The proper role and scope of government
What is the proper role of government?
I have wrestled with this thought for a very long time. I have struggled with how to express my thoughts on the topic and I've decided how to open a conversation in this thread. I don't have answers, I do have some opinions, and a perspective. It differs from much of the nonsense I hear in the media and I can't stand it anymore. These are my unpolished thoughts. Perhaps we can help each other's understanding just as iron sharpens iron.
What is the proper role of government?
I want my government to be representative and accountable. I want them to behave this way as they *do* what I want done. This is the "royal" I, so to speak, what the electorate has decided to be done. I think government is the right entity to undertake endeavors that I can't get done by myself. Things that are too big for me to take care of. There are other entities that can do things that require "big", notably corporations.
Governments and corporations are similar in some remarkable ways. They're immortal, they've got leaders, they've got followers, customers, and stakeholders. There is some representation of the stakeholders by the leaders. They can be quite large and get big things done. Both are defined by and constrained by rules and laws. Both exist in our society.
And crucially, when it comes to government, I want it to provide things that I don't want to exist only in a for profit context.
In this way I've been able to identify some things I want the government to provide, things that I believe are important, and ones I don't want available only commercially. Most of these work on a national/federal level as well as a state/local level.
PUBLIC National defense.
If we only had mercenary armies, that would be very very bad. The same is true with our National Guard, the closest thing we have to a militia.
Note, there are effectively private armies out there. Security firms that answer to their paymasters. I am not the paymaster for any of these firms and as such, I have zero control or defense against their potential force. This alarms me.
PUBLIC Police
This is important for the same reasons listed above but for law enforcement at a local or state level. I want police that work for me, not gangs or mafiosi that work for someone else.
PUBLIC Education
PUBLIC Health
PUBLIC Parks
PUBLIC Libraries
PUBLIC Airwaves, including PUBLIC Broadcasting and PUBLIC Radio
PUBLIC Health, including PUBLIC Food inspection, PUBLIC healthcare (right now, just emergency room treatment for all, Medicare/Medicaid for some more.)
PUBLIC Environmental.
PUBLIC Highways
These are things that I believe we need a government presence for. Please keep in mind, NONE of these preclude the existence of PRIVATE entities doing these things, though private national defense squicks me out. The thought that any of these aspects of our society would ONLY be available through PRIVATE corporate access kinda freaks me out. Would you want all roads to be toll roads? Would you want all schools to be for profit organizations? Would you want the environment monitored by those who would applying the tragedy to the commons?
What do you think about the government's role in our society?
Thanks V, that's an great start on a good discussion.
Sometimes, it's hard to separate the "what" from the "how",
But for me the easiest way to describe "good" government is in a short phrase:
"Government does what people can't or won't do for themselves"
Many of the "what's" are among the things you listed,
and that's likely because they are things people "can't do".
Or, maybe we have already decided it would be a poor idea if individuals were allowed to do them.
My interests are among those things "people won't do".
These are things like religious and civil rights for each person,
and the right to be protected from various sorts of harm.
Then, often we can and do agree or disagree among ourselves on the "how's" and "when's".
Interesting. I'd say i pretty much agree with that list. There's one more I'd add though: communication, power and transport infrastructures.
The UK used to have nationally owned utilities, communication, and transport infrastructure: gas, electric, water, telephone, railways. It baffles me that we have privatised these things. Setting aside the fairness/unfairness of limiting access to vital services, what if we end up at war in the future? Properly at war, not jaunts off in some far corner of the world. What if our land was actually under threat? Who owns our essential services and infrastucture?
Well, a lot of it is owned now by foreign corporations. Much of it, I think is US owned, but some of it is owned by other Euro nationals as well. Friends now, but how do we know that will always be so? How easy would it be to shut us down or cause critical disruption to essential services?
What's truly depressing is all that stuff got sold off at knockdown prices, to encourage private participation (apparently: actually in order to make it easier for the governing party's friends to purchase). Garage sale prices for the nation's veins and arteries. Now we have higher prices and lesser service than in most comparable countries. The nation's coffers are regularly made to carry the cost when it goes wrong or subsidise the running of these privately owned national necessities. But the profit all goes to multi-nationals.
They bought us up with beads and blankets.
I too agree with most of the list.
Especially:
I think we need to go back to having a citizen's army (yes - gasp - the draft). At this point something like one half percent of all Americans have served in the volunteer army. That means that the vast majority of Americans have no stake in whatever latest foreign "democratization" process is going on. If more Americans were impacted or potentially impacted by our foreign excursions, the government would be forced to be more responsible in carrying them out and deciding if they should be carried out in the first place.
It is not the place of Halliburten et al to provide essential services for our troops. That is the government's (military's) job. I grew up an Army brat and, back in the day, the military did just fine if not better without these private outfits which have simply become instruments used by politicians to make a profit from our continual round of wars and "peace-keeping missions."
Education - this should be so obvious, yet many want to sharply curtail or even cease funding for education on every level - from elementary to college. An educated work force will make the US a more viable competitor in the global economy. It will also mean that citizens can make more informed choices at the polls. Knowledge is power and corporate America seems to want to make sure that the people have as little power as possible. Education should not be privatized. This will only lead to education for a select (wealthy) few.
Government should not be involved in the care and feeding of mega-corporations. What hypocrites the CEO's of these outfits are - spewing the words "free market" while behind the scenes buying government influence which ensures the market is anything but free.
It is not the place of government to contrive at the enrichment of those who "serve" in Congress. Contributions to politicians should be severely limited and corporations should not be considered "people." It probably wouldn't hurt either to have members of both the House and Senate serve for one 6 year term only.
The Constitution says that Congress should promote the GENERAL welfare - not that of special interests.
It is not the place of the government to legislate matters of private morality or religion. If I am a lesbian who attends a mosque and grew up in the Mormon church, it is no one's business but my own. The government has better things to do, or it should.
The government's job is to preserve the Republic, not contrive at the creation of a plutocracy.
That is all.
Let me echo your thoughts about the privatization of the military,
and also add the "corpor-ization" of prisons.
It's not the place of Halliburten-wannabees to provide essential services for inmates.
Inmates housed on private property are out of sight and out of mind, and a sure opportunity for corruption.
It's a job only the government should be doing with public oversight.
I think it would be good if we had mandatory military service like many other countries do. Aside from character building and vocational training, I think it gives everyone a good sense of being part of a nation.
I generally view nationalism as a negative thing.
Why do we always have to join a group so we can compete against the other groups?
Sometimes there is clearly an outside group that we need to join together against, but why force it if it isn't necessary? Can't we all get along?
In my view: to not exist.
Governance, by definition, is about the transaction between those who govern and those who are governed.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the only one qualified to govern me is 'me'.
This, "Government does what people can't or won't do for themselves", seems to me, almost on the mark ('cept for that pesky little word 'government').
So: let's replace 'government' with 'proxies', making the statement, 'proxies do what people can't or won't do for themselves'.
A proxy, by the way, is nothing more or less than 'a person authorized or hired to act on behalf of another'.
The American Constitutional Republic is supposed to be about proxies/employees, not elected/appointed nobility*.
As I said in another thread: the president should be nothing more than hired help, not 'the leader of the free world'.
The President (and Congress and the Supreme Court) are supposed to managers, plumbers, janitors and maintenance folk for the physical and esoteric infrastructures of the republic**.
The whole point of limited governance (proxyhood) is for those managers, plumbers, janitors and maintenance folk to attend to that which is difficult for any one to tackle on his or her own*** (and otherwise to leave folks ALONE to rise or ****fall as each is capable or liable).
As long as the question remains, "What is the proper role of government?" (a nice way of asking 'what's the proper way for the governors to direct the governed?'), then folks are guaranteed to remain 'kept' and 'led' and 'cared for' (and sent, occasionally, to the abattoir).
*And: sure as hell the American Constitutional Republic is not supposed to be about mob rule dressed in finery ('democracy')!
**As one descends the levels (federal, state, regional, county/parish, municipality, and on and on), the same principle of proxyhood applies...right down to Joe hiring a lawn care service.
***The question of what exactly falls into the category of 'difficult for any one to tackle on his or her own' is fodder for another thread, perhaps, as it -- the question -- is subtly different from "What is the proper role of government?"
****And some will most definitely FALL...too bad...adios...pffftt!
In my view: to not exist.
I have gotten the distinct impression from you that you live off the grid, on an island, alone. That's cool, but that's not where I live.
Governance, by definition, is about the transaction between those who govern and those who are governed.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the only one qualified to govern me is 'me'.
This, "Government does what people can't or won't do for themselves", seems to me, almost on the mark ('cept for that pesky little word 'government').
So: let's replace 'government' with 'proxies', making the statement, 'proxies do what people can't or won't do for themselves'.
A proxy, by the way, is nothing more or less than 'a person authorized or hired to act on behalf of another'.
The American Constitutional Republic is supposed to be about proxies/employees, not elected/appointed nobility*.
As I said in another thread: the president should be nothing more than hired help, not 'the leader of the free world'.
The President (and Congress and the Supreme Court) are supposed to managers, plumbers, janitors and maintenance folk for the physical and esoteric infrastructures of the republic**.
The whole point of limited governance (proxyhood) is for those managers, plumbers, janitors and maintenance folk to attend to that which is difficult for any one to tackle on his or her own*** (and otherwise to leave folks ALONE to rise or ****fall as each is capable or liable).
Ok, so far, so good.
As long as the question remains, "What is the proper role of government?" (a nice way of asking 'what's the proper way for the governors to direct the governed?'), then folks are guaranteed to remain 'kept' and 'led' and 'cared for' (and sent, occasionally, to the abattoir).
Time out. You've some lovely words, henry, but I will thank you to keep them out of my mouth. The two questions you equate are not the same, and I am not saying, nicely or otherwise "How should I be bossed around?". Go back up to the top and look for the part where I said I want the government to do work that the electorate has decided needs to be done that I can't do. I am not your comrade in anarchy, nor am I a subject to be controlled, "kept", "led", "cared for" or slaughtered.
Thanks V, that's an great start on a good discussion.
Sometimes, it's hard to separate the "what" from the "how",
But for me the easiest way to describe "good" government is in a short phrase:
Thanks, it is a crucial distinction to make and a difficult one, and one that is often overlooked or confused. I want to focus on the what for now, because if the what is "not at all", then the how becomes moot. Lots of discussion about our deficit and debt and projections into the future could be simplified this way. Indeed, some of the more radical discussions from the right wing of the political conversation advocate this as the main method of closing our gaps.
"Government does what people can't or won't do for themselves"
My interests are among those things "people won't do".
These are things like religious and civil rights for each person,
and the right to be protected from various sorts of harm.
I like this point very much. It is the compliment to PUBLIC Police. Law enforcement needs a judicial branch if we aspire to rise above vigilantes and lynchings. I'd add PUBLIC Judiciary to the list.
Interesting. I'd say i pretty much agree with that list. There's one more I'd add though: communication, power and transport infrastructures.
--snip--
What's truly depressing is all that stuff got sold off at knockdown prices, to encourage private participation (apparently: actually in order to make it easier for the governing party's friends to purchase). Garage sale prices for the nation's veins and arteries. Now we have higher prices and lesser service than in most comparable countries. The nation's coffers are regularly made to carry the cost when it goes wrong or subsidise the running of these privately owned national necessities. But the profit all goes to multi-nationals.
They bought us up with beads and blankets.
Here in the US we have private utilities, private communication infrastructure, and ... ok, we have a very different transportation infrastructure, but what we have is largely private. Transportation in a minute, the others first.
Utilities like power, water, sewer, garbage, gas, etc. these are largely private enterprises in the US, but they are subject to heavy regulation. Still, they're profitable despite the regulation. Interestingly, my city, Seattle, has a publicly owned electric utility. It works just fine.
I think this fits the qualificiations for a need that is BIG, requiring BIG to deal with it. But in lots of places here, this has succeeded as a PRIVATE venture. Let me add this. Where there is a captive consumer base, no competition and no regulation, private providers's hunger for profits will always outweigh the individual's interest. A corporations self interest is in maximizing profit and that must be paramount, or they will soon cease to exist.
PUBLIC transit is not something I think *has* to be done by the government, but I think it is in the best interest of the local populations to make PUBLIC transit available.
I too agree with most of the list.
Especially:
I think we need to go back to having a citizen's army (yes - gasp - the draft). At this point something like one half percent of all Americans have served in the volunteer army. That means that the vast majority of Americans have no stake in whatever latest foreign "democratization" process is going on. If more Americans were impacted or potentially impacted by our foreign excursions, the government would be forced to be more responsible in carrying them out and deciding if they should be carried out in the first place.
It is not the place of Halliburten et al to provide essential services for our troops. That is the government's (military's) job. I grew up an Army brat and, back in the day, the military did just fine if not better without these private outfits which have simply become instruments used by politicians to make a profit from our continual round of wars and "peace-keeping missions."
I wonder if the growth of the military industrial complex to the extent that the cooks aren't also soldiers hasn't hollowed out our armed services. It has certainly enriched the corporations that have grown these businesses. I also don't think that the army should be in the business of producing weapons. I don't have a problem with this as a PRIVATE venture, with limits and conditions, the same kinds of conditions I expect from my government in other areas, responsibility and accountability.
Education - this should be so obvious, yet many want to sharply curtail or even cease funding for education on every level - from elementary to college. An educated work force will make the US a more viable competitor in the global economy. It will also mean that citizens can make more informed choices at the polls. Knowledge is power and corporate America seems to want to make sure that the people have as little power as possible. Education should not be privatized. This will only lead to education for a select (wealthy) few.
PUBLIC EDUCATION.
There isn't an item on the list that is a more obvious No Brainer. Not to the exclusion of private schools, fine, but there must be Public Schools. I also strenuously disagree with the current trend of local school districts allowing charter schools to recieve public money thereby high grading (cherry picking) students from the local population. This is a very bad idea that exacerbates all the problems in these areas. Like that idiot in the video, don't pay your federal loans, that'll show 'em. Culling the best students, the most affluent students from the public system... yeah. That's gonna strengthen our nation.
Government should not be involved in the care and feeding of mega-corporations. What hypocrites the CEO's of these outfits are - spewing the words "free market" while behind the scenes buying government influence which ensures the market is anything but free.
It is not the place of government to contrive at the enrichment of those who "serve" in Congress. Contributions to politicians should be severely limited and corporations should not be considered "people." It probably wouldn't hurt either to have members of both the House and Senate serve for one 6 year term only.
The Constitution says that Congress should promote the GENERAL welfare - not that of special interests.
Good point. When it comes to risk a hybrid plan like PRIVATE gains and PUBLIC losses is unacceptable. See Volker act.
It is not the place of the government to legislate matters of private morality or religion. If I am a lesbian who attends a mosque and grew up in the Mormon church, it is no one's business but my own. The government has better things to do, or it should.
Here's an aspect of our society I think the government should have NO business. Marriage is a contract. We have contract law, including limits. Minors can't enter into contracts. But do we have laws that say white can't contract with black? No, because that's stupid. Do we have laws that say Jew can't contract with Gentile? No, because that's stupid. Do we have laws that says a man can't have a contract with a man? No, because that's stupid. But we have a law that says a man can't marry a man and a woman can't marry a woman. And that is also stupid.
The government's job is to preserve the Republic, not contrive at the creation of a plutocracy.
That is all.
Alarming verging on depressing. I, for one, DO NOT welcome our new Plutocratic Overlords. Screw that.
snip--
and also add the "corpor-ization" of prisons.
It's not the place of Halliburten-wannabees to provide essential services for inmates.
Inmates housed on private property are out of sight and out of mind, and a sure opportunity for corruption.
It's a job only the government should be doing with public oversight.
GOOD POINT, a very good point. How is it that private prisons exist anyhow? Tell me how a business (that isn't producing soylent green) can make a go of it in the prison business, AND ASTONISHINGLY, with just one customer, the government? This is definitely a job for government ONLY. PUBLIC incarceration a natural component of PUBLIC Justice.
I think it would be good if we had mandatory military service like many other countries do. Aside from character building and vocational training, I think it gives everyone a good sense of being part of a nation.
The draft has a lot of things going for it, including the main point you mention. I haven't given a return to the draft much critical thought in many years though so my brains are rusty on this score.
My assessment of questions is mine and mine alone.
My interpretation of questions is mine and mine alone.
My response to questions is mine and mine alone.
My apologies if this wasn't clear.
#
"anarchy"
I'm not an anarchist (at least: not in formal, capital 'A', sense).
I think in a vast nation like the USA, a national transit system might be unmanageable. In the UK, we're so damn small, that parcelling up the rail network to different companies just creates a complex jigsaw. When they privatised the national rail, they made a mess of it. You'd have stretches of tracks oned by one company, the stations by another, the catering by another and several competing providers running trains. All in the same basic space.
Repairs and maintenance lost out i the restructuring. Surprise, surprise, privately run companies are more interested in maximising profit and less interested in nailing down the satey element than publicly accountable organisations. Several major train crashes and a damning report into the condition of the nation's railways and rail stock later, and it became clear that major repairs and upgrades were needed.
Guess who subsidises that stuff? Yep, the taxpayer. We pay more for our tickets and get a shittier service than we did when it was publicly owned; on top of sky-high ticket prices we also still pay subsidies through our taxes, and the profit all goes into the shareholders' pockets.
Funny (not) how things that go around, come around... and the pendulum swings back and forth.
The US had a similar history of railroad jigsaw pieces that did not fit together,
until the late 1880's when the cats were herded via our Interstate Commerce Commission.
Then they were nationalized for WWI
Then they were re-privatized in the 30's
US time zones were a result of the jigsaws, but they are ruled by state government.
Locally, Portland pushed through a small multi-county "coordinating council"
called
Metro based on area-wide auto and truck transportation needs.
This "council" has now grown to a dominate force over the region
controlling all manner of transportation (buses, streetcars),
garbage and recycling, natural areas (parks, greenways, rivers and streams, trees, invasive plants),
on and on, to even tourist destinations such as the Oregon Zoo.
My personal belief is that a government is in place only to create a system of laws which are there for the benefit of the whole society, not just sections of it. As the society evolves, so must the laws.
This evolution certainly happens, but the evolution is not always to the benefit of all citizens.
About railroad privatization, we had the same trouble in Australia with different guage tracks. I'm not sure, but I think this is still an issue or was until quite recently (last 30 yrs or so).
The problem was that the different guages weren't because of privatization though. It was the different state governments causing the problems.
I too agree with most of the list.
I think we need to go back to having a citizen's army (yes - gasp - the draft).
At this point something like one half percent of all Americans have served in the volunteer army.
That means that the vast majority of Americans have no stake
in whatever latest foreign "democratization" process is going on.
If more Americans were impacted or potentially impacted by our foreign excursions,
the government would be forced to be more responsible in carrying them out
and deciding if they should be carried out in the first place.
<snip>
<snip>
The draft has a lot of things going for it, including the main point you mention.
I haven't given a return to the draft much critical thought in many years though so my brains are rusty on this score.
My wife and I go round this often, and we wholeheartedly endorse Sam's argument.
But the military seems to be pleased with their "all volunteer army",
and probably would resist a
permanent draft, as is likely for the general public.
All the time while recent demands on US National Guard and military families have been terrible.
The draft during the Viet Nam war
did help to bring that war to a close,
but not until after the troops on the ground were overly represented
by Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor who could not find a way to avoid conscription.
The more well-to-do managed to get into a different branch of service (e.g., Air Force),
a deferment, or went to a foreign country in one guise or another.
Now back to the "HOW's" issue...
A temporary national draft before or during a military excursion would serve
a useful purpose, but would need very strong safeguards against discriminatory inductions.
.
Totally against any draft. To risk life and limb should be a choice. It should not be imposed by the state.
And the notion that any draft would ever be so well managed as to make it fair carries very little weight for me.
Bottom line, at what cost?
Once you attempt a policy of Wealth Redistribution we are no longer a Democracy.
Would you want all roads to be toll roads? Would you want all schools to be for profit organizations? Would you want the environment monitored by those who would applying the tragedy to the commons?
Would you want all supermarkets to be public?
About railroad privatization, we had the same trouble in Australia with different guage tracks. I'm not sure, but I think this is still an issue or was until quite recently (last 30 yrs or so).
The problem was that the different guages weren't because of privatization though. It was the different state governments causing the problems.
For privatisation in Australia, ditto pretty much everything Dana said about it in Britain.
For our rail gauges, at the moment of Federation in 1901,
every state in Australia had rail gauges incompatible with any state it had a border with. :facepalm: Different Colonial governments talking more to London than each other, vested business interests in each state and general stupidity are to blame.
It took
90 years for the federal Government to "herd the cats". In the meantime we found it was easiest to build a machine that could remove and replace the bogeys on a railcar
while it was still moving.In my view: to not exist.
By definition, you are.
[QUOTE]an·ar·chy noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Definition of ANARCHY
1a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
For the record there's (formal, political, philosophical) Anarchism and then there's ('get out of my way and leave me be') anarchism.
But -- okay -- I'm anarchistic.
*shrug*
[QUOTE]Would you want all roads to be toll roads? Would you want all schools to be for profit organizations? Would you want the environment monitored by those who would applying the tragedy to the commons?
Would you want all supermarkets to be public? [/QUOTE]
No sir, I would not.
I don't really understand your question. By the examples I listed, I tried to explain my reasons for having PUBLIC options for these enterprises. I tried to show my thinking that a society that had ONLY private toll roads, ONLY private for profit schools would not be a good idea, therefore, I conclude that government should have a hand in roads and in schools.
Your phrasing "would I want all xyz to be public?" turns my logic on its head. I am not trying to figure out what things that should be undertaken ONLY by the government, though I have discovered a couple in the course of the conversation here: the military, prisons, judiciary. I'm trying to find out what kinds of things I believe the government should be involved in, things I think the government should not be excluded from.
Bigs, what I would like to know is what quality something has that makes it a government task. You say EDUCATION, and I can surely see the argument for it; a society is far better off with all people educated regardless of cost.
But not FOOD, despite the fact that if one cannot afford food one will die.
What traits does each need have that make them good or bad candidates for public operation?
Well, I don't completely know the answer to your question yet. I am working that out continuously, including here in this conversation. I have identified a couple recurring qualities. One is the prospect of the opposite, as I explained above. If I imagine a society with xyz that is ONLY provided by business and I think that's a very bad idea, then I calculate that government should be involved in xyz at some level. I have also identified that government is BIG (or can be big) and some things need BIG. Again this is more a situation of what needs to be done that I can't do and that I don't think is a good idea to have done by business only.
Hm. Maybe that's why I (semi-consciously) rejected your suggestion of public supermarkets. A grocery store, getting food to people is not something that requires BIG to happen. Of course, neither does schooling. More thinking out loud... I think that an uneducated child can be overlooked far more easily than a starving child. I think that our society would find starvation a hard limit. Even society zoomed in to the maximum level, a single individual. I, myself, have given food to others who were in need.
Your question, I don't want to stray far from it.
What traits does each need have that make them good or bad candidates for public operation?
I am working, thinking about this. Cliche though it may be, I think each one should be considered on its own merits, and that there isn't a mechanical formula to arrive at a definitive answer. I know this is not simple, or maybe not even clear. I'm working on it, we're working on it.
More thoughts.
I don't believe government is evil, that government is the enemy, that the gooberment wants all my money or to control me. I think that the structures of government, that the people in government are there MOSTLY for good reasons. Both good for the individual government employee and good for the people the individuals serve. Dammit. Still not the same on the page as it is in my heart.
Something else, like any other growing organism, unchecked growth can (usually) be bad. There's a completely valid perspective for reducing the footprint of government, and that should be subject to the same kind of examination that growth is subject to (or should be subject to). I don't think that "people" in the "government" sit around a big table thinking "what can we do to extend our reach into the private lives of the citizenry?" It's not happening like that. But I can see how it can feel that way. I do think that some folks come up with an idea, (like we're doing but on a smaller scale) and say, Hey, there oughta be a law. And a law or policy or regulation is created--boom--more government has been born. Ideally, the same kind of process could be applied to our laws and departments, Hey, xyz situation no longer exists, and since it was the justification for xyz law, let's get rid of it. That could happen.
That does happen. We've recently retired a tax here in Seattle, the justification for the tax was gone, and so was the tax. I think that there are some current laws that need to be in place, even though that ... thing... hasn't happened today. As an (extreme) example, I think murder should remain illegal, though there hasn't been a murder in my neighborhood in a long time. The same for civil rights legislation or environmental protection laws.
I also recognize that those nice people in government are sometimes power hungry (they are, after all, regular people). Laws can be made, and used, and enforced to gain, exert, and maintain power. This should be considered in my assessments.
...It's a lot to think about. I appreciate your help!
It's a tough question. I enjoy your thinking out loud.
Thank you for the encouragement and thank you for your input. I really meant it when I said "iron sharpens iron".
How about a Constitutional amendment that every law must include a "sunset clause".
Time is a unique asset/resource that seems to actuate people to review and improve.
We'll call it the BigV Amendment
.
ooooooooo
Famous ... interesting. :)
However, being one of those system guys (mentioned by UT in a different thread) I find a logical inconsistency in your proposition. Should we have, forever, a rule (a potent rule--a Constitutional amendment) that says we have to periodically revisit the need for a rule? What about this amendment? What about pre-existing laws? What about the Constitution itself? *boom* my head just exploded.
Seriously though, let's leave aside for a moment the level at which you suggest this rule be established. The basic idea of "Hey, is this still working?" is solid gold. Putting new rules into place with a built in expiration date has strong appeal, especially given that our government shows a FAR STRONGER tendency toward accretion than it does toward erosion. This is one way growth happens, and that's ok. Another way we deal with the aspects of government that no longer apply is that it's no longer obeyed or enforced. Though I am drawing a blank (understandable, since my point is we ignore them) in an effort to find a good example, sometimes laws just die, sink to the bottom and transmorgrify into bedrock. That's ok too.
But sometimes the situation changes and these bedrock pieces become hazards to navigation. I have heard attempts to characterize different networks across the country as information services, and not communication networks and are thereby exempt from some rule or other. I don't know the details just now, my point is that sometimes old and busted laws just die away, sometimes they present a problem.
You've made an excellent suggestion. Thanks.
OK open thoughts: society works best when it encourages people to have self-motivation and self-discipline. The ideal society is one where people value work and self-governance to the point where there is no need for much government involvement.
We know from seeing the actual results of public HOUSING that a lack of self-interest created bad citizens and shitty living conditions. One might say that public FOOD could have a similar result and could be disastrous.
But public EDUCATION hasn't worked that way; nobody sees it as a free ride of any kind. So perhaps there's some kind of essential difference.
You still have to work (study) to get an education. Even if it is free. In fact, in college my parents and I paid for my education and I didn't work nearly as hard as I did for the free education I got in high school.
It can be done... but it takes some forethought, as discussed in the link
Blue Oregon
The recently concluded Oregon legislative session demonstrated
that there is an effective tool for reining in out-of-control tax subsidies and loopholes
— the sunset provision.
A sunset establishes a date by which a law automatically expires.
With a sunset, a recalcitrant minority cannot hijack our democracy
when it comes to curbing tax code spending
<snip>
Two years ago the 2009 legislature used a three-fifths vote to add sunsets to all tax credits
— just one of several types of tax expenditures — that did not have sunsets.
The 2009 legislature also directed future legislatures to always include a sunset
when creating or renewing a tax credit spending program.
.
OK open thoughts: society works best when it encourages people to have self-motivation and self-discipline. The ideal society is one where people value work and self-governance to the point where there is no need for much government involvement.
We know from seeing the actual results of public HOUSING that a lack of self-interest created bad citizens and shitty living conditions. One might say that public FOOD could have a similar result and could be disastrous.
But public EDUCATION hasn't worked that way; nobody sees it as a free ride of any kind. So perhaps there's some kind of essential difference.
You still have to work (study) to get an education. Even if it is free. In fact, in college my parents and I paid for my education and I didn't work nearly as hard as I did for the free education I got in high school.
stream of consciousness posting follows. buckle up.
I completely agree with your opening statement UT. That's the best society. In your second paragraph I get tangled up trying to discern cause and effect. I don't think it's as simple as you've described, and I don't think it is just one linear arc, bad citizens because xyz, including public housing. I also completely agree with your closing sentence that there is some kind of essential difference.
...sneaking up on the thought so it doesn't escape....
I think it is imperative to consider, to invoke a person's self interest, and keeping in mind that most folks want to do the minimum needed to achieve their desires. The desires that really count are the ones that are internal. Things that are important to **ME**. Me. (well, you too, you get my point). It's possible to implant those desires. I was utterly indoctrinated when it came to college. College was, you know, like 13th grade. It was gonna happen, period. And it did. I have my parents to thank for that and I'm indoctrinating my kids that way too. Two down, one to go. Anyhow, the individual's self interest must be engaged.
oh oh as for motivations, I keep in mind that there are positive motivations I want to move toward and negative motivations I want to move away from. Also, there are motivations that require a certain chain of events. Like the chimp in the room with boxes and bananas hanging from the ceiling. ChimpV couldn't care less about boxes, but loves yummy bananas. So, now I'm interested in boxes as far as they can help me get to my goal, bananas. School was like that. School, meh. Money from job to get yummy fun stuff, yeah! Job requires education, so, ok, school, what[i]evar]/i].
I don't know how to make a more self-motivated, self-disciplined society. I agree more is better, but hells bells, lots of times, I can't even be more self-motivated and self-disciplined MY OWN DAMN SELF. I can barely get ME to work better on a consistent basis, I don't know how to make it happen for society at large.
BUT. I think at least one of the methods described earlier applies: find out something that doesn't work and try to eliminate that. Doing too much for a person DOES diminish their incentive to do for themselves. No question. I know this is true from my own life, from my life as a growing child, and my life as a parent. You betcha. Like before, there isn't a mechanical formula for the right answer to do I help or do I stand by (or better: How can I best help, even if it means doing nothing?).
Another thing that is important is knowledge. Knowledge starts with information. I can't know the whole world from my own empirical experience, I have to read, and listen and observe to learn at a pace that allows me to keep up like I want to keep up. I have a hungry mind. Back to society.... Access to information to make knowledge possible is crucial. PSAs to Don't be a Fool, Stay in School or This is Your Brain on Drugs or whatever.... I think people need facts to make informed decisions about what is needed (or even possible) when it comes to reaching their goals. Like home ownership instead of public housing, etc.
