Psst, Ben Carson, I gotta tip fer ya:
If you don’t want people thinking you’re equating “Obamacare” to slavery, homosexuality to bestiality, and a liberalizing culture to Nazi Germany, then, maaayyybe you shouldn’t, y’know, compare “Obamacare” to slavery, homosexuality to bestiality, and a liberalizing culture to Nazi Germany.
Just a thought.
I’ve banged on and on and on on the necessity of one law for all. Not this time.
In the interest of not repeating myself on purpose (I do enough of it by accident), I’m not going to outline yet again why broad religious exemptions from laws of general applicability are a bad idea, and simply jump to the conclusion: Religious institutions and their affiliates which hire and treat/educate/work with solely their fellow co-religionists? Fine: clear First Amendment exemption. Places of general accommodation? Nuh-uh.
Anyway, these proposed laws based on “sincerely-held religious beliefs” seem like a very bad idea for a very basic reason: who the hell is to determine what is a “sincerely held religious belief” and how is it to be determined?
Courts generally don’t want to have to deal with this, not least because they don’t want to be in the position of having a government body determining what is a religion, much less sincerely held beliefs about them. Yes, there are cases in which this occurs—conscientious objectors from the draft, IRS tax-exempt status, rights of prisoners—but beyond that, not so much.
More to the point, if I sue you for denial of service and you claim a s.h.r.b. defense, then my attorney is going to question you about your beliefs, how consistent you are in their application, your level of knowledge about your religion, and on an on. State legislators might think they’re handing you a get-out-of-court-free card, but if you get that card due solely to the sincerity of your belief, well then, that gives me incentive to challenge both the sincerity and the belief.
If you are in any way inconsistent—which is to say, human—it’s just possible that a jury of your peers will find that you don’t, in fact, believe what you say you believe. And even if you win, you and your beliefs will in the process have come under sustained official scrutiny.
It’s tough to see how that in any way advances the cause of religious liberty.
Let us compare two votes, shall we?
One authorizes war; another authorizes benefits* for veterans of war. How well do these votes match up?
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL, voted in favor of the Iraq War; Senator Jeff Sessions voted against benefits for veterans of war.
Senator Richard Shelby, R-Al, voted in favor of war; Senator Shelby voted against benefits
Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-AK, voted in favor of war; Senator Murkowski did not vote on benefits.
Representative Jeff Flake, R-AZ, voted in favor of war; Senator Flake voted against benefits.
Senator John McCain, R-AZ, voted in favor of war; Senator McCain voted against benefits.
Representative John Boozman, R-AR voted in favor of war; Senator Boozman voted against benefits.
Senator Bill Nelson, D-FL, voted in favor of war; Senator Nelson did not vote on benefits.
Representative Saxby Chambliss, R-GA, voted in favor of war; Senator Chambliss voted against benefits.
Representative John Isakson, R-GA, voted in favor of war; Senator Isakson voted against benefits.
Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID, voted in favor of war; Senator Crapo voted against benefits.
Representative Mark Kirk, R-IL, voted in favor of war; Senator Kirk voted against benefits.
Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA, voted in favor of war; Senator Grassley voted against benefits.
Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS, voted in favor of war; Senator Roberts voted against benefits.
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY, voted in favor of war; Senator McConnell voted against benefits.
Representative David Vitter, R-LA, voted in favor of war; Senator Vitter voted against benefits.
Senator Susan Collins, R-ME, voted in favor of war; Senator Collins voted against benefits.
Senator Thad Cochran, R-MS, voted in favor of war; Senator Cochran voted against benefits.
Representative Roger Wicker, R-MS, voted in favor of war; Senator Wicker did not vote on benefits.
Representative Roy Blunt, R-MO, voted in favor of war; Senator Blunt voted against benefits.
Representative Richard Burr, R-NC, voted in favor of war; Senator Burr voted against benefits.
Representative Rob Portman, R-OH, voted in favor of war; Senator Portman voted against benefits.
