The current pending legislation in Tennessee to ban abortions after the baby is 20 weeks old is opposed by several factions. One of the arguments cited is that nearly all of the abortions in Tennessee occur before the 16th week of gestation. Therefore the proposed ban is superfluous and extraneous. One might even postulate that it is similar to regulations in 1917 banning airplanes from flying faster than 200 mph.
With all due respect and deference to our friends, some might recall that on the "same sex" discussion years ago a similar situation presented itself. When urged to propose and support a "one man, one woman" marriage amendment to the US Constitution, a Republican President demurred. He gave two reasons for his position. First, our society would never come to that point. For thousands of years marriage had been universally held to be between one man and one woman. That would not change.
His second argument was that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) already defines marriage and it will protect against any same sex incursions. Reconsider our 200 mph airplane.
Aero technology advancements and expertise soon enabled routine flying speeds far in excess of the supposed "speed limit." The same thing happened, metaphorically to the marriage debate. Unforeseen changes in societal norms overwhelmed even legislative barriers and the country was presented with a fait accompli.
Regardless of one's position on same sex marriage, it does not result in dead babies. The 20 week abortion ban presents a gruesome possibility. Should so-called "abortion technology" proceed to the point that later abortions may be effected, a prohibition regarding that is not a superfluous or extraneous backstop.
And as an aside, anecdotal evidence of post viability abortions are easily located in stories of survivors and mothers who now feel that they were violated by the process. It may be "rare" but, like an airliner crash, it is devastating to those involved.
Tennessee and all states should implement a 20-week limit to abortions.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Vernal Equinox
For those who do not know, VE is the day that the sun is directly over the equator on its way north go provide summer for the northern hemisphere and winter for the southern boys. It is also know as (AKA) the first day of spring.
You may wonder why I seem to have a fixation on the vernal equinox. To be frank, I do too. Then Easter came. Easter is celebrated on different dates every year. Did you ever wonder why?
Easter was "fixed" by the early church when someone realized that the Passover did not always fall on Friday. The full moon after or on the vernal equinox starts a 14 day countdown to Passover. It can be any day, which left the church with a minor conundrum because they wanted to celebrate the resurrection on a Sunday.
The date of Easter Day is usually the first Sunday after the first Full Moon occurring on or after the March equinox. This means that it can vary from March 22 to April 25, depending upon the phase of the moon. (I have always wanted to say that and have it be true.)
So the vernal equinox begins the countdown to Easter when the equinox and the full moon are not on a Sunday. If they are, Easter is here. If not, we wait for the full moon, then the next Sunday. This year the full moon, and also Passover was on April 11, a Tuesday. So Sunday, April 16 was Easter or Resurrection Day.
Aren't you glad to get that straightened out? Vernal equinox, then full moon, then Easter Sunday. Simple.
I heard a guy named J. John who commented that, "We are Easter Christians in a Good Friday world."
https://www.gotquestions.org/date-easter-determined.html
You may wonder why I seem to have a fixation on the vernal equinox. To be frank, I do too. Then Easter came. Easter is celebrated on different dates every year. Did you ever wonder why?
Easter was "fixed" by the early church when someone realized that the Passover did not always fall on Friday. The full moon after or on the vernal equinox starts a 14 day countdown to Passover. It can be any day, which left the church with a minor conundrum because they wanted to celebrate the resurrection on a Sunday.
The date of Easter Day is usually the first Sunday after the first Full Moon occurring on or after the March equinox. This means that it can vary from March 22 to April 25, depending upon the phase of the moon. (I have always wanted to say that and have it be true.)
So the vernal equinox begins the countdown to Easter when the equinox and the full moon are not on a Sunday. If they are, Easter is here. If not, we wait for the full moon, then the next Sunday. This year the full moon, and also Passover was on April 11, a Tuesday. So Sunday, April 16 was Easter or Resurrection Day.
