How much would you spend on pet health?

A New York Times column, with a couple expecting their first kid also staring at a $4Kdoggie health bill, is one of several things, both reading and real-life issues, that bring that to mind.

Beyond paying a vet that much, we get next to pet health insurance. After that, you get into the world of air-conditioned doghouses and more.

Even if I had more money, or made more money, than I actually do … the utilitarian in me simply can’t see spending that much money on a pet.

See the poll at right to voice your thoughts.

Steve Thomas a Perry-Abbott clone on #1stAmdt

Steve Thomas, a Republican state district judge in Texas, has just shown himself to be as much a hack on the 1st Amendment and church-state separation as Gov. Rick Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott

District Judge Steve Thomas granted an injunction requested by the Kountze High School cheerleaders allowing them to continue displaying religious-themed banners pending the outcome of a lawsuit, which is set to go to trial next June 24, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said. Thomas previously granted a temporary restraining order allowing the practice to continue.

And, that time frame is the problem.

When this case goes to trial,wingnuts will argue, “This has been going on for nine months now, so what’s the harm of keeping it in place?”

Reality? It harms students who not only aren’t Christian, but are, but not fundamentalist Protestants. It harms the cheerleaders doing this and their supporters by teaching them wrong ideas about the First Amendment, church state separation, religious liberty, the tyranny of the majority and more.

And, it teaches them wrong about the First Amendment itself — since they’re wearing cheerleading uniforms, this is clearly a school issue, therefore, it’s a violation.

Finally, bluntly, it teaches them that lying in the name of god is OK.

Other than that, there’s no harm at all.

Obama vs Romney — does #SCOTUS really matter?

Obama and Romney at the second debate./Photo via New York Times.

For Democrats in general, and Obamiacs in particular, when they run across a progressive to left-liberal third-party voter (Green, though not a registered party member) like me, there’s one guaranteed final combination argument and plea they trot out to tell me why I absolutely, positively must vote Democrat.

And, it’s the “who do you want nominating Supreme Court justices” rhetorical question. If that alone isn’t enough, I can guarantee you that if the bare rhetorical question isn’t enough, that Roe v. Wade will be trotted out.

Well, let’s address that first.

First of all, I’m not a single-issue voter. And, I’m probably in that great muddled middle of Americans.

Ideally? If we didn’t have the current Supreme Court, I’d like for a “test case” before SCOTUS to wind up junking the trimester system and replacing it with a bimester one. In the first bimester, states would be able to impose no restrictions. (And, outside the court arena, a liberal president and Congress would get the cojones to start Medicaid funding again.) BUT … in the second bimester, I would be open, within narrow parameters, to giving states MORE control than they have now.

So, appealing to Roe v. Wade won’t worm your way into the cockles of my heart.

Other hot-button social issues?

Sure, Romney and Obama will differ on abortion. And gay rights. And women's rights. Of course, even there, we probably need to “nuance” the issue of how much disagreement they may have. That’s because we’re not sure what the hell Romney believes on most social issues, and Obama was for gay marriage back in the 1990s, before he was against it for a decade, before he became for it again.

So, those social issues? Not so hot button. And, on gay rights, unless Romney went way off the board, as long as he nominates someone younger than 55, he’s not likely to get a Scalia or Alito on this issue, but rather an Anthony Kennedy.

So, let’s look at other issues.

They'll allegedly differ on Citizens' United, but, isn't it strange that in two presidential debates and one by the Veep candidates, neither Obama nor Biden has mentioned it? And, let’s not forget that Democratic National Procurer Vernon Jordan paraded Obama before Wall Streeters way back in 2003 to get their USDA prime seal of approval. 

And, Jordan did exactly that:

Drawing on his undoubted charm, wit, intelligence, and Harvard credentials, Obama passed this trial with shining colors. At a series of social meetings with assorted big “players” from the financial, legal and lobbyist sectors, Obama impressed key establishment figures like Gregory Craig (a longtime leading attorney and former special counsel to the White House), Mike Williams (the legislative director of the Bond Market Association), Tom Quinn (a partner at the top corporate law firm Venable and a leading Democratic Party “power broker”), and Robert Harmala, another Venable partner and “a big player in Democratic circles.”

And that’s part of why Obama won’t really mention Citizens United, won’t really regulate the banksters., etc. Well, that and having a $500,000 “checking”account with Jamie Dimon and überbank JP Morgan.

So, any business regulation issues that the Supreme Court tackles? Not a lot of difference.

Free trade? Obama’s bashing of Romney for hypocrisy in China-bashing aside, they’re both ardent free traders. The rare case in this area that goes before SCOTUS? No difference.

But, let’s get to the meat of possible upcoming SCOTUS cases, certainly the meat for social libertarians.

Let’s talk the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. (More on the latter later this week, in specific.) Let’s talk civil liberties, because the Court has two cases in which it could further gut civil liberties.

And, speaking of civil liberties, how many “sting operations” like the one thatresulted in an arrest today of an alleged terrorist have also bent and folded civil liberties?


