During oral arguments before the Supreme Court about gay marriage this exchange created a stir:
Could religious institutions lose tax-exempt status over Supreme Court’s gay marriage case?
...
During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito compared the case to that of Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian university in South Carolina. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 the school was not entitled to a tax-exempt status if it barred interracial marriage.
Here is an exchange between Alito and Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., arguing for the same-sex couples on behalf of the Obama administration.
Justice Alito: Well,in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?
General Verrilli: You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.
"I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics..."?!? My goodness, wasn't it only yesterday (OK, Monday) I read this tribute to the plaintiff's counsel in the NY Times?
WASHINGTON — In the months leading to Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments on same-sex marriage, teams of gay rights lawyers and their allies have held countless strategy sessions, drafted scores of briefs and participated in intense moot courts.
Their relentless preparation has two goals. One is to win. The other is to win big.
And it is not as if this question came utterly out of the blue - Ross Douthat is masterfully insightful, but he also puts his idea in print, and he (no doubt among others) floated this "Bob Jones" question a while back.
From which I infer that some version of this question was expected and some version of "I'd rather not speculate" was the preferred response. I further infer that the planitiffs have no intention of going on record today with a restrictive view of the limits of gay marriage rights; surely some factions within their coalition have every hope of going after Big Religion, ASAP.
With the further disclaimer that I am not a high priced attorney with months of prep under my belt, here is my instant response: in the case of a ban on inter-racial dating and marriage, Bob Jones University would have found very little mainstream religious support for their view. On the other hand, at this moment in time there is mainstream religious opposition to gay marriage.
So, in balancing the rights of a religious outlier like Bob Jones U against the governmental goal of promoting racial equality, one could imagine the court decision we got (which was 8-1). On the other hand, a different balance might strike a court as appropriate if the religious view was more widespread. Right now there are six Roman Catholic justices - won't some of them defend their Church?
But defend them from what, exactly? It is not as if colleges perform marriages, or are opposed to people living with unrelated member of the same gender (the term is "roommates").
Ross Douthat stretches a bit in looking for an issue:
1) Should religious colleges whose rules or honor codes orcovenants explicitly ask students and/or teachers to refrain from sex outside of heterosexual wedlock eventually lose their accreditation unless they change the policy to accommodate gay relationships? At the very least, should they lose their tax-exempt status, as Bob Jones University did over its ban on interracial dating?
Brigham Young is one of the linked schools, and FWIW, they made news in 2011 for booting one of their star basketball players based on his relationship with his girlfriend. However, other issues might include benefits of access to married couples housing:
2) What about the status of religious colleges and schools or non-profits that don’t have such official rules about student or teacher conduct, but nonetheless somehow instantiate or at least nod to a traditional view of marriage at some level — in the content of their curricula, the design of their benefit package, the rules for their wedding venues, their denominational affiliation? Should their tax-exempt status be reconsidered?
I would guess that a suitable test case will be difficult yet inevitable.
1
Posted by: BB Key | April 29, 2015 at 10:52 AM
We're all screwed.
Posted by: MarkO | April 29, 2015 at 10:53 AM
A distraction so people won't think about the economy.
Posted by: glasater | April 29, 2015 at 10:59 AM
...or go after the church exemptions too for that matter.
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 29, 2015 at 11:32 AM
Al Gore's chakras hardest hit.
Posted by: henry | April 29, 2015 at 11:36 AM
As the global economy continues it's descent into insolvency the cannabilizing of church assets will grow in popularity. No where will the impact be felt more than in the US.
Posted by: Ben | April 29, 2015 at 11:40 AM
There's a great post at Insty from Elizabeth Price Foley (it's been refreshing to see her there lately) about the riots:
The rioting in Ferguson and Baltimore isn’t driven by poverty, race, or even police brutality. It’s driven by progressive culture, which teaches that successful business people “didn’t build that,” accepts abortion/divorce/children out of wedlock as normal behavior, proclaims that poor children (particularly minorities) cannot succeed, that police and authority in general are the “enemy,” and that law is rigged against minorities. Urban music, “leaders” like Al Sharpton, and a Democrat strategy of balkanizing Americans through identity politics–echoed daily by mainstream media–has created a culture that has no respect for the rule of law. In the eyes of progressives, the American Dream is dead, and they are literally dancing on its grave.
