"Gee It's Great...

...to be back home!"  I know it's a little different context, but S & G had it right.  I enjoyed my week in California.  I like seeing the differences in that part of the US, esp since it had been 21 years since my last visit there.  San Francisco is a wonderful place, an amazing city to see.  The weather was just ideal.  But most of all I was reminded of how lucky I am to have had such people in my life.  I enjoyed it beyond expression.

There's been a lot to catch up on over the past, well, almost two weeks.  Let's start by giving someone some credit, lots of it.  And, remember, I don't often have anything good to say about EJ Dionne.  He wrote in the Wash Post, "We do a disservice to ourselves and the Founders alike if we take them out of history and demand that they settle arguments that we ought to settle on our own."  I'm very surprised this came out of his typewriter/computer, but it's very insightful regardless.  Thanks to him for the good thought.  He's right on the money.

Now, let me get this straight.  The Obama Administration was suing Arizona because Arizona was enforcing federal immigration law (when Obama policy is to not enforce it).  The Supremes said "No go" to that, but that's not the point here.  (That the Obama policy is "logically ridiculous," "mind-boggling," etc. is food for another blog.)  So, let's play with this one a bit.  The Obama Administration wants a state to not enforce federal law, in this case immigration law.  Now, what if states refuse to enforce/enact the provisions of ObamaCare?  Isn't that what the President and his Justice Dept want, states not to enforce federal law?  What if states (and at least three have already said they will not act to put ObamaCare measures in place) do just that, refuse to enforce the provisions of ObamaCare?  Will the Administration then be happy, that federal law isn't being enforced by the states?  Of course, I'm just kidding.  But isn't it a dangerous proposition to enforce some laws and not enforce others?  (That is laws other than those such as "It's illegal to tie an alligator to a fire hydrant in Detroit" and  "It's illegal for an elephant to eat peanuts while roller skating in Natchez, MS.")

And what's with this federal judge in Detroit publicly criticizing a juror in a case in his court for speaking after the hung jury?  Apparently the judge doesn't believe in free speech?  This is, perhaps, more worthy of outrage than that trumped up "Muzzle the Women" episode in Lansing a few weeks ago.  And then we wonder why people don't want to serve on juries or perform other public service.  Thanks a lot, judge.

I see Gov Snyder has moved forward with his push to get school children's weight data on state records.  First and foremost, it's none of his business how fat our kids are.  Oh, it's laudable, but not the role of government to watch our kids' weight.  Second, since the schools with accumulate the data, it's reasonable to ask, "Don't they have better and more important things to do--such as do a better job of teaching?"  Third, instead of getting all this information and then doing what? with it, why not make physical education mandatory in the schools?  After all, if the obesity problem is now an education problem...?

Speaking of the schools, I see more than half of the states have already received waivers on No Child Left Behind mandates.  And more will receive them before 2014.  I guess it's reasonable to ask your members of Congress, what good is passing a law (and a bad, bad law at that) if waivers are given out in such numbers?  If the law is so good, worthy of passage, why have so many states, with the number growing, have been given permission to avoid the law?  Hmmmm......  No wonder Congress has such a low approval rating.  Its members are collective boobs.

OK, lots to write tonight.  Out....