Wisdoma

Obama is saying today there is another vast right-wing conspiracy not to have health care reform.

No, just as Mrs. Clinton was wrong about the Monica Lewinsky claims, what the vast majority of working (or want to work) and voting people in America want is health insurance reform.

Insurance is too expensive. Insurers drop claimants or refuse to insure for trivial ‘pre-existing’ conditions. People face bankruptcy if they get sick. Everything the government touches tends to be expensive, incompetent, and bureaucratic.

What people do not want, and what the Democrats have been pitching the last month is:

“Morally” paying more to insure the insured (mostly not voters). “Morally” paying more to pay health coverage for illegal immigrants (not supposed to be voters). Fining people if they do not buy insurance (hello Boston tea parties).

Not surprisingly, people want to know what’s in it for them. So far, Obama and the Democrats have only been telling the vast majority of voters that nothing is in it for them. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s a natural reaction.

The California State Bar is refusing to let a quadriplegic take the Bar exam because California’s Department of Rehabilitation paid Sara Granda’s $600 exam fee with a check. The State Bar wants a credit card number.

Huh?

If you think that’s stupid, dumb, and inane – you’re not alone.

Since when is having a credit card a prerequisite to being able to take a test? A prerequisite to getting a job?

Even Governor Schwarzenegger has called the Bar onto the carpet on this.

The Bar’s response: fighting tooth and nail in federal and state courts to prevent the quadriplegic from taking the test (and the harm to the Bar is what?) – and with the heavy negative, national press the Bar’s website is offline. Nice.

For the California State Bar, an expensive bureaucratic black hole of incompetent boobs that has a monopoly on who can practice law even if they have a law degree, this is a new low.

The ’shoe bomber’ is apparently on a hunger strike.

Good.

One small step in saving taxpayer money is not having to pay for his food. Let him starve.

Of course, the real world steps in and he is being forced fed, attorneys are involved, etc. In other words, more of a drain on taxpayer money.

The California Supreme Court issued its ruling today upholding Proposition 8 and affirming that gay marriage is unconstitutional in California.

However, at the outset of the opinion, the Justices said this:

“[O]ur task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

If you’re not that familiar with the courts and judicial opinions, you almost never see anything like that stated. It is not relevant to the opinion. In fact, it tends to undermine the opinion: ‘Here, let me hold my nose while I tell you my ruling is in my view stinky.’

To me, it sounds like the Justices do not want to be recalled because of their decision.

Amazing, the Supreme Court has to come out and say their role is to determine the constitutionality of the proposition, regardless of their personal beliefs. I don’t know about you, but aren’t they supposed to do that in every case? By implication, does this mean other opinions without this self-serving statement are based on their personal beliefs and not the law?

I can only imagine the harsh response from the court if an attorney filed a brief saying: ‘Your honor, my client was found guilty of being a scumbag murderer that deserves the death penalty. I am not going to disclose my personal beliefs about the guilt of my client based on the evidence or whether it is wise or in the public interest for my client to mingle with honest citizens, because just applying legal rules, my client should be released.’

How about this: a statement of decision with concise legal analysis, without any unnecessary personal references or academic lectures about the role of the court.

California Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a bill that would require Google to “fuzzy” its online mapping services so would-be terrorists cannot clearly see (at least online) buildings they may want to target. Anderson wants to impose prison time and fines of $250,000 a day for violations.

Why stop there? Banning the Internet, cell phone service, all communications, weapons, and maybe even food, would also serve to thwart terrorists.

How many terrorist attacks have there been in California due to online mapping services? Zero.

I’m sure that if the bill passes (even if not struck down as unconstitutional infringement on free speech and/or interstate commerce), would be terrorists will be saying “Shucks. Now that Google’s online mapping services are not as clear we’ll have to give up our planned attacks and play tiddlywinks instead.”

Usually, such pea-brained ideas from lord legislators deciding what the California flock cannot do, say, hear, or participate in – come from Democrats. Joel Anderson, though, is a Republican from Alpine – a tiny rural county no terrorist has ever heard of or cares about.

Instead of attacking a California success story – Google – our mighty protector of freedom Joel Anderson might want to consider what happens if a non-California based company, perhaps from China, offers similar online mapping!

Whoops. No increased security. Just more damage inflicted on California business and the economy. Thanks Joel.