– Rick Sntourm thinks being forced to carry a rapist’s child is a gift from God.
– While the title of this piece seems to imply that any gains for women are a loss for men, I think the overall the discussion of electing women in Washington, and across the nation, is worth having.
– Thomas Friedman is full of shit.
– The Oscar nominations. Some years I’ve seen none of the nominated movies; this year I saw Moneyball, so I guess I’ll root for that.
But, religion has nothing to do with it…
Religious beliefs are fine, but they vary from person to person and religion to to religion and we have a secular government that’s not supposed to be picking sides when it comes to religion.
Romney’s only released the last two years worth of tax returns. Which means that there’s something in the prior years which would be a political problem for him. I’m not proposing that Romney issue tax returns for his entire adult life, but given that his wealth is related to tax policy, you would think that he should go back at least to the days when he acquired the bulk of that wealth.
Likewise, Ginrich shouldn’t be complaining about Romney not releasing his tax returns when the Ginrich returns omit the returns of the personal holding company to which most of his income is directed.
As for what is now publically available, we know that Romney received over 20 million in each of the past two years from his investments acquired in Baine Capital. That’s not a 20 million dollar total fortune, that’s just interest or dividends on the fortune.
I mean, seriously, how does a person spend that kind of money? The first year you could buy a big house and some impressive cars for you, your wife, and your kids, take some fun vacations, and help out your friends and neighbors.
But the very next year, you get another 20 million? I guess you buy another house or two, this time in vacation destinations. You increase the size of the staff managing your possessions. You give away some more gifts. You fund a trust for your kids and grandkids (Romney’s trust for his five kids is now $100 million, or $20 million each).
The third year, now what? Another 20 million. I guess it’s time to start looking at private executive jets – that’s a good way to gobble up a lot of money quickly. It’s not just the purchase price, it’s the maintenance and the aircrew (on a standby basis) which costs a lot of money.
By the fifth year, you’ve run out of things to buy. At that point you just keep accumulating money, for which you earn interest, dividends, or capital appreciation. Your 20 million dollars per year becomes 25 million, then 30 million, then 35 million, etc.
And on all this, Romney is taxed at a top rate of 15%. Because, you know, he needs such low taxes to encourage him to “create jobs” – in China.
One fortunate thing about Romney becoming the Republican nominee: it would allow the electorate to vote on what kind of tax policy they prefer, one which favors the richest Americans, or one which is fair to all.
To Republicans such as Romney, money is more valuable than hard work. That’s the only explanation for why it is taxed at such a low rate. You would think the Tea Party folks would have figured this out by now.
I cannot believe the Romney campaign is trying to get away with releasing just 2 returns. That is campaign malpractice, utter idiocy. The howling for more will grow, and he’ll eventually have to give in, looking then like he’s got even more to hide.
@3 Either what you describe…or you spend the greater part of your income trying to get elected President.
Personally, I don’t care what Mitt makes on his investments. I’m more concerned with the fact that so many other people are watching their retirement funds dwindle away and unlike him (or Roger) can’t in practicality do a hell of a lot about it. I am somewhat offended if someone makes the kind of money he does and then whines about how he’s “suffering” by way of having to pay taxes on it.
@3 What you do with that kind of money is set up a trust that will buy power, influence, and social position for your progency for the rest of time, no matter how inept they may be, and hire a battery of lawyers to manage the trust so that your progency’s profligacy can waste only the current income and not deprive their descendants of the fruits of the principal.
Someone ought to publicly ask Santorum how his own feelings would be either if his wife were raped, or if she had an affair with another man and got pregnant. Would he be OK with spending the next 20-odd years trying to play the wise and loving father of the child of his wife’s rapist or fellow adulterer? Would he insist she have the child and put it up for adoption? Has he given any thought to the idea that it wouldn’t just be up to her to “make the best of a bad situation”?
@7 I imagine that’s basically what George Romney did. I have to admit that Mitt didn’t respond by just sitting on his ass and eating expensive bon-bons. He does appear to have put forth considerable effort to make something of himself.
8
I read an interesting article about Santorum’s wife recently. For several years in her 20s, she lived with the ob-gyn who delivered her. He was some 40 years older than her. He also ran an abortion clinic in Pittsburgh. By all accounts, she didn’t care what he did at work. I guess somewhere along the line she changed.
@10
And the Santorum’s just keep getting creepier and creepier…
Has he given any thought to the idea that it wouldn’t just be up to her to “make the best of a bad situation”?
Well, there is this internet story.
The WSJ blog is reporting that Romney’s income doesn’t put him in the top 1%. He’s actually in the top 0.0025%. Some 4,000 families in the U.S. have more wealth than he does. And they probably don’t pay any more taxes than he does, either.
Romney in top 0.0025%
Carl …
errr ahhhh
I read your link about fecal matter in Tom Friedman being at capacity.
Hmmmmm …..
The link was pretty dumb ass. It did mention Mr. Friedman, but gave no indication of why you think my cousin has any shit in him, much less being FOS.
Seems more like a kinda prejudice on your side?
Are you upset because TF did not support McGinn for mayor??? Oh … that can’t be because TF probably never heard about McGinn.
Or maybe your fecal perception is a reflection of differences between you and Mr. Friedman on the challenges of globalization?
I will say this .. Tom dresses better than you and at least he doesn’t willy nilly switch between clean shaven and beardedness.
