a perfect example of how a secular Islamic nation can prosper with freedom and democracy and economic growth.  But by turning his back on religious freedom Mr. Erdogan runs the risk of creating a minor version of Iran.

Mr. Erdogan’s opponents are a cross-section of secularists, liberals, urban intellectuals and minorities who are divided in their political views but are increasingly united against what they consider as Mr. Erdogan and his Islamic allies’ attempts to impose their views on the country. Many critics have been especially upset by the prime minister’s recent campaign to crack down on alcohol consumption and his pursuit of vast urban development projects, which have enriched construction magnates with close ties to the government.

Mr. Erdogan has also antagonized many secular Turks in smaller ways, by telling women, for example, that they should have at least three children.

“He goes as far as getting in people’s bedrooms; he decides what we should eat and drink and how many kids we should have,” said a woman in the hotel lobby whose shoulders were burned by chemical-laced water.

Sound familiar, it’s right out of the playbook of right wing religious extremists.  And that playbook is the basic recipe for national disaster.

No One is Covering or Concerned About the Real Scandal Plaguing The Obama Administration

And the Senate is Not Helping

No, there is no big IRS scandal, just a bunch of incompetent and politically insensitive idiots in the IRS that did what incompetent and politically insensitive people do which is a bunch of stupid things.  And no there is no Libya scandal, that is just something Republicans and their media cronies have cooked up to tarnish Ms. Clinton.

But there is a real scandal, and it is this.  There is a massive number of sexual assaults in the armed forces.

A recent Pentagon survey found that an estimated 26,000 assaults took place last year. Senior military officials have repeatedly traipsed to Capitol Hill this spring to lament the problem but have been ridiculed by members of both parties of the Armed Services Committee for failing to make a dent in the problem.

The military is under the control of the executive branch.  This is a problem where the civilian management of the armed forces has not taken control and demanded a solution to this problem.  And even worse, a Democratic Senate is weakening rather than strengthening proposed reforms.

In a striking showdown between Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and a member of his own party, Mr. Levin said on Tuesday that he would remove a measure aimed at curbing sexual assault in the military from a defense spending bill.

One problem here is that military commanders control the prosecution and even more of a problem commanders can and do overrule a conviction, no explanations given.  So the solution is to take that power away from the military and place it with an independent group that will protect victims and punish wrong doers.  But the Senate, lead by Democrats is rejecting that.

Mr. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said he would replace Ms. Gillibrand’s measure — which has 27 co-sponsors, including four Republicans — with one that would require a senior military officer to review decisions by commanders who decline to prosecute sexual assault cases. Although Mr. Levin’s measure would change the current system, it would keep prosecution of sexual assault cases within the chain of command, as the military wants.

There is no explanation for this, there is no excuse for this, it is simply a scandal that the Obama administration and the Senate Democrats have allowed to fester.  

Information is Getting Less Expensive – And Government Sponsored Research Is Getting to be Priced Correctly

The Price for Taxpayer Access to Taxpayer Funded Research – Should be Zero

Another good thing is happening with the ability to share information.  The cost of sharing is going down.  And even more important, the cost of gaining access to research that is paid for by the public is getting closer to the price it should be, absolutely nothing.

If we paid for your research we own it,
not you or your institution.

Clear enough?

In February the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy told federal agencies to make similar plans. A week before that, a bill which would require free access to government-financed research after six months had begun to wend its way through Congress. The European Union is moving in the same direction. So are charities. 

Of course the real question here is why was there ever any charge for public access to research that wasfunded by the public?  

Some Religious Leaders Need Lessons in Religion –

You Know, That Compassion, Understanding, Tolerance Thing That Is Supposed to be Part of Good Moral Character

With the announcement that the Boy Scouts will drop their policy of bigotry and prejudice and now allow openly gay boys to join the Scouts, several religious leaders are displaying their true feelings about how they view people who are different.  The results are disappointing but not surprising.

Southern Baptists are expected to vote on a resolution about the Boy Scouts on Wednesday at their annual meeting in Houston. The resolution, not yet public, will probably urge them to prepare to cut ties with the Scouts.

