The RPG Duelling League
Social Forums => Discussion => Topic started by: superaielman on January 07, 2009, 03:56:02 PM
-
The current political news of the day is the Burris scandal. It sounds ilke Reid and co are going to relent and let Roland Burris take his senate seat after all.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/01/ap_newsalert_27.php
I'd say I was shocked, but democratic senate leadership is what it is.
-
Why?
I can't imagine how this is going to do anything but drag in more mud from the Illinois corruption fiasco. It's like giving the opposition freebies. Maybe they're hoping the entire thing gets swept away by Obama's inauguration?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_go_co/burris_legal
Why is a conservative watchdog group suing for Burris to be seated?
Group here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch Funded primarily by Richard Mellon Scaife, a conservative billionaire. So uh. Yeah.
-
Laggy: More drama, more for them to get pants in the air about.
Granted, I'd accuse anyone on any side of this at this point.
-
Former senator Ted Stevens (yes, now actually former) is keeping up the fight against his guilty verdict -- and now Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid has lent him a hand.
Reid told Politico that he believes Stevens shouldn't serve jail time.
My personal feeling, you guys, I don't know what good that [would do]... He was a real war hero too, you know. He's been punished enough.
Reid said he thinks Stevens was simply behind the curve of modern ethics standards in not disclosing the $250,000 in gifts he received from VECO CEO Bill Allen, saying of the famously internet-unsavvy Uncle Ted that "it's a different world we live in, and Stevens did not understand that."
As I've mentioned to Laggy and Shale, this is something else.
-
Hm, strange though it is, I'm gonna have to stick up for Harry Reid in both these cases. I don't like Reid one bit, and I agree he has no spine, but I think he's doing the right things here. Seating Burriss is the right thing to do because it's pretty clear it would be illegal not to (the secretary of state of IL has pretty much admitted that he lacks the authority not to sign off on the governor's decision). It is the right of the state of Illinois to seat replacement senators in any manner they deem to do so, as long as those people qualify constitutionally, and there's no doubt Burriss does. The Senate has no say on how a state decides who gets to be senator. Blocking Burriss sets a precedent that weakens states' rights to send who they want, and it's only a stone's throw between blocking an appointee based on association and blocking one based on ideology. Diane Feinstein, who was an early supporter of Burriss, and who I am reluctant to agree with but do in this case, compared it to the UK parliament, which for a while used these kinds of procedural rules to block dissidents from the House of Commons.
As for Ted Stevens I have no doubt he's a crook, but the charges they got him on are a joke. Not declaring gifts is just the rich politician's version of 'forgetting' to declare something on your tax return. Hardly worth jail time. Throw in the legitimate concern of whether the prosecution was properly conducted, and I'd want to err on the light side, too.
Here's a link about allegations of impropriety in the Stevens case.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/stevens_whistle-blower.php
-
No, no. Reid's not doing the wrong thing by seating him - you're right that there's no legal grounds not to. He's a fucking retard for posturing about it beforehand when anyone who's ever taken Constitutional Law could have told him that if Burris wanted to take the seat there wasn't a thing he could do to block him. He drummed up opposition to the guy to the point where polls had a majority of people saying he shouldn't be sworn in, and then reversed himself (viz. Super's reaction). It's the political equivalent of spending days meticulously building a wall by hand, brick by brick, for the sole purpose of running headfirst into it.
-
What bothers me here more than anything is how screwed up America's political system is.
In Canada if there was an open seat for the house because someone left for another job, then there would be a local bi-election. The fact that a govenor is appointing an elected official strikes me as pretty WTF-worthy.
I'm okay with appointed positions in the governmental structure; they serve a role...but elected positions should be elected, and appointed positions should be appointed.
-
What bothers me here more than anything is how screwed up America's political system is.
In Canada if there was an open seat for the house because someone left for another job, then there would be a local bi-election. The fact that a govenor is appointing an elected official strikes me as pretty WTF-worthy.
I'm okay with appointed positions in the governmental structure; they serve a role...but elected positions should be elected, and appointed positions should be appointed.
It's basically an interim appointment until Obama's term ends. This varies state by state, I believe?
---
And yeah. Reid is doing the absolute wrong thing. He might be doing the legally correct thing, but there's no moral rightness with accepting the appointment of a corrupted official. One who tried to sell this very seat and is in the process of being duly prosecuted invariably taints the selection. The law can and needs to go take a hike here; barring that, the Illinois constitution needs to be amended.
I wonder what drugs Reid is on to do this about face. It makes no sense.
-
As for Ted Stevens I have no doubt he's a crook, but the charges they got him on are a joke. Not declaring gifts is just the rich politician's version of 'forgetting' to declare something on your tax return. Hardly worth jail time. Throw in the legitimate concern of whether the prosecution was properly conducted, and I'd want to err on the light side, too.
Most of those are fair objections, but Reid picked the wrong reasons to defend him. He did serve his country, but it doesn't prelude him from punishment. The way Reid says it leaves a bad taste in my mouth- it really sounds like he's just sticking up for one of the old boys of congress.
-
What bothers me here more than anything is how screwed up America's political system is.
In Canada if there was an open seat for the house because someone left for another job, then there would be a local bi-election. The fact that a govenor is appointing an elected official strikes me as pretty WTF-worthy.
I'm okay with appointed positions in the governmental structure; they serve a role...but elected positions should be elected, and appointed positions should be appointed.
It's basically an interim appointment until Obama's term ends. This varies state by state, I believe?
It does. totally up to the state's legislature to determine how it's done. And mc, US politicians are wary about special elections, for better or worse, because voters turn out in such slim numbers for them. Appointments are also useful because they can be done quickly if necessary. I think ideally governors should have short-term power to appoint someone, say 90 days, followed by a special election.
No, no. Reid's not doing the wrong thing by seating him - you're right that there's no legal grounds not to. He's a fucking retard for posturing about it beforehand when anyone who's ever taken Constitutional Law could have told him that if Burris wanted to take the seat there wasn't a thing he could do to block him. He drummed up opposition to the guy to the point where polls had a majority of people saying he shouldn't be sworn in, and then reversed himself (viz. Super's reaction). It's the political equivalent of spending days meticulously building a wall by hand, brick by brick, for the sole purpose of running headfirst into it.
Well put. Harry Reid is a bit more savvy than that, usually. My guess? Reid thought Obama would have his back, but Obama decided the other way. The means by which Reid was going to exclude Burris are constitutionally questionable, to say the least, but federal judges would probably do everything in their power to prevent the case from coming to trial because of its political nature (one lesson Karl Rove taught us the hard way).
Now, Reid couldn't simply embrace Burris even if he wanted to, because Republicans would skewer him for it. Senate Republicans have declared their intention to grill Burris about possible foul play regarding his appointment. They know this is political gold for them.
On the other hand, if Reid fought Burris all the way and lost, that would probably end worse for the Dems than this current scenario. I don't think Reid played things exactly right, but it was a pretty bum hand.
Reid picked the wrong reasons to defend him. He did serve his country, but it doesn't prelude him from punishment. The way Reid says it leaves a bad taste in my mouth- it really sounds like he's just sticking up for one of the old boys of congress.
I kinda got that impression too, but emphasis on old. "it's a different world we live in, and Stevens did not understand that." Sounds a lot like "Grampa can't help talking about African Americans that way. He's from a different age."
-
It does. totally up to the state's legislature to determine how it's done. And mc, US politicians are wary about special elections, for better or worse, because voters turn out in such slim numbers for them. Appointments are also useful because they can be done quickly if necessary. I think ideally governors should have short-term power to appoint someone, say 90 days, followed by a special election.
It seems pointless to complain about low voter turnout and then turn around and use a method which has a voter turnout of 1. In theory it would be possible for the governor to appoint someone wildly unrepresentative of the state (something which isn't possible in an election even with lowered voting numbers), and this person could sit for up to six years. Not to mention the potential for corruption, which, well, we've just seen.
I'd tend to agree that your solution is probably the best, though. Although I'm not an expert on senate policy; if the senate can function just fine with one or two fewer senators then you could just leave the seat empty until an election fills it. EDIT: Though thinking on it, the symbolism of leaving one state down a senator for an extended period of time is probably something to be avoided, even if the practical concerns aren't as pressing.
-
It does. totally up to the state's legislature to determine how it's done. And mc, US politicians are wary about special elections, for better or worse, because voters turn out in such slim numbers for them. Appointments are also useful because they can be done quickly if necessary. I think ideally governors should have short-term power to appoint someone, say 90 days, followed by a special election.
It seems pointless to complain about low voter turnout and then turn around and use a method which has a voter turnout of 1. In theory it would be possible for the governor to appoint someone wildly unrepresentative of the state (something which isn't possible in an election even with lowered voting numbers), and this person could sit for up to six years. Not to mention the potential for corruption, which, well, we've just seen.
I'd tend to agree that your solution is probably the best, though. Although I'm not an expert on senate policy; if the senate can function just fine with one or two fewer senators then you could just leave the seat empty until an election fills it. EDIT: Though thinking on it, the symbolism of leaving one state down a senator for an extended period of time is probably something to be avoided, even if the practical concerns aren't as pressing.
I don't mind governors making appointments, because governors are themselves elected officials. In New York, for example, the current governor is very attentive to which candidates are liked by constituents because he is planning on running for reelection in 2010. It's worth keeping in mind that Blagojevich was recently reelected even though there were already serious ethics allegations against him. They knew or strongly suspected he was a crook and they brought him back anyway. He almost, almost still has a mandate.
The senate can function fine without a few less Senators, but that's not the point of making quick replacements. The state is entitled to that representation.
-
Minor correction: The maximum time an appointed senator could sit is slightly more than 2 years, depending on the state, not 6 years. If the state doesn't hold a special election after a senator leaves office (which it totally can by the 17th Amendment), it *must* hold that election in the next general, that is, two years later. So if a senator were to die a month before election day such that another election couldn't be arranged in time, and the state didn't hold a special election, the appointee would sit for 2 and a half years until the next general.
This is part of the reason why Hillary Clinton's senate seat isn't overly attractive to serious Republican challengers (of which there is only one in New York, Giuliani, maybe.). She was reelected in 2006, so there'll be a special election in 2010, and then the normal election for the seat in 2012. Part of the reason people take Senate races seriously is that if you win it, it's yours for six years, but it'd be a mere 2-year hold for a theoretical Republican victory. Then it'd have to be immediately fought over again in an election year, and election years increase turnout. In a very Democratic state like New York, that means more low-information voters who just vote a straight ticket, so presidential election years tend to be bad news for downticket candidates in states not a close match ideologically. (That is, it's bad for Republicans in blue states and bad for Democrats in red states, moreso than in off-years.)
Anyway, special elections are notoriously bad at picking good candidates thanks to the low turnout, and furthermore they cost money. I say just let an appointee take the slot, but have some kind of commonsense rule that can forbid charades like the Roland Burris show - maybe some kind of "the legislature can veto any appointment the governor makes, but only with a 2/3 majority, and furthermore lack of legislative action within 14 days = appointment goes through." Man, what the hell. All I can say is that Burris better get primaried out - the Democrats will probably lose with a desperate mediocrity like him on top of the ticket. I think Carol Mosley-Braun managed to do that in 1998 in Illinois after her corrupt and ineffective time in the Senate. Which was a shame, since she was the first black female senator, but nevertheless an awful one.
On the other hand, I'm not a fan of too much concentration of power, and blue state moderate Republicans are probably healthy for the Republicans as a whole. So maybe if the Illinois Democrats lose in 2010 it won't be so bad after all.
-
http://www.dcexaminer.com/local/011609-Report_Kaines_cuts_would_yank_700_million_from_schools.html
Tim Kaine certainly isn't pulling punches with his budget proposals. Much as the education cuts suck, he's doing the right thing and trying to prevent the state from going further in debt.
-
He's trying as best he can. That's all I'll say.
---
Obama's inauguration is a couple of days away now. What do you guys think he's going to do within his first months in office? It'll set the tone for the coming year and has many a possibility. What he chooses to prioritize says quite a bit about him as well. So what do you guys think?
-
Since the economy is basically the only issue people care about for the time being, and economic woes are the strong suit of Democrats, I would be highly surprised if his first 100 days did much else besides try and get the bailout money. Whether or not that will work is yet to be determined. If he gets that done and still has time to spare, my guess is on working on some sort of national health care system.
-
Ugh. I'm not going to get into great detail about all my feelings on the Israeli/Gaza war, but this is beyond the pale.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/01/exchange_between_bill_moyers_a.html
Bill Moyers produces a program critical of Israel's actions. In response, Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League calls him an anti-Semite. I'm sick to death of the canard that criticizing Israel is the same thing as hating Jews. Not that I expected any better from the ADL, for whom the interests of Jews are defined as the intersts of right-wingers in Israel. They refused to acknowledge the Armenian genocide because it is politically inconvenient to Isreal to do so. (There was an incident the summer before last where a town in MA with a large Armenian population got in an interesting fight with the ADL over just that. I'll dig up the article if anyone wants.)
As for my own opinion of what's going on, I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment of the situation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-schweber/on-proportionality_b_157846.html
-
Okay, this is old. Really, really old. ...Like 9 years ago old, but...AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/
Having run Senator John McCain's campaign for president, I can recount a textbook example of a smear made against McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 presidential primary. We had just swept into the state from New Hampshire, where we had racked up a shocking, 19-point win over the heavily favored George W. Bush. What followed was a primary campaign that would make history for its negativity.
In South Carolina, Bush Republicans were facing an opponent who was popular for his straight talk and Vietnam war record. They knew that if McCain won in South Carolina, he would likely win the nomination. With few substantive differences between Bush and McCain, the campaign was bound to turn personal. The situation was ripe for a smear.
It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.
Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.
Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.
I wasn't expecting to come across something that would make me like McCain more and dislike Bush more but...there you go. *headdesk*
-
If it'll make you feel any better, or something, McCain eventually hired the fellow who ran Bush's SC campaign. That was during the summer, Junish, when McCain was in reinventing mode.
-
I'm not sure "more cynical, and therefore less outraged" counts as "better."
-
It makes me feel warm inside to know that by trying to mimic his old opponents tactics caused him to lose his campaign due to it being at that point that the whole thing went tits up.
-
Care of Laggy, Obama's first acts in office:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_executive_pay
Heavy restrictions on lobbyists (yay!)
Some symbolic salary gestures.
Vague promises to push freedom of information harder (tentative yay?)
-
Just because a government agency has the legal power to keep information private does not mean that it should, Obama said. Reporters and public-interest groups often make use of the law to explore how and why government decisions were made; they are often stymied as agencies claim legal exemptions to the law.
And this man was supposedly representing a Big Government ideology?
-
Just because a government agency has the legal power to keep information private does not mean that it should, Obama said. Reporters and public-interest groups often make use of the law to explore how and why government decisions were made; they are often stymied as agencies claim legal exemptions to the law.
And this man was supposedly representing a Big Government ideology?
Dick Cheney once encouraged an aide to use an as-yet untested provision of the Patriot act, saying "What's the point in having power if you don't use it?" Invading Iraq without UN approval, signing a treaty with the present Iraqi government without Congress' approval. Asserting executive privilege at the same time as he asserts that his office isn't beholden to laws governing the executive branch. Slapping top secret on even the most innocuous paperwork. These things weren't means to him, they were ends. What's the point in having power if you don't use it? A fitting epitaph, I'm sure he would agree.
George W, who so likes to remind us that he doesn't read opinion polls, encouraged the Palestinians to have a democratic election, over Israel's strenuous objections. Hamas won, surprising no one who looks at polls. George W then (along with Israel) supported a coup attempt by Fatah, and cajoled banks into not doing business with Hamas, and supported Israel's complete blockade of Gaza. A man unfailingly supportive of democracy unless, of course, the bad guys win. Then it's time to overthrow democratically elected governments. I don't read opinion polls to tell me what to do. He said that one on purpose. Etch it on his grave.
Let's talk about the office of legal counsel, and you'll get an idea of what Obama thinks government should look like. The OLC is a branch of the justice department that is responsible for producing binding legal opinions on what the executive branch can and cannot do. President wants to do something, OLC says no, it can't be (legally) done. John Yoo's famous torture memos, proclaiming the Geneva conventions "quaint" and absolving the president of a need to follow them, were the product of this office.
Obama has appointed Dawn Johnsen, David Barron, and Marty Lederman to the office. To say they believe the president's power is more limited in scope than what the Bush administration did would be the understatement of the year. Among the pool of prominent lawyers who would qualify for the jobs, you simply could not find harsher or more vocal critics of the idea of a powerful executive branch than these three. But don't take my word for it. Here's Glenn Greenwald, who frequently criticizes the NYT and Washington Post editorial boards for their extreme right-wing views.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/20/olc/index.html
Maybe it's just the headiness of the inauguration, but with these appointments, I've never believed in Obama more than I do now.
EDIT: this helps.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/washington/22gitmo.html?hp
EDIT 2: another take on the OLC.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016537.php
-
When I saw rumors start to go around about Marty Lederman going back to OLC in a leadership role, my gut reaction was "yeah, it'd be nice, but they're just setting themselves up to be pissed when it's somebody more centrist." Shows what I know.
-
So yeah, I go back to the whole thing, this is a man who is apparently for Big Government? Setting up and following structures which limit the power of the government doesn't mix with the Republican propaganda. (The fact that the Republican government in power and Neocons in general fucking fail at small government is of course obvious to anyone that studies political ideologies and backgrounds along with what they actually exhibit in action, but is just a minor aside to the point here).
-
What I was getting at, which I never got around to saying I suppose, is that Obama doesn't believe he needs that level of unilateral power and secrecy to operate. He believes he can be more effective without the unitary executive baggage of the last administration, even though it's a large step down in the stated power of his office. Smaller in terms of power; bigger in terms of result.
Think of W. and Obama as sluggers. W's been doing steroids like crazy and his power at the plate has improved. Obama thinks he can best W's numbers without the juice. W will never make the hall of fame even with a home run record. Obama get's 90% his first year of eligability.
-
Couple of interesting things. First, more on the OLC choices.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17895.html
A few things about this caught my eye. First:
Their arguments precipitated one of Obama’s most dramatic early acts: flatly repudiating all government legal advice on interrogation issued between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.
This is Obama showing sheer contempt for Bush's lawyers, plain and simple. It's impolite. It's impolitic. I like it.
“It’s important for OLC to remember that it’s not a professorial office: there are real lives at stake, there are real liberties at stake,” said Douglas Kmiec, who headed the office under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and who supported Obama and praised the Johnsen pick.
Interesting statement. If one were uncharitable, one could say that the logical extension of that is that the OLC must ratify the actions of the president if they see a pressing need to do so, even if said actions are clearly illegal. I wouldn't read it that way, but that's how the office was run for the last 8 years, in any case.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/
And this. The country's most liberal senator (what, don't tell me you actually believed The National Journal when they said it was Obama >_>) calls for a constitutional amendment barring governors from appointing senators.
-
I'm sympathetic to the proposed amendment after the Burris fiasco. However, it's very much something that should be delegated to the states. Bitch at Illinois and it's system instead.
-
Yeah, ideally this would be done on a state-by-state level, but I guess an amendment would be fine too. I wonder what deadline it sets for when a special election just gets folded into the normal election? And if it allows for provisional appointments while the election hasn't yet happened? I for one wouldn't mind if special elections were held whenever the new Senator would sit for more than a year, but for a year or less they just folded it into the next election and appointed somebody.
...also, Feingold is a cool guy, but I don't think he's the most liberal Senator. Bernie Sanders, Socialist from Vermont, probably takes that crown.
As for the Gillibrand appointment which kicked up this hubbub again... I don't think it's that bad. I think Caroline Kennedy would have been a better choice, but Gillibrand certainly doesn't seem to be a bad one - she seems to be a kind of liberal-libertarian, which I approve of. It seems that the only reason that this kicked up a stink was because the Governor couldn't keep control of his own office - leaks were saying both that he was going to appoint Caroline K., and that he hated her and never would and that she sucks. I'm not sure how much of that is Paterson's fault - after all, I imagine most of the staff are Spitzer's picks still, and apparently they don't have much loyalty toward making their boss look good, or something.
-
(what, don't tell me you actually believed The National Journal when they said it was Obama >_>)
That was pretty silly, yeah; I remember after that statistic came out, someone brought up that apparently the NJ named Kerry the most left-wing senator right around the 2004 election (which is even more silly from what I know of Kerry).
I can understand how Obama ended up with the statistic, though, in that he did vote with the Democrat party some ridiculous percentage of the time (99%ish? Don't remember the exact number, just that it was a lot higher than McCain's 90% along Republican lines). "Official Democrat Party Stance", however, is nowhere near "the most left-wing possible." For instance, the Democrat party is arguably further right than the Canadian Conservative party. In fact, I'd think someone voting along Democrat party lines is a pretty good indication that they're not exactly a new-age hippie.
On a tangential note, this highlights my biggest concern with Obama, which is that historically he's been more partisan than I'd like to see. Even this most recent news story...while I think the OLC appointments are great, I also notice that they seem to be card-carrying Democrats. I'm not going to read too much into the situation, though; it's just three people, and maybe the three best candidates for the job happened to be Democrats.
-
The Bush administration hardly made a power grab for the executive branch, and most of these "abuses" of power are in fact run of the mill occurrences for the President. To claim they were "the ends" is just silly, considering Presidents do these things quite frequently--now whether or not these powers were used wisely is up to personal opinion.
Invading Iraq without UN approval
Perfectly legal. The President has the power to unilaterally break any treaty at any time for any reason. It's part of the Head of State powers. Congress may not like it, but the Supreme Court refuses to get involved, so that's that (never mind that in this example, Congress also authorized military force; since a treaty is on level ground with federal law, any subsequent federal law passed by Congress can override provisions of a treaty easily enough).
signing a treaty with the present Iraqi government without Congress' approval.
Look up "executive agreements." They aren't particularly powerful given their duration, but they're perfectly legal.
Asserting executive privilege at the same time as he asserts that his office isn't beholden to laws governing the executive branch.
Executive privilege protects just about everything under the sun unless its being used to block evidence in a legal proceeding.
The OLC is a branch of the justice department that is responsible for producing binding legal opinions on what the executive branch can and cannot do. President wants to do something, OLC says no, it can't be (legally) done.
...no. The OLC, being a branch of the DoJ, acts under the authority of the Attorney General and President, which means the Attorney General and President still make the final decisions on OLC opinions. Now it might be wise to heed those legal opinions, but wise choices and required behavior are separate issues.
The OLC derives its authority from 28 USC 510-512, which are in turn codified forms of the Judiciary Act of 178. Nowhere is it mandated by statute that the OLC can bind the President. OLC opinions, however, can bind other executive departments IF the opinion is supervised by the Attorney General and adopted by the President.
-
(what, don't tell me you actually believed The National Journal when they said it was Obama >_>)
That was pretty silly, yeah; I remember after that statistic came out, someone brought up that apparently the NJ named Kerry the most left-wing senator right around the 2004 election (which is even more silly from what I know of Kerry).
I can understand how Obama ended up with the statistic, though, in that he did vote with the Democrat party some ridiculous percentage of the time (99%ish? Don't remember the exact number, just that it was a lot higher than McCain's 90% along Republican lines). "Official Democrat Party Stance", however, is nowhere near "the most left-wing possible." For instance, the Democrat party is arguably further right than the Canadian Conservative party. In fact, I'd think someone voting along Democrat party lines is a pretty good indication that they're not exactly a new-age hippie.
the NJ survey methodology, as I understand it, takes the total number of available votes divided by the total number of times you voted against the majority of your party (or official party stance? not sure.). This means that an absent and a vote with your party line count as the same thing. News flash: people running for president miss a *lot* of votes.
-
The Bush administration hardly made a power grab for the executive branch, and most of these "abuses" of power are in fact run of the mill occurrences for the President. To claim they were "the ends" is just silly, considering Presidents do these things quite frequently--now whether or not these powers were used wisely is up to personal opinion.
Invading Iraq without UN approval
Perfectly legal. The President has the power to unilaterally break any treaty at any time for any reason. It's part of the Head of State powers. Congress may not like it, but the Supreme Court refuses to get involved, so that's that (never mind that in this example, Congress also authorized military force; since a treaty is on level ground with federal law, any subsequent federal law passed by Congress can override provisions of a treaty easily enough).
signing a treaty with the present Iraqi government without Congress' approval.
Look up "executive agreements." They aren't particularly powerful given their duration, but they're perfectly legal.
Asserting executive privilege at the same time as he asserts that his office isn't beholden to laws governing the executive branch.
Executive privilege protects just about everything under the sun unless its being used to block evidence in a legal proceeding.
The OLC is a branch of the justice department that is responsible for producing binding legal opinions on what the executive branch can and cannot do. President wants to do something, OLC says no, it can't be (legally) done.
...no. The OLC, being a branch of the DoJ, acts under the authority of the Attorney General and President, which means the Attorney General and President still make the final decisions on OLC opinions. Now it might be wise to heed those legal opinions, but wise choices and required behavior are separate issues.
The OLC derives its authority from 28 USC 510-512, which are in turn codified forms of the Judiciary Act of 178. Nowhere is it mandated by statute that the OLC can bind the President. OLC opinions, however, can bind other executive departments IF the opinion is supervised by the Attorney General and adopted by the President.
I admit I was wrong about the OLC. As for Cheney, I'm not implying the things he did were abuses or were illegal. I'm certainly not implying past administrations didn't do the same, except for that bit of legal creativity about 'attachment' of the VP to the legislative branch (which is what I take issue with, as opposed to executive privilege). But I'll stick to my theory that they were done in ways designed to explicitly enhance the power of the executive branch in practice, which is a terrible reason to do something.
Take Harriet Myers and Karl Rove. Both of them have refused to testify in front of congress, citing executive privilege. The House subsequently held them in contempt for refusing even to show up in person to claim that privilege. Why didn't they show up to claim it, and save themselves the trouble? Because to them (and Cheney) the point was to comply as little with congress as they possibly could and still get away with it. Not having even to show up to refuse to testify is something they wanted to prove the executive branch could do. They knew the courts were extremely unlikely to intervene, and that they could wait out the clock on congress' term in any case (turns out they misjudged the House's willingness to continue to go after them in a new term, though).
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/03/daschle/index.html
Dashle withdraws from the health and human services office. Definitely the right move on his part.
-
That was a solid move to cut down on the chance of an early bitchstorm for Obama.
-
Thank God, I was afraid I'd have to look at those glasses regularly for four years.
-
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/dojer_fired_amid_gay_rumors_gets_job_back.php
Can't have been a tough interview.
"What qualifications do you have for the job?"
"Gee, lemme think..."
-
In her performance evaluation, she received the highest possible ratings -- "outstanding" -- in each of five categories.
But Goodling, a Christian fundamentalist, heard a rumor that Hagen was gay. So it was curtains for her.
*headdesk*
Okay, having it legal for businesses to fire someone over being gay is one thing. Kinda like I don't know how Hooters gets around non-discrimination laws when it does hiring. But government jobs should be held to a higher non-discrimination code; you represent your entire country, not a fringe business where fair-play loses out to practicality.
-
I don't know how Hooters gets around non-discrimination laws when it does hiring.
Well, here you have two different suspect classifications: Gay people, and women with small breasts. One of them is protected (in a lot of cases) and the other isn't. Moreover, breast size actually has something to do with one's job performance as a Hooters waitress, whereas that isn't the case with homosexual lawyers.
Now just don't ask me how Hooters circumvents sexual harassment laws when hiring.
Interesting case up in your home country recently, actually. I don't have the link on hand, but anyway, strip club owner gets sued for age discrimination for firing a stripper for being too old. Stripper won the case, and rightly so. Funny thing is, he coulda fired her for not being popular, whether that was true or not, and he'd probably have been fine.
Now just don't ask me how a theater company is able to discriminate against white guys auditioning for Othello. I'm sure they can, but I have no idea why, from a legal standpoint.
-
For the theatre... mm. The thing with auditions for a creative work is that the director is allowed a lot of personal input. He or she is under no obligation to choose the objective "most qualified" or whatever - he or she could hire someone with no experience at all over a distinguished veteran actor/actress if the director was more impressed by the former at the audition. Since the director is hiring for his or her vision of the play/film/etc., which is not objectively measurable, he or she is under fewer obligations. In fact, it's considered quite normal for physical characteristics to be considered when casting a part, if they're relevant. As a basic example, most (though by no means all) productions of MacBeth would cast a male actor as MacBeth and a female as Lady MacBeth. Just as Hamlet will be cast by a young actor and Polonius an old, Hermia a short actress and Helena a tall, etc. This seems pretty reasonable to me, at least. It's just a necessary "evil" of the trade.
On the other hand, characteristics which do not show up in parts an actor plays, such as his or her religious beliefs or sexual orientation, do not appear to me to be fair game.
In other words, I am okay with "discrimination" in hiring if it can be reasonably showed that the discriminating characteristic affects qualification for doing the job, and with theatre/film there's a fair bit of potential here where there wouldn't be otherwise.
There's an interesting debate to be had on the Hooters subject about whether Hooters (and for that matter, more respectable restaurants) hiring "more attractive" is fair game for similar reasons. I don't know how I feel there.
For the life of me, though, I can't see how sexual orientation is relevant to... very many jobs at all. There's probably a small number you could make a case for (I suspect I wouldn't), but attorney certainly isn't one. Like religion, it's a pretty private thing.
The stripper case, I feel you nailed. You shouldn't be able to fire one for being old, especially when you can just take note of how popular the stripper is, and fire her if she, well, isn't.
-
Monica Goodling was a total idiot, that's all there is to it. I can understand wanting to bring conservatives into Washington, but did they have to bring in 3rd rate B-school conservatives? I think that Bush was worried that intellectual conservatives "go Washington" or something by actually being reasonable and amenable to compromise and science. But yeah, Goodling was just a horrible horrible functionary from everything I've heard. All she heard was a RUMOR too, it seems, and that was enough to terminate employment, which is even worse.
For the life of me, though, I can't see how sexual orientation is relevant to... very many jobs at all. There's probably a small number you could make a case for (I suspect I wouldn't), but attorney certainly isn't one.
I'd argue that for sensitive positions with access to classified data, there is in fact a solid argument. Why? Because they could be blackmailed (See: Colonel Redl.). I believe this was the basis of the CIA and FBI's policies against hiring gay people "back in the day." Of course there's a very simple solution to this - require all gay employees to be out of the closet, and there ya go, no blackmail material. (Thanks to Charles Stross for pointing this out- on an unrelated note, everyone should read "The Atrocity Archive" by him.)
On the theatre note... a popular idea as of late has been "race-blind casting." Which is exactly what it sounds like. I ended up seeing the more recent Broadway production of Les Miserables a few years back, and some things in it were definitely odd if you took the race of the actors as literal. Cosette's mother (Fantine) was black, young Cosette looked Asian as best I could tell (possibly half-Asian?), and Cosette was white. Definitely some oddities in the gene pool there. Javert was played by a black actor, which would have made the spying subplot rather different ("Hey, doesn't the new guy look the Paris police's famous first Algerian member?").
Amusingly enough race-blind casting fails horribly in plays in which the race of the participants is actually relevant, so yeah, it's probably important to play something like Othello straight.
-
For the life of me, though, I can't see how sexual orientation is relevant to... very many jobs at all. There's probably a small number you could make a case for (I suspect I wouldn't), but attorney certainly isn't one. Like religion, it's a pretty private thing.
It's relevant if you have to deal with homophobic clientele. If a mayor in small-town Alabama was outed as gay, he/she would probably be voted out of office. If a store clerk in small-town Alabama was outed as gay, that store would probably lose business from customers who are uncomfortable in such company. If a priest such a place were outed as gay, I can imagine several churchgoers would find another church, or stop donating to the church.
Granted, replace "gay" with "in an inter-racial marriage", and all of the above is probably still true. Which is to say I still consider it unacceptable grounds for firing. Just...yeah, I can see potential for a business impact.
-
I can see counting "closeted gay" in the came column as "having an affair" or "was arrested for misdemeanor drug use" in terms of screening for potential scandals, but it shouldn't be its own category.
-
"Closeted gay" is all kinds of special trap for people who consider their sexuality a non-issue in the workplace. You either have to be flamboyantly into the gay stereotype there, talk about your sex life at work or run the risk of being thought of as a closet case. You might be openly gay but it just isn't an issue in the workplace, however if someone calls you on it, bam instant scandal and all the shit that goes with it.
-
On the theatre note... a popular idea as of late has been "race-blind casting." Which is exactly what it sounds like. I ended up seeing the more recent Broadway production of Les Miserables a few years back, and some things in it were definitely odd if you took the race of the actors as literal. Cosette's mother (Fantine) was black, young Cosette looked Asian as best I could tell (possibly half-Asian?), and Cosette was white. Definitely some oddities in the gene pool there. Javert was played by a black actor, which would have made the spying subplot rather different ("Hey, doesn't the new guy look the Paris police's famous first Algerian member?").
Yeah. I saw that show too. Very good (except for Fantine, who's voice was not suited for the role), but I kept thinking:
"A black Javier?"
"Why not?! It worked in Blazing Saddles!"
-
For the life of me, though, I can't see how sexual orientation is relevant to... very many jobs at all. There's probably a small number you could make a case for (I suspect I wouldn't), but attorney certainly isn't one. Like religion, it's a pretty private thing.
It's relevant if you have to deal with homophobic clientele. If a mayor in small-town Alabama was outed as gay, he/she would probably be voted out of office. If a store clerk in small-town Alabama was outed as gay, that store would probably lose business from customers who are uncomfortable in such company. If a priest such a place were outed as gay, I can imagine several churchgoers would find another church, or stop donating to the church.
Granted, replace "gay" with "in an inter-racial marriage", and all of the above is probably still true. Which is to say I still consider it unacceptable grounds for firing. Just...yeah, I can see potential for a business impact.
Well, keep in mind that for two of your three examples, homosexuality isn't protected in the first place. People can vote for politicians for any reason they want, and have an unlimited right to be unhappy, including petitioning for them to be booted from office, if said politician doesn't live up to their standards. Religious organizations are allowed to take into account things relevant to their religion in hiring (That's why they can make hiring choices based on religion in the first place).
The person hiring that clerk, though, is out of luck if he wants to discriminate.
-
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/coleman-lawyer-its-the-dems-fault-that-minnesota-has-one-senator.php
I realize Coleman's well into the throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks phase of his election challenge, but this? This takes the cake.
-
It almost makes sense, if you look at it from the perspective that Al Franken is a terrible candidate, and somebody competent would have kicked Coleman's ass hard enough that he'd have conceded on election night.
Somehow I doubt that was what he was going for, though.
-
At this point I'm willing to accept 'Meeplina skating on Minnesota's countless lakes' as a reason to prevent Al Franken from taking office.
Edit: National review meltdown incoming. http://www.nationalreview.com/ I am completely with them on a lot of the budget, but pell grants both: increase our skilled job market in the short term thus increasing the government's tax base, and also help keep collages afloat, which employ hundreds of not thousands of people. I'm going to email the editors about that Pell Grant line in fact. Shale, you mind editing it when I'm done?
-
26. $30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
Dude, we gotta keep the Joes properly funded!
-
I agree with a lot of the things in that bill, especially the education. That was supposed to outrage me~?
-
Man. The Conservatives are getting more and more ridiculous by the day. Usually I can sort of see some logic behind whatever they're talking about, at least some of the more rational ones, but... hell, there is not a single god damn thing on that list I didn't think was a damn fine idea.
Oh, and Super, they're not going to give a fuck about the pell grants. Most of what they're bitching about (up to where I stopped reading) seemed to be funding for colleges and poor people. OH NOES WE HAVE A PART OF THE BILL WHERE "YOUTHS" UP TO AGE 24 MIGHT HAVE AN EASIER TIME FINDING WORK HOLY SHIT THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS IF YOU NEED THAT AT 24 OH FUCKING WAIT IT'S SUPPOSED TO HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE IN OR COMING OUT OF COLLEGE OH WELL WHATEVER FUCK THEM THIS IS LIBERAL FAGGOTRY AASDOFGKADFBA OIADFOSADIF AOIDS LIMBAUGHGasdkljfa;slkfj
Fuck. Off.
-
They're correct in that this isn't the time and place for a lot of that. This is meant to be a stimulus package, not the federal budget.
-
They're correct in that this isn't the time and place for a lot of that. This is meant to be a stimulus package, not the federal budget.
I did kinda say to myself "Is this a stimulus or the budget?"
But again, it could be smoke and mirrors for the budget, as it would allow them to say "look how much we cut out of the budget!"
-
National Review can't support Pell Grants because anything the government does to help poor people is liberal coddling. Poor people deserve better than to be helped, because helping them denies them their god-given right to make it on their own. (this is similar to the god-given right for people with the last name Kristol to avoid the draft while attending Harvard and write endlessly about the importance of joining the military).
Also, criticizing the stimulus for giving money to the states? WTF? Do they know how many people are going to lose their jobs if the states go bankrupt, which a number of them are certain to do without assistance?
EDIT: there's a line in an old piece from the Weekly Standard, wish I could find it, but I'll paraphrase:
"Liberals like welfare programs because making the poor rely on them makes them feel more self-important. Conservatives, on the other hand, love those who can stand up on their own."
I hate that kind of thinking more than anything. Poor people don't exist so that the few who succeed can provide inspirational entertainment to people who like that sort of thing. That kind of thing, advocated by guys like Kristol who had the helping hand of a well-connected parent, disgusts me. And they believe people who help the poor are the condescending ones. It sickens me.
-
In fairness, I see two sensible approaches to this kind of thing:
approach 1. OMG Let's help people! Kittens and rainbows!
approach 2. I'd like to help people, but I think it's more important to keep purse strings tight.
Then there's the neocon view point, which makes no sense to me
approach 3. I refuse to help people out of principle. I'm okay with big spending, though, as long as it's on something that doesn't help the poor...like nuclear weapons.
-
Hey, nuclear weapons help the poor. It keeps them from doing foolish things like rising up and taking over. Thats no good for the poor!
-
In fairness, I see two sensible approaches to this kind of thing:
approach 1. OMG Let's help people! Kittens and rainbows!
approach 2. I'd like to help people, but I think it's more important to keep purse strings tight.
Then there's the neocon view point, which makes no sense to me
approach 3. I refuse to help people out of principle. I'm okay with big spending, though, as long as it's on something that doesn't help the poor...like nuclear weapons.
The overall point they're raising is a good one. This is meant to be an emergency stimulus package, not the federal budget for next year. There's a hell of a lot of pork and bad spending attached to the bill, along with some things that should be in the federal budget. That said, as usual NR makes a good point then promptly fucks up another one just as badly, IE state money/pell grants.
-
I'm just wondering where a lot of these complaints were the past eight years, but hey, that's me.
Definitely agreeing with super on part of this; this isn't the budget. Granted, I expect even more bickering at the budget time, so it might as well get through now. Meh.
-
It is different when you are waging a war Tai. War is good for economy don't you know? Also it is bad to coddle the poor with money, but it is perfectly good to do the same to foreign countries (with bullets).
-
I'm just wondering where a lot of these complaints were the past eight years, but hey, that's me.
Irrelevant (For all that I strongly agree). This is nearly a trillion dollar stimulus package that isn't part of the federal budget, there is no reason for most of those listed items to be there. I understand pork happens in the federal budget, but some of these items make me shake my head. It also gives the Republicans plenty of ammo to torpedo the bill if nothing else, which isn't a good thing at this point.
-
Oh, yes, sure, it's not the budget. I'm not quite sure that matters; most of these will get through anyway, so it's not like it really matters. That's a semantics nitpick if I've ever heard one. NR's just pissy that the NeoCons* aren't in power anymore and are going to piss and moan about every little thing. Which is really, really pathetic because there are, y'know, VALID fucking reasons for criticizing the new administration (Dashell, and the other tax-evading cabinet appointees, anyone?).
And... really. It gives the impotent republicans something to torpedo the bill. Right. What are they going to do. Be ornery until the democrats decide, "hey, you know, even though we've got both houses it's time to give up and let 'em have their way"?
*On an unrelated note, we (Americans) need to come up with a good nickname for somewhat sane conservatives. Well, once they resurface on the political stage. I motion we steal from GB and Canada and start calling them Tories. Or something in that vein, you know? Something... catchy. Whatever, we have some time before we have to deal with that, it seems.
-
That would be terribly unpatriotic to not be behind the President on this though Zenthor. You are either for the Stimulus package or you are against the Money Lenders. These Money Lenders are American Citizens that are out there every day doing their best to make America proud, distributing money to the Rich in the name of America.
Edit - And before anyone throws a wobbly it is a fucking joke, shut the fuck up, calm down, take deep breaths and go get another fruit cup.
-
/me throws a Wobbly at Grefter. Wobblies were the red stupid things in EB weren't they?
<mild rant present, government's managed to piss me off lately so the ire's directed toward them. ducking out of the topic afterward, need to take care of my heart and all. <_<>
super: On the one hand, sure, it's irrelevant. On the other hand I don't particularly care anymore about what the government does outside of foreign policy since I'm convinced any action by anyone there, either side will fuck shit up, they're trying to solve a intricate puzzle with a hammer but that just makes it harder in the end and this applies to both sides.
The right had eight years to object to the accumulation of, let me see if I can find the number... at least 2.5x the amount being proposed here? Maybe more, these tables don't include 2008 and I always did suck at this. EDIT: Estimates I can find say the national debt's about doubled, but that the amount was far higher than I anticipated anyway (we're apparently past 10 trillion) anyway. Yeah.
Put plainly, you're right, super: it should be in the budget. It's not, it is being handled in a different procedural format at an arguably inappropriate time. In the end ideally it ends up the same way but the government isn't stalled if this shit doesn't go through like it could be if a budget isn't passed, unless I misremember my entire government class learnings which is possible! But returning back to my point, ohnoes different procedural format. I'll agree that it probably should be in the budget, but frankly getting it done now doesn't matter all that bloody much, either way either it's passing or the Democrats will fold like a wet blanket again and the timing or where it's being done doesn't really matter jack of shit from what I can tell unless the Republicans plan a coup during the next uh... month or two? So eh.
And this is why politics can go fucking burn.
Zenthor: If I didn't suspect at least 3/4ths of Congress was involved in tax evasion on some level, I'd be more in agreement on that criticism too. But blanket disrespect for them and all.
-
A fired-up Barack Obama ditched his TelePrompter to rally House Democrats and rip Republican opponents of his recovery package Thursday night – at one point openly mocking the GOP for failing to follow through on promises of bipartisanship.
In what was the most pointedly partisan speech of his young presidency, Obama rejected Republican arguments that massive spending in the $819 billion stimulus bill that passed the House should be replaced by a new round of massive tax cuts.
“I welcome this debate, but we are not going to get relief by turning back to the same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin,” said President Obama – sounding more like Candidate Obama than at any time since he took the oath of office less than a month ago.
Obama, speaking to about 200 House Democrats at their annual retreat at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa, dismissed Republican attacks against the massive spending in the stimulus.
"What do you think a stimulus is?" Obama asked incredulously. "It’s spending — that's the whole point! Seriously.”
Stabbing hard at Republicans who once aligned themselves with his predecessor, Obama made it clear that the problems he seeks to address with his recovery plan weren’t ones of his making.
“When you start hearing arguments, on the cable chatter, just understand a couple of things,” he said. “No. 1, when they say, ‘Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we’ve got this huge deficit?’ – first of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, No. 1.
“I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.”
After his remarks, Obama, clearly caught up in the moment, made the party get-together feel even more like a campaign rally with his signature call-and-response chant.
“Fired up?” he asked the Democratic lawmakers. “Ready to go!” a group of them shouted back.
In his speech, Obama went on to contrast the kind words of House and Senate Republican leaders with their increasingly strident opposition to the stimulus package.
“We were complimented by Republicans saying, ‘This is a balanced package . . . we’re pleasantly surprised,’” he said. “Suddenly, what was a ‘balanced package’ is suddenly out of balance.”
As the Senate deliberated in Washington – and packed it in for the night without finalizing a deal — Obama brushed pressed House Democrats to finalize the bill "without delay" when it emerged from the upper chamber.
"Let's think big right now," the president urged House Democrats. "Let's not think small."
Obama’s words bore only a vague resemblance to the prepared remarks the White House distributed to reporters as he began to speak. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Obama appeared to ditch his TelePrompter about a third of the way through the speech.
“He went to his heart, I think he spoke from his heart,” Clyburn said. “He went back to being the Barack Obama that Americans fell in love with when they went to the polls.”
Aside from getting over the shock of Obama finally getting out from his centrist/populist tone, this amuses me more than anything else. I can't say with a straight face it's the most objectively productive thing to bash the other side with a giant mallet, but damn do they deserve it. >_>
-
He went about attacking in the right way as well. He's just defending the bill and urging action, not mudslinging. I like the tone of that.
-
...
Retraction of a previous statement: 99.995% of actions by anyone on any side will fuck shit up. The remaining 0.005% is that speech.
-
Certainly shows a marked difference from Bush, finally someone in the position once again that if the situation calls for it they can think on their feet during a speech. Eloquent if nothing else.
-
Oh, yes, sure, it's not the budget. I'm not quite sure that matters; most of these will get through anyway, so it's not like it really matters. That's a semantics nitpick if I've ever heard one.
Oh for fuck's sake, it's hardly a semantic nitpick. Budgets go through a lengthy process in both Congress and the White House in order to research and determine spending needs, where appropration comes from, and to where those available funds go. While the budget process is nowhere near perfect, at least there's a process that weeds out some of the friviolous shit and tries to make sure that everything in the budget will draw funding from a specified source.
A spending bill that large enough to resemble a budget proposal that doesn't go through the rigors of the budget process is going to have a much higher chance of having worthless items in addition to potential problems finding monetary sources for funding.
He went about attacking in the right way as well. He's just defending the bill and urging action, not mudslinging. I like the tone of that.
I'll grant it's a good speech for firing people up. Substantively, it's quite bad. Tying in with the "it's stimulus, not a budget" concern is why this inane push for urgency and rushing the debate? Sure, delaying it by months isn't good. By the same token, rushing isn't going to help anything at all since it leaves little to no time to formulate the most efficient provisions. TARP was rushed and it resulted in a horribly ineffective joke. Nothing has changed to indicate that this stimulus bill would fare better. The costs of another week or two of fine tuning and debate would be far less than the costs of a wasted $800b spending bill.
I have no idea why on earth anyone would want to defend this pile of horseshit as it stands now. Democrats are fucking idiots for introducing such a bloated pile of shit in the first place and relying on debunked (or highly criticised, if you prefer more subtle phrasing) Keynsian economic theory. Republicans are being fucking idiots for trying to add a bunch of ineffective tax cuts. The current compromise is an aborted fetus of a stimulus package; arguably the best possible infrastructure spending of all in that bill, education, has been slashed to ribbons while a bunch of worthless shit remains ($12b for the Office of Secretary of Health and Human Services? Seriously?).
tl;dr - The bill is a circus starring politcians as the clowns.
-
On a lighter note, was discussing the pay cap for bailed-out executives with a coworker, and we came up with the perfect compromise: no cap on bonuses, but they come in the form of your company's stock, and can only be sold after your company pays back the money it borrows.
-
On a lighter note:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/4452251/SongSmith-Financial-crisis-soundtrack-composed-from-tumbling-share-price-graphs.html
More on topic: riders need to be taken out of the American constitution already. Just vote on one thing at a time and stop attaching silly stuff to bills you don't like so that you feel justified in supporting them.
-
MC, riders aren't in the constitution. I dunno where you're getting that.
-
I think he meant laws, and just didn't realise that not all laws end up in the constitution.
-
Perhaps, though if you're going to talk American politics you should know how things work.
Then again, that doesn't stop most of the US population. So nevermind, carry on.
-
and just didn't realise that not all laws end up in the constitution.
No I realize that; I just got some misleading information about riders from my quick google search on them.
-
Yeah, but riders and amendments, uh, make sure stuff actually gets passed. It's annoying when Pork Bellies for Bottomstown, Georgia gets strapped onto a worthy bill, but if you consider that this theoretically only happens when the bill will fail otherwise without that Georgia senator's vote, it's not so bad? There are a number of good examples of this - American foreign aid notoriously is kind of inefficient due to thinly disguised "Buy American" "quality concerns" in it. Yet nevertheless, the alternative for something politically toxic like foreign aid is drastically reduced aid and only to popular countries like Israel. (Link: U.S. Jobs Shape Condoms’ Role in Foreign Aid (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/world/29condoms.html). No really. How Republicans from the South can be convinced that condoms are cool....)
Also there do tend to be rules about attaching TOTALLY unrelated provisions to a bill. If you're going to haggle a congressman's vote, you normally have to make it at least somewhat relevant to the task at hand. For example those really bad farm-aid bills generally bribe coastal and urban congressmen by including in the same bill better food stamp support for the cities and call it "Nutrition for America" or something. Both sides of these bills are potentially quite unpopular outside their target region, but combining them into one bill gets you something that can pass. (It's just unfortunate that the farm aid half REALLY IS BAD and doesn't just appear bad.)
In fairness. Even if amendments were abolished, it wouldn't be that big a change, since politicians would still haggle. They'd just say "I'll vote on Bill A if it's brought to the floor at the same time as my Bill B and I see you voting the right way on it. Then I'll vote for your Bill A." Of course now there'd be the possibility of backstabbery, but a politician who tried that would never be able to get anything done again, so it'd be a strictly one-time measure.
-
I think he meant laws, and just didn't realise that not all laws end up in the constitution.
Except in friggin' California. Hippies.
-
Tanent: Whether something is or is not in the consitution affects how easy it is to change, but it does not affect whether or not such a law is good, so I wouldn't consider that knowledge necessary for debate.
Snowfire makes some decent points on the value of riders, but I must say I'm pretty skeptical. Not like countries without them can't get laws passed, y'know? And the amount of pork that they seem to create is a bit unsettling, although I haven't really researched the issue so it's possible it's an overblown issue. Still, I'll readilly admit my kneejerk is to second mc's sentiment.
-
To expand on the point above some more. If there's a deal to be made, generally politicians will make it - this is where my game theorist checks in and mentions "Pareto optimality", as if by trading things they consider irrelevant they can get something they do care about passed, they'll likely do it. It's just that, at least in America, probably the biggest concern for Congressmen are local issues like bringing federal funds into their area and protecting local businesses, which can often clash with national priorities everyone pays like balancing the budget.
Also, I'm not sure that the USA is even the worst off in this regard (and comparing it to other 1st world countries). I'm going to propose that the amount of "pork" in your average bill is related to two things: the strength of party discipline and the number of factions at the table. Party discipline allows you to ignore the whiners in your own party who disagree and would normally need to be bought, and the fewer the parties the easier it is to pass legislation (passing it with just one party with a simple majority is ideal). The United States, with only two political parties, is actually pretty well set up in this regard- it's just that party discipline is weak, with a number of "defections" on any random vote fully expected. Countries with proportional representation systems have more of a problem here, as each party can demand their "cut" in a bill. The worst example by far is Israel - the Shas party of ultra-orthodox are total mercenaries on economic issues, only asking that they get to run the religious establishment of Israel. Since they can often make the winning coalition, that's how Israel has a lot of dumb laws like the ultra-orthodox getting to set the rules for all marriages, basically forcing secular Jews to head to Cyprus to get married. This is a case where blatantly unrelated items really do get nailed together into the same deal (whether it's set up as an amendment/rider or not) to really bad effect. Another bad example might be Italy, where Supreme Jerk Berlusconni gifted the Left with eternal infighting by passing a law that helped splinter it into a zillion tiny infighting parties. The last coalition government the Left held under Prodi was really unstable as a result and had to do things like hand out the Minister of Justice role to corrupt Mafia-affiliated conservative centrists and other positions to loony Communists.
Interestingly enough, by my theory above, the UK should be the most pork-free: Two and a half party system with strong party discipline. Labour single-handedly rules, ignoring the Tories. The Lib Dems are basically more liberal than Labour and not after something totally different, as well (unlike nationalist/ single-issue parties that sometimes crop up when there are too many parties a la the Bloc Quebecois / Shas / various pensioners parties for old fogies). On the other hand, my understanding is that Blair's government engaged in some wholly irresponsible porky giveaways to placate people before elections, so maybe I should just say "could" be the most pork-free. Of course the most perfectly pork-free government would be a dictatorship... since "pork" is to some degree what the people want but really shouldn't get, having a government that didn't have to listen to the people could accomplish that the best. Of course the cost of ignoring the people is... horrible. So yeah, pork is bad, but going too far the other direction wouldn't be better.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/10/news/economy/military_recruiting/index.htm?postversion=2009021014 Sort of related to what Miki and I were talking about last night.
Can't say I'm surprised at all by this. The military can definitely use the infusion of manpower, that's for sure.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/burris-ethics-bubble-burs_n_167742.html
Can Illinois just, I dunno, get a mercy rule for corruption or something? Call a mulligan on elected officials? Something?
In other senate-ridiculousness related news, Coleman's lawyer referred today to Franken's "Current 'lead,' and I use the term euphemistically." Not sure that was exactly the term he was looking for.
Trial was recessed today because Coleman's team didn't have their next witness ready. Gee, it's almost like they're trying to drag it out.
I'm curious as to what public opinion looks like these days in Minnesota. I don't begrudge Coleman his right to an appeal, but it's pretty clear now that he's not going to win it. All but about 3,000 of the initially rejected absentee ballots have been categorically disqualified, and he's got a 250 vote deficit. Given that Franken also has the right to challenge rejections, Coleman's sunk, barring appeals to the state supreme court and US supreme court. What he appears to be doing now is laying the groundwork for a claim that the entire election is invalid as a result of different regional standards for whether absentee ballots are counted. There is a legitimate issue that due to lax standards by some election officials, some absentee ballots that should have been rejected were counted, but it's hard to imagine a court agreeing that the election is so tainted by it that voiding its result is the proper remedy. So mostly he's just killing time.
Well, time is money, or so they say, and another democratic vote on the stimulus would probably have shifted billions, possibly tens of billions of dollars toward the democratic spending. So the big question: does Minnesota care? Do they see Coleman as a loser of a close race now intent on disenfranchising them, or do they see Coleman as fighting to get the very best vote count despite a democratic majority that would like to hurry things up and brush him aside, a la Florida 2000?
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/white-house-to-burris-thi_n_168672.html
White House To Burris: Think About Your Future This Weekend
"I think it might be important for Senator Burris to take some time this weekend to either correct what has been said and - and certainly think of what lays in his future" Gibbs said.
eek. That phrasing is very...Russian, I want to say.
Incidentally, the Governor of Illinois has indicated he wants the Illinios legislature to empower him to call a special election in the event of a senate seat vacancy (he would still appoint someone in the interim). Illinois Republicans insist the governor already has the de facto ability to call an election in that case.
-
What a cockup. Letting Burris serve was a great idea guys.
-
Eh. it wasn't ideal, but preventing him would have been constitutionally dubious. I don't like that he's serving, but I like the idea that the senate can prevent someone from serving just because they don't like him even less (though I think it's fine for them to boot him if he lied in his testimony). To me the ideal solution would have been for the Illinois legislature to introduce a bill that allows a petition to be brought to introduce a vote to revoke his candidacy, like CA did with their last governor. But that'd take probably a lot of time.
EDIT: an intersting development in the Coleman/Franken legal proceeding.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/accusations-and-recriminations-fly-in-arguments-on-coleman-motion.php#more
When the recount was still going on, there was a group of absentee ballots that may or may not have been legitimate. The body governing the recount said in essence that both sides must agree on which out of that group should be counted. They agreed on 900 or so ballots, and they were counted, adding to Franken's lead. Coleman later challenged the validity of the group, then dropped that challenge 2 weeks ago. Because the challenge was dropped, the election officials scrubbed the envelopes of special markings and added the ballots back into the general pool (they were about half done with this process yesterday). Well. In Coleman's appeal, he forced the court overseeing the recount to rule on the validity of certain types of ballots. The ruling the court passed down would have invalidated some of the 900 that were jointly agreed to. But now half of them will not be able to be found to have a new ruling done. So Coleman is laying more evidence so he can later claim the election is invalid.
The crux: Coleman KNEW at the time he dropped his first appeal of the 900 ballots that a ruling would be passed down that may affect the validity of ballots of those types. In essence, he dropped the appeal to muddy the waters and ensure that there would be already-counted ballots that would be illegitimate under the new standard. He dropped his appeal specifically to make the election result less legitimate. Sneaky.
It remains to be seen what the judges will make of this. Because both parties agreed that those ballots would be counted, the chance that Coleman's gambit will work here seems slim, but you never know. (Incidentally, Coleman says that his agreement with Franken was invalidated because they couldn't legally agree to something that would otherwise be illegal. It's not at all clear to me whether or not there is any validity to that, but since the court that mandated the agreement was the same court that later produced its own guidelines, it seems to me that court will have to determine whether or not they meant their later ruling to invalidate their earlier one. That's what they get for not making the decisions on which ballots to count themselves in the first place.)
-
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/dscc-spokesman-the-least-the-gop-can-do-is-buy-coleman-lunch.php
Free lunch for Coleman! I wonder if the billions of dollars in education spending the Dems had to concede because they didn't have another senate vote would have gone toward the National Lunch Program that subsidizes lunch for poor kids.
-
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/02/24/kyl-to-host-controversial-anti-islamic-dutch-politician/
I can't fucking believe this. I'll write more on it when I can wrap my head around it.
EDIT: Free speech is one of the most important ideals of the United States, and I think it's a great credit to our nation that we allow it in full, unlike the UK or Netherlands. But a senator inviting someone to speak implies that the senator believes that person has something worthwhile to say. I strenuously object to the idea that a bigot who believes in banning the Koran has anything of worth to contribute to a conversation about Islam.
-
Sometimes you have to let the most absurd voice speak, so that the wisdom of the other side can shine?
I dunno.
-
Ehhhh that guy caused a bit of a stir amongst all the Dutch a few years ago, big enough that it got the eye of the world stage. I would say he has had his chance to be a bigot.
-
EDIT: Free speech is one of the most important ideals of the United States, and I think it's a great credit to our nation that we allow it in full, unlike the UK or Netherlands.
No country allows free speech in full. I've talked to some Google employees, and they've talked about how every government wants to censor something. In the case of the American government, for instance, child pornography.
And frankly, I agree that there's stuff out there that it's better to censor. Child pornography usually implies misuse just to get the photos taken. There's also stuff that deserves partial censorship. While you can't exactly censor racism (historical documentaries have lots of it) speeches calling for more present-day racism should be given limited venues. Most cities, for instance, would not allow billboards saying "blacks should be segregated", and hopefully would not allow billboards saying "ban the koran".
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/education.school.year/index.html
On one hand, I think that it's admirable to try and improve the quality of education in America. On the other, I sigh. Sure, summer break isn't optimal for learning. But dammit, it's nice for everything not to be about school. What about the time to be a stupid kid instead? Any kid would tell you that those three months are the best of the year. What does it say when we want to take that away for the sake of adulthood?
-
You are however allowed to say blacks should be segregated, even to a congressmen. There's a very clear line in the sand about free speech- i t's when your free speech starts hurting others. The classic example of shouting fire in a movie theater is very accurate. We'll see what the senator says in response to the movie, but the spokesman quoted in the story makes some fair points. (Not so much the documentary, but the reactions to it.)
To dune's link: Like the government can afford even more school time as it stands. I don't think extending the year with the current system does any good, other than providing expensive (for the taxpayers) babysitting.
-
I can't imagine that would be supported by any Sociology, psychologist or even anthropologist worth shit that you approached with the idea. On the other hand, more institutionalized children are easier to control in adulthood as well.
-
You are however allowed to say blacks should be segregated, even to a congressmen. There's a very clear line in the sand about free speech- i t's when your free speech starts hurting others. The classic example of shouting fire in a movie theater is very accurate. We'll see what the senator says in response to the movie, but the spokesman quoted in the story makes some fair points. (Not so much the documentary, but the reactions to it.)
My issue with this guy being invited to speak isn't that he doesn't have the right to; it's that the Congressman, who was elected by SOMEONE is EMBRACING these ideas. You act like he went and talked to the Congressman on the street. No, the Congressman is -hosting- this guy. The militant anti-Islamic is stupid but there's nothing wrong with being stupid, but one of our country's leaders meeting with someone like that outrages me. Not that he should be punished or anything but I sure as fuck wouldn't vote for someone like that in the future.
