Saturday, June 30, 2012
Portman potential VP betrays us on Reconciliation. #tcot #tlot #teaparty
For Opponents of Health Care Law, No Easy Road to Repeal - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/us/politics/politics-and-popular-provisions-make-health-law-hard-to-erase.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper ....“You can’t get everywhere with reconciliation,” said Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, referring to the Congressional process that Democrats used, which allows certain budget measures to pass with 51 votes instead of the 60 that would be required to block a filibuster vote on a full repeal. “You will need to use other procedures,” he said. He added later: “We may get a majority. But we will need to work with the other side.”. RRD:This is a lie.
It was passed through Reconciliation & it can be repealed through Reconciliation.
The only way it could not is if the Democrats changed the rules and Repblicans refused to change them back.
That or Republicans want to keep some "goodies" in the bill.
It was passed through Reconciliation & it can be repealed through Reconciliation.
The only way it could not is if the Democrats changed the rules and Repblicans refused to change them back.
That or Republicans want to keep some "goodies" in the bill.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Did a PJM columnist just float a trial balloon for a #RINO sellout? #tcot #tlot #teaparty
RRD:He is just speculating?
Based on what?
All the evidence indicates that it would be political suicide for Republicans to not campaign on repealing Obamacare(at least that MUST be part of their platform.). Where is the evidence that people think that this is over? Or that the loss of those voters would outweigh the collapse of support for the GOP among those who do demand a repeal?
Or will Moran tell us that we must "be reasonable" & drop the demand to repeal Obamacare to get the Independents? I may be misjudging Moran but this smacks of appeasement. The PJ Tatler » Did President Obama Just Win Re-Election? http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/28/did-president-obama-just-win-re-election/
..."Despite the unpopularity of the individual mandate, certain elements of Obamacare that were upheld are very popular. Forcing insurance companies to accept those with pre -existing conditions, the expansion of Medicaid, insurance subsidies for most Americans, and reducing out of pocket costs for drugs by seniors all enjoyed a majority of support in polls. People also like the idea of getting goodies from the federal government. You can bet that the Obama campaign will hit these points hard in the coming months, reminding voters who is responsible for providing them with such largess."...
..."There may be some backlash against Republicans in continuing their agitation for repeal of Obamacare. There are many voters who might believe that now that the Supreme Court has spoken, we should move on from this debate and that Republican advocacy for repeal could be seen as more partisan politics than standing on principle."....
Based on what?
All the evidence indicates that it would be political suicide for Republicans to not campaign on repealing Obamacare(at least that MUST be part of their platform.). Where is the evidence that people think that this is over? Or that the loss of those voters would outweigh the collapse of support for the GOP among those who do demand a repeal?
Or will Moran tell us that we must "be reasonable" & drop the demand to repeal Obamacare to get the Independents? I may be misjudging Moran but this smacks of appeasement. The PJ Tatler » Did President Obama Just Win Re-Election? http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/28/did-president-obama-just-win-re-election/
..."Despite the unpopularity of the individual mandate, certain elements of Obamacare that were upheld are very popular. Forcing insurance companies to accept those with pre -existing conditions, the expansion of Medicaid, insurance subsidies for most Americans, and reducing out of pocket costs for drugs by seniors all enjoyed a majority of support in polls. People also like the idea of getting goodies from the federal government. You can bet that the Obama campaign will hit these points hard in the coming months, reminding voters who is responsible for providing them with such largess."...
..."There may be some backlash against Republicans in continuing their agitation for repeal of Obamacare. There are many voters who might believe that now that the Supreme Court has spoken, we should move on from this debate and that Republican advocacy for repeal could be seen as more partisan politics than standing on principle."....
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Does the government have the right to prohibit real or imagined lies,even when no fraud is involved? #tcot #tlot
RRD:The Stolen Valor act signed into law by George W.Bush,makes it a crime to falsely claim that you served in the military.Apparently this is the case even if no fraud (financial gain) was involved and even if it is not for the purpose of espionage or sabotage. While I find these liars despicable,I find many things despicable,the fact that I regard something as despicable does not mean that the government should prohibit it,or that it has the right to do so. The case is coming before the Supreme Court.Alvarez is the name of the person challenging the law(he is one of those who boasted of medals they have not earned). Stolen Valor is Offensive, But Is It A Crime? « JONATHAN TURLEY
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/03/09/stolen-valor-is-offensive-but-is-it-a-crime/ ”The federal court of appeals in San Francisco ruled in his favor in two separate opinions. Now the case will go to the Supreme Court, where the Obama administration will argue that the First Amendment does not protect lies as it does true statements. Under this logic, Congress would be able to criminalize statements solely because they are lies, alleging some type of amorphous social harm. ”....
