Author Topic: Politics 09: Fire Reid and Steele. (Read 75555 times)

metroid composite · « **Reply #400 on:** July 04, 2009, 12:48:57 AM »

Sarah Palin!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/03/palin/index.html

...quits early as the Alaska governor.

Shale · « **Reply #401 on:** July 04, 2009, 01:05:49 AM »

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.

Jo'ou Ranbu · « **Reply #402 on:** July 04, 2009, 01:20:28 AM »

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.

NotMiki · « **Reply #403 on:** July 04, 2009, 02:15:34 AM »

Finally! Unexpected news from a republican that isn't the admission of an affair.

Shale · « **Reply #404 on:** July 04, 2009, 02:20:43 AM »

NotMiki · « **Reply #405 on:** July 07, 2009, 02:53:21 AM »

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

NotMiki · « **Reply #406 on:** July 07, 2009, 11:45:54 PM »

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.

Just Another Day · « **Reply #407 on:** July 08, 2009, 12:22:16 AM »

I thought Greenwald's coverage was (as usual) spot on:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/06/uighurs/index.html

NotMiki · « **Reply #408 on:** July 08, 2009, 10:55:59 PM »

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

Quote

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=

Quote

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.

metroid composite · « **Reply #409 on:** July 09, 2009, 02:41:52 AM »

*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

superaielman · « **Reply #410 on:** July 09, 2009, 02:43:33 AM »

He was a bad joke, much like the Libertarian in the last 75 years or so.

NotMiki · « **Reply #411 on:** July 10, 2009, 11:29:44 PM »

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.

NotMiki · « **Reply #412 on:** July 23, 2009, 10:43:13 PM »

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?

Dunefar · « **Reply #413 on:** July 23, 2009, 10:58:44 PM »

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.

Just Another Day · « **Reply #414 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:08:27 PM »

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.

Just Another Day · « **Reply #415 on:** July 27, 2009, 08:23:12 PM »

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.

Dark Holy Elf · « **Reply #416 on:** July 27, 2009, 08:31:35 PM »

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).

Cmdr_King · « **Reply #417 on:** July 27, 2009, 08:46:27 PM »

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.

Grefter · « **Reply #418 on:** July 28, 2009, 01:25:21 PM »

Milgram experiments never happened, we have always had people enjoy stays in prisons. OBEY.

NotMiki · « **Reply #419 on:** July 31, 2009, 02:51:16 AM »

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

NotMiki · « **Reply #420 on:** August 06, 2009, 05:24:38 AM »

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.

Grefter · « **Reply #421 on:** August 06, 2009, 03:34:17 PM »

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.

superaielman · « **Reply #422 on:** August 08, 2009, 10:28:07 PM »

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.

Dhyerwolf · « **Reply #423 on:** August 09, 2009, 12:52:23 AM »

Quote from: superaielman on August 08, 2009, 10:28:07 PM

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.

Taishyr · « **Reply #424 on:** August 11, 2009, 01:49:56 AM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09ehrenreich.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&em

Welcome to America! Hope you have money!

News:

Author Topic: Politics 09: Fire Reid and Steele. (Read 75555 times)

Taishyr