Ok, recapping. Self interest (both positive and negative). Information and knowledge. Avoiding "giving" too much; hunger (that's not phrased very well). A sense of what is possible; opportunity. What else nurtures a self motivated and self disciplined citizenry?
I blabbed about self interest up there... another observation on self interest.
I beat my breast and tear my hair reading about people who (in my opinion) vote against their self interest. It boggles my small smooth brain why o why they would ever do that (those dumbasses). I think a couple things are involved.
1 -- motivations and interests are often mixed and conflicted. Rarely are they crystalline pure. Ok.
2 -- Misinformation (cue Snidley Whiplash image/laugh here) has been around forever, but it is the golden fucking age of misinformation. It's easy to tell lies effectively, loudly, repeatedly, ... ugh. It makes me sick. Anyhow... I think lots of times people are misled into acting against their self interest.
3 -- Short term self interest can be opposed to long term self interest. Likewise, individual self interest can be opposed to group self interest. Conflict ensues.
Quite true
Maybe corporate Boards of Directors have not yet read #3
And long term interests only affect future PH45, not current PH45. Screw future PH45...
Let me echo your thoughts about the privatization of the military,
and also add the "corpor-ization" of prisons.
It's not the place of Halliburten-wannabees to provide essential services for inmates.
Inmates housed on private property are out of sight and out of mind, and a sure opportunity for corruption.
It's a job only the government should be doing with public oversight.
Absolutly, we've seen it
here in PA. Children too. :mad2:
Oh yes.
that is completely fucked up.
PUBLIC Justice, PUBLIC Law Enforcement, PUBLIC Incarceration. Not private. This is not a space where the free market should have any business.
Oh yes.
that is completely fucked up.
PUBLIC Justice, PUBLIC Law Enforcement, PUBLIC Incarceration. Not private. This is not a space where the free market should have any business.
Gov figures the Corps can do it cheaper or the time required to create another bloated inefficient public bureaucracy would not be worth the time and effort.
stream of consciousness posting follows ...
Bloodyhell V, that was excellent. You have a real flair for writing.
Thank you Dana. Tha's just my thinking up thar, I can actually write more better, if I slow down some. But my thoughts often escape when I do that. I can't write as fast (or as well) as I think. So I was shooting for more of my thoughts at the expense of writing quality. Thank you for the nice compliment. There is lots more here, not just in my head, but in all our heads. I want to learn all of it.
Please listen to this interview with Jeffery Sachs, economist.
http://www.kuow.washington.edu/program.php?id=24764
excerpts from a review of his new book The Price of Civilization from
The Financial Times:
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email]ftsales.support@ft.com[/email] to buy additional rights.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/a26e325e-f428-11e0-bdea-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1asQW3Yxa
Jeffrey Sachs has advised so many countries that he may have lost count. In his new book, this proselytiser for economic development plans offers his services to the US.
The Price of Civilization has the air of the world traveller who returns home to find his country a much worse place than he remembered. There is a palpable if ever-so-slight alienation here that suggests his proposals will not gain much traction in America. That would be a shame, for this is an important book.
OK open thoughts: society works best when it encourages people to have self-motivation and self-discipline. The ideal society is one where people value work and self-governance to the point where there is no need for much government involvement.
We know from seeing the actual results of public HOUSING that a lack of self-interest created bad citizens and shitty living conditions. One might say that public FOOD could have a similar result and could be disastrous.
I only just now read this post, and I agree with your first paragraph.
However, I think you are off base in the second. I have never seen the housing projects back East, but from other people's descriptions, they sound like real hell holes that should just be torn down.
The story is quite different in rural areas like the one I live in. While we have apartment complexes that are given over to low income families, they are all neat and well taken care of. The local Housing Authority requires that at least one adult in each family have a job in order to qualify for assisted housing. Most folks are deeply grateful to be awarded a spot in such complexes which are not very big. Most have around 20 apartments or so. I think one may have 30.
We also have special housing units for Seniors and the disabled only. Again, these places are well kept and the people who live in them feel very lucky that they qualified for an apartment. The availability of such housing assistance makes the difference between being homeless or not for many people.
Housing assistance allows people here to keep their dignity and self respect. It gives them the chance to get job and voc rehab training, so that they may better their lot and eventually some will no longer need to live in public housing. Meanwhile, their children have a decent place to live and get to attend the same schools as their more affluent peers.
I don't know what the answer is in big cities. I think the problem is racial in part with an African American cliental whose families have lived in the projects for generations and can't envision any other sort of life. The schools in the neighborhoods where the projects are located tend to be substandard and do little to prepare a child for high school and college or even a vo-tech program. From what I read, drugs and violence are rampant. Public Housing in the big cities sounds like a complete failure.
Even so, don't be so quick to make such a harsh judgement of the housing assistance program. It works well in towns like mine and there are enough creative, caring people around who could come up with some ideas to improve urban housing if only HUD weren't so moribund with regulations and a steadily declining budget.
There are many reasons why a person may benefit from housing assistance. Please don't consign them all to the streets because of the gang banger crowd.
3 -- Short term self interest can be opposed to long term self interest. Likewise, individual self interest can be opposed to group self interest. Conflict ensues.
Measured by the ratio of important truths expressed to words used, this may be the best paragraph ever. The first sentence shows what is wrong with contemporary capitalism, and the second shows this, and also what is wrong with libertarianism.
[Applause]
One of the problems with UK housing estates and US projects is that they end up as sink places into which most the troubled and alienated members of society descend. There are plenty of working-class and middle-class people who couldn't give a flying fuck about their neighbourhood, or the state of their gardens and homes. But in a sink estate the balance is skewed so that they can, if not carefully managed, become the majority culture.
Add to that a number of other factors: the stigma of an estate/project with a bad rep begins at a very, very young age. I remember very clearly when i was at school, there was an expectation of trouble from kids who attended from the Johnson Fold Estate. I can't be wholly sure, but from memory they were pretty shabbily treated sometimes. I doubt trouble makers who didn't have that tag were punished as harshly or as often as those who did. I have a very clear memory of one of those lads being forced to sit under the music teachers desk, blocked in by a chair. If he was going to act like an animal then she was going to treat him like one. We were 12 years old, can you imagine how humiliating that must have been?
This follows on into later life. Job applications from a known estate are prejudiced. There's some evidence to suggest that it can have an impact on things like sentencing in the event of criminal conviction.
Geographically such estates are often very separate from the mainstream. Exacerbating the sense cultual divorce. They often have significantly higher levels of unemployment and fewer opportunities to engage with other economic classes except in terms of the adversarial relationships forged between those in social housing and their landlords, those on benefits with the benefits advisors, those involved in minor crime with the police and criminal justice system.
One of the ways to try and get around that is a system called 'pepper potting'. Instead of building massive estates, separated from private housing by distance, style and access, social housing is set in amongst private housing. We've had quite a few developments in my borough, where some of the housing is intended for private sale, and some intended for social rent or half equity assistaed ownership. If you walk into that new build estate, you would not know which were the private houses and which not.
We have enough land, mostly, to do that.
In South Australia, the government organisation, the Housing Trust, builds regular (maybe a bit smallish and cheapish) houses which are rented out to people at social and income disadvantage. These houses are scattered amongst regular suburbs (although not the more expensive - aim for cheaper land). The residents usually stay long term, and many eventually buy the house from the government.
By and large, this avoids or reduces the problems associated with big "projects". There are still some bad neighborhoods, and the housing trust tenants are frequently involved, but nothing on the scale of the projects in US cities.
This Cartoon Seemed Far-Fetched In 1948
[YOUTUBEWIDE]mVh75ylAUXY[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Ism INC. yeah, we ARE selling our country to corporations. What are YOU going to do about it, merc? What is your plan to fix the entirely legal but fundamentally corrupting flow of money to congress?
Does the fact that more than $1 billion was given [by Wall Street derivatives traders, to Newt's congress, Democrat and Republican alike,] affect your ability to believe that this insanely complicated area of regulatory policy was [de]regulated sensibly? Does it affect your confidence or trust in the system? Or can you honestly say that the regulatory mistakes of the past three decades were unrelated to this, the largest single sector of campaign and lobbying contributions in our government?
Ism INC. yeah, we ARE selling our country to corporations. What are YOU going to do about it, merc? What is your plan to fix the entirely legal but fundamentally corrupting flow of money to congress?
Elect someone willing to overhaul the tax law and turn it on it's head. That would be a good start.
Oh, and this:
Appealing, but with no pensions, congressfolks will have an even stronger incentive to cuddle up to lobby groups and such to make sure they get nice fat "consultancy" positions afterwards.
It isn't just the fact that Congressfolk are willing to take "campaign contributions" and such, it is also the fact that lobby groups are allowed to give them, and misuse that privilege.
I have an easy simple effective solution, which is to mumble [size=1]mumble mublemumble[/size].
Give them a military style pension only after they have served 20 years, if they can get re-elected that many times.
but with no pensions, congressfolks will have an even stronger incentive to cuddle up to lobby groups and such to make sure they get nice fat "consultancy" positions afterwards.
Doesn't matter ... Its not stopping them now.
My Town - Working For Gov't Small Enough To Fit In Your Doghouse
I have an easy simple effective solution, which is to mumble mumble mublemumble.
Did you say we need to require all election campaigns to be waged with flat-rate public funds, no donations allowed at all? I mean, that's what I thought I heard, but it was hard with all that mumbling.
[YOUTUBE]EdnFPbCQy98[/YOUTUBE]
May I join your fantasy, CF? I'd like to restrict the content of those messages to truthful statements only.
ooooo fantasy...
"Your" perceived "truth"? or the real truth?
Biggus...V'sssss
[YOUTUBE]2K8_jgiNqUc[/YOUTUBE]
Mayoral Chief of Staff Theresa Mintle helped enact a special early-retirement plan at her former employer—the Chicago Transit Authority—that entitled her to a $65,000 annual pension she wouldn't have qualified for otherwise.
Read more:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20111022/ISSUE01/310229971/top-rahm-aide-set-herself-up-for-sweet-cta-pension#ixzz1bhm537dCIf Rahm Emanuel's name is in an article, juices flow.
ChicagoBusiness
By: Greg Hinz and Robert Herguth
October 24, 2011
Top Rahm aide set herself up for sweet CTA pension
Mayoral Chief of Staff Theresa Mintle helped enact a special early-retirement plan at her former employer—
the Chicago Transit Authority—that entitled her to a $65,000 annual pension she wouldn't have qualified for otherwise.
Official records obtained in a joint probe by Crain's and the Better Government Assn. indicate
Ms. Mintle is eligible for a pension of $64,908.53 at age 65, based on just eight years of service at the agency.
The early-retirement sweetener passed in 2008, when she was chief of staff to then-CTA board Chairman Carole Brown.
Ms. Mintle resigned from that job last spring to assume similar duties for Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
Ordinarily, Ms. Mintle, 47, would have needed 11 years of service to qualify for a pension at the CTA,
a milestone she wouldn't have reached until 2014.
But in 2008, she was involved in the approval and possibly the design of an early-retirement sweetener
for agency executives containing two separate clauses that,
together, allowed her to buy extra service credits and lock in her pension
in exchange for leaving her job by mid-2011.
After days of avoiding questions from Crain's and the BGA, Mr. Emanuel's office said late Friday
that Ms. Mintle has decided to forgo the CTA pension. “She has no intention of participating in the program”
and has not contributed the $53,000 needed to secure her benefits under the plan,
a spokeswoman for the mayor's office said.
However, the terms of the early-retirement plan give Ms. Mintle eight years to change her mind,
make the contribution and lock in the pension.
So now,
what has Ms Mintle actually done ?
She
worked for the Transit Authority for 8 years.
She would have been
eligible for retirement benefits in 3 more years
She
contributed $64,908.53 towards her own retirement
That is $8,113 per year
She will
need to wait 18 years to start receiving benefits
The point of Merc's entire "expose" is...
She will
need to pay an
additional $53,000 if she wanted to
secure these benefits.
That's about $10K per year for a pension 18 years down the road---
My God, Oh the humanity... Such "sweet" pension ... NOT !
.
lol
I still don't like Rahm, tho.
He's channeling LBJ:
"Make the bastard deny it."
Furthermore, with respect to
Ms Mintle above
If Ms Mintle did
not secure her retirement via the $53,000 advance payment,
it seems likely to me she would have withdrawn the $64,908.53 from her own retirement account.
She would have had to pay income tax on that amount, unless she could roll it over to another retirement account.
Ms Mintle was Chief of Staff, but the changes in the CTA system were the responsibilities of her boss, not hers.
There is nothing in Merc's link to fault either Ms Mintle or Mr Emanuel.
But I'm sure Merc will keep trying.
.
contributing $64,000 TOTAL over the years and getting a $65,000 ANNUAL pension
are two very different things. jus saying
didn't read it, don't care enough.
A deferred annuity for $65k at 7% for 18 yrs yields less than $200k
I doubt the wording of the link can be interpreted as $65k per yr
Well thats what it says ...
Under terms of the plan, she has an option to purchase six extra years of credits for $52,663.35. If she pays that amount—she hasn't yet, but has another eight years to do so—at age 65 she will be entitled to an annual pension of at least $64,908.53
Apparently there are more of them.
For instance, former CFO Mr. Anosike will have to pay an additional $59,000 in exchange for a pension of $115,414, records indicate, but he worked for the CTA for 12 years and bridged his pension to cover 12 prior years of employment with the city. Ms. Sapyta, the former comptroller, will have to pay $52,489 for an eventual $98,405 pension, but she worked for the CTA for about 20 years.
And here I thought only New Jersey (cough/Whelan/cough)had this kind of BS going on.
Good catch, Classic.
It's embarrassing to make such a mistake, particularly when it's so public.
I misinterpreted the statement in lead paragraph. I apologize. :dunce:
I found the information later in the article saying that Ms Mintle
had already contributed $72,000 in her 8 yrs of CTA service.
For a deferred annuity at 7% return on that balance would be ~ $89k now,
and about $270k when she reaches retirement age at 65 yr
If she contributed an additional $53k now, this could add ~ $160k when she reaches 65 yr
Thus, her total balance at 65 yr could be $270k + $160k or ~ $430k
Her service credits would be 8 + 6, or equivalent to working 14 years for CTA.
Such a balance might pay out $65k per year, or about a third of her annual ($175k) salary
When she left the CTA, Ms Mintle's replacement was hired at the same pay range.
While $175,000 /yr salary seems a lot, maybe Chicago does pay such salaries
to Chief of Staff for the heads big agencies such as the CTA
So, all in all, I do not yet see any criticism of Ms Mintle or Mr Emanuel,
and stand by my comments in my original post.
??? dunno ???
Look up Jim Whelan in New Jersey. See if he did anything "strange" with respect to his pension.
The point of Merc's entire "expose" is....
Actually it is another example of the Obama Cabal and Chicago politics that changed the rules to benefit the few. Socialism is good for everyone but the socialists....
But I'm sure Merc will keep trying.
.
[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="6"]Anyone but Obama in 2012![/SIZE][/COLOR]:D
[SIZE="3"][COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Pick one:[/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE="5"][COLOR="Blue"]Romney, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Huntsman, Gingrich, Santorum, McCain, McConnell, Graham, Brewer, Bentley, Parnell, Bush, Jindal, Chistie, Kasich, Scott, Walker, McDonnelll, Palin, Cheney, Forbes, O'Donnell, Blakely, Owens, Army, Koch, Rove, Will... in 2012[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Black"]It really won't matter, you and they will both know they were only second best.[/COLOR][/SIZE] :rolleyes:
(UT: I promise I won't do the color/size thing again.)
Your forgot my favorite, [COLOR="Blue"][size=5]Thaddeus McCotter[/size][/COLOR].
He deserved more of a shot, he was the one with a sense of humor.
McCain, McConnell, Graham, Brewer, Bentley, Parnell, Bush, Jindal, Chistie, Kasich, Scott, Walker, McDonnelll, Palin, Cheney, Forbes, O'Donnell, Blakely, Owens, Army, Koch, Rove, Will... in 2012
None of them are running???
It'll be just like 2008 when the second best won. [COLOR="Yellow"] (Hillary)[/COLOR]
2008 Me and my wife watching TV ... Hillary and Obama
That's when the fight started.:rolleyes:
: I promise I won't do the color/size thing again.
Conformist Communist. HAAAAAAAAA! You run with the pack..... which ever way the wind blows....:p:
What is the proper role and scope of government?
Whatever the people vote for, is what.
I was arguing this with my (remaining) Libertarian friend; I said, friend, it's all well and good to try to get into office. But if only 10% of the people agree with your approaches, isn't it tyranny to put them into place, even if you are elected?
I suppose it depends, UT, on whether or not that 10% was solely responsible for making the election happen...through money and media influence. Or perhaps it more depends on whether the unpopular policies were touted when running or not. If we don't know what we're getting, how can we be truly electing a representative?
Government doings reify the things a society considers and generally agrees are necessary to do, but on which nobody's ever figured out how to turn a profit. Providing for the common defense is the most obvious example.
It connects with that other thing that should be said of the State: it is not your mother, it is not your father; the State is a weapon. Like a weapon, it is a tool suited to a certain spectrum of tasks, but not to others. Yet like a weapon in very truth, when it is needed nothing else will do.
Government doings reify the things a society
considers and generally agrees are necessary to do,
but on which nobody's ever figured out how to turn a profit.
Providing for the common defense is the most obvious example.
<snip>.
It's easy to agree with your first sentence,
but I don't think you want to hang your hat on the second.
Eisenhower recognized and told the US people something about that.
Regan ignored his remarks in striving for his 600-ship navy.
"Star wars" and "Haliburton" are a couple of the more current memes.
It was all about making $ and profits
from the common defense.
I'm with you, Lamplighter. Private contractors are raking in money hand over fist. They're making a killing in more ways than one. During the Iraq War, there was one private contractor employee for every one American soldier. :eyebrow:
Lots of interesting stuff
from the CBO. Here's a snip:
CBO estimates that total spending by U.S. agencies and U.S.-funded contractors for private security services ranged between $6 billion and $10 billion over the 2003–2007 period. Between $3 billion and $4 billion of that spending was for obligations made directly by the U.S. government for private security services in Iraq.20 The government’s obligations for those services have amounted to roughly between $500 million and $1.2 billion annually since 2005. DoD, DoS, and USAID have awarded all of the U.S. government contracts for security services in Iraq.
During the Iraq War, there was one private contractor employee for every one American soldier.
So? Do you think there were any political reasons for that?
Heck, I'd probably rather have an even higher ratio than that. They're probably cheaper and lets be honest, no one was really ever tallying the dead mercenary numbers in the press.
So? Do you think there were any political reasons for that?
Heck, I'd probably rather have an even higher ratio than that. They're probably cheaper and lets be honest, no one was really ever tallying the dead mercenary numbers in the press.
The one to one ratio was 2 1/2 times that used in any other war. So W. and Cheney were giving out defense contracts left and right to their buddies.
And how has that changed in the last 2 1/2 years?
I don't think it has. Why would anybody want to step off the gravy train? What were we talking about, anyhow?
Obama doing the same thing Bush did. ;)
Google News puts up headlines and current links to the topic
Here are two articles on the same topic. Flip a coin to decide which you read first.
The articles are about the same length, so you may want to read the originals.
Then post your thoughts on the subject and/or the role of government.
Winona Daily News.com
Nov 6, 2011
Dr. Frank Bures
Imperfect medical tests still useful
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is a congressionally mandated,
independent panel of experts in primary medicine that reviews
evidence of effectiveness and develops recommendations for clinical preventive medicine.
The task force decided to recommend against screening for PSA in all healthy men
after a rigorous evidence review, concluding that there is moderate to high certainty
that the service has no benefit, or that the harms it may produce outweigh the benefits.
This is called a grade D recommendation. Grade C means the service is not routinely recommended.
Grades B and A are better, as expected.
The test originally was discovered and conceived as a tool to follow the activity of prostate cancer.
It was later adapted to its current role of gatekeeper.
It only measures the presence of a specific protein produced by prostate cells,
not just cancer cells. It cannot measure the biological activity of any tumor.
It merely looks at a static point and tries to infer the nature of a dynamic process.
“If the cancer is aggressive, everyone agrees that early diagnosis and treatment are best.
The problem is that it is often impossible to distinguish between the harmless and the deadly.”
----------
Forbes
Nov 21, 2011
Steve Forbes
The Department of Health and Human Services' Death Panel
We already have one. It’s called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,
a committee of “experts” appointed by the Department of Health & Human Services.
This group recently declared that men should not be routinely screened for prostate cancer.
The most common test is the PSA, which is part of a blood test.
The panel also said no to rectal exams and ultrasounds,
claiming that testing does no good, that it doesn’t save lives.
Two years ago this task force said women under the age of 50 shouldn’t get
annual mammograms—a “finding” so preposterous even the
Department of Health & Human Services ran away from it.
This latest dictate is meeting the same fate. And rightly so.
After skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer found in men.
<snip>
What’s going on with mammograms and testing for prostate cancer?
At bottom, it’s an attempt to save money. Treatments are not cheap.
The panel claims that its recommendations won’t increase mortality,
which is about as convincing as saying that letting mosquitoes proliferate
in certain environs won’t increase the incidence of malaria.
If the government succeeds in dominating health care, as it’s now on its way to doing,
we can expect more of these weird and lethal findings.
The focus will be on rationing and saving money.
What we need in health care is more free enterprise, not Soviet-style controls.
First of all, these are opinion pieces - one published in a newspaper and the other in the
business magazine, Forbes.
I do not trust medical (or scientific) information from such sources. Is the Winona Daily News a peer reviewed journal? And who is Dr. Frank Bures? A renowned cancer researcher? The senior oncologist at the Mayo clinic? The local chiropractor who picks up spare change writing for the Winona Daily News? Or maybe the local GP who picks up quite a bit of loose change pandering to the fear of cancer.
Who knows?
I don't and the last thing I'd do is make major health decisions based on what I read in the News, earnest journalists though they may be.
Then we have Forbes, dedicated to business and those who run businesses - NOT a medical journal. As a matter of fact, Forbes has a vested interest in attacking government regulation of ANY sort, even including health guidelines. Steve Forbes gives us his anecdotal experience without mentioning his age - which is a major factor for prostrate cancer - and makes the assumption that every man in the world will share the same experience as he did.
Whatever
This is the research done at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) published in the highly regarded, peer-reviewed Journal of New England Medicine:
~snip~
At seven years, 50 deaths were attributable to prostate cancer in the screening group and 44 deaths were attributable in the usual-care group. Through year 10, there were 92 prostate cancer deaths in the screening group and 82 in the usual-care group. The difference between the numbers of deaths in the two groups was not statistically significant. Thus there was no detectable mortality benefit for screening vs. usual-care.
Given the uncertainties about the mortality benefits of PSA testing, NCI has been pursuing many avenues to find new ways of screening for prostate cancer, including several sets of biomarkers that are being validated in its Early Detection Research Network (EDRN), some using specimens from PLCO’s biorepository of tissue and blood. Some examples of the marker tests include using microstrands of RNA to detect disease, examining changes in genes such as GSTP1, and imaging of proteins in prostate cancer tissue.
This testing was part of a 17 year on-going study and included a subject pool of 76,693 men. Compared with the Steve Forbes study of one man - himself.
The NIH is working on developing a better test in order to save lives. The old test is just not all that helpful. Sorry, Frank
Who cares....
About what?
A man's chances of getting prostrate cancer and what tests are appropriate?
or
How much weight should be given to the medical opinions of a gov't backed out fit which has a mandate to cut health costs?
I would think that all men would care about the former. The latter has important implications for government sponsored health care.
Merc, you just skim stuff that other people post if you read it at all. Honestly! :rolleyes:
Liberal Programs Deserve Blame for Income Inequality
The Congressional Budget Office documents income gains for everyone, not just the wealthy.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/08/liberal-programs-deserve-blame-for-incomI'm with you, Lamplighter. Private contractors are raking in money hand over fist. They're making a killing in more ways than one. During the Iraq War, there was one private contractor employee for every one American soldier.
Most of us understand and appreciate nearly every single one of them. I was always glad to see the contractors on every deployment. :D
In my view: to not exist.
I just spent a bit of time living in a country where the government really does not exist. Pakistan. What a lovely place! That's right no government getting in the way with those pesky regulations and enforcement of basic law and order. Visiting countries like Pakistan in the course of my job has really impacted my view on the role of government in our country. I have experienced first hand the idea of no government, and it is not a nice place. I am sure that I will experience the reality of no government the next time our Great Nation decides to send me to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa or some other place where no there is a lot of no government going on.
Oh, and most of the places with not a lot of government going on have lots and lots of Religion in government going on. Hmmm....I wonder if there is a relationship there.
/rant off.
Joe!
Joe's back!
*big smile*
Thanks Dana. :) good to see you too!
"I have experienced first hand the idea of no government, and it is not a nice place."
So what? Who said anything about 'nice' or 'fair' or 'equal' or any of that crap?
While not always the case: 'peace' (or 'nice' or 'fair' or 'equal' or 'just', etc.) is just another word for 'controlled'.
#
"...most of the places with not a lot of government going on have lots and lots of Religion in government going on."
Not surprising as 'politics' and 'religion' are essentially the same thing: Idealism (the worship of 'god', whether it be divine arbiter or ideology, is the same across the board).
Dude, why wait for the United States to change? You should move tomorrow! I'll help pay your fair to Islamabad. It sounds to me like you would love it there. Don't stay in Islamabad though, way to much control there. Bolochistan or North West Frontier sound like about your speed.
Peace, nice, fair, equal and just are other words for controlled?? What dictionary do you use? It's hard to take you serious when you discuss things in such a manner. Is this radar with a different handle?
"You should move tomorrow!"
As an 'occupant' might say: make me.
#
"It's hard to take you serious when you discuss things in such a manner."
In post #53 of this
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26210&page=4 Dana declares 'All threads in the Cellar are 'opinion' threads, essentially." So: pffftt! If you don't like the way I define or express or opine, that, 'dude', is your concern, not mine.
And: since I haven't a clue who you are, can't see how your (not) taking 'me' serious is sumthin' I need to worry about.
And: no, I'm not 'radar'...I don't use multiple handles and I don't change what works.
I don't want to make you move to another country. That's not what I am about. There is a line of logic, flawed though it may be, to my thinking though. Having been to many other countries, the U.S. is a very, very peaceful, nice, fair, equitable, and just place. By comparison. We aren't perfect, but we have it really good. So, since there are so many other places where government enforcement of regulations and laws is lax to say the least, it would be easier to move to one of these places then try to create this atmosphere in the US. It's also a selfish idea, I prefer the United States as it is today. Although it's not a perfect union, it is a bit more perfect then just about any place I've been. A damn sight more perfect then places I've been where there is no government. We have more then our fair share of the blessings of liberty, justice and domestic tranquility. We have a pretty damn good common defense, I help see to that.
I'm really not willing to give that up. Again, not trying to make anyone move where they do not want to go. It just sounds to me like you would like to live there rather then here.
Me neither, which is why it irks me you fixated on "In my view: to not exist." as the answer to the question of 'what is the proper role and scope of government?' when the bulk of my post (#8) was given over to the notion of proxyhood (or, extremely limited government) as preferable to 'governance' (in the current form).
I may be anarchistic, but I'm not advocating an anarchy. Any lazy shit reading your post (and not bothering to go up-thread to read my post) is sure to take me as some of rabid libertarian-type.
Next thing I'll know: said lazy shit will bring up Somalia as my idea of heaven... :mad: ...which it's not.
I'm quite capable of painting myself into a corner without others lending a hand by way of out-of-context quotes...just sayin'... ;)
#
"the U.S. is a very, very peaceful, nice, fair, equitable, and just place"
Trundle over to the 'wall street occupied' thread for opposing views...me: I'm content here despite the fact I don't think America is all that peaceful, nice, fair, etc.
U.S. boosts estimate of auto bailout losses to $23.6B
David Shepardson/ Detroit News Washington Bureau
The Treasury Department dramatically boosted its estimate of losses from its $85 billion auto industry bailout by more than $9 billion in the face of General Motors Co.'s steep stock decline.
In its monthly report to Congress, the Treasury Department now says it expects to lose $23.6 billion, up from its previous estimate of $14.33 billion.
The Treasury now pegs the cost of the bailout of GM, Chrysler Group LLC and the auto finance companies at $79.6 billion. It no longer includes $5 billion it set aside to guarantee payments to auto suppliers in 2009.
The big increase is a reflection of the sharp decline in the value of GM's share price.
The current estimate of losses is based on GM's Sept. 30 closing price of $20.18, down one-third over the previous quarterly price.
GM's stock closed Monday at $22.99, up 2 percent. The government won't reassess the estimate of the costs until Dec. 30.
The government has recovered $23.2 billion of its $49.5 billion GM bailout, and cut its stake in the company from 61 percent to 26.5 percent. But it has been forced to put on hold the sale of its remaining 500 million shares of stock.
The new estimate also hikes the overall cost of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program costs to taxpayers. TARP is the emergency program approved by Congress in late 2008 at the height of the financial crisis.
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20111114/AUTO01/111140434/U.S.-boosts-estimate-of-auto-bailout-losses-to-$23.6B#ixzz1dxXuR19T
Nor is there one good reason (but many bad ones) why it should be.
It's easy to agree with your first sentence,
but I don't think you want to hang your hat on the second.
Eisenhower recognized and told the US people something about that.
Regan ignored his remarks in striving for his 600-ship navy.
"Star wars" and "Haliburton" are a couple of the more current memes.
It was all about making $ and profits from the common defense.
Popular notion, but I'm thinking in terms of a society's overall creation of wealth, not in soldiers and government contractors getting paid
their livings.
The weapons of a state might be analogized with the antlers of a deer: they defend the deer, they aid the deer in promulgating his genes through deer-dom -- but they exact a cost to the deer's metabolism, growth, energy. Such expenditure might have been laid out in some other part of the deer, right? And yet, the deer would not do so well without them, in the end.
