-
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/politicalissues/politicsblog.jpg)
"Economic theories and philosophies often go hand in hand with politics. They do involve "taking sides". Taking sides in a debate does not mean personal attacks and holier than thou attitudes. It means honest debate on the merits of a particular course of action. I wouldn't mind exploring these ideas, how they come about and why one system is ultimately chosen over another."
a SeniorLearner
The purpose of this forum is to discuss political issues which have been raised in books, newspapers and other printed matter, including web articles. The upcoming debate on budget and taxes and the looming fiscal cliff will soon capture everyone's attention, for example. CAN WE TALK?
We expect courteous respectful posts. Posts containing remarks of an ad hominem nature (made against the person rather than the topic discussed) will be removed.
-
Welcome to a new discussion area at SeniorLearn. As stated in the header, the purpose of this forum is to discuss political issues which have been raised in books, newspapers and other printed matter, including web articles.
-
I just caught sight of the new discussion.
My current economic reading list:
Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner (read, interesting perspectives, easy to read)
Super Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner (TBR pile)
Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman (wish list item)
The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek (in progress, heavy going)
Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell (TBR pile)
Political reading list:
The U. S. Constitution
The Oxford Companion to the U.S. Supreme Court (TBR pile)
Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg (read, very difficult going)
Strictly Right - William F. Buckley Jr. and the American conservative Movement by Linda Bridges and John R. Coyne, Jr.(TBR pile)
Historical Politics/Economics related:
Fernand Braudel's three volume series on Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century (TBR pile)
Cicero by Anthony Everitt (read, biography)
Various writings of both Cicero and Cato.
Various biographies of political figures, mostly early US Presidents and Nixon's, Seize the Moment (TBR pile)
For political satire/humor I have read some of P.J. O'Rourke's earlier books. and am looking forward to reading his book, P. J. O'Rourke on The Wealth of Nations. This is part of the NPR sponsored Books that Changed the World series
These are not recommendations; they are just what I have hanging around the house, have read or want to read.
I just attended the first meeting of a new coffee club sponsored by my investment broker. I'm not sure what all he had in mind other than focusing on how we can help ourselves weather the economic fluctuations that affect our investments (not a single sales pitch). He talked about the "fiscal cliff" and how it might affect our retirement income and our taxes. He also handed out several sheets including one interesting "political perspective" sheet from J.P. Morgan. One chart on the sheet, Annual Market Returns by Political Party Control covering 1937-2011, showed that market returns average the highest with Republicans controlling the presidency and both houses (17.4%), followed by Democratic president with split congress (15.4%), Democrats controlling the presidency and both houses (10.6%), and lastly, a Republican presidency with a split congress (6.5%).
I don't have any particular issue in mind at the moment. Mostly just checking in.
-
My daily routine includes checking out the new additions to Project Gutenberg. This morning I found AMERICAN ELOQUENCE - STUDIES IN AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY, Edited with Introduction by Alexander Johnston, Reedited by James Albert Woodburn. This is the index to his four volumes which links to the online version of the four volumes. You can download the four volumes separately by looking up Mr. Johnston in the catalog.
-
I'll be checking in. Recent today's-politics reading we've done around here include Matt Taibbi's Griftopia, about the lead-up events to the financial collapse, and Rachel Maddow's Drift, about military power.
I hope we can have some interesting, non-antagonistic discussions here.
-
I heard a new book being discussed the other day that may be interesting...
Hedrick Smith ~ Who Stole the American Dream? http://hedricksmith.com/books/who-stole-the-american-dream/
and, of course, the wonderful books by another Pulitzer Prize-winner, Thomas Friedman..
That Used To Be Us
How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back
http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/that-used-to-be-us
-
I have been away from my computer for a few days and in trying to catch on various discussions was delighted to discover this one. With the election over and the real work beginning, there should be lots to discuss.
-
Interesting list, Frybabe. I took Economics 101 in college and vowed never to take another course in that subject, but I think I could handle Freakonomics.
My main difference with the conservative party is with the social issues, i.e. death penalty, allowing women control of their own bodies, allowing same sex couples to marry, allowing gays openly in the military, etc. I think these bring up the most controversy because they seem to bring religion into the discussion.
I’m also interested in why some people insist the constitution should be strictly interpreted as they think the founders intended, why conservatives want to keep the federal government out of everything, how the filibuster rule has changed, why we have the electoral college, for starters.
I’ll look at my TBR politics list of books and see which ones some people here might be interested in.
Marj
-
Marjifay, I also have wondered why some think (like some of the supreme court justices especially) that the constitution should be interpreted as they imagine the founders intended it. For one, they are only presuming they know what the founders meant, and for two, no attention is then paid to changes in social mores and norms. I always compare it as similar to interpreting everything in the Bible literally. But at least those who do that say they believe the Bible is the word of God. The constitution is a man made document so there's no reason at all that I can see to take it so literally.
-
It has been a looooooong time since I read any of the US Constitution. Is the constitution deliberately vague (as one friend of mine asserted) in some areas? The original document certainly didn't take in to account every eventuality; that is why they made provisions to make amendments, I suppose.
-
Our US constitution (as I would hope any such document would be) is a framework on which to build. It was never designed to address any conceivable situation. That's why, IMO, constitutions should not ever use specific numbers for anything (except maybe age limits or length of time).
Our state constitution, a totally unwieldly document, uses percentages and numbers, etc., which need to be changed as situations change. Thus amendments or conventions are required for modifications. The amendment process is certainly needed occasionally, but such day-to-day type changes should be addressed by legislation, not be being locked into a constitution.
-
Interesting discussion already.
-
Wyoming had on the ballot a change to the state constitution in response to the Affordable Care Act. It was so poorly written some were not to sure what would be the result. The amendment passed - probably because so many people don't really read these amendments -- I believe a change to the constitution should be a rare occurence -- not just a response to a Federal law.
-
I'm marking a spot but doubt that I will post - unless I have a question. However, I am very interested in seeing comments by the wide variety of participants who take part in these interesting discussions and express themselves thoughtfully.
-
Floridas voting took a long time to count because the legislature had proposted ten amendments.. They are very conservative and stuck all sorts of nonsense into the voting this year. Thanks heaven, seven of the ten were soundly turned down.. The three that passed had to do with veterans or very poor, but still should not be in the constitution.. State Constitutions get silly.. Our national one is as someone else said..A framework and very much a compromise between Massachusetts and Virginia and the very different people who lived there.
-
A friend of mine recommended a course of reading to me. It starts with the Declaration of Independence followed by John Locke (I didn't ask which writings) who inspired much of what was included in the DoI. Then read the U.S. Constitution followed by The Federalist Papers which is supposed make more clear what it all means and why the writers included what they did.
I don't think I have ever read the DoI or the Constitution in its entirety, nor have I read much Locke and none of The Federalist Papers.
At some point, I'd like to learn more about how the English Parliament developed and now works.
-
Whew.. dont think I would want to take on that reading now.. Just not up for that sort of stuff.
-
Frybabe, thanks for the Project Gutenberg info on American Eloquence. I downloaded Volume 1 and have just started reading it. Wow! Eloquence in spades!
-
A few years ago my husband and I were asked to tutor a small group pf homeschoolers. The material we used called 'Omnibus' was arranged in three vols. where students were expected to travel twice through during 8th to 12th grade. History was taught through the original sources of the day alongside the period's literature; he taught history, I literature.
During the period covering American history students read the founding documents and works such as Of Plymouth Plantation, Benjamin Franklin: Autobiography, The Social Contract (Rousseau), Reflections on the Revolution in France (Burke) as well as such diverse works as The Wealth of Nations (Adam Smith), Democracy in America (Tocqueville), The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.
I am pleased that I will now get the chance to read/discuss these works (including "The Founder's Constitution") in a forum that has always proven to be thoughtful, reflective and respectful. Our Constitution was put together by men - but such men! Their thinking and scholarly research was vast. They understood the times they were in, the times that had shaped them and processes and principles that transcend any age. I am looking forward to joining in the discussion here as I am able, and in following the discussion through my readings! Thank you, SeniorLearn for providing such a forum.
-
Hi, Mogamom
I recently discovered that there is an "Anti-Federalist Papers". Now I'll have to add them to my list.
Here is an linked index to the articles courtesy of the University of Tulsa.
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/antifed.htm
I've never had any desire to read The Communist Manifest or Mein Kampf. I did know one person who read Mein Kampf way back in high school. She said Hitler started out with some okay ideas but as the book progressed she said she could see Hitler gradually going nuts.
-
Thanks for the link, Frybaby. Those readings were for the purpose of comparing the economic and political processes governing the events around the World Wars; a very interesting endeavor, I'm told. I remember my husband telling me about Mein Kampf, which he described as a 'very dark book' - Hitler being obviously mad (which is why the German people originally discounted it) - and our students were only required to read passages from it, since it is horribly convoluted and redundant. My husband would argue that even Hitler's initial ideas were perverse. But, one should not criticize without investigation, I believe; so the comparisons were valuable.
-
I remember during WWII going to our library and asking to take out Mein Kampf. The librarian laughed at me and said I would not be able to check it out -- too young.
-
marking
-
Mogamom, I checked Project Gutenberg for Rousseau's The Social Contract. It wasn't listed, but I did find
A Discourse Upon the Origin and the Foundation of the Inequality Among Mankind which I downloaded.
-
Obviously, there are numerous books, magazines and other forms of media on politics and government. The volume of these boggle the mind, but let me suggest a source from The Teaching Company (The Great Cources) that deals with basic concepts. It a 36-lecture, 6-DVD set entitled "Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights" taught by Professor John E. Finn who is a professor of Government at Wesleyan University--at least he was at the time this lecture series was produced. I don't remember what I paid for the set, but The Teaching Company has special offers quite frequently.
-
Marking.
Sally
-
I don't know if this is the place to bring this up, but after hearing John Kerry on the Newshour and following Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC and reading Gail Collins in the NY Times I would like to know more about this UN Treaty on Disabilities. Why did the Senate not pass it, not even after Bob Dole came to plea for it. (Dole was the one who pushed the ADA through). Kerry said it was like a slap in the face for Dole. Did anyone hear Rick Santorums comments?
-
Oops! I didn't know there was a UN treaty on disabilities.
-
Put UN Treaty on Disabilites in google and you'll get all the news stories on the Senate rejection of this and the pros and cons of it.
-
dean69 - I looked into your suggestion and, while I do think this a good choice, it was a bit pricey for me, even on sale. I wonder if we could get the free on-line courses offered by Hillsdale College (a $50 gift to offset costs is suggested, but not required) in U.S. Constitution 101 and 102. These would give us a place to start with everyone 'on the same page'; a place to begin/guide discussion. The 102 course deals with the Progressive/Conservative debate so would probably get us into topics brought up here, but with some general infomation to base the discussions on?
-
Mogamom, my best friend gets the Hillsdale College newsletter, Imprimis. He usually passes it on to me. I looked over the course lectures. They look interesting.
-
Wrote my Wyoming Senator Enzi asking why he voted against the UN treaty. If I get an answer will forward!
-
Here is the website that will keep you up to date on key provisions and ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. http://www.un.org/disabilities/
There has been a push on for some time toward Globalization. I don't know who got the ball rolling, but many countries probably believe it will level the playing field more than it is now in many areas. The disability treaty is just one. It's a control thing. Nationalism vs Globalism. Some countries have reservations about the wording and interpretation of the treaty. Wikipedia provides a short list near the bottom under the Reservations header.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_Persons_with_Disabilities Note that Malta has since ratified.
As best as I can tell most of the provisions the US already had in place with the Americans with Disabilities Act plus whatever it was that the Bush adminstration started and Obama signed in 2009 regarding disabilies. Signing the treaty would provide protection or extra protection to our citizens with disabilities who are traveling or living overseas. There is some opposition from parents who home school their children with disabilities who see this treaty as taking away their right to do so. Rick Santorum, who has a disabled child, is one of those in the forefront of that opposition. Anti-abortionists, naturally enough, don't like the expansion of abortion rights.
On the surface I think the treaty is a good thing, but I haven't studied it enough to form a definite, final opinion. On the whole I am not happy with giving up any control to that bunch at the UN. I would like to see the rest of the world brought up closer to our level, but I fear what we will get with all this globalization is brought down to lower levels. Then again, if we want to participate in galactic commerce and such we should have a unified presence at that conference table. :D
-
Well, my gosh, I haven't noticed this discussion before, but I've been away from my computer for awhile. This looks interesting, I must read all the comments.
My own would be - IF WE CAN TALK POLITICS, WHY CANNOT OUR TWO POLITICAL PARTIES TALK?
-
We have a group that meets every two weeks to discuss Current Events where I live. We have a leader who prepares an agenda.
It might be a good idea for this discussion to have several leaders who will take a month and prepare quetions for discussion.
This morning we discussed North Korea with the bomb; Hillary Clinton, should she run for president in four years, Susan Rice for Secretary of State and whether race is still alive in American society as an issue.
If anyone is here, what do you think of having a person act as a leader for a month and then another, etc. Something new under the sun every week.
-
That sounds like an interesting current events group, Ella. Where do you live? Too bad it can't be an internet group. The only internet political groups I've looked into cannot seem to discuss things in an objective manner, but tend to denigrate and ridicule anyone whose opinions differ from theirs.
As to why the political parties cannot speak to each other, I have on my TBR list a book by Mickey Edwards (a former congressman), THE PARTIES VERSUS THE PEOPLE; HOW TO TURN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS INTO AMERICANS.
Having leaders in this group to lead various topics, each for a limited time, sounds like a good idea.
Marj
-
Marjifay, I live in Ohio, in a retirement community. I am involved in a few activities that interest me. Of course, this is a book site, but perhaps we could try this as an experiment for a little while. I'll propose it and see where the idea goes.
-
I am confused about a new gun law - I would love to hear other opinions - please not just emotional reactions because like most of us the idea of weapons of war on our streets is not how I see life however, being practical - I am wondering if we are mixing apples and oranges thinking a ban on assault weapons will lesson the horrors we read about.
We had an assault law signed by Clinton that ran for 10 years and was not renewed - from 1994 to 2004 and yet. it was during this time that we had Columbine - we also had a major school massacre in Minnesota back in the late 1920 where 58 children where killed all done with dynamite. Austin had Whitman shooting from the UT Tower before assault weapons and he still killed 13 and wounded many.
My thinking is unless the law enforcement is willing to give up their assault weapons there is no hope - Criminals will want to match the police, sheriffs, Rangers, FBI etc. - Criminals will get their hands on black market weapons therefore, there will be some folks who feel they need to protect themselves and others who are not close enough to any law enforcement for at least 30 minutes if not an hour - both groups will also find a way just like those who wanted marijuana and other drugs all these years found a way - we are then right back where we are today - the only folks who will not have guns are the law abiding.
As I say, I am confused because, where I do think a law about assault weapons is humane I do not see such a law preventing future gun related mass deaths.
I would love to hear another viewpoint that I am missing here... again, I can understand how we want to feel safe and how we would like to see such mega firepower off the streets - but to leave that kind of fire power for the police puts them in a very powerful position to act beyond the scope of their job especially on the poor and folks of color - and then the returning vets are so used to this kind of gun power that some can melt back into civilian society and others often in reaction to their experience only feel safe when they own the kind of fire power they used in war.
I just keep coming up with rational that says this may not be the answer although folks want something done now and it may pass as an emotional reaction to what happened this time but will such a law have any affect?
-
The right to keep and bear arms is granted in our Constitution, as is the right of free speech; attempts to modify or curtail our rights should always be approached in a sober and prudent manner.
A thought: why is gun control the first reaction of a grief-stricken people who want the pain to go away and want to feel safe? some would quickly point out that armed civilians have prevented many deaths by intervening before police could arrive.
why isn't anyone crying out to put strictor censorship on Hollywood, pornagraphy, and the very realistic video games that encourage/reward torture, rape and murder, even though studies have proven that engagement in such 'entertainment' de-sensitizes the participant to acts of violence?
why isn't anyone asking what impact the de-valuing of human life has had on our culture; for instance, in the legalization/legitimization of abortion? and didn't we all watch a man legally starve his wife to death?
So I wonder - why are we constantly surprised by acts of violence?
-
Barb, it's been a few years so I don't remember where I read it, but law enforcement (especially local) struggle to keep up with what the criminals can get their hands on. Some of this is because of legal constraints already in place as to what they can purchase for their departments and some is due to budget constraints. Regardless of who has what first, it is always one side or the other trying to gain an advantage over the other in firepower whether in law enforcement or war.
I tend to agree with Mogamom regarding the desensitizing/dehumaizing effects of so much of violent entertainment. The argument that these things are just reflecting current culture may have some value, but it also over time can create such a culture and reinforce it so that what was not condoned at one time can be common place at a future time. How horrified the British must have been when the American rebels used "guerrilla" tactics rather than face the Royal Army on an open field which was the standard for fighting battles at the time. Now, sneaking up on the enemy is common.
-
A few years ago, I became aware of how much violence we see in commercials. It horrifies me It isn't just movies, or TV! Anger, rage, violence, are also a part of many of our commercials. I find it extremely sad,
Sheila
-
Wow - this is the current blurb among the college aged kids as the try to come to terms with Newton.
Black guy kills some people.
Society: Criminal.
Muslim guy kills some people.
Society: Terrorist.
Latino guy kills some people.
Society: Criminal.
White guy kills some people.
Society: Mental illness. (lost soul, complicated psyche, quiet loner, misunderstood, frustrated with life, experienced recent, traumatic, life-altering events that set him off; not to mention all the positive descriptors that are attached to him, i.e. intelligent, PhD candidate, honor roll student, etc.)
-
Interesting, Barb.
-
Unfortunately, the current stock of assault rifles and guns appears to be, according to the news, flying off the shelves, since people fear they may be banned. With so many currently in the hands of who knows who, I can't see disarming the one force that stands between us and the rampages, that's not fair to the police. Perhaps they could limit the sale of the types of magazines that go in these things. Of course people could stockpile same as well. I'm afraid the barn door is open and has been for some time. They can't recall these things.
They were saying on NPR that you can today buy a gun in a parking lot with no background checks or anything else, they didn't specify how one goes about it.
I know we have assault weapons out here, you can hear people target practicing with them. Sounds like a WWII movie.
That is an interesting set of quotes, Barbara. I think I am as tired of hearing the mother, (who herself was a victim) being vilified as I am people struggling to find some reason for the assassin's acts.
People are shocked, angry (very angry) and grief stricken, and want to blame somebody, want to find reasons, so this won't happen again. I think the children need protection, first, visible protection, even tho a lot of schools currently have protection, apparently breaking thru a window, shooting out a window, did not set off alarms. That could be fixed. I'd like to see the premises of every school more secure. I'd like to see a ban on the type of bullets/clips/ magazines which these military type guns use. Sooner or later they will run out, maybe not in our lifetimes but eventually they will be obsolete, and there will be empty clicking. And I don't personally see why the homeowner needs any sort of military repeating gun. I think repeating guns of any type should only be sold to the military or the police.
I personally don't want to hear anything about him, his psyche, anything, after what he did, I don't care, and I wish the TV would shut up about it. I can't get to it fast enough to turn it off: he's being made into a celebrity, his 15 minutes of fame cost the nation dearly. I can't imagine, just can't imagine the grief of the parents.
I think the superintendent of a local school district said it well on the news last night: the shooter was a coward; he killed himself when he heard the police coming. I expect this type of thinking is what's behind the call to have visible police in every school. They hope this person, the known presence of this policeman will deter the idea from forming in the first place, since the cowards will look elsewhere. Again, tho, with the sheer size of the high school campuses in our area, it would take more than one man per school.
They said on the news they are going to use real police here in the schools, or off duty police or some taken off the job and replaced by new men on the force, and this is going to take a lot of money: to pay the new man and his replacement. I would think you would need a man with that type of experience, tho, in a crisis when people are shooting at you.
It's a problem, they must do something first to protect the children from these deluded maniacs. But then what? How about the malls? How about train stations? Bus stations? Department stores? Movie theaters? What has this country come to? I myself don't go to a movie theater now that I don't watch everybody who comes in. There was a man recently who carried a sort of case into a 007 movie I was watching. I watched him more than I did the movie, what a world we live in. And I'm not the only one, either.
Is it the movies? The culture? The video games?
-
http://wondermark.com/894/
-
I just ran across Jack London's first full length novel. It is called A Daughter of the Snows, published in 1902. London's was early on plagued by accusations of racism.
When reading up on Mr. London, I discovered that he was an advocate for unionization, socialism, and worker's rights. Here, I always thought his novels were about strong, INDEPENDENT types. The only one I actually ever read was Call of the Wild, his third novel.
A Daughter of the Snows (as do others) apparently shows, if not his views, the common views of racism of his day through his characters. In that light, I would be most interested to see how heavy a hand he applies racist comments compared to Earl Biggers Charlie Chan series or even Agatha Christie's portrayal of prejudice against Poirot. And we all know what a stink Helen Bannerman's The Story of Little Black Sambo makes these days and how the publishing powers proceeded to change names to make it politically correct (these days it isThe Story of Little Babaji, version by Fred Marcellino). I guess that got changed because it is a children's story.
I posted this in the fiction discussion, but maybe it is better suited here. In light of the second paragraph it may open a discussion of racism in literature in the last century or so.
-
Great link, Barb!
I came to SeniorLearn for Latin for a host of reasons, one of which was because I believe we can learn from the ancients; there is nothing new under the sun. so I am signing up for the Constitution courses from Hillsdale and, if anyone else is taking them, I would like to 'compare notes'. The books we have spoken of earlier regarding the formation of the Constitution were written by men who did read the ancients (as well as contemporaries) in their original languages and who did have a firm grasp on the political scene of the past 500 years.
But to follow-up on gun-control; I heard an ex-military man on the radio who was quite annoyed at politicians who are labeling these guns as 'military' and 'assault' weapons. They are not. And while the individual in the Sandy case had other weapons on hand, he actually carried out the attack with a couple of hand-guns which would not have been considered 'assault' weapons. The point being, how do un-armed individuals defend themselves? In other cases, including the most recent mall attack, legally armed citizens stopped the shooter.
A town in GA that some friends moved to was so beset by violence (thought to be originating from the local college) that heads-of-households were 'required' to get a gun (there were many exceptions given) and crime dropped dramatically. A coward goes where no one can defend themselves. The police can't be everywhere.
As a mental health professional I do want to remind people that legislation was passed in the 70's that put many mentally ill patients, who had been hospitalized for their disorders, out on the streets, and changed the rules for retaining individuals especially in regard to involuntary admissions. In our state a person has to be in 'imminient danger of harming himself or others' to be held for a psychiatric evaluation - that's very often a very difficult call to make. And while there has been great advancement made in supporting patients and families to ajust to community living, we just can't always know what/when a person may be 'set off'.
-
Is there something about unions or workers' rights that requires a person to be dependent rather than independent and strong? I think there are lot of strong individuals who advocate for workers' rights and unions.
-
Any rancher feeding cattle at 4: in the morning in a blizzard or a wind storm sees no value to organized anything since he never had anyone helping him unless he pays them and even then they are snug in the bunkhouse -
Most news organization or folks who live several states away from this life do not realize a whole swath of this nation has that as its unifying myth just like we have the myth of freedom and Ben Franklin or Paul Revere is a myth that identifies how we feel about freedom - And so in those parts of the country that still believe their identity is tied to those ranchers who work much of the land in their state their understanding is the individual versus nature and groups who want to tell him what to do - as to roads and electricity that are supported by group taxation, most ranchers had to build their own and string their own wire so they see little going on that helps them within any collective body - some have banded together to sell orchard products but many establish their own markets. This myth keeps alive a pride in the individual.
-
Most ranchers had more help than they admitted or recognized - those markets didn't exist in a vacuum.
-
Like any sales you have to find the folks who want to buy your product and so they too had to find a market just as I have to contently look for clients who want to sell or buy a house - the market I work with is either an individual or a builder or an investor - most ranchers sell to a large market, much as a builder is a large market for Real Estate. Some ranchers, especially those who are still raising grass fed cattle find small markets like restaurants or farmer's markets or, sell online or, have days during the week when someone is at the ranch to sell or, some sign up buyers in Spring to buy half or a full cow that when it is matured is slaughtered for you. There are some very large operations that sell abroad but they are usually owned by big investors. That system happened some years back when eastern banks came to the west and that is another long story - Again, the situation today is not as it was 50 or 100 years ago and yet, folks carry the myth just as our Freedom is not what it was 50 or 100 much less 200 years ago and the concept of freedom established with the story of folks who made it happen is still alive as a myth celebrated during 4th of July or other community celebrations.
Just as we cannot understand the various myths held by folks in the near east that is wrapped up in their religion and is part of their national legal system and just as Israel likes to remind folks and their identity is about the land they populated 2000 years ago therefore, it should be their nation - we all have myths that are our identity - in many of the ranching states there is the myth of the rancher/cowboy, who does still exist but not as they were 100 years ago - just as the minute men are no longer as they were 200 years however, the characteristics of these myths is what drives an attitude. For many states the attitude is the individual being strong, proud and independent - that is not changed any more than the myth of being free through the efforts of those who fought the Revolution.
To say we are not as free and we have many laws on the books that curtail our freedom and therefore, we should accept an attitude of less freedom to make room for others who see their myth in the freedom to practice religion (that has become a force in politics) suggests we should not deny the Muslim to influence our laws - the idea of Shariah law incorporated in even local law seems more than we can accept - that is an example of how folks who feel they are strong, proud, independent individuals who see little help from unions or government feel about supporting anything that takes away from the concept of the independent individual -
Arguments can be made to show them as wrong or, don't they see this or that but, that is simply another viewpoint trying to convince people to give up their identity, to adopt a view that they have little association - These folks are not foreigners who must change to be an American and for the most part they are not asking those who believe in a group effort like a union to change - just don't be trying to change their operation or culture - Sure you can say we are all connected and every business is connected but then, no connection is getting up to find and feed cattle, at 4: in the morning in a winter blizzard or a Spring sand and wind storm - they simply want to be left alone to do their job and to continue living their identity. In other words go away - their thinking is, don't try to cram other myths and values down our throats.
As to pay scale helped by unions - that is an issue that needs a close study because every-time we put more restrictions on farmers and ranchers more give up and if you have ever driven through northern Mexico the corporate farming extends further than the eye can see as the desert has become a fruit and vegetable center for at least 25 years extending its size every year.
The consumer market wants produce cheap - we are the consumer market - and so if the restrictions put some farmers and ranchers off the land because they cannot compete with Mexican or any internationally grown food and cattle then as more US farmers and ranchers give up, the produce we buy has less flavor, more pesticides, foods grown from genetically altered Monsanto seed that is replacing even the seed in our new Bread Basket, Africa, and even the watering, picking, shipping and handling does not match our health expectations.
Just the watering - have you never purchased a head of lettuce or other leaf products not prepackaged and found clumps of hair close to the root or core - fields are flooded before the seed is planted by opening the dykes with sometimes sewage flowing onto the fields - sure after the fields are planted a system of long arm aerators are used. Buying loose leaf lettuce in plastic containers may seem less work but it is hiding a multitude of sins. That is the outcome of not being able to satisfy the market's desire for low prices that forces grocery chains to buy from outside the US because the US farmer and ranchers can no longer compete.
All to say those who are wanting a Unionized America need to understand how some products have different needs and how we may be one nation but there are various areas of this country who identify with a different myth.
-
I am not sure I'm understanding how you're using the term 'myth'?
The biggest problems I see with those who want a strong federal system are:
1. The farther away the governing body,
a. the less responsive to special/area-specific situations/needs,
b. the less accountable to the individual voter and the more reactive to high-pressured lobbies/groups,
c. the more costly/less efficient the 'service' (even the citizens facing the after-math of 'Sandy' can tell you that friends/neighbors/family/community and church groups - whether local or distant - generally do a better job of giving much-needed aid than government institutions do); and,
2. If I don't like the laws I am governed by in my state, I have more power to change them or to choose a state that is more in line with my best interests; if the law is federal, I have no such choice.