My only disagreement with her is that the progressive cultural rot she describes ALSO drives poverty, which creates an endless, horrible feedback loop.
Posted by: James D. | April 29, 2015 at 11:51 AM
.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | April 29, 2015 at 11:57 AM
I think we need to spend more tax money in B'more, don't you?
INS "...according to the U.S. Department of Education, $17,329 is the total expenditure that the Baltimore City Public Schools made per student in the 2010-2011 school year, the latest year for which the Department of Education has reported this data. ($17,329 in 2011 dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, equals about $18,083 in 2015 dollars.)
What did parents and taxpayers get in return for that $17,329 when it was spent by the public schools?
Well, judging by National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, most of the students did not get a good education.
In 2013, according to the Department of Education, only 16 percent of the eighth graders in the Baltimore City Public Schools scored at or above grade-level proficient in the NAEP reading test. That same year, only 13 percent of the eighth graders in the Baltimore City Public Schools scored at or above grade-level proficient in math..."
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 29, 2015 at 12:02 PM
Bringing it over from the other thread because Floyd Briggs cheered me up:
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/28/video-overalled-local-news-hero-stops-motorcycle-chase-with-his-body-apologizes-for-cursing/
Posted by: Miss Marple | April 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM
So Q1 GDP growth only five times worse than expectation.
The excuses are being trotted out, cold weather, dock worker's strike, etc.
Market doesn't know whether to shit or go blind. Bad that economy sucks, good that the feds feet are in concrete that is now hardening at a rapid rate.
Zero will look good in the Rose Garden today. God I hate that piece of shit.
Posted by: Buckeye | April 29, 2015 at 12:08 PM
when it's freedom of worship, this is what happens:
http://babalublog.com/2015/04/29/another-round-of-violent-attacks-against-catholic-dissidents-after-sunday-mass-in-obamass-cuba/
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2015 at 12:26 PM
It has always been the position of the government and the IRS that an actual church is automatically tax exempt whether they apply for 501(c)3 status or not. More and more experts are advising churches not to apply for it.
Since the goal of the left, as always, is to make the church subject of the state it will take a few decades to wear things down far enough for that.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 29, 2015 at 12:27 PM
Now if the names "Cheney or Halliburton", this might be news:
"The charity run by the Clintons has raised $2 billion since it was founded in 2001 -- $144.3 million in 2013 alone -- but only a small fraction of the take went to its “life-saving work,” according to analysts who monitor non-profits.
The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation claims 88 percent of the money it raises goes to actual charity work, but experts who have looked at the books put the number at about 10 percent. The rest, they say, goes mostly to salaries, benefits, travel and fund-raising.
“That claim is demonstrably false, and it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim,” said Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, a conservative online magazine."
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 29, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Depends on what the definition of
ischarity is.The modern word for charity is love and the Clintons done loves demselves some Clintons so any spending done on themselves was an act of charity don't you see?
Posted by: Ignatz | April 29, 2015 at 12:32 PM
Since the goal of the left, as always, is to make the church subject of the state it will take a few decades to wear things down far enough for that.
It won't take that long, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 29, 2015 at 12:32 PM
The church is not and never has been the buildings or the assets; it is the people.
The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 29, 2015 at 12:34 PM
I wondered about this, from Wolf Hall:
http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/anne-boleyn-william-tyndale-henry-viii/
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2015 at 12:35 PM
Since it's a SCOTUS thread: serious question that sounds tinfoilish.
After the Obamacare case went down, we talked here at JOM about the astonishing Roberts vote and the possibility that he may have been blackmailed.
Does anyone still wonder about this?
I do. I have read that the adoption of his Irish-born children was hinky and that is what's being used against him.
