Monthly Archives: March 2014

What is it

Posted on by
Reply

…with Liberals and uniformity?  I mentioned here a Liberal Justice’s fear of “the noisiness of republican democracy.”  Following is an example from near the other end of the jurisdictional spectrum.

It seems a grade schooler at the Caprock Academy in Grand Junction, CO, shaved her head in solidarity for a classmate and friend who was undergoing cancer treatment and in the process losing her own hair.  This got the grade schooler expelled from Caprock: such a thing violated the school’s precious dress code.

Never mind that shaving heads is a widespread and well-known act for the purpose: solidarity and emotional support for someone who is losing their own hair from a cancer treatment régime.  Never mind that the Caprock administrators knew the purpose of this girl’s head-shaving.  No: Get outta here.

The school’s excuse?  Unbelievably, it’s this.  Caprock’s President and Board of Directors Chairman, Catherine Norton Breman, said the school’s dress code

was created to promote safety, uniformity, and a non-distracting environment for the school’s students.  Under this policy, shaved heads are not permitted.

Uniformity.  No exceptions.  In what way, exactly, is supporting a friend in her extended hour of need in any way unsafe or distracting to other students?

In what way, exactly, is non-uniformity such a fearful thing?  Especially in an environment where students are supposed to be learning to think—and to think for themselves—is non-uniformity such a terrifying thing?

Of whom, or of what philosophy, are Liberals trying to make all of us—all of our children—unthinking, carbon copy acolytes?

I should note that, in the end, the girl’s expulsion from school only lasted one day, and she was allowed back to school the following Tuesday.  The school’s directors also were to meet—behind closed doors, of course—to “discuss” this thing.  The questions above remain though: of what is this bunch of Liberals, and all Liberals, apparently—so terrified of people, or children, not being all alike?

The Liberal Justice and the Birth Control Mandate

Posted on by
2

Justice Elena Kagan had a number of questions—as did Justice Sonya Sotomayor—in Tuesday’s oral arguments on Obamacare’s Contraceptive Mandate.  Indeed, counsel for the mandate’s challengers, Paul Clement, wasn’t even allowed to get into his argument, so little were these Justices in a listening mode, but that’s for another post.  Kagan had one “question,” though, which was very telling:

One religious group would opt out of this and one religious group would opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal.  Nothing would be uniform[.]

Yeah, and, Madam Justice?  So what?  Why must everything fit into a Liberal’s—or Big Government’s—Procrustean bed?  Opting out is part of the Free Exercise Clause—it goes right to the heart of it.  If things do get…piecemeal…where is the problem?  Government convenience is not a reason to deviate from the Constitution on the bench—or to truncate liberty from anywhere.

If it isn’t government convenience, then the Liberal just seems terrified of the noisiness of republican democracy.

Russia vs NATO

Posted on by
Reply

What’s Russian President Vladimir Putin’s next move, after he’s finished absorbing Ukraine?  I offered some general thoughts here.  Next up, or soon after next, are the Baltics, all of which are NATO members.

General Jack Keane (USA, Ret) had this to say about NATO’s capabilities vis-à-vis Russia:

NATO shouldn’t be taken lightly.  There are 4 million people under arms.  That’s not counting the United States.  With the United States, it’s over 5 million.  And the fact of the matter is the Russians have 1 million under arms.  So at some point, capabilities, quantities, matter.

Indeed, they do.  But what are those capabilities, quantities, really?

  • The UK doesn’t operate any actual aircraft carriers (the closest thing they have now is an assault ship).  An aircraft carrier, or a fleet of them, would only be of sometime use in the duck pond that is the Baltic Sea, anyway.
  • The Netherlands (with its unionized, weekday army) has disbanded its heavy armored division.
  • France and the UK have all of 200 main battle tanks.  Each.
  • Germany is cutting its troops to 180,000.
  • France has cut to 213,000 troops.
  • The UK has cut to 174,000 troops.
  • The US is cutting to 445,000 troops.
  • Poland—the only serious member on the continent (perhaps after the target Baltics)—has 100,000 active duty troops and less than 130 fighter aircraft.  They do have 1,000 aging main battle tanks.

Defense spending is falling off as a per centage of national GDP, too, with most member nations utterly failing to spend as much as 2% of their GDP on defense—nominally a requirement for NATO membership.