Aren't you glad to get that straightened out? Vernal equinox, then full moon, then Easter Sunday. Simple.
I heard a guy named J. John who commented that, "We are Easter Christians in a Good Friday world."
https://www.gotquestions.org/date-easter-determined.html
Tax Returns and Marathons (One Political and One Not.)
There is a huge fuss about President Donald Trump not choosing to release his pre-Presidential tax returns. As I understand it, the Presidential returns will be audited immediately upon submission, so the wait to read them may be short.
Here is a question. Would you please show me your tax returns? I would be a little reluctant to show you mine. There is nothing to hide. It is just "nun o'yer bidness." On web sites that want to "get to know you" I always check the "Prefer not to disclose" box. If that is not available and I need to get past the question for some reason, I always check the lowest number available. Most of the time I hit that barrier, I just leave. Their loss in not knowing me.
So what legitimate reason does anyone, outside of Melania, have for asking to see Mister Trump's tax returns? (Pre-Presidency) He has not "enriched himself at the expense of taxpayers" as some claimants declare. If his deductions, etc. were illegitimate, the IRS will catch it. They are auditing it now. Does any protester think that he or she is better equipped to audit tax returns than the IRS?
They would not be pursuing a partisan objective, would they? No, never! New thought coming....
Break up the Kenyans. If ever a group of athletes have dominated their sport, it seems that the current dynasty in long distance, marathon running, Kenyans are it. In the 1920's with Babe Ruth and his crew of future Hall of Famers, the Yankees were in the World Series nearly every year and won most of them. They were so dominant that pundits were predicting the demise of Major League Baseball. Hence the call to "break up the Yankees," to save the sport.
A mini-version of that resurfaced in the late 50's and early 60's with Mantle and Maris and friends. Breaking news, the Yanks did not need to be "broken" by the powers of baseball. Natural forces accomplished that, twice or more.
But, even with the runs of the Bronx Bombers in retrospect, another dynasty has arisen and it seems to resist fading away. Every year, it seems, that the Boston Marathon is won by men and women from Kenya. In just the past 12 years, 15 of the winners have been from Kenya. If we add Ethiopia, east Africa has claimed 22 out of 24 championships. Russia and the USA have one each.
Are they "on something," or do they have a secret training regimen? One pundit years earlier suggested that they run through lion country. Those who survive training compete internationally. What ever it is, somebody ought to investigate and apply it to our sports teams. Pro basketball, particularly during the regular season, seems to have exhausted players jogging up and down the court. Maybe they are training for the marathon. They are not running as fast as marathoners.
Have a good day, and prepare for the cry, "Break up the Cubs!" Or as our friends on the South Side call, "Break up da Cubs."
Here is a question. Would you please show me your tax returns? I would be a little reluctant to show you mine. There is nothing to hide. It is just "nun o'yer bidness." On web sites that want to "get to know you" I always check the "Prefer not to disclose" box. If that is not available and I need to get past the question for some reason, I always check the lowest number available. Most of the time I hit that barrier, I just leave. Their loss in not knowing me.
So what legitimate reason does anyone, outside of Melania, have for asking to see Mister Trump's tax returns? (Pre-Presidency) He has not "enriched himself at the expense of taxpayers" as some claimants declare. If his deductions, etc. were illegitimate, the IRS will catch it. They are auditing it now. Does any protester think that he or she is better equipped to audit tax returns than the IRS?
They would not be pursuing a partisan objective, would they? No, never! New thought coming....
Break up the Kenyans. If ever a group of athletes have dominated their sport, it seems that the current dynasty in long distance, marathon running, Kenyans are it. In the 1920's with Babe Ruth and his crew of future Hall of Famers, the Yankees were in the World Series nearly every year and won most of them. They were so dominant that pundits were predicting the demise of Major League Baseball. Hence the call to "break up the Yankees," to save the sport.
