Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Feed The Beast | Main | Proud to Be A (Native) American! (But Keep It Quiet...) »

April 29, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e2016765e5d52b970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is This A Customary Level Of Ignorance For Cabinet Secretaries?:

Comments

Neo

Official stupidity

Neo

New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night, a phenomena that could put a damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.

Researchers used satellite data from 2003 to 2011 to examine surface temperatures across as wide swath of west Texas, which has built four of the world's largest wind farms. The data showed a direct correlation between night-time temperatures increases of 0.72 degrees C (1.3 degrees F) and the placement of the farms.

Wind farms, adding to Global Warming.
Who'd a thunk it ?

Soylent Red

“ I do not pretend to be a constitutional lawyer.”

She leaves that to her boss.

rse

They sure do love that phrase balanced. Usually the balance is with something totally unacceptable so the compromise gets half or so of unacceptable.

Do we have anyone with graphic experience? LUN is an image I would like to use as the header picture on blog. Don't laugh. I was reading political theory all day before being a good aunt at a grad party.

If someone can send me to a site on how to inset that image or otherwise send me in the right direction. Hate to use a default when that picture is perfect.

myiq2xu

What about Alberto "I do not recall" Gonzales?

What goes around comes around.

daddy

None of them read the Constitution because none of them care about the Constitution. This is a Post-Constitutional Administration.

Comanche Voter

Well The Goracle tried the "there's no controlling legal authority" bit a few years back when he'd violated a bushel of fund raising statutes. That didn't go over so well.

So Sebelius has smartened up. She gets her legal advice in "discussions"--in short out of the air. And that's appropriate because the people giving her advice--from the top down (and that means you Obozo) are legal "airheads' themselves.

jayef

Very proud of my Congressman!

narciso

And those come from 'emanations of penumbras'
to such an extent, that Judge Kessler, interpreted thinking as an activity, regulated
by the Commerce Clause;

A. G. Bell

You can leave Dana a message at 909-607-3177.

sbw

Whew. My typepad sign-in still works.

sbw

Hey! where did that old picture come from. I want my thingy back!

jayef

Statists like Sebelius need to be shamed at every turn. Thanks for shining the light on this cockroach.

DC

There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring employers to offer health insurance that covers contraception. It makes no difference if the employer is owned by a religious organization, as long as the employer itself is not a church (as churches are exempt). If it were up to these religionists, a church could buy a McDonald's, and automatically the McDonald's would be exempt just like the church. How counter-productive is that. This is a controversy over a hollow issue.

jayef

That is utter nonsense, and you know it DC. These churches have well defined ministries with goals and principles they follow. Your straw man "buy a McDonald's" scenario is as insulting as it is moronic.

Danube of Thought

"It makes no difference if the employer is owned by a religious organization, as long as the employer itself is not a church"

I believe that under the First Amendment it does. We shall see.

Jane

I've changed my mind. TM can you figure out a way to give all of us the power to delete ben Franklin. No one else, just him. Think of the contests we could have getting there first.

jayef

And of course all of this is a distraction from the main point that our Secretary HHS is a statist and would let nothing deter her from her goal of building a progressive utopia . . . especially not a 225 year old document written by white slave owners.

Danube of Thought

"a church could buy a McDonald's, and automatically the McDonald's would be exempt just like the church"

So true. And in that event the employees could either provide their own contraception or work at a different McDonald's. A trivial case with a simple and harmless solution, but to the statist it is a catastrophic crack in the edifice of centralized control over all human activity.

Wade Smith

If "There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring employers to offer health insurance that covers contraception[.]", then there is no Constitutional prohibition against requiring ALL eating establishments to mandate pork on all menus. This includes the eating establishments owned by Islamic organizations.

jayef

Don't get drawn into that nonsense, Danube. Churches do not have as their goal spreading a "contraceptive free" blanket over our society. The Obamanauts are the aggressors here and they are spinning like mad to distract from that fact.

Janet

rse -
here are the 2 pictures -
Big image
Small image

Neo

Sebelius served as executive director and chief lobbyist for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association (now Kansas Association for Justice) from 1977–1986.

DC

I think it is strange, really, that a church should care that its corporations' health care plans cover contraceptives. Those plans also likely cover viagra, painkillers, and other medical substances that might be abused and used for sinful purposes. The essential issue should be recognized as whether the individual user believes his/her use of those materials to be sinful. If properly faithful, any believer working for the church's corporation is in no danger of sinning, by virtue of their choice not to sin. That's the only individual liberty that should be at issue here.

Xbradtc

I think it is strange that DC is insistent that the government has the right to tell anyone to provide ANY coverage of any sort.

rse

Janet-

My hero!!

