Have you heard about...? (Politics edition)

[runawayjimbo]

The entire fight over this issue could very easily have been avoided by providing the option for employees of companies who have religious objections to VOLUNTARILY receive the benefits free of charge*. Instead, the administration chose to FORCE all employers to provide it in a manner that violated a current law.

I don't follow. No one is cramming The Pill down anyone's throat here; receiving the benefits is still voluntary. And from whom would those employees receive those free benefits? Still the employer?

Receiving the benefits certainly is, but paying for them is not. The Court is saying if the gov't were to provide the benefits directly - not force the employers to pay for them - it would achieve the gov'ts goal without impinging on people's religious freedoms. And in fact that is exactly what is happening with religious non-profits. But the administration actively decided to draw a line in the sand on for-profit companies, thereby violating the least restrictive means test set forth in the RFRA. I don't know why the administration chose to make that distinction, but it sure seems like a politically motivated one to me.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-oliver-takes-on-hobby-lobby-govt-is-not-an-a-la-carte-system/#ooid=d0OTVqbjokDXtapQjHptindWsOo6Ehkb

the sincerity of their beliefs should allow then a line-item veto over federal law

Does he mean like the federal law set forth in RFRA?

Honestly, I didn't hear one relevant issue to the case at hand. Lot of good shots at Hobby Lobby's customers and the Mennonites though!!

[VDB]

The entire fight over this issue could very easily have been avoided by providing the option for employees of companies who have religious objections to VOLUNTARILY receive the benefits free of charge*. Instead, the administration chose to FORCE all employers to provide it in a manner that violated a current law.

I don't follow. No one is cramming The Pill down anyone's throat here; receiving the benefits is still voluntary. And from whom would those employees receive those free benefits? Still the employer?

Receiving the benefits certainly is, but paying for them is not. The Court is saying if the gov't were to provide the benefits directly - not force the employers to pay for them - it would achieve the gov'ts goal without impinging on people's religious freedoms.

So rather than forcing a company to pay for something it objects to morally, it'd be OK for the government to force taxpayers (among whom there are surely more objectors to [insert issue] than there are among the owners of any company you could find) to subsidize such offensive benefits? Or let's say I, as a taxpayer, don't object to these methods of contraception -- but I might surely object to having to foot the bill because someone else refuses to.

And if we follow this logic, wouldn't the "least restrictive means" test apply to pretty much any situation in which you could argue "it'd be less restrictive for the government to just provide that which it's trying to give people access to rather than tell anyone else to do so." Couldn't you take that logic and strike down a whole bunch of the rest of the ACA while you're at it?

[runawayjimbo]

So rather than forcing a company to pay for something it objects to morally, it'd be OK for the government to force taxpayers (among whom there are surely more objectors to [insert issue] than there are among the owners of any company you could find) to subsidize such offensive benefits? Or let's say I, as a taxpayer, don't object to these methods of contraception -- but I might surely object to having to foot the bill because someone else refuses to.

Yes, of course. Congress has the power to appropriate funds as they see fit. Whether or not that aligns with a few/some/many/most people is irrelevant. So you can object, but you certainly don't have a say as to how your tax dollars are spent, except maybe in the vote-the-bums-out, grassroots activist kinda way.

And again, the point is not that it's ok for gov't to pay for it, it's that there was already a system in place to provide contraception to religious non-profits (through Medicaid, iirc) which could easily have been expanded to include for-profit companies with religious objections. Instead, HHS decided to fund non-profits' contraception but refused to do so for for-profits. If that distinction hadn't been made, the gov't probably would have had a more compelling case that forcing employers to pay for the benefits was the least restrictive way of achieving their goal.

And if we follow this logic, wouldn't the "least restrictive means" test apply to pretty much any situation in which you could argue "it'd be less restrictive for the government to just provide that which it's trying to give people access to rather than tell anyone else to do so." Couldn't you take that logic and strike down a whole bunch of the rest of the ACA while you're at it?

Least restrictive means only a function of RFRA, so it would only apply in case of religious objection. Could that take down the ACA? I don't think so. You're not going to be seeing a lot of challenges from the Church of the Fonz. And frivolous claims would never be granted cert (probably not even at appellate level).

