Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Ruthless Decision

obama, obama jokes, political, cartoon, humor, supreme court, hobby lobby, ginsburg, stilton jarlsberg, hope n' change, hope and change, conservative, fluke

In a tight 5-4 decision which has set the Arts & Crafts world reeling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  In this case, that translates to the fact that Obamacare can not force the owners of religion-centric family-owned businesses such as Hobby Lobby to pay for drugs intended to kill the unborn.

Noted sexual athlete Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on the losing side of the argument, and strongly voiced her opinion that corporations do not have religious rights or a collective "conscience" which requires adherence to a moral code. Rather, she believes, corporations are simply heartless, soulless, blood sucking collections of purely self-interested people, much like the Democratic party.

Obsessive high-office stalker Hillary Clinton also called the Court's ruling "deeply disturbing" and a "really bad slippery slope", perhaps not realizing the decision was based on a 1993 piece of law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was put in place by her husband Bill Clinton. Who, ironically, is also deeply disturbed and familiar with slippery things.

While pretending to be outraged by the Supreme Court ruling, Barack Obama and other Leftists are secretly doing backflips (which was, coincidentally, the only method of post-coital birth control available to women until the 1960's) because it gives fresh life to their threadbare "War on Women" meme just in time for the midterms.

But in truth, rather than being a brutal act of war against womankind, the ruling is barely an inconvenience for anyone at all.  Over 99% of businesses will not be affected by the decision. And at Hobby Lobby, female employees will still have 16 contraceptives included (as always) in their health plans - with only pregnancy-ending abortifacients excluded.

Which is why Ruth Bader Ginburg is basically making up preposterous hypotheticals to attack the majority ruling. "It bears note," groused the disturbingly bird-like Justice while pecking at a pile of seed corn, "that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage." Which might be meaningful if Hobby Lobby had any employees working for minimum wage - but they don't.

And on a side note, how many women really want to use a form of birth control which is said to have been invented by Arab camel traders who jammed small rocks into the wahooties (also an Arab word) of female camels to keep them from getting pregnant? And wouldn't it have made more sense to teach camels to simply dry hump?

Just kidding - if Sandra Fluke couldn't learn to do it, then camels probably can't either.

In summary, the Supreme Court ruling does no damage to women whatsoever, reaffirms freedom of religious expression and, not incidentally, tells Barack Obama once again that his executive powers are actually even more limited than his understanding of the Constitution.

obama, obama jokes, political, cartoon, humor, supreme court, hobby lobby, ginsburg, stilton jarlsberg, hope n' change, hope and change, conservative, fluke


Anonymous said...

She needs to read the Obama Sutra, there are at least 57 ways!

Geoff King said...

Yes Libtards, let's talk about the "War on Women". Sufferage was pioneered by the Republican Party and the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote was defeated 4 times by the then Democrat-controlled Senate until it's final passage in 1920. What is also " deeply disturbing" as Hitlery said, is her gloating and laughing about how she won her first major court case as a lawyer when she sucessfully defended a 41 year old man whom she knew was guilty of raping a 12 year old girl.
As far as I can tell, sex is an optional pastime. Therefore, birth control should also be optional, and no one should be forced to pay for someone else's recreational errors anymore than they should be forced to pay for someone else's nose job or breast implant. For me personally, a simple photo of Ruth or Hillary visible from my bed would effectively eliminate any need for birth control.

Earl Allison said...

I think Darth Vader Ginsburg did a lot more harm than good with her Leftist propaganda dissent. By claiming the decision is broader than most tend to say it is, she is giving lower court judges precedent for making decisions that support that dissent, actually being more generous than they might have been otherwise.

Leftist dogma and reality never, ever intersect.

Grumpy Curmudgeon said...

At the danger of repeating myself, does any Demobot bother to read a bill or decision before launching into their pre-scripted, pre-approved screeching points? All you hear from the usual criminal mouthpieces is that it's the Rebublicans/Bush's fault that women will now have no means of contraceptive. I regress Ms. Fluke and cronies, and point out that in this time and age, your partner should be using a condum, for who knows how many STD's are romping around in that thing.

And IMHO, after watching the 'pro-choice' demonstrators at the Supreme Court on the tube, is that many of the loudest ones probably have nothing to worry about. I've got a cull line, it's low, but it's there, and Prudhilla Butz, 450 lbs of romping, stomping, romance on the hoof, don't make it.

