When 'fiscal conservatives' aren't — that's you, Greg Abbott

The state of Texas getting slapped down in the latest school finance lawsuit (note "latest," there's a good timeline here of state school finance issues all the way back to "Edgewood" in the 1980s) reminds me that, when it comes to fiscal-related issues, most alleged fiscal conservatives are anything but.

Look at Greg Abbott, even more than Rick Perry. You've got the school finance lawsuit at the state level. You've got school prayer, religious displays, and other church-state issues that regularly go to suit at the federal level. And, every 10 years, if not more frequently, there's Voting Rights Act-related suits.

In short, Abbott wastes tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for things he knows will lose in court. As the state's attorney general, doesn't he have a legal obligation to tell Perry and the Legislature his estimation of the likelihood of success, or failure, in court, against eventual lawsuits? Of course he does? Ditto on his estimate of expected legal costs.

Update, Feb. 18, 2013: And now, the man who would be gov, tired of suing the feds over Obamacare, has moved on to Dodd-Frank.

Here's the waste of taxpayer dollars part:

Legal experts believe that much of the lawsuit is unlikely to have much standing in court. “Sure, Dodd-Frank is a mess; sure, the statute is unwieldy and inefficient; sure, the statute takes power away from citizens and states and transfers it to the federal government. However, it’s not unconstitutional or otherwise illegal for Congress to pass a bad law. And this is what Dodd-Frank is,” says Jonathan Macey, a professor at Yale Law School.

Kenneth Klee, a law professor at UCLA, points out that the states’ major argument in the lawsuit — that Dodd-Frank violates states’ rights under the new bankruptcy provision — doesn’t hold up. ”States don’t have rights on bankruptcy law — Congress could prescribe anything at any time. There’s no vested property interest there,” he explains.

Bingo. So, the state of Texas may not even have legal "standing," but Abbott sues away.

As for the "bad law" issue? Abbott's compadres on the GOP side of the US House and Senate didn't want a "good" law. (And a lot of Democrats didn't want a great one, either.) So, this is what we got.

As far as wasting taxpayer dollars? Considering that the suit was originally filed by, among others, "two conservative advocacy groups, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the 60 Plus Association," Abbott doesn't care.

Got that, you teabaggers? Abbott doesn't care. He'll waste your money and mine all day long, as long as he doesn't waste ExxonMobil's or the Koch Bros.

Update, Sept. 5: Federal appeals court in San Antonio confirms Abbott wasted more money over Texas Senate redistricting.

Dear Leader wants to kill more Merikuns

The leak of an Obama Administration white paper that alleges to find legal justification for an even more expansive list of reasons to kill American citizens who allegedly have some connection with al Qaeda or other terrorist groups is simply appalling.

It's clearer and clearer our "constitutional law scholar president" is using that legal skill to fold, spindle and mutilate the Constitution.

Business Insider lists seven specific reasons for concern.

That's not to say Mitt Romney would have different views.

It is to say this is another reason for liberals to stop voting Democrat, and people in general to start voting outside the two-party box.

As for any political ramifications? The GOP will use it to try to bash Obama during the confirmation hearings for John Brennan to run the CIA, but, moral ramifications? They largely agree with Obama.

That said, theoretically, Democrats once had the high ground on such issues. But, theoretically and "in reality" are two different issues.

Don't forget that LBJ started COINTELPRO, for example. Don't forget that Clinton greatly expanded the use of quasi-mercenary "contractors" for military auxiliary services.

Also, don't forget how "death" the Obama Administration has been on leakers. Somebody had probably better be hunkering down right now.

Henry the Eighth I ain't but Richard the Third I am, I am!

Richard III, rest in peace/New York Times

Research seems to have nailed down that a skeleton buried under what was the Greyfriars Priory in London is indeed the physical remains of the blackest villain of Shakespeare, Richard III.

I do hope, per some of the scholars who commented in the story, that this leads to a rehabilitation of Richard's character. He was no saint, but nowhere near the ogre the Bard made him out to be, in what is a great play, but also an overblown ode of propaganda to the Tudor monarchy.

That said, per the header of this post, somebody HAS TO remake the old Herman's Hermits song, "I'm Henry the Eighth I Am":

I'm Henry the eighth I am

Henry the eighth I am, I am

I got married to the widow next door

She's been married seven times before

And every one was an Henry (Henry)

She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)

I'm her eighth old man,

I'm HenryHenry the eighth I am

You know, a Weird Al Yankovic or Bob Rivers doing "I'm Richard the Third, I Am."

I'm Richard the third, I am

Richard the third I am, I am

I'm an uncle to the kids next door

Their daddy was a king but not no more

So I put them in a Tower with gifts galore.

Too young to rule, I took their place

Stuffed them away in an evil place.

I'm Richard the third, I am, I am

But Henry rose up and wham and bam.

And there you have it.

Some Ray Lewis jokes you'll get a bang from!

Ahh, Ray Lewis, the plea-bargaining, likely murder-accomplicing, paying fines to families in spite of his "innocence," convenient god-finding middle linebacker of the Baltimore Ravens, is retiring from the NFL a two-time Super Bowl winner.

And, making me barf with spreading the god schtick thick on the interview stand.

