Disqus - Latest Comments for Jazz

Re: Will There be a Vote on Health Care Tomorrow?

SteveK — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:55:28 -0000

I will at least give you credit for being hilarious, Steve.

And you get no (read zero) credit for trying to play stupid. The republicans will continue to stall this vote until the holiday recess... till the August recess... till 2011 and you know it.

Your response... "I will at least give you credit for being hilarious, Steve." speaks volumes.

Re: Will There be a Vote on Health Care Tomorrow?

Jazz — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:47:50 -0000

I will at least give you credit for being hilarious, Steve.
"The republicans intentionally waited until after any possibility of a 72 hour period after a final bill was online before they submitted their version which they insisted be considered before a vote."

So the world ends on Saturday? Pelosi schedules the votes for all intents and purposes. If the Republican proposal came on Friday she could schedule it for Tuesday and the GOP couldn't stop her. Nice try,though. Very amusing.

Re: TMV blogger wins race, may be first to go from blogging to political office

Jazz — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:11:42 -0000

Well deserved! I hope your community will be served well by your willingness to put yourself out there.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:57:00 -0000

Hey Jazz.

You know I respect the heck out of you, brother; but I have to respectfully disagree on a point you made (or maybe two of them).

Even the black community has said that the homosexual cause is nothing like the fight for racial equality. It is also nothing like the fight for gender equality. When a child is born a black female - that child is a black female. It is not a trait that is chosen. There are those that say people are "born gay". Well, that would be a whole other enchilada if it were proven true. However, thus far, science has failed to prove that theory. Much more info is available on the "nurture" argument, however. This subject has been studied by science for well over 200 years. Not once, has a scientist proven that homosexuality is nothing other than a learned/circumstancial behvior. That alone takes it out of the "just like civil rights for blacks and women" realm.

Secondly, our nation (as I pointed out above to Nicrivera) was, indeed, founded upon a Dieist Godly principle, where a religion cannot be proscribed by the state. The founders, however, did state that God (Vishnu, Allah, Jehova, The Great Spirit, or whatever you call Him) should stay at the core of our government - and that our nation would fail if it did not. People all too often confuse "separation of Church and state" with "no God in government". They are not the same.

Re: Lessons Learned? Well, Maybe

Jazz — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:12:59 -0000

Yeah, the incumbent headed off for a DC job, otherwise the problem never would have come up

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

Almoderate — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:19:55 -0000

Indeed, in one of the rare moments where I agree with Jazz. To add to that, those same biblical arguments were also used against interracial marriages as well.

Thinking about how absolutely luscious that Diet Pepsi guy looked with his shirt off and having my own personal fantasy about it is a sin. Sin is sin, and I do it. I deal with it because I'm not perfect. I'm human. Gay people are human. None of us is better than the other in God's eyes. The Bible says so.

Now if folks want to talk about laws and "enabling sin" then they should also be arguing that divorce not be made legal. That was, after all, something that Jesus did specifically address. And even He acknowledged that God's law (not man's law) allowed it in spite of God not approving because he didn't think human beings had the strength to stick to it. So therefore it could properly be argued that the same might be applied to homosexual couples and marriage from a Christian view.

The message of Christianity is and always was supposed to be that Jesus loves us all the same in spite of our sin, and that even though He doesn't approve, He understands that we aren't perfect. He did say that we might be persecuted by others, but he never stated that we had to persecute ourselves or be the ones doing the persecuting. Jesus was never intended to be an excuse for our bigotry and hate.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

Father_Time — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:12:16 -0000

"We may actually still be a full generation away from absolute equality for gays"--

NEVER! You don't give equality to a sickness, much less sexual behavior. It's NOT coming! I submit that legal social rejection of the gay cultural aberration will return as more information becomes available to the public.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

AustinRoth — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:07:40 -0000

jazz -

A comment on your very fine post.

Homophobia truly is the last "acceptable" form of bigotry in American society

No, it is just the current one being addressed. There are more, certainly, in the minds of those who feel oppressed, but their fights come later. The question always remains, as with this one, what does and does not constitute a groups deserving of civil rights protection status.

I think to that there is too much of a conflation of opposing gay marriage = homophobia. I am and remain torn on the gay marriage issue, probably leaning personally towards allowing it, but understanding the position of the opposition, even if it is not mine. I am, however, not in the least homophobic.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

Jazz — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:26:30 -0000

We may actually still be a full generation away from absolute equality for gays in America. It's coming, but like every other hurdle we've had to overcome for women, blacks, etc. it takes time for a societal shift toward enlightenment. It will happen, but America is clearly not ready for it yet.