And lastly, as a friend pointed out; "How do you know when Obama's lying? - he's breathing!"

TrickyRicky said...

Stilton, thanks for reiterating the fact that Hobby Lobby does indeed cover the cost of contraceptives for their employees, just not abortifacients. Somehow this very simple and debate ending fact is never, ever reported by the dominant liberal establishment media. Case closed.

Your post was thorough and elegant and John the Econ-like. I was going to try to comment at length, but I saw that photo closing out your post and am desperately seeking brain bleach. What in God's name is that? I know I won't need contraceptives for a while. Thanks for that.

Chuck Baker said...

1. I’ve seen pictures of Sandra Fluke, and her face should be birth control enough.

2. I’m deeply disturbed that, like the union-dues vote, this issue was a 5-4 split for the court: that means 4 of the 9 members of the Supreme Court don’t give a camel hump about the U.S. Constitution or the inalienable rights of the people.

3. That the left is misrepresenting the ruling should come as a surprise to no one. Ask yourself this: what does the left NOT misrepresent (or completely make up)? Climate Change? CO2 as a greenhouse gas? Income inequality (and dead broke leftist millionaires)? (fill in the blank) _______________ ?

Grumpy Curmudgeon said...

All of these orders make clear that Hobby Lobby is not just a fluke. The Supreme Court appears ready to apply the ruling on a broad basis with for-profit businesses, even those who refuse to cover any contraceptive method at all.

Stand by for more hysteria from the left. But it’s 'SETTLED LAW' Now pull all the video of Obama, Reid and Pelosi chortling about Obamacare being settled law, deal with it.... You are justified to tell anybody whining about the Hobby Lobby case that they lost so further dissent is un-American and intolerant. Sluts are just going have to pay for their own contraception in Obama’s America.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Several Rulings Blocking Enforcement Of HHS Mandate

Stan da Man said...

Camels. Dry-HUMPing?
Geeze Stilt, you're killing me out here.

And I'm sure you've heard the old wheeze about why they're called "Ships of the Desert"
And the "crew" of said ships?

CenTexTim said...

Since when did forcing someone else to pay for your preferred method of birth control become a 'right' that trumps our constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom?

I can find this in the Bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I can't find anything in there about IUDs or morning after pills.

You'd think a member of SCOTUS would have at least heard of the First Amendment.

Bruce Bleu said...

Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg looks like Larry King in DRAG... what would SHE know about sex?
And talking about a "war on women", how about the left's "war on PRE-BORN women" for goodness sakes? There have been more unborn women murdered, (yes, using the legal definition of the word, it's MURDER to plan the death of an unborn person), by the democraps than all other homicidal misogynists combined!
And Shrillary being concerned about "slippery slopes"? She could market blue dresses as "Slip-and-Slides" if she were a capitalist!
And, CenTexTim;
With the 5-4 decision on an issue that a group of 9 MORONS could adjudicate 9-0, it proves that the SCOTUS could more accurately earn the acronym COITUS, (Crappy Old Idiots Taking-out the United States), if lamont gets to appoint any more judicial activists!

Colby Muenster said...

If we are lucky, there will be a conservative president when this old hag dies or decides to crawl back under her rock to retire.

But, thank God there are still enough constitutional thinkers on the big court that actually hand down opinions based on the constitution, and not on their political or idealogical views.

Regarding the subject of birth control being some sort of God given right.. what burns my ass is the moonbats calling abortion "women's health." Really? If you say you're against abortion, you are accused of being against women's health? What the f**k is the connection? Hey, moonbat... if you're so damn concerned about your health, maybe you shouldn't screw everything that moves. And what about the health of the child? Oh wait... it's not a child, it's an unwanted tissue mass.... but then again, so is Ginsberg.

Jim Hlavac said...

Well, it's certainly "A Thousand Points of Blight" with this administration.

Meanwhile, I just read that 43% of voters now think that Obama is the worst president ever, with GW Bush coming in a paltry second at 33% - even Nixon was rated the worst by only 13%. That's quite a feat, or feet -- but just whom is kicking whom?