Some background (sourced from MSM articles): http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2014-01-16-270700.112112-Does-Chief-Justice-John-Roberts-have-something-to-hide-that-could-impact-his-judicial-rulings.html
Posted by: Porchlight | April 29, 2015 at 12:37 PM
Well I would argue it's not working in Chicago. Maybe bring Parent Peace Rooms and Restorative Justice practices to Baltimore? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcqx-4s9XoM
Posted by: rse | April 29, 2015 at 12:39 PM
Porchlight, I haven't studied the background of the Roberts family. My assessment on the opinion, however, is that, given the SCOTUS precedents on the taxing power, Chief Justice Roberts's opinion, whether or not one agrees with it, is well within the tradition of taxing power cases. Could it have been a rationalization to reach a result that the Chief Justice needed to reach for personal reasons? I suppose so, although, as I stated, I haven't studied that issue. However, reading the opinion, I found nothing particularly unusual in it in respect of its discussion of the scope of Congress's taxing power under the US Constitution.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 29, 2015 at 12:48 PM
I'm going to Bodega Bay with a DVD of "The Birds" to figure this all out. Great excuse for a road trip.
Posted by: matt | April 29, 2015 at 12:48 PM
TC, yes, except that the Feds specifically argued in the case that it was not a tax.
I see how Roberts could have gotten to the tax if they had actually argued it, but instead, he took up a line of argument that they had not in fact made and used it as basis for his decision.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 29, 2015 at 12:52 PM
I don't think there are any phone booths left, in case you might need one at some point for whatever reason, matt.
There's a reason they call it a murder of crows.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 29, 2015 at 12:53 PM
Since the goal of the left, as always, is to make the church subject of the state it will take a few decades to wear things down far enough for that.
It won't take that long, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 29, 2015 at 12:32 PM
The church is not and never has been the buildings or the assets; it is the people.
The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 29, 2015 at 12:34 PM
I think you are both correct but over different time frames. Now that the Pope is going all in on AGW and Marxism, now that the Episcopal Church is leading the rest of the Protestants off the same cliff, now that a diminishing number of Jews are avoiding liberal clap trap, now that Muslims remain what Muslims have always been, it will not take much of a shove for our politicians to push our churches out of the picture altogether. The OPM drought will probably be the trigger.
Previous waves of religious over-reach took centuries for competing corrective actions by the people to get things moving away from those the abuses. As we are headed now, we are probably some distance away from enough darkness such that enough people will look to God for the guidance needed to get back.
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 29, 2015 at 12:54 PM
Porchlight:
The center of the Obamacare mandate is a tax penalty (rather than arrest, and a court penalty), if you fail to have insurance, and the IRS essentially enforces that aspect of the law. The holding wasn't so unreasonable that only blackmail explains it.
Posted by: Appalled | April 29, 2015 at 01:01 PM
this is why I brought up the Tyndale exemple, when the Church did not conform to the Sovereign's wishes, he dissolved and replaced it,
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2015 at 01:03 PM
A persecuted church is a healthy, growing, leavening church.
A state church is a dead church.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 29, 2015 at 01:04 PM
...and with himself as the new head of the new church, Narc. Good work, that. And he got a ton of assets in the hostile takeover.
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 29, 2015 at 01:05 PM
if Obama actually understood it, I'd be concerned if he expressed interest in Wolf Hall,
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2015 at 01:11 PM
Porchlight, at the SCOTUS level, although the Federal Government argued that the individual mandate was not a tax for Anti-Injunction Act purposes, it did argue that if SCOTUS wouldn't uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, the mandate was an appropriate exercise of Congress's power to "lay and collect Taxes" under Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the US Constitution.
By the way, Porchlight, on a far more important matter, I look forward to back and forth with you after Roger Goodell's deflate-gate report comes out.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 29, 2015 at 01:12 PM
the Steinhauer tome, I reference earlier, had one character, who is revealed to have remarkably poor judgement, whine about Superpacs, and Romney's lack of foreign policy, one wonders if Olen was tongue in cheek, about that,
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2015 at 01:19 PM
http://thehill.com/opinion/brent-budowsky/240392-brent-budowsky-holy-war-against-hillary
Someone needs a hug.
Posted by: lyle | April 29, 2015 at 01:19 PM
Okay, fine. But most people were surprised that it was *Roberts* who made this argument when Kennedy was ready to strike the law down. That was the WTF part. I think dublindave tried to pretend that he'd predicted it but he was drunk as usual.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 29, 2015 at 01:20 PM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/sumner-redstone-girlfriend-drops-lawsuit-792210
OK, great. But my mind's eye still needs bleach.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | April 29, 2015 at 01:22 PM
I certainly wouldn't put it beyond Axelrod and Jarrett, Porchlight, to blackmail a SCOTUS Justice or two (or as many as they needed).