Now I need to learn to play with fonts. I want to make invisible a different type.

I am a good cook and great with the abstract theories. I read the wordpress explanations and latin is easier on my brain.

jayef

The issue, DC, is that neither you, nor the federal government have the right to define those issues for the church. The church has narrow and specific objections to contraception. Whether you or I like them or understand them is of no consequence. The freedom to maintain those objections is provided for specifically in our constitution and should be respected without question.

Buford Gooch

This new Ben Franklin is way more annoying than the old one. He seems to think this is his blog. Watching his comments disappear is amusing. He seems to get angrier and more childish each time.

GMax

Buford all the while loudly proclaiming that he "does not give a shite." LOL

Buford Gooch

That "My IQ" dork seems to be very impressed with his own intelligence too. It's a shame that he is actually one of the dullest of the trolls that comment here.

DC

@jayef: the feds are not seeking to define the issue for the church, but is seeking to reduce national health insurance costs by creating cost reducing effects through employers' coverage. The church itself is exempt. Whether the church, as as an owner of an employing corporation, likes the rule is of no legal consequence. It is free to promote its beliefs and promote compliance through moral persuasion as it has always done. Arguing for the "constitutionality" of a rule affecting the civil marketplace should reasonably be construed as a distraction.

jayef

Did you watch the video, DC? I think Congressman Gowdy made the salient point. Whether we like it or not, "free exercise" has primacy over other expediencies. He listed multiple instances where the court has said so and quite simply knocked that one out of the park. Spin it whatever way you like, The Catholic Church is to be afforded no less protection than Santeria or The Native American Church.

Rob Crawford

the feds are not seeking to define the issue for the church, but is seeking to reduce national health insurance costs by creating cost reducing effects through employers' coverage

No, they're not.

"Health care reform" had nothing to do with reducing costs -- you can see that in the way they refused to consider market-driving solutions.

"Health care reform" is about giving government near infinite power over individuals. Attacking the Catholic church is just a step along that path.

(And, hey, they see what happened when the Polish CP let even a "tamed" church hang around.)

Xbradtc

@jayef: the feds are not seeking to define the issue for the church, but is seeking to reduce national health insurance costs by creating cost reducing effects through employers' coverage.

Because government manipulation of markets NEVER has unintended consequences!

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN up to age 26.

Janet

rse,
I don't know how to do that. Anything I know about posting, I learned here at JOM. I learned to post a photo from reading Extraneus explaining it to Matt long ago.

Danube of Thought

"I think it is strange, really, that a church should care that its corporations' health care plans cover contraceptives."

Of course, your thoughts on the strangeness of various church doctrines have, thankfully, nothing whatsoever to do with their First Amendment protection.

jayef

DC: What makes you think that those concerns take primacy over the church's rights? Why is providing contraceptive coverage more compelling than protecting animals or preventing the use of Schedule I drugs?

Clarice

DC is BF is Cleo--Ignore.

Sebelius like the rest of the Executive branch is both ignorant and corrupt it appears..Imagine making such a significant ruling on such a flimsy basis!

As for the McDonalds example, pretend it's owned by the SeIU and then--voila--it can easily be exempt from the entire Obamacare fiasco.

jayef

Clarice wields the bullshit Ginsu, AGAIN!

Danube of Thought

"Whether the church, as as an owner of an employing corporation, likes the rule is of no legal consequence."

We recognize that this is your belief. Your belief is simply incorrect. If a religious institution is operating a facility, the constitution protects its right to do so according to its own beliefs.

Whether contraception is an event against which one actually "insures" is another subject altogether....

jayef

To now, we've set that ridiculous aspect of the utopian progressive vision of health insurance aside.

DC

@jayef: the examples raised in the video have to do with the rights of individuals (not companies) to express their religious beliefs without being required to the contrary by the government. The examples are not on point with respect to the policy at issue here. Certainly not on point with respect to a corporate employer owned by a church. The issue of health care coverage is a least one step removed, and not even similar on the facts, to the cases cited by the congressman. Certainly, if the government were to require individuals to purchase a health care policy contrary to their religious beliefs, that requirement would be unconstitutional. But a hypothetical scenario like that is not at issue here.

Danube of Thought

"Certainly not on point with respect to a corporate employer owned by a church."

It isn't a corporate employer or owner whose rights are being infringed. It is the operators, administrators and staff of the institution who would be compelled to violate their religious beliefs, about which you seem to care not a whit. In fact, you seem to relish the possibility of coercing them. All in the name of people getting contraceptives at other people's expense.