Strangely, the meme is "women denied healthcare!" and yet, it was merely decided who would pay for it -- not who could get it or use it. To be "denied" is now "you pay for it"? -- weird. Though, as I've pointed out repeatedly, any heterosexual can get all the birth control in the form of condoms, at least, FREE! at any gay establishment, paid for by gay men's donations, and not the government. I'm sure a bucket of them can be placed in the break-rooms at Hobby Lobby.

More strangely, somehow Salon, Slate, Huffpost and others have opined that somehow this ruling is good, or bad, depending on the author, for gay men -- um, beats me -- we seem to have cornered the market on 100% effective birth control ... without taxpayer expense nor even insurance coverage required whatsoever -- well, I can't figure out why this bugs some gays, or straights oh so concerned about us, nope.

Then too, the Religious Rights law in question came as sort of a package with DOMA/DADT believe it or not -- so that some religions could continue to be free to chastise those who don't adhere to those religions, while still others were denied freedom from state sponsored religious belief or practice -- which is, oddly, any and all laws against gayness in any way - it's purely the establishment of religion, as Justice Scalia made clear in his dissent on why such state infringement on religious belief by gay men should be legal. He's being quoted a lot in all the current cases. So, remember that as all the "No gay couples shall be recognized because our religious beliefs says so" laws fall across the nation. Taxpayers, being denied rights - I hate that, don't you? Anyway, somehow, we're tied up in this, as the fury over Arizona's vetoed "religious freedom" law showed.

As for the "Republican War on Women" -- I'm sorry, but they're having a skirmish at least - demanding women take on the heterosexualizing of gay men is just down right unfair to those gals. No one ever seems to think of that angle, for if we all are "repaired" we shall require virgins by the millions - and well, there don't seem to be any -- at least not if all the Flukes of this nation are fluking to the point of requiring insurance coverage for abortifacients and 16 other types of birth control. (And you cannot believe how cranky some folks get after demanding I change that I have heard the word and will now demand to marry their own daughter. Someone else daughter seems to be whom they have in mind. Whose? Beats me. None have been offered.)

In any event, it might become true that judges of the future quote Ginsburg's dissent as much as Scalia's in Lawrence is being quoted today.

Just goes to show what happens when religion and politics get together, which is why the 1st Amendment tried to stop it.

Of course, if the court had struck down ObamaCare in entirety when they had the chance, they wouldn't be knocking down this or that part of it, as the president waives it for others, and still more opt out and/or demanding exemptions. What a monstrosity did that man cause.

Well, that's my brief, strange view of this case ... I'm off to Hobby Lobby for some paints -- selling paintings is one of my jobs.

John the Econ said...

It's both amusing and revealing to watch the left come unglued over relatively minor rulings that dare to question their orthodoxy. This hysteria is mainly based upon a single assumption, which exposes the single biggest conceit of the modern left: That it's entirely someone else's responsibility to pay for everything you think you need.

The narrative universally being put forth by the left is that the "Hobby Lobby" decision is "denying" health care, birth control, or whatever to women. That is utter nonsense, as this decision does no such thing. It only says that Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for it. Any employee of Hobby Lobby or a similar employer is completely free to head down to their local doctor or pharmacy and purchase whatever legal method that they'd like. All it means is that Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for it.

Distilled down, what the left really means is that when someone else isn't made to pay for things the left likes and thinks everyone should have, then people's rights are being denied. Of course, that's also nonsense. For example, the Constitution explicitly spells out that I have a right to free speech and to bear arms, but I seriously doubt that anyone would agree that those rights entitle me to my own newspaper, radio or TV program, or for guns purchased by my employers for my personal use lest those rights be denied me.

Why should health care be any different? After all, things that employers give employees other than money are called "benefits", not "entitlements", right? Not anymore I guess.

But this is just all an intentional distraction by the left. Instead of focusing on the 4 out of 20 birth control methods that Hobby Lobby will be "denying" their employees, what people really should be thinking about at this point is "This is what happens when you become reliant upon someone else to be providing for your personal needs."

Unless you are the one writing the check, you are not the customer. People who are responsible for their own health care do not have these problems.

For example, while already unhinged radical feminists hyperventilate about the latest "attack on women", an actual government agency has actually been denying actual health care to actual "entitled" citizens.

If a relatively small company like Hobby Lobby can be so onerously oppressive merely by refusing to pay for a couple of methods of birth control, then what hope does anyone have when the government takes over responsibility for everything.

