Fourth Of July Party

We had a ton of friends over for a pool party yesterday. Our friend's children have children of their own. "How quickly they grow up," has moved on to the next generation. I walked around with my camera, using a 35mm fixed focal length lens to capture a few moments. A little over 300 of them, not all of them useable. Getting in close to the little ones involved aiming the camera without using the viewfinder. I tend to shoot low so the rule for me is to hold the camera to where it feels right and them aim higher.

The young ones played for hours. No doubt they slept good last night. And today they're probably sharing tales of derring-do...

 ...coming off the slide...

 ...and knifing into the water.

 Being tossed up in the air...

 ...to incredible heights.

 Little kids...

 ...and big kids...

 ...enjoying the moment...

 ...or taking a dare...

 ...or trusting this is a good idea.

 Contentment in the center...

 ...of their own universe.

Life is good.

More Cathy McMorris Rodgers Foolishness

From a recent press release:

House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) released the following statement after the House passed H.R. 4899, Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America that Works Act of 2014, which will cut the red tape that hinders American oil and natural gas production, opening access to America’s vast energy resources.

“For the past five years, American families have watched their wallets emptied from escalating gas prices. And today the House has acted to help them. We have the ability to produce more American oil and natural gas – reducing our dependence on foreign oil and putting more money back into people’s pockets. So let’s do it. Let’s unlock America’s offshore drilling areas. Let’s ease the pain at the pump for people all across this country. And let’s get Americans back to work so they can bring home higher paychecks. I applaud Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) for leading us all in saying ‘yes’ to American energy – and helping the American people because of it.”

I linked to the legislation above so you can read it for yourself because she never does. It's like the title really describes the legislation, which it rarely does these days. This is nothing more than another iteration of "Drill, baby! Drill!"

The very first sentence of the bill:

"To lower gasoline prices for the American family by increasing domestic onshore and offshore energy exploration and production, to streamline and improve onshore and offshore energy permitting and administration, and for other purposes."

This is the part where she tries to fool us into thinking that gasoline prices are going up because there's a shortage. If you look at how much gasoline we are importing and exporting, you'll see that there is no shortage in the area of availability. And we are exporting more than we import. Why are we exporting gas when prices are higher?

"The growth in U.S. gasoline exports does not necessarily mean higher pump prices for U.S. consumers. Rather, export markets are providing an outlet for refiners that might otherwise have faced lower profit margins that could encourage them to reduce output or possibly even shutdown, which could cause gasoline prices to increase."

In other words, oil companies, who on one hand accept the corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks and on the other hand want to make as much profit as possible, are under no obligation to sell their products in the United States.

Increasing the amount of onshore and offshore drilling does not guarantee lower gas prices. We have plenty of gas in the U.S. and demand is down. Profits can be made more easily elsewhere in the world where demand is higher. The only thing more drilling will guarantee is more profits for oil companies. And more environmental trashing.

A Tempest In A Teapot

This morning Cathy McMorris Rodgers sent an email to everyone on her list directing us to check her op-ed in the Seattle Times, which she helpfully included word for word in her email. In it she complains that "...drastic energy regulations could cause Washington families to see higher energy bills. And those higher bills, coupled with a weakened economy, would hurt moms and dads already struggling to make ends meet."

What drastic energy regulations is she referring to? The EPA's Clean Power Plan and its effect on Washington state. The plan concerns electrical generation facilities that burn fossil fuels. The goals are:

* Cut carbon emission from the power sector by 30 percent nationwide below 2005 levels, which is equal to the emissions from powering more than half the homes in the United States for one year;
* Cut particle pollution, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide by more than 25 percent as a co-benefit;
* Avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, up to 150,000 asthma attacks in children, and up to 490,000 missed work or school days—providing up to $93 billion in climate and public health benefits;
* Shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent by increasing energy efficiency and reducing demand in the electricity system.

But those benefits don't concern our congresswoman. This is what she's concerned with:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced proposals that would require Washington state to cut its carbon emissions by a staggering 72 percent — a rate higher than anywhere else in the nation.

Washington has one coal-fired electrical generation plant and it's located in Centralia. Here's a news report about that plant from three years ago.