Duncan also suggested giving incentives to teachers whose students perform well, an unpopular idea with teachers' unions.
From Dune's article. Yeah how DARE you reward people for doing well. Mediocrity is so much easier.
-
My issue with this guy being invited to speak isn't that he doesn't have the right to; it's that the Congressman, who was elected by SOMEONE is EMBRACING these ideas. You act like he went and talked to the Congressman on the street. No, the Congressman is -hosting- this guy. The militant anti-Islamic is stupid but there's nothing wrong with being stupid, but one of our country's leaders meeting with someone like that outrages me. Not that he should be punished or anything but I sure as fuck wouldn't vote for someone like that in the future.
I'm going to wait and see the senator's reaction to the film. For all we know he could denouce the film (Unlikely, but who knows), or otherwise disagree. His comments imply is all that he's going to do is watch it and give an opinion, and wanted to at least give the man a chance. Unless I'm missing something here with the comments, he's not endorsing the film or filmmaker as of now.
From Dune's article. Yeah how DARE you reward people for doing well. Mediocrity is so much easier.
I can understand the union's objections there. Wouldn't that just encourage grade inflation and passing students along?
-
EDIT: Free speech is one of the most important ideals of the United States, and I think it's a great credit to our nation that we allow it in full, unlike the UK or Netherlands.
No country allows free speech in full. I've talked to some Google employees, and they've talked about how every government wants to censor something. In the case of the American government, for instance, child pornography.
And frankly, I agree that there's stuff out there that it's better to censor. Child pornography usually implies misuse just to get the photos taken. There's also stuff that deserves partial censorship. While you can't exactly censor racism (historical documentaries have lots of it) speeches calling for more present-day racism should be given limited venues. Most cities, for instance, would not allow billboards saying "blacks should be segregated", and hopefully would not allow billboards saying "ban the Koran".
You're right, of course. America draws a distinction where speech that perpetrates crime is illegal, and it's a good thing we do. I suppose we differ from the UK and countries that ban hate speech primarily because we demand proof that the speech did or would have caused material damage, so that something like hate speech that precedes violence must be proved to have perpetrated it as opposed to being, in general, bad for society (after all, we're not socialists, are we?). (child pornography is, of course, an easy call, for a variety of reasons including the right to privacy and, I'm sure, a raft of laws that forbid disclosure of underage victims of crimes.)
On the note of cities forbidding billboards, the supreme court recently ruled in a 9-0 decision that municipalities picking and choosing messages to display on public land is not a violation of the free speech of those who don't get chosen (so long as those not chosen can still give speeches, pass out pamphlets and the like).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/washington/26scotus.html?scp=1&sq=supreme%20court%20utah&st=cse
I'm going to wait and see the senator's reaction to the film. For all we know he could denouce the film (Unlikely, but who knows), or otherwise disagree. His comments imply is all that he's going to do is watch it and give an opinion, and wanted to at least give the man a chance. Unless I'm missing something here with the comments, he's not endorsing the film or filmmaker as of now.
I think inviting him amounts to an implicit endorsement that his ideas are, at the very least, worth listening to. Introducing radical ideas into the public sphere legitimizes those ideas. Personally, I don't think someone who wants to ban the Koran deserves even a whiff of legitimacy.
-
From Dune's article. Yeah how DARE you reward people for doing well. Mediocrity is so much easier.
I can understand the union's objections there. Wouldn't that just encourage grade inflation and passing students along?
I don't think that grades is really a good way to reflect much of any type of achievement, since they are vaguely arbitrary. Regardless, I feel like that if teachers don't have an incentive to do better than another teacher who is bad-to-mediocre but still keeping their job, then they won't. And that's a tragedy.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/us/01sin.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
“We’re all jonesing now for money,” Mr. Ammiano said. “And there’s this enormous industry out there.”
Yes, Mr. Anniano, I'm sure we all are.
-
Duncan also suggested giving incentives to teachers whose students perform well, an unpopular idea with teachers' unions.
From Dune's article. Yeah how DARE you reward people for doing well. Mediocrity is so much easier.
Grading teachers on student performance is a terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible idea. It is the single reason why "no child left behind" is such an awful bill.
Consider the story I heard from a Washington state teacher. She came in, had a bright group of second graders her first year, who of course scored well on the NCLB standard test. She was the hero of the school. The next year she had a less bright class, who of course scored lower, and suddenly the administration was giving her the cold shoulder. She used exactly the same teaching techniques both years, and in fact you'd think that by the second year she'd be more experienced and therefore better; just...not every class is going to have the same average intelligence.
In the Vancouver area, every year the "Fraiser Institute" grades every school on its performance in provincial exams--basically by looking at the average score that students get on the exams. The first problem is that most parents assume this says something about the teachers at the school, which is largely false--the teachers in the VSB region rotate schools every 5 years on average, so you're drawing from the same pool of teachers at any school you can attend. What it does say is a lot about the socioeconomic level of the kids--there's the east side where the average parent doesn't speak English and never finished grade 10. Then there's the school located right near the university campus where the average parent has a PhD. The second, even more egregious problem with the Fraiser Institute scoring system is that schools try to doctor their results--how do you get your average score up on the Math 12 exam? Pressure most of the kids to drop out of math!!!!! (No, seriously, schools were doing this *coughKitsilanocough*).
I'm not saying you should have no measure of teacher perfomance, but trying to measure teacher performance by looking at the kids they're teaching always seems to do more harm than good.
-
Yeah, the perverse incentive to get struggling kids to drop out is a problem NYC, and probably metro areas around the country, struggle with. I have a friend in the teachers union who defended the difficulty schools have in firing and disciplining teachers, saying that it's precisely that union protection that lets teachers resist calls from administrators (who are non-union and are judged by their schools' performance) to drop struggling kids.
I don't know what, exactly, is the best approach to reforming schools. I do think some areas of improvement are abundantly clear. Here's a video on a school in rural SC. It tugs a bit heavy on the heartstrings for my taste, but the information provided is clear. Throwing money at schools isn't always going to improve performance, but I don't think anyone could argue that it's anything but a necessity for one like this.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/02/26/corridor_of_shame/index.html
EDIT:
The Washington Times ran an incredibly disingenuous piece about the school in the video, which Obama mentioned in his recent speech.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/26/yes-tysheoma-there-is-a-santa-claus/
What the article fails to mention is that the money the district authorized for the school isn't coming. Banks wouldn't approve the loan because of the crisis. Raise your hand if you think that omission was due to an honest mistake.
-
Right, I understand that. I have a pretty big problem with standardized tests in general; I've had tons of teachers in college who pretty much just skim through things to get to the standardized final material so the school will look better.
I guess my problem with the current system is that good teachers are rarely rewarded more than bad teachers. I just find the lack of incentive to do a good job irritating (same with a lot of government jobs, not just teaching), and I think an important thing in making education better is to figure out a way to make teachers want to be more than average or teach kids more than just what is on the standardized exams. Standardized exams are stupid stupid stupid, but measuring how much their students have improved under their teaching is something I'd like to see.
No Child Left Behind doesn't give a shit at all about improvement, from what I've read, seems to just try to take the easiest/laziest way possible to hold their teachers accountable, encourages teachers to teach material directly off a standardized exam... and meanwhile underfunding schools.
My high school was always like in the 25% percentile among schools and completely underfunded to hell. Oooold books, had to dig up some random old copied paper sometimes because buying paper was apparently too expensive, especially in the last years it was trainwrecktastic, and no one gives a shit because we live in rural Oklahoma. That video is depressingly like my school. Leaks and termites and all that. We even live in a pretty large population county; just a poor district.
-
The problem comes from judging good teachers from bad; we simply don't have a good way to do this. You absolutely CAN NOT use the performance of the teacher's students, because the students themselves have too large an effect. Also standardised exams vaguely fail at assessing good students anyway; they're a necessary evil for post-secondary entrance and all that, but tieing any more than is absolutely necessary to them strikes me as a Very Bad Thing.
I am, of course, very biased on the matter, but one of the biggest things that helps is not underpaying your teachers to hell and back. It's not tooo big a problem where I live, but god knows it is in certain parts of the US (under 30k for an annual salary? What the fuck). Sadly, if you pay people that little, you send a message that their job isn't valuable, so you have more trouble attracting people, and give schools less to choose from. Note that finding quality doctors is rarely a problem, because it's a highly-paid, highly-honoured profession which a lot of people would like to be, so medical schools can be very picky about who they enroll and who they pass, etc.
In my education program, I can already see people I think will be outstanding teachers... and people I think will be quite the opposite, if they even make it (and the numbers say some of them will). Unfortunately I have little faith in any system sieving one from the other. "Good teaching" is easy to see but hard to prove. Unless you give schools the ability to let go teachers whenever they want without hard justification, which (a) isn't something we really tolerate in any workplace, let alone a unionised one, and (b) relies on the administration being both competent and uncorrupt, I'm just not sure what you can do.
As for the summer break issue... I dunno. The break is arguably a bit too long, though the Completely Biased part of me sure as heck doesn't want it getting shorter. I think true year-round schooling just fails, though - a large block of time off is necessary for students who want to take vacations, e.g. to visit family in other continents, because you really do not want these kids leaving during regular classes. Other than that, I will disagree with Dune slightly - usually, by the end of those months, I was glad to be back. Yes, they were awesome, but at a certain point it can be too much, and you just start missing that time with your friends, not to mention the direction in your life.
Granted, I tend to think the school year is long enough as is, so any shortening that happened to summer I'd be inclined to replace with days or weeks off in the middle of the year.
-
From Dune's article. Yeah how DARE you reward people for doing well. Mediocrity is so much easier.
I can understand the union's objections there. Wouldn't that just encourage grade inflation and passing students along?
And doesn't it create a system where kids you who are already having problems are now likely to be far further ignored? I did well in school because of natural aptitude and work I put into it, not because of anything of my teachers specifically did. Granted...the only B I got in high school was due to teacher failure, in that he was so annoying that the second semester I brought in ear plugs everyday, so I can see the general logic. But they'd likely just implement it based on raw grades without looking at any other criteria.
Taking two weeks off of summer break and inserting them in other locations makes sense (Although blah...I know for some extracirricular stuff in hs, they expected you to come in anyways during spring break, so you actually would be losing time in some manners), but our system's problem really isn't the length of the school year.
-
Pretty much what Dhyer said.
An average teacher does not impede the students, and that's what we've got some of. A great teacher assists the students, and we've a few of those (I've been lucky enough to have my share of those). A poor teacher holds back the students, and there are a few of those as well (of which I've also had my share).
But what I'm convinced we have the most of is uninspired teachers, who cannot but fail to pass the attitude on to others - and that's what does the most harm. I've had so many teachers who should have been average or good, but just couldn't care, they couldn't be made to care - and as such they taught the students around me not to care. In some ways they taught me the same thing - it's part of my apathy toward history now, my history teachers... just didn't care, and it rubbed off on me.
-
That caring is very much part of what makes a good teacher. This gets back to my point about how most everyone can see it, but that doesn't mean they can prove they can see it, and I don't see how you'd base incentives on it.
-
Just general musings on Education funding now.
First district that popped up in my search: Northshore WA, don't know if it's considered good or bad as a district.
http://schoolcenter.nsd.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=73912&pagegroup=3&action=span&cms_mode=view
19,800 students.
http://schoolcenter.nsd.org/education/sctemp/f575a9546de1455ab2779d78f0a02a8e/1235864403/Budget_Summary_Doc.pdf
$185 million in budget.
So...roughly speaking you're looking at $10,000 per year per student. There's definitely universities with tuition around that level, so that sounds fairly logical.
Throwing more money into the mix definitely improves things, if nothing else by hiring more teachers--most teachers will tell you that teaching 40 students is kinda hellish, and teaching 20 students allows them to do much more. Additional teachers also allows for more specialization (you can have a band class, a computer graphics class, and so on). It allows for different streams (you can have an honours class, a remedial class, etc). It allows for sports programs (article on the importance of sports programs (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/highschoolsports/2008743348_ringer14.html)).
The big problem with the American school system is how the money is being distributed--namely the schools that need the most help get the least funding. Giving the most money to private schools and schools located in well-off neighborhoods seems counterproductive; to use myself as an example, I was reading about logarithms over my summer vacation in grade 6. For me, graduating from high school was a matter of jumping through some hoops, not some hallowed document that I felt like I worked hard to get (actually I was chillin' in Italy and largely ignoring homework for about a quarter of my final year in high school). On the other hand, there are underprivileged kids out there who really will learn stuff they would never learn otherwise from high school--spend education funding on them, not me. (Well...okay fine: spend equally on both groups so nobody can cry discrimination).
-
You guys have pretty much highlighted everything that is wrong with privatising the education industry (At any level, universities are still fucked because of this even). When you have it at the level you do here in Australia you do have incentive for good teaching though! They get to go somewhere that they can earn a really comfortable living pressuring the subpar kids to drop out of classes so that they can perpetuate the myth that their school is somehow truely exceptional based on that specifics states statewide standardised test (varies from state to state what it is and whatnot) that in most states are worth exactly jack shit for getting into tertiary education.
You want to fix the education industry? Nationalise it. Tailor classes to the students needs (Don't fucking lock people out by district). Stop cutting funding whenever the economy looks bad but even more so when the economy is GOOD which I know happened as well. I am trying to recall the last time I heard big news in from the States or here in Aus about a massive boom in Education funding but I definitely know of times where funding got slashed. 15 students per class if you can somehow manage it.
Education shouldn't be run like a business where you need to emphasise efficiency and have a constant hire/fire cycle while you test the threshhold for how much bullshit your workers can tolerate you piling onto them. Yes, good education is expensive.
Unless of course you want a mass that is easy to control, then you up time spent in the institution without actually teaching them anything. Then they learn to conform and all that other hidden curriculum stuff.
Edit - Disclaimer: I am aware of the fact that there is good teachers in public schools for varying reasons and these tend to be the beacons of light in the industry, especially for the bright students stuck in the underfunded public school sector. They are the heroes of the day.
-
Sadly, if you pay people that little, you send a message that their job isn't valuable, so you have more trouble attracting people, and give schools less to choose from.
I think this is an interesting point because I know that talking to people from different regions, people just have sooo much higher of an opinion on being a teacher, whereas a lot of people here seem to mock it. Even my wanting to do post-secondary education makes people go "Why?"
-
It is the same reason Reagan and Bush Jr could swing the "I am a fucking retard" card in their campaigns and not be laughed at for it. HEY GUYS I AM STUPID, YOU ARE STUPID LETS ALL BE STUPID TOGETHER, TAKE THAT YOU EDUCATED BASTARDS WE GOT OUR OWN GROUP TOGETHER WITH BLACK JACK AND HOOKERS. AREN'T SO SNOOTY AND EDUCATED NOW!
Edit - Late second disclaimer, I am not saying their campaigns had any bearing on the reality of their intelligence at all.
-
Bush got Cs at Yale. So did Kerry. One of them is an 'idiot' and the other an 'elitist.' Weird country we've got here.
But yes, the utter lack of respect for teachers is something that really needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, probably the best way to make teachers respected is to increase teacher salaries to the point that people will be competing to become teachers. Money talks in America. It really does.
-
This is fundamentally the problem, in my opinion: we don't respect education. We don't respect knowledge. Or at least, enough Americans evidence a palpable disdain for such to sabotage the whole endeavor through indifference and obstruction. Public discourse in America is rife with anti-intellectual bias. Any person running for office who attempts to tout their education as among their qualifications for a job is committing political suicide, as any sufficiently educated person can easily be deemed out of touch by an opponent looking to score votes (as though being a blue collar slob somehow gives one unique insight into the workings of society and government). This is a cultural problem and it's not going to go away just by us throwing money at it (though certainly many parts of the education system are underfunded--I've been marvelling at the disgustingly poor pay we give our teachers for many years and think that it nicely characterizes how public education is simply not a high priority for us).
Grefter hit on a lot of this: this is what happens when you treat education like a business. You build a system that's merely concerned with maximizing output on standardized tests so that the effectiveness of the system can (supposedly) be calculated for the sake of high-level policymakers who don't have the time or inclination to get personally involved. Meanwhile, the students (even "good" ones) come to understand that learning is only important as far as the next test; they memorize the facts that they need in order to get a good score and forget everything afterwards because whatever they'd learned is seemingly no longer relevant. Nowhere does learning for the sake of learning enter into the equation; we don't present it as a desirable or enoyable enterprise in its own right, or, in many cases, even as something fundamentally useful. The end result is that kids come away being bored with school because it's all rote. We give them facts instead of understanding. So they struggle through high school in order to get into a good college; they struggle through college in order to have that diploma on their resumes, because without it they will not be able to get a good job and the monies.
-
Actually, one thing I will say about saving money on education:
Cut administrators. More people in-charge (especially "super administrators" who watch over multiple schools) doesn't really add much, and their salaries are massive.
On the opposite end of things, hire assistant aid workers. Some districts have a system of an aid-worker...where these come in handy is...say a student is struggling with basic reading comprehension, pull the student out of the regular classroom and help him with that a couple times a week until that student is up to speed on basic skills. (It's really hard to teach one student to read while teaching something else to the other students). Plus, these workers don't have a high salary.
In short, the less top-heavy the better.
In fact, I'm not fully sold on the need for Principals in schools. I've seen schools run without a Principal for several months. I've seen schools that would be better-off if the teachers were running things and the Principal got fired (and she eventually did get fired). I mean, there's office management stuff...which can be handled by the secretary. There's leadership duties that can be handled by teachers (they already elect union representatives on a per-school basis and stuff). Hiring is usually ideally handled by the head-of-department for whatever subject they're hiring. Though...hmm, I guess principals are handy for a discipline figure "go to the principal's office".
-
Replace that with "go to the counseler's office", accomplish same thing. You just need someone with general authority over the students past the teacher.
Beyond that... if a school has a really good principal, it's a huge help to the school. A good principal can provide vision and get the school to really go places. In theory this could be accomplished by a few key teachers, but it's harder.
Of course, mediocre or unimpressive principals do a school no good at all, on the other hand.
-
I have to imagine that there at least some decisions that have to be made by a specific person in charge of running a school, and I can't imagine the higher-up administrators would be okay with someone who they themselves didn't decide on. Of course, I could be completely wrong on that.
That said, cutting administrators is good. I went to public schools in LAUSD, but they were all magnets (Basically a special accelerated programs that tended to be better than private schools), so the teachers were both generally excellent, but also jaded with administration and willing to share a few stories of how wasteful higher ups could be. The only one that really stuck was that some high-up had a chaffuer than made at least 100K a year, but it kind of stuck that this person paid someone multiple times more than a teacher just to drive them around. This was even when the teachers were threatening to strikes over wages.
Someone at our school broke our principal's arm. It was a complete accident, but a darkly amusing analogy to how little control the principal really had over the school.
I've always believed that the major key to making students successful isn't in the hands of the schools anyways. Parents get the kids when they are most malleable, and far before they ever enter school. Failure lies at their feet so much more than someone who only gets to work with a child for like 75% of a year (And far less in middle school/high school!), but of course, that goes back to the mind-numbing stupidity of an anti-intellectual culture.
I can't imagine anyone can fix LAUSD at the least. They are portions of LA where they couldn't even build enough schools to meet demand. Maybe the solution is to stop overbreeding.
-
In fact, I'm not fully sold on the need for Principals in schools. I've seen schools run without a Principal for several months. I've seen schools that would be better-off if the teachers were running things and the Principal got fired (and she eventually did get fired). I mean, there's office management stuff...which can be handled by the secretary. There's leadership duties that can be handled by teachers (they already elect union representatives on a per-school basis and stuff). Hiring is usually ideally handled by the head-of-department for whatever subject they're hiring. Though...hmm, I guess principals are handy for a discipline figure "go to the principal's office".
I'm inclined to agree for the most part, but there are exceptions. For instance, my high school was having a new building built because the campus was starting to show signs of age, plus one of the buildings got lit on fire (No, didn't catch fire. It was arson! Yay, small town NM!). While the school board was partly responsible for getting the funding for it from the state, the principal was a principle lobbyist and met frequently with members of the state legislature and the governor. Hell, this reconstruction is still going on--they ran out of money, so they were not going to build new facilities for the music program. The school board was happy enough since parents who don't have kids involved in the bands are traditionally apathetic about funding them. It was only just recently, thanks to the music teacher prodding the principal (who in turn prodded the superintendent, though), that they got the funds for a new band hall.
As a rule, I agree, the fewer administrators the better (the function of the superintendent is dubious to me). However, they are necessary, and when they work with the teachers, they can get some good done for the school without the teachers being forced to drain their energy doing things like begging for money. After a point, though, more administration just feeds the bureaucracy.
-
One other important task of an administrator: keeping teachers in line. In best-case scenarios, teachers wouldn't need someone looking over their shoulder or would be capable of self-policing, but let's be honest: the state of teaching in this country is, to a great degree, a huge mess, and terrible salaries for teachers mean it's inevitable there are going to be a lot of terrible teachers. There are a lot of horror stories about principals and superintendents who are not good at their jobs (in fact, I just shared one with you yesterday) but the jobs they do are necessary.
-
One other important task of an administrator: keeping teachers in line.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this, given that we just got done talking about how it's really not easy to objectively quantify what makes a good teacher, and an administrator telling a teacher to be more enthusiastic likely won't help.
Unless you mean more basic stuff like...make sure the teachers show up for classes, don't vandalize school property, teach the material, and don't sexually assault the children. In which case: yes, these are things that administrators are good at handling.
In best-case scenarios, teachers wouldn't need someone looking over their shoulder or would be capable of self-policing, but let's be honest: the state of teaching in this country is, to a great degree, a huge mess, and terrible salaries for teachers mean it's inevitable there are going to be a lot of terrible teachers.
So...instead of paying teachers a decent salary, we instead spend that money on administrators to babysit teachers?
-
From a purely financial standpoint, it's probably more efficient. One admin can oversee many badly-paid teachers.
(Sigh.)
-
Thus is the invisible hand borne out!
...
-
Education shouldn't be run like a business where you need to emphasise efficiency and have a constant hire/fire cycle while you test the threshhold for how much bullshit your workers can tolerate you piling onto them. Yes, good education is expensive.
-
Doesn't stop the system forcing them to run it like one no matter how loud or how often you broadcast it, much to my chagrin.
In short, yay for the heroes, system can go merrily shaft itself.
edit: Actually you know what that pretty much sums up my general feelings toward existence.
-
I disagree with mc's characterization of my position, but I'll let it slide. This is much more intersting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/michelle-rhee-threatens-e_n_171041.html
Read the whole thing. There's a lot in there.
The News Hour has done a series of segments on DC's schools. I'll see if I can find those too.
-
Interesting concept. Some comments on Rhee's idea of a two track system:
How are they defining 'good'? How long do the teachers have to fix it, how long do they have if they score poorly one year? What's to prevent this from becoming yet more teach to the test nonsense? What are the protections in place for poorer performing students; what stops the teacher from trying to drop them to make more money?
It's at least worth a stab, as is most anything in DC schools. I have some strong reservations about any for pay bonus system for teachers though, as mentioned above.
-
Pretty much agree with Super.
I will say that Joel Klein's comments there were pretty shameful.
-
Read the comments in the blog below the story (Seriously), there are several good ones. I like the idea of basing bonuses around progress made- say if you have a 4th grader and you get them from a 1st to a 3rd grade level, you should still get a bonus. Whereas if someone gets a 4th grader at a 5th grade level and they finish the year at a 5/6th grade level, they shouldn't get nearly the same bonus in spite of making progress.
I know my middle school did this, but do schools split classes in the grades up by development/testing level or is it more randomized?
-
I don't know if it is necessarilly the optimal overall goal to completely eliminate tenure or the have an evaluation system in place for teachers, but I do consider it fairly overarching change which is exactly what is needed. Having good teachers have a chance to increase their pay and earn tenure again is a nice idea.
-
Middle school here randomizes it, High School only splits them up for Honours/Advanced Placement classes.
Hey! That's perfect. Let's just have these TESTS, you know, like the AP tests, every year that gauges how students are doing. Look at how good these AP classes are for preparing people for college and life and Allah. THIS IS A PERFECT PLAN.
-
Tests are of limited use when you start with a fairly well-educated student body and want to see who's the very best educated, but when what you really need to know is whether a huge chunk of your students are still functionally illiterate or not, they have their uses.
-
The big thing about tests is that you can't weight too much on them.
I saw a study that showed that in school districts with a higher number of standardized tests throughout the years of education, that students from such districts came out worse........on the SAT test. It would be one thing if studying for a lot of tests made you worse at some vague creative thinking measure (I'm sure there's evidence for that too) but the SAT is, itself, a standardized test.
Basic literacy tests are an effective measure, but only because students don't do any specific preparation for them. If you change things so that teachers jobs hang in the balance of basic literacy tests, then teachers probably will push students to study for them.
In other words, normally they're a useful tool for a teacher to gauge the students they're working with at the start of the year. Turning these tests into a tool for administrators to judge performance of teachers has a number of negative side-effects. One additional point, the huffington post article spends a lot of time talking about attracting smarter teachers--to use myself as an example, though, while I'm "smart" and have interest in teaching, I am really not interested in teaching in a test-driven environment. While you can weed-out some bad teachers this way, you're also going to lose the interest of some potentially good teachers.
-
While you can weed-out some bad teachers this way, you're also going to lose the interest of some potentially good teachers.
Yeah, that is an issue. And higher wages will surely dilute the population of Quixotic do-gooders and increase the mercenary teach-to-the-test-ers, out to milk student grades for a quick buck. It's tricky. Obviously we all want a host of good teachers in the long term, and not relying so much on testing may be the better long-term answer, but I think what we need to concentrate on is what will produce the best short-term result. DC's school system is in shambles. The kids in that system are only gonna get one chance. I look at it this way: if you start with a struggling school system, would you rather have a body of teachers that included some great ones but some terrible ones as well, or would you rather have a body that was a homogenized average. If the more diverse body of teachers could produce some wonderfully-prepared students but would leave others illiterate, and the average teachers could get every student to a passable level, I'd take the second in a heartbeat.
-
I can really see three sides to the DC thing:
* "How could it get any worse? We should try something drastic, as we've got nothing to lose!"
* "The more you mess with the system the less stable it will be--will someone three years from now say 'those policies are not giving good enough results, we need to change them again.'?"
* "Socioeconomically DC is ****ed. So much of education comes from the parents, not the teachers, and the parents aren't changing. How much of a difference will teacher changes really make?"
-
When your basic literacy levels are drastically low like they are well... is teaching them to pass literacy tests necessarily that bad? Getting the kids to be able to read is a big step in the right direction.
-
In other political news, the DCCC (http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry) finally got the RNC (http://gopvalentine.com/) back. So our politicians aren't mature. At least they have senses of humor.
-
http://www.inewsit.com/video/gallery/Footage-of-Israeli-Military-Shooting-Gaza-Farmers
........
And people fucking wonder why there's an anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East.
-
Not anyone that is paying attention wonders about that.
-
This is me being polite. Israel, completely irrespective of its status and legitimacy as a country, makes a lot of unforced errors when it comes to public perception. I don't believe if they were better behaved, not using white phosphorous on civilians, not bombing UN hospitals intentionally, not engaging in assassinations that are guaranteed to incur civilian casualties, that they would be better liked in the Mideast, but that's not the point. Popularity is not what should keep a country from committing atrocities. Certain prevalent elements in Israel have simply given up trying to be moral.
-
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/2009/03/obama_gets_personal_about_educ.html
Obama talks about what he wants for education.
-
At least he spent a good chunk of time describing the ultimate reform needed for good education with that little anecdote: better parents. Everything else is secondary (good teachers) or tertiary (money).
That said, being dismissive of "teaching to the test" is idiotic. The primary reason educators see the need for education reform is due to low performance on standardized tests by American students. There are other factors at play, like abysmal graduation rates or disproportionate spending, but those are potential causes of poor education rather than a benchmark to measure education quality. As long as those standardized tests are valid--that is they measure what they purport to measure--then there is nothing wrong with using tests as a benchmark. Moreover, American performance on those standardized tests has markedly mproved since NCLB, which means if those tests are valid, then teaching to the test is actually a good thing.
Granted, whether or not those tests are valid has not yet been determined...but to be entirely dismissive of the concept is just plain stupid.
-
You can't get much more solid standardised test to show that your education is horrible than literacy tests, like the ones that came up earlier ID. The ones with insanely abysmal pass rates.
I don't really think you need to look any further personally.
-
That said, being dismissive of "teaching to the test" is idiotic. The primary reason educators see the need for education reform is due to low performance on standardized tests by American students.
And like I said, regions that have multiple standardized tests in multiple years (like having standardized tests in grade 3, 6, 9, and 12) perform WORSE on the SAT--another standardized test. There's evidence that "let's teach to the test more often" will...help you for the grade 3 test, but probably hurt you for the grade 12 test.
You can't get much more solid standardised test to show that your education is horrible than literacy tests, like the ones that came up earlier ID. The ones with insanely abysmal pass rates.
Can you provide a link to these abysmal results? I wanted to get more details, but all I could find on Google was this kind of stuff:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html
"99% literacy"
http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/reading_facts.html#sages1-2
Mixture of statistics, some of which sound good some of which sound bad....
On the one hand:
"On a combined reading literacy scale, U.S. 15 year olds performed about as well on average as most of the 27 participating OECD countries."
On the other hand:
"By age 17, only about 1 in 17 seventeen year olds can read and gain information from specialized text, for example the science section in the local newspaper."
Basically, stuff I managed to google implied that America is about on-par with most first-world countries for literacy (although like all first-world countries, things could still be better).
-
I meant in the DC results listed in the other article. And you know my tendency to consider below grade level reading as not being very literate >_>
n 2005, the most recent year for which comparative data are available, more than half of all eighth graders in the District system, 52 percent, had below grade-level reading skills. The District's closest competitor was Mississippi, at 40 percent, while the national average was 27 percent, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Similarly, 66 percent of District eighth graders had below minimum grade-level scores in math, compared to 46 percent in Mississippi and 30 percent nationally.
For the specific statement. 50% below grade reading level in the worst case is pretty abysmal and is something I am glad is getting looked at nationally, because well more being looked at education is great.
Edit - It is probably me using wrong terms and having stupid high standards more than anything else met.
-
Wait, we're talking about the DC district again? I thought we were talking about Obama's nation-wide plan--my bad.
I'll happily admit that DC is not within my field of expertise. Classes where 80% of the students are below grade level in English I have encountered--namely immigrant neighborhoods where most of the kids have arrived in the past 1-3 years from non-English speaking countries. DC's problem is poverty, though, not "I don't speak English".
-
We are talking in general, DC is just high profile and we have quotes here. Even in a nation wide strategy, specific worst in country bit will be relevant anyway.
-
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june09/duncan_03-12.html
Here's a News Hour segment on Obama's education chief. He has a massive discretionary budget, and everyone hopes hew knows what to do with it.
-
Duncan has made it clear that he intends to use that $5 billion to pay the best teachers more and to pay extra to those willing to teach in our worst schools.
Very interesting about extra pay for teaching in troubled schools--that's at least the more sensible direction (and the opposite of the current system).
He also wants higher pay for math and science teachers
Math and science? Why? Particularly math is puzzling here--you have so little marking and so little prep compared to most subjects. Math blocks are already kinda fought-over from all I hear.
Yes, there is a huge difference between good math teachers and mediocre math teachers, but offering money...while it might attract a few more good people, it's also likely to attract a whole lot of teachers who aren't enthusiastic about math but are enthusiastic about money.
and more charter schools.
Okay, so looking up what "charter school" actually means in America, it's a public school with fewer government regulations (so can create different curriculums and stuff) but on the condition that the government can close them down if they perform poorly.
On the one hand, this encourages innovation in education. This is good.
On the other hand, statistics so far suggest charter schools might actually perform worse than public schools:
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/pcsp-final/execsum.html
"In five case study states, charter schools are less likely to meet state performance standards than traditional public schools. It is impossible to know from this study whether that is because of the performance of the schools, the prior achievement of the students, or some other factor."
I mean, arguably they could be more aggressive about closing down schools, but closing a school is really shitty as an option (you're giving up a whole lot of real-estate and built-up infrastructure).
Personally I take a more evolution theory approach to it--most mutations are crappy, so these aren't going to perform well on average, but successful mutations will be incorporated into the mainstream. However, in evolution there's a delicate balance between how many mutants you have and how many non-mutants you have. Too many mutants hurt too much; too few mutants makes you stagnant.
Also on his agenda, early education programs for poor kids.
Early education has huge scientific backing for being immensely important, so...good.
I think the idea of 50 states doing things, you know, their own way doesn't quite make sense.
Interesting. Even Canada doesn't have, say, nationalized curriculum; that's still handled at the province level.
-
US education is highly localized. I'm a bit surprised he said that about centralization because it's at odds with what other superintendents seem to think: that he'll let different districts with different needs do things their own way.
Charter schools in the US are government-funded schools with greater control over how they organize things. They are traditionally backed by conservatives, as they are a challenge to the power of teachers' unions, which are big Democratic supporters (it's true that you could make an argument that charter schools are more ideologically appealing to conservatives in their own rights, but I think that the fact they push back against unions and tenure is a bigger factor in Republican support for them). Charter schools can be excellent and innovative, but they are problematic for a few reasons: first, as you point out, they don't always work out. Second, students have to enter a lottery to get into them. Third and most importantly, they take money away from other schools in the area. A big concern with charter schools is that they will heighten inequality in an area, based on who gets to go to them. Statistically speaking, the poorer a student is, the less likely their parents are to enter them in the lottery, so you have a situation where inequality becomes based on privilege, as is already the case in college admissions (where bad schools lack the infrastructure to support students by advising them on applications, scholarships they qualify for, letters of recommendation, etc).
Obama's support for charter schools and merit pay should by all rights have the teachers' unions crying bloody murder, but they largely haven't been, even though they've been vehemently opposed to both for a while, generally speaking. I'm not sure if they're just deferring to him because he's the only show in town, because they agree with him politically in so many other ways, or because they believe that if a liberal Democrat isn't willing to support them, they may really be off base. It's interesting, whatever the reason is.
-
Math and science? Why? Particularly math is puzzling here--you have so little marking and so little prep compared to most subjects. Math blocks are already kinda fought-over from all I hear.
Yes, there is a huge difference between good math teachers and mediocre math teachers, but offering money...while it might attract a few more good people, it's also likely to attract a whole lot of teachers who aren't enthusiastic about math but are enthusiastic about money.
Dunno how it works in the US, but you're pretty wrong about the situation in BC, and from what I've heard BC's situation is common elsewhere. Math's one of the most desired teaching positions because few people study mathematics in the first place and fewer of those are attracted to teaching for whatever reason, so there are very few math teachers to pick from (for a subject that everyone in Grades 8-11 has to take, a distinction it shares with Social Studies and English, the two subjects with the highest teacher availability by far). It's a position schools have a problem filling. Science is in a similar boat, though not quite as bad. Except Physics, which is certainly as bad if not worse. (Physics was the only type of secondary teacher UBC had less enrollment in this year than Math.)
-
Huh, that's what I get for relying on anecdotal evidence provided by an English and Socials teacher, I guess >_>
The more I think about it, the less I'm bothered by Science getting extra pay anyhow. High School Science tends to involve letting teenagers use Bunsen burners and dissection knives. Teenagers. Fire. Pointy objects. Yyyyyyeah.
-
Speaking of DC,
"D.C. HIV/AIDS Rate Higher Than West Africa"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102039372
-
http://www.365gay.com/video/frank-discussion-on-the-new-gay-agenda-in-washington/
Barney Frank courts a little controversy. Well, a lot. Refers to a certain supreme court justice as "That homophobe Antonin Scalia." Eek. Had a pretty spirited debate last night on the appropriateness/accuracy of the statement
Best evidence (as far as I've seen) of Scalia's feelings on the matter can be summed up in his bitter dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the majority struck down a Texas sodomy law. Scalia complained that:
"Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653.
So get that? The majority, who he finds disingenuous in this case, has signed onto the homosexual agenda, as has the AALS by dint of their non-discrimination laws. I think based on the writing you can take it as Scalia's personal opinion that anti-discrimination laws that protect homosexuals are unnecessary and unwarranted.
That's the important part, but read on if you want to hear me nitpick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
Scalia strikes me as slightly disingenuous here, but more importantly he's openly contemptuous of attempts to change the law concerning homosexuals through lawsuits.
From the dissent:
"It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter."
So Scalia presumably believes that discriminating against homosexual conduct (and the people who engage in it) don't count as discrimination because most Americans agree with those positions.
"[The majority] is seemingly unaware that... in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal"
So the court should be using the basis of state (and federal) laws to determine what Americans deem to be discrimination or not.
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. ...What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change."
Texas should be allowed to make the laws it wants.
---
So get this straight. Laws discriminating generally against homosexual conduct in many states constitute evidence of the will of the American people and must be considered by the court when determining if something is legally discrimination. But a marked lack of laws barring the very thing in question (only 4 states at the point had laws specifically barring homosexual sodomy) apparently only constitute evidence of the homosexual agenda at work, and need not be considered.
EDIT:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/frank-to-bailout-proteste_n_178479.html
Scalia's not the only target of Frank's ire.
-
Barney Frank courts a little controversy.
Barney Frank is a fucking moron. You'd think a Harvard Law grad would know a little bit about how the Supreme Court works and Constitutional Law, but I guess evey barrel has its rotten apple.
That's the important part, but read on if you want to hear me nitpick.
Actually, that part is just dicta within a dissent and can largely be disregarded since it has no legal ramifications. Its largely just Scalia pontificating on what he feels is the incorrect method by which the other Justices came to their majority opinion.
I think based on the writing you can take it as Scalia's personal opinion that anti-discrimination laws that protect homosexuals are unnecessary and unwarranted.
Scalia's opinion is at least partially grounded in reality. Sexual orientation isn't a protected class in Constitutional Law, meaning they shouldn't receive special privileges from a Constitutional standpoint. That said, state law and private action is allowed to be more protective than the Constitution, so the AALS is allowed to have such protective provisions in place.
More importantly, however, in that phrase Scalia isn't saying that his personal opinion is that such provisions are unwarranted. He's saying that those provisions have created a culture in law schools (and by extension, were in place where the other Justices studied/taught law) that protect sexual orientation, and that this culture of protection has caused the other Justices to give protection to homosexuals that isn't based in the realities of Fundamental Rights or Equal Protection jurisprudence. Whether or not Scalia is correct here is up for debate (personally, I never really encountered such a culture or agenda).
Scalia strikes me as slightly disingenuous here, but more importantly he's openly contemptuous of attempts to change the law concerning homosexuals through lawsuits.
Technically, his contempt is deserved. The point of courts is not to change or create laws, but to interpret laws (this includes the ability to strike down state laws that run contrary to federal law, and strike down federal and state laws that run contrary to the Constitution). Scalia does seem to forget, however, that using the courts to strike down a law isn't necessarily changing a law so much as asking that law to be removed completely. Once that law is stuck down, an attempt to re-engage the legislative process can and should be used to make a law that doesn't overstep its bounds.
So Scalia presumably believes that discriminating against homosexual conduct (and the people who engage in it) don't count as discrimination because most Americans agree with those positions.
Actually, what Scalia is doing is setting up the reasoning behind the Texas law as part of a Rational Basis test. The key thing to remember is that a law, even a discriminatory one, is okay so long as it passes the appropriate standard of review. Since Scalia does not agree with the court that homosexuality is an exercise of Constitutionally protected "liberty," the test he applies is rational basis--the law must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Scalia's statement here is his argument that laws that protect morality are a legitimate state interest, which is correct.
He's also criticizing the majority opinion on its use of "discrimination" because discrimination does NOT have any play at all under "fundamental rights" Due Process protection, and thus should not even enter the equation.
Texas should be allowed to make the laws it wants.
As long as they aren't Unconstitutional and do not preempt Federal laws...yes. It's called the police power of the states.
So get this straight. Laws discriminating generally against homosexual conduct in many states constitute evidence of the will of the American people and must be considered by the court when determining if something is legally discrimination. But a marked lack of laws barring the very thing in question (only 4 states at the point had laws specifically barring homosexual sodomy) apparently only constitute evidence of the homosexual agenda at work, and need not be considered.
You're taking the assumption that this case hinged on discrimination, that is an Equal Protection claim; it did not. The only Justice who found an Equal Protection violation was O'Conner, and she was alone on this. The case was decided on a fundamental liberty claim. As such, discrimination does not enter and should not enter the picture.
What Scalia is doing by going into the history of anti-sodomy laws is an attempt to undermine the majority's contention that homosexual/sodomy acts are a fundamental liberty. Part of the test of a determining if something is a fundamental liberty is that it should be an act that has had some degree of protection or encouragement. By mentioning laws in many states that banned homosexual acts for decades, Scalia is making the point that homosexual has not been protected and in fact has been banned until recently. Such evidence, to Scalia, is enough to show that homosexual acts are not a fundamental liberty as defined by previous case law.
-
That's the important part, but read on if you want to hear me nitpick.
Actually, that part is just dicta within a dissent and can largely be disregarded since it has no legal ramifications. Its largely just Scalia pontificating on what he feels is the incorrect method by which the other Justices came to their majority opinion.
I want to determine whether Scalia is in fact homophobic, to see if Frank's comment was warranted. I find it most useful precisely because it isn't part of his formal reasoning. Scalia's just blowing off steam about how lousy he thinks the majority is in this case. Offhand comments that need no justification can be particularly revealing.
Thinking on it, Scalia's dissent is mostly on the money. He pegs the majority as trying to thread the needle so as to protect homosexuals without calling into question the validity of laws forbidding gay marriage by creating a vague level of scrutiny.
I think he's a bit intentionally dense about O'Connor's concurrence. He claims she doesn't provide a basis for or define the level of scrutiny she uses, "a more searching form of rational basis review." It's clear, however, that she's saying the rational basis of morality in Bowers v. Hardwick (which upheld an anti-sodomy law that outlawed acts between different- as well as same-sex couples) can't be applied in this case, because the intent of the law is to harm a politically unpopular group. Since she doesn't call for a more heightened form of scrutiny, it seems reasonable to assume she means a rational basis not based at all on disliking that group (as Bowers v. Hardwick partially is) must be applied.
If Scalia can be said to be homophobic, his dissent on Romer v. Evans (in which he argues that an amendment to a state constitution that specifically bars state institutions from offering homosexuals protection against discrimination is, somehow, not a law intended to cause harm to homosexuals) is probaly the reason. Eh. Maybe it's worth taking a close look at, but not tonight.
EDIT: Frank explains his rationale.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/why-i-called-justice-scal_b_179434.html
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/education/02educ.html?hp
I like this new guy. He's attacking one of the big structural weaknesses of NCLB, that states set their own standards to be judged by, right off the bat.
On a sadder note, Mark Sanford is the most shameful excuse for a governor this country has, and that's the most polite thing you'll ever hear me say about him. He refuses some of the education money because he can't use it to pay down state debt, and he's afraid of inflation. Inflation! You may recall the school in that video a few pages back was from SC. And not that I'm calling him a racist, but it's worth noting that his piss-poor excuse for an education system is disproportionately worse in the parts of the state that are predominantly African-American.
EDIT: probably not on many people's radar, but it deserves a mention:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/us/politics/02stevens.html?hp
Ted Stevens, former Alaska senator, will have charges against him withdrawn by the Justice dept, and those charges will not be reinstated. Stevens had already been found guilty and was awaiting sentencing, but a pattern of serious prosecutorial misconduct (including but not limited to failure to disclose evidence that discredited a key witness) prompted Eric Holder to review the case and ultimately decide to drop the charges with prejudice, voiding the guilty verdict and preventing the case from being retried.
-
yar, triple post! I don't know if this should be its own topic, but since people have been talking about the idea, Glenn Greenwald just released a report for the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank) on the success of Portugal's drug decriminalization policy.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/02/portugal/index.html
-
Stevens got off lucky, but that entire case was a fiasco. I guess no one wanted to drag it out with so much other political crap on the table?
-
Stevens requested the case be sped up so it could be finished before the election, so it was self-made luck, in a sense. Holder's willing to let it drop in part because Stevens no longer has his Senate seat, and in part because of his age.
Apparently Eric Holder knew the judge in the case from law school and highly respected his opinion. That judge found the prosecution in contempt, including the head of the department handling the prosecution, and Holder took it very seriously. Holder started his career with the justice department in the same office that was handling the prosecution, the Public Integrity Section, and he was apparently livid about their conduct.
There are two reasons the prosecution may have withheld what they did: willful corruption, or honest mistakes owing to the fact that the trial was sped up. If Stevens hadn't requested his trial to be conducted so quickly, those mistakes might not have been made, and we could have had the opposite situation: Stevens keeps his seat but is found guilty (as I understand it, the case against him is still pretty good. I mean, he was saying on the stand that his wife was the one who handled the botched finances, which is why he neglected to report the money. The money for lifting his house up and building an entire new first floor under it. Tell another one, buddy).
One cute detail from the trial: Stevens' personal checks use the name "Senator Ted Stevens," just so people know who they're dealing with. What a piece of work.
-
There's been a rash of same-sex marraige legalization recently.
Today: Vermont overthrows the governor's veto (by getting a 67% majority) and passes same sex marriage.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/07/same.sex.marriage/
Also today: DC votes to recognize marriages performed in other states (although you can't get married in DC itself):
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/07/dc-council-votes-recognize-gay-marriages-performed-states/
Last week, the Iowa supreme court ruled that equal protection meant that same-sex marriage must be legal.
-
A unanimous decision, even.
Can't wait until I can go up to Californians and ask them why they're so insensitive to gays.
*sips latte, looks over toiling masses in ivory tower*
-
I hate you
-
The interesting things I overhear in San Francisco bars; bear in mind that my source from this is word of mouth (word of mouth from inside sources, but I can't claim flawless statistical sampling). Given army policies, I doubt most of these statistics actually have formally published numbers rather than word of mouth estimates, though.
The number of gays in the American army is >= 20%; more than the national average.
The number of gays in special operative groups like the NAVY Seals is somewhere around 50%.
Roughly 70% of the Army has no issue with gays in the military, and thinks "don't ask, don't tell" is silly.
Also, random non-army tidbit: in some states, transgender individuals can't get married at all to either gender--the state classifies them as neither a man nor a woman, so they can't satisfy the "marriage is between a man and a woman" check.
Oh, may as well throw in an amusing not-really-political anecdote about a girl this woman was supervising in the military. The girl was being a bit obvious with rainbow flag stickers on her car, so the woman pulls her aside and says "okay, I think I need to explain to you this 'don't ask, don't tell'--it's not just verbal communication, it could be other signals," and this lecture continued for several minutes with examples. The conversation ends with
Supervisor: "okay, so do you fully understand 'don't ask don't tell' now?"
Girl: "I think so. Oh, by the way, you know I'm a lesbian, right?"
Supervisor: *facepalm*
-
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5387980
this is, as far as I know, the most recent poll on DADT. A full 75% of respondents from the general public were in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly. A majority of Republicans and conservatives(!) also favor open service. I've also heard a majority in the armed services approve of open service, but the number I recall was in the mid 50s, not close to 70.
I find this really intersting: 75% approve of open service, and 78% approve of homosexuals being allowed to serve under any circumstance. Since it makes sense that everyone who answered yes on the first would answer yes on the second, that leaves a paltry 3% who believe the current arrangement is the way to go (18% opposed letting homosexuals serve at all).
-
Don't ask, don't tell was just buying time for society to get used to homosexuals in the military more than anything else. It did serve a good purpose, but it's time is quickly passing.
MC's numbers.
I would be utterly shocked if the homosexual popluation in the military was above the national average, let alone 50% for special forces.
-
let alone 50% for special forces.
As it was described to me (at least the appeal of the Navy Seals) the appeal is...being isolated on a boat with a lot of really buff men.
Though again, this is not a good statistical sample taken through random sampling. This is the anecdotal experience of some people in the gay community in the bay area. It would not surprise me at all of the division of the Navy Seals located near San Francisco was...correspondingly gayer than other divisions.
-
Don't ask, don't tell was just buying time for society to get used to homosexuals in the military more than anything else. It did serve a good purpose, but it's time is quickly passing.
I think the big difference between then and now, though I don't have numbers to back this, is that people, including conservatives, are accepting that homosexuality is, to use the legal term, immutable. According to the Iowa Supreme Court:
"[T]he court found sexual orientation to be central to personal identity and that its alteration, if at all, could only be accomplished at the expense of significant damage to the individual’s sense of self."
If conservatives accept that homosexuality isn't something you can change in people, it makes sense to welcome homosexuals into conservative institutions. The alternative to homosexual servicemen is homosexual hippies. The alternative to homosexual marriage is homosexuals living in (more) sin.
EDIT:
It would not surprise me at all of the division of the Navy Seals located near San Francisco was...correspondingly gayer than other divisions.
Naturellement. Shore leave has a reputation for sailors looking for action. San Francisco has a reputation as a homosexual hotbed (pun intended).
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/11/AR2009041100767.html?hpid=topnews
Front-page story for the Washington Post is...medicinal marijuana, which is apparently a lot further into the CA mainstream than I thought. Fascinating.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/you-are-being-lied-to-abo_b_155147.html
"You are being lied to about pirates".
Good read; haven't checked any of the facts, but sounds plausible.
-
That is news to people? War Nerd had been going on about that stuff months ago pointing out exactly why they did it and why what they were doing was effective (and why they were going to get raped by the world anyway, but everyone knew that was going to happen anyway...)
-
the News Hour tonight had a good segment on the current situation with pirates off of Somalia. One thing that jumped out at me: the US has been very hesitant to use military force because there have been very few casualties amid the hostage-taking.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/13/news/goldman.earnings.report.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009041317
Goldman Sachs reports about double the earnings expected; has plans to be the first big bank to repay its government TARP loan. Wells Fargo also posts dramatically higher earnings than expected.
-
I don't know...Wells Fargo's earnings are in large part due to loosening of mark-to-market reporting that allows them to blur the toxic assets they acquired in Wachovia.
I'm not seeing that reflected really anywhere in the news, so maybe I'm off base, and maybe their profit is better than expected in spite of that, but I'd be cautious about trusting these numbers.
As for the loans, the treasury really doesn't want the money back yet. They essentially forced some banks to take the cash even though they didn't really need it, so that the market wouldn't know who was or was not about to fail. Still, Goldman Sachs was on the losing side of that equation, so it's as good sign, even if it's dubious.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5387980
this is, as far as I know, the most recent poll on DADT. A full 75% of respondents from the general public were in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly. A majority of Republicans and conservatives(!) also favor open service. I've also heard a majority in the armed services approve of open service, but the number I recall was in the mid 50s, not close to 70.
I find this really intersting: 75% approve of open service, and 78% approve of homosexuals being allowed to serve under any circumstance. Since it makes sense that everyone who answered yes on the first would answer yes on the second, that leaves a paltry 3% who believe the current arrangement is the way to go (18% opposed letting homosexuals serve at all).
I'm assuming that 18% is there because they are homophobic, super far right, etc. Wouldn't they want gay people to serve in the military to A. Get them out of the country and B. Hopefully die?
Granted, I'm probably giving this group waaayy too much credit here, since I doubt they have the ability to use logic.
-
I don't know...Wells Fargo's earnings are in large part due to loosening of mark-to-market reporting that allows them to blur the toxic assets they acquired in Wachovia.
I'm not seeing that reflected really anywhere in the news, so maybe I'm off base, and maybe their profit is better than expected in spite of that, but I'd be cautious about trusting these numbers.
As for the loans, the treasury really doesn't want the money back yet. They essentially forced some banks to take the cash even though they didn't really need it, so that the market wouldn't know who was or was not about to fail. Still, Goldman Sachs was on the losing side of that equation, so it's as good sign, even if it's dubious.
Maybe I have far less faith in humanity than you, but my immediate kneejerk response to that was "Bullshit. They are cooking the books like they did with the CDS mess."
In other news, did anyone go to a tea party!? I'm sure Zenny went just for the teabagging.
-
Granted, I'm probably giving this group waaayy too much credit here, since I doubt they have the ability to use logic.
If you want to see that "logic" at work, here's an op-ed from today's Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041402704.html
I think the reasoning employed in this is pretty damn bad (particularly involving the concept of professionalism, but also taking the poll numbers they present at face value, even if they're accurate, which seems dubious to me), but I'm too tired to pick it apart at present.
-
"Don't rock the boat when the system is under a lot of strain" = reasonable.
"Don't rock the boat ever" = no.
In all likelihood they're right on several points: people who like the military being a "gay free zone" are more likely to enlist, and people who believe strongly that gays should be integrated into the military are more likely to lock themselves into non-military career paths. Ergo there probably will be a short-term loss.
On the other hand, you could say all the same things about black people in the military. In fact you could probably copy and paste the same arguments "you need to be comfortable being in intimate quarters with that thing". These aren't appropriate long-term argument.
-
Ok, my wits are about me now, so I can call this op-ed what it is: bullshit. Here's the article they quote from to get their figures on active servicemen and women who say they would leave the service if DADT was repealed:
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/
"David Segal, a military sociologist at the University at Maryland, drew a parallel between the current debate and earlier discussions about changing the composition of the force, from racial integration in the 1940s and 1950s to gender integration in the 1970s.
Segal described the nearly 10 percent of active-duty respondents who said they would leave the military if the policy was overturned as “a relatively small number.”
“That’s a smaller number of career officers than who in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to West Point,” Segal said. “They were expressing a strongly held attitude. But when women were admitted to West Point, there was not anything near that kind of exodus from the service."
The reason the real number will be far lower is, of course, military discipline, a concept the writers apparently have no faith in whatsoever. The fact that in a comparable situation, threats of resignation never largely materialized doesn't stop the op-ed writers from saying the full 10% number will definitely resign. Protip: if your source material directly contradicts your reasoning, don't provide a link.
From the article:
Legislation introduced to repeal Section 654 (H.R. 1283) would impose on commanders a radical policy that mandates "nondiscrimination" against "homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived." Mandatory training classes and judicial proceedings would consume valuable time defining that language. Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.
#1: Nondiscrimination policies are not radical.
#2: Training classes are not going to take more than an hour or two out of trainees' busy schedules. Anyone who's been on a sports team knows how rigorous things like anti-hazing trainings sessions are. Complete nonissue.
#3: The troops already live in close quarters with others who COULD be sexually attracted to them. That's how DADT works!
We don't need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life. "Zero tolerance" of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways.
Hi, it's the fucking military. That means you have to obey the rules. Is what I'd like to say, but let's examine this a bit, shall we? What is it, exactly, that there will be zero tolerance of dissent for? The mere presence of homosexuals. "Bobby's gay" isn't a valid complaint. The writers here are trying to imply without saying that people who object to homosexual conduct, sexual harassment in other words, will be in trouble, but that's never going to be the case. "Bobby propositioned me" carries as much weight if a guy says it than if a girl does. Because current military rules, of course, already forbid sexual harassment.
-
I am thoroughly depressed that this tea party bullshit fucking took off again. That stuff was shown to be rightist grass roots propaganda bullshit fucking months ago.
Fuck this shit. Retards deserve the society you build for yourselves.
-
Yes, because you should just quietly sit and take it if you aren't happy with the incredibly bloated stimulus and federal budget.
Re MC's link about the pirates: The Somalis may have gotten screwed, but it doesn't matter when they have taken the steps they've had. They're going to get wiped out by the US Navy for so many reasons, some political and some not.
Texas Governor Raises Topic Of Secession The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who attended a tea party rally in Austin, "made it clear that he doesn't see the need to secede and isn't advocating it," but "he said there's no question that it's on the mind of some Texans." The Politico notes Perry has endorsed a "Texas state House resolution affirming the state's sovereignty."
-
Why weren't they protesting years ago when we were getting in ungodly amounts of debt under a so-called conservative administration? The 700 billion dollar bailout that Bush passed? Because they are hypocrites and only whine when a Democrat spends money.
-
*buys tea bags*
*politely puts them in pre-approved container of water*
YEEEEAAAAHHHH REVOLUTION! NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
*promptly files taxes*
that'll show them liberals
-
Sure, people are hypocrites in politics. This doesn't change the fact that the budget's going to be a trillion dollars over this year. The debt was 3.6 Trillion 10 years ago, now it's over 11 trillion. This is something that needs to be addressed (And Bush did an absolutely terrible job with this), not be further accelerated. The political side of it is something I don't care for, but I can definitely understand people's frustration with the debt.
-
The annoying thing about the "tea parties" is the hypocrisy and the pretense that they're in any way spontaneous or grass-roots organizations. They definitely have a point about the ridiculous deficits we're running, although it'd be nice if they didn't pretend Bush never existed. This is all thoroughly balanced by their use of "tea-bag" as a verb, though.
-
Yes, because you should just quietly sit and take it if you aren't happy with the incredibly bloated stimulus and federal budget.
Re MC's link about the pirates: The Somalis may have gotten screwed, but it doesn't matter when they have taken the steps they've had. They're going to get wiped out by the US Navy for so many reasons, some political and some not.
Texas Governor Raises Topic Of Secession The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who attended a tea party rally in Austin, "made it clear that he doesn't see the need to secede and isn't advocating it," but "he said there's no question that it's on the mind of some Texans." The Politico notes Perry has endorsed a "Texas state House resolution affirming the state's sovereignty."
The irony there is so fucking thick you can almost taste it.
You do remember when these protests fucking started right Super? I will give you a hint. It wasn't when AIG got it's first 3 billion dollars, that is for fucking sure. Here is another hint. It was when there was talk of giving money to the middle class. It was full of propaganda of "OMG I RENT WHY SHOULD THEY GET MONEY BECAUSE THEY OWN A HOUSE!!!!!!" not, you know the actual fucking shit that was at fault for the economic collapse but the people struggling with it the most. If you support that shit then you deserve the bed of nails you make for yourself. IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT WHEN YOU GIVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE COMPANIES THAT RAN THEMSELVES INTO THE GROUND GUYS.
Super, that is what the fucking Government is there to DO in this situation. They run a deficit to bolster up the economy and to stop the living standards for the population from sinking into third world country bullshit. The run a debt during economic booms and try to spend nothing during downturns (ESPECIALLY at the start of a downturn) is massively reactionary and counter to what the entire point of the government is for
Your statistics bring up a good point though. What the fuck was your government doing running a loss that big during economic booms? They should be using the booms to bolster the coffers against outstanding debt and if/when/as that gets sorted out increase spending in social infrastructure in those times of economic booms. Instead of you know, lowering taxes to stimulate more economic growth (lol).
Your economists fail and have killed the world better than I could currently.
Edit 2 - Eh this is a better edit. Inevitable Exile article on the newest round of Tea Parties. http://exiledonline.com/how-freedomworks-gave-the-teabaggers-a-dirty-sanchez/
I wasn't aware that the corrupt fucks in the Propaganda machine weren't even bothering to keep up a front. Wow, just when I thought they couldn't be more insulting.
-
Yes, because you should just quietly sit and take it if you aren't happy with the incredibly bloated stimulus and federal budget.
Man, I really, really wish the forums from 5-6 years ago were up so I could quote you eye-rolling and talking about how people protesting going into Iraq were juvenile pricks who did absolutely nothing to further their own cause. I think it was you, anyway.
In any case, what Grefter said.
-
Remember people, keep it civil. I don't want to have to start moderating if things ramp up.
-
Oh please. That was an entirely civil post and the warning is unwarranted. Unless you're referring to Grefter's post? In which case I wonder why you waited until now to warn us.
-
Oh fucking please. That was an entirely civil post and the warning is unwarranted. Unless you're referring to Grefter's post? In which case I wonder why you waited until now to warn us.
Because I hadn't gotten here until now. Anyway, it's kinda both, I'm not interested in this turning into a political bitchfest and flamewar. It can happen easily with this sort of thing, so don't let it.
-
In the interests of keeping this on topic, this will be the extent of my response: Fine, but ::)
Now back to your regularly scheduled divisive conversation.
-
Sure, people are hypocrites in politics. This doesn't change the fact that the budget's going to be a trillion dollars over this year. The debt was 3.6 Trillion 10 years ago, now it's over 11 trillion. This is something that needs to be addressed (And Bush did an absolutely terrible job with this), not be further accelerated. The political side of it is something I don't care for, but I can definitely understand people's frustration with the debt.
