We all know that Redistribution Is Bad. That is, except when it comes to the National Football League and it’s allocation of television revenues and draft picks.
Republicans vs Democrats, freedom-lovers vs evil socialists, explained to us by Bill Maher through the prism of American sports.
A moving piece from an ongoing series by Andrew Sullivan. As one of his readers comments (and I make no comment for or against euthanasia or palliative care when I repeat this): “We help our dogs to die painless, dignified deaths when the time comes. Yet we do not allow the same for humans. A shame!”.
Readers continue to contribute to the popular thread:
Thanks for this post about Dusty. I had to put my very first dog down a few months ago, and it continues to haunt me. Ike started to have issues with the steps in my home, then couldn’t make it without my carrying him, then his system just starting shutting down. I sent my mom this picture [above] and she was on the next flight from D.C. to LAX.
I brought her to my home only long enough to pick up Ike, then go to the vet. There wasn’t much they could do, so the deed was done. I didn’t think I would weep like I did, and I find that when I see a death scene in a movie or TV show, it all comes flooding back. I really appreciate your affection for dogs in general and your beloved Dusty in…
View original post 1,419 more words
Wise words from Bufton Blogs on the issue of whether MPs deserve their proposed 10% pay raise. In short, the answer is a resounding “no”.
So last week there was an announcement from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) which puzzled many and angered most. IPSA are responsible for setting rates of pay and pensions and things like that for Members of Parliament, and their chairman has recommended MP’s see a pay rise of up to £10,000 – meaning some politicians will be receiving something in the vicinity of £75,000 per year. He cited their ‘unique contribution to society’ as being a reason for why they should see a pay rise at a higher level than others in the public sector; yes their contribution is unique in some terms, but the merit of their actions leaves room for debate. As someone who is studying politics and potentially looking at working in the field in the future, I have given a fair amount of thought to how pay scales of politicians should be decided – and…
View original post 422 more words
The political zombies from previous failed Republican campaigns simply refuse to go quietly into the night.
First we had Rick Santorum maintaining his moral crusader profile and penning articles for conspiracy “news” site World Net Daily as he treads water waiting for 2016.
Then we had Rick Perry announcing his intention to stand down from the Texas governorship after his current term expires, and floating the hilarious possibility of a second presidential run.
And now it is the turn of everyone’s favourite reality TV star, Sarah Palin, to publicly float her future political intentions. Yes. The person who makes Michele Bachmann look cerebral and wise.
RealClearPolitics reports on a recent appearance by Palin on Sean Hannity’s radio show:
SEAN HANNITY: There’s been talk that you might run for Senator in Alaska. Have you considered that at all?
SARAH PALIN: I’ve considered it because people have requested me to consider it. But, I’m still waiting to see what the lineup will be and hoping that — there again, there will be some new blood, new energy, not just kind of picking from the same old politicians in the state that come from political families, that have sort of reigned up there for so many years because too many of them have been part of the problem.
I’m glad you brought that up because Senator Mark Begich has got to be replaced. He has not done what he has promised to do for the people of Alaska, and that was to represent what it is that the nation needs in terms of energy development and so many other natural resources — development issues that are near and dear to Alaskans hearts because he is on the wrong side of the aisle he has to go along to get along with his Democrat leadership. And that is a shame. That is a waste of opportunity for our nation.
HANNITY: If you think that whoever is running doesn’t have the ability to win, and you think you could, would that propel you into the race you think?
PALIN: Well, I think any American with a heart for service has to always have in the back of their mind that they would do anything, everything that they could to help the cause, even if perhaps it doesn’t look necessarily appealing or necessarily fitting in with a conventional plan that they tried to orchestrate for themselves or their family. I, along with anybody, would have to say that I would do whatever I could to help. If that was part of that help, then it would have to be considered. (Sean Hannity Show, July 9, 2013)
Of course, this declaration of intent is couched in the usual “reluctant saviour” terms that Palin and others love to use, i.e. they very much enjoy being private citizens, but are reluctantly considering returning to public office because they are being urged by so many people to do so. Because the one thing that the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body (ha!) lacks at present is the wisdom, experience and political conviction of Sarah Palin.
God help us all.
Some wonderful news from Britain today. If you write a letter to government ministers urging a change of course in public policy, or lobbying for a pet cause of yours, the public has no right to know about it, or what you have written. That is, if you are Prince Charles or a member of the Royal Family.