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 29, 2015 at 01:23 PM
I've suspected brent was dobbie:
how about white collar crime, what's the penalty there?
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-2016-candidate-calls-prison-reform-use-police-body-cameras-criminal-1901596?rel=latest1
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2015 at 01:23 PM
I just hope Sumner is taking care of his ladies, Dave (in MA).
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 29, 2015 at 01:24 PM
For all you golf fans out there: Calvin Peete has passed away at 71. One of the most accurate ball strikers ever and with a withered left arm. 1985 Players Champion. Quite the gentleman.
RIP Calvin.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 29, 2015 at 01:25 PM
And even if the adoption records are sealed, Team Obama seems adept at unsealing records (at the very least unsealing divorce records of election opponents).
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 29, 2015 at 01:26 PM
Holy War vs Hillary? Pillow fluffing displays are more like it. Ask Palin or Walker about Holy Wars.
Posted by: henry | April 29, 2015 at 01:28 PM
From TM's link:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf
What does "as amicus curiae" mean?
The US GOVT was not sued so why does the DOJ get to stick their nose(funded by us)into this matter?
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2015 at 01:29 PM
A black pro golfer passed away, you say? Will Precious comment on it?
Posted by: lyle | April 29, 2015 at 01:30 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-cash-peter-schweizer-security-2015-4
More of that oh-so-tolerant left we have come to admire.
Posted by: lyle | April 29, 2015 at 01:32 PM
It means as friend of the Court, TK. SCOTUS will on occasion review legal briefs from parties not involved in the litigation. I suspect there are JOMers who are familiar with SCOTUS practice and who would know the procedures for filing amicus curiae briefs. I don't.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 29, 2015 at 01:34 PM
The destruction of the the Monasteries in the British Isles is one of the the most heinous acts of its history, and one of the darkest moments of Christendom. As for sheer physical destruction it is far worse--in that it was broader--than the destruction and plundering of Cluny (and other French places of worship) during and after the French Revolution.
But in the British case the damage goes beyond the physical loot: those institutions performed great works and offered profound services, and services beyond the "spiritual"; they offered vast charitable works and were much engaged in what today we call "social services" (and I only put these words in quotes to highly modern notions about this, for the monasteries of the day made no such distinction between charity and "the spiritual").
So this destruction increased the suffering of the common people, and did some materially as well as physically.
All to sate the earthly, venal appetites of an arrogant Henry VIII.
I will add, that those who think that the destruction of Christian institution in the USA are just fooling yourselves as to the out come. It is true that Christianity will survive, but it is not true that America will survive.
The actions of American Christians in the next few years will determine the future of this country. It is not that they are so wise; it is that they are the first target of open and legally enforce political oppression by the ascendent Cultural Marxist.
They are being placed very much in the position of the Kulaks n the USSR or the Jews in the Nazi era.
To survive, they will have to overcome their passivity and ignorance.
Posted by: squaredance | April 29, 2015 at 01:35 PM
ah Lurch, you scamp, (deep fried sarcasm)
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/29/john-kerry-to-iran-reportedly-barack-obama-is-great-and-all-but-hes-no-ayatollah-khamenei/
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2015 at 01:36 PM
Team Obama seems adept at unsealing records
He doesn't have to anymore. He has the NSA and the IRS at his disposal.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 29, 2015 at 01:38 PM
matt
"I'm going to Bodega Bay with a DVD of "The Birds" to figure this all out. Great excuse for a road trip."
Better take TK with you. Otherwise we will have months of arguments about how many "layers" were in the DVD.
Just pulling your chain TK :)
Posted by: Buckeye | April 29, 2015 at 01:42 PM
And when he can't find a record to unseal, Obama always has his Xerox 9000 multitask workstation with layering capabilities to fall back on.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2015 at 01:43 PM
just some piercing questions:
http://twitchy.com/2015/04/29/how-rich-katie-pavlich-helps-hillary-clinton-connect-the-dots-on-baltimore/
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2015 at 01:43 PM
Buckeye, I was just trolling the "layer" meme!
How funny!
;-)
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2015 at 01:45 PM
Thanks TC. I did not know a friend of the court brief also included permission to address the court.