Necessary, but not wealth-generating overall; wealth-consuming instead.
Next thing I'll know: said lazy shit will bring up Somalia as my idea of heaven... :mad: ...which it's not.
At least one antilibertarian jinglenuts of a writer called places like Somalia, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and upcountry Afghanistan "libertarian heavens," when "libertarian hells" would be a somewhat more accurate description -- and the kleptocracies with the actual local power are not recognizable as libertarians of any description anyway. Not even Anarcho-libs.
Said anonymous jinglenuts seemed out to discredit libertarianism, perhaps by Alinskyite methods. Meh, who knows?
Popular notion, but I'm thinking in terms of a society's overall creation of wealth, not in soldiers and government contractors getting paid their livings.
The weapons of a state might be analogized with the antlers of a deer: they defend the deer, they aid the deer in promulgating his genes through deer-dom -- but they exact a cost to the deer's metabolism, growth, energy. Such expenditure might have been laid out in some other part of the deer, right? And yet, the deer would not do so well without them, in the end.
Necessary, but not wealth-generating overall; wealth-consuming instead.
In summation; castrate the deer, but keep the horns.
Not advocating in particular; just observing. In perhaps missing my point -- I'm not sure whether you have or not -- you've set up a different scenario. Might be fruitful; should we discuss more?
I think we understand each other. I see that our deer is dying. Among other things, we've over invested in horns losing ground to the animals who've put more energy into their bodies. Metaphors aside, we've made a lot of bad investments as a country to the detriment of a couple things only the smallest minority oppose, infrastructure and education. Sensible investment in those two things make us more competitive. We should not lose sight of that during our quadrennial rut.
Popular notion, but I'm thinking in terms of a society's overall creation of wealth, not in soldiers and government contractors getting paid their livings.
The weapons of a state might be analogized with the antlers of a deer: they defend the deer, they aid the deer in promulgating his genes through deer-dom -- but they exact a cost to the deer's metabolism, growth, energy. Such expenditure might have been laid out in some other part of the deer, right? And yet, the deer would not do so well without them, in the end.
Necessary, but not wealth-generating overall; wealth-consuming instead.
But when horns are too big, the animal goes extinct, yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_ElkFrom
here
Emma Sullivan’s trip to Topeka with other high school students to learn about government taught her a few unexpected lessons:
All that resulted from a tweet the Shawnee Mission East High School senior wrote Monday during Brownback’s greeting to young people who were brought in for a closer look at the political process.
“Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot,” Sullivan thumbed from the back of the crowd.
She actually made no such comments.
Brownback’s director of communication wasn’t amused when the tweet was spotted during the routine daily monitoring of comments on Twitter and Facebook mentioning the governor’s name.
“That wasn’t respectful,” responded Sherriene Jones-Sontag. “In order to really have a constructive dialogue, there has to be mutual respect.”
So they tracked her down and forced her school to force her to write a letter of apology. I think what she did was stupid and petty. I think the governors office's response was Orwellian and Nixonian. The next time I hear a complaint about how 'liberal' institutions are stifling conservative students, I think I can bring this item up. Compared to some of the rhetoric about Obama, what she wrote was tame.
Hopey Changey, fail.
CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run
The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.
CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”
The analysis confirms what CBO predicted before the stimulus passed in February 2009, though the top-end decline of two-tenths of a percent is actually deeper than the agency predicted back then.
All told, the stimulus did boost jobs and the economy in the short run, according to CBO’s models. At the peak of spending from July through September 2010, it sustained anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million, which lowered the unemployment rate by between four-tenths of a percent to 2 percent.
The Obama administration had promised 3.5 million jobs would be produced at the peak of spending.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/cbo-stimulus-hurts-economy-long-run/#.TtFBBgDPn4Q.facebookI think that was the point, though, merc, whether you agree with it or not. The idea is, if the government boosts things in the short term, that will be enough to set the ball rolling, and by the time the stimulus starts costing productivity the snowball effect of what it STIMULATED in the -private- sector will more than make up for the eventual lessening of the direct effects. Basically, the idea is, if we can get the economy on track NOW, it will be strong enough to survive the eventual side effects of the drug we used to save it. You can disagree with the effectiveness of that concept, but attacking it as if this wasn't a foreseeable consequence of the stimulus on the part of its proponents is disingenuous.
I think that was the point, though, merc, whether you agree with it or not. The idea is, if the government boosts things in the short term, that will be enough to set the ball rolling, and by the time the stimulus starts costing productivity the snowball effect of what it STIMULATED in the -private- sector will more than make up for the eventual lessening of the direct effects. Basically, the idea is, if we can get the economy on track NOW, it will be strong enough to survive the eventual side effects of the drug we used to save it. You can disagree with the effectiveness of that concept, but attacking it as if this wasn't a foreseeable consequence of the stimulus on the part of its proponents is disingenuous.
Hardly "disingenuous" at all. You are making assumptions about my intent. Show me the chorus of people who were saying the Stimulus was a bad idea and compare that to those who said it was a must pass. Remember Pelosi, Reid, and Obama telling us about all those shovel ready jobs? No go back and look at my numerous posts asking what are we going to do when the money runs out. Well unemployment is still at an AVERAGE of 9% and much higher in some states and areas. What did we get? A world record deficit and much of it wasted. Average costs per job created was around $400k each at the best estimate and about $1.2 million per job created at the worst. Now they are considering another failed stimulus package and a further growth of the deficit. Notice how many of these plans, whether for "Job Creation" or Obamacare or whatever all never really kick in till Obama will be long gone from his job.
I think you need to determine how much of the stimulus was for job creation and then recalculate those numbers.
IMO, it will be much more representative of reality.
Then look at the amounts spent on "other" things and assess how well that was spent.
There are several political candidates and pundits who are
advocating the elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
I thought it might be worthwhile to try to have a discussion
of these two entities, and the implications of keeping or eliminating them.
Here is
Freddie Mac's website description of what they do:
We participate in the secondary mortgage market by purchasing
mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities for investment and by
issuing guaranteed mortgage-related securities, principally those we call PCs.
The secondary mortgage market consists of institutions engaged
in buying and selling mortgages in the form of whole loans
(i.e., mortgages that have not been securitized) and mortgage-related securities.
We do not lend money directly to homeowners.
Here is the
Fannie Mae website's description of what they do:
Marketplace Liquidity
Providing Liquidity and Affordability to the Housing Market
Fannie Mae is working to help the U.S. housing market get back on stable ground.
We do this by replenishing the funds that lenders need to make new loans,
refinance existing loans, and finance multifamily housing at affordable rates.
During the housing crisis, many mortgage investors left the market
or scaled back their activity.
We remain committed to providing liquidity and stability to the housing market
in all economic conditions.
Supporting Homeownership
For Americans who are ready to buy a home, we believe they should
have access to affordable, sustainable options.
We have provided nearly $1.7 trillion in single-family funding since 2009,
while establishing stronger and more sustainable lending standards.
This has helped more than seven million families buy homes or
refinance their loans since the beginning of 2009.
Single-Family
Our single-family acquisitions include several products that address specific housing needs.
For instance, during 2010, Fannie Mae purchased:
* $831 million in mortgages targeted specifically to lower- income
and/or first-time home buyers through banks and state housing finance agencies
* $944 million in mortgages secured by manufactured homes
* $138 million in single-family mortgages in rural areas
<snip>
[QUOTE]They go on to describe their role in multifamily housing, but that is
almost exclusively involving local governments and/or investors.
[/QUOTE]
As I understand the operations of F&F, they are NOT the lending agency when someone buys a home.
Instead, a mortgage is developed by a bank, credit union, etc.
wherein the terms of the loan are defined, and the purchase funds are distributed to the new home owner.
Before the existence of F&F, the bank provided it's own funds and held the mortgage and processed the loan payments.
But with F&F, the bank can now sell such mortgages to F&F,
and thereby replenish the bank's funds to continue creating additional mortgages.
But, F&F do not buy these mortgages one-at-a-time.
Instead, the bank "bundles" several mortgages and establishes
the "quality" of the bundle, and then proceeds to negotiate the value with F&F.
Once F&F own these bundles of mortgages, they sell them to investors,
with assurances of value and quality... and may earn a profit during these transactions.
------------
[COLOR="DarkRed"]OK, I hope other Dwellars will add or correct my description as needed,
and contribute to a political discussion of these institutions.[/COLOR]
.
That really deserves a thread of its own.
Elsewhere, I posted my concern over Gingrich's intentions for his presidency.
Here are excerpts from the articles I cited.
NY Times Editorial
Dec 10, 2011
Mr. Gingrich’s Attack on the Courts
In any campaign season, voters are bound to hear Republican candidates talk about “activist judges”
— jurists who rule in ways that the right wing does not like.
But Newt Gingrich, who is leading in polls in Iowa,
is taking the normal attack on the justice system to a deep new low.
He is using McCarthyist tactics to smear judges.
His most outrageous scheme, a plan to challenge “judicial supremacy,”
has disturbing racial undertones. If he is serious about his plan,
a President Gingrich would break the balance of power that is
fundamental to our democracy.<snip>
The plan’s centerpiece is an attack on the landmark 1958 ruling in Cooper v. Aaron,
in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Arkansas had a duty to follow federal law.
For the first time in the court’s history, all nine justices individually signed the unanimous opinion.
They did so to stress that the “chaos, bedlam and turmoil” caused by
the governor’s refusal to obey the law was “intolerable.”
Unless the court acted as the final arbiter about the Constitution’s meaning,
as Marbury v. Madison instructed, chaos would prevail.
It was one of the court’s most important decisions.
----------------
Here is Gingrich's presentation: - it downloads a pdf file.
21st Century
Contract with America
Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution
NEWT 2012 Position Paper Supporting
Item No. 9 of the 21st Century Contract with America:
Restore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated
Constitutional powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or
replace judges who violate the Constitution. <snip>
[COLOR="Red"]This NEWT 2012 campaign document serves as political notice to the public [/COLOR]and to the
legislative and judicial branches that a Gingrich administration will reject the theory of judicial
supremacy and will reject passivity as a response to Supreme Court rulings that ignore executive
and legislative concerns and which seek to institute policy changes
that more properly rest with Congress.
A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers, [COLOR="Red"]by itself[/COLOR]
and acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Court
decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in any federal judge(s)
whose rulings exhibit a disregard for the Constitution.<snip>
The rejection of judicial supremacy and the reestablishment of a constitutional balance of power
among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches will be an intense and difficult undertaking.
It is unavoidable if we are going to retain American freedoms and American identity.
[COLOR="Red"]Is anyone still willing to say: "Anyone but Obama"[/COLOR]
I wonder how Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito is feeling about Newt now.
Has he uttered the phrase: "Dear God, what have I wrought"
It was Alito, while working in the Reagan administration,
that expanded the concept of "Signing Statements" which in effect
allowed US Presidents to ignore parts of new legislation the President (by himself) deemed as unconstitutional.
Elsewhere, I posted my concern over Gingrich's intentions for his presidency.
Here are excerpts from the articles I cited.
NY Times Editorial
Dec 10, 2011
Mr. Gingrich’s Attack on the Courts
----------------
Here is Gingrich's presentation: - it downloads a pdf file.
21st Century
Contract with America
Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution
[COLOR="Red"]Is anyone still willing to say: "Anyone but Obama"[/COLOR]
Why does Newt hate the Constitution?
I wonder how Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito is feeling about Newt now.
Has he uttered the phrase: "Dear God, what have I wrought"
It was Alito, while working in the Reagan administration,
that expanded the concept of "Signing Statements" which in effect
allowed US Presidents to ignore parts of new legislation the President (by himself) deemed as unconstitutional.
Obama has been doing a pretty good job of that.
Obama has been doing a pretty good job of that.
He has?
here's a list of Obama's 17 signing statements.
http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm
And here's a list of Bush's signing statements - 85 in his first three years.
http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm
Regardless of how you perceive the egregiousness of some - any - of the statements, that's a HUGE gap. What are your problems with Obama's?
I really am curious, merc. As a left-winger far enough left to have huge problems with Obama's presidency from the opposite side as you, I'm all ears as to how Obama has abused signing statements. I haven't seen any stories in the news or among the libertarian blogs I follow noting Obama's use of signing statements, so I'd really like to know what I've missed about them.
I never said Bush didn't use them. Bush is not in office and has not been there for three years. Here is what King Obama said during his run up to the crown:
[YOUTUBE]6ZHep3gE87A[/YOUTUBE]
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/arrogance_and_narcissism_reign.html
The signing statement are constitutionally not authorized, regardless of who does them.
Here is what King Obama said during his run up to the crown:
If the AmericanThinker.com citation was honest, then it would have listed each signing statement. No examples provided. It does what any wacko extremist and Limbaugh disciple does.
If AmericanThinker.com had credibility, then facts about "Pres Obama" were cited. Instead,
Barack Hussein Obama doesn't see himself as merely the United States' 44th President; he is her liege, King Barack the First.
Repeatedly reference to "King Barack", as if that proves something, targets readers with lowest intelligence and educaton.
AmericanThinker.com says nothing about signing statements. But says everything about the intelligence of anyone who would cite it as responsible or honest. Only the dumbest among us would use the expression "King Obama" as proof of something. Especially when Fatherland Security, torture, and contempt for humanity comes from supporters of AmericanThinker.com.
Where are signing statments listed? That topic was irrelevant. Only Tea Party extremists and Limbaugh disciples would love articles that inspire more hate. The topic is signing statements - not a mockery of educated Americans and Obama.
The Obama Dept of Justice is doing something right...
Washington Post
Jerry Markon
12/23/11
Justice Dept. rejects South Carolina voter ID law, calling it discriminatory
The Justice Department on Friday entered the divisive national debate over new state voting laws,
rejecting South Carolina’s measure requiring photo-identification at the polls as discriminatory against minority voters.<snip>
In its first decision on one of those new measures, the Justice Department said Friday
that South Carolina’s law will discriminate against minority voters,
though the department declined to take a position on whether the alleged discrimination was intentional.
The law, passed in May and signed by Gov. Nikki Haley (R),
requires voters to show a driver’s license or one of several other forms of photo identification. <snip>
The federal action signals an escalating legal battle nationwide over
the new laws as the presidential campaign intensifies.
The American Civil Liberties Union and another group recently filed a federal lawsuit in Milwaukee,
contending that Wisconsin’s voter-identification measure is unconstitutional.
It was signed into law in May. <snip>
In addition to South Carolina, Wisconsin and Mississippi, more stringent voter-identification laws
have been passed this year in Texas, Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, and Tennessee.
Justice civil rights officials are currently examining the Texas law,
along with electoral changes made by Florida that reduce the number of days for early voting.
Well I don't see a problem with it.
I have to show my ID to vote, to get on an Airplane, often to use my credit or debit card, to get on to post, to buy at the PX, to cash a check, to by a beer or liquor, to the police if I get stopped, to get on a cruise ship, to go into another country, hell where do you not have to show one. And these mother fuckers are worried about showing one to vote. What load of horse shit.......
Merc, not everyone carries their military-issued ID in their pocket the way you do.
... Obtaining the "proper" or "valid" pictured ID can be difficult and/or time critical.
To get the proper [COLOR="DarkRed"]state-issued, photo ID[/COLOR] now,
with all the hoopla required by Homeland Security it can be / is very difficult.
The problem is complexity...especially for the elderly, the poor, the minorities, etc.
Some of the issues I have heard about are:
Hospital-issued "birth certificates" are no longer valid or accepted
... to be valid, the birth certificate must be issued by the State Dept of Vital Statistics (or whatever)
... if a woman is divorced, she must also show the state-issued divorce papers, and proper name-change legal papers
... if any birth date, name, etc are not the same on all papers, it can derail the process.
... if any of the above occurred in separate states, it can be difficult
... In Oregon, and I'll bet it is or will be the same in other states,
in order to get a new Driver's license, not only do you have to show all of the above,
you also have to paperwork to show you are legally entitled to live in the US,
and that you do actually live at a particular address in Oregon (utility bill, rent payment receipt, etc.)
Then, a person often also has to register to vote, and in some state this is required prior to the day of voting.
"Voter fraud" is almost non-existant, but it is the excuse for these new laws.
Basically, the Republican Party knows it is a minority party,
and so sets about to disqualify poor and/or minority voters,
or to make the process so difficult they don't vote.
.
... Obtaining the "proper" or "valid" pictured ID can be difficult and/or time critical.
Difficult, not impossible. This is not a race issue although that seems to be the flavor of the season when ever someone disagrees with the Demoncratic party or the president.
The problem is complexity...especially for the elderly, the poor, the minorities, etc.
As you point out, it's not a race issue... it is Civil Rights being abused by Repubicans.
Race is just one of the elephants in the room.
Difficult, not impossible. This is not a race issue although that seems to be the flavor of the season when ever someone disagrees with the Demoncratic party or the president.
It is the same shit that is going on in Wisconsin right now. Dirty politics.
Unless Republicans can show that requiring a photo ID like a driver's license instead of the current system will lower voter fraud, I honestly see no other point of it besides preventing people who will statistically more likely vote Democrat from voting.
I have to show my ID to vote, to get on an Airplane, often to use my credit or debit card, to get on to post, to buy at the PX, to cash a check, to by a beer or liquor, to the police if I get stopped, to get on a cruise ship, to go into another country, hell where do you not have to show one. And these mother fuckers are worried about showing one to vote. What load of horse shit.......
None of those are deemed citizen privileges. Being able to vote is right in the US. Flying, using credit, buying liquor, going to different countries, etc, are not.
Well I don't see a problem with it.
I have to show my ID to vote, to get on an Airplane, often to use my credit or debit card, to get on to post, to buy at the PX, to cash a check, to by a beer or liquor, to the police if I get stopped, to get on a cruise ship, to go into another country, hell where do you not have to show one. And these mother fuckers are worried about showing one to vote. What load of horse shit.......
Merc, it would be a load of shit if that were the only thing going on. Republicans are trying to use this as a method of evening the vote in areas where there are more Dem voters. That's really not democracy in action. sure I can understand people wanting to "win", but hey, if you don't like the outcome of the voters then..well, wait till the next election. Don't try to figure out ways to exclude voters.
None of those are deemed citizen privileges.
Being able to vote is right in the US. Flying, using credit, buying liquor, going to different countries, etc, are not.
I agree, voting is far more important than any of those other things.
If it weren't for the political BS that started this, I would agree wholeheartedly with one
having to provide a picture ID to vote. The system should be more secure.
Perhaps we could agree to do it in the future - say as of the 2016 election.
As far as how hard it is to get a picture ID. I call MAJOR BS.
Getting a passport is supposedly much harder. I had to accrue my original Birth Certificate
(which I apparently never had) as well as a couple other things.
Sent it away and got the passport in a few weeks. It was a completely painless process.
<snip>
As far as how hard it is to get a picture ID. I call MAJOR BS.
Getting a passport is supposedly much harder. I had to accrue my original Birth Certificate
(which I apparently never had) as well as a couple other things.
Sent it away and got the passport in a few weeks. It was a completely painless process.
That is what some of these voter laws are calling for now...
ID's that are the equivalent of a US passport.
Painless maybe, but overly complicated and time consuming
Will everyone know they had to do all that in order to vote,
and will everyone have started the process in time to vote ?
Not likely, and that's what the Republican legislatures are counting on.
"Voter fraud" is almost non-existant, ...
except where it is hyped as a major crime wave to advance a political agenda. If voter fraud was serious, then he has posted numbers that prove it. He won't. Political agendas are promoted by subjective claims. Such claims without numbers are best called lies.
Of course, we could eliminate 100% voter fraud. It's easy. We all learn to goose step. And we all salute the flag with one arm raised straight up above.
Voter fraud is a crime sufficiently eliminated by following the existing and well proven procedures. But that does not promote bogeymen to inspire and rally extremists.
Actual problem is not voter fraud. The real problem is identity theft. Solving the latter does not create fear and promote a political agenda.
That is what some of these voter laws are calling for now...
ID's that are the equivalent of a US passport.
Painless maybe, but overly complicated and time consuming
Will everyone have started the process in time to vote ?
If it weren't for the political BS that started this, I would agree wholeheartedly with one
having to provide a picture ID to vote.
Perhaps we could agree to do it in the future - say as of the 2016 election.
Sent it away and got the passport in a few weeks. It was a completely painless process.
That is what some of these voter laws are calling for now...
ID's that are the equivalent of a US passport.
Painless maybe, but overly complicated and time consuming
Will everyone know they had to do all that in order to vote,
and will everyone have started the process in time to vote ?
Not likely, and that's what the Republican legislatures are counting on.
What indication is there that getting necessary paperwork is more difficult for a Democrat than a Republican?
How does this necessitate the big "racism" elephant in the room?
I am not seeing the connection here.
I would guess that the reason this law is suggested to benefit Republicans is that minorities and the poor are less likely to have photo ID's and are more likely to vote Democratic.
Why?
Photo ID's can be costly, time consuming, and sometimes difficult to obtain. Even more so for women.
For example, I cannot renew my driver's license unless I can obtain a copy of my marriage certificate from 30 years ago. I don't even remember where I got married, we did it spur of the moment while on a road trip. The originals are long lost during around-the-world moves. He and I divorced decades ago, but I have to recreate a document trail. So let's assume I know right where to get it, the cost is usually $20 or so for a copy. Then I have to get a copy of the divorce decree as well (but at least I know where to find that one). That's another $20. A certified copy of my birth certificate is $50. There you have $90...and for what? I need a driver's license, but what about grandma? Or an unemployed person who lost their home? Or a student who has recently moved? Are they going to go through the expense and time and effort just to VOTE? :eek:
The NY Times today has a 4-page article about a man who investigated Fannie Mae
on his own and found abuses and illegal procedures long before the housing crisis.
There is a lot of repetition in the article, but the gist seems to be that
"mortage servicing companies" were playing lose and fast (an illegally) with their duties and responsibilities.
Investigations by this man and others were given to Fannie Mae, but it is unclear
that the contents of the reports made their way up to the Board of Directors.
It's an interesting read...
NY Times
GRETCHEN MORGENSON
February 4, 2012
A Mortgage Tornado Warning, Unheeded
YEARS before the housing bust — before all those home loans turned sour
and millions of Americans faced foreclosure — a wealthy businessman in Florida set out
to blow the whistle on the mortgage game.
His name is Nye Lavalle, and he first came to attention not in finance but in sports and advertising.
He turned heads in marketing circles by correctly predicting that Nascar and figure skating
would draw huge followings in the 1990s.
But after losing a family home to foreclosure, under what he thought were fishy circumstances,
Mr. Lavalle, founder of a consulting firm called the Sports Marketing Group,
began a new life as a mortgage sleuth. In 2003, when home prices were flying high,
he compiled a dossier of improprieties on one of the giants of the business, Fannie Mae.
In hindsight, what he found looks like a blueprint of today’s foreclosure crisis. Even then, Mr. Lavalle discovered,
some loan-servicing companies that worked for Fannie Mae routinely filed false foreclosure documents,
not unlike the fraudulent paperwork that has since made “robo-signing” a household term.
Even then, he found, the nation’s electronic mortgage registry was playing fast and loose with the law
— something that courts have belatedly recognized, too
<snip>
This is one more reason Libertarian politics ultimately just don't work ...IRL :greenface
CBS
February 3, 2012 5:42 PM
Raw Milk Popular In Maryland Despite Being Illegal
WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — The four Maryland residents who became ill
after consuming raw milk have cast a spotlight on the growing popularity the unpasteurized product.
Proponents of raw milk sing its praises despite strong warnings
from public health officials about the potential danger drinking it.
Even presidential candidate Ron Paul has joined the cause of consumers
looking to buy unprocessed “real foods” straight from the farm,
saying government shouldn’t deny them that choice.
Sale of raw milk is prohibited in Maryland, but those seeking its health benefit
make the pilgrimage to Pennsylvania in order to legally purchase it.
An outbreak of campylobacter illness is a reminder of the potential hazards, however.
Raw milk from a dairy in Pennsylvania is now linked to 38 cases in four states,
and the farm has temporarily suspended sales.
Campylobacter can cause diarrhea, cramping, abdominal pain, and fever
and can be life-threatening if it spreads to the bloodstream.
So Obama,,, what have you done for me lately ????
NY Times
By SHAILA DEWAN and NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
2/5/12
Deal Is Closer for a U.S. Plan on Mortgage Relief
<snip>California has been focused on measures that would benefit individual homeowners, while
New York has been most interested in preserving its ability to investigate the root causes of the financial collapse.
<snip>
The biggest remaining holdout, California, has returned to the negotiating table
after a four-month absence, a change of heart that could increase the pot for mortgage relief
nationwide to $25 billion from $19 billion.
Another important potential backer, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York,
has also signaled that he sees progress on provisions that prevented him from supporting it in the past.
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The settlement would require banks to provide billions of dollars in aid to homeowners
who have lost their homes to foreclosure or who are still at risk, after years of failed attempts
by the White House and other government officials to alter the behavior of the biggest banks.
[/COLOR]
The banks — led by the five biggest mortgage servicers, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase,
Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial — want to settle an investigation into abuses
set off in 2010 by evidence that [COLOR="DarkRed"]they foreclosed on borrowers with only a cursory examination
of the relevant documents, a practice known as robo-signing.
Four million families have lost their homes to foreclosure since the beginning of 2007.[/COLOR]
<snip>
The backers of the latest deal insist their plan has more teeth,
with a powerful outside monitor to oversee enforcement and heavy monetary penalties
if banks fail to live up to commitments.
<snip>
The banks - snip - want to settle
Shock!
The backers of the latest deal insist their plan has more teeth
sure ... I'll believe that when it happens. I'm sure the election year has nothing to do with this diversion...
Oh, and how many convictions of their executives so far?
Shock!
sure ... I'll believe that when it happens. I'm sure the election year has nothing to do with this diversion...
Oh, and how many convictions of their executives so far?
Oh, tel un cynique ! ;)
.
This is one more reason Libertarian politics ultimately just don't work ...IRL :greenface
I obviously disagree. I drink raw milk and consume homemade yogurt and cheese made from it daily. I do not however buy it from a dairy using the same unsanitary practices as pasteurized homogenized producers. Raw milk cheeses are very popular in France, a place where people actually like actual food. Libertarianism is about taking personal responsibility rather than passing responsibility off on the corporate/government syndicate that controls much of our food production.
One round of cheddar right out of the cellar and the refrigerator stocked with raw milk, homegrown/made eggs, apple sauce, yogurt, cheese and local turkey.
I obviously disagree. I drink raw milk and consume homemade yogurt and cheese made from it daily. I do not however buy it from a dairy using the same unsanitary practices as pasteurized homogenized producers. Raw milk cheeses are very popular in France, a place where people actually like actual food. [COLOR="DarkRed"]Libertarianism is about taking personal responsibility rather than passing responsibility off on the corporate/government syndicate that controls much of our food production.
[/COLOR]
One round of cheddar right out of the cellar and the refrigerator stocked with raw milk, homegrown/made eggs, apple sauce, yogurt, cheese and local turkey.
(The issue in this specific case is milk; not cheese, not eggs, not other)
Prey tell, how does the consumer take responsibility for the quality of milk they purchase ?
The farmer in Pennsylvania that produced this batch of tainted raw milk was devastated,
wrote a letter of apology to his customers, and offered a refund on the milk they had purchased.
Maybe this farmer took responsibility, and may end up losing his business.
..Still 40+ other people became ill in PA and surrounding states in the first round of infections.
Camplylobacter is infectious (diarrhea) so there well could be a others.
Do you propose those all those primary and secondary infections also take responsibility onto themselves ?
I have absolutely no issue with you (or anyone) disagreeing with me on self-responsibility for themself (only).
I do have issue with it when it can not extend far enough to protect others.
.
Prey tell, how does the consumer take responsibility for the quality of milk they purchase ? [COLOR="Red"]Purchase it from a farmer whose operation you can inspect and take your chances.[/COLOR]
The farmer in Pennsylvania that produced this batch of tainted raw milk was devastated,
wrote a letter of apology to his customers, and offered a refund on the milk they had purchased.
Maybe this farmer took responsibility, and may end up losing his business. [COLOR="Red"]His choice which he has paid for.[/COLOR]
..Still 40+ other people became ill in PA and surrounding states in the first round of infections.
Camplylobacter is infectious (diarrhea) so there well could be a others.
Do you propose those all those primary and secondary infections also take responsibility onto themselves ? [COLOR="Red"]The primary infections already have. Any secondary infections would only be the result of failure to take universal precautions.[/COLOR]
I have absolutely no issue with you (or anyone) disagreeing with me on self-responsibility for themself (only). [COLOR="Red"]So you agree that raw milk should be available to those of us who prefer it?[/COLOR]
I do have issue with it when it can not extend far enough to protect others. [COLOR="Red"]... or not.[/COLOR]
.
Massive outbreak of antimicrobial-resistant salmonellosis traced to pasteurized milk.
Ryan CA, Nickels MK, Hargrett-Bean NT, Potter ME, Endo T, Mayer L, Langkop CW, Gibson C, McDonald RC, Kenney RT, et al.
Source
Division of Bacterial Diseases, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA 30333.
Abstract
Two waves of antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella typhimurium infections in Illinois totaling over 16 000 culture-confirmed cases were traced to two brands of pasteurized 2% milk produced by a single dairy plant. Salmonellosis was associated with taking antimicrobials before onset of illness. Two surveys to determine the number of persons who were actually affected yielded estimates of 168 791 and 197 581 persons, making this the largest outbreak of salmonellosis ever identified in the United States. The epidemic strain was easily identified because it had a rare antimicrobial resistance pattern and a highly unusual plasmid profile; study of stored isolates showed it had caused clusters of salmonellosis during the previous ten months that may have been related to the same plant, suggesting that the strain had persisted in the plant and repeatedly contaminated milk after pasteurization.
