The SCOTUS and Congressional debacle

The SCOTUS recently declared that it's okay for businesses to decide what kind of health care coverage to allow for their employees when it comes to contraceptives.

Hobby Lobby declared that it was infringing on their religious beliefs to force them to provide money to insurance companies who will assist women who opt to receive contraception.

O.o

Paint me a skeptic, but this was more than just a infringement on contraception rights.  It was a move to once again attempt to underhandedly move one's morals ahead of another's.  According to SCOTUS, it's apparently okay for businesses to make that decision "because they're paying for it."

Bullshit.

First off: the pendulum that has afforded business and "Christian" organizations the rights they presently enjoy have swung incredibly off the map.  The power and influence these two sides have in our daily lives has become tragically apparent.  It's not what the founders believed in as they would argue that not only should there be a very strong line dividing church and state, they would also reject the idea that "businesses are people too."

The unfortunate rulings by the SCOTUS have impacted and interfered in the role capitalism and Christianity plays in today's society.  They are seeking to become protectionists for systems that are corrupt, flawed, immoral and fundamentally wrong.

It's not the role of the SCOTUS or that of Congress or American government to have a direct relationship with corporations and businesses that are set out to change and redefine the role of capitalism in our society.  Instead of saying: "we shouldn't be involved here," the SCOTUS has openly embraced the intervention into the way these systems operate in our society.  I have no problem with them intervening as a matter of law, but ascribing rights to entities that can't vote seems contra-intuitive.

It's not the role of the SCOTUS to decide one's morality or bestow that right with the employers or organizations that decide that for others.  The protections of this country guarantee a PERSON to decide how they should or shouldn't believe.  It's an individual right that has been stripped from the dialogue and now placed with a bastardized protection scheme that has been misapplied despite it's original intent.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was designed as a protective cover for Native Americans to have a greater amount of religious freedom on their land.  Since the Hobby Lobby ruling, experts now debate that the RFRA has exposed some deep flaws in how laws protect religion and the citizenry.

Just like Congress, the SCOTUS has become a hack for those that want to exploit the flawed laws that pass through Washington.  Instead of being a disinterested, apolitical, unbiased entity that forges an independent mindset, SCOTUS has become a myopic polarizing gang seeking to further political causes (conservative and liberal alike) while providing outs like the RFRA and granting the rights to corporations just like they were citizens.

Think on that for a bit.

We are giving rights to entities by which do not exist.  (Corporations)
We are also giving rights to entities that want no government intervention, but they have no problems influencing the electorate as they see fit. (Religious entities)

Those that decry "big government" are actively exploiting the loopholes that keep turning out bad law and bad rights that ultimately affect all of us.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds and yet no one cares anymore about being a lying sack of shit.

Our three tiered government has failed us.  A system that was supposed to protect this country from making horrible laws and bad decisions has continually demonstrated (in recent times) that special interests, corporations and religious entities are the real "victims" here.

A society that prides itself with its incredibly fabled superiority could have such great promise if it weren't for the continual greed and infection of those that have no inclination to participate - much less improve upon the work established by our ancestors.  Instead of doing what's best and right, we only seek to protect our own because that's what isolationists want.

Change has got to happen.
Change has got to be real and total.

End the hypocrisy and lies.
Become the source of change and an instrument of good.

Together, we can.  The question becomes: will we?

Dangerous Roads

Just some of several dangerous roads in the weeks/months to come:

+ A Utah Theater cancels it's showings of "Brokeback Mountain.." Now.. I know that "Fahrenheit 9/11" was not shown in some theaters.. Much for the same reason that Brokeback Mountain isn't: selected theater owners believe that they have the right to show (or not show) whatever content that they choose to..

Okay - for a minute, I'll agree with that notion.. That as a business owner, you can ultimately decide what you do with your business.. Seems fair enough -- except when the theater owner has a contract with the distributor who is putting out the movie.. Make a business decision should be the right of every small business.. Going back on your agreement, litigate it in court.. But to deny showing a movie solely based on your personally held beliefs is morally reprehensible..

I haven't seen the movie..

I have a general idea of what it's about..

And I'm disappointed that the theater owner is so prejudiced that he can't seem to work beyond his personal flaws.. I can say that in my life I was placed in the same position as he was -- making a controversial decision in almost an identical fashion.. I had a flood of pressure that in turn - forced me to make a decision.. I chose to show a movie that several tried to convince me that was inappropriate.. Good, bad or indifferent - I let the audience make its own informed decision about the movie.. Regardless of the outcome, I felt I made the right choice - and that was all I was concerned about.. I didn't let my personal feelings affect the responsible decision I made about letting the populace decide what was, or wasn't right..

