Well, that didn't take long. Gov. Perry calls a special session for July 1.

Can't let the other side win?

At least they have to take the political hit for it.

It was stupid of them to let it go that long in the first place

They didn't really win though. They just exploited a rule to get around it. I don't agree with the way the vote would go, but I know both sides would call bullshit if the other side did this to them. It's about as undemocratic as you can get.

For the law buffs, why don't gay marriage supporters in the court use the same arguments that were made in Loving v. Virginia? I don't think anyone on this court would dissent to that decision, so how could they dissent to one on gay marriage?

In due process and equal protection cases, different levels of scrutiny are used.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Race was under strict scrutiny. Homosexuality does not have that same level of scrutiny (I've heard folks say its "rational basis with a bite" or "heightened scrutiny"). Gender is intermediate scrutiny, FWIW.

What does that mean, the higher the scrutiny the greater the presumption is against a government law that attacks it. For strict scrutiny, the government has to have a compelling governmental interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

They haven't really settled on a scrutiny level for gays yet.

How is scrutiny decided? It's based on cases and cases that overtime establish the level by gradual precedent. Though race got strict scrutiny because the 14th Amendment was written with race in mind.

If you argue, well the court is just making scrutiny levels up, well, yeah, we allow them to as part of deciding cases - deciding standards for jurisprudence is part of the job of common law judges.

I do find it funny that a lot of the people who voted for DOMA, or even signed it into law, are cheering it being overturned.

I mean I think it's great that it was overturned and people are happy, but those celebrating put it in place.

About that whole "they targeted Dems too" thing ... guess again

"I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening -- whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?" - Rand Paul

Well in 1996, many of them were afraid that opposition to DOMA would doom them. Others may have changed their mind on the issue since then. When DOMA was passed, only 27% of Americans were in favor of same sex marriage.

Don't get me wrong, the people who stood in the face of political pressure and opposed it even then (like John Lewis, who gave a stirring speech against it) are courageous and deserve commendation. But I can understand why others couldn't politically oppose it. Clinton was in an easy re-election against Dole and vetoing DOMA could've changed everything.

Except George's truthfulness has to be called into question. At one of the early hearings he said,


and we now have documented proof that that wasn't accurate.

Andrew Sullivan has a great headline on one of his posts examining Clinton and DOMA, "It Was the Economy, Faggots!"

Sullivan annoys me sometimes with that crap thinking that politicians have the same luxury as bloggers to say whatever the heck they feel like (also there is the difference in thought as to how much should politicians represent the positions of the people they represent).

I'd agree, and his long running animosity towards the Clintons really shows, but I still think the headline is funny.

Senate passes immigration. Uncertain future in the House.

Interesting article on US involvement in Egypt. I would have thought Egyptian military would not need to have consult with the US.

Morsi Spurned Deals, Seeing Military as Tamed - NYTimes.com

Well, I think the military wanted to make sure that the US wouldn't get all mad and start bombing. Just a check-in to make sure.

And they wanted to make sure the billions in foreign aid keep rolling in.

Yup.

Billions is overstating it. US aid to Egypt is $1.4 billion.

Well, I was thinking over multiple years, but you're right.

I'd agree, but since it wasn't mentioned that it was annually, I let it slide. Since WWII, we've given them $73B. Since 1998, we've given them $27.5B. $1.5B annually.


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33003.pdf

Of course, looking back on this now. What has this investment done for us? For the region? For the world?

Has it been a value add? What would the Egyptians say? The region? Our allies? Is there a better place to spend this money?

We give the military aid, mostly, so they don't start another war with Israel.

Or rather as a reward for Camp David.

It's also largely a pass through account for American defense contractors.

I'd really like an honest assessment. I don't know that we should be in the business of supplying $1.5B annually (Issidiqui) for something that doesn't seem to be going to them anyway (Jphillips). So is there a value add here or not?

Meaning, it sure seems like all that money just led to the military being powerful enough to conduct a coop that shut down a democratically elected government and even though I dislike the concept of the Islamic Brotherhood...I feel like I want my money back now.

True.

Although that doesn't answer the question of "is that worth it?"

You know, I think this possibility means it is completely worth it to the government and, likely, a majority of Americans. So, I guess, it depends.

How could you measure that? Egypt has been relatively friendly and peaceful since Camp David.