I thought we just spent forty years saying: 'live and let live', 'you can't legislate morality' (although that is, indeed, all you do legislate), and 'you have no right to impose your beliefs on someone else.' Yet it seems that the fight really is about who will be allowed to impose their values on the rest. I, for one, would like much less government. And I would like to see a greater adherence to the Constitution and the principles that established our government.
I shudder when a congressman states that 'congress really can do anything it wants to' (while exempting its own members from compliance to laws imposed on the citizen), when a president announces that he is 'going around congress' or when the justice department (whose members swear to uphold and defend the laws of the country) announces which laws it refuses to enforce, and a judiciary that attempts to re-write the law rather than just determining its constitutionality. All of these statements/behaviors seem to me to undermine authority for law itself, as well as the principle that we are all equal under the law and equally under the law).
For those who believe that the Constitution is antiquated and would like to see it changed I would respectfully ask, 1. if you have a good understanding of it as it stands and the issues/discussions that went into its formation (I am appalled at the seeming number of politicians who appear to have, or state that they have, little knowledge of the Constitution); and 2. how would you change it? why? what would these changes be based on?
I do hope all are having a wonderful Christmas and, again, appreciate this forum for honest, reflective discussion!
-
We probably each have our individual idea of appropriate governance - my concern is that there are different needs, desires and viewpoints appropriate for various parts of the country - some of these viewpoints are because of historical experiences and the use of the land - my wish is that all areas understood theirs is not the only way nor are the needs the same. My belief is that the more understanding about the differences the more negotiations rather than, an up and down vote or labeling folks, which I think comes about because of this lack of awareness and subsequent lack of understanding.
It is one thing not to agree and have different views but, it is another thing to assume those different views are because both see the problem from the same viewpoint and are therefore, in contention. Where as, some folks have no experience seeing life from this other viewpoint and are therefore, interpreting the reaction as wrong or stupid or unworthy or unjust or non-compassionate.
As to myth - we all have our myth - the story that identifies who we are as a people - even families have myths - the things that happen and how we handle them, the things we experience that make us proud to be who we are - as small children hearing the stories we can see ourselves acting as a Minute man or Paul Revere and we are proud of how George Washington handled his army as well as, the personal strengths included in his story - we are proud of our role in various wars - we remember with pride key moments in our history that help form our values -
Not every historical event is remembered accurately, nor does it include all the factors but, the key points that we choose to highlight become part of how we keep the story alive as part of who we are as Americans. Some of our stories are not explained well enough to allow us to walk in the shoes of a Southerner or Northerner or other parts of the country that have a common story, down to the myths/stories that identify us as a people from a certain state or a certain city - Some of us assume what we consider our national identity is shared equally in all parts of this nation
Since our conception as a nation there are folks who identify themselves with the land which allows certain living patters and certain kinds of work - others see through the eyes of their work and their experience assuring they are valued for their work from professional ball players to coal miners - still others use their family myths including their experiences in church, school, home - still other groups identify as Americans by how we express ourselves in the arts or their pride in and struggles to preserve our wilderness.
The proud-fully remembered stories of ourselves build the myth of who we are. However, each American experiences a different America that is too often not only at odds but not understood by those from other areas or work etc. These differences are far more than just the city mouse versus the country mouse
-
I've started reading the US Declaration of Independence. The preamble is pretty much all that I remember from school way long ago. On my reading list (so far), but not in order:
The US Constitution (including the Bill of Rights and all the Amendments)
The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States
The Federalist Papers
The Anti-Federalist Papers
On Liberty - John Stuart Mill
Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocqueville
A Discourse Upon the Foundation and Inequality of Man - Jen-Jacques Rousseau
The History of Freedom and Other Essays - John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (First Baron Acton)
The Magna Carta
Constitutional History of England - Henry Hallam
The Writings of Thomas Paine (includes The Rights of Man)
Second Treatise of Government - John Locke
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Books I-IV - John Locke
Mogamom, thanks for reminding me of the online course at Hillsdale. I hope they still have it when I get to reading the Constitution. Something on the French Constitution would be nice to find so I can compare the differences.
Barb, I see your point about how cultural/national myths can shape thinking and actions in the current day. Oddly enough, I am reading a SciFi series at the moment where a myth has grown up around a person thought to be dead but found alive one hundred years later (the miracle of cryogenic hibernation or close to it). The protagonist must now deal with a hero status he does not feel he deserves nor feel up to in order to keep a battle fleet together. The myth has attributed things to him that he never said or did. Everyone who looks up to the myth expects him to live up to this mythical persona. Myths involving real people often have a way of growing and distorting until the real person would barely recognize his or herself.
-
I remember reading the The Magna Carta in a museum in London - bits and pieces and then later reading more - I remember then being shocked at how much church land was handled like the King's land that excluded timber cutting, hunting, trapping, fishing etc. to only the owners and those representing the owners - only in recent years did I read enough and attend enough classes to understand the church and the monarchy was one and the same power in most of Europe. It always takes our breath to hear the draconian measures attributed to the church since now we see the church as a connection to our spirituality rather than as a political governing body.
-
That's some reading list! In a history course in collegel we did read one Federalisy paper. one written by Madison, urging states to ratify the new constitution. I remember he stressed what he considered the most valuable part of the constitution: the provision for amending it.
Barb, surely the regional plantation owners of theante bellum South had their own way of life, and just wnated to be left alone to practice their "peculiar institution" as they wished. With a terrible war, I guess the Union"crammed its values down their throats" and millions today thank God they did.
The ranchers you describe are not isn such flagrant violations of human rights ,but their way of life is waning, isn't it/
And please don't curse labor unions. There must always be a tension between labor and management in a captialist society; unions help to level the playing field.
and when people start bashing government employess as lazy and incompetent and inferior to the
independent worker" , remember the public employees who went into the hell fof the Worl d Tradde Center or the teachers who tried to shield children with their bodies in Newtown. All union members.
-
Not cursing Labor just helping folks understand why the entire nation is not behind introducing unions into the workplace - and not waning - the way of life is still very strong but more, folks identify with the concept of the cowboy individual -
An example in this state - The Texas Rangers are one of our strongest law enforcers and they still track down the criminals that are often gangs with one Ranger -
As to the south you have to remember that many signed up for that war before it was about freeing slaves - they were often from the parts of the south where there were no plantations like the mountains of Tennessee, Northern Alabama and even the mountains of North Carolina - they signed up for the war thinking they were fighting over states rights - and yet, they have been blamed for slavery - and treated very badly after the war. The Federal government treated the southern soldiers, the dead and the states deplorably so that the concept of support for governing as a region and as states is far greater than supporting the Federal Government.
None of these differences are a right or wrong issue - it is about understanding there are other viewpoints with strong rational other then the viewpoint from the Northeast - or at least from Wisconsin down to Indiana eastward. That is the part of the country where everyone seems to identify with working in a group situation - even the top CEO cannot work independently - he has a board, he must do right by investors, and if he does not show a high enough profit quick enough to satisfy both the board and the investors than the company risks a takeover. Group thinking trickles up and down and is part of the fabric of the community - there were and may still be town halls - all very different than in other areas of the country -
Yes, in the big cities further west there is some of that but again, the identity of a people determines how they think and operate - in much of the west the identity regardless, how accurate it is for every person is the individual - History reinforces that viewpoint - in this state school age kids can tell you practically how many bullets were in the walls of the Alamo but ask them about Plymouth rock or the Liberty Bell and they say huh
Civics is no longer taught in elementary or high school - that is why Sandra Day O'Connor is championing Civics in education and has a free program for schools to use - but since it is not a class measured by testing for government funding, the schools are not running to adapt her program - and yet, in this state you do not graduate from elementary school, again in high school and if you attend a public Texas collage with out a term of Texas History so that is 3 terms of Texas history that includes how the state had to be organized post-Civil War which created a complex, arcane, restrictive and, in the end, contradictory founding document with which Texas continues to be saddled today. In this state the power is no longer since the Civil War with the Governor nor the state congress but for us the Railroad Commissioner and the Lieutenant Governor are the most powerful positions.
Knowing these regional differences or at least finding out more about these differences I would hope helps folks understand a bit of why folks think and act differently, often wanting different things in this so called one nation - too often I hear folks talk as if we are all coming from the same national identity - we are regions with differences - even the landscape alters how we think, act and imagine a national fix -
-
How difficult will it be to maintain "regional identity" with our youong people going to school and taking jobs across the country, moving every few years to different states, and add immigration with all its ideas of identity, and and the social media revolution and you have regional differences. And yes, I rmember that theCivil War began over states' rights, but which right were they most worried about? Slavery was wrong then, still is. Lincoln issued the emancipationproclamation in order to free ppossible black soldiers to join the Union side. But he pushed that amendment that ament- I forget the number- because he knew the Union was going to win and the seceded states would be back in the national congress and could vote for states' rights, including slavery.
I really don't think most people deny that we are one nation. I have lived all my life in one state, but I never think of myself as a' Massachusettsian' ,instead of an American. At the same time I am proud that mstate has universal health insurance, that our schools are so highly ranked, number 1 according to exgovernor Romnehy, and that we have lots of things to be proud of , the first state to recognize gay marriage, I think the first to elect a black governor, the lowest divorce rate - slthough I suspect that is because a lot of young people just aren't getting married! - and the highest percentage of college graduates. But I respect other viewpoints unless they support the violation of a universal human right. The Constitution is the foundation that unites us a
-
But I respect other viewpoints unless they support the violation of a universal human right.
I would suggest that we might not agree on what these rights are - or where the right comes from?
-
I am simply suggesting there are other valid viewpoints that we only see through our own eyes - just as many keep coming back to one issue for the Civil War - until there is an understanding of the other issues and acknowledge the post-war treatment of the South by the Federal Government and go into those shoes there is little compassion for today's political differences. Those points are as if we only see the Revolution as a reaction to injustice by the King of England rather than, also seeing it as a new beginning of a Democratic society where in a written document men are given certain rights. Today, celebrating on July 4th we hardly ever think we are celebrating freedom from a king. We celebrate from the victor's point of view further defining the war and its reason for being from our victorious point of view. That view is part of our myth and basic to subsequent decisions.
If the Civil war was just about the injustice of Slavery then as many say, anyone reacting from that loss is difficult to understand - to realize the reason for the war was switched in mid-stream after many thousands of men pledged their allegiance to a war over a State's Rights agenda, that we are still battling today, then the wrangling today can be better understood - States Rights was not given its due by the victors and it is the victors who have established the reason for the war - not to say there is lots of unnecessary anger by many today who are just plain angry that there was a change in an extension of the same freedoms to include blacks, browns, women.
However even the view of the average can only be read with compassion while reading Flannery O'Connor's Everything that Rises Must Converge - here is the link - the story is symbolic of the south - not just about a group of biggets.
http://faculty.cbhs.org/jbrummer/Everything%20that%20Rises%20Must%20Converge.pdf
My recent confusion coming from my viewpoint was about this bit of a newspaper publishing the names of those who own guns - took me a bit scratching my head to figure out why that was news or upsetting - here it would be welcome to know who we can turn to for quick protection and while in the city you cannot shoot an animal in trouble however, a couple of miles down the road, just outside the city that is a needed and welcomed neighborly thing - in most counties we do not have nearly enough Game Wardens much less Sheriffs - call a Sheriff and you can easily wait an hour.
I know at Girl Scout camp I was glad we had more than one gun on site as we held someone trespassing in the camp with 6 units of 30 girls each at night as we could hear the wail of the Sheriff's vehicle for over a half hour that was just the time we could hear him - the trip took him just shy of an hour and this camp is only about 40 miles in the next county from Austin where there are city police.
Knowing about and depending on City Police all your life gives a different, taken for granted viewpoint than those who do not live with 'beck and call 5 or 10 minute away protection' and therefore, know they are their own protection.
My hope is we not look at the issues as right or wrong or moral versus immoral but to realize there is a ligament difference that could be respected - respecting and understanding those living in various regions we can be open to the differences that frame the argument and most important, we realize there is no one answer fits all making it either a yea or nay choice.
-
the paper Sunday reported the sale of 32,000 rounds of amunition to a pribate buyer.
What on earth for? the vendor had to deliver it all in a truck.
Lst week firfighters were killed by a maniac who was a convicted faleon, not eligilbe to have a gun.
he got a neighbor to buy it for hijm. That practice of "straw buthyin is something I think we can all agree must be stopped, with severe punishments for ghowe who falsify the identity of the buyer. Prison term vor sure. Incidentally, the neighbor, a woman, knew the man's crime. He beat his 90 year old mother to death siwh a hammer. , and police found himan remains in the house after the shooting; possibly his sister.
Yew, it is an emotional issue, but we can find somethings like that to agree on, right?
How about liability isurance for guns like for cars? It would protect gun owners who have their guns stolen from civil liabilituy for untimely death of innocents.
The news also reports a lawsuit filed by a victim's family, for damages, against the town Of Newtown for failing to protect their child. '
Also, the Supreme Court left open the possibility of governental bodies to place restrictions on the "right to bear arms. Is it time to start emphasizing the "well regulatedd" part of that ahmendment?
I think this qustion is so emotional that it could sink this worthwhile site. Could we wait and see what is proposed by the President and the group headed by joe Biden?
If the title of the site is "the PROCESS of government, not the policies of a specific issue, could we discuss the influence of money in our elections, a real threat to our demcracy?
-
that is why I think we need regional laws - guns where there are police that respond in 5 or 10 minutes and where there are more people around to not only protect but also more crazies need a different legal arrangement than areas where there are no local responders in less than 30 minutes to up to a couple of hours as in most ranch and range land -
We also have the issue again of the concept of rights being manipulated with language to take away rights that have been a traditional part of what made this country work. Those areas that believe life is based on individual accomplishment with work, ownership, protection etc. etc. that is an example of the mind set different from those who are used to police protection and living in communities with close neighbors where you can drive to all services in less than an hour. Outside a large city and especially in ranch land it would be not normal to be without a gun. However, it is often not the practical reason for gun ownership as it is carrying on the identity with who we are as a people, in charge of our own destiny -
As to rounds of ammunition has there been a report as to why - could be for a practice shooting range - or a hunting operation that supplies everything you need - or a gun club that holds a monthly or annual competition.
The movies have done a good job of indoctrinating people to seeing a gun as an instrument of war and criminal behavior - like fire - it is a good thing and can be a bad thing - some places building a fire is appropriate and other places it is not - and some kids play with matches just as some crazies set fires but we still build houses with fireplaces and backyard barbeque's are the rage every summer.
-
the paper did not report the name of the buyer of the 32,000 rounds of ammo. Privach concerns I suppose.
It must be unnerving to live far away from police protection. Some one like thatrancher could need a gun - confronting a rogue bear, perhaps, or a stranger approaching the house at night. Let's hope it's not a tourist needing directions, or as has happened, his own kid. I believe the "stand your ground law" says it's okay to kill first and ask questions later
\Yes, fire can bue used for good or bad. so can the bread knfe in the kitchen. So cruld almost anything, including the frozen leg of lamb in the freezer a la alfred Hitchcock. But unlike fire of bread knives, the sole intrinsic purpose of a gun is to kill.
-
Yes, the sole intrinsic purpose of a gun is to kill. and it would be nice but we do not live in Disney land - lots of reasons to kill including an injured animal more often than a rouge animal - as to anyone killing their child the Federal Government is great at that - look at what they did in South Texas - and we are supposed to depend upon them for protection?
Again, in a world where police protection is nearby owning a gun is not as easy to wrap your head around but owning to use a gun is understood in a large part of America that is seldom respected much less understood. When a viewpoint is minimized that is minimizing the identity of a people - we are saying there is only one way that should be popular and understood and accepted.
With a one viewpoint decision that is saying, only part of the nation is valued and the only people then that count are the ones who agree with that viewpoint or live where that viewpoint holds sway. What should the rest of the nation do - live unprotected and work to satisfy the needs and maintain recreation areas for those whose opinion is not practical therefore, they cannot continue living where they live.
Guns, their use and availability appear to be more a state issue and yet, there are many who for whatever reason that we do not know will purchase and hide them in states with more severe laws even though they live where there is no humane shooting of animals required or where there is fingertip police protection - to stop them by banning guns is to leave too many families vulnerable.
I do not like assault weapons anymore than most folks here or there or anyplace in-between - we had a ban that was not renewed - the only thing I hear is that when you have a ban it is too easy over time to increase the ban - but we did have one - now if it worked I do not know. That is worth finding out how well the 10 year ban worked. I would not be surprised if Obama is successful initiating a renewal on that ban. I think that may be why we are seeing so many who see that as an infringement on their rights piling up the weapons now - they too suspect a ban - I cannot support that activity but I am curious and would love it if there were several interviews done so they can explain their wanting these weapons instead of us guessing from our perspectives.
Looking up the history of guns and it appears they have been around since the 12th century in China and the 14th century in western Europe - dueling is no longer allowed which stopped one aspect of killing with guns - I have a difficult time seeing the culture change when certain groups continue to have weapons and others are told they cannot - and so, I am not sure what is the answer - however, we could be barking up the wrong tree - the rational for using a gun may be what we want to address.
-
I see no reason for individuals to own automatic or semi-automatic assault weapons. I heard someone suggest that some people like to use them for target practice. He said he thought that they should only be made available for target ranges and people could rent them to use for target shooting. That seemed reasonable to me. You sure don't need an assault weapon to shoot rabbits or deer.
I wonder what our founding fathers would say about them if they were alive today?
Marj
-
Marj - I've seen that comment "I wonder what our founding fathers would say about them if they were alive today?" - I wonder also but then I also realize that it was still rural in the Eastern US and every farmer had his weapon or there would be no minute men or first defenders till an army was assembled - I do not know enough about how the army was issued weapons - seems to me the men owned their own.
As to the tragedies with guns there were mass killings before automatic weapons - that guy who killed 52 or was it 58 grade school children while they attended class in Minnesota back in the late 1920s did it with dynamite and Whitman off the UT Tower killed 13 plus his parents and wounded 32 before automatic assault rifles - what I do not hear when the news links availability and knowhow to weapons in the same breath with either violent TV, Movies or Video Games is the biggest killer of all the automobile that is used by these mass murderers to get to their site with just as much availability and know how.
I keep thinking we are looking at an easy fix that will not address the issue - there have been just a few news articles about the sorry condition of mental health facilities - as to the average teacher or citizen making an ID on who is vulnerable to act out - do not think we can trust that approach - but do we really know what sets some people off - we are used to nations and large groups starting a war but now we have individuals starting wars without an army behind them. Certainly the Sandy Hook killer is no worse than the Taliban who blow themselves up taking many with them - I keep wondering what is the thinking or emotional loss of control behind these mini wars.
-
I suspect it will all come down to whether the N.R.A. can come up withsuffieicnt money to buy enough congressmen to defeat any proposal regarding guns.
-
Bellemere I can hear through your posts how earnestly and heart felt you feel about getting guns out of homes and off the street - not sure if it is all guns or automatic and semi-automatic - there are many issues we feel strongly about that we wonder why others do not see it in the same way and want to shake them - I'm also hearing how you feel cut off from the democratic system that will listen to those with millions of dollars to influence the Representatives who we thought were working for us - it is sad and difficult and it scares me -
I'm not a member and I do not know anyone who is a member but from what their spokesmen says the NRA is not representing just a bunch of non-thinking power mongers - there may be some give but their issues have to be understood - I do not agree with much of their stand but at least we can make the effort to understand how they can think as they do - as of now everyone is talking past each other and so a large financial (bribing) contributer representing only one side, like the NRA, becomes the decider.
Right now I am not as pessimistic that nothing will happen - I do think there will be some control - probably not as much as many would like but a start that will keep intact the use of guns through out the nation. I still do wish there was more focus on mental health care and, as the campaign to rid much of the nation from smoking, it would be great to see a campaign to eliminate automatic assault weapons. However, as long as police and criminals have access I am not as confident we can see those weapons eliminated.
Bottom line, cities could ban the use and selling of weapons - maybe that is a start for you Bellemere - our neighborhood with less than 50 of us recently made a big change - to keep folks who own less than 10 acres from trapping deer. A horrid inhumane practice and we had some angry heavy hitters trying to influence the council to allow trapping. Stats, neighbors interviewed and a few who know the law as well as, making friends with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Game Warden and Wildlife Rescue made the difference. I bet you would feel less resigned by making a small change with a group of your neighbors to do something about gun control in your county/city.
-
Barb, it is really good hearing your views But I still think that guns in every house, every school, churh shopping mall, theater, etc. wold be terrible. My niece, an R.N. just posted on facebook that she always called when her sons were small, and inited to play at somebody's house. A gun in the house was a "deal breaker" even though her sons hated her to do it.
She said she had taken care of too many kids in the intensive care unit of Philadelphia Children's Hospital who will never again have a normal life. and she lives in one of the largest cities in the country with police present everywhere. Why guns in a house?
Your point that owning a gun is not a matter of "killing" but rather continuing the identity of who we are as a people. Who is we? Do people in your state actually think of themselfes as Texans first and Americans second? That can't be true.
Anyway, my bottom line is to work for a ban on assault weapons; to publish the names of gun owners in the local paper so parents have achoice of letting their children play in those houses, and some form of liability insuranc s for weapons, severe penalties for those who violate existing gun laws by falsifying the idetity of the buyer. Can yor agree with any of that? Hope so.
Just re=read Washington's Farewell to his troops at the end of the Anerican Revolution. He reminds the troops that it was men from every differnt part of the country, with their own pracitces and prejudices, that came together to fight, endure terrible suffering, loss, and finally to achieve a great victory. He uges them to remember that when they go back to their own states as civilians, that we are one "band of brothers in peace as well as war.
-
Yes, many do think of themselves as Texans first and then Americans and those who think of themselves as Americans do so with a lessor concept of National Government support than what I hear is typical in some areas of the country. Since our State Constitution still contains language to assure the right to succeed and Texas was a nation before joining the US, the state has a strong sense of Independence - in other words the cowboy/rancher - the strong capable individual.
As to children not playing in the home of someone with a gun the kids would be pretty lonely with no one to play with. Even in town - over the years many sellers had several guns that if they were not in a security-locked closet that could only be opened by an appointment with the seller then we recommended they be stored in another home to prevent their being robbed - No one ever worried, including me that they would be used by someone previewing the house who did not know how to use one and an accident would happen. I have even showed property where the buyer had his hand gun with him and he or she would put it in my locked glove box then I also locked the car while we went into a house that was for sale.
I do notice many of those who move here from other areas and whose children never marry someone whose family has lived in Texas, often still carry with them the attitudes and political views from where they came from. Example; a good friend has lived here, in Austin for 40 years and the children married someone from Oregon and Germany and she still cannot wrap her head around how the state supports or rather, does not support social issues as they do where she lived during the other half of her life. She has no concept of Ranch life or small town Texas life and she remained with those values that work elsewhere. She and her husband, who recently died never adopted or understood the Texas myth much less the western myth. Her background was from that area of the country where unions and group thinking is typical.
As far as I know none in her family own a gun but it was never an issue - just like you do not ask if someone eats white bread or wheat bread you take for granted they probably eat bread - some eat rice but it is a detail that is not part of the conversation or thinking - it just is... Outside a big city there is little funding for adequate police protection - you take care of yourself - in the large cities it is a different manner however, many only have the city house so the children can receive a better education and once they graduate back full time to the ranch or small town with few government amenities.
Although, Austin is changing with so many moving here from mostly the west coast with the High Tech industry - that is the part of the country I have not lived in although, my youngest and his family lived outside Portland for just under 3 years however, I do not have an understanding of their myth-identity. They do seem to want and push for public transportation that is seldom used and is an anathema to the Texans who are moving out of town in droves as the city changes. Austin is a blue dot in the middle of a sea of red however, the redistricting during the past 20 years carved up this town so it has little voting influence.
-
Barb, I haven't gotten into the gun discussion, but I have to comment about native Texans. My parents were at least second generation Texans. I wasn't born in Tx, but did grow up and marry there, and all our children were born there. I'm sure my father and grandparents did some hunting at some time, but none that I was personally aware of. And we never, to my knowledge, had a gun in the house when I was growing up. The only gun that's ever been in our house is a BB gun . We've never seen any need for one. (We have been in TN for 50 years..).
-
Enlough for a while, huh? let's wait and see what happens with the Presient's initiative. But that computer pogrmmer who just moved to Austin and wants not part of owning a gun may also be a strong independent man or woman -' in charge of his or her own destiny' Let's keep looking fot the things that bind us together and minimie the things that divide us.
Shalom.
.
-
Yes, I agree Bellemere - no disagreement intended only trying to show another side of the issue that is alive and well.
MaryZ - there is a variety - some do not own guns just as I have worked with many a buyer who did not have a handgun as compared to those who did - my point being we cannot ridicule or dismiss the viewpoint of gun owners - there are too many and if we want to be fair what works in some areas does not work in others - we need to be able to respect the different attitudes in order to come up with any national law that is agreed to and practical or else there will be more anger and less cooperation when other differences become an issue.
My experience is with family who own large ranches and because of listing and selling lots of homes owned by those who are several generation Texan both in Austin and in the surrounding area as far west as Blanco and Johnson City - one piece of property over in Dime Box east of Austin. Helped a family who moved back to Schulenburg and many who moved in or out of places in-between. Lots of friends who were active in state politics, many friends in South Texas, my son is over north of Houston and my grandsons are up in Lubbock - My daughter-in-aw's grandfather was a well known and respected judge - the Austin juvenile detention center bears his name - I am sure there are others who have even a better understanding of the state however, from this soup of hearsay there are many who do own and some who do not own guns - here guns currently is not a lively topic of conversation suggesting change.
-
2nd Amendment Text
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I wonder if we aren't missing a couple of points here. I believe the NRA has a long history of ensuring that gun-owners understand the responsibility and proper use and care of guns. But the founding fathers were clear that guns were not just for hunting. They had had experience with governments gone seriously awry. And the citizen is responsible for the care of himself and his family. We all know that Washington was speaking to farmers, trappers, etc. that had come to fight carrying their own guns, right? And even Dianne Feinstein has a license to carry a concealed hand-gun (surely not for hunting!) - even while advocating that we not have that same right. And it was recently reported that, in California, as gun sales have gone up, violent crimes have gone down.
I have no problem with states passing regulations for their citizens; but I do not believe one group should force its 'fix' on everyone else. I don't understand why people want eveyone to live under their set of rules; want to nationalize everything. I believe guns are more of a problem in cities; but no one seems to have difficulty getting them there, and buy-back programs don't seem to put a dent in it. And anyone living in some areas of some cities probably feel - and understandably so - that ten minutes is too long to wait for police to respond.
Lst week firfighters were killed by a maniac who was a convicted faleon, not eligilbe to have a gun.
he got a neighbor to buy it for hijm. That practice of "straw buthyin is something I think we can all agree must be stopped, with severe punishments for ghowe who falsify the identity of the buyer. Prison term vor sure. Incidentally, the neighbor, a woman, knew the man's crime. He beat his 90 year old mother to death with a hammer. , and police found himan remains in the house after the shooting; possibly his sister.
I live here. Was this terrible? Yes, indeed. And at first the talk was on controlling guns. But then people moved to seriously consider the whole penal system, where plea-bargains and over-crowded jails allow a man to go free after serving 17 years for bludgeoning his grandmother! But that is a more difficult problem. It's like when the country had a war on drugs - and when we couldn't solve that problem, started attacking the problem of smoking. Now, ironically, we have states making marijuana legal, so here we have smoking AND drugs.
It's easier - not better, but easier - to go after guns than to search our cultural soul for answers to how we have contributed to a violent mind-set, or have failed to encourage appropriate values towards protecting human life.
-
When my sons were young, I refused to get them toy guns for Christmas presents, despite the arguments from my police officer husband (now my ex). Happily my sons never seemed to care because they preferred to play music (drums and guitars), not cowboys and indians.
