June 29, 2014

Supreme Court Poised to Rule on Obama Birth Control Mandate

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is poised to deliver its verdict in a case that weighs the religious rights of employers and the right of women to the birth control of their choice.

The court meets for a final time Monday to release decisions in its two remaining cases before the justices take off for the summer.

Dozens of companies, including the Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby, claim religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives.

The Obama administration says insurance coverage for birth control is important to women's health and reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, as well as abortions.

The court has never recognized a for-profit corporation's religious rights under federal law or the Constitution. But even some supporters of the administration's position said they would not be surprised if the court were to do so on Monday, perhaps limiting the right to corporations that are under tight family control


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/28/obamacare-hobby-lobby_n_5539661.html

---

What if the owners of a family owned or closely held corporation such as Hobby Lobby
held religious convictions against vaccinations for childhood diseases? Against blood
transfusions? Against surgery? Against Western Medicine?

Would we want those companies to be allowed to deny health insurance coverage for those treatments?

Of course not. So why for reproductive health? Or, more narrowly, for birth control?

Such exceptions should not be allowed BUT, neither should the owners be forced to PAY for a treatment that is
contrary to their core religious beliefs. Particularly when those same beliefs are conventional, widely held beliefs,
shared by 100s of millions of people worldwide, maybe billions.

A simple way out - For closely held or family owned companies ONLY, allow the employer to fund all other
generally accepted medical treatments and take the COST of reproductive health out of the employee
funded portion. The usual split is about 80 / 20 employer / employee. Let the cost of reproductive health
come from the employee's portion. The employer should then pick up a little extra cost for OTHER treatments
to compensate.

In that way the employer is not paying for treatments which he finds morally and religiously offensive.
The employee is still covered and at no additional cost compared to other companies in the same
or similar situation, but where there is no religious objection and where the employer pays a share of ALL coverages.

Moral guilt is removed but employees still have full coverage, including for reproductive health.

The employer of course must not require any extra charges by an employee electing such coverage and must
not take punitive measures against those employees who elect to have coverage for reproductive health.

April 22, 2014

An Open Letter to the Supreme Court of the United States

Have you noticed that the 9 Supreme Court justices do not make their e-mail addresses known to the public?
And that there is no website application through which you can communicate with them by electronic means?

If you want to make your opinion known you must send a letter on paper ("snail mail&quot to each individual justice.

Of course, they do not reply. They don't even acknowledge the receipt of your letter, despite having 4 law clerks
per individual justice to carry out such tasks. (Possibly even a secretarial staff?)

So, here is my open letter to the 9 Justices regarding recent rulings on campaign finance and "free speech" -
(warning -satire follows)

________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear SCOTUS,

Congratulations on your recent decision, "McCutcheon vs FEC" and
your earlier decision "Citizens United vs. FEC". Finally, you have clarified the meaning of
"freedom of speech", as guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the US constitution.

We can now clearly understand that "freedom of speech" is not only the right to express
one's ideas but also the right to be heard - indeed the right to buy access and to force
people to listen. And, as a corollary, we now also understand that the appearance
of corruption is not corruption itself, but merely the appearance thereof, unless a clear "quid pro quo" can be proven.
Since almost no-one conducts business in Latin nowadays, how do we prove such things?

But, please remain diligent. There are still many operative laws and rules which violate our
constitutional right to free speech, which you have yet to overturn. Such as -

The right to conduct cellphone texting in movie theatres, to speak loudly in a public library,
to call and bother people registered on the federal "do not call list", to erect ugly and distracting billboards
along our interstate highways and to exact monthly service charges for talking on our cellphones.
Why do we have to pay cellphone providers to distribute our “free speech”?

You should also consider enacting a ban on noise cancelling headphones.

All of these laws, rules and devices represent grave violations of our right to "freedom of speech"
and should be overturned, at your earliest convenience, of course.

Many thanks for safe-guarding our democracy. “Helluva job !”

Stuart M. Davis

P.S. Justice Scalia - Please let me have your opinion. Is my letter just "argle bargle" or does it contain
some common sense?

April 22, 2014

An Open Letter to the Supreme Court of the United States

Have you noticed that the 9 Supreme Court justices do not make their e-mail addresses known to the public?
And that there is no website application through which you can communicate with them by electronic means?

If you want to make your opinion known you must send a letter on paper ("snail mail&quot to each individual justice.

Of course, they do not reply. They don't even acknowledge the receipt of your letter, despite having 4 law clerks
per individual justice to carry out such tasks. (Possibly even a secretarial staff?)

So, here is my open letter to the 9 Justices regarding recent rulings on campaign finance and "free speech" -
(warning -satire follows)

________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear SCOTUS,

Congratulations on your recent decision, "McCutcheon vs FEC" and
your earlier decision "Citizens United vs. FEC". Finally, you have clarified the meaning of
"freedom of speech", as guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the US constitution.

