Why would one want unqualified judges?

The American Bar Association has given the "unqualified" rating to a significant number of Obama's potential picks for federal judgeships. In fact, the number deemed not qualified under the Obama administration exceeds the number receiving a similar designation under eight years of George Bush or eight years of Bill Clinton. The rejection rate is more than 3 1/2 times higher than under those presidencies.

So why would a President consider such a high number of people who are unqualified? I can think of a few plausible reasons. 1) He's too ignorant to realize they are unqualified. 2) He's returning a favor. 3) He hopes to gain a favor. 4) They may know nothing about the law, but they agree with him politically.  6) They are personal friends. 5) Judgeships for sale.

Other than those, I can't think of anything. Can you?

"Report: 14 of Obama's potential judge picks rated unqualified." The Dallas Morning News; November 23, 2011; p. 6A.

DIY Immigration

I've heard it all now. Federal authorities want to open an unmanned port of entry from Mexico as a "security upgrade." Only someone in the federal government could put such a spin on, "Let's let Mexicans freely come and go at Big Bend National Park without even a customs agent there to monitor the comings and goings."

Actually, it's going to be an honor system type thing. They'll have a kiosk there for Mexicans to scan their documents. The customs officer will be 100 miles away. It doesn't say what they plan to do about all the Mexicans who will just bypass the kiosk.

Customs and Border Protection spokesman William Brooks said, "I think it's actually going to end up making security better." According to the newspaper, this upgraded security will cost the taxpayer $2.3 million dollars. I'm no builder, but I think I could build them a kiosk for far less than that. The newspaper also says that this program has support from the "highest levels of government." Do you know what that tells me? It tells me this November, we need to change our "highest levels of government"! Vote Nobama!

"Nations may ease Big Bend crossings." The Dallas Morning News; December 12, 2011; p. 3A.

What's wrong with this picture?

I always loved Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, but something is definitely wrong with this picture. Frankie and his wife, Randy, are in the midst of divorce proceedings. She's getting $30,000 a month from him in spousal support and royalties. She's also getting $810 a month in public assistance for taking care of her own children. And we wonder why this country is in the shape it's in!

http://www.tmz.com/2011/11/22/frankie-valli-jersey-boys-divorce/

How could she afford the computer and the phone?

Rachelle Grimmer shot her two children and killed herself in a standoff at a welfare office in Laredo. The two children later died, too. The implications from the newspaper stories are that she was distraught because she had been denied food stamps.

Obviously, the woman had some mental problems. She had no job. The newspaper report says that she was nowhere near the Webb County per capita income of $13,600. Neighbors say she would walk down the highway after midnight to beg restaurants for the food they would throw away. The family bathed with a hose outside the small trailer they lived in -- a step up from the tent they had occupied previously. Yet she had a cell phone and probably a computer -- previous news reports detail the webpage she and her children set up, and the daughter posted on Facebook the day she was shot. How did they afford those things? And when child welfare investigated her in July 2010, she showed them money and food.

It appears Grimmer did little to help herself. The children did not go to school. When she applied for food stamps, she never submitted the proof of income the agency required. She reported that her child support was greater than her monthly expenses for rent and utilities. The agency had no choice but to turn her down. According to the children's paternal grandmother, their father had tried several times since his divorce to have the children removed from Grimmer's custody. Grimmer's friends say that's not true. At any rate, perhaps he didn't try hard enough.

"Friends saw family's desperation." The Dallas Morning News; 12/11/2011; p. 3A.

Goodbye, Miss Manners.

I've always enjoyed reading Miss Manners, because I usually pick up all sorts of little points of etiquette I didn't know. But I guess I'll officially have to quit reading Ms. Martin's column. It has degenerated from an informative social guide to a politically correct farce.

The column that broke the proverbial camel's back dealt with the quandary of a betrothed couple's friend. She didn't know if it would be appropriate for her to provide bouquets for the couple's civil ceremony. Oh -- did I mention that the betrothed couple did not include a woman?