As to the whole "biblical law" thing, I've always found that something of a red herring. I'm completely on board with total separation of church and state, but just because something appears in the bible, it doesn't automatically preclude it from becoming secular law. The bible very clearly states "thou shalt not kill" (though it turns out that was something of a bad translation from the original) but that doesn't stop us from having laws on the books against homicide. Anything can be made into law if the members of the society believe in it strongly enough among a sufficient majority to enshrine it into either our constitution or our body of laws. But that doesn't mean that we always get it right. Remember, "separate but equal" was the law of the land for a long time. But hey, we tend to learn. Sometimes slowly, but we do learn eventually.

Homophobia truly is the last "acceptable" form of bigotry in American society, with the others - discrimination against women, blacks, Jews, etc. - having been driven out of the fold to hide under dark rocks. Of course, being that society as a whole has become more aware of civil rights in general, practitioners have at least learned to be very careful in a Jerry Seinfeld, "not that there's anything wrong with that" kind of way. They're quick to point out how they have "no problem" with anyone being gay, but that they're fighting for some sort of legal, social or societal fabric or guideline which has to be protected. The almost humorous thing (in a dark, twisted kind of humor way) is that the arguments being used today against gay marriage are almost line for line identical to the arguments made against school integration and bussing back in the 60's and 70's.

But, as I said, we're getting there. It's just going to take longer than many of us would care to see.

Re: How is the estate tax in your state?

JeffersonDavis — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:23:38 -0000

Thanks Jazz. I'm still very much torn on the matter.

The basic premise of my split on this issue is class building. You are totally right about spousal survivorship (I forgot to mention that earlier). However, when you have generation after generation building up wealth through little work on their own part, you grow an aristocracy. I just can't help feeling way down in my gut that people should all have the same opportunities. I sound very much like a Democrat when I say that (cause I am one), but I truly believe that Donald Trump's kids should have the same opportunities that mine do. His kids can go to a better college than mine already. Why should they also have the benefit of their dad's wealth that they didn't earn?

Maybe the "everything that doesn't go to charity" is a bit much; but our nation as a whole would benefit from something to level the playing field somehow.

I guess for now I'll sit the fence a bit longer until either side convinces me; or until someone comes up with a better plan.

Re: How is the estate tax in your state?

TheMagicalSkyFather — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:39:18 -0000

I think spouses should not get any taxes on inheritance as that is part of their partnership, just the children. It would cut down on multi generational wealth consolidation which would allow us to stick to a gold standard or something similar and avoid creating wheel barrows of new money to pay for things jacking up inflation while keeping money circulating throughout the economy.

Re: How is the estate tax in your state?

Jazz — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:27:34 -0000

JD, since we're getting into purely speculative and hypothetical territory here, I'm sure I can't educate you, but I can offer my own questions and opinions. First, what about a spouse? Couples are considered to have worked together to build their fortune, no matter which one actually "earned" the money, so shouldn't it transfer unmolested to the surviving spouse? (And it usually does, by the way, but I'm just saying...) Now, as to the children, there's a certain appeal in the idea of making sure the children learn to be responsible and "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." But is that a choice we want the government to make or the individual? Some parents will (and do) choose to leave a large bulk of their estate to charity, while others may choose to give a much larger "leg up" to the kids. I think I'd rather have the individual making that choice rather than having the federal government making it for them.

The baseline question of whether or not there should be a death tax, estate tax, etc in the first place is a separate one. Is it, as I've often thought, a case of the govt. taxing money which has already been taxed right down the line just because it changed hands inside the family? If you look at it from that point of view, then the tax itself is an insult. I suppose others feel, though, that the children have no legal claim on the wealth amassed by their parents, so it comes to them as some sort of "gift" or "windfall profit" and the govt. should be able to tax it again. I can't say that opinion is entirely wrong. I just don't happen to agree with it.

But either way, saying that the govt. should get everything that doesn't go to charity is, in my view, insane.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

kathykattenburg — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:16:26 -0000

I can finish that sentence for you. I know as much about New York Republicans and the interplay between the NY Conservative Party and the GOP in New York as you know about health care reform.

No, wait, that's wrong. Whatever little I know about New York Republicans, etc., is more than you know about health care reform, since you know nothing about health care reform.

The difference between your lack of subject expertise and mine, of course, is that I acknowledged it right up in the first line of my post, whereas your certainty on any given subject increases the less you know about it.

Thanks for visiting my thread, Jazz. Don't come again.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

Jazz — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:36:43 -0000

You know as much about New York Republicans and the interplay between the NY Conservative Party and the GOP in New York as you know about....

Well, most anything.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

Jazz — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:05:57 -0000

At least jpe1 made an attempt to be reasonable about this, while arguing a different point than is under discussion in this post, but Jim's response is really amazing. I'm guessing you actually already understand this but are pretending you aren't, so let's try again for the truly reading impaired, since I already ran this by a lawyer.