A bit off topic, but I also wanted to get them dolls to play with, but my ex absolutely refused, and I gave in. But when I was young our Kindergarten class played "house" and the boys as well as the girls played with dolls. I could never see that that was wrong, and still don't.
Marj
-
In our state both boys and girls take home economics and shop in high school. The issue is, I think, that you are free to decide how to raise your children - by your own standards/values. Statism forces everyone into the same mold.
I was born in the Adirondacks and attended a one-room schoolhouse. The boys ran their traps before school, came in early and started fires in the fireplace and pot-belly stove. They left early in the fall/winter to hunt. Because the boys took care of the fire-wood and drew water from the well as needed, the girls fixed lunch and cleaned up. There is nothing wrong with how we were all raised either. What would be 'wrong' (here meaning contrary to the founding principles) is if I expect you to raise your children that way, or if the federal government forced either of us to comply with what they believe to be 'group norms/values'. As far as possible we should be left alone to decide these things for ourselves.
-
that's funny, my eighht grade home economics course consisted of sewing(an apron)and cooking (something called Eggs Goldenrod, acutally not too bad) and the boys took "shop". They made a shelf or a box with a lid. Nothing aoubt parenting; guess they didn't want to give us any ideas.
My first year out of college I taught in a 3 room schoolhouse in a country town, but the good folks came up with the money for a part-time janitor to handle the heat and the cleaning.
-
When we first moved to our neighborhood, my children made friends with two little 5year old twin girls across the street. Their father routinely punished them with a belt. It was terrible to hear there screams; my children wept. None of us neighbors ever interfered. Should we have? This was forty years ago. I think today I would havecalled authorities, but at the time the "freedom to raise your own children according to your own standards" held sway with us, too.
Funny how the spanking of children came under criticism. I spanked, but just with a firm nand to the bottom and only for potentially dangerous behaviour. My children say then never spanked. "time out" periods and loss of privileges like TV bare now the norm with Thom. Their kids seem no better or worse than any others.
Incidentally the two girls who were whipped with a bot turned out fine: they had a loving gentle mother. But after she died, I heard that they never had anything to do with their father again.
-
Interesting tidbit I learned this morning -
While on my daily cruise through Gutenberg, I ran across Edward Bellamy. The name sounded familiar, so I looked him up. As it turns out, he wrote nothing of which I am familiar. He did write one very popular Utopian science novel called Looking Back 2000-1887. They couldn't print it fast enough. It turns out that Bellamy was a socialist. His cousin, Francis, was the one who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance. Here is Wikipedia's bio of Francis and how the pledge came about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy According to to Fox News, which references Dr. John W. Baer, The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History; The American Legion:
"Several variations of the Pledge are in use by groups espousing differing social and political principles. Pro-life activists sometimes add the words "born and unborn" to the end of the sentence, while liberals will often add Bellamy's original "equality."
Last fall, actor Tom Hanks created a stir when he recited the Pledge on a televised Sept. 11 fundraiser and omitted the phrase "under God."
I thought it most interesting that the whole thing morphed from an advertising campaign to give out flags with a magazine subscription, then to getting flags into every school room, and then to a Columbus anniversary celebration for which the pledge was actually written. The other thing that surprised me was that Francis Bellamy had socialist leanings. The socialist movement must truly have been popular back then; it seems to have influenced all kinds of people for quite some time.
-
Frybabe, re Tom Hanks leaving out the phrase "under God". When I grew up and learned the pledge, that phrase was not in the pledge. It was added during Pres. Eisenhower's administration. I leave it out, too.
-
I know, Mary. I was surprised to learn the wording had changed a little over the years. I grew up with "under God" in it. Maybe not the first year or so of elementary, but I just don't remember ever not having it in. It was a shock to discover it was a late addition.
Regarding the word "equality", I can't find where Bellamy actually used it. The quote from the Fox article inferred that it was. Bellamy considered it, but decided against it according to one source I read.
-
Great research Frybabe! It was fascinating to here that the Pledge was first a marketing tool to get people to buy flags. As a small child, I often spent a week or two with my grandmother in her Philadelphia "row house." It had a porch, identical to all the others on the street, that had what loooked like a metal hand attached to the front of theporch rail. There were holes where the "fingernails " would have been Into these holes, Nana inserted her little
american flags on Fourth of July. the whole block did the same, and I remember being thrilled by the patriotci display!
-
As far as political process is concerned, is anybody worried about the excess of money in our politicalprocess?
It seems as if the law allows all kinds of circumvetions to get around limits on contributions to candidates, and that super Political Action committees can influence office holders to support their causes if not with outright oney then with implied threats to prevent their re-election. Is this really democracy? The supreme Court has ruled that money equals free speech. Seems like something is not right.
-
I guess they subscribe to the "put your money where your mouth is" view. Your money talks for you. Never thought of it as a form of free speech. Didn't know the SC ruled it as such. Interesting.
-
The 28 Jan issue of Time has very interesting articles on gun control. Sorry to say I live in Wyoming where there is very little control. They can't understand why carrying a loaded gun into a bar is a bad idea???? But the article that states that a highly trained policeman could hit his target in a gun battle only 18% of the time -- the brain just can't process this highly tense situation in so little time.
-
A couple of years ago, the TN legislature passed a law that if you were licensed to carry a concealed gun, you could take it into a bar - but you couldn't drink. Yeah, right!
-
did it really say 18 percent of the time for a hit by a trained policeman? Not very good score. In that shoot out in fron of the empire State Blda few months bac, the cops fired 12 shots altoether and hit 9 bystanders. Nd New Yor city cops are very well trained.
Our state leislature is contemplating requiring Liability insurance for gun purchasers, like car insurance. We'll see how that plays out. A pliceman cannot come into a person's house to ascertain that uns are safely stored, but an insurance agent can.
-
Not sure where you're getting your figures that say 18%...sounds way too low to me.
Police firearms training typically includes qualification with a pistol, and also with a shotgun, general knowledge on the use of deadly force, some time on a training simulator such as FATS (Firearms Training System), and chemical agent training (using and getting sprayed) on oleoresin capsicum (OC pepper spray). Pistol qualification usually requires at least a 84% proficiency score on two or three consecutive runs of the Practical Pistol Course (PPC), and shotgun qualification usually requires 80% proficiency (which is also the passing score on most written tests). Officers who shoot at proficiency levels in the 90's usually become firearms instructors. Some departments exist that allow qualifying scores in the 70-80% range, and another small number of departments require all their officers to qualify in the 90-100% range.
Source:
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/205/205lect02a.htm
-
This is from the Cato Institute and was written following the Columbine shootings:
Gun Control: Myths and Realities
By
David Lampo
May 13, 2000
The number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement. As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a “Million Mom March” to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother’s Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought. And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it’s easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case.
Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge.
1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.
False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn’t know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes “children” up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.
2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.
False. Contrary to President Clinton’s claims, there is no “gun show loophole.” All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.
3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.
False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.
4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t.
True. The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.
5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.
False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that “waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides.”6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.
False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.
The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let’s hope more people are catching on.
-
the Cato Institute promotes one, very libertarian , point of view. It
s financed ,very well, by Charles Koch, the billionaire energy manate who opposes any ovt. action regarding the envioronment., as well as any action aainst gun violence. There are other sources.
But to et back to the police shooters. I think the Time article made a oint that even the best performers on the qualifying range undergo such severes stresses in an actual gunfiht, that their skils deteriorate very quickly.
My son in law was a city policeman for over 25 years and never fired his gun in the line of duty. He did break several nightsticks, and broke up many a barroom brawl with his fists.
But the conflict over gun control will once more be won by money, not by emotion or reason. ,
-
In the New York City police department, for example, officers involved in gunfights typically hit their intended targets only 18% of the time, according to a Rand study. When they fired 16 times at an armed man outside the Empire State Building last summer, they hit nine bystanders and left 10 bullet holes in the suspect—a better-than-average hit ratio. In most cases, officers involved in shootings experience a kaleidoscope of sensory distortions including tunnel vision and a loss of hearing. Afterward, they are sometimes surprised to learn that they have fired their weapons at all.
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/16/your-brain-in-a-shootout-guns-fear-and-flawed-instincts/#ixzz2Iut8AfdL
Bellemere
you are right about the Cato Institute. Also David Lampo is a Log Cabin Republican. His views are the same as the NRA.
"But the conflict over gun control will once more be won by money, not by emotion or reason." Exactly
-
You are so right - it does represent a point of view, which is why the source needs to be cited. What you seem to be speaking to here is the great difficulty in getting unbiased 'facts'? There is a great deal of money spent by liberal groups also who promote gun control laws vehemently. One problem I found with their statistics (often taken from FBI stats) is that 'gun violence' here includes suicide - which really is a whole different issue than violence against another. The numbers can also be deceiving if you consider that they may be included in more than one column, but represent the same incident (ie. 'murder' and 'robbery' may refer to the same or separate incidents). I try to look at both sides carefully.
But, that aside, how did the writers at Time reach their conclusions - was that described in the article? I mean, how did they measure the accuracy? Were these their numbers or a compilation gathered from law enforcement in several areas?
-
Thank you for that link, jeriron! I'm having trouble reading it all, but will keep trying. If their findings are accurate, what are they suggesting? That police shouldn't carry guns either? I'm really not trying to be provocative - just trying to understand.
Is it wrong to be a Log Cabin Republican, a conservative or a libertarian? Don't many Americans actually share the opinions voiced by the NRA?
-
There are not too many government statistics on gun violence as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire Arms are prohibited (thanks to pressure by the NRA) from gathering statistics. I wonder why??
I certainly don't share the NRA's position. I have no problem with owning guns for hunting or self protection (altough I believe that is very dangerous). But the NRA is unreasonable in believing the government is going to take people's guns away which won't happen because the Second Amendment allows citizens to own guns. However, the constitution does not say that owning or using a gun cannot be regulated. A friend of mine wanted me to carry a gun (concealed). What would she do if confronted by a robber? Say "Wait a minute while I get my gun out of my purse!"
-
Funny how different jurisdictions are attempting to find solutions to gun violence without treading on the toes of the NRA. One small town in Ohio plans to arm the school janitors and give them two whole days of training in un use. Source: Steven colbert, sometimes outrageous, but neve inaccurate. that TN law reported here where you can carry a gun into a bar, but not drink is truly bizarre. I guess if you see a bi ttouh looking guy at the bar drinkin a Diet coke, wyou know he is the "Designated Killer."
-
bellemere, it sounds bizarre to some of us Tennesseans, too. Unfortunately, not to our legislators.
-
"Designated killer" ;D ;D ;D
The Time article said that most local police practiced a few times a year at a shooting range. Of course the targets don't shoot back!
-
I deep thinkin about those janitors, wonderin if these men and women are happy with their new responsibility
to defend the shcoolchildren with a un. Was it voluntary or made a condition of their continued employment? Shcool janitor used to be considered a pretty good job.
-
I worked in public education at various levels for 36 years. There have been more than a couple janitors I surely don't want armed in a school setting! Good grief!!
jane
-
Have properly and well-trained guard dogs ever been considered?
-
I think we are in a new time - I just do not see us being able to control who does and who does not have a gun - the latest on the national stage is that there are as many differences in gun laws among the states as there are states - my concern has also been on two aspects of controlling guns - if the police and FBI are the only ones with assault weapons and we cannot even trust them with pepper spray however, that leaves us open as citizens to have our rights lessoned rather than we are all equal - this is how many nations have police states - I really am not anxious to live in a police state.
Second there is no stopping criminals from getting and using assault weapons - and so the police need them and then gradually those who live where they feel vulnerable with less police protection - which let's face it, police do not protect! They come after the event or if we are lucky to be able to notify them during an event. And so, those who know the police could not protect even if they wanted will also feel compelled to have weapons. What started out as a hunting and war machine hundreds of years ago that later, in order to settle this nation we used guns to kill those in the way, the gun became individual war machines are now sophisticated killing machines used for a rational we have not understood.
There were mass killings including children long before assault weapons - that is a behavior that I have not heard examined - oh the individuals physiology is often assumed but mass killings has never been explained. This is something basic - how does rage get to this point - there was the African experience some years ago where one tribe killed everyone they could find from another tribe - we toss off 9/11 as an act of war or terror but how does someone urge another to be a part of a mass killing and in this nation when you look at the history of mass killings in just the 20th century - and so if it is not assault weapons it is dynamite or long knives or planes or anything that can harm.
I also think that with the other mass school shootings it happened in the part of the country those in the east saw as separate and more open as we still have the image of the Wild West planted in our minds - I think Connecticut was a case of the behavior associated with big city inner city ghetto life of drugs, poverty and daily murder coming into a middle to upper middle class community - I do think that is part of the fear. The gate to hell had opened and what was considered over there was here and all the associations with inner city culture like music and dress and now behavior was affecting an upward mobile community.
No we cannot close the door and we cannot go back and fix the sins of allowing a system that gave no floor or protection except to jail those who do not live like the middle class. But yes, we need protection and we do not want to allow our children to be someplace unprotected - we would not allow them to shop alone or go to a movie theater in certain parts of town - too bad since the children in those parts of town have no choice but again that is taking on a huge social issue.
So like it or not we are going to have to hire armed protection - we could look to see how the few schools that have increased their attendance and graduation from these inner city schools set up protection - large lawns may have to be surrounded with high barbed wire fences and that will be the new picture of what an elementary school looks like - when it comes down to it who do we trust to protect with arms - some do not like teachers carrying others do not thing janitors have what it takes others see the police often drunk on the feet during their off time and see uncontrollable behavior when in uniform - the FBI kills the wrong people and yet as individuals all these people protect themselves and their families and are our neighbors.
I think we have to face facts - until we know what are the causes some with individual emotional problems to turn to mass shootings when they experience trouble in their life we have a problem and until we can develop ways for inner cities to have hope and safety and until those to the south of this country are not so desperate that their biggest commerce is drugs with gun wars that spill into our country all of these problems are now handled with firearms - we will have to figure out a way to protect our kids when we are not there with them.
-
I have read statistics from the CDC, DOJ, and FBI. Each measures different populations and the analysis of the statistics given is different; but on this they all agree (as do their numerous charts): gun ownership has gone up measureably (even dramatically in the last four years; estimates of access given as high as 80 out of 100) and gun violence has continued to decrease since 1990, although by far the majority seem to be rightly stating that there is no honest way to say that those numbers constitute a cause-effect relationship. I guess I was most surprised that, with all those guns, the gun violence isn't much higher than it is.
The second amendment was given to us to give us a way to protect ourselves and our families AND to protect us from tyrrany. James Madison made that clear in the Federalist Papers. And for those who think the second amendment will protect citizens from losing the right to carry weapons you should note that the last two Supreme Court justices have both defined that amendment to be only relevant to a collective group (militia = state National Guard), not to individual citizens.
I have also read the 23 executive orders President Obama is considering: some are relatively benign, some are troubling (ie. using the Health Care Act to get doctors to report patients who own guns, a federal registry, etc.). But what they all have in common is that they are ineffective - bad guys don't fear/keep the law.
Even regulating gun shows promises to be ineffective since that accounts for only about 1% of the guns confiscated in a crime: most 39% each get guns on the street and/or from friends/family/neighbors.
The shooting in Webster was more thoroughly discussed: the perpetrator of the shooting was angry because his mother left everything to his sister (since he was in jail for killing her mother with a hammer). So he killed his sister and set fire to the house. A woman got him the guns and ammunition which he couldn't obtain. It only took the Webster police ten minutes to respond, and as soon as they returned fire he ran off and shot himself. People are wondering what more/different laws/regulations could have prevented this; or if it would have been wiser to give first respondents a way to protect themselves.
As far as schools go - how about we start with an alarm system and go from there?
-
Yes mogamom you make the point about Webster and the individual motive of the shooter - but why mass shooting - that is the motive not explained about any of these mass killings - rage I understand - feeling deprived - and I could understand the murder of a few who you blame but to turn to mass killings of folks you do not know - what is that all about - what is the cause - we have no info that gives us the picture of why that is an alternative action - how can we protect ourselves against a rage with unknown rational for choosing macro versus micro killing.
-
But where is this taking us? It has been estimated that there are at least 230,000 guns on the street in the hands of criminals that were stolen from the pribate homes of gun owners. Are we really oing to spend millions of precious education dollars on armed guards for our schools? What about our daycare centers,? Our nursing homes, another vulnerable population? Hospitals? sporting events? libraries? thaters ? (Aurora) how about churches and synagogues?
I know that facts must be faced. But the ision of a nation of civilians carrying weapons and eerplace packed with armed guards is terrifying. And a police state looks bad?
On youtube you can hear an anti control advocate explain how "This is not about duck hounting!" Youtube, piers MOrgean alec Jones interview)
He makes it clear that gun owners who do not like something "the government" (freely elected goernment) does, the matter will not be settled by ballot but by bullets. In other words, they will "rise up" and "take back" our country from its democratically elected leaders. By shooting them,, i guess. How else would they do it?
I wll hang on to my Impossible Dream: a change in the gun culture of my country . Just as now , it is culturally okay to say to a friend who has had too much to drink, "Let somebody else drive" it should be okay to tell a friend going through and a dark time with job loss or divorce, "Store the gun someplae else for a while" That might prevent some of the domestic murders by (formerly)law abiding gun owners. I know hoping for a change in the American gun culture is pretty hopeless, but do we really want to be ruled by the NRA? Are we to let them design our future as one of More, more and more guns? Assault weapons are not toys. They belong to soldiers, yes and FBI agents who have taken an oath to defend our country.
-
The NRA has been in panic mode for a very long time - they really have the second amendment in mind and their sense of liberty that was assured by the gun and for most members they live where guns are not used for killing others but as a sport - they are tied to the gun as the extension of the individual versus being subjugated to the power and will of others. No, I do not belong to the NRA but to set this up as another football game with gun rights and the NRA on one side as the demons I do not think gets us anyplace.
As to safety in public places - I do not know the answer - I wonder though if fear is at the basis of this - there is an article that shows the women killed in domestic and other rape violence since 9/11 are more than all the deaths of 9/11 and all the soldiers killed in wars since 9/11 and yet, it is still difficult for women even to get a fair understanding if she shoots her perpetrator - comparing that number to the deaths from mass killings makes the fear seem out of place. Then when you compare the deaths by shootings to death from an auto accident we do not seem to share the same panic and fear getting into our vehicle nor taking our children with us in our vehicle that is far more a death trap.
Frankly I am with you - I do not see how we can afford armed guards for our schools or all the public places where mass shootings can take place - we cannot even afford to assure there is no death on the highway much less assure women and some children are not killed in their own home.
I still think until we know the basis for disturbed people to shoot masses of people I do not think we can figure out a way to protect the community - but then we know why there is so much crime and violence in inner cities and we still do nothing about that.
As to Piers Morgan he is not looking at the big difference between England and the US - in Britain the police are only recently armed and except for a few swat teams they do not have semi-automatic weapons - their dealing with policing is very different -
Britain does not have near the population much less the diversity of population - they come from a history where, until the mid twentieth century, folks knew their place - we did not have a culture here until recently of a caste system based on wealth - and yes, we did have a caste system based on race but even there, guns were not as prolific as they have become since the drug culture and the drug wars and also, since Viet Nam - When disenchanted soldiers did not feel safe without carrying and then in some parts of the country the killing of folks by the FBI who were living tucked away in mountains made everyone jittery. When the nations authority mis-uses their power with guns, no one wants to take that lying down - then the authority is playing with what is basic to the reason for our nation. And that is the difference between the US and Britain.
-
I know we aree on the goal of a civilzed society, a rule of law, not of force.
But if the current trends continue - more guns, more semisautomatic uns, where will we be, say a decade down the road.? Surely gun tecnology willproduce even more fearful weaponry, guns that shoou nere as capsules perhaps or small handuns capable of as many multple rounds as semiautomatics today, , but easily concealed.
And as the weapons et more lethal, the reulations become more relaxed.
The poor foundin fathers. they were so afraid the new republic would o broke supporting a standing army, and that such an armywould encourae adventuring into wars, (Boy,did they get that ritht right) that they envisioned a citizen army of armed householders coming to defend their country. After all, it worked once at lexington Massachusetts; it could again.
There are inded fact to face. But there is also a vision to keep in sight,. We are a great country, and it is not our weapons but our ideals that make us great. Now I sound like a pol. but true. You work toward, and sacrifice for, your vision. what is the gun owner
s ivsion? The reason I hear for assault weapon ownership is to have more fun on the shooting rane. those weapons wee desined for the miloitry and they shuld stay there.
-
I think we need to put many more resources into mental health and getting children the mental health help they need early on. There has been a thought of "not wanting to label" a child as having mental problems too early. If the child has mental health issues at age 5 or 6...threatening to burn down other kids' homes, violence toward other kids in the forms of physical violence, etc. then that needs to be dealt with by professionals...and not wait until he's now 8 or 10 to get the help. There are long waits in many school districts for children referred by qualified school psychologists to mental health facilities...but it is taking months and months to get the child in.
If we can spend $$ buying military equipment the military doesn't want, we can surely get money into the training and establishment of mental health facilities. I don't think anyone would disagree that it wouldn't have taken a Ph.D or MD in psychiatry to see that the Aurora, CO, shooter, the AZ shooter, the Sandy Hook shooter were in desperate need of mental health help.
I don't believe you are going to legislate or change the "gun culture." My own Iowa county has long lists every month of citizens who have the permit now to carry "concealed." And the crime in our county? It's been coming from those who've come into our community from the outside...from the Chicago and Milwaukee area. These men have been caught breaking into homes and businesses...taking what's there that they want....$$, credit cards, electronics. I guess they think a small town police force is an easy mark. The number of them sitting in the local jail would seemingly indicate maybe that's not so.
We also need to break this cycle that I'm entitled to what you have simply because I want it. This kind of "entitlement" is going to take years and years to break, I fear.
These breakins of homes and businesses will only fuel more people going for their gun permits, I think. Women living alone on farms look like easy targets. I think the bad guys will find out that these women are armed, they know how to use weapons, and they will shoot intruders.
-
We do need more mental health resources. But treatment for mental illness works , sometimes. somtimes it does notl It is not amiracle cure
The NRA has done a masterful job of portraying itself as a defender of constitutional rihts. It is really an arm of the gun manufacturing industry.
the times today writes about the industry[ sponsored "youth shooting contests" in order to recruit children, ages, 8 and up, to learn how to kill with a gun. In our twon, , two years ago, a perent, a docto no less, took his 8 year old to a shooting rane, in order to get a picture of him firing a semiautomatic weapon. The little boyy was not strong enough to resist the recoil of the weapon and it slipped and killed him right in front of his father with a camera trained on him.
The gun industry and the NRA are studying the demographics and see a declinin population of older gun owners , thus they are pourin money into the "junior Shooter " movement, aimed at youn children. How much money? uess I'll read more about it and find out. I am sure it is substantial.
Publishing the names of gun owners is a great way for criminals to target homes with guns, isn' it?
So a large number of guns owned by
Our biggest gun problem is with gangs. And their guns are stolen from gun owners, for sure. They are not customers of the gun shops. so more gun permits equals more street uns eventually.
Again, whee is all this spreading gun culture taking us?
-
OH dear Bellemere - have you been to a rifle range - many kids learn to shoot at a rifle range and you need to be pleased because they learn gun safety and gun manners where as the kids who learn with friends out back in a field just learn to aim - if the NRA was teaching how to kill the FBI would be all over them no matter how much money is supporting the organization from manufacturers.
Do you have a site that we can see to learn where the NRA gets their money - from which gun manufacturers - this is not secret so if this is something you have researched please, let us have the benefit of your research. However, I do not think gun manufacturers are producing a product simply to kill willy nilly anyone - just as a match company or gas company is not producing matches or gas to be used to set houses on fire.
I know you are seeing this as a problem from where you live - and probably many of the local news commentators are revving up outrage blaming what is a simple blame - products can be used for both good and bad - please look at the responses here on Senior Learn - anyone who lives in a less populated area sees the benefits of a gun - those who live in an area where you not only can see your neighbor but can look out the door and see 10 neighbors and who do not have wild animals to care for when they are injured and if there is a disturbance can get police protection see guns as a menace.
Stopping house robberies of guns may be one of the biggest ways a campaign can get gun control started - that at least would drive the criminals to an open market even if it is a Black Market - getting guns from the hands of criminals would allow folks to feel safe so that populated areas would not be inundated with guns. To go round and round and think that is going to create a change is a lot of energy that could be used to make a difference.
Jane yes, the idea of children having the benefit of mental health but my concern is we pile more and more on the schools - with so many kids and young people's shows on TV I wonder if there is a way writers could introduce in their story line kids asking for and other kids going to their appointed therapy. You were a teacher so you know, my daughter and daughter-in-law are teachers and say that if they were able to include in their lesson plans all the issues that the public think kids should learn in the classroom they have time for maybe 10 minutes for each initiative leaving no time to teach the subject matter they are supposed to learn.
My thinking is there is not only not enough public dollars invested in mental health but the attitude of caring for you mental health is still not looked at with open arms as a natural way to take care of yourself and your family. Once we see mental health as a norm then school boards may see mental health care on the same level that assures a school nurse - schools could even include some early before class half hour small group sessions and monthly assemblies showing a movie about bullying and other issues - for most schools that is only 3 movies in the fall with December a celebration month and then 3 in the Spring with April being Spring break and May is looking at finals with no more new learning. 6 movies a years handling bullying, anger, loss of a home, family member through death and another divorce. A family member in jail, or ill so they can no longer contribute and need care etc. etc.
I wonder if there are even books written with stories of kids experiencing some of the trauma that we do not talk about but a kid today lives with like putting on their shoes, pants and shirts.
And then why is it that boys and men are involved in mass shootings - there are as many women with firearms - granted most women I know only use shot guns, rifles and pistols but they know how to use a gun - what is that all about.
-
Barbara
Jane yes, the idea of children having the benefit of mental health but my concern is we pile more and more on the schools - with so many kids and young people's shows on TV I wonder if there is a way writers could introduce in their story line kids asking for and other kids going to their appointed therapy. You were a teacher so you know, my daughter and daughter-in-law are teachers and say that if they were able to include in their lesson plans all the issues that the public think kids should learn in the classroom they have time for maybe 10 minutes for each initiative leaving no time to teach the subject matter they are supposed to learn.
I'm not talking about the teacher doing mental health therapy in the school classroom. Teachers aren't trained as mental health professionals. I'm talking about licensed/certificated master and specialist degree school psychologists making recommendations after working with children and seeing the need for those children to have more help...from clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. THAT is what is taking 6-9 months to happen...after the master/specialist degree school psych has recognized a severe problem in a child.
The school is the logical place to find the children who need more help than they're getting. I don't know where else trained professionals have long term interaction with the children and can see what are behaviors that need mental health help. Finding children who need help is what the schools have been doing for years...from the passing of the 94-142 law which was to identify, locate, and provide services to handicapped children. The law is there...it's a matter of getting the help available that these children with mental problems need.
For those not familiar with the 1975 Federal law:
www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfrnb/pl94-142.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_All_Handicapped_Children_Act
http://www.scn.org/~bk269/94-142.html
jane
-
I like it - now to change the attitude that still exists that therapy is a luxury and for many they see it still as un-neccessary - that should not be too hard since there have been successful many attitude changes about health - the next big high jump is getting those on the board of education to see the value and include it in their budget. Nothing is easy is it but this idea really makes sense and I bet if they are so worried about test scores that a child receiving therapy will be able to focus more on their studies and bring in higher test scores.
I still would like to have an understanding of why boys and men commit these mass shootings but not girls or women.
-
Oh Barb, one of those little shooting range students was Adam Lanza, whose mother reularly took her sons to a hihly rated range run by the National Sports Shooting Association that is where he learned how to use the un he later used to kill her in her sleep and go on to kill those 20 little children and 6 teachers. And the national headquarters of the Shootin Sports Foundation is, guess where? Newtown, Connecticut, just down the road from the Sandy Hook elementary School Parents of those childrem must find it very hard to drive by that building Will they have the decency to move and establish their headquarters somewhere else. ?
