The most striking thing about New Jersey, to me, is that the people there allowed the teacher's union to collect payment from non-union members, essentially taking tax money directly.

I think their income from all sources is about $730 million per year. To the union. It doesn't go into the classroom.

The saddest part of this is that yes, there are neighbors of yours who insist that your income is partly theirs. They may get there by way of all sorts of fancy rationalization, developed over time, but there they are.

Want to love him, but...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/13/chris-christie-my-opinion-on-evolution-none-of-your-business/

See also...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120511nj_gov_chris_christies_opposition_to_gay_marriage_clear/

His beliefs about anything not relevant to governing are irrelevant. It is amazing how little you need to care about that sort of thing when someone accepts the limits of government and takes their hand off your wallet.

If homosexuals want to shack up, it's no business of mine. However, changing the definition of marriage to accommodate fewer than 3% of the population is a non starter. I happen to agree that the private sexual behavior of consenting adults is not a concern of the State. Marriage and Family law most assuredly is.

Christie talks a good game, but look a little closer and it's 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'. Plenty of 'double-dippers' working in his administration. When we talk about re-distibution and the entitled culture, the poop rolls down hill.

If were Governor Christie, I might suggest that "Dr. Michael Eades" shove his "intervention" up his own puckering asshole just as hard and fast as he can.

In fact, while I am not Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, I'm probably going to suggest that "Dr. Michael Eades" do that anyway.

Jesus Christ, Amy.

If were Governor Christie, I might suggest that "Dr. Michael Eades" shove his "intervention" up his own puckering asshole just as hard and fast as he can.

Agreed. Tacky, obnoxious, intrusive, no matter whose idea it is.

insufficient poison: who gives a fig whether he will declare fealty to a particular scientific theory upon demand? I want politicians to declare respect for the scientific method and Enlightment principles, not a particular theory.

I would rather have a person who believes in the infallibility of the bible, but defends the right of free inquiry and speech, as opposed to a Darwin-approving person who also wants to crack down on research into innate racial or gender differences.

As reason and logic marches on, theories about physical events in our lives will be developed, refined, modified and discarded. The notion that we must declare some sort of loyalty oath to evolution or any other current theory is, frankly, really stupid. What we want is a very healthy respect by everyone for the process of inquiry and the freedom to describe the results of the inquiry.

Hey Governor Christie, double-dipping isn’t getting two scoops of your favorite ice cream. You are going to have to learn to sneak better if you want to be the GOP’s fair haired boy.

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/14/11690662-gov-christies-pension-issue-nj-probe-looks-at-running-mate-double-dipping

So, rights should only granted if lots of people need them?

We reject the equivalence of societal customs and practices for minorities all the time.

Fundamentalist Mormons want to be able to practice polygamy. They believe it's God's way - it's part of their religion. We say no.

Fundamentalist Muslims living here want to be governed by Sharia law and only by Sharia law (while enjoying the economic freedom non-Sharia law provides). It's counter to our individual-oriented Western system of laws (a system created by and for the majority in this country). Again, we say no.

Any two consenting adults should be able to form a state-recognized family unit....

Why restrict it to two?

Other countries give legal recognition to multiple marriages. Why are we such sticks in the mud?

And are you sure about any two adults?

What about first cousins? They're restricted from marrying in dual-sex marriages so the kids don't have flippers. But in a same-sex marriage....

How about brothers? If my unemployed brother needs medical insurance and I have a job that provides it, can I marry him?

Why should society be forced to recognize (and sanction) any and all associations of two people who want to call themselves married? Especially when they will demand society's assistance if they later get divorced.

From the MSNBC item linked by Roger at 8:27am:

"[Christie] now faces embarrassment from flaws his reforms failed to fix."

So he didn't fix everything all at once? That means he's a complete failure?

Also from the MSNBC item:

"Pension abuses are so rampant in New Jersey that even the agency investigating Guadagno has its own controversy."

"Twenty-three supervisors and investigators for the Attorney General’s Office and DCJ are using legal loopholes to draw salaries and pension pay, New Jersey Watchdog found. On average, each pockets $164,000 a year — $96,000 in salary and $68,000 in pension."