The effective force ratio NATO would be able to bring to bear against the Red Army, then, is of a piece with the force ratio a motley gang of Persians had against a relative handful of Greeks some 2,500 years ago, and they still had very much trouble breaking through.  NATO’s effective force ratio is of a piece with that enjoyed by a heavily armored French force that failed to break a relative handful of English archers some 600 years ago.

It’s not confidence inspiring.  Not for our side, anyway.

Big Brother

Posted on by
Reply

Three guys, two of whom parachuted from the top of 1 World Trade Center and the third a ground-based accomplice, have been arrested for the stunt.  They’re being charged with felony burglary, reckless endangerment, and jumping from a structure, with the last two being misdemeanors.

Yeah—jumping from a structure.

The burglary and reckless endangerment beefs, ordinarily, would be serious charges, and their legitimacy are what trials are for.  But jumping from a structure?  Really?  That’s just Big Brother, Government, making a law simply because it can.

On looking into the particulars, though, things don’t seem to get any more legitimate.  To the extent that the reckless endangerment was limited to the jumpers endangering themselves, Big Government has no legitimate interest.  Endangering the public, though?  The jump was at 0300.  Even in New York City, even around the Trade Center, how much public was there to be endangered?

Even the burglary rap, in this case, seems excessive.  This particular charge

entails being in a building illegally with an intent to commit another crime—in this case, breaking a 2008 city law against parachuting off buildings more than 50 feet tall[.]

They’re not even charging these guys with any attempt to steal something, which is what we usually think of when we think “burglary.”  Big Government is only using this charge to punch up the “seriousness” of their case.

Birth Control “Mandate”

Posted on by
1

In the Twitter to-do surrounding the Supreme Court’s hearing two cases related to this, Planned Parenthood linked to one of their favorite posters, reproduced just below.  The poster is so mendacious, it cries out for a post in point-by-point response.

1. 99% still can—and 99% already were, long before Obamacare came up.  Neither case before the Court has anything to do with women’s access, only whether employers, or insurers, must cover birth control in every plan offered.  And it’s always been cheap, too, including for guys (why aren’t condoms mandated, by the way?  Whatever happened to equality of the sexes?).  WalMart, for instance sells birth control pills for as little as $4/mo.  The doctor’s appointment to get the prescription still is extra.  WalMart sells condoms for as little as $15 for three dozen.  No doctor’s appointment required.

2. Birth control for health reasons isn’t birth control; it’s medicinal use for treating an illness or other condition unrelated to pregnancy.  As a medicine, it’s already covered in other aspects of a health plan.  If it isn’t, that would be a legitimate gripe, but it would be legitimate only between customers and plan purveyors.  It would remain no business of government.

3. 27 million women still can; this is wholly unrelated to any question of the legitimacy of a contraceptive coverage mandate.  See #1 above.

4. 70%?  That depends on who’s polling.  Of course there’s a bias involved: who doesn’t like free stuff?  Especially when they’re not the ones paying to make it “free.”

5. Who, indeed, are the plaintiffs?  Two families with deeply held religious beliefs who live their religion in their business operations, too—like charity toward all, family nurturing practices vis-à-vis their employees, and so on.  What products they offer to sell matters to this debate how, exactly?

6. Slippery Slope?  This is a cynically offered straw man.  No one is regulating women’s access to birth control here except the government.  No one is looking to regulate access to vaccines, transfusion, etc—except, perhaps government as it attempts to start down this slope.  The only thing the plaintiffs in these two cases want to do is to not be regulated in this arena.  As to access itself, see #1 and #3 above.

7. First time for whom, actually?  Businesses always before have had the choice to offer health coverage plans (back when they actually resembled insurance policies and not Obamacare’s mandated health welfare plans).  Now it’s government that wants, for the first time, to eliminate that right to choose.  And, of course, with this point, Planned Parenthood ignores the fact that in opposing the plaintiffs, they’re seeking nakedly to impose their own personal beliefs on others.  This whole argument also cynically elides the fact that it’s a market choice, not business’ or government’s, that determines what gets included in a health coverage plan.  At least in a free country.

As to the Twitter hashtag #Notmybossbusiness, indeed it’s not.  The employer has no business providing birth control to his employees, “free,” or otherwise.  The use of birth control is a personal choice, not an employer’s.