I'm just wondering what these people thought should be done about the hemoragging job market and the floundering economy. Sit around and twiddle your thumbs for a while and hope it goes away?
-
The same things they always advocate; ending taxes on business, deregulation, slashing taxes on the wealthy. The unshakable belief is that ANY action by the government which alters the business environment, whether by adding incentives via taxation or direct intervention, will unfailingly derail the capitalist process and harm the economy.
(Seriously. Watch about 10 minutes of any financial network broadcast.)
-
I'm just wondering what these people thought should be done about the hemoragging job market and the floundering economy. Sit around and twiddle your thumbs for a while and hope it goes away?
Hey, it worked in the great Depression!
Oh wait....
-
Why weren't they protesting years ago when we were getting in ungodly amounts of debt under a so-called conservative administration? The 700 billion dollar bailout that Bush passed? Because they are hypocrites and only whine when a Democrat spends money.
Maybe I wasn't paying attention to the right news sources, but what I saw was people that were not happy with the TARP funds Bush passed and complained about it.
Then Obama and Congress pass a so-called "stimulus" package. Public opinion was strongly against it.
Then Obama proposes a budget that exceeds Bush's 2009 budget by a good $500 billion.
The way rampant, runaway spending is currently going, its not a stretch of the imagination to see that people are going to be increasingly pissed off as spending continues.
Super, that is what the fucking Government is there to DO in this situation. They run a deficit to bolster up the economy and to stop the living standards for the population from sinking into third world country bullshit. The run a debt during economic booms and try to spend nothing during downturns (ESPECIALLY at the start of a downturn) is massively reactionary and counter to what the entire point of the government is for
If you rely on disproven, outdated Keynesian theories, sure.
That said, Bush's spending policies were terrible shit for the most part, but not spending during a downturn is the right way for a government to act.
I'm just wondering what these people thought should be done about the hemoragging job market and the floundering economy. Sit around and twiddle your thumbs for a while and hope it goes away?
Yes. Wait for the market to bottom out (it'll bottom out quicker with no government intervention) and then let it recover naturally (it'll recover quicker without government intervention). Yeah, Keynesian spending might sound good at first, since it causes the bottoming out take longer (thus it gets more severe less quickly), but this means you're going to be in a bad economy longer (not good) and it also means recovery will take longer when the upturn occurs (also not good).
The same things they always advocate; ending taxes on business
Ending taxes on corporations is sorely needed. The way the current tax structure is, a corporation will pay 35% of its income in taxes. Now the shareholders are only making 65 cents on the dollar. Except for the fact that shareholders also have to pay taxes (currently 15%, but if Obama gets rid of the Bush tax cuts, they'll shoot back up to 35%) when they receive a dividend from already-taxed profits. Now shareholders are making 55 cents on the dollar (42 cents on the dollar if dividend caps are removed). Now add in state and local taxes.
As it currently stands, investors are boned by taxes, which means they have less money to invest in other businesses.
deregulation
Some regulation is needed (health, antitrust, and securities regs), a lot are unnecessary and only increase business transaction costs, which hurts all of society as a whole.
The unshakable belief is that ANY action by the government which alters the business environment, whether by adding incentives via taxation or direct intervention, will unfailingly derail the capitalist process and harm the economy.
Which is unfailingly true. Look what government tax incentives for employer-based health-care did for the health care system. Look at what the Federal Reserve did for the Great Depression and the current economic situation. Look at what Fannie and Freddy did for the current economic situation. Just a quick glance at history shows a slew of economic hardships caused or partially caused by government intervention and few, if any, benefits.
The problem is a lot of "conservatives" believe that being pro-business means giving some businesses special deals. This is not pro-business or capitalist. This is anti-all business BUT the ones that are benefited. Thus we see a lot of stupid subsidies, tax breaks/credits, and whatnot that hurts the economy. Not that "liberal" politicians are free from blame...most of them are clueless fucks who completely ruin everything they touch when it comes to the economy (hey there Barney Frank, proponents of Social Security, etc).
-
The annoying thing about the "tea parties" is the hypocrisy and the pretense that they're in any way spontaneous or grass-roots organizations. They definitely have a point about the ridiculous deficits we're running, although it'd be nice if they didn't pretend Bush never existed. This is all thoroughly balanced by their use of "tea-bag" as a verb, though.
I don't especially care about people respond or consider the people running the show. The point about spending is completely true. The debt Bush ran up was miserable at best, and yet it's going to be horribly overshadowed by Obama's so far. The demonstration's silly at best, but they are absolutely right about the spending and price we are going to pay as a country unless there's a better balance struck.
Zenny: That may or may not have been me, the anti war crowd certainly did make themselves an easy target. The people running the tea stuff may be venting a legitmate frustration, but they're doing it in a manner that's going to generate a lot of negative feedback.
I'm just wondering what these people thought should be done about the hemoragging job market and the floundering economy. Sit around and twiddle your thumbs for a while and hope it goes away?
(Hopefully, I'm not them) the same thing I said about the bailout several pages back- it was probably the best of the bad options, but the amount of aboslutely terrible and misplaced spending in it really overshadowed the bill. This doesn't say the republicans had a clue about what to do in response, it just doesn't make the bailout a good one.
Which is unfailingly true. Look what government tax incentives for employer-based health-care did for the health care system.
\
The increasing complexity of modern health care has a large role in that. Either Health care needs to be socialized (but well above the level we give our veterans, Tri-Care is not good) or adjusted in some other manner. I don't think health insurance is something the government should specifically cover, but at this point the outrageous costs of getting treatment doesn't really leave any other choices besides complete deregulation.
We pay a price for everything being disposable in hospitals and the quality of care we have too. A simple ball socket hip replacement costs 10000 dollars. Not the surgery itself, just the titanium replacement. Those have to be custom fitted and are thrown away if they aren't precisely fit. There was an fascianting piece on CNN's website a few weeks back about people travelling overseas to get major medical procedures done from western countries, either due to cost (US) or wait time (Canada, Europe).
-
a little aside on the comparatively uncontroversial topic of Don't Ask Don't Tell:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/04/wrong_on_gays_in_the_military.html
Washington Post published an op-ed arguing the other direction.
-
I don't especially care about people respond or consider the people running the show. The point about spending is completely true. The debt Bush ran up was miserable at best, and yet it's going to be horribly overshadowed by Obama's so far. The demonstration's silly at best, but they are absolutely right about the spending and price we are going to pay as a country unless there's a better balance struck.
Well, then I'm curious as to how you would respond to what Obama spoke on a couple days ago (yesterday?), explaining his rationale for the spending. It made a lot of sense to me--we have to deal with the debt, yes, but it must be a long term and not a short term series of reforms; everybody cutting on spending all at once will just freeze the economy since the American consumer isn't, well, consuming. It seems to me that he's addressing the problem of the debt but viewing it as a problem that can't be solved right now without strangling the economy even worse.
Zenny: That may or may not have been me, the anti war crowd certainly did make themselves an easy target. The people running the tea stuff may be venting a legitmate frustration, but they're doing it in a manner that's going to generate a lot of negative feedback.
I'm just pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of looking at the anti-war protests and grumbling, then looking at this and going "NO DEY HAVE TEH POINT."
I'm not saying their grievances aren't legitimate; they're just articulating their reservations... poorly. I'm saying that you're being a hypocrite and should cut the special pleading bullshit. This tea bagging business is just as juvenile as the actions of the anti-war movement (if not moreso; look at some of the photographs from these "Tea Parties." Notice the small but uncomfortable percentage of signs that are potentially racist), legitimacy of both protest movements aside. Saying Yes, because you should just quietly sit and take it if you aren't happy with the incredibly bloated stimulus and federal budget.
while not acknowledging anything from their lack of a different solution to how juvenile their antics are, given your previous takes on... ostensibly similar movements, is hypocrisy, and it makes it really hard to take your take on the issue seriously.
-
Haven't seen the speech. Link?
while not acknowledging anything from their lack of a different solution to how juvenile their antics are, given your previous takes on... ostensibly similar movements, is hypocrisy, and it makes it really hard to take your take on the issue seriously.
It was in response to:
I am thoroughly depressed that this tea party bullshit fucking took off again. That stuff was shown to be rightist grass roots propaganda bullshit fucking months ago.
Fuck this shit. Retards deserve the society you build for yourselves.
Comments like this clearly deserve a complete response that breaks down both sides of the issues. If you can point out where I defended the movement other than a one line response to Grefter's ranting that didn't defend or even comment specifically, feel free to do so. In the mean time, shove off with the hypocrisy comments.
-
Just because it was in response to something doesn't mean it says nothing about your own biases.
--
I caught the speech on the news; let me see if I can scrounge up a link real fast though.
EDIT: Here. Video wasn't loading for me, but there's a transcript at the bottom.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/obama-economy-speech-majo_n_186559.html
The part I was referring to starts at "Now, some have argued that this recovery plan is a case of irresponsible government spending;" and it goes on for a bit and then he goes off on other issues. He resumes discussion of the deficit spending around "Now, I realize that for some, this isn't enough. I know there is a criticism out there..."
Though I'd say the full speech is worth a read/listen, CTRL+Fing those lines will take you to what I was referring to specifically.
-
Good speech. He talks a good game, but I'll wait and see. As always, I am completely and 100% behind the trashing of congress for being short sighted idiots on all fronts.
He wants to go in the socialized medicine direction for health care. I'm certainly not going to object, it beats the current option as long as we can provide a reasonable level of care. Details of the plan are iffy, but he's reached the same conclusion I have (and most people in the medial field have), so it's worth a listen.
The energy stuff is just vague handwaving, but if you pour enough money and time into something like this you'll get -something-.
Rules that tie someone's pay to their actual job performance.
Would that even stand up in court?
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/ On a related note to the above, Douthat's comments on the tea party stuff.
-
It isn't a response to only what you said. It is the fact that they are being highly televised and are getting a fuck load of support now. The fact that they are getting huge support NOW, well after the fact that they were unearthed as being astroturf from the harder than more popularly supported right is out and out sickening. It is the TIMING of the support as well. Cause you know what? To little to late and right as you are about to punch the people most effected by it in the balls. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual cause. It has EVERYTHING to do with the timing. See the stuff ID is talking about where favouring certain companies is bad for capitalism and all that? This is the exact same thing, but Double plus pimping for it being based around class stratification. Were you one of the owners in a large corporation? Here have a few trillion dollars split between you guys. Oh the millions of middle class that are about to get fucked in the arse? Well enjoy this studded dildo, we just took away your lube.
Edit - Oh yeah and it doesn't matter who is fronting the Tea Party shit? What the fuck? That is a huge deal. It is about who is making money off this shit by selling merchandise. It is Freedomworks that is benefiting from this by suckering saps into thinking that giving them money for a shirt is doing anything. The whole thing is revenue building for a partisan movement that was just voted out of government 6 months ago. This is like donating to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
God forbid the politics thread have politics in it guys, I am sorry.
To ID, it has nothing to do with Keynesian economics. That is the very function and purpose of government to look after the people. Without it everything is inferior to anarchy.
-
God forbid the politics thread have politics in it guys, I am sorry.
Sigging.
No other real comment since... yeah, trying to keep stress/anger/annoyance levels down right now, so.
-
Edit - Oh yeah and it doesn't matter who is fronting the Tea Party shit? What the fuck? That is a huge deal. It is about who is making money off this shit by selling merchandise. It is Freedomworks that is benefiting from this by suckering saps into thinking that giving them money for a shirt is doing anything. The whole thing is revenue building for a partisan movement that was just voted out of government 6 months ago. This is like donating to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Gref, the people who show up for this are folks who would donate to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth anyway. The partisan divide in this country, taking the metric of comparing the % of democrats vs. the % of republicans who thing the president is doing a good job (a flawed metric but useful in this case) is the biggest they've ever recorded. Theese people are angry partisans who, to paraphrase Jon Stewart, have mistaken losing for tyranny. Yes, the event has been manufactured by conservative focus groups, abetted by Fox news pimpin' and Liberal-media mockin.' Yes, these people are mostly hypocrites when it comes to the budget. But that misses the point that 110,000 people (the best realistic estimate) were angry enough to take tuesday off to protest the president, the government, and the current state of affairs in general (but mostly the president). I think this whole thing, events, coverage, is monumentally stupid, but even though it's a creation of the media, people showed up.
-
And that is the problem, that people are being so blatantly manipluated AND the fact that they are openly doing it at this point. It was MORE successful when they were openly flashing around their partisan banner. Which all things considered should ease my mind maybe? It means that the stance wasn't the kind of thing that even the partisan types backed unless they were told to go to originally and that most others thought it was a joke.
But no. The fact that NOW it gets treated with any degree of legitimacy now at all still bothers me.
-
In fairness, some of the tax protests are gays (especially married ones, I'd imagine) protesting their federal and state taxes not syncing up and then having to pay more on the federal taxes than they would! Granted, the other people's taxes only went up if they made a significant amount of money, I believe.
-
If that is so then they are showing up to the wrong protest. Equal rights for all married couples is something that you should be marching for at your normal gay marriage event. Protesting the bailout has very little to do with the actual taxation parts of the policies.
-
The partisan divide in this country, taking the metric of comparing the % of democrats vs. the % of republicans who thing the president is doing a good job (a flawed metric but useful in this case) is the biggest they've ever recorded.
I find this really frightening. At least with Bush Jr. there was a firestarter that caused a major partisan divide (a long and bitter court case between him and Gore, and an election where he lost the popular vote). I mean, the level of partisanship in America frightened me for a while after that, and the 2004 election wasn't going to be an exception as it also involved Bush. However now we have a president that didn't have a particularly bitter election, whose opponent in the election (McCain) was actually rallying behind Obama's bailout bill.
And it's the most partisanly divided the country has ever been on the President? Seriously, what? How do we reduce partisanship in America, because it seriously frightens me, and makes me think nobody is actually voting for the issues rather than the party.
-
The events are usually pretty separated. I was just saying that a few of the tax protesters actually have legitimate reasons for doing it, and aren't just boo-hooing because they heaps of money they make means that now they pay more taxes.
-
RE: Teaparties
They started off as grassroots-type organizations. Media got a hold of it and promoted/ridiculed it. Nothing out of the ordinary here. Some of the people that went were manipulated, some of the people that went were not.
To ID, it has nothing to do with Keynesian economics. That is the very function and purpose of government to look after the people. Without it everything is inferior to anarchy.
Yes, the function of the government is to protect the rights and well being of the citizens. Keynesian deficit spending is a theory that believes government spending during a recession fills the gaps left by businesses that are cutting back and restores employment. There is nothing mutually exclusive about these. Obama's response to help Americans and the economy is by relying on Keynesian theory. By extension, evaluating the effectiveness of Keynesian theory also measure the efficiency of Obama's solution to the problem.
I will agree that sitting back and doing nothing is not the ideal response here; the government was heavily responsible for the current economic situation, therefore it will take some change in governmental policy and some government intervention to correct the problem. The main concern is that passing bailout after bailout and inflating the budget is overreaction by the government in fixing the problem. To use the old idiom..."don't use a sword where a scalpel is needed."
RE: Obama's speech...
Okay, it sounded nice, but if you look at it he's mostly just bullshitting with a charismatic smile. I guess Obama is a good lawyer after all!
One, he's basing everything on the assumption that the government will be effective in not only fixing the economy, but also laying the "new foundations" for a newer, better economy. History has shown us that these types of massive governmental restructurings do more to harm everyone massively than help. Great Leap Forward anyone?
Second, he's still drawing non-sequiter lines between health care and energy and fixing the economy.
Third, he still hasn't indicated how he'll address the national debt with any sort of specificity.
And it's the most partisanly divided the country has ever been on the President? Seriously, what? How do we reduce partisanship in America, because it seriously frightens me, and makes me think nobody is actually voting for the issues rather than the party.
Welcome to the utter failure of a two party system...just as President Washington warned against 200 years ago.
-
Even protesting the bailout concepts is fine. It is the how, the when and not applying cui bono at all with the horrible hypocrisy that is the problem.
The tea parties didn't start as grass roots ID. They started off as astroturf websites based around a statement made by someone in the media (Rick Santelli, who get this, has ties to Freedomworks). Angryrenter.com was one of the bigger starting ones and it is 100% Freedomworks owned, the large majority of the blogs that were covering it back in January (? Maybe February) were also Freedomworks blogs. This entire thing is a piece of social engineering.
Edit 3 - I missed to note that the original blogs were all pretty much up within a period of a day after Santelli made his (canned) spur of the moment speech. These were not overnight amateur jobs. There were websites that had been registered with Tea Party themed names all the way back to during the election.
Edit - Oh yeah. I concede that Keynesian theory is pretty bunk generally ID. I just consider stopping a non-insignificant portion of the population from running risks of suffering massive credit failure (given how prolific CC is in the US! and credit rating being something used to gauge potential renters... which they will be doing if their house just defaulted) to be something the government should be looking to avoid. The argument isn't against applying certain kinds of economics, it is that while it isn't the FASTEST solution it is a step that is a good one to take from a humanist angle (which of course I take). Edit 2 - Which isn't to say I don't think the people who AREN'T in the middle class should have been so massively hauled out.
-
And it's the most partisanly divided the country has ever been on the President? Seriously, what? How do we reduce partisanship in America, because it seriously frightens me, and makes me think nobody is actually voting for the issues rather than the party.
when I said it was a flawed metric, I meant this: number of people who self-identify as Republicans is at a near- if not historic low. Conversely the number of people self-identifying as Democrats is monumentally high. People are still voting the issue, but they do so increasingly by switching parties, not by dissenting within their existing one. So even though the parties are more stratified in opinion than they have been (89%(!!) approval from Dems, 31% from the GOP), it doesn't mean the people are. Hope that makes you feel better.
The survey:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_040609.pdf
And...a slightly different survey, which I hope improves the mood.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanley-bing/the-national-mood-a-quiz_b_187811.html
-
The tea parties didn't start as grass roots ID. They started off as astroturf websites based around a statement made by someone in the media (Rick Santelli, who get this, has ties to Freedomworks). Angryrenter.com was one of the bigger starting ones and it is 100% Freedomworks owned, the large majority of the blogs that were covering it back in January (? Maybe February) were also Freedomworks blogs. This entire thing is a piece of social engineering.
Okay, my mistake. I thought astroturfing was still considered a grassroots movement, just with lobbyists on board to reap some of the benefits. Although it would be good to know how much control Freedomworks itself has over its blog writers.
Oh yeah. I concede that Keynesian theory is pretty bunk generally ID. I just consider stopping a non-insignificant portion of the population from running risks of suffering massive credit failure (given how prolific CC is in the US! and credit rating being something used to gauge potential renters... which they will be doing if their house just defaulted) to be something the government should be looking to avoid.
Yes, but at some point government responsibility ends and personal responsibility begins. Granted, you can't solely lay the blame at idiots who took out a loan they couldn't afford due to moronic behavior at the Federal Reserve, but if you're going to take out a big loan you should still have the foresight to see that you won't always have liquid cash available (hence why finance specialists advocating having at least 6 months worth of savings before investing or taking out major loans) or knowledge of the consequence if you do happen to default. It should not be in the government's sphere of power to save people from their own foolish mistakes.
The argument isn't against applying certain kinds of economics, it is that while it isn't the FASTEST solution it is a step that is a good one to take from a humanist angle (which of course I take). Edit 2 - Which isn't to say I don't think the people who AREN'T in the middle class should have been so massively hauled out.
It may be more humanist early on (yay, my business decided not to lay me off!), but ultimately, the economic theory that is most effective is going to be the one most beneficial to everybody in the long run (oh shit, I'm paying 50% of my income in taxes and the money I do save is outpaced by inflation!).
That...and see the point about people having to answer for their own problems above. While it may not be the "happiest" method, I think there's something to be said for people learning how to adapt and overcome their own problems rather than looking for someone to do it for them (and I know there are well regarded psychological theories/studies that show this is beneficial...I just forget their names now).
-
Yeah I can see Psych stuff suggesting the need for independence from the government effecting well being, I would question to how much of an effect that has based on cultural biases though.
Personal responsibility we are of course going to disagree on where the line is drawn. When something is being suggested to people by professionals in a field that they are not likely to work in and then they got royally screwed over by the people in the same industry, I can't really blame people for that. Day to day book balancing? Yeah I can expect people to handle that accounting for themselves, but when you are taking into account market factors and 25 years down the track, I can't really hang it over the consumer's head there. If a Psychologist failed their duty of care to that degree you know they wouldn't be practicing any more.
Astroturfing isn't grass roots movements. That is like saying Viral Marketing is just regular consumers trying to fill you in on these great deals. They are designed to LOOK like grass roots movements but all of the groundwork is actually laid down by professionals. So this isn't what the people are thinking or protesting against, it is them being told they can protest for this and hey xyz other message might get through at the same time, BOO SEE HOW MUCH EVERYONE LOVES US. Case in point, see Dhyer's point with people turning up to these protests to represent something else completely different. They sure as fuck aren't being counted for getting THAT message across, but they damned well are showing their support for what FreedomWorks is saying even if that is not what they are actually going to protest about. How much control did FreedomWorks have over their bloggers? Well considering they had a prepackaged website to throw up the day after Santelli made his spiel? I would be pretty confident they are saying exactly what they want them to (Since you know, they get paid).
-
Second, he's still drawing non-sequiter lines between health care and energy and fixing the economy.
The best way to reduce government spending besides massively cutting down the size of the military is getting health care costs under control. The current system's borked beyond belief because of the lack of health care and reliance on ERs for common treatment for people who can't afford to go to the doctor. I don't care which direction it goes in for insurance (Socialist or complete private), but it needs to change. Even if you make it completely private, the government's going to have to cover the poorest, if only to prevent hospitals from soaking up massive debt from treating colds and the flu at the ER instead of at a doctor's office. We're pretty well stuck with needing some form of assistance, or else you're going to see a massive shift in the survival age of the popluation based on income. The public very obviously won't support that.
If you can switch the popluation over to preventive health care- and the best way to do this is make going to the doctor affordable instead of outrageous like it is now without insurance, you cut into the debt. There are otherways to combat this. Oncology is insanely, breath takingly expensive. Best way to reduce cancer rates is cracking down on smoking as much as possible without creating a black market. The distasteful laws we've seen past against smoking in public are efforts in that regard.
And obviously, reduce pointless goverment waste and you have more money to spend on the things that matter (Like say the military), and reduce taxes.
I'm willing to go along with energy. I don't think it does a damn thing to fix our econamy in the short term, but for national security reasons we really need to get off at least oil. Nuclear+Solar's our best bet there, and we damn well should be spending money now (Should've in the 70s, thanks green movement for opposing nuclear) to make gains there.
-
You mean the same 70's that had the Three Mile Island partial meltdown at the end of it Super? Nuclear energy has had a lot of ground made in it in the 60 years it has been in development. Utilizing energy source with such high disaster potential and toxic byproducts when the tech is only 20/30 years old beyond pure theory is pretty nuts man. Given the world environment at the time, it is not something I can really fault them for it (The first really huge world wide oil shortage scare was in '79 as well, same year as Three Mile Island incident). Some perspective is kind of required there.
-
One freak accident completely arrested the nuclear power movement. It was an easy enough scapegoat, if an understandable one.
There are a lot of problems with nuclear power. It's hard to assemble the equipment required (Wikipedia says there's only one place in the world that makes a key coolant part) and of course the waste, but it's our best option until widespread solar power is viable. So much of the current problems are from lack of planning and preparing from then. Lack of new plants is bad, lack of having the infratructure to build new plants is really damn bad.
Energy in general is such a classic case of politicans on all sides failing beyond belief. It was easy enough to see the huge spike in population growth, and yet there was next to no preparation in pretty much any energy sector, from oil for cars to electricity generation. Ethanol to 'clean' energy to ignoring nuclear to slapfights over coal, it's like a litany of things that congress should be kicked in the gonads for.
I don't expect green energy and the money we're sinking in to do anything at the moment. Until we create reasonably priced and useful solar power panels, it's largely a pipe dream. Spending the money now (yes, even in a rescession) is a good thing. We're really going to need it in a generation to meet electrical demand.
The dishonesty and bullshiting from the president about it annoys the hell out of me, but at least he's doing something right with energy.
-
Three Mile Island was in 1979 though, at the end of a decade of greens being against nuclear power being used. It kind of proved the point, not acted as a scapegoat. They didn't kill the research in it and we are in a much better position to utilize it now when we have a situation that the payoff for the risk is quite obviously in proportion where it didn't seem like it was going to be 30 years ago when we had just watched Three Mile Island happen (10 years ago I can see someone calling better than 30, let alone a the better half of 40 years if you are going to lump it all on the 70's). We didn't need 40 years to build that infrastructure. 10 years ago? Yeah we could probably have had plants coming online soon if not already up and running if Clinton and his peers internationally had his shit together on that topic.
Edit - So yeah I agree it is certainly looking to be a good option now and having the infrastructure in place already would be a good thing. I think you are just missing the failure point by a factor of decades there.
-
Personal responsibility we are of course going to disagree on where the line is drawn.
Yeah, fair enough.
The best way to reduce government spending besides massively cutting down the size of the military is getting health care costs under control.
Still a non-sequiter argument.
The economy is fucked up right now due to poor monetary policy. Fixing health care to reduce government spending is a fiscal policy. To put it another way, if all the government did to try and fix the economy is to create a surplus to pay down debt, the economy would still be fucked up. Why? Because there is not enough money flowing in the economy between banks and businesses.
Fixing health care would be great, and I'm all for it. To use the economic situation right now as a springboard to push through totally unrelated legislation, however, is completely disingenuous (but completely expected from slimeball politicians).
-
The best way to reduce government spending besides massively cutting down the size of the military is getting health care costs under control.
Still a non-sequiter argument.
The economy is fucked up right now due to poor monetary policy. Fixing health care to reduce government spending is a fiscal policy. To put it another way, if all the government did to try and fix the economy is to create a surplus to pay down debt, the economy would still be fucked up. Why? Because there is not enough money flowing in the economy between banks and businesses.
Fixing health care would be great, and I'm all for it. To use the economic situation right now as a springboard to push through totally unrelated legislation, however, is completely disingenuous (but completely expected from slimeball politicians).
In fairness, it isn't like Congress would actually do anything useful ever that requires hard choices without strongarming like this.
-
I am kind of with ID on this one as well, now isn't the best time to go for that kind of social reform (It should have be what put you into 11 trillion dollars in debt over the last 8 years instead, although I imagine the backlash would be pretty obscene given the fact that American mentality as a nation on the whole thing is really weird).
-
I see the discussion has mostly moved on from it, but here's a neat article comparing and contrasting the Boston Tea Party to the April 15th protests.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041702664.html
-
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/22/technology/nuclear.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009042212 *Dropkicks Harry Reid for good measure* He isn't specifically at fault, but still.
-
In news that shocks no one, Arlen Specter decided he'd rather be a Democrat than Republican. The Republican party pretty much continues to splinter off all moderates. Honestly, I wasn't expecting them to get LESS centric after this election, but what do I know?!
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/snowe-gop-has-abandoned-p_n_192368.html
A little more scary news for the GOP: Snowe has nothing good to say about them on the matter.
Funny. Douthat in his first NYT column laid out a scenario that he believed might have shaken the GOP from what he sees as a death spiral of conservative purity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Maybe this will be their wake-up call.
-
Specter? Really? Do we have to accept him?
-
Of course not. Just keep your mouth shut for, say, the rest of the year.
Still, I think Specter has a pretty damn good shot in a Democratic primary. The people who got him through the Republican primary last time are all Democrats now, after all...
-
I'd rather if he just went off to hang out with Joe Lieberman. One of the good things about moving out of PA was that he wasn't representing me in Congress anymore.
-
"Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not," Steele said in a written statement. "Let's be honest -- Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record."
Steele is mostly correct here. He's all yours.
Reid called Specter a "man of honor and integrity" who would be welcome in the Democratic caucus.
lol
Sometimes, 'lol' is the only thing that quite sums things up. This would be one of those times.
Good piece by Douthat, on that note.
-
Guy with politics that have gone against the progressively more and more extreme in it's views joins the part that won the election by appearing as centrist as possible? This means he is a traitorous devil of course and cannot hold true to his beliefs (Fuck your smear campaigns).
-
"Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not," Steele said in a written statement. "Let's be honest -- Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record."
Steele is mostly correct here. He's all yours.
Are there any politicians that have principles? Are there any politicians not out there looking to keep their jobs? And, really, are you going to smear someone who had the "gall" to switch parties when there's people in the Republican party who are talking openly about secession?
Sometimes "Fuck off and quit bitching." is about the only thing that sums things up.
EDIT: Not that I don't agree that Specter is probably an unprincipled, whorey scumbag. But him switching parties is hardly the reason. He's a politician. The system's kinda broke so that those are the only types of people that get elected.
EDIT 2: Hey, guess which Governor who attended a tea bag party and advocated reactionary secessionist ideology a few weeks ago is requesting Swine Flu vaccine from which federal government he had just recently advocated seceding from?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html
http://governor.state.tx.us/
Now THERE's a whorey politician.
-
The party switch is a symptom, not a reason; Specter has been a complete douchebag for longer than I've been alive. So's Rick Perry, yes, but Perry's not getting supported by my party all of a sudden.
-
Pfft. Like the Democrats haven't been filled with whorey scumbag politicians for a while anyway. Still not seeing the big deal.
-
The party switch is a symptom, not a reason; Specter has been a complete douchebag for longer than I've been alive. So's Rick Perry, yes, but Perry's not getting supported by my party all of a sudden.
I'll just second any motion that ships him and Liberman to siberia.
-
Reid called Specter a "man of honor and integrity" who would be welcome in the Democratic caucus.
lol
What's that? I can't hear you over the filibuster proof majority. (http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii271/DiseasedTempest/emot-smug.gif)
-
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Relying on Arlen Specter to deliver a significant vote under pressure may produce ulcers, homicidal impulses and rapid collisions of head against wall.
-
Take your reality elsewhere, Shale, this is the politics thread.
-
I assume he was just looking for an excuse to use that picture
-
I appreciate that Specter admitted in his statement that his decision was based mostly on anyone who would have voted for him in the primary having jumped ship to the other side. That's honest opportunism, and I think it's healthy for politics. The two-party system is a dangerous force in politics because it polarizes the political process. A vote for a moderate Republican is exactly the same as a vote for a conservative one, provided that conservatives run the party. If more politicians threaten to leave their parties when the votes dry up, we may see a more fluid, moderate-controlled political process. Specter isn't any less of a political hack than people who always vote their party, but he's the kind of political hack that may be good for politics as a whole. Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
EDIT: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904u/arlen-specter
-
Some notes on the state of the nation:
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Obama100days/story?id=7459488&page=1
a plurality of respondents favor gay marriage, and a majority (53%) say gay marriages should be honored even in states that don't allow them. 49% of respondents favored gay marriage, 46% opposed. This is up astronomically from other polls from even a few months ago.
On top of that, laws legalizing gay marriage have passed the Maine and New Hampshire senates. Both are expected to pass the more liberal houses, so they should be in the hands of the respective governors before long. It's unclear where those governors stand on the issue, and vetoes would kill either bill, but there's a real possibility that almost all of New England could allow gay marriage before the summer is out.
I'm thrilled about this, and a bit perplexed as well. The country is in crisis-mode, and for good reason. Why all this now? Marijuana legalization is also more popular now than ever (still not in the majority, though: 52% oppose, 46% favor), and amnesty for illegal immigrants has shot through the roof (61% favor, 35% oppose). Gun control, conversely, is less popular than it has been, though not dramatically.
Public opinion in the ABC poll seems to be heading in a socially liberal (or libertarian) direction, but the country still identifies itself as center-right (35-35-20: conservative-moderate-liberal) and a majority believe Obama is more liberal than they are (sorry, can't find the link).
In great but more predictable news, Obama's presidency has improved the perception of race relations in the US.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/us/politics/28poll.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=race%20relations&st=cse
-
I'm thrilled about this, and a bit perplexed as well. The country is in crisis-mode, and for good reason. Why all this now? Marijuana legalization is also more popular now than ever (still not in the majority, though: 52% oppose, 46% favor), and amnesty for illegal immigrants has shot through the roof (61% favor, 35% oppose). Gun control, conversely, is less popular than it has been, though not dramatically.
One of the better quotes I read on gun control was from a columnist (Mosley may have been the name? Older black writer, been years since I've read him), who opined that the damage had been done with guns. Even if we could completely shut down our borders and the like (lol), there were way, way too many firearms in the US as is. Gun control can't effectively regulate illegal firearms in the US. Outside of a few things (Gun show loopholes), I don't think there's much headway that can be made. In spite of the bleating from the Herbert types, I don't think gun control is an effective platform issue for the democrats.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/02/miss_california_usa-2/
A column on the Prejean stuff. It's not what you'd expect from a fox news blog, I'll say that.
-
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/02/miss_california_usa-2/
A column on the Prejean stuff. It's not what you'd expect from a fox news blog, I'll say that.
Interesting; major political forces I know in the LGBT community feel really strongly that she shouldn't have lost the title for that. All of them feel strongly that she should be able to have that opinion and should be able to be honest about it (and also that Perez was out of line). Granted, not that they agree with Miss California's viewpoint (obviously) but that they don't want to take away anyone else's rights to their own beliefs.
On the other hand, said LGBT leaders are diplomats themselves, so.... >_>
-
I think pretty much everyone thinks Perez was a bloody idiot. You don't want to bring politics in it, but you ask an extremely political question. Right.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-normoyle/gathering-storm-miss-cali_b_195087.html
Here's what, for lack of a better term, "the liberals" have to say about the whole thing. Obviously the writer speaks only for himself, but I think there is some consensus vis-a-vie "the juvenile grandstanding and self-aggrandizing douchebaggery of Perez."
I link this because I think this represents the gut reaction secular liberals have to the whole question of religious belief not only in regard to homosexuality but also the death penalty, premarital sex, contraception, and to a much lesser extent abortion. They're skeptical of the earnestness of religious belief, and their immediate reaction is to try and pick it apart, focusing on (perceived) inconsistencies. I think to a great extent that American conservatives concern themselves with morality and liberals concern themselves with hypocrisy. Internal consistency is they key for liberals, as opposed to, y'know, just believing the right things.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-normoyle/gathering-storm-miss-cali_b_195087.html
Here's what, for lack of a better term, "the liberals" have to say about the whole thing. Obviously the writer speaks only for himself, but I think there is some consensus vis-a-vie "the juvenile grandstanding and self-aggrandizing douchebaggery of Perez."
I link this because I think this represents the gut reaction secular liberals have to the whole question of religious belief not only in regard to homosexuality but also the death penalty, premarital sex, contraception, and to a much lesser extent abortion. They're skeptical of the earnestness of religious belief, and their immediate reaction is to try and pick it apart, focusing on (perceived) inconsistencies. I think to a great extent that American conservatives concern themselves with morality and liberals concern themselves with hypocrisy. Internal consistency is they key for liberals, as opposed to, y'know, just believing the right things.
I don't necessarily believe that that's a divide so much between conservatives and liberals so much as it is between religious people and secular people. While there is a correlation between each group (religious/conservative, secular/liberal), attributing the trait to political affiliation instead of religious belief is misleading.
That said, I am not surprised that someone whose stage name is derivative of Paris Hilton is a grandstanding douchebag. Or that a beauty queen doesn't have the most enlightened opinions.
-
While I'm not sure anybody really disagrees that Perez Hilton is a huge jerk, I'm not sure it's fair to say that Prejean got set up to take a fall for her beliefs. I think it's pretty common for Miss USA contestants to be asked featherweight questions about, say, world peace, and I don't think anybody would bat an eye if a contestant was disqualified for stating, no matter how hesitantly, that she would rather nations went to war for their beliefs more often (for all that this is actually a tenet of a political faction at least as healthy as the anti-gay rights crowd). Similarly, if for some reason a contestant was asked to comment on interracial marriage, the obvious parallel, and said she was against it, well, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, right?
As for the religious/secular divide, well, someone over on Secular Right is currently hashing out a (secular conservative) case against gay marriage, which is pretty interesting if ultimately (in my opinion) astoundingly unconvincing.
http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1940
-
The part where he tried to paint homophobia as part of human nature strikes me as particularly epic there - way to ignore your ancient history, mister. If this was human nature, I doubt the blatant bisexuality of the greeks would have even existed.
-
Or the Edo-era Japanese. Or the pre-Christian Romans. Or, I'm sure, lots more examples I'm unaware of that existed before exposure to Judeo-Christian doctrine. Though he claims the argument is secular, it presupposes the "correctness" of Anglo-American norms which, hey, lookit that, are heavily grounded in Protestant, Puritan traditions.
Calling some of the violence experienced by homosexuals as "occasional slights" is pretty damn offensive as well, and someone needs to point that asshole in the direction of Mathew Sheppard and other similar cases.
And, really, I want to fucking slap everybody who makes the claim "NO WE CAN'T REDEFINE MARRIAGE BECAUSE THEN WE CAN REDEFINE IT HOWEVER WE WANT." Do some fucking homework; Christian marriage has changed a lot over history--it wasn't even considered a holy sacrament until the Gregorian reform in the 13th century, and the Protestant Reformation (and the accompanying Counter-Reformation) changed it quite a bit as well, though I know a little less about the specifics of those changes. People have been redefining marriage for centuries, and just like the rest of his pathetic little argument, this assertion is based on ignorance and unfounded presupposition. If you're going to argue, do your homework, otherwise (at the risk of sounding like Bill O'Reilly...) shut the fuck up.
-
Ah, but you forget, per Virginia Foxx, the hate crime aspect of Matt Shepard's death is a "hoax" (because normal everyday robberies totally involve tying the victim to a post and slashing the hell out of them).
One thing I find really interesting about the SR article there is that its relative articulateness really highlights the prejudice at the base of the anti-gay marriage argument: it basically boils down to A) ew, and B) quit your whining, it's not that bad. Bundled up with some selective historical blindness, of course. The only marginally convincing arguments on their side are religious (leaving aside the valid questions of how strongly the bible actually condemns homosexuality and how seriously to take those condemnations), and those are conveniently neutered by little things like separation of church and state and freedom of religion.
It's funny, it's become sort of a signature issue for me despite my agnosticism on state sponsored marriage generally, just due to the sheer intellectual bankruptcy of its opponents.
-
Yeah, everything that needs saying about that link has been said.
Recent legal decisions allowing gay marriage have ruled that homosexuality was immutable, in other words so intrinsic to homosexuals that it would be impossible or at least very damaging for them to change. This is an understanding that is very new to the mainstream, and there are plenty of folks not on board.
From a historical standpoint, homosexuality has often been defined by behavior, gay sex, rather than gay love. As long as homosexuality was considered behavioral, people who had gay sex were just people who had gay sex, and certainly weren't entitled to any special protections for it. If homosexuals are simply as people who have gay sex, there's no reason whatsoever for them to accept gay marriage, or even laws barring sodomy. There are still people who define homosexuality that way, and that's why they focus on the sex.
You see this kind of misconception in arguments against gays serving openly in the military. This is a common theme: if you can't discriminate against homosexuals, then they can leer at you and make unwelcome comments and advances in the showers, and if you complain about it to your superior officer, you'll get in trouble for discriminating. Homosexuality as a trait is being conflated with sexual harassment, which of course the military already has rules against.
On a more positive note, the Mainew legislature passed a bill legalizing gay marriage today, leaving it up to the governor to sign or veto. New Hampshire is expected to do the same tomorrow.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2009/05/05/maine_house_oks_gay_marriage_bill/
On a less positive note, this guy still exists.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/05/joe/index.html
-
He's right in the legal sense that gay marriage should be a state by state issue, but that is about as far as I'm willing to split hairs for that idiot.
-
So what do you think should be done if a couple that lives in a state that outlaws gay marriage travels to a state that allows it and gets married, then goes back? Does it count or not? Remember the Full Faith and Credit clause.
-
State has to treat it as a marriage. I'm strongly in favor of legalizing gay marriage, but it's still something the states should specificallly have to do.
Abortion's the same way. I'm not really a supporter of Roe V Wade, but it makes an interesting case about the right of states versus the right of the person.
Defense of marriage act and other delightful laws goes against this, but still.
-
Defense of Marriage Act has yet to face a constitutional challenge on full faith and credit, I believe. Gay rights activists don't want the current supreme court within striking distance of it. The marriage-honoring is a big problem logistically. Take Iowa: anyone can get married in Iowa, but only state residents can get divorced. States that don't recognize gay marriage don't recognize gay divorce either, leading to an incredibly messy situation.
EDIT: Unrelated Topic: Britain thinks ideas are dangerous. Yeesh.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/michael-savage-banned-fro_n_196631.html
-
As for the religious/secular divide, well, someone over on Secular Right is currently hashing out a (secular conservative) case against gay marriage, which is pretty interesting if ultimately (in my opinion) astoundingly unconvincing.
http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1940
Hmm...
#1: Yes the majority has rights too; I don't see any trampling or inconvenience here, though. When you need to offer 6 languages, yes it reduces the quality of service you can give to the majority. When First Nation's People are declared to be legal owners of large sections of Canadian cities for historical reasons which are currently inhabited by white people, yeah, that tramples on the white people's rights. When a small contingent of Jews in 1950 decided they could march into the Middle East and force out some Arabs to build a new country, yeah, they're trampling on majority rights.
But gay marriage? Uhh...I don't see how heterosexual marriage is really affected negatively.
#2: Historical costantness--others covered this.
#3: Slipery slope.
* Ponies cannot legally sign a contract (nor can people under the age of 18).
* Incest...well the argument against Incestual marriage is that the resulting kids will be screwed up (the general idea in law being that marriage and sex are at least somewhat linked--see, for example, AIDS tests being required for a marriage certificate in some states). So...that argument could be used to block calls for incest marriage; well...I guess homosexual incest marriage would be okay.
* Polygamy...on paper there's nothing wrong with it. In practice, it seem to be associated with horrible exploitation 90% of the time. That's enough of a justification for laws--see seatbelt laws, for example. People who don't wear seatbelts tend to get screwed up a whole lot worse, though on paper if everyone was a perfect driver it'd be silly to require seatbelts.
#4: You're going to confuse your (apparently) incredibly idiotic populace with all this confusing "change" stuff.
Yeah, uhh...both GW Bush and Obama won their elections with "Change" as a key campaign slogan. I mean, yeah, just from the perspective of a game designer I totally understand the "keep it simple" mantra, and chant it a lot myself. I also understand the concept of "if all else is equal, give players what they have grown to expect." However, gay marriage is not remotely complicated, and doesn't change how the majority of players "play" the game (heterosexual couples still usually get married in a church and sign the same documents).
#5: Human Nature--others have already argued that this isn't human nature but rather church doctrine. Personally I'm not sure it matters even if there is some human nature there--I mean, there are people with piercings that I'm sure make most of society very uncomfortable, and which probably make for weird sex. I wouldn't bar these people from getting married.
#6: This is an age-old one--"why not have some civil union with all the same rights, and just not call it marriage." Much better authors than I have written about this, like my twin (evil twin? Good twin? Whatever--mathematician girl who runs websites):
Why Separate Is Not Equal
California's domestic partnership law grants the same rights to domestic partners as to surviving spouses except for narrow areas BUT, the state agency overseeing crematories does not accept this and refuses to grant cremation licenses to crematoriums on the authority of a surviving domestic partner.
Unless EVERY existing law is changed or countless court battles are fought to establish that "same" means "same" by precedent, some asshat somewhere is going to insist that a law that says spouse does not include domestic partners.
This is the situation I am now in regarding the remains of my partner, Jeanne who died last Saturday. I don't have time to fight a legal battle because the law gives me only eight days to take charge of things and then the county is in charge.
Separate is NEVER equal.
- Joyce Melton
What finally happened is that Jeanne's sister took over and insisted that the death certificate be filled out in Jeanne's original name with Jeanne as an AKA. After 21 years, I had no spousal rights. Except that I had already paid for everything. Jeanne's sister simply took a last spiteful strike against Jeanne.
Separate is NEVER equal.
Hugs to all,
Erin
-
That's a great quote, mc.
-----------------
I'm tempted to put this in IotD, but it's Specter, soo....
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/specter-explains-pro-coleman-remarks-i-have-to-get-used-to-my-new-teammates.php
Asked who he’s backing now in elections, Specter said, “I’m looking for more Democratic members. Nothing personal.”
That...that's something you'd only expect to hear in comedies about soulless senators switching parties.
-
On a less positive note, this guy still exists.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/05/joe/index.html
I dunno. I think he's the gift that keeps on giving.
Not that I wouldn't be delighted to see, say, John Huntsman or someone comparitively sane take control of the Republicans. It has to happen sooner or later, that or a Democratic party split of some sort (a take Ben Nelson and get the hell out sort of deal), and it really would take some of the terror out of the American electoral process. But I couldn't really bring myself to complain too hard if that illiterate troglodyte were to remain one of the party's spokespeople for another election cycle or three either.
-
#6: This is an age-old one--"why not have some civil union with all the same rights, and just not call it marriage." Much better authors than I have written about this, like my twin (evil twin? Good twin? Whatever--mathematician girl who runs websites):
Why Separate Is Not Equal
California's domestic partnership law grants the same rights to domestic partners as to surviving spouses except for narrow areas BUT, the state agency overseeing crematories does not accept this and refuses to grant cremation licenses to crematoriums on the authority of a surviving domestic partner.
Unless EVERY existing law is changed or countless court battles are fought to establish that "same" means "same" by precedent, some asshat somewhere is going to insist that a law that says spouse does not include domestic partners.
This is the situation I am now in regarding the remains of my partner, Jeanne who died last Saturday. I don't have time to fight a legal battle because the law gives me only eight days to take charge of things and then the county is in charge.
Separate is NEVER equal.
- Joyce Melton
What finally happened is that Jeanne's sister took over and insisted that the death certificate be filled out in Jeanne's original name with Jeanne as an AKA. After 21 years, I had no spousal rights. Except that I had already paid for everything. Jeanne's sister simply took a last spiteful strike against Jeanne.
Separate is NEVER equal.
Hugs to all,
Erin
This is indeed a fantastic quote, but one which does not preclude the changing of all laws to be exactly that if people really are that anal (sex) about the term Marriage. I would rather someone hire a good Etymologist to define marriage and the way the word came about though since I thought it was more about joining and very little else.
-
I couldn't really bring myself to complain too hard if that illiterate troglodyte were to remain one of the party's spokespeople for another election cycle or three either.
I'd rather people like this were against me rather than with me, but what I'd really like is for them not to exist (or that sentiment not to exist, more accurately). How many people's homophobic views were reinforced when he said that?
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/tea-party-organizer-effor_n_195916.html
So apparently my paranoia about the Tea Party stuff was out of hand. Freedomworks doesn't have enough control over the events to subvert the real reasons people are going which aren't matching up with what they want them to rally for. What does that mean people are rallying for? Who the fuck knows, it has just degenerated into a mindless stupid mob doing something fucking retarded.
-
* Polygamy...on paper there's nothing wrong with it. In practice, it seem to be associated with horrible exploitation 90% of the time. That's enough of a justification for laws--see seatbelt laws, for example. People who don't wear seatbelts tend to get screwed up a whole lot worse, though on paper if everyone was a perfect driver it'd be silly to require seatbelts.
Polygamy would also require significant, and arguably inequitable (i.e. poly people getting more spousal benefits than monogamous people) amounts of bureaucratic adjustment for tax and immigration and whatnot; it's not that these things couldn't be done, but there's absolutely no political will, nor really any pressing moral or legal arguments for them (largely for the reasons you state).
Separate is NEVER equal.
As far as I understand the legal arguments, that's the crux of it. By keeping a segment of the population already vulnerable to prejudice artificially distinct in such a central societal function, you cannot help but perpetuate said prejudice. If there was some magical way whereby gay marriage actually threatened society, perhaps there would be justification for such a distinction, but of course there is no such threat, and thus no reason to deny or rename or otherwise distinguish a basic civil right.
I'd rather people like this were against me rather than with me, but what I'd really like is for them not to exist (or that sentiment not to exist, more accurately). How many people's homophobic views were reinforced when he said that?
Well, but that's why I despise Mike Huckabee; he propagates frankly vile opinions, but seems reasonable and articulate. Wurzelbacher has never been either, and if I have any faith in humanity whatsoever it says that he has accomplished nothing for the right in America save reinforce the opinions of the unsalvageable while driving away moderates. I just don't think the message that homosexuals (I do hate that he used the term queer; that's our term and he's made it feel a bit dirty again) are alright people but also all pedophiles will really resonate with anybody with a shred of common sense, let alone actual experience interacting with non-closeted gay people.
So yes, in a perfect world he and his whole worldview would not exist at all, but in the world we have, anything that helps marginalize the faction of intolerance is somewhat acceptable to me.
-
Polygamy would also require significant, and arguably inequitable (i.e. poly people getting more spousal benefits than monogamous people) amounts of bureaucratic adjustment for tax and immigration and whatnot
Oh, hm, I hadn't thought about that--yeah that arguably would threaten monogamous marriage. If you have a married couple and their sister living in the same house...why wouldn't you bring the sister into the marriage for tax reasons? If you have an immigrant friend who is being deported, why wouldn't you bring him into your marriage to give him immigration status?
I don't really see a way that would give equal rights without having all sorts of legal advantages and incentives for polygamy, which obviously isn't the desired goal.
Well, but that's why I despise Mike Huckabee; he propagates frankly vile opinion but seems reasonable and articulate. Wurzelbacher has never been either, and if I have any faith in humanity whatsoever it says that he has accomplished nothing for the right in America save reinforce the opinions of the unsalvageable while driving away moderates. I just don't think the message that homosexuals (I do hate that he used the term queer; that's our term and he's made it feel a bit dirty again) are alright people but also all pedophiles will really resonate with anybody with a shred of common sense, let alone actual experience interacting with non-closeted gay people.
So yes, in a perfect world he and his whole worldview would not exist at all, but in the world we have, anything that helps marginalize the faction of intolerance is somewhat acceptable to me.
Well yeah, Wurselbacher somehow out-Jack-Thompsons Jack Thompson himself, which is impressive.
EDIT:
Maine legalizes gay marriage.
http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=Gov+News&id=72146&v=Article-2006
-
* Polygamy...on paper there's nothing wrong with it. In practice, it seem to be associated with horrible exploitation 90% of the time. That's enough of a justification for laws--see seatbelt laws, for example. People who don't wear seatbelts tend to get screwed up a whole lot worse, though on paper if everyone was a perfect driver it'd be silly to require seatbelts.
Polygamy would also require significant, and arguably inequitable (i.e. poly people getting more spousal benefits than monogamous people) amounts of bureaucratic adjustment for tax and immigration and whatnot; it's not that these things couldn't be done, but there's absolutely no political will, nor really any pressing moral or legal arguments for them (largely for the reasons you state).
Yeah, there are a couple of big differences in the argument for polygamy. First, 'polygamist' isn't likely to be found a suspect classification, because it's unlikely to be found immutable (unless you're hearing about people who, absent religion, can't bear to be in a relationship smaller than three). So arguments for polygamy would argue that disallowing it is a form of religious discrimination. That may work, but I would imagine the government would be able to carve out exceptions for polygamous religions in that case as opposed to fundamentally changing marriage for everyone. Second, the change in the law would be more significant than in the case of gay marriage because polygamy changes the structure of marriage, as opposed to merely changing the components. As a married person, you have certain rights in relation to your spouse that are the same, gay or straight. that equation would have to change with the addition of new partners. The government is allowed to discriminate against even protected classifications if it can prove 'significant state interest,' such as rules on military service. It has a decent shot at that in this case.
What does that mean people are rallying for? Who the fuck knows, it has just degenerated into a mindless stupid mob doing something fucking retarded.
Sounds like a fun weekend to me. The tea party thing was never about a coherent message, it was just about venting frustration. A little post-Barack-Obama's-election catharsis. Frankly, I don't think it was all that unhealthy, really.
-
Yeah, there are a couple of big differences in the argument for polygamy. First, 'polygamist' isn't likely to be found a suspect classification, because it's unlikely to be found immutable (unless you're hearing about people who, absent religion, can't bear to be in a relationship smaller than three). So arguments for polygamy would argue that disallowing it is a form of religious discrimination. That may work, but I would imagine the government would carve out exceptions for polygamous religions in that case as opposed to fundamentally changing marriage for everyone. Second, the change in the law would be more significant than in the case of gay marriage because polygamy changes the structure of marriage, as opposed to merely changing the components. As a married person, you have certain rights in relation to your spouse that are the same, gay or straight. that equation would have to change with the addition of new partners. The government is allowed to discriminate against even protected classifications if it can prove 'significant state interest,' such as rules on military service. It has a decent shot at that in this case.
There's also the question of why governments support and subsidize the institution of marriage in the first place; plenty of answers to that, but I think most of them boil down to marriage's stabilizing effects, the way it draws young people into communities, provides a measure of financial support to parents and gives them incentive to stay together. Now I'm not much of even a small-c conservative, and think a lot of this is pretty archaic (I feel strongly that the government should get out of the business of subsidizing parenthood), but Andrew Sullivan has written a lot about this over the years, and I think a lot of it is pretty convincing. Specifically in the context of gay marriage, but also more generally, here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/gay-marriage
and on his blog here:
http://www.andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com
Now, to contrast, multiple partner marriages bring quite a bit of baggage with them. They're inherently less stable, and this in a culture with already sky-high divorce rates. And without radical rewiring of the tax code they would be significantly more expensive to the government. Outside of a perfectly egalitarian society, they also have the potential to be disruptive on a macro level; in late Ming China (economically prosperous, large gap between rich and poor, minimal government oversight, women as property, culturally and legally sanctioned polygamy) lack of women was an extremely serious social issue. Not saying anything like as severe would occur in the modern west, of course, but the higher order consequences of common, multiple partner marriages are at the very best unclear, and seem unlikely to be positive (at least from a social harmony perspective).
Which is not to say I wouldn't love to see some legal protections/provisions in place for poly types, be they religious or no. The ability to legally designate secondary partners, say, with a range of administrative privileges attached would be great. And some measure of protection against discrimination in civil suits (particularly child custody) also strikes me as a very good idea.
Mind you, this gets back to an opinion I believe I share with Grefter, at the very least, which is that I'm not sold on the merits of the government specifically sanctioning conjugal relationships under the marriage moniker. I would be much more comfortable with a generic civil union or primary partner legal definition (one that need not be sexual at all), leaving the question of what a marriage is or is not in the hands of social groups that actually care.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/specter.seniority/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
<Nelson>Ha HA!</Nelson>
-
That makes me feel much better about life.
-
And that link generally makes me glad I'm not in the US. As much as I can respect the people who vote party rather than person, it's still a person who is representing your riding. And this basically restricts their ability to represent the people in their ridings if that riding shifts in views, or if the party shifts.
Hell, even in this circumstance, this was a damned shitty move to make. Sure, the guy only moved over to save his skin. But the message here is that if you want to save your skin, then your best bet is to stay Republican, and entrench, doing whatever you can to hold on there.
-
On principle, I agree with you. In this specific case, Arlen Specter is a complete douchebag and deserves it.
-
Seriously, though? "Seniority ranks"? One of my biggest concerns with American politics is that senators/house members tend to get elected for 30 straight years. This to me indicates a lack of competition, which hurts democracy as a process. Now you're telling me this is actually -encouraged- through a formal seniority system?
I mean, sure, senators who are around for longer will probably be more skilled at the job on average, but you're telling me if the smartest guy in the country gets elected to the senate, they'll say "sorry, can't put you on any committees--union rules, you gotta work up the ranks." Union structures can be positive for coal mining, but there's a reason why executives aren't unionized....
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/specter.seniority/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
<Nelson>Ha HA!</Nelson>
Talkingpointsmemo labeled the post with this story "Doof or Consequences." I like them.
Also:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/reid-specter-will-be-with-us-when-we-need-him.php
/me facepalms
-
While not a shining example of why 2 party systems don't work, this shit is certainly a good example of the kind of shit that is fucking broken in YOUR 2 party system.
Seriously seniority in the fucking party/senate? Fuck that, everyone is representing people. Where is the equal representation in that kind of crap?
Edit - And before you say that is the perks for being in the position for a long time, the perks for being in the position for a long time is FUCKING BEING IN THE POSITION FOR A LONG TIME.
-
What's that? America's legal system is proper fucked?
A-WHAAAAAAAAA??
-
Seriously seniority in the fucking party/senate? Fuck that, everyone is representing people. Where is the equal representation in that kind of crap?
Um, it's the Senate. 2 reps per state, no matter the size. That's not equal representation in the first place, if your unit of measure is a person.
-
Re Seniority: Seniority is just a tradition and a tiebreaker, nothing in the rules about HAVING to use it. For instance Harry Reid is in no way the most senior Democrat in the chamber (that'd be Robert Byrd, who's been there since the 50s). Basically it is ultimately up to the Speaker of the House / Senate Majority Leader to hand out Committee assignments, bearing in mind that they won't be the leader for long if they infuriate everyone. It's usually not hard to hand out non-sexy committee leaderships to senior Senators, or to sneak them in as #2 on a committee with someone even more powerful you trust. (The Republicans are getting slightly bitten right now because I don't think anybody expected Jeff Sessions, crypto-segregationist (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102), would ever *lead* the minority of the Judiciary Committee.)
Amusingly enough, the Republicans when they took control in 1994 explicitly disavowed seniority as having any merit, putting power in Newt Gingrich & Bob Dole's loving hands. Of course, consider that many of the most senior Republicans would be old-school Northeastern liberal Rockefeller Republicans like John Chaffe from Rhode Island, so yeah. The Democrats claim to respect seniority, which I agree is meh, but it's not as bad as it could be due to the ability to shuffle embarrassing Senators to worthless committees. Exceptionally awesome junior Senators can be rewarded with a good committee assignment, at least, like Appropriations or Rules.
Re 2 party system: Eh? Don't see why an excessive respect for seniority wouldn't be the same problem in any system no matter the number of parties.
mc, re 30 years in office for Congressmen, a Google reveals this:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS22555.pdf
The average length of service of Members of the House was approximately 10 years (5.1 terms) at the beginning of the present Congress.... The average length of service of Members of the Senate at the beginning of the present Congress was 12.8 years (approximately two terms).
No idea how the most recent election changed this (fair amount of turnover, so the average length of service has probably declined), and I think median would be more interesting than the average, so I suspect it's even lower (there are some freakish outliers for the people who really do spend 30+ years in office). I think that 10-12 sounds pretty healthy myself, and am not overly worried about the US.
For an example I would be worried about... Italy. Their government is ruled by a bunch of old fogies; Berlusconi is 73, and previous PM Romano Prodi is 70. And their multi-party parliamentiarism is a complete disaster. There's a lot of things they need to fix, though, and I'm not sure the best way to do it. Term limits would kind of work, I guess, but eh.
-
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3713335,00.html
Name: Koresh Mouzuni
Age: 12
Platform: Buy Hawaii from the US and lease it to the Israelis so they leave the middle east.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070685
Nothing like catching the government red handed.
-
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/19/reid/index.html?source=refresh
for the supers
-
*For everyone.
Though the republican senator from Nevada isn't great either, but it doesn't change the need for Reid to get out.
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090519.wibbitson19art2241/BNStory/International/home
:o
Obama's not really in my good books at the moment (see: McChrystal, torture photos), but holy fuck the man is sharp. I'm pretty sure John Huntsman was the only Republican with a serious chance to threaten him in 2012, but China is both a position he can't refuse, and one that he'll be genuinely good at. And it's apolitical enough that his genuine fiscal conservatism won't prevent him from doing a Democratic administration proud.
-
Slate puts it best:
"If all politics is local, one should never pass up a chance to send one's opponents to Asia."
http://www.slate.com/id/2218622/
-
No serious challengers? Really?
Maybe they'll run Alan Keyes and we can at least get some comedy out of this.
-
I'm pretty sure John Huntsman was the only Republican with a serious chance to threaten him in 2012, but China is both a position he can't refuse, and one that he'll be genuinely good at. And it's apolitical enough that his genuine fiscal conservatism won't prevent him from doing a Democratic administration proud.