"Most "retired" for just one night. Those officers left their positions with the Attorney General’s Office only to return to the same employer the next morning with new job titles — and two paychecks instead of one."

=========================

Jerry Brown's building a train to nowhere and whining about raising taxes - and he hasn't even attempted to fix anything yet.

The state is going broke. Spending is still out of control. The public employee unions still dictate terms to the state government. The economy's still in the toilet.

The Facebook IPO and an income tax increase are going to solve all of our problems? Riiight.

Give me an imperfect Christie over an ineffectual Brown any day.

yup, this would be the reason that my stand on marriage has really become militant that The Govt. should get the hell out of marriage. It's none of their beeswax.

Taxation and inheritance is, and there are contracts for that. Just like Leona or some crazy rich lady left her millions to her dog. With some tweaks, it can be done.

And then the question simply disappears. The govt. doesn't give a damn who you get hitched to. Divorce happens in court anyway...

And then we can get back to the important stuff of economy and jobs, instead of getting distracted by stupid stuff.

It will be irrelevant to anyone if you can marry your best whatever, if neither of you has a job, and the country has imploded into a depression, taking the rest of the world with it.

Is it really time to solve social issues that have been run the same way since before time was counted, when the barn is on FIRE?

I'd vote for him too over Obama or Romney, just with the little I know about him. Admittedly, comparing him to those two isn't a real competition, Random person on the street, might get my vote over those two.
Now compared to Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, I'd have to do more digging.

As to why not run? Going by how the media treats any GOP candidate and their family, I can't blame anyone for not running.

Of course there's a lot wrong with Christie- but I'd still consider voting for him. (I LIKE that he's keeping his opinion on evolution to himself.)

The Texas primaries are so late this cycle that they don't matter for national electionss- I'm voting for Ron Paul even though he's out. In the general election I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson. If I thought there was ANY chance the state would go Obama, I'd vote for Romnney.

"I want politicians to declare respect for the scientific method and Enlightment principles, not a particular theory."

You think we arrived at evolutionary theory without application of the scientific method?? No one deserves respect for withholding his "opinion" on whether scientific fact is fact.

"...as opposed to a Darwin-approving person who also wants to crack down on research into innate racial or gender differences."

How can you research "innate" characteristics without acknowledging evolutionary theory?

You're dying for that research into racial differences, aren't you. Is your hand in your pants right now? Tell the truth.

Christie's done a lot of things right. To paraphrase Conan, Christie may be imperfect, but Brown isn't even trying.

And I notice where Brown is dragging out the old Washington Monument strategy: "Schools and emergency services! Run in circles! OMG! OMG!" Of course, not a word on doing anything about the state's massive bloat of regulations, or administrative personnel, or wasteful/fraudulent contracts.

Do you think Christie could get prop 13 overturned? If you can't fix prop 13 you can't fix california. State wide rent control.

It's the main reason a neighboring state gets my property tax. You've got some insane disparities going on over there. It's as bad as Chicago. Go over the county line and your purchasing power doubles.

Time to cash my tax refund before they stop honoring their debts.

Why the hell isn't he running?

Becuase he is too fat to win, according to some

However, changing the definition of marriage to accommodate fewer than 3% of the population is a non starter.

So, what was the percentage of interracial marriges when LovingvVigina made it illegal to discriminate based on race?

Again I see that it's supposedly not the State's business, marriage.

Oh, really? Ever been to probate?

The tribe HAS a vested interest in your heirs. End of story.

Unless, of course, you don't want anyone to inherit.

Yeah, Raddy? But they can't MAKE ME have any heirs, nor can they force me not to give everything to some stranger, should I choose to do so.

Even so, I don't have in any way to have those heirs biologically, I can adopt them, I can pay a surrogate to have them, with or without my DNA...

as long as the paperwork is right, and the fees are paid, the govt. doesn't have an interest... and for what reason did they ever?

Because it's convenient. When people were marrying religiously, the govt. didn't need to do much to count them, get em on the books, and collect the taxes.

Since larger numbers aren't doing it that way, in any case, they are having civil ceremonies...

and how would that be different than a partner contract?

The government cannot force me to have heirs... therefore what interest does it have how I go about having heirs, if any?

Am I missing your point?