The point is: the movie is released with the seal from the Motion Picture industry attached.. It's deemed appropriate and affixed a proper rating shield on it.. The public deserves to make the choice for themselves.. I sincerely doubt this owner chided away from King Kong on the basis that it's about a fake ape and hence, was unrealistic......

+ Iran, Sharon & Israel.. I hope that Prime Minister Sharon has a full recovery.. Afterall, he has played an integral, unpopular position in the Middle East peace process.. Something of which I hope the Palestinians leadership realizes so that there aren't any rash decisions in Sharon's absence.. While I continue to have grave concerns about the peace process, Sharon really did go out on a limb by the pullout of Gaza.. He's hated by Israel and by the Palestinians.. But he's making peace in a world that has a really hard time making peace..

But I laud Iran's lead guy's position that the Holocaust didn't happen.. Wow.. That's pretty bold considering he just built up a nuclear weapons program under Bush's watch without so much of a nugget of pressure from the White House.. Weapons of Mass Destruction, George?? Remember??

+ Alito's hearings are set to begin -- and it's one of those situations where I just shrug and move on.. I have no doubt that he will be confirmed and we'll have swung a very large pendulum too far in the other direction.. While I read about the detractors that continually reveal that Alito will set the nation back 40 years - I simply do not know if I agree.. Obviously it would've been better to have a swing vote like O'Connor, but admittedly Sandra Day was not well liked by the Republicans..

So to preserve "their way" of thinking, they want someone he exceeds well and beyond Scalia..... And Alito seems to fit that bill.. All of a sudden, Bush's first pick didn't seem that bad now, did it?? Remember what I said then, Democrats: "be careful what you wish for....." And viola'.......

Congratulations - we now have tipped this country on its ear......

*shrugs* Life goes on.....

Not surprised...

All I've been hearing about is how the Supreme Court is so incredibly liberal..

All of the fingers point squarely on Ruth Bader Ginsberg..

I cannot begin to tell you how many times I've heard all of the talk shows saying that Bush needs to appoint someone just like how Clinton appointed Ruth.. That for some reason, there needs to be balance in the highest court of the land..

Okay..

If this were true, then why did Orin Hatch, the Senate Republican and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee warned then President Clinton to avoid naming a nominee that would face a tough political battle?? Those names that Senator Hatch offered were none other than Ruth .... Bader .... Ginsberg..... (as well as Stephen Breyer...)

This afternoon on CNN Senator Hatch hailed the Democrats to effectively accept Bush's recommendation and set aside the political obstructions that we faced with the latest rounds of confirmations..

If this isn't a shining example of political double talk - then I don't know what it is..

I do know this though, it's not limited to one party or the other.. I know the democrats do this as well, I know the Conservative and Liberal talkshows all slant accordingly to satisfy their contingency..

I just don't like it..

I don't care for it..

I hate it..

Politics has been bastardized into one fallen hypocritical disaster after another.. Just as the Liberal talkshows are holding Bush's feet to the fire about Karl Rove, the Conservative talkshows were just as critical when Clinton had oral sex in the Oval Office.

Yup - cuts both ways..

What was also realized today was one of the radio hosts I listened to said that we (liberals) have to win back the house and senate.. Ironically it's the same speech that conservatives were waiving when the likes of Newt Gingrich were in office.. Politics hasn't really evolved much.. It remains today, just as it did long ago..

That alone bothers me plenty..

Let alone how the rest of the world thinks we're total fuck-ups..

When we venture to our voting precincts to cast our one vote towards the betterment of society, there is an expectation that most people that *can* vote, don't vote.. And who can really blame them?? When there's the double-speak, the hypocrisy, the irresponsible, and flagrant disregard for the law, rules and ethics --- how can anyone realistically expect a better than majority turnout at our elections when crap like this goes on daily??

If politicians were to ever try to apply for a job somewhere - there is a thing called integrity that most employers look for.. And for some really bizarre reason - most everyone in politics lacks this attribute..

*ughs* - I should post more, but I'm tired..

in the news...

I meant to comment on the Sandra Day O'Connor retirement announcement, but the news is riddled with the London bombings..

Early indications was that the British had prior knowledge or "intelligence" (assuming they know what the word means) of the bombings before it happened.. If the Brits care to say that they had no idea it was coming -- then they should have listened to the Israeli Finance Minister's intel....

From the pile of "I saw it coming"...

Iraq signs military pact with Iran...

No one has said one word about the fact that the people of Iraq elected someone who had close affiliations with the Iranian government.. Iraq doesn't have the means to draft a Constitution without weeks and months of haggling, but they can sign a military pact with Iran that fell completely under the radar screen .... or so it would seem..