The answer is that we already know.

This is why they need Hobby Lobby to be such a distraction. They need to get everyone in a lather because a handful of companies won't be paying for 4-out-of-20 birth control options as an argument for a government takeover of health care while at the same time actual citizens who are already under government care are being left to die.

Sorry, but I'm not as amused as I was by this when I started writing anymore.

In an honestly "free market", you'd be able to purchase a health plan that would supply any number of birth control and abortifacient options, or not. But that's not what these people want. They want control. Total control.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Anonymous- Excellent point! Maybe I should send her a copy...

@Geoff King- As you point out, sex is an optional pastime. Choosing to have sex (in case pro-choicers don't know) means choosing to accept the accompanying risks.

There is no "War on Women" in our nation other than that waged by the Libs to keep them angry and ignorant. Sadly, that's working pretty well for them.

@Earl Allison- It's a delicious irony that Ginsburg's dissent does, as you point out, open the door for much broader interpretation than the very, very, very narrow ruling in this case. And that's fine with me.

@Grumpy Curmudgeon- No, the Dems don't read any legislation or judicial rulings, because feelings always outweigh facts in their world. Which is another reason that they see women as nothing more than out of control reproductive systems.

@TrickyRicky- It really pisses me off that the MSM is neglecting to mention that Hobby Lobby is still providing plenty of contraceptives. So all of this phony outrage boils down to the Left wanting to make sure that the few women who work at Hobby Lobby and fail to use their free contraceptives can also get a free means of killing the unborn (half of whom are females).

When it comes to a "War on Women," the Left is the only side actually amassing a body count.

@Chuck Baker- Like you, I take very little solace from 5-4 decisions. We should not be coming that close to disaster in cases which are so Constitutionally clear.

@Grumpy Curmudgeon- The Left believes that "settled law" occurs when they don't want to talk about it anymore. Happily, that standard frequently can't be enforced.

@Stan da Man- Hey, I couldn't resist a camel/humping joke. And yes, I know (and love) the "ships of the desert" joke.

@CenTexTim- In order to make things interesting from a legal standpoint, the Left needs to create "The Church of the Non-Virgin" which considers abortion a sacrement, and teaches the belief that heathens (anyone outside the church) should pay for the parishioners abortions.

Better still, they should just STFU.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Bruce Bleu- As I mentioned above, I'm in complete agreement that the pro-abortion anti-Life movement is the real "War on Women" in our country. As is the cultural message to women that they can't say no to sex.

@Colby- It's a "women's health" issue because unplanned pregnancy can cause stress. And that's way more important than an actual life, right?

@Eduardo de los Flácidos- Thanks for the nice words. And you make a good point that this whole nonsensical debate carries with it the Left's assertion that women are too ducking fumb to manage their own reproductive systems.

Regarding the Quinnipiac poll, Obama is definitely the worst president since WWII (and may well be the president who causes WWIII, which is the final installment in the trilogy).

@Jim Hlavac- You're right that this isn't about women's access to birth control or abortifacients - it's about who'll pay for them. And it's my understanding that insurance companies are still required to pay for abortifacients even if they're not included in a company's policy. In other words, this is all about bookkeeping and doesn't have diddly to do with women's access to anything.

Like you, I'm puzzled by how this ruling affects gay men in any way. The actual Religious Freedom Restoration Act can more readily be understood to have an impact, but even that seems like it should be minimal when applied to actual law. If Hobby Lobby was refusing to employ gays, it might make for an interesting case - but I'm unaware of any such restrictions on their employees.

@John the Econ- Once again, you sum things up so eloquently and passionately that you don't leave much room for me to do anything than jump in and agree - which I do, strongly.

Clear away all the fog, and this really is about Total Control. That's not a fight we want to lose.

Chuck Baker said...

One more point: the belief that the Supreme Court has anything to do with the law is incorrect. If that were true, there would not be ruling after ruling that is split along ideological lines. Also, a chief justice would not rewrite a portion of a law and re-label a "penalty" a "tax" so the law can remain. No, the Supreme Court is nothing but another corrupt political entity.

John the Econ said...

According to many on the left, "sex" is not "an optional pastime". It's somewhere between inevitable and mandatory. This is what is behind their permissive attitude towards teenage sex. Since the sixties, Progressives have been using it as a carrot to buy the support of the shamlessly hormonally-driven, like Sandra Fluke.

