SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (840751)3/5/2015 7:00:23 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574472
 
Since it has been shown scientifically that sexual orientation is not genetic
How about a LINK for that, Dave. From a reputable scientific journal. The original source documents of course, since I know that's all you trust...

Because I follow science, and was not aware that that had been determined.



To: i-node who wrote (840751)3/5/2015 7:03:24 PM
From: bentway  Respond to of 1574472
 
Will Roberts Kick the Can to a Republican President?
Political Animal
by Ed Kilgore

So Jeffrey Toobin wrote his column on yesterday's oral arguments in King v. Burwell, and here's the most interesting speculation yet about the Chief Justice's unusual silence--and the one time he interrupted it:
Roberts’s one question may turn out to be extremely important.....Anthony Kennedy had asked about “Chevron deference,” a doctrine of law that describes how much leeway the executive branch should have in interpreting laws. Verrilli, not surprisingly, said that the Chevron doctrine gave the Obama Administration more than adequate permission to read the law to allow subsidies on the federal exchange.
“If you’re right about Chevron,” Roberts said, at long last, “that would indicate that a subsequent Administration could change that interpretation?”
Perhaps it could, Verrilli conceded.The question suggests a route out of the case for Roberts—and the potential for a victory for the Obama Administration. Roberts came of age as a young lawyer in the Reagan Administration, and there he developed a keen appreciation for the breadth of executive power under the Constitution. To limit the Obama Administration in this case would be to threaten the power of all Presidents, which Roberts may be loath to do.
But he could vote to uphold Obama’s action in this case with a reminder that a new election is fast approaching, and Obamacare is sure to be a major point of contention between the parties. A decision in favor of Obama here could be a statement that a new President could undo the current President’s interpretation of Obamacare as soon as he (or she) took office in 2017.
In other words, the future of Obamacare should be up to the voters, not the justices.
If Toobin's right, it will be interesting to see if any conservatives buy the argument and restrain their fury at Roberts for saving Obamacare twice. It's an issue that transcends this case, of course: all the supposedly tyrannical powers Obama has assumed in the face of congressional obstruction are fully available to future Republican presidents. Leaving aside the handful of conservatives whose objections to "executive overreach" are not limited to its application by the wrong "team," you'd think they'd have to privately admit Roberts has a point.



To: i-node who wrote (840751)3/5/2015 7:11:34 PM
From: bentway  Respond to of 1574472
 
The War on Terror is a Racket
Political Animal
by Martin Longman

You probably first became aware of former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren when he became disgusted by the debt-ceiling fiasco, quit his job, and went public with a scathing tell-all article at Truthout.org in September 2011.
To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.
Lofgren made news with this rhetoric chiefly because of his Republican pedigree. He began as a staffer for Rep. John Kasich in the early 1980's. Kasich is now a two-term governor of Ohio. From there, Lofgren built his career focusing on military matters for the House Armed Services Committee and the budget committees of both the House and the Senate.

He followed his Truthout article with a 2012 book: The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. I think the title is self-explanatory.

In the latest issue of the Washington Monthly, Mr. Lofgren writes about the war on terror and James Risen's new book: Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War.

Lofgen doesn't pulls any punches in this review, as you can tell with his opening:
When I was a congressional staffer, I became acutely aware that elected officials choose issues to put at the top of their agendas mainly for their ability to shake money out of the purses of contributors. The subsequent histrionics in the House or Senate chamber are pure theater for the benefit of C-SPAN and the poor recluses who watch it. Behind every political cause is a racket designed to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
Lofgren concludes that the War on Terror is ultimately this kind of racket, too.
It is difficult to read Pay Any Price and not come away with the sick feeling that the Bush presidency—which, after all, only assumed office by the grace of judicial wiring and force majeure—was at bottom a corrupt and criminal operation in collusion with private interests to hijack the public treasury. But what does that say about Congress, which acted more often as a cheerleader than a constitutional check? And what does it tell us about the Obama administration, whose Justice Department not only failed to hold the miscreants accountable, but has preserved and expanded some of its predecessors’ most objectionable policies?
Partisans may squabble over the relative culpability of the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as that of Congress, but that debate is now almost beside the point. If Risen is correct, America’s campaign against terrorism may have evolved to the point that endless war is the tacit but unalterable goal, regardless of who is formally in charge.
You definitely want to read the whole thing. Over a 28-year career in Congress working on defense issues, Lofgren gained the kind of perspective you can't get any place else.



To: i-node who wrote (840751)3/5/2015 7:27:37 PM
From: bentway  Respond to of 1574472
 
Colo. Pot Law Makes Us Violate Constitution: Sheriffs' Suit

OFFICIALS SAY LEGALIZATION FORCES THEM INTO 'CRISIS OF CONSCIENCE'

By Jenn Gidman, Newser Staff
newser.com
Posted Mar 5, 2015 12:05 PM CST

(NEWSER) – While Colorado citizens are taking advantage of their state's marijuana legalization, sheriffs there and in neighboring states are suffering a "crisis of conscience" in upholding that law, according to a suit filed against Colorado today in Denver. Per USA Today, the lead plaintiff, Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith, calls the case a "constitutional showdown" and says he doesn't know whether to enforce his own state's mandate or the US Constitution (pot's still not legal on a federal level). "[They're] asking every peace officer to violate their oath," Smith says, per USA Today. "What we're being forced to do … makes me ineligible for office." Meanwhile, sheriffs in Kansas and Nebraska who've joined the suit complain that tokers driving back from Colorado are running up overtime bills as police have to handle a significant increase in drug arrests.

This isn't the first group to take legal measures against the state. The attorneys general in Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against Colorado last year, saying the free flow of pot across state lines is hurting communities. "Left unchallenged, I am confident Colorado's law will cause long-term harm to Nebraska families," that state's AG, Doug Peterson, wrote in an open letter, as per the LA Times. And two lawsuits filed last month by an anti-drug group express similar complaints and add racketeering charges into the mix, the Huffington Post noted in February. Larimer County's sheriff says the DoJ's mostly hands-off policy in dealing with the new rules amounts to showing folks "how to violate federal law but not get prosecuted," USA Today notes. But a pot advocate says pols and cops should concentrate on more serious crimes. "These guys are on the wrong side of history," he tells the paper.