The new American conundrum

Our conundrum: People have a constitutional right to protest, I get that. Right, left, pro-life or pro-choice, Pro-Bernie, Pro-Donald, etc, sure.  Wall Street elites and the Occupy Wall Street movement go after each other every day, too. How can we pick and choose who to deny? 

If anyone deserves to be silenced, it's these White Supremacist's and neo-Nazi's. But the courts have said the right to protest is an all or nothing thing. Who should get the right to decide how much is too much?  The Supreme Court?  And who chooses them?  Right wing or left wing politicians, depending on which is in control at the time, that's who.  Justices are supposed to be impartial, but that line is becoming more blurred every day.

Maybe we could put them all in an arena, the pro's and anti's on any subject, and let them duke it out.  They could be 21st Century Gladiators, winner take all.  

No, wait....Charlottesville.  Bad Idea.

S

Turn out the lights, the party's over....

Watching our government operate these days is like watching a slow-motion train wreck.

Ever since Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away the Republicans and Democrats have been dragging up old videos of each other saying they would not have hearings or take a vote on any Supreme Court nominee until after the next election.  One side hopes their party will gain control of the White House and they can fill the vacancy with one of "their own", and the party in power wants to confirm one of "their own" to the court in case they lose the White House in the next election.  What a bunch of CRAP!

Did you ever see a statue of Lady Justice?  She is supposed to personify the moral force in our judicial system.   Her attributes are a blindfold, a balance, and a sword. 

Why can't our political parties understand that Supreme Court Justices are NOT supposed to be Left or Right leaning?  There should be no "litmus tests" to see if they are pro or anti anything.  Justice should be blind, hence Lady Justice's blindfold.  She/they should make a decision based solely on the facts presented, without bias.  No exceptions.

I know nothing about the candidate President Obama has nominated to replace Justice Scalia, but from what I've heard and read he seems to be a widely respected judicial scholar....until now.  Now the Republicans are saying they want to wait until their man (Big Donnie Trump?) is elected so they can put another conservative on the High Court.  They don't want "blind" justice, or "fair" justice, they want "their" justice.

Our Congress betrayed us years ago, the office of the President is about to be perverted, and now the Supreme Court is slowly but surely becoming hopelessly partisan, too.  Thanks Founding Fathers....we've had a nice run, but I'm afraid I hear the Fat Lady singing.

S

Kickin' ass and takin' names

Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out

Then and now....I think I've found the person who should be in charge of cleaning up the sexual misconduct scandal now rampant in our military.  ;)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's been five years since the banks rolled the dice one time too many and just about took down the world's financial system, and three years since Congress passed the Dodd-Frank bill that was supposed to bring the bankers back into line with sane, sensible practices.  (Note:  Isn't it ironic that the former Senator and Congressman the bill was named after were two of the banker's most egregious enablers on the way to their going over the cliff?)

Three years, yet only 38% of Dodd-Frank has been implemented.  According to today's USA Today, the bankers have so far been successful stonewalling 62% of it.  The fox is truly in charge of the henhouse. 

Think after the "Warrior Princess" kicks ass and cleans up the military she can go after the bankers?  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday the Supreme Court hit a home run.  They've managed to piss off just about everybody.  They narrowly ruled 5-4 that people charged with a felony can be required to submit to a DNA swab.  The original argument for DNA testing was to prove the identity of the accused, but the dissenters say the test results will go into a database and be used to possibly solve other past, present, or future crimes.

The big outrage is that this is (some say) a violation of the Fourth Amendment which forbids searches without reasonable suspicion to gather evidence for an unrelated crime.  Ummm....hold on there Kemo Sabe.

How is this any different than people charged with serious crimes giving up their fingerprints to a database?  That's been used to solve crimes and is admissible as evidence in court for as long as I can remember and nobody seemed to get their knickers is a wad over that one.  Isn't DNA evidence just a newer, state-of-the-art version of fingerprinting?

To me the issue should be whether DNA swabs should be taken and entered into a database from those charged with a serious crime or only from those convicted of a serious crime?  Big difference!

Just something for you to think about.  :)

S

Healthcare talk

Any day now the U S Supreme Court will hand down their decision declaring all or parts of "Obamacare" to be unconstitutional or allowing it to stand as-is.  Regardless of the ruling, about 1/2 of the people are going to be unhappy.  Me?....I'm somewhere right in the middle.  I don't think the system we have now is working well enough to remain unchallenged, but I don't have an alternative to offer, either.  If you don't have insurance or can't get it, you know how dire the situation is.  If you're one of the lucky few who have insurance AND deep enough pockets that would enable you to absorb any after-insurance expenses, you obviously don't see the problem, but you should never forget.....things can change in a hurry.  


I have a friend who at age 61 had double-bypass surgery.  He had insurance and could easily handle the co-pay, but the next year he was laid off his upper management job of 25+ years, with his termination package giving him just one more year of company insurance after that.  (His deep suspicion was his company wanted him gone due to his health liability.)  With his medical and family history he couldn't buy health insurance on the open market.  He bought into a state "last-resort" policy, but that soon proved unaffordable so he went "naked" until Medicare kicked in at age 65.  Every ache and pain sent him into panic mode.  He never thought he'd find himself in that position.


On the other hand I don't have confidence in our government to manage much of anything efficiently.  The Obamacare bill is...what...2,700 pages long?  Can anyone really, REALLY understand it?  I know the UK, Canada, Australia, and some others have universal government-run programs that seem to have a lot of good points, but they also have some well-documented problems, too, such as the fact they're breaking the bank. 


Then there's the matter of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986.  This law requires almost all hospitals to treat anyone walking in seeking medical attention.  It was meant to cover true emergencies, but now is being used to treat colds, the flu, etc.  Hospitals and doctors have billions of dollars in un-collectable write-offs.  Did you know that >60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills people can't pay?  And that 78% of those are by people who had insurance but couldn't pay for all those things not covered by their insurance?  And besides the obvious hit to doctors and hospitals, bankruptcy is a drain on our economy in a bigger sense, too.  Those who have gone through it find it difficult or impossible to buy a house, a car....pretty much anything that requires credit.  These are potential big-ticket consumers who will NOT be helping grow our economy.


Just some thoughts for you to consider.  IMO, regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, SOMETHING needs to be done about healthcare in America.  I wish there was a simple answer.


S