We can now clearly understand that "freedom of speech" is not only the right to express
one's ideas but also the right to be heard - indeed the right to buy access and to force
people to listen. And, as a corollary, we now also understand that the appearance
of corruption is not corruption itself, but merely the appearance thereof, unless a clear "quid pro quo" can be proven.
Since almost no-one conducts business in Latin nowadays, how do we prove such things?

But, please remain diligent. There are still many operative laws and rules which violate our
constitutional right to free speech, which you have yet to overturn. Such as -

The right to conduct cellphone texting in movie theatres, to speak loudly in a public library,
to call and bother people registered on the federal "do not call list", to erect ugly and distracting billboards
along our interstate highways and to exact monthly service charges for talking on our cellphones.
Why do we have to pay cellphone providers to distribute our “free speech”?

You should also consider enacting a ban on noise cancelling headphones.

All of these laws, rules and devices represent grave violations of our right to "freedom of speech"
and should be overturned, at your earliest convenience, of course.

Many thanks for safe-guarding our democracy. “Helluva job !”

Stuart M. Davis

P.S. Justice Scalia - Please let me have your opinion. Is my letter just "argle bargle" or does it contain
some common sense?

April 10, 2014

So - What Is a "Conservative" Anyway ?

So - What Is a "Conservative" Anyway ? Have you ever wondered?

Many people are proud to call themselves "Conservatives".
Do they all mean the same thing by that word? Do they even know what they mean?

Here is what I believe -

There are some "Conservatives" who don't have a clue about what they mean except that their "Conservative" label puts them in the same group as someone else who shares at least one narrow viewpoint or objective. That makes them both "Conservatives".

e.g. Do you like to pollute the air in your neighborhood? Well I do too. So, we're both "Conservatives".
And we've got to protect ourselves and our "freedom" from the "other" group. You know, the "Conservationists".
They would take away our freedom to pollute, to wipe out indigenous species and to cut down old growth forests. Shoot, loot and pollute - that's our motto. We're "Conservatives".

The majority of "Conservatives" are not driven so much by association with particular persons but by philosophic, religious, social or economic beliefs and goals. Mostly selfish ones.

Some "Conservatives" liked it better when OSHA didn't inspect businesses and factories. Workers had the right to injure or kill themselves as they saw fit. That was real freedom. Conservatives wish we could go back to those good old days.

Other "Conservatives" liked it better when there was no Social Security system. Workers could keep and spend what they earned. Why force people to prepare for retirement or disability?
And, IF there should be a mandatory savings program to prepare for retirement, then it should be PRIVATIZED. Let the investment banks and insurance companies handle it. They're geniuses with money. Look at how well they absorbed all the TARP funds. Conservatives truly believe this would benefit all of us. Especially the investment banks and insurance companies !

Many "Conservatives" would do away with progressive taxation and impose a "flat tax" on income. Every worker and income earner would pay the same rate. Except of course capital gains taxes on investments. Those would be taxed at a lower rate than earned income. Hedge funds, mutual funds, private equity investors etc. Aren't those guys the real "job creators"? They deserve to pay lower taxes than people who labor for a living. We owe our jobs to them, don't we?
"Conservatives" truly believe in this one. That's a core "Conservative" belief. "Conservatives" work hard to conserve their money. Make it grow. Convince everyone else to invest their money with them, for "growth". They don't ever mention shrinkage or risk. (Forbidden words.) It'll never happen. And, if it does, why TARP will be there, all over again.

There are many other types of Conservatives too. Briefly, some of these -

Those who would "conserve" their religious beliefs - to the exclusion of yours or mine. Given the opportunity, they would enshrine their religion and rules in our civil laws. And punish transgressions.

Those who would "conserve" "freedom of choice" in education. They would reduce funding for public schools in favor of "vouchers" for private or charter schools. Your choice - take a voucher and pay the difference to send your child to a private school OR, if you are poor, suffer a substandard and deteriorating education for your children in a neglected public school. And, of course, cancel "Head Start", school lunches and after school programs to benefit the kids of single, working mothers (or fathers).

What do all these different kinds of "Conservatives" have in common then?

Nothing except - they are all pursuing their own SELFISH INTERESTS. "Every man for himself." "Sink or swim."

That is the unifying core value of today's "Conservatives".

Is it clear now?

For a satirical and hopefully humorous view please see http://www.stuartsdesk.com

April 6, 2014

So - What Is "A Jewish State" ?

PM Netanyahu has added yet another obstacle to developing a "two state solution" with the Palestinians -

He now insists they must recognize Israel's right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE. What does that mean?

In fact, what is "Jewish"? Is it religious, cultural, racial or all of those together?

Would that be a religious Jewish state Netanyahu demands? Or merely a cultural Jewish state? Or a purely racial Jewish state?

How could the Palestinians agree to what is totally undefined?

Would that Jewish state be truly democratic? Would it guarantee equal rights, obligations and respect for non-Jews?

Or would non-Jewish citizens be encouraged to leave? Or be forced to leave?

Would the Jewish State of Israel be similar to the Islamic Republic of Iran? Would it make religious law supreme over civil law?

Could non-believers drive cars on Saturday? Eat pork sausages? Would adulterers be stoned?