In cases like this, about civil liberties, where Obama the man who has out-Bushed Bush on anything related to the War on Terra and (on medical marijuana) the War on Drugs, and Romney the Mormon goody two-shoes do-gooder, will agree 110 percent.

And, let’s look at something near and dear to me — First Amendment issues. And let’s not forget that this amendment covers FOUR freedoms — speech, religion, press and assembly.

President Obama, so far, has not been highly friendly to any of the four. He’s been more aggressive than Bush on hunting down whistleblowers, thereby undercutting free speech. When these whistleblowers have been interviewed in the media, he’s leaned on those media outlets; ditto over things like restricting their access to Bradley Manning, prisoners in Guantanamo, etc., as freedom of the press intertwines with civil liberties. And, he made nary a comment about police thuggery at the 2008 party national conventions, and continued in the same vein of silence on police tactics vs. “Occupy” protesters, etc.

That leaves freedom of religion, which hasn’t gotten much legal test. However, since Obama has out-Bushed Bush once again, by expanding Bush’s office for faith-based programs, I think we know pretty much where the “constitutional law scholar” stands on that.

And, that leads to a final point. Beyond Obama and Romney not having a lot of difference on a lot of these issues, the fact that Obama likes to call himself both a liberal and a constitutional law scholar means that his hypocrisy level (and reason to be mistrusted) is arguably even higher than Romney’s.

So, really, does it matter THAT much as to the future of SCOTUS which of these two is in charge the next four years? No.

Beyond that, even if a President Romney were to go wingnut-happy with a SCOTUS nominee, there’s either a minimum of 41 Senate Democrats with cojones (latest polls even say Dems should keep a Senate majority) or there’s not. If not, then Democrats as a party and the United States as a country have even bigger problems.

Two bankrupt candidates, lying about bankruptcy

Well, Mitt Romney was right about one thing in tonight’s debate ­— both he and Barack Obama falsely believe (or at least profess to falsely believe) Social Secuirty is going bankrupt. Hence’s Romney’s desire to privatize it, and Obama’s Catfood Commission.

It was at that point, after about half an hour of tuning in, that I decided it was high time to tune out again and turn off the TV.

In “chess match” terms, Obama didn’t wax the floor with Romney, from what I saw, unlike Biden with Ryan. But, he did seem ahead on points, to use boxing analogies, while counterpunching a bit better than Romney and throwing his own jabs, too.

Sometime later this week, I’ll probably do a more in-depth post on one Democrat/Obamiac cherished anti-Green, etc., talking point — the appointment of Supreme Court justices — and myth vs. reality here.

Me no like #NakedCapitalism quite so much

I’ve commented a number of times on blog posts there, Yves.

But don’t think I will anymore.

I put one up Monday afternoon, with a link to a blog post of mine, and saw that it was under moderation. Fair enough, even if I have posted there before.

But, taking 4 hours (It had been right at 3 the last time I checked and it hadn’t been approved) seems a bit much for a professional level blog with multiple bloggers that are a regular part of the team.

Then, I now see that the approved version of my post was one with the URL stripped out.

So, although I’m not a professional-level blogger …

Naked Capitalism is coming off my small, personal blogroll.

And I deleted a couple of others at the same time.

High Heat Stats was originally a great baseball blog when it was at Baseball-Reference. But after Sports-Reference ended blogs and it started out on its own, it got to be SEO-type obsessive, even Tweeting MLB player accounts for hits. Worse yet, then, Andy and other founders sold it to Gannett/USA Today.

And Center for Inquiry is getting too Gnu Atheist.

Time for an American 'decline'?

Graphic via New York Times

GOP/tea party and Koch Brothers wingnuttery of ssaying that Obama will take the United States into an era of decline, in which these wingnut employers will have to lay off workers, etc., what if there’s truth in the statement, but it has nothing to do with Obama?

What if modern technological devices won’t cause another “industrial revolution”? What if the current economic growth rate isn’t just do to recovery from a fiscal crisis, but something more momentous and longer lasting?

And, what effects might it have? Will it further increase the income inequality already being fueled by the likes of the Koch Brothers?

The New York Times takes a serious look at this issue.

Now, my only formal study of economics was a high school semester of intro to macroeconomics. So, I’m not qualified to comment too much on the piece.

That said, regular readers here know that I loathe the idea of American exceptionalism, whether a Christianity-based version of the religious right or a more secular version espoused by neoliberal Democrats, and undercut it whenever I can.

So, is this great decline at least possible? You bet. Given neoliberal Democrats’ ties to Silicon Valley (including the anti-unionism it has), is it possible that said neolibs have overestimated the long-term economic potential of tech devices, and that they have especially overestimated them because most of the manufacture is done abroad, primarily in China? Certainly.

Is it also true that neoliberals haven’t done a lot more about income inequality than old-fashioned conservatives? Indeed.

So, if you’re not an Obamiac or Clintonite, especially — or if you are, but you’re an open-minded one, click that NYT link and read through.

I do hope Gordon isn’t correct. But, what if he is? There’s other factors at play, like an aging country with retiring Baby Boomers spending less. Even if Gordon is too dour with a 0.2 percent growth estimate … 0.5 wouldn’t be much, and is certainly a realistic guesstimate.