The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Chuck to Chuck]

The Evans Scholars recipients are hardly the Spaulding Smailses of the world. They are the Danny Noonans of the world.

So, instead of corporate welfare they need sugar daddies?

[Slaky]

Ed Sherman says Barney Frank is stopping poor caddies from going to college.

Last year, the BMW was in St. Louis while Cog Hill was being renovated. Thanks to big crowds from a town that was anxious to see pro golf, the WGA earned $3.3 million for the Evans Scholars, a program that awards scholarship money to caddies.

However, Mr. Kaczkowski is comparing this year's tournament to 2007 in terms of revenue. In 2007, the WGA netted $2.4 million for the Evans Scholars.

He projects this year's tournament will "hopefully net $2 million."

"We'll be substantially down," he said.

"The Frank Effect" has been telling, Mr. Kaczkowski said.

"Early on, we had companies say, 'Hey, we just don't have the money,' " Mr. Kaczkowksi said. "Then it went to, 'We can't risk being associated with the tournament' after Frank's statements."

In fact, several companies that remain on as sponsors won't be displaying their names. If you were observant, you actually saw it at the recent Solheim Cup at Rich Harvest Farms. There were signs that said "Villa No. 2." That was code for, "We don't want to advertise to Rep. Frank that we're out here."

You will see the same thing at Cog Hill.

The Wednesday Pro-Am, another huge moneymaker, also has been impacted. The WGA went from having a waiting list for slots (which go for $8,000) to actively selling the event. Again, it largely was due to the "Frank Effect."

"No. 1, they didn't want to be seen on the golf course," Mr. Kaczkowski said. "No. 2, they can't find customers who want to be seen on the course."

As a result of Mr. Frank's statements and the economy, the tournament had to make adjustments to try to offset the lost sponsorship revenue. A large marketing campaign had helped pre-tournament ticket sales jump 10% compared with 2007. If the weather cooperates, Mr. Kaczkowski said, the tournament should draw more than 150,000 people for the week, surpassing 2007.

But ticket sales only go so far. The loss of sponsorship money is a huge hole to fill.

The bottom line is that the Evans Scholars will have less cash to offer scholarships this year. Perhaps as many as 50 deserving students/caddies won't receive the opportunity to go to college.

The world needs ditch-diggers, too.

I remember the Evans Scholars house at UI.  It was tremendously expensive and housed some tremendously un-scholarly people.  This is all about getting a digg in at Barney Frank, which I'm cool with.

That. If I remember correctly, they actually had a huge new house going up about 4 or 5 years ago. On my list of people to feel sorry for at the moment, the Spaulding Smailses of the world are pretty far down there. Maybe they can auction off a couple of the gold bidets from that swanky new pad to make up for the lost scholarships.

I also don't think it's too ridiculous to assume that cost cutting measures put into effect by pretty much every company in this economy - including a decrease corporate sponsorships - might be a teeny tiny contributing factor (while obviously nowhere near as devastating as THE BARNEY FRANK EFFECT) to the WGA's problems.

This part three. Those Evans Scholars lived in a brand new, awesome house and had raging parties every weekend. I guess, if anything, it sucks that a few caddies won't get to take part in those shenanigans.

[R-V]

Encouraging analysis of cap-and-trade, via the favored rag of capitalist swine.

Turns out, even though the U.S. government does not have a hard and fast figure, it has a rough idea—around $19 a ton. (There is a huge array of estimates for the "social cost of carbon"; those so inclined will have fun on pages 21-30 here.)

So, given that the Waxman-Markey bill would curb emissions over the next 40 years, it's a pretty simple job to tally up the potential benefits: about $1.5 trillion on the middle-of-the-road estimate. The benefits could be as low as $382 billion or as high as $5.2 trillion, depending on how you fiddle with the numbers.

Since Waxman-Markey is meant to cost about $660 billion, that means the bill provides $2.27 in benefits for every dollar spent, the brief concludes.

[R-V]

DPD. Would be interested to hear what you lawyerqueermos have to say about this after the decision comes down.

Oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court today could mark the end of more than 30 years of struggle for a tranche of conservative and libertarian intellectuals -- and for corporations that have had to find inglorious and meandering ways to influence the political system. Also at stake is how the our interprets the First Amendment.  The stakes are that big.

In practice, the Court isn't likely to tear down the entire Buckley wall, but almost every observer expects the court to  expand the ways that how corporations and individuals can influence elections.  If moneyed interests are inherently corrupting, this is bad news. If they're not -- and they're just exercising their legitimate speech rights -- this is thrilling. Here is where the authors of BCRA are at a disadvantage: the campaign finance laws have gotten so cumbersome that even proponents of regulation in general are anxious about the law's constitutionality and feasibility.

[Gil Gunderson]

DPD. Would be interested to hear what you lawyerqueermos have to say about this after the decision comes down.

Oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court today could mark the end of more than 30 years of struggle for a tranche of conservative and libertarian intellectuals -- and for corporations that have had to find inglorious and meandering ways to influence the political system. Also at stake is how the our interprets the First Amendment.  The stakes are that big.

