So, like, you know.
Anyway, here’s the scoop. My wife and I decided we needed more space, part of which is because my wife wants her mother to move here from Utah to live with us and her grand kids. We were able to find a wonderful house, which breaks ground sometime in the next couple weeks, that should be finished by August or September.
Fortunately, the house is only about 3 minutes from our current home, and is actually closer to Satchel’s school (though a bit farther away from wrestling practice, which right now is essentially at the entrance to our subdivision). The only downside is, we wanted a specific cul-de-sac lot which were told wasn’t going to be released for another couple of years, so as we were preparing to walk away and find something else, we were shocked (as was the sales rep for the neighborhood build) that the builders agreed to release the lot to us.
Which meant we had to move quickly and sign the contract about a month or two before we wanted to.
So it’s going to be belt-tightening time around here — already, the armored rat has reluctantly agreed that he can live without Grey Goose and that his margaritas can do without Grand Mariner — and any contributions you make will help us out going forward, especially now that PayPal and the Obama IRS considers your gifts as income and not largess.
Thanks to all who’ve contributed and continue to contribute. Between coaching and some side work I’m doing for extra cash, blogging is not as easy as it used to be. But I will soldier on so long as you all soldier on with me.
What else, after all, is there to do?
The post-racial President with the great pant crease and the faculty lounge argot in action:
The unemployment rate for black teens, ages 16 to 19, was 32.4% in February, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), whose data also show that only 24.9% of black youth are participating in the nation’s labor force.
The participation rate for black youth has decreased from 26.4% in January to 24.9% in February, a decrease of 1.5 percentage points. The rate has not been this low since January 2012 when it was 24.8%.
When President Obama took office in January 2009, the work-force participation rate for this group was 29.6%, which means the rate of decline — from 29.6% to 24.9% — was 15.8%.
The black youth unemployment rate for ages 16-19 is 32.4%, which is 383.6% higher than the national unemployment rate, of 6.7%.
The unemployment rate is the percentage of people in the labor force who do not have a job. To be in the labor force a person must either have a job or actively sought one in the last four weeks.
Okay, sure. Employment rates are down. And participation rates are down. But just think how an Executive order that sets wages — a mandatory minimum wage increase — will help black teens and youth, who will be competing against workers with prior experience, or who come from schools outside the “charter school”-free zones Obama has erected around so many of the least effective public school zones in the country, many in predominantly minority areas!
– That is, if he couples it with an Executive order demanding businesses hire black teens and youth — something the Supreme Court we’re now stuck with might actually uphold as part of an add on to Bakke. Which, would any of that really surprise anyone — particularly if the President and the media decided to cast any such executive order as a measure for “fairness” that helps overcome “racial-makeup inequality” in the work force and creates the social justice that comes from “employment redistribution”?
And would John Roberts be able to resist looking at how his Court’s legacy would be gilded by such a bit of social engineering?
Ah, don’t you just love sneering, self-styled multiculturalists who, when it comes down to brass tacks, are about as fair-minded, non-judgmental, and accurate in their internalized caricatures as was, say, Hitler? Or for you Godwin’s Law adepts, at least John Kerry testifying about his fellow American soldiers?
Fortunately, the comments are hilarious — and go a long way toward showing that Americans still have a sense of humor, about themselves, sure, but also (thankfully) against these pompous, whinging, effete Europeans, with their condescension and entitled temperaments forged in the daunting crucible of socialism and what can best be described as an ironic work ethic.
Plus, croissants. I mean, game over, right?
I’m just speculating, but it probably would have been something along the lines of this: instead of just calling ourselves TEA Partiers, I think it’s time we gather together a million or two disgusted citizens angry at the politicization of the IRS, which is now one of the police arms of the progressive left’s soft coup, and dump a bunch of real tea into the Potomac.
But we’ll make it free range green tea — made from nothing but self-sufficient wild herbs and harvested by wind gusts that carry the foliage to the edge of some reclaimed wood retaining wall inside a San Francisco commune — just to watch some heads explode.
Short of that, I guess we can always just curse, turn over, and go back to sleep. Which is what I did today.
Because why the hell not?
Hey, isn’t that Facebook guy one of the investors behind the whole “conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform” movement?
Guess that means the “new conservatism,” in addition to promoting cheap labor at the expense of an already depleted job market; and creating new Democratic voting constituencies to turn, by design, red states into purple states into blue states into welfare states, is now for suppression of speech targeted at those who haven’t broken any laws.
And of course, removing social issues from campaigns, while pandering to ethnic pressure groups.
Racialist politics. It’s tedious. It’s predictable. It’s ugly.
