Well I now have 17 draft blogs. Stuff that has been pounded out but not published for one reason or the other.
I have a pretty decent one, if I do say so myself and I do cause I can, on the Hobby Lobby decision and the the uproar about SCOTUS. The whole thing is moot however, or I should say may be moot. Some of our Federal elected officials have filed legislation to cure the perceived evils of that decision.
Truth be told, the same will be a cure to a deficiency in the ACA, Legislation so voluminous that even one of its main supporters has been oft quoted as stating “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
You could add to that by saying "and find out what we forgot to put into it."
That would have been a line that says "the RFRA does not apply as to corporations as it pertains to the ACA". Congress, in its infinite wisdom or never ending lack of foresight neglected to remember that the terms of the RFRA not only make it applicable to all legislation enacted by Congress after its passage, but also specifically defined persons to include corporations unless subsequent legislation by context clearly indicated otherwise.
Can you say "oops." Truthfully, I hope they can. Realistically, not likely to happen.
Personally, but for the RFRA I too would be screaming and ranting about the SCOTUS ruling. Because of the RFRA however the majority decision is in fact the right one, in my humble opinion. But hey, why let the law get in the way of such matters, not to mention the fact that despite arguments to the contrary, corporations have been defined as persons in this country by the courts and by legislation for a heck of a long time.
Anyway ... that is a digest version of the post in draft that was never published.
More locally ....
The proposed West Island Causeway fishing pier. Thoughts about it? The Standard Times thinks you think it is of interest based on the article in today's paper.
Me, I remember the last attempt at "giving" the Town fishing piers. Back then it was proposed to build several. I think we could have had five. the catch was to build some off the Town Beach. Of course accepting state money for anything get's rid of the legal designation of "Town" anything.
I agree. Put it at the landing. Plenty of parking. A de facto revenue generator for that, i.e. the parking.
An up and coming question is the return of public access television. Do you wan it?
Will there be the fees to support it? Hopefully people are following the CAP Act in Congress before they start making plans.
What else is on tap for today?
Red Sox win two in a row. That has to be news this year right?
Brains and trains. As each day passes, you have to realize how many people misheard the announcement and got in the wrong line (need to know the joke for that to make sense, sorry). I am beginning to believe I am still standing in the wrong line myself.
Interesting view about justice in yesterday's paper and forgiveness a few days earlier. I know, one is an editorial and one is an opinion piece. Reading the two together though,only one can be right.
Finishing up today, I have to note one of the biggest sub-parts of the divided country does get down to the "entitlement" argument. Just what should and should not be an entitlement.
One thing is for certain in my mind. Had the founding fathers envisioned 1/4 of what is going on today, you can rest assured that your Constitution would be entirely different, in ways that would curl the hairs of the left and the right.
Enough for today.
I am not a proponent of the proposed fishing pier. I remember when I sat on two committees this issue came up. Back then, the proposal floating around was to build a pier off of Hoppy’s Landing, versus on the causeway itself. There were quite few issues however. The primary one was water depth. There just isn’t a whole lot of places you could erect a pier that would have satisfactory water depth to fish, WITHOUT also impacting boat traffic. In order to get to any significant depth, one would have to build a fairly long pier.
ReplyDeleteGiven the weather in that part of Town – specifically, the potential for storm damage – I think it’s very unwise to build any type of pier. As we’ve seen, the cause way takes a beating during large storms – especially hurricanes. Whether there was a pier off Hoppy’s or a structure on the causeway, you’d still have a major risk. Look at what happened at the boardwalks in Sandwich during winter and other storms. Replacing timbers and portions of deck is no inexpensive feat. Would the State pay for that or would the Town have fix it and pick up the pieces? Who will maintain it?
The boat ramp float was built with an axle and tires for a reason. The retractable gangway was also installed to prevent storm damage. What is the rationale for installing a permanent structure where it will no doubt be damaged? It’s simply a matter of time before its blown or smashed to smithereens.
Lastly, what kind of fishing pressure can a pier sustain? Granted there is already a bit of fishing along the causeway, but it is spread out over a fairly decent area. Will localized fishing pressure from a pier or float be beneficial to the ecosystem in any way? How do we rationalize that?
Geesh John, You don't post a new blog for a few days, then you post a fairly simple blog, and today you let all guns fire. You bring up a lot of things here.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous commenter and I'll add I'm concerned with the erosion that may occur. I would be in support of a designated fishing spot, but I don't think that's the right location.
The Red Sox- at 9 1/2 games out, what's the chance they can recover? It will require more than luck.
Public Access Television- The plan sounded pretty expensive.
The Hobby Lobby ruling- Knowing what I do about it, reading Susan Seaman's rant in today's S-T, and risking that I'll get some angry stares around town, I'm going to still sign my name to this comment and say I don't have a problem with it. I don't consider it, as Ms. Seaman describes, "a threat to a woman's reproductive freedom." Everyone can have their opinion about the ruling, but two things I think Ms.Seaman should understand are 1. Some men AND women agree with it, and 2. NOT ALL women link the decision to "the erosion of our rights."
Build them a pier an they will fish.Sounds good but I guarantee they will still fish off the causeway .You will always see them walking from the island to avoid parking fees at Hoppys Landing.The red Sox,HMMM, at least we see a manager who replaces people who don't perform with others who might.Nice to watch baseball with players who want to play for the minimum pay..
ReplyDelete