Birther Nonsense, Redux
A Georgia administrative law judge has refused to quash a subpoena ordering President Obama to appear in a state administrative hearing challenging his citizenship.
Eight people filed challenges with the Georgia Secretary of State’s office to keep Obama off the ballot on the grounds he’s not a citizen.
Five of the challengers are represented by “birther queen” Orly Taitz, who is making a career of getting fined by courts for filing frivolous “birther” lawsuits.
Having struck out everywhere else, Taitz is trying her luck with a state administrative law judge appointed by former governor Zell Miller.
Generally, lawyers can subpoena witnesses, and state administrative law judges can rule on motions to quash a subpoena, but they can’t enforce subpoenaes because they lack the contempt powers of a court of general jurisdiction. So, if Obama fails to obey the subpoena — and all indications are the president won’t appear at Thursday’s hearing — the ALJ can only refer the matter to a Georgia trial court … where it will certainly die.
But if it doesn’t die in a state court, federal courts will intervene and preempt state authority. Federal elections are a federal matter over which federal courts have ultimate judicial authority.
Most administrative law judges wouldn’t make a ruling this stupid. A competent judge of any stripe would be aware that “birther” claims have been dismissed by courts all over the country and the Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals of such dismissals several times. That ought to be enough precedent to deter any judge, even a crackpot, who cares a whit about his reputation. Maybe this guy has been living under a rock. Or maybe he figures his pension is already vested and he’s going to retire soon, so he just doesn’t care, and thinks he might as well have a little fun and gain a few minutes of notoriety before he rides off into the sunset.
I just wouldn’t want to be him when a court explains to him, in a written order, what the limits of his authority are, and discusses what his actions imply about his competence.
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgi.....13941.html
Re: RR @ 15: Just a guess here, but I’d like to look into it further.
My guess is that this guy has ambitions of being elected to a county court position in a county where “crazy” is the norm. Hes probably been trolling the Tea Party meetings, giving them encouragement and setting himself up for a little “judge shopping” by Orley Taiz.
Then when he gets overturned by the county general sessions court (or the Alabama Supreme Court, or the U.S. District Court), he can campaign against in a style fitting of Newt Gingrich, portraying himself as the “protector of the public from Obama”, and any judge who overrules him as being a “liberal elitist” who is covering up a conspiracy in order to protect Obama.
That’s one of the problems with using elections to pick judges, especially at the lowest levels: occasionnaly you get a real crazy guy in there who figures his job security is in stirring up the electorate, not in being a good jurist.
@16 I don’t have a problem with Washington’s system of electing judges — although we might occasionally get an incompetent or corrupt judge, we can deal with that through the supervisory authority of the state supreme court and the disciplinary authority of the judicial conduct commission. Plus, voters can throw them out, as they did with an off-the-wall district court judge our friend Richard Pope ran against. This guy in Georgia was appointed to what is, in most states, either a civil service job or an exempt position in an executive-branch agency that reports to the governor.
Okay I tried to do a quick Google search on the judge, and it’s just about impossible to find much about him before this decision – the news sources take up almost all of the first three pages of search results. There were some websites which indicate that the birthers were putting the full-court press on the judge in the past few days, calling for “prayers that he can resist the Obama thugs” and a number of “open letters” claiming that the birthers have never had a chance to prove their claims in court.
The only other thing I could find was a lot of controversy about a permit for a Savannah coastal development. I didn’t bother to go into the details, as these sorts of things end up having lots of politicians and industry people making cross-claims as they represent their own interests, and I didn’t really care to spend the effort to try to wade through those arguments.
It does appear that this may not exactly be a case of “judge shopping”, as the case seems to have been before him as the only judge in the state with authority to make an initial ruling on the matter. I haven’t read his whole decision, but he seems to be covering his bases by claiming that the President’s lawyers failed to meet the burden of proving that appearance before the hearing would be a burden on him. He might be trying to set this up as a fact-based decision, in the hopes of avoiding a reversal and/or covering his tail (he could always claim the President’s counsel didn’t competently represent their client). But I suspect that any hearing before a full Georgia court would be de novo – in which case it wouldn’t protect the decision from reversal.
I think the wrong standard was used,anyway. A President can’t be compelled to appear at any hearing around the country to which an argumentative lawyer and a local judge decides they want him to appear. If so, the opposing party could set up hearings every day of a President’s term, effectively stopping the President from governing. The burden on the President is presumed, it is up to the party issuing the subpoena to show on overwhelming need for the President’s presence. Even then, federal Supremecy would make such an appearance voluntary, not mandatory.
# 17: I understand your position. And this judge’s current position was not elected.
But please understand that I grew up in the South at a time when judges ensured their election by pledging to use their position to keep the black folks in their place. Challengers to sitting judges would occassionally try to win the seat by appealing to the most racist among the population. In those times, the federal judges were the only safe source of justice.
From the articles and editorials appearing in my hometown papers, which I read from time-to-time, it still goes on but they use code-words now. Right now the expression is “gang problem” (i.e., the local Sherriff pledges to solve the “gang problem”. Of course, when talking about “gang problems”, they are referring to blacks. Substitute the “n” word, and the stories could pretty much read word-for-word what you would hear in the early ’60’s.
So all in all, I’m not particularly impressed with electing judges.