If you can possibly read today's long article in the new York times, you will read the tremendous effort that is bein funded by gun maanufacturerss to recruit children to shootin, starting at ae 8, and especially tareting middle school boys. That they see as the ae roup that miht get interested in what they call "competing activities" like soccer, baseball, swimming, music, ymnastice, etc.
There are better ways to teach children responsibility , safety, and manners. Here is my view; None of us, gun owners, parents, anti gun actibists, none of us knows the cause of thie terrible gun violence that grips so many of our youn men. Until the Center for Disease control gets busy following the initiative just sined by the President , and funded with 10 million dollars, to study the causes of un iolence, and include the easy accessibiility of assault weapons, the violent videos and films, the lack of propler mental health care, and the undue influence of gun manufactureres on public policy,. nobody will know what to do. We are all stumbling around in the dark.
Oh, and in my state? Smith and Wesson in the next town, was just admitted to the Golden Circle of the N.R.A. , reserved for donors of 1 million or more. the more is open ended and until I can et the Smith and Wesson tax return, whichI cant', I can only uess that it is much much more.
-
bellemere there are many coincidences in life - what happened can be blamed on many things including the driving school where he learned to drive the vehicle that got him to the school - you cannot take one incident and say that is the cause and if we ban that there will be no more or less violence.
There are far more deaths from teens driving then teens using guns and kids clamor to be able to drive - we should be thanking our lucky stars that there are so many kids learning the correct way to use a gun and when to use a gun - to say the teaching of this young man how to use a gun was the cause then every school would also have to be blamed and vilified just as the shooting ranges because, if he had no association with school and was home schooled his entire childhood he would not have gone to the school.
Each of the killers were sick - he killed himself - folks who commit murder do not just kill themselves - they think they are going to get away with it - and so it is an easy way out to blame the mom, the fact he learned to shoot, that they had guns, that he learned to drive, that he had access to a vehicle, that he was on his computer all the time we need to blame I guess Bill Gates. How come no one mentions the Dad in all this - he, with all his money has insulated himself - frankly this sounds too much like the Mendez brothers who killed their mom because the boys saw that she protecting the Dad.
Can't go back and forth any longer on this - you are living a fortunate life where you have instant protection - where you do not have to kill wounded wild life - where you do not have to keep criminals off your property because it would take the sheriff too long to get to your house on and on - the quick blame is fine if that helps folks in your area to feel safe - and yes, I agree your situation is very different then at least two thirds of this country - I see in an attempt for the folks in your area to ease their fears they are also saying y'all are willing no longer to be equal to those who do have guns - if that is the price you believe is best to feel safe than fine but that is a big price that many others in the nation are not willing to pay.
Yes, I agree there are jerks in the NRA, powerful jerks but then there are jerks in Congress, jerks on School Boards that choose Textbooks, jerks on wall street, jerks in the FBI and the various police departments and in the Dept of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms - and so this month the jerks at the NRA are the flavor of the month - so be it - but all organizations have good and bad - I just hate to see folks throwing out the baby with the bath water. God Bless - make others happy and we will all get through this life as best we can.
-
Ues, we have to let this go. the only thing i will be watching is that appropriation of 10 million dollars to the Center for Disease Control. , to see if g'un Conressmaen" try to get it eliminated from the budet. The NRA has been able to stop all investiative research into gun iolence for 17 uears. I would not say that we have "instant protection, but some hoe owners have alarm systems wirred into the police stations, and that is pretty efficiient at getting the newrest cruiser to the house.
Ane no we don't have to shoot wounded or sick animals; the vet does it. And amon my friends , no one owns a un, and doesn't want on. Except for hte husbnd of one who oes hunting.
So we have to wait for the research tfor our country to make data-drien decisions.Real information is our right under the First amendment. menwhile, the gun indutry nd the NRA will continue to promote shooting as a nice healthy family sport; to scare people into buying guns for protection, and to recruit children into the gun culture.
In the meatnime, pax, shalom, peace.
-
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
I've been reading your posts. It is a very difficult subject. At what point do you give up freedoms to gain safety and security? Where is that fine balance between the two, and why do we swing from one extreme to the other? The argument has gone on for a very long time, gun control is just a more visible part of it. Most of the gun control history I have found is related to the US and is biased one way or another. I did find this interesting article on a website that says it is not funded by any group that would limit their content. http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/19/a-brief-peoples-history-of-gun-control/ Not much, but a start. I'd like to find more on early gun control issues and perhaps other weaponry prior to the invention of firearms. I am curious to see what arguments were used then.
I am very happy that we live in a society that is able to openly debate the issues, regardless of what they are without (for the most part) punishment. I am also pleased to see that we can (as evidenced in this debate here) argue our various (and valid) points without resorting to ad hominim attacks. Well done.
As a side note, in our discussion of Travels with Herodotus I was very much interested to note that Herodotus' main goal in his travels was to discover the cause of war with an aim to preventing it in the future. Guess he wasn't very successful.
-
An interesting opinion in the WashingtonPost on why the Post Office has the $$ problems it does....thanks, apparently to a bill they passed in 2006!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-the-collateral-damage-of-cutting-postal-service/2013/02/11/41af2ba4-7487-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html
-
I knew that about the pre-funded pension plans, jane. Ridiculous!
-
(http://brittarnhildshouseinthewoods.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bf74c53ef017d410407c7970c-350wi)
-
"Why are sex attacks on the rise in Tahrir Square?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21441624
I am a bit disturbed that Egypt seems to be backsliding into treating women abominably, but since Morsi won the vote, I am not surprised to see this all bubbling to the surface. The excuses the men give are unconscionable.
PS Barb, the roses are great. George surprised me with a small bouquet too. Truly was not expecting it.
-
Read somewhere recently in one of the many books that during times of nationalism - not necessarily unrest but intense nationalism those low on the totem pole are hassled - my expression - but according to where it can be ethnic, religion or sex ID that folk jockey for inclusion and exclusion because nationalism is an attitude of creating strong borders instilled with pride and the heritage that tells a desirable story around a nation - which could even explain some of the backwards look at women in this country as we are securing borders keeping out the unwanted which to many is strengthening our identity with a rallying cry we are a lawful nation.
-
This morning I saw an article listed on BBC titled "What if women ruled the world". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21661744
The reader comments , as far as I read them, are a bit less enthusiastic than the writer.
-
I am reading Jon and Rumer Godden's Two Under the Indian Sun. In India during WWI the two pre-teen girls were exposed to both the beauty and horrors of Indian life. In the chapter called "Cain" they describe a situation that involved their favorite, a gatekeeper named Guru.
Guru took in a young woman (not sure whether they actually married) who was pregnant. The young woman was from a family where her father regularly beat her, apparently because she was too pretty. Not only that, but it turned out that the father raped her, which is how she got pregnant. Guru took her away from that while the father was away for several months. Guru was of one caste, while the woman was of another. That in and of itself was a big no-no.
When the father returned, he found his daughter and beat her to death in a fit of rage and jealousy. Guru ran away but was apprehended and sent to prison for seduction, a crime at the time. The newly born baby was taken in by mata rani.
The story is disturbing, especially since this kind of thing continues to this day in parts of the world. The young woman was dead. Guru, who was trying to take her away from an awful home life, was punished. There is no mention if the father was punished. The baby was given to the care of "mata rani".
I cannot figure out who mata rani was. My Google research came up only with the fact that she is a mother goddess. The child lived, so was mata rani her grandmother? A temple nun? The other thing I am puzzled about is whether or not Muslims in India observe a caste system like the Hindus do (or did). I know that some Muslim families participated (and still do) in "honor killings", but what about Hindus? Is this why no mention of the girl's father being punished? The excuse for beating a female child for being too pretty is something I've read in other books/articles regarding family life.
I continue to be bothered by the fact that attitudes and laws regarding women that allow and even encourage such behaviors still exist in the world.
-
Have you seen the movie 'Water' - rent it and all will be explained - very disturbing - seems mata rani is also a house that young girls as young as 5 and 6 who are married to old men and the old man dies she is brought to live her life out in a house run by a mata rani with all the consequences of the birth of the child in the story you just read. I have been staying away from all these novels from that part of the world including Hassan about Afghanistan - too disturbing with no way to making a difference.
-
Thanks, Barb, I'll look into the movie.
Two Under the Indian Sun is a memoir of sorts, not a novel, making it all the more disturbing. The Godden girls got their eyes wakened up to such things early on. I believe the eldest was only 10 or 12 when they were sent to India during WWI; Jon was eight and Rumer was seven. They were there five years before being sent back to England to finish their schooling. The whole family seems to have spent much of their lives in India, sometimes going back to England for a period of time.
-
I just looked up Water. It is the third of a film trilogy. The first, Fire, includes arranged marriages and homosexuality. The second, Earth, revolves around a girl with polio, the story being told by her.
-
hmm just looked at the case and it says nothing about being a part of a trilogy - I am speaking of the Deepa Mehta Film Water with Lisa Ray and John Araham and Seema Biswas- she had to finish part of the film without the background since they kicked her out of India - the film was finally finished and released in 2006 - OK found it - she did Fire and Earth earlier but they must all be stand alone because there was no hint that Water had been preceded by other connected stories.
http://www.amazon.com/Water-Lisa-Ray/dp/B000GIXE86/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1369018084&sr=1-2&keywords=water
-
I thought so too Barb. Wikipedia called them the Elements trilogy, Water being the last. Hmmmm, there are four elements. What happened to Wind? I wonder if Deepa Mehta is still persona non gratia in India.
-
Here is an unexpected by of news from BBC. I didn't know that women were allowed in the Afghan military, let alone pilot a helicopter. Will this continue once the US/UN presence is gone?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22943454
-
Happy (belated) Independence Day!
Some recent Rasmussen polls to ponder:
“Saturday, July 06, 2013
Americans still share the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence 237 years ago and remain wary of too much government. It’s clear, too, that many aren’t happy with the government they’ve got.
Eighty-one percent (81%) believe “all men are created equal.” Ninety-two percent (92%) agree that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Seventy-two percent (72%) believe “governments derive their only just powers from the consent of the governed.”
But just 25% of voters think the federal government today has that consent.
More Americans than ever (63%) think a government that is too powerful is a bigger danger in the world today than one that is not powerful enough.
Thirty-eight percent (38%) believe the U.S. Constitution doesn’t put enough restrictions on what government can do. Still, 56% think the foundational document shouldn’t be tampered with, and another 33% believe it needs only minor changing.
Just 47% now believe the United States is a nation with liberty and justice for all, the lowest level measured in six years. Still, 77% say if they could live anywhere in the world, it would be the United States. “
Perhaps, fundamentally, we are not so divided after all. :)
-
Believe women are allowed in the Afghan military because women only would be allowed to search other women. Good for them they have a woman pilot. Listened to a TV show the other day that said the US was having trouble training pilots for the Afghan Air Force. Finding people to maintain aircraft is probably a larger problem due to the illiteracy.
-
http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/iranian-politician-deemed-too-pretty-to-hold-office-181459345.html
Gee what a surprise.
-
In the north of England were many from India settled they are finding things going on the old way still. Some Hindu there but mostly Muslims. Many daughters harmed. Some dying for going against their ways. One burned and they did just because she was found with a British boy. Seems they have their own way of handling the guilty parties. Although at this time I believe in the area I am from that 4 Muslims
are being tried in British court for gang raping a English girl.
In my area here in U.S 5 from Mexico have now been caught for the same crime on a white girl. Will see how this turns out. 3 are illegal here.
-
On the Mexican Nationals you will never know the true story because this is how the underground illegal community do pay back - they report someone who often is a father trying to claim custody of a child knowing the Mother cannot go to the police or the court - and if it gets abusive they simply report the guy as having committed usually a sex crime that is difficult to prove but assures after the trail, guilty or innocent he will be deported back to Mexico.
-
Now the are saying that 2 of Mexican men are already back in Mexico. It is for sure they did it as enough D and A. The girl is still in a hospital very bad condition.it is known now that she was drinking but have found something had been put in her drink.
-
I am SO DISAPPOINTED with President Obama's wanting to attack Syria. I doubt the rebels who are fighting Assad are any better than Assad. Remember how we helped the Mujahideen fight the Russians in Afghanistan, only to have them turn on us?
Must we attempt to police the entire world? And in the process see our military men and women killed and see a tremendous amount of our tax money spent on war that could be better spent here in the U.S. And undoubtedly the majority of American people will applaud Obama's decision. Altho' there was a very big group that gathered in downtown Los Angeles yesterday to protest an attack on Syria.
Marj
-
I'm glad it's going to Congress. I think it's past time they be on the record for where they stand. They're supposed to represent us. Let's see if they do.
-
I really feel bad for the people being injured and killed, but I too am a little leery of jumping in on what is essentially an internal affair. I was long of the opinion that there was a law or something that stated that the US is not to interject itself into the internal affairs of other countries. George told me no, it is not law but was a foreign policy. I say was, because that no longer seems to hold true.
In all fairness to Obama, I think the UK and France came out for a military strike before Obama said anything publicly. The UK has since backed off after a Parliamentary vote against it. Obama should not be circumventing Congress on this matter.
What bothers me most is the growing use of Executive Orders to circumvent having to go through Congress. Obama is not the only one to do this. I think its use has been growing over the last few presidencies. Obama's use of EO's has been highly visible, if not excessive. The balance between the three branches seems to be way out of whack and getting worse. Congress needs to get its act together and take back its responsibilities to its constituents and the country. I am also concerned that the Supreme Court may be becoming more and more politicized rather than voting on a strictly constitutional basis.
Jane, I was typing when you posted. I haven't checked the news yet this morning. Does your comment mean he is actually going to let Congress try and do its job?
-
That's what I understand. It'll come before them Sept. 9 when they back from vacation.
Jane
-
Thanks, Jane. I checked quick and saw that Assad and his bunch are gloating bigtime calling it the beginning of the American retreat. I don't think so, just cautious.
-
Frybabe wrote, " I am also concerned that the Supreme Court may be becoming more and more politicized rather than voting on a strictly constitutional basis."
I think the Supreme Court has always been political. They interpret the Constitution according to their political beliefs.
Marj
-
Right...hence, the "litmus" test I keep hearing the Congress people use when confirmation hearings are underway to appoint someone. They want impartial and according to the Constitution...as long as that "impartial and fair and according to the Constitution" fits the beliefs of the Congressperson. AAACCKKK!!
-
Absodefinitely, Jane!
Marj
-
For anyone interested in politics, you might want to watch CSpan's BookTV. The in-depth interview today is with Ben Shapiro, a young conservative. It's on right now until Noon, Pacific Time, and will air again tonight at 9 pm Pacific Time. Smart, very interesting young man who entered college (UCLA) at age 16 and went on to Harvard Law School. Altho' I'm a liberal Democrat, I might try one or more of the five books he's written:
BRAINWASHED; HOW UNIVERSITIES INDOCTRINATE AMERICA'S YOUTH;
PROJECT PRESIDENT; BAD HAIR AND BOTOX; ON THE ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE;
PRIMETIME PROPOGANDA; THE TRUE HOLLYWOOD STORY OF HOW THE LEFT TOOK OVER YOUR TV (and a couple other books)
Marj
-
Exactly right, jane - Obama definitely needs to get Congress to agree on whatever winds up happening.
-
Unfortunately I think Assad is right - Congress will dither and nothing will happen - Assad has us by the short hairs because the idea of his acting with impunity versus we getting dragged into yet another war in the Middle East where all we end up doing is fighting for what ever side we choose and they sit back and take the free gift that allows them to keep this 1000 year conflict alive which they have done a good job of baiting and blaming American - sheesh.
-
One of the things that Obama and Congress need to take into consideration is what Russia will do. As an ally of Syria, will they strike back? However stopping a country, any country, from using chemical warfare is extremely important. Allowing that tactic to continue will embolden those so inclined to follow suit with less fear of retaliation.
Although the President didn't formally call members of Congress back, I see that a number of them have headed back to DC. Good for them.
-
I think Obama only decided to go to Congress when UK Paliament voted to not support their Prime Minister - I think he backe himself into a corner with rhetoric and needs a way out. At any rate, he has usurped the power of Congress so many times it is good to see him slowing down and going through the proper process. I do wish he'd do the same on the new Health Care Law that he has arbitrarily made many major changes to without Congress - clearly a violation of the Separation of Powers.
I have these concerns regarding Syria:
I hear the evidence that sarin gas was used from Kerry (and I have little trust in his veracity) but I have not seen the evidence that Assad used the gas; there are allegations that the 'rebels' (the term I keep seeing that includes a predominately Al Qaida group) have been using the gas as well.
These same leaders were against the Iraq war even though Saddam gassed his own people - why was that not a concern then? A group of Iraqi women begged Bush to help their country, a country in which they were so utterly abused.
The argument that terrorists will be emboldened by our inaction has often been used to justify our involvement, but the same people who want to launch 'a limited strike' on Syria (but are also asking for 'broad powers') never bought that argument.
Isn't attacking Assad the same as supporting Al Qaida 'rebels'? Which group is worse?
Didn't we learn anything from our involvement in Egypt? Morssi got in (barely) with the agreement that there would be another election after their constitution was agreed upon, then refused to step down. The military stepped in to make him leave - and we're on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood?
All in all I have great compassion, and anxiety, for the people caught between these power plays but I think our responses only show how utterly clueless we are in their on-going struggle of conflicting world-views and interests; it shows in our seeming schizophrenic approach to a foreign policy in the middle east. A struggle I'm not sure there is an answer to - or at least not one that we would want to support or that would in any way in our best interests to do so.
-
Mogamom, I think chemical/biological weapons were a concern in Iraq. It was a big reason Bush 2 went into Iraq as I recall. They ultimately didn't find much; the intell was apparently faulty. I agree that Kerry did not make his case. He did not give evidence for who used the chemicals, only that they were used. You are right. I also believe that Obama is backing away because the UK backed away. Weren't France and England the ones who brought up military intervention in the first place, before Obama said anything?
-
Frybabe - yes, they were a concern in Iraq as all of our intellegence said they were there; but I never understood the angst when they weren't 'found' as Saddam had already used them on his own people and he certainly had plenty of time to get rid of them? It's not as though he hadn't already proven he could make them and would have no problem using them.
-
Someone at another discussion group said Britain had sold Assad the chemicals used in the deadly gas. He didn't give his source, so I don't know if that is true.
Marj
-
This whole thing is a mess... there is no good choice - WE only know that Assad is not a good leader from the rebels - he is probably a puppet to his ministers but then he did represent a stable force for all ethnicity trying to run a non-secular government - most of the rebels are Sunni which is what Iran is - now to make the rebels more scary recently they are being labeled al-gaeda - to now switch, as the latest news seems to be saying that Bush went into Iraq because of Saddam using gas on his people we know is not right - it was the Kurds not the Baathist that Saddam gassed and Saddam was a Baathist - the Baathist non-secular form of government originated in Syria and like Assad, he wanting a non-secular government - we may think one united nations but in the Middle East it is usually leaders representing one religious tribe over another -
Those in the Bush administration, probably Cheney was their leader, were looking for any excuse to get into Iraq now documented before 9/11 because they wanted to control the oil - all Arabs have a way of getting others to fight their war - always have among themselves and since Lawrance they have found a way to get the west to fight their wars for them.
Sure Pakistan has the bomb and the so called Arab Spring seem to have let a bunch of lose canons on the landscape as compared to Russia - Muslims make up a fifth of Russia's population and so they cannot afford to do anything but support Assad without a revolt in Russia.
I do think the world wide depression is bringing out the worst in everyone and until we get some gumption and start to rein in the wealthy, who are bigger now than any one nation, they will continue by virtue of the movement of wealth continue to drain the poor and middle class all over the world therefore, it will be a constant upheavel. Why Kerry wants to make an enemy out of Assad I do not know - his New England propriety of right and wrong is getting in the way. The world is grey and gas has been used at least since WWI.
At this point the last I heard it is not even a sure thing that it was Assad who ordered the use of gas - for power I would suspect some of the rebels killing their own to draw the world into their appearance of a desperate fight for justice that I think is nothing more than a power grab.
-
Mess is probably a bit mild. I heard reports today that Turkey caught rebels trying to cross the border into Syria with Sarin. I don't know how long ago that was. Russia is trying to get info from Turkey to bolster their case for Assad.
-
I watched on CNN, I think was the channel, thousands of Syrians fleeing to Turkey. They are living in a park with no water or other facilities. I guess they get water from a river -- they didn't say. But very sad.
Marj
-
Here are some of the sources the group gave me regarding Britain selling chemicals to Assad used in the deadly gas:
From the U.K. Independent:
(http://www.independ ent.co.uk/ news/uk/politics /revealed- government- let-british- company-export- nerve-gas- chemicals- to-syria- 8793642.html)
From the U.K. Guardian:
(http://www.theguard ian.com/commenti sfree/2013/ sep/02/chemical- export-syria- uk)
Marj
-
"It is human nature that repeats itself, not history." (John Toland, The Rising Sun)
Love your quote, margifay! Couldn't be more true. And I guess we here are at last old enough to recognize it. :)
-
I really hope and pray that we do not go to war. When will we ever learn?? We don't seem to solve any problems in the long run and we lose too many of our sons and grandsons. These countries have been warring with each other since the beginning of time and our intervention doesn't seem to make much of a difference except to further resentment toward Americans.
Sally
-
rah rah agree with you 100%
-
I see where Congress has approved using force against Syria. I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
I can't see the difference between being killed by poison gas, or by being bombed or shot. So why all of a sudden do we have to attack Syria for using gas when they'd killed a lot more people with guns. And when we attack Syria's chemical plant(s), and they go back to using guns, what will we do then? I don't believe it will be limited; one attack leads to another, on and on.
Marj
-
Chris Hayes had a great essay last night on his program on MSNBC about why he thought we should not intervene in Syria. Click here (http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/04/chris-hayes-on-syria-here-is-where-i-stand/) to listen or read a transcript.
-
Thanks, MaryZ. That is an interesting explanation by Chris Hayes on why he does not believe we should attack Syria. Especially his reasoning that the only way there could be a negotiated settlement is if Assad and the rebels came to a standstill and neither believed they could win -- and that by our intervening, it keeps the rebels from wanting to negotiate because they would then believe they could win with outside help.
But I don't agree with Hayes that we should consider letting the refugees come to the U.S. to live (around 2 million of them?) I have an idea Sweden will be sorry they are doing that. I do think, though, we could use some of the $millions we would spend on missles/bombs to give supplies to the refugee camps.
Marj
-
Marj, I think Sweden is already sorry. I read a book, published in 2006, called While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within by Bruce Bawer. From the title you can get a pretty good idea of where this guy's politics lay. Mr. Bawer lived first in Amsterdam, then he moved to Oslo where he still lives. He is an ex-pat American. He describes the liberal policies there that allow, once an immigrant is accepted, them to bring in his whole family. Not only have they brought in their immediate families under this policy, but also extended family members. Many send their children back home for schooling and to marry (thus bringing in a whole new set of relatives).
The European mindset at the time was that these groups would integrate into European society. For the most part, they have not. They continue to live in their own enclaves and asserting their own laws, at times ignoring the laws of their new country. Many continue to live on welfare and have never contributed to the state coffers. The huge influx of immigrants has strained the liberal welfare system of Sweden and Norway as well as other countries. Like I said, this book was published in 2006. Heaven knows what, if anything has changed to help alleviate the situation.
-
I just had a thought (dangerous). I wonder what differences there are in policies and treatment between refugees and immigrants who do not become citizens. How many refugees go home and how many sign on for immigrant status? Well, it is a huge subject. I am not sure I want to tackle researching that one.
BTW, I agree with you Marj, we don't need a huge headache of the magnitude seen in Europe. If we do take in refugees, then I hope the government has studied all that worked and didn't work in Europe over the past 40-50 years and proceeds to set up some reasonable checks against overloading our system.
-
Thanks, FryBabe, I'll look for the book. I've heard similar things that these people do not want to integrate with the new country that accepted them and want their own laws.
By the way, I was wrong that our Congress had agreed to attack Syria. It might have been one of the Congressional committees. Anyway, Congress is going to start arguing about it; not sure when the vote will occur.
Marj
-
Latest I read is there are all sorts of rebel groups from all over the Middle East that have piled into Syria so that it is no longer a Syrian revolution - there is too much not being said from the White House and even the CIA when on the NewHour are not clear - the last in one go round says we are weighing the odds for Assad to have to negotiate - then the second round they soften it to simply punishing Assad - why in the world do they want again to open this to a major Arab conflict because from what I hear, like Assad or not the alternative is a free for all with Israel in the line of fire from this free for all.
-
Does anyone read the Borowitz Report by Andy Borowitz in the New Yorker . It's satire. I think this is one of his best. I've been so sick of the GOP's voting for the 40 plus time to defund Obamacare.
From the New Yorker magazine:
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Saying that they needed to be in peak physical condition for their looming effort to defund Obamacare, over a hundred House Republicans lined up for their free annual physicals today.
The physicals, part of Congress’s government-subsidized health-care package, yielded good news for many of the House G.O.P., who learned that they were strong and healthy enough for the demanding task of defunding Obamacare.
“My blood pressure was lower than I thought it would be,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “That’s amazing, because it goes through the roof whenever I think about how Obamacare would destroy America.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia)—whose free annual physical included an examination of his heart, lungs, ears, eyes, throat, and blood—said that his doctor proclaimed him in perfect physical condition: “He said I should be able to live a long, healthy life and defund Obamacare for many years to come.”
Rep. Cantor added that he had lost a few pounds since last year’s free annual physical, as he headed to lunch before defunding food stamps.
-
Does anyone read the Borowitz Report by Andy Borowitz in the New Yorker? It's satire, and this is one of his best I think. I'm so sick of the GOP voting for the 40th-plus time to defund Obamacare:
From the New Yorker magazine:
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Saying that they needed to be in peak physical condition for their looming effort to defund Obamacare, over a hundred House Republicans lined up for their free annual physicals today.
The physicals, part of Congress’s government-subsidized health-care package, yielded good news for many of the House G.O.P., who learned that they were strong and healthy enough for the demanding task of defunding Obamacare.
“My blood pressure was lower than I thought it would be,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “That’s amazing, because it goes through the roof whenever I think about how Obamacare would destroy America.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia)—whose free annual physical included an examination of his heart, lungs, ears, eyes, throat, and blood—said that his doctor proclaimed him in perfect physical condition: “He said I should be able to live a long, healthy life and defund Obamacare for many years to come.”
Rep. Cantor added that he had lost a few pounds since last year’s free annual physical, as he headed to lunch before defunding food stamps.
-
Hypocrisy is terrible thing, isn't it.
-
I think it required having a clue in order to be hypocritical. I wonder the last time they even visited the poor areas where their constitutes live much less have any home visits or even visit the classrooms in those schools where those attending are mostly the poor. Heck their hatred for this president is so great they do not even join him serving at the soup kitchens on Thanksgiving.
-
For over 40 years I worked with the 'disadvantaged' - in the poor section of two cities and the poor rural section of two counties: they ate better than I did, or at least could have. They had better health care than I did (both physical and mental health), or at least they could have had it, and it was free. I wonder how many liberals have actually visited the 'poor' people they are concerned about - or actually worked with them in attempting to increase their ability to be self-sufficient? They are not ignorant, or unable to function in the modern world - most of them have a better awareness of what programs are available and how to approach/navigate them than the social workers who are attempting to advocate for them.
Big Business has been exempted, Big Unions have been exempted, and Congress itself has been exempted (from the law they passed!). I do not want the government involved in my health care. I do not want decisions about anyone's health care decided by one individual appointed by a president.
I do not want my privacy taken away. I do not want to pay for the unhealthy lifestyle choices of others (including sexual choices). I do not want the Affordable Health Care Law - and I applaud any and all efforts to defund it (though it come at great personal and political cost, as all courageous acts do). That is, by the way, a power given to the House of Representatives precisely for that purpose.
-
P.S. 30 million Americans will still be left without health care and why are we funding the rebels in Syria?