Rob Crawford

DoT -- your 8:39 comment hits at the nub of the matter.

The left does not believe that groups of people who come together for non-leftist reasons deserve rights. A union? Some special-interest group funded half by the government and half by the Tides Foundation? Sure, they deserve at LEAST the rights of an individual, if not more!

But get together for profit or shared (Christian) religious belief? Nope. You don't deserve any rights.

narciso

I would say this one, is denser, but more passive aggressive, the whole boils down to
that discussion Obama had about 'positive'
and negative rights, that Obama had back in 2001, what DeTocqueville saw as a curse, he
sees as an imperative.

DrJ

Even setting aside the religious issue, what right does the government have to mandate that I provide "free" contraception?

The plan I offer my employees is equivalent to the old major medical, and has a high deductible. Every prescription is covered, and is available at the negotiated rate. None are free.

We also offer no pregnancy benefits, other than the negotiated rate, because it is not an issue for any employee or me or the Mrs.

Can I keep my plan? If not, why not?

mockmook


DC's responses are so convoluted, empty of facts, etc., they can't even be called "wrong".

It's gibberish.

GMax

A reverse phone look up of the number posted upthread gives this information:

Dana Ward
1050 N Mills Ave
Claremont, CA

Perhaps the turd should reconsider his path?

Gus

The issue has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.
I'm so very sorry DCeased. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT cannot force me (an American citizen) to buy anything. Liberals and Statists believe that THE FED. GOVT, is their Mommy and their other Mommy. I don't play that.
The FED.GOVT works for me.

Thank you DC, have a nice day.

DC

How is it a violation of an individual's religious beliefs to have health care coverage that might pay for contraception at your request? Morality is about free will: the ability to make a choice, or not make a choice. Any individual employee who doesn't want contraception is free to choose not to purchase it. The fact that the health care coverage exists should not be offensive to someone to chooses not to purchase any particular item that is covered under the plan.

DrJ

GMax, that's the main address for Pitzer College. I'd bet every Pitzer number would give this address.

Gus

DCeased.. Let me make it simple for you, because clearly you are an imbecile.

The GOVERNMENT cannot require a company to provide something for free. Further it cannot mandate that a company provide said product to it's employees.

I know it's hard to understand, but you'll have to get used it Ben/Dana/Cleo.

You're ass must be really really sore.

GMax

Must be his office number, that is a cut and paste from a reverse phone look up.

Jack is Back

GMax,

The address of Pitzer College.

Probably sleeping in the computer lab on a feather bed.

Rob Crawford

The violation is in forcing the employer to subsidize something they consider an abomination. Employees do not pay the entire cost of their healthcare (well, they do, but government requires that plans are structured so a portion of the money comes directly from the employer).

Perhaps the best thing would be to eliminate tying health insurance to employment? I'd say permit the sales of plans across state lines, forbid states from imposing minimum coverages (or set a "maximum minimum" at a very low level, of, say, catastrophic care), and let people buy their insurance with pre-tax, but post-employer, dollars.

Gus

Rob, the violation is REQUIRING the COMPANY to provide anything.

Rob Crawford

Fair enough, Gus. I was trying to limit my statement to something I'd hope everyone can agree with.

GMax

This is not Pitzer:

Dana G Ward

29110 Stonegate Ln

Highland, CA 92346-6802
Age: 60-64
Associated: Doreen G Ward, Nancy S Ward

DrJ

GMax,

If that address is right, the house is an anonymous two-story house in suburbia currently for sale for $229K. Just the place for your bohemian anarchist.

DC

@Gus: I would agree that if there is a way to get the health insurance and health care markets in line with reasonable costs, without offending anyone, that would be the best way go. Getting corporations out of the market, if possible, makes sense too. But to do that somehow, you've got to find another way pool the money so that the costs are low for everybody.

Threadkiller

There is this memo, that congress relies on:

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/of-presidential-eligibility-doubling-down-and-linguistic-torts/

And you just have some kind of mushroom
And your mind is moving around
Go ask Arpaio
I think he'll know

Bruce

Whoops, wrong thread for my last comment here. Again. Sorry. Reposted to proper thread, so can be safely deleted.

Rob Crawford

"Getting corporations out of the market" makes as much sense as "part the milk with blossoms".

Corporations are just people working together. Markets are just people trading for what they want. "Getting corporations out of the market" means "getting people out of the people".

Annoying Old Guy

rse;

I strongly recommend copying the image to your own web server, where you are hosting the content with which you intend to use it. Never depend on images stored by some one else for your own site - the host can effectively hack your website by changing the image. Or it can just go offline because they updated their internal links.

