Jan's Stinkin Blog: June 2013

Friday, June 28, 2013

MIKE DUGGAN: You go boy!!!

I wrote before that the best candidate of the office of mayor of Detroit was Mike Duggan who was, in my opinion, the best choice and last chance for Detroit because the other candidates were more of the same, incompetent.

Mike Duggan being white was his biggest challenge in a city 85% black but support was growing and he had a great chance but Tom Barrow, a five-time candidate for mayor (really?) found a tiny legal loophole in Mike’s registration to run for mayor (Mike lived somewhere else and you need to be a 12 month resident of Detroit to legally declare for city office)…the current mayor Dave Bing also lived somewhere else before running for mayor but Duggan was a few days off even though the Detroit official responsible for election filing told him everything was OK.

Duggan was thrown off the primary ballot and he thought that was that and went into seclusion to plan what to do next; he said he would not fight the legal decision even though many thought he could win.

This morning, I saw Duggan in front of microphones and cameras announcing he would stand as a WRITE-IN CANDIDATE that nearly always NEVER WORKS….always never?

Anyway the man was as articulate and eloquent as I have seen in announcing why he was persuaded to run as a write-in and most of all, he seemed in-control of not only his campaign but in the assurance of what he would do to bring Detroit back into viability.

It is important that he mentioned that it was his SUPPORT GROUP that talked him into running as a write-in. These Detroiters knew they needed to change the culture to bring the city back and Duggan was their only hope.

He pointed to the total disaster that was the city council but is as member after member quits, is relieved of duty or retires.

The current candidates for mayor a joke with the leading candidate now being investigated by the FBI for corruption and he is the county sheriff.

I can see where the write-in campaign may actually work EVEN in Detroit. Only a small majority of Detroiters votes in the primary (60,000?). A candidate needs to come in at least second to get to the regular election which would mean getting 15,000 – 25,000 write-in votes.

Can he do it?

He has a strong volunteer army that may just convince enough Detroiters to write his name in MIKE DUGGAN; good thing it isn’t SZYSZKO.

This sounds exiting and historic; let us hope it happens!!!

SUPREME COURT: DOMA is unconstitutional...

Well the Supreme Court rules that the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional as it should have.

Anthony Kennedy, the “swing” judge will go down in history as the most important judge in our time and mainly because he was a “swing” judge that voted with his conscience and intellect and not some strict, unmovable and therefore subjective (not objective) dogma; he alone made a huge difference in the 5-4 decisions of the Supreme Court throughout the years.

The court did not issue a black or white ruling and therefore opening the door to many more legal battles to come. It did declare DOMA unconstitutional which means that denying gays federal benefits available to heterosexuals in a marriage, is just not fair and therefore unconstitutional.

What it did not rule is that gay marriage is a constitutional right and should be legal in the entire country. Michigan has a law banning gay marriage voted in by Michiganians a few years back. If a person is married in a state allowing gay marriage, are their rights legal in Michigan which does not allow gay marriage.

Democrats in Michigan are already putting forth legislation to declare gay marriage legal in the state and because the mood of the country has shifted so dramatically into a pro-gay stance, the new legislation is passable. Why the dramatic change in the mind-set of the country…later.

I was more interested why the conservative judges like Scalia voted against repealing DOMA. Scalia, being the twit he is, said that the court should not go against laws passed by the legislature in such a fashion (without serious legal rationale) even though the legislators that passed the act now disown it and want it killed. But on the other hand, the idiot judge, sometime before, railed against allowing Obamacare to stand even though it was also passed by the legislature; I guess he just does what he is told to do.

There is no mistaking the shift in the mood of the country and a compelling reason against those who object to the legalization of gay marriage is basically, it hurts no one, it makes economic and social sense and if you think your religious beliefs are somehow being trampled just remember that we have no national religion or specific religious dogma in our laws; we are a secular nation.

On the other hand, if you do want a religious rationale then just consider God creating gays and not allowing them to marry and therefore to be happy; what an asshole of a God he would have to be and since some Christians created their God in their own image and to think the way they do and therefore give their ideas some type of divine credence, those Christians must be assholes too…did I just say what I think I said?

Anyway, there is national happiness for the time being, I am proud of our nation and let the legal fireworks begin…we truly live in historic times.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

SUPREME COURT DECISION: Affirmitive Action???

The other Supreme Court decision was concerning university affirmative action admission policies.

This is an issue I have blogged on numerous occasions and it is not over because a Michigan case is winding its way to the Supreme Court next year.

Many people are confused by this issue because it is so complicatedly “stupid”. Race is not an issue in college attendance; no one is barred from attending college because of their race or skin color.

Many African-Americans attend colleges or universities as do American Indians, Asians, Chinese, etc. with no problems at all.