RRD:I am not a lawyer & have not read the briefs,but if Mr.Turley is correct then this has ramifications that go far beyond whether someone can falsely claim to be soldier.
What is equally bizarre is the contention of some of the bill's supporters that men who risk death(or die)do so for the sake of medals.A claim that flies in the face of the overt statements of many medal awardees.
....”Supporters of the bill insist that prosecutions are needed to maintain the value and dignity of our military citations.The Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation has taken this argument one step further in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court. It says these medals are not just recognitions of heroism but the very inducement for heroism. It chastised the federal court for its “lack of appreciation” when the court said it was insulting to suggest that heroes are motivated by the desire for medals. The foundation insisted that heroes do seek these medals in risking their lives, curiously citing the tradition of Roman generals giving spears and cups to soldiers who distinguished themselves in battle.”....
RRD:First I agree that it is unjust and insulting for those who have not earned these medals to claim to have won them it is no more so than to write editorials that insult our soldiers and denounce them as rapists and murderers,something which I believe is protected speech and should remain protected speech.
Second while it is certainly true that men--particularly young men-- often join the military with visions of "glory" in their heads,such notions are quickly disabused by military service. There is heroism in military service,there is nobility,but there is little of the green recruit's vision of "glory".And if you have reached the point where you are worthy of receiving a medal you most likely have more pressing things on your mind then medals:things like keeping your bleeding friends alive,while holding off the enemy. This is harrowing and nightmarish. It is not some kind of game show where people win prizes. Most likely the soldier wishes that he had never been put in that kind of nightmarish position.
We give medals because it is just and right to honor the service and valor of men,not because such valor would not exist without the medals. In fairness to the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation
,perhaps they knew that this argument made no sense,but wanted to "cover all the bases" to ensure that the bill is upheld,and were motivated by concern for the memory of the dead and living awardees.
A previous post by Mr.Turley is below. The Better Part of Valor: Should Lying About Medals Be A Crime? « JONATHAN TURLEY http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/19/lying-about-receiving-a-medal-of-honor-its-shameful-but-it-shouldnt-be-a-crime/
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/03/09/stolen-valor-is-offensive-but-is-it-a-crime/ ”The federal court of appeals in San Francisco ruled in his favor in two separate opinions. Now the case will go to the Supreme Court, where the Obama administration will argue that the First Amendment does not protect lies as it does true statements. Under this logic, Congress would be able to criminalize statements solely because they are lies, alleging some type of amorphous social harm. ”....
RRD:I am not a lawyer & have not read the briefs,but if Mr.Turley is correct then this has ramifications that go far beyond whether someone can falsely claim to be soldier.
What is equally bizarre is the contention of some of the bill's supporters that men who risk death(or die)do so for the sake of medals.A claim that flies in the face of the overt statements of many medal awardees.
....”Supporters of the bill insist that prosecutions are needed to maintain the value and dignity of our military citations.The Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation has taken this argument one step further in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court. It says these medals are not just recognitions of heroism but the very inducement for heroism. It chastised the federal court for its “lack of appreciation” when the court said it was insulting to suggest that heroes are motivated by the desire for medals. The foundation insisted that heroes do seek these medals in risking their lives, curiously citing the tradition of Roman generals giving spears and cups to soldiers who distinguished themselves in battle.”....
RRD:First I agree that it is unjust and insulting for those who have not earned these medals to claim to have won them it is no more so than to write editorials that insult our soldiers and denounce them as rapists and murderers,something which I believe is protected speech and should remain protected speech.
Second while it is certainly true that men--particularly young men-- often join the military with visions of "glory" in their heads,such notions are quickly disabused by military service. There is heroism in military service,there is nobility,but there is little of the green recruit's vision of "glory".And if you have reached the point where you are worthy of receiving a medal you most likely have more pressing things on your mind then medals:things like keeping your bleeding friends alive,while holding off the enemy. This is harrowing and nightmarish. It is not some kind of game show where people win prizes. Most likely the soldier wishes that he had never been put in that kind of nightmarish position.