A mini-version of that resurfaced in the late 50's and early 60's with Mantle and Maris and friends. Breaking news, the Yanks did not need to be "broken" by the powers of baseball. Natural forces accomplished that, twice or more.
But, even with the runs of the Bronx Bombers in retrospect, another dynasty has arisen and it seems to resist fading away. Every year, it seems, that the Boston Marathon is won by men and women from Kenya. In just the past 12 years, 15 of the winners have been from Kenya. If we add Ethiopia, east Africa has claimed 22 out of 24 championships. Russia and the USA have one each.
Are they "on something," or do they have a secret training regimen? One pundit years earlier suggested that they run through lion country. Those who survive training compete internationally. What ever it is, somebody ought to investigate and apply it to our sports teams. Pro basketball, particularly during the regular season, seems to have exhausted players jogging up and down the court. Maybe they are training for the marathon. They are not running as fast as marathoners.
Have a good day, and prepare for the cry, "Break up the Cubs!" Or as our friends on the South Side call, "Break up da Cubs."
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Little Notes to the Editor
4/10/17 Steve Cohen on marijuana: "In 100 years people will wonder why we were so petty about marijuana" Or in 100 years, people will look back on pot and compare it to cocaine. Why were they so dumb to not regulate it?
Judge Gorsuch. Rep stole nomination... Well, no other President nominated a candidate in his final year. The Obama effrontery was evident again in "demanding" to have his way, even on the way out. The tidal wave of EO are evidence.
Sarah Martin McConnell, Nashville
"At that time, Republican Senate leaders defiantly refused to hold a vote on any potential nomination during Obama's last year in office. Through this undemocratic and unprecedented block of a president's historical right to nominate, Senate Republicans flat-out cheated."
To paraphrase Elizabeth Barrett Browning , "How do I disagree with you? Let me count the ways." I guess we might agree on it being undemocratic. It was definitely republican...in this incarnation. However the next comment blows this all to smithereens. "Unprecedented" implies that such a thing has never happened before. Every newscast of the Gorsuch hearings and now confirmation refer back to the Obama judicial candidates being confirmed by the Nuclear Option. (NO)
Unprecedented might also apply to former President Obama nominating a SCOTUS justice in the final year of his term. Many outlets also reported that tidbit. So the refusal to consider an "out of the ordinary" nomination is not "stealing" the seat.
And were we to consider the ideology of the candidate and his predecessor, putting Judge Merrick into the seat would definitely be a coup comparable to stealing a seat for the liberals. (We are not supposed to consider the inclinations of judges, but it is hard not to notice the definite "bent" of the Obama candidates. But I degress.)
So if "flat-out cheating" means getting a candidate approved, I guess Ms. McConnell is right. But she neglected to mention that this is also not unprecedented. Oh yes, the Senate did not block former President Obama's right to nominate. He could have done so multiple times. The Senate deferred to the larger "precedent" of allowing a new President to nominate. (And speaking of precedent, how is Sen. Feinstein doing with the final year nomination. Her interrogation of Judge Gorsuch seemed to consist of a preponderance of concern for "precedents." She even suggested a "super precedent." Neither is in the Constitution, but who cares?)
Jim League
906 Avery Valley DR
Smyrna 37167
jim.league@gmail.com Please publish my email with any letter. Thank you for the consideration.
Day phone 615-810-8389 night phone 615-426-3532
Judge Gorsuch. Rep stole nomination... Well, no other President nominated a candidate in his final year. The Obama effrontery was evident again in "demanding" to have his way, even on the way out. The tidal wave of EO are evidence.
Sarah Martin McConnell, Nashville
"At that time, Republican Senate leaders defiantly refused to hold a vote on any potential nomination during Obama's last year in office. Through this undemocratic and unprecedented block of a president's historical right to nominate, Senate Republicans flat-out cheated."