PMID:
3316720
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
[COLOR="Red"]Maybe we should just ban pasteurized milk as well?[/COLOR]
I understand your concern, but you are attacking people's life choices. Some of us are not excited by the idea of a supposedly risk free world bought by a simple exchange of personal liberty/choice. To me, it is very much the same as the War on Terror, there is always a cost for a nominal increase in safety. In this case, we create a (n awful tasting) biological blank slate which, given opportunity, salmonella easily inhabits. This kind of stuff is why rural America votes Republican, despite Democratic protestations that it is against their interests. The left does not understand what other people value or simply dismiss those values as not rational.
or I could be completely off base. ;)
There are two key phrases being overlooked in the above report summary:
"a single dairy plant" and "the strain had persisted in the plant
and repeatedly contaminated milk [COLOR="DarkRed"]after[/COLOR] pasteurization"
Generally, I would suggest the "after" means "after", not "despite" or "resistant to" pasteurization.
A follow up of that report would be interesting to see if they identified a specific source or procedure that failed.
I quibble with that idea of secondary infections would be due to "failure of universal precautions".
Universal precautions (to me) are hospital procedures.
In the "raw milk" story, such infections could be family members, school mates, etc. and occur before the "primaries" are apparent.
I frown on, but would not prohibit, a family from milking their own goats, cows, etc
for exclusive use of their own family because I assume parents will look
to the best interests of their own children.
But a business has other motivations and selling such a product risks the spread of disease into the public,
even more so if one is advocating NO government oversight such as inspections, testing, etc.
I didn't over look that a single dairy plant had 16,000 proven and between 168,791 and 197,581 actual cases, much as you didn't overlook that this single farm caused 40+cases. Increased scale/consolidation is one of those unintended consequences which advocates of regulation tend to ignore. I also didn't ignore that this occurred after pasteurization much as meat can easily be contaminated after being radiated. The once sterile food gives a false idea of security leading to less care in final packaging.
Universal precautions are SOP in schools and day cares.
Even you admit that the farm in question is essentially out of business, so the profit over people line of thought is nonsense. Small farms (which are regulated btw) are not like Cargil they can't just switch plants when things go bad. I never said no oversight, but we could argue about the best way to do that when I'm not so tired.
I frown on feel good bans that limit what others can do.
<snip>I frown on feel good bans that limit what others can do.
Agreed... Peace
When enough people get sick from these farms, even those democrat despising republicans will be clamoring for regulations/bans.
Oh, I don't know, there was no clamor to ban spinach or Jack-in-the-Box when they were killing people.
[size=1]Highfructosecornsyrup.[/size]
[size=1]Highfructosecornsyrup.[/size]
...from my cold dead bloated hand.
I understand your concern, but you are attacking people's life choices. Some of us are not excited by the idea of a supposedly risk free world bought by a simple exchange of personal liberty/choice. To me, it is very much the same as the War on Terror, there is always a cost for a nominal increase in safety. In this case, we create a (n awful tasting) biological blank slate which, given opportunity, salmonella easily inhabits. This kind of stuff is why rural America votes Republican, despite Democratic protestations that it is against their interests. The left does not understand what other people value or simply dismiss those values as not rational.
Your choices can and do impact others. When you get sick, you use the healthcare system. This will absolutely have an inflationary impact on me. It will either increase my insurance price, my taxes, or my self-paid healtcare prices.
or I could be completely off base.
I'm with you, Griff. Didn't have time to jump in, but you said everything I could have. I'm Clodfobble, and I approve this message.
Your choices can and do impact others. When you get sick, you use the healthcare system. This will absolutely have an inflationary impact on me. It will either increase my insurance price, my taxes, or my self-paid healtcare prices.
As did the hundreds of thousands who still got sick off of pasteurized products. The missing data point is, next to 40 ill people, how many people are
safely consuming these raw farm products, compared to how many sickened/unsickened mass-factory consumers there are.
Oh, I don't know, there was no clamor to ban spinach or Jack-in-the-Box when they were killing people.
I just posted because regulations/bans are not brought about solely by democrats. Look at bans on gay marriage and the fight to ban abortions or even the the right to work laws which ban union dues.
It's even probable that the fight to ban these types of milk farms are probably being egged on by the big factory dairy farms themselves (repubs, for sure) to discourage competition.
I'm with you, Griff. Didn't have time to jump in, but you said everything I could have.
I'm Clodfobble, and I approve this message.
As did [COLOR="DarkRed"]the hundreds of thousands who still got sick off of pasteurized products[/COLOR].
The missing data point is, next to 40 ill people, how many people are safely consuming these raw farm products,
compared to how many sickened/unsickened mass-factory consumers there are.
Clod, I hope your remark above was exaggeration only for impact... otherwise I call BS.
I realize public health statistics are not convincing to the believers.
But here is a
link that summarizes another link (downloads a pdf)
on disease outbreaks in the U.S. during the past year.
85% of Outbreaks and Illnesses from Milk Products were traced
to Raw Milk or 60-day Aged Raw Milk Cheeses in the Last 18 Months
The details are in the pdf of that download. There is risk in discussing
the numbers of illness cases because cases depend on the size of each dairy's clientele.
Basically the numbers outbreaks are very small (14 raw / 1 pasterized),
but the
numbers of dairies and the
amounts of dairy products are hugely disproportionate.
A Libertarian argument against government intervention denies
the world's history and the impact of pasteurization and vaccination.
It was the futility of such a Libertarian view that was my original point in these posts.
.
Clod, I hope your remark above was exaggeration only for impact... otherwise I call BS.
I was specifically referencing this part from Griff's link:
I didn't over look that a single dairy plant had 16,000 proven and between 168,791 and 197,581 actual cases, much as you didn't overlook that this single farm caused 40+cases.
There is risk in discussing
the numbers of illness cases because cases depend on the size of each dairy's clientele.
This is what I was already saying, when I referred to the "missing data point." The other problem with any debate of this nature is how to factor in the additional effects of pasteurizing products, beyond pathogenic infection.
The human species is dependent on symbiotic relationships with "good" species of bacteria for a number of biological functions, and it may turn out that indiscrimately wiping out bacteria in our lives will eventually cause a species-wide health crisis (say, for example, the skyrocketing rate of autoimmune diseases.)
No one can say for sure what the overall impact of such a policy will be--it may be that we're not as good at killing things as we'd like to believe, and our efforts won't really matter, or it may be that those individuals who depend more on this symbiosis will die out, and the species will evolve to match the new environment we've created.
Regardless, if your argument is really that people should be forcibly protected from making themselves sick, can I assume that you are also in favor of outlawing tobacco, and enforcing government-mandated dietary guidelines for all obese citizens?
<snip>
Regardless, if your argument is really that people should be forcibly protected
from making themselves sick, can I assume that you are also in favor of outlawing tobacco,
and enforcing government-mandated dietary guidelines for all obese citizens?
I start from the premise that some form of government is required for a modern society.
That government should/must do what people cannot or will not do for themselves.
Therefore, government must regulate certain activities in which others will/can/may be harmed.
Thus since not everyone can be a self sufficient farmer, the distribution of
safe
food products to the public is valid regulation by government.
Therefore, the Libertarian premise of no government intervention is doomed to fail.
I do also subscribe to the notion of the most good to the most people.
Therefore, not all people will be happy or unaffected by governmental actions,
and a smaller number may even be negatively affected.
(That's the reason I include vaccinations as a legitimate activity of government ... to protect
the greatest number possible,while doing unavoidable harm to the smallest number possible.
It's also my reason for concern over the current activities fracking for production of natural gas.
For the examples you mention (tobacco and obesity),
the latter is a gray area still open for discussion.
We don't yet know if a better informed public will deal with the problem.
But the former is now clear, the tobacco industry was lying about
the safety of tobacco and making a profit based on that lie,
so government intervention is/was justified.
Likewise, since children cannot make their own decisions,
government legitimately forbids them from certain activities.
Of course, the survivalist way of life would avoid these issues,
but living in modern society does have a cost.
.
For the examples you mention (tobacco and obesity),
the latter is a gray area still open for discussion.
We don't yet know if a better informed public will deal with the problem.
But the former is now clear, the tobacco industry was lying about
the safety of tobacco and making a profit based on that lie,
so government intervention is/was justified.
Government intervention, in the case of tobacco, was suing the tobacco companies for lying, and making them print facts about the deadliness of smoking on their packets. So does that mean you're fine with the sale of raw milk to consumers who specifically prefer it, as long as there is a big Surgeon General's warning on the bottle?
For the record, I'm not in favor of pure Libertarianism as a form of government myself. But it seems really obvious to me that you are cherry-picking examples "in need" of regulation when exponentially larger and more destructive examples are readily available. People who chose to smoke in the past might "deal with the problem," now that they are better informed? People who are obese might "deal with the problem" if only they were aware of the dangers of a high-carb, refined-sugar diet? Honestly?
The Ohio Casinos will not allow smokers to work there. OK.
As far as I know, a 400 pound cheeseburger-monger can.
A raging alcoholic can. (Well NO not on the job.)
Meh. It's easier to single out the 'evil' people than it is single out the 'pure and good' people. Whatever that is.
Ooh, I've got an even better image of an unusual milk dispenser. In Igls, Austria, there is a small dairy farm with a spigot outide. You can bring your own containers and fill them with milk 24 hours a day. I got a picture, but don't have any of the details of the operation.
Neat. Can you find the pic?
Government intervention, in the case of tobacco, was suing the tobacco companies for lying, and making them print facts about the deadliness of smoking on their packets. So does that mean you're fine with the sale of raw milk to consumers who specifically prefer it, as long as there is a big Surgeon General's warning on the bottle?
For the record, I'm not in favor of pure Libertarianism as a form of government myself. But it seems really obvious to me that you are cherry-picking examples "in need" of regulation when exponentially larger and more destructive examples are readily available. People who chose to smoke in the past might "deal with the problem," now that they are better informed? People who are obese might "deal with the problem" if only they were aware of the dangers of a high-carb, refined-sugar diet? Honestly?
In part I believe banning tobacco completely would be similar to what happened in Prohibition.
So a modicum of practicality was to force the labeling of packages
and the extra efforts to diverting young people from starting.
The drug wars are what we got with an outright bans.
I've said before I frown on the sale of raw dairy products because
the layman cannot know the quality or safety of each purchase.
I guess I'm missing the "obvious... and larger and more destructive examples".
Tobacco and obesity were not my original topic... but vaccination was mine.
Is that what you mean about cherry picking ?
For the above "deal with the problem" issues, I'm not certain of your meaning.
In my post, I had in mind that if customers (such as fast food places)
have no information they have no choice or alternatives.
But if the McD's of the world are required to publish such data,
maybe people will use it. I don't know if they will or won't.
Maybe it's too early for more restrictive government intervention, maybe not.
Likewise if school lunches are unhealthy, the timing may be urgent, or not. I don't know.
Is that what you were getting at ?
Neat. Can you find the pic?
Now I'm doubting my memory. I was pretty sure there was a spigot, but now I don't see one. Maybe this is just a storage locker. But it's also possible I saw the door open and there was a spigot inside, and I just don't have a picture of that.
But anyway, here it is. In Europe, they often have barns in the village center like this, and the animals are led out of the village to graze. This barn had cows in it that you could see lined up when the door was open. You can see plenty of evidence of them.
[ATTACH]37221[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]37222[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]37223[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]37224[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]37225[/ATTACH]
Look, Lamplighter, just stop meandering for two seconds and answer a direct question.
I've said before I frown on the sale of raw dairy products because the layman cannot know the quality or safety of each purchase.
Do you support a legal ban on the practice of farms selling raw milk, or is your reaction simply limited to frowning?
I cannot continue any discussion with you until you clearly state how you feel about this topic. One sentence will suffice.
OK, make me king and I'll ban raw milk.
Funny, I was about to come over all regal. Well, I'll do it anyway.
Harken, ye people, for I am King ZenGum, and I give unto you these laws:
You can sell whatever you like, from raw goats' milk to refined sugar, fish oil to cocaine.
You can buy whatever you like. Pay honestly.
You must be honest about what you sell. No sticking "organic" or "pasteurised" labels on things that aren't.
The government will establish certain standards for weights, measures and - here is the tricky bit - certain qualities.
For example, some things have to be done right, such as pasteurisation. The government will establish the appropriate standard, and people who wish to follow this may do so and thus earn the right to add a sticker to their product announcing that their product has been produced according to the standard. This sticker will have a big G.A. for Government Approved, and a picture of a nanny, just to make it clear. Falsely using this sticker will get you smote with great vengance and righteous fury. See rule 3.
But! If you don't want to follow the government standard, you don't have to. Do it your own way, be honest about what you did.
People can buy whichever they prefer.
Cool?
But! If you don't want to follow the government standard, you don't have to. Do it your own way, be honest about what you did.
People can buy whichever they prefer.
Which works in some industries and cannot be done in others. No standard applies to all industries. Some (ie Tobacco, investment bankers, stock brokers) have such bad reputations that heavy government regulation is necessary. Another (ie computer industry) needs almost no regulation due to its history.
Milk must meet standards such as six sigma quality. If any part of that industry repeatedly screws its customers, then the entire industry has earned the necessary regulations. Some industries turn a blind eye to their bad boys. Others do not want regulation and enforce industry standards. Therefore go after their bad boys with a vengeance.
A standard that must apply even to milk. Another industry that earned the regulations it deserves. The amount of regulation required is unique to every industry. What works for one can be completely unacceptable for another.
OK, make me king and I'll ban raw milk.
Then you're a huge hypocrite, unless your second and third edicts as king are to also ban tobacco and high fructose corn syrup. Your Libertarian policy of letting everyone smoke and eat whatever they want even when it's dangerous for them has gone on too long!
Me, I'm gonna vote for King ZenGum. Especially if he's instituting
prima nocta!People can buy whichever they prefer.
Cool?
As long as the same policy applies on uni-gender marriage, abortion, and sex toys.
Then you're a huge hypocrite, unless your second and third edicts as king are to also ban tobacco and high fructose corn syrup. Your Libertarian policy of letting everyone smoke and eat whatever they want even when it's dangerous for them has gone on too long!
Me, I'm gonna vote for King ZenGum. Especially if he's instituting prima nocta!
Ooooww, that hurt.
Frankly I was expecting a whole lot better ...
AND FURTHERMORE, STOP MAKING YOUR KIDS SMOKE CIGARETTES.
Sheesh. You think you'd done learned by now.
Ma and Pa Earth have left the logic building.
Frankly I was expecting a whole lot better ...
I'm not sure why. You keep telling me you don't understand anything I'm saying anyway, how do you know I didn't actually meet your expectations?
It's a simple analogy.
Raw milk = tobacco = high fructose corn syrup.
All three are potentially dangerous, but all three have certain desirable benefits to the people who choose to use them.
I think all three should be legal, with people taking personal responsibility for using them. You think one of them should be banned, but the other two are somehow okay.
Does that make sense?
Clod, why not add cocaine or heroin to that list? What about toxic wormwood absinthe (as opposed to less-toxic proper absinthe)? What about toys made with lead (even labeled)? (maybe you think we SHOULD legalize and regulate those, fine - surely there's SOMETHING you think we shouldn't offer)
I think it's fair to say that everyone draws a line between safety and freedom somewhere. There are, to the vast majority of people, some things whose benefits outweigh their risks, and some whose risks outweigh the benefits. Where raw milk falls on the continuum and where the line should be drawn on the continuum are two separate issues, and there's no reason to expect consensus on EITHER point. It's quite possible that Lamp thinks raw milk is more dangerous than you do, or otherwise not worth the risks over pasteurized milk, and that tobacco or hfcs aren't. I'm not sure it's fair to equate the three out-of-hand.
It's quite possible that Lamp thinks raw milk is more dangerous than you do, or otherwise not worth the risks over pasteurized milk, and that tobacco or hfcs aren't. I'm not sure it's fair to equate the three out-of-hand.
HFCS I'll give you, it's harder for some people to see and acknowledge long-term health effects. But it would be impossible to look at the number of people sickened by contaminated raw milk, compared to the number of people killed each
day by tobacco use, and conclude that raw milk is more dangerous.
why not add cocaine or heroin to that list? What about toxic wormwood absinthe (as opposed to less-toxic proper absinthe)? What about toys made with lead (even labeled)? (maybe you think we SHOULD legalize and regulate those, fine - surely there's SOMETHING you think we shouldn't offer)
I'd be fine with legalizing cocaine and heroin, within the same regulated framework as all other medicines. Many countries have done fine with it. And like Zen said, if there's a demand for wormwood-absinthe, I'm fine with people buying it, as long as it is properly labeled, and those with the certified non-toxic label are held to an agreed-on standard of nontoxicity. There isn't a demand for toys made with lead, but if there were, then sure, label that shit up and down and let people buy it. You can go to any sporting goods store today and buy large quantities of lead in the form of fishing lures, and you can take your kid fishing with them.
The problem is when people
lie about the contents of their products, not when they sell a legitimate product to the people who are informed of the contents and want to buy them anyway. And when people use products to directly harm or otherwise infringe on the rights of others, in which case the full extent of the law should be used against them. Regulation is key, but no, at the moment I can't think of a product that should be banned on its face.
I'd be fine with legalizing cocaine and heroin, within the same regulated framework as all other medicines.
I'm not sure I understand what that means. Really, the only medicine available for recreational use is dextromethorphan and it's not all that fun. How would recreational cocaine and heroin be regulated? would you have to get a prescription? who would write you one? would it be OTC? in that case, aside from ensuring purity of content and responsibility of outcomes, are there ANY practical "regulated framework" to regulate it?
edited to add: more concisely: explain how you think "I" as a potential cocaine customer should legally go about purchasing it.
it's not all that fun.
I don't personally think heroin or cocaine would be that much fun, either. Whether it's fun isn't the point, and I'm not suggesting that it should all be available for recreational use, or over the counter.
I'm thinking about, for example, the Netherlands policy of
heroin-assisted treatment, wherein a doctor (who is regulated) is allowed to prescribe (again, a series of regulations) forms of heroin for patients who for whatever reason are unable to tolerate similar medications such as morphine.
As another example, take radioactive substances--one might argue that there is no possible use for the layman to have with these substances that doesn't also endanger those around him, so they should be banned. Except, again, doctors use them to great effect in cancer treatment, among other things.
As I said, regulation is key. The level of danger indicates the level of regulation required, but banning things outright, especially things that arguably have important benefits that may or may not outweigh the risks (as raw milk does,) is a foolish policy.
You can go to any sporting goods store today and buy large quantities of lead in the form of fishing lures, and you can take your kid fishing with them.
Or you can give your kid lead weights to use to bring his pinewood derby car up to weight and also incorporate as ornamental rocket engines. :cool:
[ATTACH]37237[/ATTACH]
I say bring back DDT.
I'm serious.
Just don't spray it all over the kids.
Kids were fine with DDT, it was the bald eagles who had a hard time with it. Made their egg shells fragile, if you'll recall.
Yabbut, less eagles = less insidious infesting fuckers like bedbugs. ;)
I don't know about your communities but they're spreading like wildfire around here.
Legislators ignore the problem because they don't really hurt anyone, don't spread disease, etc. They might make you go off the deep end trying to get rid of them, though. So mental hospitals will benefit from more patients. It's WIN-WIN. (really, what isn't?)
(I wasn't directing anything at you, Lamp, so I hope I haven't offended you?)
I don't personally think heroin or cocaine would be that much fun, either. Whether it's fun isn't the point, and I'm not suggesting that it should all be available for recreational use, or over the counter.
I'm thinking about, for example, the Netherlands policy of heroin-assisted treatment, wherein a doctor (who is regulated) is allowed to prescribe (again, a series of regulations) forms of heroin for patients who for whatever reason are unable to tolerate similar medications such as morphine.
As another example, take radioactive substances--one might argue that there is no possible use for the layman to have with these substances that doesn't also endanger those around him, so they should be banned. Except, again, doctors use them to great effect in cancer treatment, among other things.
As I said, regulation is key. The level of danger indicates the level of regulation required, but banning things outright, especially things that arguably have important benefits that may or may not outweigh the risks (as raw milk does,) is a foolish policy.
So then maybe (doubtfully, but this is a logical/theoretical argument) Lamp thinks that raw milk should only be available is a doctor thinks you need raw milk because it's the only way you can take calcium because youre allergic to everything else with calcium in it. Maybe he thinks the benefits of being raw are so far outweighed by the risks that it should be
very-nearly banned outright, like heroin would be under laws that allow heroin-assisted treatment. I would just about call that the same as being banned.
I'm personally all for raw milk. I think if you drink raw milk that you can't personally individually convince yourself is safe from squirt to sip, you're an idiot, but I think that if you want it that bad, sure, go for it - and both the distributor and the consumers should be held accountable if that milk is responsible for an outbreak of illness. I'm just saying that I can understand the argument that the public safety risks of access to raw milk might, to some people, outweigh any benefits of being raw.
You couldn't pay me to drink that shit. I can't even stand whole milk from the grocery. Might as well drink ice cream with cottage cheese added. ;)
Yabbut, less eagles = less insidious infesting fuckers like bedbugs. ;)
I'd be willing to bring DDT back if it was only sold to licensed pros and had some fairly strict requirements to use. It's the fogging of entire swamps and backyards that caused the problems.
Clod and Griff, do you think raw milk is better than pateurized milk? If so, in what way(s)? Is it safer, tastier, more nutritious?
It tastes a
lot better. According to
this it is more nutritious. YMMV but any food that is cooked/processed loses nutritional value. In terms of safety, pasteurized milk should have less risk of food poisoning. For the mass market consumer eating mega-Agriculture's lowest bottom denominator food stuff pasteurized homogenized milk is fine. I don't want to be in that herd, because I've had better food. I drank raw (cow) milk all while I was growing up and am back on it (goat) now. I've never been sickened by it. You'd be stunned at what a different product fresh milk is from the processed carton stuff.
As Clod alluded to on the other thread, there is an independence component to home produced raw milk which makes this a hot button issue for me. Generally speaking, when political society demands that I be more dependent on their flawed economy I push back. I don't like to be coerced into having others do for me what I can competently do myself. My resistance to mass societies demands makes my way of life more resilient when there are disruptions both personal and global. That is more important to me than fear of sickness.
So then maybe (doubtfully, but this is a logical/theoretical argument) Lamp thinks that raw milk should only be available is a doctor thinks you need raw milk because it's the only way you can take calcium because youre allergic to everything else with calcium in it. Maybe he thinks the benefits of being raw are so far outweighed by the risks that it should be very-nearly banned outright, like heroin would be under laws that allow heroin-assisted treatment. I would just about call that the same as being banned.
Maybe he thinks any of those things... except he said none of them. He is still around, last I checked, we don't have to guess at what he maybe thinks. In contrast to your "maybe" scenarios, he did specifically say that he would outright ban it, not allow it with a doctor's prescription, or subject it to extremely heavy regulation. And again, the risks are known, and quantifiable. We can figure out exactly what percentage of customers do accidentally get sick over the course of time. Whether or not you think those numbers are relatively small or large, if the risks of raw milk outweigh the benefits, then certainly the risks of tobacco outweigh the benefits as well. If you are in favor of banning one, you must logically be in favor of banning the other. All I'm looking for is consistency in the argument.
Clod and Griff, do you think raw milk is better than pateurized milk? If so, in what way(s)? Is it safer, tastier, more nutritious?
The primary difference between raw milk and pasteurized milk is that raw milk contains probiotic bacteria. A thriving probiotic culture in the digestive tract is crucial to digestion, as well as the correct functioning of the immune system. Generally speaking, a serving of raw milk is going to contain more than a trillion CFU (which stands for Colony Forming Unit, it's just a measurement of bacteria quantity.)
In comparison, the average over-the-counter probiotic pill contains a few hundred million CFU, a meaninglessly small number compared to what is already in your body, be it good or bad.
The average yogurt product on the market contains 5 billion CFU per serving, which is better, but not all that impressive.
The good probiotic supplements, stored in the refrigerated section, usually contain anywhere from 8 billion to 25 billion per pill. Better, but still nowhere near as good.
The strongest probiotic on the market today, available only by prescription, is called VSL#3 DS, and it contains 900 billion CFU per packet. It also costs $195 per month if your insurance doesn't cover it. And one glass of raw milk still contains at least twice as much.
What's more, the hundreds of species contained in the raw milk are naturally balanced, they have worked out their own mini-ecology, thriving in synergy with each other. The species in a commercially-available probiotic have been grown in a lab, and usually involve a blend of about 6 species that were grown independently and then mixed in the bottle. The probiotics in raw milk will all be working together to take over your digestive tract's ecology, while the ones in your pill may very well be working against each other to some degree.
For anyone with immune or digestive dysfunction, there is a very good chance that the individual's probiotic colonies are struggling or effectively nonexistent, either as a cause or an effect of the disease. The prescription probiotic I mentioned above was specifically approved by the FDA for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, but there have been anecdotal reports of individuals whose severe food allergies have gone away after they began regularly consuming raw milk, or whose autoimmune conditions improved dramatically, etc. Anyone who isn't in the absolute peak of health could benefit to some degree from the regular ingestion of powerful probiotics, since it only takes one course of antibiotics to kill enough of a person's colonies to allow an opportunistic infection to thrive.
See, now, to me that's just surreal. can't sell unprocessed milk? Seriously?
Just make sure people are aware of the potential risks. We get all sorts of government information about how to handle poultry safely, and how some foods shouldn't be eaten by a pregnant woman, or a young child. So just make that part of the info. Unpasteurised milk may contain whatever it is it might contain. There ya go.
The idea of making it illegal to sell milk from a cow is just bizarre to me. It makes as little sense as the law that prevents me growing a particular plant from seed, drying out its flowers and leaves, burning it and inhaling the smoke.
Now...cigarettes are a different matter. Because they are not the natural product. They are sprayed and blended and refined and have burn accelerators and a whole heap of other chemical components added. I can see a logic in not allowing people to actively create an inherently dangerous substance and then sell it to people for consumption.
Someone wants to grow tobacco, dry it out and try and smoke it? that's back to the milk and the pot and the mushrooms.
Ban milk from the cow? Seriously?
That's practically the definition of modern man.
The argument against "I'm informed, I'll make my own decision and live with the consequences" is that when the shit really hits the fan, and the consequences are horrific, the results get socialized. If a man chooses not to wear a motorcycle helmet, has an accident and is brain dead, guess who pays for his care and supports his family. Health insurance only goes so far, and will fight any distance that it has to go. Same with tobacco use and drinking raw milk (to a much lesser extent). Sometimes it's the taxpayers who pony up, sometimes it's beef and beer fundraisers.
It's even probable that the fight to ban these types of milk farms are probably being egged on by the big factory dairy farms themselves (repubs, for sure) to discourage competition.
Just make sure people are aware of the potential risks. We get all sorts of government information about how to handle poultry safely, and how some foods shouldn't be eaten by a pregnant woman, or a young child. So just make that part of the info. Unpasteurised milk may contain whatever it is it might contain. There ya go.
I think we are into something about how regulation seems to work in the US. It always seems to favor scaled production. Big business wants to sell low quality pasteurized homogenized for its own convenience, now if it can use regulators to eliminate a better quality competitor under the veneer of a small health risk it is a win for the corporations and the nanny staters. When big business isn't on board as in [SIZE="1"]highfructosecornsyrup[/SIZE] there doesn't seem to be much traction.
Ban milk from the cow? Seriously?
That's practically the definition of modern man.
That is just clever writing.
Spexx, yours could be seen as a strong argument against socialized medicine, but you'll notice The Brits have managed both. Which risk factors do we ban? Do we ignore the health benefits of raw dairy when we do the calculus? Do we take action against the obese? Do we tell people not to live in certain risky neighborhoods. Do we ban small economy cars as too unsafe? Do we just ban driving altogether? Its the sort of thing that gets Republicans thinking death panel. I don't think of raw milk as being on the slippery slope. Banning raw milk is off the slope and crashing through the trees.
The argument against "I'm informed, I'll make my own decision and live with the consequences" is that when the shit really hits the fan, and the consequences are horrific, the results get socialized. If a man chooses not to wear a motorcycle helmet, has an accident and is brain dead, guess who pays for his care and supports his family. Health insurance only goes so far, and will fight any distance that it has to go. Same with tobacco use and drinking raw milk (to a much lesser extent). Sometimes it's the taxpayers who pony up, sometimes it's beef and beer fundraisers.
It has mostly been said, but if this resaoning were applied consistently, we'd ban darn near everything. What wasn't banned would be compulsory.
I am content that my tax dollars will help pay for Aliantha's baby's delivery etc, and even her sons' future rugby injuries, since her taxes helped pay for my higher education.
Don't mention that I :rasta: a fair portion of my scholarship. She'll be paying for my emphesyma treatment.
...Spexx, yours could be seen as a strong argument against socialized medicine...
The difference is that in socialized medicine, both sides of the equation are socialized, not just the horrific consequences.
There has to be a line drawn between prohibited and compulsory. While we all probably agree that the consequences of "hold my beer and watch this" activities should be left to Darwinism, there's a lot of grey area.
...toxic wormwood absinthe....
Really, where can you buy that in the US?
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Obama is going to lose big on this in the issue of birth control in Catholic Hospitals as well as damage his public image among a huge voter block (I hope).
Really, where can you buy that in the US?
You (quite rightly, I think) can't, but they do still make it some places in eastern europe.
Obama is going to lose big on this in the issue of birth control in Catholic Hospitals as well as damage his public image among a huge voter block (I hope).
I strongly deny that requiring Catholic employers to pay for insurance for their employees which covers contraceptionand abortion in any way impedes said Catholic employer from practising their religion.
What is going on is that the Catholic employer is trying to FORCE their religion (i.e. anti-abortion stance) on their employees, and THAT is a violation of the employees' right to freely practise THEIR religion which may well allow abortion.
You (quite rightly, I think) can't, but they do still make it some places in eastern europe.
With all do respect, I could give a shit about anything that happens outside of the our economy unless it involves my fellow troops.
I strongly deny that requiring Catholic employers to pay for insurance for their employees which covers contraceptionand abortion in any way impedes said Catholic employer from practising their religion.
What is going on is that the Catholic employer is trying to FORCE their religion (i.e. anti-abortion stance) on their employees, and THAT is a violation of the employees' right to freely practise THEIR religion which may well allow abortion.
Now, now, that is total bull shit.