Of course part of this is the revelation that the Scouts, contrary to popular belief that the organization is non-sectarian, are seen as a method for some churches to inject their own faith onto the young men who are Boy Scouts.  The head of the Southern Baptists opposes his churches cutting ties with Boy Scouts, but unfortunately it is not because of tolerance on his part, it is due to wanting to proselytize.

The Rev. A.J. Smith says it's too early for Southern Baptists to give up on the Boy Scouts.

Smith, president of the Association of Baptists for Scouting, disagrees with a recent move by the Boy Scouts of America to allow openly gay scouts. But that's no reason for churches to cut their ties with the Scouts, he said.

"There is still an opportunity to reach youth for Christ with the gospel through Boy Scouts," said Smith, who is pastor of Bay Springs Baptist Church in Shelby, Ala.

But other members of the Southern Baptist organization are pretty adamant about not having gay Scouts.

A number of prominent Southern Baptist leaders, including Russell Moore, the new president of Nashville-based Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said they are disappointed with the new Scout policy. . . .

Moore said that Southern Baptists don't want to kick boys out of Scout troops because they have same-sex attraction. But he thinks the Scouts no longer teach that sex is moral only when it takes place in a marriage between a man and a woman.

Okay Boy Scouts, time to stand up for honor here.  Are you a non-sectarian organization teaching young men good living skills, or are you a front for churches to try and impose their religion on the members of the Scouts.  Time to practice what you preach (pardon the pun). 

Need More Evidence That America is Not A Great Country – Look at Food and Nutrition in Poverty Areas

And Look At What Both Republicans and Democrats are Doing About It

The Reverend E. W. Jackson, the Republican candidate for Lt. Gov. in Virginia and a strident conservatives has said that Planned Parenthood has been worse for African Americans than the KKK.  It turns out that what is a horror for African Americans is obesity.

The US is in the grip of an obesity epidemic. More than a third of American adults – including half of African-American adults – are obese, as are one in five children, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Mississippi, at 35 per cent, has the highest obesity rate in the country.

The problem, as everyone knows, is partially but not totally related to income.  Low income people have to get the biggest calorie bang for the buck, and that means eating foods which will make a person obese.

Of course there are Food Stamps, which conservatives hate.  Are food stamps enough help?  Well consider this.

What is clear, however, is that food deserts disproportionately affect poor people. Almost a quarter of Mississippi’s population receive food stamps – government assistance amounting to $4 per person per day – and try to get the most calories for their buck.

That’s right, the huge government program to help low income people buy basic food stuffs amount to $4.00 a day.  And of course conservatives hate even that. 

Republicans say they are taking aim at a growing culture of dependency. Stephen Fincher, a Republican congressman from Tennessee, invoked Bible verses to argue in favour of the cuts during a House agriculture committee hearing last month.

“The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat,” he said, citing Thessalonians. While it was a Christian duty to care for the poor and hungry, he said it was not the government’s duty.

Mr. Fincher, of course, being a person who has received tens of thousands of dollars from the Feds for agriculture subsidies, but let’s not mention that.  And that dependency thing, wow, just think, people being dependent on food to live and be healthy, what a bunch of degenerates.

For Democrats cutting hunger assistance is also on the menu.

The Senate this week passed a $500bn, five-year farm bill that will cut the budget for food stamps, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, by $4.1bn during the next decade. And that was the proposal from the Democrats, long-time supporters of the programme.

And when New York Mayor Bloomberg suggested that access to large, sugar laden soft drinks should be limited, the reaction by conservatives was this.

Mississippi senators made their feelings about New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on large, sugary drinks clear. They passed a broad “anti-Bloomberg” bill in March preventing state bodies from limiting portion sizes and from banning food based on its nutritional value.

The United States allows low income people to suffer from hunger, malnutrition and obesity.  Incredible enough, there are areas of the nation termed “food deserts’ places where fresh food is either not available or very limited.