To paraphrase Elizabeth Barrett Browning , "How do I disagree with you? Let me count the ways." I guess we might agree on it being undemocratic. It was definitely republican...in this incarnation. However the next comment blows this all to smithereens. "Unprecedented" implies that such a thing has never happened before. Every newscast of the Gorsuch hearings and now confirmation refer back to the Obama judicial candidates being confirmed by the Nuclear Option. (NO)
Unprecedented might also apply to former President Obama nominating a SCOTUS justice in the final year of his term. Many outlets also reported that tidbit. So the refusal to consider an "out of the ordinary" nomination is not "stealing" the seat.
And were we to consider the ideology of the candidate and his predecessor, putting Judge Merrick into the seat would definitely be a coup comparable to stealing a seat for the liberals. (We are not supposed to consider the inclinations of judges, but it is hard not to notice the definite "bent" of the Obama candidates. But I degress.)
So if "flat-out cheating" means getting a candidate approved, I guess Ms. McConnell is right. But she neglected to mention that this is also not unprecedented. Oh yes, the Senate did not block former President Obama's right to nominate. He could have done so multiple times. The Senate deferred to the larger "precedent" of allowing a new President to nominate. (And speaking of precedent, how is Sen. Feinstein doing with the final year nomination. Her interrogation of Judge Gorsuch seemed to consist of a preponderance of concern for "precedents." She even suggested a "super precedent." Neither is in the Constitution, but who cares?)
Jim League
906 Avery Valley DR
Smyrna 37167
jim.league@gmail.com Please publish my email with any letter. Thank you for the consideration.
Day phone 615-810-8389 night phone 615-426-3532
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Perspective
I guess where you are makes a difference as to how you see things. A friend who was an Auburn fan fumed that the ball touched the ground on a purported catch by a Tennessee receiver a few years ago. As I viewed the play, it was clear that the receiver had control of the ball and then it touched the ground. That is the definition of a "catch."
Where you are "from" determines how you view things. Just recently, Senator Schumer (D-N.Y.) commented that Judge Gorsuch was just a stooge or a puppet of President Trump. He votes just like Trump wants him to, was the meaning of the comment.
I would respectfully challenge Senator Schumer to point out any substantiative difference between the SCOTUS votes of Justice Sonia Sotomayor or Justice Elena Kagan and former President Obama. If we are charging Presidents with nominating puppets, it would seem that our Democratic friends are hoist on their own petard.
But, the challenges that Judge Gorsush has been "biased" against different groups of people actually depends upon where one stands on the issue. For instance, the Hobby Lobby decision is cited as bad because he favored "big business" over the little guy. (Not sure where the little guy comes in here, as the defendant was Uncle Sam. Incidentally, the former Supreme Court agreed with Judge Gorsuch in their ruling.
So who is out of the mainstream? One might posit the idea that Schumer and his buddies are in a little tributary off to the left of the main stream. As Judge Gorsuch and the rest of the Supreme Court pass by, they appear, to Schumer to be "out of the stream." When he finds himself left behind, he may wake up.
Just on a whim, how many of Judge Gorsuch's decisions have been reversed by the SCOTUS?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/12/neil-gorsuchs-opinions-never-overturned-by-supreme/
This link mentions one or two decisions that were reversed or sent back for rehearing. (On Wednesday (4/5/17) another one was overruled.) Judge Gorsuch participated in roughly 2,700 cases has written 240 opinions, including 175 majority opinions. For reference, Justice Sotomayor (Obama) was reversed at least nine times according to a quick survey of previous decisions.
Who is out of the mainstream? Maybe Schumer needs to swim back toward the center.
Oh, by the way, the instant replay official ruled the play a catch, as ruled on the field.
(Ed Note: Judge Gorsuch was confirmed (4/7) and sworn in (4/10).)
Where you are "from" determines how you view things. Just recently, Senator Schumer (D-N.Y.) commented that Judge Gorsuch was just a stooge or a puppet of President Trump. He votes just like Trump wants him to, was the meaning of the comment.
