The Ivy League and the US Cabinet

I'm looking at the current Cabinet. I'll note President Barack Obama, Columbia (B.A.) and Harvard (J.D.), adds to the count.

Vice President -
Joe Biden: University of Delaware (B.A). Syracuse (J.D.)

Secretary of State -
John Kerry: Yale (B.A.), Boston College (J.D.)

Secretary of Treasury -
Jack Lew: Harvard (B.A.), Georgetown (J.D.)

Secretary of Defense -
Ashton Carter: Yale (B.A.), Oxford (PhD)

Attorney General -
Loretta Lynch: Harvard (B.A. + J.D.)

Secretary of Interior -
Sally Jewell: University of Washington

Secretary of Agriculture -
Tom Vilsack: Hamilton College (B.A), Albany Law School (J.D.)

Secretary of Commerce -
Penny Pritzker: Harvard (B.A.), Stanford (J.D. + MBA)

Secretary of Labor -
Thomas Perez: Brown (B.A.), Harvard (M.P.P. + J.D.)

Secretary of Health and Human Services -
Sylvia Mathews Burwell: Harvard (B.A.), Oxford 

Secretary of Housing & Urban Development 
Julian Castro: Stanford (B.A.), Harvard (J.D.)

Secretary of Transportation -
Anthony Foxx: Davidson (B.A.), NYU (J.D.)

Secretary of Energy -
Ernest Moriz: Boston College (B.S.), Stanford (PhD)

Secretary of Education -
Arne Duncan: Harvard (B.A.)

Secretary of Veteran of Affairs -
Robert McDonald: West Point (B.S.), Utah (J.D.)

Secretary of Homeland Security -
Jeh Johnson: Morehouse (B.A.), Columbia (J.D.)

That's ten (10) out of 16 positions that currently have at least one Ivy degree. The last non-Ivy League president of was Ronald Reagan who graduated from Eureka College (B.A.). As respectable as Eureka is, it's not Stanford. What's even more strange is that six positions are the only ones that don't have a person holding J.D. acting as head. Why are there so many juris doctors, whose resumes barely even make them qualified for such positions, managing these departments? Want to be in the Cabinet? Get a law degree. Want a political career? Get a law degree.

Let's tally.

Harvard - seven (7)
Yale - two (2)
Brown - one (1)
Columbia - one (1)

Non-Ivy Elites: Stanford - three (3); Georgetown - one (1)

You also have two Rhodes Scholars in Carter and Burwell.

Black on black "crime."

No, that type of crime, but when blacks react to fellow blacks who don't buy into every racial accusation made towards the right.

Poster "Synthea Hairston" on Ron Christie denying any racial slurs made towards Congressional Black Caucus members from The Tea Party as they walked down the The Capitol steps -

City of Chicago to include gender reassignment in healthcare plans

Bend over backwards. And take it.

This was front page news - the very first headline - in the Chicago Tribune, today. 

As my mother and I briefly discussed immigrants (we were targeting illegal aliens that were Mexicans) and the States efforts to accommodate them, we concluded that the government - out of all that we are knowledgeable of - go into great lengths to make the so-called marginalized of society (not drug users, not prostitutes, not the disabled or mentally ill) feel "welcomed" and "wanted" further helping their path to become spoiled, indignant children.

Transgender city employees and their dependents will soon get $100,000 in costs tied to their gender reassignment surgeries covered by taxpayer-subsidized city health insurance, under a groundbreaking mayoral order disclosed Wednesday.

After the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made same-sex marriage legal across the nation, one of five openly gay aldermen urged Chicago to turn its attention to the rights of transgender people and consider requiring “gender-neutral” washrooms in public places.

Emanuel didn’t go quite that far Wednesday. But he did take a giant step to recognize the rights of transgender Chicagoans.

While the mayor spent the day in Washington, D.C., his office put out a news release announcing that the city was poised to lift the “exclusion of gender reassignment services” from city health care benefits.
That means “male-to-female or female-to-male” surgeries tied to the painstaking process of changing gender would become “standard” for city employees and their dependents covered by taxpayer-subsidized city health care plans.

City Hall said it is “in the process of finalizing specific criteria” that must be met to receive coverage for the multiple procedures tied to changing sex and which specific procedures would be covered.

But a $100,000 “lifetime cap” on gender reassignment procedures is planned for each employee to avoid saddling the cash-strapped city with expenses it can’t handle.

No matter what the new benefit ends up costing the city, it’ll be a drop in the bucket of the Chicago’s skyrocketing tab for health care. Emanuel’s 2015 budget pegged those annual costs at $470 million.

Dr. Loren Schechter is a plastic surgeon who has been performing gender confirmation surgeries for more than 15 years.

Schechter said the $100,000 cap should cover most of the basic procedures tied to male-to-female surgeries, including breast augmentation, creation of a vagina and procedures related to what he called “facial feminization.”