So what is all this about? Well it is about “elite” schools like the University of Michigan and as in the Supreme Court case, the University of Texas. Since many people want to attend these “elite” schools, the schools have “admission policies” that weed out or filter the applying students to get only the best students BUT since these “elite” schools also want a “diversified student population” they allow not only the best but students that are not the best but they are African-Americans.

The question people usually have is why is it important to have a diversified student population? Obviously, the universities feel that there is an “educational” benefit to having a diversified student population. I can kind of agree with that since I believe your learning environment should resemble the real world.

The problem is that to get that diversified student body, the university has to replace some of the “best” with African-Americans who are not some of the “best” and therefore white students that are the “best” but are not admitted feel they are being discriminated against because they are white and that is the case the Supreme Court just decided; the case was brought by a white, female student that did not make it into the University of Texas.

Note: The problem with admitting a student that is not the “best” but rather far from being the best basically guarantees that the student that was admitted based on color, will drop out quickly and data supports that fact so we are arguing about a concept that really does no good to the people that are admitted based on race.

Note: I have always maintained that helping poor students enter “elite” schools is a noble gesture, especially if they are poor but smart. Schools have scholarship programs but I guess we are talking about poor people that are not so smart and would not be able to compete for actual scholarships.

OK so what are we trying to achieve here? We want a diverse student population because that has educational or sociological value to the entire student population but admitting African-Americans just for diversity reasons has not statistically, benefitted those African-Americans because most of them drop out because they are out of their league academically.

The Supreme Court said in a 7-1 decision (Ginsberg dissented) sent the case back to the lower court with the proviso that the lower court make sure that the admissions policy has absolutely no other way of diversifying the student population without resorting to racial quotas.

That decision says that yes, you can use affirmative action to diversify the student population but you must have a damn good rationale for doing so.

Both sides claim victory but we will have to wait to see how this decision unpacks in the real world.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT 1965: Time to let it expire!

We have a number of decisions by our Supreme Court to discuss; they released a bunch of them right before heading on vacation (recess).

The easiest for me to understand is the VOTING RIGHTS ACT which in 1965 (graduated from high school) made states (southern) that have had a history of racism which included racism in the form of obstructing voting rights for blacks, get permission from the federal government anytime these states wanted to somehow alter their state voting regulations.

This was a very good law and a very needed law and it absolutely guaranteed the right to vote for African-Americans that lived in those states with a history of racism; but that was 48 years ago.

Southern states now have many black politicians and any attempt to somehow tamper with voting rights for any individual would be met with swift judicial action.

Even so, as evidenced by the opposition to somehow dismantling this law, many still feel it is too early to drop the requirement that any changes to voting regulations (in those southern states) must be approved by the federal government.

I think it is time to drop that requirement since even on the surface; the law is unconstitutional since it only compels select southern states to be governed by the law even though other states (northern, etc.) could impose draconian voting restrictions targeting African-Americans.

Why would a state even take the time to challenge this law? It all stems from the trend in many states, to require VOTER ID.

Southern states who want to impose VOTER ID Regulations, are always shot down by the federal government while northern states can pass Voter ID legislation…get the picture?

The argument against voter ID requirements is that many poor blacks do not own cars and therefore do not have driver’s licenses which are commonly used as a piece of acceptable ID…therefore their right to vote is impeded.

My mother who is 91 and has never driven a car in her life has had a Michigan ID card all her life. It is not hard to get and you just need to expend the effort to get one; all you usually need is a birth certificate.

So in this case which went 5-4 to overturn or end the law (conservative vs. liberal); I agree with for the stated reasons and I really cannot even see or comprehend the argument of the opposition; it no longer makes sense so end it!

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

IRS: picking on only conservative organizations? I think not...

A few words about the so-called IRS scandal where the IRS organization was found to be picking on “conservative” organizations like “Tea Party Clubs” getting Republicans all enraged and smelling an Obama scandal or at least a Democratic scandal.

Well it turns out that the IRS was not really targeting “right wing” organizations for political gain but all sorts of organizations, even “liberal” organizations; organizations that asked the IRS for “tax exempt” status.

When I first heard about this kerfuffle I though, isn’t the IRS just making sure that all these organizations asking for tax-exempt status are “really” allowed to be granted that status or are they just trying to avoid paying taxes which many of these so-called social welfare organizations are doing.

I have long been pissed off at churches and other religious organizations that are given tax-exempt status even though they get heavily involved in elections and other government matters even though they are not supposed to…has any government ever revoked a church’s tax-exempt status? Even when legally they could and should?

Same goes for these Tea Party Clubs; are they social organizations operating for the public good or are they political organizations pushing a political agenda?

I think IRS regulations need to be more tightly enforced if Obama wants the government to collect more taxes. Quit raising taxes and start collecting taxes from people that legally should be paying taxes!