Tchula, population 2,052, is a “food desert”, a place where residents have limited – and often no – access to healthy food. Although Tchula lies on the fertile soil of the Mississippi delta and cotton and soyabean plants flourish in the fields surrounding the town, the produce on sale at the only local grocery store, the Tchula Food Center, is in varying stages of decomposition.

 And here is what the food supply looks like in a rural Mississippi grocery store.

There are three brown bananas that are only good for cake and cabbages that might have made decent coleslaw a few weeks earlier, although the potatoes are passable. But the meat fridge contains unidentifiable rounds labelled “meat dept” and the chicken sits on bloodied mats. The freezers are bursting with heat-and-eat French fries, breaded cheese sticks and “popcorn shrimp”.

For the residents of Tchula – which is 96 per cent African-American, with an unemployment rate approaching 25 per cent and no public transport – this is the only option when it comes to grocery shopping.

“In the local store, the prices are much higher,” Ms Granderson says. “They do it because they know you’re a local and if you don’t got a ride, you’re going to have to pay it.”

 Those are not the characteristics of a great country.  Heck, they are not even the characteristics of a decent country. What kind of nation has 'food deserts'?  But they are the characteristics of conservatives.  You and I see people in these situations as men and women who deserve better.  Mitt Romney sees them as the 47% leeching off of himself and his multi-millionaire buddies.  And Mitt regards himself as a deeply religious.  Imagine how the non-pious conservatives must feel and act.  

And If you need to find them, look in your local Ruth's Cris, they are the ones with the lobbyists picking up the tab.

More Evidence That the Wealthy Are Suffering – Parking Spots in Boston Reach Record Costs

Horror – Boston Woman Can Only Afford Buy Two Spaces

There are many things that come as a surprise to all of us.  One is that apparently in order to park near one’s house in wealthy areas of Boston one has to buy the parking spot.  A second surprise is that parking spots can be pretty expensive.

What the wealthy pay $560,000 in Boston
Not sure if they are the two front spots

Parking is such a precious commodity in Boston that one woman was willing to pay $560,000 for two off-street spaces near her home.

The cost was a surprise to the buyer,

Blumenthal, who lives in a multimillion-dollar home near the parking spaces, tells The Boston Globe . . . she didn't expect the bidding to go quite so high for the spots she says will come in handy for guests and workers.

But all of us are just happy to know she got her spots so that her guests and workers (read immigrants to mow the lawn etc) can have a place to park.

And now back to the regular news, where we learn that in the Farm Bill  that Republicans and Democrats alike want to cut nutrition and food assistance for low income families because, you know, the country just cannot afford to feed everyone. No we cannot and still be able to pay a half million plus change for two parking spots.  Don't the rich suffer enough with these high parking spot prices that no one would want to increase their taxes to pay for fighting hunger in America?  No matter what else can be said about us, we have our priorities in order.

Need a Single World To Describe Higher Education in America – Try ‘Corrupt’ with a Capital C

Except Maybe That is Too Mild

The 21^st Century will not be known as the American century. The U. S. is a large, powerful and prosperous nation, but during the current century, now 13 years old, it will not be known as a great country.  And while there are many reasons for this, one of the strongest and least recognized is the horrific decline in the status and nature of higher education, particular public universities.

The corruption of these institutions has been going on for some time.  Athletics is now a driving factor in colleges, with undergraduate education not even a close second.  The administration of state universities has become inefficient and bloated, with overpaid and underworked administrators and college presidents who receive compensation and benefits in the millions.  Full Professors work less than 1500 hours a year and less than 40 weeks a year.  And much of the teaching load is carried by adjuncts, part time teachers many of whom have little skill and ability, their only beneficial characteristic being that they are willing to work for very low wages.

Need more proof? It now has been revealed that the University of Michigan is in the business of selling insider information.

A closely watched consumer confidence number that routinely moves markets upon release is accessed by an elite group of traders, for a fee, a full two seconds before its official release, according to a document obtained by CNBC.