Those employees have the perfect Right to go anywhere they want to "Peruse happiness", as protected by the Constitution, or they can work somewhere else. If you have ever worked in a place like a Catholic Hospital, and when you sign your contract, you accept the work conditions and those include probation's against "stuff", tow the line or move on.... not really difficult, not illegal, not discriminatory. You sign on the dotted line to do what they want you to do or you move on, not a big deal. You choose to work there under
THEIR conditions or you choose to work somewhere else. Not complicated.
If one of those conditions includes obeying their religious doctrines, it is totally a violation of the employee's freedom of religion. Forcing them to seek employment elsewhere is religious discrimination. QED.
Those employees have the perfect Right to go anywhere they want to "Peruse happiness", as protected by the Constitution, or they can work somewhere else.
More important in America, nobody imposes their religious beliefs on anyone else. Religion is only a relationship between one man and his god. No man ever imposes his religious beliefs on anyone else - not even his employees. Churches do not like such realities. Because it says the church cannot tell others how to think.
Only American civil law is relevant and fundamental here. We also do not ban driving on the Sabbath. That restriction would also make a religious institution nothing more than Satan worshippers. Does your church tell its employees that they cannot drive on the Sabbath? Of course not. Because a church is only an adviser. It has no business imposing its beliefs on anyone.
Obama is going to lose big on this in the issue of birth control in Catholic Hospitals as well as damage his public image among a huge voter block (I hope).
Full page ad in today's Washington Post (this is being seen by most eyes in Congress this morning.)
[ATTACH]37264[/ATTACH]
The Catholic Bishops say it's not about contraceptives !
It's also about gay marriage and loss of control over their flocks.
NY Times
LAURIE GOODSTEIN
February 9, 2012
Bishops Were Prepared for Battle Over Birth Control Coverage
When after much internal debate the Obama administration finally announced
its decision to require religiously affiliated hospitals and universities to cover birth control
in their insurance plans, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops were fully prepared for battle.
Seven months earlier, they had started laying the groundwork for a major new campaign
to combat what they saw as the growing threat to religious liberty,
including the legalization of same-sex marriage.
But the birth control mandate, issued on Jan. 20, was their Pearl Harbor.<snip>
On the day of the decision, bishops across the country posted similarly dire statements on their Web sites,
and at Mass on the following Sundays, priests read the bishops’ letters from their pulpits and wove
the religious freedom theme into their homilies.<snip>
The ruling issued by the Department of Health and Human Services,
said that only religious organizations that primarily employ and serve their co-religionists
would be exempt from the requirement to provide insurance that covers birth control.
[COLOR="Red"]Churches are therefore exempt, but Catholic hospitals, service agencies and colleges are not.
The White House said that 28 states already had such mandates, so this federal rule,
which is part of the health care overhaul just applies the mandate uniformly.[/COLOR]
The Catholic Bishops...
And there are a few hundred of them of them. A drop in the bucket in a country of 100 million active voters.
I'm technically Catholic, and I'm pro contraception. Every Catholic I know is pro contraception. I'm also pro-choice, and about half the Catholics I know are also pro-choice.
Just because the bishops are upset with Obama doesn't mean catholic voters are. And the ones who are, were probably not going to vote for him anyway.
It is not about what they believe they should do personally, it is about the Federal Government forcing a religious group to do something that goes against their belief. What's next? Are they going to tell Jews to eat pork? Get the point?
So do you guys believe that Federal Government should have the power to tell religious organizations that they are required to do something which goes against their belief?
He came out with what he wanted, solidified his base and measured the reaction from the rest.
Now that the polling is telling him to, he will compromise and come off as showing what a leader should.
Listening skills. This is a clear win-win to me.
So do you guys believe that Federal Government should have the power to tell religious organizations that they are required to do something which goes against their belief?
In certain situations yes. Should the federal government ban polygamy? Yes. Should the federal government ban certain extreme aspects of Sharia Law? Yes. Those are hyperboles but I just wanted to make a point that this is not a yes or no answer.
it is about the Federal Government forcing a religious group to do something that goes against their belief.
No. The Feds are forcing the group to fund insurance that allows people to choose to go against the group's belief. The Feds aren't forcing Catholics to use birth control. Each person makes that choice on their own.
It's kind of like the Feds forcing me to pay money that is used to go to war in Iraq. I don't approve of that, but I have to financially support it anyway. I'm sure you can find examples of things you are forced to pay for that go against your beliefs.
And this ISN'T about churches, or about religious people. This is about EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES. The law as it stand will actually PROTECT churches in eight states where, currently, EVEN CHURCHES aren't exempt from having to provide birth control. In those eight states, now they WON'T have to. But a religiously-affiliated private employer, catholic or otherwise, will now be held to the same standard of health insurance coverage as a non-religiously-affiliated private employer.
Should it be legal if a religiously-affiliated school, or hospital, or bookstore, wanted to refuse their services or employment opportunities to Muslims, or to black people, or to gays? I think the vast majority of constitutional scholars would say, no, those are situations where their religious beliefs are outweighed by the civil rights of the customers or employees. This decision, along with Obamacare in general, adds certain basic standards of health insurance to the civil rights afforded to all Americans - including the provision that birth control be offered to all employees.
However, it's just been announced that a senior white house official has stated that the revised policy will allow religious employers to refuse to offer birth control coverage - and that the INSURERS, importantly, WILL still have to offer birth control to those employees of religious employers free of charge. I'm totally okay with that.
Ibs - thanks for the specifics of the compromise to which I eluded.
I didn't see enough to confirm when I posted.
ETA:
The White House will not back off the administration goal to provide increased access to birth control for women,
but it will provide religious institutions additional details on how to comply with the law
I think the POLITICS on this are clearly in obama's favor, but the POLICY, the legal standing, I also think is on his side - and even more so now, assuming that the revised policy does both provide birth control and keep religious employers from having to pay for it.
Agreed - as I said, this will be a win-win-win for him.
He gets the benefit from including birth control, takes away a talking point from the opposition
and further isolates the extremists who continue to complain.
No. The Feds are forcing the group to fund insurance that allows people to choose to go against the group's belief. The Feds aren't forcing Catholics to use birth control. Each person makes that choice on their own.
The entity is the religious organization. It is a violation of the First Amendment. This is not a discussion of what individuals choose to do on their own. The Entity pays for the insurance. The should not have to fund something that goes against their religious belief.
In certain situations yes. Should the federal government ban polygamy? Yes.
But no they don't really or we would not have whole towns that engage in polygamy but we do. That is unenforceable.
Should the federal government ban certain extreme aspects of Sharia Law? Yes.
But they don't, the SCOTUS just shot down the state of Oklahoma from outlawing certain aspects of Sharia Law via state law.
So you examples are actually not holding water.
...and further isolates the extremists who continue to complain.
So people with religious objections to the social programs of the Obama Administration are now "extremists"? Wow.
Giving consumer's the OPTION to purchase birth control is bad how again?
I don't see where this is infringing on a PERSON's religion, in fact I look at it just the opposite way. This should have been done all along.
Somehow you have it that taking away the right of the individual is OK.
Could you explain that to me. Cuz seriously, I don't get it.
Giving consumer's the OPTION to purchase birth control is bad how again?
Not the issue. I am completely in support of birth control and I wish there was a free clinic for just birth control issues.
I don't see where this is infringing on a PERSON's religion, in fact I look at it just the opposite way. This should have been done all along.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Forcing a religious group to do something that goes against their religious principals is preventing them from exercising their right to not participate.
Somehow you have it that taking away the right of the individual is OK.
Could you explain that to me. Cuz seriously, I don't get it.
Are your talking about a persons "Right" to have birth control? Because if you are no such Right exists.
I wish there was a free clinic for just birth control issues.
It's called Planned Parenthood.
But no they don't really or we would not have whole towns that engage in polygamy but we do. That is unenforceable.
But they don't, the SCOTUS just shot down the state of Oklahoma from outlawing certain aspects of Sharia Law via state law.
So you examples are actually not holding water.
Then you can say the same about everything that is banned...
Then you can say the same about everything that is banned...
Not when it comes to what the Constitution says about it's limits on it's ability to regulate religious practice.
It's called Planned Parenthood.
Hey I support them. Just as much as I support groups Right to oppose their beliefs as well. Although I am not sure everyone can get free Birth Control there or more people I know would do so.
[i]The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution
See
Bigelow v. Virginia
I believe (hard for me to totally understand) negates your point. There is a difference between a commercial entity and an individual.
In this case, the hospital IS a commercial entity.
See Bigelow v. Virginia
I believe (hard for me to totally understand) negates your point. There is a difference between a commercial entity and an individual.
In this case, the hospital IS a commercial entity.
I believe most Catholic run hospitals are Not-For-Profit, so, no, they are not a Commercial entity. Different rules apply.
Hmmm... dunno where the line is there.
King Obama's Royal Decree on Catholics
thepeoplescube.com
"I shall not force Catholics to pay for abortion -- for now. But I do order you Catholics to buy insurance. And I order the insurance company to pay for the abortion."
There are two parts to the question of whether or not it's a legitimate infringement of the employer's conscience. The first is whether or not there is EVER a legitimate infringement - and the weight of precedent says, yes, there are things that society can ask of religiously-affiliated public entities like hospitals and schools, even if the religion opposes those demands - again, religious conviction is not considered to legally justify racist hiring policies, or to allow for the selective offering of their services. Then, of course, the question is, where does this issue fall on the continuum of what we as a society (and more importantly, our judiciary) consider acceptable infringements of religious liberty in the name of fair and just application of the law.
In this case, the law says that ALL employer-provided insurance has to cover a certain minimum standard of care. And, as it turns out, even 60% of catholics agree that hospitals and schools and other public institutions, regardless of religious affiliation, should be held to the same standard as any other institution or entity in having to comply with that coverage.
Merc, if a private citizen owning and operating a college or hospital wanted to refuse to comply with that provision based on their personal faith, they would have no legal standing to do so, the same way they would have no legal standing to refuse to serve customers on a racial basis, even if their religion preached segregation. Why should a religiously-affiliated entity be treated differently?
Merc, if a private citizen owning and operating a college or hospital wanted to refuse to comply with that provision based on their personal faith, they would have no legal standing to do so, the same way they would have no legal standing to refuse to serve customers on a racial basis, even if their religion preached segregation. Why should a religiously-affiliated entity be treated differently?
Because they are protected by the Constitution. I guess one could make a case that my religion allows me to pass out crack cocaine because that is my personal faith, but somehow I don't think it will pass mustard.
Because they are protected by the Constitution. I guess one could make a case that my religion allows me to pass out crack cocaine because that is my personal faith, but somehow I don't think it will pass mustard.
I guess that's the question I'm asking. WHAT, exactly, should be protected, and what shouldn't be? should a religious institution be UTTERLY exempt from ALL laws?
You now, you could dodge this whole issue by abolishing this weird arrangement of having the employer provide health insurance. That has a whole bunch of problems with it.
Employer provides money. Employee uses money to buy health insurance from the organisation of their choice, which may include a government system.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/10/1063513/-Justice-Scalia-solves-the-contraception-debate?detail=hide
fairly dense reading - almost entirely supreme court opinion quotes - but one that CLEARLY establishes the constitutionality of the decision, pre-compromise.
I guess that's the question I'm asking. WHAT, exactly, should be protected, and what shouldn't be? should a religious institution be UTTERLY exempt from ALL laws?
Obviously not. And that is the point bluntly stated by Scalia. Religion is only a relationship between one man and his god. That relationship is protected by religious freedom. Any relationship that man has with other people is determined by civil law. Religion cannot restrict or regulate any 'man to man' relationship. Religion cannot be imposed on any other person. Because religion is only a 'man to god' relationship.
Religious freedom: you can talk to and believe anything your god demands. But you cannot impose those beliefs on anyone else. A church imposing church doctrine on anyone else is discriminating based in religion. That is illegal.
Scalia made the point repeatedly. Any relationship between two people is defined by civil laws - not by religion. Unfortunately many give religion liberties it does not deserve.
A church is not a god and is not a religion. The church is only a religious consultant. An advisor. Someone that the individual hires to help him with his 'man to god' relationship.
BTW, this is the same church that said an organ transplant is a mortal sin. Ordered all people to not have organ transplants (after the first organ transplant - a kidney donated to his twin brother). The pope can deny himself a transplant if that is his religion. But the pope cannot impose his beliefs on anyone else - as Scalia notes. Religion must not exist beyond a 'man to god' relationship.
Although I am not sure everyone can get free Birth Control there [at Planned Parenthood] or more people I know would do so.
I know condoms are free for anyone to walk in and grab no questions asked, and I know you can get a prescription on-site for birth control pills, but I don't know if you can get the Pill for free, or if it's just heavily discounted. But I know at a minimum they assume you have no insurance, and the cost is going to be aimed at low-income budgets.
Here's another poser for you (collective you, but mostly people like merc who think the church should be able to opt out): if the catholic church - or their affiliated schools, hospitals, etc - doesn't recognize gay marriages as "marriage", should they still, in states where gay marriage is legal, have to acknowledge the civil compact between a gay employee and their spouse, when it comes to health insurance coverage or other benefits that extend to spouses?
Thats a good one, Ibs. I can respect them choosing not to marry within their religion, but on first thought I would have to say yes they should.
As I said in
my post above, this fight is not about contraception.
It is a power struggle of the Catholic Bishop's Conference.
NY Times
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
February 11, 2012
Bishops Reject White House’s New Plan on Contraception
The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops have rejected a compromise
on birth control coverage that President Obama offered on Friday
and said they would continue to fight the president’s plan to find
a way for employees of Catholic hospitals, universities and service agencies
to receive free contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans,
without direct involvement or financing from the institutions.
The bishops will also renew their call for lawmakers to pass the
“Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,” which would exempt both
insurance providers and purchasers
— and not just those who are religiously affiliated —
from any mandate to cover items of services that is contrary to
either’s “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
I think this says that an insurance company can have religious beliefs or moral convictions.
This argument will be used by corporations to push further their control into the lives of employees 24/7/365.
a compromise on birth control coverage that President Obama offered
There was no compromise offered, money was never
their issue AFAIK.
Ibs got me thinking too...
I wonder if Muslim hospitals be allowed to be run based on Sharia Law?
Sharia law is a red herring. Santorum is more their man.
@ Lamp - huh? I really know nothing about their medical preferences. Just curious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't think the state or Feds should allow religious institutions to decide for us.
Then again, I really don't want the Gov't choosing either. (shrug)
Did you watch Meet the Press this morning.
This is a planned campaign
- "Not Romney"
- "Not Obama"
- Paul is unelectable
- Gingrich is uncontrollable
- Suddenly Santorum has $
[snipped]Here's another poser for you, if the catholic church - or their affiliated schools, hospitals, etc - doesn't recognize gay marriages as "marriage", should they still, in states where gay marriage is legal, have to acknowledge the civil compact between a gay employee and their spouse...
Certainly this poses a problem for American-British same sex unions. In Britain they are accorded spousal status. In America the Brit has to queue separately as an Alien. The union is not legal and not recognised.
And the same worry occurs in case of injury or death overseas. Men who have been together 10, 20+ years (and the rest) with no rights and no say in the life of their loved one.
But of course we're talking about something as ridiculous as marrying your dog, so it doesn't matter.
“Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,”
What about the rights and conscience of the employee?
What about the rights and conscience of the employee?
Can you spell D-E-T-E-R-I-O-R-A-T-I-N-G :)
Several years ago, the Oregon Legislature made Oregon Health Sciences University and Hospitals,
fiscally independent of the Legislature, putting them into competition with other health care providers.
So OHSU elected to become the sole health-care plan (insurer) to their own employees.
Reverberations of conflict of interest are now rumbling in the bowels of "Pill Hill".
.
Think of the precedent. If employer A is allowed to exempt certain things from being covered due to religious beliefs, where does that end?
Bill to allow employer to deny any preventative service
The bill failed, as well it should, but seriously...WTF is wrong with people? Offering coverage is not the same as forcing you to take the effing pills.
I literally had this arguement with an old friend on Facebook yesterday...he said, Obama wants to prevent us from having babies!!
ExCUSE me?
How would YOU go about reducing abortions and preventing unwanted pregnancies? How about we start with eduction and affordable contraception? And I'm not talking about the 5 month waiting list at the health department or braving the demonstrators screaming in your face at Planned Parenthood. I mean, my doctor checks me out, writes a prescription, I get it filled. Then, every month, I go to the pharmacy and pick it up.
Or, like in some places in Europe and in Mexico, buy the damn birth control over the counter without a prescription for pennies, or totally free with a prescription.
But no, that's anti-religion here in the land of the free, home of the brave.
Or, like in some places in Europe and in Mexico, buy the damn birth control over the counter without a prescription for pennies, or totally free with a prescription.
Here, contraception is prescribed by a doctor, but is free of a prescription charge. I get my contraceptive implant free every three years, but pay just over £14 a month to get my anti-deoressants and acid reflux medication.
You can buy unprescribed "morning after" pills over the counter, after a consultation with a pharmacist (who asks questions about protection, chlamydia, AIDs etc) That's comparitively expensive though - £25 last I knew. It's free from sexual health clinics and in certain pharmacies, depending on region and age. Again, the same sexual health questions will be asked.
But no, that's anti-religion here in the land of the free, home of the brave.
Said it before will say it again. America is so full of contradictions. We have a State religion, of which the Queen is Defender. We have far more freedom not to have a religion than you do.
Here's another poser for you (collective you, but mostly people like merc who think the church should be able to opt out): if the catholic church - or their affiliated schools, hospitals, etc - doesn't recognize gay marriages as "marriage", should they still, in states where gay marriage is legal, have to acknowledge the civil compact between a gay employee and their spouse, when it comes to health insurance coverage or other benefits that extend to spouses?
You think I am a poser because I support the church's Right to not pay attention to Obama? Haaaaa.....
Oh, and no, the Church doesn't have to do that because DOMA is still being fought in the courts.
You think I am a poser because I support the church's Right to not pay attention to Obama? Haaaaa.....
Oh, and no, the Church doesn't have to do that because DOMA is still being fought in the courts.
pos·er    [poh-zer]
noun
a question or problem that is puzzling or confusing.
And no, Merc, that's wrong. DOMA only applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. not to institutions. In states where gay marriage is legal, groups operating in those states HAVE to legally acknowledge the marriage in that state. Does that infringe on their religious liberty? Does it infringe on Catholics' religious liberty that insurance benefits to spouses have to be given even if said spouse is a second or third spouse after divorce?
In states where gay marriage is legal, groups operating in those states HAVE to legally acknowledge the marriage in that state.
Not if they work for the Federal Government, they do not have to follow those rules, regardless of what state they work. And it is being challenged in every state in one form or another, for or against.
Does that infringe on their religious liberty?
No.
Does it infringe on Catholics' religious liberty that insurance benefits to spouses have to be given even if said spouse is a second or third spouse after divorce?
Good question. I believe they still provide benefits since the only place I know that you are identified as the second or more wife is in the military. But it does not effect your ability to get benefits. There is a huge difference here when you try to isolate the desire of same sex people to get "married" and the desire of the Federal Government to infringe a rule passed down by the Feds on a Religious organization.
Frankly they just need to change the laws to state all civil unions are subject to the same rules and benefits of a "marriage". Then the radicals who want to tell people who and cannot be married won't get their feelings hurt.
Not if they work for the Federal Government, they do not have to follow those rules, regardless of what state they work. And it is being challenged in every state in one form or another, for or against.
Challenged, and lost, in states like Vermont. And I'm specifically referring to religious institutions like hospitals or schools, not federal institutions.
Good question. I believe they still provide benefits since the only place I know that you are identified as the second or more wife is in the military. But it does not effect your ability to get benefits. There is a huge difference here when you try to isolate the desire of same sex people to get "married" and the desire of the Federal Government to infringe a rule passed down by the Feds on a Religious organization.
but IF the catholic hospital knew you had been divorced, should they LEGALLY be ALLOWED to deny insurance to your new spouse? I say, no, they shouldn't. Because the civil institution of marriage (LIKE the civil institution of defining "basic health care coverage") outweighs the selective and exclusionary definition they use. I think CHURCHES, actual proper CHURCHES, can define marriage, or deny birth control, whatever way they want, and if you work for a CHURCH you surrender your rights to having civil institutions recognized, but if you work for a hospital or a college, your employer should be held to the same civil standards as any other secular institution.
No.
So why is a catholic hospital in Vermont being "forced" to cover gay spouses legitimate, but a catholic hospital being "forced" to cover birth control illegitimate?
Frankly they just need to change the laws to state all civil unions are subject to the same rules and benefits of a "marriage". Then the radicals who want to tell people who and cannot be married won't get their feelings hurt.
I would argue that's another "separate but equal" principle, and unconstitutional unless civil unions were the ONLY institution the government recognized.
but IF the catholic hospital knew you had been divorced, should they LEGALLY be ALLOWED to deny insurance to your new spouse? I say, no, they shouldn't. Because the civil institution of marriage (LIKE the civil institution of defining "basic health care coverage") outweighs the selective and exclusionary definition they use. I think CHURCHES, actual proper CHURCHES, can define marriage, or deny birth control, whatever way they want, and if you work for a CHURCH you surrender your rights to having civil institutions recognized, but if you work for a hospital or a college, your employer should be held to the same civil standards as any other secular institution.
I think you are mixing the issues all up and trying to say they should all be treated as one thing. They can't, issues dealing with same sex marriage and the issue of the Federal Government telling a religious organization what they can and cannot do, or in this case telling them what they must do are completely different. Why? Because that is what the Constitution says. Many of the other issues are really just legal juggling that will drag on for years in the courts, along with Obamacare.
So why is a catholic hospital in Vermont being "forced" to cover gay spouses legitimate, but a catholic hospital being "forced" to cover birth control illegitimate?
The Vermont issue is an issue that deals with States Rights and is local to that state. The other issue deals with the Federal Government telling private religious organization what they must do. Completely different.
I think you are mixing the issues all up and trying to say they should all be treated as one thing. They can't, issues dealing with same sex marriage and the issue of the Federal Government telling a religious organization what they can and cannot do, or in this case telling them what they must do are completely different. Why? Because that is what the Constitution says. Many of the other issues are really just legal juggling that will drag on for years in the courts, along with Obamacare.
All I'm saying is, the catholic church as an example is against both gay marriage and birth control, but to say that one of those things, they HAVE to recognize legally, and the other, they CAN'T be forced to cover like non-religious institutions do.
The Vermont issue is an issue that deals with States Rights and is local to that state. The other issue deals with the Federal Government telling private religious organization what they must do. Completely different.
If it's unconstitutional on first amendment terms at the federal level, it's unconstitutional at the state level. But, okay, switch "gay" to "divorced" in my example. As the law now stands, i believe, employers can't pick and choose which marriages they recognize, even if they're a religious hospital or school or whatever. By your logic, the federal government saying that all marriages count as marriages in Obamacare would be equally illegal and unconstitutional, because that's the fed telling a religious institution that it has to acknowledge divorced-and-remarried marriages against their faith.
Why is including remarried spouses in mandated health care coverage not a breach of the first amendment, but including birth control in mandated health care coverage unconstitutional? By your logic, the federal government saying that all marriages count as marriages in Obamacare would be equally illegal and unconstitutional, because that's the fed telling a religious institution that it has to acknowledge divorced-and-remarried marriages against their faith. Why is including remarried spouses in mandated health care coverage not a breach of the first amendment, but including birth control in mandated health care coverage unconstitutional?
Again, you are mixing things that happen at the state level and the Federal level. It is not a two way street.
The Vermont issue is an issue that deals with States Rights and is local to that state. The other issue deals with the Federal Government telling private religious organization what they must do. Completely different.
Any First Amendment issue that restricts the Federal Government also restricts the states.
Anything that states are not prohibited from doing
by the First Amendment also is not prohibited
by the First Amendment to the Federal Government.
Other parts of the Constitution delineate differences in powers between the state and federal levels, but since the
14th Amendment, if you're making a First Amendment argument, Vermont and federal jurisdictions are both subject.
If you want to say it's OK for Vermont, but not the Federal Government, you'll have to use something other than the First Amendment.
And I don't know what, other than the First Amendment, could be a Constitutional block based on religion.
... if you're making a First Amendment argument, Vermont and federal jurisdictions are both subject.
If you want to say it's OK for Vermont, but not the Federal Government, you'll have to use something other than the First Amendment.
You are late to the party. I am not making those arguments for the gay, divorced, insurance issue. I did not bring them up and don't know if they specifically apply in that case. I am only talking about the BCP issue and what Obama wants the Catholic hospitals to do by the King's edict.
Further, states, Vermont in his case, can't tell the Feds or other states what to do or how to do it. Same goes for the whole issue of civil unions and what various states do about it. It is a red herring in this issue IMHO.
I didn't make any argument that was particular to the gay, divorced, insurance issue. I mentioned Vermont as an example of a state that had already come up, but my point stands if you replace it with a generic state.
A state can't tell the Feds what to do, but if a state can do it, then so can the Feds, as far as the First Amendment is concerned.
And several states already require non-church employers, including Catholic-run hospitals and universities, to cover birth control, exactly as the proposed Federal rule will do.
Again, you are mixing things that happen at the state level and the Federal level. It is not a two way street.
How?
Tonight I watched part of a documentary on the Loving case, which caused the Federal courts to overturn miscegenation laws against interracial marriage. Listening to the opinion of the judges supporting enforcing the law, wrapping prejudice in the name of G-d, and listening to all of the people who were so sure that segregation and miscegenation laws made sense and were G-d approved, showed me how important a role the Federal government plays.
Because each state's citizen is a citizen of the United States. And while rights flow to the states through the 10th Amendment, the core Constitution itself and the 14th Amendment give the Federal government the right to protect the unalienable rights of it's citizens from the states.
I recommend watching The Loving Story on HBO. Listening to all of these people, some obvious jerks but many well meaning, talk about their belief in the inevitability and 'rightness' of these laws, brings so much into focus. Seen through the lens of history, their arguments fall flat, but in that day a majority either believed them or lacked the will to oppose them.
From
here
The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that “ Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
FYI, the
judge's archive page at the Virginia Historical Society makes no mention of the Loving case.
I am fed up with a Christian fundamentalist god always messing with our State and Federal Government. The fact that the concept of separation of Church and State exists proves that god doesn't want the Republicans sneaking in rules about birth control or homosexuality and turning them into laws. This is such major hypocrisy for the "party of less government" that I am astonished. Maintaining the nation's infra-structure and ensuring food and health care for our children is too grievous an oppression by the government, but government mandates on private sexual choices, birth control, abortion, women's rights etc. are perfectly acceptable because that's what god wants. God is horrified by two happily paired off lesbians but indifferent to the suffering of a child. Go figure.
I didn't make any argument that was particular to the gay, divorced, insurance issue.
Nor did I, that's the point.
How?
You can't be that dense.
What one state does at a state level has nothing to do with what happens at a national level. What the Fed does as a mandate has to do with all the states at every level, and in this case it violates the Constitution and Obama lacks the power to do it. If I were my state I would give him the finger and completely ignore the fool.
You can't be that dense.
What one state does at a state level has nothing to do with what happens at a national level. What the Fed does as a mandate has to do with all the states at every level, and in this case it violates the Constitution and Obama lacks the power to do it. If I were my state I would give him the finger and completely ignore the fool.
HOW is it unconstitutional to force religiously-identified private employers to insure birth control, but LEGAL and constitutional to force them to insure, for example, remarried employees?
You have NOT yet answered what the difference is.
HOW is it unconstitutional to force religiously-identified private employers to insure birth control, but LEGAL and constitutional to force them to insure, for example, remarried employees?
You have NOT yet answered what the difference is.
Simple, your example used state court findings which were confined to what the states did. Obama is using the Federal pulpit, which, IMHO and many others, is an unconstitutional mandate. It is really not all that difficult.
I didn't make any argument that was particular to the gay, divorced, insurance issue.
Nor did I, that's the point.
Yes, I got "the point" that you werent talking about the gay, divorced, insurance issue. That's why I said my argument was equally relevant to the birth control issue.
If the First Amendment doesn't block a state from requiring employers to cover birth control, then it doesn't block the Federal Government from requiring employers to cover birth control.
And several states already require non-church employers, including Catholic-run hospitals and universities, to cover birth control, exactly as the proposed Federal rule will do.
Yes, I got "the point" that you werent talking about the gay, divorced, insurance issue. That's why I said my argument was equally relevant to the birth control issue.
If the First Amendment doesn't block a state from requiring employers to cover birth control, then it doesn't block the Federal Government from requiring employers to cover birth control.
And several states already require non-church employers, including Catholic-run hospitals and universities, to cover birth control, exactly as the proposed Federal rule will do.
Again you fail.
It is not about what the states regulate.
It is about what Obama wants to regulate to the states from the Federal pulpit.
BUT THAT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT, MERC. You can be POLITICALLY against it, but you can't say ONE is CONSTITUTIONAL and the other is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. thats not how the first amendment WORKS, merc. Unless it's a tenth-amendment issue - in which case, the religious nature of an employer is irrelevant.
BUT THAT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT, MERC. You can be POLITICALLY against it, but you can't say ONE is CONSTITUTIONAL and the other is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. thats not how the first amendment WORKS, merc. Unless it's a tenth-amendment issue - in which case, the religious nature of an employer is irrelevant.
Why are you shouting. I don't care.
You can't take what is a State's issue and apply it nationally.
Why are you shouting. I don't care.
You can't take what is a State's issue and apply it nationally.
So you're saying that your opposition IS or ISNT about religious liberty?
Are you against it as a 10th amendment, states-rights issue, or a 1st amendment, freedom of religion issue?
... the issue of the Federal Government telling a religious organization what they can and cannot do, or in this case telling them what they must do are completely different. Why? Because that is what the Constitution says.
Where does the Constitution stop the Federal Government from "telling them what they must do"?
Where does the Constitution stop the Federal Government from "telling them what they must do"?
Post 226. The Constitution in it's current form states what the Federal Government cannot do.
What don't you understand about that? It really is not that difficult. You and Ibram are mixing what has happened at the state level and what is happening at the Federal level.
Post 226. The Constitution in it's current form states what the Federal Government cannot do.
What don't you understand about that? It really is not that difficult. You and Ibram are mixing what has happened at the state level and what is happening at the Federal level.
