Our Supreme Court still having only eight Justices is continuing to halt progress via the ability for a 50-50 split.  While there is nothing technically wrong with not even considering a new Justice for the remainder of Barack Obama's term, the hindrance of progress on social issues is an embarrassment (though I do wish I could collect pay and benefits for not doing my job if it wasn't flat out inappropriate).

Enter: DAPA - Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents

DAPA is an executive action that defined guidelines for a DHS program to defer deportation and allow for a three-year renewable work permit.  This is awarded to an applicant who is in the USA illegally, but is the parent of a legal US citizen (usually by birthright) or resident.

Not surprisingly, there is a clear party-line split on this action.  This may be splitting hairs of semantics but keeping families with children together seems to be 'family-value' oriented, a phrase which many conservatives love to toss around on many social issues.  Alas Republicans are by-and-large against DAPA.

Certain Texans with political power have a large issue with DAPA and decided it to be unlawful.  In a District Court an injunction was filed to block Barack Obama's executive action an 25 states jumped on board as well.  This made it to a Court of Appeals and then most recently it was brought before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of the United States viewed the proceedings surrounding DAPA with an added new direction.  The Supreme Court asked the question, "Are the states allowed to sue?" to which Texas claims the cost of subsidizing driver's licenses for individuals not lawfully in the US would be an undue financial burden.

The people of America look up to the Justices of the Supreme Court expectantly for moral guidance and when it came down to the line there was a 4-4 split causing no change in action and no real judgement.  This disappointing end to a saga should be proof enough that the Senate should stop stalling and give us back a functional Supreme Court with an odd number of Justices.

Angel Martinez seems to be fed up with the lack of payment options for higher education in her blog post Education is Costing Me My Dreams, and for good reason.

Our country is admittedly far behind in the tuition game when we look at how many other countries cover tuition and fees for its students.  This table of European countries that cover tuition and fees for both EU and exchange students is almost depressing from the perspective of an American college student.  It is a widely accepted fact that a well educated population has many social and economic benefits.  The biggest argument against free college is a shortsighted one of "where would the money come from?"  A question which could be answered with a so-called "Robin Hood" tax causing relatively little burden for the far reaching benefits.

The government as a whole does provide some student assistance through Federal Student Aid programs and even through tax breaks for employers providing tuition reimbursement, but this is just a drop in the bucket of what could be done in my opinion.

In a recent post, titled Two Corrupt Establishments, Robert Parry makes a very well presented case for why a large portion of the American public seems to be leaning towards Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump instead of hopefuls with more traditional political standings and approaches and how this threat of an upset is scaring the establishment.  By the time Robert Parry closes with "Washington's twin corrupt establishments have been dealt an unexpected and potentially lasting punch" it sounds as if we may be in for an arguably overdue Burnham-esque critical realignment.


Putting aside the observations that Parry makes, the blog this post can be found on seems to have an interesting background calling in to question it's legitimacy as a credible source.  The Smirking Chimp may have a few skeletons in its own closet.  The founder, Jeff Tiedrich, describes himself as a "Celebrity Death Haikuist" and quips on his Twitter that he "think[s] everyone is entitled to his own opinion."  While he may believe himself to be a bit of a comedic eccentric, others don't view him that way.  One fellow blogger rails against Tiedrich in a blog post titled "Smirking Chimp: The World's Worst Blog?"  Dangerous Creation's Dennis M.  writes that Tiedrich has gone so far as to comment on his work "With all due respect, fuck you. Nobody here needs or wants your validation." when Dennis M. contributed content to The Smirking Chimp under the pseudonym Socrates.  Robert Parry, a well published winner of a George Polk Journalism Award, is poorly represented by the brash actions of Tiedrich as a host.  Furthermore, we can even call in to question the legitimacy of Two Corrupt Establishments being on The Smirking Chimp as well as on Parry's own website with the modifier "Exclusive" though it could be argued that this term is frequently misused journalistically.


The critical realignment we may be experiencing is in part spurred on by a general distrust of our news sources and the off-the-mark bullshit they feed the masses.  It is sad that even this article by Robert Parry about this very thing falls prey to the scrutiny of its host that is now required to be a responsible and informed news and opinions consumer.

This election season has been just shy of one big joke.  There have been a wide range of absurd and unprofessional occurrences during this season from blatant xenophobia, to the unprofessional use of personal email to conduct classified government communication, to penis size becoming a debate issue.  The list of absurdities goes on ad nauseam and shows no sign of slowing down from the breakneck pace at which it is growing.  This has caused a majority of the public to ignore some very large issues like a thinly veiled wealth-based oligarchy in the executive branch of the US Government, the effects of a potential Bush or Clinton dynasty due to brand recognition instead of firm political ideals, or the fact that the American people as a whole are taking a reality television star seriously as a presidential hopeful.

All I can say is, "America, you have truly run amok."

Fortunately, Ken Herman has much more to say than I, and in a salty written voice reminiscent of someone on an evolutionary course to becoming Jim Hightower.  In this editorial Herman addresses a number of issues with our current entertainment-centered presidential primary.  Herman suggests that the first step to begin a path towards politics being part of candidacy debates would be the removal of the audience.  Herman describes parts of the most recent Republican debate in Detroit as a "middle-school melee" fueled in part by "audience infused energy".

In reference to one spat between Cruz and Trump, Herman writes:
"I think they would [do better] if we didn’t have debates produced at times to lean more toward verbal gladiator combat than measured discussion of the perilous issues we confront. Without a live, over-involved audience, perhaps we wouldn’t have had interplay such as this between Trump and Ted Cruz in Detroit."

Throughout the article Herman backs up his idea that a removal of live audiences would take some of the entertainment value and rally-style out of debates.  Herman provides enough information to make a convincing argument that this would be an effective first step to removing crowd-pleasing entertainment from what should be politically-centered coverage and proceedings.

The state of government today is, in many ways, truly disgusting.  There is constant squabbling and a general disrespect of elected officials across party lines.  It seems that most representatives forget that their peers were also elected to their own positions and are speaking for the individuals they were elected to represent.

The very public argument in the aftermath of Justice Scalia's death for or against the nomination and confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice frames this lack of respect of past elections in black and white.  There is a general idea being thrown around by Senate Republicans that a new justice should not be confirmed until after the 2016 election cycle.  Some even go so far as to say that President Obama should not bother to nominate a potential candidate.  It seems as if national politics has become a game to be won by one party or the other, no longer a government to work for the people who elected the officials currently in power.

This intentional stagnation of progress is a laughable disgrace and the elected officials involved ought to be ashamed.

Hello World.