A contract signed by Thomson Reuters, the news agency and data provider, and the University of Michigan, which produces the widely cited economic statistic, stipulates that the data will be posted on the web for the general public at 10 a.m. on the days it is released.

Five minutes before that, at 9:55 a.m., the data is distributed on a conference call for Thomson Reuters' paying clients, who are given certain headline numbers.

How does this come about?  Money of course

For exclusive access to the data, Thomson Reuters pays the University of Michigan $1 million per year, according to the contract, in addition to a "contingent fee" based on the revenue generated by Thomson Reuters. The contract reviewed by CNBC was signed in September 2009. It expired a year later. Thomson Reuters and the University Michigan confirmed that the relationship still exists.

Now everybody needs to know that this is not payment for proprietary information, it is payment to receive public information ahead of the public, so that those receiving the information can engage in legal insider trading.

Within milliseconds, the new data causes market reaction—a move that can come the instant Thomson Reuters transmits the data to its elite group of traders. On May 17, for example, trading volume exploded in the Spider ETF at exactly 9:54:57.975. More than 100,000 shares traded hands in the first 10 milliseconds of the burst of activity, reports the analysis firm Nanex, LLC. Within 100 milliseconds, the price of SPY jumped from $165.90 to more than $166.06.

In the first half second of the trading burst, Nanex calculates that more than $40 million changed hands, just in the Spider ETF.

By 10 seconds into the event, more than $100 million had changed hands.

As for the University of Michigan, here is what they have to say.

The University of Michigan's arrangement with Thomson Reuters dates to 2007, said a university spokesman. "This is something that's been reviewed carefully," said university spokesman Rick Fitzgerald. "It's been in place for a number of years, and we think it complies with all the regulations." Fitzgerald said the total amount received by the university under the deal has been "very close" to a million dollars each year.

Asked why a taxpayer-financed university should sell data to Wall Street before it releases it to the taxpayers, Fitzgerald said: "Most of our research funding comes from private sources."

Disgusting, offensive, nauseating, no that really doesn’t describe the practice here.  But what you have is just another day of doing business in America, the financial manipulation business of course, not a real business where products are made or services are provided.  And the financial manipulation business major characteristic,  corrupting any and all that the investing business comes into contact with.

Fox News/Propaganda Is Losing You and Middle Age Voters – Resigns Sarah Palin

Desperate Times Calls for Desperate Measures

Fox News, Okay Fox Propaganda Channel has an audience that is dying.  The faux news network has gained substantial viewers, but just not in the age group where broadcast companies want to have substantial viewers.

Fox News maintained its dominant position atop the cable news leaderboard in May, posting its highest-rated month since last November in both Total Viewers and primetime. But despite double digit gains in Total Viewers, the network was down in the A25-54 demo for the month. . . . . . .

Fox News was the third most-watched network in all of cable in both primetime and Total Day. The network had the top 13 programs in cable news in Total Viewers and the top eight programs in A25-54 viewers.

Compared to the same month last year, Fox News was up +24% in Total Viewers and down -5% in the A25-54 demographic in Total Day. In primetime, the network was up +17% and down -6%, respectively.

What all this means of course is that the geezers, the ones rapidly losing their ability to think for themselves are flocking to Fox News, but that younger and middle age people, the people who matter in advertising demographics are catching on to what Fox News really is, which is not of course, News.

In a desperate attempt to remain relevant Fox News has signed a person who is in a desperate attempt to remain relevant.

Months after ending a sometimes tense working relationship, Sarah Palin and the Fox News Channel are back together.

Ms. Palin, the former Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential candidate, has returned to Fox News as a paid contributor, Roger Ailes, the channel’s chairman, announced on Thursday afternoon. Her first appearance will come Monday on “Fox and Friends,” the channel’s conservative morning show.

So for a week or two the regular news will report what Ms. Palin is saying as news, but the novelty will soon wear off  unless Ms. Palin goes all Michele Bachmann on us and tries to become so inflammatory and so ridiculously wrong that the media is again forced to pay attention to her.

In the meantime, everybody work on your cringing skills, you are going to need them.