The friend's dilemma stems from the fact that she thinks "having men carry bouquets is tacky." But having two men flaunt their abominable relationship by making a mockery of marriage is not? The friend has swallowed that proverbial camel.

Miss Manners politely suggests that the friend provide boutonnieres for the happy couple because "gentlemen do not carry bouquets." I respectfully submit that Miss Manners misses the salient point that we're not dealing with "gentlemen" here. I also respectfully point out to Miss Manners that if both "gentlemen" wear boutonnieres, nobody will know which one is the bride.

"Economical ways to fete the grooms." The Dallas Morning News; December 9, 2011; p. 1E.

More on Personal Responsibility

Colleen McCain Nelson seems to want to blame the City of Dallas for a lack of responsibility on the part of property owners. I wrote before the Christmas holidays about a pile of trash she felt the City should move when the people in the neighborhood appeared to be perfectly capable of moving it themselves.

In a December column, she's again implying that the City should "do something," despite her own acknowledgement that the City is doing all it legally can, and the neighbors themselves appear to be the major factor behind the eyesore. In this case, it's a burned out structure on Spring Avenue. The property was destroyed by arsonists nine months ago. The owner lives in Florida.

Code compliance officers have repeatedly hauled off debris and tacked up plywood, but the vandals repeatedly rip down the plywood. The City would love to bring in the bulldozers and raze the ruins, but it's had to wind its way through the laws protecting the property rights of the owners. The first lawsuit was filed in June, and a continuance was granted to the owners in August. In September, the owners agreed to clean the lot within 60 days. That didn't happen. The City filed a notice of noncompliance in November and put the property in the lineup to be razed.

The owners say they paid someone to clean the property and were not aware it had not been done. That's not a legitimate excuse. They should have checked to make sure it was done. Now, back to my contention that the neighbors, themselves, bear responsibility for this eyesore. When they bought the property, the owners contracted with a management company to maintain it and collect rents. But the management company eventually refused to collect the rents because the neighborhood was too dangerous. Then the arsonists hit -- and it's a safe bet they live somewhere near. And the plywood keeps disappearing. If I were a city official, I'd look around to see if the neighboring houses had up any new plywood. It seems to me that these are not the kind of neighbors who really care whether or not there's a burned out house next door.

But the bottom line is that the property owners are responsible. The City should fine them the maximum, because they've wasted countless hours and resources belonging to taxpaying citizens.

"Bring out the bulldozers to South Dallas eyesore." The Dallas Morning News; December 9, 2011; p. 27A.

Obamacare at Work for You!

One of the provisions of Obamacare is that insurance companies must spend 80% of their premium revenue on medical care or refund the difference to consumers. Sounds logical and fair and good for the consumer, doesn't it?

But let's see what the fallout is. The Texas Department of Insurance contends that some companies will be driven out of the market by the new rule. And, in fact, in the last 18 months, four insurers filed formal plans to withdraw from Texas' individual market. One of those, National Health Insurance Company, covered 1,758 people last year. Those 1,758 people now face the daunting task of finding new insurance. At least 11 carriers have said they either will or might stop writing policies.

Another consequence is that the rule effectively prohibits the insurance company from building up reserves from a good year to cover a year that might have a higher number of claims than usual. In that case, guess what? Premiums will increase.

Obama wants you to believe that Obamacare is good for you -- "you're never going to go bankrupt because you get sick or somebody in your family gets sick."* But any way you slice it, it means higher premiums, fewer benefits, and a bureaucracy making your healthcare decisions. You may not go bankrupt, but you very well may die! Obama's spin reminds me of those old tobacco company ads. They show you the smiling, healthy, beautiful people smoking their products -- not the lung cancer patients who are so addicted that they're smoking cigarettes through their trachs.

"State plan slashes rebates." The Dallas Morning News; December 9, 2011; p. 1A.
*Obama quote: http://www.politico.com/playbook/