Now it's just a matter of seeing if Obama cut off the arm to save the finger. He just gave Huntsman the one thing even excellent governor's lack: foreign policy experience...and experience with China no less. Obama might have an easier time in a 2012 election--which he probably would have won regardless--but if Huntsman is actually a serious contender, there are few current Democrats who could challenge him in 2016 (unless Hilary realizes that Obama gave her the shaft and rendered her moot by making her Sec. State and she successfully breaks off).
-
And if Obama ends his term popular, Huntsman also benefits from being part of the administration. Crafty.
-
Well, see, I can see the risks to the party, but I'm not sure it's all that dangerous ideologically. One of the (many) great challenges of the Obama administration, in my mind, is redefining a viable, acceptable opposition party. Empowering John Huntsman does this. So it might be risky for the democratic party, but I think it's overall positive for America, for progressives, basically for everyone except the uberconservative rump.
I would far, far rather see a sensible, culturally literate moderate conservative become the next president of the United States of America than, say, a corrupt corporate whore like Evan Bayh, no matter his ostensible liberal sensibilities. And it would be a strange, happy sort of dream to see a presidential race in America with two at least vaguely acceptable candidates. Make no mistake, I despise the Republican party and would love to see the Obama administration succeed wildly and lead us into a euphoric progressive utopia, but I think realistically it can only be a positive development for the Republican party to get off the crazy binge and back to reality.
-
Now it's just a matter of seeing if Obama cut off the arm to save the finger. He just gave Huntsman the one thing even excellent governor's lack: foreign policy experience...and experience with China no less. Obama might have an easier time in a 2012 election--which he probably would have won regardless--but if Huntsman is actually a serious contender, there are few current Democrats who could challenge him in 2016 (unless Hilary realizes that Obama gave her the shaft and rendered her moot by making her Sec. State and she successfully breaks off).
I don't know about that. Huntsman already has some experience as an ambassador to Singapore. China's good for him, but foreign experience wasn't a weakness of his resume. And by the same argument, Clinton is in better shape to run in '16 as a result of being secretary of state rather than junior senator from NY.
-
Hillary's age is going to be a factor if she has to wait until 2016 to run. She'd be 70~ by the time she's sworn in? Not as big a deal as with McCain due to better health but still.
One of the (many) great challenges of the Obama administration, in my mind, is redefining a viable, acceptable opposition party. Empowering John Huntsman does this. So it might be risky for the democratic party, but I think it's overall positive for America, for progressives, basically for everyone except the uberconservative rump.
Haha, no. He has neither the swing nor the right to 'redefine' the republican party .I'm in agreement that the current state of affairs needs to change, but the the root of this goes back to the Reagan revolution and is something that the party has to choose to change. It needs to be more inclusive. NOTE: This doesn't mean that Spector still didn't need to fuck off.
I would far, far rather see a sensible, culturally literate moderate conservative become the next president of the United States of America than, say, a corrupt corporate whore like Evan Bayh, no matter his ostensible liberal sensibilities. And it would be a strange, happy sort of dream to see a presidential race in America with two at least vaguely acceptable candidates.
Try 1992 or 1988. President HW Bush was an excellent moderate president. Dole is the last presidental candiate that was worth voting for for either side.
-
I don't know about that. Huntsman already has some experience as an ambassador to Singapore. China's good for him, but foreign experience wasn't a weakness of his resume. And by the same argument, Clinton is in better shape to run in '16 as a result of being secretary of state rather than junior senator from NY.
There's a bit of a difference between being ambassador to a city-state of 5 million people and being the ambassador to a country with a population of 1.3 billion. Not to denigrate being an ambassador to Singapore in anyway, but dealing with China requires much more attention to detail, given the multitude of China's environmental, economic, and political problems.
As for Clinton...Sec. State has always been a political career dead-end, and probably always will be. Aside from the founding fathers early on in US history, nobody who has served as Sec. State has become President. Additionally, Hilary has age working against her...if she does decide to run in 2016, she'll be nearly 70. It depends on if she wants to try to run a presidential campaign at that age or not.
Outside Clinton...most democrats are looking as retarded as Republicans these days (Hey there Pelosi, Reid, and Specter!).
-
To be fair, the democrats have a long way to go before matching the mental titans who decided to put Steele in charge of the RNC.
-
They took a nice step with today's Guantanamo Bay douchebaggery, though.
-
Link? I spent all day doing far superior things, like digging up roots in the ground and playing Persona while drooling happily about the pretty weather.
EDIT: Fire Harry Reid.
-
The Senate killed funding to close Guantanamo, 90-6. Reid's thoughts on the subject, from this press conference (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003120881):
REID: I'm saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That's very clear.
QUESTION: No one's talking about releasing them. We're talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.
REID: Can't put them in prison unless you release them.
QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? ...
REID: I can't make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.
-
Musta missed that memo about his party winning the election.
Unbridled liberal rage is the only logical response here, so:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/with-friends-like-these.html#more
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
EDIT: I'm in hearty agreement with Diane Feinstein. someone please shoot me.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/senior-democrat-dares-defend-bringing-gitmo-prisoners/
-
EDIT: I'm in hearty agreement with Diane Feinstein. someone please shoot me.
I must admit, I laughed reading that article. It is a good example of why non-lawyers trying to make legal arguments is retarded. She may have acted like a lawyer, but she sure as hell doesn't know what's legally significant or not (note: this is why states require lawyers to actually be qualified to practice law!).
The issue is not about prisoner's rights anymore (although both parties will obviously miss the point and insist they are). What is at issue is the procedural law that is followed. If detainees are released into the United States to be tried there, they'll likely be tried under the federal procedural rules and the federal rules of evidence. If detainees remain in custody of the military, they'll be tried by military tribunals which follow a different set of procedural and evidence rules.
By and large, the military has less strict rules of evidence due to the increased difficulty in conducting a proper investigation in the middle of a war zone. As such, this is the reason they will fight tooth and nail to continue conducting military tribunals.
Granted, I do agree that being scared that supermax facilities will be unable to contain simple terrorists is pretty laughable.
-
Yeah, ID makes a good point--I knew there was something bugging me here that had nothing to do with security.
At the same time, I remember some republican a while back saying "know that Canadian we're holding without any evidence in Guatanamo? Maybe we should send him to Canada." Sooo...I question the wisdom of detainment and sentencing via minimal evidence if even Republicans are questioning some of these detainees.
Though, honestly, closing Guatanamo Bay always struck me as more symbolic than anything. It doesn't sound like a particularly enormous facility, or even a terribly relevant facility, just one that got a bad reputation.
-
The issue is not about prisoner's rights anymore (although both parties will obviously miss the point and insist they are). What is at issue is the procedural law that is followed. If detainees are released into the United States to be tried there, they'll likely be tried under the federal procedural rules and the federal rules of evidence. If detainees remain in custody of the military, they'll be tried by military tribunals which follow a different set of procedural and evidence rules.
How is the issue of which court system detainees are tried in not an issue of detainee rights? Can there be a more fundamental difference to the rights of a defendant than rules on the admissibility of evidence? (other than the guarantee of a trial, I mean) In any case, I don't think Feinstein was implying that detainees must necessarily be tried in federal court as opposed to military tribunal, even if she cited a federal prison. Correct me if I'm wrong, but moving detainees to a military prison inside the US wouldn't change the governments ability to try them by tribunal, would it?
-
Though, honestly, closing Guatanamo Bay always struck me as more symbolic than anything. It doesn't sound like a particularly enormous facility, or even a terribly relevant facility, just one that got a bad reputation.
A bit of movie trivia, Guantanamo Bay is the army base featured in A Few Good Men.
-
The army base, yes. The prison was added on post-9/11.
-
How is the issue of which court system detainees are tried in not an issue of detainee rights?
Short answer: it's the law.
Long answer: defendants in criminal or similar actions do not have the right to chose where the case will be heard. Any legitimate authority that has jurisdiction over a criminal matter has the authority to try that defendant. The simple parallel is state criminal laws. If I murder somebody in Colorado, I don't suddenly get the right to have the case heard in federal court because I want to. I simply don't have that right.
Can there be a more fundamental difference to the rights of a defendant than rules on the admissibility of evidence? (other than the guarantee of a trial, I mean)
Rules of evidence are not considered substantive due process rights. Evidence and procedural rules cannot, however, violate any substantive due process rights (i.e. a state evidence rule cannot allow for the inclusion of coerced self-incriminating testimony). Thus, in the end, it does not matter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but moving detainees to a military prison inside the US wouldn't change the governments ability to try them by tribunal, would it?
Technically, they probably could continue running tribunals/commissions. Realistically, it would be a logistical nightmare. Guantanamo has the advantage of having everything ("witnesses", documents, co-defendants, etc...) needed in one location.
EDIT: Random nitpicks
The army base, yes. The prison was added on post-9/11.
Guantanamo Bay is a naval base, not army, and the prison has been there awhile. It was indefinite holding of detainees that started after 9/11.
-
Though, honestly, closing Guatanamo Bay always struck me as more symbolic than anything. It doesn't sound like a particularly enormous facility, or even a terribly relevant facility, just one that got a bad reputation.
If I had to guess, I'd say it was chosen because it's outside the US, but in a foreign country that is incapable of kicking us out or raising serious political objections to it.
-
So the same as all of the other military prisons around the world that people can just disappear into after being snatched up and taken away? Yeah, symbolic because it is far to high attention gathering. It isn't like we are talking about killing the infrastructure all around the world for this stuff here, sure it is losing a convenient one, but any military base in a third world country will do for that.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_china_suicide_help
Ah, the spirit of dictatorial communism. "You are wasting the time of the state. This is unacceptable." Vaguely awesome.
-
North Korea fires 2 more short-range missile tests right after its nuclear test (which was stronger than the 2006 one and is drawing condemnation from traditional NK allies, notably China and Russia).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear
-
California gay marriage ban upheld by court:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E24K01&show_article=1
-
This is an extremely disappointing decision. There was never much chance of the court overturning Prop 8, because, as the majority apologetically describes, California's constitution is ludicrously easy to modify. But they also more-or-less repudiated their previous decision allowing gay marriages. The majority in this decision claims that,
"Proposition 8 does not abrogate [equal protection or due process], but instead carves out a narrow exception applicable only to access to the designation of the term “marriage,” but not to any other of “the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage . . ."
That's crap. If there were no substantive difference, they wouldn't have ruled for gay marriage in the first place. And although it may be all the same in the vacuum of California law, any couple who pays federal taxes knows there is a substance to that difference.
Or, as the sole dissenting justice put it,
"Denying the designation of marriage to same-sex couples cannot fairly be described as a “narrow” or “limited” exception to the requirement of equal protection; the passionate public debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, even in a state that offers largely equivalent substantive rights through the alternative of domestic partnership, belies such a description."
-
SC pick announced. Where's ID to foam at the mouth when I need him?
-
SC pick announced. Where's ID to foam at the mouth when I need him?
Oh yeah, that; even Fox News opened by saying "incredibly smart and qualified". Most of the controversy there seems to be focused on this quote "court of appeals is where policy is made":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
Which, in the context of the full clip seems to be saying "Court of Appeals you pay attention to precedence, and how your decision will affect future decisions. District Court you pay attention to justice of the individual case."
Full quote:
The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, "I don't care about the next step," and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, "We'll worry about that when we get to it" -- look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that's the differences -- the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time.
-
Doesn't seem too controversial. I imagine the focus will soon be on the case she currently has before the Supreme Court: Ricci v. DeStefano
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/
"Perhaps the highest-profile discrimination case in which Sotomayor has participated (though she did not write a signed opinion) is Ricci v. DeStefano, a challenge by a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut to the city’s decision not to certify an employment test for use in promotions when the use of the test results would have made a disproportionate number of white applicants eligible for promotions than minority applicants. The city defended its conduct on the ground that it feared that certifying the results of the test would expose it to a discrimination suit by minority applicants. Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that initially affirmed the district court’s judgment in the city’s favor with a summary order that described the district court’s decision as a “thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion.” The order noted that the judges were “not unsympathetic to the plaintiff’s expression of frustration,” but it explained that “it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim.” The panel eventually replaced the summary order with a per curiam opinion that was otherwise virtually identical to the order. 530 F.3d 87 (2008). Sotomayor was one of seven judges of the Second Circuit to vote to deny rehearing en banc; six other judges dissented from the denial. In January 2009, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and it heard oral argument in April 2009. A decision in the case is expected by late June, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will reverse."
EDIT:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/john-yoo-warns-against-results-oriented-sotomayor.php
No self-awareness or no sense of decency. I'll go with the latter.
-
Sotomayor is the best choice for Obama based on the criteria he was looking for. That is, a female--preferably a minority--who places an emphasis on "empathy." She's certainly better than Obama's other top picks: Diane Wood, who knows nothing outside competition law and is incredibly egotistical, and Elena Kagan who is just batshit insane.
So...she's the best choice for Obama, but she sure as hell isn't the best choice overall. This stems from the fact that Obama's criteria is a fucking joke. Empathy should not be in a judge's mind. Ever. Empathy belongs to the lawyer making the case before a judge and in the legislature that is creating the laws that will be interpreted.
Sotomayor's big problem is that she ALWAYS GETS REVERSED. Seriously. Something like 80-90% of her opinions have been reversed by the Supreme Court. Either she is trying to interpret the law in a stupid way or she does not understand the law. Either way, to put someone with that pathetic a track record into the same court that consistently reverses her is more than a little irritating.
The good news? Sotomayor is replacing Souter. Souter is the biggest douche and by far the worst justice on the court right now. As bad as Sotomayor is as a choice, the court will be better off due to the simple fact that Souter is leaving.
I still don't see the Obama administration as anything more than a mockable clusterfuck of a joke at this point, though. What else is new.
-
Sotomayor's big problem is that she ALWAYS GETS REVERSED. Seriously. Something like 80-90% of her opinions have been reversed by the Supreme Court. Either she is trying to interpret the law in a stupid way or she does not understand the law. Either way, to put someone with that pathetic a track record into the same court that consistently reverses her is more than a little irritating.
That's a stupid way of looking at a judge's record. As you are well aware, the Supreme Court mostly takes cases they want to make a point with, and that means reversal more often than not (in recent years, about 75% of cases they take have been reversed). She has, of course, decided hundreds of cases the Supreme Court never took up because her conclusions were noncontroversial in their eyes. Do you even know who was in the majorities of the cases she had overturned?
EDIT: as for the empathy thing, take a look at the recent SCOTUS case with the strip-searched girl. One of the male justices, Breyer I think, was skeptical that merely being strip-searched for prescription drugs could be all that traumatic (as the girl, who dropped out of school as a result, claimed), and said he was in similar situations in school, and nothing came of it. Well, maybe it wasn't traumatic for him back when he was a kid, but a girl in this day and age is in a different situation. One the justice did not seem to appreciate. The reasonableness of the search is very much dependent on the extent to which it traumatizes the target, so that's a problem. Empathy is about being able to understand this kind of thing. Doesn't mean you always side with sympathetic defendants. Just means you have a more complete understanding of their situation.
-
That's a stupid way of looking at a judge's record.
Oh look, a non-lawyer presuming to lecture me about how the legal world works.
Sorry, but a judge's record of subsequent case history is their most important statistic. Moreso for a District Court judge, because all cases are granted a first appeal and thus more of a record is established, but its important for appellate judges as well.
As you are well aware, the Supreme Court mostly takes cases they want to make a point with,
No. No they do not. The Supreme Court in fact tries to do that exact opposite. If the Supreme Court can avoid ruling on a contentious subject through any other means, then the Court will take it. Taking cases is a matter of last resort.
and that means reversal more often than not (in recent years, about 75% of cases they take have been reversed)
Useless statistic is useless. This is not a game of "Deal or No Deal" where the odds are fixed and you have a 25% chance of winning your case at the Supreme Court. It means that 75% of the appellate judges were incorrect in interpreting the law and only 25% were correct. Sotomayor often falls into the "losing" category because she was incorrect, not because she was unlucky and didn't roll a 4 on a 1d4. Period.
She has, of course, decided hundreds of cases the Supreme Court never took up because her conclusions were noncontroversial in their eyes.
The Supreme Court only has time for a handful of cases per year. They don't have time to take up every appeal and and review every appellate court opinion. Many of her court opinions were not reviewed. This does not mean that they were correct or incorrect opinions. It simply means the Supreme Court decided to not hear the case for whatever reason.
Do you even know who was in the majorities of the cases she had overturned?
Irrelevant. Part of practicing law is knowing how law will be interpreted and applied. This means that a judge should use reason and look at both the prior history *and* possible future interpretation of a law. Note that this does not mean that an appellate judge should try to second-guess the Supreme Court simply to get more "wins", because the Supreme Court can always overrule its own previous opinions by relying on previous appellate or dissenting opinions.
-
North Korea fires 2 more short-range missile tests right after its nuclear test (which was stronger than the 2006 one and is drawing condemnation from traditional NK allies, notably China and Russia).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear
I'd be more worried, but I can't shake the feeling that NK's allies are getting sick of this shit. Russia and China have too much going on to deal with a crackpot dictatorship throwing an extended temper tantrum. This might be optimism talking, though.
---
To the above: Away from the relative merits of Obama's SC candidate, do you think there is any chance she'll not be approved?
-
Useless statistic is useless. This is not a game of "Deal or No Deal" where the odds are fixed and you have a 25% chance of winning your case at the Supreme Court. It means that 75% of the appellate judges were incorrect in interpreting the law and only 25% were correct. Sotomayor often falls into the "losing" category because she was incorrect, not because she was unlucky and didn't roll a 4 on a 1d4. Period.
No. You don't get to call the SC full of shit (re: Roe) and then turn around and use agreeing with them as a yardstick of legal virtue. Never mind the possibility that Obama read her decisions and felt that when she was overruled by the Supremes, she was right more often than not. Seems to me that'd be a pretty good way to choose a justice.
-
Oh look, a non-lawyer presuming to lecture me about how the legal world works.
I certainly can't lecture you, but this is the DL: people here are smart. I've had people here argue with me, and prove me wrong on math, and I am a mathematician. (Rare, but it happens). I don't see why qualifications should restrict someone from presenting counterarguments.
Or, alternatively, let's say there was a lawyer who went to Harvard Law, who ran the Harvard Law Review journal, and who worked as a professor of constitutional law for 12 years. If qualifications were everything then I assume we would take this hypothetical lawyer's opinion over yours, right? 'Cause such a lawyer exists, is named Barrack Obama, and seems to think Sotomayor is a good candidate. Qualifications aren't everything--that's precisely why we're questioning Obama here.
-
Quick points of order:
A) The empathy kerfuffle was overblown. Obama gave a long laundry list of traits he wanted, and the vast majority of them are noncontroversial. The worry is that "empathy" was a codeword for "liberal judicial activist who rules for the sympathetic side not the right side." A fair enough concern, but it's not like Obama was decreeing that touch-feeliness was the most important requirement for the job, or that non-Infinity Dragon conservatives think that judges by necessity must be mentally ill people lacking empathy.
B) ID is correct that reversal rate is the one stat to rule them all in the legal world, but I'd be curious as to what her reversal rate was as a District Court judge. The Appeals Court probably rules on too many areas which are unsettled policy and thus not really a good indicator of competence; if she was constantly getting overruled before, at a lower level, that IS a bad sign. Googling comes up with a defense from dailykos, which I have no idea how much is worth: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735716/-The-Truth-About-Sonia-Sotomayors-Reversal-Rate
C) Surprised it wasn't linked yet/again, but for those who haven't seen it check out Jeffrey Rosen's article: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085 Rosen is not a hack, and while she's certainly miles better than Harriet Miers, it's possible that we're getting stuck with a middling justice (for what's expected of Appeals Court justices, at least), rather than the cream of the crop expected for SC nominees. This is the far bigger concern as best I can see.
D) Sotomayor is allegedly also more moderate than Kagan or Wood. This is good or bad depending on your views, I guess. Also, this'll be 6 (!) Catholics on the Court. Weird.
This nomination is also a cruel trap for the Republicans if Rosen is right - a perfectly awesome justice who happened to be liberal would likely have sailed through no problem 90-10 or the like, but nomming a meh but okay candidate might tempt them into voting against her, which could then be (unfairly, in most cases) presented as evidence of a "screw you Hispanics" sentiment. Ugh.
-
No. You don't get to call the SC full of shit (re: Roe) and then turn around and use agreeing with them as a yardstick of legal virtue.
Oh, so because the Court occasionally writes bad opinions means I think its full of shit? Certainly everyone but White supremacists should think the Supreme Court is totally worthless shit because they wrote Dred Scott 152 years ago. Also, did you not read where I said, quite explicitly, that agreeing with the Court for the sake of agreeing with the court does not necessarily make a good judge?
Is it a perfect measure? No. Did I claim it was a perfect measure? No. It's simply the best, objective measure to see how often a judge is deemed to be incorrect by the highest court in the land. Did I say that her history of reversal makes her completely unsuitable as a justice? No. I said that being deemed incorrect on 6 out of 7 cases is her biggest obstacle (3 of them being flat out reversals, I think).
Now, since you seem so enlightened about what makes a good judge and show disdain for the method of examining case history, would you care to enlighten me as to an objective measure that can be used in evaluating a potential Supreme Court Justice?
Never mind the possibility that Obama read her decisions and felt that when she was overruled by the Supremes, she was right more often than not. Seems to me that'd be a pretty good way to choose a justice.
Well, unfortunately for Obama, his opinion wouldn't matter if this was the case. Just because Obama thinks someone would make a good justice because he agrees with her outcomes does not mean that she would in actual fact be a good justice. I could believe that Jack Thompson would make an awesome justice based on his legal arguments, but I think most of us would agree that I'd be wrong.
I don't see why qualifications should restrict someone from presenting counterarguments.
Counterarguments are fine as long as there's some factual or logical basis behind them. To start off a post calling something stupid, then giving reasoning based on clearly erroneous "facts" is not a counterargument. More to the point, those clearly erroneous facts would not have been made by someone who had spent any amount of time doing legal work. It was not meant as a statement of qualification; it was a blunt way of saying to do more research before calling someone's idea or method stupid when they have vastly more experience in that field than you.
If qualifications were everything then I assume we would take this hypothetical lawyer's opinion over yours, right?
Well now, that would entail everyone actually knowing my "qualifications." Nobody here does.
-
I'm curious now. ID, what ARE your qualifications?
-
Oh, so because the Court occasionally writes bad opinions means I think its full of shit?
There's also your rather unhidden disdain for individual justices on the court, which makes it somewhat odd that you'd also back a rubric that rewards lower judges for agreeing with them, but I admit that's an attack on you personally rather than the system in question.
Now, since you seem so enlightened about what makes a good judge and show disdain for the method of examining case history, would you care to enlighten me as to an objective measure that can be used in evaluating a potential Supreme Court Justice?
"Objective measure"? No. The only way I'd want to evaluate a candidate for the highest court in the country is to actually read her opinions, and those of higher courts hearing appeals of her cases. Like in sports, stats are a nice tool, but they're no substitute for actually watching the proverbial games. Especially when you're dealing with a sample size of seven whole cases. That doesn't even scare me, and I only took undergrad law courses.
Well, unfortunately for Obama, his opinion wouldn't matter if this was the case. Just because Obama thinks someone would make a good justice because he agrees with her outcomes does not mean that she would in actual fact be a good justice.
Her outcomes? Do I have to specify that reading decisions that she writes also involves looking at her reasoning? Christ, you are a lawyer.
I could believe that Jack Thompson would make an awesome justice based on his legal arguments, but I think most of us would agree that I'd be wrong.
Yes, and that would be proved as soon as somebody asked which of his legal arguments you thought were so awesome, and you in turn yelled "LOOK OVER THERE!" and fled the country. If Obama defends the pick in a similar way, then you're on to something. Otherwise, it's back to reading her opinions and seeing if they're well-reasoned or not.
-
That's a stupid way of looking at a judge's record.
Oh look, a non-lawyer presuming to lecture me about how the legal world works.
Sorry, but a judge's record of subsequent case history is their most important statistic. Moreso for a District Court judge, because all cases are granted a first appeal and thus more of a record is established, but its important for appellate judges as well.
In baseball, a fielder's errors-over-chances is seen as his most important statistic. However, it is misleading because balls that a slow fielder might not get to but a fast fielder does aren't considered at all for the slow fielder. Those balls are more difficult to play, and more likely to cause errors, so fast fielders can wind up with a worse stat line but still be superior players. I'm not telling you how the legal world looks at her record. If they obsess over a stat formed by 6 (soon to be 7) cases and ignore the broader picture, they're wrong too.
--
Anyway, here a couple of summaries of Sotomayor's record. First is the cases she's had before the supreme court, and second is a summary of her record in civil cases on the appellate court. The one-sidedness of some of the reversals is a bit worrisome, but the summary of her appellate work paints a more favorable picture; this is not a woman who has ruled in a rigidly ideological fashion.
http://oneconservativevoice.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-cases-reviewed-by-supreme.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/
--
C) Surprised it wasn't linked yet/again, but for those who haven't seen it check out Jeffrey Rosen's article: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085 Rosen is not a hack, and while she's certainly miles better than Harriet Miers, it's possible that we're getting stuck with a middling justice (for what's expected of Appeals Court justices, at least), rather than the cream of the crop expected for SC nominees. This is the far bigger concern as best I can see.
The shitstorm regarding that article has come and gone. Here are two criticisms of it.
Regular:
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/05/hatchet-job-jeffrey-rosens-utterly.html
Extra Spicy:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/index.html#postid-updateA5
-
http://oneconservativevoice.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-cases-reviewed-by-supreme.html
I've finally got some time to actually look over her record (woo, short deadline! Kill me.), and one of those cases looks like they got the decision wrong. On Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, OCV says she was reversed, 5-4, but Ginsburg's decision affirms the court of appeals verdict.
-
If qualifications were everything then I assume we would take this hypothetical lawyer's opinion over yours, right?
Well now, that would entail everyone actually knowing my "qualifications." Nobody here does.
Get off your goddamn high horse already, ID. We all know that up until recently you've been in law school, so no matter what your qualifications are they can't hold a candle to Obama's. Look, I like reading your informed opinions and all but you have to learn to realize that opinions is all they are and quit talking down to people like they can't possibly know anything.
-
Well now, that would entail everyone actually knowing my "qualifications." Nobody here does.
Ah, but I'm a mathematician.
I don't know your qualifications, but I have known you for...8 years or so, and I remember you starting law school sometime during that 8-year stretch.
I don't know what law school you went to, but I do know that Harvard Law is pretty much universally considered the best in the country, so I can make a <= statement there.
I don't know what law journal you've worked on, but again know that the Harvard Law Review is ahead of similar journals, so I can make a <= statement there.
I don't know how long you've worked as a senior professor of constitutional law (or similar position) but given that I'm fairly sure you started law school sometime within the past 8 years, that means you can't have been a senior professor of constitutional law for more than 4 or 5 years, which is strictly less than 12 years.
Basically, I see two ways to beat qualifications; quality (better programs, graduating with top honours, etc), and quantity (more experience, more time studying the system). Obama's got 16 years = more quantity than ~8 years. Quality-wise, Obama's qualifications seem pretty top-tier; a person might match him quality-wise, but I don't really see a way that someone would cleanly out-quality his qualifications.
So actually no: I'm pretty sure I don't need to know your qualifications to say that Obama has more qualifications right now. I don't know how much more. However, mathematically a > inequality does not require knowing both sides of the equation, just knowing some properties of both sides of the equation.
-
"Objective measure"? No. The only way I'd want to evaluate a candidate for the highest court in the country is to actually read her opinions, and those of higher courts hearing appeals of her cases. Like in sports, stats are a nice tool, but they're no substitute for actually watching the proverbial games.
So when her legal opinions lead her to being deemed incorrect 85% of the time, this does not warrant suspicion; all that matters is her opinion and not what other authorities believe of her opinion? That, simply put, is a poor way of evaluation. Peer review in a professional work field is important (especially when said peers can say you're wrong with the force of law backing them) and to completely discount it is foolish.
Her outcomes? Do I have to specify that reading decisions that she writes also involves looking at her reasoning? Christ, you are a lawyer.
Way to focus on one word and ignore the rest of what I said. Regardless, it doesn't matter what Obama thinks of Sotomayor's reasoning either since he is not in a position to deem what opinions are legally valid and which ones are to be reversed . If Obama agrees with her reasoning, then that simply means he is, at the moment, agreeing with legal reasoning that has been deemed wrong by the Supreme Court.
If they obsess over a stat formed by 6 (soon to be 7) cases and ignore the broader picture, they're wrong too.
Obsessing over her record and voicing concern over it are completely different. Sotomayor has a weak record and it will be her biggest stumbling block, if any (unless Obama's team fails at shutting down those pointless concerns over her comments made in a non-formal school panel). You simply can't argue against this.
If Sotomayor offers a solid enough reason why her opinions don't fare well when reviewed by the Supreme Court, or alternatively makes a persuasive argument that her poor record should be overlooked for various reasons, then fine, she passes muster and we get a justice who isn't as loony near as Souter.
http://oneconservativevoice.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-cases-reviewed-by-supreme.html
No offense to you personally, but that link has stupid citations. The citations are for the Appeals Court opinions only...which is pretty pointless if you're trying to make the case that the Supreme Court is calling said opinions bad when you don't cite to the Court's opinion as to why.
The shitstorm regarding that article has come and gone. Here are two criticisms of it.
Yeah, that Rosen article was pretty bad and had a number of questionable "facts" or poor sources to support it.
Ah, but I'm a mathematician.
Mathematicians must be pretty awesome then, being able to turn unquantifiable factors such as "law school attended" and "journals worked on" into quantifiable factors as they relate to the ability to evaluate a Supreme Court nominee.
-
Ah, but I'm a mathematician.
Mathematicians must be pretty awesome then, being able to turn unquantifiable factors such as "law school attended" and "journals worked on" into quantifiable factors as they relate to the ability to evaluate a Supreme Court nominee.
If they're not, then what makes you so much more qualified than he is? I would say that all this experience in the field of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW makes him pretty well qualified to make decisions regarding a court that does nothing but this. Tell me, what exactly makes you suddenly THE expert on this subject to say why he's wrong and NOBODY can question your reasoning? Hint: nothing does. Stuff it.
EDIT: Just to be clear here, I'm not saying you're right or wrong. What I'm saying is you need to respect other people's right to an opinion. You are not stating 100% incontrovertible fact here, neither is anyone else. This is a place for discussion, not to browbeat people into accepting your view on things.
-
Too personal. Tone it back.
-
So when her legal opinions lead her to being deemed incorrect 85% of the time, this does not warrant suspicion; all that matters is her opinion and not what other authorities believe of her opinion? That, simply put, is a poor way of evaluation. Peer review in a professional work field is important (especially when said peers can say you're wrong with the force of law backing them) and to completely discount it is foolish.
Okay, first of all, I thought reading the opinions of courts reviewing her work was recognizing the importance of peer review. It just recognizes the fact that an appeal, especially an appeal to the Supreme Court, isn't as simple as "upheld" versus "overturned." I'm not saying completely discount it, I'm saying you read the damned opinions instead of treating the statistic as authoritative. Statistics are shorthand, and they can lie in a way that genuine analysis doesn't - for instance, a judgment that overturns the precedent the appeals court followed is "scored" the same as a judgment that lambastes the appeals court for not following precedent. Especially when the numbers are wrong, e.g. the claim that the Supremes reversed her all but once.
...it doesn't matter what Obama thinks of Sotomayor's reasoning either since he is not in a position to deem what opinions are legally valid and which ones are to be reversed . If Obama agrees with her reasoning, then that simply means he is, at the moment, agreeing with legal reasoning that has been deemed wrong by the Supreme Court.
Yes, and if he wants to change the prevailing legal reasoning of the court, so that the legal reasoning he agrees with will be applied in the judiciary, that's a valid reason to pick a judicial nominee. You're saying (or seeming to say) that there's a right way and a wrong way to interpret laws, and the right way is whatever the Supreme Court holds. But what the Supreme Court holds changes all the damn time, and it changes because new people with different interpretations of the law get appointed. If you pick new SC justices based on how much they agree with the current Supreme Court....well, first of all, you'd have to gauge Sotomayor on how close her thinking is to Souter's, and I don't think you want that. But also you'd get intellectual stagnation.
To use the most obvious example, current jurisprudence holds that abortion is protected by the Constitution. If a President McCain nominated a judge with a history of ruling counter to that, do you really think the debate would be about competence, and not about competing legal frameworks?
-
Ah, but I'm a mathematician.
Mathematicians must be pretty awesome then, being able to turn unquantifiable factors such as "law school attended" and "journals worked on" into quantifiable factors as they relate to the ability to evaluate a Supreme Court nominee.
That's exactly what I was arguing. Namely....
Being a lawyer does not necessarily make you the most competent person to comment on evaluating a Supreme Court Nominee.
Similarly, being a top graduate of Harvard Law, president of the Harvard Law Review, and a 12-year professor of constitutional law does not necessarily make you the most competent person to evaluate a Supreme Court Nominee.
-
If they're not, then what makes you so much more qualified than he is?
Point to where I ever said that I'm more qualified than Obama. Don't spend too long looking, because I didn't. Nor was it insinuated or implied.
I'm not saying completely discount it, I'm saying you read the damned opinions instead of treating the statistic as authoritative.
Why are you arguing this point with me? Unless you're only reading my responses to you and not the entire topic, I said this earlier to NotMiki:
"Obsessing over her record and voicing concern over it are completely different. Sotomayor has a weak record and it will be her biggest stumbling block, if any (unless Obama's team fails at shutting down those pointless concerns over her comments made in a non-formal school panel). You simply can't argue against this.
If Sotomayor offers a solid enough reason why her opinions don't fare well when reviewed by the Supreme Court, or alternatively makes a persuasive argument that her poor record should be overlooked for various reasons, then fine, she passes muster and we get a justice who isn't as loony near as Souter.
So, no, I'm not saying the statistic is absolute and I never did. What I did say is that having a bad track record raises questions, and those questions need to be answered. Since Obama and Sotomayor are the ones pushing for her appointment, the burden is on them to eliminate any misgivings raised by her track record, since a bad track record *is* considered a negative trait in the legal world.
Yes, and if he wants to change the prevailing legal reasoning of the court, so that the legal reasoning he agrees with will be applied in the judiciary, that's a valid reason to pick a judicial nominee.
Not necessarily. If Obama agrees with her method of jurisprudence, and her method being different from the Supreme court is what causes her to be reversed most of the time, then its a valid reason. Judges are allowed to have some flexibility in their own methods of jurisprudence.
However, if its her application and knowledge of relevant law that Obama agrees with, and the Supreme Court often reverses her because she is misapplying the law and/or does not understand the relevant law, then things are not so peachy. Judges are supposed to have competence and knowledge of the relevant law, thus making judicial incompetence a solid reason why a nominee should not be permitted to be on the Supreme Court.
You're saying (or seeming to say) that there's a right way and a wrong way to interpret laws, and the right way is whatever the Supreme Court holds. But what the Supreme Court holds changes all the damn time, and it changes because new people with different interpretations of the law get appointed.
That would be exactly the same methodology as "the only way I'd want to evaluate a candidate for the highest court in the country is to actually read her opinions, and those of higher courts hearing appeals of her cases."
Regardless, as I already mentioned, there is far more to being a judge than method of jurisprudence. Competency, knowledge, impartiality...all of these (and more) are traits needed in a judge. Now then, going back to Obama supporting Sotomayor's reasoning. Again, the Supreme Court has disagreed with her more often than not, meaning her reasoning is legally incorrect for one reason or another. This could be a simple gap in methodology, it could be because she is bad at applying statutes relevant to the cases at hand, or it could be some other reason.
Of all the reasons Sotomayor could be wrong, only one of them could have the possibility of becoming valid if the case were to come up again (under the same laws and circumstances, obviously): a difference in interpretation. Mind, even if it was even a difference in interpretation, the burden would still fall on Sotomayor to convince the Court why her reasoning should be adopted. This is why you should be wary of a judge with a poor track record.
If you pick new SC justices based on how much they agree with the current Supreme Court....well, first of all, you'd have to gauge Sotomayor on how close her thinking is to Souter's, and I don't think you want that. But also you'd get intellectual stagnation.
Ah, but what if someone were to nominate a Justice based on excellent ability to use formal reasoning, apply statutes, and had an ironclad knowledge of the law and therefore the Court upheld the vast majority of that judge's decisions?
That's exactly what I was arguing. Being a lawyer does not necessarily make you the most competent person to comment on evaluating a Supreme Court Nominee.
Then may I ask why you never responded to this:
"It was not meant as a statement of qualification; it was a blunt way of saying to do more research before calling someone's idea or method stupid when they have vastly more experience in that field than you."
instead of trying to say the same exact damn thing a second time with the addition of inequality symbols?
-
That's exactly what I was arguing. Being a lawyer does not necessarily make you the most competent person to comment on evaluating a Supreme Court Nominee.
Then may I ask why you never responded to this:
"It was not meant as a statement of qualification; it was a blunt way of saying to do more research before calling someone's idea or method stupid when they have vastly more experience in that field than you."
I don't have much to add on the italicized response. If you want me to comment on them, I guess I'd say that the blunt method wasn't too well-received. (Personally when I feel someone hasn't done enough research, I generally politely point them to some reading material).
instead of trying to say the same exact damn thing a second time with the addition of inequality symbols?
What I responded to the second time was your statement "mc: you don't have enough information to make such a claim, because you are lacking exact information", to which I responded "actually, I did have enough information to make such a claim, because mathematically I only require inexact information."
-
To get back on point, there's some reassuring data here:
http://volokh.com/posts/1242229209.shtml - "Sotomayor appears average to below average."
http://volokh.com/posts/1243482653.shtml - "On second thought, she appeared average to below average her first two years, which isn't surprising. She's much better from 2004-06 rather than 98-99."
This is based on other judges citing your decisions and the like, so a mechanical and "fair" standard if a sometimes misleading one.
In other legal news, I'm betting on the US in United States v. Vampire Nation (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/451/451.F3d.189.05-1715.html).
-
http://washingtonindependent.com/44777/will-liberals-be-disappointed-in-sotomayor-part-ii
Sotomayor's new problem, other than Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove calling her a racist, which is too pathetically silly to bother with: not empathetic enough.
--
Also, intersting op-ed: nominally unrelated indicators of political ideology.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28kristof.html?ref=opinion
-
I don't have much to add on the italicized response. If you want me to comment on them, I guess I'd say that the blunt method wasn't too well-received. (Personally when I feel someone hasn't done enough research, I generally politely point them to some reading material).
Fair enough.
What I responded to the second time was your statement "mc: you don't have enough information to make such a claim, because you are lacking exact information", to which I responded "actually, I did have enough information to make such a claim, because mathematically I only require inexact information."
But I thought you said you were making the point that such variables cannot be used as proof of authority or qualification.....
Whatever, it doesn't really matter.
This is based on other judges citing your decisions and the like, so a mechanical and "fair" standard if a sometimes misleading one.
Looks like Easterbrook and Posner pretty well dominated that original study...no big surprise there. Not that the study is flawless, looking at citations and such is good for looking at breadth of work but not necessarily depth. It's also interesting to see how high Alito was on the list of "individuality."
Sotomayor's new problem, other than Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove calling her a racist, which is too pathetically silly to bother with: not empathetic enough.
Uh...yeah, that sort of accusation is pretty foolish. If a judge mechanically applies the law without empathy, and the result is an injustice, this is usually a good sign that the original law was poorly written and needs to be addressed by the legislature and has a decent chance of spurring a legislative change. See, e.g., the discrimination case Miki linked to quite awhile back--I forget the name offhand--or multiple state legislatures revising their laws to specifically deny Kelo style takings after Kelo was decided.
Ignoring the letter of the law to obtain a "fair" result means that the law is not being challenged in some form, which make it less likely that said poor law will be around antagonizing society as a whole.
EDIT:
Okay, first of all, I thought reading the opinions of courts reviewing her work was recognizing the importance of peer review.
Yeah, that was my fault. I was rushing through stuff last night and your comma threw me off; I skipped over everything after it in that one sentence. To answer your question, yes, judicial opinions of appellate cases are peer review. Not only over cases that they are directly ruling on, but they can comment on the rulings made in other jurisdictions as well.
That said, if you are considering the Supreme Courts opinions over her cases, then by default you must have some respect for the Supreme Court's authority over her. To this, I question again why is there a debate between us?
-
Haven't followed this too closely but just in passing:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/199955
Factcheck full: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_sonia_sotomayors_opinions_have.html
-
Factcheck full: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_sonia_sotomayors_opinions_have.html
While true, this is misleading because it does not factor in any of her tenure as a district court judge; its looking at her appeals court experience only. It also doesn't look into whether or not the Court is affirming the decision while reversing the reasoning, a practice that is not at all uncommon and I know for sure the Court did this to one of Sotomayor's opinions (the Knight v. Commissioner tax case).
-
The Bar gives a rating on Supreme Court Justice nominees. Do you think that would that be an acceptable measure to go by as far as competence goes? Something I should look up later I guess.
-
Sotomayor's new problem, other than Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove calling her a racist, which is too pathetically silly to bother with: not empathetic enough.
Uh...yeah, that sort of accusation is pretty foolish. If a judge mechanically applies the law without empathy, and the result is an injustice, this is usually a good sign that the original law was poorly written and needs to be addressed by the legislature and has a decent chance of spurring a legislative change. See, e.g., the discrimination case Miki linked to quite awhile back--I forget the name offhand--or multiple state legislatures revising their laws to specifically deny Kelo style takings after Kelo was decided.
Ignoring the letter of the law to obtain a "fair" result means that the law is not being challenged in some form, which make it less likely that said poor law will be around antagonizing society as a whole.
I linked this in part because of what one of the commenters said:
Having litigated employment discrimination cases in the 1990's, there seems to be nothing technical about this decision. In the early 1990's, trial judges in the Second Circuit were routinely throwing out claims that sounded weak to them, even though they technically should have survived a summary judgment motion. The appellate judges routinely reversed, on the technically-sound grounds that there were some material facts in dispute, and it was the jury's job to judge the strength of these facts.
The trial judges continued to ignore the appellate judges, because the docket demands on them were too great to allow trials. After a few years of this, the appellate judges finally showed empathy--for the trial judges. They began to allow trial judges to throw out claims just because they were weak. In other words, the appellate court STOPPED being hypertechnical. It's just that they saved their empathy for the trial judges, rather than the plaintiffs. Funny how it is easier to empathize with people just like you. A white male trial judge is much more like Sonia Sotomayor than is a black woman RN.
Now, Sotomayor wasn't an appellate judge until the late '90s, but if it's true the 2nd circuit appellate judges as a whole tightened their standards of evidence for no reason other than to reduce the load on trial judges, that's something worth looking into.
-
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/06/04/mozilo_sued_by_sec/index.html
Oh Angelo.
...
You're so screwed.
-
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGMzOTBhMDk4OTczNjU0N2U3Y2E3NDk0OTJjOWY5NmE=
Rich Lowry's surprisingly positive review of Obama's speech yesterday.
-
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/05/friday_poll_in_israel_shows_majoritysolid_support/?ref=fpblg
Fascinating opinion poll of Israelis regarding their foreign policy and Obama's moves on that front.
-
Misleading headline. From what I could tell, it's at best an even split and at worst disagreement. Still, fairly fascinating.
-
What? Are you suggesting that the reality would be misconstrued in the headlines so that people who don't read articles in detail and remember specifics of things will be deluded into thinking the situation is better off than the reality? Why I never!
-
What I find interesting here is the conflict that is apparent in these answers. They don't think Obama's plan is good for their country but they do think their PM should go along with it. They believe Obama puts plans for a Palestinian state ahead of their safety (or as the question quaintly put it, the 'desires' of the Palestinians over the 'needs' of the Israelis), but agree that the main point, a settlement freeze, should be done.
-
What I find interesting here is the conflict that is apparent in these answers. They don't think Obama's plan is good for their country but they do think their PM should go along with it. They believe Obama puts plans for a Palestinian state ahead of their safety (or as the question quaintly put it, the 'desires' of the Palestinians over the 'needs' of the Israelis), but agree that the main point, a settlement freeze, should be done.
It's just a mirror of Obama's administration so far: solid general popularity but lukewarm at best reception to his actual proposals.
-
It's just a mirror of Obama's administration so far: solid general popularity but lukewarm at best reception to his actual proposals.
Well, I don't disagree with the general statement here, but I think you're likely misreading this particular situation. What I think it actually reveals is that Israelis have, unsurprisingly, complex views about the situation, probably more so than the relatively black and white way the issue is talked about in the states. It's not necessarily a conflict to believe that the Obama administration is thinking more about Palestine's needs than Israel's, and that dismantling settlements is also a good idea, or to be for a two state solution but still disappointed in Obama's conduct or rhetoric.
Nor is it necessarily in conflict to believe that the path that is "good for Israel" (e.g. aggressive expansion, per the ruling coalition) is not necessarily the path that should be taken, i.e. that it is bad for Israel but good for Israel/Palestine to reach some sort of two-state solution. Particularly with some of the more extreme rhetoric in the air (see: Avigdor Lieberman), it wouldn't really surprise me if a lot of Israelis are taking positions that are actively "anti-Israel" by common discourse.
But who knows? Some of the poll questions (NotMiki noted "desires" vs. "security needs") seem pretty suspectly worded. And yeah, it definitely indicates some pretty severe disagreements regardless.
-
But who knows? Some of the poll questions (NotMiki noted "desires" vs. "security needs") seem pretty suspectly worded. And yeah, it definitely indicates some pretty severe disagreements regardless.
The pollsters are Israeli as well, which has its advantages and disadvantages. As for the pro- or anti-Israeli positions, it's been true for a long time that Israelis are far more divided on what is good for their country than mainstream US politicians have been (you can thank AIPAC for that).
It's just a mirror of Obama's administration so far: solid general popularity but lukewarm at best reception to his actual proposals.
I think the results of this poll are not a reflection of Obama's personal popularity being at odds with the popularity of his ideas (though that is true in the US), because Israel was one of the very few regions that polling shows supported McCain over Obama in the election (eastern Europe was the other, I believe). They were wary of him from the start. Rather, I think their reactions are more a reflection that they believe they are, to a lesser or greater extent, beholden to the US. They are, of course, but I didn't think they felt it as keenly as this poll seems to indicate.
-
I think the results of this poll are not a reflection of Obama's personal popularity being at odds with the popularity of his ideas (though that is true in the US), because Israel was one of the very few regions that polling shows supported McCain over Obama in the election (eastern Europe was the other, I believe).
It is a reflection in that a charismatic speaker can make a particular goal or idea sound good and lend it some support, but support for actual implementation dwindles when you narrow down to the specific requirements needed to reach that goal. Of course there are additional factors, as JustAnotherDay pointed out, but it is a reflection nonetheless.
Also, do note that Europe has a very favorable view of Obama as well, but doesn't actually endorse the details of any of his plans or ideologies--see the juxtaposition of Obama's "rockstar" status in Europre with the recent European elections (e.g. Geert Wilder's very right of center party winning 17% of the vote) for proof of that. It's fair to say that Israel wouldn't be much different in that regard (albeit more wary, as you put it).
-
Also, do note that Europe has a very favorable view of Obama as well, but doesn't actually endorse the details of any of his plans or ideologies--see the juxtaposition of Obama's "rockstar" status in Europre with the recent European elections (e.g. Geert Wilder's very right of center party winning 17% of the vote) for proof of that.
Nah.
The left was in power in Europe when the recession hit, so Europeans probably blamed the left and wanted to throw them out of office for screwing up.
There's past precedence for this too--the 80s early 90s was a time when several countries decided that borrowing craploads of money at high interest rates was a good idea. In Canada this was the Conservative party, which lost power, almost ceased to exist as a party, and didn't reclaim the government until 2006. In Australia this was the Labour party, and they didn't reclaim the government until 2007.
Welcome to international politics. If things go wrong, you get thrown out of office; most people don't have that much ideological or party loyalty. From the international perspective, it's mind-boggling that the Republican's weren't thrown out in 2004.
-
Nah.
The left was in power in Europe when the recession hit, so Europeans probably blamed the left and wanted to throw them out of office for screwing up.
Why bother putting up a "nah" if you aren't going to contradict anything I said, unless you're baiting for an argument.
Yes the left was in power in Europe and they were blamed and lost. This doesn't change the facts that a) Obama is popular in Europe, b) Europeans gave more seats in their elections to right of center political parties, and c) these parties have ideologies that run counter to Obama's.
This could, and probably does, mean that Europeans don't really care about particular issues and focus more on results (that is, they are reactive rather than proactive, as you said). What it *does* mean is that at the moment, Europeans are not particularly interested in electing officials that have ideologies similar to Obama's to help give support to Obama on the international scene--in other words, they have not given Obama any political endorsement due to electing officials dissimilar to him. The "whys" of such an action are largely irrelevant, only that there is some other factor that Europeans consider more important than endorsement of Obama's ideas.
-
What it *does* mean is that at the moment, Europeans are not particularly interested in electing officials that have ideologies similar to Obama's to help give support to Obama on the international scene--in other words, they have not given Obama any political endorsement due to electing officials dissimilar to him.
I'm not sure that's true either, actually.
I can't speak of current European politics, but for example the entire Canadian political spectrum is to the left of the American political spectrum to the point that the closest Canadian party to the Democrats is the Canadian Conservative Party. While more economically right-wing in certain areas, the Conservative party of Canada is also more socially left-wing than the Democrats in some areas. For instance, the Conservative Party supports universal health care; the Democrats (or Obama at least) don't. The Conservative party is for gay marriage these days; the Democrats aren't (officially; some of them probably think it should be legalized). The Conservative party of Canada doesn't start international wars; the Democrat party of the USA does start international wars.
Though granted, I don't know much about European politics right now; I do know that from the perspective of a Canadian, Obama seems fairly right-wing, so it's possible Europeans see him that way too.
-
Europe is indeed a pretty fucked up country.
Oh wait.
Although yes there is a trend towards the Right at the moment in many parts of Europe and some oddly harder Right parties winning a bit more than is the norm, a bit over generalized there since the Right has always had a presence in Europe (especially Eastern Europe, sup Russia?) and even in the more Leftist countries the Right is still a force, they just weren't a majority previously. All it takes is swing voters to be reactionary and the situation changes.
The whole Europe is Left thing is overplayed and not even remotely shocking when it falls through. Sup France and the reactionary response to Immigration?
-
In other news, the Governator is awesome:
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/afp/20090609/tc_afp/useducationinternetcalifornia_20090609155456
Ditching textbooks in favor of digital distribution saving the state millions of dollars? Yes please.
-
I'm a little surprised they're limiting this to math and science, although really the important thing is leaving lit the hell alone I suppose (in simplest terms, staring at a computer screen to read a supplimental chapter to a math course is okay, trying to read an entire book the same way not so much). At any rate, this vastly improves the system's ability to stay on top of things (ie not use outdated text books) which is certainly a good thing. I'm left to wonder what the backlash from the textbook industry will be though.
-
Mm. Probably the best solution to Lit. books would be to use the ereader tools that have been popping up recently. More costly in the short term, they would probably cut costs in the long term and are designed to be more comfortable on the eyes than a fully backlit screens. The problem with this idea is mostly the fact that while the books for, say, the Kindle are cheaper than paperbacks, the hardware itself is so expensive that it's not a viable option for California as of now.
Also: "Europe is a pretty fucked up country"? Best line of the entire fucking topic.
EDIT: As for backlash from the textbook companies? Whatever to them. They've been making subpar, too-expensive teaching tools brought into the schools not on their own merit but by gaming the system with the review boards for the books for years now; even Uni textbook distributors are hardly more than scam artists in educators' clothing. Read an interesting article on it a while back from a scientist (can't recall the name) who was disgusted by what he saw while on one of the review boards for math textbooks. Really put some things in perspective. I'll try to dig it up after I get off work. In any case, the textbook industry has been fucking up for years and this change is a welcome regime overthrow.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?no_interstitial
Mildly interesting bit about how the deficit came to be and the actual total impact of Obama's agenda on it right now.
-
Fuck text book companies. Evolve or die. They are supposed to be capitalists.
-
In other news, the Governator is awesome:
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/afp/20090609/tc_afp/useducationinternetcalifornia_20090609155456
Ditching textbooks in favor of digital distribution saving the state millions of dollars? Yes please.
Yeah, gotta give the man credit for at least *trying* to solve the state's budget problems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, so this should properly be in IotD, but it's political so it's going here instead.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371046569&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
In a sign of growing concern in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government over US President Barack Obama's Middle East policies, Minister-without-Portfolio Yossi Peled proposed Israeli sanctions on the US in a letter to cabinet ministers on Sunday.
Yeah, sanctions including:
reconsidering military and civilian purchases from the US, selling sensitive equipment that the Washington opposes distributing internationally, and allowing other countries that compete with the US to get involved with the peace process and be given a foothold for their military forces and intelligence agencies.
-
You... you do that, Israel. Let's see how well that works out for you.
-
Bwahahaha, oh my god, the fifth largest economy in the Middle East (behind Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates) thinks it can bully America by imposing economic sanctions? Bearing in mind that proximity is the most important variable when it comes to trade (which is why Canada is America's #1 trading partner)? Man, why don't they just protest by flicking spitballs at the president? Based on past precedence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM3Z_Kskl_U) that would draw more attention.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear
I usually don't post in this topic, but I noticed this and it pissed me off. Thoughts?
-
This recent actions by NK are all about this succession business. The US has by and large been doing the right thing by being publicly dismissive of NK's actions (though I am quite certain they are paying very, very close attention to them) and NK is ramping up the rhetoric as a result.
I must say, NK worries me. I'm not concerned that Iran may get the bomb; its leaders may be jerks, but they're sane, and that means they're not going to nuke anyone. NK? Not so sure. Kim Jong-il hasn't displayed a great understanding of the extent China is willing to let him get away with (they were not happy with the nuclear test about a year ago, for example) and I fear that, in an extreme case, they might somehow convince themselves that using a nuke could possibly be a good idea.
-
Kim Jong-il hasn't displayed a great understanding of the extent China is willing to let him get away with (they were not happy with the nuclear test about a year ago, for example) and I fear that, in an extreme case, they might somehow convince themselves that using a nuke could possibly be a good idea.
Not that Kim Jong Il is sane, but he doesn't really need to worry about China until he actually does try to strike up some type of nuclear war within the region. China doesn't want a conventional war on its doorstep, meaning it will be against any military action against North Korea for the most part.
Jong Il also doesn't need to worry about China too much because he holds Seoul in the palm of his hand. Any military action against North Korea runs the risk of North Korea's artillery firing on the city. As long as the US and other countries value a city of 25 million more than the threat of nuclear war or proliferation, North Korea can basically do what it wants. Even best cast scenarios in recent war games predict a minimal civilian death toll of 300,000+. It doesn't matter much that the United States can obliterate North Korea with ease if Seoul goes up in a cloud of smoke.
-
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html
Pictures from Iran. Hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets. Apparently there was a mass of protesters on the main street in Tehran that was 5 miles long. See #38 for a good view of that.
The Obama administration is taking a hands-off approach, taking care not to appear to be rooting for Mousavi, which might damage Mousavi's credibility at a critical juncture. However, that doesn't mean the US is being passive. The State Dept. contacted Twitter (Twitter! Really!) and had them reschedule an hour of maintenance downtime that would have coincided with daytime hours in Iran.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-06/iran-protests-mind-state-department-blocks-twitters-maintenance-outage
-
Not as important as the crowd shot but still big, I think, is the one of a protester helping a riot policeman get away after other protesters started attacking him. How's that for moral high ground?
-
That's one hell of a striking image.
-
Not as important as the crowd shot but still big, I think, is the one of a protester helping a riot policeman get away after other protesters started attacking him. How's that for moral high ground?
That photo is really something. Given the right exposure, it could be iconic. Obviously a lot of terrible things have happened, and more are surely to come, but the most inspiring thing I've yet heard come out of these protests is that over the weekend: a group of police stepped in between protesters and a gun-toting plainclothes government militia, risking their necks to prevent violence.
Best coverage I've seen so far, by the way, is HuffingtonPost's page for it, frequently updated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html
This is translated from Etemaad, a Farsi-language newspaper in Iran, with commentary following:
Yesterday a couple of the members of the Iranian parliament started asking question regarding the plainclothes security forces who have been beating the protesters in Iran.
Apparently, Abutorabi (Parliament secretary) questioned the connections of the plainclothes security forces who had earlier storm Tehran University's dorms and killed and injured students. Abutorabi claims that those individuals have been identified and says: "Why do plainclothes individuals without permission from the government get to storm the dorms?"
Then Ansari, a member of the parliament took the floor and talked about the "fact finding" committee and the fact that everyone in that comity is an Ahmadinejad supporter and therefore questioned the legitimacy of the committee.
After Ansari, Abutorabi took the floor again and continued questioning the plainclothes security forces once again. At this point Hosseinian, Koochakzadeh, and resaee, the three biggest supporters of Ahmadinejad in the parliament, started a verbal argument which ended with a number of physical fights. As a result a number of pro and anti Ahmadinejad members of the parliament join the fight and start slapping and pushing each other.
In the end, the anti Ahmadinejad block claims that they will expose the identities of those behind the plainclothes security forces.
Keep in mind that the pro and anti Ahmadinejad blocks belong to the same political party! I think the government is starting to crack up from the inside.
Also, here's a Politico piece, banged out on Monday.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html
Yes, after years of massive economic mismanagement capped by a plunge in the price of oil, it's beyond belief that anyone could doubt Ahmadinejad got slightly more of the vote than last time, or that tens of millions of paper ballots can be counted in a matter of hours. Silly me! I guess my opinion that something strange was going on was just my myopic Western wishful thinking.
-
or that tens of millions of paper ballots can be counted in a matter of hours.
Hey, it happens in Canada. (Always boggled my mind that Canadian elections seem to get resolved faster than American elections despite Canada being 100% paper ballot. We know how to push paper?)
-
Hand-counted or machine-counted, though?
Edit: Also, bear in mind that Ahmadeinejad got 61 percent of the runoff votes in 2005. He got less than 20% in the first round. He supposedly jumped forty-fucking-percentage-points from the last race.
-
Hand-counted or machine-counted, though?
Hand counted.
Canada is pretty simple: Pencil. Paper. Mark an x. Fold your paper and put it in the box. Done.
Actually, the fact that we're voting for 1 thing and not 30 things probably speed things up a lot >_>
-
Prior elections in Iran have taken a few days to come up with the official number. This one took 2 hours from the closing of the polls, and the Ayatollah personally endorsed the results, which is also apparently suspicious.
To be clear: the total results of the election may have shown Ahmadinejad as the winner, perhaps even by a landslide, but given the circumstances, it's not hard to believe that the official results were a complete fabrication.
-
This one took 2 hours from the closing of the polls
Oh, yeah I was responding to "few hours", which I assumed meant about 4-5 hours. Even Canada doesn't do all its counting in 2 hours.
-
Canada handles it like Australia and counts during the day of the entire election as well I assume? We normally have pretty conclusive result by 9ish that night same day (polling closing... 7 that night I think off the top of my head?) and official results pretty much by the next day (craaaaazy tight stuff might take a little bit longer). Also entirely paper and 100% attendance.
But yeah, that still stinks of rigged election.
-
Yeah, did a bit of election day work once and the count basically started as soon as everyone who wasn't supposed to be there got kicked out and the doors were locked. Took about an hour to do the count and any necessary recounts, and we were all able to get out of there in time for supper and any related events we might be interested in.
That said, our recent provincial election did have one seat take a few weeks to decide. Mostly because I think the final margin of victory was around 2 votes.
-
a well-respected (or so I am led to believe) statistician specializing in election fraud says the likelihood of fraud is "moderately strong." I think that translates in layman's terms to "oh my god what a steal."
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mebane_moderately_strong_suppo.php
-
Yeah that is looking more and more Russian Provincial Zombies voting level fraud right there.
-
http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/23065/
Orwellian. There's no other way to describe this. Lithuania just passed the Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information. The law forbids homosexuality from being discussed in schools, or in any public information minors may have access to. One lawmaker who voted for it praised the law for striking a good balance -- positive and negative comments regarding homosexuality have both been banned, you see.
-
...