The narrative is that we're all just slaves to our hormonal drives, so there's no shame in mindlessly giving in to them. And since condoms and abortifacients will be provided for free, why not?

The sad part about this notion is that it diminishes the greatest aspect of what separates humanity from the animals: That humans posses self-awareness and an intellect that can overpower our impulses and urges. Postmodernism diminishes this from relevance, and in the end makes us no better than the animals.

Hence the euphemism, "we're only human" as a universal excuse for what should be considered bad behavior. It diminishes humanity, which is what the totalitarians want and need in order to control us. We can't be great, so why bother?

And a thought regarding Ginsburg's notion of the blood sucking self-interested:

If conservatives were as evil, self-centered, and purely profit-driven as many on the left like to imagine they are, you'd think that they'd be all about abortion-on-demand. After all, as an employer, women of childbearing age are troublesome and expensive, demanding and use far more days off for health and family reasons, and represent a disproportionate percentage of their health care costs. There's absolutely no question that offering up abortifacients to their employees would positively affect Hobby Lobby's bottom line. If their policy was really all about exploiting women, not only would they be paying for abortifacients, they'd be requiring them.

While I'm at it, liberals not only love to imagine conservatives as white-male women-haters, but racists as well. Since certain minorities represent the greatest percentage of abortions conducted in the US, you'd think that these same white-male-woman-hating-racists wouldn't only be happy to pay for abortifacients, but would be putting in in the drinking fountains. The fact is that abortion has done more to contain growth of the black population in America than anything the KKK could have come up with.

Transcendental said...

You know, I did not read Mr. Hlavac's comments all that carefully. If he was raising a concern about the employment of gay men or anyone else - "discrimination" in the current sense of the word - as a result of the Hobby Lobby decision, then you are correct Stilton, that is an interesting point. And a worthwhile one. But it was a narrow decision as you pointed out - I think you did - someone did.

What bother's me is that the "progressives" in some sense have only "moved the goal posts" in the sense of allowing for "discrimination" for the "common good". That is to say, it is OK to discriminate to rectify past wrongs. This is what affirmative action is, after all. Companies are under pressure to hire/promote because of the color of someone's skin or their sex (or perhaps their sexual orientation).

I have no sympathy for managers - I do for owners though. Property rights are important to me. Forcing a property owner to hire someone just because of what they are, and not what they can do for the company, violates property rights, whether it is a public company or not. That too is "discrimination". Hell, it's "discrimination" if you do not hire someone because you do not think they can do something for your company. But that is discrimination in the old sense of the word, the sense I prefer.

Life isn't fair - as I have seen. I am not sure, with all due respect to Mr. Hlavac and others like him, why it is society's duty to muck with that. One of the things I like best about the libertarian ideal is that in a truly free market economy, if you don't like the way you are treated here, you go there. Of course, we are far from that ideal but still.

I guess this is just a long winded whiney thing about getting the damn government out of everything we do.That is one of things I like best, though narrowly, in the Hobby Lobby decision, though the Supremes have handed down too many decisions the opposite way to (Obamacare).

Colby Muenster said...

Good points. For years, the company I work for hires no one directly to full time. Too many risks of getting a turd for an employee, and being stuck with them because of all the liberal affirmative action horse shit. We hire only temps, and if they cut the mustard for 90-180 days, they're in. If they suck, bye bye.... So, all the progressive simpletons who push for the "everybody gets a trophy" in the workplace actually screwed hourly workers out of full time jobs.

But how long will it be before the libtards realize this and start taxing the crap out of companies for hiring temporary workers??

And Stilton,
When I saw your artwork of that shriveled little gnome called Ginsberg, it reminded me of somebody else, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it until now. She looks just like Frau Farbissina! I wonder if she has a son named Scott.... I wonder if she has ever shouted, "Bring in the laser! in a SCOTUS session.

Wahoo said...

John "Heinz" Kerry knows 57 different varieties.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Earl,
You just don't have a clue on how the justice system woks do you? But that doesn't stop you from making an utter fool of yourself commenting on what you know nothing about. Lower courts have to follow the decision, not the dissenting opinion.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Anonymous (above)- Actually you're the fool who doesn't know what you're talking about. As Earl pointed out (and I reinforced), Ginsburg's dissenting opinion opens the door for future lawsuits which would attempt to more broadly apply religious protections, which is exactly what the Left - and Ginsburg - don't want.