Washington's only coal-fired power plant will shut down one of two boilers by 2020 and phase out coal-burning entirely by 2025 under an agreement between TransAlta and environmental groups, according to a proposal released Saturday. 
... 
The 1,376-megawatt power plant has been an environmental target because it spews out considerable air pollution. It is the state's top point source of greenhouse gases, toxic mercury and ozone-causing nitrogen oxide, and second in sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain, according to Department of Ecology data. 

Not that it matters much, but notice the EPA had nothing to do with this. What we have here is a single fossil-fuel burning electrical plant that will be converting to natural gas and reducing its carbon emissions. So why is she making a fuss and trying to score political points? Maybe because she's in the Republican leadership and that's what they do.

I would like to point out that the plant is owned by Transalta, the same company trying to foist the Keystone XL pipeline on our country, which our congresswoman has been an avid cheerleader for. It would appear our congresswoman is more interested in helping corporate "persons" instead of real people who would benefit from reduced pollution and cheaper electricity. But she still puts on appearances.

McMorris Rodgers ends her op-ed:

As one in four people continues to struggle with long-term unemployment, our country must make every effort to pursue innovative energy opportunities that are pro-job and will continue spurring America’s energy renaissance — a renaissance that will strengthen the economy for the future and leave a stronger America for our children and grandchildren.

Wait...25% of our population struggles with long-term unemployment? Do any numbers she comes up with ever have a remote connection to reality?

Riverside State Park

We are so fortunate to have this park. It's a great resource that allows for almost any outdoor activity. Our state parks are severely underfunded so it's up to us to help take care of them.

How Does That Happen?

And from the patch on the sidewalk, more than once.

Coming Soon: The Ramifications Of Allowing A Sincerely Held Religious Belief To Trump Science

If you've been paying any attention to the news lately, you're aware that the Supreme Court just held that Hobby Lobby and other closely held corporations did not have to abide by the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate. Of course, our congresswoman agreed wholeheartedly with this decision.

Today's ruling marks a victory for religious freedom and for the American people. We live in a nation founded on the fundamental right that all people can live and work according to their beliefs - without fear of punishment from the federal government. This morning the Supreme Court defended liberty by ruling that American family business owners should not be forced to choose between their faith or unlawful, unnecessary government mandates. While we celebrate this triumph for religious freedom today, our work is not finished. We must keep fighting to ensure that the Constitutional rights of other individuals and organizations are also protected. ~ Cathy McMorris Rodgers

What she doesn't address is the effect of the corporation's "religious freedom" being imposed upon its employees, who happen to be real persons--and women--by the way.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the court's decision I'd like to point out. 

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling govern­mental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” ~ Supreme Court of the United States, 13-354. 

Nothing in RFRA suggests a congressional intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition of “person,” which “include[s] cor­porations, . . . as well as individuals.”

1 US Code § 1 states: 

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— 

... the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; 

Since the context of the language in the RFRA uses "person" in this sense and does not indicate "person" applies only to human beings, Justice Alito is allowing that the corporation is a person in this case. 

He also says:

The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.
...
[The contraceptive mandate] requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at conception.

The contraceptives at issue are two morning after pills and two IUDs. They are medically and scientifically contraceptives. They are not abortifacients. (By the way, Hobby Lobby had no problem covering them before the Affordable Care Act became law.) However, in this case the business owners' incorrect religious belief holds more sway over Justice Alito et al than fact. Note: Also, contraceptives are often prescribed for medical purposes other than preventing pregnancy. 

The court tries to head off the shit storm of lawsuits this decision will result in by trying to narrow the application of their decision. 

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g.,for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. 

Why won't this do any good? First of all, the court determined that a corporation is a person under the RFRA. Secondly, a sincerely held religious belief is allowed to trump medical fact. Third, although only four contraceptives were at issue, their ruling applies to the entire contraceptive mandate.

In finding for Hobby Lobby Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas do not state why a religious belief about some contraceptives is more defensible than a religious belief about vaccinations or blood transfusions. But they may likely find themselves in that position since this decision throws the barn door wide open.

1 US Code § 1 contains another definition that I think applies here. 

...the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;

I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out what I mean with that.