I... goddamn, I have -absolutely no words-. Will try to reorganize my flabbergasted disdain for this piece of news into an actual opinion when I get home.
-
"If the teacher tried to help a homosexual pupil – if they were being bullied or ridiculed by their peers – if they told them that this child is okay and does not have a disease and it isn’t a problem, then they could get in trouble,”
Um, wow. This reminds me of the kind of thing that would happen to the Harry Potter character Professor Umbridge. Except for the part where it's the exact opposite of karmic justice.
The Seimas adopted the law with 67 votes for and three against.
I see.
Gay Web sites are the gay community’s main medium of communication, and he said these could be shut down.
Speaking of which, are they going to ban children from accessing the internet? 'Cause if they don't then I don't see how they will stop them from accessing websites from other countries.
-
Speaking of which, are they going to ban children from accessing the internet? 'Cause if they don't then I don't see how they will stop them from accessing websites from other countries.
Met, why the hell are you bringing this up? You know as well as I do that as long as we don't talk about things that are problematic, they're not problems.
-
Homosexual Rations have gone up from 3 grams per day to 4 grams per day. A teaspoon of homosexual makes the medicine go down. So swallow that teaspoon's worth and smile.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/25/savana-redding-strip-sear_n_220717.html
Grr. I'm happy about the decision of the court here, but Thomas' sole dissent really ticks me off. Not because of the reasoning, but because of the language.
Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."
The girl didn't have pills on her person. Nor was there any doubt because, you see, she was strip searched. But if you read "nor will she be the last" you would, of course, believe she had. Clarence Thomas is a fucking supreme court justice. He knows how to write. I don't know what his angle here is, but I do know he's attacking her intentionally.
-
Well, technically, since she wasn't carrying any pills (fucking Advil, might I note), it's completely impossible for her to be the last person to conceal them anywhere.
-
Did you read his entire opinion? It's fairly reasonable! I agree the exact choice of words in that sentence is off -- "nor will she be the last" means she was one of the former, which wasn't the case at all as they didn't find anything they were looking for -- but the rest of his argument makes sense. The way it fits into the rest, I am guessing it was just a slip. In as many pages as those opinions appear, I don't find it odd that he fell prey to an awkward turn of phrase and picked it up in the wrong tense.
-
No, I haven't read it in full. And I don't think his stance, that school officials need greater deference, is unreasonable, though I don't agree with it in this case. It's just the language I object to.
I don't give supreme court justices the benefit of the doubt in their opinions. They're the highest court in the land, and they are keenly aware of the minute implications of language. If they're vague or contradictory, I have to assume it's on purpose.
-
The stance is plenty unreasonable. I find it boggling that the US permits strip searches of schoolchildren in anything but dire cases (prescription drugs don't quiiite meet my threshold of dire).
-
But NEB, they are YOUTHS.
-
The stance is plenty unreasonable. I find it boggling that the US permits strip searches of schoolchildren in anything but dire cases (prescription drugs don't quiiite meet my threshold of dire).
The idea is, you have to give school officials broad deference so that they'll be willing to conduct strip-searches and whatnot when it's important for them to do so. if you open them up to liability, then they may act too timidly when a student's welfare is at risk for fear of being sued. Say they suspect a student has heroin on their person and is dealing, because another student said so. If they're wrong, even if they had a decent reason to believe there was heroin, they'll have to defend themselves in court, in front of a jury that may or may not be sympathetic depending on the kid. That's a terrible position for a teacher to be in.
Now, I don't think the majority's decision in this case is going to lead to that situation, but I can see why Thomas is worried about it.
-
The idea is, you have to give school officials broad deference so that they'll be willing to conduct strip-searches and whatnot when it's important for them to do so. if you open them up to liability, then they may act too timidly when a student's welfare is at risk for fear of being sued. Say they suspect a student has heroin on their person and is dealing, because another student said so. If they're wrong, even if they had a decent reason to believe there was heroin, they'll have to defend themselves in court, in front of a jury that may or may not be sympathetic depending on the kid. That's a terrible position for a teacher to be in.
I don't really buy it, to be honest. It might be a Canadian thing that I share with NEB (I cannot imagine a Canadian employer other than the police or military ever doing employee drug tests, for instance, though I'm told they're pretty common in the states), but I have trouble with drug hysteria. They can be dangerous, but they're not an IMMEDIATE THREAT! THAT MUST BE DEALT WITH!! and to hell with checks and balances and common sense.
Clear reason to believe that a student might be carrying a weapon? Widespread violence? Search 'em, put in metal detectors (terrible though that is), do what you can to protect students. Luckily enough, most weapons can't really be concealed in a 13-year-old's underwear.
But drugs? I don't see why a school administrator should have more or broader authority than a police officer with these things. If an administrator suspects that a student is dealing heroin, he or she should call the police. If there is a case, warrants should be issued, homes searched, whatever. But there're very good reasons why law enforcement can't perform discretionary body searches, and they apply every bit as much to teachers. And we can see manifest demonstration of at least one or two of them in this case.
-
You...don't think a teen distributing heroin is an immediate threat to their safety or the safety of other students? I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.
-
I don't think a teen (suspected of) distributing heroin is so urgent a threat that basic rules of process need to be overturned to combat it. Our legal system (both American and Canadian) is in fact rather good at apprehending and incarcerating small-time drug offenders.
-
You...don't think a teen distributing heroin is an immediate threat to their safety or the safety of other students?
So tell the student to get her ass in the principal's office, and then interrogate her while you wait for the police to arrive.
I'm sorry, but I feel the sentence "take off your underwear in front of me" is not something teachers should EVER say to a student. That's not their job. That's extremely inappropriate for their job.
-
Yeah, I pretty much agree with JAD and mc on this one. Find the opposite view a bit baffling; as a teacher, I can't ever recall hearing one of my colleagues endorse the idea of strip searching students for drugs (and I've heard some rather radical suggestions for managing troublesome students). It's rather revolting. That's the domain of law enforcement, not individuals for whom "care for all students" is the top entry in their code of ethics.
I'm kinda curious, is this an American/Canadian thing? How do other people feel on this topic?
-
I'm with the Canadians on this one. If you think a kid has something like heroin or a gun, you call the police and the jurisprudence for police conduct takes over. If what you suspect they have isn't bad enough to be illegal, it's probably not bad enough to justify a strip search.
-
Pretty much echoing Shale, with my sentiments being that the divide between students and authority in schools is bad enough as is from my own experiences. I can't imagine strip searches aiding that at all.
-
I definitely don't think guns and drugs should be grouped in the same category here at all. They shouldn't strip search for drugs, but if a teacher really thought a student had a gun, then I would think removing it ASAP would be the ideal (Unless you want to send them to the principal's office holding their hands the whole way?).
-
Yeah, I pretty much agree with JAD and mc on this one. Find the opposite view a bit baffling; as a teacher, I can't ever recall hearing one of my colleagues endorse the idea of strip searching students for drugs (and I've heard some rather radical suggestions for managing troublesome students). It's rather revolting. That's the domain of law enforcement, not individuals for whom "care for all students" is the top entry in their code of ethics.
I'm kinda curious, is this an American/Canadian thing? How do other people feel on this topic?
I'm in complete agreement with the Canucks on this one; if a teacher thinks a student has a gun, then they should call the god damn police. It is not their within their jurisdiction to perform a strip search; I think the school authorities are allowed to search bags, but as far as I know they are not allowed to search anything on the student's person. Doing so for drugs is absolutely unthinkable, even for dangerous drugs like meth or, in this case, heroin. That's why you call the cops. Hell, if a school official found anything during the strip search, they would have to call the police about it anyway, so there is no reason to perform the search.
-
It is not their within their jurisdiction to perform a strip search; I think the school authorities are allowed to search bags, but as far as I know they are not allowed to search anything on the student's person. Doing so for drugs is absolutely unthinkable, even for dangerous drugs like meth or, in this case, heroin.
Couple of things. First of all, met, it was the school nurse who did the strip search (which never involved the student taking off her bra and panties, by the way). Second of all, in the US it is absolutely the school's 'jurisdiction' to search students if they have a legitimate reason to believe they have dangerous materials. In the US, the constitutional rights of students are interpreted less broadly than they are in general. Can you imagine if a teacher says, "let me have that note you were passing" and gets sued for impinging the student's right to free speech?
On a more practical note, if you're a student, would you rather explain that knife to your principal or to the cops?
-
I am with the Canadians on this one as well. If the kid is only carrying and not using then the immediate threat is not high enough that holding them won't contain, if they are using something really nasty that makes them a threat then you should have already called the cops.
-
Sure, some rights aren't given fully to minors for a reason. But to try and draw a parallell between confiscating notes and conducting strip searches are two entirely different things as well. One of which is proscribed by school rules, but is not against the law, while the other is against the law, and therefore whether or not it is also against school rules is entirely superfluous.
As for whether the student would prefer to talk to the cops or the principal, you can give them that choice by simply stating that you have the evidence you need, and are about to call the cops in. Who they'd prefer to talk to is now their choice from the moment you tell them this, to the moment you pick up the phone.
-
In the US, the constitutional rights of students are interpreted less broadly than they are in general. Can you imagine if a teacher says, "let me have that note you were passing" and gets sued for impinging the student's right to free speech?
I wasn't even really talking about legal rights here. I was talking about the role of the teacher.
The teacher needs to be someone the student can trust and be comfortable around. The teacher should not be antagonizing the students. The teacher should be someone with whom a kid from an abusive home feels like she can share "my dad touches me, it makes me upset." The teacher should not be someone the student perceives (wrongly or rightly) as a sexual predator which they would feel uncomfortable being around for 8 hours a day.
Do students have fewer legal rights? Sure. However there are certain boundaries that teachers should not cross. Boundaries which the general public can cross just fine. (For instance, saying "I'm imagining having sex with you right now"--and notice that this phrase would be totally unacceptable for a university lecturer too, so it's not just the pedophilia implications).
-
As I pointed out earlier, even in this most egregious case that came before the supreme court, it wasn't a teacher who conducted the search; it was the school nurse. I don't think it was right for reasons I've already gone through, but if there's one person in the school you want to be making students strip, the nurse is it. I don't think it would be appropriate for teachers to be doing much at all in even more extreme examples, but I do think it's appropriate for the school administrators to.
In pointing out the special role teachers play and the boundaries they have to deal with, it's worth pointing out that you're mentally placing them in the governmental side of the constitution: the side that amendments are written to constrict the behaviors of. For those of you drawing a bright line between what the police should be doing and what school officials should, it's worth considering that they're both playing for the same team, as it were.
-
Yeah, but school staff provide a very different service from the police. I wouldn't want the DMV strip-searching anyone either.
-
Yeah, see everything mc said about the role of the teacher as somebody students can trust? That goes for the school nurse as well. Actually, it goes for all doctors and nurses, who have a rather similar ethical dedication to their patients as educators do students. This more than anything is why I found the case disgusting. (Also, for the record, the strip search DID go beyond the undergarments; the article specifically says they were moved in order to make the areas underneath visible.)
I'm actually not clear on what ethical standards the police have to adhere to on either side of the border, but I can imagine they are very different than those in education and health. I somehow doubt that whatever code they have begins with "Police officers value and care for all people their job calls them to deal with, and act in their best interests", for starters.
-
Lots of fun stuff recently. First, an observation by Krugman that I think is mostly on the money, though it lacks a little nuance:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/sex-and-the-married-politician/
This has been going on about a week, but it could use some attention: Sarkozy says the burqa is not welcome in France, creates a commission with the intent of banning the garment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/french-burqa-ban-commissi_n_219579.html
And last but certainly not least, the supreme court finds 5-4 for the white firefighters, in a case the majority and minority are sharply divided on (and come to very different conclusions of even the basic facts of the case).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30scotus.html?_r=1&hp
-
Senator Al fucking Franken.
Well, it makes the Vikings look better by comparison.
-
Sarah Palin!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/03/palin/index.html
...quits early as the Alaska governor.
-
If there's something going on with her and her family, I guess we're going to hear about it soon enough.
If she's trying to position herself for 2012, she's even dumber than I thought.
-
Next week, we discover her family has been eaten by polar bears. She uses the strength of the sob story to become president of 1966 Soviet Russia in an astounding turn of events.
-
Finally! Unexpected news from a republican that isn't the admission of an affair.
-
Yet.
-
Worth it just for the headline:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/the-iquitarod-sarah-palin_b_225989.html
And on the subject of Sarah,
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/outofline/2009/07/palin_and_the_press.html
At least she doesn't (yet) need this!
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/outofline/2009/07/politicans_offer_remorse.html
-
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzExZGUzODIyMDQwZmNlNDcxYzEwMWViNTljMjQ3MTc
The National Review: taking the Chinese government's word for it since...since they started persecuting Muslims, I guess. Uighur Muslims are terrorists, you see, so when they riot, it's definitely terrorism. Fucking whiners have been part of China since 1949! Time for them to grow up and get over it.
Mr. McCarthy writes on an unrelated matter,
'The only thing more obvious than the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the legacy media is its breathtaking arrogance.'
Let's hope he's including himself in that category.
-
I thought Greenwald's coverage was (as usual) spot on:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/06/uighurs/index.html
-
Coupla things. First, for those of you who are curious about those ethics complaints Palin kept mentioning, here they are. 18 in total, 3 of which are pending. I'd say about half of them are legit complaints. Nothing worth resigning over, if you ask me.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/838912.html
More importantly, Massachusetts is challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/mass_to_challen.html
The suit alleges that the law violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reserves to the states all powers except those granted to the federal government. It also alleges that the law violates Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which limits the power of Congress to attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds.
I don't know that this is a particularly strong argument, but it would be fascinating to see what the court does with it. This is classic states' rights territory.
http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/press/2009_07_08_doma_complaint.pdf
Ok, the argument in brief:
Section 3 of DOMA defines marriage as being between a man and a woman for federal purposes such as health benefits.
The Tenth Amendment reserves for the state the right to define marriage because it is not explicitly given to the federal government in Article I of the constitution. Consequently DOMA unconstitutionally commandeers state employees and impedes on the state's sovereignty. [This is something strict constructionists might buy, but the 10th amendment isn't usually taken so broadly.]
Massachusetts administers those benefits, and is put in the position of either violating its citizens equal protection rights by denying federal benefits to same-sex couples, or risking losing federal money.
Article 1 sec. 8 of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from place conditions on the receipt of federal funds that would cause a state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: for a little comedy, here's the Family Research Council's take on MA's suit.
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-08-2009/0005056919&EDATE=
In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted with the primary purpose of protecting the right of states to define marriage as they see fit so that no state can force marriage redefinition on another state. Now, the Massachusetts Attorney General is expanding the fight against traditional marriage by demanding that federal taxpayers from all 50 states subsidize same-sex 'marriage' benefits in Massachusetts.
That's like the truth.
-
*Does a bit of reading*
Wait, Bob Barr was the one who authored DOMA? Not only that, but he voted for the Patriot Act?
THIS was the libertarian candidate in 2008? WTF
-
He was a bad joke, much like the Libertarian in the last 75 years or so.
-
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/new-haven-firefighter-originally-hired-by-claiming-discrimination.php
now this is fascinating. Frank Ricci, the headline name of the firefighters case, originally got his job by suing alleging, wait for it, discrimination because he is dyslexic.
-
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/the-gates-case-and-racial-profiling/?hp
Now that the president has had his say, I imagine the Skip Gates arrest in Boston is fairly well known. I think it's clear the officer was wrong to arrest Gates, and the outrage is well-deserved, but I'm not at all convinced that this is a case of racial profiling or race bias, either by the officers or the lady who reported a break-in in the first place. Thoughts?
-
I agree. I read it as a cop who was told that two black men were trying to break into a house meeting a tired, traveled out Gates who lost his temper. I don't think anyone was deeply at fault as much as it was simply bad circumstances.
The media will blow it up into more than it is.
-
Yeah, to me, it seems less like an issue with racism and more just lousy police work; it strikes me as incorrect to arrest a person wrongly suspected of breaking into his or her own home, no matter how obnoxious or angry they are (and I totally believe that Gates got out of hand, but this seems to me both understandable and not terribly significant). The officer should have known better. That said, I do also think that Obama's point at the presser, about how racism often plays a part in this type of situation whether or not it was a factor in this particular one, was well made.
-
http://www.nyclu.org/node/2501
An article on disciplinary strategies in New York schools. I don't really know enough about the issue to judge the numbers on their own merits; seems like a pretty small focus group (but I suspect we're talking very large schools here, at least by non-NYC standards), and the differences seem relatively small, though by no means insignificant. Also, it is of course the case that these schools will have substantial differences besides their approaches to rule-enforcement (socio-economic; note that the moderate schools are much more latino and the police-intensive schools much more black). And of course, it is the NYCLU reporting results of its own study, commissioned and executed with a clear agenda.
All that said, I guess the final issue for me is that it's clear that, issues of safety aside, a laxer, less police-intensive disciplinary system is clearly more desirable on its own merits, financially, psychologically, educationally etc. Even if the numbers here don't prove conclusively that police-intensive methods are actively harmful to school success-rates (and I'm not saying they don't, at that), it's pretty clear that the more moderate schools are at the very least completely competitive with police-intensive schools.
As a side-note, there's some stuff about day-to-day life in these schools that I find pretty shocking. We talk a lot about the deplorable conditions of inner-city American schools, but there are some pretty brutal anecdotes even in the article itself (5 year-olds arrested for tardiness etc. etc.). Scary stuff.
-
The article ties in well to general studies which show that it's better to deal with student management issues proactively than reactively, and the "policing" will by nature fall more into the latter (although it has some proactive measures, too).
Agreed that it seems obviously undesirable to have such harsh conditions unless it can be shown that they're necessary, and the article suggests the opposite if anything (its results need to be taken with a grain of salt, but are still worth considering).
-
So wait. If I'm reading this right, in addition to everything else it suggests that treating the students like criminals in a prison... caused a disproportionate number of them to become criminals and end up in prison.
Y'don't say.
-
Milgram experiments never happened, we have always had people enjoy stays in prisons. OBEY.
-
a great goddamn speech. maybe I'm just overly sentimental today, but it really moves me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/the-best-speech-i-ever-wr_b_247918.html
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/06gay.html?hp
APA overwhelmingly declares that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments, based on an exhaustive survey of efforts to do just that. They declare that there is no good evidence such a change could occur, and that attempting to force a change would be detrimental to a patient's wellbeing.
not directly political, but I figure this is the best forum for it in any case.
-
Well... that is actually a much better stance than I expected the APA to take. Sure it is probably 50 years to late, but that is the APA for you (and they at least got homosexuality out of the DSM by.... the 80's I think it was off the top of my head. DSM3 if I recall properly). Hey, it is progress and if the APA has stood up and said it then the rest of the world's Psychologists follow.
-
Wonder how the pray the gay away crowd will react to that. That is a pretty solid rejection of the stuff they've been putting up for years now.
-
Wonder how the pray the gay away crowd will react to that. That is a pretty solid rejection of the stuff they've been putting up for years now.
Considering that they've been outside the generally accepted medical guidelines for a while, I can't imagine a more official ruling will change them.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09ehrenreich.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&em
Welcome to America! Hope you have money!
-
Old stuff, vagrancy laws and whatnot are so 1700s.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/11/news/companies/continental_air_delay.reut/index.htm?postversion=2009081119
On one hand, government intervention where it may not be needed or should be in involved with in the first place. On the other hand, Continental airlines.
....
Goooo regulation!
-
Pffffft, government intervention where it may not be needed my fucking arse. The government has a place in setting business guidelines and boundaries in any fucking industry it damned well wants when it can justify it. This case is definitely an OH&S issue at minimum which easilly qualifies government involvement.
Your small government shit can suck my nuts.
-
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/dont_need_to_be_a_rocket_scientist.php
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/hawking-ironically-my-death-panel-saved-my-life.php?ref=fpa
kinda wanted to put this in IOTD, but it seems like all the political news recently should be, so whatever.
Investors Business Daily, boldly taking on the evil that is UK healthcare, stands up for people like Steven Hawking, who would have been deemed unworthy of life were he a British citizen. Wait, what's that? Hawking was born in the UK? And they didn't kill 'im?
...
Jesus! America! *flees*
-----
Here's the original article, scrubbed of Hawking, but including a trivial correction.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877
Editor's Note: This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK.
see if you think that's a sufficient correction to this:
People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
For my part, I think a decent correction should note that The NHS, when asked the very question, came up with the opposite answer the editorial said they would.
But that would be asking too much of an article that uncritically quotes,
One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years,
when in fact the sessions are non-compulsory.
This isn't a matter of a difference of opinion. We're talking about pure, simple-to-verify facts. IBD is disingenuous at best, a sack of fucking liars at worst. And worthless sack of shit liars segues nicely into,
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/palin-obamas-death-panel-could-kill-my-down-syndrome-baby.php
Which I have no fucking comment on.
-----
one other thing while I'm at it,
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/on_election_ever_miers_tried_to_intervene_renzi_case.php?ref=fpblg
ladies and gentlemen I present to you the woman George W. Bush believed should be our third female Justice. Because leaning on attorneys general to try to make them publicly lie about the status of an investigation in an obvious violation of DOJ policy is just the kind of experience that we look for in an impartial, non-biased justice.
EDIT:
http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/895431.html
Lisa Murkowski, R-AK Senator and opponent of the healthcare bill, provides a refreshing counterpoint of sanity from the northernest state.
EDIT 2:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/grassley-endorses-death-p_n_257677.html
Appearing at a town hall in his home state of Iowa, Sen. Chuck Grassley told a crowd of more than 300 that they were correct to fear that the government would "pull the plug on grandma."
Pull the plug on grandma. The people perpetrating this stuff are shit. They're beneath dirt.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?hp
The New York Times weighs in on the healthcare mess. This is interesting. For all its reputation as a liberal newspaper, the Times avoids directly taking sides in areas of contention in their news (as opposed to editorial) division. Typically if two politicians disagree, it will be reported that they disagree, and it may even be noted in the story which one has the fact on their side, but that will be the extent of it. For the main point of a story to be that a political position championed by one ideological set is factually wrong is highly unusual.
-
There is something surreal about the national debate on health care. A sizable and loud portion of one of America's two major parties is basically calling everyone in the administration's party Nazis. That they are not being loudly refuted by reasonable voices in the Republican party speaks to a lack of courage on the part of conservative politician's in America. Which is ironic considering how much the Republican party has played on fear to grip power in the country recently (vote for/support us or the muslims will kill you).
Of course, it's always possible that there are reasoned debates going on about this topic and that they just aren't 'sexy' enough to make the news. I suppose I don't have much room to talk since I haven't studied the issue in too much depth.
-
Really, that pretty much says everything about the Times article there. It's hard to portray the group that needs slapped with Godwin's Law as reasonable or worth listening to.
-
Although as far as that goes, Euthanasia for terminally ill people is one of the few Nazi policies I find quite solid.
Granted, government-forced Euthanasia simply does not work under British-derived law systems--that's asking for the government to get sued (there's a reason Canada+USA haven't sterilized anyone for eugenic reasons since...1970 or so; lawsuits for millions of dollars kicked the government's ass). Basically, under a British Law system, euthanasia has to be voluntary on the part of the individual, and can't be mandated by the government because that ends up much more expensive than paying the hospital bills.
-
Of course, no shortage of the terminally ill are completely open to the idea of euthanasia. Naturally, it's actively illegal and any medical professional caught at it is quickly stripped of their liscence and thrown in prison. Making allowances for voluntary euthanasia would be a good move really, but I strongly suspect there is no such provision in the bill. Afterall, people would just misconstrue that as government-endorsed murdering of grandma.
(Oh wait that happened ANYWAY.)
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/14/australia.right.to.die/index.html
On that note!
Is anyone else bothered by the title? "Australian quadriplegic granted right to starve to death"
Felo de se has always struck me as an odd concept. I can only justify it religiously. Granted that he is of medically-determined sound mind (and let's not start that argument), why else would you force someone to live when everything else has been taken away from them?
-
Normal argument is all about denying society a useful resource and whatnot, ties into government incentives to breed and whatnot (being the counter side to the same coin), to kill yourself is to strip a resource from the state and weakens it as a whole and whatnot. Laws being defined by the nation state and whatnot to be self perpetuating and blah blah blah.
Euthenasia and suicide stuff being accepted is a strongly individualistic ideal and all that (also usually fairly selfish action as well, but whatever).
So in essence, yeah it bothers me on a personal level and an idealogical level that it is being framed that way, but it is understandable, it is pretty harsh direct way of describing exactly what is happening. That is bothers me on an idealogical level means I have a bit more of an anarchist bent than I tend to display in other issues (Or libertarian if you want to be a shit face, but I favour Anarchist ideals more than Libertarian ones).
Take that as you will.
-
Normal argument is all about denying society a useful resource and whatnot, ties into government incentives to breed and whatnot (being the counter side to the same coin), to kill yourself is to strip a resource from the state and weakens it as a whole and whatnot. Laws being defined by the nation state and whatnot to be self perpetuating and blah blah blah.
No, suicide is illegal because if it was legal you could too easily use it for murder. Say Joe Greedy's mother (who has him in her will) is contemplating suicide. Of course he's going to nudge her in that direction. Even if you outlaw assisted suicide, subtle hints and body language are virtually indistinguishable in the eyes of the law.
-
Normal argument is all about denying society a useful resource and whatnot, ties into government incentives to breed and whatnot (being the counter side to the same coin), to kill yourself is to strip a resource from the state and weakens it as a whole and whatnot. Laws being defined by the nation state and whatnot to be self perpetuating and blah blah blah.
No, suicide is illegal because if it was legal you could too easily use it for murder. Say Joe Greedy's mother (who has him in her will) is contemplating suicide. Of course he's going to nudge her in that direction. Even if you outlaw assisted suicide, subtle hints and body language are virtually indistinguishable in the eyes of the law.
That also being a damned good reason for disallowing euthanasia as well. While I do agree with the idea of a person having the choice to have his/her life taken away, it's just too easily turned into a practical, efficient tool for "legal" murder.
-
Murder is illegal for the same reasons I stated as suicide being illegal. Practical application of the removal of the resource is the kind of minor detail that Sociology doesn't really worry about at the macro level we are dealing with there. This is all the function of things that people do and applying the question of "who benefits?" to it.
-
That also being a damned good reason for disallowing euthanasia as well. While I do agree with the idea of a person having the choice to have his/her life taken away, it's just too easily turned into a practical, efficient tool for "legal" murder.
The difference is that modern euthanasia is only legally allowed in cases where the government wants you dead. These are the cases where the Nazi policy was "you don't get a choice--you're terminally ill and costing us money. Die now."--y'know, in 1933 when the Nazi party was being smart and getting their economy going (as opposed to 1943 when they were being stupid and draining money for racism).
Modern Euthanasia is more or less "Euthanasia's a good economic policy, but we can't force it on people or we'll be sued. However, we can allow people to consent to it."
-
The people perpetrating this stuff are shit. They're beneath dirt.
In today's shocking news, it is revealed that politicians lie and play to the fears of the general population.
Sarcasm aside, Obama and the democrats are just as guilty of lying and spreading misinformation as Palin and the republicans are. Some cases in point being a)Obama's claims that preventive care is the magic pill that will increase health quality while decreasing costs and b) that a major factor in the rise of health care practices are doctors being motivated by financial gain to do superfluous medical procedures. Both claims are patently false and yet are still touted by health care reform proponents, but I don't see you raging against them.
-
Preventive health care is certainly a key to controlling hospital costs (Namely, getting people to stop going to the ER when they have colds because they don't have insurance). This doesn't mean that the current plan being floated is a good one, but you definitely want to have some insurance option for people that isn't grossly overpriced or tied to jobs. There's also a problem with MRI imaging centers that doctors own and can refer patients to, but that's pretty standard 'hey dumbass conflict of interest fix this' than anything specifically related to medicine.
Medicare is as ruthless as an private insurance company about controlling costs. They no longer cover MRSA infections that patients contract in a hospital, leaving the hospital stuck with the bill.
I've heard talk about price controls with the plan which is just not effective as well. WE have a system of those already in the health care system, called medical billing. It sucks.
-
Preventive health care is certainly a key to controlling hospital costs (Namely, getting people to stop going to the ER when they have colds because they don't have insurance).
Universal preventive care coverage won't keep costs down. The misinformation lies in the distinction about where savings are made in preventive care. The individual who would have suffered a heart attack but did not has made a savings in cost because they no longer have to pay the massive hospital bill that would have entailed heart attack treatment.
The problem is that not everyone will benefit from preventive care because not everyone will have suffered a stroke, heart attack, diabetes, etc. Thus, the coverage provider is paying for preventive care for everyone in order to save on the costs of the few.
If that is unclear, try looking at it from the insurance perspective. Insurance is risk management. You buy insurance (any type) because you don't want to pay out of pocket costs for an unplanned major accident. Maintenance is NOT something you pay insurance on because you know what it costs and budget appropriately. In other words, there is no risk. You generally don't see homeowner's insurance covering the costs of wear and tear maintenance or auto insurance policies that cover the costs of oil changes and periodic tune ups. Likewise, twice yearly checkups and other standardized preventive care procedures are not unforeseen costs, and therefore not a part of risk management.
This is not to say that preventive care should be avoided, but to claim that it would save money is ludicrous and false.
-
Universal preventive care coverage won't keep costs down. The misinformation lies in the distinction about where savings are made in preventive care. The individual who would have suffered a heart attack but did not has made a savings in cost because they no longer have to pay the massive hospital bill that would have entailed heart attack treatment.
The problem is that not everyone will benefit from preventive care because not everyone will have suffered a stroke, heart attack, diabetes, etc. Thus, the coverage provider is paying for preventive care for everyone in order to save on the costs of the few.
Preventive care in the sense I'm talking about means getting people to go to a normal doctor instead of a hospital for managable illnesses. Hopsitalization is insanely expensive, and hospitals lose a lot of money from indigiant and working poor patients who can't afford to pay the bills; thus it becomes a writeoff. Encouraging people to go to a family care doctor is just using the resources you have in a far more effective manner- treating a case of the flu for 300 dollars including the expensive antiviral versus however much it costs for a trip to the hospital. When I sprained my ankle a few years back it was 900 dollars or so for a fairly simple treatment. Everyone pays for the misuse of hospitals in terms of higher premiums and costs across the board.
If that is unclear, try looking at it from the insurance perspective. Insurance is risk management. You buy insurance (any type) because you don't want to pay out of pocket costs for an unplanned major accident. Maintenance is NOT something you pay insurance on because you know what it costs and budget appropriately. In other words, there is no risk. You generally don't see homeowner's insurance covering the costs of wear and tear maintenance or auto insurance policies that cover the costs of oil changes and periodic tune ups. Likewise, twice yearly checkups and other standardized preventive care procedures are not unforeseen costs, and therefore not a part of risk management.
Health insurance already covers preventive treatments because it's cheaper than waiting for people to fall apart and leads to generally better quality of life/cheaper treatment. We want people to go in for checkups and generally be in touch with their doctor.
One of the biggest problems by far in the country as far as health care goes is the misuse of hospitals. That has to be fixed. It's perhaps one of the biggest problems with health care in the country, right behind insurance companies being functional monopolies.
-
Preventive care in the sense I'm talking about means getting people to go to a normal doctor instead of a hospital for managable illnesses.
That has less to do with access to preventive care and more to do with increasing health awareness and treatment options for the general population (and access to non-hospital medical clinics in low income areas).
Health insurance already covers preventive treatments because it's cheaper than waiting for people to fall apart and leads to generally better quality of life/cheaper treatment. We want people to go in for checkups and generally be in touch with their doctor.
Leads to a better quality of life, yes. Cheaper in the long run (for the insurance company/taxpayers), no. To illustrate with numbers:
Say preventive treatment for Malady X costs $500 per person and Malady X itself costs $10,000 to treat. At the individual level, someone who would have gotten Malady X but didn't thanks to the treatment saves $9500. The problem is, and politicians like Obama don't mention, is that this is not applicable to large groups of people.
Say Malady X has a prevalence of 2% and the population that has insurance coverage is 100. Now it costs $50,000 in coverage to ensure that the entire population will be prevented from getting Malady X. However, if coverage only covers cost of treatment, then nobody is prevented from getting Malady X and 2 people will have it. Costs for treatment run at $20,000 total, which is significantly less than preventive treatments for everyone.
In actuality, the numbers are far more disproportionate than the ones I conjured up. Costs for preventive care for heart disease and diabetes run approximately 10 times higher than treatment costs. Note that this also assumes a 100% success rate for preventive care, which is very unlikely.
That said, you can't put a price tag on the people who are saved by access to preventive treatments...but as I said before, to claim it will also save money is just absurd and wrong.
-
Leads to a better quality of life, yes. Cheaper in the long run (for the insurance company/taxpayers), no. To illustrate with numbers:
Say preventive treatment for Malady X costs $500 per person and Malady X itself costs $10,000 to treat. At the individual level, someone who would have gotten Malady X but didn't thanks to the treatment saves $9500. The problem is, and politicians like Obama don't mention, is that this is not applicable to large groups of people.
Say Malady X has a prevalence of 2% and the population that has insurance coverage is 100. Now it costs $50,000 in coverage to ensure that the entire population will be prevented from getting Malady X. However, if coverage only covers cost of treatment, then nobody is prevented from getting Malady X and 2 people will have it. Costs for treatment run at $20,000 total, which is significantly less than preventive treatments for everyone.
In actuality, the numbers are far more disproportionate than the ones I conjured up. Costs for preventive care for heart disease and diabetes run approximately 10 times higher than treatment costs. Note that this also assumes a 100% success rate for preventive care, which is very unlikely.
Uhh...your numbers look like they don't apply to all preventative medicine.
If you do what the dutch do, and have a nurse give people regular checkups (sending them to the doctor if she finds something out of place) you save a lot of money on personnel costs--a 15 minute checkup by a nurse should run about $10 in actual costs given nursing salaries.
Blood tests and immunizations that I've seen run at around $100, and everyone I've talked to complains about how expensive this is and how it used to be cheaper.
That's the preventative side, let's look at the non preventative side.
Quadruple Bypass costs $1,000,000 or more.
Even super simple common procedures like hip replacement ($35,000) and broken arm ($12,000) cost a decent amount.
Obviously not everything is going to be cheap to prevent (you brought up diabetes--I've never had a physician suggest that I immunize myself against diabetes...or whatever they do on the preventative side). But by contrast, given the numbers I googled/looked at hospital bills for above, a 1000:1 ratio for some cure:prevention ratios seems likely, which very easily saves money.
-
If you do what the dutch do, and have a nurse give people regular checkups (sending them to the doctor if she finds something out of place) you save a lot of money on personnel costs--a 15 minute checkup by a nurse should run about $10 in actual costs given nursing salaries.
There's far more to preventive care than just regular check ups. You need medications if you have uncontrolled high blood pressure or high cholesterol (to prevent that costly heart attack or stroke), that adds to costs. To screen for threatening illnesses (I'm looking at you, cancer), you need to administer tests to everyone, this also adds to costs.
Even super simple common procedures like hip replacement ($35,000) and broken arm ($12,000) cost a decent amount.
Except those have absolutely nothing to do with preventive care creating a net savings in health care expenditures. Preventive care will do absolutely nothing to reduce the likelihood of a broken arm or hip. Thus, you still have costs associated with broken bones. Thus, you are now paying for preventive care (costs money) *and* the medical procedure (costs money). There is no cost savings here at all. Not everything is preventable.
But by contrast, given the numbers I googled/looked at hospital bills for above, a 1000:1 ratio for some cure:prevention ratios seems likely, which very easily saves money.
And herein lies the problem; you've missed the point I've made two times now. Yes, at the INDIVIDUAL LEVEL there is a savings...but not everyone will need quadruple bypass surgery or long term cancer treatment. At the POPULATION LEVEL there is a cost increase because you're paying for everyone to get preventive care to screen out and treat diseases that only a fraction of the population will ever have to worry about.
Don't believe me? Why not read the CBO's assessment instead: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf
-
Leads to a better quality of life, yes. Cheaper in the long run (for the insurance company/taxpayers), no. To illustrate with numbers:
Say preventive treatment for Malady X costs $500 per person and Malady X itself costs $10,000 to treat. At the individual level, someone who would have gotten Malady X but didn't thanks to the treatment saves $9500. The problem is, and politicians like Obama don't mention, is that this is not applicable to large groups of people.
Say Malady X has a prevalence of 2% and the population that has insurance coverage is 100. Now it costs $50,000 in coverage to ensure that the entire population will be prevented from getting Malady X. However, if coverage only covers cost of treatment, then nobody is prevented from getting Malady X and 2 people will have it. Costs for treatment run at $20,000 total, which is significantly less than preventive treatments for everyone.
In actuality, the numbers are far more disproportionate than the ones I conjured up. Costs for preventive care for heart disease and diabetes run approximately 10 times higher than treatment costs. Note that this also assumes a 100% success rate for preventive care, which is very unlikely.
The government is already practicing prevenative health in some ways- smoking restrictions, sin taxes, etc. There definitely is a conflict there that's possible- we can't legally or morally restrict what a person eats, but it is in the government's interest to make sure people are as healthy as possible, doubly so when it's under the umbrella of government care. We're already seeing some movements in that regard. WHo the hell knows though, I'm jus tmentally wandering here.
Prevenative care doesn't mean just simple screenings (Interesting aside: There's been some talk in some medical circles about the overuse of certain screening tests as part of the problem. Miki posted a link a few months ago that touched on that. The MRI stuff and conflicts are best resolved by doctors having more time with the patients and more easy access to specialists who can explain why and how a treatment works or doesn't work.). To me it means making most effective use of our medical resources by making sure people have basic go to the doctor insurance, so they are more likely to go get checkups and go in when they're hurt.
As it is we have a large gap becuase of the current employer based system, and you can't really afford health care without it short of being privately wealthy.
Anywho. Reforms can be cost effective, and so can prevenative care if executed right, just by shifting the burden onto cheaper outlets for treatment, not that the current plan looks to be going that route. I can't say I'm surprised when there's barely a handful of health professionals in congress.
Even super simple common procedures like hip replacement ($35,000) and broken arm ($12,000) cost a decent amount.
Hip replacements run way more than that and it's a major surgery with a notable morality rate. Where are you getting those figures?
Checkups can't force lifestyle changes and a lot of the real drains on our system are from chronic conditions that only have pallative treatments, or are hideously expensive. Hi senility diseases and cancer, respectively. It isn't a magic bullet, but the basic idea of making sure people have some level of doctor access is a good one.
-
My grandfather's hip replacement was around that price.
-
And herein lies the problem; you've missed the point I've made two times now. Yes, at the INDIVIDUAL LEVEL there is a savings...but not everyone will need quadruple bypass surgery or long term cancer treatment. At the POPULATION LEVEL there is a cost increase because you're paying for everyone to get preventive care to screen out and treat diseases that only a fraction of the population will ever have to worry about.
Umm...no, no I didn't.
Seriously, I know to multiply by "occurs in 2% of the population". Please don't insult my intelligence.
What I was questioning was not your point, but your numbers. Let's stick with the "occurs in 2% of the population" number. If cure costs 10x preventative as you suggest diabetes does, then yes, cure is 5x cheaper for the government; stick with cure for these maladies. If cure costs 100x preventative, then cure is 2x more expensive for the government. If cure costs 1000x preventative, then cure is 20x more expensive for the government.
So...grab the cases where preventative is 100x-1000x cheaper than cure. Done. Seems likely such cases exist since some operations hit seven figures, and the highest cost for preventative I've seen is 3 figures (and I have an endocrinologist who is hyper about preventative, so I've seen quite a lot of preventative figures).
-
I'm sure that if you total up over a lifetime, many preventatives tend to go over 3 figures. Granted, the cost of medical care isn't just the cost it takes to actually pay for the treatment, but also lost productivity/income (Which...can be quite big if your talking an operation or illness that can take months to recover from).
-
Umm...no, no I didn't.
Seriously, I know to multiply by "occurs in 2% of the population". Please don't insult my intelligence.
What I was questioning was not your point, but your numbers. Let's stick with the "occurs in 2% of the population" number. If cure costs 10x preventative as you suggest diabetes does, then yes, cure is 5x cheaper for the government; stick with cure for these maladies. If cure costs 100x preventative, then cure is 2x more expensive for the government. If cure costs 1000x preventative, then cure is 20x more expensive for the government.
Okay, so instead of missing the point you either willfully ignored or carelessly missed that the numbers I put up were for illustrative purposes to explain the general principle. Bravo. If you're questioning the general principle, then you could have simply asked "according to what research/what's your proof?" rather than trying to create your own, just as equally inapplicable, data set which just obfuscates everything.
Speaking of proof; you have yet to comment on the CBO assessment I linked to that supports my position and undermines yours. If you want to play with real numbers, here's your chance. CBO cites research that only 20% of preventive procedures save money, and that preventive costs in the field of cardiovascular disease are 10 times higher than their total savings. Would you like to cite some research that says otherwise?
So...grab the cases where preventative is 100x-1000x cheaper than cure. Done. Seems likely such cases exist since some operations hit seven figures, and the highest cost for preventative I've seen is 3 figures (and I have an endocrinologist who is hyper about preventative, so I've seen quite a lot of preventative figures).
Uh huh...and just how are you going to implement this? Do remember that you need to factor in patient lifestyle choices, cost of preventive care over life expectancy at the individual level, regional variations in pricing, regional variations in preventive care success rates, and patient choice in choosing doctors and preventive medical procedures...at the very least. To simply say "done" is more than just a bit naive and arrogant.
-
Sarcasm aside, Obama and the democrats are just as guilty of lying and spreading misinformation as Palin and the republicans are.
My main concern with this debate as concerns misinformation is the contention that the US health care system is one of the best in the world. This isn't a view held strictly by those on one party, but it is certainly put forward more often by those on the Republican side, and it's a view that is very damaging. The view itself is very easily shown to be utterly false: the US spends a very high percentage of its GDP on health care (I believe it's among the highest of all industrialised nations), yet in return for this gets a system that by almost all measuring sticks (life expectancy, infant mortality rate, citizen satisfaction, coverage of medical insurance, etc.) is poor by the standards of the developped world. As someone who has friends and family living in the US I find this alarming.
As such, though I'm not fully informed on the issues specific to US health care, I am very glad to see that the debate is being engaged in at a national level, rather than it being hidden behind a nationalistic "we're the best and don't need to change" facade by those in charge.
Out of curiosity, ID, since you reject so strongly the contention that preventive measures would save money, what measures would you propose to reduce US health care costs? It's clear that such measures should be possible.
-
The people perpetrating this stuff are shit. They're beneath dirt.
In today's shocking news, it is revealed that politicians lie and play to the fears of the general population.
I'm aware that politicians lie on a frequent basis, of course, but there are degrees. Making a serious attempt to make people believe that people who support the healthcare reform want to put your grandmother or baby to death is beyond the pale. I don't think I've ever seen a political lie so base.
As for the CBO assessment, I find the whole debate over it a bit myopic. It mentions in passing but makes no serious attempt to figure out the monetary cost or benefit of people living longer and generally healthier lives as a result of preventative care. Those are going to be big numbers, probably ones that overshadow the immediate costs or benefits. The CBO also makes no attempt to calculate the costs or savings of gradual changes in things like obesity or smoking. It specifically notes that the monetary benefit of, for example, a reduction in the number of smokers over time would be substantial, but would not be included in the type of monetary analysis they're doing here.
-
Okay, so instead of missing the point you either willfully ignored or carelessly missed that the numbers I put up were for illustrative purposes to explain the general principle. Bravo. If you're questioning the general principle, then you could have simply asked "according to what research/what's your proof?" rather than trying to create your own, just as equally inapplicable, data set which just obfuscates everything.
Before I address this, I'd like to present the argument as I have perceived it from another angle:
Take a look at this grade 4 math problem.
Jenny needs a lot of potatoes. She can either buy 100 small bags of potatoes or 2 large bags of potatoes. Large bags cost $100 and small bags cost $5, which should she buy?
We can turn this precisely into your example by changing "small bag of potatoes" to "prevention" and "large bag of potatoes" to "cure". (Adding a couple percent signs and 0s where appropriate). We can change it into my example by adding "what if the large bag cost 10 times more? What if it cost 100 times more?"
------------
So...first you accused me, and a few others, of not understanding a fourth grade math problem. Now you're accusing me of deliberate obfuscation because I suggested different numbers for the fourth grade math problem.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. I guess I'll say...dude, quit whining. It's fourth grade math. The RPGDL is a site founded on a common interest in statistics. If we disagree with your math, don't whine that we didn't understand it; we probably did. If we throw alternative calculations back at you, don't accuse us of deliberate obfuscation; it's just math.
Speaking of proof; you have yet to comment on the CBO assessment I linked to that supports my position and undermines yours. If you want to play with real numbers, here's your chance. CBO cites research that only 20% of preventive procedures save money, and that preventive costs in the field of cardiovascular disease are 10 times higher than their total savings.
Okay, I read through the entire thing. Comments:
1. There really isn't much evidence presented at all in that report. There's the two numbers you presented and...that's basically it. I didn't see a single $ symbol in the entire report showing "here are prevention costs, here are cure costs"; in other words no unprocessed data. As for the statistic on "After reviewing hundreds of previous studies of preventive care, the authors report that slightly fewer than 20 percent of the services that were examined save money"...it doesn't detail at all what kind of preventative medicine was studied. For example, were they looking at highly experimental preventative medicine like HIV vaccinations (which are still known to be not very effective)? It's like saying "after examining a large pool of games, we found that only 10% qualified as RPGs according to the RPGDL"--doesn't really tell me anything unless I know what the "large pool of games" was.
2. He's very focused on "and many insurance plans already cover certain preventive services at little or no cost to enrollees. Consequently, a new government policy to encourage prevention could end up paying for preventive services that many individuals are already receiving— which would add to federal costs but not reduce total future spending on health care." Ooookay, so...why not just offer government preventative services to people who show they don't have insurance coverage? How is this different from billing emergency room visits for people with insurance but not for people who can't pay?
3. The author Nathan Deal is a Republican Congressman. There's some expectation that a politician will spin numbers, picking favourable statistics to his argument (and it's not a secret that Republicans are trying to poke holes in this bill. As they should--it's the job of the minority party to try and poke holes in the ruling party's propositions to make sure only quality stuff passes).
4. All that being said, look at his conclusion: "However, government funding for some specific types of preventive care might lower total spending. In its estimates, CBO seeks to capture the likely future effects on the budget on a case-by-case basis." Funny, that was exactly my conclusion and suggested policy as well.
Uh huh...and just how are you going to implement this? Do remember that you need to factor in patient lifestyle choices, cost of preventive care over life expectancy at the individual level, regional variations in pricing, regional variations in preventive care success rates, and patient choice in choosing doctors and preventive medical procedures...at the very least. To simply say "done" is more than just a bit naive and arrogant.
Yes, yes, the real world is more complicated than a grade 4 math problem. Just like pendulum calculations in first year physics don't factor in the circular rather than parabolic arc of the pendulum, the Coriolis effect of the Earth's rotation, quantum mechanics, friction, nonuniformity of earth's gravitational field, or general relativity. And obviously it costs a lot less to hire a couple of scientists to get a more precise estimation than it does to implement health care reform, so of course we should do so. That said:
1. We can still make estimates, the same way a first-year physics student can still get some OK pendulum calculations.
2. The principle of "check if it costs less, done", is still the basic strategy for determining if a preventative measure will save money.
-
My main concern with this debate as concerns misinformation is the contention that the US health care system is one of the best in the world.
There are basically two arguments here, both of which have merit.
First. The United States does have the best health care quality. This should be undisputed. Our treatments have the highest success rates in the world, and people who are treated for heart attacks, cancer, etc...in the United States live longer than those treated elsewhere.
Second. On the flipside, the United States does not have the best coverage, meaning not everyone can take advantage of the premium health services that can be found in the US.
So in other words, if you have health coverage, you receive the best care in the world, if you don't have health coverage you're SOL.
yet in return for this gets a system that by almost all measuring sticks (life expectancy, infant mortality rate, citizen satisfaction, coverage of medical insurance, etc.) is poor by the standards of the developped world.
Another problem is that many of those measuring sticks are tangentially related to health care at best. Take life expectancy. More than just health care factors into life expectancy, including number of accidental deaths per year, number of homicides per year, the lifestyle choices of the average citizen (e.g., morbid obesity rate in the US), among others. Additionally, to call the standards "poor", is a bit of a misnomer. The difference between the privatized insurance system of the US (ranked 30th at 78.07 years) and the NHS of Great Britain (Ranked 26th at 78.7) is barely more than half a year.
Out of curiosity, ID, since you reject so strongly the contention that preventive measures would save money, what measures would you propose to reduce US health care costs? It's clear that such measures should be possible.
I'll preface this by stating that my ideas would step on everyone's toes and be politically impossible to implement, absent a miracle.
I'd start by removing the tax code provisions that create the employer provided health care incentive. While it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, our current situation shows it wasn't. Right now, prices are high in part because there is very little need for competition. Consumers have been detached from the services they are buying, while their employers are making the choices for them. To quote the economist Milton Friedman, "people are least careful about their money when they are using someone else's money on someone else." That is, employers aren't going to be all that frugal about selecting the plans for their employees. Oh, and just to nip this in the bud, just because you are getting health care from your employer doesn't mean that its not your money the employer is spending, because you received a reduced salary in return for that health care coverage (and the employer is happy with this because he gets a bigger tax deduction for paying health care instead of paying standard salary).
This employer based insurance also has the disadvantage of creating over-regulation, which also drives up costs. For plans to qualify, they must have certain coverages and cover certain people, even if some employees would rather not have certain types of coverage (all this additional coverage adds to costs, even if the employees don't want the added benefits).
Basically, I'd return health insurance to a true free-market state, like every other insurance type, and prices are guaranteed to go down. Of course, insurance companies wouldn't like this because they'd have to cut prices to remain competitive (and this is why Republicans will stick with do-nothing plans).
Second, as Super mentioned earlier, you need to discourage overuse of hospital emergency rooms. Allowing access to low cost health clinics for low income families could help. Similarly, raising health awareness might help, though as I said earlier, people are notoriously difficult to change so you'll quickly run into diminishing returns if you try to put to much money into such programs.
There are also miscellaneous steps that could be taken, such as reigning in the costs to the hospitals and doctors have to pay (such as malpractice insurance).
If we disagree with your math, don't whine that we didn't understand it; we probably did. If we throw alternative calculations back at you, don't accuse us of deliberate obfuscation; it's just math.
Except it adds nothing to the discussion at hand, so why bother bringing it up in the first place? Again, the purpose of the math was to ILLUSTRATE how the general principle works. Attacking the math itself is ass backwards and sloppy.
There really isn't much evidence presented at all in that report.
So...you have more to offer? The specific research studies are fully cited in the assessment. Thus, you have the information to look the raw data up yourself if you so desire. The purpose of the assessment is to summarize the findings of research, not to rehash all of the research projects in their entirety.
The author Nathan Deal is a Republican Congressman.
Dot. Dot. Dot.
The letter is addressed to Nathan Deal, the author is Douglas Elmendorf.
All that being said, look at his conclusion: "However, government funding for some specific types of preventive care might lower total spending. In its estimates, CBO seeks to capture the likely future effects on the budget on a case-by-case basis." Funny, that was exactly my conclusion and suggested policy as well.
One, there's a keyword there: "might." Might does not mean definitively. Especially when the specifics of such a program are, at this point, totally non-existent.
Two, the CBO makes no policy recommendation at all; it states the effects of a policy. A case-by-case preventive care policy MIGHT save money, but we don't know with certainty because no such policy was put before the CBO for analysis.
Three, you missed this part:
"In sum, expanded governmental support for preventive medical care would probably improve people’s health but would not generally reduce total spending
on health care."
and how it relates to my original assertion that politicians who claim that preventive care is a magic bullet are lying.
1. We can still make estimates, the same way a first-year physics student can still get some OK pendulum calculations.
2. The principle of "check if it costs less, done", is still the basic strategy for determining if a preventative measure will save money.
So...you still don't have any plan of implementation other than extremely broad generalizations. How are you going to implement the "check if it costs less, done" paradigm? What methods of valuation are you going to apply? Again, to say its as simple as "done" is naive.
-
Second, as Super mentioned earlier, you need to discourage overuse of hospital emergency rooms. Allowing access to low cost health clinics for low income families could help. Similarly, raising health awareness might help, though as I said earlier, people are notoriously difficult to change so you'll quickly run into diminishing returns if you try to put to much money into such programs.
It's most likely more effective to expand government insurance for the working poor. An effective breaking up of health care monpolies would take care of it for for the middle class and small business owners. You're looking an expansion of government provided care either way.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU5Y2NiNzBjM2ViMzAwYWI2NjAwZWU4ZjRkOTc5NWM=
It's NR, but they do a good job outlining some of the problems funding health care.
-
First of all, your take on what the US could do to improve its health care was an interesting read, so thanks for posting it.
First. The United States does have the best health care quality. This should be undisputed. Our treatments have the highest success rates in the world, and people who are treated for heart attacks, cancer, etc...in the United States live longer than those treated elsewhere.
While it wouldn't shock me if this were true, this doesn't seem like the aim of a country, and certainly what wasn't I was getting at. The goal of any nation should be to ensure the best health care not to a small subset of the population, but to ensure the best health care for all citizens on average (and it's nearly impossible to excel at this when you exclude as many citizens from health coverage as the US does).
Or, to use an analogy, it's like trying to have a low crime rate as a country. Saying "the best health care is available for those who can afford it" is like saying "we have the lowest crime rates on Earth, as long as you live in New Hampshire". Good for New Hampshirites/the wealthy, but doesn't really say that much about your country as a whole.
To use a less abstract analogy, let's say there is someone you care for, and he or she breaks an arm, or is diagnosed with diabetes. There's a catch, though. This person could be from any level of income, chosen randomly. You won't know what level until you answer the following question: Ignoring all other factors besides health care, what country do you hope this person lives in?
Certainly isn't the US for me.
Take life expectancy. More than just health care factors into life expectancy, including number of accidental deaths per year, number of homicides per year, the lifestyle choices of the average citizen (e.g., morbid obesity rate in the US), among others.
I'm assuming that homicides have a fairly negligible effect on life expectancy as a whole given their rarity and, also, relatively small variance in rate among developped nations (much higher in developping nations though... wow. Didn't realise how large the spike was there). Accidental deaths I am again going to assume is negligible across borders.
Lifestyle, though, is to some extent a reflection of health care. You mention the US' high obesity rate. It's worth noting that this rate is highest in low socioeconomic brackets... aka the same people who are less likely to regularly visit a doctor (because they can't afford to). Giving people education and access to resources that help them overcome unhealthy lifestyles is something doctors definitely do, and something that has been definitely shown to help. So yeah, in this case lifestyle is a valid reflection of poorer health care. (It need not be the only factor, but it is a factor.)
-
While it wouldn't shock me if this were true, this doesn't seem like the aim of a country, and certainly what wasn't I was getting at.
It's just a matter of definitions. People who claim that the US has the best quality of health care, and base their definition of quality health care on the quality of services rendered, are correct. Likewise, people who criticize the current system and define quality of health care as the benefit society as a whole derives from the health care system are also correct.
If you assign personal preference to one definition over another, that's fine, but it doesn't make the opposing definition incorrect, it simply means you value the net benefit of the preferred definition more.
I'm assuming that homicides have a fairly negligible effect on life expectancy as a whole given their rarity and, also, relatively small variance in rate among developped nations (much higher in developping nations though... wow. Didn't realise how large the spike was there). Accidental deaths I am again going to assume is negligible across borders.
Those aren't the only two forms of "premature death," for lack of a better term. If you take every form of premature death and aggregate the total, its going to have a non-negligible impact on life expectancy. Do keep in mind that accidental deaths would include traffic accident (~40,000 deaths per year certainly isn't a small chunk) and construction/mining/manufacturing accident fatalities.
Lifestyle, though, is to some extent a reflection of health care. You mention the US' high obesity rate. It's worth noting that this rate is highest in low socioeconomic brackets... aka the same people who are less likely to regularly visit a doctor (because they can't afford to).
True, but at some point personal responsibility kicks in. If someone has been given the opportunity to learn and develop healthy habits and declines the opportunity, I would not consider the resulting premature death as being indicative of poor health care quality but of poor personal choices made by the individual.
Also, the relationship between obesity and socioeconomic status is for the most part spurious. The more accurate relationship is between obesity and education level (which in turn gives us the correlation between obesity and socioeconomic status, since most poor people are also less educated). People who are highly educated but work in low income public jobs still tend to be in far better shape than average. If somebody drops out of high school and misses out on learning the skills needed to make wise personal choices, then I consider this a fault of personal responsibility more than anything else (except, perhaps, poor parenting) and not something that health care should be concerned with.
Part of education is developing common sense and critical thinking skills, which are important in making critical decisions about personal health habits. Another problem in low education areas is poor parenting, which leads to the development of poor health and eating habits in children.
Giving people education and access to resources that help them overcome unhealthy lifestyles is something doctors definitely do, and something that has been definitely shown to help.
The problem is that educational programs have met only mixed success. Giving people access to health information, such as calorie counts on menus, does have a positive effect. Programs that actually try to motivate the personal to change their lifestyle once bad habits have been formed aren't nearly as cost effective.
If I were to reform health care from the education side, I'd first try to make as much information public as possible. This would be cost-effective and beneficial. Second, I'd want to develop good health habits in people at a young age, which unfortunately, means taking the matter out of the hands of irresponsible parents as much as possible. This means making health education and physical fitness a much more prominent facet of secondary school, along with actual reinforcement by providing school meals that are actually healthy. All fairly cheap and cost effective measures.
-
The problem is that not everyone will benefit from preventive care because not everyone will have suffered a stroke, heart attack, diabetes, etc.
Preventive care is not limited to cardiovascular disease, and even if it was cardiovascular disease is the biggest slice of the health risk pie. People generally benefit from having better general health.
-
Hm, haven't had a chance to catch up with the debate in a couple of days, so I'll stick to more recent posts rather than derail to earlier arguments.
Those aren't the only two forms of "premature death," for lack of a better term. If you take every form of premature death and aggregate the total, its going to have a non-negligible impact on life expectancy. Do keep in mind that accidental deaths would include traffic accident (~40,000 deaths per year certainly isn't a small chunk) and construction/mining/manufacturing accident fatalities.
Work-related fatalities...the data I've found is Texas:
http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/news/2008/news2008150.html
Assuming that the percentage of accidental deaths in Texas is roughly mirrored in the rest of the country, we're looking at about 6,000 deaths per year.
Murder...
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
About 17,000 deaths per year.
Accidental deaths (seems to cover motorist accidents, but also stuff like medication overdose--which arguably is related to health care if doctors are perscribing more medications but...*shrug*)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19080118/
About 113,000 deaths per year.
Okay, so in total about 130,000. But here's the thing--reading that article it sounds like accidental deaths don't necessarily imply premature deaths. Many of the deaths are senior citizens falling. It notes that the rise in motorcycle death seems to come from more elderly people riding motorcycles.
What might give us a more accurate estimate...the rate of death by age is well-documented.
http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/Life.html
If we look at, say, 25-year-olds, most of them are probably not dieing of disease (although leukemia happens) and they're too old to be really under their parent's thumb (the death rate for 10-year-olds is comically low by comparison). But they certainly are old enough to have dangerous work, if they're going to go into that kind of work. (Even if they get a military scholarship for university, 25 puts them out of university and into the service). Right, so overall about 0.1% premature non-medical death rate per year.
Throw that into a spreadsheet, assume everyone would otherwise live to be 80, and we get a life expectancy of...77.
To avoid cherrypicking data, my default is usually to compare the US to Canada. Canada's life expectancy is 81 to America's 78. Canada's accidental death rate would have to be damn near zero for that gap to be explained by premature AD alone. It's probably not, but let's check...
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/84f0211x/2005000/4068027-eng.htm
Okay, so Canada's premature accidental death rate is about half that of America (which is to say, premature accidentals only count for 1.5 years of the 3 year gap). Socioeconomic arguments can be made, of course, but Americans do make more money than Canadians on average (by like...20% was it?) so such arguments would have to focus on the wide distribution of wealth in America.
This gets kinda messy though--"American poor have it worse than Canadian poor" sounds correct...but part of that quality of life gap is that Canadian poor have good health care coverage.
