Monday, September 2, 2013

The Tennis Gender Equity Act

Big fan of gender equity that I am, I always wonder why women and men get the same prize money at grand slam tennis events.  The men play the best three out of five sets and the women play the best two out of three.  So, on a per stroke, per set, per hour basis the men earn much less than the women.  Is this what feminists mean by gender equity?  Hmmm . . .

A new act:  "In no event shall a sporting competitor of one gender be paid less on a per hour, per stroke, or other objectively quantifiable basis that a competitor of another gender."

Why do why have womens' tennis at all?  Shouldn't they have to compete against men since gender is really just "feeling" or a self-identifier?  If the 25th ranked man identifies as women during the end of August into early September why shouldn't shehe be able to compete with women?

Management Day

On this Labor Day, a new idea.  How about Management Day or Capital Day to celebrate all the people who, successfully and unsuccessfully, risk everything they had to create a business so that others could enjoy the fruit of their labors as well.

Remember Henry Ford was the first cause for the UAW.  The UAW did not cause FMC.

New Mexico NonSense . . .

 



From the New Mexico Supreme Court concurring opinion by Justice Bosson comes some of the stupidest and most dangerous language ever (that I am sure Tony Kennedy would endorse!):
 
"There is a lesson here. In a constitutional form of government, personal, religious,
and moral beliefs, when
acted upon to the detriment of someone else’s rights, have



constitutional limits. One is free to believe, think and speak as one’s conscience, or God,
dictates. But when actions, even religiously inspired, conflict with other constitutionally
protected rights—in

Loving the right to be free from invidious racial discrimination—then
there must be some accommodation. Recall that

Barnette was all about the students; their
exercise of First Amendment rights did not infringe upon anyone else. The Huguenins



cannot make that claim. Their refusal to do business with the same-sex couple in this case,
no matter how religiously inspired, was an affront to the legal rights of that couple, the right
granted them under New Mexico law to engage in the commercial marketplace free from
discrimination."
 
So, you can have a private morality, just don't dare act on it.  Scary enough, but what does "act" mean?  Sometimes speech in and of itself is "action".  When the priest say, "you are now man and wife" by that act (which is no more than speech) a mystical sacrament is perfected.  So Justice Bosson, does your opinion mean that the Catholic Church is free to think that marriage is a sacred state between man and woman blessed by God, just don't refuse the "act" of marrying them.
 
This opinion is poorly reasoned and dangerous.  Can't wait for the first case where a business refuses to serve a patron with an equal sign inside circle with strikethrough.  Or the m
 


 



 

Sunday, August 25, 2013

The Gender Longevity Equality Act

I am a big fan of gender equity and it occurred to me and I though to myself, "Hey, women (especially white women) live a lot long than men and that's just not fair."  Since we have laws to cure all gender inequalities, we need one to cure this disparity.  I am sure all feminists will agree.

So here is my proposal.  Once a women reaches that age that exceeds the average age of longevity for men they will be euthanized until such time as mens' longevity increases.  It's only fair.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Roe v. Wade 40 year on . . .

Roe v. Wade was a terribly reasoned case.  It is the pinnacle of the "Oh, wait, the constitution means just what I want it to!" judicial attitude.  If you look back at Griswold v. Connecticut and its progeny you can see that those who objected to the line of "privacy" reasoning on the grounds that you could shoe horn virtually everything into it were in fact correct.  The Volokh Conspiracy blog had a great blog post on the slippery slope that started with those cases.


With Roe, the Supreme Court prevented a debate that needed to occur and usurped that debate with a judicial fiat.  One could argue (although that "life and liberty" language is a bit of a problem) that abortion is not prohibited by the constitution, but to say there exists a constitutional right to one is, well, ridiculous.  If a state or the federal government wants to allow it (just as we allow  people to drive 75 m.p.h. - allowed but not a constitutional right) then let's have the debate.  The Supreme Court has too often sought to short circuit debate so that they can engage is social engineering.

The other thing about Roe v. Wade is that, regardless of whether it is legal, abortion is a moral abomination and all who participate in it have engaged in a moral abomination.  A lot of things are legal but are moral abominations.  Adultery is apparently now legal with no price to be paid - except for that rare judge now a days who will assess fault in setting support.  But adultery is no longer criminal and it has been a long time since I have seen a case on "alienation of affections".  Treating you parents poorly, deserting your family, are fine from a legal perspective, but are still immoral.

Women need to see that they are being sucked into a moral abyss by those who could really not care less about them.  As to the secondary effects of unilateral (women's choice only) abortion on demand (devaluation of life, marginalization of fathers, reduced population, sex selection, attribute selection) that is also a debate that needs to take place.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

You Didn't Build That

In the debate over President Obama's comment about his belief that if you have a small business "you didn't build that, someone else built that," is lost the most important consideration of all.  That is, the "therefore" that follows that logic or that syllogism, if you will.

Since you did not build it, you do not deserve the money that the business generates and the 'people' who did build it (to wit, the government) can take as much of it as they want and through its (the government's) generosity you can keep as much as they (the government) deem appropriate.  What Obama does not understand is the 'government' is not a third party that, through its generosity and largess, built infrastructure for us (the 'others').  The truth is that the small business owners and others who pay taxes (the 49%) built that infrastructure - not the 'government'.

As I said with regard to Elizabeth Warren's statements about the social contract, the government has to steal money for the common good - roads, bridges, national defense, courts - but when the government (that third party, non-people sense of the government) steals money from me to give it to someone they thinks deserves it more, that does not make them (Obama, the 'government') noble, it makes them a thief.  Play with your own money - not mine. 

And, by the way, the economy is inherently built from the top down - which came first Henry Ford or the UAW? . . .

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Romney's Taxes

Romney released his tax returns to the IRS.  If the IRS thought his return constituted the commission of a felony they would prosecute him.  Obama's attack are simply designed to communicate that if you run against him you will be slandered.  If the commission of a felony disqualifies you from the presidency, Obama is disqualified as a result of his cocaine use.  He did not divulge his cocaine use to the police and that is a very dishonest thing to do.  One who knowingly violates the law is in no position to say that his opponent violated the law.