To read some of the interactions, it seems the Solicitor General was allowed a great deal of leeway outside of what he must have filed.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2015 at 01:48 PM
an instance in missing the point:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2015/04/yesterday-at-supreme-court-struggling.html
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2015 at 01:55 PM
So Hillary has chosen the weapon silence as each damning reports about her foundation come up for review
Just giving Mickey Mouse speeches about problems she has no intention of fixing won't cut it this time
Go Bernie Go
Posted by: maryrose | April 29, 2015 at 02:05 PM
john-kerry-to-iran-reportedly-barack-obama-is-great-and-all-but-hes-no-ayatollah-khamenei/
It's not too hard to figure out what Kerry was saying.
“In the negotiations Kerry told [Iranian Foreign Minister Javad] Zarif that he [Kerry] wished U.S. had a leader like Iran’s supreme leader,”
Not that Obama the person compares unfavorably to Khamenei the person.
Kerry was saying he wished Obama held the position of Supreme Leader rather than President.
It's the familiar progressive lamentation - hello Tom Friedman! - that the US is not more like, say, China where that stoopid ameriKKKan obstruKKKtionist republiKKKan KKKongress wouldn't be allowed to thwart the beneficient wishes of The Great Obama - at least not without threat of being thrown in the gulag.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 29, 2015 at 02:08 PM
well that's one spin on it:
http://twitchy.com/2015/04/29/cbs-news-mark-knoller-sniffs-out-upside-to-empty-stands-at-orioles-game/
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2015 at 02:11 PM
All rise and kindly remove your caps for the playing of our national anthem.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 29, 2015 at 02:15 PM
Just to go back to Lurker's post, I looked up the per pupil cost of an education in my old hometown of New Canaan Ct. In 2011. It was $18,577, not much more than what the per pupil cost in Baltimore was. But the outcomes are so different. I wonder why, sarc/off
Posted by: mike in houston | April 29, 2015 at 02:24 PM
Mike, the back of the envelope way for a layman to digest $18,000 per student is to multiply it out at 30 kids per class and ask where $540,000 goes? Figure a teacher at $75,000 and there is still a lot left for the facility and administration.
Quibble with the variables all you want, but the conclusion remains.
Mind you, the same math applies at private schools. A class of twelve paying $45,000 each generates the same amount of cash per classroom, with the same questions remaining.
Of course one classroom produces kids who can read, write and do calculus, and the other not so much.
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 29, 2015 at 02:33 PM
Where IS NK?
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 29, 2015 at 02:38 PM
Actually I goofed/ The per pupil cost in NC Ct in 2011 was just $17,501
http://ncps.schoolwires.net/cms/lib8/CT01903077/Centricity/domain/302/budgets/SUPTS_BudgetBk_PPT_2_1_5_15.pdf
Posted by: mike in houston | April 29, 2015 at 02:53 PM
"Actually I goofed/ The per pupil cost in NC Ct in 2011 was just $17,501"
If they had spent an extra $1,000 on you Mike, you would not have made that mistake.
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 29, 2015 at 02:59 PM
TK, the SCOTUSBLOG link below on SCOTUS procedure includes references to the amicus process and the favored position of the Federales in getting to oral argument as an amicus. But, as a caution, note that although SCOTUSBLOG is generally considered to be very reliable, because I have never practiced before SCOTUS and am not familiar with the SCOTUS procedural rules, I can't vouch for the accuracy of the description.
http://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/supreme-court-procedure/
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 29, 2015 at 03:10 PM
Howie Carr is discussing the fact that 16 FBI agents are baby-sitting the five Tsarnaev relatives that were brought to Boston. He said the FBI consulted with the judge and want these people to testify so they can be sent back to their third world hellhole (Howie's words).
Posted by: Marlene | April 29, 2015 at 03:24 PM
http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warming-darling-stewart-romo-more-tell-pjm-their-2016-thoughts/
Finally!! Martha reveals she's a has-been just like her candidate for '16 and Tony reveals he's a dumb jock.
Posted by: lyle | April 29, 2015 at 03:29 PM
Sitting in the tennis pavilion watching Frederick's lesson and read OL and Mike on cost per pupil. Our local catholic HS spends about $9k per pupil and last year graduated 82 and received $3.5m in scholarships. Compare to the local public HS. Graduate 550 and get about $1.5m in scholarships.