For most web browsers, you can right click on the image and chose "Save image as" to get a local copy, then copy that to your website.

GMax

Now this is damn funny:

In his commencement speech at Hamilton College on Sunday, former Vice President Al Gore told the graduates that global warming is “the most serious challenge our civilization has ever faced.” But as an undergraduate at Harvard University in the late 1960s, Gore--one of the most prominent spokesmen on climate change today--earned a “D” in Natural Sciences.

GMax

I second the comment by Rob Crawford. Its ridiculous to focus on the legal form of the business, as if a partnership or a sole proprietorship would make a significant difference. What DC means is insert the Fed Govt.

matt

I am deeply uncomfortable about singling anyone out and publishing their address. Please take your flame wars elsewhere.

Regarding the Health Care mandate, the religious freedom aspect is only one of several which call the constitutionality of the law into question.

Federally mandated health care coverage itself is on trial.

The issue of government intrusion on religious practice is a First Amendment issue, but I am no expert. That Sebelius clearly includes religiously affiliated universities, hospitals and other ministries in her mandate is at the heart of the issue. In this I believe she has violated the First Amendment rights of those organizations.

rse

Thanks AOG. Can't refer to someone as annoying who offers such good advice. Hubby is a computer wiz but it can be a bit like physicals with a doctor spouse.

I appreciate it and he said largely the same.

If you know of a site that will help me play with the look I do hate to keep bugging him about what he sees as incidental and I do not. Just since I finished book, as national ed reform gets ready to go live in the fall, we have bad ideas contrary to the PR and fundamentally contrary to the C coming down almost daily. It's time for me to start chatting more formally.

Plus Rio coming up.

Gus

Matt it is intrusion on religious orgs but, it is intrusion on EVERYONE and EVERY BUSINESS.
The government cannot force ANY ORG or BUSINESS to buy something and give it out to it's members.

The Religious aspect is of course covered by the 1st amendment specifically, but it goes much further than that.

Carol Herman

But Obama can win, again.

What if Mitt doesn't get a majority of the voters to elect him? Will McCain's 44% become the defining bar?

Is your question why would people choose Obama? Because more of the same might be a better choice than putting in a republican?

Maybe, a lot of stuff goes on under the radar?

How do you report what's under the radar?

When people say they want less government ... isn't that Obama's signature?

DrJ

rse, if you've not chosen a web host yet, please consider Westhost (in Utah). Reliable, secure, responsive and inexpensive.

narciso

We can say this about Dana, he doesn't stint
on inflicting the same nutroots tripe, on his own students, that he does to us, I wonder
if that is a sociology experiment as well.

Rob Crawford

What DC means is insert the Fed Govt.

Yes -- which means substituting voluntary cooperation with force.

AliceH

What about Alberto "I do not recall" Gonzales?

I did a search on this because it didn't ring any bells. Apparently, Jon Stewart got some mileage out of it.

Found the WAPO transcript of one of the hearings and arrived at the following counts:
* Gonzales - "I recall" = 10 times
* Gonzales - "I don't recall" = 15 times
* Members of the committee - "...recall..." = 10 times.

My conclusion is that word is very popular. Beyond that...

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

If you know of a site that will help me play with the look I do hate to keep bugging him about what he sees as incidental and I do not.

rse,

You might consider checking out the HTML and CSS tutorials at http://www.w3schools.com/default.asp as a starting point.

DrJ

rse,

Instead of learning HTML, I'd suggest hiring an intern from a local community college. The site won't be perfect, but if you supervise the work, it will be functional and not cost you a whole lot.

Carol Herman

Before 1955 no man in America could walk into any pharmacy and buy contraceptives on display. Then can a Supreme Court decision, and suddenly out from hiding behind the counter came contraceptives.

Later, to solve another problem of illegal abortions that were killing women in back alleys, and maiming others so that they were left infertile, the Supreme Court again decided a "hot" button and passed Roe V. Wade.

Americans call on the Supreme Court often, it turns out.

And, for some crazy reason I cannot explain the republicans are crying like Blue Noses, to stop all sexual activities except within the confines of marriage. What a banner!

If you should lose to Obama, by the way, the reason you'd sustain this loss is that people have already decided to keep the benefits they've got. And, not give an inch of it away.

Would that let Obama choose the next few appointments? YUP.

And, after Barney Frank got quoted recently as saying that Obamacare is a bummer for the democrats, I'd bet that the Supreme Court decision, on this subject, will look "mixed." It's good for the democrats!

It would give Obama a green light for going forward to filling vacant seats.

How come the republicans aren't speaking out against the danger of their positions? Aren't most adults sexually active?