How could Mahmoud Abbas ever agree to this condition when it is totally undefined and open to dangerous interpretation?

What to do? Abbas should seize the initiative and craft his own statement. Something like -

"The Palestinians will recognize Israel's right to exist as a democratic state, with equal rights and dignity for all of its citizens, based on a Jewish cultural core heritage, with peaceful, respectful relations between Muslims, Christians, Jews, other faiths and non-believers....
......as Israel must also agree to recognize a democratic Palestinian state with equal rights and dignity for all of its citizens, based on a Palestinian cultural core heritage with peaceful, respectful relations between Muslims, Christians, Jews and other faiths and non-believers.

Is Netanyahu ready to accept such a statement?

March 20, 2014

Nominating Cari Christman (Red State Women's PAC) for Nobel Prize in CIRCULAR REASONING

Cari Christman, Executive Editor (Republican) Redstate Women's PAC said in a recent interview -

“We believe that Texas women want and deserve equal pay,” Christman admitted. “But honestly, Jason, we don’t believe the Lilly Ledbetter Act is what’s going to solve that problem for women"....

“If you look at it, women are… extremely busy, we lead busy lives,” she explained. “And times are extremely busy. It’s just — it’s a busy cycle for women, and we’ve got a lot to juggle.”

Cari says that women are just too busy to advocate for equal pay (equal to their male counterparts).

Women are totally occupied raising a family, participating in church activities, attending PTA and WORKING LONG HOURS.

And, since women are grossly underpaid, long hours are needed. in order to earn enough money to stay afloat.

So there is the logic - no time to advocate for better wages because they are working for slave wages.

I nominate Cari Christman for a Nobel Prize in CIRCULAR REASONING.

And since Cari did such a good lob in explaining the Republican position on pay parity to her fellow Texans, I also
nominate her to receive a raise.

For a lighter take on the pay parity issue and other Tea Party / Republican craziness please go to

http://www.stuartsdesk.com

March 11, 2014

Let's Dumb Down the SAT - Eliminate Big Words and Raise Everyone's Score - Especially SAT vs. ACT

The SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) has been losing ground to the ACT (American College Testing) in recent years.

Colleges now prefer the ACT by a small margin.

What can the SAT do to regain its dominant position?

The solution is simple. Dumb down the SAT, eliminate big words and essay questions and raise everyone's score!

Then students and administrators will again opt for the SAT rather than the ACT.

There will be countless additional advantages for students, English speakers and the world as a whole.

The English language can be cut down to less than 1,000 words. Foreigners will be able to learn English in one or two weeks.

Pronunciation and spelling will be greatly simplified. Words of more than 3 syllables can be totally eliminated.

Dictionaries will be shorter, smaller and less expensive, saving paper, preserving trees and reducing greenhouse warming.

And memory needed for Microsoft Word Spellcheck will be slashed by Gigabytes, speeding up everyone's computer and denying viruses a place to hide.

Financial news and announcements will be less encumbered and easier to read. Imagine -

"We offer new stock in our company. You buy and maybe get rich. Maybe not get rich. Not our fault if get poor."

The advantages are countless. So let's welcome the new, improved and dumber (is that a real word?) SAT.

For a lighter take on the SAT, political rhetoric and English vocabulary please go to http://stuartsdesk.com/

January 20, 2014

After Privatizing NSA Data, Let's Also Do Records of IRA, SSA and Census Bureau - Outsource the EPA

The following is a SATIRICAL comment (in case you can't tell) -

Of course we can't trust the NSA to maintain a database of telephone calls. But Verizon and AT&T must certainly
be more trustworthy. Let's ask them to do it. Then we can deluge them with court orders each time a search is needed.
And we'll require an instant response. It should work great. Complicated is always better than simple. Private is always
better than the government. Right? I mean, didn't Halliburton do a great job supplying our military in Iraq?

What about the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration and the Census Bureau?
How can we trust them to store the details of our personal lives? Certainly they know far more
about us than the "meta-data" of the NSA could possibly disclose.

They know our family members and dependents. Our incomes and investments. Our bank accounts and stock transactions.
Who inhabits our house at our home address. Our health and disabilities. Our educational level. Our race and ethnicity.

I mean, this is REALLY dangerous stuff. We've got to privatize these records so they can't be misused. But where to store them?

Well, who knows finance and money better than JP Morgan Chase? Give them the IRS records I say.

And what about retirement income and disability? The AARP can handle it. Or maybe "Find a Place for Mom" (you know, Joan Lunden.).

Census data? Very dangerous stuff - prime material for identity theft. Give it to Facebook. Just be sure "opt out" of unauthorized
disclosures - if you can find the "opt out" button of course.

Finally, why not privatize the EPA and OSHA? American businessmen are honorable people, right?
Self policing and a code of conduct should be more than enough.

So what if your water smells like licorice? John Boehner loves licorice. We all love licorice.

It's obvious - privatization is the only way.

For a lighter take on this and related issues please go to http://stuartsdesk.com/Oldies_But_Goodies.html