Not inner city and teachers don't make $75k but there is more motivation at the family support level and learning discipline when you have "skin" in the game. But we're not unionized either.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 29, 2015 at 03:31 PM
--It is true that Christianity will survive, but it is not true that America will survive.--
Well things do go a tad haywire in that last book before they get better.
--It is not that they are so wise;....
To survive, they will have to overcome their passivity and ignorance.--
You use the term 'they'. Are you not a Christian? Or are you the one wise, non-passive and well informed Christian extant? If that's what you believe, that would make you more of a Diogenes than a disciple.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 29, 2015 at 03:32 PM
Peter Schweizer has security because not only is he in danger from the Left and Hillary's fans, but there is a real danger from the Russian mob, who would not be above taking him out for a sack of gold from Putin.
Posted by: Miss Marple | April 29, 2015 at 03:33 PM
Romo is from my local public schools.
Posted by: henry | April 29, 2015 at 03:34 PM
QED, henry. ;)
Posted by: lyle | April 29, 2015 at 03:37 PM
We used to pay $2-250 per month for baby Iggy 12 and 15 years ago at the local Christian school.
Teachers were extremely dedicated, near-volunteers working for peanuts and the parents were just as dedicated.
As best as I could tell the kids got about twice as good an education as the public school knotheads and we had pretty decent public schools.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 29, 2015 at 03:38 PM
I'm not exactly putting my finger on what Romo did or said to reveal himself as a dumb jock?
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 29, 2015 at 03:38 PM
Mine was a cheap shot, hit. But I encourage Jerra to keep Romo around quite a bit longer as he displays a perennial aversion to playing more than one playoff game. (Oops, was that another cheap shot?)
Posted by: lyle | April 29, 2015 at 03:46 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-clinton-plane-emergency-landing-tanzania/
Someone must have radio'd in the coordinates for underage girls congregating in a tight radius in Tanzania.
Posted by: lyle | April 29, 2015 at 03:49 PM
Who spends less time sober; Martha Stewart or Hillary?
Posted by: Ignatz | April 29, 2015 at 03:50 PM
That is an average per pupil cost. Public schools have to take ALL students who are in their district. If there is a special needs student who requires more than the school can supply, the district has to pay a private entity to teach that student. That is extremely expensive.
I can guarantee that average students get nowhere near that kind of money...
The local school district (in SC) spends less than $9k per student...
Posted by: JerryRigged | April 29, 2015 at 03:51 PM
"John Kerry to Iran negotiators"
I would not be surprised if he told that the North Vietnamese negotuators the same thing about Ho Chi Minh.
Posted by: pagar | April 29, 2015 at 03:52 PM
I used to love rooting for Calvin Peete.
He always seemed like a quality guy.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | April 29, 2015 at 03:56 PM
Who spends less time sober; Martha Stewart or Hillary?
Now you're just baiting CH to comment, Ignatz.
Posted by: lyle | April 29, 2015 at 03:56 PM
there is a real danger from the Russian mob, who would not be above taking him out for a sack of gold from Putin.
For sure, pour encourager les autres.
Posted by: jimmyk | April 29, 2015 at 03:58 PM
Well I was going to run this as a filler post if TM hadn't shown up*...the pic is sized to fit in the non-avatar space where posts go, so it gets cut off just a bit.
Today marks 8 years:
The JFK assassination, the first man on the moon, Nixon's resignation, the fall of the Berlin wall, 9/11 and . . . Obama's first ever tweet - all the kind of "I remember where I was when..." moments that stick with you forever.
Obama's tweet was in reference to this.
---------------------
*can't tell if letting TM have the top post for a while *OR* stomping on his post would be more incentive for him to keep posting more...i could always put up my *pro* carb diet post and see what that does for his motivation.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 29, 2015 at 04:00 PM
I once attended a fund-raising brunch in which Martha Stewart was the scheduled speaker.
The food (chosen by Martha) looked like like Klingon food and her entire speech was a slide show showing how she had redone her front yard after divorcing her husband, with a lot of bitching about him.
I did not get my money's worth. Then I discovered she was going to hhold a fundraiser for bill Clinton (right before the Monica stuff came out and she subsequently cancelled it) so I cancelled my charter member subscription.
Posted by: Miss Marple | April 29, 2015 at 04:00 PM
When our kids were school age we made a very specific choice of school district for the quality of the public schools.
