The ABC's Of Injustice

Anyone for the alphabet game?
Before now I hadn't thought of it.
Could be interesting.
Don't know if there will be a point to it.
Even a possibility of it being lame.
For now, I'm going to try it.
Gorsuch is now on the Supreme Court.
He shouldn't be.
Ironically.....
Justice was not served.
Keep in mind that another was chosen.
Last year Obama nominated Garland.
Most agreed he was qualified.
Never even got a confirmation hearing.
Opposition didn't care.
Partisan politics at worst.
Questionable constitutionality at best.
Republicans should be ashamed.
Senator Grassley especially is a tool.
Too old, too white, too Trump-loving.
Unfit to represent the state and country.
Very sad situation.
We have other problems in the U.S.
Xenophobia is one of them.
Yet I've no more time to elaborate.
Zero.

I (Religiously) Object

Last week, there were a couple of Supreme Court rulings of major interest.  The most interesting, and polarizing, one was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

In brief (pun intended), the court struck down the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  It further ruled that closely held for-profit corporations could be exempt from a law they religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest.

As expected, this ruling sent progressives into a tizzy.  The basic themes were 1) corporations are not people, and 2) now every employer will be able exempt itself from federal laws by saying they have a religious objection.

Anyone who looks back at this blog knows that I generally side with the socially liberal viewpoint.  I even posted an entry about the self-righteousness of some groups opposing the mandate.  And yes, it does seem crazy that 5 Catholic males on a court could make far-reaching decisions that affect only women.  (On second thought, not only does that seem crazy, it IS crazy.)

However, anyone who looks back at this blog will also know that I generally side with fiscally conservative capitalism.  While there's nothing specifically fiscally conservative about this ruling, generally speaking, I don't believe that employers should be federally mandated to provide medical coverage of any kind.

So, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about the Burwell ruling.  While I disagree with it, I also think the one absolute problem with the ACA is the employer mandate.  While everything else about the ACA may turn out just fine, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate is dumb.

Regardless of whether it's the 'job-killer' conservatives want to believe it is, employers (and other related third-parties) should not be in the health care business.  The ACA should mandate that employers NOT provide coverage, instead of the other way around.  Employers will then have to compete for quality employees solely on the basis of pay.  (I've just solved the minimum wage issue, too!)

Let the people be responsible for getting their own coverage, as with other forms of insurance.  If that sounds like it discriminates against the poor, that's why we have Medicaid.  (I know, I know, this attitude means taxpayers like me might be paying for more indigent medical care.  But on balance, I think it would still be no worse, and probably better, than it is now.)

Suffice it to say, I think the Burwell ruling is illogical, and anti-female, but I don't think it's the end of the republic.  Corporations surely aren't people, but even corporations should have some protections from the law, e.g. tort reform.  Too bad Hobby Lobby didn't focus on that.

Our Unstoppable Social Evolution

In the past week, there were at least 3 major news stories (two national and one local) about same-sex couples and the gay lifestyle.  How can I refuse to write about them?

The two national stories were U.S. Supreme Court cases, heard on back-to-back days.  One case was about the right of gays to marry, the other about gay marriage rights as they relate to the Clinton-era federal Defense Of Marriage Act.

The local story was another attempt by extreme Iowa Republican Party conservatives (I'm not sure there's another kind right now), to remove the governor's name from an anti-bullying conference.  Why?  Because they believe "anti-bullying" is a cover for promoting the gay agenda.  Yes, they actually think this out loud.  Not surprisingly, the effort is being led by WOITH Bob Vander Plaats, who can't be disgraced enough.

Regardless of how any of this turns out in the short term, in the long term it's once again time to remember a basic rule in America:  Society evolves on social issues.  There's no stopping it.

When we recognize something that hurts/helps society, we take action to disallow/allow it, respectively.  It may take years, or decades, but eventually, we get it right. 

It's going to take a while, maybe even another generation, but legislation allowing and expanding same-sex marriage in all states is going to happen.  Take it from someone who lives in a state where gay marriage has been allowed for years now - we've figured out it doesn't hurt us, it only helps us.

And so society evolves.

Citizens Un-united

A few months ago, many beef-industry-reliant states got into a tizzy over media reports about 'pink slime.' This is in fact a derogatory name for a beef filler / by-product that's found in practically every package of ground beef.  (The beef industry prefers the name "lean finely textured beef.")

Anyway, the governors of these states held a press conference at a processing plant to complain about the way this filler was being characterized.  At this made-for-TV event, the mainstream media reporter who gave the 'pink slime' a national spotlight asked Iowa's governor a question - did his interest in this issue also stem from the fact the beef processor was one of his biggest political donors?

Of course, the governor responded with righteous indignation that someone would even think there was a connection.  Many others, including my own friends and acquaintances, agreed it was a cheap shot question from a self-aggrandizing reporter.

Hold on, now.  While this 'pink slime' deal was very overblown and a bit offensive, that question was not.  If politicians are going to accept political donations, they are fair game to be criticized when they appear to do favors for those donors, rightly or wrongly.  It doesn't matter if they actually happen to believe what they're saying, the appearance of impropriety is there.

Of course, this is just a microcosm of the current state of affairs in this country when it comes to money and politics.  Thanks to the Citizens United decision, money has never had a bigger influence in who gets what in the USA, and politicians have never been more brazen about doing favors for those who provide them with financial backing.

Senator John McCain, one of the few people who still can pass as a moderate Republican and a long-time voice for campaign finance reform, recently said about Citizens United, "There will be scandals associated with the worst decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 21st century.”  Will be?  It's been happening since the day the decision was made.

Even before that decision, that system was still broken.  PACs/SuperPACs and lobbyists have always had too much influence, mostly due to the access their money buys them.  I used to work for a large trade association, and it was no secret how this worked.  When raising money for the PAC, they openly stated  that money was how the game was played, and they needed to be a player.

Oh, but they didn't say that publicly.  Instead they had the gall to quote Thomas Jefferson, who once said, "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”  As if that meant Jefferson would support a PAC!  (Note - Thomas Jefferson also said, "The end of democracy will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."  Why didn't that trade association use that quote?  D-bags.)

What planet are elected officials on when they allow themselves to accept money from people and especially from corporations, yet don't think constituents or the media should question them about the consequences of that relationship?  It's legal bribery, with politicians who don't want to change it and an electorate that feels powerless to change it.