-
On the other hand, I'm already paying for those who don't have insurance when, at big costs, they use the Emergency Rooms for things that could have been handled much cheaper in a doc's office.
The gov't is already involved in my health care. I have had medicare for 7 years now and I've had 0 problems with it. When I was working I had private insurance...and in the last years, ONE choice of plans. They decided how long I could stay in the hospital after my cancer surgery, etc. and which doctors I could see. I had to call and get advanced approval for the hospital trip for my mastectomy. So, somebody somewhere has been deciding what I need and how much I can have.
The insurance companies...both before and after Medicare...have decided what my drugs will cost me, and the pharmas have so many lobbists in DC to get those clowns to continue to allow them to ask any price they want for a drug in the US and to buy off the generic companies to keep the competition away. So...the gov't is also involved in the amounts I pay for drugs here.
As for privacy, I don't think that exists anywhere anymore. The taxes we pay on our homes, how much we paid for it, etc. is easily available online here in rural Iowa, and I've decided that there's nothing about me, from the drugs I take, to when I saw my doctor and for what is truly private anymore. I think anybody who wanted to could easily get into those records via computer and/or the people who do have access to them all.
jane
-
Those people here in New York on Medicaid still take ambulances to visit friends in the hospital-so it actually doesn't matter if they have insurance as far as for waste. They still go to Emergency Rooms (as they will with any other kind of insurance too) for minor problems, because 1. they don't know what is an important health concern (since schools only educate them as to social ills, rather than actual health care issues - including how to access the appropriate health care facility) and 2. they don't want to wait for an appointment, or be held to a schedule.
My health records are not in a master computer - nor do I want them to be. My health plan doesn't cover sex change operations or abortions - nor do I want them to.
I'm not saying there aren't problems with the health care system. I am saying that the Affordable Health Care Act will not - indeed, cannot - sufficiently address them; nor is it affordable.
-
I guess I tried to respond, mogamom, and lost it. So I'll try again - it's all in perspective.
The ACA is an attempt to open access to a lot more people. It's not meant to solve all the problems of our health care system. If all the time spent trying to remove the law had instead been spent trying to improve it, especially in coordinating care, education, and controlling costs, we'd all be better off. In the meantime, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage or charge huge premiums for people with pre-existing conditions. Because my circle of family and friends has several people who are basically uninsurable, I am pleased that the ACA is taking effect. I hope to help people sign up for it.
There are a lot of things that I don't like to have my money go to also, but my judgement should not control others' lives.
-
We see life through the eyes that support our view of how we care for each other - First of all there was a 900K report done by the request of Congress that ended up showing 1% of the recipients of foodstamps and all free services were misused - there are reporting agencies where misuse can be reported in every state and most large cities - there is NO fund federal or otherwise that enjoys less than a 1% misuse .
I am really curious - if they are eating well than how do they do it on a paycheck below 30K for a family of four - I really want to know - I could use that information - my income is not what is was and those tips would really help - since you worked with the poor do you have a list of the foods or their menus for a week -
I am scratching my head - what is their budget - you must know since you worked with the poor - what I see is almost half of their income goes to rent, utilities, transportation to and from their job.
I am alone and I no longer keep a garden other than the herbs that require no watering since the cost of water is out of sight and yet, for 6 months out of the year I cannot get my electric and water bill below $200 - in winter below $160 - then a family of 4 would have school or day care expenses or some care of an elderly at home person - there is transportation to and from whatever low paying job they have to earn the 30K - if they are in a city there may be public transportation however, if they live in the south good luck.
If they can keep their grocery shopping to $300 a month that is only $75 a week - that is over half their annual income - Even if they can find a rent for $600 plus utilities say they are very conservative and only use $150 a mo. for utilities that is about 9k a year for housing - there is still transportation that is a minimum of $1.25 each way on the bus, some clothing/shoes - school supplies and cleaning supplies much less over the counter pharmacy like tampex, aspirin, and at least one annual cold that does not take a doctor's visit but over the counter meds etc.
Since the poor have no entertainment they end up using cable and that is costly - any local and federal help the locations to receive this help are spread all over and take hours just to get the help - plus, the area they live in has more crime that they are contently having to protect themselves and their kids - if they live where a car is a necessity they cannot afford insurance which affects the cost of anyone who is insured that needs to then use their insurance to pay for any accident -
The biggest aspect of being poor is no mental health which I have yet to meet anyone living in poverty that does not need something for depression
I prefer a town where I can go to bed feeling safe knowing that there is a base level of safety for everyone - no - I cannot stop those who abuse themselves and their family members by either the misuse of drugs or alcohol so that the family is in need in order for them to use however, I can see how living poor year after year drugs or alcohol can be thought of as an easy answer.
My daughter and her husband have fostered several teens who came from poverty - some they instills enough the teen goes on to college but some, their childhood abuse is too great and, or, one or both of their parents are in prison and with all their love and support they cannot afford the kind of therapy these kids need so they leave after they are either 18 or graduating from HS and become the next generation on the poverty or crime roles.
How well do you think those who have a problem with our funding foodstamps would support the few years of therapy most of those living in poverty require so they can do more with their lives?
When the jobs were plentiful the income level of the poor area of town rose - there was more hope among the kids and less crime on their way home from school and our cities spent less on policing to keep the poor areas in check - it is a cheaper tax burden and less use of, therefore cheaper property insurance premiums for those of us not poor to keep a feeling of security - having those in poverty with foodstamps is a way to do that.
Plus bottom line I do not want to see the 99% of poor left with no security because the 1% are and have misused the programs for help. As much as folks say they will help without the government over seeing the help - they do not - sure if there is a major catastrophe but even food banks do not keep up the community help we all provide based on our giving through our annual federal taxes.
-
I would really like to see a copy of the report you are citing. I have worked in health care (master's in nursing) my whole adult life, both public and private settings, and I just can't believe those figures - sorry. A television special also showed an interview with a man in San Francisco who was picking up his welfare check which he planned to use for drugs - and said so. But I know everyone receiving assistance is not doing that! Here, Catholic Charities has a sliding scale for mental health counseling that goes down to free. But support for charitable giving (United Way) has been eroded by tax policies.
It is not my intention to annoy or offend anyone - just to perhaps express a different point of view than is mentioned here. There are good, honest, caring people who do not agree with these policies; that does not make them bad or cold or heartless human beings. Or even an 'enemy' of this president.
I can't answer all the issues you all have brought up. But if you've read even a little of the Affordable Health Care Act I think you would agree that it is no solution to any of the ills you have described. It will only exacerbate them.
And I can only speak to New York State. Here car insurance is mandated. But you can purchase that insurance from any insurance company. Not so with health care - you can't buy across state lines. That certainly is a result of lobbyists. So the handful of insurance companies get together and set prices; effectively eliminating competition.
Nothing is free.
-
Insurance rates are calculated even if they are across the board similar premiums, they are still calculated based on risk - risk to the insurer - the factors for risk include things like the zip code where you live and the crime stats - and so if you live nearby a zip code with a high crime rate than your insurance is calculated at a greater risk for payout and that is how the premiums are averaged in for an across the board premium.
Even if there is a common rate for an entire state there are various premiums according to if you live in a rural area versus city and some cities have a higher premium than others - also, an insurance broker can sell policies from insurers that do not have an office in that state. For instance I have for years had my house insurance with Lloyd of London so that I can bypass the high rate this state requires for US insurers like All State or Prudential or any of the others - also there are several insurers that serve Veterans and that insurance is about a quarter of the cost of what most insurance costs.
Many states, including ours have mandatory auto insurance, however, many who do not have a car loan do not have insurance - the only way to check is to be stopped and the police have far more other crime to attend than stopping drivers to see if they are insured.
I will try to find if the report is on line from my good friend who worked and then represented at the State Legislature the committee for Health and Human Services - she also assisted the Federal Health and Human Services Committee in Washington during the Clinton years when the services for the poor were being overhauled.
-
Of course risk is a huge factor in calculating insurance and you do have some choice over incurring those risks. I don't see how you will have any choice at the federal level. I believe states should be allowed to take care of their own citizens, except for national defense, treaties, interstate commerce and the like. That is what our framers had in mind. And what we are experiencing is some of what they feared. :)
So, thanks, BarbStAubrey! I'll read that with great interest. Like I said, I'm a life-time resident of NY so I'm sure other states have other problems - and other solutions as well.
I have had friends in countries with government health and I know the problems they've had. Nothing is free - and nothing is without problems. But, I must say, I especially didn't like the 'process' employed to pass this bill; the fact that legislators didn't read it and 'won't know how it works until it's passed'; that almost half the citizens of the United States were disenfranchised; and I particularly didn't like what I read of it - which was most of the first draft put out.
-
I think the Affordable Health Care Plan should have been a single payer plan. I bet it will become so in a few years.
I thank President Lyndon B. Johnson every day for giving us Medicare. I recently was hospitalized for two surgeries and with the cost, I would have lost my house to pay for them and the hospital without Medicare. I guess that's what happened to people before we had Medicare.
Marj
-
I doubt our people in Congress read every bill word for word before they vote.
The bill that created Medicare Part D was passed in similar questionable manner, and there was even a big brouhaha over AARP's role in that. The workings of Congress are not clean and orderly.
The choices in each state under the ACA exchanges are very different. People are not required to buy their insurance through the exchange. unless they want to apply for the premium subsidy. Companies that do not participate in the exchange, as well as companies that have policies in the exchange, can also offer plans, as long as the plans meet the requirements of the essential health benefits.
The issue of crossing state lines is something else entirely - perhaps as plans become more uniform, those restrictions can go away. Each state has its own rules for policies right now, and plans have to comply with those also. I believe that is something you mentioned, mogamom, that each state should be responsible for its own?
-
Mogamom wrote, "I do not want my privacy taken away. I do not want to pay for the unhealthy lifestyle choices of others (including sexual choices). I do not want the Affordable Health Care Law - and I applaud any and all efforts to defund it (though it come at great personal and political cost, as all courageous acts do). That is, by the way, a power given to the House of Representatives precisely for that purpose. "
I'm curious. Are you also opposed to Medicare and Social Security?
Marj
-
One of the local school districts here is in deep doo-doo. It is a little hard to believe that things are getting so bad in this school district and the excuses for it do not cut it with me. Some of the comments below the article are also enlightening or at least interesting.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/09/crisis_deepens_at_susquehanna.html#incart_m-rpt-2
-
Yikes! It does indeed sound as if it has "imploded." That school board meeting ought to be a "doozy."
-
Are you also opposed to Medicare and Social Security?
When did it become the job/business of the federal government to take care of my daily needs?
The government isn't a Person with limitless resources; it's my next-door neighbor living on a fixed income, or the family across the street trying to raise and educate their children, or the couple newly empty-nestors trying to manage their resources so they can plan for their own retirement and the care of their elderly parents.
When did it become ok for me steal from these good people so that my life is more comfortable? easier? more convenient? less scarey? more fulfilling, relaxing, fun? or less worisome?
-
When we all cared about each other and realized that if someone falls through the cracks it affects us - remember what it was like in the 1930s before SS was enacted and immediately after, before a widow who did not have on record earned income from her husband's past - it was brutal with families being hauled into court and with their poverty wages having to meet the court's idea of living expenses for the elderly family member -
SS simply spread it out so that we know everyone who can no longer work or, because of the legal retirement age in many industries and can no longer earn as they did when they were young, and because of their forced savings, part of which comes from business, can have a roof over the heads, food and minimum health care - No adult receives SS who did not contribute and there is a ceiling on contributions from those making a good middle class and upper income salary.
Few of us could sleep knowing that across the street or on the next street there was someone our age who had no source of income and was now diminished and humiliated taking a handout - that is why EVERYBODY was included in the plan for SS so that there is no humiliation and EVERYBODY helps each other in this mostly Judo-Christian nation that believes in justice and dignity for all.
-
I'll be mighty interested in reading the fallout from the school board meeting been held as I type. (see my earlier post) Pix posted tonight show the huge auditorium packed with standing room in the back also filled. I think some of the administration comments about changing demographics causing the problems has upset more than a few people, not to mention hiring people who clearly were not properly vetted.
-
Well said re Social Security, Barb.
Marj.
-
I truely appreciate these thoughtful responses to these most important issues. Two thoughts come to my mind regarding the SS dicussion (which is really a discussion of a whole new 'entitlement' program: the Affordable Health Care Act):
President Barack Obama announced to the world that "the United States is no longer a Christian nation."
Several years ago I was talking to a friend about whether SS would be there when we would need it when his young adult son began a 'polite' tirade about how the baby-boomer generation was destroying his chances to ever own his own home and would make it imossible for his wife to stay home and raise their children since they would essentially be working to keep government programs in place - they would face incredibly high taxes. He is an exceptionally polite and well-spoken young man; deserving to be heard. I reminded him that the baby-boomers essentially carried two generations of individuals who hadn't paid into it their whole working life and I invited him to work hard to change the law.
Other thoughts flood, but they need sorting and clarifying before sharing them. I have lived long enough - and studied deeply and widely enough - to know that the 'cure' is often worse than the disease'. We should always 'mind the ripples'.
-
Interesting - I am a Christian and most of my friends and family are Christian believing and acting with a Christian love of others regardless where we live - My 19 year old grandson was in China all summer - a nation that is not Christian and yet, he continued to live by his Christian beliefs that expresses itself as kindness to his fellow man - one small experience - while playing basketball he, as the saying goes blew out his tennis shoes - with his limited Chinese he and a fellow student from China went into town to buy a new pair. It was Wednesday and the the store has a two for one sale on Wednesday's so he simply told the Chinese student to pick out a pair of shoes for himself - the young man, not Christian but still a loving young man picked out a pair of shoes that he sent to his sister who still lives back on the farm.
The Chinese culture takes care of each other in their way which is usually the job of the eldest son and we do it our way which is to spread out the care among the community that includes contribution to their care from those needing more help - we use a system that is also used in Auto Insurance, Flood Insurance, House Insurance even insuring our lenders who loan us the money to buy our houses, as well as, health insurance.
SS is a program that depends on everyone working contributing so that those who no longer can work are cared for and no eldest son is burdened with the care of the elders in his family, and industry can continue a system dependent upon some work exchange for a low salary so that those receiving the low salary during their working years are forced to save for the elderly years when typically they would use every penny they earn to take care of their young family.
Christian or not - even Muslims have an ethic of taking care of each other - so much so, that if you are traveling in a rural area with no hotels and need a place to stay, you are housed and fed as a gift - there are very few spiritually minded people who do not have a system to take care of each other so that if we are or are not a Christian nation our values still allow dignity for all.
However, not sure the quote we are no longer a Christian nation - it does not hold water
As of 2012, the majority of Americans (73–76%) identify themselves as Christians and about 15–20% have no religious affiliation. According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) (2008) 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, of which 25% identified themselves as Catholics (the largest single subgroup).
The same survey says that other religions (including, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population, another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation, and 5.2% said they did not know, or they refused to reply. According to a 2012 survey by the Pew forum, 36 percent of Americans state that they attend services nearly every week or more.
Also, George Mason University of Law their Spring 2011 Law Review starts "The U.S. Supreme Court and constitutional courts around the world regularly use the term human dignity when deciding cases." It goes on to say there is not exact definition of the word dignity but common is the Judges attempt to balance individual rights, social policy and community values.
-
President Barack Obama announced to the world that "the United States is no longer a Christian nation."
I did some looking on the internet, and apparently that "quote" was not reported correctly. Words were left out.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-the-christian-nation-quote/
says:
Q: Did Obama say we "are no longer a Christian nation"?
A: He said we are no longer "just" a Christian nation, but a nation of many other faiths as well. A chain e-mail drops that key word and thus changes the meaning.
FULL QUESTION
Is this true? It is now traveling around the Internet.
U. S. 'no longer a Christian Nation'
As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched in horror as Barack Obama made the statement with pride…'we are no longer a Christian nation; we are now a Nation of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, . .' ? Click to expand/collapse the full text ?
FULL ANSWER
This is an example of how omitting a single word from an otherwise accurate quote can twist the meaning so completely as to reverse it. Here's what Obama meant to say, during his keynote address to a "Call to Renewal" conference sponsored by the progressive Christian magazine Sojourners two years ago:
Here’s the full quote:
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation - at least not just,” Obama said. “We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation and a Buddhist nation and a Hindu nation and a nation of non-believers.”
In the same speech, Obama said, “Americans are a religious people,” noting that “90 percent of us believe in God” and cited a statistic that said 38% of Americans call themselves “committed Christians.”
“I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the role of faith in people’s lives, in the lives of the American people,” Obama said. “I think it’s time we joined a debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern pluralistic society.”
and from:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/31/anti-obama-mail-piece-we-are-no-longer-a-christian-nation/
Des Moines, Iowa (CNN) – The political arm of Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based social conservative organization founded by evangelical author and radio host James Dobson, is targeting Iowa voters with a mailing that quotes President Barack Obama as saying “we are no longer a Christian nation.”
Here’s the full quote:
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation - at least not just,” Obama said. “We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation and a Buddhist nation and a Hindu nation and a nation of non-believers.”
In the same speech, Obama said, “Americans are a religious people,” noting that “90 percent of us believe in God” and cited a statistic that said 38% of Americans call themselves “committed Christians.”
“I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the role of faith in people’s lives, in the lives of the American people,” Obama said. “I think it’s time we joined a debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern pluralistic society.”
I hope we'll all be willing to investigate "quotes" that are sent out by various organizations and find out if what they are saying is the truth. In this case, it appears the President's words were not reported accurately.
-
Thank you, Jane. What do you think he meant by that? What should I say to my friend's son? And what of the president's actual actions?:
Obama Admin Tells Court: Hobby Lobby Must Obey HHS Mandate
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 11/1/12 5:02 PM•
National •
•
The Obama administration told a federal court today that the Christian business Hobby Lobby must obey the HHS mandate that forces religious companies to pay for drugs for women that may cause abortions.
The privately held retail chain with more than 500 arts and crafts stores in 41 states filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its HHS mandate. The company says it would face $1.3 million in fines on a daily basis starting in January if it fails to comply with the mandate, which requires religious employers to pay for or refer women for abortion-cause drugs that violate their conscience or religious beliefs.
The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and the business says it is opposing the Health and Human Services “preventive services” mandate, which it says forces the Christian-owned-and-operated business to provide, without co-pay, the “morning after pill” and “week after pill” in their health insurance plan, or face crippling fines up to 1.3 million dollars per day.
“By being required to make a choice between sacrificing our faith or paying millions of dollars in fines, we essentially must choose which poison pill to swallow,” said David Green, Hobby Lobby CEO and founder. “We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.”
But Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund, talked with National Review today about what the Obama administration told the court:
The administration’s arguments in this case are shocking. Here’s what they are saying: once someone starts a “secular” business, he categorically loses any right to run that business in accordance with his conscience. The business owner simply leaves her First Amendment rights at home when she goes to work at the business she built. Kosher butchers around the country must be shocked to find that they now run “secular” businesses. On this view of the world, even a seller of Bibles is “secular.” Hobby Lobby’s affiliate, Mardel, sells Bibles and other Christian-themed material, but because it makes a profit the government has now declared it “secular.”
The administration’s position here — while astonishing — is actually consistent with its overall view of the place of religion in civil society. After all, this is the administration who argued in the Hosanna-Tabor case last year in the Supreme Court that the religion clauses of the First Amendment offered no special protection to a church’s right to choose its ministers — a position that the Court rejected 9-0. This is the administration which has taken to referring to “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion” — suggesting that religious freedom consists in being free to engage in private rituals and prayers, but not in carrying your religious convictions into public life. And this is the administration who crafted a “religious employer” exemption to the HHS mandate so narrow that a Catholic charity does not qualify for conscience protection if it serves non-Catholic poor people....."
I wish I knew how to navigate around the internet like you, Jane, but the best I do is copy and paste to my desktop. Oh, well…this article is quite long – I’m happy to post the rest of it if anyone is interested. There are follow-up articles too; but the point is that this administration seems to be targeting Christian schools and businesses, just as the IRS targeted Tea Party members. Is this right?
-
Our country is, as others pointed out, based on working together, not each carrying the load alone. In fact, when I think of things like Social Security, Medicare and the ACA, I think of "promote the general welfare" rather than "entitlement." These programs may need improving, but not the kind of change that diminishes their value. Your young friend might want to look beyond government to the way our economy is set up before he puts all the blame for his financial situation on the government - it's the corporations and the politicians who sell themselves to the corporations that need changing. None of the programs, including education for the young man's children (would you also call that an entitlement?), are destroying his opportunity to support his family or own a home, but rather are helping him. However, if he ever found himself unemployed - say his company were move jobs overseas - and with a pre-existing health condition, he might understand why many of us think the ACA is at least a big step in the right direction, just as, if he watched his parent's 401k dissolve by a falling stock market or bad choices, he might appreciate the safety net of Social Security.
-
I believe our country was founded on the idea of each man being free to conduct his life in accordance with his own principles; in carrying out his personal duty to caring for his family and community. That is, personally caring for the needs of others, not assigning the task to government.
-
Oh my - yes - "once someone starts a "secular" business, he categorically loses any right to run that business in accordance with his conscience."
If a business is to make a profit from anyone and everyone than the laws of the land supersede - if we are running a private company in which only those who are members of our group, our religion or other interest, and all our products are made and sold by those in the group than we do not have the same laws as when we want to be profitable in the greater community -
There was a war called the Civil War that made that clear -
Since then, we have laws not only about how we cannot run a plantation in accordance with our own conscience and that followed a slew of laws like, we must serve lunch at "secular" counters to all the public rather than in accordance with our own conscience - A community must allow all children to attend "secular" schools and not restrict attendance or the quality of service based on our own conscience -
If we manufacture a product to sell to the "secular" public it must meet certain government standards rather than making and selling a product that meets our standards in accordance with our own conscience.
There are many Federal rules about the condition of Dairies, Slaughter methods that the laws include what religious methods are approved, Drugs approved for animals, where and how the use of Herbicides, informing "secular" consumers about the ingredients and the dangers in products like tobacco and drugs, etc.
All " secular" companies must abide by OSHA - Companies are required to pay taxes, collect SS, abide by the EEOC (not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
If a school or hospital or any institution were open to only those who are a part of that institution and not hire anyone from the "secular" population using only their own internal institutional population to do the work, like the Quakers they could receive some exemptions just as the Jewish Faith can slaughter using different than legally approved methods - However, an institution cannot have it both ways - an institution that hires from and provides services to the "secular" must abide by the state and nation's laws -
The US, church law is not first and 'secular' law is not church law - The US is not a Theocracy - We are not Iran or the Vatican City - both nations the head of state is selected by the religious hierarchy and church law is the law of the land - In the US, our courts only use laws developed from our "secular" Constitution that does protect individuals, however, the law does not protect individuals or groups if they are breaking US laws.
Our religious beliefs, our emotions related to our religious beliefs, may be strong and we can become enraged that others do not see these values as central to our society - It is hard but, like many personal views - we can continue to live what we value - however, within the law
All laws must square with the Constitution and changing a law will only happen when a greater percentage of the public can influence Congress to make laws that will honor a religious beliefs, just as many from other religions would prefer their values were more forthright in the laws of the nation.
It is difficult for many of us to go from a comforting, loving community with a common viewpoint and a common creed to be able to love a wider community with a variety of views that must be held together by laws for the common good of this wider community.
-
I guess I'd suggest to your young friend, mogamom, that he look into who is not paying his/her fair share of taxes...ie., the large corporations who are making huge profits but are not paying taxes on those profits, the companies who have moved so many things off-shore so that they don't need to pay taxes, etc.
This from 2011:
Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list
WASHINGTON—With federal income taxes due in a few weeks, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent allied with Democrats, on Sunday released a list of ten big profitable U.S. companies paying little or no taxes. Sanders wants to close the loopholes that make this tax avoidance legal. Some people call the income tax system with generous loopholes for big companies corporate welfare or corporate entitlements. As Congress returns to work this week–after yet another break–to negotiate over big budget cuts–with social safety net programs facing reductions–Sanders is pushing for corporations to pay more of a fair “share.”
WASHINGTON—With federal income taxes due in a few weeks, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent allied with Democrats, on Sunday released a list of ten big profitable U.S. companies paying little or no taxes. Sanders wants to close the loopholes that make this tax avoidance legal. Some people call the income tax system with generous loopholes for big companies corporate welfare or corporate entitlements. As Congress returns to work this week–after yet another break–to negotiate over big budget cuts–with social safety net programs facing reductions–Sanders is pushing for corporations to pay more of a fair “share.”
The Bernie Sanders Ten, per release….
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8 ) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
SOURCE: http://voices.suntimes.com/early-and-often/sweet/ten-giant-us-companies-avoidin/
I worked my entire adult life; I had to pay into Social Security. I feel no guilt about accepting my money back at this point in my life.
jane
-
No one is demanding that you commit murder.
-
I am not fond of people who misrepresent numbers.
So what if Boeing managed to acquire a $30 billion contract? That doesn't mean they made that much what with legitimate expenses and all. To more accurately portray Boeing along with the others, you need to know that Boeing's Net Profit last year was $3.9 billion. They paid income taxes on $5.91 billion in the amount of a little over $2 billion.
Again, Valero made $68 billion in Sales in the last three years? Okay. I am not going to do the research on this one, but keep in mind Sales does not include other sources of income nor does in include other expenses. Nor do I know if Mr. Sanders is using actually using Net Sales figures (I am assuming so) or if he is using raw sales figures which do not include Sales Expenses.
Corporations, like people, are allowed to take all the tax breaks available to them. The financials that a shareholder or other interested party sees using GAAP or non-GAAP accounting standards are not the same as reporting required by the IRS.
I don't think the accounting methods are at issue here, however; the subsidies and tax breaks are. These are also issues that involve us on a personal level. We have the opportunity, if we qualify, to take advantage of various tax credits too. The government likes to use them to channel our behavior in a subtle way. Subsidies and tax credits encourage people to do certain things, like the current credits on energy efficient products (of the government's choosing), encourage more people to go to college (grants and low cost loans). Extra taxes and fees can discourage people from smoking or driving fuel inefficient cars (or traveling). Take a look sometime at the break out of who gets what out the price of a gallon of gas. I'd classify Food Stamps as a subsidy.
-
Looks like Ted Cruz is trying to pull a Wendy Davis but without the hundreds in the Gallery cheering him on or the thousands on the steps outside the Senate Chambers calling in support - not as much fun - I wonder if he was chastised with points taken off for presenting material that had nothing to do with the issue he is protesting. Looks like when you try to be a copy cat it just does not have the same impact...
-
Not to mention the millions whose retirement income is dependent on the stocks of these companies turning a profit.
The majority of Americans do not want this law enacted; actually, they didn't want it signed into law in the first place but, as usual, they were ignored. Just as they are still being ignored calling for congress to cut spending. And moral issues not-with-standing, who is going to pay for it - that 'spreading around' idea - spread it to whom? We owe 17 trillion dollars (the last I looked). Something like 20 million are unemployed, many of those with a job are part-time (unexpected consequences already?), and how many have quit looking (since they are conveniently left out of the count) or have found a way onto disability?
I remember Nelson Rockefeller - a past governor in our state. I'm told (I'm not sure it's true, but it does make the point) he got so tired of being told how rich he was and how he was selfish (though he gave much) and should share his wealth with the good citizens of NY that he figured out how much every citizen would receive if he gave them his entire fortune; and from that day on he started handing out dimes to everyone he met.
-
And I'm curious; on the moral issue before us, this question:
It's 1860 and you live in ? where owning slaves, it could be argued is 'for the common good', since our economy depends on it; are you going to turn in a run-away slave? It's the law.
-
aha now we have the age old dilemma - Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy - Aristotle says, doing moral philosophy is thinking as generally as possible about what we should choose to do (and not to do), considering our whole life as a field of opportunity (or misuse of opportunity). Thinking not merely our own opportunities, but the kinds of good things that any human being can do and achieve, or be deprived of.