And what makes it so ugly is that it diminishes the depravity of real racism by diluting it with phony indictments and trivializing it with ridiculous and insupportable claims aimed at non-racists. To wit:
A debate Tuesday over a bill to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected turned to race after Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, compared her bill to Brown vs. the Board of Education.But during the debate, Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, said that his Republican colleagues would support abortion if their daughters were impregnated by black men.
“Ninety-nine percent of the all of the white people in here are going to raise their hand that they are against abortion,” he said. “On the other hand, 99 percent of the whites who are sitting in here now, if their daughter got pregnant by a black man, they are going to make their daughter have an abortion.”
That this tactic — opportunistic and cynical as it is — is now used by so many blacks, who not so long ago had to fight white southern Democrats over real racialist policy before they joined their party, makes it all the more appalling. And all the more tragic.
A note to Rep Holmes: it wasn’t Republicans who were turning fire hoses on you, or promoting segregation, or fighting tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act. So if you’re in the mood to cast around for those who might find race-mixing worthy of infanticide, you might want to dig up old Margaret Sanger, or Bull Connor, or even Robert Byrd, and Al Gore Sr, and Fulbright, et al., and hash it out with them.
They’d almost have to listen, out of courtesy. Your being a contemporary representative of their party, and a race-baiter, to boot.
Or, “the buck stops there.”
Convenient. But hardly enough. I’m telling you, the GOP establishment would be exposed as complicit — either by commission or omission — in any serious independent investigation. Which is why we will never get one.
We’ll get a few sacrificial lambs. And then be told justice was served. So it’s time to Move On and Shut Up, or else risk being “unhelpful” yet again.
This is who they all are. This is what they all do.
But honestly, can there really be that many people left who this is fooling?
I’d like to launch this post with a shortish monograph on how, per intentionalism, the very idea that by altering the law what Obama is doing is creating an entirely new text, not “reinterpreting” and existing text to allow it to incorporate all his changes — and by so doing, point out once again that the way we believe language operates is crucial to how we allow laws to function and control us — but that would just bore you, and we’d have to end up talking about egrets and thin-skinned elderly black men barking at unconsciously racist kids calling their dogs. So instead I’ll just go with the specifics:
The Obama administration is set to announce another major delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act, easing election pressure on Democrats. As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements. Prolonging the “keep your plan” fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall. The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day. The White House is intent on protecting its allies in the Senate, where Democrats face a battle to keep control of the chamber…Allowing insurers to continue offering noncompliant health plans for several years would substantially alter the health insurance landscape under ObamaCare. It would also undercut one rationale for the healthcare reform law. Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans are required to offer 10 medical benefits that the Obama administration deems essentia
The Hill is clearly correct that his move is aimed at providing nervous Congressional Democrats with a fig leaf on Obamacare. Its analysis that this extended “fix” will “avoid another wave” of cancellations isn’t quite accurate, though. This maneuver will mitigate the next wave for some Americans, but many won’t be granted a reprieve from Democrats’ broken promise. A bipartisan group of state insurance commissioners and Attorneys General rejected this “keep your plan” band aid when it was first proposed by Obama, calling it unworkable and/or illegal. Health insurance companies prepared for years to offer plans that complied with Obamacare’s new rules — and those rules haven’t been altered or repealed. The administration has essentially said that they simply won’t enforce them for a little bit longer. Just long enough, in fact, for some Americans to dodge cancellation notices scheduled for this coming fall. The pain will still come; it’s just been pushed back a bit for some consumers.
Another important reminder is that Moody’s credit agency downgraded the health insurance industry in January, citing the endless cycle of policy uncertainty caused by destabilizing political delays and “fixes.” This turmoil may compel some companies to pull out of certain markets, and will almost certainly contribute to premium increases. Those who are covered by this “keep your plan” stay of execution will be allowed to maintain their “sub-standard” (in the White House’s eyes) coverage, which entails fewer mandates and costs less. Insurers who do scramble to keep these plans intact are (a) spending resources to do so and (b) are taking a revenue hit as a result. Under Obamacare’s model, these people are supposed to pay more to offset the new costs of insuring high-risk consumers with pre-existing conditions. Rather than absorb those new costs — profit margins are tight — they will be passed down and spread out across other consumers in the form of higher premiums or out-of-pocket expenses.
