Friday, July 18, 2014

Pre-Birthday Things

Well, it's been a while, and while there has been plenty to say, I haven't felt like saying it! LOL

More to talk about later, but lets' get started with a Thing or two:

This one has been on the samba for a while, he's lowered the price to $1500, and it needs work, but the price is very fair for a Thing in this shape. "1973 thing rusty floor pans need replaced , motor turns free said by PO ran good years ago . Have top frame . Solid body complete . OG gas heater .OG paint text any ? 8653630944 No Title as of now , may be able to get one.... Dont have to sell this car. there is about 1500 in parts on the car. which reflects the price. Cash at my front door talks ."

Compared to this at $1750, and you'll see what I mean:
"Pretty complete and unmolested. 
Engine turns over and is out of the car. 
HOmemade diamond plate floors. 
Some rust here and there, but this body is doable. 
I do not have nay door or the top. 
I would get a rust free decklid instead of welding this one. 
Pretty much bone stock. 
no seats. 
solid home made floors form back in the day. 

I think I have the Louisiana title! "

See what I mean?

Just for fun, here are the 4 most expensive Things on the first (ugly custom stupid one) is asking $35,000, and the other three are asking $25,000:

Searchtempest is my go-to for craigslist searches, and here's one rather close to me reasonably priced at $5900. "Runs Good Drives Good Very solid floors Needs Top !!" Strangely, I think this is another ad for the same Thing with no hubcaps asking more....

This isn't very attractive, is it? asking $2500, but it runs!

This may be the most amusing Thing ad I've encountered: not one clear picture and asking $15,000. Seriously, why even bother adding the photos?

Here we go: a mystery thing, if you ask me. Been sitting outside as a sign, so how about some actual information like, gosh, I dunno, does it even have an engine?  BTW, it's spelled "volkswagEn" 

Still, that's a great price. $1200

"1974 Volkswagon Thing --------I have used this car as my Antiques sign in front of my shop for years. I can send more pics by text if you are interested. Car is located at 301 W. Franklin St. Sylvester Ga. TEXT me for more information"  

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Ah, The Supremes.... 5-4 is not good enough for some people!

I really just wanted to publish the link to the opinion in the BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL.  case.

Here's the dissent as well.

My thoughts are simple, really. The majority opinion holds that as the current laws are written, it's reasonable that Hobby Lobby, et al, should be able to not pay for 4 after-conception birth control methods based on religious beliefs of the 3 named closely-held (5 or fewer voting shareholders?) incorporated companies' owners. The minority dissent disagrees with that opinion, of course. The laws are not plain enough to remove doubt, so the Supremes have to interpret what is in the applicable laws and decide who is more right, and this time the government's position was held to be less credible. That's how it works.

The decision does not take away access, it does not deny coverage, and it doesn't change anything, really, as the HHS has already, by fiat, said that even religious non-profits' insurance companies must provide contraception coverage regardless of what they religious non-profits' policy says or pays for (essentially sticking the insurance company with the bill, although HHS says there is "no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage"). No reason (as Scalia notes in the majority opinion) that they can't make for-profits do the same thing, whether we agree with that or not!

Lastly, the stupid comparisons. Viagra treats a medical condition, a medical problem. It's not the same as covering contraception (and I know that birth control treatments are also used for other medical problems, but those uses are almost universally included already, and not a part of the discussion at all). It's also not covered at no cost to the patient, nor are vasectomies: female birth control explicitly is (if covered under ACA, etc.) at no cost.

Only semi-related, I love it when folks that have pooh-poohed the notion of the "slippery slope" regarding things like property rights and the Second Amendment invoke it over whose responsibility it is to pay for birth control.