So how is it legal for states to do it, but not for the fed, under the first amendment? the first amendment applies to states too under the 14th amendment.
So how is it legal for states to do it, but not for the fed, under the first amendment? the first amendment applies to states too under the 14th amendment.
In many cases it is a "States Right" issue. You guys are on a merry-go-round. It is quickly becoming no longer important to me if you understand it or not. Believe whatever the hell you want to believe. You are not going to change my mind as to the facts of the Constitutional aspect of this issue and so far you have completely failed to put up a cogent argument which disputes my position. We don't have to agree. Let's see how the courts settle the issue as a final resolution. It is not important to me that you see it my way, really, I just don't care.
Post 226. The Constitution in it's current form states what the Federal Government cannot do.
What don't you understand about that? It really is not that difficult. You and Ibram are mixing what has happened at the state level and what is happening at the Federal level.
If you invoke the First Amendment, as you did in post 226, then you are incorrectly separating the state and Federal level. It applies equally to both.
In many cases it is a "States Right" issue. You guys are on a merry-go-round. It is quickly becoming no longer important to me if you understand it or not. Believe whatever the hell you want to believe. You are not going to change my mind as to the facts of the Constitutional aspect of this issue and so far you have completely failed to put up a cogent argument which disputes my position. We don't have to agree. Let's see how the courts settle the issue as a final resolution. It is not important to me that you see it my way, really, I just don't care.
I know YOU don't care if I understand, but I -do- want to understand your argument. At this point, I only know that you think it's unconstitutional. But again, HOW is it unconstitutional? I feel like you FIRST were arguing it was unconstitutional on religious liberty grounds, in which case it
does not matter if it's a state or the fed, with regards to constitutionality, and then you changed to a states-rights tenth amendment argument.
I know YOU don't care if I understand, but I -do- want to understand your argument. At this point, I only know that you think it's unconstitutional. But again, HOW is it unconstitutional? I feel like you FIRST were arguing it was unconstitutional on religious liberty grounds, in which case it does not matter if it's a state or the fed, with regards to constitutionality, and then you changed to a states-rights tenth amendment argument.
No, you introduced the issue of States Rights issue by trying to compare it to same sex union court battles. Apples and Oranges.
If you invoke the First Amendment, as you did in post 226, then you are incorrectly separating the state and Federal level. It applies equally to both.
Ok, prove it. I never made such an argument about it applying equally to both. They are completely different. One is top down, the other bottom up. I would be glad to watch you show how they are the same. Please cite as you go.
No, you introduced the issue of States Rights issue by trying to compare it to same sex union court battles. Apples and Oranges.
No, I didn't. I didn't compare it to court battles. I asked if in states where it IS legal, you think colleges or charities or hospitals should be able to deny spousal insurance coverage only to gay couples, but provide it to hetero couples? Or rather, I said that as far as I know they ARE required to provide benefits to ALL spouses (or none I suppose), and that they can't pick and choose, even if gay couples violate their beliefs.
I'm still talking ONLY about insurance coverage and ONLY about how it relates to religiously-affiliated institutions.
No, I didn't. I didn't compare it to court battles. I asked if in states where it IS legal, you think colleges or charities or hospitals should be able to deny spousal insurance coverage only to gay couples, but provide it to hetero couples? Or rather, I said that as far as I know they ARE required to provide benefits to ALL spouses (or none I suppose), and that they can't pick and choose, even if gay couples violate their beliefs.
You are beating a dead horse. You specifically ID'd states where this was an issue that had been or is being challenged in various levels of courts. This issue is being challenged at a state level or at least regionally from the point of STATES in-acting laws which then have been challenged in court. This has nothing to do with what Obama did via the FEDERAL government from the top down. I just don't understand what you don't understand about the difference between those processes.
I'm still talking ONLY about insurance coverage and ONLY about how it relates to religiously-affiliated institutions.
See above.... repeatedly.
Unless it's a tenth-amendment issue - in which case, the religious nature of an employer is irrelevant.
Are you saying that they can't be both?
Are you saying that they can't be both?
YES. YES I AM. The first amendment applies to both the fed, and the states. The tenth amendment says that anything not given, as a power, to the federal government, is reserved to the states. How is the FED "infringing religious liberty" unconstitutional, according to you, but the STATES doing it constitutional? If it's unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds, it's unconstitutional no matter whether it's fed or state. If it's unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds, then you're arguing that this and EVERY OTHER provision of Obamacare is illegal (which i'm sure you believe) - but in that case, why is the religious provision MORE unconstitutional? If it isn't MORE unconstitutional, we come back to my original question - why is it okay to infringe on their beliefs about the definition of marriage, when it comes to insurance? And again I want to equate, in this instance, the gay marriage controversy with the catholic church's non-recognition of remarried couples.
YES. YES I AM. The first amendment applies to both the fed, and the states. The tenth amendment says that anything not given, as a power, to the federal government, is reserved to the states. How is the FED "infringing religious liberty" unconstitutional, according to you, but the STATES doing it constitutional? If it's unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds, it's unconstitutional no matter whether it's fed or state. If it's unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds, then you're arguing that this and EVERY OTHER provision of Obamacare is illegal (which i'm sure you believe) - but in that case, why is the religious provision MORE unconstitutional? If it isn't MORE unconstitutional, we come back to my original question - why is it okay to infringe on their beliefs about the definition of marriage, when it comes to insurance? And again I want to equate, in this instance, the gay marriage controversy with the catholic church's non-recognition of remarried couples.
The issue is one of what the States are doing vs. what the Federal Government wants individual businesses to do. You are completely and repeatedly mixing the issues. The are not the same even though they may have similar issues with Constitutionality.
Oh, and I do think Obamacare is a whole other set of issues and problems as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid foisted it on the American people, on both constitutional grounds as well as numerous other areas where there are problems with it. But as Pelosi said, we had to pass it to see what was in it.... We will just have to see what the SCOTUS has to say about the numerous lawsuits that they are going to have to deal with over the next year.
The issue is one of what the States are doing vs. what the Federal Government wants individual businesses to do. You are completely and repeatedly mixing the issues. The are not the same even though they may have similar issues with Constitutionality.
WHICH issue? The issue of birth control coverage, but NOT Obamacare more widely?
WHICH issue? The issue of birth control coverage, but NOT Obamacare more widely?
You are mixing the issue of gay marriage and the most recent issue of King Obama's edict of mandated BCP coverage. Obamacare is a THIRD issue you recently dragged in...
Ok, look at it like this..
There are issues concerning the BCP edict by King Obama which involve a number of Amendments as well as Section 2 of the constitution. It was MHO that it at least violated the First Amendment. There may be an argument that Obama does not have an enumerated power to even make such an edict. We will have have to see where it goes from here. But to drag the issue of Gay Marriage and now Obamacare into it will not allow you to see the BCP issue more clearly. Each one will be measured differently and alone.
You are mixing the issue of gay marriage and the most recent issue of King Obama's edict of mandated BCP coverage. Obamacare is a THIRD issue you recently dragged in...
Mandated birth control is PART OF Obamacare. That's why it's being talked about at all. To separate Obamacare from the birth control debate reveals your ignorance on the topic.
But, okay. If we IGNORE GAY MARRIAGE, if you honestly don't see how they are parallel legal arguments, let's talk about divorced and then remarried people.
The catholic church does not believe in birth control.
The catholic church does not believe in divorce.
You posit: catholic-affiliated organizations should not have to insure birth control.
I ask: should catholic-affiliated organizations have to insure remarried spouses?
Mandated birth control is PART OF Obamacare. That's why it's being talked about at all. To separate Obamacare from the birth control debate reveals your ignorance on the topic.
Really? My ignorance? Don't be a little bitch if you want to discuss this issue with adults. You fail on so many levels. If it was part of the original Bill he would not have had to come out and make an edict about it, the issue would have been inherent in the writing of the original Bill. But what Obamacare did do was give powers to the HHSS to make such edicts. Which is another huge problem with Obamacare.
But, okay. If we IGNORE GAY MARRIAGE, if you honestly don't see how they are parallel legal arguments, let's talk about divorced and then remarried people.
They are completely separate issues, they come from completely different angles and issues.
The catholic church does not believe in birth control.
The catholic church does not believe in divorce.
Sort of, but yea, I give you that much....
You posit: catholic-affiliated organizations should not have to insure birth control.
I ask: should catholic-affiliated organizations have to insure remarried spouses?
Gay marriage and or divorce of anyone is not just an issue of the Catholic Church. The issues have not just been an issue of the Catholic Church.
It just so happens that the Catholic Church has been dealing with the issue head on, but it still is not an issue of just that religion. They happen be the ones dealing with it head on.
Really? My ignorance? Don't be a little bitch if you want to discuss this issue with adults. You fail on so many levels. If it was part of the original Bill he would not have had to come out and make an edict about it, the issue would have been inherent in the writing of the original Bill. But what Obamacare did do was give powers to the HHSS to make such edicts. Which is another huge problem with Obamacare.
Actually, what the bill says is that exemptions to the UNIVERSAL provision IN the text of the bill (that is, the bill says INSURANCE HAS TO INCLUDE BIRTH CONTROL)
can be granted by the executive. Sibelius (with Obama's blessing) decided NOT to EXEMPT religiously-affiliated groups from the provision, but DID exempt churches.
Gay marriage and or divorce of anyone is not just an issue of the Catholic Church. The issues have not just been an issue of the Catholic Church.
It just so happens that the Catholic Church has been dealing with the issue head on, but it still is not an issue of just that religion. They happen be the ones dealing with it head on.
What I'm saying is, Catholics could argue that having to recognize people that were remarried as legal spouses for purposes of insurance is infringing on their right to reject second marriages as illegitimate.
Do you think they should have the right to reject remarried spouses from their health care coverage?This law simply puts the FREEDOM in the hands of the people, NOT the healthcare provider.
Whats the church so worried about?
(insert stats of Catholic women who use BC here)
Next!
Actually, what the bill says is that exemptions to the UNIVERSAL provision IN the text of the bill (that is, the bill says INSURANCE HAS TO INCLUDE BIRTH CONTROL) can be granted by the executive. Sibelius (with Obama's blessing) decided NOT to EXEMPT religiously-affiliated groups from the provision, but DID exempt churches.
Not much different from what I said.
What I'm saying is, Catholics could argue that having to recognize people that were remarried as legal spouses for purposes of insurance is infringing on their right to reject second marriages as illegitimate.
And my point is have they? Is anyone in the Federal government saying they must do this? Or is it just being challenged at the state level and the issue has never come up at a Federal level?
Do you think they should have the right to reject remarried spouses from their health care coverage?
Haven't really thought about it much, guess I just don't care.
Do you think they should have the right to reject remarried spouses from their health care coverage?
Yeh, this kinda pisses me off. Apparently I have to get an annulment now.
Talked to the church about it ... $$$$$$$$ makes it all OK.
This law simply puts the FREEDOM in the hands of the people, NOT the healthcare provider.
Whats the church so worried about?
(insert stats of Catholic women who use BC here)
Next!
Like I said I am not against BC or the governments desire to provide it. I just don't think they have the Constitutional Right to make Religious organizations to go against their beliefs.
I don't think the Church should have EVER had the right to not offer it to patients.
Its the PEOPLE who are being given the choice, as it should be.
I don't think the Church should have EVER had the right to not offer it to patients.
Its the PEOPLE who are being given the choice, as it should be.
No. It is Big Government telling Religious organizations what they MUST provide by Presidential edict. And that goes against everything we stand for. Like I said, let them set up a free BCP stand across the street and give the shit out for free, I would support that, the more people on BC the better, they have no Right or Power to mandate that they have to do it and this action is not supported either by enumerated powers of the Office of the President and is prohibited by the Constitution. It really is black and white. I would guess it will go to the courts.
No. It has been Religious organizations telling Government what they will or won't provide for far too long. They've been hiding behind the "religion" tag and getting the breaks for it.... sorry.
No. It has been Religious organizations telling Government what they will or won't provide for far too long. They've been hiding behind the "religion" tag and getting the breaks for it.... sorry.
:lol2: What do you care about what they do? Your statement is exactly why this government is out of control. What? Now we need someone to come tell us what we have to think, believe and if we don't tow the Obama Marxist Party Line we are going to be dragged to court or off to the gas chamber? Maybe just re-education camps. I think they are going to tell Obama and the rest of them to "fuck off, see you in court".
Not much different from what I said.
I would certainly argue that "presidential edict that churches provide birth control" and "refusal to exempt employers who claim religious affiliation from having to provide birth control like everybody else" are two wildly different things. clearly you disagree.
And my point is have they? Is anyone in the Federal government saying they must do this? Or is it just being challenged at the state level and the issue has never come up at a Federal level?
Please please please explain to me why a first amendment religious liberties question has to be differentiated on state/fed lines?
Also, as far as I know, there is NO challenge to the legitimacy of laws that say that first marriages and second marriages have to be treated equally by employers, either on the state OR federal level - but legally a marriage is a marriage, and if an employer's health care plan says that it includes spouses, that plan has to include ALL legally recognized marriages.
If I understand your point, you are arguing that since marriage (as it relates to insurance SPECIFICALLY) is RECOGNIZED by the federal government, but LICENSED by states, it is completely different from birth control coverage, which is mandated by federal order under Obamacare. Okay, fine. But the first amendment applies EQUALLY to state AND federal laws, and since a religious group can ONLY claim that their religious rights are infringed upon UNDER the first amendment, if
religious liberty is the problem with the regulation, it does not matter if the regulation comes from the federal government or from a state government.
Haven't really thought about it much, guess I just don't care.
But it's the same legal, religious, and constitutional principle. Why do you care very strongly that birth control insurance coverage is a religious liberties question, but don't care at all about whether divorced/remarried spouse insurance coverage is a religious liberties question?
I would certainly argue that "presidential edict that churches provide birth control" and "refusal to exempt employers who claim religious affiliation from having to provide birth control like everybody else" are two wildly different things. clearly you disagree.
It is an end around by Obama, he called it a compromise, it is clearly not in the eye of those who are paying for the insurance and in this case that would be the employer.
Please please please explain to me why a first amendment religious liberties question has to be differentiated on state/fed lines?
In general they are not, what is different is how and under what angle the different things are being challenged and under what umbrella they are being issued as laws or mandated. The marriage issue is being decided at the state level.
Also, as far as I know, there is NO challenge to the legitimacy of laws that say that first marriages and second marriages have to be treated equally by employers, either on the state OR federal level - but legally a marriage is a marriage, and if an employer's health care plan says that it includes spouses, that plan has to include ALL legally recognized marriages.
And I don't see it being challenged as a Constitutional Right.
If I understand your point, you are arguing that since marriage (as it relates to insurance SPECIFICALLY) is RECOGNIZED by the federal government, but LICENSED by states, it is completely different from birth control coverage, which is mandated by federal order under Obamacare. Okay, fine. But the first amendment applies EQUALLY to state AND federal laws, and since a religious group can ONLY claim that their religious rights are infringed upon UNDER the first amendment, if religious liberty is the problem with the regulation, it does not matter if the regulation comes from the federal government or from a state government.
It matters greatly. And in the case of marriage, I don't see anyone challenging it as a First Amendment issue.
But it's the same legal, religious, and constitutional principle. Why do you care very strongly that birth control insurance coverage is a religious liberties question, but don't care at all about whether divorced/remarried spouse insurance coverage is a religious liberties question?
It is not the same when you address it as a states rights issue over a federal mandate, huge difference. I don't think the BCP issue is within the scope of what the feds can tell individual businesses to do. It is not as important to me what individual states choose to do on the marriage issue. It is important to me what the Federal government says we can and cannot do when it seems to be a clear violation of their power.
Irony and coincidence are some of my favorite themes...
Given this discussion THIS week, we also have:
National Condom Week 2012
National condom week will be celebrated during the week of Valentine's Day from February 14 - February 21 in 2012.
Many universities will provide sex education on campus during this week
(National Condom Week originally began at the University of California, Berkeley in the 1970s)
and Planned Parenthood across the country also usually sponsors a number of events
February is also National Condom Month with the goal to provide educational information
through events to such places as high schools, colleges, family planning organizations,
AIDS groups, sexually transmitted disease awareness groups.
If you invoke the First Amendment, as you did in post 226, then you are incorrectly separating the state and Federal level. It applies equally to both.
Ok, prove it. I never made such an argument about it applying equally to both. They are completely different. One is top down, the other bottom up. I would be glad to watch you show how they are the same. Please cite as you go.
Logic 101: If A implies B, then (not B) implies (not A).
According to the
Supreme Court, since the
14th Amendment, the states are prevented from doing anything that the 1st Amendment would prevent the Federal government from doing.
A = The First Amendment prevents the Federal Government from enforcing this rule.
B = The First Amendment prevents the states from enforcing this rule.
Many states require insurance to cover birth control, therefore (not B).
(not B) implies (not A)
Therefore, the First Amendment does NOT prevent the Federal Government from enforcing this rule.
Sorry for the long long long quote-post, but I think this sums up my position pretty well, save the over-the-top slavery rhetoric. Underlines are MY emphasis, Bold is as in article.
There's a basic, historical misunderstanding at the root of modern Republican philosophy. A little fact that seems to get overlooked. It's not their insistence that the road to fascism begins with good health care. It's not even the pretense that President Obama somehow masterminded an economic collapse, bank bailout, and massive deficit weeks, months or years before he came into office. No, the incident that the GOP has let slip is a little more basic.
The South lost. [...]
It's easy to see how employers might be confused, considering all the love being lavished on them by both parties, and with the paeans being sung to them as magical "job creators." And hey, we already pretty much handed over that fourth amendment to them, what with peeing in a cup or being able to fire people because of an old photo on Facebook. Republicans have been busy reinforcing that lesson by insisting that anyone who collects so much as an unemployment check should be subject to any rules they want to set. It's no wonder that the line between handing someone a paycheck, and holding someone's title, should have gotten blurred.
So consider this a primer to the confused American business owners and executives who might have listened just a little to long to all that sweet praise.
As an employer, you have the absolute right to religious freedom. Attend any church, temple, synagogue or reading room you like. Give as you feel obligated. Worship as you please. Place on yourself any restriction in diet, activity or anything else that you feel is in keeping with your beliefs ... but only on yourself. You don't get to impose these restrictions on your employees.
Your employees are separate from you. Not only that, they are equal to you in rights, no matter how unequal you may be in income. You do not get to tell them who to vote for. You do not get to tell them who they can love. You do not get to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to limit their health care.
No matter how strong your personal faith, your employees are not obligated to live according to those beliefs, expressly because they are personal. You may find it frustrating, but your employees have just as much right to their own beliefs as you do to yours, and whether you pay them pittance on an assembly line or six figures as a manager, you have zero right to carve off a slice of their freedom. The direction of the pay arrow has no effect on who gets to dictate to who.
If the government was telling you, as an individual, that you had to use birth control, that would be a violation of your rights. That's not happening. They're just saying that you don't get to make that decision for the people who work for your company. Because, really, you don't own them.
If you're still mad; if you're upset that healthcare has to be funneled through employers at all ... there's a cure for that. It's called "single payer."
Whoops! I thought I popped it in the header. Thanks!
If you're still mad; if you're upset that healthcare has to be funneled through employers at all ... there's a cure for that. It's called "single payer."
I'm not mad, but yes, I am upset that healthcare is funneled through employers.
I was thinking about this again the other day and realized that to me, the idea of health INSURANCE is not the right way to frame the health care debate.
Insurance is a "gamble" that a private company can earn enough in premiums across its customer base to offset the costs of individuals who get ill.
What the left, as well as much of the developed world, has decided is that, well, "insurance" isn't enough. The societal social contract that frames a developed society, to people of my mindset, says that "we care for the sick". We as a society can afford that. We already do for the uninsured who still get care in emergency rooms - but if we build our system of health care to include those costs as part of a broad tax, roughly equivalent to what everyone is already paying in inflated health care costs, and then guarantee at least basic preventative and curative health care to all citizens, in a unified system, health care costs for EVERYONE will go down just on administrative streamlining alone. Instead of a for-profit cost-benefit, health coverage becomes a civil right. We all pay into a BIG insurance pot (either included or separate from income tax) - instead of under Obamacare, into a bunch of separate private mandated insurance pots - and then ALL get out of it what we need.
Personally, I trust a single-payer system staffed by doctors and civil servants to have the best interest of patients in mind more than I trust a for-profit company to do so, and thus I believe that healthcare through employers is just as broken as insurance purchased on the open market.
I think that single-payer is by far the ideal system for health care.
First off, this debate belongs in the Healthcare thread, but ...
I'll play the devil's advocate here ...
include those costs as part of a broad tax, roughly equivalent to what everyone is already paying in inflated health care costs
Do you have any data to back that up?
in a unified system, health care costs for EVERYONE will go down just on administrative streamlining alone.
Virtual impossibility. Perhaps overall, but when those who cannot afford are added, the cost will/must come from others.
Virtual impossibility. Perhaps overall, but when those who cannot afford are added, the cost will/must come from others.
They already do. Caring for an insured person, with both preventative and curative care, reduces health care costs throughout the system, and additionally, in the current system, curative care is already available for all but chronic diseases for the poor and uninsured, ostensibly for free, at great cost to the system. If we include caring for the currently-uninsured under the same umbrella as those that are currently insured, on top of the administrative savings for having one insurance framework to work under as opposed to a wide range of companies to deal with. I'm not saying that the ONLY reason healthcare costs so much more in the US than in the rest of the developed world is that our insurance system is broken, but it's a major driver of increased health care costs in America.
Ibram and Happy Monkey, you speak well. I understand your arguments and analogies. I also agree with your complaints and your conclusions. One way of saying the main reason I'm unhappy with the whole argument about infringing on the religious freedom of .. heh.. an institution? They have freedoms? anyway... it is this.
I feel it is ****** inconsistent for such organizations to claim a religious freedom exemption for one subject and to overlook different subjects that are of comparable importance. Picking and choosing which of your religious sensibilites are offended strikes me as ... insincere.
You gave good examples with marrried versus divorced employees, and with straight versus gay employees. Additionally, claiming to be a religious institution for this topic, but not for other aspects of the law (tax exempt status anyone?) seems just plain opportunistic. It seems insincere.
Logic 101: If A implies B, then (not B) implies (not A).
According to the Supreme Court, since the 14th Amendment, the states are prevented from doing anything that the 1st Amendment would prevent the Federal government from doing.
A = The First Amendment prevents the Federal Government from enforcing this rule.
B = The First Amendment prevents the states from enforcing this rule.
Many states require insurance to cover birth control, therefore (not B).
(not B) implies (not A)
Therefore, the First Amendment does NOT prevent the Federal Government from enforcing this rule.
Religious freedom, Constitutional issue specifically described.
Marriage issue, states issue, marriage not specifically described in the Constitution and not being challenged from that respect.
Pretty clear to me.
The Catholic church receives 2.9 billion in government funding each year.
So just give them 2.9 billion minus the cost of birth control for their employees, and give it directly to their insurance company instead. Problem solved.
...or put that toward the debt and give them nothing.
The Catholic Church is richer than most countries in the world.
They could do with a little less glitz anyway.
My post was explicitly about the birth control rule, and had the cites you requested, and does not make use of any references to marriage.
You respond with some sentence fragments about marriage.
Pretty clear to me.
That makes one of you.
My post was explicitly about the birth control rule, and had the cites you requested, and does not make use of any references to marriage.
Ibby dragged that into the discussion which is where the whole thing ended up before you chimed in. Hence, my responses were about those two issues, repeatedly.
You respond with some sentence fragments about marriage.
That makes one of you.
You came late to the party. So what, are you impotent?
The Catholic church receives 2.9 billion in government funding each year.
So just give them 2.9 billion minus the cost of birth control for their employees, and give it directly to their insurance company instead. Problem solved.
I agree, but the Federal Government does not have the power to do so.
Ibby dragged that into the discussion which is where the whole thing ended up before you chimed in.
And your take on the marriage question was that it was completely different from the birth control question, and you did not want any arguments that referenced marriage to be used in arguments about birth control
Therefore, in my post, I did not mention the marriage question.
And you brought it in anyway.
I agree, but the Federal Government does not have the power to do so.
That is an argument you have yet to support. My post directly addresses that question, and you responded with something about marriage, which you yourself have repeatedly claimed was irrelevant.
And your take on the marriage question was that it was completely different from the birth control question, and you did not want any arguments that referenced marriage to be used in arguments about birth control
Again, read carefully now, I did not bring it into the discussion.
That is an argument you have yet to support. My post directly addresses that question, and you responded with something about marriage, which you yourself have repeatedly claimed was irrelevant.
Read carefully now, you came in late, the issue had already come up and our discussion was fleeting on that issue. And yes it was irrelevant to the discussion because I was talking about the Constitutional issue of religion vs a States Right issue concerning marriage and repeatedly stating they were apple and oranges and not one in the same. Trying to drag terms like "Liberty" into the issue did not focus on my point but attempted to deflect and diffuse it.
OK. We've established that you think marriage and the birth control question are apples and oranges.
We've established that you didn't bring marriage up.
Granting both of those, I made an argument about the birth control question that had no reference to marriage.
Can you address it without referencing marriage?
Two views of government oversight and regulation...
Bloomberg News
Brian Wingfield
March 10, 2012
Post-Fukushima U.S. Nuclear Reactor Rules Questioned Over Cost, Adequacy
The first rules for U.S. reactors imposed in response to last year’s nuclear disaster in Japan
are fueling a debate over the adequacy and cost of the measures.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission yesterday approved three
orders to improve safety at the nation’s 104 operating reactors,
issued following a triple meltdown at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant,
which occurred a year ago this weekend.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]While the NRC’s orders “are necessary to address the major gaps in the nuclear power safety net,”
they “do not go far enough,”[/COLOR] Jim Riccio, a nuclear-energy analyst in Washington
for anti-nuclear group Greenpeace USA, said in an e-mail.
The rules include a requirement for nuclear plants owned by companies
such as Exelon Corp. (EXC) and Entergy Corp. (ETR) to have a plan to indefinitely survive blackouts.
Reactor owners also must have adequate instruments to monitor spent-fuel cooling pools.
Another order calls for older reactors with General Electric Co (GE).-design
containment structures similar to those that failed at Fukushima to have sturdier venting systems
to prevent damage to reactor cores.
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]“We need the NRC to be an industry watchdog, not an industry lapdog,”[/COLOR]
Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts,
the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee,
said in a statement yesterday.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503544_162-503544.html?tag=hdr
CBS News
Sarah B. Boxer
March 9, 2012
Romney: Regulators should make "friends" with business
JACKSON, Miss. - Campaigning in the Deep South,
where he faces tough opposition from more conservative rivals for the GOP nomination,
Mitt Romney is promoting an anti-government regulation theme and
a vision of a new environment in which regulators "see businesses
and enterprises of all kinds as their friends."<snip>
Under a Romney administration, regulations would be "updated and modernized and streamlined," he said, and,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]"I want regulators to see businesses and enterprises of all kinds as their friends,
and to encourage them and to move them along."[/COLOR]
------
"President Obama has aggressively pursued an all-of-the-above energy strategy by approving hundreds of drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico and making millions of acres available for oil and gas development." said Lis Smith, a campaign spokeswoman.
So Obama is or isn't pushing forward with more drilling?
How, specifically has this administration made it now safe to drill in the same location where we just had a major drilling disaster?
"Mitt Romney, on the other hand, would continue tax subsidies for oil and gas companies making ~snip~ that will save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump. " ~snip~ she said.
So what you are saying is that:
Obama wants to end the subsidies which are making fuel affordable for people so they can get to and from work.
Gas companies are still making record profits. Record as in they are the most profitable companies that have ever existed in the history of the world. i don't think they need their subsidies. Just yesterday on Up with Chris Hayes the independent federal regulator of the speculative market estimated that oil speculation, not cost, accounts for almost ALL of the price increase.
Sounds like we need more regulation of speculators to me!
The cost is relative to supply and demand. The speculation is a byproduct of that.
As the demand from China and a few other countries INCREASES and with it, their willingness to pay more, so will we.
Oh, and Chris Hayes can suck it.
Oh, and Chris Hayes can suck it.
Go to hell, the 4-hour Chris Hayes/Melissa Harris-Perry block weekend mornings is the absolute best 4-hour block of programming on TV.
Not in my view, but it's fine for you to have that opinion.
yeah i didnt mean really go to hell. I just REALLY respect and enjoy both of them. get a little defensive. I can't imagine what your problem with them is though? they go to great pains to try to keep the debate reasonable and rational and round-table.
So Obama is or isn't pushing forward with more drilling?
Obama is going to push for more drilling. Alternative energy use is going to quickly grow in the next few decades but that growth will still be less than the global demand for fuel. Fossil fuels will remain our primary source of energy for at least the next 25 years.
How, specifically has this administration made it now safe to drill in the same location where we just had a major drilling disaster?
From what I know about sites like these, precautions can be taken but so much uncertainty exists it is impossible to make a site completely disaster free.
Gas companies are still making record profits. Record as in they are the most profitable companies that have ever existed in the history of the world. i don't think they need their subsidies
This is a complicated issue. If all gas and oil companies are capitalist then I would completely agree with you but unfortunately these subsidized companies need to compete with nationalized companies from China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, etc. That is why only major or merged oil companies exist any more; the investment philosophy is completely different. That is not to say the process isn't corrupt. It is. But capitalist companies might require subsidies in order to make the risky investments that are needed right now.
While some have focused on the "contraception" issue, I've posted previously
that this is a fight by the Council of Bishops that goes far beyond birth control.
But the push back from the public is giving some Bishops concern,
and the thrust of their fight may be changing in more obvious ways.
Reuters
Stephanie Simon
DENVER | Tue Mar 13, 2012
Bishops consider broader focus in birth-control fight
(Reuters) - Facing small but clear signs of discontent within their own ranks,
U.S. Catholic bishops may be poised to rethink their aggressive tactics
for fighting a federal mandate that health insurance plans cover contraception,
according to sources close to influential bishops.
There are no indications that the bishops will drop their fight against the federal mandate.
