Actually, I think you're being unconstitutional.

I just don't get it. What is their motivation? Do they just want to make him look bad because they don't like him? Or are they really so deluded they think that filing suit is going to help in any way? What do they hope to achieve? I just don't get it. Why is it that seven Republican state Attorney Generals have filed suit against the President of the United States? I've been thinking about it since I saw an article in the paper yesterday on the topic. I still don't get it.

Ostensibly the suit is because the government had made it so that religious companies would be required to pay for health care coverage for contraceptives which is felt to be unconstitutional because 'it violates the first amendment'. However, that position was already rescinded and altered so that it would be not the religious affiliated companies themselves that had to pay for the contraceptive coverage but the insurance providers that would have to pay. Then there is the fact that it was not just the President that was responsible for the legal requirement. I know this without bothering to look it up for the simple fact that the President is not a soveriegn and the system of checks and balances that were designed into our government generally prevent him from doing anything without the approval of literally dozens if not hundreds of other people.

Ignoring the fact that if there is blame to be placed it doesn't belong to just one person there are still a lot of problems with their stated goal. Currently the legal requirement is that the insurance providers of religious companies have to pay for contraceptives for employees. It is not the company itself that has to pay it. A religious company might be indirectly paying for it in that they have to pay premiums in order to retain the insurance and some of their premium might go toward the contraceptives- but that is no different than it was before. Unless a religious company were to use a insurance provider that did not cover any sort of contraceptive device (of which there are none, to my knowledge) then their premiums might always have indirectly gone to cover contraceptives for a person covered by that insurance provider that worked at a non-religious company. The position currently is arguably no different than it was in that situation- as far as the company ought to be concerned, at least.

I would even go so far as to say that the original legal requirement (the one that was rescinded) ought to be considered constitutional. Because while it would force a religious company to pay for contraceptives for the employees that might want them it was neither forcing the employers (or employees) to use them nor saying that their ideology was invalid in any way. The employers and employees still retained the right to practice their religion in whatever manner they feel is morally fit. The employers could choose not to use contraceptives if that was their moral choice and the employees could use them if that was their moral choice.

I'll go farther still and say that allowing religious companies the right to deny their employees medical coverage for contraceptives is itself unconstitutional. You may feel morally outraged by the preceding statement and you may have just said or thought something along the lines of: "But freedom of religion is the first amendment." That is precisely it, in fact. A religious company that refused to provide coverage for contraceptives on the basis of 'freedom of religion' would be violating the right to freedom of religion for the person who wanted the contraceptives because the company would be imposing their own religious beliefs that contraceptives are bad on the employee. You may feel there is a inherent conflict there because you either protect the rights of the employee or you protect the rights of the company. I'm pretty sure, though, that there's something in the constitution about it being by and for the people and I don't recall anything about the rights of corporations. The people that own the company, of course, are still allowed to practice their religion as they choose but extending that right to a company would be tantamount to allowing that company to dictate the religious practices of its employees.

So, since the state Attorney Generals really don't have a foot to stand on or much of a chance to win anything from the President I can only assume they're (as Republicans) trying to make the President look bad. That in and of itself is not a bad political move. Given that in recent months the economy and unemployment rate has been improving and the lowering of public opinion about the strongest Republican Presidential cantidate along with the American public's propensity to reelect Presidents the Republicans may feel pressured to help their position. And what better way to help their position than make the President look bad? Unless their lack of forthought backfires, of course. I hope it does. But then I also think that WWIII might not be bad bad solution to our economic troubles (that's a whole other story, though). Regardless, the response I really want to give to the Attorney Generals filing suit against the President is this: "Actually, I think you're being unconstitutional."

How the Two-Party System Works

How the Two-Party System Works
-or-
I Do Not Understand Politics


I do not understand politics. Well, I do. Funny-looking people spend money on looking nice while lying out of the side of their mouth in order to be put in a stressful position where they have to vote on things that affect millions of lives. There is theoretically some kind of balance of power (when people aren't sneakily weighting the scales with gold). Citizens get to vote on things. Supposedly the government protects the rights of the people and keeps them safe and happy while also dealing with things other people prefer not to think about. Do I have a grasp on it? No? Well, that's okay, too. After all I don't understand any of the other parts, either.

I do not watch the news. I don't even really watch television if you discount Netflix. I don't read newspapers. I even try to avoid listening to the news on the radio. I find the news to be (kindly pardon my adjective here as many people find expletives to be reprehensible) “fucking depressing”. I also find politics to be, at best, amusing in the same way that you derive amusement from say, that unfortunate guy on AFV who always seems to be skateboarding his sensitive parts into railings. Painfully amusing. There is some kind of vague sympathy involved but also, mostly, the feeling that you are glad that you are not that unfortunate bastard.

My general feelings on what political party I might belong tends to vacillate wildly between “I have never actually read the tenets of either party” to “I might be considered a democrat except I disagree with most of what they say” to “the party I belong to is so obscure as to not exist” to “I would say I belong to the “Logic” party except what most people assume is logic is nothing of the sort”. Other people call me a Democrat because I did things like vote for President Obama in my first election and voted for Propositions One and Five last year in my home state. Proposition one had to do with allowing Gay Marriage in my state. I was all for that. Proposition five dealt with the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes in my state. (Ten points for guessing which of the two actually passed. And score one for proposition five though it was a close call on proposition one.)