[runawayjimbo]

WHOO HOO!! Back in Iraq!!

Also, LOL at "military advisers." What a fucking joke.

I'll grant you that this phrase could be a disingenuous euphemism as it was used to describe 10s of thousands of US servicemen during the early years of our involvement in Vietnam.

However, 575 total troops (the 275 extra to defend the embassy, the 300 Green Berets  just announced) don't make an invasion force. These 300 are certainly going to do a lot of intelligence-gathering, and most of it will be above-board and as described in the news: assessing the Iraqi forces in place. There'll most likely be some clandestine shit going on too. How else would this go down?

POTUS and Congress all know the public doesn't have the stomach for another full scale war.

More troops headed to Iraq. I get that this doesn't represent a full scale war, but it's a little early for mission creep, isn't it?

http://abcn.ws/1lOaOxn

More US Troops to Iraq, Raising Total to About 750

The U.S. is sending another 300 troops to Iraq to increase security at the U.S. Embassy and elsewhere in the Baghdad area to protect U.S. citizens and property, officials said Monday.

That raises the total U.S. troop presence in Iraq to approximately 750, the Pentagon said.

The State Department, meanwhile, announced that it was temporarily moving an unspecified "small number" of embassy staff in Baghdad to U.S. consulates in the northern city of Irbil and the southern city of Basra. This is in addition to some embassy staff moved out of Baghdad earlier this month,

Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the Baghdad embassy "will be fully equipped to carry out" its mission.

The White House announced that President Barack Obama had directed that 200 troops be sent to reinforce security at the embassy, its support facilities and Baghdad International Airport.

The Pentagon said the 200 arrived Sunday and Monday.

"The presence of these additional forces will help enable the embassy to continue its critical diplomatic mission and work with Iraq on challenges they are facing as they confront Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant," the Pentagon's press secretary, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby, said in a written statement.

Obama notified House and Senate leaders in a letter on Monday of the additional forces heading to Iraq. Officials said they bring a detachment of helicopters and drone aircraft to improve airfield and travel route security in Baghdad.

Obama has ruled out sending combat troops back into Iraq. He said the extra troops will stay in Iraq until security improves so that the reinforcements are no longer needed.

Kirby said another 100 troops, who had been on standby in the Middle East since mid-June, also will move into Baghdad to provide security and logistics support.

That raises to about 470 the number of U.S. troops providing security in Baghdad.

Those forces are separate from the teams of up to 300 U.S. military advisers that Obama authorized for deployment to Iraq earlier in June. Of those 300, about 180 had arrived as of Monday, the Pentagon said. They are assessing the state of Iraqi security forces and coordinating with Iraqi authorities.

The U.S. also has a permanent group of about 100 military personnel in the Office of Security Cooperation, at the U.S. Embassy, to coordinate U.S. military sales.

[ytowndan]

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/parade-politics/Content?oid=2059704

[nab]

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/parade-politics/Content?oid=2059704

Hilarious.  I haven't read this week's Independent yet.


Little background for anyone not familiar with Montana politics.  The state has two major state universities.  The University of Montana is based in Missoula and Montana State University is based in Bozeman.  Since the 1960's, these two schools have in some ways come to represent competing political philosophies, with U of M being the "liberal" school and MSU being the "conservative" school.  Given that each of these schools inject the capital of close to 10k students into communities where those kinds of numbers can represent 10% or more of the greater metro area population, activities based in both communities become sounding boards for people of both political persuasions. 

Did I forget to mention that there is a century old rivalry between both school's football program as well?  Regardless of your gridiron acumen, knowing the basics of the rivalry is required small talk in almost every community in the state.   I often use it to grease the wheels when someone asks me what I'm doing in the field.

The Missoula Independent is the liberal rag par excellence in Montana.  It is not surprising that adding the Tea Party and Bozeman, shaken and stirred over ironic ice, was an irresistible cocktail for the opinion page.   