Focus, people, focus. As Reynolds said about Obama's gay marriage flip-flop: "That's nice. Now how about the economy?"

I really can't see what the issue is with "double dipping". Say Man A works at Walmart 30 years. He retires. They pay him his earned pension. After he retires, he goes and gets another job at best Buy. Best Buy pays him his salary. Doesn't affect the decisions walmart made in any way. Doesn't affect Best Buy in any way.

What changes, if Man A gets another job at Walmart after retiring instead? Walmart is going to be paying SOMEONE to do the new job. And apparently they agreed to pay retirees pensions. It doesn't cost walmart any more if the same man gets the pension and the new job, or if a different person gets the new job. It doesn't cost the state any more, either.

Now, whether Man A deserves a pension at all is another argument altogether. Maybe the pension is too high, that's another argument too. But my dad retired from Exxon and then got another job with another oil company and worked 15 more years. He got retirement and salary-who cares?

Christie has some beliefs I'm not down with, but I love him on economics, and I vote on that. Speaking of, I've got to go vote in the Texas races right now!

"Am I missing your point?"

Yes, you are. People get this wrong all the time: the citizen has an obligation to her society by a set of laws that should not - and I grant that this is not the case - discriminate against the concept of equal protection under the law. It's NOT one-way. The state does not, in fact, serve without costs. That obligation is to exercise the responsibilities of citizenship. That's the currency in which rights are paid.

Some do not act responsibly. In those cases, the state has measures in place to clean up the mess.

The argument is not whether the State can make you have children. You have property obtained under the umbrella of order provided by the state. This is essentially unchanged since the tribe banded together to save an ancestor from a situation he could not have survived alone.

When you operate your single-person-proprietorship, you accumulate assets, the disposition of which upon your death or incompetence is protected from looters by law. Some of these laws act in the absence of a will or other deliberate action on the part of the deceased.

There is no debate about that. It is not my opinion. Upon your passing - and mine, too - the state will either determine the legality of such inheritance, or the continuance of obligations underwritten by the estate, or it will direct such action.

And that's why marriage has significance beyond whatever other relationships you may form. It is defined in probate law, for instance. Until you tell the state what you're doing in a recognized and official manner, nobody has to acknowledge your whim legally.

And it is this fact that drives the idea of gay marriage: someone who has devoted themselves to another is shunted aside by automatic actions which do not recognize the legitimacy of the relationship.

I do not see the downside of recognizing gays as married. On the face of it, the idea would seem to reduce desperation and reward faithfulness. Promiscuity is by far a bigger threat to marriage, but it's apparently too popular to challenge.

> Eades didn't come up with that idea; I did.

Whatever rectum is at hand.

> Christie looks like he's about to die at
> any moment

That's just cocksuckingly ludicrous, and...

> scientifically unfounded diet the American
> government recommends: high-carb, low-fat.

...isn't meaningfully less preposterous. First of all, let's credit you with sincerity, rather than what follows in second-of-all. Look him up on an actuarial table... Age, weight, whatever you want. It ain't as important as you want it to be, especially if you think (as most of us do) that the last years of our lives aren't likely to our best under any circumstances.

Second-of-all, this is PRECISELY the sort grotesque busy-bodydom that at thoughtful citizen should seek to avoid in these times of ever-greater intrusion by strangers in personal affairs.

EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT (and you're not, but EVEN IF YOU WERE), the things that man takes into his mouth are no concern of yours. And the fact that he might serve you in government (though he obviously DOES NOT) in no way authorizes your intrusion, whether it was rhetorical or sincere.

What... Do I need to say that some of my best friends etc.? Either are repulsed by fat or are fat themselves?

Either way... O-key! Gross obesity distresses me, in children most of all. And American obesity is an especially distressing trend. And yet some intensely dear people in my life have been overweight.

On the whole, American LIBERTY makes up for it. And when joined with American minding-of-one's-own-beeswax, liberty is an unbeatable force. (And for the record, fat people will die one day just like you will, and their day might be even sadder than your own. Rational people can believe that finding that dawn a few months or even years earlier than yours isn't an important matter.)

You may think you know the best way for other people to live. I think that means you're living in the right corner of human social history, though the light doesn't flatter you.