But Schechter said the $100,000 cap would likely not be enough to cover lifetime hormone therapy, nor would it cover female-to-male conversions.

“Making a penis and testicles is much more complex and expensive. It’s often performed in several stages. The cost is probably at least $15,000 just for the implants. That’s minus the professional fees and hospitalization costs. There’s also the female-to-male mastectomy — removal of breasts,” he said.

“I don’t’ believe $100,000 is enough. I guess you can say it’s better than nothing. It certainly defrays a portion of cost. But I’m not aware of insurance companies that put limits” on these procedures.

The mayoral order is expected to be approved by the Benefits Committee on Tuesday and take effect on October 1.

It will be implemented first and unilaterally for non-union city employees while the city continues “working with labor partners” to do the same for the unionized workforce.

“Chicago is known for being a city that is welcoming to all and inclusive of every resident, and this new policy is in line with our efforts to support the rights and well-being of transgender individuals,” Emanuel was quoted as saying in the news release.

“With this change, Chicago will ensure that transgender city employees are able to receive the medical care that they need.”

Emanuel said he decided to push for the groundbreaking changes after the ACLU raised a red flag about the city’s decision to deny health insurance coverage to a transgender city employee. The city employee at the center of the controversy does not want to be identified or interviewed,  the ACLU said.

“We commend the City of Chicago for recognizing that no one should be denied insurance coverage because of who they are,” John Knight, LGBT & HIV Project Director for the ACLU of Illinois was quoted as saying in the news release.

“More and more cities, states, private employers and the federal government have gotten rid of these outdated policy exclusions that make no sense, from either a medical or an economic standpoint. It’s wonderful news that Chicago employees will now have access to the gender affirming care they need.”

The mayor’s office billed the change as paving the way for Chicago to become the nation’s largest city to cover sex change surgery. San Francisco, Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia already provide the benefit.

In the private sector, Aon, Exelon, United Airlines, Hyatt Hotels, Groupon and AbbVie are among the Chicago companies that also provide such coverage.

Last year, an appeals board at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ruled that Medicare may no longer exclude gender-reassignment surgery from coverage.

Emanuel has been a champion of gay rights and a darling of the gay community as an aide to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and as a member of Congress and as mayor.

As Obama’s chief of staff, he lobbied the president to issue an executive order protecting hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples.

The spotlight has shined even more brightly on issues surrounding transgender Americans after a television interview with and subsequent appearances  by former Olympic decathlon champion Caitlyn Jenner.

Fuck you, Bruce Jenner. Second, fuck all the LGBT "rights" activists. Third, all of this is in the name of "equality, inclusiveness" and "pursuit of happiness." Oh, and fuck Justice Anthony Kennedy for his fortune cookie legalism. 

"If I had a lion, he'd look like Cecil."

I hope there was a cub lion born somewhere around the world to take the place of Cecil the lion.

And Jimmy Kimmel getting emotional over this? Are you kidding me? Yes, it sucks the Mr. Alpha Awesome Male Lion was killed as he was an actual protected lion on a conservation. There is one less Alpha Awesome Male Lion walking the earth while the world shows their Gamma muscles in people like Kimmel.

This is the same crap like saving the whales, as if what's popular on social media and if celebrities are outraged over it the it must be important, that their moral compass - finely tune as it is - is showing the world how "human" (not like evil Dentist Palmer) humans can be.

A leftist tactic.

Using Ronald Reagan to play "gotcha."

Here are two examples. The first is on granting illegal aliens citizenship.

It's clear that many true conservatives do not support Amnesty. What does the left do to implant the "Isn't-ironic-that-your-god-Reagan-thought-differently"? Note what Reagan said in support of the Immigration Reform and Control of 1986. Fair enough. But so what. I suppose in the right's stubborn, bigoted and antiquated world view, according to the left, that those who do not support Amnesty should seriously re-think their position because their beloved Reagan had opposite feelings.

Yea, no. Reagan had his thoughts and reasons and those who do not support Amnesty have their thoughts and reasons. The non-supporters of Amnesty did not make up their stance out of a vacuum whose foundation, as the left truly believes in, is based on the lack of compassion and not respecting the dignity of the illegal alien to become a "first class citizen" (it's the same fat that underlies the social justice warrior's heart as they feverishly supported same-sex "marriage")

The second is on gun control, most particularly the ban on so-called assault weapons. Enter Pierce Morgan interviewing Ben Shapiro.