What the legislation in question is obviously addressing is states' potential efforts to reform medical liability litigation. This *could* come in the form of an alternative system of "health courts" as you say, or it *could* be an entirely new body of law applying only to suits in the "regular" court system which pertain to medical malpractice litigation, etc. In either event, the legislation is not prohibiting states from doing this, and NOWHERE in this post did I so much as suggest that it did. What it does is prevent the states from receiving the additional federal funds (an attractive option) should they put in such a system of courts or new laws and those systems put any sort of cap on legal fees or settlement amounts.

Man, the lengths some of you will go to in attempting to defend this boondoggle at every turn are really astounding.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

Jazz — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:22:38 -0000

Actually, T-Steel, the bill's author's covered your question specifically in item (2) A of this section of the legislation:

(2) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY - The Secretary shall determine that a State has an alternative medical liability law in compliance with this section if the Secretary is satisfied that -

(A) the State enacted the law after the date of the enactment of this Act and is implementing the law;

So, as you can see, if you already put something on the books to try to deal with it, you are immediately ineligible for the federal payments as long as it remains on the books.

Re: Halloween Horror Movie Salute

Jazz — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:28:44 -0000

We actually have a category here for arts and entertainment. Not everything has to be politics. :-)

Re: A Tax on Red Meat? Oh No You Don’t.

Jazz — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:50:28 -0000

"One of my best friends is vegan. She has one exception. As a gifted athlete, she still has a leather softball glove. "

SHE HATES COWS! KEEEEEEEEEEEEL HER!

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0000

Jazz--

Show me where I said there was a federal mandate.

Of course I know it's a state requirement. But the government requirement that I buy insurance is a pre-existing condition.

So: I am not outraged by a proposed requirement that I must purchase health insurance.

I don't see it being terribly different. Again, I'm going to make reference to the comment by Dissenting Justice that I linked to earlier.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

Jazz — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:29:05 -0000

@George
"Since I am already required to purchase car insurance and homeowners insurance, I am not outraged by a proposed requirement that I must purchase health insurance.

I do not see any slippery slopes. "

Thank you. Now tell me which *Federal* statue requires you to have auto and homeowner's insurance. Thanks in advance.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:36:03 -0000

Jazz--

The Constitution has an interstate commerce clause, just like it has a common defense clause.

It also provides for a Supreme Court to sort problems out.

Since I am already required to purchase car insurance and homeowners insurance, I am not outraged by a proposed requirement that I must purchase health insurance.

I do not see any slippery slopes.

At all.

Re: Trusting (But Not Registering) Republican

Jazz — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:58:38 -0000

Well, DQ, that's why I put "but not registering" in the title. It does seem odd. Of course, the two races you cited in your comment are obvious aberrations because of the 3rd party factor. Both should have been fairly close, but both would have gone to the Republican as little as two months ago. But the NY Conservative Party candidate in NY23 has eaten up a big piece of turf from Scozzafava and Chris Christie has been pulled down to slightly below Corzine's anemic numbers by his own third party thorn in the side. Neither of those are races where the 3rd party challenger is drawing significantly from the Democrat, and if you added them back in to the Republican's total, it's a clear win for the GOP. Absent a major change (one candidate leaving the race immediately or being found with a dead hooker / live boy-girl) nobody in either race will get anywhere near 50% in their victory.

But it's true, GOP registration is at an all time low and the Democrats are only losing a little ground. The good news from all that is that independent, third party voters seem to be on the rise and will increasingly force the two major parties to heel if they want to win.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

Jazz — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:29:48 -0000

George, that's a lovely reply. If I were talking about "regulation of health insurance" you *might* have a point, though it certainly still sounds more like the venue of state govt. much like regulations on auto insurance. But I'm talking about a *mandate* to force citizens to purchase a particular product or service while not providing them with the funds to do so. Care to try again?

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:15:38 -0000

Jazz--

Regulation of health insurance does seem like a natural outcome of the interstate commerce clause.

I appreciate your suggestion that I take a deep breath and pause for a moment.

Maybe you should do the same.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

Jazz — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:26:21 -0000

In order for this silly / ridiculous Air Force argument to carry any weight we must accept that the following two items are of equal value:

1. That the federal government is empowered to build and maintain a military to defend the nation, THEREFORE the addition of a new branch of that military which chiefly handles new technology not available to the founders (airplanes) is a natural extension of that authorized power.

2. That the federal government is empowered to regulate interstate commerce, to lay and collect taxes, and to appropriate taxpayer funds and spend them in carrying out these responsibilities, THEREFORE the ability to issue a non-voluntary mandate to all citizens forcing them to purchase a product or service is a natural extension of that power.

Now... take a deep breath, pause a moment, read those two items and tell me with a straight face that you think they carry equal value and validity.