What law and whose law do we obey - Jesus said something about giving unto Ceasar...
Moral Principle is using our judgement to choice action in the face of temptations determined by our conscience.
Both Aristotle and Aquinas say, "...to direct one's choices and actions to bringing them about in the real people for whom one thereby makes effective one's love and respect." The lesson goes on to explain that Aquinas believes to affirm a moral principle as an effective loving and respectful action we must be loving and respectful to create a climate of willingness. Where as, Aristotle's Ethics says that the polis has the responsibility and role of coercively leading all its citizens, of every age, towards all-round virtue.
Law is simply the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties. Where as Moral Law is the rules of behavior an individual or a group may follow out of personal conscience that is not necessarily part of legislated law in the United States
Therefore the dilemma, how we even determine acting within the Law versus acting our Conscience the basis for Moral Principles - Examples what we would do in Nazi Germany if we knew a Jewish family lived next door or as you suggest if we lived fully 150 years ago and we knew of a run-away slave. What penalty are we willing to risk to break a law in favor of our conscience. What factors and moral principles do we see affected by our actions.
Interesting subject - Ethics and the Law.
-
It's interesting, when I was working and talking about the Affordable Care Act and its benefits, including the eventual closing of the Part D "donut hole," people were receptive - change the name to "ObamaCare" and people were less receptive. I don't believe that most of the people in the country were against the law - people understand that the ability to refuse insurance to an individual because of pre-existing conditions, for example, is unfair. There are no such things as "death panels," people will not go to jail if they don't buy health insurance, ...there are a lot of misconceptions. One thing I cannot believe is that this law, which will help more people have access to health care, will destroy this country, yet there are Congress people who act like the world will come to an end on October 1.
In our kind of government, "the common good" must take into consideration people and their lives, which is why the slave reference is not a good example, unless a whole race of people were not considered worthy of "the common good." Yes, some laws are ignored - That law was eventually changed. As far as the ACA, it is the law, in spite of many (expensive) attempts to get rid of it, and even an election that did not get rid of it.
My taxes go to a whole lot of things that individual people could not, on their own, support. By collecting taxes and using them, the government can make these things available to all. Granted, I would rather war were not one of those things, but even so, our nation's security is something to support.
-
unless a whole race of people were not considered worthy of "the common good." I think that is/was the belief nlhome
I wondered and you answered - there are a few on national TV saying the same thing that your experience is showing - a few journalists are saying that it is what this round of health care is being called that is so upsetting to many and with that upsetting screen they too often do not realize the benefits compared to all the concerns they have - sounds something like folks who wish individual freedom would trump - which would be nice and what we would hope but then we would have no need for the law or judges and prisons if we could depend on individuals making choices that benefit "the common good"
I have a few friends who still think the single payer system would have been best - who knows but evidently that was taken off the table right off - I am trying to sort out what is political driven by party politics and what is a real concern.
With everyone so animated saying all sorts of things it is difficult for me to sort out. I know my son and son-in-law both Republicans are delighted because they can keep their sons on their policy till they get their feet under them after college. My son-in-law has his own business and for a few years could not offer any insurance with the costs going through the roof - since all of his employees had husbands or wives with insurance he was OK. i have not heard how he is going to handle this now but whatever it must not be too bad or I would be hearing about it. I think he has about 40 employees so that may be a factor.
-
slave reference is not a good example, unless a whole race of people were not considered worthy of "the common good."
It only refers to race, not group? It's really only about ethnicity? But, really, the issue here is the definition of 'the common good', isn't it? Forcing individuals to particiate in murder doesn't qualify as meeting 'the common good' requirement, does it?
people will not go to jail if they don't buy health insurance, .
Good. I'm relieved. But what will happen? Why were all those IRS agents hired to enforce the law, if no one is required to obey it? Because if it isn't mandated, there really isn't any problem. But, of course, people are already being driven out of their policies, right? The goal has always been single-payer. I've had some small experience with government-run health care and drove 5 hours a week to avoid it; it was just that wretched an experience!
Oh, and I would never confuse a person's tolerance of a perceived evil with their consensual agreement to it?
I believe the cut-off is 50 full-time employees, which is why small businesses are holding the number of full-time employees under that number and making up the work-force with part-time people. Yet another 'unintended consequence'?
-
"Taxation is the price of civilization"
Some famous S.Carolinian said that.
I totally agree.
Push up the taxes and give us free healthcare and education. Look after the disadvantaged, (it's the Christian thing to do, after all. ) The poor rip off the system less that the rich with their tax evasion and stock market frauds etc. Its human nature to rip off the system. Money is important because it's the only thing that gives us a sense of control in this precarious world.
-
"When the gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers." :)
Oscar Wilde
-
I had to laugh at Ted Cruz' long foolabuster against Obamacare. I think he and others who want to shut down our government if Obamacare is not defunded, are afraid how much people are going to like the Affordable Health Care Plan. We were the only industrialized
nation without a national health care plan. I read a recent report that shows that the Scandanavian nations, led by Denmark, have the happiest people in the world, and they all have national health care plans and unionized workers.
Marj
-
Thanks, Jane, to the link showing what President Obama actually said. I couldn't imagine his saying that we are no longer a Christian nation.
We have become a very diverse nation with many faiths. We are no long JUST a Christian nation. Unfortunately, some rather obtuse people insist on saying we are ONLY a Christian nation.
Marj
-
Civil discourse is the best route to discussion; anyone can call names and make ad hominem remarks when pressed. I believe that is one reason we can't talk - only shout 'talking points' louder when we're not finding people in agreement with us? :)
Everyone wants the disadvantaged - those who truely cannot take care of their own needs - helped. They just don't agree on who those people are or on the best way to meet their needs - an honest disagreement to be sure.
-
Here, here, Mogamom. It happens way too often and has for a long, long time. It appeals to the emotions and not to the issue or logic.
Okay, I was reading an article this morning about the upcoming Medicare changes for 2014. The article was from way back in April, but it is still interesting. I was particularly interested in the Provider Care section. I've been hearing that ACA was cutting back on hospitals, but nothing specific. So, I was very interested to see that the hospitals have been getting, on top of payment for procedures, they are getting an additional 65% of bad debts arising from patients not paying their co-pays, etc. In addition teaching hospitals have been reaping in an extra 10% premium just for being teaching hospitals. Hmmmmmmmm! I agree that that is something that can be cut out or reduced.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/april/15/medicare-and-obama-budget.aspx
-
I get NBC and CBS and ABC all mixed up but the evening news with Diane Sawyer whatever the channel - they continue their efforts to show how we can cut our bills and save money - did you see the one about cutting the hospital bill?
It was scary the language used to explain the charges for these procedures and medicines - just looking at the bill they were working on for the show and I had no clue what any of the procedures were that in order to get a fair billing we have to understand and question. All these years I could never understand my phone bill but that is a small amount that probably adds up over the years but not like a bill from the hospital - it even shows how they may not have all your information correct and then your insurance does not pay saying that the bill may be for someone else - I had no idea it had all gotten this far out of hand.
With an aging nation it looks like the hospitals see it as setting out nets for schools of fish and like it or not (I don't) we need to understand medical terms and know to compare costs just like going to the grocery store.
I wonder if there is some sort of dictionary listing the terminology for the procedures and meds offered in a hospital - now it is like going in to a dark tunnel without a lantern.
-
Mogamom, the discussion was slavery in the US - yes a race issue. I wasn't applying that to anything other than to say that I thought it was a poor example of the point.
In any case, the enforcement of the penalty is through the IRS. It is reported on a person's income tax return, and if not paid, it would remain a debt until paid or collected out of a person's federal tax refund. As with everything else (Medicare Part D continues to be fine-tuned, long after the law), this may have to be revisited. Of course, the best scenario would be that over the long run premiums would go down so people would want to buy coverage or people would recognize that insurance is important.
I think this Politifact article is helpful: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/
Another good site is Kaiser, as Frybabe mentions.
-
Thanks for that, nlhome! I'll look into it, for sure.
-
I've seen many specials touting government health-care in other countries - some obviously work better than others. But most agreed that those are relativey small, fairly homogeneous countries and wondered if anything like that could work in a country as large as ours, which celebrates tolerance, diversity, and individual rights.
I am 'guaranteed' the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The 'pursuit of happiness' was aimed at private property rights - that each individual has the right to the fruit of his own labor.
The philosophy of, "to each according to his need, from each acording to his means" was not the intention of the founders nor is it part of our Judeo-Christian heritage.
-
In fact, Mogamom, the phrase is from a book by Karl Marx, but it has predecessors going back to the New Testament.
Here is an interesting article on what the Bible has to say, or the author's intrepetation of it at any rate. BTW, I do not consider myself Atheist, Communist, or Socialist. http://atheism.about.com/od/thebible/a/communism.htm I tend to think that small groups, who need to band closely together to survive a hostile environment, are more likely to be socialistic as a group. Also, I think about ancient extended family groups/tribes in a similar manner. Such groups tend to take care of their own and be suspicious of "outsiders". Systems like this, I would imagine (though I have never researched the matter, just personal thoughts) often disintegrate or "loosen up" in larger, more secure societies. The big examples being the USSR and China. I suppose some socialistic endeavors can/do work as long as it does not get heavy handed and leaves plenty of freedoms in most areas of life. Having grown up (like many of you) in the cold-war era, I continue to be very suspicious of socialistic agendas.
-
Ahhh...a very interesting article, but one whose teachings I am not unfamiliar with. The author leaves you with the impression that these are 'problem' verses that are ignored; that is hardly the case. I am happy to discuss them, if interested. But he completely misrepresents them. On purpose to further his own agenda? I can't know that. But through purposeful deception or ignorance, his proof-texting is inaccurate and misleading.
A good book (in my opinion :)) dealing with this issue is:
Of Plymouth Plantation: Bradford's History of the Plymouth Settlement 1608-1650
by William Bradford
-
Mr. Cline bills himself as a secular humanist. I suspect you are right that he has an agenda. I can't speak to inaccurate or misleading with any authority because I generally stay away from religious argument. It is extremely common for persuasive speakers and writers to tweak words or use the sin of omission (among other methods) to sway people's opinions and more especially their emotions for or against a particular subject. It seems next to impossible to keep up with the misrepresentations of politicians, news and opinion personalities, advertisers, philosophical and religious leaders, etc.
Secular humanist. That is another of the philosophical niches that I never quite could get a handle on. I have the same problem with Existential psychology.
-
Mogamom, if I understand it correctly, a state could request a waiver from the federal government and design its own health care system. Of course, it would probably have to be as good as or better, but I'm thinking that would be possible.
I don't see why our country couldn't learn from all the other countries that have systems that cover more at less cost per capita and in some cases better outcomes and come up with something that works well for us. That would take more statesmanship than our current Congress has.
-
Did y'all see the article where various surveys have recently been taken and the Affordable Care Act gets really high marks where as Obamacare tanks - same act just the nickname that was applied and accepted seems to have folks thinking the plan is not to their liking which suggests to me this is all political with many folks having no truck for Obama - I remember the same vitriolic thinking about Bush - tit for tat... ::)
-
Yes, Barb, that's been my experience when talking with people about the ACA.
-
There has been talk elsewhere here at SL about fraud in foodstamp use and welfare. Well...it seems there's some bigtime "help" to lots who claim to be farmer managers, but apparently aren't. I live in the middle of farm country...and, believe me, misuse of the program does exist and they're not single mothers and people out of work! Here 11 people claiming to the active farm management of a 25,000 acre farm...and they got $400,000 in 2012! One is 88 yr old resident of Fl and one is an 18 yr old who has gotten a check since he was 16.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-08/news/sns-rt-us-usa-agriculture-subsidies-20131008_1_farm-management-charles-abbott-subsidy-payments
Beginning of article...see link for more details:
Report warns of farmers gaming U.S. subsidy programs
October 08, 2013|Reuters
New
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers must tighten farm subsidy rules to make sure the money goes only to active farmers and landowners, a congressional report said on Tuesday, warning that millions of dollars are at stake.
Senator Charles Grassley, who requested the report, said it showed "there is still far too much subterfuge" involved in the way farm payments are made and limits applied.
-
"There is no overall payment limit at present although subsidies are barred to people with more than $1.25 million a year in adjusted gross income from farm and off-farm sources."
100% of the poverty level in 2013 for an individual is $11,490 a year. For a couple it's $15,510.
-
Yep.
jane
-
NY used to issue foodstamps, but went to a card because people were selling their stamps for cash to buy alcohol, tobacco products or drugs. I don't think it's really much better with a card because they just agree to buy food for people in exchange for cash and the abuse continues.
But for some real waste I think the prize goes to the whole 'spend down' mentality; and I honestly don't know any answer to this one except that the money stay closer to home - where people can know what's going on. The farther your money travels, the more 'hands' it passes through: 1. the less of that dollar comes back and 2. the more prevalent is fraud.
-
Mogamom, if I understand it correctly, a state could request a waiver from the federal government and design its own health care system. Of course, it would probably have to be as good as or better, but I'm thinking that would be possible.
Ahhhhh ...... there's the rub! That's just the point! This begs the question: "What business is it of the federal government if the citizens of a state set up their own health care system? People can choose whether to live in that state, or another.
-
They can however, for several past presidents this has been on the table and then big money has seen it never was enacted - the purpose was to protect people for the predatory practices if insurance companies who took our money and then if we needed the service we contracted for it was nickle and dime'd, till the loopholes were found to eliminate various treatments from some patients, to eliminate various patients from their coverage and to eliminate long term patients from coverage -
We have house insurance to protect the mortgage companies - we are expected to have auto insurance, both required by law and now to balk at health insurance sounds more like listening to the big money who benefits from our not having national health insurance. They had enough money to support a campaign so this one sided view could coerce folks into believing it is not in their best interest.
If mortgage insurance and auto insurance is not a states rights issue than why is protecting the public from the unsavory practices of health insurers, which is the only reason, along with the cost of this insurance fraught with cruelty to those who use the benefits of the insurance, that most healthy and young folks did not want to buy this product. Had they cleaned up their industry which they had been notified to do since the 1960s we would not be fighting over states rights versus a federal law to regulate health insurers that the plan they devised requires everyone be included in the plan so they can make money.
Go back and look at how the bill was patched together and what it took to ratify it and how the insurance companies had the biggest role in what we ended up with. Congress only did what those with the most influence to make it work was willing to concede.
When Medicare was in-acted it was supposed to include year by year more and more of the population so that we were all covered - it was the insurance companies that stopped that
Where was the letter writing campaign and the citizen lobby for fair health benefits and no cherry picking of potential patients in the years following the passing of Medicare -
So now we are threatened with Armageddon in the financial markets and our own loss of income because the shut down curtailed a fair increase in SS to keep up with the real inflation as well as, not only a national depression but a world wide depression. Just because no one wanted to take the insurance companies to task because their family was not destroyed with the costs of a long term illness so that the entire family lost their health insurance - what was the old saying, Let Jim or was it Charlie do it. And so we Jimmed ourselves into this. Or maybe there are some that think buyer beware and the most vulnerable among us who are the sickest should be treated as they were by the health insurance industry.
-
I don't know health insurance companies. I do know Vets who have federal halth care and I know what they face everyday - not really that much different than what you're describing regarding some insurance companies.
I had an experience with Canadian Health which I wouldn't care to repeat - and haven't since I've had my own doctors. And I have a friend from the UK very familiar with that system who could explain to you why she is opposed to it. So those who think the government is more benevolent, tolerant, fair-minded than the private sector should take a moment to consider - where will they go to fight the decisions of Sebellius (or someone else in her position): remember, she's the one who said, "some will live and some will die" and who denied a 10 year old a transplant, though her doctor gave every assurance that she was a good candidate.
I live in western NY State. Canadians come to our doctors and hospitals in droves. Congress doesn’t even want the health care they’re foisting on us – long waiting periods for even simple procedures with far less than ideal results. I heard one congressman speak about getting us the same kind of health plan they have, but later admitted that it couldn’t be done because the government couldn’t afford it.
Again, big business has been exempted; our congressmen and their aides have been exempted; big unions have been exempted (all by our president alone): not by going back through the legislative process but by doing an end-run around it. All that is being asked of the president and the senate is that individuals receive the same exemption already given to those who have the votes and the money to manipulate the political process: to wait a year. Given how atrociously this health care system has begun to be implemented (beginning with the millions of dollars given to the IRS in a slush fund that is still unaccounted for), it's pretty obvious that three years was not enough time.
I began reading this law and was appalled at how many policy decisions are left to the director -appointed by the president. It was after reading it and sharing my own misgivings with others that I heard the term 'Obamacare'. After all, a bad law called by any other name is still a bad law.
-
Interesting - the VA care that I am familiar with is very good. And it's much more efficient that private insurance. Drug costs are controlled as well.
I have heard people complain about health care in Canada, but not anything specific, nor have I heard of any country willing to switch to our type of health care system. I think the Affordable Care Act is only half a loaf, but it's a start. My hope is that cooler heads will take control and sort it out, but I also think that we cannot have an efficient and fair system without some kind of single payer system. Best scenario - each state would create its own system, with minimum standards set by the federal government.
-
And not all gov't run health care is the British/Canadian model. There are lots of other models out there and the people I spoke to in Sweden and Denmark were very pleased with their plans.
Here, for example, from NYU:
Health care has emerged as perhaps the most urgent issue in America, and health care reform as the most ambitious initiative in domestic policy since the New Deal. Japan, on the other hand, already boasts the world's lowest infant mortality rate and longest life expectancy, while achieving more success than America at containing medical costs: in 1991, spending on health care accounted for a mere 6.6 percent of Japan's total gross domestic product versus 13.4 percent of America's. How does Japan do it? What aspects of the Japanese model might be applicable to the United States?
Read more here:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/lessons.html
-
We pay into Medicare and Social Security and see our receiving services (pension/health care) as a service we have paid for. Of course. (Although, if we look at the form showing how much we paid in we would probably have gotten it all back in the first 5 years of receiving benefits). But it is a system based on a particular model (illegal in the private sector) that requires a large base paying in while a smaller group at the other end receives their benefit. There is NO money in either program, really. Clinton told us that our government is 'pay as you go', so there are actually IOU's in a box that are supposed to cover Social Security. But no one has been shy about telling us that this whole thing falls apart in a few years.
We owe 17trillion dollars; China holds (in assests and loans) about 5 trillion of that. And senators are telling us that 'the cupboard is bare'; there is nowhere to cut spending. BUT they want to put this albatross about our necks.
You will get a single-payer - sadly, since a large majority of citizens do not want it; but everyone knows that's where all this is headed, of course. Vets get care - slow as it is, full of forms and deadlines - but there are still private health insurance companies. That will not be the case with single-payer. Even Medicare has private insurance (supplemental) and, for many, their primary insurance is a private plan they get as part of their retirement. In our state, medicaid recipients receive a private policy because the state decided that paying the premiums on a private plan was cheaper than going through Medicaid.
I don't live in Sweden, for a reason. I don't live in Canada, Australia or the UK for a reason. I don't live in Russia or China or Iran either. Anyone who wants those values/benefits has many places in the world to choose from. I don't want single-payer. Where can I go to get the health care plan I want? Why - in America - is it now ok to force someone to purchase a health care plan and product they don't want?
-
Government is not benevolent however, it does have laws that can hold feet to the fire that the private sector can only have their feet held to the fire if they are sued and the kind of money that it takes to sue an industry or an individual private insurer is beyond anyone person much less anyone who is needing the fair practices of health insurance.
EVERY insurance is based on a system where many contribute and only a few utilize the collected resources - remember even SS which is not an insurance how ever falls along similar lines as they also have the income from many who have died before they reach retirement age and many more who die only a few years after retiring.
SS is solvent till 2052 however the ONLY reason we have a pay as we go is that for years and years Congress has borrowed for the general fund against the SS so that there is money tied up that backs those loans. The SS funds are part of the packages that back up the bonds that are used for the General Fund. Much of the rational for making SS less "benevolent" is that there is less dollars that Congress can use to obtain their loans since the SS money now with the baby boomers is going to require a greater outgo than before leaving little to back up a loan.
If you watch the economic news on PBS you learn it is not our short term money that is the problem but that we have no long term plan for the upkeep of this nation - over and over these economists say that curtailing our short term expenditures is not how any business goes about business - when they are up and running is when they have the money to pay the loans arranged for to get the business running and that a long term plan for how to pay back loans and how to build a stronger business is what keeps a business solvent.
We should be thanking our lucky stars we have a debt to China - how else do you assure a relationship with China if only through their wanting to protect their loaned assets.
As to Medicare private insurance supplement it is a way that insurance companies could make a profit - no company offers a service without a profit and the way it works is before a hospital uses the payments from Medicare they first use all they can from the private insurance which is why the premiums on private insurance keep escalating year after year.
If anyone thinks this will fall apart in the next few years because folks wanting your vote want you to be scared and vote for their way to fix what is not the problem they have carefully chosen words to indicate this fear than please do some research to learn the truth and I would strongly recommend reading "Coercion: Why WE Listen to What 'They' Say" by Douglas Rushkoff and learn how easy it is to fool us into believing just about anything no matter how smart we think we are and the "Tipping Point " by Malcolm Gladwell to see how politicians increase belief among a greater number of voters.
-
Or, "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness" by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstien;
which shows how the government might utilize the political philosophy of Libertarian Paternalism.
I really have never heard that SS is solvent til 2054, not by anyone's estimation? Could you please point me to where that prediction is given?
China is pushing for a de-Americanized world; not using the dollar as the global currency.
-
As I understand it is 2052 and it was in a past issue of AARP about a year ago
this current info is from SS and they say at current rate till 2033 and a 3/4 payment till 2087
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse says, raise the cap to 250K and it is solvent for 75 years
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2012/aug/26/sheldon-whitehouse/us-sen-sheldon-whitehouse-says-proposal-would-keep/
The US Budget Office says, new analysis finds the program will be able to pay full scheduled benefits until 2053
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/data-bytes/social-security-bytes/cbo-finds-social-security-solvent-for-fifty-years
NBC news says solvent till 2037 but is alarmed that it be there for our grandchildren
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41997468/ns/politics/t/if-its-solvent-until-why-pick-social-security/#.Ul3jSlMUZyU
Chancy Gardner says SS is solvent till 2055
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.invest.stocks/z5SCUwdriPs
AARP says that Social Security will be solvent until 2053
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1106913
-
Yes, in 2037 Boomers will be in their 70s which puts a drain on the funds however by 2050 they are in their nineties and far fewer still alive, with their children, a far small population in their sixties - that is our grandchildren - Seniors through SS do not take anything from the government to cause this recession and in fact we made it easier for the government to borrow using the SS funds as security for loans.
They have already changed the eligibility age to collect full payment which given the health of most workers is not draconian - if they would simply raise the cap, problem solved - but then it removes the issue as a political talking point - Why the GOP is scaring seniors I have no clue since most seniors vote Republican.
-
Thank you! I will absolutely read these! I understand what you are saying in your second post except for the part about the GOP scaring seniors???
The first time I was even made aware that Medicare and SS would be insolvent was from President Clinton. And reform has been discussed off and on by both sides ever since. It seemed to be one of the things everyone agreed on - though they often disagreed on the best method to address it.
But the boomers' money will not be there for this new poorly designed, poorly implemented venture, will it?
-
Left as is, it gets them through - it is after the boomers that it gets dicey unless something is done to increase revenue which would not be difficult especially since the current cap was established at an annual income of $106,800 in 2010 that means that most young people in the high tech industry are capped before the end of the year much less big incomes typical of most professions.
For a 25 year old kid making 120,000 as a programer or other tech job or the higher income of a doctor, lawyer, scientist you name it, even if they capped at $180,000 there would still be many who top out way before the end of the year -
Salaries today are not like they were 20 years ago - if you look it up on the inflation calculator the 106,800 in 1983 it was the same as $45,567.54 and so to increase the cap is really not as much a hardship as it was years ago. It is still less of the annual income than it was in 1983 when it was around 5.75% since salary increases are far greater, so that 6% annual is nothing.
-
What is happening with the opening registration of the Health Care Act (I don't call it 'affordable' because it isn't) absolutely underlines the concerns of the 44-57% of those who are against it. After three years, and millions of dollars for set-up costs (including 37 million "lost" by the IRS), there are sky-rocketing concerns regarding privacy issues, limited information about the choices and the difficulty of the process (even when you throw in a chance to register to vote and an Obamaphone). The experience/complaint of those seeking help from a government-run program most often includes a myriad of 'hoops' they must jump through, the slowness of the process, the lack of privacy - and the lack of accountability.
Now we see how private insurance is being affected; we see that individuals are NOT able to keep their doctors/treatment, their premiums are increasing (sometimes tripling), and the young, healthy previously uninsured people who would be off-setting costs are still not signing up.
How can the democrats boast a monster computer set up prior to the last election that collected information on everyone through social networking sites, etc. so that they could pin-point precisely who should be approached to get out to vote, but they can't set up this system that is supposed to be signature legislation and something they have worked for for 50 years? There are even questions about the legality of the software. I fear that there was such a push to get something in place - anything - that no serious thought was given to its functionality. The government did not have to take over the health care system to 'fix' it; there were many other less expensive, less offensive, far less complicated ways to improve health care rather than having the government take over 1/6th of the US economy.
It truly is not just 'unAmerican', but 'anti-American' and unChristian (at least as far as orthodox Christianity is concerned, as I see it). sigh! :( I am, of course, happy for those of you who are getting the system you believe you want. :)
-
Why are the Republicans so worried? If it doesn't work they should be happy! Then they can implement their own system -- OH I wonder what year that might be?
-
Kidsal wrote: "OH I wonder what year that might be?"
LOL. Never, of course.
I'm sorry the Affordable Care Act was not a one-payer system -- Medicare for all. I bet it will be so one day.
Marj
-
Of course it will be - that's the point! And maybe you too will find yourself, or a loved one, in the place of a friend from England whose father waited over a year for cataract surgery. Simple cataract surgery. When he complained following the surgery that his sight was worse (since surgery was only performed on one eye) he was given an eye patch. I told her he should be patient - it's customary to get one done at a time. She told me I didn't understand how things "worked" in England - he was put back on the waiting list for the second eye. Two years later she left for England as he was in the hospital with cancer. She stayed in his room - though there were no conveniences for visitors - because she had to "find a nurse" whenever he needed his pain medication. She wasn't complaining about the staff (even with the "dust bunnies" under the bed) because she felt they were working heroically under extremely difficult conditions - what with the shortages in staff and supplies (including diagnostics). When she returned home from his funeral she told me that the thing that bothered her the most was that he had still not had surgery on his other eye. That's government health! With no competition! Glad you like it so well - because it will not be anything like Medicare; dream on! :)
I am not a Republican OR Democrat: but the Republican plan was begun to be imlemented (with Health Savings Accounts) putting the individual in charge and in possession of his own care; an asset that could even be passed on to heirs. If the government stopped interferring with competition, you could choose any policy with any riders you wanted/needed to pay for, with whatever deductible was right for your family/circumstance. And to be fair, it did take Democrats 50 years to produce THIS.
-
Re individual medical savings accounts -- I wonder how long it would take for someone to save enough to pay for the recent surgeries I went thru where the hospital bill was a quarter million dollars, not to mention the other costs. Most likely would wipe out their savings and leave them destitute. Is that what you want?
Marj
-
Mogamom, what exactly do you mean by this: "(even when you throw in a chance to register to vote and an Obamaphone)."?
(Just as an aside, the system of providing assistance with the costs of phones was started long before President Obama.)
There is also nothing that says that a universal coverage system set up in this country, supposedly the greatest country in the world, would adopt the negatives of the systems in any other country. The amount of money we spend per person here is so much higher than in those other countries, we certainly could re-allot it to cover everyone much better than we do now.
As for the friend commenting on the British system - if the information you heard is complete and accurate - at least that person had access to the system. Here, many people don't even have the option of getting on the list to wait for such types of surgery. That's what the ACA is supposed to help with. Unfortunately, in spite of being passed as a law and determined constitutional and withstanding something like 40 attempts to get rid of it, many people are actively trying to thwart the law.