Is that because of the $1.5B we give them every year? I guess I agree with you, ultimately though, because you're right...How do we measure it? Perhaps we take it back. Tell them, "Look, we've got our own problems to worry about and we could really use this money for our own military or civilian issues." and then just see what happens.

To be honest, $1.5B a year is peanuts to the US. It's like 0.015% of our annual budget.

If I had a 0.015% hike to our annual budget everytime I heard that...

How about this: it's currently expected that we pay $1.5B per year to Egypt. Complaining about the money in the past is Monday Morning QBing as it's a sunk cost- it's already spent.

If you're doing the budget for the next two years: what do you give Egypt? And what do you think the expected effects will be?

SI

Our discretionary spending budget is $1.5T so it's right at 0.1%, or about equal to the budget for the Small Business Administration.

It does help provide the answer to, "Is this a value add?" and I think the answer is no, but I'm not sure.



Is it all going to American Military Contractors (JPhillips)? Is it a payoff to ensure they don't go suicidal and start a war with Israel, provided they actually get the money (Isiddiqui).

I don't know. That's what/why I'm asking.

I'm guessing if you try to reduce Egyptian spending (and it seems after the military took down the Muslim Brotherhood, it may go UP), you'd have to also reduce Isreali spending ($3B a year, mostly military) or else you may exacerbate Mid East tensions.

I think $1.5B is worth it. They have not been antagonistic against Israel and I think Mubarak was relatively neutral.

So why doesn't Israel pay them $1.5 B then?

Optics.

I don't think Karzai's government is strong enough to stand on its own with a total pull out but its time to leave. He must think he has more options (and friends) than I think he does.

Frustrated Obama Considers Full Troop Withdrawal From Afghanistan - NYTimes.com

Just found out that our longtime family physician, one of the best in the region, has to reduce the number of patients from 3000 to 600 due to "Affordable" Health Care Act. And those 600 has to apply to join MD VIP at $1600/year. Tell me again how increasing costs substantially and/or reducing his number of patients that gets quality care make us better off? :mad:

now he can focus on those 600 patients instead of 5x as many?

i got nothing.

Sounds like a cash grab to me. Just why does he have to cut the number of patients by 80%? I haven't seen reimbursements being cut anywhere close to that figure. Sounds like he wants to work less, use the VIP plan to make up the difference, and use the ACA as a reason he "has" to do this.

Yay for anecdotal examples that fail to even attempt to show a causal link. Did you know that ice cream caused violent crime?

Are you calling my doctor's office and my wife whom this was told to (and presented with the applications) a liar?

Change does affect change, whatever the reasons, and most of them are probably doesn't make things better.

Try not to get butthurt here, Chauncy.

If he's your longtime family physician, my guess is he's probably close to retirement age. He's likely using ACA as a cover to massively cut down his workload while still maintaining the same income level.

Or, like cartman said, a cash grab.

As anti-Obamacare as I am, this definitely runs contrary to anything I've come across, unless virtually all of those 3000 on the books are Medicare patients (in which case, then yeah, I've heard of plans to cut back).

Did the words "Accountable Care Organization" come up by any chance? Or ACO? That's another scenario where I could see a doctor cutting his patient load by 80%, as part of an agreement by the group that'll basically be pooling resources & splitting the profits.

This initial aroma here does indeed smell like a cash grab by the doc, just tbh.

edit to add: And if he's going to the VIP model, he better hope for better luck than the last guy who tried that here. The epic fail on that bordered on comical.

Are cash-grabbing doctors and the ensuing impact on patients not a legitimate concern about Obamacare? Just because it's not a desired result doesn't mean that it's not a foreseeable one.

They could make these kinds of moves with or without the ACA being in place, and have done so in the past.

I am anti-Obamacare much like JiMGa but have to agree that Obamacare gives these doctors a good cover to cut down on their caseload without the fallout if they said "I just don't want 3000 patients". I have had two physicians do this to me in the past couple of years as well. They charge a yearly fee and still get reimbursed for procedures like the currently are so they are able to take on significantly fewer patients. It didn't really make sense for my family sense we all probably visit the doctor once a year for a physical.

Agree with Molson though that this is a very predictable result and I wonder if this doesn't jibe with the supposed waiting lists for simple procedures in countries like Canada and England. (I say supposed because I admit I have just heard this to be the case and it is possibly just a GOP talking point that I assumed to be true)