Friday, June 28, 2013

Cruising the Web

Politico reports that the Supreme Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act sets the stage for voter ID measures in areas that had been covered by the VRA. Since other states have passed such measures and they've already been ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court, there shouldn't be any problem. And the fears of those who scream that such measures will disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minorities just haven't been borne out.

Carl Cannon reminds us that Democrats have not been "profiles in courage" when it comes to gay marriage. They just cleverly waited until the polls changed.

Adam Liptak of the New York Times examines how John Roberts has been moving the Court to the right in small, incremental steps. Even though Liptak's analysis comes from the left, I think he's right in his fundamental point about what Roberts has accomplished.

The USDA regulations on school lunches have caused previously regular items such as PBJ sandwiches and sandwich wraps to be dropped from school lunches in some districts while others actually added in more sweets because, by having to cut down on certain meat and grain items meant that they weren't meeting their calorie requirements. And more and more food is being wasted while kids are bringing in more snacks from home. Unintended consequences - the inevitable result from increased government regulations.

Speaking of unintended consequences, the newly passed Senate immigration bill would create incentives to hire immigrants rather than American workers who would be subject to Obamacare mandated insurance. Philip Klein explains how this works as a reverse tariff.

The score is now 292 to 6 as we find out that the IRS challenged 292 conservative groups to 6 progressive groups.

Timothy Carney is right that Texas Democratic state senator Wendy Davis's filibuster of a bill that would ban abortions on fetuses 20 weeks or more and require that abortion clinics answer to the same health standards as other medical facilities puts these Democrats and all who support them on the wrong side of both history and public opinion. Given how much we're told by the left that we should follow Europe in its social policies with even the Supreme Court citing European laws and court decisions, why don't those same leftists care about laws in European countries which ban late-term abortions? On this one issue, they're content to demand that we go further in our laws than in Europe. But if it were a question of capital punishment for someone who was 17 when he brutally murdered his victim, they'll happily cite European laws to castigate conservatives.

This slipped beneath the radar a bit: Guess who's probably going to prison for trying to kill the President with ricin?

Tyler Cowen linked to this tread at Reddit on the "most intellectual joke." This was a lot of fun and there are jokes from almost every discipline. The ones I understood were very funny and I even enjoyed the engineering and science ones after the helpful commenters explained them to those of us who are not cognoscenti. Here are some of my favorites:
"Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?"

"A patient of mine had a Freudian slip the other day. He was talking to his wife during dinner and instead of asking her to pass the salt he said 'you've ruined my life you insufferable shrew.'" - Niles Crane

It's hard to explain puns to kleptomaniacs because they always take things literally.


mark said...

Gotta love the Daily Caller; While there is no comparison between the celebrity of Paula Deen and the Walking Dead actress, we're going to go ahead and make the comparison and act outraged at the lack of liberal outrage.

And the last (moronic)line:
P.S. And while we’re on the topic of racially charged language: If President Barack Obama had a son, would he talk like Trayvon Martin?

I'm guessing probably not, but who knows? And why would a news organization hypothesize on that?

Perhaps the Daily Caller should be working on finding out who paid those prostitutes to lie about Menendez.

Conservatives, you're losing it!

elkh1 said...

"And the fears of those who scream that such measures will disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minorities just haven't been borne out."

Definitely disenfranchise the dead and the non-existent voters who appear so conveniently in every close election.

mark said...

For those keeping score at home, the IRS numbers might be much closer than 292 - 6.

Rick Caird said...


A direct quote from the IQ letter:

"Based on the information you flagged regarding the existence of a “Progressives” entry on BOLO lists, TIGTA performed additional research which determined that six tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 having the words “progress” or “progressive” in their names were included in the 298 cases the IRS identified as potential political cases."

You really should be smart enough not to use tpmmuckraker as a source. Any relationship between them and the truth is strictly coincidental. And, yes, I know you used the word "may", but that does not absolve you.

mark said...

And using other terms such as "ocupy" brings up more cases. Keep grasping.

Absolution from the person who said we need to comply with government mandates if we want our freedoms? No thanks.

Last, First, MI said...


So you're good with the IRS and its place in ObamaCare? I mean with this lastest episode, what could go wrong? Right?

The fact, in your mind anyway, that the IRS seems to have intruded into the lives of Americans of more than one political stripe, makes their corruption "fair and balanced", and that's OK?