I would respectfully challenge Senator Schumer to point out any substantiative difference between the SCOTUS votes of Justice Sonia Sotomayor or Justice Elena Kagan and former President Obama. If we are charging Presidents with nominating puppets, it would seem that our Democratic friends are hoist on their own petard.
But, the challenges that Judge Gorsush has been "biased" against different groups of people actually depends upon where one stands on the issue. For instance, the Hobby Lobby decision is cited as bad because he favored "big business" over the little guy. (Not sure where the little guy comes in here, as the defendant was Uncle Sam. Incidentally, the former Supreme Court agreed with Judge Gorsuch in their ruling.
So who is out of the mainstream? One might posit the idea that Schumer and his buddies are in a little tributary off to the left of the main stream. As Judge Gorsuch and the rest of the Supreme Court pass by, they appear, to Schumer to be "out of the stream." When he finds himself left behind, he may wake up.
Just on a whim, how many of Judge Gorsuch's decisions have been reversed by the SCOTUS?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/12/neil-gorsuchs-opinions-never-overturned-by-supreme/
This link mentions one or two decisions that were reversed or sent back for rehearing. (On Wednesday (4/5/17) another one was overruled.) Judge Gorsuch participated in roughly 2,700 cases has written 240 opinions, including 175 majority opinions. For reference, Justice Sotomayor (Obama) was reversed at least nine times according to a quick survey of previous decisions.
Who is out of the mainstream? Maybe Schumer needs to swim back toward the center.
Oh, by the way, the instant replay official ruled the play a catch, as ruled on the field.
(Ed Note: Judge Gorsuch was confirmed (4/7) and sworn in (4/10).)
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Boxing
Boxing
(This was written down to Paragraph 5 on 3/14/17)
A heavy weight fighter who rushes across the ring and throws his knockout punch when the bell rings for the first round will most likely lose the fight. A crafty fighter will spar and jab the opponent, looking for tendencies and weaknesses. Then when all is ready, he throws the haymaker. KO!
When President Trump first accused "someone" of bugging his office tower with no supporting evidence, I mused that he was prepared for a big fight. He did not throw the knockout punch, but instead "tapped" them with little jabs. As time has passed, more and more individuals have protested, or even proclaimed, "There is no evidence...."
Trump is a crafty street fighter and instead of cowing all of his enemies into silence and hiding, he let a little at a time go. If the opponents knew anything and denied it, they should be fired for insubordination. If they did not know anything, they should be fired for incompetence.
This seems like a clever ruse to smoke out moles in his administration. When the bombshell hits we will see and interesting fall out.
Bombshell! 4/4/17 and the proverbial fat hits the fan. We are learning more and more about the security breaches and boy is it getting interesting. To use another metaphor, it seems that President Trump had a hole card or two that no one expected.
Stay tuned.
(This was written down to Paragraph 5 on 3/14/17)
A heavy weight fighter who rushes across the ring and throws his knockout punch when the bell rings for the first round will most likely lose the fight. A crafty fighter will spar and jab the opponent, looking for tendencies and weaknesses. Then when all is ready, he throws the haymaker. KO!
When President Trump first accused "someone" of bugging his office tower with no supporting evidence, I mused that he was prepared for a big fight. He did not throw the knockout punch, but instead "tapped" them with little jabs. As time has passed, more and more individuals have protested, or even proclaimed, "There is no evidence...."
Trump is a crafty street fighter and instead of cowing all of his enemies into silence and hiding, he let a little at a time go. If the opponents knew anything and denied it, they should be fired for insubordination. If they did not know anything, they should be fired for incompetence.
This seems like a clever ruse to smoke out moles in his administration. When the bombshell hits we will see and interesting fall out.
Bombshell! 4/4/17 and the proverbial fat hits the fan. We are learning more and more about the security breaches and boy is it getting interesting. To use another metaphor, it seems that President Trump had a hole card or two that no one expected.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)