So, Ray, .... firing back ... !

Ray Lewis, your Baltimore Ravens have won the Super Bowl. Are you going to Disney World? No, I'm going to shoot up the town?

Ray Lewis, are you glad to have gone out with a bang?

 Ray, was that a killer of a finish for your game and career?

Jared Diamond wrote "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Ray Lewis' new bio will be "Guns, God and Shots."

Did you hear about the new State Farm commercial? "Your Glock is in good hands with Ray Lewis."

And, I guess we should be glad that his mouth is the only thing Ray Lewis is shooting off, eh? (That said, we're well past worrying about him shooting himself in the foot?)

===

More seriously, Mr. Ray Lewis, was your alleged god "good" a decade ago when two friends of yours, in all likelihood, killed two people and you later obstructed justice to such an extent that nobody was ever convicted? You're a hypocrite, but you're not alone. You're just a more extreme version of others, and not just athletes, who have selective perception about the alleged goodness, and alleged interventions into life, of your alleged deity.

Female pastors, Applebee's and hypocrisy

I didn't realize now that the "pastor" at the center of the Applebee's brouhaha was a woman. It's a shitload of hypocrisy to talk about tithing to god in order to not tip a waitress the Applebee's-suggested 10 percent, while ignoring what Paul, or rather "Paul," says about women and positions of authority and instead becoming a pastor in the first place.

The actual Paul (I don't believe this is a pseudepigraphal addition) says this in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

He is followed by a pseudo-Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11-12:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

And, that's the bottom line. Period.

So, women pastors, if you're going to try to cite the literality of tithing, or whatever, but ignore the literality of Paul and pseudo-Paul, you're a big fucking hypocrite.

Related to that, since the Revvvvvvvvvvv. (picture Rush Limbaugh voice) Alois Bell then came on St. Louis' Faux News station? You Faux talking heads, especially if you're women yourselves, if you're going to support a woman pastor, if you're going to interview a woman pastor, and yet claim to support religiously conservative values, you're big fucking hypocrites.

And, to be more blunt yet, as I expected when I saw the location of the Applebee's, to imitate Rush again, because it now becomes more appropriate yet in a twisted way, the Revvvvvvvv. Bell is an African-American. And, black churches, especially ones of the storefront variety that claim to be conservatively Christian, are especially bad about having women ministers.

Of course, the link above shows that there's a whole shitload of hypocrisy to go around.

Applebee's, who has violated the privacy of previous guests itself, now gets all apologetic to the "Revvvvvv." Bell.

Applebee's which has had various franchisees talk about making more employees PT in order to avoid Obamacare provisions, is a big fucking hypocrite for not telling the Revvvvvvvvvv. to pay 18 percent for that reason alone.

It's also incredibly stupid, as the link shows.

Back to the main area of hypocrisy, though.

Women pastors at conservative Christian churches pull shit like this all the time, and with a straight face. Too often, liberals will call them out for bad ethics or morals, but not for their religious hypocrisy. And, that needs to happen. Because they are hypocrites. Big fucking hypocrites.

Meanwhile, back to Rush. Will he and his ilk defend a black woman for the sake of defending a big business against a black man, our president? That pilodinal cyst has to be squirming in his chair, at the idea of defending a black woman to defend big biz.

And, beyond the biblical hypocrisy, I think a lot of these low-rent independent black (or Hispanic) churches are about as predatory, especially when they preach a lot of "success gospel," as are the Applebee's of the world. And, speaking of predatory practices, we know a lot of the banksters, at local offices, deliberately approached pastors, both male and female, of churches like this to get them to peddle subprime mortgage crap to their members, with nice "tip money" (heh, heh) for so doing.

That "I tithe" comment on the receipt?  The Revvvvvvvv. Bell needs her members to keep putting their Rolexes, or WalMart knockoffs, credit cards, etc., in the offering plate to tithe.

If you're a woman pastor at a liberal Protestant church, I won't ding you for hypocrisy. You had still better watch out what you claim is literally true in the bible, though; I'll ding you on standard atheist grounds.

Dogs, humans, Peter Singer, and geriatric ethics

Oh, boy, would utilihtarian philosopher Peter Singer have "fun" with a New York Times column wrestling with how long to let an aged Fido suffer before putting him to sleep. Singer, a staunch animal rights advocate, would probably love to debate, possibly eviscerate, the columnist's comparing this issue to aged humans and the question of euthanasia. That's especially because Louise Aronson, besides being the owner of the pet in question, is a professor of medicine, specifically of geriatrics.

I would approach the issue from an angle somewhat like Singer might, re the dog, myself. The amount of attachment Dr. Aronson shows to her dog is cruel. It's also selfish.

She cares more about her attachment to Byron than she does for Byron itself.

At the same time, if a human were as bad off as Byron, shouldn't we be giving that person counseling about palliative care? Encouragement toward it, in fact?

It's cruel toward that person, even if they're still of reasonably sound mind, not to try to get them to detach somewhat from the desire to live, or "live," or exist, just a few more days or weeks. It's cruel toward others, as it continues to drive up the cost of health care and drain the personal resources of caregivers.

And, to not get loved ones of such a person to think that way themselves encourages their own selfishness.