[emay]

Obama is in Denver for 2-3 days this week thought this was funny on his first night out last night he shook hands with a guy in a horse head mask and passed on a "hit"

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2014/07/obama_want_a_hit_denver_marijuana.php

[emay]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/11/1313326/-Report-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Gutted-Americans-Incomes-6-6-Trillion-Dollars?detail=facebook

[runawayjimbo]

Malaysia Airlines plane shot down near Ukraine/Russian border.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/malaysian-airlines-plane-crashes-ukraine-russian-border-article-1.1870413

Malaysia Airlines plane shot down in Ukraine near Russian border
The Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 reportedly had 280 passengers and 15 crew members when it went down in a war-torn region of Ukraine.

A Malaysia Airlines passenger plane was reportedly shot down in Ukraine near the Russian border Thursday.

The Boeing 777 had 280 passengers and 15 crew members, Interfax reported citing an an aviation industry source.

Anton Gerashenko, an adviser to Ukraine's Interior Minister, said on Facebook that the plane was flying at an altituse of 33,000 feet when it was hit by a missile fired from a  Buk launcher.

It came down just 20 miles short of entering Russian airspace near the town of Shakhtyorsk, in an area where the Ukrainian government has been fighting pro-Russian rebels.

It "began to drop, afterwards it was found burning on the ground on Ukrainian territory," a unidentified source told Reuters.

Flight Aware shows the flight was heading from Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, the main international airport in the Netherlands, to Kuala Lumpur International Airport outside Kuala Lumpur, the most populous city of Malaysia.

The flight reportedly departed at 12:14 a.m. local time.

The crash comes a little more than four months after Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 lost contact with air traffic control less than an hour after takeoff from Kuala Lumpur International Airport.

The aircraft, also a Boeing 777, was carrying 227 passengers and 12 Malaysian crew members.

The airline issued a public statement an hour after the flight was expected to arrive in China.

The subsequent search efforts, which involved multiple governments, expanded to more than 60,000 square miles and soared to become the most expensive in history.

Malaysia Airlines confirmed it lost contact with the flight.

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates

[sls.stormyrider]

holy fuck

[antelope19]

 :shakehead:

[emay]

who da fuck shots down a passenger plane?


I guess could be those pro russian rebels that been shooting down the russian cargo planes

[runawayjimbo]

Now Reuters  is reporting search efforts at scene of Malaysian airliner crash being hampered by "armed terrorists."

Oh and Al Jazeera is saying Israel has begun a ground invasion in Gaza.

Take both with the proverbial Twitter-sized grain of salt, but fuck.

ETA: and now the White House is on lockdown. Slow news day.

[antelope19]

 :shakehead:

In an almost incomprehensible twist of fate, an Australian woman who lost her brother in the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 learned on Friday that her stepdaughter was on the plane shot down over Ukraine.

Unreal

[runawayjimbo]

Neil deGrasse Tyson has a message for GMO truthers: chill, homies.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-gmo

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Tells GMO Critics to "Chill Out"
The Cosmos star says we've been genetically modifying our food for "tens of thousands of years."

Cosmos star Neil deGrasse Tyson is known for defending climate science and the science of evolution. And now, in a video recently posted on YouTube (the actual date when it was recorded is unclear), he takes a strong stand on another hot-button scientific topic: Genetically modified foods.

In the video, Tyson can be seen answering a question posed in French about "des plantes transgenetiques"—responding with one of his characteristic, slowly-building rants.

"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food," asserts Tyson. "There are no wild, seedless watermelons. There's no wild cows...You list all the fruit, and all the vegetables, and ask yourself, is there a wild counterpart to this? If there is, it's not as large, it's not as sweet, it's not as juicy, and it has way more seeds in it. We have systematically genetically modified all the foods, the vegetables and animals that we have eaten ever since we cultivated them. It's called artificial selection." You can watch the full video above.

In fairness, critics of GM foods make a variety of arguments that go beyond the simple question of whether the foods we eat were modified prior to the onset of modern biotechnology. They also draw a distinction between modifying plants and animals through traditional breeding and genetic modification that requires the use of biotechnology, and involves techniques such as inserting genes from different species.