-
How many countries in the world have single-payer health care?
-
No one wants you to be destitute, marjifay. And no one wants you to be denied the surgeries you had because of rationing/long delays. But neither does anyone want an untenable 'solution' that destroys all that makes this country different - so unique, not only in the world now, but ever.
Health Savings Account: This does not mean you save your money and pay cash for all your medical care. Employers either match what you put in or give you a voucher for the account, probably equal to what they would pay for your premiums.
For instance: I was self-employed for quite awhile, but at the last place I worked the director told me that the agency was paying 33% over and above my salary for my benefits. The pension plan was 5% of the package and, because of Social Security, it was very expensive, but not very good. So he suggested that the agency set up a pension account for me and they would match whatever I saved into it, up to the 5% they would have spent under the old plan. This was essentially a savings account; I owned it; and when I left the company, that money was paid to me. I could choose to keep it in a separate account and continue to add to it - essentially paying into my own retirement.
With a Health Savings Account this money is used to purchase your own insurance plan - to pay for your premiums - with insurance companies freed up to compete fully with each other (we have so few options in NY with gov. regulations that they essentially get together and set prices!); you choose the deductible, riders, basic insurance that suits your needs; if you want one that your employer’s medical voucher doesn’t quite cover, you pay the difference; if it covers more than your premium costs, you use that extra to pay your deductible, medical supplies, medical devices (unlike this health care act which will tax medical devices – which, come to find out, includes toothbrushes!) etc.; but you never have to give up your plan;
these insurance plans move with you wherever you live, wherever you work; you own them (not like the gov. COBRA which people with modest incomes were not able to afford on their own); so you can’t be caught with a ‘pre-existing condition’ because you don’t have t switch plans just because you change jobs and your new employer doesn’t offer coverage from the company you were in at the first job.
That was the complaint about pre-existing conditions: you might work at a company for twenty years, then have to change jobs. When you change jobs you often have to change insurance companies so any condition you are being treated for – or that shows up before the waiting period is over – is considered ‘pre-existing’ and the new company didn’t want to cover it, because you hadn’t been paying premiums to them. Besides, you are starting the new plan at an older age and that affects the cost of your premium as well.
Money put into a Health Savings Account was not to be taxed. And if you accumulated money in it and passed away, it was considered part of your estate and could be passed on to an heir. Businesses could still use the medical vouchers as incentives to attract employees, the employee has full choice of his/her own health care, and the government is not saddled with you as a ‘unit of service’ they get stuck with.
Sorry this is so long - I just didn't have time to shorten it. I do hope it is clear? :)
-
Most countries have some form of universal coverage. Single payer is just one option. We already have Medicare, which is single payer, and it works well.
HSA's are not for everyone. Neither are 40lK savings plans for retirement. They don't always work as advertised, except for the companies that manage the plans. Costs of administration can be high. Nor do all people make enough money to use them - many people would not get any tax advantage at all.
The issue of pre-existing conditions would still affect policies and premiums under the HSA's. One of the really strong parts of the ACA is the elimination of pre-existing conditions as a determination of eligibility or premiums.
-
HSA and taxes: The money deposited into your account by your employer is not taxed, right? And the money you deposit may qualify for a deduction if your income is not too high; but that's the people we're concerned about, right? middle and low-income people? Besides, there's no reason why Congress couldn't pass legislation to make all monies deposited into a HSA tax exempt - you could use direct deposit from your paycheck?
Neither are 40lK savings plans for retirement.
If it is your account, there are no administration costs, except the ones you have chosen, right?.
The issue of pre-existing conditions would still affect policies and premiums under the HSA's.
How? I know it would for those who have never carried insurance; who then get an illness and try to get insurance to cover it. But that really isn't 'insurance' then - they have paid no premiums; it's charity. And it is one of the many parts of this law that will drive out private insurance companies as it is impossible to comply, without raising the premiums on all who have been insured, making it impossible for them to continue with the company. (Of course in the above senario, people thinking they can just jump into a plan that way often find a large 'buy-in' cost - one such case I heard was $13,000 to get a policy with an existing condition). In fact I just heard of a case of a woman who had always carried insurance, had been receiving cancer treatments for the past 4 years who was told that, to comply with the 'A'CA, her premiums were going to triple and she could not get the treatments she had been receiving (no longer eligible) and could not have her doctors (they weren't providers).
Every time the federal government tries to make things 'fair', it seems it becomes incredibly unfair to someone else.
By 'single-payer' I'm talking about 'single-payer' only - you know, Medicare for all. We already have single-payer programs for those who can't afford private insurance.
I'm really not trying to be dense here, but I really don't understand how anyone cannot have access to the health care system in the US. It is illegal to turn away any acute case that comes to the hospital. In fact, we have Well Baby Clinics, Immediate Care facilities and Emergency Rooms. In NY we have Medicaid for low income individuals, Helathy NY for the 'working poor' and Medicare. There are many reasons why people don't get health care, but that's different than not having access. This, again, can - and should be - addressed by the states.
-
Let's see, the woman with cancer will need to find another company that will allow her to see her providers, and she may find one with lower premiums or better coverage, depending on her income and how diligently she looks. Unless she is eligible for the premium credits, she is not required to go through the exchange but can investigate through her insurance commissioner's website or an agent she trusts. No company can look at pre-existing conditions, only her age, family status, where she lives and whether she smokes.
I think you are not considering access to preventive care or maintenance care when you talk about access for the uninsured. The manager of our local free clinic spoke to that very issue last night - people without insurance can get emergency care, but not the care that might prevent the emergency in the first place, nor the follow-up care that is needed to prevent emergency care again. Regular care, preventive care, that would catch some problems such as diabetic issues before loss of vision, for example, is not available to the uninsured unless they can come up with advance payment to the provider.
Medicaid in some states is inadequate. States could have expanded it to 138% of poverty, but many states did not. 138% of poverty, for a single adult, is $15,856. That's not a lot of income.
I agree, the states could do it better, but the mandate to do in a fair manner it would have to come from the federal government. Otherwise it's not going to work.
-
our local free clinic spoke to that very issue last night - people without insurance can get emergency care, but not the care that might prevent the emergency in the first place, nor the follow-up care that is needed
Isn't that exactly what the free clinic is for? As well as a good deal of the programs in the Public Health Departments? Preventive care, teaching, maintenance, etc.?
I have to respectfully disagree here. I don't think the woman I'm talking about thinks it's very 'fair' to have to start all over with a different doctor, possibly different treatment, and search out an insurance company she's happy with - when she has lost all that now. None of that was supposed to happen, right? So what other surprises are in store? Because the federal government is driving insurance companies out - with unrealistic, unnecessary, un-doable (if you're running a business and trying to compete) regulations. It absolutely cannot work (especially if people want a single-payer only system), not that anyone will/can admit that it is a failure after the 684 million dollars spent on it - and the egos involved - and there will still be 30 million uninsured. Bad law.
Remember we passed legislation covering children up to $80,000 household income. And with free (or low-cost) clinics available, 'can't' is not the same as 'won't'. I understand the clinic's position, because all programs want more. That doesn't mean it's necessary.
-
While I can understand the woman not wanting to switch doctors, if she switches plans she may not have to. Where I used to work, long before the ACA, the employer would switch insurance coverages or the menu of plans would change so the cheapest premium would be with a different company, and some of us had to change plans as well as doctors to make coverage affordable, some changed almost every year. Not pleasant, but a fact of life. Nothing stays the same. Life isn't fair. The ACA is trying to find some balance.
I'm not quite sure what you think the "clinic's position" is?
-
I don't know how it will affect HSA accounts, but next year, isn't the law all set to include taxing the employer paid portion of your health care deductions as a part of your income?
-
That was suggested, but I don't think it went anywhere.
And everyone could easily have their own HSA; your employer pays in, wherever you are employed; medicaid could pay into it (as I said - here the Medicaid client gets a private plan Medicaid pays the premium on; and Social Services or Medicare could pay into it to - at the same rates thy're paying now. It's just a vehile for your personal health care costs.
some of us had to change plans as well as doctors to make coverage affordable, some changed almost every year.
Thus the problem with pre-existing conditions. But if everyone had individual plans - and the government allowed for real competition by allowing companies to operate across state lines, changing/eliminating some of their regulations - your business would be important to them; it would operate more like auto insurance. Government intervention - in my experience - never reduces costs; I have not seen this phenomenon.
But the real issue is that nothing else was given a chance - primarily because individual choice/opportunity/responsibility is not a value to people in power. Why should it be? After all, it reduces their power. It is contrary to their self-interests.
-
I assume you're all aware of the Lobbyists and their impact on our elected Congressmen. For those who aren't:
For 2013:
Total for Insurance: $77,272,400
Total Number of Clients Reported: 175
Total Number of Lobbyists Reported: 846
Source:http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient_lobs.php?id=F09&year=2013
and I fear we'll never get campaign finance reform that does away this kind of "bought influence."
The list of the insurance companies and the $$ amounts and even the name of the lobbyists and who they represented are at the link cited above.
I'm afraid we do have the best Congress money can buy!
-
Thanks Jane - You can almost see the Tparty's beef except they are bought and financed hook line and sinker by other billionaire interests - Today to use our own sense of fairness without looking solely at our own circumstances is a difficult path especially, when most of us live in neighborhoods with similar circumstances and incomes to our own so that we never really see the lifestyle needs of another income bracket except through rumor which is what the newspapers have become.
Grouping subdivisions by price range have really done us in making it more difficult to encourage compassion and a social equity viewpoint for all. There are some but very few areas that are the mix that rural America promised.
-
Australians have the option of taking out private health care. My sister has it, but I couldn't keep up the payments after my husband died.
Everyone is encouraged to join while young, and the payments are low. The price goes up as you age, so now it's too expensive for me to consider.
If your income rises over a certain amount, as shown on your tax return, then you pay a Medicare Levy. My youngest was sounding off about this, and I said well, join private cover then.
No, too much trouble for a young man!
I'm very happy with my treatment in hospitals and surgeries. I just don't get to pick a certain doctor, and I wait a bit longer.
My first son was delivered by a student doctor under supervision, and he was so excited. He told me he wanted a boy for his first and so did I.
He made the birth special for me, because no husbands in delivery rooms then.
I wonder how he would feel if he knew his first delivery now had cancer. :(
-
I'm sorry to hear about your son, Octavia. I do hope they found it early and that he'll do well with treatment.
-
This happened last June, but I just learned about it. HURRAH for Rep. Duckworth of ILL. She lost both legs when the helicopter she was piloting in Iraq went down.
This guy's claim is beyond arrogant!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57591160/duckworth-shames-irs-contractor-for-questionable-disability-status/
-
I hadn't see the full clip of her comments, so thanks Jane. I didn't realize she also does not have full use/feeling in one arm.
-
There is an interesting article about new voting bills in some states that are creating obstacles for legitimate voters at http://newsone.com/2757920/problems-voting-what-you-need-to-know/
For example:
And in Texas, if the name on your photo ID doesn’t match the one on the voter rolls – a frequent problem for women who change their names when they get married – you must sign an affidavit asserting you are who you say you are, Lieberman says. The thing is, you have to know that option is available to you.
-
Interesting results from the VA election for Governor and for the 1st district of Alabama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/alabama-election-2013_n_4171943.html
Bradley Byrne has won the runoff election in Alabama's 1st district.
The Associated Press reported the victory.
Byrne, a Democrat until 1997 and a onetime chancellor of the Alabama Community College System, defeated fellow Republican Dean Young, a tea party favorite.
-
Women are required to change their registration anyway when they marry or take their maiden name after a divorce; is this something new?
Only 35% of Americans believe US voting is fair (according to a recent Rasmussen poll); we are long over-due for common-sense safeguards in the system. Voter ID is one of those, properly administered. A privilege as great as casting a vote is surely as important as anything else you need ID for. Then maybe we'll stop hearing about dead people and felons voting - as well as multiple ballots from some citizens? Surely a nation with our resources would do everything humanly possible to guarantee that each eligible citizen casts one vote? :) I would also like to see that every voter has some paper copy of their vote, especially as we rely more heavily on electronic methods.
-
Interesting that we hear about dead people voting - but I've never seen it proved.
As for felons voting - voter ID would not stop that, would it? That's an entirely different issue from identity. And for that matter, in my state, a convicted felon who has completed his sentence and is not on probation or parole is eligible to vote.
There are very few instances of voter fraud, but the potential for denying eligible voters is much greater.
-
A journalist, to prove the case, voted as Eric Holder in his own district. Sixty-five percent of the American population believe there is fraud.
Of course I understand that ex-felons can vote in some states, but that's not what I'm referring to, right? I don't believe that everyone who reports voting abnormalities is lying.
'
Picture ID would solve many of the complaints and it's easily done. Most people have to have one to pick up reservations, to cash a check, to conduct legal business, etc. And people have time to get one if they don't yet have one. But illegal aliens might not have one, except I guess they will in California.
Any citizen who values their right to vote ought to be able - with or without aid - to get a picture ID. It might be a bother to some, it might be a bit inconvenient or require some effort on their part, but it honestly isn't too much for a nation to ask of its citizenry.
-
I had a picture ID so clearly the intent had nothing to do with voter fraud or pictures to assure you are who you say you are. Pictures may be easily done but a picture is not solving the problem to be allowed to vote.
-
There is a big difference between "abnormalities" and voter fraud. The journalist committed voter fraud and should have been prosecuted. No big wholesale, election-affecting "frauds" have been prosecuted here, just a handful of errors. But again, most of the complaints seem to be vague and unproven.
The bigger fraud is making it harder for people to vote rather than easier.
The biggest potential fraud is the potential for hacking voting machines and corrupting results.
When I vote, I need to give my name and address, out loud, and sign the log. If someone else tried to use my name, they'd be caught right away. I agree, though, that registration records need to be updated, computerized, so that when someone moves their new registration would remove the old one.
-
Ohhhh! I'm so sorry - I really mis-spoke earlier. The journalist wasn't prosecuted because he didn't actually vote; his point was that he would have been allowed to. He was even willing to go and get his ID (though he certainly doesn't resemble Eric Holder) and was told that that wasn't necessary, he should just go ahead and vote. He, of course, walked away; his point being how easily such fraud can be done.
I don't want to keep any eligible voter from exercising their right to vote through unnecessary obstacles or intimidation. But I do think a state has the right to take measures to determine who the voter is and that he/she is only voting once. I think my situation is the ideal - I have voted in the same place for many years and the individuals overseeing the process are the same and know me. I am concerned about the voting machines though. Hacking seems a real possibility. And reviewing registrations to determine that they are still valid (that someone hasn't died and the name hasn't been removed, or if someone has moved and then is registered in two places, etc.) is also important.
-
I jus don't understand how anyone thinks that Big Government is more to be trusted than Big Business:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363699/truth-about-navigators-john-fund/page/0/1
The company assigned the job of designing the website was not out-bid for the job - no bids were taken. Three companies tried for the contract, only one was considered - a company in which an executive was an old roomate of Michelle Obama. And who do you think is being paid to fix the site?
Cronyism, nepotism, the old 'scratching backs' deals - they're all alive and well; meanwhile the tax-payers watch as billions of dollars are thrown down the proverbial toilet. Hear the flush? That's our future. And the future of our children. And grandchildren.....
-
wheee we've got some biggies working to make voting easy again.
Earlier today, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos in the Southern District of Texas scheduled the trial date on the Texas voter photo ID law for September 2, 2014. The court’s ruling is a major victory for Texas voters generally and for the plaintiff group headed by Congressman Marc Veasey especially. Veasey and the other plaintiffs wanted a trial, and the opportunity to have the discriminatory Texas voter photo ID law overturned prior to the 2014 elections.
The court’s ruling is another defeat for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott who was arguing for a trial in 2015, after the 2014 elections are held. Abbott is working to keep the voter photo ID law in place for the 2014 General Election, when he will likely be the Republican candidate for governor and thus benefit from any minority vote suppression resulting from the Voter ID statute.
The court also allowed a group of Hispanic county judges and commissioners in Texas to join as plaintiffs opposed to the Texas voter photo ID law.
Legal counsel for the Veasey plaintiffs successfully argued that allowing the law to go forward for a general election would do serious harm to Texas voters and the integrity of the 2014 elections.
-
That sure is good news, Barb, about the decisions on the restrictive and discriminatory voting ID laws proposed in Texas.
Now if they can just be made to stop abolishing medical clinics that offer free medical services to women. What are they down to now, about 2 in the whole state of Texas? Geezz...
Marj
-
I know if you can swing even just a couple of dollars please send support to Wendy Davis for Governor - our hope.
https://secure.wendydavistexas.com/donate/w1309dr/?source_codes=ckgasstxct1bn10
-
I did just that, Barb - wrote her a check. Could only afford $25, but I guess every few bucks helps.
That gal has guts! I remember her standing up for hours filibustering a misogynistic bill proposed by the Texas State Senate.
Marj
-
:-* Thanks Marj - that was generous of you - her becoming Governor matters to us women - all most of us can do is a few dollars but as you say every few dollars makes a difference -
-
Thanks, Barbara!
-
Health care concerns, for example:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/11/19/healthcaregov-already-compromised-security-expert-says/
http://www.projectveritas.com/enroll-america-director-conspires-to-release-private-health-care-data/
Four IT experts that appeared before Congress, after much discussion and working with as much of the site as they were allowed, concurred that:
1. It would take years to try to 'fix' the site while it is being used, whereas it could be re-built in 6 months (if shut down) for about 2 million dollars (the Canadian company that built it had 3 and a half years and were give almost 700 million dollars, and then was re-hired to 'fix' it!);
2. It was unsafe to be used because of real security concerns - they advised that no American use it until it is made secure.
Besides having an executive in the company that was a former roomate of Michelle Obama, this company was the one that built the Canadian system.
There are only two single-payer health care systems on the planet:
North Korea
Canada
Except Canada actually has a private system - the United States. If they get on a two year (or more) waiting list for a hip replacement, they come to Buffalo and pay out of pocket. Buffalo also sees a large number of cancer patients and those seeking eye care. So, they pay high taxes for 'free' health care and pay for their health care here.
On top of this, the 'navigators', with access to this personal information, apparently receive no background checks?
I guess the Republicans were right to try to push the senate and president to seriously consider postponing enactment of this law; it's just plain bad law - ill-conceived, poorly written, full of pork and never-meant-to-be-kept promises.
-
Navigators in my state have to be fingerprinted and go through a security check. Any certified application counselors have to meet their sponsoring organization's criteria, and that organization is responsible for the work their counselors do. They also are required to go through an education and testing process before becoming navigators or certified.
The US has excellent medical care for those who can afford it - those Canadians who can afford it can choose to come here. The rest get their care in Canada. But they all have access to care.
-
In memoriam:
“For on the strength of our free economy rests the hope of all free nations. We shall not fail that hope – for free nations and free men must prosper and they must prevail.”
-
I'm sure some states are doing better than others on choosing 'navigatiors'. I'm still investigating the process at my state, which has contracted with 4 'approved' providers to suply this man-power. At least one state is using ACORN and SEIU members - both groups highly political and highly partisan. If you watched the video you saw navigators clearly instructing applicants to lie on the application.
But NY had in place Medicaid, Child Health Plus, Family Health Plus, and Healthy NY prior to the rollout. These covered individuals and families from 1.6X poverty levels for free care, and then modest sliding-scale amounts up to 4X poverty level. No one was denied access, though they certainly could fail to access the health care system for a host of reasons (as will still be the case).
Over 80% of Americans were satisfied with their health plans. To cover 30 million (which many may opt out and pay the fine anyway, as it turns out) and ignore the others is surely unfair. But life is not fair - the difference seems to be who might believe they are receiving the unfair treatment. The last poll I saw showed that the vast majority want the 'A'CA changed or repealed; will anyone listen?
One might complain that the sites I'm listing seem to be of one view. However, having looked at the other sites listed, I believe individuals have already had ample opportunity to another view. :)
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/20/Experts-Obamacare-security-flaws-because-website-5-times-bigger-than-Facebook-Microsoft-Windows-combined
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/20/A-Practicing-Physician-s-Prescription-for-Fixing-Healthcare
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/21/please-mr-president-for-good-country-let-delay-obamacare/
-
In Memoriam:
Inaugural Address
Friday, January 20, 1961
..... "The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. ..."
-
Different perspectives from different parties - I can pull up videos that discuss conservatives promoting jamming the website. None of these people are working for the good of the people or the good of the country.
I am one of the people who polls as unhappy with the ACA - because I believe we need a single payer system. But my feeling also is it is the law, it has been the law since 2010 and has already helped a lot of people, and it's our responsibility to work together to make the law work while improving it. Actively promoting disobedience, by either supporters or antis is not right.
I received information on CMS's prompt response to those who advocated lying - and those people are no longer allowed to counsel.
-
I did keep trying to see a persepctive from the GOP but this last revelation that they not only jammed the website but hired actors to publicly show an outrage on TV and social media about being denied insurance that was a lie was not the kind of duplicite behavior that goes with anything I learned in school about Democracy, nor anything JFK subscribed, nor anything Eisenhower subscribed.
I have lost so much respect for the GOP I cannot believe it. I actually feel not only sad but depressed - I do not agree with all in the democratic parties platform and did agree with some aspects of the GOP that made sense to me so i am really conflicted. However, to support a viewpoint that plays this kind of low game would be like me supporting a ruthless perpetrator of abuse.
I am sick over this... it was one thing when a few in political office played dirty tricks but to have hired folks to feign a lie and to have many involved in jamming the web site that was bringing to the public help and instruction how to use a law just because you do not agree is no better than barn burning - there is nothing redeeming they can say...
Yes, as much as it is about the worst thing you can accuse someone of the GOP is barn burning.
-
I am not posting about JFK because of politics, but because it is timely to remember his contribution and I think we often forget those who have gone before. I thought such a remembrance would be something we could all agree on.
My perspective is NOT the republican perspective, nor am I brain-washed by the spin (or 'talking-points') of either political party, nor the businesses everyone seems to love to demonize. It is my own perspective, based on my education, working in many aspects of the health care field my whole adult life, and a life-time of experience with people representing a wide variety of ethnic/religious/political views.
I would ask, though, where you heard this? I have heard the same accusations about the other side - that cases brought in to show how much they'd been helped were fraudulent.
I don't think anyone had to jam the website - it obviously isn't working, as many IT techs have testified. And I don't know anyone who has been helped by this law, only those who have been terribly hurt. If it is bad law - and I do believe it is - then it is not in the best interests of the country for it to go forward, is it? Nor have I ever suggested breaking the law, although I think this administration has, in many ways large and small, demonstated a willingness to manipulate the Rule of Law to their own ends, which I do find offensive.
I can say few things that I KNOW - with no qualifications, no doubts - but I know this: Liars lie.
Whoever they are, whatever they represent; and I don't believe them again. If someone will look right at you and lie to your face they will lie about anything to anyone anywhere in order to acheive their own objectives. I certainly do not believe that the ends justifiy the means, but rather that the process one goes through to arrive at those ends is certainly as important as the ends themselves. No one is wise enough in themselves to know THE right path; we really do need each other and it pains me to watch as whole groups of people with differing beliefs/ideas are completely shut out of the process.
-
MSNBC reported that the GOP had a playbook to guide its representatives/senators in gathering info on how Obama care was working in their state. Sure enough I was on a teleconference the next day with our Republican senator -- he was asking questions taken out of their playbook. This law isn't perfect but to repeal it would be a cruel move with so many provisions already in effect.
-
I did keep trying to see a persepctive from the GOP but this last revelation that they not only jammed the website but hired actors to publicly show an outrage on TV and social media about being denied insurance that was a lie was not the kind of duplicite behavior that goes with anything I learned in school about Democracy, nor anything JFK subscribed, nor anything Eisenhower subscribed.
Barb, I have not seen this reported on any of the stations I watch nor on my local newspaper's website (and they are generally pro Dem).
-
MSNBC reported that the GOP had a playbook to guide its representatives/senators in gathering info on how Obama care was working in their state.
That seems pretty normal - to record how a new program is working. ??? How does that get interpreted as something of evil intent? Where is the logic in all this? It doesn't suggest anything improper or even negative. Every other report I've heard shows that the 'A'CA has been a disaster - dem or rep - leaning site. And even leading dems are now calling for a stay on the individual mandate. The law is bad law - it was not written well, was implemented before anyone even read or studied it or thought through its implications/possible negative consequences.
So even in the bright light of the rollout people are so invested in universal health care that they are unwilling to change this ill-concieved law. That leads me to believe that this is ideology at work - and has little to do with actually solving any problem in health care coverage for the poor. This is certainly in keeping with Systems Theory (once a program/agency is implemented/formed it is next to impossible totake it away or even make any major changes to reduce it; it just keeps growing - in this case, until there is a single-payer system), but has been an unmittigated disaster.
The only rollout worse than this one is the Common Core Curriculum that even its supporters admit has been poorly received primarily because it was 'thrown together'. This appears to be as big a disaster for the Education System as 'A'CA has been for the Health Care System.
-
The memo distributed to House Republicans this week was concise and blunt, listing talking points and marching orders: “Because of Obamacare, I Lost My Insurance.” “Obamacare Increases Health Care Costs.” “The Exchanges May Not Be Secure, Putting Personal Information at Risk.” “Continue Collecting Constituent Stories.”
The document, the product of a series of closed-door strategy sessions that began in mid-October, is part of an increasingly organized Republican attack on the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature legislative initiative. Republican strategists say that over the next several months, they intend to keep Democrats on their heels through a multilayered, sequenced assault.
That's from The New York Times, which apparently has become the lucky recipient of leaks galore from House Republican operatives eager to convince skeptics that it does in fact have an effective and viable political strategy, and that they are not, contrary to most available evidence, a bunch of nincompoops. The report is filled with a bunch of self-congratulatory rhetoric from Republicans impressed with their ability to have put the administration on defense over Obamacare, which completely makes sense except for the part about how the primary reason why Obamacare has gotten bad press is because in most states, consumers could not access exchanges because of the botched implementation of healthcare.gov and some state-based exchange web sites.
-
PDF Republican Playbook on Obamacare
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/11/21/obamacare-playbook.pdf
-
The New York Times reported on Thursday, G.O.P. Maps Out Waves of Attacks Over Health Law:
The memo distributed to House Republicans this week was concise and blunt, listing talking points and marching orders: “Because of Obamacare, I Lost My Insurance.” “Obamacare Increases Health Care Costs.” “The Exchanges May Not Be Secure, Putting Personal Information at Risk.” “Continue Collecting Constituent Stories.”
The document, the product of a series of closed-door strategy sessions that began in mid-October, is part of an increasingly organized Republican attack on the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature legislative initiative. Republican strategists say that over the next several months, they intend to keep Democrats on their heels through a multilayered, sequenced assault.
The idea is to gather stories of people affected by the health care law — through social media, letters from constituents, or meetings during visits back home — and use them to open a line of attack, keep it going until it enters the public discourse and forces a response, then quickly pivot to the next topic.
First it was the malfunctioning website, HealthCare.gov, then millions of insurance policy cancellation notices sent to individuals with plans that did not meet the requirements of the health law. Earlier this week, the House aired allegations that personal data is insecure on the Internet-based insurance exchanges.
At a congressional field hearing set for Friday in Gastonia, N.C., the line of attack will shift to rate shocks expected to jolt the insurance markets in the next two years. Coming soon: a push to highlight people losing access to their longtime physicians and changes in Medicare Advantage programs for older people.
-
Daniel Strauss – November 20, 2013, 5:41 PM EST10437
An Americans for Prosperity attack ad directed at Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) over Obamacare purports to feature a voter for Alaska, but the woman is actually an actress who lives in the state of Maryland, according to The New York Times.
In the ad, a woman criticizes Begich, who is up for re-election in 2014, and President Barack Obama for the "promises they made to pass Obamacare."
