Category Archives: government, law, and politics

An Apparent Failure of Logic

About Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein says:

“Each one of them represents a different constituency, and the constituencies are knocking heads at the present time. . . . There are women all over the country, and particularly in my state of California, who feel that she hasn’t been treated fairly. . . . They want her to stand tall.”

Um, huh? Maybe I missed something, but how does “[being] treated fairly” have anything at all to do with how good a candidate you are? (And what exactly does “stand tall” mean in this context?”) Leaving aside the allegations implicit in Feinstein’s statement that there has been unfair treatment and that it is because Clinton is a woman—the truth of either is irrelevant on this particular point—being treated unfairly by others, regardless of the reason, says nothing of one’s own qualities and characteristics as they pertain to the job of being President of the United States.

Continue reading

Backwards Bernanke

Just when I thought Ben Bernanke couldn’t be more of a putz…

“The dollar surged on Tuesday after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned the weak U.S. currency posed a risk to inflation, adding to views the central bank could raise interest rates later this year.”

Say what?! I’m not economics expert, but last I checked the Fed’s willy-nilly printing money out of thin air contributed to the weak dollar, which in turn contributed to inflation – not the other way around. And people wonder why I don’t trust the Fed…

Pittsburgh Domestic Registry a Good Idea

Pittsburgh City Councilman Bruce Kraus has introduced a proposal to City Council that would take a step toward getting the State out of the marriage business by setting up a “domestic registry“.

Continue reading

The State Should Get Out of the Marriage Business

Oh dear. Bush apologist, McCain supporter, and former senator Rick Santorum has offered his addlepated opinion on the recent gay marriage ruling in California (Fedora Tip: 2 Political Junkies. He says:

“…The state Supreme Court there ruled, 4-3, that same-sex couples can marry. In doing so, four judges rejected a statute that passed in a referendum with 61 percent of the vote that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman. It’s merely the latest in a string of court decisions that have overturned the overwhelming will of the people.”

As another blogger (a valedictorian law student no less) pointed out, sometimes the will of the people is in conflict with constitutional law. He says, “California’s Supreme Court did not override the will of the people; it simply looked at two different expressions of the people’s will and decided that the constitutional expression trumped the statutory expression, which is entirely proper.” I agree. If it is truly the will of the people of California to limit marriage to monogamous heterosexual couples, they’ll have to amend their state constitution.

Continue reading