Senator Jim Inhofe, R-OK, voted in favor of war; Senator Inhofe voted against benefits.
Representative Pat Toomey, R-PA, voted in favor of war; Senator Toomey voted against benefits.
Representative Lindsay Graham, R-SC, voted in favor of war; Senator Graham voted against benefits.
Representative John Thune, R-SD, voted in favor of war; Senator Thune voted against benefits.
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT, voted in favor of war; Senator Hatch voted against benefits.
Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY, voted in favor of war; Senator Enzi voted against benefits.
Those who voted for the war and for benefits:
Those who voted against the war and for benefits:
If you don’t want to pay for the consequences of war, then DON’T VOTE FOR WAR.
And, goddammit, if we do go to war, then you pay to take care of those who fought the war.
Even soldiers in a stupid, shitty, pointless war deserve care.
*Technically, this was a cloture vote (requiring 60 votes to succeed), which is to say, a vote to stop a filibuster; voting yes on cloture would end debate and allow a majority vote on the legislation to proceed. The vote failed, 56-41.
~~~
According to Alan Fram of the Associated Press,
Republicans criticized how most of Sanders’ bill was paid for — with unspent money from the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the winding down of American military involvement in Afghanistan. The GOP says those are not real savings because no one expected those dollars to be spent as those wars ended.
I’d go back and see how many of these. . . statesmen voted in favor of war-time tax cuts, but I really don’t have the heart.
I’m still unwilling to weigh in in any sustained manner on the 2016 presidential race—let’s get thru the midterm elections first, shall we?—but I’m not not paying any attention whatsoever.
We’re at the stage that Jonathan Bernstein calls the “invisible primary”, when all of the action is behind-the-scenes and limited to a comparatively few people: potential candidates, fundraisers, high-level organizers and would-be staffers. If you’re not one of those folks, and if you’re not a political scientist, there’s no reason other than sheer cussedness (or masochism) to pay attention now.
Still, things do pop up. Or just plain ‘pop’.
I’m talking, of course, about Chris Christie.
I didn’t/don’t take him seriously as a 2016 candidate because I’m not taking anyone seriously: I’m not a part of the invisible primary and while I am a political scientist, American politics ain’t my field. Still, I’m not willing to poke out my eyes, so I have noticed one or two items about his possible candidacy.
I know some Dems were/are worried about him, but I think they were/are foolish to do so. It’s not that he wouldn’t be (or wouldn’t have been) a strong general-election candidate, but that the main work of shredding him would be performed by his fellow Republicans.
Yes, any decent Dem is going to do all of the opposition research and analysis, but chances are any dirt would be dug by the GOP, specifically, those who would run against Christie in the primary. Ted Cruz would be the one to ferret out corruption and Rand Paul would bring up issues of government spending; Rick Perry would talk about the difficulties of doing business in the Garden State and Scott Walker would hit him on union issues. And Rick Santorum. . . , well, christ, he’d do his Rick Santorum thing.
Could Christie make it through that gantlet?
I don’t know. It’s possible—primary voters have to pick the best available candidate, not the theoretically-best candidate—and it’s not as if Christie’s skills have suddenly disappeared. But his weaknesses have become manifest, and magnified, since the bridge scandal broke, and it’s not at all clear that his skills will be enough to overcome those problems.
Especially if his fellow Republicans insist upon drawing attention to those problems.
In the meantime, Christie’s problems shouldn’t matter to you if you’re not a) a New Jersey resident; b) an invisible-primary actor; c) a political scientist; or d) cussed and/or a masochist.
We now resume our regular programming.
I need a new conservative.
I’ve been reading Rod Dreher for years. He’s a “crunchy con”—localist, traditionalist, religious—and I’ve enjoyed him in about equal measure as he’s pissed me off.