But dozens of bishops, meeting this week in Washington, are likely to discuss concerns
that their battle against the Obama administration over birth control risks being viewed
by the public as narrow and partisan and thus diminishes the
church's moral authority, the sources said.<snip>
One sign of a coming recalibration: A sweeping statement on religious liberty, now circulating
in draft form, that aims to broaden the bishops' focus far beyond the contraception mandate.
The draft statement, slated to be released soon to a burst of publicity,
condemns an array of local, state and federal policies as violations of religious freedom,
said Martin Nussbaum, a private attorney who has consulted with the bishops.<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Polls have shown that a majority of Americans, including most Catholics,
support President Barack Obama's policy of requiring health insurance plans
to offer free contraception, including sterilization and the morning-after pill.[/COLOR]
<snip>
There are some indications that the bishops would come to negotiations
with more flexibility. Earlier, they called for rescinding the birth-control rule altogether
and for allowing even secular employers to opt out if they had a moral objection.
The Obama administration, however, has made clear
it's not interested in negotiating changes to the policy.
Instead, an administration official said the White House would value input
from the bishops on practical questions such as how to accommodate Catholic institutions
that provide their own insurance and don't want to pay for birth control.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]But such accommodations would not change the bottom line:
"Women will still have access to preventive care that includes contraceptive services,"
the official said, "no matter where they work.[/COLOR]"
The Republicans are right, we don't want any more "activist Judges appointed to the US Supreme Court.
Tell you kids they better return those overdue books to the library.
NY Times
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: April 2, 2012
Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4
vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor,
before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing,
wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials
[/COLOR]who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs,
but also public health and information about gang affiliations.<snip>
.
If it's not the Judiciary who can control the judgments of correctional officials, who is ?:eyebrow:
.
The local populace, who elect the sheriff, and depending on the area may either elect the chief of police, or elect the mayor who appoints the chief of police.
Corporations have essentially won the war to reduce their taxes to zero.
Their next goal is to downgrade governmental regulations to the same endpoint.
The Dept of Agriculture has a mission to foster and the support production and distribution of food,
and so the U.S.D.A. puts that at a higher priority than regulating the quality of that food.
To wit:
NY Times
By RON NIXON
April 4, 2012
Plan to Let Poultry Plants Inspect Birds Is Criticized
WASHINGTON — Federal food safety inspectors said a proposal by the Agriculture Department
o expand a pilot program that allows private companies to take over the inspections at poultry plants
could pose a health risk by allowing contaminated meat to reach customers.
<snip>
In affidavits given to the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group
for government whistle-blowers, several inspectors who work at plants where the pilot program
is in place said the main problem is that they are removed from positions on the assembly line
and put at the end of the line, which makes it impossible for them to spot diseased birds.<snip>
The inspectors also said the Agriculture Department proposal allows poultry plants to speed up
their assembly lines to about 200 birds per minute from 140, hampering any effort to examine birds for defects.
“It’s tough enough when you are trying to examine 140 birds per minute with professional inspectors,”
said Stan Painter, a federal inspector in Crossville, Ala., a small town near Huntsville.
“This proposal makes it impossible.”
And by coincidence, the following article appeared the same day...
NY Times
March 4, 2012
Arsenic in Our Chicken?
Big Ag doesn’t advertise the chemicals it stuffs into animals,
so the scientists conducting these studies figured out a clever way to detect them.
Bird feathers, like human fingernails, accumulate chemicals and drugs
that an animal is exposed to.
So scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Arizona State University examined feather meal
— a poultry byproduct made of feathers.
One study, just published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Environmental Science & Technology,
found that feather meal routinely contained a banned class of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones.
These antibiotics (such as Cipro), are illegal in poultry production because
they can breed antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” that harm humans.
Already, antibiotic-resistant infections kill more Americans annually than AIDS,
according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
The same study also found that one-third of feather-meal samples contained
an antihistamine that is the active ingredient of Benadryl.
The great majority of feather meal contained acetaminophen,
the active ingredient in Tylenol.
And feather-meal samples from China contained an antidepressant that is the active ingredient in Prozac.
Poultry-growing literature has recommended Benadryl to reduce anxiety among chickens,
apparently because stressed chickens have tougher meat and grow more slowly.
Tylenol and Prozac presumably serve the same purpose.<snip>
The other peer-reviewed study, reported in a journal called Science of the Total Environment,
found arsenic in every sample of feather meal tested.
Almost 9 in 10 broiler chickens in the United States had been fed arsenic,
according to a 2011 industry estimate.
Same issue as having Wall Streeters become/work in/for the administration.
You say we need people with working knowledge within the industry, well now you have it. You should be pleased. :rolleyes:
Yet again...
The Oregonian
Lynne Terry
April 30, 2012
Oregon health officials suspect two more illnesses linked to outbreak of raw milk from Wilsonville farm
Oregon health officials suspect two more illnesses are part of
a raw milk outbreak traced nearly three weeks ago to a farm near Wilsonville.
William Keene, senior epidemiologist with Oregon Public Health, said
the two adults had both consumed raw milk from Foundation Farm,
including one person who continued to drink it after being warned about the outbreak.
Keene said one was sickened by campylobacter, the other by cryptosporidium,
making 21 likely cases in the outbreak. Nineteen others were infected with E. coli.
One of the worst foodborne pathogens, E. coli O157:H7 was on rectal swabs
from two of the farm's four cows. Milk and manure from the farm also tested positive for the same bacteria.
State epidemiologists did not test for campylobacter or cryptosporidium
so they don't know for sure that the two new cases are linked to Foundation Farm milk,
but Keene said it's likely.
Cryptosporidium and campylobacter repeatedly turn up in raw milk,
he said, along with other harmful bacteria.
"There is a long list of pathogens that people can get from raw milk," he said.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Four children who drank the milk were hospitalized
with acute kidney failure, which is associated with E. coli O157:H7.
As of Friday, they were still in the hospital, Keene said.[/COLOR]
Two of the patients -- 14 and 13 -- are Portland area middle schoolers. The others are 3 and 1 years old.
A fifth child from Lane County, who drank the milk while visiting relatives in the Portland area, was hospitalized and released.
Foundation Farm, located on five acres in the Stafford area,
had a herd-share operation for a least a year, selling parts of cows to 48 families.
In return, they had regular access to the raw milk.
Brad Salyers, owner of the farm, has not returned calls seeking comment.
He provided Oregon health officials with contact information for the families and advised them of the outbreak.
Health officials also interviewed most of the families.
They were surprised that one person continued to drink the milk even after being advised that it was contaminated.
Keene said the second patient went looking for a new source.
Just under 3 percent of Oregonians drink raw milk, according to a survey by Oregon Public Health.
They tend to be passionate about it, despite public warnings.
"We've documented yet another unfortunate incident where people
missed the boat on one of the great advances in public health
-- pasteurization," Keene said.
"We've documented yet another unfortunate incident where people
missed the boat on one of the great advances in public health
-- pasteurization," Keene said.
Whats this have to do with the Gov't?
...because the standardised, regulated practice of milk pasteurization is a government regulation, i assume?
Washington State is about to make the headlines as one of the most fucked up states in the history of public health....
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/05/04/washington-state-on-track-for-major-pertussis-epidemic/...because the standardised, regulated practice of milk pasteurization is a government regulation, i assume?
I've been reading up on the subject and still think the risk is worth it to me because it is more than balanced by the likely
health and lifestyle benefits. In poisonings per portion it still falls behind deli meats and shellfish. Size of serving plays a factor in all food poisoning cases so people need to use common sense. I don't have firm conclusions about the large scale producers of raw milk products. This is a case where the USDA's ruination of the "organic" label has a real impact. If dairy cattle have enough pasture you avoid a lot of the manure handling and feed issues that are sources of problems.
This argument really illuminates the issue of government over-reach because it is far more than a left vs right or rural vs urban issue. It comes down to choice. From my classroom experiences, I know that people given choices are much happier than people forced to comply. People choosing balance their own needs and values, becoming at the same time more responsible for themselves.
I've been reading up on the subject and still think the risk is worth it to me because it is more than balanced by the likely health and lifestyle benefits. In poisonings per portion it still falls behind deli meats and shellfish. Size of serving plays a factor in all food poisoning cases so people need to use common sense. I don't have firm conclusions about the large scale producers of raw milk products. This is a case where the USDA's ruination of the "organic" label has a real impact. If dairy cattle have enough pasture you avoid a lot of the manure handling and feed issues that are sources of problems.
This argument really illuminates the issue of government over-reach because it is far more than a left vs right or rural vs urban issue. It comes down to choice. From my classroom experiences, I know that people given choices are much happier than people forced to comply. People choosing balance their own needs and values, becoming at the same time more responsible for themselves.
At issue is the fact that the government has to get involved at some point. Until the passage of the Clean Water Act, it was a free-for-all as far as pollution was concerned. We are paying for this today since it is virtually impossible to find completely uncontaminated seafood. This is also something that the consumer cannot do for themselves. It is possible to smell a fish going bad. It is not possible to know if the fish or shellfish came from contaminated waters or if rules about placing them in uncontaminated waters to detox were followed.
We basically allowed a giant 'tragedy of the commons' to occur for decades with the air and water that we consume. Even if someone were to eat organic food and drink water from a source miles from the nearest city, a blood test would still show trace amounts of compounds in their blood that probably did not exist 100 years ago.
It seems that scientists are constantly reassessing safe exposure levels since the data takes large population samples and decades to quantify. Drinking so much of this at once will kill a person. Being exposed to so much will increase the risk of cancer by such a percentage.
For everything that modern chemistry has given us, it has also made us human guinea pigs.
Bumpity boo ...
New Study Finds CRA 'Clearly' Did Lead To Risky Lending
Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.
But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."
Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.
To satisfy CRA examiners, "flexible" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.
The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.
CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie's and Freddie's so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democratic Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie.
It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to "assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA)." The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.
But they had to loosen underwriting standards to do it. And that's what they did.
"We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals," Fannie Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick beseeched lenders gathered at a banking conference in 2000, just after HUD hiked the mortgage giant's affordable housing quotas to 50% and pressed it to buy more CRA-eligible loans to help meet those new targets. "We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities."
She described "CRA-friendly products" as mortgages with less than "3% down" and "flexible underwriting."
From 2001-2007, Fannie and Freddie bought roughly half of all CRA home loans, most carrying subprime features.
Read More All done with gov't support and insistence.
Serving up one big fat mortgage crisis!
The litigious behavior of Monsanto is well publicized,
including a TV documentary about them suing farmers for plants growing
in their fields from seeds that blew in from neighboring farm(s).
NY Times
ANDREW POLLACK
Published: February 15, 2013
Farmer’s Supreme Court Challenge Puts Monsanto Patents at Risk
<snip>At stake in Mr. Bowman’s case is whether patents on seeds
— or other things that can self-replicate —
extend beyond the first generation of the products.<snip>
The decision might also apply to live vaccines, cell lines and DNA used
for research or medical treatment, and some types of nanotechnology.
Mr. Bowman’s main defense is patent exhaustion
— the concept that once a patented object is sold,
the patent holder loses control over how it is used.
<snip>
The Supreme Court affirmed this principle most recently in a 2008 case
involving Intel computer chips containing patented technology licensed from LG Electronics.
The court ruled that once Intel sold the chips to computer manufacturers,
LG’s rights were exhausted and LG could not control how the manufacturers used the chips in their machines.
Mr. Bowman said that for his main soybean crop, he honored Monsanto’s agreement,
buying new seeds each year containing the Roundup Ready gene,
which makes the plants immune to the herbicide Roundup.
That technology is hugely popular, used in more than 90 percent of the nation’s soybeans,
because it allows farmers to spray fields to kill weeds without hurting the crop.<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]So starting in 1999, he bought commodity soybeans from a grain elevator.
These beans were a mixture of varieties from different farmers, but, not surprisingly,
most of them were Roundup Ready. So Mr. Bowman sprayed Roundup on his late-season crop.[/COLOR]
“All through history we have always been allowed to go to an elevator
and buy commodity grain and plant it,” he said in an interview.
The courts, however, have not agreed. After Monsanto sued Mr. Bowman in 2007,
a district court in Indiana awarded the company more than $84,000.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent cases,
upheld that decision, saying that by planting the seeds Mr. Bowman had created newly infringing articles.
“I was prepared to let them run over me,” Mr. Bowman said, “but I wasn’t getting out of the road.”
Mr Bowman admits to spraying Round Up on his second crop.
But if he had not used it (to his advantage), would he be in a better legal position ?
It is interesting how one sided the legal decisions have been. Farmers are being blocked from saving and using seeds from their own production because neighboring fields "contaminate" their seed with Monsanto genes. Based on a corrupt legal precedent, farmers are being told to change the way humans have fed themselves since pre-history. I can see how farmers who have signed agreements with Monsanto may have lost the right to use their produce but Satan's inability to keep their genes on their fields should not give them power over others.
Farmers are being blocked from saving and using seeds from their own production because neighboring fields "contaminate" their seed with Monsanto genes.
Relevant details are missing in those arguments. Crops grown using Monsanto seeds do not breed 'live' seeds. A fact that accused Monsanto of binding farmers into buying Monsanto seeds every year.
'Monsanto grown' crops do not germinate so that 'Roundup resistant' seeds do not proliferate as weeds. So how does an adjacent farmer use seeds from Monsanto grown crops?
In the example, LG Electronics did not license (regulate) the use of products using their patent by third parties. A Monsanto license may have regulated how their product can and cannot be used. However, third party farmers did not sign a contract. Numerous and missing details.
In a similar case, a homeowner was using electromagnetic radiation on his property to light fluorescent bulbs. An adjacent electric company sued claiming he was stealing their property. Is it their property when they fill a homeowner's property with their radiation?
What is covered by patents or 'ownership' is not always obvious under the law. Because details can create a 180 degrees different conclusion. They can fill your house with electromagnetic radiation and you cannot use it?
Soundbyte reasoning implied you can use that radiated power. Add details and the soundbyte is wrong. Same applies to Monsanto's seeds. Topmost 'relevant details' imply facts are missing in "Monsanto verses that farmer".
TW, I snipped out quite a bit from the Times article, but here is one bit of the argument from Montanto:
Monsanto says that a victory for Mr. Bowman would allow farmers
to essentially save seeds from one year’s crop to plant the next year,
eviscerating patent protection.
In Mr. Bowman’s part of Indiana, it says, a single acre of soybeans can
produce enough seeds to plant 26 acres the next year.
Thus, it appears that "live seeds" are produced in these soybean crops.
And, it appears that in the past, Monsanto did not attempt to exercise control
over what happens to crop seeds, once the farmer sold the 1st generation crop.
Monsanto says it must stop infringers to be fair to the large
majority of farmers who do pay to use its technology.
But Monsanto typically exercises no control over soybeans or corn
once farmers sell their harvested crops to grain elevators,
which in turn sell them for animal feed, food processing or industrial use.
I have a friend who says Monsanto is Mephistopheles and his father got sick working for them. I have to agree. About the Mephistopheles part; I don't know why his dad is sick.
BUT! I did work in a steel mill and THEY were HUGE polluters and it cost them LESS to pay the EPA fines than to fix the problem. three-eyed fish anyone?
tw is conflating a previous attempt by Monsanto to introduce a suicide or terminator gene with the facts of this case.
wikiOh. I don't read tw. He's not on ignore or anything but I can't make heads or tails of his posts so I just presume they're a rant against something or body and go balls out and comment without reading.
naughty of me, I know, but a girl can only take so much.
I have a friend who says Monsanto is Mephistopheles
I've always been in favor of the Antichrist motif, myself. I mean, one of the primary "signs" of the Antichrist is that he will claim he can "feed the world," which will propel him to popularity with the masses but we are supposed to recognize as a lie because it cannot be done, implication being that it encroaches on God's power over nature. (Keeping in mind that all this, like the Pope and the rapture and lots of other things, is based on no more than one tiny prophetic phrase and the mythological over-interpretation has been subsequently built around it.)*
But someone at Monsanto has surely got to have a sense of humor. I mean... Mon-santo? "My saint" and/or "My holy one?" I dunno, maybe it's an accident. But I still think they're the Antichrist.
*My favorite end-times scholarly book:
When Time Shall Be No More. There's a whole chapter on the people who thought Ronald Reagan was the Antichrist. It's all really fascinating stuff.
I've always been in favor of the Antichrist motif, myself. I mean, one of the primary "signs" of the Antichrist is that he will claim he can "feed the world," which will propel him to popularity with the masses but we are supposed to recognize as a lie because it cannot be done, implication being that it encroaches on God's power over nature. .
I did not know that. Huh. Live and learn.
Feed the world?
How about water the world?
My spidey senses tell me water is the next oil.
At any rate----my crazy friend posted another video about how our pineal glands are being calcified by loads of stuff but mainly fluoride which is in our water. The vid says fluoride is a toxic substance and it only takes a pea sized bit to poison your pineal gland which is your third eye/intuition/god connection.
god, I love her stuff. She's an amazing theory-nut but MAYBE SHE'S RIGHT! that's what gets me---I think, ya know, L is crazy but (secretly) she may be on to something here. And then I get weirded out for a while then go about my day hoping a meteor won't land upon my head. Or do wish it, depending on my mood.
Don't go activating the pineal gland!
[YOUTUBE]UO-zJs0HxwY[/YOUTUBE]
get into all sorts of problems activating the pineal gland.
The vid says fluoride is a toxic substance and it only takes a pea sized bit to poison your pineal gland which is your third eye/intuition/god connection.
Fluoride is found naturally in some water. People drank and remained healthy. Extremists hype myths - ie the dangers of fluoride - because their audience does not always demand reasons why and numbers. Dangers of fluoride were lies hyped by extremists who campaigned against 'evil Crest toothpaste' and an a devil worship symbol from Procter and Gamble. Intentional lies are obvious. Fears get framed by subjective claims - no numbers.
Salt, calcium, and vitamins are toxic. And are required for health. If using soundbyte reasoning, both statements contradict. Missing is what informed readers immediately need and demand. Underlying reasons why and the numbers. Extremists manipulate the naive because the naive do not demand underlying facts with numbers.
Griff provided necessary details:
Genetic use restriction technology. New information often takes at least three rereads to comprehend. You know it is useful. Each
wiki reread should provide more knowledge.
Lamplighter's article was troubling. Because it does not say why (it was intentionally condensed). Because that abridged article is understood in only one reading. Therefore it reported little that was new or useful. It only introduced new legal confrontations without necessary details. Round Up resistant seeds produced without GURT was a surprise and relevant fact. Such details are important.
Did you understand that fluoride video in one sitting? Then it was woefully insufficient. And probably intentionally misleading to promote hate. If a fluoride video was useful, then you were still learning facts in a third and fourth replay. And have numbers for dangerous fluoride.
Fluoride exists naturally in many water systems. And people are quite healthy. However those towns support fewer dentists. So fluoride must be evil?
BTW, an over active and healthy pineal gland can result in rape by aliens. Be concerned. Calcify that gland to protect yourself.
tell you what else is toxic...tooth decay.
Since water services were deregulated in the UK there's beena lot of divergence between different regions on putting flouride in the water. There was a study some years ago showing the rates of dental caries in children under 12, and how those rates changed with the introduction of flouride to the water supply. With the deregulated water companies, we now also have more recent studies showing rates of dental caries in the child population changing in response to a discontinuation of flouride in the water.
Tdub's right.
I often see the "Fluoride is poison!" hype from a few of my odder FB friends. Often with the "the Nazis used it, too!" add-on.
There have been a number of peer reviewed studies -mostly in China - showing that high levels of fluoride is associated with lower IQ. As well as the large numbers of possible confounding factors in industrial China, the key point is that these fluoride levels are many times higher than those you get from drinking fluoridated tap water.
Salt, water, oxygen ... pretty much everything is bad for you if you have too much. And too little. It's all Goldilocks, folks. Now eat your fluoridated soup.
Just remember Paracelsus: the dose makes the poison.
Fluoridated tap water has indisputably improved dental health in those with access to it. Overdoses of fluoride - not so helpful.
I think one of the big arguments about toxicity rests with the accumulative dose when flouride toothpaste, mouth wash and so forth are taken into account.
Even so, the amount needed to create flouride overdose...you'd basically need to be eating the toothpaste, as I understand it.
This is a more important debate than ever imo, with some of the recent studies seeming to show a causal link between toothdecay and some types of heart disease.
I DID mention she's crazy, right?
but sweet. Very, very sweet. Her face is like sunshine and she smells of pine needles!
It comes from her unsapped and pure precious bodily fluids!
This is a more important debate than ever imo, with some of the recent studies seeming to show a causal link between toothdecay and some types of heart disease.
The link was correlative, not causative. It should be noted that the mouth is just the top end of the alimentary canal. Mouth, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, large intestine: all should be colonized with good bacteria. It is more likely that the set of health conditions that cause an overabundance of bad bacteria in the mouth (say, for example, diet and overall pH of the body) also affect the heart. Fixing the teeth doesn't fix the heart.
Ahh, I misunderstood the reports then. Either that or the reports were hyping up the link. This was something I saw a while back on the BBC News site.
The levels of dental problems in populations with and without fluoridated water, however, is something I have looked at in some detail. Likewise the evidence for and against it being potentially dangerous in terms of fluoride poisoning. Though I can't recall all the details (it's about 4 years ago), I recall my conclusions. I am absolutely in favour of fluoride being added to the water supply.
So Dana wants to put fluoride in everyone's water. Now isn't that just how your typical commie likes to act?
[ATTACH]42902[/ATTACH]
OK... here's a next generation scenario for you:
A baby is born with a lethal genetic disease.
A private US company has identified the gene, synthesized the normal gene,
and owns an FDA-approved method for gene-therapy treatment in humans.
The child's parents sign a licensing agreement and pay the company's fees.
Their child is treated, grows to adult hood, and has children who inherit the man-made (normal) gene.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Question: Do these children and all their subsequent offspring have to
abide by the licensing agreement and pay the company's fees ?
[/COLOR]
.
.
.
.
.
Our current US Supreme Court seems to think so ...
.
<snip>
NY Times
Published: May 13, 2013
Soybeans and the Spirit of Invention
<snip>Farmers who buy Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds have to sign
a license agreement that prohibits them from saving seeds from the crop for replanting.
<snip>
Mr. Bowman bought Roundup Ready seeds for his main crop, and accepted Monsanto’s conditions.
But for his later crop, he sidestepped Monsanto by planting the cheaper seeds from a grain elevator.
The American Soybean Association called his practice “unorthodox.”
[COLOR="DarkRed"]In a unanimous ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled correctly for Monsanto.
[/COLOR]If Mr. Bowman were given the right to make copies of the seeds,
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court, “a patent would plummet in value
after the first sale of the first item containing the invention.”
"Question: Do these children and all their subsequent offspring have to abide by the licensing agreement and pay the company's fees ?"
I say 'no'.
The parents (Joe and Maddy) are the contractees.
The child (John) is the recipient of services (but is NOT a contractee).
John's kids are the benefiters from services (but NOT contractees).
Seems to me: to obligate children (and unborns) to a contract each had no hand in crafting (and had no competency to agree to) is a kind of slavery.
Besides: people are people* and seeds are seeds... :neutral:
*and Soylent Green
That analogy of the kids isn't really the same as the soybean one.
The company made a contract with the parents, so the parents need to keep paying according to the terms of the contract. You can't make a contract with people who aren't born yet, or with babies, so the kid with the man made genes doesn't have to pay, and the kids descended from that kid also don't have to pay. It's the parents/grandparents who have to pay, and when they die, perhaps the company can settle up with the estate, but it ends there.
I'm not really focusing on the "human" scenario above, it's was just to provide
a different framework for thinking about the decisions the current USSC is making.
Yes, analogies are never good devises in a debate.
And it's too easy to say human situations are different.
But, corporations are now people (:eyebrow:), and precedents play such important roles in law.
This whole business of patenting genes started in disease-resistant corn and wheat seeds,
and so control over the new gene technology was placed under control of the US Dept of Agriculture.
This was the precedent.
The grain-company in this Monsanto-decision is selling (mixtures of)
seeds with no preceding contract with Monsanto.
Their customers have no knowledge of the contamination with the patented seeds,
but these customers are now vulnerable to law suits from Monsanto
if they plant all the mixture and Monsanto finds the RoundUp gene in their crop.
IMO, patenting genes needs to be limited to the actual (physical)
substance or material produced by a patenting company,
and it's subsequent reproduction (inheritance) ignored, or simply
factored into the value of the initial batch of the product.
... sort of like bananas going bad on the grocery shelf.
Seems to me: to obligate children (and unborns) to a contract each had no hand in crafting (and had no competency to agree to) is a kind of slavery.
Hmmm...
That sounds like my arguments regarding the children of undocumented (aka illegal) immigrants
;)
That analogy of the kids isn't really the same as the soybean one.
Contracts are irrelevant here. You don't have a contract with A. You make a part on a 3-D printer and sell it to B. You have no relationship to A. And yet you have still violated A's patent.
Same applies to the kids. If the parent's genes are fixed by A's patent, then the kids also owe a royalty payment to A.
Even worse. What happens when cells multiply from your 'fixed' cell. Must you pay A royalties for those newly spawn cells? Yes, according to basic principles of patent law. Those cells contain the intellectual property of A.
Of course, the contract could be written to extend patent rights to your spawned cells and offspring. So now we need a lawyer to negotiate medical treatment.
Or Congress could address this problem by innovating. By establishing new laws to address these new forms of intellectual property. That is what the Constitution created Congress for. Good luck now that so many extremists in Congress want no such protection in the name of no regulations, no government *interfence*, and "we want America to fail".
Without legal changes, human offspring containing the intellectual property of A (repaired genetic mutation) owes royalty payments to A. Any one using that intellectual property (irregardless of any contract) owes A a royalty for using A's intellectual property.
Finally, a major difference between patenting the process by which a gene is fixed verses the actual corrected gene. What exactly is the property that A owns?
It would be interesting to watch the company try to reclaim its property from the kid or grand kid who refuses to pay.
This, at the human level, is not so theoretical...
CNN News
Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
April 17, 2013
Justices at odds over patents for human genes
Washington (CNN) -- It is a case at the intersection of science and finance,
an evolving 21st century dispute that comes down to a simple question:
Should the government allow patents for human genes?
The Supreme Court offered little other than confusion during oral arguments
on Monday on nine patents held by a Utah biotech firm.
Myriad Genetics isolated two related types of biological material, BRCA-1 and BRCA-2,
linked to increased hereditary risk for breast and ovarian cancer.
At issue is whether "products of nature" can be treated the same as "human-made" inventions,
and held as the exclusive intellectual property of individuals and companies.
<snip>
But again, IMO, products reproduced one generation to the next should not carry patent protection.
Seed corn and wheat generally were patented as disease-resistant because
their resistance was multi-gene based upon 1st generation matings of different straits,
and the trait could not be carried into subsequent seed-crops.
If the parent's genes are fixed by A's patent, then the kids also owe a royalty payment to A.
I don't think so. The parents paid for the gene, so the kids are paid for. By the time the kids are ready to reproduce, the patent will probably have expired (20 year term from the date of file) so the grandchildren will be in the public domain. Besides, even if the patent hadn't expired yet by the time the grandkids came along, the company would have to get samples of the grandkids' DNA to prove that they contain their gene. Even if they comb through their trash, it's going to be difficult to prove where that DNA sample came from. The fifth amendment means the kids don't have to give up samples of their DNA against their will.
Besides, if you are the grandkid, and your body contains some proprietery gene that you never consented to, then how can you be expected to pay for it?
"(there’s )a major difference between patenting the process by which a gene is fixed verses the actual corrected gene."
Wholly appropriate to patent the process, but not the gene corrected by the process.
And if the process is the protected (intellectual) property, then the kid and grand kids can't be held obligated to pay squat as none uses the process for profit (each benefited from the process, a benefit paid for by the parents...not very different from the benefit I draw from my car, an object chockablock full of proprietary machines and processes...I pay no royalties cause I draw no direct profit from using someone else's intellectual property, or using the physical expression of that intellectual property).
#
"if you are the grandkid, and your body contains some proprietary gene that you never consented to, then how can you be expected to pay for it?"
Indeed!
Let's say the (corrected) gene itself is rendered a property: at what point does patent law trump self-possession?
And: there's a whole whack of issues regarding 'consent' and 'intent' as well.
I think, even with the current antiquated state of patent/copyright law (versus contract law) it's nowhere as cut and dried as you paint it, tw.
And -- again -- it would be interesting to see the company try to reclaim its property from the kid or grand kids who refuse to pay the royalty.
The parents paid for the gene, so the kids are paid for. By the time the kids are ready to reproduce, the patent will probably have expired (20 year term from the date of file) so the grandchildren will be in the public domain. Besides, even if the patent hadn't expired yet by the time the grandkids came along, the company would have to get samples of the grandkids' DNA to prove that they contain their gene.
The example ignored a 17 year life expectancy for a patent. How facts get obtained was also secondary (since your DNA readily available and left everywhere for others to analyze). The point was about what is owned. What qualifies as a patent. Does not matter what service parents paid for. Did they purchase patent rights? And did they also purchase transfer rights? Those are two completely different purchases.
If company A owns an intellectual property called a gene, then the kids who have that repaired gene can be charged a royalty. Whether that is fair is and will always be completely irrelevant. The law is not fair. The law is legal.
So, can a company own a gene? What exactly is the intellectual property defined by a patent? That is what Congress is for.
If company A has a patent on blue-green steel, then anyone who makes blue-green steel must pay company A even though they have no business relationship (ie contract) with company A. Even if they made blue-green steel by accident. Because the existence of blue-green steel is covered by company A's patent.
Existence of a new (repaired) gene in any person could conceivably result in royalty payments ... if the law permits gene patents. And that is the point. What can be patented must be defined by Congress. Using an LED laser to 'exercise' a cat was once patented. Since then, (if I have it correctly), that exercise method is no longer patentable.
Henry Quick - again - the law is not fair. The law is legal. If that patented gene exists in your body, then company A can demand royalty payments. Patents are that cut and dry ... if genes can be patented. Even if your body created that gene due to genetic mutation or by accident due to a drug interaction. Company A still owns that intellectual property and can demand royalty payments.