-
For a little levity regarding the health care, here's Barney Frank's town hall meeting.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/08/frank_turns_tab.html
-
For a little levity regarding the health care, here's Barney Frank's town hall meeting.
As much as I hate most of Frank's policies, I have to admit I like his style of insult. Much more clever than Pelosi's and Reid's unimaginative, bland, and overused "zomg u r teh un-american" crap.
Maybe if he focused on and stuck to advocating one thing (say...gay rights, where he can put in personal perspective?) instead of trying to defend his miserable economic stances, he'd be more worthy of respect!
-
He's also one of the few congressmen (possibly the only one) actively pushing to repeal that moronic online poker ban.
-
That plus legalizing marijuana. Though thanks to the economic crisis that has a few extra backers out in California.
-
Elf: ID and you both had valid points there, and I don't think most people will argue that something needs to be changed. But if we can alter the insurance system with reasonable reforms and expand coverage for the working poor, that should be tried first. You get one of the bigger sources of uninsured (Small business owners/workers, who can't buy reasonably priced insurance thanks to the current employer based system) and expanding medicare makes sense. You aren't likely to make insurance coverage universal (The biggest gap is kids just out of college or living at home, working part time), but it's a massive improvement and doesn't require Meeplina level deficit spending.
I think this was mentioned by.. bloody hell, someone either in this topic or chatting in IM, but: It costs 100 dollars to walk into the doctor's office where I'm at now without insurance. That's not only not reasonable, it's also a regressive billing. That can burn.
Re the spending:
According to the IRS, this fiscal year’s individual income-tax revenues are down 20.5 percent. Corporate tax revenues are off a stunning 58 percent. Through last month, FY 2009 tax receipts fell $354.2 billion versus 2008’s comparable period. In the August 17 Fortune magazine’s cover story, Allan Sloan reports that the $87 billion in Social Security taxes that last year were predicted to reach Washington in 2009 now equal just $19 billion.
One of the many reasons I don't have any faith in congress's brilliant plan to just try to generate the money for health care by doing income taxes for the wealthest 1%. Edit: I should try to read more about the full methods of paying for it. But good lord, congress.
-
For a little levity regarding the health care, here's Barney Frank's town hall meeting.
As much as I hate most of Frank's policies, I have to admit I like his style of insult. Much more clever than Pelosi's and Reid's unimaginative, bland, and overused "zomg u r teh un-american" crap.
Maybe if he focused on and stuck to advocating one thing (say...gay rights, where he can put in personal perspective?) instead of trying to defend his miserable economic stances, he'd be more worthy of respect!
Pelosi from what I've seen is completely terrible. Never seen anything good out of her, despite her representing San Francisco (so I've written to her a few times). It's to the point that if there's a grassroots effort to get her voted out, I'd seriously consider participating. This is in stark contrast to my senator Barbara Boxer, who kicks ass.
Barney Frank I don't like, to be honest. He's openly gay...but ONLY because somebody outed him. He's been a leading proponent of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, but only after he was outed as gay. And when ENDA got opposition, he said, "Hey, I'm willing to bargain. We don't need every part of LGBT--why don't we remove some of the parts of that acronym that don't apply to me?" (Thankfully the LGBT community stood together on this and told him to fuck off).
-
Funny that California can't produce more suave, charismatic politicians. I mean, who represents Hollywood?
(http://images.politico.com/global/070410_waxman4.jpg)
(and this is a FLATTERING picture, mind.)
Also, met, what the hell are you talking about with Barney Frank? He voluntarily disclosed his homosexuality in 1987. If you're saying he did so because he knew he would be outed...there were two years between that and the admission of a sex scandal. And the ENDA didn't even exist back then.
-
Also, met, what the hell are you talking about with Barney Frank? He voluntarily disclosed his homosexuality in 1987. If you're saying he did so because he knew he would be outed...there were two years between that and the admission of a sex scandal. And the ENDA didn't even exist back then.
I'll have to check with Allie (the person I heard this from) but she really seems to know her stuff politically, so hopefully she'll be able to point me at some sources.
-
Pelosi from what I've seen is completely terrible. Never seen anything good out of her, despite her representing San Francisco (so I've written to her a few times). It's to the point that if there's a grassroots effort to get her voted out, I'd seriously consider participating. This is in stark contrast to my senator Barbara Boxer, who kicks ass.
Barney Frank I don't like, to be honest. He's openly gay...but ONLY because somebody outed him. He's been a leading proponent of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, but only after he was outed as gay. And when ENDA got opposition, he said, "Hey, I'm willing to bargain. We don't need every part of LGBT--why don't we remove some of the parts of that acronym that don't apply to me?" (Thankfully the LGBT community stood together on this and told him to fuck off).
Pelosi, unlike Boxer, is in the leadership, so she also must speak for all Democrats and has pragmatism be a way higher priority. In a very real sense she represents the USA as a whole as well. This is probably the reason; Pelosi is pretty far left for Speaker, she's already pushing the limits. Of course, "left as possible for Speaker" is still right of San Francisco. I can almost guarantee you that she's softballing some issues so that John Barrow in Georgia doesn't have to explain why he totally doesn't agree with the Speaker on the following quotes. And make no mistake, having a Democratic majority is very good for the cause of LGBT rights.
As for Frank, I think you're being unfair, but EDIT: Okay, checked with a friend on that, and she said that Frank did in fact say some cruddy things on that though she can't remember what? Eh. Will drop the issue, but I think that Frank's sincerity to the cause of LGBT rights can safely be assumed, and I don't see any problem with acknowledging the pragmatic need to compromise at times. But won't make a big deal if Frank did in fact say some stupid thigns on the issue.
-
This all begs the question: should homosexuals and transgender individuals be lumped together in bills and laws because they share a primary advocate in the LGBT community? Both groups would benefit from protection from discrimination, but that's where their similarities end. Obviously it's not surprising there's overlap in the two groups, but sex and sexual orientation are not the same issue, and it doesn't seem particularly beneficial to me that they tend to go hand in hand.
On a more personal level, regarding the LGBT community, I wonder about pride, gay pride, Irish pride, black pride, white pride, whatever. Pride, it seems to me, is a crutch of the oppressed. It's a great thing to have when you want to band together, show your defiance and strength, and build a political base, but it's an impediment to normalcy (in the sense of broad, unhesitating acceptance). Maybe...time to upgrade to a footcast?
As for Frank, he was willing to drop transgender rights to benefit gay rights. That may have been beneficial for both in the long run, and then again, maybe not. If you want to be angry about it, don't let me stop you.
-
Pelosi, unlike Boxer, is in the leadership, so she also must speak for all Democrats and has pragmatism be a way higher priority.
I'm not even really talking about her policies; sure, I've disagreed with her once or twice on those. Just...whenever I've heard her speak, my reaction has been pretty consistently *facepalm*. She seriously seems to lack tact and respect, especially when dealing with dissenting viewpoints. Granted, maybe I've only been linked to her bad stuff. Still, if what I've seen is indicative, this really seems like a bad trait for speaker of the house--you don't want the speaker spitting vitriol at the opposition.
This all begs the question: should homosexuals and transgender individuals be lumped together in bills and laws because they share a primary advocate in the LGBT community? Both groups would benefit from protection from discrimination, but that's where their similarities end. Obviously it's not surprising there's overlap in the two groups, but sex and sexual orientation are not the same issue, and it doesn't seem particularly beneficial to me that they tend to go hand in hand.
They really do go hand-in-hand, though.
One of the big reasons there was an outcry even among gay and lesbians about the updated bill is that a lot of them could still be fired. For instance, IIRC a fairly high ranking prosecutor who was a butch lesbian noted that she could legally be fired for not dressing feminine enough. Conversely, a gay guy wearing hotpants, a pink top, and talking in a fabulous voice could similarly be fired for not acting and dressing manly enough. Basically, the partial bill would allow you to be gay, but not act like it.
Conversely with trans, most people either qualify as homosexual before transition, or homosexual after transition. Yes, there are cases of people whose sexual orientation changes during transition making them straight before and straight after; to change all the way from one extreme to the other extreme is rare, however.
On a more personal level, regarding the LGBT community, I wonder about pride, gay pride, Irish pride, black pride, white pride, whatever. Pride, it seems to me, is a crutch of the oppressed. It's a great thing to have when you want to band together, show your defiance and strength, and build a political base, but it's an impediment to normalcy (in the sense of broad, unhesitating acceptance). Maybe...time to upgrade to a footcast?
You might be right about Pride being outdated. It was very necessary, though. I know too many people who are comfortable with who they are and who they're attracted to...and then get into sexual relationships with someone who feels guilty about even having sex with them. From the perspective of the well-adjusted person, this is makes for a really crappy relationship. It's probably even worse for the person who feels guilty about it--they keep having these urges, but they feel bad every time they do.
So yes, the concept of "be proud of who you are" is something that everyone should have. Same with "don't feel like you need to hide who you are." Are we there yet? Do we no longer need pride events? My honest opinion is: no, we still need them. Even in SF there are people who need to stop feeling so damn guilty.
As for Frank, he was willing to drop transgender rights to benefit gay rights. That may have been beneficial for both in the long run, and then again, maybe not. If you want to be angry about it, don't let me stop you.
Gay marriage would help trans rights. Gay non employment discrimination (but explicitly still trans employment discrimination) pretty much doesn't. Employers just need a route for legal dismissal--as long as you leave one of the two routes open, everyone who is "a little of both" (quite common) can still be legally fired, as well as anyone on the route that you're cutting (so...100% of trans can still be legally fired, and maybe 30% of gay).
The other thing is just looking at the history of such bills, several states passed both at the same time. States that didn't, but said "we'll pass a second bill soon" usually just didn't, even over a 10 year period (Wisconsin being the ridiculous one--27 years and counting. Most of the Northeast states are in the 10ish years and counting). Passing of a non-inclusive ENDA then, if history is any indication, would arguably hurt the half you leave out, since it would greatly decrease the likelihood of passing an inclusive bill any time in the next 10 years.
-
One of the big reasons there was an outcry even among gay and lesbians about the updated bill is that a lot of them could still be fired. For instance, IIRC a fairly high ranking prosecutor who was a butch lesbian noted that she could legally be fired for not dressing feminine enough. Conversely, a gay guy wearing hotpants, a pink top, and talking in a fabulous voice could similarly be fired for not acting and dressing manly enough. Basically, the partial bill would allow you to be gay, but not act like it.
Dressing like a flamer is not. intrinsic. to. homosexuality. It sure as hell isn't something that needs legal protections. If I wore hotpants to work and got fired I would have no recourse, because they violate the dresscode, for both men and women! This isn't 'dresscode violation' as code for 'discrimination against transsexuals.' This is 'dresscode violation' as code for 'you can't wear hotpants in the office no matter what.' It's a simple matter of professionalism. I'm not unsympathetic to transgender individuals with clinical needs dressing as one gender or the other, but that's a separate issue from this. Anything less than a clinical need falls under the category of mere personal preference.
This is my big beef with the LGBT movement: they define homosexuality as they are, not as it is. Demanding protections for flashy dressers is no different than harassing an African American who gets good grades for not being black enough.
-
I can't help but feel you're missing the forest for the trees there. While there's sound arguments for requiring dress codes in terms of the formality/professionalism of dress, this doesn't excuse said rules requiring differing standards between men and women, which whether by culture, lifestyle, or psychological need are more likely to eliminate LGBT individuals. It's essentially leaving in an avenue of attack over a frivelous issue; yes, perhaps a courtroom benefits from a certain level of professionalism, including in the dress code, but defining said dress code along gender lines is ultimately no longer fitting.
Of course, you could really make a larger case on just how often any dress code more strict than "have x amount of clothing on" is truly relevant to job performance, but that's another discussion at the tip of a long and deadly iceburg of needless, soul-crushing enforced conformity.
-
Dress code for professionalism isn't about your job performance, it is about so much more than that. It would be a stupid argument to make any argument regarding it to purely based on job performance. Most places have a dress code for a reason. This dress code can also be focused towards gender specifics depending on what the role is.
I think the argument would be better made about how stupid it is to fire over dress code violation for say a single incident of hot pants. You talk to your employee and let them know how and why that is not acceptable in the workplace. If someone isn't prepared to wear something other than the hot pants then they don't want to work at that place just the same as say someone that refuses to dress up more than Business Casual.
-
Dressing like a flamer is not. intrinsic. to. homosexuality.
This is my big beef with the LGBT movement: they define homosexuality as they are, not as it is. Demanding protections for flashy dressers is no different than harassing an African American who gets good grades for not being black enough.
I'm not sure about flamers, but certainly butch lesbians are recognized in the psychological community as a unique and distinct psychological group.
Similarly, if you take a CAT scan on homosexual men, homosexual women, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women, the brain use patterns in response to a number of non-sexual stimuli (like reading, throwing a ball, etc) is very similar for het-F and hom-M, and also very similar for het-M and hom-F. A number of coordination differences have also been noted--lesbians can throw a baseball at a target about as accurately as heterosexual males, and considerably more accurately than heterosexual females. Homosexual males perform much better on language tests than hetero males, and about at the same average as hetero females.
You know what, instead of me typing 10 paragraphs here, just read the powerpoint presentation:
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/674309850/d8aacfef5d0fc8406973092f71a40368
EDIT: first link apparently doesn't work, try this one
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SS133E50
The summary is that homosexuality is a medical condition with a lot more symptoms than just "want to have sex with the same gender". (EDIT: hell, it has more implications than just brain differences; there's actually physiological bone differences).
If I wore hotpants to work and got fired I would have no recourse, because they violate the dresscode, for both men and women! This isn't 'dresscode violation' as code for 'discrimination against transsexuals.' This is 'dresscode violation' as code for 'you can't wear hotpants in the office no matter what.' It's a simple matter of professionalism.
Yes, obviously if you have a dresscode that says no hotpants for anybody, it means no hotpants for anybody.
Let me use a different example, then. I have a friend who wore a small amount of makeup to work. Said friend was told to go home and take the whole week off. When my friend returned, the employer had changed the locks to the garage for the first time in 20 years.
Makeup will rarely be against any explicit dress codes for work, and yet it's something I've seen cause very reactionary discrimination.
-
Dress code for professionalism isn't about your job performance, it is about so much more than that. It would be a stupid argument to make any argument regarding it to purely based on job performance. Most places have a dress code for a reason. This dress code can also be focused towards gender specifics depending on what the role is.
Sorry, 'job performance' didn't capture everything I meant it to. Obviously in some jobs the image of the employee is as important as whatever your actual business is. A sales rep's appearance is their first impression on customers. Hooters' entire brand is based on attractive servers, so what's the point if you can't see them? In the earlier courtroom example, a courtroom is meant to be a serious, solomn thing, so overly flamboyant or revealing dress would undermine the whole thing (and, of course, in a way you do have to sell yourself to the jury, if you don't look serious they are less inclined to take you seriously).
But at the same time I'm struggling to see why, say, a cubical worker or secretary has any particular reason to dress above jeans and t-shirt level (unless they wanted to I guess). "team unity" or "increased productivity" strike me as suspect at best in those scenarios, so.
-
Let me use a different example, then. I have a friend who wore a small amount of makeup to work. Said friend was told to go home and take the whole week off. When my friend returned, the employer had changed the locks to the garage for the first time in 20 years.
Makeup will rarely be against any explicit dress codes for work, and yet it's something I've seen cause very reactionary discrimination.
Was this person a M to F? What's the specific situation here?
And what Grefter said is true enough. Companies can and will set gender specific guidelines for dress codes. Firing or what happened isn't reasonable, but sending them home and talking to them is. Makeup is socially acceptable for women, it isn't for men in the work environment. The manager overreacted but it doesn't seem anything more than that.
-
Bah. I've always found non-customer service dress-codes a little bit silly. I can get behind business casual ("don't be a schlub") to a degree, but have never seen a clear rationale for requiring cubicle workers to wear formal wear. And obsessively detailed dress-codes are manipulative and controlling, rarely to any real purpose.
I (~straight male) have been given various kinds of shit for discreet makeup in the workplace. Usually understandably (it was mostly back when I worked relatively upscale retail) but still undoubtedly for things that would be totally okay on a woman, and which I personally believe helped me cultivate the sort of attractive, together and slightly exotic look that helped me sell ludicrously expensive scotch. More notably, I was told I was not allowed to wear nail polish when I managed a database at Vancouver General Hospital, which seemed a bit odd given that I was lucky to interact with more than one or two real human beings in a day in that job, all co-workers. I have an ex- who sold men's formal wear in Sears (mid-scale department store in Canada) in Edmonton (least socially conservative city in Alberta, the most socially conservative province in Canada). He played an ongoing game of chicken with the management, daring them to tell them why they thought his flamboyant pink ties were workplace inappropriate, or why they wanted him to wear their standard issue Christmas tie, rather than their standard issue Christmas scarf.
But mostly he and to a lesser extent I are just shit disturbers. For a person struggling through the various hoops transgendered people need to jump through, inflexible gender specific dress codes can be enormously problematic; it's hard to get doctor mandated real life experience as your desired gender if you'll be fired for dressing as such. And it's amazing how much discrimination can hide behind legalistic enforcement of the rules.
-
Bah. I've always found non-customer service dress-codes a little bit silly. I can get behind business casual ("don't be a schlub") to a degree, but have never seen a clear rationale for requiring cubicle workers to wear formal wear. And obsessively detailed dress-codes are manipulative and controlling, rarely to any real purpose.
I (~straight male) have been given various kinds of shit for discreet makeup in the workplace. Usually understandably (it was mostly back when I worked relatively upscale retail) but still undoubtedly for things that would be totally okay on a woman, and which I personally believe helped me cultivate the sort of attractive, together and slightly exotic look that helped me sell ludicrously expensive scotch. More notably, I was told I was not allowed to wear nail polish when I managed a database at Vancouver General Hospital, which seemed a bit odd given that I was lucky to interact with more than one or two real human beings in a day in that job, all co-workers. I have an ex- who sold men's formal wear in Sears (mid-scale department store in Canada) in Edmonton (least socially conservative city in Alberta, the most socially conservative province in Canada). He played an ongoing game of chicken with the management, daring them to tell them why they thought his flamboyant pink ties were workplace inappropriate, or why they wanted him to wear their standard issue Christmas tie, rather than their standard issue Christmas scarf.
But mostly he and to a lesser extent I are just shit disturbers. For a person struggling through the various hoops transgendered people need to jump through, inflexible gender specific dress codes can be enormously problematic; it's hard to get legally mandated real life experience as your desired gender if you'll be fired for dressing as such. And it's amazing how much discrimination can hide behind legalistic enforcement of the rules.
My first response to this was 'too goddamned bad'. That is harsh, but..
Businesses base dress codes on what's socially acceptable. While I understand intellectually the objections here for TGs, companies have to protect their image and bottom line first. If a dress code in a particular job is that bad, you need to either talk to your boss, or change your job.
TG's are definitely a gray area and makes it far tougher to objectively judge, but again, when push comes to shove I'd likely support the company's right to mandate what it considers to be an acceptable dress code.
-
Makeup is socially acceptable for women, it isn't for men in the work environment.
And? At one point it wasn't socially acceptable for women to wear pants. Never mind LGBT rights--fundamentally these kind of restrictions are just sexist.
When it comes down to it, the number of tomboys and number of umm...metrosexuals easily outnumbers the entire LGBT community (if the above powerpoint is to be believed, they're basically milder manifestations of the same medical condition). One of my sisters is a bit of a tomboy, and used to do things like shave her head. She stopped--not because she really wanted to, but because she didn't want to deal with the resulting social pressure anymore.
On the one hand, how do we change social norms? By gently pushing on boundaries in ways like this. On the other hand, if my sister would prefer not to deal with social pressure, that's fine, and that's her choice. There are other people around to be "shit disturbers" (like Just Another Day). What doesn't sit well with me is being legally able to fire someone (and thus hold a great deal of economic power over them) due to fundamentally harmless actions that people really shouldn't be getting upset over.
Huh, weird, I guess this is turning into a criticism of the gender binary (the gender binary being "men can't do ___", "women can't do ___" stuff). There's people who advocate eliminating the binary completely. I'm typically not to fussed about it, I guess because in retrospect I slot quite comfortably into the binary myself >_>
companies have to protect their image and bottom line first.
So...you'd be okay with a company 50 years ago refusing to hire a black person because they need to keep their image up?
I mean, retail is murky. Presumably Hooters can refuse to hire someone based on all kinds of stuff that would not be legally acceptable reasons for discrimination in other jobs. But mechanics shops? Government run hospital databases? Bullshit, I hold no sympathy for the business there.
-
And? At one point it wasn't socially acceptable for women to wear pants. Never mind LGBT rights--fundamentally these kind of restrictions are just sexist.
When it comes down to it, the number of tomboys and number of umm...metrosexuals easily outnumbers the entire LGBT community (if the above powerpoint is to be believed, they're basically milder manifestations of the same medical condition). One of my sisters is a bit of a tomboy, and used to do things like shave her head. She stopped--not because she really wanted to, but because she didn't want to deal with the resulting social pressure anymore.
Argue against the norms all you want. It's still a companies's choice and right to assign a dress code that won't offend customers and is professional enough to meet their expectations. You or any person as an individual has to make compromises within whatever job you work. Makeup on men or dresses on men is not socially acceptable at this time and is going to get strongly negative feedback in most job settings as a result.
On the one hand, how do we change social norms? By gently pushing on boundaries in ways like this. On the other hand, if my sister would prefer not to deal with social pressure, that's fine, and that's her choice. There are other people around to be "shit disturbers" (like Just Another Day). What doesn't sit well with me is being legally able to fire someone (and thus hold a great deal of economic power over them) due to fundamentally harmless actions that people really shouldn't be getting upset over.
You can try to push against it, sure. But when push comes to shove and if a boss/company says 'no, this is against our dress code, stop doing this or you'll be terminated' it is your choice to keep pushing it or not to push it. Dress codes are part of the package of working.
So...you'd be okay with a company refusing to hire a black person because they need to keep their image up?
Oh, this is complete horseshit. You can change what you wear. Everyone can meet this standard fairly. You can't change the color of your skin.
I mean, retail is murky. Presumably Hooters can refuse to hire someone based on all kinds of stuff that would not be legally acceptable reasons for discrimination in other jobs. But mechanics shops? Government run hospital databases? Bullshit, I hold no sympathy for the business.
Retail does things like: Mandate piercings, bans beards for non religious reasons, and other things. They (rightly) say that someone who has unkept facial hair or piercings will have a negative impact on businsess. More than any other businsess, they should have more control over a dress code because it can make a huge bottom like difference.
For other companies, they have the right. Should they be exercising it in a harsh way and be sympathetic towards legitimate TG cases? Sure. It's still their choice to be dicks and stick to something rigidly if they choose to do that. Freedom of dress is not a right at jobs.
-
So...you'd be okay with a company refusing to hire a black person because they need to keep their image up?
Oh, this is complete horseshit. You can change what you wear. Everyone can meet this standard fairly. You can't change the color of your skin.
Okay, that's fair. Let's modify that example then. Let's say the company says "you can work here, but you have to use white facepaint". Or let's say a car company in the 50s says to a woman "you can work here, but only if you cut your hair short and wear baggy shirts to hide your breasts--we don't want our customers thinking a woman is working on their car--it would cause a loss in confidence."
Totally doable, the only question would be comfort level and feeling degraded. But then, there are also people who would be more comfortable not using heteronormative gender presentation, and certainly feel degraded to be told they can't wear makeup, or can't have short hair. In short, you're not letting people be themselves.
And as I've said basically every post: yes, retail where you work directly with customers is a special case. If the person wearing a Donald Duck costume at Disneyland feels degraded and feels like they're not being themselves--no shit, that's your job. There's plenty of jobs that don't work with customers where you shouldn't have to put up with that kind of crap, though, particularly when it's inequitable (only some of your employees feel like they're pulling a Disneyland act).
-
Yeah that is a kind of weak strawman met, skin colour being something you can't change (well easilly I guess...). How you dress is entirely up to the person (unless say all your other clothes were burned or something and then well I would say you have other issues to deal with). You may not like what you wear, but it is a choice. Edit - Typed while you were posting of course Met >_>
What it really comes down to is that this isn't about not being able to wear the clothes you want (fucking Business clothes are not something anyone ever wants to wear, even people with expensive taste in clothing and go around wearing pants and proper shirts casually, you know, have them in a casual style), there is a business standard and it is set by social norms, if you don't want to meet those standards (regardless of gender, sex or sexual preference) then that is part of your choice to work at that workplace or not. If you suddenly realise that you are homosexual and choose to express it flamboyantly (Although in this case I would expect the originally expressed personality to be fairly extroverted from the start) well then your entire fucking LIFE situation changed (quite likely entirely unfairly), you should expect it to come up with your job situation as well. You may find that the job no longer suits you or whatever.
Edit 2 - Just to be clear the following isn't about gender specific stuff anymore, this is general work clothes blabber.
Now I know you haven't had that problem but there is a couple of things at play there. A) Shaba apparently totally fucking owns. B) You really technically eased into it >_> C) You don't have that kind of dress code. Most workplaces with dress code aren't going to be anywhere nearly as lax with this kind of thing.
For those that see no reason for dress code whatsoever for the cubical worker? You like have no idea of management issues in the corporate space. At a base line it helps with team building, which I know everyone thinks is airy fairy totally pointless bullshit (most exercises to do it are, the environment does a far better job for you). There is OH&S things that are covered there (closed toe shoes). It avoids "That shirt is offensive!" "It is a picture of Mother fucking Teresa you slag!" stuff. It gets people all in some kind of uniform style and consistency. You have to remember here it isn't in place to invade your personal space and control your fucking life. This is a technique to try and get 30, 40, 50 people on a floor, probably even more working together even remotely well. This is like herding fucking cats, you don't need to introduce more fucking drama about people's clothes into it or people forming different groups just by the way people dress. Normally when you throw a 50 year old and a 22 year old in the same room they have fucking nothing in common. Throw them in the same dress and BAM something in common, they see they are in the same place doing the same things, they see it, they have visual cues. They can get along and get through the day.
So yeah, perspective, it is fucking amazing shit ain't it? When you realise it isn't the company systematically out to get you and rape you, but them just like trying to make your job more overall functional? It hurts a bit less to put on that shirt and pants. If you take issue with more professional dress than that then you are either to far up the corporate ladder for your tastes or you need to be finding work with a competitor with slightly less dress restrictions.
-
Okay, that's fair. Let's modify that example then. Let's say the company says "you can work here, but you have to use white facepaint". Or let's say a car company in the 50s says to a woman "you can work here, but only if you cut your hair short and wear baggy shirts to hide your breasts--we don't want our customers thinking a woman is working on their car--it would cause a loss in confidence."
Why are they forcing employees to wear facepaint? Is it part of a costume? Companies can't set specific standards for just one person like that, it won't stand up to HR, let alone court. The latter case wouldn't stand up in court/is stupid, because it's specifically attacking them as a person and not a general policy.
These examples are hard to take seriously because they're out there.
Totally doable, the only question would be comfort level and feeling degraded. But then, there are also people who would be more comfortable not using heteronormative gender presentation, and certainly feel degraded to be told they can't wear makeup, or can't have short hair. In short, you're not letting people be themselves.
I'm not comfortable wearing long pants at a job, but if it's a part of the dress code, I have to suck it up and roll with it. You don't have to like the restrictions a company sets here, but as long as the dress code is enforced evenly based on standard rules (Which it isn't in your examples), they are perfectly within their rights to set such rules.
You don't have the right to be yourself at a job, you have to fit within the accepted guidelines for behavior/timeliness/dress. If you don't like it, you can find another job.
-
What Gref said regarding dress codes. The same exact argument is used to promote and defend school dress codes, too. To my eye, it makes more sense in an office than a school, but then again I always enjoyed wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase "FUCK YOU" in high school, so maybe I'm not the right person to ask. (or maybe I'm the perfect person to ask. anyway.)
Okay, that's fair. Let's modify that example then. Let's say the company says "you can work here, but you have to use white facepaint". Or let's say a car company in the 50s says to a woman "you can work here, but only if you cut your hair short and wear baggy shirts to hide your breasts--we don't want our customers thinking a woman is working on their car--it would cause a loss in confidence."
Totally doable, the only question would be comfort level and feeling degraded. But then, there are also people who would be more comfortable not using heteronormative gender presentation, and certainly feel degraded to be told they can't wear makeup, or can't have short hair. In short, you're not letting people be themselves.
Two initial thoughts, then some real information. Your whiteface scenario seems obviously illegal in the US. Your male clothes scenario probably is as well, but the reason is a bit perverse: if it's illegal to impose undue hardship (like the facepaint) on a protected class of individuals, then forcing a woman who would be traditionally accustomed to wearing womens' clothing to wear mens' clothing would be a similar hardship (similar to forcing someone to remove religious effects).
Now, a little light reading:
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
II. What Discriminatory Practices Are Prohibited by These Laws?
Under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:
* hiring and firing;
* compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
* transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
* job advertisements;
* recruitment;
* testing;
* use of company facilities;
* training and apprenticeship programs;
* fringe benefits;
* pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
* other terms and conditions of employment.
If you can't discriminate in "other conditions of employment," then forcing one class of employees to dress in ways that impose an extra burden on them for no legitimate purpose is pretty clearly illegal.
That said, of course, this only applies to race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. But if you look at what's in that law, expansion to include sexual orientation and transgender status, I think you could fairly say the problems you're bringing up would be solved.
EDIT: It seems pretty clear to me, anyway, that if those two classifications were included, transgender individuals' needs would be accommodated and businesses would also be able to enforce reasonable dresscodes.
Also, mc, I couldn't download that powerpoint (and I'd like to because this still seems to leave open the question of whether lesbians can get away with wearing pants, and it seems like that might shed some light on the situation). could you relink it?
EDIT 2: Man, fuck you guys. It's my first break from law school and here you're making me look up the Federal EEO laws.
EDIT 3: And I use 'guys' in the most gender-neutral way possible.
-
These examples are hard to take seriously because they're out there.
Yes, that was somewhat intentional. The problem with personal identification issues is that the default reaction is "I never wanted to cut my hair short, so WTF are these women complaining about." Or "I never wanted to wear makeup, so I don't understand how the hell it could be important to a guy." This is because most people don't have identification issues, so find it very difficult to relate. The goal of those examples was to convey an emotion, not to set legal precedence.
Anyhow, will probably write more detailed stuff later. Mostly wanted to post an upload link to the powerpoint since Super said the first one no longer works.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SS133E50
-
Yes, that was somewhat intentional. The problem with personal identification issues is that the default reaction is "I never wanted to cut my hair short, so WTF are these women complaining about." Or "I never wanted to wear makeup, so I don't understand how the hell it could be important to a guy." This is because most people don't have identification issues, so find it very difficult to relate. The goal of those examples was to convey an emotion, not to set legal precedence.
I get the emotional aspect of what you're takling about. Those were clear examples of just one person being singled out unfairly. Dress codes are universal. I understand wearing makeup could/is important to a guy, but the dress code is part of what goes with a job. Deal with it one way or the other or leave, same as anyone else who has a serious problem with what they are forced to wear on the job.
Miki- Schools aren't a professional setting, jobs are. That seems like the biggest difference. (I also may be strongly biased by hating the idea of school uniforms though.)
-
Those were clear examples of just one person being singled out unfairly. Dress codes are universal.
But gender-specific dress codes are not universal dress codes, that's kinda the point.
I mean, in the case of the contrived auto-shop example, maybe they type up a document saying "the dress code for women requires short hair (no more than 1 inch) and baggy shirts (sufficient to hide breasts)." That's a dress code. The only non-universal part of that dress code is "this is the dress code for women".
The point, and why this wouldn't be allowed, is that this situation would make a lot of women very uncomfortable, on a much deeper level than "I find shorts more comfy than pants". Basically a strong feeling of "I do not belong here. I am unwelcome unless I hide who I am." Hell, consider that Olympic female athletes don't shave off their hair, even though on-paper it would make them more aerodynamic--in practice the psychological impact would hurt their athletic performance more than aerodynamics. But approaching this from the other direction, the dress code in many real-world office situations would make a butch lesbian woman feel similarly uncomfortable. (For instance, my other sister, the government worker, felt significant pressure to wear make-up at work. She wouldn't have normally, and used to not wear make-up; now wears it daily. Granted, she's just lazy, not butch, so this was very much a non-issue for her specifically).
-
The point, and why this wouldn't be allowed, is that this situation would make a lot of women very uncomfortable, on a much deeper level than "I find shorts more comfy than pants". Basically a strong feeling of "I do not belong here. I am unwelcome unless I hide who I am." Hell, consider that Olympic female athletes don't shave off their hair, even though on-paper it would make them more aerodynamic--in practice the psychological impact would hurt their athletic performance more than aerodynamics. But approaching this from the other direction, the dress code in many real-world office situations would make a butch lesbian woman feel similarly uncomfortable. (For instance, my other sister, the government worker, felt significant pressure to wear make-up at work. She wouldn't have normally, and used to not wear make-up; now wears it daily. Granted, she's just lazy, not butch, so this was very much a non-issue for her specifically).
Don't trivialize that last point. Pressure on women to wear make-up in the workplace is extremely common, extremely gendered (it never applies to men) and incurs both time and monetary costs. So whether the objections lie in your sister's laziness or a butch lesbian's discomfort, it is a requirement (official or not) being made of women that is not being made of their male co-workers. And that's simply unfair.
-
But gender-specific dress codes are not universal dress codes, that's kinda the point.
Reasonable gender based dress codes are standard and are perfectly fine lines for companies to draw in the sand. A woman wearing a dress is considered normal, a man wearing one isn't. Go bitch at society at large if you don't consider these fair standards, it doesn't change at all the basic point that companies are well within their rights to make differences based on gender and what is socially considered acceptable as far as appearances go.
I mean, in the case of the contrived auto-shop example, maybe they type up a document saying "the dress code for women requires short hair (no more than 1 inch) and baggy shirts (sufficient to hide breasts)." That's a dress code. The only non-universal part of that dress code is "this is the dress code for women".
Do you have any actual valid examples? Baggy clothes very clearly don't fit this, cutting your hair a certain way doesn't fit either. (Though keeping it relatively neat/clean/respectable does). You can't say 'wear baggy clothes or wear tight' clothes. Give me an actual reasonable example instead of strawwommaning.
The point, and why this wouldn't be allowed, is that this situation would make a lot of women very uncomfortable, on a much deeper level than "I find shorts more comfy than pants". Basically a strong feeling of "I do not belong here. I am unwelcome unless I hide who I am." Hell, consider that Olympic female athletes don't shave off their hair, even though on-paper it would make them more aerodynamic--in practice the psychological impact would hurt their athletic performance more than aerodynamics. But approaching this from the other direction, the dress code in many real-world office situations would make a butch lesbian woman feel similarly uncomfortable. (For instance, my other sister, the government worker, felt significant pressure to wear make-up at work. She wouldn't have normally, and used to not wear make-up; now wears it daily. Granted, she's just lazy, not butch, so this was very much a non-issue for her specifically).
Discomfort with formal wear does not mean you get a pass on it in the job setting. DOn't like dresses? Wear a pant suit or something else that is considered passable for the job. Again, if you can't handle the dress code for a job for whatever reason you seriously should consider another field. Being a butch lesbian doesn't accept you from that. You aren't required to wear makeup for most jobs. Societial pressure there sucks, but it isn't too relevant.
I really do understand the discomfort, I feel that whenever I go swimming in a public pool and have to go shirtless. (I've got scars from my shoulders down). That doesn't mean my relative discomfort is enough to change the rules, nor should it be. It'd be the same if I worked as a lifeguard at a pool.
Don't trivialize that last point. Pressure on women to wear make-up in the workplace is extremely common, extremely gendered (it never applies to men) and incurs both time and monetary costs. So whether the objections lie in your sister's laziness or a butch lesbian's discomfort, it is a requirement (official or not) being made of women that is not being made of their male co-workers. And that's simply unfair.
No one ever said what is considered 'normal society's standards are 100% fair. We're probably always going to have different things that are acceptable, both in dress and behavior, for men and women.
-
Not feeling ambitious enough to keep up with Grefter, but do want to remark on super's line of thought.
Societal standards are all well and good. Fair or not, they exist and have to be dealt with. Easy to understand.
But what we should be asking ourselves is why employers should enforce them once a point is reached at which it's clear society standards are on the cusp of upheaval. That is to say, this entire discussion is underlined by the general idea that current societal standards actively exclude LGTB individuals. While, yes, society is slowly adapting as the previous generations die off/become less active, it strikes me as backasswards that employers be the last to adapt to a changing society. Indeed, the conduct people are held to at work are a large part of what defines societal standards, so if significant, needed change is to be made, it's best if they are early adopters.
As noted previously, obvious exceptions (customer service/retail) exist, and there's potential for backlash during the transition, but in the long term a short, sharp period of transition strikes me as much healthier and better for society as a whole than dragging their feet and fighting against change.
-
Few things I thought about on the way home...
Should they be exercising it in a harsh way and be sympathetic towards legitimate TG cases? Sure.
I suspect that's not actually what you meant. The term "Transgender" abbreviated "TG" currently means "anyone who acts or presents themselves in a way atypical of their birth gender (or wants to do so but feels pressured by social stigma)." This includes Butch Lesbians, Drag Queens, saturday night crossdressers and so on. Historically (like 1991) the term Transgender represented something much more specific--originally represented a group of...well Luddites who lived as the gender of choice, but avoided all forms of hormones and surgery.
From your context, I'm guessing neither of these definitions is the one you meant.
Retail does things like: Mandate piercings, bans beards for non religious reasons, and other things.
The religion comment got me thinking...having dress code allowances for religion and not for gender abnormality seems excessively odd the more I think about it....
1. First of all, what's stopping someone from founding a "church of crossdressing"? Religious clothing laws hypothetically opens up almost anything. Conversely trans clothing laws have a narrow well-defined effect.
2. Everyone has a gender identity (usually cisgendered). Many people don't have a religion.
3. People can and do change religion. People can't change their gender identity.
Not that Religion shouldn't be protected--anti religious persecution sentiment practically founded America. Just...they're both fundamentally psychological health and lifestyle health, and one seems much narrower and better-documented by science; why is that the one not protected?
Don't trivialize that last point. Pressure on women to wear make-up in the workplace is extremely common, extremely gendered (it never applies to men) and incurs both time and monetary costs. So whether the objections lie in your sister's laziness or a butch lesbian's discomfort, it is a requirement (official or not) being made of women that is not being made of their male co-workers. And that's simply unfair.
Fair enough, but they still aren't fully comparable.
"I don't want to spend all that time and money, although once done I do look better and feel better about my appearance."
vs
"I don't want to spend all that time and money, and this feels like a cage that is crushing my soul."
-
But what we should be asking ourselves is why employers should enforce them once a point is reached at which it's clear society standards are on the cusp of upheaval. That is to say, this entire discussion is underlined by the general idea that current societal standards actively exclude LGTB individuals. While, yes, society is slowly adapting as the previous generations die off/become less active, it strikes me as backasswards that employers be the last to adapt to a changing society. Indeed, the conduct people are held to at work are a large part of what defines societal standards, so if significant, needed change is to be made, it's best if they are early adopters.
Social revolution isn't the point of a businsess, it's to make money and provide a service. Whatever fits this best, in terms of dress code and being reasonable, is what they should go with. I can't say I expect to see men wearing makeup or putting on skirts to be socially acceptable any time soon. (TG/whatever *SMACK to MC ahead of time*) may end up a bit different, but it won't impact what is 'normal'.)
-
Yes, businesses are under no formal obligation to be good citizens. However, my point can easily be "anticipating changes in societal standards is more conducive to long term profit and employee satisfaction, so businesses being at the rearguard is stupid and counter-productive". In the short term you suffer... temporary adjustment woes (short lived weariness and resentment as people learn that yes, this is something they have to live with).
Put another way, businesses taking the lead in adapting to societal change speeds along such changes into a new equilibrium, which in turn makes for a better business environment.
-
(TG/whatever *SMACK to MC ahead of time*)
Right, right, I should be actually helpful here and explain the various terminology:
Transgender: basically anything gender variant.
Intersex: people with a mixture of...parts (some born that way).
Transexual: people who take hormones (and often also do surgery).
Transman / ftm: Transexuals who start female and end male
Transwoman / mtf: Transexuals who start male and end female
Gender Queer: People who don't fully fall under either gender category psychologically (think bi but for gender identity).
Gender Binary: Society's gender roles ("you are either A or B")--the absolute bane of GQ existence.
Crossdresser: People who don't take hormones or surgery, but dress sometimes going back and forth. People who identify with this group are often straight.
pre-op: TS who has not gotten genital surgery.
post-op: TS w/ genital surgery.
non-op: TS who has chosen to not get surgery.
Transvestite fetishism: According to the APA...people who crossdress for reasons of sexual stimulation and feel guilty about it.
Drag Queen: The gay equivalent term to cross-dresser, usually associated with performance and lip syncing, almost always done for entertainment or fundraising purposes only.
Butch Lesbian: Lesbians who wear typically male clothing and engage in typically male activities. Most transmen were butch lesbians at some point in their lives (often for several years).
Flamer: There does seem to be a gay male equivalent to butch lesbian, but it's less well studied (or maybe the studies I've seen have been lesbian-centric). This group is much less likely than Butch Lesbians to go for hormones/surgery later in life.
Stealth: People who look and sound so convincing that they live for years without anyone realizing they're trans. Note that hormones and surgery aren't required--take for instance the Jazz perfomer Billy Tipton--discovered anatomically female at his death at age 74.
Social revolution isn't the point of a businsess, it's to make money and provide a service. Whatever fits this best, in terms of dress code and being reasonable, is what they should go with. I can't say I expect to see men wearing makeup or putting on skirts to be socially acceptable any time soon. (TG/whatever *SMACK to MC ahead of time*) may end up a bit different, but it won't impact what is 'normal'.)
Businesses don't make laws. Governments make laws.
I doubt wearing a turban to work in Oklahoma would be thought highly of by the employer, but the government protects that.
I suspect businesses would be dumping toxic waste into the nearest river if allowed, but government prohibits that.
Fundamentally, businesses will do whatever most selfishly profits them...unless they are legally barred from doing so. Being an early adopter on LGBT acceptance would put a business at a competitive disadvantage. If every business was forced to respect LGBT rights by the government, though, suddenly there's no competitive disadvantage.
-
"I don't want to spend all that time and money, although once done I do look better and feel better about my appearance."
vs
"I don't want to spend all that time and money, and this feels like a cage that is crushing my soul."
And this is the point where you would be looking for a new job to help improve your mental health and your lifestyle. At that point it is above clothing and image and that means the workplace isn't fit for your presence. Everyone is better than the workplace that makes them feel like that.
-
And this is the point where you would be looking for a new job to help improve your mental health and your lifestyle. At that point it is above clothing and image and that means the workplace isn't fit for your presence. Everyone is better than the workplace that makes them feel like that.
Except that's not always an option if you're trying to make ends meet just to survive. Layers in Hell and all.
Little else to say except that in general I agree with MC on this.
-
Not to mention...what if ALL the jobs are like that?
For example, take sexual discrimination in the workplace. If every single workplace pays women less and gives them fewer promotions, and has employees who don't respect female management, then "change your workplace" just plain doesn't get you the respect and pay you deserve. (Ironically enough, "change your gender" seems to work just fine based on the transmen I know >_>).
-
The religion comment got me thinking...having dress code allowances for religion and not for gender abnormality seems excessively odd the more I think about it....
1. First of all, what's stopping someone from founding a "church of crossdressing"? Religious clothing laws hypothetically opens up almost anything. Conversely trans clothing laws have a narrow well-defined effect.
2. Everyone has a gender identity (usually cisgendered). Many people don't have a religion.
3. People can and do change religion. People can't change their gender identity.
Not that Religion shouldn't be protected--anti religious persecution sentiment practically founded America. Just...they're both fundamentally psychological health and lifestyle health, and one seems much narrower and better-documented by science; why is that the one not protected?
Religious accomdations for whatever is considered an established religion. The cult Bob from down the street sets up very clearly doesn't quality for this, whereas a mainstream religion does. More specifically, religious clothing/etc has clear limiations- you can't say wear a burka and work as a waitress for example. A good example of that is muslims fasting- pilots take alternate fasting days so they are able to to their jobs.
Wearing the clothing you want is not a protected right outside of of certain religious exceptions. And as listed above, you still have to be compliant with the dress code of a company even within those guidelines. If you can't meet those (Say your religion requires you to grow a long, unkept beard and you work in a job where it has a negative impact), you need to find another job. Grefter's explained the why behind this and so I have I.
Businesses don't make laws. Governments make laws.
I doubt wearing a turban to work in Oklahoma would be thought highly of by the employer, but the government protects that.
I suspect businesses would be dumping toxic waste into the nearest river if allowed, but government prohibits that.
Fundamentally, businesses will do whatever most selfishly profits them...unless they are legally barred from doing so. Being an early adopter on LGBT acceptance would put a business at a competitive disadvantage. If every business was forced to respect LGBT rights by the government, though, suddenly there's no competitive disadvantage.
Dress codes are any area where companies are allowed to set guidelines. Very obviously, saying 'we won't hire muslims/jews/gays/whatever' is not, and neither is dumping waste.
You can be whatever you want when you're not working. But you don't have freedom of religion at work or freedom of speech, among other things. Employeers can and will discriminate legally and well within reason if you can't physically or mentally meet the standards they set. A dress code is the same thing. Sexuality, race, gender and other things you can't alter are protected legally. What you wear isn't.
Not to mention...what if ALL the jobs are like that?
For example, take sexual discrimination in the workplace. If every single workplace pays women less and gives them fewer promotions, and has employees who don't respect female management, then "change your workplace" just plain doesn't get you the respect and pay you deserve. (Ironically enough, "change your gender" seems to work just fine based on the transmen I know >_>).
Hi, I'm Mr. Strawman. I've had a busy few days in this thread. Could you please stop dragging me here every other post? I want a break since the healthcare debate is keeping me busy. :(
You're arguing something completely different now. No one approves of or considers denying promotions based on gender to be fair at all. A company would and could get in major trouble for denying an employee a raise/promotion because of sex/gender/whatever. Making them abide by the same guidelines that everyone else does for clothing is not specifically biased, it is applying the same standard to everyone.
-
"I don't want to spend all that time and money, although once done I do look better and feel better about my appearance."
vs
"I don't want to spend all that time and money, and this feels like a cage that is crushing my soul."
And this is the point where you would be looking for a new job to help improve your mental health and your lifestyle. At that point it is above clothing and image and that means the workplace isn't fit for your presence. Everyone is better than the workplace that makes them feel like that.
No. No no no no no. That just means they win. The correct response to workplace discrimination is not quit your job and find one that respects you. The correct response is to contact the appropriate labour relations board, or failing that, to take the motherfuckers to court and bleed them. And requiring a woman to wear makeup on the job (in any environment, corporate or retail) is balls-out sexual discrimination. Employment isn't a book-club, it's livelihood (very literally for most people; quitting sometimes just isn't an option regardless), and your rights as an employee are thus rather well protected, even in the backwards ol' USA.
Yes, many if not most victims of workplace discrimination do exactly what you suggest, but this is a flaw in the system, not a feature. The burden of correction in cases of discrimination should lie with the offender, or failing that, the state. Not the victim.
You're arguing something completely different now. No one approves of or considers denying promotions based on gender to be fair at all. A company would and could get in major trouble for denying an employee a raise/promotion because of sex/gender/whatever. Making them abide by the same guidelines that everyone else does for clothing is not specifically biased, it is applying the same standard to everyone.
Is it so far-fetched to imagine a woman in a relatively conservative office workplace who wears short hair, no make-up, slacks, a dress-shirt and the axiomatic sensible shoes being denied a promotion, regardless of her sexuality and whether she is out or not? I really don't think so. This would be discrimination on the basis of sex (since those things would not be even a little bit noteworthy on a male) by means of an unbalanced dress code. You are mistaken if you think these things are unconnected.
Nor do I think mc's question about universal discrimination is all that far-fetched. Workplaces that would tolerate a transwoman employee in the early stages of transition (which could very likely involve being required to live in her desired gender role before any hormones or surgery are permitted) showing up to work in female garb and makeup without negative consequences to the employee are far outnumbered, I imagine, by those that would not. Should such a person quit her job if she is being held to a male dress code? Depending on how hostile work becomes, possibly, for her own sake. Should she have to? Absolutely not.
Or, to approach it another way, the transgendered, as a community, are rather poor (possibly extremely poor, though nobody seems to know for sure, last I checked: http://transblog.grieve-smith.com/?p=6). Why is this? Because if they are visible, employment is extraordinarily difficult to acquire and maintain, and wages extremely low. It may not be universal discrimination, but it may be close enough to spit. Is mc's hypothetical really so unreasonable?
-
No. No no no no no. That just means they win. The correct response to workplace discrimination is not quit your job and find one that respects you. The correct response is to contact the appropriate labour relations board, or failing that, to take the motherfuckers to court and bleed them. And requiring a woman to wear makeup on the job (in any environment, corporate or retail) is balls-out sexual discrimination. Employment isn't a book-club, it's livelihood (very literally for most people; quitting sometimes just isn't an option regardless), and your rights as an employee are thus rather well protected, even in the backwards ol' USA.
Being forced to abide by a reasonable dress code is not discrimination. Keep on twisting your points and making snotty comments though, I'm sure it'll help! The makeup thing is, again, unrelated to my point or Grefter's.
Is it so far-fetched to imagine a woman in a relatively conservative office workplace who wears short hair, no make-up, slacks, a dress-shirt and the axiomatic sensible shoes being denied a promotion, regardless of her sexuality and whether she is out or not? I really don't think so. This would be discrimination on the basis of sex (since those things would not be even a little bit noteworthy on a male) by means of an unbalanced dress code. You are mistaken if you think these things are unconnected.
Sure, that is discrimiation and it could/may/does happen. Take them to court in that case, as the woman is within the dress code/approriate behavior for the office. It's also a strawman because it's not what is being talked about or argued by anyone here, which is the right of a company to set a dress code based on what is considered socially acceptable. You can argue that said standards that society bases it off of aren't fair, but that is a different matter altogether.
Nor do I think mc's question about universal discrimination is all that far-fetched. Workplaces that would tolerate a transwoman employee in the early stages of transition (which could very likely involve being required to live in her desired gender role before any hormones or surgery are permitted) showing up to work in female garb and makeup without negative consequences to the employee are far outnumbered, I imagine, by those that would not. Should such a person quit her job if she is being held to a male dress code? Depending on how hostile work becomes, possibly, for her own sake. Should she have to? Absolutely not.
Or, to approach it another way, the transgendered, as a community, are rather poor (possibly extremely poor, though nobody seems to know for sure, last I checked: http://transblog.grieve-smith.com/?p=6). Why is this? Because if they are visible, employment is extraordinarily difficult to acquire and maintain, and wages extremely low. It may not be universal discrimination, but it may be close enough to spit. Is mc's hypothetical really so unreasonable?
Yep. You can't suddenly become thin or white or tall or whatever. You can control what you wear and everyone can fairly meet those standards; personal comfort isn't relevant to this.
-
Counterpoint: Imagine if you, with your current sensibilities and sense of gneder identity, had no choice but to wear makeup and dresses, skirts or womens'-style suits in order to get and hold a job. Not one specific job, a job in general. How would that sit with you, psychologically?
-
The religion comment got me thinking...having dress code allowances for religion and not for gender abnormality seems excessively odd the more I think about it....
1. First of all, what's stopping someone from founding a "church of crossdressing"? Religious clothing laws hypothetically opens up almost anything. Conversely trans clothing laws have a narrow well-defined effect.
2. Everyone has a gender identity (usually cisgendered). Many people don't have a religion.
3. People can and do change religion. People can't change their gender identity.
Not that Religion shouldn't be protected--anti religious persecution sentiment practically founded America. Just...they're both fundamentally psychological health and lifestyle health, and one seems much narrower and better-documented by science; why is that the one not protected?
Religious accomdations for whatever is considered an established religion. The cult Bob from down the street sets up very clearly doesn't quality for this, whereas a mainstream religion does. More specifically, religious clothing/etc has clear limiations- you can't say wear a burka and work as a waitress for example. A good example of that is muslims fasting- pilots take alternate fasting days so they are able to to their jobs.
Wearing the clothing you want is not a protected right outside of of certain religious exceptions. And as listed above, you still have to be compliant with the dress code of a company even within those guidelines. If you can't meet those (Say your religion requires you to grow a long, unkept beard and you work in a job where it has a negative impact), you need to find another job. Grefter's explained the why behind this and so I have I.
A few things on the religion point:
mc, on the point that people can change their religion: even though it's possible, it's considered an "immutable" trait because forcibly changing it would subject a person to unreasonable pain and suffering. In the CA Supreme Court decision mandating same-sex marriage the court swept away points about the hypothetical changability of sexuality by using that same argument.
super, you may be underestimating the power of religious exemptions in the workplace. A workplace needs a really good reason to disallow something like a religiously-mandated beard or yarmulke. I'm not sure, but a plain old negative impact may not be good enough (for example, if you say their beard is unkept, you're essentially discriminating against the standard of their religion on behalf of your customers. probably a no-no.)
Fundamentally, businesses will do whatever most selfishly profits them...unless they are legally barred from doing so. Being an early adopter on LGBT acceptance would put a business at a competitive disadvantage. If every business was forced to respect LGBT rights by the government, though, suddenly there's no competitive disadvantage.
Dress codes are any area where companies are allowed to set guidelines. Very obviously, saying 'we won't hire muslims/jews/gays/whatever' is not, and neither is dumping waste.
You can be whatever you want when you're not working. But you don't have freedom of religion at work or freedom of speech, among other things. Employeers can and will discriminate legally and well within reason if you can't physically or mentally meet the standards they set. A dress code is the same thing. Sexuality, race, gender and other things you can't alter are protected legally. What you wear isn't.
Again, this underestimates non-discrimination laws a bit. Say you have a no-hats policy that has the effect of preventing Jews who wear yarmulkes. Because this has the effect of religious discrimination, the employer has the burden of proving it's necessary. (pretty sure about this.)
This isn't a constitutional guarantee, and you're right that 1st amendment rights don't cover your employers firing you for expressing your views on the job, but this kind of thing is covered by federal EEO laws. So is the right to pray when you need to on the job (important for Muslims and again, subject to the employer proving h\that the demands of the job preclude it). Expand on this to another category protected by all the same rules as religion: sex. There are probably situations where a dress code may be construed to discriminate against one sex or the other. The burden of proof is on the employer to convince the courts it's a necessary one. If gender identity were protected, it wouldn't be difficult, as I've said, to apply existing non-discrimination law to dress codes, at the very least.
Not to mention...what if ALL the jobs are like that?
For example, take sexual discrimination in the workplace. If every single workplace pays women less and gives them fewer promotions, and has employees who don't respect female management, then "change your workplace" just plain doesn't get you the respect and pay you deserve. (Ironically enough, "change your gender" seems to work just fine based on the transmen I know >_>).
Hi, I'm Mr. Strawman. I've had a busy few days in this thread. Could you please stop dragging me here every other post? I want a break since the healthcare debate is keeping me busy. :(
You're arguing something completely different now. No one approves of or considers denying promotions based on gender to be fair at all. A company would and could get in major trouble for denying an employee a raise/promotion because of sex/gender/whatever. Making them abide by the same guidelines that everyone else does for clothing is not specifically biased, it is applying the same standard to everyone.
It's a different argument, but this is hardly a strawman. What, in the year 2009, do women make compared to men doing the same jobs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
Not much. Plenty of reasons why, but discrimination is definitely one of them (and is the indirect cause of some others). The argument that women may not be able to find a workplace willing to pay them as much as men in their field is strong. I'd venture to say that in some areas it's a virtual guarantee.
-
super, you may be underestimating the power of religious exemptions in the workplace. A workplace needs a really good reason to disallow something like a religiously-mandated beard or yarmulke. I'm not sure, but a plain old negative impact may not be good enough (for example, if you say their beard is unkept, you're essentially discriminating against the standard of their religion on behalf of your customers. probably a no-no.)
Appearance, sure. But if you're say working with food or near flammable materials or any situation where it compromises safety it is going to be trumped. That was the point I was driving at.
It's a different argument, but this is hardly a strawman. What, in the year 2009, do women make compared to men doing the same jobs?
It's a strawman because it's a point no one is really arguing about or disagreeing with.
I'm also getting yelled at to let this one go, so okay.
-
Sexuality, race, gender and other things you can't alter are protected legally. What you wear isn't.
First three things that jumped to mind:
1: You can't alter gender identity.
2: You can alter gender.
3: If Michael Jackson is any indication, you can alter race.
Okay, in all seriousness, what part of gender identity being protected legally do you object to? The fact that it's a primarily psychological-behavioral condition rather than physiological? But then...you seem okay with sexual preference being protected legally.
Let me take the focus off of clothing for a minute. What about, for example, behavioral. There are gay men who naturally talk like Valley Girls. Should an employer be legally allowed to fire them over that? Bear in mind that it is possible to change your voice pattern, but it takes hours of daily practice, and usually also the help of a professional trainer. (Without that level of practice, you will slip unconsciously into your default voice half the time you talk, even if you are making an effort).
Hi, I'm Mr. Strawman. I've had a busy few days in this thread. Could you please stop dragging me here every other post? I want a break since the healthcare debate is keeping me busy. :(
Umm...okay, if you're making an actual objection here you're going to have to clarify what it is because I can't decipher what you actually mean.
You're arguing something completely different now. No one approves of or considers denying promotions based on gender to be fair at all. A company would and could get in major trouble for denying an employee a raise/promotion because of sex/gender/whatever.
Uh, Super, you do realize that my example was structural not parallel, right? Here, let me try another example, and then slowly walk you through what I'm trying to show:
The response being to Grefter's "if you're in that situation, you should get another job".
Another token example being that in the 90s there was a debate in Vancouver about whether or not smoking should be banned in bars. The argument against it being that people who don't like the smoke can go to another bar. The argument for it being...how? All the bars allow smoking.
The purpose of this example is to say "no, you can't just argue go somewhere else if it's like that everywhere." The purpose of this example NOT being "second hand smoke is the same as discriminating against gender identity".
(I'm sorry if the purpose of my example wasn't clear--seemed obvious to me since it was a direct response to Grefter, not you >_>)
-
Or, to approach it another way, the transgendered, as a community, are rather poor (possibly extremely poor, though nobody seems to know for sure, last I checked: http://transblog.grieve-smith.com/?p=6). Why is this? Because if they are visible, employment is extraordinarily difficult to acquire and maintain, and wages extremely low. It may not be universal discrimination, but it may be close enough to spit. Is mc's hypothetical really so unreasonable?
The other major factor is that basic need costs for transpeople are usually higher in general due to medical bills (in places without universal health care).
Is it so far-fetched to imagine a woman in a relatively conservative office workplace who wears short hair, no make-up, slacks, a dress-shirt and the axiomatic sensible shoes being denied a promotion, regardless of her sexuality and whether she is out or not? I really don't think so. This would be discrimination on the basis of sex (since those things would not be even a little bit noteworthy on a male) by means of an unbalanced dress code. You are mistaken if you think these things are unconnected.
Sure, that is discrimiation and it could/may/does happen. Take them to court in that case, as the woman is within the dress code/approriate behavior for the office. It's also a strawman because it's not what is being talked about or argued by anyone here, which is the right of a company to set a dress code based on what is considered socially acceptable. You can argue that said standards that society bases it off of aren't fair, but that is a different matter altogether.
I'm confused--this seems to be exactly what's being talked about and argued by everyone here. Woman dresses in a gender-anormal manner (masculine haircut, masculine clothing). You're suggesting take them to court. Well guess what: she'll LOSE in court since this is a gender identity issue and thus NOT protected legally.
-
Let's go ahead and move along from the current debate, it's reached that magical internet zone of being a completely unproductive discussion. If you two really wanna keep arguing this, take it to another topic.
-
It's all that's preventing us from talking about helathcare, and that's just too depressing to contemplate <_<
-
It's all that's preventing us from talking about helathcare, and that's just too depressing to contemplate <_<
That really is fucking depressing.