In practice, the Court isn't likely to tear down the entire Buckley wall, but almost every observer expects the court to  expand the ways that how corporations and individuals can influence elections.  If moneyed interests are inherently corrupting, this is bad news. If they're not -- and they're just exercising their legitimate speech rights -- this is thrilling. Here is where the authors of BCRA are at a disadvantage: the campaign finance laws have gotten so cumbersome that even proponents of regulation in general are anxious about the law's constitutionality and feasibility.

People, especially lawyers, exaggerate, so even though the stakes are high for this case and it is kind of unusual to essentially rehear a decided case from about seven years ago, I wouldn't expect much to change. 

A little bit of McCain-Feingold may come down, but the essence and spirit of it and the Tillman Act will be maintained.  As usual, Kennedy is the one to watch.  The liberal four are solid, as is the conservative bloc, but Kennedy may be wishy-washy.  He didn't go as far as Roberts or Alito in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, but he did join the majority.  I doubt he'll be the deciding vote to overturn BCRA, but it depends or the arguments, as he is pretty apt to go along with a fairly nuanced argument.

Again, let's see how this all plays out.

[Chuck to Chuck]

In practice, the Court isn't likely to tear down the entire Buckley wall, but almost every observer expects the court to  expand the ways that how corporations and individuals can influence elections.  If moneyed interests are inherently corrupting, this is bad news. If they're not -- and they're just exercising their legitimate speech rights -- this is thrilling. Here is where the authors of BCRA are at a disadvantage: the campaign finance laws have gotten so cumbersome that even proponents of regulation in general are anxious about the law's constitutionality and feasibility.

[/quote]

Fucking activist courts.

[R-V]

Didn't want to soil the twatface thread with this, but for posterity's sake:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

    Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Didn't want to soil the twatface thread with this, but for posterity's sake:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

    Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!

[Gil Gunderson]

Didn't want to soil the twatface thread with this, but for posterity's sake:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

    Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!

I saw a homeless guy with shit on his white tee just now; I confused it with this shirt.

[Quality Start Machine]

Didn't want to soil the twatface thread with this, but for posterity's sake:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

    Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!

He touched a lot of people.

[ChuckD]

This is hilarious.

[CT III]

This is hilarious.

When my child read that Ronald Reagan had gotten a divorce in his history textbook, he cried for a week. Shame on you, public school system! It's a parent's responsibility to teach their child about reality — not the state's.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

This is hilarious.

http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/divorce/divorce.php

Interview with John Marcotte, Author of the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act

...

RC: Ok. So your act, if it became law, would make marriage undissolvable.

John: Exactly. The only exception would be if the marriage was "voidable" -- if you married an 8-year-old, you don't get to keep her. She goes back on the shelf. You can't marry the mentally incapacitated, etc.

RC: Ah, ok, so most normal marriages would be irreversable.

John: 99.99% of all marriages would be set in stone. It's a return to traditional values.

RC: Wow, that is amazing. Could it really happen? What steps remain to make this initiative into a valid, enforced law?

John: I am trying to extend the good work done with Proposition 8 last year. It could really happen. The United States has not always had divorce as an institution the way we do now. As a ballot initiative it bypasses the legislature and the governor. It's the will of the people made law.

...

RC: Are you going to hit the streets collecting signatures for the initiative?

John: We're going to set up a table in front of Wal*Mart and ask people to sign a petition to protect traditional marriage. We're going to interview them about why they thing traditional marriage is important, and then we'll tell them that we are trying to ban divorce.

People who supported Prop 8 weren't trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That's why I'm confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.

We're also going to collect signatures in front of "Faces," the largest gay nightclub in Sacramento.

...

RC: What about people who are currently married? Will this law apply to them, or only new marriages?

John: I wish that I could force people that hate each other with the intensity of a thousand white suns back into a loveless marriage, but my attorneys tell me that getting that law passed would be unlikely in the current political climate.

I'll try to get a "win" by banning divorce and save that for 2012 -- when Sarah Palin will be president and/or the end of the world will occur.

[ChuckD]

Sean Penn, noted limousine liberal, hedonist and secular progressive, is getting divorced from Robin Wright Penn, his wife of 13 years. Penn — who was recently rewarded with an Oscar for his dual attack against both heterosexual values and the dairy industry — has long been the darling of the radical left.

This will be the third time that he or his wife have filed for divorce, as their previous attempts to destroy the institution have thus far failed.

[MAD]

Sean Penn, noted limousine liberal, hedonist and secular progressive, is getting divorced from Robin Wright Penn, his wife of 13 years. Penn — who was recently rewarded with an Oscar for his dual attack against both heterosexual values and the dairy industry — has long been the darling of the radical left.

This will be the third time that he or his wife have filed for divorce, as their previous attempts to destroy the institution have thus far failed.

DAMN YOU INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE!  I'M TRYING MY HARDEST TO MAKE YOU FAIL BY DIVORCING MULTIPLE TIMES BUT IT'S JUST NOT WORKING!  YOU'RE TOO INVINCIBLE!!!

Wait--is this real?