The “man” who is incapable of squeezing toothpaste onto his own toothbrush without the help of a butler, who travels the globe by taxpayer-funded flights and royal trains while encouraging the rest of us to take short, cold showers to stop global warming has carte blanche to meddle in public affairs. And we, the people, have no right to know what he is saying or lobbying for, because to inform us would be to jeopardise our perception of him as a politically impartial future monarch. Impartial my ass.
The Guardian reports:
Three senior judges have ruled that the public has no right to read documents that would reveal how Prince Charles has sought to alter government policies.
The high court judges have rejected a legal attempt by the Guardian to force the publication of private letters written by the prince to government ministers.
Cabinet ministers have conceded that the prince’s private letters – dubbed “black spider memos” because of their scratchy handwriting – contained the prince’s “most deeply held personal views and beliefs” that could undermine the perception of his political neutrality.
First of all, the mere fact that Prince Charles takes time out of his busy schedule (mostly involving wearing kilts and hiking in Scotland, as far as I can tell) to write to government ministers about anything at all is what undermines the perception of his political neutrality. If he was politically neutral then his royal highness would not have the burning desire to write to British government cabinet members about all and sundry.
The article continues:
[Attorney General Dominic] Grieve had argued that disclosure of the 27 “particularly frank” letters between the prince and ministers over a seven-month period would have seriously damaged his future role as king. The attorney general said there was a risk that the prince would not be seen to be politically neutral by the public if the letters were published.
“This risk will arise if, through these letters, the Prince of Wales was viewed by others as disagreeing with government policy. Any such perception would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king,” Grieve had said.
Well, I’m glad that the Attorney General of the United Kingdom is worrying about such important matters when we have so many pressing issues about the devolvement of power in our country, the limits on government intrusion into our private lives and the fact that so many people are actually suffering in this country thanks to the many structural problems created by the political elites of years past, the last disastrous Labour government and our current coalition government’s slapstick attempts to correct them.
[The Guardian] won a landmark victory last September when three judges in a FoI tribunal ordered the government to publish the letters as it was “in the public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government”.
However, a month later, Grieve, with the support of the cabinet, issued the veto which overrode the tribunal’s decision.
Seriously. How messed up is our country when some over-entitled government minister can override the ruling of a court of law? Written constitution and proper separation of powers, anyone? Good idea? No?
On Tuesday, the lord chief justice, accompanied by Lord Justice Davis and Mr Justice Globe, dismissed the challenge, finding that Grieve had acted in the public interest in a “proper and rational way”.
However, Judge said that the power of ministers under the FoI Act to issue a veto and override a decision reached by judges raised “troublesome concerns”, particularly as even a ruling by the supreme court could be overridden.
“The possibility that a minister of the crown may lawfully override the decision of a superior court of record involves what appears to be a constitutional aberration,” he said.
“It is an understatement to describe the situation as unusual,” he wrote, adding that barristers could find no equivalent in any other British law.
You think?! Since our newly created UK Supreme Court is in actual fact not supreme at all, perhaps we should rename it. How about the Court Of Second Last Resort Prior To Ministerial Intervention?
Of course, it is not just Prince Charles who seeks to lobby the government in support of his pet projects or issues of the day. The fact that David Cameron, George Osborne and Ed Balls all attended the recent Bilderberg 2013 meeting in Watford where they hobnobbed with the financial and business elites of the world with no reporting as to what they discussed or agreed to is ample evidence of this.
But why do we let an aging, entitled, sheltered and pampered little man meddle in our politics like this? This is the year 2013. This is no longer acceptable.
The article concludes:
Ministers argue that the letters must be concealed as it enables the prince to air his views privately with ministers so that he can “be instructed in the business of government”.
No. Prince Charles, in his ludicrous and anachronistic role as heir to the throne and future monarch, is entitled to be instructed in the business of government. Instructed. That means that the government elected by the people formulates policy, makes decisions and takes actions, and once it has done all of that, tells Prince Charles about it after the fact. What it most certainly does not mean is that Prince Charles gets to write his black spider letters, weighing in on all matters of public policy. Because that is influencing the business of government, not being informed about it.
Hundreds of years ago, people sincerely believed that these ridiculous people were granted the divine right to rule over us and represent our nation as Heads of State by God himself. That is no longer true, and the price for them keeping their palaces, treasures, land, unearned military uniforms and the servile adoration of the masses is that they shut up and keep their noses out of public policy. That’s it. End of discussion.
Prince Charles’s meddling has to stop. It is embarrassing and inappropriate in the extreme.
Semi-Partisan Politics 