Ultimately, though, this gambit isn’t about health coverage, helping people or righting wrongs. It’s about handing Democrats across the country a thin reed of an excuse when the next batch of cancellations hit. “The president tried to make this right, but some states and greedy insurers refused to go along with this fix for the American people,” they’ll try to argue. This is bogus, and I strongly suspect it won’t work. This administration wrote these rules in such a way that they knew tens of millions of people would lose their existing coverage, contra Obama’s repeated promises. Republicans saw this problem coming years ago and offered a legislative correction to keep the pledge back in 2010. Democrats voted in lock-step to kill it. The catalyst behind the president’s quasi-apology and “fix” idea was a ripple of abject panic among Democrats, who were getting pummeled by terrible headlines last fall. Many began to float freelance ideas to change Obamacare, several of which would have deeply undermined the law’s viability. Obama’s cobbled-together plan was pure damage control. The forthcoming extension is round two of said damage control. It’s that simple. And why am I confident that it won’t move the needle much? One of the Democrats who’s been leaning on this Obama-crafted excuse is Sen. Kay Hagan, whose approval rating has tanked into the low-30′s, with Obamacare submerged in unpopularity among her state’s voters. In other words, she’s been clinging to this lifeline for months and it hasn’t helped her. The president, meanwhile, is mocking Republicans. Why, when he so generously tries to “improve” Obamacare, the GOP calls him a tyrant, those hypocritical ingrates:
He’s being smirkingly obtuse on purpose. Republicans are leveling two separate objections here: First, that Obamacare isn’t working and needs to be changed and repealed, and second, that Obama is overstepping his authority by simply decreeing unilateral changes to a duly-passed piece of legislation. His administration has made one alteration after another, several of which have been deemed legally dubious by legal scholars and media types alike. Indeed, when the House passed a bill to delay the law’s employer mandate (which Obama has now done twice, single-handedly), the White House threatened a veto.
This is always the way of the left: try to sneer off and ironize away the “hyperbolic” nature of the charges against them. Is Obama dressed in fatigues and sporting a Saddam ‘stache? Is he speaking from balconies?
No. So how can he be a tyrant?
Typically, they go for form over function, perception over reality, and expect us all to play along — marking those of us who don’t as throwbacks or constitutional fetishists. You know, students and adherents of the Enlightenment rather than Gramsci, et al.
But the truth is, from both a constitutional, separation of powers perspective — as well as from the linguistic perspective that I’ve pointed out repeatedly gives cover to this kind of lawlessness and creative rewriting of statutes that deconstruct original legislative intent — this is the very definition of dictatorship. That it has the support of a Senate that has worked to cede its power to the Executive, and a Court whose Chief Justice cares more about comity and his “legacy” as it will be written up by the New York Times, is immaterial.
That just means we have, as part of our governmental class, a cabal of ruling elites who have decided to use the law against us.
But we are a representative government. And just because the Courts have decided that the 9th and 10th Amendments don’t hold legal sway does not mean we need accept that. Rather, it means we need to reform the courts and to reaffirm the sovereignty of the states and individuals.
This “law” is clearly being used to benefit some and not others. On its face, that makes equality before the law — a foundational principle of our republic — into a kind of passe joke.
We shouldn’t accept it.
But I’ll shut up now, because I’m having the urge to move into egret talk again. And, you know, wouldn’t want to be caught with the clown nose on…
Congrats to Satch, who took home “Grappler of the Year” at tonight’s Wrestling Awards banquet. He’s been fortunate to have some great coaching over the past couple years, from Joey Gardner to Sonny Yohn (Div I All-American, U of Minn) to Leister Bowling, himself a UFC grappling coach, coach on “The Ultimate Fighter,” and former 3-time State Champion and Colorado State record holder for wins and take downs.
And of course me, some dude who learned a whole lot from Tony Cecchine, who is still the toughest man I’ve ever met.
Great job Satch and great job Warriors — whose 10 and under squad, which I was fortunate enough to help coach this year, took 3rd place in the All-State Team Awards!
Student’s claim of being assaulted at school was “made up.” Discipline? Suspension?
Heaven Mythical afterlife place forbid!
A transgender teenager who said he was beaten and sexually assaulted in a California high school bathroom recanted the story, police said Tuesday.
The 15-year-old student at Hercules Middle/High School “admitted he fabricated the whole story” during an interview with a detective, Hercules police Detective Connie Van Putten said. [...]
The change left open the possibility that the teen could be charged with making a false criminal report, she said.
Mario Trujillo, spokesman for the West Contra Costa Unified School District, said school officials are less concerned with punishing the student than making sure he gets the support he needs to feel safe and comfortable at school. [...]
“There is still an important piece of the story, which is that trans youth do face elevated levels of bullying and violence including physical assaults at school,” said Carolyn Laub, executive director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network. “Even if this particular story isn’t true, the school’s response, to put in place plans for bringing the community together and addressing school safety and climate, is a good outcome.”
Oh where have we heard that Fake but Accurate meme before?
While the poor wittle hoaxer teen-girl-who-”identifies”-as-boy is being cosseted by such an enlightened school administration, an actual ten-year boy is suspended three days for the crime of not realizing his finger is a verbotten firearm
A central Ohio principal says she suspended a 10-year-old boy from school for three days for pretending his finger was a gun and pointing it at another student’s head.