Transcript (10:12 mark) :

"Why did Ronald Reagan want these assault weapons removed?
"You know, I don't why Ronald Reagan wanted these assault weapons -- "
"You like Reagan, right?
"I like Reagan in many ways. He's not a god. I don't agree with him on everything."
"Do you agree -- "
"He also believed in the progressive tax rate. I don't believe in that."
"Did you agree with him about assault weapons?"
"Um, if, um, I believe what you're saying, sure. I don't believe ... I don't agree -- "
"Did you know his position on assault weapons were?
"I don't know what his position on assault weapons was. Why don't you tell me."
"Well let me read the letter in full. This is a letter he penned alongside President Ford and Carter in 1994 to Congress ... (reads letters - Morgan puts emphasis on "statistics prove" and the appeal of "we urge you") ... That was Ronald Reagan."
"Okay. So? I mean I can disagree with Ronald Reagan."
"You keep framing it as a left-right debate. I'm putting it to you that one of the great right-wing presidents of modern times agreed with me."
"So?"
"So it's not left or right is it?"

- Morgan says stuff about how the NRA through the years have framed it as a left vs right, the left attacking the Constitution; tells Shapiro that he arrogantly comes in and brandishes "his little book" (holds up pocket size version of Constitution); Shapiro takes offense on how Morgan calls the Constitution "little book" and reminds him that it's the Constitution, Morgan says he knows what's in the Constitution and states he's been debating this subject for many years -

Is it a debate between left vs right? Yes and no. Yes because those who tend to support the ban are on the left and those who don't support the band are on the right. The right always appeals to the 2nd Amendment being violated while the left appeals to inaccurate, skewed statistics (science and facts are on our side card) and the dead bodies of those killed by gun violence (emotional appeal). No because I'm not sure how clearer it can be stated that gun ownership, assault or not, is an actual right of the US citizen for defense (you need to be aware of US history starting from its colonization). There is no appeal to the 14th amendment as a back up.

Let me be honest: Those who do support the ban on assault guns usually come from it out of fear. The don't like how guns look (they aren't 'cute' and 'beautiful' like two people of the same-sex kissing, holding hands and both wearing wedding gowns or tuxes). They don't like the sound a gun makes. They attribute the guns with the military and the left tends to see the military as hired murderers by the rich, white 1%, sent out to invade and kill innocent civilians for oil. This is how the left usually views guns, the military and war. This is their worldview. This is not anywhere near inaccurate or exaggerated.

Note that Pierce's attempt to refute the left vs right narrative; that it is, instead preferred, a "those-who-are-civilized-not-Neanderthals" narrative. The left's tactic to remove left vs right is the same thing to cast doubt on right vs wrong, no such thing as a country's border, no such thing as a baby in resemblance of a fetus, that the connection between marriage (between two people of the opposite-sex) and child should be regulated to antiquity standing - that the child has the right to choose its own parents, preferably non-biological (in great favor same-sex guardians), as it always should've been according to one California law professor. 

Also keep in mind that what Pierce did is the same tactic the same-sex "marriage" supporters did to those who oppose same-sex "marriage." Replace Reagan with "your non-straight friends/family member/police officer/teacher." Replace "little book" with the Bible. The "I read your book" is the same thing atheists and social progressives say when dismissing any social conservative stance.

It's the same play in the same playbook just with a different issue.

Next up, abortion and transgenderism.

My mother on contraception and abortion.

"They're just avoiding the consequences."

True.

More picture here.

Note: the first picture are of twins - boy & girl (blue & pink blanket distinction). The second are of twin boys (blue blanket). 

Christians who badger.

Christians who badger (insists on why, after generous explanations with charitableness, homosexuality is a state of disorder and to engage is to do wrong; says the Church is wrong even after many have given wisdom when compared to supporters for change) why the Catholic Church does not allow same-sex "marriage" on CAF have turned out to be two of the following (with overlap possible).

(1) Socially liberal
(2) Have same-sex attraction

"catholic1seeks," as one can see from his profile message board, started off reasonable and now has turned into a "the-Church-is-wrong" type. His rise of butt-hurt for the Catholic teaching  that engaging in same-sex acts is sodomy is wrong can be explained by him being a homosexual.

To not judge a book by its cover (though to judge) I wasn't too much surprised given his avatar of himself. It was, um, rather "gay." I'm not sure how to explain it but my "gaydar" beeped.

Then there's the Lutheran "Thorolfr."

I thought this poster was just expressing his disagreement due to different beliefs between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran church, but as it turns out he's a homosexual as well.

There are few socially liberal Catholics on CAF - and not really surprisingly they work in fields like (school) psychology - and the atheists/agnostics/humanists on the forum also have strongly batted for same-sex "marriage" and have used the "the Catholic Church is in the minority on this issue, so please stop your ruckus and say you're wrong" card.

There are posters like "Darryl Revok" who just say stuff that has such poor awareness that it should be posted under "Stufff atheists/agnostics/humanists/"Physicalism"ists/liberal-Christians say."

Because communism was totally awesome. I hear China is getting a huge amounts of people wanting to migrate there for a new life and to raise their kids under the amazing communistic system that China holds.