I may have posted this before.
No matter. It still applies.
A city boy will never learn everything a country boy knows by instinct. A country boy will learn everything a city boy knows in six months.
I may have posted this before.
No matter. It still applies.
A letter to the editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer skillfully skewers the fallacious and immoral right-wing subterfuge that any old bozo behind a counter should be allowed to run your life because he or she doesn’t like
how you live it that you use birth control and might have a sex life.*
The pharmacist takes a look at you and at your prescription, and refuses to fill it.
Is it expired, or maybe you’re out of refills?
No, the prescription is valid and current. But the pharmacist has decided that your Type II diabetes is something you brought on yourself, and because of his deeply held moral and religious objection to the sin of gluttony, he doesn’t have to serve you.
Do read the rest.
*Have you noticed that, when the right-wing brings floats this argument, it is always about products that work only with female physiology?
You don’t hear them arguing that morality demands that pharmacists and store clerks refuse to sell condoms to men.
Because condoms are only “for the prevention of disease,” if I remember the wording on the notices I used to see on vending machines in men’s rooms when I was a young ‘un and didn’t know what they meant. Or wild oats. Or something.
Or maybe it’s just the skeevy Republican preoccupation with lady bits.
Persons who have health insurance don’t want you to have health insurance.
Dissing the poors. It’s a Republican thing.
Juanita Jean assesses Rand Paul, serial plagiarist:
Details at the link.
Noz adds a lawyer’s perspective.
“Anti-regulation” Republicans attempt to regulate wind energy out of business.
My friend and I were talking yesterday about what it would be like to have no heat when the temperature is in the 20s and you have no fireplaces or other sources of heat and, likely, because of frozen pipes, no water. I don’t want to imagine.
I used to live on the Main Line, where it seems all cold Hell is breaking lose. It really was a nice place to live; I feel for the persons freezing in their dwellings.
But I have been made cynical, I guess because I pay attention.
When I read this story, all I could think was that here’s yet another wingnut governor who decries the evul fedrul guvmint except when his hand is out.
Not nice people.
In the Roanoke Times, Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein points out three major issues with Constitutional “originalism,” the theory the U. S. Constitution should be interpreted as if the horse were still the primary mode of transportation and outhouses the primary sanitation device. Here’s the first:
Originalists contend that their approach is best because it reduces the discretion of judges, stabilizes the legal system and ensures that the Constitution’s meaning is settled by the judgments of We the People, who ratified its provisions. Scalia argues that originalists help to produce a “rock-solid, unchanging” Constitution – and that if the document reflects the views of people long dead, well, that’s fine, because those who are living are always free to amend it.
It seems like an appealing argument, but it faces three objections. The first is historical. Did those who ratified the Constitution embrace originalism? If not, originalism turns out to be self-contradictory, because the original understanding rejected originalism as Scalia and Thomas understand it.
Sunstein is charitable to treat originalism as a subject of polite discourse.
It is, at its origination and in its manifestation, an intellectual scam, a pretty theory to give legitimacy to those who would return our social structures to status quo ante bellum (and you know to which bellum I refer).
You can’t make this stuff up (emphasis added).
Republican Rep. Gordon Denlinger, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy, an elder in the Zeltenreich Reformed Church of New Holland, Pa., is circulating a memo seeking co-sponsors for his effort.
“Specifically, I plan to propose a new section in Article I – the Pennsylvania ‘bill of rights’ – that will prohibit government from punishing an individual or entity if the individual or entity makes hiring or other employment decisions, or provides services, accommodations (including housing accommodations), advantages, facilities, goods or privileges based on sincerely held beliefs,” the memo says.
When I grew up in the Jim Crow South, I knew many folks who made “hiring or other employment decisions, or provide(d) services, accommodations (including housing accommodations), advantages, facilities, goods or privileges” based on sincerely held beliefs–beliefs that they had the God-given right to lord it over darkies, wimmens, and any one else who was not a white folk like them.
Folks who think like that were bigots then, they are bigots now, and they will be bigots tomorrow.
These are folks who put the “sin” in sincerity.
Charles Krauthammer clutches his pearls because President Obama “never had his heart in the Afghanistan War.”
Why the hell should he?
It was George the Worst’s War, and he blew it. In the process of not getting Osama bin Laden, he sent hundreds of Americans and thousands of Afghanis to useless, pointless death (and put First Son in harm’s way).
Nevertheless, what Krauthammer and his fellows most want is for you to forget that George the Worst ever happened. Even more than that, they want you to forget that Krauthammer, Cal Thomas, David Brooks, and their like spent eight years trying to convince you that George the Worst was the greatest thinker since Socrates.
Why these folks have not been expelled from my local rag’s editorial pages escapes me. I guess that, once you whore yourself out for wingnut welfare, you are fixed for life.
Right-wing hacks: Always wrong, never penalized.
And, yes, I’m fed up. Fed up that intellectual incompetence seems to be a job requirement for “conservative” political columnists.
They are not nice people.