In Ohio, district funding is primarily from property taxes, with the balance coming from the State and the Feds. The wealthier districts, like ours, rely almost entirely on local funding.
My property taxes were easily 3 times what a comparable home in a big urban area would have been, all else being equal.
When my son graduated, his class of roughly 500 included 17 National Merit Finalists, of which he was one.
Probably a wash financially as compared to living elsewhere (lower tax district) and send them to private schools, but at the time it seemed like the better option.
Now with much greater Fed influence on curriculum, don't know if I would make the same choice today.
Posted by: Buckeye | April 29, 2015 at 04:02 PM
Unbelievable responses to:
http://twitchy.com/2015/04/28/liberals-angry-at-whole-foods-for-feeding-national-guardsmen-in-baltimore/?utm_source=twtydaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
http://twitchy.com/2015/04/29/liberals-unhappy-with-barbara-mikulski-for-saying-hello-to-national-guardsmen-and-thanking-police/
Posted by: pagar | April 29, 2015 at 04:05 PM
All the wine posts really makes me feel cheap...but I like what I like. There is an inexpensive red blend called Apothic Red, very tasty to me. $12 in most supermarkets, $8 at Sam's Club.
Admittedly I am more of a beer drinker (body to prove it), Bass or Yuengling usually with a few local brews thrown in. Not a fan of IPAs as it seems so many are now.
Not that you asked, but there ya go.
Posted by: JerryRigged | April 29, 2015 at 04:06 PM
Wait until school districts learn to diagnose more students with ODD to get more funding. This should be pretty much all the kids...
Read more here: http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/Facts_for_Families_Pages/Children_With_Oppositional_Defiant_Disorder_72.aspx
Posted by: JerryRigged | April 29, 2015 at 04:10 PM
"Drink what you like" is my mantra, JR. Pay no attention to wine snobs like me...
Posted by: lyle | April 29, 2015 at 04:12 PM
Calvin Peete was a class act. RIP.
Posted by: Beasts of England | April 29, 2015 at 04:16 PM
I won't lyle, too old (not compared to some here!) to start now...or maybe just too set in my ways. Curious if someone with refined tastes has tried it though.
Posted by: JerryRigged | April 29, 2015 at 04:17 PM
Dang. I meant to write "Pay no attention to wine snobs like Beasts or JiB..." Mea culpa. ;)
Posted by: lyle | April 29, 2015 at 04:19 PM
Drink what you like
Maddog FTW!!
Posted by: Eric in Boise With Refined Tastes | April 29, 2015 at 04:25 PM
Calvin Peete was a class act.
I've never been a huge golf fan, but in the 80s I became a fan of Calvin Peete. Great story of hard work overcoming disadvantages. Sorry to hear of his passing.
Posted by: jimmyk | April 29, 2015 at 04:26 PM
I've had the Apothic red and it part of my daily-drinker rota for a while. I think I swapped it out for the Leese-Fitch cab at a similar price point.
Posted by: Beasts of England | April 29, 2015 at 04:28 PM
Ha! :)
I DJ on the side to support my teaching habit, so I have had occasion to try some fairly good stuff at wedding receptions and I go to wine tastings occasionally. I just never developed the palate for wine. I can't discern the flavorings, must have killed my taste buds in my indiscriminate youth...
Posted by: JerryRigged | April 29, 2015 at 04:29 PM
I've never heard of Apothic Red, JR, but that really doesn't mean much or that it isn't something I wouldn't like. My day to day quaff is usually Tuscan Rossos.
Posted by: lyle | April 29, 2015 at 04:30 PM
Leese-Fitch Cab...tx, I will give it a try...
Posted by: JerryRigged | April 29, 2015 at 04:31 PM
Please call me Jerry, my brother was called Jr. growing up! :) (but if you don't, no biggie)
Posted by: JerryRigged | April 29, 2015 at 04:33 PM
Tuscan rossos says the non wine snob! :)
Posted by: Beasts of England | April 29, 2015 at 04:33 PM
Might want to know how little the Clinton Foundation spend on helping others.
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2015/04/stunning-new-chart-o-the-day-how-the-clinton-foundation-spent-its-money-in-2013/?
Pretty unbelievable, IMO!
Posted by: pagar | April 29, 2015 at 04:34 PM