-
No. No no no no no. That just means they win. The correct response to workplace discrimination ...
Which is where you lost the point. The point is that it isn't discrimination. It is that it is an issue with a policy that you find yourself unable to work with. Just like being unable to stand wearing a uniform or dressing up like a fucking clown.
The heart of the issue here is that the way you dress is not what defines your gender. The way you see yourself is your gender identity, the way people interact with you is part of what reinforces that, the clothes you wear is not the defining component. It is a superficial surface representation of gender. Dress code is but one facet of it, you can wear pants and still be referred to as a female. If the workplace refuses to recognise you as female after you have officially changed gender? That is discrimination. Asking you to dress in a specific way? That is not. They already DO that. That is the motherfucking dress code.
There is a huge disparity between average male and female pays the world around. The world does contain a massive fucking amount of discrimination I agree, we are working on it and getting better. I don't think anyone with a brain is going to argue otherwise that it exists for a very broad range of reasons if they have looked at the statistics (huge part of it being the kinds of roles females are more likely to take as a whole).
At the end of the day, yes it may be difficult for both the employee and the employer but there is room for a happy medium to be found, M to F trans can still wear generally socially accepted Masculine clothes in a Feminine cut. They can be referred to in Female pronouns and get by. This all comes back to my main fucking point, if this is an issue in the workplace you should not be working there for your own good. M to F is honestly probably even easier, if someone is struggling with gender identity issues prior to the whole thing, good chance their taste in clothes already gravitated towards relatively masculine clothing anyway.
In the "ROMG BUT NOT EVERYONE CAN QUIT TEH JOBES" well yeah not everyone can afford to change their entire wardrobe or be looking at getting their junk fixed at a doctor so their outside matches their inside. And? So? What? If you are having that much trouble getting by, basic application of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is going to putting the person solidly in establishing a healthy safe living environment before they go fucking around with shit like "Being comfortable within myself".
Ultimately it all comes down to everyone assuming that we are dealing with a massively bipolar unhealthy workplace that is so fanfuckingtastic that the person can wants to and should totally stay there no matter what massive changes they have in their life but is going to fire you over inanely minor shit.
Do I think we should be having this stuff covered by the law? Yes. Do I think it matters for shit about dress code? Hell fucking no.
Edit - No offense Dune, I typed this all up while you posted that and really don't want to waste that much time typing. Also easier to click post than backspace.
-
Okay. Moving along.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/22/clunkers.rush/index.html
There's been a lot of discussion the past month over the Clunkers for Cash program. What do you guys think about it? As you can see here, it's winding down after proving to be a bigger success than anticipated.
-
Mom actually mentioned something about that today, saying very few dealerships are getting paid back from the government on it/applying for it is basically impossible right now due to backups in the system and whatnot. Kinda :/ overall really.
-
Mom actually mentioned something about that today, saying very few dealerships are getting paid back from the government on it/applying for it is basically impossible right now due to backups in the system and whatnot. Kinda :/ overall really.
Yeah, I've heard that too. I think it's a shame since it feels like a brilliant policy initiative for Obama. It hits a lot of his goals at once: Stimulating the economy and the auto industry, removing smog heavy older cars from the road and effectively building up good will with the voters.
-
Despite my rather firm anti-car opinions, I'm a fan of cash for clunkers. Does anybody know if the program is expected to pay for itself in the long run? In GDP growth and saved environmental costs and whatnot, that is. 'cause I know there was talk about allocating more money to it, but dunno if that's still on the table.
-
Yeah, I've heard that too. I think it's a shame since it feels like a brilliant policy initiative for Obama. It hits a lot of his goals at once: Stimulating the economy and the auto industry, removing smog heavy older cars from the road and effectively building up good will with the voters.
In fairness, it sounds like it's still achieving all of that, just that the middleman (car salesmen) might get screwed.
-
I'd like to see some statistics, but the funny thing about this is that a lot of what's getting traded in is relatively new (say, made within the past 5 years) large vehicles (ones which, on the whole, are merely sub-par for milage issues). Mind, apparently the number one purchased car is the Toyota... Camery is it? I forget which model, but basically their super-efficent mid-sized.
Not that where the company is based has actual bearing on where cars are made these days.
Anecdotal evidence I've heard suggests that a lot of dealers have sold upwards of 100 cars via Cash for Clunkers and have thusfar recieved single-digit numbers of vouchers. That said, given the processing involved and how quick sales racked up, I wouldn't take this as a sign that they won't ever get the money.
All that said, I know a lot of companies offered to match the government vouchers. I'm curious whether this was just creative advertising and it was that much in cash back (ie just taking out a larger loan) or other such misdirection, and if not how close to the break even point the companies were riding here.
Though, what this really does is give them income over time (due to how car loans work) so it remains to be seen how it all plays out.
-
One of the lists I read around the tiume they were lobbying for more money listed the Ford F-150 as one of the top 5 being purchased with the program as well. It seems like both people replacing their old work trucks and just opportunists who wanted a new truck were behind the buys on that one.
-
Yeah, I'd heard that the mileage standards got pretty diluted over time as well. Not that even small improvements (particularly in say a work truck that'll get lots of road time) don't really add up over time. And the economy stimulating side of the program doesn't really care, of course, so long as people are buying new cars.
(as I've been led to understand it, Ford/GM/Chrysler vehicles are mostly made in Michigan and the rust-belt, whereas many of the big foreign auto makers, notably Toyota and Honda, have shops in the south. So I believe all these Toyota Corolla being traded for are actually made in the states.)
-
Ted Kennedy is dead.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/obit.ted.kennedy/index.html
-
Man. So many icons are perishing. It's making me weary about perceived icons in my generation as I don't quite like them {loosely for their achievements, etc}. I don't quite remember much significance about Ted Kennedy except his contemporary role in the Pro-Choice issues in and (then) the Civil Rights Act. Both of those which are extremely close to me. I don't know what else to say.
-
To me, losing Ted Kennedy is like losing part of my voice. He stood for the things I stand for, and he never compromised those principles. He was a guy who passionately cared about people, both individually and by the million. He never let the things that create distance between people, politics, race, wealth, what have you, blur his vision. I don't know what else to say, really. I dearly hope he can serve as an inspiration and a source of strength for liberals going forward.
-
To me, losing Ted Kennedy is like losing part of my voice. He stood for the things I stand for, and he never compromised those principles. He was a guy who passionately cared about people, both individually and by the million. He never let the things that create distance between people, politics, race, wealth, what have you, blur his vision. I don't know what else to say, really. I dearly hope he can serve as an inspiration and a source of strength for liberals going forward.
To contrast? I disagreed with Ted Kennedy on almost everything. One day I heard him say that water was wet and I immediately said bullshit! Still, it doesn't matter. He was an elder statesman and a human being. He had his mistakes, as I'm sure his detractors will bring up. He did well for his voters and worked hard for his goals. I can respect that. RIP.
---
I really hate when political deaths turn into chances to trash the name of the deceased. I've seen it on both sides and it's really low class.
-
It seems to me that Kennedy was exceptional in large part by volume; he was a senator for an extremely long time, and stayed really active right up until his health prevented it. If you were to map out some sort of progressive:influential index, he'd be right at the top, too, which is definitely something. I've seen him referred to here and there as the greatest Kennedy, and upon reflection I think that's probably fair. His list of legislative accomplishments is pretty staggering.
re: Idun, as far as liking him or not goes, and particularly when comparing him to our generation's would-be icons, I think it's really significant to note that he was not at all respected early in his career; he was seen as an intellectual lightweight coasting on his brothers' prestige. As I read it, it was only in the 80s that he really began to be respected on his own merits, as Chappaquiddick started to fade from immediate memory and it became clear that he wasn't going to be President. So who knows who, if anyone, will carry the liberal flag for the next 40 years? My guess for conservatives would be John Huntsman, but I dunno if there's anyone among the 30-45 crop of liberals who really stands out much; Gillibrand and Obama are the only two that spring to mind, and, well, we'll see. The point, I suppose, is that y'never really know.
(I thought this collection of quotes, from the last 40-50 years, was particularly interesting: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/26/kennedy_reactions/ )
-
I really hate when political deaths turn into chances to trash the name of the deceased. I've seen it on both sides and it's really low class.
I think so too, but it's difficult to hold your tongue depending on the person. When people die, we reflect back on their lives, and sometimes those reflections are pretty odious. I didn't hold my tongue when Jesse Helms died. I don't regret that. I probably should.
EDIT: liberal standard-bearers for the future? Russ Feingold, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank.
-
I was surprised by the lack of vitrol from the right about Kennedy's death. About the worst thing I read on a semi reputable site was calling him out on his personal excesses damaging his career.
-
I was surprised by the lack of vitrol from the right about Kennedy's death. About the worst thing I read on a semi reputable site was calling him out on his personal excesses damaging his career.
I saw something on Chadda-whatever I can't spell that offhand. I'm not sure how bad of a low blow that is, but it's in poor taste to bring that up on the day he died.
-
I was surprised by the lack of vitrol from the right about Kennedy's death. About the worst thing I read on a semi reputable site was calling him out on his personal excesses damaging his career.
I agree. And even the nice stuff talks about Chappaquiddick damaging his career, so that's not too exceptional.
Well, Limbaugh has been out in force, but Limbaugh.
EDIT: I don't think it's that low, really. It's an important part of his life story. I don't think we do the dead or ourselves any favors by censoring unpleasant content when we look back at them. Sanitize the language? Absolutely. But don't shrink from the facts.
-
I think he's generally perceived to have payed for Chappaquiddick. But for it, he'd have almost certainly been president, after all. I agree that these things deserve air-time though; in Kennedy's case it's an extremely important part of his story. Everybody likes a good tale of redemption.
On the one hand, I suspect the right fears that any sort of post-mortem badmouthing of Kennedy could also give the liberals a boost in the health-care debate. Alternately, well, he was an insider, an elder statesman, and a master of the deal, so it's probably equally true that large portions of the right are disinclined to pile onto him, no matter how much they disagree with his politics.
EDIT: liberal standard-bearers for the future? Russ Feingold, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank.
It's sad, but I feel like Feingold has already been relegated to a fringe-y sort of irrelevance in the media narrative. Not that this is irreversible (and I see it as something of a badge of honour, frankly), but I suspect his influence in the party and government is therefore pretty sharply capped at present. I'd love to see that change, and he's certainly still young enough to turn it around, and should there be (hope hope!) any sort of progressive/centrist split in the party, I'd expect to see him at the forefront.
Waxman's definitely important, but the man is also 70 years old; I suspect he's pushing the height of his influence with Energy and Commerce (not that this is insignificant!).
Frank's sort of the same situation; he's the same age, though he seems a little bit more vigorous to me. He could have Kennedy's seat if he wanted it, of course, but I'm not sure a couple of terms as a junior senator beats out head of Financial Services. Still, he's a bit more outspoken, a bit more charismatic than Waxman, I could see him easing into the role of the spiritual leader of the progressive left.
-
On the one hand, I suspect the right fears that any sort of post-mortem badmouthing of Kennedy could also give the liberals a boost in the health-care debate. Alternately, well, he was an insider, an elder statesman, and a master of the deal, so it's probably equally true that large portions of the right are disinclined to pile onto him, no matter how much they disagree with his politics.
More the latter in this case. Kennedy was definitely old school in that regard in terms of building relationships.
Besides which, not like the democrats wouldn't fuck up any given advantage with health care at this point.
-
It's sad, but I feel like Feingold has already been relegated to a fringe-y sort of irrelevance in the media narrative. Not that this is irreversible (and I see it as something of a badge of honour, frankly), but I suspect his influence in the party and government is therefore pretty sharply capped at present. I'd love to see that change, and he's certainly still young enough to turn it around, and should there be (hope hope!) any sort of progressive/centrist split in the party, I'd expect to see him at the forefront.
Waxman's definitely important, but the man is also 70 years old; I suspect he's pushing the height of his influence with Energy and Commerce (not that this is insignificant!).
Frank's sort of the same situation; he's the same age, though he seems a little bit more vigorous to me. He could have Kennedy's seat if he wanted it, of course, but I'm not sure a couple of terms as a junior senator beats out head of Financial Services. Still, he's a bit more outspoken, a bit more charismatic than Waxman, I could see him easing into the role of the spiritual leader of the progressive left.
You're right about all three, more or less. Frank isn't going for Kennedy's seat for exactly that reason.
Feingold may never have the power base Kennedy did, but in terms of idealistic purity, I doubt you'll ever find someone better. He could be considered the soul of liberalism. I hope someday he's its voice as well.
-
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/28/huckabee/index.html
Classy.
-
Unfortunately, a good majority of people are not realists. (But is that really unfortunately? Sometimes if you're fighting for your life, realism isn't a great thing). Perhaps they would have agreed on the option of taking pills instead of expensive surgery. If I was at a 50/50 chance, I'd take chemo. But 75+ would get me thinking. Either way, Kennedy DID get "diagnosed" extremely late I heard, only about a year ago. I wonder what goes on in someone's head when they're diagnosed and the masses have spread significantly and developed. I also wonder what's going on in the doctor's head as they're supposed to ensure the comfortability of their patients, but they only recognize that the treatments will tire them physically and ultimately their comfortability will incrementally diminish.
-
In addition, it's not just "probability of living" vs "comfort". Surgery itself can kill you (especially if you're older). From all I've read doctors should basically never perform surgery on anyone over the age of 80.
I dunno, I feel like there's this misconception of "surgery is performed by doctors and therefore it will help you get better." I mean, yes, it can, in certain circumstances...but fundamentally surgery is DRUGGING YOU AND CUTTING YOU OPEN. These are generally not good things to do to the human body.
(I haven't heard statistics on Chemo, but I imagine it's similarly brutal on the body, if not moreso. In fact, I'm not sure I've heard of anyone over the age of 30 getting Chemo, so...most likely in the moreso column).
-
My mother went through Chemo, as did my friend's mom. Both were greatly brutalized by it. So.
-
My mother went through Chemo, as did my friend's mom. Both were greatly brutalized by it. So.
Yeah. I see chemo patients and work and most look like they're one step away from falling into the grave.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/30/japan-election-results-op_n_272149.html
A victory for the left in Japan as the liberal Democrats beat the conservative Liberal Democrats.
Apropos of nothing, really, but every once in a while it's worth remembering that terms like liberal and conservative not only shift in meaning but also occasionally completely reverse themselves.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/08/30/kennedy_once_meant_tax_cutter/
Here's an op-ed piece by Jeff Jacoby, resident Cassandra conservative for the liberal Boston Globe. He asserts that JFK would not recognize today's democrats, but that Ike would recognize today's republicans. I'm not so sure about that. The more interesting question, "would today's Democrats and Republicans recognize JFK and Eisenhower respectively as their own?" goes unasked.
Eisenhower, who cut the US's losses in Korea, spent massively on US infrastructure in the interstate highway system, and presided over high taxes, looks a lot like today's Democrats, except for his social conservatism. JFK, hawkish tax-cutter that he was, looks awfully Republican, minus the social liberalism.
-
Chiming a little late here, but my mom's mom died of lung cancer and poorly timed chemo at like 50 years old. So yeah, Chemo sucks.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/30/japan-election-results-op_n_272149.html
A victory for the left in Japan as the liberal Democrats beat the conservative Liberal Democrats.
Apropos of nothing, really, but every once in a while it's worth remembering that terms like liberal and conservative not only shift in meaning but also occasionally completely reverse themselves.
Yeah, the famous quote about the Holy Roman Empire applies to the LDP as well. The Liberal Democratic Party was neither liberal, nor democratic, nor a party. (Not that they were even that bad! Just... severe case of "okay this is what Japan stands for now thanks to our new American friends, let's slap it on the nameplate.)
-
Slow and late, but Chemo is a slower way of killing yourself than dying by cancer. Choose your poison, it is either radioactive or a mutated part of your body slowly assimilating the rest of your flesh into itself which is going to destroy you.
Edit - Of course chemo normally is slower than the assimilation.
-
Depends on what type of chemo and cancer. There's a huge range there. Some tumors respond only to the nastier types of drugs, yeah.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090830/NEWS05/908300547/1319/Detroit-nearing-financial-ruin--city-s-ex-auditor-says
A delightful story on the smoking ruin of what used to be an major American city.
To fix the city as a whole, it would require martial law, thousands of troops, labor camps, and sterilization programs for criminals and welfare recipients. That's probably the best program, but it can't be implemented as long as the inmates have control of the asylum.
Comments are a wee bit scary. Can I invoke Godwin's law here?
-
...
...
...
God, I couldn't get through the first two pages of comments. Oh my god it hurts so much.
-
I'd just sit over here pretending I could be shocked by any of this, but it's kinda hard when you live in the state and observe such comments and "wisdom" firsthand.
And people wonder how I could ever be sour.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8204207.stm
More Lorena Bobbits, please. This is old, but I put it here because I thought it somehow loosely links to the rape that was discussed in SL&R.
-
This has mostly been the province of IotD, but since the article introduces no new idiocy, it really belongs here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/world/europe/01france.html?hp
-
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/florida-gop-chair-white-house-rewrote-school-speech-after-conservatives-caught-them-indoctrinating-c.php
And how do we know he rewrote it? It's not the way we baselessly said it would be!
-
I read Obama's speech.
I don't think I need to reiterate how much the reasoning behind his opposition and this ideology that people want to espouse just reminds me why I am not faithful in specific communities in America. Everyone's entitled to opinions, but I very much lean to being disinterested in those opinions when people refuse to even read the SOURCE material to see what the discussion is actually about. Sure, some people are saying it's because there's many conservative racists out there and it's because they're racist, but I think racism is just another facet to possible reasoning as to why they were so adamantly "Don't teach my child social/commun/ism. I could also use this argument many minorities are using where there were previous examples of presidents doing the same thing (one that actually had political party agenda), but I think that too is ignoring the possibility of people simply being disinterested in the gov't being part of the private family. Unfortunately these are all faulty as I believe having read the speech, it does nothing but encourages the student to be a good citizen, continue educational aspirations, etc.
This also makes me question people's parenting capabilities, but I do that all the time. Everyone's not raised the same, I understand that. But operating on the premise of the majority parents sitting with their children and watching the speech as another option makes me laugh so hard that I can't even begin to figure out what's more hilarious.
Putting "education" into the private family sphere is essentially stupid, and I can't remember when the situation of education in the country has ever been 'private'.
-
When Newt Gingrich is calling right wingers out for being partisan hacks (Rightly), it's truly a surreal day.
I'm not a fan of Obama at all and I think his current major policy push is an abject, overpriced failure in spite of having no insurance. I'm still stuck in the position of defending him a hell of a lot of the time just from how baseless a lot of the attacks are against him. This isn't new, as I did the same thing for Bush and Clinton before him, but it's still annoying.
-
When Newt Gingrich is calling right winters out for being partisan hacks (Rightly), it's truly a surreal day.
Ugh. I despise Newt Gingrich, and having to admit he is a voice of reason on anything is extremely painful to me.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/07/laura.bush/index.html
Laura Bush, noted socialist and left winger, also spoke up to defend the president. The story is also a decently interesting read on it's own merits.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/opinion/08tue1.html?_r=4&hp
Wait, what?
-
Needs a log-in :/
-
Needs a log-in :/
Weirdly I was able to get in without a login when Mumei linked me. (I don't understand why NYT requires logins--logins are free so...zuh?)
EDIT: try this link:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2009%2F09%2F08%2Fopinion%2F08tue1.html&ei=apumSqmHBY6nnQeN2p2uBw&rct=j&q=%22A+Threat+to+Fair+Elections%22&usg=AFQjCNEOnnk1vHL_QlmKX78JdQGjEbyV8g
-
I'm concerned about this, but I'm gonna wait to see what the court actually decides before exploring the full ramifications.
Though the court has been willing to rip down race- and gender-based protections with no respect for precedent, it may be more guarded on this issue.
-
Be very afraid. I didn't expect this to come up in the US for a very long time, some of the third world or Eastern Europe in maybe 20 years, but not the US now...
-
oh, this has been on the radar for years.
-
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjE2MjBkMTVlZjBhYjNiNjdlZTUwOTNmYTcwZjllY2I=
Story covering some of the problems Harry Reid may run into during his re-election bid next year. (I also did not know that Ensign had been caught with his pants down. Nevada'd be better off if both got tossed from office.)
-
On the radar, sure, but I expected you guys to keep up the appearances of the private and public sector for longer than that.
-
http://thehill.com/capital-living/in-the-know/58693-rep-stark-to-constituent-i-wont-pee-on-your-leg
UNHAPPY CONSTITUENT: "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
REP. STARK: "I wouldn't dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn't be worth wasting the urine."
And you thought nothing good was coming out of the healthcare debate.
-
Speaking of politicians saying stuff...
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0909/did_obama_call_kanye_a_jackass.html
Apparently President Obama called Kanye West a jackass.
-
THIS JUST IN, SORRY GUYS, WE REPORTED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS A HUMAN BEING WITH OPINIONS THAT PEOPLE CAN BE DOUCHEBAGS, PLEASE DISREGARD THIS MESSAGE.
Edit - Actually you know what I hope comes from this? The White House makes a comment apologizing to Kanye West for him being such a jackass.
-
Speaking of politicians saying stuff...
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0909/did_obama_call_kanye_a_jackass.html
Apparently President Obama called Kanye West a jackass.
Maybe Obama -does- have a little Nixon in him after all.
-
We can only hope, now that we have to make sure China likes us again.
-
THIS JUST IN, SORRY GUYS, WE REPORTED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS A HUMAN BEING WITH OPINIONS THAT PEOPLE CAN BE DOUCHEBAGS, PLEASE DISREGARD THIS MESSAGE.
Well yes, it's just amusing to hear someone normally so emotionally reserved make a comment like that. It's like...I remember an English teacher pointing out to me how one character in a book wept regularly, and it was so common that it was barely worth mentioning...but there was another character who only cried only once, and the reader stood up and took notice the one time he did cry.
Also, audio:
http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/15/obama-caught-on-tape-calling-kanye-jackass-taylor-swift/
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/us/politics/16acorn.html?hpw
ACORN at it's finest.
-
Maybe Obama -does- have a little Nixon in him after all.
Fuck you to.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/us/politics/16acorn.html?hpw
ACORN at it's finest.
I'll buy that when the actors tell us how many ACORN offices they visited to get the footage they were looking for. ACORN is not a well-organized group, and it's hard to take what individual members of it do as some kind of indication of overall ACORN policy without a good look at the ratio. You could spend a few months going to Burger King restaurants and paint a similar kind of picture (though why you'd seek housing advice at BK is beyond me).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/2009/09/16/peres-un-gaza-report-make_ws_288268.html
The less I say about the Israeli response to this UN report the better. Israel refused to cooperate with the investigation becuse they said it was biased against them. Why, pray tell, was it biased? Because the people who crafted the mandate, which was to explore the possibility of war crimes by both sides during the Gaza war, believed Israel had probably committed war crimes.
...
Yeah, no shit, Israel, they're investigating you because they think you probably did something! God, what a great defense! "I won't comply with this murder investigation because the cops think I'm a suspect!"
(Israel goes on to say, of course, that the UN finding that war crimes were committed by them is all the proof they need that the fact-finders were biased against them.)
-
Israel. Truly the shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East.
-
Now, Israel is somewhat justified in its UN persecution complex in general, because the UN has been used by states that hate Israel as a means of unfairly criticizing it, both in the past and not too long ago (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6132972.ece), but the mandate of this specific investigation, and the even-handed reputation of the investigators should be enough to convince them of the legitimacy of it.
I mean, it's not difficult to see an investigation was warranted: civilians were shot, hospitals and schools were bombed, white phosphorous was used in areas with high civilian concentrations. Stuff happened that, if intentional, would qualify as war crimes.
Israel. Truly the shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East.
Funny, Israel attempts here to delegitimatize a UN investigation by refusing to participate in it, then denouncing the results as illegitimate because they didn't participate. Sounds a lot like Iraqi democracy circa 2005, what with the Sunni boycott.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html
$10 million in punitive damages to a health insurance company was just upheld by the Supreme Court of SC, apparently one of the most pro-business in the country.
They dropped a teen from coverage after he got HIV while he was on their plan.
Huge punitive damages for wrongfully dropping coverage seems to be a trend these days (the Supreme Court recently upheld a similar verdict). I wonder if the courts have taken it upon themselves to enact healthcare reform in their own way (while apparently thumbing their noses at the "tort reform" movement). If this kind of punitive damage is a real possibility, you can bet it'll make insurers be a lot more careful about who they drop from coverage.
EDIT:
Turns out one of the ACORN employees caught in the "sting" made a bunch of stuff up because she thought it was a joke. Shocking, I know.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091703248.html?hpid=topnews
EDIT2:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/us/18voter.html?hp
Well this is intersting. An Indiana appellate court just struck down the Voter ID law the Supreme Court upheld last year, explicitly accepting some of the same arguments the Supreme Court rejected. The law's constitutionality under the Indiana Constitution was challenged, and Indiana's constitution provides broader protection in its “Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause” than the "Equal Protection Clause" in the US Constitution does. So now it's off to the Supreme Court of Indiana, which will have the last word on it (unless the US Supreme Court thinks their decision is unconstitutional, which is unlikely in the extreme).
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/whoops-anti-acorn-bill-ro_n_294949.html
Funnier result: Lockheed and other companies all lose federal funding due to the overbroad nature of this bill.
I almost want this to happen.
For the curious, this site (http://www.contractormisconduct.org/) provides a decent list of companies under federal contract and their history of misconducts.
-
So how do you guys feel about McKenzie Phillips' different 'coming out' as if she needed to?
-
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/progressives-prepare-to-pressure-reid-to-include-public-option-in-senate-health-care-bill.php?ref=fpa
This makes me so happy.
-
On the other hand, Alan Grayson is an idiot and a symptom of everything that is wrong with the health care debate. E: There has to be a fine line between Reid's usual worthlessness and Pelosi defending the inanity and spite behind Grayson's holocost statement.
-
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/texas_governor_stymieing_panel_probing_flawed_deat.php?ref=fpb
Rick Perry.
Occupation: Governor.
Likes: The Death Penalty.
Dislikes: Science, admitting mistakes.
-
On the other hand, Alan Grayson is an idiot and a symptom of everything that is wrong with the health care debate. E: There has to be a fine line between Reid's usual worthlessness and Pelosi defending the inanity and spite behind Grayson's holocost statement.
I'll agree that he's (needlessly? hard for me to judge, I get pretty worked up by these things) inflammatory, but is what he's saying so ludicrous?
If A: America's hodgepodge insurance policy leads to preventable deaths. I can't speak to Grayson's figures, but I don't find them at all unbelievable. The un- and underinsured (and those who are insured but lose their coverage when they get sick due to "pre-existing conditions") die from curable or curable if detected diseases. It happens.
And B: The Republican party has shown repeatedly, both historically and through the current debate, that it is flatly against effective health-care reform. See: Grassley on how he won't vote for even a bill that he agrees with. If and when whatever health-care bill gets pulled forward passes, it will do so with minimal Republican support. There is no Republican alternative health-care bill. Nor was there in 1994.
Then what?
A metaphor a Salon commenter used: if I have the ability to pull you out of a burning building and I don't, am I culpable for your death? And is it really relevant whether or not I "want" you to die in such a situation?
-
I'll agree that he's (needlessly? hard for me to judge, I get pretty worked up by these things) inflammatory, but is what he's saying so ludicrous?
Yes, yes it is. Implying that people who disagree with the health care bill are genocidal is insulting in every sense of the word. This health care bill is generating serious oppostion because it is not a well designed bill, both in terms of realistic impact on funding and how it handles the massive task of reforming health care. Republicans fail on many levels for not designing effective alternatives to the bill, but this doesn't make them killers and implying that people who are against it in the senate are that is the political debate being reduced to it's absolute lowest.
The hypocrisy of this is staggering considering the outcry over the death panel comments Palin/etc al made. Stupid/offensive is stupid/offensive regardless of politics.
Edit: This is stupid politically as well. Alan Grayson doesn't really need the money he's gotten from donations since he's wealthy! On the other hand he's from a right leaning district. I'm sure that'll play well.
-
A metaphor a Salon commenter used: if I have the ability to pull you out of a burning building and I don't, am I culpable for your death?
Well, no, not in general. Could be different if you're a fireman, though.
The question, of course, is, what good are public servants who refuse to, k'now, serve the public?
EDIT: speaking of useless, I coulda sworn last time I checked, which was admittedly during the Bush administration, we were supposed to root for our country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/conservatives-revel-in-ob_n_307794.html
-
Republicans fail on many levels for not designing effective alternatives to the bill, but this doesn't make them killers
If someone who had the power to actively refused to save someone's life, you would call them a killer.
The Republicans are, here, actively refusing to reform a system that kills more people than it saves (Well, actually, so are the Democrats. So it fuckin' goes.) How does that not make them (both parties, now) culpable for the deaths that they could have prevented if they actually tried participating in the Healthcare debate instead of sticking their heels in and doing absolutely nothing except playing political games?
Look, the only reason you're so against this Grayson character is that he's on the other side. Are his holocaust comments irresponsible, horrible, and symptomatic of a broken system of governance? Yes. Do you bitch and whine about slights (offhand or otherwise) made against the other side ("YOU LIE!")? Well, if you've been doing it, point me to it and I'll eat my words.
I don't think most of us aren't guilty of this sort of bias to one degree or another, but fucking seriously now. Calling this Grayson character an idiot while ignoring the far greater irresponsibility and stupidity from the congressmen who are acting to prevent reform? Fucking. Please.
-
If someone who had the power to actively refused to save someone's life, you would call them a killer.
The Republicans are, here, actively refusing to reform a system that kills more people than it saves (Well, actually, so are the Democrats. So it fuckin' goes.) How does that not make them (both parties, now) culpable for the deaths that they could have prevented if they actually tried participating in the Healthcare debate instead of sticking their heels in and doing absolutely nothing except playing political games?
Defining if someone is a killer or not by their willingness to support a flawed bill is insulting. If the reform makes things worse (And it has the potential to do so), does that make the democrats killers for supporting it? Of course not. The bill's effects don't kick in until the start of 2013, does that make Obama/congress killers for not being willing to enact it in say 2012? Of course not.
There is plenty to oppose in this bill, and even if you don't agree it isn't unreasonable to believe that government shouldn't provide health care for any number of reasons.
Look, the only reason you're so against this Grayson character is that he's on the other side. Are his holocaust comments irresponsible, horrible, and symptomatic of a broken system of governance? Yes. Do you bitch and whine about slights (offhand or otherwise) made against the other side ("YOU LIE!")? Well, if you've been doing it, point me to it and I'll eat my words.
I'm against it because he is accusing a very large minority of congress as perpetuating genocide. If you seriously believe this is an acceptable way for a congressman to speak, I don't know what to tell you. Hint: The death panel stuff was and is stupid and I've never said otherwise. That type of namecalling isn't a reasonable attempt at politics, it's a petty attack aimed at getting media attention, which it's done. Whatever right things he said after that is tainted by his tragic case of foot to mouth.
I don't think most of us aren't guilty of this sort of bias to one degree or another, but fucking seriously now. Calling this Grayson character an idiot while ignoring the far greater irresponsibility and stupidity from the congressmen who are acting to prevent reform? Fucking. Please.
This isn't a 'fund insurance ^_^ lolipops and happiness' bill, it is an incredibly complex attempt to reform a massive part of the United States's GDP. Brushing off any opposition to it as being heartless killers is the lowest form of political debate and poisons any attempt at debating it rationally. If you seriously think calling someone an idiot for accusing a large part of congress as being mass killers, I don't know what to say. That's a bit past the point of reason and entering the magical land of tinfoil hats and chewing on carpets.
Stupid is stupid regardless of which side of the debate it's on. Palin's death panel comments are in the same vein and they were rightly trashed.
-
Full disclosure: I was piss drunk last night and a little angry so that post was mostly displaced rage. I apologize for the tone of it.
And actually don't have anything to respond to, except to reiterate that there is a difference between the death panel nonsense, and incredibly poor choices said in a moment of passion (both "You Lie!" and Grayson's dumbass comments). I'll forgive outbursts like that because they probably weren't thought through at all (and honestly only make a big deal out of Wilson's remarks because he is on the "other side." Hypocrisy!), though you are right that it's poor politics. Still, they're frankly far less offensive than the death panel debacle, which was thinly veiled propaganda at its most mediocre.
-
Greyson has apologized to the ADL for using the term 'holocaust' but he stands by everything else he's said (and he's said a lot).
This culpability for death thing is a tricky issue. Is there a difference between actively causing someone's death and passively allowing someone you could save to die? It's messy, but we shouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand.
I don't think many people would accuse folks who don't donate large sums of money to food charities of being murderers, but if you withhold your money and a kid in Africa starves to death who would have lived, the math turns out the same. On the other hand, if someone is actively begging for your help, which you could give easily and with no determent for yourself, and you refuse and they die as a result, I think you would be near-universally condemned as a killer.
Judge Learned Hand (great name, huh?), in a case that apparently every first-year Torts class studies, proposed an algebraic rule to determine when a defendant in a negligence case was liable:
B is the burden the defendant incurs by acting.
P is the probability of harm.
L is the severity of harm.
Liability exists where B < PL
Obviously, none of those variables can be easily quantified (and if you take probability as a percentage, it doesn't work) but the idea, preserving the ability to look out for number one when there would be a great burden one oneself but condemning those who could have easily prevented harm to others, is a sound one.
-
I don't think many people would accuse folks who don't donate large sums of money to food charities of being murderers, but if you withhold your money and a kid in Africa starves to death who would have lived, the math turns out the same. On the other hand, if someone is actively begging for your help, which you could give easily and with no determent for yourself, and you refuse and they die as a result, I think you would be near-universally condemned as a killer.
If someone chose to run for and was elected for the position of donating large sums of money to people that needed it and then did fucking nothing while homeless people were unable to afford to pay 80% of their wages on substandard living venues then they would be in a whole lot of shit, generally considered a con artist and probably be in for a little bit of prison rape.
People elected to govern that fail to govern at all are horrible at their jobs. People that do so and continue to be re-elected on the platform that doing nothing is for the best, what the country wants and is all about are nothing but grifters at best.
-
This isn't a 'fund insurance ^_^ lolipops and happiness' bill, it is an incredibly complex attempt to reform a massive part of the United States's GDP. Brushing off any opposition to it as being heartless killers is the lowest form of political debate and poisons any attempt at debating it rationally. If you seriously think calling someone an idiot for accusing a large part of congress as being mass killers, I don't know what to say. That's a bit past the point of reason and entering the magical land of tinfoil hats and chewing on carpets.
I would buy this point more if I saw the Republican party engaged in any sort of good faith negotiation around health care. If they had alternate policy positions, or any sort plausible plan of their own, then there would be healthy debate in the states around how to best fix a broken broken system. That would be fine. Health care is complicated, yes.
(though note that there are literally dozens of models of systems that work better than the American one, so it shouldn't be that hard to come up with something)
But this is not the situation. What we actually have is a Republican party utterly opposed to all specific potential reforms in a system that literally kills people, and for unabashedly political reasons. This is extremely pernicious. So if Grayson's rhetoric is overblown (no, Republicans do not literally want to kill the uninsured, these deaths are merely an immediate, visible consequence of their obstructionism), his essential point is, I think, both fair and an important one to make.
As far as culpability goes, I mean, it's not just that Republicans are failing to solve a problem, it's that they are actively attempting to prevent a solution. They don't need to help, they just need to get out of the way. That makes it pretty bad, in my books. Not murder, no, but bad.
And no, it's in no way comparable to death panels. Death panels is a piece of pure fantasy designed to scare vulnerable segments of the American public (the elderly and uneducated) into opposing health care reform. Grayson is employing clear hyperbole to draw attention to an important, and under-emphasized, factor of the debate. If what he's saying scares the public into supporting health care, they will have been scared by something that is both real and genuinely frightening (to wit, tens of thousands of preventable deaths per year due to a bad insurance system). If both are cheap, deceptive, trashy, unfair, whatever adjective you want to apply, one has at its base truth, and the other falsehood.
-
I would buy this point more if I saw the Republican party engaged in any sort of good faith negotiation around health care. If they had alternate policy positions, or any sort plausible plan of their own, then there would be healthy debate in the states around how to best fix a broken broken system. That would be fine. Health care is complicated, yes.
(though note that there are literally dozens of models of systems that work better than the American one, so it shouldn't be that hard to come up with something)
But this is not the situation. What we actually have is a Republican party utterly opposed to all specific potential reforms in a system that literally kills people, and for unabashedly political reasons. This is extremely pernicious. So if Grayson's rhetoric is overblown (no, Republicans do not literally want to kill the uninsured, these deaths are merely an immediate, visible consequence of their obstructionism), his essential point is, I think, both fair and an important one to make.
As far as culpability goes, I mean, it's not just that Republicans are failing to solve a problem, it's that they are actively attempting to prevent a solution. They don't need to help, they just need to get out of the way. That makes it pretty bad, in my books. Not murder, no, but bad.
Do you seriously think the republican party should just roll over and play dead with a bill that has a price tag of over a trillion dollars? That is insane, especially when the US has lost a staggering amount of government income and there has been zero talk of actually cutting and fixing this to the budget. You are out of your fucking mind if you think that kind of spending should get a free pass unless it is related to emergency national defense measures.
The republicans fail for not being able to work up a viable alternative, but that doesn't make this bill that's being put forth any better. They could and should oppose it on it's own merits.
And no, it's in no way comparable to death panels. Death panels is a piece of pure fantasy designed to scare vulnerable segments of the American public (the elderly and uneducated) into opposing health care reform.
It is rherotical nonsense that enflames the debate and paints the other side as monsters. No amount of dancing around the issue changes that. It was wrong when Palin did it, and it is wrong when Grayson did it.
Grayson is employing clear hyperbole to draw attention to an important, and under-emphasized, factor of the debate. If what he's saying scares the public into supporting health care, they will have been scared by something that is both real and genuinely frightening (to wit, tens of thousands of preventable deaths per year due to a bad insurance system). If both are cheap, deceptive, trashy, unfair, whatever adjective you want to apply, one has at its base truth, and the other falsehood.
DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN
SAVE THE TENS OF THOUSANDS WHO DIE EVERY YEAR
YOU AREN'T A PATRIOT IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THIS
It is the same bullshit. By making arguments in vague terms like that, you make it impossible for the other side to have reasonable responses. There is no condoning tactics like that.
I have seen next to no talk about what to actually fix in the health care system (Namely, the way insurances work.) Medicare is just as ruthless as private insurance companies about using price controls and stiffing hospitals. Switching the burden over to the government will give more people coverage, but it won't fix the biggest problems in terms of how we bill medical procedures.
-
Do you seriously think the republican party should just roll over and play dead with a bill that has a price tag of over a trillion dollars? That is insane, especially when the US has lost a staggering amount of government income and there has been zero talk of actually cutting and fixing this to the budget. You are out of your fucking mind if you think that kind of spending should get a free pass unless it is related to emergency national defense measures.
Free pass? Play dead? All I said was that I expect the Republican party, in opposing Democratic attempts at health care reform, to have an alternate platform, some set of policy proposals of their own. They don't. They have nothing. They don't even have the grace to say that they like things the way they are; the GOP is theoretically for health care reform (see: Frank Luntz's memo on health care), but opposed to almost all specific policies, including those that would serve to keep costs low (or possibly especially those, since they tend to cut into pharmaceutical and insurer profit margins, insert rant about institutionalized bribery here).
The republicans fail for not being able to work up a viable alternative, but that doesn't make this bill that's being put forth any better. They could and should oppose it on it's own merits.
You're getting to the meat of what Grayson is saying, in his own way (and again, I don't particularly approve of his rhetoric, I just think he's getting a rough deal in the moral equivalence department re: death panels): Given how ludicrously awful the current state of health care is in the states, it's pretty morally reprehensible to be against any and all reform without having alternative fixes of your own.
It is rherotical nonsense that enflames the debate and paints the other side as monsters. No amount of dancing around the issue changes that. It was wrong when Palin did it, and it is wrong when Grayson did it.
Dancing around the issues?
Health care reform will result in government-enforced euthanasia: false.
Republican obstruction hinders the reform of a system which causes thousands of preventable deaths: true.
Degree of histrionics: roughly equal, sure. But it doesn't change that one is a lie (and a deliberate one, not a misapprehension), and the other is not.
DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN
SAVE THE TENS OF THOUSANDS WHO DIE EVERY YEAR
YOU AREN'T A PATRIOT IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THIS
It is the same bullshit. By making arguments in vague terms like that, you make it impossible for the other side to have reasonable responses. There is no condoning tactics like that.
Poppycock. There's a perfectly reasonable response for Republicans, or there would be if they weren't actually guilty of what they're being accused of. If the GOP had done anything, ever, to even attempt to forestall these deaths, they would be able to address what would be ludicrous accusations, factually. But they haven't, so they bitch and complain and smear instead, or pick nits rather than address the greater argument. And because North American news media lives to draw parallels in non-parallel structures, Grayson gets lumped with Palin (and Grassley, don't forget) as a liar. He's not, he's a demagogue.
(American political theory digression! Congressmen are designed as populists, they represent small districts, have short terms, and are expected to be in close contact with their constituents. Senators, meanwhile, with a bit more insulation from the public and longer terms, are intended as technocrats, more electorally able to look at the big picture and make long-term policy decisions, though they still represent regions. The President is isolated from local issues and expected to have a wider viewpoint still, but needs to maintain nationwide support, be it from state legislators or, presently, the public. Legislation needs large and diverse coalitions to be enacted!
Grayson may be bucking the system by going rogue rather than acting as a strict funnel for his constituents views, however, as he comes from a fairly conservative district. On the other hand, he's never made any bones about who and what he is and was thus not elected under false pretenses: the point of republican rather than popular democracy is that you elect people you trust to make decisions that may or may not be beyond your specific expertise (and thus to take stances you may not immediately agree with on the basis of their superior expertise and your trust in the same). What the framers really didn't anticipate is the money game; Grayson's re-election will be less influenced by the unadulterated views of voters in his district about his behaviour than by the extent to which his national profile brings in money for and against him; national opinion should be the President's concern, not his.)
I have seen next to no talk about what to actually fix in the health care system (Namely, the way insurances work.) Medicare is just as ruthless as private insurance companies about using price controls and stiffing hospitals. Switching the burden over to the government will give more people coverage, but it won't fix the biggest problems in terms of how we bill medical procedures.
I'm not totally clear on what you're getting at here, but my sense is that it's different issues. Grayson is talking about the moral obligation of reforming a broken system by highlighting its cost in lives. Giving more people coverage is one of several goals of reform. Controlling costs is another, protecting health care providers from health care insurers (and patients from health care insurers, of course) yet another, as is promoting/protecting independent research etc. etc. All are important, but they are distinct and even sometimes conflicting. Stressing one does not negate the validity of the others, and one valid area of policy difference is indeed how to balance these considerations.
-
DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN
SAVE THE TENS OF THOUSANDS WHO DIE EVERY YEAR
YOU AREN'T A PATRIOT IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THIS
Hey at least this one is for health care instead of dropping bombs on people. I will tell you this, it is looking a lot better in the international community than the last one.
Edit - Oh yeah I have been mostly doing the one liner joke side show here, this stuff is not meant to be taken literally or as the whole of my thoughts on the issue. It is just ze jokes yes yes.
-
Hey at least this one is for health care instead of dropping bombs on people. I will tell you this, it is looking a lot better in the international community than the last one.
This.
To contribute a little more than a golem one-liner, any policy is better than none at all when attempting to fix something broken, because it gets shit happening. So yeah, the pedestal from which the Republicans are currently trying to whine from does not impress me at all.
-
That was a golem one-liner? Fuck yes. I am all about the Geodude series. Or maybe it is the GEOPOLITICALDUDE series.
-
That... that one hurt a little.
In my brain.
-
It was meant to.
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123470/Opposition-Healthcare-Legislation-Drops-Modestly.aspx
Looks like people are slightly warming up to some form of healthcare legislation. Don't ask me how that reflects on the popularity of a public option or whatever the administration is currently proposing.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/bachmann-warns-once-again_n_314490.html
Sex Clinics. I'd like to believe these won't be the new death panels, but the fact that there are old death panels...yeah.
-
Why hasn't Bachmann been institutionalized yet? Seriously, is there anyone in congress more insane than her?
-
The way you guys put it, you make it sound like the US Congress is a Gust game.
-
Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize ... out of nowhere.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_nobel_peace
-
The way you guys put it, you make it sound like the US Congress is a Gust game.
Gust games usually have more dignity. GO AWAY BACHMANN
Obama getting the peace price is eyeroll worthy. There have been two sitting presidents who got it (TR and Wilson), and Obama has done next to nothing to earn it yet. E: Though if it isn't clear, the eyerolling is reserved for the committee and not the president.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/10/a_reversal_in_teen_pregnancies.cfm
Good work, Texas.
-
Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize ... out of nowhere.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_nobel_peace
That's like the political version of a deus ex machina ending the play. Seriously, what?
-
I don't even dislike Obama and I think that's dumb. :/
-
I do recommend you look up what the Nobel Peace Prize is -for- before you go rolling your eyes too much. I agree, it is a little odd, but it's not as far out as everyone is making it out to be. Do a little research, eh?
Out of curiosity, who would you have put up for it instead?
-
Largely echoing Lady Door's comments.
I dunno if he's the best person to receive it, of course, because I won't even pretend I've done my homework on who would be a good candidate this year. I understand, however, why he is receiving it. It's because, simply, the US remains the strongest country in the world. People the world over look to it for leadership in the area of world peace. Even a semi-interested follower of world events such as myself is aware that Obama has taken stands calling for disarmament and has attempted to rebuild bridges between the west and the Islamic world. This is the kind of leadership we have been waiting for, and it is very heartening to see. The award seems furthermore to call attention to these good things he's doing and encourage them. It is embarrassing that more Americans aren't proud of them, losing sight of actions done for the good of the world for the sake of partisan bickering.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/10/a_reversal_in_teen_pregnancies.cfm
Good work, Texas.
Hey look, it's yet more research (adding to the already massive pile, might I add) showing that abstinence-only education fucking fails at its intended goal (reducing sex) and fails so badly it has the reverse effect at what should be its intended goal (reducing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs). How this "education" has survived for as long as it has is a complete joke which I would spend many an evening laughing at if it weren't so sad.
(No, I don't feel strongly about this, why do you ask?)
-
It is embarrassing that more Americans aren't proud of them, losing sight of actions done for the good of the world for the sake of partisan bickering.
While I usually refrain from posting in this topic exactly due to how alien and incomprehensible the partisan split seems to me, this more or less sums up my feelings on everything I've seen recently regarding US politics on the more pedestrian levels since the year began (and I don't think I've followed foreign politics this closely before). I don't know if this has always been the case, but the partisan priority given over actually paying attention to the issues of a country seems to have reached a level that makes five-year-olds who insult each other with your mom jokes shake their heads in shame when looking at it, and it boggles me that politics can be so petty in a country that reached political maturity when most of Latin America was just getting decolonized and has been mostly seen as the main example of how to work out democracy for most of the world until recent years.
EDIT: Apologizing beforehand if I said anything out of hand here, this is a pretty touchy topic as it stands.
-
No, that largely sums up my oppinion of American politics too, Snow. It's really just @_@ inspiring more often then it's not.
-
Who else could have gotten it?
Morgan Tsvangirai? Though I can't say he's accomplished much, sadly.
I'm kind of struggling to think of high profile people who have contributed to global stability/peace in the past year. Of course, I'm also struggling to think of any particular conflicts that have been resolved recently.
I didn't know the Nobel Peace Prize was supposed to be for work done in that year, though. This is still all really surreal.
And Snow, I think most Americans would echo the sentiment of partisan bickering. The problem of course is that most people think it's the other guy's fault.
-
And Snow, I think most Americans would echo the sentiment of partisan bickering. The problem of course is that most people think it's the other guy's fault.
Which is basically the crux of why it's such a staggeringly childish conflict. Multiple parties exist to give echo to multiple representations for multiple ideologies. The adamant work both parties have been trying to do in the sidelines and in the spotlight to invalidate each other can be described, at best, as a mortifying disservice to democracy and the country itself, and as a /b/ thread in 4chan at worst.
-
I think most Americans would echo the sentiment of partisan bickering.
Not me!
http://www.glreview.com/issues/11.5/11.5_Frank.php
See Barney Frank. Basically, it comes out ugly, but it does so because two sides genuinely think that advancing their own agenda, and stopping the other side's agenda, is better for the country. Do I approve of the tactics in a lot of cases? No. Do I think that a scorched-earth approach is justified? Rarely. Do I believe that politicians are justified in abandoning fair play and common decency to make the country and the world better places? You bet. As long as I believe their approach, taking every factor into consideration, makes the country and the world better places, I'm all for it, period.
Civility and honesty are important factors to me, they make the world a better place after all, but they take a back seat to things like improving education and health care. If civility gets in the way of substantive progress, I'll happily throw it out the window.
EDIT: and for politics at its most naked we have...a conservative Texan attorney general fighting to keep a gay couple married...to defend the traditional definition of marriage.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/10/09/the_texas_two_step_on_gay_divorce/
-
EDIT: and for politics at its most naked we have...a conservative Texan attorney general fighting to keep a gay couple married...to defend the traditional definition of marriage.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/10/09/the_texas_two_step_on_gay_divorce/
Can't remember what it's from, but it reminds me of the joke "If gay people want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, I say let them."
-
Can't remember what it's from, but it reminds me of the joke "If gay people want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, I say let them."
It's fascinating to me that the core issues of the gay rights movement are such bedrock conservative values as marriage and military service (and lower taxes).
-
Re: who could've gotten the Nobel Prize and probably deserves it more, gonna quote CTB over in Feministe comments, with the note that I agree that Obama was a valid candidate under the committee's rulings, despite... thinking these people merit it more.
Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.”
Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.
“Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.”
Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: “These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon.”
“Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for ‘inciting subversion of state power.’”
“Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system. He now lives in the United States.”
There's probably many others, but there's some for the list.
-
I think most Americans would echo the sentiment of partisan bickering.
Not me!
http://www.glreview.com/issues/11.5/11.5_Frank.php
See Barney Frank. Basically, it comes out ugly, but it does so because two sides genuinely think that advancing their own agenda, and stopping the other side's agenda, is better for the country. Do I approve of the tactics in a lot of cases? No. Do I think that a scorched-earth approach is justified? Rarely. Do I believe that politicians are justified in abandoning fair play and common decency to make the country and the world better places? You bet. As long as I believe their approach, taking every factor into consideration, makes the country and the world better places, I'm all for it, period.
Political parties that staunchly disagree with each other are absolutely needed and exist in just about every country.
Lying, refusing to work with an opponent even when they've compromised and are working on a bill using your policies, and celebrating when the country fails (loss of Olympic bid, for instance), strikes me as bad for democracy, however.
There's a difference between being devoutly behind your political beliefs (good in a democracy) and being devoutly opposed to your opponent regardless of the situation just because he/she is your opponent.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/opinion/12mon3.html?ref=opinion
What do you know, undercover video sting of a subject worth talking about. If Bloomberg's worth reelecting, his tireless efforts on gun control are the reason.
Gotta question the title of the article, though. "Not Your ‘Bud’ or Ours" makes it sound like a slam on InBev.
-
You know, it strikes me that you should be at least as stringent with the regulations around firearms as you are with the regulations around beer. If private vendors are liable for selling beer to minors, then private vendors should be liable for selling guns to people who wouldn't pass a background check.
-
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/10/nine_questions_for_reihan_sala.cfm
Good Q and A with Salam, a conservative editor from the Atlantic who is talking about what the republicans should do to not be such failures.
-
That man sounds about as far away from the GOP party line as you can get and still claim to be conservative. (Not that this is bad mind you. Just making a note.)
Good read though.
-
I'd vote for him.
-
That man sounds about as far away from the GOP party line as you can get and still claim to be conservative. (Not that this is bad mind you. Just making a note.)
Good read though.
I'd certainly call being about as far away from the GOP party line and still claiming to be conservative a very good thing! Although thinking on it, the article doesn't actually say he's a Republican.
-
He lost me on his comments for McCain, but he seems more reasonable than most, I'll grant him that.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102200697_2.html?hpid=artslot
The BBC was beset by protesters when it decided to allow Nick Griffin, head of the whites-only British National Party, to participate in Question Time, a long-running political show (which is exactly what it sounds like). Opponents of the move claimed giving him time to talk would help legitimize his party, but the BBC defended the move, because the BNP won 2 seats in the European legislature in the past election (they also got 5% of the vote in the most recent London mayoral election.)
Here's question Time's website. Check out the program.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/question_time/default.stm
Thoughts?
-
If you watch the Question Time linked, he mentions at the end that the BBC's own policy requires it now that they have seats.
Should they make an exception? I don't see that setting the precedent for special censorship by a government organization is really proper, particularly a political opponent. He did not come across well at all in the interview, plainly didn't answer any question where he was asked for details, and spent most of the time with the audience slamming the BNP with much better rhetoric than his responses.
And...frankly, while I don't like the idea of broadcasting a message of racism, I also don't like the idea of sugarcoating race relations. There's people in America with the false impression that racism (and sexism) have been solved, and act like anyone campaigning around those issues is really doing it for an unscrupulous reason like a free meal ticket. The reality is very different--there was a study a while back where black men with a college education were less likely to get job offers than white men with a criminal record (in New York City). For all that gay rights have come up in this topic a lot, it's still worse to be Black than Gay.
But this isn't publicized; hence it's surprising information (to me). And for that reason I'd rather the BBC report racism instead of making special case government censorship of a political party.
-
*Shrug* The BBC's stuck. Let the racist morons speak and let them dig their own grave. Best way to solve those problems.
There's people in America with the false impression that racism (and sexism) have been solved, and act like anyone campaigning around those issues is really doing it for an unscrupulous reason like a free meal ticket.
A few rotten apples really do spoil the barrel there.
-
I don't suppose you have some links for that study met? Having a problem-seeking mind, my immediate thought was "well, a gay person can pretend to be straight, a black person can't really pretend to be white very well" and was wondering if it had any notes to that effect.
-
I don't suppose you have some links for that study met? Having a problem-seeking mind, my immediate thought was "well, a gay person can pretend to be straight, a black person can't really pretend to be white very well" and was wondering if it had any notes to that effect.
Umm, well here's the first google search I got on the study; I'm pretty sure this is one of many reports of the study, though--pretty sure I've seen one with more numbers.
http://www.cuny.edu/news/newsreleases_p=249.html
-
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech (not that I believe there is any law for it in England). Stupid retards are free to say stupid retard things on television and they are free to be brutally mocked and destroyed for it by a good presenter.
-
Yeah, freedom of speech still applies legally here, Gref.
And hell, I hate the BNP, but I was all for the guy going on QT. All it was certain to end in (and did, as far as I've heard) was him getting torn to shreds by the public, and all it's gonna do is destroy what little image they had.
The protests against it were somewhat stupid, since they were on every news show, and all that's gonna do is show the BNP's opposition as irrational and give them some free publicity - and for a party like the BNP, it seems like all publicity is good publicity, no matter how negative it may seem.
-
Stupid retards are free to say stupid retard things on television
Yes, but only because it's the BBC. Remember, freedom of speech is different from freedom to actually have an audience for your claptrap. I think it's right for legitimate political parties to get their say, the voters lend them that legitimacy, no matter how repugnant their views are, but it's always good to remember there's a world of difference between the government legally preventing you from expressing your views and a TV station refusing to waste airtime on you (doesn't apply in this case because it's the BBC, but yeah).
-
Well...sure, if they were a private company, it would probably be in their best interest to cave to public pressure. Unless they thrived off of controversy like Fo...wait, no, Fox News would not cover the American equivalent of this story either--they excluded Ron Paul from the Republican candidate debate, the rumors being that he was excluded because he was constantly critical of how the Republican party was being run.
-
Stupid retards are free to say stupid retard things on television
Yes, but only because it's the BBC. Remember, freedom of speech is different from freedom to actually have an audience for your claptrap. I think it's right for legitimate political parties to get their say, the voters lend them that legitimacy, no matter how repugnant their views are, but it's always good to remember there's a world of difference between the government legally preventing you from expressing your views and a TV station refusing to waste airtime on you (doesn't apply in this case because it's the BBC, but yeah).
That is up to the television station, sure, but the retard can still say what he wants while they are filming it and so on. If someone is stupid enough to go on a show that has an agenda counter to what they want, then that is their problem. Whatever retarded shit they said is there for or against them.
The retard can say what they want, the television can show what they want. Both come down to that and public pressure and government intervention on non- graphically violent, non-sexual, drug free segments just because someone says something people don't want to hear can go get fucked.
-
I don't suppose you have some links for that study met? Having a problem-seeking mind, my immediate thought was "well, a gay person can pretend to be straight, a black person can't really pretend to be white very well" and was wondering if it had any notes to that effect.
Umm, well here's the first google search I got on the study; I'm pretty sure this is one of many reports of the study, though--pretty sure I've seen one with more numbers.
http://www.cuny.edu/news/newsreleases_p=249.html
That is so counter-intuitive to everything I've heard in the last several years and things I have OBSERVED and yeah. What I have observed is black people getting advantages in every regard in university, I had my black friend who gloated about having it easy because he was black. And even in Oklahoma, a traditionally racist state (though not as racist as the deep south) people who are equally qualified don't have problems getting jobs. Lawton has a large black (and a decent Hispanic) population and the ones who want to do fine do fine.
I realize that this isn't NYC, but I get really sick and tired of hearing this crap that I have seen nothing but proven false in my personal experiences.
-
I think the issue there is quite likely in the scope of personal experience. It is the same thing you get in the comparison of female wages to male wages. In the usually fairly intelletcual middle/Upper middle class sector you don't really see a trend of women being payed less than men. You get into the lower parts of the job markets (incidentally where the majority of jobs are and where the majority of women are still currently employed) and the pay scale and hiring practices slips a great deal.
Worked much Retail Ciato? How many young black male sales staff do you know? How easy was it for THEM to get their job?
-
The educational sphere operates in a different way from your typical low-level blue or white collar jobs.
Compare this:
http://agoraphilia.blogspot.com/2007/01/law-prof-diversity-hiring-and-tenure.html
To this:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/uocp-smh101509.php
Kinda apples and oranges, but worth looking at anyway.
Fox News would not cover the American equivalent of this story either--they excluded Ron Paul from the Republican candidate debate, the rumors being that he was excluded because he was constantly critical of how the Republican party was being run.
Yeah, but the better equivalent of these bozos isn't Ron Paul, it's Fred Phelps, and plenty of TV channels have wasted time on him, alas.
-
I worked in retail and there about the same number of black males as white males. One of my best friends at the store was this hilarious black guy friend, and a large part of the men who worked as stockers were also black. (A lot of the black population in my city was from the military, and some of the more ambitious military guys would work in the military in the day and work as stockers at night.) I have spent a rather lot of time in retail stores since my mom has worked at one for years, and I do take interest in these kind of things.
The large majority of people in retail are women though, this much is true.
-
Fair enoughs then. I know my data on women's employment rates is accurate through to mid 2000's and to my understanding nothing much as changed there. Haven't covered minorities so much since this is mostly coming from Feminism background again and less so broader sociology.
-
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910230019
Friggin' hilarious. Rush Limbaugh stumbles upon a satirical post containing a supposed thesis written by Obama, thinks it's real, and goes to quote and rave about it... then realizes halfway through it's a hoax, and defends himself saying the thesis was basically true anyway.
I mean really, who cares about facts.
-
I remember during the election a blogger fell for a hoax about Hillary Clinton and, defending his position after the fact, said that the hoax was as damning as if it was true because, and I'm paraphrasing, "The fact that I could be convinced it was true says all you need to know about Hillary Clinton."
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33479833/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity?GT1=43001
Good read. I'm at least sort of sympathetic to his first point about not speaking spanish to him since he can't understand it, but the second is stupid. Dude, you are running a hotel in a hispanic dominated town and you are shocked that people get offended when you make them change their names? Really.
On a personal level he sounds like someone I'd hate to work for myself.
-
Yeah, I know the flagrant racism should offend me the most out of this, especially the names thing, but my gut reaction was the same: worst boss ever. Seriously, if you're worried about employees badmouthing you in Spanish in your presence, you can guarantee that whatever they don't now say in front of you they'll say behind your back. Might want to be the kind of boss employees don't instinctively hate, y'know.