We give medals because it is just and right to honor the service and valor of men,not because such valor would not exist without the medals. In fairness to the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation
,perhaps they knew that this argument made no sense,but wanted to "cover all the bases" to ensure that the bill is upheld,and were motivated by concern for the memory of the dead and living awardees.
A previous post by Mr.Turley is below. The Better Part of Valor: Should Lying About Medals Be A Crime? « JONATHAN TURLEY http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/19/lying-about-receiving-a-medal-of-honor-its-shameful-but-it-shouldnt-be-a-crime/
Tehran's Vice President: Zionists behind drug trade #iranelections #jcot
More UN Anti-Semitism From Iran « Commentary Magazine
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/27/more-united-nations-anti-semitism-from-iran-drug-conference/ ....”The “Zionists” are in firm control of the illegal drug trade, Mr. Rahimi said,..... “The Islamic Republic of Iran will pay for anybody who can research and find one single Zionist who is an addict,” Mr. Rahimi said. “They do not exist. This is the proof of their involvement in drugs trade.” Mr. Rahimi … told stories of gynecologists’ killing black babies on the orders of the Zionists and claimed that the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was started by Jews, adding that mysteriously no Jews died in that uprising. He also said the Talmud teaches Jews to think they are a superior race. “They think God has created the world so that all other nations can serve them,” he said. Halfway through his speech, Mr. Rahimi said there was a difference between Jews who “honestly follow the prophet Moses” and the Zionists who are “the main elements of the international drug trade.”
RRD:Though I am secular,(& not a scholar)I wish to point out that this claim that the Jews regard themselves as being "racially superior" is false and a lie long promoted by anti-semites.
Judaism does not espouse the idea that ”the nations of the world” exist to serve Jews.The closest Jewish tradition comes to that belief,is the statement about such and such a pagan enemy being defeated and becoming God's "footstool" that, plus the statement that ”your enemies shall serve you”.(Presumably through compensation & reparations,as the Egyptians gave the Jews riches as they made their exodus)
But it is clear that,that statement is in reference to the idolatrous oppressors of the Jews--who sought their destruction--and is not in reference to a idea that the ”nations of the world” exist to serve Jews. As to the distortion of the term ”The Chosen People”,in truth, this term refers to the Covenant with Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.
The Covenant states that since Abraham alone worshipped the one true God,God will reward Abraham's descendents,the Jews(and converts to Judaism) if they are virtuous( & ”keep his commandments”),and punish them if they are sinful (”and don't keep his commandments”),but he will never permit Abraham's "seed" (his descendents,& converts & their descendents) to perish from off the earth.He may permit some to die, due to their immorality,but not all.
But he does not let immorality go unpunished.
Further evidence that it is absurd to say that Judaism espouses the idea that Jews are innately superior by their blood,irrespective of their piety,can be found in the fact that anyone can convert to Judaism. People who convert to Judaism:such as Ruth,and Moses' adopted mother(the Pharaoh's daughter)Bithiah,become Jews. According to Jewish tradition (in the
Aggadah,the part of the Talmud dealing with narrative),Bithiah became a Jew,and married Caleb,and was one of the few people permitted to enter heaven while still alive.
Ruth for her part was the ancestor of King David,(and thereby according to Jewish tradition),the ancestor of the Messiah. Given that two people who were not of Jewish ancestry became so highly regarded in Judaism how can Judaism be said to espouse racial supremacy.
It is true that a pious Jew is regarded as being morally superior to a non-Jew,or to a sinful Jew, but Christianity and Islam hold similiar views about pious Christians and pious Muslims respectively. I say all this--again--not to advocate for Judaism,or any religion,but to debunk a slander against the Jewish people.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/27/more-united-nations-anti-semitism-from-iran-drug-conference/ ....”The “Zionists” are in firm control of the illegal drug trade, Mr. Rahimi said,..... “The Islamic Republic of Iran will pay for anybody who can research and find one single Zionist who is an addict,” Mr. Rahimi said. “They do not exist. This is the proof of their involvement in drugs trade.” Mr. Rahimi … told stories of gynecologists’ killing black babies on the orders of the Zionists and claimed that the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was started by Jews, adding that mysteriously no Jews died in that uprising. He also said the Talmud teaches Jews to think they are a superior race. “They think God has created the world so that all other nations can serve them,” he said. Halfway through his speech, Mr. Rahimi said there was a difference between Jews who “honestly follow the prophet Moses” and the Zionists who are “the main elements of the international drug trade.”