And so this question must be answered in carefully and wordy detail. What exactly is the property that A owns?
The computer industry defined superior methods of resolving patent disputes. However Apple (Steve Jobs) has created major new incomes for lawyers and other 'we get rich by subverting innovation' types. Apple quietly collected numerous mobile phone patents, transferred them to a patent holding company (Digitube) which in turn created shell companies (Cliff Island, Hupper Island, etc) to hold those patents. Digitube describes itself as a patent acquisition and licensing company. Others call it a patent troll created by Steve Jobs.
Digitube then demonstrated their purpose in 2011 by suing for intellectual property in Kindle, EVO Design 4G, LG's Revolution and Optimus V, Droid, Lumina 710, Breakout, Blackberry, Galaxy SIII, Xperia 3G, ... virtually every cell phone except Apple's. Digitube also filed a complaint in the Commerce Department's ITC to have all other cell phone (except Apple's) be removed from the market.
Somewhere in murky discussions, Digitube eventually transferred patents to RPX; described as a defensive patent aggregator. A company designed to keep patents out of patent trolls and to protect client companies. In this case, to protect a consortium of LG, Samsung, HTC, Pantech, and Ericsson Sony.
In the computer industry, infringed patents were resolved by companies exchanging patent rights - harming lawyer's incomes. Apple has changed the playing field (laws unchanged) by making patents for mobile phones a rich new market for lawyers and patent trolls.
A consortium of Apple, EMC, Ericsson Sony, Microsoft, and RIM spent $4.5 billion to purchase 6000 Nortel Network patents to keep those patents out of Google's hands. At what point do patents do more harm that good?
Its not just a question of what exactly is defined by a patent. Congress must also address the purpose of a patent. Patent law that once made Silicon Valley innovation so productive has now been used to subvert mobile phone industry growth.
But again, that is why we need a Congress full of moderates. Not so many wacko extremists who make it virtually impossible to resolve patent law questions. Meaning courts will have to write (reinterpret) laws. Always necessary when Congress gets into a wacko extremist mode.
Can a gene be patented? A major question that is also a small part of a larger problem. What exactly can be defined by a patent?
"the law is not fair"
I never said it was, nor did I hint that it was, or that I though it should be.
The Law (and law makers/enforcers) is an ass (and it [and they] should be treated as any surly beast of burden, with a sturdy stick).
#
"If that patented gene exists in your body, then company A can demand royalty payments."
If that gene exists in 'my' body (and I didn't contract to it being there) then good luck, company A, in collecting (my point here: the Law is not to obeyed simply because it 'is' Law).
If that gene exists in 'my' body (and I didn't contract to it being there) then good luck, company A, in collecting (my point here: the Law is not to obeyed simply because it 'is' Law).
Again you have assumed the law is fair. Your assumption made obvious by your reasoning. You have assumed their royalties are not fair because you have no contract. Non-existent contracts are completely irrelevant. You are assuming that is not fair rather than grasping the law.
No contract exists between you and Company A - ever. If you accidentally make blue-green steel, then you are subject to royalty payments to Company A for using 'their' blue-green steel. That always was "cut and dry" patent law. Patent law applies even if no contracts ever existed.
If genes are patentable, then that 'fixed' gene in your body is subject to royalty payments. Does not matter why a gene was fixed. Or even if it was inherited. A patented gene only 'existing' means they can demand royalty payments.
Fortunately we have laws to protect us from others who have contempt for the law.
No, what he is saying is, it doesn't matter what the law is if it can't be enforced.
"Again you have assumed the law is fair"
Nope. Law is a stick, wielded by those motivated by self-interest...nuthin' fair or unfair about it...it just 'is'.
"You have assumed their royalties are not fair because you have no contract.
Nope. Never said anything about the 'fairness' or 'justness' of company A's claim. You should read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.
##
"what he is saying is, it doesn't matter what the law is if it can't be enforced"
What I'm sayin' is, I don’t care what Law says -- enforceable or not -- if said Law presumes 'I' can be enslaved.
##
"Fortunately we have laws to protect us from others who have contempt for the law."
Contempt for Law (and lawmakers/enforcers) is what -- in the context of this thread -- separates 'individual' from 'cog'.
All this Law nonsense dredged up sumthin' from my deep memory that I'll now expand on over in 'my grinded gears'.
No, what he is saying is, it doesn't matter what the law is if it can't be enforced.
But he said,
What I'm sayin' is, I don’t care what Law says -- enforceable or not ...
IOW he does not care what the law says because anarchist beliefs make laws irrelevant. An anarchist principles says personal rights based in personal beliefs supersede laws. That and the resulting contempt for laws is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Topic is patent law and what patent laws says about intellectual property (ie genes) rights. What happens if genes can be patented? Genes in a crop are protected no matter who breeds more sees from that hybrid seed. Or is it the resulting seed that is patented; not the genes?
If I understand it correctly, should you grow crops from that seed and not sell those crops or resulting seeds, then it is legal?
Ohferchristsakes, you keep expounding about what congress should do, and what should or should not be patentable.
We're talking about who pays in the gene case.
*ahem*
That's 'Anarchistic Sociopath' (and for you, that’s MISTER Anarchistic Sociopath).
#
Bruce,
tw is an archetypical 'Lawful Neutral' character...for him, 'LAW' is the sum, the total, the end, the means, the 'reason'.
The quality of 'LAW' is irrelevant to tw: all that matters is that 'LAW' exists and that 'LAW' be obeyed.
For example: my contempt for 'LAW' is, according to tw, irrelevant to the discussion, which, of course, is absurd...if company A lays claim to a gene in me and demands payment, and I refuse to pay, fundamentally, my contempt for 'LAW' is the radix of the soon-to-be war between company A and myself.
*shrug*
I don't expect tw to get this...again: he's Lawful Neutral (and I'm Chaotic Evil)...practically speaking: we -- he and I -- aren't even of the same species.
The quality of 'LAW' is irrelevant to tw: all that matters is that 'LAW' exists and that 'LAW' be obeyed.
I think his point is if you don't obey the law, they have the lawyers/money to make your life shitty, especially if you've got the mortgage/family/job responsibilities. Therefore, 'we the people' should be all over the scumbag politicians to fix the bad laws.
We're talking about who pays in the gene case.
You have completely ignored the fundamental question demonstrated by genes and other patented items.
Can a gene be patented? A major question that is also a small part of a larger problem. What exactly can be defined by a patent?
Instead of complaining, answer the question.
(signed) LN
Yes I have. If you think you can command moi, or anyone else, to address the case of the beans, you don't know beans.
I was participating in the other discussion about patenting human genes, which I find much more compelling, because I can summon my inner child to get all emotional and shit.
Of course, Google now owns that inner child you thought was yours.
I sold my inner child to a sweatshop.
"Can a gene be patented?"
'Can' it be? Probably.
'Should' it be? The answer depends on who you ask.
Does it matter? Not to me. As I say up-thread: not goin' the slave route...don't care if God in Heaven Above points His Fiery Finger of Fate at me and says, 'PAY'.
I say, I own 'me' no matter what patented materials are inside me.
I say, self-possession trumps patent law (and LAW in general) every time.
#
"they have the lawyers/money to make your life shitty"
Sure...so what?
Living is not an exercise in 'fair' (probably the only thing tw and me might agree on).
When the lion is on your ass: defend yourself.
#
"Google now owns that inner child you thought was yours"
HA!
#
"I sold my inner child to a sweatshop."
HA!
I killed and ate mine (raw)
He was yummy.
Cool. Maybe now we can all find an inner adult.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
I sold my inner child to a sweatshop.
And they pawned it. UT now owns you.
i keep my inner child on the outside. the inner adult is the elusive one.
i keep my inner child on the outside. the inner adult is the elusive one.
So UT only owns what your were; not what you are.
The last paragraph in HQ's link:
<snip>
On November 30, 2012, The Supreme Court agreed to hear a second
challenge to the two gene patents held by Myriad.[14]
Oral argument took place on April 15, 2013,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]with a decision expected by the end of the Supreme Court's term in June.[/COLOR]
Pennsylvania judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. has been sentenced to almost three decades in jail after conspiring with private prisons to trade kids for cash.
In this case I'd lean death penalty, let's see how much actual time is served.
http://intellihub.com/2013/05/22/pennsylvania-judge-sentenced-for-28-years-for-selling-kids-to-the-prison-system/#.UZ4EUgrU_wk.facebook
If we are going to have prisons, I don't think mixing in the profit motive is a good idea.
In this case I'd lean torture. What he did to those kids is indefensible.:mad2:
I am flabbergasted !!! The earth must have changed it's direction of rotation.
Today, I agreed with US Supreme Court Judge Anthonin Scalia :eek:
The USSC has handed down a 5-4 decision to allow "DNA cheek swabs"
to be taken by police from anyone without a warrant and before
the person has been charged, let alone convicted with a crime.
Scalia voted in the minority.
Ostensibly, the police want to do this to "identify" the person,
but then they use DNA to check a database of previous crimes.
Here are two NY Times editorials opposing and supporting the decision:
DNA and Suspicionless Searches
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
The Supreme Court decision to permit DNA collection from people
who have been charged but not yet convicted severely undermines
fundamental Fourth Amendment principles.
Why the Court Was Right to Allow Cheek Swabs
By AKHIL REED AMAR and NEAL K. KATYAL
In his unusual alliance with three liberal justices,
Antonin Scalia misread the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Sam Alito's parents are so proud.
You seem to be under the impression that we have a 4th amendment.
We gave it up years ago.
[ATTACH]44273[/ATTACH]
I am flabbergasted !!! The earth must have changed it's direction of rotation.
Today, I agreed with US Supreme Court Judge Anthonin Scalia
My response precisely.
When I recovered consciousness, I pondered these two questions:
What will be done with the DNA sample taken from a person under arrest, but who is later released? Will that sample and the name, rank and serial number of the person from whom it was taken be added to the database, along with <NULL> as the entry for crimes committed?
A fingerprint is fairly reliable evidence that the person to whom the print belongs was actually present where the fingerprint was found. DNA is vastly more transportable than a fingerprint. I'm not challenging the validity of DNA/fingerprint evidence, that's a thread's worth all by itself. I'm saying "planting" a fingerprint is very difficult, but "planting" DNA seems trivial. I wonder what finding dna at a crime scene will imply, regardless if it matches the sample taken from a person under arrest. (Now that I think about it, this question has little to do with the recent SCOTUS decision.) I think there are some situations that are pretty unambiguous, like DNA from semen in a vagina. But the advances in technology make getting a legitimate reading from smaller and smaller samples will continue. I heard today that it's possible in some cases to get a DNA reading from a fingerprint. Wow.
You seem to be under the impression that we have a 4th amendment.
In his other job, he is a priest.
Corporations can own genes, so, why can't the powers that be 'caretake' DNA sequences?
Apparently (legally) there's no reason at all why 'they' shouldn't or can't.
I'm lookin' to re-jigger my flesh so as to stymie the ghouls.
#
"What will be done with the DNA sample taken from a person under arrest, but who is later released?"
Best to assume the worst, I think.
That sample will be warehoused/archived along with all other information collected on the individual for use 'at a later date' when the 'proper circumstances arise'.
It's not over til the fat lady sings...
NY Times
July 25, 2013
U.S. Asks Court to Limit Texas on Ballot Rules
<snip>
The new move by the Justice Department relies on a part
of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court left untouched in the Shelby County case.
The court struck down the coverage formula in Section 4 of the law,
which had identified places subject to the preclearance requirement based on 40-year-old data.
The court suggested that Congress remained free to enact a new coverage formula
based on contemporary data, but most analysts say that is unlikely.
Striking down the law’s coverage formula effectively guts Section 5 of the law,
which requires permission from federal authorities before covered jurisdictions may change voting procedures.
The move by the Justice Department on Thursday relies on a different part of the law,
Section 3, which allows the federal government to get to largely
the same place by a different route, called “bail-in.”
If the department can show that given jurisdictions have committed constitutional violations,
federal courts may impose federal oversight on those places in a piecemeal fashion.
Lawyers for minority groups have already asked a court in Texas to return the state to federal oversight.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The Justice Department’s action — filing a “statement of interest” in that case —
will bring the weight of the federal government behind those efforts.[/COLOR]
<snip>
A major difficulty in finding the
proper role (?) for government is the government's constant de-legitimization of itself in areas that it would logically have authority.
Sad situation.
Of course any time you have a 95 year-old retirement home resident sitting in a chair,
wielding a cane, a shoehorn, a walker, AND one of those disappearing butcher knives,
that's enough to strike fear into the hearts of any SWAT team.
After all, at the end of the day, they want to go home to their families too.
But then, that's the trade off you get when you militarize a civilian police force.
The police do have authority in this case, it would appear. It is also plainly obvious that this is a case of excessive use of force. Was it motivated by fear, or inexperience, or hatred, or stupidity or a combination of these and other forces, I don't know. It's clearly a mistake, a tragic and fatal mistake.
In Seattle, we have an uneasy situation with our police force. We're currently operating under a consent decree imposed by the Dept of Justice. There have been similar situations and enough of them to justify an investigation and a finding that our PD requires some changes and some continuing oversight. It's a necessary correction to a bad situation. The recent primary election had the candidates for mayor talking (and talking) and one of the questions had to do with how the selection of the new chief of police would take place, "should you become mayor." The answer I liked best was one where the candidate suggested that he'd hire someone that lives in Seattle.
What a great idea. I think such a move would have the beneficial effect of reducing the us/them false dichotomy that is engendered when an officer, or the chief, can go home, "away from those people".
Who had the most empathy for the old man in Chicago? The staff at his residence, the people who lived with him, worked with him, saw him day in and day out. Their familiarity gave them the confidence to engage him, "disarm" him, despite the fact that they were ridiculously under armed and under armored compared to the cops.
When you don't have knowledge of the people, you have to rely on your ability to use force for protection. And when you have that ability, you'll use it. What a sad goddamn story.
Do you feel bolstered yet ? Hang in there, you will soon...
NY Times
RON NIXON
August 5, 2013
T.S.A. Expands Duties Beyond Airport Security
<snip>“The T.S.A., huh,” said Donald Neubauer of Greenville, Ohio,
as he walked past the squad. “I thought they were just at the airports.”
With little fanfare, the agency best known for airport screenings has
vastly expanded its reach to sporting events, music festivals, rodeos,
highway weigh stations and train terminals. Not everyone is happy.
<snip>
T.S.A. officials respond that the random searches are “special needs”
or “administrative searches” that are exempt from probable cause because
they further the government’s need to prevent terrorist attacks.<snip>
T.S.A. officials would not say if the VIPR teams had ever foiled a terrorist plot
or thwarted any major threat to public safety, saying the information is classified.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]But they argue that the random searches and presence of armed officers
serve as a deterrent that bolsters the public confidence.[/COLOR]<snip>
In April 2012, during a joint operation with the Houston police and the local transit police,
people boarding and leaving city buses complained that T.S.A. officers were stopping them
and searching their bags. (Local law enforcement denied that the bags were searched.)
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The operation resulted in several arrests by the local transit police,
mostly for passengers with warrants for prostitution and minor drug possession.[/COLOR]
I don't want that level of protection. No thank you! I don't want my confidence bolstered by having my privacy invaded.
Well, maybe you have something else that needs to be bolstered ?
I asked several doctors and nurse-practitioners what effect a taser would have on an implanted defibrillator. They all looked at me like I had three heads, one responding huffily, "I would never put myself in that situation".
As long as the public (living outside the hood) have that, 'it couldn't possibly happen to me' attitude, it will keep happening. Only when they understand the clear and present danger from cops who are trained like para-military, will the public demand better. Of course by then, they'll probably be too scared to demand anything.
Google search...
Europace. 2007 Jul;9(7):551-6. Epub 2007 May 9.
Do electrical stun guns (TASER-X26) affect the functional integrity of implantable pacemakers and defibrillators?
Lakkireddy D, Khasnis A, Antenacci J, Ryshcon K, Chung MK, Wallick D, Kowalewski W, Patel D, Mlcochova H, Kondur A, Vacek J, Martin D, Natale A, Tchou P.
CONCLUSION: Pacemakers and ICD generators and leads functions were not affected by the tested standard 5 s stun gun shocks.
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;2009:3199-204. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5333136.
TASER conducted electrical weapons and implanted pacemakers and defibrillators.
Vanga SR, Bommana S, Kroll MW, Swerdlow C, Lakkireddy D.
CONCLUSION: Oversensing of TASER CEW discharges may cause noise reversion pacing in pacemakers and inappropriate detection of VF in ICDs. The nominal 5-second discharge is sufficiently short that neither clinically significant inhibition of bradycardia pacing nor inappropriate ICD shocks have been reported.
Current evidence indicates that CEW discharges do not have adverse effects on pacemakers and ICDs.
You're missing the point. :rolleyes:
Seems like this is the proper scope.
SWAT because, you know,
hippies.
Search warrant.
Apparently they found tall grass and tires.
NUISANCE tall grass and tires, in violation of the LAW protecting the neighbors from gaining LAWFUL full use of THEIR property!
Get the story straight, Griff.
I like how the search warrant is **so** comprehensive, detailing such accompaniments of a "marijuana grow operation" as business records, jewelry, light ballasts, fertilizer, videotapes, etc. Because, you know, that's all evidence of a crime. Except that the crime, growing marijuana, didn't happen in the first place. The whole pyramid scheme collapses because the foundation is only fear, not real.
Nice attempted save to find the violations of the nuisance ordinances... Which was entirely the reason for the complaints in the first place, the neighbors found that property and their view of what it was and what it represented a nuisance. But that would never have justified a SWAT raid, so, they spooled up the be afraid factor. Sad, embarrassing.
Although the initial concept of tax-deductible contributions is good, reasonable, and valuable,
it is being abused now to extents that are hard for me to believe.
Here in PDX, we see commercial building developments being awarded
"conservation easements" in the middle of the downtown commercial area.
It's crazy... particularly when they tore down an old building to build the new one.
One developer achieved it by saying he would add a "roof garden"
NY Times
By RAY D. MADOFF
December 6, 2013
How the Government Gives
The government does its own charitable giving, in the form of tax deductions.
When an individual makes a donation to a qualifying organization,
the federal government essentially pays a portion of that donation:
A $1,000 donation from a donor in the highest tax bracket costs that donor only $604.
The federal government kicks in the remaining $396 in the form of a reduction in taxes.
These charitable donations are estimated to cost the federal government
almost $40 billion this year alone and over half a trillion dollars in the next 10 years.
What is the public getting for this investment of resources? Sadly, not enough.
The federal government too often provides the deduction for donations
that offer little or no benefit. Consider three examples:
[1]Nonprofit hospitals are among the largest recipients of charitable donations.
Yet their activities are often indistinguishable from those of for-profit hospitals.
Both receive compensation for the services they provide.
No law requires nonprofit hospitals to provide charity care and, in fact,
many nonprofit hospitals provide less charity care than their for-profit counterparts.
[2] Conservation easements - e.g., golf courses <snip>
[3] Donor-advised trusts and foundations<snip>
I usually try to post only those parts of a link which give the most information,
assuming the Dwellars will follow the link and read more of the details.
On the following editorial, I am posting all of the first several paragraphs, and leaving
the opinions of the NY Times for further reading in the link for those who are interested.
NY Times
THE EDITORIAL BOARD
December 8, 2013
When Bishops Direct Medical Care
Beyond new state efforts to restrict women’s access to proper reproductive health care,
another, if quieter, threat is posed by mergers between secular hospitals and Catholic hospitals
operating under religious directives from the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]These directives, which oppose abortions, inevitably collide with
a hospital’s duty to provide care to pregnant women in medical distress.
This tension lies at the heart of a federal lawsuit filed last week by the American Civil Liberties Union.[/COLOR]
The suit was brought on behalf of a Michigan woman, Tamesha Means,
who says she was subjected to substandard care at a Catholic hospital
— the only hospital in her county —
after her water broke at 18 weeks of pregnancy.
Doctors in such circumstances typically induce labor or surgically
remove the fetus to reduce the woman’s chances of infection.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]But according to the complaint, doctors acting in accordance with the bishops’ directives
did not inform Ms. Means that her fetus had virtually no chance of surviving
or that terminating her pregnancy was the safest treatment option.
[/COLOR]
Despite acute pain and bleeding, Ms. Means was sent home twice,
and when she returned a third time with a fever from her untreated infection,
she miscarried even as the paperwork was being prepared to discharge her again.
The fetus died soon after.
The case has gained attention because Ms. Means is not suing the hospital
for medical negligence but the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The A.C.L.U. is arguing, on her behalf, that having issued the
mandates and made them conditions of hospital affiliation, the conference
is responsible for “the unnecessary trauma and harm” that Ms. Means and
“other pregnant women in similar situations have experienced at Catholic-sponsored hospitals.”
How the suit will play out is unclear, but it showcases an important issue.
Catholic hospitals account for about 15 percent of the nation’s hospital beds and,
in many communities, are the only hospital facilities available.
Allowing religious doctrine to prevail over the need for competent emergency care
and a woman’s right to complete and accurate information about her condition
and treatment choices violates medical ethics and existing law.
<snip>
I believe this is a crucial lawsuit for the future of health care insurance in the US.
.
LO Review
12/4/13
Attorney General releases list of 20 worst charities
To help Oregonians participate in “Giving Tuesday” this year,
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum issued the Department of Justice’s
“20 Worst Charities” list, an annual review of organizations that spend
the vast majority of the donations they receive on professional fundraising
and administrative costs rather than charity.
<snip>
There are a number of resources available to assist donors in learning more
about particular organizations. For example, Charity Navigator and CharityWatch
compile information about charities and rate performance. <snip>
The list includes a fair amount of information about each of the 20 charities.
There's been a proliferation of bad charities that sound like they help cops, firemen, and veterans, often with names sounding very similar to good charities. It's a double whammy in they not only con you, they're diverting your money away from actual people in need.
Moral hazard - Is it indolent contrivance, gratuitous profit, or just POV
The following editorial is really worth reading in it's entirety.
Star Tribune
Editorial Board
12/25/13/
Unemployment benefits are not a luxury for unemployed
Even if it weren’t the day after Christmas, one word would spring to mind
to describe the congressional Republicans who are unwilling to extend
unemployment insurance benefits beyond 26 weeks to 1.3 million unlucky Americans.
They’re Scrooges.<snip>
Today’s Republicans in Congress appear to believe that the U.S. economy
will reliably provide a self-sustaining livelihood for anyone willing to work.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Unemployment benefits will invite idleness, they claim.[/COLOR]
It’s a version of the “moral hazard” argument used in Minnesota in the 1870s
to deny government aid to starving victims of grasshopper plagues.
<snip>
I love juxtapositions...
NY Times
STEVE EDER
12/27/13
For ESPN, Millions to Remain in Connecticut
ESPN is hardly needy. With nearly 100 million households paying
about $5.54 a month for ESPN, regardless of whether they watch it,
the network takes in more than $6 billion a year in subscriber fees alone.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Still, ESPN has received about $260 million in state tax breaks and credits
over the past 12 years,[/COLOR] according to a New York Times analysis of public records.
That includes $84.7 million in development tax credits because of a film and digital media program,
as well as savings of about $15 million a year since the network
successfully lobbied the state for a tax code change in 2000.
As a country, we have come to accept the idea that businesses are
entitled government subsidies, and we proudly label it it capitalism.
Locally, carrot/stick tactics obscure it with promises/threats of job creation/job loss.
But is it ? Isn't it actually just [COLOR="DarkRed"]corporate moral hazard[/COLOR].
51305.
I despise name-calling, but...
The GOP basturds are causing pain to too many people.
Next they'll start complaining about crime rates going up.
[ATTACH]46322[/ATTACH]
From Google News today
But, but, they're just doing what their constituents tell them to, aren't they?
[SIZE="1"]Merry Christmas.[/SIZE]
Christmas?
Woman stabbed man with ceramic squirrel early on Christmas morning for returning without beer.
Man choked and stabbed after allegedly turning off lady's Crock-Pot on Christmas morning.
Woman stabbed fiancé on Christmas Day after argument about wedding colour scheme.
Christmas night fight between sisters over apple fritters culminated in stabbing.
Merry?
Christmas night fight between sisters over apple fritters culminated in stabbing.
Apple fritters are worth stabbing for.
Depending on the cook, they're pretty good for stabbing with...
Our government gets a lot of press, usually about the fight between the Executive and Legislative branches. This time, the Judicial branch gets the headline.
Supreme Court of the United States to take up the issue of gay marriage.
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court may rule once and for all this year whether the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law gives gay and lesbian Americans the right to marry.
Meeting behind closed doors on Friday, the nine justices decided to review a 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that upheld bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The decision by two judges on the Cincinnati-based court, both appointed by President George W. Bush, marked the first time a federal appeals court backed a same-sex marriage ban after other appellate courts had found similar bans unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments and likely rule by June.
The court said it would specifically address two questions: Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? And does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
The justices also announced that oral argument in the case (actually four consolidated cases) will be longer than usual: 90 minutes for the first question and another 60 minutes for the second.
The decision to take up the case returns the justices to a path that began in 2013, when the high court struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling 5-4 that key provisions of the 1996 law that banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages were unconstitutional. The same day, the court avoided ruling on the merits of a separate case questioning the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans, finding instead that a private party did not have standing to defend the California law in court.
Big news:
State and local police in the United States will no longer be able to use federal laws to justify seizing property without evidence of a crime, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Friday.
The practice of local police taking property, including cash and cars, from people that they stop, and of handing it over to federal authorities, became common during the country’s war on drugs in the 1980s.
Cops can still use
state laws, but this is an improvement.
It's insane that this was ever legal.
It's insane that this was ever legal.
Just as insane are extremist lawmakers and law enforcement officers who associate marijuana and heroine as equally dangerous drugs. They cannot learn because rhetoric rather than knowledge is the source of all conclusions.
Same rhetoric justified using any laws rather then considering the purpose of that law and enforcement. Well over 50% of prisioners in the world's most imprisioned country are there only for drug violations - most only for marijuana.
They forgot to first learn the purpose of that law. Even forgot to learn that the gateway drug is coffee. If they learned that, would they use Federal laws to seize the property of coffee drinkers?
Heroin. It's spelled h-e-r-o-i-n. Heroine is something completely different, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Extremist.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Big news:
Cops can still use state laws, but this is an improvement.
It's insane that this was ever legal.
This is good news, the shit that's been going down is incredible. I know several long distance truck drivers who have been relieved of thousands of dollars, just because it was in cash. Never charged with anything, just robbed. Going through the legal dog & pony show to recover it costs more than walking away and letting them keep it.
Extremist.
English Nazi. They don’t maime or turtore.
If this is true, it is time to call the current GOP for what it is... fanatical and unpatriotic zealots.
White House Faults G.O.P. Senators’ Letter to Iran’s Leaders
NY Times - PETER BAKER - MARCH 9, 2015
WASHINGTON — The White House on Monday sharply rebuked nearly four dozen Republican senators who sent a letter to Iranian leaders just as nuclear negotiations reach a pivotal moment, characterizing the correspondence as an illegitimate interference in President Obama’s foreign policy.
The letter, signed by 47 Republican senators and addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” suggested that the Iranian leaders might not understand the American system and warned them that any deal Mr. Obama and other world leaders might reach on the future of its nuclear program would be reversible without congressional approval.
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the senators were trying to “essentially throw sand in the gears here” in a way that went beyond the role envisioned for Congress in foreign policy by the authors of the Constitution. He said the White House wanted to send a “forceful” rebuttal to the letter because it seemed intent on torpedoing the talks.
“Writing a letter like this that appeals to the hard-liners in Iran is frankly just the latest in a strategy, a partisan strategy, to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy and advance our national interests around the world,” Mr. Earnest said. He linked it to the decision by Speaker John A. Boehner to invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel without consulting the White House to denounce a possible Iran deal in a speech to Congress last week.
The letter, drafted by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and signed by most of the Republican majority in the Senate, suggested to Iran that reaching a deal with Mr. Obama might not stick because Congress would not approve it.
<snip>
There have long been rumors that the GOP pulled this same sort of crap
back when George Bush Sr was running for President, and even when
Ronald Reagan was running, but I've been able to ignore them until now.
The letter from the Arkansas Republican to the ayatollahs and other Iranian officials,
critics say, is a violation of the [COLOR="Red"]1799 Logan Act[/COLOR], which says starkly:
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States,
directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse
with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof [COLOR="Red"]with intent to influence [/COLOR]
the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,
in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States,
or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Usually, and for my adult lifetime, I have been able to avoid calling someone "unpatriotic".
But these 47 GOP signatories to this letter are being unpatriotic because the intent
of their letter is to undermine the legitimate duties of the Offfice of the President.
Their mothers would not be proud.
.
Dems did the same thing in the past... Nothing new here. Move along.
They are virtually all the same - they are the elites. We are insignificant.
Awesome news, and yet another reason to vote for Democrats*:
The Justice Department plans to end its use of private prisons after officials concluded the facilities are both less safe and less effective at providing correctional services than those run by the government.
Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates announced the decision on Thursday in a memo that instructs officials to either decline to renew the contracts for private prison operators when they expire or “substantially reduce” the contracts’ scope. The goal, Yates wrote, is “reducing — and ultimately ending — our use of privately operated prisons.”
*I'm sure there are Democrats on the wrong side of this, but with Democrats in control of the Presidency and at least one house of Congress, nobody will be able to block it.
Dems did the same thing in the past... Nothing new here. Move along.
They are virtually all the same - they are the elites. We are insignificant.
Some politicians look good in the early going. But the more I hear them say, the more I learn about what they've done, and the more I discover what they plan to do... the worse they seem. It doesn't take long for most of them to appear downright dangerous.
They say the stupidest things and expect us to believe them. They get caught lying and act like it is somebody else's fault. They promise to do what's impossible, like spending trillions on new programs without raising taxes or cutting existing programs. They are unbelievable.
I wonder why most of them are out of the looney bin. I certainly can't agree to give them power over me, you, and the normal people.
In fact, I can't imagine any reason for giving anybody the power to rule.
My vote is my power -- and they're not getting it.
El Veto-Voter
www.HaltVote.com