Now, however, he just pisses me off (I’ll spare you the litany of why and how), so if I am not to retreat inside my leftist-commie-hippie-Brooklyn bubble, I need some fresh meat new columnist who with ideas and a viewpoint worth taking seriously.
Reihan Salam is probably worth a look, and maybe I’ll start reading First Things again. I already read Tyler Cowen regularly for the market-libertarian view (although I think Alex Tabarrok is an idiot), and stroll through Christianity Today a couple of times a week. I should probably add Front Porch Republic more regularly to the mix (tho’ those guys never use 10 words when 100 are available), and maybe there’s someone or two on Patheos who can expand my eyeballs.
What of conservative women who aren’t a) mere culture warriors or b) shills for the Republicans? Hm, anyone on Secular Right who’s particularly good?
I’m serious about all of this. I’m a leftist for all kinds of reasons, not least of which is that I think it’s the correct approach for understanding the world, but it ain’t the perfect approach, and I am liable to miss all kinds of things if I hold only to this view. I also don’t want to fall into mere warrior mode, and miss the fact that those who are conservative may also be funny and profound and share a taste in whisky, sci-fi, and assorted bad habits.
I had that with Dreher. I’ll keep reading him, as well as the other folks at American Conservative, but I am just. . . tired.
I need a new conservative.
Since I haven’t formally embargoed any and all 2016 presidential discussion. . . .
I have no idea if this bridge-bollixing will do any long-term damage to Chris Christie, but if I were a Republican operative working for, say, Ted Cruz or Rick Perry, I’d be paying very close attention to the goings-on on the other side of the Hudson River.
I’d have a lot more respect for this petition if the signers weren’t themselves sucking so hard on the juicy fruits of information on the internet that their cheeks are caved in.
Oh, and the fact they waited until this all became public knowledge—that is, when their customers found out—makes me think this is less a righteous stand for an open and free society than profit-saving CYA.
Still, message/messenger and all that: they ain’t wrong.
~~~
And I think Brendan Kiley (riffing off David Schmader) pretty much nails it: It is funny—the people who hold the power in any given situation tend to be the ones who behave the most fearfully.
See: Wall Street & its critics; Christians in the US & non-Christians (swap out Islam/Judaism/Hinduism as befits the particular society); MRAs and feminists; ad infinitum.
My only amendment to his statement would be that the people who believe only they should hold the power in any given situation. . . : in a decent political situation, it would be understood that one’s hold on power is of necessity temporary, and thus must be held lightly and confidently, not fearfully.
~~~
Ever since Bones killed off Pelant and Booth & Brennan got married, every fucking episode includes some sort of paean to their love/relationship/perfection for each other.
Tskghk.
Bones has become McMillan & Wife.
This makes no damned sense.
No, I’m not talking about ACA/Obamacare criticism—there are legitimate political questions about the size and role of government in the provision of the general welfare—but the notion that maternity care only benefits fertile women:
A “single male, age 32, does not need maternity coverage,” [Representative Renee] Ellmers said. […]
[…] Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, a former Mitt Romney adviser, asserted: “Having children is more a choice than a random act of nature. People who drive a new Porsche pay more for car insurance than those who drive an old Chevy …. Why isn’t having children viewed in the same way?”
[…] “My [Nicole Hopkins, writing in the Wall Street Journal] asked ‘Do I need maternity care at 52?'”
No, men don’t get pregnant, yes, having children is a choice, and no, most 52-year-old women do not need maternity care.
That is all irrelevant, however.
Garance Franke-Ruta concentrates on the empirical realities facing mothers in the US in her analysis of the anti-maternity care argument, but even that analysis is beside the point.
What is the point? Every single goddamned person who is and was ever on the planet was born to a woman, and was cared for by someone else—almost always the woman who gave birth. It is a basic condition of our existence.
There is no human life, no society, no politics, no world, without children being born and raised.
We do not exist without care.
Which is precisely fucking why maternity care affects us all, and ought to matter to us all. Goddammit all.
AbsurdBeats 