RRD:Though I am secular,(& not a scholar)I wish to point out that this claim that the Jews regard themselves as being "racially superior" is false and a lie long promoted by anti-semites.
Judaism does not espouse the idea that ”the nations of the world” exist to serve Jews.The closest Jewish tradition comes to that belief,is the statement about such and such a pagan enemy being defeated and becoming God's "footstool" that, plus the statement that ”your enemies shall serve you”.(Presumably through compensation & reparations,as the Egyptians gave the Jews riches as they made their exodus)
But it is clear that,that statement is in reference to the idolatrous oppressors of the Jews--who sought their destruction--and is not in reference to a idea that the ”nations of the world” exist to serve Jews. As to the distortion of the term ”The Chosen People”,in truth, this term refers to the Covenant with Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.
The Covenant states that since Abraham alone worshipped the one true God,God will reward Abraham's descendents,the Jews(and converts to Judaism) if they are virtuous( & ”keep his commandments”),and punish them if they are sinful (”and don't keep his commandments”),but he will never permit Abraham's "seed" (his descendents,& converts & their descendents) to perish from off the earth.He may permit some to die, due to their immorality,but not all.
But he does not let immorality go unpunished.
Further evidence that it is absurd to say that Judaism espouses the idea that Jews are innately superior by their blood,irrespective of their piety,can be found in the fact that anyone can convert to Judaism. People who convert to Judaism:such as Ruth,and Moses' adopted mother(the Pharaoh's daughter)Bithiah,become Jews. According to Jewish tradition (in the
Aggadah,the part of the Talmud dealing with narrative),Bithiah became a Jew,and married Caleb,and was one of the few people permitted to enter heaven while still alive.
Ruth for her part was the ancestor of King David,(and thereby according to Jewish tradition),the ancestor of the Messiah. Given that two people who were not of Jewish ancestry became so highly regarded in Judaism how can Judaism be said to espouse racial supremacy.
It is true that a pious Jew is regarded as being morally superior to a non-Jew,or to a sinful Jew, but Christianity and Islam hold similiar views about pious Christians and pious Muslims respectively. I say all this--again--not to advocate for Judaism,or any religion,but to debunk a slander against the Jewish people.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
How would Tehran respond to a strike on its nuclear program? #irannuclear #jcot
After an Israeli Strike on Iran :: Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/11528/israeli-strike-on-iran ...”Michael Eisenstadt and Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy,.... provide an excellent guide to possible scenarios in "Beyond Worst -Case Analysis: Iran's Likely Responses to an Israeli Preventive Strike."... RRD:I am less sanguine than Pipes and Eisenstadt,and Knights.However ,I am less sanguine for precisely the same reason that would lead me to support a strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities as a last resort:I think that deterrence will not work.
That said,Pipes is correct when he notes the peculiar ”reasoning” of some who argue that Israel & the U.S. can ”live with” a nuclear armed Tehran:A Tehran with a nuclear bomb is deterrable,a Tehran without one will go berserk if struck.
Why the supposedly "rational” & ”non-nuclear seeking" Mullahs would wage a all out war over their being denied a ”peaceful” nuclear program is never adequately explained. There are no good options here. Only different levels & types of dangers.
A note:In case the above was unclear,I believe a military strike may be necessary as a LAST RESORT,should efforts at sabotage fail. Let me add that I am speaking of a military strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities,NOT a ground invasion,which I oppose.
http://www.danielpipes.org/11528/israeli-strike-on-iran ...”Michael Eisenstadt and Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy,.... provide an excellent guide to possible scenarios in "Beyond Worst -Case Analysis: Iran's Likely Responses to an Israeli Preventive Strike."... RRD:I am less sanguine than Pipes and Eisenstadt,and Knights.However ,I am less sanguine for precisely the same reason that would lead me to support a strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities as a last resort:I think that deterrence will not work.
That said,Pipes is correct when he notes the peculiar ”reasoning” of some who argue that Israel & the U.S. can ”live with” a nuclear armed Tehran:A Tehran with a nuclear bomb is deterrable,a Tehran without one will go berserk if struck.
Why the supposedly "rational” & ”non-nuclear seeking" Mullahs would wage a all out war over their being denied a ”peaceful” nuclear program is never adequately explained. There are no good options here. Only different levels & types of dangers.
A note:In case the above was unclear,I believe a military strike may be necessary as a LAST RESORT,should efforts at sabotage fail. Let me add that I am speaking of a military strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities,NOT a ground invasion,which I oppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