-
aaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
-
In other news,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/26/breaking-reid-backs-health-care-public-option/
There's a public option in the bill after all! Who knew?
In other news, Doctors have discovered an odd spine-shaped growth in Harry Reid's back area. More on this as it develops.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33479833/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity?GT1=43001
Good read. I'm at least sort of sympathetic to his first point about not speaking spanish to him since he can't understand it, but the second is stupid. Dude, you are running a hotel in a hispanic dominated town and you are shocked that people get offended when you make them change their names? Really.
On a personal level he sounds like someone I'd hate to work for myself.
I can see the business logic behind it. Forcing someone to use a name they're not comfortable with doesn't strike me as that different from forcing someone to wear a uniform that they feel demeans them. Telling people to use a different name with customers is also hardly unheard of for a workplace--on the most obvious level, there are people with jobs like "acting as Peter Pan" where they'd introduce themselves as Peter Pan. On a more subtle level, I know a lot of Chinese immigrants who have names I flat-out can't pronounce, and so adopt an English name--if such an immigrant had not adopted an English name by the time they got a job working directly with customers, it wouldn't surprise me if the management leaned on them to adopt an English name for work.
All that being said...spanish names are NOT hard. "Mahrteen" = totally pronounceable in English. "Marcos" = totally pronounceable in English. That's what makes this story kinda wtf.
-
In other news,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/26/breaking-reid-backs-health-care-public-option/
There's a public option in the bill after all! Who knew?
In other news, Doctors have discovered an odd spine-shaped growth in Harry Reid's back area. More on this as it develops.
Reid's under tremendous pressure from his own party to include the public option. This is less of a spine and more bowing to the reality that he is going to have serious issues running in 2010 if the left assumes he fucks up the health care bill.
On a more subtle level, I know a lot of Chinese immigrants who have names I flat-out can't pronounce, and so adopt an English name--if such an immigrant had not adopted an English name by the time they got a job working directly with customers, it wouldn't surprise me if the management leaned on them to adopt an English name for work.
There's an ocean of difference between someone willingly adopting a nickname and being told by management to do so. I don't know the legality of the issue (Miki? ID?), the intense stupidity of someone serving a primarily Hispanic community and being forced to take more typical english nicknames is *Headdesk*.
I've had bosses like that, who try to 'change' a culture and crack the whip. It isn't being a hardass, it is the complete lack of respect he is showing his employees in doing so. It isn't racism on his part, just ignorance and just not knowing how to relate to a group of people.
-
I've had bosses like that, who try to 'change' a culture and crack the whip. It isn't being a hardass, it is the complete lack of respect he is showing his employees in doing so. It isn't racism on his part, just ignorance and just not knowing how to relate to a group of people.
Oh, messing with culture is usually dumb, but I doubt it's illegal.
That said, certainly cracking the whip on corporate culture can be good in the right situation. For instance, I've known of videogame studios where there was beer in the fridge 24/7 and people smoked pot while working. On another angle of the spectrum, I've known of videogame studios that were either very sexist or just not comfortable environments for women (stuff like posters of pornography on walls, people making crude jokes routinely). In cases like these, cracking down on corporate culture seems reasonable.
On a more national culture level, If you had a worker from Spain, I'm assuming if they got work for an American employer, the employer wouldn't be required to give them time off in the afternoon for a Siesta. And if, for instance, a hotel was staffed with quite a few immigrants from Spain who had taken to having a Siesta, then yes, I would say cracking down on this culture would be perfectly appropriate.
-
Well sure bosses have the right to change business culture. That's not the issue here, really. It's what he's changing it TO that's the problem. Requiring your workers to use Anglicized names and speak English around you to foster a better business culture is not appropriate. I mean, say a woman has a male-sounding name and works as a receptionist, and the boss forces her to change it to "something more feminine." That's the same thing, and it's not acceptible. Am I missing something here? Trying to conflate this situation with workers taking a siesta or whatever...that's not at all what's going on here. I mean, whether you're doing work when you're working is performance-related. Whether you speak your native language in the boss' presence isn't.
I don't know whether the nickname thing is illegal by itself. I kinda doubt it, because hotels are a service industry and they probably have leeway regarding requiring behavior and appearance in front of the guests. But the questionable rules weren't only about conduct in front of the guests but the boss also, and that puts a different color on it. If the employees who were fired can make a connection between the name-changing and Spanish-speaking around their boss and their firings, I think they'll win their case.
EDIT:
passive-agressive politics in California? Oh Ahnold, I thought you would be more direct.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/schwarzenegger-sends-lawm_n_336319.html
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-cMpKfDPHg
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann (Looooong but excellent article)
An interesting first: a man given the death penalty is now considered innocent. This has interesting legal implications--one of the defences that the Supreme Court has used in the defence of the death penalty is that there has yet to be an example of a factually innocent man actually killed. This case will very likely require...at least new arguments, should the Supreme Court continue to support the death penalty.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/27/news/economy/healthcare_medicare_doctors/index.htm?postversion=2009102707
This isn't really anything shocking, but it is depressing.
-
In other news, Doctors have discovered an odd spine-shaped growth in Harry Reid's back area. More on this as it develops.
Reid's under tremendous pressure from his own party to include the public option. This is less of a spine and more bowing to the reality that he is going to have serious issues running in 2010 if the left assumes he fucks up the health care bill.
(http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Graphic/2009/10/28/and1028d__1256743221_9851.jpg)
Worth a thousand words.
-
And the words are...? That even when political cartoons have a point they still suck?
-
If you think that is anywhere close to the worst of political comics I envy you.
-
Just 'cause it's not the worst doesn't make it any less crappy.
-
Philistines.
-
I found it amusing.
-
So Republicans make gains in governorships, but lose a house seat.
Commence massive overreaction by everyone.
-
Governor politics are pretty irrelevant to the politics of the rest of the country. Oklahoma has had a 'Democrat' governor for years and is the most conservative state in the union.
-
Also, Mitt Romney.
-
Yeah, I'll agree there. President is less popular a year into his term than when he is elected, news at 9.
Edit: Yeah, the overreactions are pretty comical. You can always count on certain writers to needto be hosed down after anything of note happens.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05collins.html?ref=opinion
Best take on the election results I've seen.
Yeah, I was kinda wondering why any of the governor races were being billed as referendums on national politics. I mean, 2008 was a good year for Republican governors too, after all, and what difference did that make? If Obama can't put a Democrat in Montpelier in 2008, what predictive value does a gubernatorial race have nationally?
-
At some point, I actually scratched my head at the article. I had forgotten political writers could actually be sarcastic.
-
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/07/gop-gone-wild/
Tom Price: OBJECTION!
John Dingell: Yes?
Tom Price: I was trying to think of something while objecting. ... I did not.
-----
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD NOT BE CONDUCTING THEMSELVES LIKE PHOENIX WRIGHT CHARACTERS.
Hell, they weren't even doing it to Alan Grayson.
-
Phoenix Wright: More accurate than you thought.
That said uh wow. You'd think there'd be procedures for, y'know, kicking such people in the nuts.
-
Yep, the house of representatives is a filthy, filthy place. Insert obligatory Mark Foley joke here.
EDIT:
Wait! No inserting! Bad representative!
-
http://kimag.es/share/16199217.jpg
Interesting graphic of the projected federal budget. Not hotlinking it because it's fucking huge.
-
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD NOT BE CONDUCTING THEMSELVES LIKE PHOENIX WRIGHT CHARACTERS.
Fuck that, everyone should conduct themselves like PW characters.
-
/me throws a cup of coffee in Shale's face.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/11/florida.burned.boy/index.html
The next day, Bent and four other teens found Brewer, authorities say, and surrounded him. Police say witnesses have told them that they called him a snitch before pouring alcohol on him and using a lighter to set him on fire.
A: The kid who was set on fire has balls of motherfucking steel and saved his life with a quick reaction.Not really the point. His friends... REALLY. Setting someone on fucking FIRE for 'snitching'? Enjoy spending the rest of your lives in prison, you fucking morons.
I hope they nail every person involved with an adult charge regardless of age. The question of how y oung is too young for adult charges is a good one, but augh. This is just sadistic.
-
Holy shit. I rarely post in this topic, because I know little of American politics, but this case hits pretty hard for me, and is similar enough to the British system for me to comment.
I never understand how crimes as extreme as those can be mostly written off on the grounds of being too young. There is no such law over here that allows children/teenagers to be charged as adults, and I can never understand why. My sister and I actually wanted to start a campaign in favour of such a law, and compiled a list of about 250 murders committed by people aged 19 and below.
Seriously, all of those deserve to be charged as adults, without a doubt. They're clearly not learning from the previous charges against them, since their response to being arrested for theft is... to set someone on fire. :/
'Course, it's probably interesting to look at the past here, albeit slightly impossible. I can't help wondering what exactly happened to these kids to make them think that burning someone is perfectly acceptable. ¬_¬
As for "how young is too young for an adult charge," I think there is no such thing as 'too young' and that it all comes down to awareness and the extent of the crime. If someone is fully aware of what they've done, regardless of age, I think it should at least be considered as an adult crime, even if the sentence doesn't follow through with that.
-
Sounds like they're hitting the kids who led the assault with adult charges anyway, so yeah. I do think there's a "too young" for an adult charge but 15-16 isn't it.
-
See, this is where my belief that things shouldn't be based on age comes into play.
There's a medical condition where people mature rapidly, or have a mental age that far exceeds their physical age. I remember hearing about this example -years- ago, where a 12-y/o girl wanted to get married, but knew she couldn't due to laws regarding her physical age.
Cases like this, as well as the more prevalent reversal of this (where someone has a mental age much lower than their physical age), are the reason I think things should be based on maturity/mental age. Tests could easily be carried out during school/college years, or upon request. Whenever something requires an age, the person would carry out the test in advance in much the same way people have to apply for a passport in advance when they intend to travel.
I wouldn't say there's a -physical- 'too young' for adult charges. Mentally, sure, but that's it. And it should definitely be allowed to work in reverse - if a kid knows what they're doing is a serious crime, they should be punished for it accordingly. Sure, give 'em the lowest adult sentence, but still give them the damn sentence.
-
I always disliked the one-sided nature of 'tried as an adult' stuff. To my mind, if someone's mature enough to be considered an adult, they're mature enough to be considered as an adult.
Which isn't to say I think 14 year olds should be out there voting, joining the military, what have you. And for cases like this, well, I don't even know how the juevenile system works but I'd be unsurprised if it's a bad joke. So... compromise. If a kid can't really appreciate the full consequences of their actions (and that's generally why we hold off age of majority so long after the physical markers of adulthood), try them with that in mind. That's generally manslaughter territory if I'm not mistaken?
-
I wouldn't say there's a -physical- 'too young' for adult charges. Mentally, sure, but that's it. And it should definitely be allowed to work in reverse - if a kid knows what they're doing is a serious crime, they should be punished for it accordingly. Sure, give 'em the lowest adult sentence, but still give them the damn sentence.
There damn well is a clear physical too young line. Where the fuck do you think the mental maturity comes from? Sure, sometimes the brain does develop more or less quickly than the body, but the mind is still part of the freakin' body. And, typically, they develop at the same rate.
This is not even getting into how insanely difficult mapping out guidelines for "mental maturity" would be. I agree that the system in place is stupid, but who are you really going to trust with the authority to say, "Okay, they're mature enough," or, "Okay, they're not mature enough"? It's the same damn problem I have with the death penalty. There are some people who I think are rational and qualified to make those judgments, but for fuck's sakes they're not even the same people YOU would probably think are rational and qualified. The whole thing's too damn subjective to not reduce it to pure, arbitrary agreements. Taking away the age qualifier from this sort of judgment just means that another qualifier gets picked out of the ether, one that may be in some ways worse than the current system.
It is a system that needs to be reformed but saying "DON'T USE AGE USE MATURITY" is shortsighted as hell.
-
The age cut offs may seem arbitrary but I can guarantee you that for most of them are well backed by Developmental Psychology, you should have internalised the existence and functions of laws in high school quite easilly. Around 13 - 15 is the average age for that from memory, to avoid the vast majority of outliers you push it out a few years, bam there is your 18+ Laws (This is not to say you can read and understand why specific laws exist, but you know that there is a law and it is there for a reason so that society can function. It is the point where laws and rules are understood to be there for something other than just to stop you from doing things you want). Not everyone is going to meet those averages or even the upper ceiling for outliers society has placed, but expecting society in general to meet those averages or exceed those averages even is expecting more than is reasonable (There is laws in place for how to deal with the underdevelopped as well, if someone doesn't understand that stabbing someone because they stole your pen at the age of 21 there is something wrong with them).
If a 12 year old wants to be married but cannot and sees that as an issue is not fully internalised this process anyway because they should sure as fuck know that there is a reason 12 year olds are not allowed to marry anymore.
The around 18 being adult enough for most things and the cases where someone is likely to be tried as an adult while technically as a minor far more frequently are for crimes that anyone over the age of 13 should know that they are wrong tend to be pretty in the right. Like setting someone on fire deliberately, how fucking old do you have to be to work that out? Now less Aggravated Assault charges and more Manslaughter charges though? There is just some cases out there with high stakes in them where a minor is just clearly NOT aware at the time of the things they may have caused but they sure as shit should not be charged with criminal negligence or something.
Edit - This is to say, the laws tend to be a bit wonky when you do have charge a minor as an adult as an option but arguing to not even have something like that in place and charge high school kids as full adults? I don't see any reasonable validity to this argument. Charging a minor as an adult is the EXCEPTION not the norm. Minors do not have full rights of an adult for good reason, society also understands that these reasons for not giving them the same full rights as an adult are the same reasons they treat them different under law.
Having a bigger understandings of the ramifications of criminal charges and the effect it has on you might play a part here. There is also fairly strong ramifications just being a suspect in some cases, which is why I like Australian law preventing the names of minors involved in criminal cases being mentioned in the media. Yes yes I am actually glad we have no Free Speech for once.
-
In this case in particular I could see the immature 13-year olds being pushed along into it by the pressure of their 15-16 year old friends. I know nothing about the specifics of the case beyond what's in the article, of course, but yeah, trying them as juveniles/going easier on them than adults/whatever is very possibly warranted.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html?hpid=topnews
Way to go, Catholic Church...
-
That is ugly. I have little sympathy for the church here, but not much. They are completely in the wrong; come back and complain when they force you to perform actual same sex marriage ceremonies. Your right to religious freedom doesn't give you the right to deny others that right, or the right to benefits.
-
I have zero sympathy, for my part. Christians who can honestly refuse to help others because they don't agree with their views garner no respect or sympathy. Sorry, but I really hope they rethink this one.
-
Christians utterly fail at being Christians. News at 11.
-
yeah yeah I know but occasionally I like to -pretend- I still have hope for this miserable species.
-
What the Catholic church is saying, in essence, is that charity is not something done for the benefit of the disadvantaged, but is simply done for the sake of business. Of course, we don't call that charity, we call that enlightened self-interest. For an religion which outwardly holds up charity as a virtue, an important virtue necessary for salvation no less, I call it something else: reprehensible.
It's remarkable to me. They think their charitable acts are worth something to the city, but their actions indicate that they believe those charities have essentially no religious value.
Tai: People are angry about this move. They recognize the problem here. People are outraged. That's good! If they weren't, there would be real trouble. No, there's plenty of hope for the species. Less hope for the Catholic church, if it pursues this path.
CK: Religious people, by and large, donate generously and donate with the best of intentions. Christian churches encourage charity, for the most part also with the best of intentions. I have a big problem with what a lot of people believe in the name of religion, but Christians tend to get the charity thing right, so I give them credit where credit is due.
-
My experience is that the best Christians (ie the people who best exemplify christian values) are the ones that don't trumpet their religion far and wide. In fact it's basically an inverse relationship.
-
Notmiki: And yet voices such as those will continue to linger in positions of power and act as a ball and chain around our necks. I see little hope for humanity, as a result. But this isn't xorntoro's rant corner, nor a philosophy discussion. So eh.
-
Notmiki: And yet voices such as those will continue to linger in positions of power and act as a ball and chain around our necks.
They're probably in it for the long haul, but look at the people who were quoted in the article:
council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish."
council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands.
Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the judiciary committee, said the council "will not legislate based on threats."
Those three people are part of the group who will make the decision in the end. Politics is not just a game for the large of ego. Politicians have issues about which they care passionately. That tends to be buried by the need to compromise to accomplish anything (politicians tent to refuse to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good). But they act because they care, not because they have cynically decided that gay marriage is a political winner (it isn't). They're sticking their necks out a bit on this one. You may say you have no faith in humanity because the big bad church is trying to throw its weight around, but sometimes the big guys do good too (see: Gates, Bill).
Let me reemphasize, because it bothers me so much, how reprehensible for an organization which prides itself on charity to refuse to help people because it may become slightly less convenient for them. This is about the diametric opposite of hating the sin but loving the sinner.
-
Seems absurd to me that they'd stop helping everyone in the city. I mean, if you want to deny services to homeless LGBT youth, that makes you...like 80% of the homeless youth shelters. Still immoral, but at least it's par for the course. But denying services to an entire city? REALLY? What about all those other places that Catholic churches operate where gay marriage is legal?
-
They're probably worried about two things: first, the prospect of having to acknowledge same-sex spouses by having to hand out benefits to same-sex spouses of employees who work for their charities (a position I doubt will earn them much sympathy). Second, the prospect of being forced to allow same-sex couples to adopt through their adoption agencies. In Massachusetts, the Catholic church decided to close their adoption agencies rather than comply. Looks like DC's archdiocese is headed for a similar scorched-earth approach. Unlike Massachusetts, however, where they were the biggest provider, the Catholic church doesn't handle much adoption work in DC.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/
-
There was also the failure of the amendment to decide who you can choose to do business with. ie. They don't have any option to say "I don't want to support that cause, so I won't take your money and won't rent you this space."
That said, I'm honestly for the split. It'll mean the city will cope, and both sides can go on to provide services in their own way. And it's a good thing because both the Church and the State have different things they need to help people with.
-
The difference between a normal business doing that and the church and certain others doing so is, I would imagine, their tax exempt status and/or recieving funds from the government. It's common for some businesses to have certain standards with whom they do business with, ranging from simple rules like "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" to complicated and unpopular ones like "No Gays in Scouts".
Tax laws create a weird symboitic relationship between church and state thats not supposed to be there sometimes.
Of course, I may be incredibly off course here and feel free to completely shoot me down on this if I'm wrong.
-
Which is why I state that it's a good thing that there's less State/Church merging as a result of this.
Though, I do admit that I'm slightly biased because we've had some private businesses get in fairly deep troubles over that particular issue.
-
Totally related but also a tangent... Man, all this bitching about "NO GOVERNMENT DON'T MAKE ME DO THAT/PAY TAXES FOR IT I HATE IT" from all these right wing and/or religious groups about abortion and gay marriage... can I start doing that about the two overseas wars or the enforcement of marijuana laws?
Wait. That's unpatriotic.
-
You can't because that's all Obama's fault now, the last 8 years never happened.
-
The difference between a normal business doing that and the church and certain others doing so is, I would imagine, their tax exempt status and/or recieving funds from the government. It's common for some businesses to have certain standards with whom they do business with, ranging from simple rules like "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" to complicated and unpopular ones like "No Gays in Scouts".
Tax laws create a weird symboitic relationship between church and state thats not supposed to be there sometimes.
Of course, I may be incredibly off course here and feel free to completely shoot me down on this if I'm wrong.
Yeah, the situation is kinda the opposite of this. No one can discriminate customers on the basis of a class protected by a non-discrimination policy except for religious institutions which get a separation-of-church-and-state exemption. So a church could refuse to perform a gay marriage on religious grounds but a Catholic small business owner couldn't refuse a gay customer. This religious exemption would not be changed by the DC law, I believe. However, charities which take money from the government wouldn't get the same exemption religious institutions do, even if they're owned and operated by religious institutions.
That's the general picture as I understand it, but I'm not sure of the specifics (for example, charities which take government money can still discriminate in hiring but not in paying benefits, apparently?). Bush and his justice department were vehemently opposed to the idea that religious charities couldn't discriminate like religions could and tried their best to bolster their ability to discriminate (primarily on the basis of religion), and as far as I know Obama hasn't reversed Bush's moves in that direction.
As for the "No gay in the scouts" thing, that's a question of membership to an organization, which makes it a different dynamic that the business-customer or charity-employee one, and Rehnquist ruled in 2000 that organizations can discriminate on such bases all they want regardless of state anti-discrimination laws, because of the freedom of association requirement in the first amendment demands it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale) Based on that case, a lower court has found that the BSA can discriminate to some degree against homosexuals in its hiring practices, but only for positions that are leadership, role-model ones. (http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/richardson-top.html)
I prefer this case to those two: Philadelphia to BSA: "Gays or GTFO" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Liberty_Council_v._City_of_Philadelphia)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/opinion/15blumenauer.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
The Democratic representative who wrote the language for the end-of-life counseling unpacks the death panel thing from start to finish. Nice, straightforward history of a ludicrous lie.
http://factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/
CBO says hard caps on monetary awards for malpractice liability are not likely to save much money. No comment on the soaring cost of liability insurance for doctors, which super tells me is a large concern, though.
-
Liability insurance costs would also be better controlled if uh...there were fewer flagrantly wrong lawsuits. Is there some kind of specific proposal for what the cap would be and I missed it in the article?
-
Wikipedia cites a study which came up with these results from a study of medical malpractice suits which were settled:
97% of suits were associated with an injury. 73% of them got compensation.
3% of suits were not involved with an injury. 16% of them got compensation.
63% were associated with errors. 73% of them got compensation (average: $521,560).
28% were not associated with errors. 28% of them got compensation (average $313,205).
Claims not associated with errors accounted for 13 to 16% of the total costs.
So fewer people with legitimate complaints are recovering than should be, and more without legitimate complaints are, but the large majority of the money goes to parties who were actually injured by an error.
The big downside: about half the money that got paid out went to courts, experts, and lawyers.
Also, here's the CBO report from the article:
CBO: Typical proposals have included:
* A cap of $250,000 on awards for noneconomic damages;
* A cap on awards for punitive damages of $500,000 or two times the award for economic damages, whichever is greater;
* Modification of the “collateral source” rule to allow evidence of income from such sources as health and life insurance, workers’ compensation, and automobile insurance to be introduced at trials or to require that such income be subtracted from awards decided by juries;
* A statute of limitations—one year for adults and three years for children—from the date of discovery of an injury; and
* Replacement of joint-and-several liability with a fair-share rule, under which a defendant in a lawsuit would be liable only for the percentage of the final award that was equal to his or her share of responsibility for the injury.
The noneconomic damages cap is contentious because it creates a situation where doctors don't have the monetary incentive to extend anywhere near the same level of care toward poor people or homemakers as they would with someone expected to make a lot of money during their lifetime. Economic damages, basically recovery for one's lost ability to make money, aren't capped, so if you accidentally amputate both arms of a tennis star, you pay a lot for that, but both arms of a housewife? eh.
The "monetary incentive" is, by the way, a standard way of looking at lawsuits for injury: other than punitive damages, the money you pay out isn't a punishment for doing something wrong but rather a cost of doing business. This makes a lot of sense: if your industry is something that is inherently unsafe, you can still proceed with your activities, but you factor in the cost of paying damages to the people your industry injures. This lets industries that, for example, dump harmful chemicals continue to operate, but also provides recovery for their inadvertent victims. It's more troublesome in the medical profession, because mistakes are so common, and because they deal directly with people's bodies.
As for punitive damages, they are applied only in the most egregious cases (and certainly should be reserved for such cases), and US judicial tradition is strongly predisposed to not allowing punitive damages be more than 4 times compensatory damages, though it can happen (judges have the ability to reduce or throw out punitive awards from juries that they think are too high, and they're not bashful about doing so). My opinion is that if punitive damages are limited only to the worst of the worst (and for the most part they are) they're fine as-is. Even the ultraconservative supreme court of South Carolina just found that, in the worst cases, it's ok to award disproportionate punitive damages. (http://lawandinsurance.typepad.com/law_and_insurance/2009/09/south-carolina-supreme-court-affirms-bad-faith-punitive-damage-award.html)
Joint and several liability: the idea of this is that if more than one party is found liable for an injury, the injured party can collect their damages from ANY of the liable parties (so of course they always collect from the one with the deepest pockets) and the liable parties that pay out are left to try and get their fair share of the money from the parties that didn't. Basically, this means that if a rich guy and a poor guy hurt you and are both 50% responsible, you collect 100% from the rich guy and he's left to try and squeeze whatever money he can from the poor guy. Unfortunately for rich guys everywhere, the same holds true if the rich guy is only 1% liable.
Joint and several liability is used for three things in American law (it's much more common on the other side of the pond). First is when parties act concertedly. For example, if three guys beat you up and break your arm, they're jointly and severally liable. No need for you to worry about which one broke it; they can settle that amongst themselves. Second is when it's impossible to tell how much damage each party is responsible for, like when a person has been sickened by water tainted with a chemical that more than one company has been pouring in the river. Third, and this is the big one: employers are jointly and severally liable for what their employees do in the course of their employment. So if a UPS truck hits you while it's making rounds, you collect from UPS, even if it's the driver's fault (and UPS colects what they can from their driver). The second and third kinds of joint and several liability are big in the medical industry. The second because it's pretty much impossible for an injured person to know exactly who left that sponge in them while they were unconscious, and the third for obvious reasons. My opinion: the best reform of joint and several liability is to limit it to being applied only to defendants who were significantly responsible, say 20% and up, except for employer-employee situations, which should have no such limit.
EDIT: yay posting on the DL while reviewing for torts class.
-
Settled meaning resolved outside of court? Because there are a few things that could make those numbers look worse. Maybe I'm just slightly skeptical after seeing more than a few flagrant lawsuits brought against people I know. This isn't just in the medical field really, but yeah, some of them ended with the suers getting a token settlement just to go away. Kind of like how I know that unions are a good thing, but the one I dealt with can go fuck themselves, I suppose.
Does economic costs factor in the additional costs that the person will then incur in order to get around any injuries caused by malpractice, or solely on lost income?
-
Settled meaning resolved outside of court? Because there are a few things that could make those numbers look worse. Maybe I'm just slightly skeptical after seeing more than a few flagrant lawsuits brought against people I know. This isn't just in the medical field really, but yeah, some of them ended with the suers getting a token settlement just to go away. Kind of like how I know that unions are a good thing, but the one I dealt with can go fuck themselves, I suppose.
Does economic costs factor in the additional costs that the person will then incur in order to get around any injuries caused by malpractice, or solely on lost income?
Settled meaning resolved outside of court. The vast, vast majority of cases (95% or so) are either settled without going to trial or summarily decided by a judge. I've seen a couple ridiculous lawsuits in my day as well. They exist, and they're problematic, but the real stinkers don't tend to go anywhere.
Economic costs is lost income and medical bills that need paying. My understanding is imprecise, but the traditional way of looking at it was "how much money were they going to make in their lifetime that they will now not be able to, plus extra expenses they will now incur which they wouldn't have." A more modern approach would include things like the monetary value of homemaking. I'm really not sure what the exact standards are (and they vary state to state anyway), except to say that courts have statistical tables of average salaries based on a variety of factors that they suggest to juries (so, for example, a college student in a particular field could get compensation based on what they likely would have made).
Non-economic is the value of the injury (including the ever-controversial pain and suffering). So if you go blind, economic is the money you can't make at work as a result plus the money you have to pay for prosthetics and medical costs associated with them, but it doesn't cover anything for the intrinsic loss of no longer being able to see. That's non-economic (there are standard tables for non-economic damages depending on the injury which are suggested to the jury by the court, but the jury, although it usually follows them, is not bound by them; if a presiding judge thinks the jury's damage award is far too high, the judge has broad latitude to reduce it).
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/18/obama-wont-read-palins-book/
Obama also suggested he views the former Alaska governor as a credible candidate should she decide to seek the presidency in a couple of years.
"You know, she obviously has a big constituency in the Republican Party," he said. "You know, there a lot of people who are excited by her."
Mmm yes I wonder why the sitting president would want to run against Sarah Palin.
-
He has a sense of cruel humor?
-
He can put out the minimum effort and still get re-elected in a landslide against Palin?
-
You never know, she might... uh... uh. Uh. Yeah, I got nothing. While I'm pessimistic about the results of 2012 in general, I'm not thinking Palin can manage no matter how it twists.
-
Personally I see it as a snarky commentary on how badly the majority of the Republican base fails right now. I may be biased.
-
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-even-conservatives-dont-want-palin-running-for-president.php
This may restore your faith in the country somewhat. or not.
EDIT:
http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/4b046eefa116e036/4b03edbcd445f50d/6e58e2be/-cpid/2c99cbc6ff467b05
related. kinda.
-
What? Why the hell don't more democrats want her to run? She's just so good for the party--distracts everyone from how inept they are.
EDIT: Does that last scene in that clip count as... DEPOSITORY RAPE?!
A, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! ...
...
I thought it was funny. JERKS.
-
Creatonists hand out Darwin's Origin of Species...with a 50 page foreward:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM0oBuhTLRI
Full text available here:
http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf
It's an interesting situation and I'm not sure what to make of it. Technically they're not doing anything wrong and I do feel it would be the wrong thing to do to censor them.
Well...no, let me rephrase that: I've heard rumors that it's not an exact reprinting, and if not that could be misinformation (putting "origin of species" on a book that kinda isn't). Comparing to the text available online (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/) it looks like the old preface is gone (not surprising I guess) and the Glossary is gone. I haven't noticed major differences in the main body of the text so far. Only difference I noticed on a quick scan is that paragraphs are added in places, perhaps to emphasize certain sentences. The two I spotted that got a whole new paragraph where there wasn't before:
"No case is on record of a variable being ceasing to be variable under cultivation."
"Ask, as I have asked, a celebrated raiser of Hereford cattle, whether his cattle might not have descended from long-horns, and he will laugh you to scorn."
So eh...speaking purely technically, it seems fine. I still can't help but twitch a little at the situation, though.
-
It's disingenuous and manipulative. And that's me being charitable. Hey, let's publish a special edition of the bible with a 50-page introduction detailing why everything in the book is completely wrong and see how well that goes over.
Kirk Cameron is a sack of shit.
-
Perhaps little footnotes for contradictions and things that people often ignore. Maybe even for historical context. It'd be 100% less dishonest AND hilarious. But maybe I just like the idea of The Bible as prefaced and annotated by Terry Pratchett.
-
Fanatics often have little comprehension of comedy, sadly.
-
No, but I do, and I really care considerably more about my opinion than theirs. If for no other reason than that I worked harder for it.
-
Clearly what should have happened was Darwin's estate should have kept it copyrighted and denied publishing rights obviously.
-
The funny thing is that, if people read the whole book and are convinced more by the creationist side, it's probably due more to weakness of Origin of Species than strength of the creationist forward. The first book ever written on any brand new subject is always written in ridiculously long-winded confusing ways (Principia Mathematica was insanely bad for this) and is always based on much weaker evidence than is available today. I had a professor in physics who said the real genius is not the person who comes up with the new discovery, but the writer who translates it into plain English for the rest of us.
-
Yeah that is part of why it is so intellectually misleading. This isn't like they are addressing the most up to date argument backed by a hundred years of research here. TAKE THAT NEWTON TOTALLY DISPROVED YOUR THEORIES OF MOTION BECAUSE IT WORKS DIFFERENTLY ON A SUBATOMIC LEVEL BITCH.
-
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTgwMzk5MjIzOTM5OTY4NmFiYzZkNTcwNzMxNmNhYzI= Nice work AP. As little as I like Palin, it is going overboard when you devote that much to fact checking a biography compared to a health bill.
-
Now hold on a sec, there's a few important considerations left out of the math there. For example: the health bill is really large, but how much of it is actually new material? Presumably most of the bill provisions are slightly modified versions of past versions. Compare that to Palin's book which is 90% new material (minus the early press release stuff). Second, how long did they spend on each? It's not like they've had those 11 people working around the clock for the past month on the book, whereas I would be shocked if the staff they have on the bill do much else.
-
Palin book: brand new.
Health care bill: been around for months now
I dunno, if it's still weighted towards Palin a month from now, something has gone seriously wrong. Right now, though, it seems like "and the Senate is still fooling around".
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/opinion/24tue2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
This is kinda out of left field, but I'm just so thrilled to hear Turkey is making real progress with its Kurdish minority that I have to share it. If Turkey can simultaneously legitimize its Kurdish population and make the PKK (or at least their violent actions) obsolete, it would be a huge victory for...well, everyone, hopefully.
-
Well, that is certainly heartening.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/27/minaret-ban-in-switzerlan_n_372026.html
Keep it classy, Switzerland.
The racist (anti-immigrant or ultra-nationalist would be the typical ways to describe them, but they're not as accurate) Swiss People's Party wants to ban the construction of minarets around mosques. Currently support for the initiative is polling at 37%.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world/europe/30swiss.html?_r=1&hp
...and Switzerland amends their constitution to ban the construction of minarets by a 57% majority. For a sense of what's going on here, it's important to underscore the practical effect of the ban: next to nothing. Switzerland has 150 mosques, of which 4 have minarets, none of which conduct the call to prayer. Only 2 mosques with minarets were planned for construction before this ban. Of Switzerland's 400,000 Muslims, 6% of the population, 90% are not religiously conservative.
So what's going on here? A racist political party is playing on fears of Islamic terrorism to limit the religious rights of a minority group. Think that's not it? Check out the poster used for the campaign:
(http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/storage/SVP%20anti-minaret%20poster.jpg)
An impressive piece of propaganda: stop the steely-gazed Muslim woman from launching ICBMs erecting minarets in our country.
-
/me golfclaps. Way to uphold your standards of civility and tolerance, Switzerland.
-
And I thought America had problems with Muslims. Wooooooow. Makes me wanna puke, really.
-
America doesn't have a fraction of the problems Europe does with Muslims. This is still really pathetic.
-
America doesn't have a fraction of the problems Europe does with Muslims inside our nation. This is still really pathetic.
Amended to account for a few wars.
-
Retards. You are completely and totally losing the perspective here.
Population of Switzerland. 7,739,100 in the 2009 census (from Wikipedia). 5% of the population is Muslim by those numbers.
Quick Google search of the US lists an estimated 8 Million Muslim residents (this is the highest listed I found, found article stating 5-8 Million, no idea on the accuracy). Wikipedia lists US Population as of 2009 Census as 308,034,000 http://www.islamicpopulation.com/America/america_general.html This site lists 6 million. Lets go with the upper 8 million though. That gives you a massive less than 3% of your population. Closer to 2% if you follow a more conservative estimate.
Yes Switzerland has a slightly bigger problem with Muslim culture and its integration within the country, yes they are probably fairly reactionary. Do your fucking homework before you get all high and mighty though.
Editting for obvious math fail. 5% is 1/20 Not 20%. Typo hurry go thanks.
-
Switzerland's Muslim population is almost all from Turkey and eastern Europe. They're mostly secular as a consequence (the ratio of mosques to Muslims is 1:2500). The Muslim women of Switzerland don't, in the vast majority, wear any kind of religious clothing, and almost no mosques, current or planned, actually have minarets. The law is aimed at a paper tiger: the 10% or so of Muslims who are conservative (0.5% of the population by your reckoning) and the grand total of 2 mosques which are planned to have minarets in the future.
This law has nothing to do with the growing pains of cultural integration; it's just a bunch of racists' way of strengthening their position by picking on a tiny, unpopular minority.
Anyway, I don't really get what you're getting at, Gref. So the US at large has issues with its Muslim population? So what? Should we forbear to criticize Switzerland because we have problems too? Bullshit. You think we wouldn't say the same thing about our own country if this kinda shit passed here? You know us better than that. Thing is, it hasn't. For all the suspicion of Muslims in the US and anti-immigrant sentiment, you still don't see the kind of institutionalized racism that this law presents. Show me one single state that has a law like this on the books, passed by popular vote, and I'll shut up. There are plenty of states which have the same popular voting mechanism that Switzerland does; this kind of law is every bit as possible in the US.
-
Retards. You are completely and totally losing the perspective here.
So, because the affected population is so small, it's okay to adopt a measure of outright bigotry against it? It's still taking a rather frightening precedent into the fray, and one that could be outright disastrous if taken as an example by countries where this minority has more representation.
-
Just because they're a small minority doesn't make it any less sensical or BS Gref. If anything it makes it make -less- sense since they apparently have such little presence.
-
Jackasses.
What he's saying: Switzerland has a larger proportion of Muslims in the country compared to the US. This sort of reactionary action is understandable, if ignoble, in that context, ESPECIALLY when you consider that the animosity toward Muslims in the US is based off a much smaller concentration of the population. Were the population more concentrated, it's very likely that anti-Muslim sentiment would be a much larger problem in the US (and considering it's already a pretty large problem, we need to get off our fucking high horses about judging Switzerland, because the US would frankly do no better.)
He's not saying it's good or justified. He's saying that he can see why there's such reactionary racist nonsense in Switzerland, and that the lot of us are stupid for saying, "Well at least America doesn't have that sort of animosity!"
Which we are. How the hell did none of you get that.
-
I can't give a damn whether the Americans have any reason to put themselves in a high horse over this or not (regardless of statistics, nobody ever should when ethnical discrimination of any nature is a huge issue -all over the world-). What matters is the standard set here. Any country setting up an institutionalized form of segregationism is an execrable act (*Waves to the african apartheid.*), but it turns even more dangerous when a particularly reputable country does it. Switzerland, for a long time, has been a landmark for a highly civilized country as far as statistics and reports go, and when a country with that kind of reputation creates an institutionalized form of ethnic/religious discrimination, it's setting a very dangerous precedent. France is doing it in a roundabout way with its burqa discriminatory measures. Switzerland is taking a step further. Now, other countries where their people are openly stating xenophobic tendencies within a large enough spectrum of the populace will have an example to follow, which -will- have disastrous consequences if it goes through, because this -can and WILL- be used for political gain. When something of -that- scope is coming into the fray, going "ahahaha we're more civilized because of numbers" (which Gref didn't start, but did help perpetrate) is insanely short-sighted. Grefter's point is even true, but -that's not the goddamn problem- here. It's a side point within the real issue at hand.
-
Jackasses.
What he's saying: Switzerland has a larger proportion of Muslims in the country compared to the US. This sort of reactionary action is understandable, if ignoble, in that context, ESPECIALLY when you consider that the animosity toward Muslims in the US is based off a much smaller concentration of the population. Were the population more concentrated, it's very likely that anti-Muslim sentiment would be a much larger problem in the US (and considering it's already a pretty large problem, we need to get off our fucking high horses about judging Switzerland, because the US would frankly do no better.)
He's not saying it's good or justified. He's saying that he can see why there's such reactionary racist nonsense in Switzerland, and that the lot of us are stupid for saying, "Well at least America doesn't have that sort of animosity!"
Which we are. How the hell did none of you get that.
Ok, I guess the point of my follow-up post was lost on you. Saying that this animosity toward religious Islam is based on the population of Muslims in the Switzerland is not convincing because the vast majority of them are secular. Switzerland's population of Muslims who this would actually matter to as a practical matter is minuscule. The population of Muslim women who wear burqas like the woman in the poster is not large in any sense. Switzerland is not probably quantitatively different from the US: solid numbers are hard to come by, but they both probably have conservative Islamic populations of about 0.5%.
So there's a little math. What about the sentiment behind it, that the US is just as bad with Muslims and that we have no grounds to say otherwise? I feel a little repetitive here, but I'll ask again: where are the voter initiatives to curb Islam in the US? I mean, there is certainly a lot of tension and, yes, racism in the US where Muslims and Arabs are concerned. Why hasn't it gotten to this next level? This is a next level, no doubt about it. It's institutional discrimination of a sort nothing in the US is. There are plenty such initiatives opposing gay marriage, so why not ban minarets here? It's not like initiatives of that sort have to be constitutional; that's something that would be judged down the line.
I can't give a definite answer to that question, but I'm fairly certain that an American idea of freedom of religion plays a big part in it.
Anyway, I criticize my country when appropriate, and I criticize other countries when appropriate (hi French issues with Muslim clothing).
Speaking of which:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/europe-reacts-to-the-swiss-minaret-ban/?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/world/europe/01iht-swiss.html?hp
-
Just because they're more secular doesn't negate the fact that they're a more concentrated ethnic group in Switzerland than they are here. I'd reckon that the strength of their faith is less the issue, so much as it is that they have a different faith/ethnicity to begin with. I think we're on the same page with this one.
Now, take a look at the minority underclasses in the US. Yes, we are (for damn good reason) not allowed to legislate specifically against other races. That hasn't stopped race-based legislation, or at least race-based enforcement; whether targeting activities mostly done by minorities or simply targeting minorities for crimes, I'm hard pressed to say that either is not a factor in our prison population being mostly Black and Latino. I recall a fairly recent court case between the DEA and one of its former officers that found that the DEA was targeting minorities with a far greater frequency than they were targeting whites. (After some Googling I can't find the exact case, and after some searching the apartment I can't find the PODLR pamphlet from the talk I went to a couple weeks ago, so I can't even look up the guy's name either. So take this detail as salty as you'd like.)
Hell, look at the immigration reform movement in the US, and tell me that most of that isn't a bunch of poor (economically) whites with a chip on their shoulder about Latinos.
We have our own issues with race--the races that US racists come into contact with frequently. If the Muslim (secular, non-secular, what have you) population was equivalent to the US's Latino or Black population, do you really think we wouldn't be seeing a similar racist backlash?
Probably not legislatively, no, but that's about the only point I'd be willing to give the US on this note. And, really, THAT'S only been taboo for some 50 years. You know, after a huge social movement that had to squelch the acceptance of litigated racism, which hopefully Switzerland will get to in due course.
As for how outsiders should view it? Certainly, we can and should condemn it. I agree. I agree completely.
Comments like this, though:
And I thought America had problems with Muslims. Wooooooow. Makes me wanna puke, really.
America doesn't have a fraction of the problems Europe does with Muslims. This is still really pathetic.
are fucking short-sighted and need to be called out for the utter lack of perspective they show. I suppose I blew the number of people espousing this sentiment out of proportion in my mind, but I stand by my words. America's just as de-facto racist as Switzerland, we're just less open and more condescending about it.
EDITS: Just ignore 'em. Mostly cleaning up poor word choices, grammar, etc.
-
I didn't mean it like that :/
That is, I get your point, and even agree with it, but I also didn't intend to come off as saying america is problem free with muslims. On the contrary, we have ridiculous racism towards them if not in legislation but in well EVERYWHERE ELSE. Airport security comes to my mind, and I even see it in my own parents[*barf*]. It just struck me that a european contrary was scared enough to actually put something like that into legislation, but seeing the facts made me less struck and more just horribly disappointed, after I thought about it enough. And as Snow said, the precedent it gives is very much not a good one.
-
are fucking short-sighted and need to be called out for the utter lack of perspective they show. I suppose I blew the number of people espousing this sentiment out of proportion in my mind, but I stand by my words. America's just as de-facto racist as Switzerland, we're just less open and more condescending about it.
The US is better equipped for a number of reasons to deal with immigration in general. Europe hits both ends of the spectrum for problems, from the UK who doesn't force any cultural migration to France who is France. We've been shamed enough by our own past that openly racist politics are mostly a thing of the past.
De facto racism exists and is extremely hard to deal with other than making people interact. More relevant here is the US usually moving forward on the subject of race. This is a big step backwards for a normally tolerant country, which is why it is getting this kind of reaction.
I'm hard pressed to say that either is not a factor in our prison population being mostly Black and Latino.
Lower socioeconomic status and a thousand other factors play in there, specifically the drug war. Fuck the drug war.
-
Just because they're more secular doesn't negate the fact that they're a more concentrated ethnic group in Switzerland than they are here. I'd reckon that the strength of their faith is less the issue, so much as it is that they have a different faith/ethnicity to begin with. I think we're on the same page with this one.
Not really important, but the stickler in me has to point out: Muslims in Switzerland aren't an ethnic group but a religious one (and only in a broad sense). The reason they're so secular is because most of them are Albanians from Kosovo or Turks, two largely secular groups, and only 10% of them are Arab, and largely religious.
American Muslims are about 25% Arab, 25% African American, 35% South Asian, and 15% other groups.
Most of the time these days, Muslim is shorthand for Arab Muslim, wearing a burqa, like the woman in the poster, is a tradition from Arab countries, so this whole mess in Switzerland can be seen as a direct assault on Arab Muslims cynically designed to play up fears of them and draw the larger Muslim population into the fray by extension (because, though there are almost none of them in the country, minarets are an Islamic symbol that goes beyond that minority).
EDIT:
I'm hard pressed to say that either is not a factor in our prison population being mostly Black and Latino.
Lower socioeconomic status and a thousand other factors play in there, specifically the drug war. Fuck the drug war.
Don't know if I've posted this before, but it gives me some hope for the future:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/us/24crime.html
-
Actually, anti-islam stuff in America really is surprisingly low even in the wake of 9/11:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table_01.html
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions
By these numbers...there are 3 times as many American Jews, and 10 times as many hate crimes against American Jews...which means per-capita there's 200% more hate crimes against Jews than Muslims.
No, this is not a complete picture by any means, but it's more a point that old prejudices die hard, and new prejudices don't get entrenched that fast. You'll notice that the highest total hate crimes is anti-black, for instance, even though the news reports comment on anti-hispanic sentiment being a big new thing (undoubtedly it's on the rise, but still...there are more hispanic people than Black people these days, and yet 80% fewer hate crimes against hispanics).
-
I am not even going to make this argument because Zenny did it for me. You might not have any political movements against the Muslim population, but you beat the shit out that argument by yourself. It isn't anything to do with that they are Muslim it is the massive reactionary response to a large scale migration of an insular ethnic group (no matter how secular it is). So yeah you don't have an issue with Muslims in the same way in the states.
You sure as fuck do with Mexicans though. So yeah. Edit 2 - This is in regards to having people actively trying to legislate against a specific ethnic group (and succeeding depending on how you read into things). You are clearly NOTHING like the hoi polloi in Europe, you go full on and build a fucking wall between your two countries, which is nothing at all like what would happen in Europe. Edit 3 - And since obvious stuff has to be pointed out today it seems, this was a joke about Germany.
And Jim nothing wrong with bringing it to attention, it is the WE DON'T HAVE NONE OF DAT SHIT HERE sentiment that made me fucking want to vomit. That is like saying Australia doesn't have the same fucking issue because we treat people all good as long as they aren't from South East Asia.
Edit - And that any of you even read that as me condoning that shit makes me sick.
Edit 1 million - And what fucking precedent Snow? The one that was set years ago when Australia locked up Asylum seekers for half a decade before letting them out of imprisonment? The one set in Zimbabwe when they forcibly evicted people from their land in a perverted inversion of the Apartheid? The one set in France when they totally fucked around with Muslim residents after a chain of riots in their ghettos? The one set in Georgia during the revolution where full blown ethnic cleansing was taking place and the RUSSIANS were blamed when they weren't even in the fucking country at the time? How about the one in Somalia where the general people are so poor that they turn to piracy to live after the local fishing is ruined by shipping lanes and dumping of chemicals/fuel off the coast because the Somalian government is far to poor to do anything about it and now those pirates are being hunted by international armies? (these are all from THIS DECADE and most are from the last five years) Every country in the damned world is chock full of humans and they are a horribly reactionary defensive beast that are continually making bad choices because they perceive something hostile happening and this is -nothing new- the precedent was set years ago and the precedent was to be a dick. What we are doing is getting better about and every lapse is just one more sign that we have further to go.
-
I really think you're underselling the religious aspect of what's going on in Switzerland, Gref. Sharia law, rights of women, and the threat of a "parallel society" were all explicitly referenced in the anti-minaret campaign. That plus the poster says that religion is the focal point of the current action, even if general anti-immigrant animosity is the true purpose. Same with the issues in France (but not the UK, where the anti-immigrants are, uh, less discriminatory).
Not sure what it means in the long run, but the tone on immigration (and when we say immigration, we pretty much mean illegal Mexicans) has actually cooled somewhat in America over the last couple years. Why? Two things stand out: first, W. was a proponent of sensible immigration reform, and to a lot of his supporters who were simmering on the issue that was a slap in the face that dovetailed very well with the other reasons he lost popularity, this being 2005. Those people are too busy being mad at Obama for issues he's actually doing stuff about to get huffy over something on the back burner. Second, illegal immigration has slowed down since we ran out of jobs. Broad consensus from most political angles seems to be it's just not worth worrying about until we get other shit taken care of.
Pretty much the only big immigration news this year in the US was the controversy over new tactics being used to clamp down on illegal workers (and an interesting related Supreme Court case interpreting the word "purposefully" in an anti-identity theft statute.)
-
The religious aspect is about fear of migrants not integrating with the culture of the country, it is a very common worry and complaint from this sector (see any complaint you have heard from that quarter regarding Mexicans and the prevalence of Spanish in the South/South West), it is the same thing extrapolating itself further out because there is less cultural overlap between mainstream Swiss culture and the extremist Muslim culture (which is obviously not the majority of the people ACTUALLY migrating, but this is about fear).
It has died down in Australia as well, but it doesn't change that it is something we feel the world over (especially in First World countries when we feel our dominant culture is being threatened by people seen as migrating from the second/third world, again not reality in plenty of cases, but this is about fear). It is not something new. It is not something ANYONE has any fucking right to go HUR HUR WE IS MUCH BETTER about. It is something we should be examining and going "well fuck I hope they can come to and understanding over that like we did OH WAIT WE STILL FUCKING SUCK AT IT". There is quite clear, obvious reasons for it that you can logic out when you look at it. Perspective makes the world go round and helps us to reflect upon ourselves.
So yeah. My argument is exactly what I said. No perspective. There is some perspective. Apply this perspective to your obvious parallels, see how it is different? You don't have nearly as many incoming immigrants, people are feeling less threatened so they are becoming SHOCK HORROR, less reactionary and generally far more reasonable about it. Does Switzerland still have a high intake of immigrants? You sure as shit bet your life they do. So what are they doing? Feeling threatened, being reactionary and doing stupid shit because of it, fear creates a mob and a mob is crippled when it comes to thinking clearly, it takes the worst and loudest groupthink you can find and amplifies it.
So what is happening? Same shit, different country. Same kinds of people the world all over.
-
To make a small addition--while with Mexican people there hasn't been a complaint about religion, but there definitely has been a complaint about language.
Switzerland has 4 national languages, so they really haven't complained on that front. But they are used to being predominantly christian (77%...and, hell, 27% of the population says they don't believe in god, so...there are even people who don't believe in god and call themselves Christian, to give you an idea of the pervasiveness).
Thing is, people are only bothered by immigrants when they're different. If America got an influx of immigrants from [English] Canada, I don't think anyone would bat an eyelash. It's the really visible differences. Different = unknown. The human brain fears the unknown. And reports of Islamic terrorism only feed into that misinformation loop by confirming this unknown entity is scary. Similarly, with Mexican immigrants, people who are accustomed to understanding the language of all their neighbors get uneasy when people speak in a language they don't understand. This speech becomes the unknown, and from the perspective of the paranoid brain, suddenly all the employees are talking crap about their boss.
-
Surprised this hasn't gotten more notice.
So a hacker or group of hackers gets a hold of 13 years worth of emails from the Climate Research Unit of The University of East Anglia (England). Right before an international summit on climate change attended by a US president who for the first time in at least 8 years takes it somewhat seriously. These emails are sorted through vigorously and various snippets are supposed to provide evidence of elitist scientists shutting down scientific debate and widespread fraud on the issue.
"Climategate" or a switfboat styled attack by people with various insidious motivations to soften/sabotage whatever may come out of Copenhagen?
Personally I think it is a load of bullshit perpetrated by people with political connections.
-
From what I read it boiled down to people calling those who disagree with them stupid and "conspiring" to promote theories they believed to be true over ones they believed to be false. My mind is blown, let me tell you.
-
Personally I think it is a load of bullshit
Seems more like conspiracy theorists than conspirators to me.
Anyway, the numbers on civil rights enforcement in the Bush years are out, and they're just what you'd expect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/us/politics/03rights.html?hp
-
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/aanj4/euroredditors_lets_discuss_immigrant_integration/
Related to earlier. Interesting first post from one European (Swedish) about the problems s/he sees with the integration of Muslim immigrants, and the replies (usually) provide other interesting points of view on the matter. Fascinating read regardless of whether or not you agree with anything said within.
-
Regarding the first post, it's difficult, probably impossible, for a country to perfectly balance the proper level of accommodation of immigrants. It should come as a surprise to no one that a program the government sets up to help people, like language lessons, is abused by the unscrupulous. There will always be people out there willing to take advantage of the kindness of others. A government (anyone, really) shows their true mettle when they're able to craft a program that genuinely helps people and prevent it from being abused.
Classic example of this problem is charity to the homeless. Give a homeless person a dollar, and there's a good chance that they'll use it to buy food. There's also a good chance they'll use it to buy drugs. There's even a decent chance they're not homeless at all and are just scam artists. If you want to help the homeless by giving them money directly, some of the money you give out will be used badly. But there are ways to mitigate this. Personally, I never give money to people with better shoes than me, and always give money to people missing limbs. The fact that someone is using a wheelchair or other prop, or is blatantly lying about their situation is not a factor to me; just because they're disingenuous doesn't mean they don't need to eat. Homelessness ain't a popularity contest.
The US asylum program for immigrants has been abused by the cynical as well: one law firm charged immigrants money to fabricate medical documents and other records showing they were political prisoners or had been tortured by their homeland's government, and coached them on how most convincingly to claim they'd been raped and tortured (matching the methods they claimed to things the US State Dept. reports said those countries were doing). The US has found a way to mitigate this problem, however. It involves long prison sentences for the lawyers, and reviews of the asylum materials for their clients that will likely lead to the deportation of some of them.
One more note: Sweden in particular has accepted a HUGE number of refugees from the middle east since the Iraq war began. Something like 10x more per capita than the US has, and more than any other country. There are bound to be growing pains. (going back to the earlier issue, I don't think Switzerland is experiencing anything like that at the moment, though it probably did in the late '90s with Kosovo.)
EDIT: next on the agenda for Switzerland? A law banning separate Muslim and Jewish cemeteries. (http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/03/1009507/swiss-leader-calls-for-jewish-cemetery-ban) Also a ban on burqas. That first one I can't take as anything but good news because it's so far beyond the pale. A vote on cemeteries would give the Swiss the option to walk back the crazy, or provoke even higher levels of (well-deserved) international condemnation. Win-win. Voting on a ban of burqas would be very bad, however, because if people can't stand minarets, which (there being 4 in the country) they probably don't see outside of world history classes, they probably really can't stand scary ladies in black. A ban could only serve to heighten extremism and animosity.
EDIT 2:
CAIR's report on anti-Islamic discrimination in the US. Upshot: hate crimes down, discrimination up.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/discrimination-up-hate-crimes-down-picture-mixed-for-american-muslims-cair-report-shows.php#more
And on a perversely comforting note: death threats against Obama are merely at the same historical level as against Clinton and Bush.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/secret-service-director-threats-against-obama-not-up.php?ref=fpa
-
I can't see the Cemetaries one passing (why do you need religion specific cemetaries again?), but the Burqa ban is quite probable sadly since in that case they are more chiming in on the crazy shit coming out of France.
-
Well, the movement would ban the segregation of cemeteries, for that exact reason. Given all the (illogical) justifications for Switzerland's recent legislation, I can't see that one not passing; if it doesn't, I can't imagine the international community not condemning them.
Really, if they want to force cultural integration through legislation, things like this are the way; not retardedly banning architecture or dress.
Re: Obama death threats: Huh. I... kind of expected it, though the theatrics at some healthcare rallies implied otherwise. It at least explains why Secret Service security hasn't been drastically ramped up.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/opinion/05stamm.html?ref=opinion
A soul-searching look at Switzerland's minaret decision from the inside.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/swiss-pol-apologizes-for-calling-for-ban-on-muslim-and-jewish-cemeteries.php?ref=fpb
And the Swiss politician who called for a ban of separate Muslim and Jewish cemeteries has apologized for suggesting the measure, saying he "didn't mean it like that." Which leaves one to wonder how many ways you can mean you don't want Muslims or Jews to have separate private cemeteries. (In originally calling for them he said, "Principle requires that one does not distinguish on the basis of origin or religion." So presumably he also wanted Jews and Muslims to start just going to church with the Christians, I guess?)
-
http://exiledonline.com/bailed-out-aig-forcing-poor-to-choose-between-running-water-and-food/
Privatising utlilities outlined as basic human rights requirements is a good plan. I am glad the world is shaping up to be a marvelous place of Freedom tm.
-
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/thats_interesting.php?ref=fpblg
those videos of the pimp talking to ACORN employees? Turns out that the audio for what he said was heavily edited and retaped. Shocking, I know.
Gref: it may make you feel a bit better to review David Kucinich's term as mayor of Cleveland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoral_administration_of_Dennis_Kucinich
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas
China essentially sabotaged the Copenhagen climate talks, according to one man attached to one of the main delegations.
-
Somehow I'm not terribly surprised, though I am rather disappointed. Feh.
-
Well, it's not like America didn't do essentially the same thing less than 10 years ago.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34498942/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
Senate passed the healthcare bill a few days ago.
Now this and the different bill the House passed have to be reconciled (basically by chopping off everything on the House Bill that the Senate removed), and then voted on by the House, and then Obama will sign it and it's a law.
People seem optimistic that this bill will cater to more moderate Democrats...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/house-braces-for-final-painful-compromises-but-leadership-confident-theyll-win-over-more-blue-dogs.php
...At least enough to overcome any hard leftists who are offput by the lack of a public option.
The way this is going we could have healthcare reform enacted within a few months.
-
Well, near as I can tell most view it as effectively a mandate for people to get health insurance off the private market, and a massive subsidy for the health insurance industry. That follows the stock prices of health insurance companies lately. This is likely to end up being a death-sentence for the democratic party for the near future, if that perception really takes hold.
-
And the left spin machine is going to be hard at work trying to convince people that it's a good piece of legislation. Whether or not they'll succeed depends on just how well the bill works out, which we won't know for awhile.
-
Well, near as I can tell most view it as effectively a mandate for people to get health insurance off the private market, and a massive subsidy for the health insurance industry.
This is different than what they already had how?
-
It wasn't illegal to not buy health insurance before.
-
Making it illegal isn't what I would call a mandate. That is you know, making it the law.
It certainly works well enough here for cars (there is a very limited basic coverage a car has to have to be registered), it is one way of doing the same thing we have with fairly expensive medicare levies and the way you get a discount on it if you have health insurance and whatnot. Buuuut I would still argue why the shit should you be propping up an industry when you could just have the government do it properly, with the correct oversight and just tax for it.
-
Because it's not propping up the industry. The problem isn't that the industry's failing, the problem is that the industry is too powerful. Healthcare reform is at its core an attempt to wrestle the power away from these companies. And the reformers are too neutered by asstarded congressional politics, a heaping helping of conservative obstructionism, and the fact that most of congress is on the insurance companies' payrolls in one way or another.
The mandate that one must own health insurance is a great setback to the reform process, as I see it. How the fuck am I going to be able to afford this nonsense? (Hint: I won't, not on my own anyway. Hm. Maybe if there was an option that had its price set by some regulatory institution that I could opt into. Eh. Who wants that, though? Socialists.)
-
Yeah, this pretty much cements desire to find employment in another country if I can pull it. Looks like a massive step back for actual reasonable healthcare, though will want to see how it works or doesn't work in practice.
-
Eh, in fairness, that's a weakness of the bill... on this front. Eliminating caps on amount of money spent per patient, ensuring a minimum loss ratio, and disallowing companies from discriminating on the basis of "preexisting condition" are all things that needed to get done. However, while the bill does accomplish a few things, where it fails, it fails hard.
-
Propping up a dominant monopoly is still propping it up even if it doesn't need it. I dunno should I have phrased it as quadruple glazing the windows on their insurmountable glass walled fortresses constructed entirely of ground up glassed cash? Shoring up the battlements?
-
Closing and destickying. It's time for a politics '10 topic.
Aren't we all thrilled?