The boy’s father says he thinks it’s the adults who are acting childish after the boy was suspended from Devonshire Alternative Elementary School in Columbus last week.
The fifth-grader said he was “just playing around.” But district spokesman Jeff Warner tells The Columbus Dispatch (http://bit.ly/1jO1rL7 ) that Devonshire Principal Patricia Price has warned students about pretend gun play numerous times this year, and everyone should know the rules by now.
Black is white, up is down, Obama is playing rope-a-dope with Putin.
So, you know all this brouhaha, all these hysterics about how bakers, and photographers, and other service-providers who routinely work for gay clientele (but draw a line at serving gay weddings because they feel it imperils their souls) are horrible people?
And you know the whole “if you think that way, then you’re a bigot,” thing, because governments and pundits have taken it into their heads that it is their job to define “sin” to another person?
And you know that whole, “refusing to serve someone because they think differently than you is all Jim Crow-y and immoral?”
Yeah, well…so much for that.
A gay stylist in Santa Fe refused to cut New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez’s hair due to her stance on same-sex marriage. KOB-TV’s Stuart Dyson reports.
A Santa Fe hairdresser is waging his own boycott of sorts: He is denying service to the governor of New Mexico because she opposes gay marriage.
Antonio Darden, who has been with his partner for 15 years, said he made his views clear the last time Gov. Susana Martinez’s office called to make an appointment.
“The governor’s aides called not too long ago wanting another appointment to come in,” Darden told KOB.com. “Because of her stances and her views on this, I told her aides, ‘no.’ They called the next day asking if I’d changed my mind about taking the governor in, and I said ‘no’ again.”
Martinez has said marriage should be between a man and a woman. Darden, who said he has cut the governor’s hair three times, said he won’t serve her unless she changes her mind about gay marriage.
Darden apparently feels that it would go against his own personal moral code — his individual conscience — to cut the governor’s hair. He does not see this decision as an act of “intolerance.” In his mind, he believes that to cut her hair would be to co-operate with evil — a kind of sin, if not against God, then against his own reason and beliefs. He may fear that serving to the governor could be misconstrued as an affirmation of her views.
And no one in the press is arguing differently on the governor’s behalf. No one is suggesting that, by refusing to cut the hair of a person whose position is in alignment with the law, Mr. Darden is denying her a basic civil-right. Quite the opposite; many on social media are saying he is within his rights to refuse her.
I concur. If he is, though, then so are the Christians refusing to serve gay weddings. You can’t have it both ways.
But sadly, you can. That’s the beauty of adopting anti-foundationalism as your go-to philosophical stance: you are undaunted by accusations of inconsistency or hypocrisy; you reject the logical rigor reinforced by outmoded Enlightenment ideas that assume a kind of symmetry in thought; and you are allowed — as part of your philosophical and intellectual model — to just pick and choose your arguments based on the individual context.
Or, to put it another way, you grant yourself permission to change every intellectual rule on the fly, and advance sophistry as a kind of elevated, legitimate art form.
What we, as classical liberals, must do to combat such nonsense is not merely point out the hypocrisy, or the inconsistencies in logic, that make up the progressive’s self-serving form of “pragmatism.” Instead, we must simply refuse to comply — to engage in civil disobedience, and to bring our case to the American people when the government tries to run us out of business for insisting on our first amendment protections, even and especially if the courts, which have moved increasingly in the direction of activist superlegislatures granting themselves leave to act as philosopher kings and social engineers, rule against us.
Which brings us back to the states and the Article 5 conventions of the states process. The power of the government comes from our willingness to comply with its edicts. But once it rejects the rule of law in favor of selective enforcement and creating its own police state, in which the law is used as a weapon to beat back legitimate policy opposition, then what you have is tyranny, plain and simple.
I reject the lie of anti-foundationalism just as vehemently as I reject the institutionalization of a form of “interpretation” that is nothing of the sort, but rather is a will to power, a rule by consensus, a rejection of individual autonomy reinforced by an incoherent set of linguistic rules many on the right have been too blind to reject and too eager to internalize — creating the conditions for a steady movement leftward.
This movement is not accidental, nor is it incidental. It was planned and, under the current epistemological assumptions coming from the left we’ve allowed to take root, it is also inevitable, as I’ve been at pains to explain over the years here.
The time is coming when we will not have many choices left should we wish to preserve a representative republic. That’s not hyperbole; it’s fact. If we don’t reject the left’s institutional assumptions and refuse to abide them, we will have to find other ways to save ourselves.
Either that, or we sink into the morass of humankind’s persistent lot, to be ruled over by those who assert a dominance over us, Eloi to their Morlocks, sheep to their wolves, Hillary to their Bills.
And that ain’t my style.