Thursday, July 31, 2014
Always a good read.
The population of the US could easily be doubled by such an influx without making a dent in the number of needy people all over the world. It should be obvious that the problems of oppressed people all over the world can't be solved by inviting them to move to the US. The consequences of such an inflow would be devastating to most Americans. The first victims would be those in the lowest income brackets, but the effects would be severe for all but the wealthy.
Advocates of opening our borders seem to ignore the fact that Americans are by no means immune to oppressive conditions. Many millions of Americans live in poverty, and are often menaced or attacked by hoodlums. E.g., the murder rate in Camden, NJ exceeds that of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. The kind-hearted people moved by the plight of the children now coming here seem to be forgetting about American children suffering in similar ways.
Back that Kickstarter, the man puts out some good stuff.
Vanishing bar update
Rodeo is no more, and the Ding Dong Lounge is gone tonight. I am running out of places to spend my time.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
In a 13-page statement responding to The Times’s questions, Mr. Cuomo’s office defended its handling of the commission. It said the commission was created by and reported to the governor, and therefore he could not be accused of interfering with it.So when the governor tells a commission to stop investigating corruption, that's to prevent a conflict of interest. Kind of like how AGs don't prosecute politicians and police officers who violate the law, to prevent conflicts of interest. Makes sense.
While he allowed the commission the independence to investigate whatever it wanted, the governor’s office said, it would have been a conflict for a panel he created to investigate his own administration.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Friday, July 11, 2014
Mark Shea points out that it's difficult to call yourself pro-life while simultaneously calling for the extermination of the browner children of the earth, and not providing any support for mothers who find themselves without a support network.
Melinda Selmys writes on the importance of understanding gender ideology, and the pastoral implications for trans types.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
A good obervation:
No doubt egged on by Justice Ginsburg’s own false claim in her dissent that the decision “would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage,” pro-abortion groups have accused the Court of preventing women from having access to birth control and of giving bosses the power to force their personal beliefs on their women employees. . . . In truth, the Court’s decision does not allow the Green family (Hobby Lobby’s owners) to impose their religious views on anyone, and it does not prevent any woman from obtaining contraception or abortion services. It only holds that an employer is not obligated to pay for those services directly out of their own funds, and then only if the employer is a closely held corporation whose owners have a sincerely held religious objection. That should hardly be controversial.And some humor:
My favorite: “My Jerk Boss Won’t Pay for My Groceries! I’m Going to Starve!” over at EagleRising.com, although a tweet from someone named Sean Davis is certainly a contender: “Get your politics out of my bedroom!” “Not a problem. I’m just going to grab my wallet before I leave.” “The wallet stays, bigot.”In other words, why is everyone so angry? What if I use my religious beliefs while running my business to start a potato chip factory instead of a more lucrative armaments factory, does that mean I'm imposing my religious beliefs on the local populace and depriving them of the higher salaries they would get by assembling guns? That is probably a non sequitur.
Thursday, July 03, 2014
For the first time, the New York Times calls for a strict textualist reading of the Constitution, and opposes a living Constitution
Sadly, they're talking about the constitution of Japan.
What stood in Mr. Abe’s way was Article 9 of the Constitution. It says the Japanese people “forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” Any change should have required a constitutional revision, which would mean winning two-thirds approval in both houses of Parliament, followed by a referendum. Instead, Mr. Abe circumvented that process by having his government reinterpret the Constitution.I think he got that move from us.
I have created a tumblr, for purposes unknown. I guess it never hurts to play with another blogging platform.
As another block of Houston gets lame. Never had a chance to run in there. Bah.