____________


By reflex, I'm annoyed when heavy people say "Weight is the last great civil rights battleground." Comments like yours compel me to take their side.

I really can't see what the issue is with "double dipping". Say Man A works at Walmart 30 years. He retires. They pay him his earned pension. After he retires, he goes and gets another job at best Buy. Best Buy pays him his salary. Doesn't affect the decisions walmart made in any way. Doesn't affect Best Buy in any way.

Wrong scenario.

In the New Jersey scandal, the person works at Walmart for 20 years and retires.

He then goes back to Walmart and works at a job with exactly the same responsibilities, the same department, and the same boss he had at the job from which he retired, but a different title.

He now collects his pension and his new salary.

to momof4: "I really can't see what the issue is with "double dipping". "
It depends on the state, don't know if NJ is this way, but one of the problems is with government, much of your pay, benifits and retirement is based on years in. The years in do not vanish when retiring and then coming back but count toward the new title too.
For example, work for 20 yrs mopping floors at the DMV and retire. (who besides gov't people retire in 20 yrs) you then work as a pencil pusher for a year. As far as your current bennies and pay, it is based on you being a gov't worker for 21 yrs not for being a pencil pusher for 1 yr. Such as starting with 4 weeks paid vacation and 2 weeks paid SL, while the other person hired the same day you were gets 1 week of each. You can be effectively an entry level pencil pusher with pay and bennies better than your supervisor. Work for 10 yrs and retire a second time. Except it is often counted as a retirement of 30yrs service, along with the 20 yr retirement.
Since the gov't workers are the ones who wrote the rules on their own retirment, they made it ridiculously generous. And then tweek the system to top it off. i.e. getting a generous raise in your last week, so your retirement will be based on the new final salary, not what you were actually being paid. Overly generous sick leave being cashed in as xtra time in toward retirement.

>>Do you think Christie could get prop 13 overturned?

I'd appreciate it, if you didn't try to get the government to tax my little disabled white-haired mother on a limited income out of her bought and paid for home. It would not decrease your taxes in the slightest.

Okay, here's how to run the calculation. I guess maybe it helps to be a person living a public life, but maybe not:

Take the worst habit in your life for which you're willing to be teased by distant people (unknown to you) who make "intervention" jokes, since addiction treatment is certainly one of the most-abused contexts of our popular fascination with psychological analysis. Something's wrong with your independent behavior? Then you're an addict! Get an intervention and you're done! Poof! (One of the great idiocies of our age is that the human heart has no mysteries. Hence the popularity of words liked "abused".) Anyway, give that habit a number... Say, seven.

Then, take the worst habit in your life for which you feel deep shame but adult acceptance... Recognition of a powerful weakness that hampers you from being the person you want to be, but one which you've discussed with no one, or only with the dearest people in your life; one which howls in your skull every day through its profundity, but which isn't quite enough to rob your life of meaning. (A habit like financial incompetence, maybe, or romantic failure, or goofed-up family relationships.) Give THAT habit a number in rough proportion to the depth of the less-challenging other habit. Say, eighteen.

Subtract the first number from the second. The resulting value is the Cridmo™ Shame Coefficient, and it works like this:

That number is your own fuckin' business.

Warren Buffett thinks we're all assholes. Know why? 'Cause we're poor.

You may think you know the best way for other people to live. I think that means you're living in the right corner of human social history, though the light doesn't flatter you.

Crid, this may be the best comment I've ever read on this site.

A well-known ultra-marathon runner here in Boulder died a few weeks ago while out on a run. When the autopsy came out and showed a myocardial infarction, the comments in the local paper were so confused. How could a healthy man, whose only indulgence was the occasional scoop of ice cream, die in his 50s of a heart attack? We live in such good times that many people seem to believe, deep in their hearts, that if they do everything right, they won't actually die.

This drives lawsuits to be filed in the wake of accidents, calling the cops when a kid walks to school alone, and, yes, directing condescending scorn at the fat man who must be too stupid to understand that if he only eats whole grains/bacon/insert your preferred diet here, he will be healthy forever.

'The years in do not vanish when retiring and then coming back but count toward the new title too. "

Ok, in that situation I'd be against it. I figured there had to be something there.