Sir Isaac Newton vs Bill Nye.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: Fuck the RFRA

Folks on the internet seem to not understand how Burwell v. Hobby Lobby happened.  To explain, let's take a jaunt down legal precedent lane.

In Reynolds v. United States (1878) the Supreme court ruled that religious duty is not a defense to a criminal indictment.  You do not get to break a law, and defend yourself by claiming "religion".

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

 In 1878:  Law > Belief  A person can maintain religious beliefs, but when those beliefs come into conflict with established law, the law wins.

In Employment Div. v. Smith (1990) the Supreme Court ruled that states are not required to accommodate acts on grounds of religious belief.  One remains subject to a "neutral law of general applicability"  despite whether or not the neutral law conflicts with one's religious beliefs.

The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws, to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races. The First Amendment's protection of religious liberty does not require this.

Further

But to say that a nondiscriminatory religious practice exemption is permitted, or even that it is desirable, is not to say that it is constitutionally required, and that the appropriate occasions for its creation can be discerned by the courts. It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.

In 1990:  Law > Belief.  Exemptions for religious practice are permitted, but not required by the Constitution. 

Guess what happens next.

Next, we come to 1993, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  This bill can be simply summarized as, "All that legal precedent?  Fuck that noise."

- The purposes of this Act are
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Federal court cases before Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

This effectively overturned those previous rulings.  After the RFRA, the government cannot limit a person's exercise of religion, except in two cases.

(b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --
(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

 And what do we find in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?

(c) The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Pp. 38–49.

That, internet, is the how and why women lost their contraception coverage.  Because back in 1993, all but three congressmen voted for the ReligiousFreedom Restoration Act.

When folks be bitching on Facebook, you may want to point out that the problem is not with SCOTUS, or Scalia changing his mind.  The problem is religion, and the RFRA.

This may also be useful to cite whenever your naive Liberal friend spouts the wrongheaded maxim of "You can believe whatever you want, so long as...".

When people believe X, they're going to try to actualize X.  No matter how wrongheaded that X may be.

Where does this leave us?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Christmas in June

Eric Cantor (R-Va.) lost his seat in Congress

With nearly all of the votes counted, Brat had 56 percent of the vote to Cantor's 44 percent.

Preventing Cable Company Fuckery

http://www.fcc.gov/comments

Gotham: That's a good idea.

Great idea that will be canceled after a season.

And the season finale where they introduce baby-Joker will really, really piss me off.

Heartstone: Do Not Start

Do not start playing Hearthstone.

Blizzard's entry into the online CCG market is exactly what you would expect.  They steal the good ideas from other CCGs, remove the shitty parts, and take your money.  Sure, they say Hearthstone is Free to Play.  But is it?

Is it really?

The Free to Play model works thusly:  You start with a basic deck, and play against the AI.  As you level your deck (Yes, there is leveling) you unlock new cards, and other heroes.  Through the free tutorial stage you can unlock most of the basic cards, and every hero class.  In MTG terminology:  You unlock precons by playing the computer.

Once you feel comfortable with your precon, it is time to play real people.  Win three games against real people, acquire 10 gold.  Gold can also be acquired through completing quests, such as 'Win twice with a rogue deck'.  These daily quests reward around 40 gold.  Once 150 gold is collected, it's time for Arena.

Arena is like MTG draft, but not as shitty.  First, you pick one of three possible classes.  Then you assemble your deck by selecting one of 3 cards 30 times.  Choose one of three commons, then one of three uncommons, then one of three rares, on and on until you have 30 cards.  With this drafted deck you face real opponents, until you lose 3 matches,  and then receive gold, dust, and card packs based upon your results.

This is the basic structure of Free to Play Hearthstone:

1)  Play constructed matches to acquire gold.

2)  Spend gold to play Arena.

3)  Win arena games to unlock packs of new cards, and more gold.

4)  Use the new cards to enhance your constructed deck.

5)  Go to 1.

If that sounds a bit tedious, that's ok; because it is designed to.  You see, there is also the option of purchasing packs, or paying $2 to play arena matches.  And, hey, why not drop $2 to play arena?  If you win 9 games, you'll have enough gold to play another round!  Oh shoot.  You only won 3 games?  That's too bad.  You know, if you pay another $2....

That's how they get you.

You may have noticed in all this that I have not mentioned mana or resource cards.  Well, there aren't any.  Each player has a total of 10 crystals that act as mana.  On round one you get one crystal.  On round two you get two.  Up to ten crystals.  There is no mana screw.

This, for me, is one of the selling points that puts Hearthstone ahead of MTG.  In Magic, there is the possibility of getting hosed by resource denial, and so decks need to be constructed with this in mind.  In Hearthstone, you know that on turn five you will have five mana.  Decks can be designed around a reliable, stable mana curve.  RNG exists in card draw, rather than card draw + resource access.

Another perk of Hearthstone is that everything is digital.  By this I mean that if someone finds a way to abuse a particular card, that card can be modified.  It's keen in the "Hey, let's make skullclamp cost more" sense, but shitty in the "I just dropped $x to build a deck around this exploit they have patched."

This is the point at which we get into the argument over whether spending $60 on digital cards is dumber than spending $60 on, say, WoW or LoL.  And while it is true that you do not *really* have those cards, you also do not *really* have those LoL skins, or WoW gear, or whatever.

Oh yeah, crafting.  You can disenchant cards into dust, and use that dust to build specific cards.  If you acquire a bunch of Priest rares but want to play Warlock, you simply disenchant the priest cards and build the specific Warlock card you want.  There is no way to buy specific cards.  Rather, you buy packs to disenchant to build specific cards.

Finally, I have to say that Hearthstone is pretty damn balanced.  It has the predictable aggro, combo, control metagame.  What's nice is that a viable deck can be constructed in any category for relatively cheap.  After a week of free matches you ought to be able to build one of the free decks through a bit of luck and some dust.  Numerous people have made it to Rank 1 without spending any money.  It is simply a matter of winning.

That is the basics of Hearthstone.  It's a Free to Play CCG with two play modes, no mana screw, and a reasonably balanced metagame.

Do not play it.

Ever.

Ok.  Actually?  You should totes be fucking playing this right now.  Why are you not playing this?  It's like Magic, but free.  And there are trap cards!  And it's on iPad.  And it will be on Android soon!  So you could sit in the bathroom at work and grind arena matches on your fucking phone.