Put simply, the majority opinion was very narrow, very clearly defined, and applicable to very few people/corporations.

Ginsburg's dissent opinion tells potential litigants that she, at least, considers the ruling to be much broader. That means more conflict, more confusion, and more test cases to "clarify" a ruling that was entirely clear. And potentially more reversals for Obamacare's abuse of the Constitution.

Geoff King said...


John the Econ said...

It's amazing the non-thought that is going into this debate. Of course, that's what the left wants. The last thing they need are people critically thinking about this issue.

The funny part is in their effort to spin this 360 degrees, they accidentally say things that are absolutely true. Take this one, straight out of the White House via new head spokeshole Josh Earnest:

"President Obama believes that women should make personal health-care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them."

Well, there's something we both could heartily agree on. Employers should not be engaged in making health decisions for their employees, any more than the government should be.

If only the President actually believed that, because if anything, ObamaCare pulls personal health-care decisions away from people.

But as I've said before, if you're not writing the check, then you are not the customer. Ultimately, it's the person who pays for your care who gets to make the big decision. It's up to you to decide who's got your better interests at heart: Your employer, the government, or yourself. (Personally, I've chosen "myself", albeit at great economic cost)

Speaking of who should have control over your health care, have any of you noticed the new narrative being deployed by the left?

It goes something like "What if the company's owners' religious beliefs do not include modern medicine? What if the owner follows Sharia Law? Religious freedom is not exclusive to Christianity." Since I've seen this argument now from disparate sources, I have to assume it's an organized meme being planted via the usual media sources.

First, let me congratulate the left on finally recognizing that "Sharia Law" is indeed a threat. This may be the first time I've heard those who consider themselves part of the establishment to the left of Ann Coulter acknowledge this.

Second, this only reinforces my argument that you get treated different as a "beneficiary" than you do as a "customer". "Customers receive service that suits their personal interest. "Beneficiaries" are at the mercy of their benefactors, be they parents, employers, the government, or imams. I'd much rather be the former than the latter. But don't just believe me. Ask the veterans who are still alive after being on 2-year waiting list of they like being the beneficiaries.

St. John the Reconn said...

But the more fundamental question is, why should employers have influence over any workers' health choices in the first place?

And way off subject but isn't this sort of like trying to prove something doesn't exist, like the edge of the universe?

Geoff King said...

Never bring a sword to a spatula fight:

John the Econ said...

@St. John the Reconn, good question. Why should employers be expected to provide "health care" when there are so many other things that are more vital to people's daily existence that they are not required to provide?

Outside of the military, very few employers provide you a house, food, heat or power. Why not? Those things are at least as important as "health care" is.

As for proving or disproving "climate change", Dr. Keating's challenge is a straw man. Very few people dispute "climate change". Relatively few dispute that humans may, in fact, have some influence on the climate. What people like myself dispute is:

A) The degree that the climate is actually changing

B) The degree that human activity is actually responsible for what change is actually happening.

C) The degree that we can actually do anything to stop, much less reverse or even slow this change.

When you break the "climate change" debate down to these three questions, you will find far less "consensus" among the so-called "experts". Quite frankly, the changes they propose for our economy would have near-zero impact on reducing change, much less reversing it. (Unless we're willing to nuke China, which builds hundreds of new coal plants each and every year, there's little difference we could possibly make)

So all we're left with are Marxist-oriented solutions which will make no difference to the climate, but will make a big difference to the standard of living you now enjoy.

Anonymous said...

BTW, that's Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg - if you remember Laugh-in, you'll get it


puta del político said...


Ha! Yes indeed! But Ruth Buzz1 is sooooooooo much better.

puta del político said...

Jeff distracted me - I forgot this

Geoff King said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alfred E. Newman said...

Happy 4th of July to all HnCers.

I wonder if Obama, mister smarty pants ConLawProf, knows when the 4th of July is? That was islamophobic wasn't it? I mean, like, that was more than 50 years ago, dude.

Geoff King said...

Sorry, I was trying out an automatic html website link application and it failed.

Alfred E. Newman said...

Mr. King - NO WORRIES!

Ha! Well, that is the other Neuman.