Government needs to be smaller, they tell us. It isn’t that I disagree with that basic sentiment but I don’t understand why there is a huge push from the right to test welfare recipients for drug use.
I mean, I understand the basic (dumb) argument. We don’t want people receiving handouts to be using those handouts to fund a drug habit. Better that they receive zero money and zero treatment and they die in an opium den, I guess. Or maybe they will just have their legs broken because they can’t pay their dealer.
Anyway, the problem isn’t the rationale so much as the results. The number of drug users being caught is so low, it doesn’t come close to saving the government the money it is spending on catching the drug users. Has anyone thought about rebranding the “war on drugs” as a “limited police action” on drugs.
So instead of small government, we have big government looking for evidence of drug abuse and finding comparatively little. Even if estimates are correct and 8% of welfare recipients are drug abusers, that leaves most welfare recipients in the position of being assumed guilty until a drug test proves otherwise.
Is it legal? Well I’m pretty sure John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia think so.
Which means it may be legal but it is almost certainly a bad idea.
Good for her, right? She decided she wasn’t interested in getting the Measles so, of her own free will, she went behind her parent’s backs and solved the problem the way most of us would solve that problem.
The mom is losing her shit because she didn’t consent to the procedure. Too bad for her they live in Canada and at sixteen, her daughter gets to do whatever the fuck she wants with her own body.
As a parent, I understand that there are certain choices we need to make for our kids until they reach a certain age. I’ve told my kids that they can get a tattoo if they want but they have to wait until they are 18. Why? Because I figure it will give them a little time to think about it before they get a picture of Twilight Sparkle tattooed on their butt.
If they came to me at 17 and had a good argument, I’d probably tell them it was fine.
Given how my kids respond to pain, this hypothetical conversation is never going to happen. But I digress.
This pain in the ass mom seems to think that she has some right to control over another person’s body because that body happens to belong to her daughter.
What is she so angry about anyway? If her daughter develops autism as a result of the vaccines, she is still going to be moving out in a couple of years.
I was at CONvergence having a wonderful time last week so I apologize that I didn’t post my regular column. Today, I shall play catch up on a bunch of stupid shit stretching as far back as three weeks.
This happens a lot. People tell someone they aren’t allowed to have informed opinions about anything except that for which they are most well-known.
In this instance, a white fan from Lacey, Washington, complained that a black football player from Charleston, South Carolina should not have an opinion about racism in the south. I mean sure, that makes sense. A white guy in Washington knows a lot more about racism.
He certainly shouldn’t be subjected the opinion of a black guy from the south. Unless it’s about football.
The football player in question, Byron Maxwell, was responding to the recent massacre in his home town. His home town!
How entitled do you have to be to look at comments like that and think “I don’t want to hear the opinions of that guy because I know what’s going on way better than he does?”
Writers note: What with landmark Supreme Court rulings in favor of Obamacare and same-sex marriage this week, I contemplated taking a week off. I mean, why be pissed when two things I strongly support are taking their victory lap?
Sadly, there are still things that piss me off. Please accept, though, that I am writing this week’s column with a satisfied smile on my face.
While Antonin Scalia can be counted on for red faced dissenting opinions in which he bemoans the fact that social liberals exist, much less occasionally win, Thomas’ dissent in the same-sex marriage case is positively draconian.
In it, he suggests that slaves in America and the Japanese Americans who were interred during WWII did not lose their dignity. He reasons (wrongly) that nobody can take away your dignity.
It seems odd that anyone would need to tell a black man how the system of slavery in the south was specifically designed to strip people of their dignity. It is certainly odd that I, a white guy, seem to be more aware of this fact than him. Calling a person “property” doesn’t feel particularly dignified.
While Scalia is bemoaning the death of our democracy, Thomas seems to be questioning the definition of our humanity. He wants to believe that we all have a limitless capacity for handling bullshit and the Government has no responsibility to make it stop.
Government can and has taken away human dignity. Today, it handed a little bit of dignity back.
What really bugs me about Scalia and Thomas is their dissent doesn’t feel like it is about law. They are personally pissed that they lost and because they are justices on the Supreme Court, they get to write a long dissertation on just how pissed off they are.
Guess what guys? So do I. And a nearly unmeasurable fraction of the people who read yours also read mine!
SUCK ON THAT!!!!
I could mention a lot of things that piss me off about the latest mass shooting in Charleston.
I’m pissed that in spite of the fact the killer is a self admitted racist, there are lots of people who insist that this wasn’t about race.
I’m pissed because South Carolina still flies the Confederate flag at its state capitol and state leaders continually try to pretend there are no racist connotations that can be associated with that flag.
And I’m pissed because every time there is a mass shooting, some pro-gun nuts find ways to blame it on the victims because they weren’t carrying a gun.
This dude blames one of the victims because he was a legislator who actively campaigned against allowing guns in churches. As if that is some sort of crazy far left-wing position that made him some sort of fringe politician.
What kind of whacked out liberal would oppose guns in churches?
The NRA solution to gun violence is always MOAR GUNZ! I guess I understand because that’s their solution to everything.
One wonders, though, if just once they could wait until the bodies are in the ground.
If you believe in hell, you don’t want your kids to go there. I understand that on a basic level.
Yet, when someone makes a book that is meant to scare kids into believing in god, I feel as if they need to question their fundamental beliefs.
They make god out to be a weak and petty tyrant. A tyrant who will punish kids for all eternity because two people ate a fruit they weren’t supposed to eat. Maybe it was an apple. Maybe it was a pomegranate. Maybe it was a tomato. Because tomatoes are a fruit.
Hell is a horror story. Most kids don’t respond well to horror stories. This book is intended to create faith through fear. I guess I feel god shouldn’t need to scare kids into believing.
Cardinal Raymond Burke was featured here just last week. I think it is fair to say that he has a big problem with homosexuals.
He also seems to have an even bigger problem with people who feel homosexuals have a right to exist without feeling ashamed of themselves. While even the Pope seems a bit wishy-washy regarding church dogma on this particular topic, Burke is not.
He even went as far as to say “Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviours, they never dared to say this was marriage.”
Whoa, dude! You know you owe the pagans a lot, right?
If it weren’t for the pagans, we wouldn’t know when Jesus was born. Or when he died. We wouldn’t have an entire holiday devoted to drinking if St. Patrick hadn’t needed to drive those pesky
pagans snakes out of Ireland.
So disrespect the gays, my friend. It seems like the only way to get ahead in your particular line of work.
But leave the pagans out of this. What have they ever done to you?