Aren't some older female voters capable of remembering what it was like to give up an infant because they weren't married? Where do those votes go now?

Danube of Thought

"How is it a violation of an individual's religious beliefs to have health care coverage that might pay for contraception at your request? "

It isn't. It's a violation of the religious beliefs of the people who are being compelled to provide the contraception.

Danube of Thought

"Getting corporations out of the market, if possible, makes sense too."

Why? Should corporations be banned from the market for foodstuffs? Clothing? Shelter? Home heating oil? Penicillin? Automobiles? Hospital construction? Education?

Actually, getting corporations out of any of these markets makes absolutely no sense at all, and in fact the idea is frankly insane.

Danube of Thought

"I am deeply uncomfortable about singling anyone out and publishing their address"

Reasonable minds can differ. It doesn't make me uncomfortable, and I'm glad it was done. Vandals vandalize at their own risk.

Xbradtc

Corporations are a legal expression of freedom of association.

Xbradtc

My only real concern with publishing the personal information of trolls is accidentally pulling a Spike Lee.

Annoying Old Guy

rse;

I am not sure what you mean by "play with the look". If you mean the picture itself, I would use PaintShop Pro. IMHO tt's the comfortable sedan of photo editing. Photoshop is the supercar -- it will blow the doors off everything if you put the time in to learn it. Otherwise you'll just wreck.

If you mean the website, the intern recommendation is a good one. It works even better if you find a website design you like and say "make it look like that". I am not sure what your budget is but even a professional should charge only a few thousand for a design (*not* a working website - that's a lot more).

Note that you can copy everything to your local computer and fiddle with it there. No one else can see it but that might be a feature, not a bug. Then you can copy it back when it works. To view it locally you should be able to drag and drop it in to your browser.

If you're going to work on it yourself I would look at the CoffeeCup HTML editor.

MarkO

"Sebelius served as executive director and chief lobbyist for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association (now Kansas Association for Justice) from 1977–1986."

Doesn't that just make us all comfortable with her whimsical decisions and smug officiousness. She's in charge of the country's health! God save us.

GMax

I am deeply uncomfortable about singling anyone out and publishing their address. Please take your flame wars elsewhere.

I suppose you are going to be uncomfortable then. I aint going anywhere btw.

The phone book is quite public information, you could go to the white pages and see the same thing.

But here is my response: tough.

DrJ

Note that you can copy everything to your local computer and fiddle with it there.

That's very true. I maintain the website for the delightful MrsJ, and I do all the development and previewing locally before it goes live. This is easy to do.

Rick Ballard

Matt,

It isn't a flame war. Professor Dana Ward of Pitzer College is giving his students a lesson in how to deface another persons property in order to destroy its value. Professor Dana Ward's conduct should be of concern to Pitzer College because it reflects poorly upon what is already a third rate institution. I happen to believe that a collection of Professor Dana Ward of Pitzer College pseudonymous postings should be forwarded to Alan Jones, Dean of Faculty at [email protected] by every reader of this blog who believes that Professor Dana Ward's attempt to deface and destroy private property reflects very poorly upon Pitzer College.

Perhaps Alan Jones could be of assistance in removing Pitzer College trash.

I also pelieve that anyone who adds to Professor Dana Ward's defacement by replying should extend Tom Maguire the courtesy of replying to Professor Dana Ward of Pitzer College rather than to whatever pseudonym Professor Ward of Pitzer College is currently using in his defacement project.

DrJ

So Rick, will you tell us what you really feel?

Danube of Thought

"Professor Dana Ward's conduct should be of concern to Pitzer College because it reflects poorly upon what is already a third rate institution."

I have serious doubts that anyone there would disapprove of his conduct. It's no accident they're third-rate.

Ralph L

From the ALthouse Elizabeth Warren thread:
George said...
Siouxish American Princess.

MarkO

I'm not certain that our email campaign, which should include the student newspaper, depends on the expected response. The campaign is its own reward.

Rick Ballard

"The campaign is its own reward."

You got it, Boss. If everyone responding uses "Professor Dana Ward of Pitzer College" it also sets up a nice search string. He really deserves a blog containing his attempts to destroy Protein Wisdom as well as JoM. Something dedicated to the leading light of Pitzer College faculty would be appropriate.

MAC

Kathleen's father was a governor, She was a governor, her husband's father was in the US House, her husband is a Federal Magistrate Judge. She is clueless about the Constitution? Our best and brightest? We are doomed.

MarkO

Actually, Kathleen is likely just a junior liar in the verisimilitude of her President.

Danube of Thought

Rick, when you say "respond," do you mean sending material to the Dean of Faculty, or are you talking about responses on JOM?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame