bonsaikc.com

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/1/the-war-on-marriage-and-motherhood/

I’ve posted this challenge to Tim Huelskamp on his own facebook page, and here it is. I’d like to discuss his views on marriage in America in a conversation or a debate, either way he wants it. His recent Washington Times Op Ed piece has some interesting assumptions and assertions.

“For conservatives, the concept of family is the same as the Judeo-Christian model God ordained, a model supported by every other major world religion. It is the same unit recognized by the laws of nature, the laws of government, and civilized societies for thousands of years: one man, married to one woman, with so many children as God should see fit to entrust to their care through birth or adoption. In my case, that means me, Angela (my wife of 18 years), and our four children (who happen to be adopted).” I would suggest that the Biblical view of marriage and children is far different from what you posit, Mr. Huelskamp.

“There is overwhelming social science evidence to corroborate the benefits of raising children in homes with both a mom and a dad. ” I’d like to see that “overwhelmng” evidence, Tim.

I’d also like to see you back up the statement, “the high priests and priestesses of political correctness will have done irreparable harm to yet another pillar of the American paradigm for our patriotic, wholesome culture — ‘God, the flag, mom and apple pie.’” Everyone knows that the pillars of America are baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet. If you are going to go campy on us, please quote the nonsense correctly.

Congressman Todd Akin (R-St. Louis), who serves on the House Committee on Science, Space, and  Technology, became infamous overnight on Sunday with these odd remarks on St. Louis’ Fox News channel:

Here’s the transcript by South Dakota Politics:

Charles Jaco: “If abortion can be considered in the case of a duct-tubal pregnancy or something like that, what about the case of rape, should it be legal or not?”

Todd Akin: “Well you know, people always wanta try and make that one of those things, well, how do ya, how do ya, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. It seems to me first of all from what I understand from doctors that’s really rare, if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that may that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be in the rapist and not attacking the child.”

And the world exploded. Republicans and Democrats nearly trampled each other for the doors, with even God-for-Life Elect Romney condemning the statement. Many Democrats snickered behind their hands or even openly with the prospect that they may be able to hold onto this important Senate seat.

Of course the non-apologies began immediately, with Akin claiming he used the wrong words, but his heart was pure.

But what did he really mean? What really was behind those words? What’s in Todd Akin’s heart? Beside the obvious problem of sorting out levels of rape, “legitimate” or “forcible” rape being “rape rape” (thanks Whoopie Goldberg) and other levels of rape, such as emotional abues, date rape, and marital rape being apparently of a lesser variety, what else could he have been thinking?

Let’s move on to the next bit. As he stumbles on with, “It seems to me first of all from what I understand from doctors that’s really rare…” Really, what doctors have said that? What studies have shown that. Well, it just so happens there was one article about that from 1999 by Dr. John C. Willke, MD. for his newsletter “Life Issues Connector.” This has been reprinted on another religious “life issues” site known as Christian Life Resources. This article takes great leaps of logic and massive assumptions. There is no science there. And it makes factual statements about biology that are simply wishful thinking for the religious right.

Here’s an example:

Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more.

Does this make sense to anyone who can reason? No. It’s stupid, illiterate, and crazy. And it’s all based on their religious bias. Tomorrow I’ll deal with the next link in the chain.

OMG, it cost me almost $40 to fill up my tiny Honda Fit the other day. I was appalled. I couldn’t believe it cost so much. Why I remember back in the 70′s when my brother threatened to build a still when gas got up over $1.00 per gallon. Remember the AMC Gremlin commercial where the cute girl asked for a dollar’s worth? The attendant wanted to know if she needed “all that.” She snatched the dollar back and said, “Just give me a gallon!” We used to laugh and make jokes that he would retort, “Honey, that IS a gallon!”

HOW HIGH ARE GAS PRICES?

The good news is that my Fit can get up to 40 mpg if I take it easy. The bad news is, it cost me $40 to fill up! Gas prices are at near historic highs, crushing the economic engine of America and the livelihood of Americans. Or are they?

Jim Geraghty of National Review Online thinks so:

While the peak in the summer of 2008 was $4.27, the March 12 average of $3.83 surpasses everything else before it – from the beginning of the chart in 1920 (when only a small fraction of Americans owned cars!) and through the Great Depression and through the 1973 oil crisis and through the late 1970s and 1980s, the Persian Gulf War, and after 9/11. Note that every other spike in prices tends to coincide with economic hard times.

In other words, adjusted for inflation, today’s gas prices – in March! — are worse than during every preceding gas price spike, except the peak of summer in 2008. So what will the peak price be this summer?

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/293313/adjusted-inflation-gas-prices-look-even-worse

Let’s take a closer look at the chart he uses to make his claims, though. Let’s look away from merely the price at the pump and find out the true cost of gasoline.

WHAT ABOUT INFLATION?

www.inflationdata.com

While we can say with some certainty that yes, prices have been lower in every sense of the word, and yes, they are “historically high” now, what does that really mean? Adjusted to 2012 dollars, gasoline prices are lower than they were in 1920, when autos and gasoline were both scarce luxuries.  They look to have been their lowest in history in the early 70′s (adjusted for inflation) and then moved back up to a historic level during the first year of  Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

WHAT ELSE AFFECTS THE TRUE COST OF GASOLINE?

So again we see that gas prices are historically high right now, even adjusted for inflation. Are there any other factors that might affect the “real” price of gasoline? Of course! If we also consider the purchasing power we have as Americans, and despite the recent economic downturn, the portion of our income that we spend for gasoline has plummeted since the 1950s. Our wages have outstripped prices and so adjusted for purchasing power as well as inflation, the numbers begin to look more benign.

In 2006, admittedly prior to the housing balloon’s burst and the ensuing crashes, the Cato Institute pointed out this very thing. Admittedly I am no expert in these issues and I’d love to get a look at the same chart up to 2012, but their point is that the actual hit on the pocketbook is lower today than the price at the pump would indicate.

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren orig. published Investor's Business Daily

One other factor that, like it or not, Rush, has lowered the hit that a tank of gas puts on our wallet, is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements and threats that have raised our fuel economy higher and higher over the last 30 years. Since 1975, fuel economies for both cars and trucks have doubled, halving the need to fill up. Unfortunately, it looks like it’s not enough.  Pewenvironment.org has a great pdf on the history of fuel economy. Their chart is telling: all the progress was made early on.

History of Fuel Economy: Pewenvironment.org

Nevertheless, the fact is that the average vehicle gets twice the mpg its counterpart did in 1975 and this has a very positive effect on the portion of our incomes we pay for gasoline.

WHAT TO DO?

But that may be all beside the point. Is there anything that the President can or should do about oil prices? The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is always mentioned in this context at one time or another, but why would we release oil from it? It’s there for one purpose: to protect our economy in the case of a major interruption in the availability of petroleum, based on the oil embargo from OPEC in the late 70s. Supplies are still available. Releasing oil that was put in the reserves more cheaply is a mistake.  The impact is temporary. Leave it there.

What power does the President actually have to affect oil prices? For that matter, what power do “speculators” actually have on oil prices? None, apparently. The cost of gasoline is generally about $1.00 more per gallon than the cost of the oil it is manufactured from. Steven Stoft lays this out very graphicly on zfacts.com showing the relationship between the cost of oil worldwide and the cost of gasoline.

The answer seems to be that there is nothing that the President or any group of people can do to lower the price of gasoline. When world oil prices come down, so will gasoline. And quit worrying, it’s not worth the panic.

Chris Johnston

Nevertheless, Kansas’ own Secretary of State Kris Kobach seems to spend an inordinate amount of time “helping” other states keep people from voting who don’t seem to be voting anyway! He helped Arizona draft their disastrous anti-illegal immigrant law that has cost the state millions on millions of dollars in legal bills, ThinkProgress.org has shown that the Alabama law actually cost hundreds of thousands of jobs plus related costs.

The facts are not on Kobach’s side, however. Numerous studies and reports have shown the economic harm from HB 56, Alabama’s anti-immigrant law. Farmers are losing their crops or not planting as much because they don’t have workers, and even the state’s own governor has said that the state’s dropping unemployment rate cannot be pegged on the immigration law.

In the fall, preliminary research from the Center for Business and Economic Research showed that, conservatively, HB 56 could cost the state $40 million. Now that the researcher behind that original estimate has had more time to study the law’s full impact, however, he concludes that this initial estimate is far too low. According to a new study, Alabama’s law will cost the state up to 140,000 direct and indirect jobs. And state GDP losses could total $2.3 to $10.8 billion and reduce local sales taxes by $20.0 to $93.1 million.

But the real exciting stuff from Mr. Paranoid is making sure we stop all those 12 million illegals from voting, right? Because we know they are all raising their profile just to cheat the system, right? Wrong. According to the Wichita Eagle, Kansas Secretary of State’ office (SOS Chris Biggs,) reports one case of voter fraud was prosecuted in the five years prior to 2009. That’s right, only one case.

But to hear Kobach tell it in the Lawrence Journal-World, “Voter fraud is a well-documented reality in Kansas.” It’s odd, then, that the Brennan Center for Justice has collated voter fraud by state in Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin showed incredibly low rates of voter fraud. And none of them would have been prevented with Voter I.D. laws.

So where is the voter fraud, you ask? Could it be that it’s being perpetrated on the voters by those in office?

Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin said recently that President Barack Obama has caused a “constitutional crisis” by appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board as well as a director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in recess appointments.

“We have a constitutional crisis,” Levin said. “It is in fact a constitutional crisis.”…”The President of the United States is trashing the Constitution now day in and day out,” Levin said.

Levin even called remarks the President made about the appointment of Cordray a “forthright statement of a dictator.”

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh calls this “the lawless Obama regime,” responding to the President’s remarks about doing for the country what the Congress refuses to do.

Now, I’ve heard of recess appointments, and I just began to wonder how big a deal they were, so I did a little digging. Did you know that the first recess appointments were made by George Washington?

U.S. Constitution Article 2

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

So Constitutionally, the President nominates and appoints with the “advice and consent of the Senate.” And yet, the Recess Appointment is a Constitutional provision. What is it about some people that they can’t seem to understand the common usage of the language? How is it that these people call themselves “Originalists” and yet refuse to take the Constitution at its word?

Then I thought that perhaps this president has seriously abused the power. Maybe he has gone beyond the pale? A quick search showed that not to be true. Here’s a link to a very short and easily understood document from the Senate itself: http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=’0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A

I love this quote:

President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions. As of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.

So the noise seems to be noise for its own sake. There is no difference between Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal. President Obama has simply been following political precedent created from the wording of the Constitution.