Voting for any of those things had nothing to do with being a democrat. I feel pretty much the same way about being called a democrat (or any other political party for that matter) as I do about being referred to as “white” or “Caucasian”. If you let me add up the various factions of race in my ancestry I'm something more than a sixteenth Native American, something more than a sixteenth French, and somewhat less than three quarters European mutt. I look, possibly, Irish. I am glow-in-the-dark pale and have red hair and blue eyes. I can also reasonably say that if you named any country in Europe I have ancestors from it. Technically, I am “white” or “Caucasian”, this does not mean that I am “white trash” or for “white power” or that I am racist or that I think I am part of the “master race.” I am more of the belief that I have a genetic mutation in my DNA that causes my skin to lack melanin and make me burn under ultra violet rays (much like a Vampire but without the blood-drinking and living forever). I voted for Obama, gay marriage, and marijuana not because I'm a democrat or even particularly liberal but just because it seemed logical to do so. By definition, I am “white” and by definition people might consider me a democrat but I don't want to be associated with either of those groups because they're reprehensible.

I particularly fail to understand people who vote their party line blindly. I also fail to understand people who do not even achieve a glimmer of understanding before voting. If I am in the voting booth and I see a question regarding something I have no idea about I do a novel thing- I leave it blank. Regardless of how I may feel about the decision eventually made about this particular article I would rather not cancel out the vote of an informed voter because I didn't bother to look anything up on the subject before showing up at the polls. Although, I guess I could easily argue that I would simply be canceling out the vote of another uninformed voter but I never argue semantics- except as a form of recreational sport.

I don't feel particularly worked up about politics. I have no emotional investment in it. I was vaguely disappointed that people in my state did not manage to pass the proposition allowing gay marriage but I wasn't really angry. I guess I figured that if I was ever in the situation where I was dating someone of the same sex I would be happy enough to canoodle in sin- just like straight folks do. I did not feel victorious that proposition five passed. I felt that some logic might be making a tenuous presence known in the world- not much of a victory. I wasn't even really happy that Obama was elected or feel interested that I was living through “history”. Which leads me to the fact that I don't understand people who get into heated debates about politics. It doesn't make me angry that I disagree with virtually everything my boss believes regarding politics. I find it fascinating. I don't feel the need to seethe or bite my tongue. Maybe I am a political sociopath.

You might feel that there is something wrong with political sociopathy. I feel that it helps me lead a less stressful life. After all- which party I belong to is irrelevant because there are only two. Invariably you are not going to agree with everything “your” party believes in. You may even only belong to “your” party because you hate the other party and what they believe in. After all, if you classify yourself as a democrat only because you think women should be able to have abortions, people should smoke marijuana, same-sex marriage should be legal, and stem cell research conducted but think these things because you want to see fetus on the menu at McDonald's, you think letting people be legally high would cause many more entertaining pile-ups on the highways, you think gay people should be able to get married to take the pressure off those straight heirs who want to be swingers, and you hope some day stem cell research will make you forever young, immortal, and immune to venereal diseases so you can have sex with other hot young-looking immortals forever that does not make you a Democrat.

The other thing about the reason I have no real feelings about politics is the fact that we have a two-party system. Having a two-party system means that unless something particularly logical with good ad campaigns comes along people will invariably manage to cancel out any progress that might be made by the “other” side. You can also tell, by looking at broad stroke election results throughout the years that when Democrats have been in power for a while they are replaced by Republicans and vice-verse. And why is this? Because people will never be happy with decisions made by politicians (it is human nature). If you are not happy with what your current government has been doing what are you going to do in the next election- vote for the party that hasn't been in power. After all, they haven't screwed up lately. (Mostly because they haven't been in power but that's besides the point.) And in four to eight years when you're sick of who you voted in before you're going to vote back in the other party. And even if you personally aren't doing this (though you probably are, unconsciously) enough of the people who possess only a short-term memory, don't have a high IQ, and are easily swayed by ad campaigns (also known as the general public) are that it hardly matters what you do.

Am I a defeatist? Absolutely not. I'm pretty happy with the world. I can vote as someone who is not a land-owning white male over the age of twenty-four. There is a low chance of getting caught for doing drugs (the non-dangerous kinds as long as you don't steal them) if I choose to do them. The odds of getting murdered in my sleep are fairly low. I read free books. There is the wonderful thing known as the internet and I continue to surprise myself by not running out of money. Would it be nice if same-sex marriage was legal? Would it be nice if people could smoke pot with no recrimination at all? Yes to both. And I'm not saying I'm against either of those things. I'm just saying that the current state of affairs is not making me unhappy.

So, for a life that is relatively stress-free if often filled with vague confusion and mild amusement I recommend you undergo the psychological equivalent of a political lobotomy and become a political sociopath like me.