"They knew the real truth," the woman said in the ad. "Some are even losing their jobs. For too many of us costs are going way up. Senator Begich didn't listen. How can I ever trust him again? It just isn't fair. Alaska deserves better."
In fact, the woman speaking is an actress Connie Bowman, who regularly does voiceovers as well as appearances in print ads.
The Koch brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity ad doesn't explicitly say the woman is an Alaskan, but the Begich campaign slammed the spot for the implication.
"Today's misleading ad from the Koch brothers is just more evidence that even billions of dollars can't buy integrity," Begich spokeswoman Rachel Barinbaum told the Times.
To keep the senator from being too closely associated with Obamacare, Begich's office also released a fact sheet calling attention to his support for legislation that would let Americans keep their current insurance through 2015.
Americans for Prosperity released a statement saying that Begich was just trying to distract from Obamacare.
"While Sen. Begich is focused on the residence of an actress in a TV ad, thousands of Alaskans have lost their health care plans despite promises from Sen. Begich to the contrary," Americans for Prosperity spokesman Levi Russell said in a statement. "Alaskans deserve an answer about why he would continue to doggedly support a law that is leading to less choice, higher premiums, and more bureaucracy.
"The Senator can say he wants to ‘fix’ this law, but he already voted against a bill in 2010 that would help keep health plans grandfathered in. Once again, his focus is on politics, not real people."
-
CNN obtains GOP playbook to target Obamacare
Posted by
CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta
Washington (CNN) - It's a playbook on the bruising field of health care politics, complete with "x's and o's."
The House Republican strategy memo, entitled "Because of Obamacare... I lost my insurance," offers samples of talking points, social media, videos, digital flyers, op-eds, and a fact sheet for GOP lawmakers doing battle against the president's signature legislative achievement.
-
I agree, kidsal, the law isn't perfect, but many have been helped and the potential for more is there.
And I do know personally people who have been helped by the exchanges, including people now who will have lower premiums, even without the premium assistance (People who currently have COBRA or who have individual policies that are extremely expensive because of their health and age), people who have been unable to get insurance because of their health issues and now can enroll, and others. I honestly have not yet met anyone who has been seriously harmed. I am sure there are some - with major change there are always some who lose while others win. It will take some time for this to all work out.
-
My neighbor who is a substitute teacher came over this evening to deliver an invite to her 50th wedding anniversary party. Got to discussing -- what else - Obamacare and Common Core. I have always worked for the Federal government so have good insurance. However, when I was in Junior High I moved from Oakland, CA to my home town of Ames, Iowa. I found I was behind in math (fractions, percentages) and have never caught up. Believe this is one good thing about Common Core -- will be able to move around the country and not find yourself behind or ahead. Guess being ahead would be best ;D
-
I am so sick of this sort of thing from the Pentagon/ Dept of Defense. This has gone on for years and years...administration after administration...and if Congress is looking for greed and fraud and mismanagement, the Pentagon should be the FIRST place to look, in my mind.
Pentagon Fraud and Waste and Mismanagement for years!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-usa-pentagon-waste-specialreport-idUSBRE9AH0LQ20131118
And read the line about the budget being more than "the 10 next largest military spenders COMBINED". (Capitals are mine.)
[Emails went out to both my Senators and my Representative this morning with the above word for word and the link, AND I added this at the end of those emails ].
CONGRESS allows this to go on year after year and whines there is no money for health care, education for its citizens, etc. CONGRESS and you, its leaders, should be ashamed!
Congress continues to pour $$$ into this bottomless pit of fraud and greed and mismanagement. STOP this madness and take care to know what is being spent there and who is getting our tax dollars!
-
The only way to stop this is to trace the money - who benefits - what companies and who owns those companies and who are the stockholders tht benefits from the huge Pentagon and Defense budget -
The manufacturing needs for the Defense dept is spread out and so we have to look at where these government contracts are being filled in our own state because that is the where the push comes from - they sell to congress the concept of cut them in any budget cut and you cut jobs in your state. They counter with the value of jobs over giving a handout which is how they view most social benefits
We see that push back now in the health care industry that is no longer run by the doctors - once they sold out to insurance that was the end of their power but those who are making the most noise are benefiting from the system as it is now. In order to reduce the Defense Department budget I doubt it would go to schools, health, poor, aged etc. They do not even see a profit in schools unless they can become private - there is more profit in prisons than schools.
The hue and cry since the 1960s has been to get the government to run more like a business pushing statesmen out - just look at how few congressmen have a law degree or for today a political science degree. They are in office because big business put them in office and using their marketing skills to entice the public to give them their vote. All business is is a process to convert manpower and intelligence into energy to trade for either more power or the ultimate money.
And so in our drive to make government balance its budget and get more bang from our government investment we have turned a government which is a social organization into a business enterprise that those who figured it out and have the capitol are running this quasi-government.
-
Daniel Strauss – November 20, 2013, 5:41 PM EST10437
Sorry, I'm not familiar with this. Many groups hire actors/actresses to represent an individual who has written to the company. In our state a 'disclaimer' (not of the veracity of the story, but of the impression that it is the individual noted who is being shown) is required - I really don't know about Alaska but will check it out carefully.
As to the republicans having a plan to bring these failures to light, I am not surprised (nor offended) at all: they should represent their constituents. No one is saying that they are making these statements up - there really are many more problems to the 'A'CA than a few 'glitches'; I'm sure you're following the hearings? I know very little about computers so I have to defer to testimony from IT experts who all agree that it is a poorly devised system. One problem it apparently has is that it is supposed to interact with about 8 other federal systems and these cannot be interconnected because they were not originally designed to do this. One journalist points out that Obama also said that the system would work like buying something on Amazon (see articles below) in which he was also lying (misrepresenting? mis-promising?) to the American public.
Democrats are frequently brought to the WH to be given 'talkiing points' and, up until this point, have voted in step with the party. That has been characterized as 'loyalty', and 'accurately/faithfully representing their constituency'.
I'm curious, though. Waht were the republicans supposed to do? What woud have been the right response to all these problems? What have been the responses of democrats in similar situations?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2013/10/23/obamacare-target-scam-artists?intcmp=obnetwork
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/24/curl-democrats-war-bailing-obama/?page=2
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/12/hurt-its-the-democrats-not-the-gop-facing-a-loomin/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/opinion/daring-to-complain-about-obamacare.html
And this: http://www.redstate.com/2013/11/22/the-new-york-times-equates-opposing-obamacare-with-slavery/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/opinion/edsall-the-obamacare-crisis.html?pagewanted=3
"The split between lawmakers and the White House reflects the dilemma the president finds himself in as he seeks to follow through on last week’s acknowledgment about his incorrect promise (an interesting way to characterize it - my comment here) on health care coverage. Hundreds of thousands of people have received cancellation notices from health insurance companies because their plans do not conform with minimum standards set by the new law."
-
The Republicans were supposed to obey and SUPPORT the law that was even challenged in the Supreme Court!
-
No law is perfect! Every law offended someone - many of us just did not expect the US Congress to support attempts to arrange for folks to speak on National News telling us lies in order to support insurance giants who want to subvert the law - is Civil Rights next or maybe we go back to the more affective DDT - how about hiring actors to feign the implications so we can ignore OSHA.
As to becoming so depraved as to hire actors and then attempting to justify this, why not justify rape OH I forgot the GOP is already doing that - all I see is contempt for the law and contempt for the people who are being helped by the law and then to hear an average citizen justifying this contempt - hmm I wonder what the Bible does say about that - need to look up that one.
OK this is not putting me in a good place - it is too easy for me to dwell on the same feelings of contempt for those who are trying to justify subverting the law so I think the best thing is for me to give my attention to the books we read on this site...
-
No offense was ever intended. I certainly do not condone lying - of any kind.
But, let's just take a minute to remember the process that led to this law. Republicans were locked out of the process. The public was promised access to a copy of the law. A draft was posted on-line at one point. And at one point the republicans were actually locked out of chambers - they were told they weren't needed for a vote. It was passed at the last minute with every democrat voting for it. Those congressmen who were brave enough held town meetings over their break - and they were confronted by angry constituents - many of whom had read more of the law than they had. Every poll taken since that time has only shown a majority of citizens who did not want to be thrust into this health care fix.
Republicans were hired to represent their constituents, just as democrats are.
They tried to slow down the roll-out process because everyone in congress and the administration knew it was not ready. Some groups were exempted - unilaterally by the president (who does not have the constitutional power to change the law; thus showing contempt for the constitution, our law). The majority party refused to compromise on any part of it. So it went through - and here we are.
This is pure 'redistribution' - not anything like SS or Medicare. And apparently those making $50,000 are now 'the rich'.
So, if all those journalists from all those articles/newsshows from all those different sources are all only being fooled/used/lied to/deceived, we're in more serious trouble than can be imagined, because they are all painting the same picture.
-
Mogamon, I think you have a different perspective of the law's development than the one I saw. Frankly, the President spent too much time and effort trying to get the Republicans on board with the law. Some of the things, such as a lack of a public option, were the result of compromises. The law wasn't passed overnight - it was a long time coming. There was a lot of input, including the law that was developed in Massachusetts. I'm not sure you are looking at more neutral sites, such as Kaiser or Families USA, which have facts rather than stories.
Look back to the creation of Medicare Part D - there was a lot of arm twisting, midnight voting, and misinformation in that law as well. But it passed, and it was put into effect, much to many peoples' dismay, including mine. There were a lot of computer problems with that law, and many many problems with the website. The law was passed in 2002 or 03, enrollment started in 2005 and coverage started in 2006. There were many problems, insurance companies that were suspended from participating, people who didn't understand it, enrollment periods that had to be changed, even extended because of problems with mailings and computers, fraud. However, the differences: it was more limited in coverage than the ACA, and politicians and the states got involved to see that people were helped to enroll. It was the law, and people got behind it. My thought at the time was it was much too complicated and put too much power in the hands of insurance companies, but it has continued to work for most, and elders now have access to insurance for prescription drugs, something only a few had before then. It wasn't "good" law at the beginning - it was given time and support to develop.
-
Thank you. I do remember those events. Do individuals have to sign up for Medicare D?
-
Medicare D is not mandatory, BUT there is a 1% a month premium penalty for every month a person could have been in a Part D plan and was not (unless they had other creditable coverage), so that people who turn 65, have no prescriptions and decide not to enroll, and then 5 years later decide they now need coverage will have a 60% premium penalty. That's 60% of the average premium nationwide, so if the average premium in a year is $30, then that person's premium is increased by $18 a month, every month, no end unless the person becomes so poor as to become eligible for "extra help." That penalty amount would change each year based on the cost of the average premium. For a person who has no prescriptions or only takes generics and believes that will continue, not taking a Part D plan may pay off - unless, of course, he/she develops a chronic disease and needs the really expensive drugs. It's not unusual for people to have prescription drug bills of over $600 a month.
There is also a penalty for not enrolling in Medicare Part B - 10% a year for every year a person could have been enrolled and wasn't. The only real exception to that is if a person is covered by employer group coverage through the person's or the person's spouse's active employment.
-
ACA ...
Our paper today had a separate 4 page insert that explained who needed to sign up, [and who didn't]. how to sign up.....it gave the website, 4 in person sites, a telephone number, and a snail mail place...and what the advantages were, etc. It was sponsored by two hospital groups....the Univ. of Iowa healthcare network and Mercy Hospital...a Catholic hospital in Cedar Rapids. The insert was very well done, I thought.
-
There is a lot of good information available on the ACA. And a lot of confusion. But that's to be expected with such a major program. It is to the hospitals' benefit for people to have insurance, of course, but also ours as taxpayers and health consumers. I just wish there had been a public option or some other way to encourage better cost management.
-
I wish, too, more people realized we the taxpayers do pay for those who don't have insurance.
Back to another of my earlier rants....waste and fraud in the Pentagon thanks to our Congress. This about $3 BILLION Congress insists be spent on M1 Abrams tanks that the military doesn't want. The top General has said so over and over. He said 2/3 of their tanks SIT in the Nevada desert because they don't need them...but Congress puts it in every year. It's ALL about the Congresspersons being reelected to their cushy jobs and the safety/economy of the entire country be damned!
GRRRRRRRRRR!!!
I've emailed all my congress people yet again. They probably have my emails going into the spam folder, but I keep emailing them. :)
-
Jane what they come back with is do you want jobs or more money for food stamps or education. The congressmen who ok this wasted meney are keeping jobs to make thise tanks in their state and those who own the manufacturing sites are probably big donors.
-
Yes, I know.....but why not get those companies to build what we need....bridge parts, etc. Would they need to spend some of their obscene profits to retool and retrain? Yes....but money better spent than for stuff to sit and deteriorate in storage.
Bridges in this country are in serious trouble.
-
Yes, sounds good - what most of us really want - now how do they go through all over again the manipulation to get the contracts to their state - the budget has the money in defense - if it is changed to another committee or under another secretary than the congressmen have to go into war with other congressmen to get the contractors in their state approved because everyone knows that is what they want where as, when they first got the contracts for the tanks it was slipped in quietly in another bill that had to do with defense.
Logic is great when we are playing the same game - but this is high stakes monopoly and calling in favors and making the right friends - not knowing for sure what committee bridges would be financed from puts congressmen in the same peril as wall street talks about when there is no stable and clear future.
I am not trying to be difficult - I too would like to see change however, in order for change to take place we need to understand how the system works and what we and our congressmen are up against. We need to see how our rep could thread themselves through the system that is not what is written on paper - most of us can only read books and in the past observe how things are accomplished in Washington. So much is based on influence and that is dwindling with no one staying in Washington as they did at one time - I think that is part of the dysfunction - they are not able to garner enough influence to make things happen other than to simply rebel against each other, and the other branches of government.
-
The American people made their voices heard on bombing Syria. Our Congress and Admin heard the American people. I believe if they heard us as loud and clear on this waste and fraud...and knowing these voices are watching and voting, Congress suddenly will start listening. Most don't want to lose an election, it seems.
I also believe those who won't listen to compromise or who hold to positions that are untenable are one of the big problems...as seen in the shutdown and 40+ attempts to shut down ACA that go nowhere. It's time they focus on things they can fix...and this pentagon waste is at the top of my list.
-
I agree with President Obama who said in his interview with Chris Mathews that the mid-term elections are as important as the presidential elections. Need to pay more attention as to who we are electing to congress.
-
Kidsal....absolutely agree!
-
I heard something on the news tonight that has me outraged. How can a judge do something that others say is illegal? That is to allow a defense based on being rich and privileged??
Affluenza Defense: Rich Texas Teen Gets Probation For Killing 4 Pedestrians While Driving Drunk
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/affluenza-defense-probation-for-deadly-dwi_n_4430807.html
-
yes, we have been seeing this for the past few days and the teen is arrogant as well - whatever his parents do they must have the judge in their hip pocket - judges call the shots - there are no laws to determine punishment With all that power it is why they are typically elected as compared to years ago when they were appointed - a lot of good that change did us.
-
I think the defense is ridiculous, the judge's ruling outrageous. It is not included in the APA's DSM-4 criteria, so how that defense can have any standing is beyond me. As far as I am concerned, it just reinforces the belief and behavior of snotty rich kids that they can do pretty much anything they want and get away with it. The judge's rationale is that if he were sent to jail, he would be out in 2yrs (I just love when prisoners don't have to serve near their stated time, don't you?). The judge went the rehab route instead so that the justice system can keep track of him for a whole ten years. I don't have a lot of faith in that.
Someone is trying to make affluenza into something though. PBS had a program about it. http://www.pbs.org/kcts/affluenza/ Notice the words diagnosis and treatment?
Wikipedia has a short blurb about a book written in 2001 titled Affluenza: The All Consuming Epidemic. Notice that it is listed as an anti-consumerism book and is written by a documentary activist, an environmental scientist, and an economist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza:_The_All-Consuming_Epidemic
Here is another interesting article which brings up the future of affluenza as a defense. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/14/whats-the-future-for-affluenza-defenses/4016059/ Note that the term is not strickly limited to rich folk. One could apply the word to those who seek instant gratification, who feel compelled to "keep up with the Joneses", etc. How many college students do you know today who expect to make the big bucks straight out of college? How many people do you know who routinely purchase so much on their credit cards to the extent that they can only pay the minimum or part each month? How many people do you know that just have to have the latest and greatest gadget even if the one they have is still functional?
-
This concept of affluence is so complicated - I think the outrage is because he was not given a similar sentence to other folks - then when you look at it - these kids have to be changed and to do that means not only therapy but being removed from their influential environment.
So how can a family making less than 80K annual income or even 100K afford the cost of treatment - a month is usually minimum and the cost for a month is about 10K. Some as cheap as 8K and most often more than one month is needed plus they then cannot be successful going back to the same environment which often includes the same homelife and hope to stay on a road towards change.
I agree prison does little to change folks but then that is where we still are confused about the role of prison - it is to change those who cannot function in society or is it to punish - some crimes are only punishable but far more are folks who will leave prison and we want them to be different with no tools accept they are older and their past lifestyle has changed as has the environment changed that surrounded them when they committed the crime. And so the only real change factor is time. In the meantime that time brutalized and kept the prisoner separate from any responsibility toward society and his or her family.
You have to question our thirst for revenge, and the power over this person, who humiliated us with whatever the crime that we have, through the law and the traditions of the court to see punishment inflicted.
-
As to living beyond our means - it seems to be ingrained in the best of us - even a group of young folks without a substantially more affluent school mate and still, no one wants to feel left out - there are a few and they get the brunt - everyone wants whatever latest 'thing' that shows they are the leader or at least an acceptable member of the pack.
I even remember a heartfelt TV movie of a young bright Mexican American girl who was taken under a teachers wing. She guided the girl to apply for and the girl received a 4 yr. scholorship to College and the girl was to speak as Valedictorian of her class - the teacher buys a smart black business suit for her to wear while giving her speech and to start her off on the next step of her success. IN the meantime her mother is so proud and only knows her culture and is a caring and beautiful seamstress who makes a beautiful dress all ruffles and more appropriate for a quinceañera. Unexpected and un-be-knowings to the girl her mother comes and stands in the back of the auditorium for the graduation. She never tells her daughter but she is heartbroken. She learns she is not good enough nor appropriate.
Sure there is culture involved but also there is the example that a certain dress is held in esteem and if you do not have a fairy godmother, teacher or otherwise you need to figure out how to dress as expected which later means dress your kids as expected and live in the kind of house in the kind of neighborhood that is expected which means to be included in this neighborhood community there are all sorts of things that put them over the edge finanically to keep up with what is expected and to socialize with those who will influence the job you get or the way your kids will be accepted.
There may be no free lunch or fairy godmothers but the expectations are there and if you break the law and do not have the means to get the treatment needed to make a change in your life than the best we can hope for is that the person will be taken off the street and away from the environment that influenced the choice to break the law.
So again, is this about revenge that we compare the treatment to what is uncomfortable that others experience because they cannot personally afford a year in a treatment center. It used be be that we reminded ourselves we were never promised a rose garden and we made the best we could of what put us one step up on the ladder - That is what has been pulled out from under us today and what I really think this is all about.
-
Somehow killing 4 people and injuring others because you're drunk, a thief, and out of control doesn't mix for me with a dress and feeling "low esteem." Maybe most of you grew up and had all the latest in clothing, cars, homes, etc. I didn't. A lot of kids I went to high school with didn't. So, I guess we all had "self-esteem" issues..and yeah, we were bullied, too. But, that we could and did survive. We couldn't have survived being killed by a rich, out-of-control drunken thief.
Accidents where no liquor or drugs are involved and people die are horrible...situations where your loved one dies because a person is driving over the speed limit, takes what does not belong to him, and is more than several times is over the limit in intoxication would be very hard for me to forget or forgive.
"Authorities said the teen and friends were seen on surveillance video stealing two cases of beer from a store. He had seven passengers in his Ford F-350, was speeding and had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit."
I guess what the court is saying is if you're folks are rich enough, the rules don't apply to you.
-
I agree but then therapy and treatment centers are not about low self esteem are they?
I wonder how prison helps any teen who makes a poor choice without seeing the consequences of their behavior - but then, as I ask myself do those who are out of control need prison to change their behavior - and if so who pays for it - it would probably be cheaper for all of us to send most prisoners to treatment centers where there is change with long term support as compared to the cost to the tax payer of keeping someone in prison.
I also think there is a lot more about the health of our bodies which includes our mind that is known today with treatment for our greater understanding of health than when we were kids - We had no idea other than kids acted out when we were young - now so much is known about the mind and how we react with our past traumas - I hope we get to a day when all kids can afford decent mental health but until that day comes we are unfortunately limited to treating poor kids like we did 50 and 70 years ago.
Most kids, even in our generation took things from stores - his problem was what he took they drank and he was driving - not having the details of the accident it is hard to say if he was the sole cause of the accident -
I get the impression a family lost some family members and they are devastated - I would be devastated as well - and it appears the driver was young and under the influence - the biggest message I get from the news and remarks on Huffington is the comparison to how the family thinks others would have been punished as compared to this kid -
The family does not know how another kid would have been punished - none of us know - that is supposition - they do not see being on parole for 10 years as enough punishment. Some folks after a devastating blow believe they will feel better if the one who they believe caused the deaths of their loves ones is punished in a way they would prescribe.
There is much in this story about the current anger over inequality in wealth and the inequality in perceived appropriate punishment that, since the sentence does not fit their picture of due punishment therefore, the wealth must be the reason. The idea of changing behavior is not something they have experienced as a solution except as punishment as their only reference to changing behavior. And then they cannot seem to move on but would prefer to look at, what they consider their measure of what they expected to have happened as a lack of justice.
The kid on trial was not the only one is the car - he evidently was driving but what where the circumstances - and what was going on with the other vehicle - it's probably not cut and dried he slammed into the other car to injure or kill others but because of his drinking he did not have the same reflexes required and so he was a drunk driver - seems to me the judge noted a prison sentence would not be as affective in changing behavior as will time in a treatment center.
I do not know about others but i do know a lot about injustice and if I dwell on it I am sunk - like those who complained in the Bible about the 11th hour grape pickers getting the same compensation as they who worked all day - I just do not see the benefit of holding onto our thinking of punishment as compared to all we know today about how to change behavior, its cause and its cure.
-
An interesting problem from a talk show host in LA who is also an attorney:
He posed a problem he thinks will undoubtedly occur because of the way the new same-sex marriage law is allowed to be interpreted differently in different states:
Suppose a man marries another man legally in one state but they move to another state that does not recognize their marriage. Can the man (probably bi-sexual) then legally marry a woman in that state (since per the state, he is not married to the man)?
Another problem: If the man dies, how does the federal government decide who will receive his social security, which usually goes to the surviving spouse?
(just something to cogitate if you have nothing else to think about (LOL)
Marj
-
I guess we can say this is a political move on Penguin's part, but it doesn't look like Amazon's customers were happy with it either. Most of the reviews are very negative.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-26184819
-
I read an article this morning on our local paper's website that former Harrisbug, PA mayor Linda D. Thompson is considering running for congress. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/03/linda_thompson_running_for_con.html She wasn't well liked and lost her bid to run for mayor last year, coming in third.
This all reminds me that I never mentioned that the new Harrisburg mayor, Eric Papenfuse, owns the Midtown Scholar Bookstore. Midtown Scholar is something of a local icon to Harrisburg residents. Papenfuse has for a long time been involved in community efforts and his bookstore hosts many gatherings of one sort or another. The store also supports local artists. http://www.midtownscholar.com/?page=shop/aboutus I haven't visited it yet, but I did order a used book from them. Unfortunately, it was listed as like new with just some light shelf wear; it came with coffee or tea stains and a slight warping of the cover because of it. I don't call that like new.
-
Inside the Ring: Memo outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against
-
Does anyone read Andy Borowitz's column in the New Yorker magazine? He does humorous political satire that I get a kick out of -- such as this one today:
PRESSURE ON OBAMA TO QUICKLY RESOLVE CENTURIES-OLD SUNNI-SHITE CONFLICT
Posted by Andy Borowitz
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Congressional leaders left the White House on Wednesday “deeply frustrated” that President Obama had not found a swift resolution to the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites that began in the seventh century A.D.
After meeting for more than an hour with the President in the Oval Office, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed disappointment that Mr. Obama “came up empty” when asked for a plan to heal the rift between the two religious groups, which began in the year 632.
“All we ask of this President is that he do one thing: settle a religious conflict that has been going on for a millennium and a half,” McConnell said. “What did he offer today? Nothing.”
Speaker of the House John Boehner acknowledged that there was a possibility that Obama might find a way to resolve the centuries-old Sunni-Shiite conflict, but the Ohio Republican was not optimistic.
“This struggle between Sunnis and Shiites has been going on for almost fifteen hundred years,” he said. “That means President Obama has had ample time to fix it.”
Marj
-
:-* - It is so stupid it is funny but yet, so embarrassing and then, so ridiculous to realize they have no clue about their role and like kids in a schoolyard pick a fight over anything and everything - using wordless faces I guess it goes like this - :D :-[ ::) :o :( >:( :'(
Problem is even if you do not agree with everything the Dems or Obama believes and does you are backed into a corner with no option because the only other options in this mess are ridiculously embarrassing with little respect for anyone not like them - Male, White, Christian, if not rich at least quite comfortable, and of a certain age.
-
Have you seen this?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381573/whiteface-vandalism-republican-candidates-sign-tim-cavanaugh
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/black-gop-florida_n_5548354.html
-
That's so sad and pathetic. Who is she running against in the primary? Is he/she considered to be involved like happened in Mississippi's Republican primary?
I don't understand how politicians/supporters think any more. I heard about the taping of the wife of Cochran in her nursing home where she has Alzheimer's. That was going to be used against the candidate in that primary in Mississippi. Apparently one of the men involved committed suicide when he was found out.
Mississippi tea party leader accused in photo scandal found dead
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-tea-party-mark-mayfield-dead-suicide-20140627-story.html
It seems anything goes in the primaries, even, to get the win.
-
She is running against Lowe in the primary and Lowe spoke out strongly against the action stating that Smith is well respected in the party but suggested that the Dem incumbent Brown may have had something to do with it. I just think people think they are supporting their own candidate when they do something like this, but it only ends up reflecting poorly on a candidate's campaign.
I heard about the man in Miss; how sad that was! From what I read it sounds like he was just overly-zealous. So many held him in high regard - just really poor judgment. I just can't imagine how such a picture could possibly be used? Doesn't make sense to me.
-
And isn't that what is sad about so many politicians and especially their Aides and supporters, on both sides, these days. They get so wrapped up in the campaign and quest for power, I guess, that all common sense and decency gets lost.
-
I didn't understand that situation in Mississippi either.
-
I didn't understand that situation in Mississippi either.
The incumbent here has heavily favored items in the president's agenda that Miss Rep are not in favor of. He is evidently running on his ability to bring fed. dollars to the state: but, as one 76 year old Miss says, the state (after 40+ years of this man's tenure in the Senate remains the poorest state in the union. In the run-off election with his opponent he distributed pamphlets in the districts heavily African-American and Democratic accusing the opposition of attempting to keep these people from voting. But there is a law in Miss. that if a Dem votes in their own primary, they cannot also vote in the Rep primary - and many did. And election staff were refusing access to the ballots for comparison, which is also illegal.
As of this date, McDaniel's group has found over 5000 illegal votes with many more districts to investigate. The incumbent only won by about 7-8000 votes (depending on the article I read). I think they would say that what is at stake here is voter fraud of a massive scale, race-baiting, lies in the depictions of his opponent and' free and fair elections'.
As to the immigration issue, I found these views interesting, showing various elements at play here:
http://cdn.rollcall.com/news/immigration_reform_proponents_must_consider_results_from_100_years_ago-234569-1.html?popular=true&cdn_load=true&zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/opinion/sheldon-adelson-warren-buffett-and-bill-gates-on-immigration-reform.html?_r=0
Although I don't know if many would agree with the statement in the article above that: The three of us vary in our politics and would differ also in our details of an immigrations reform bill.
I think most would consider these three pretty liberal in their ideology; perhaps the degree might vary, but still all decidedly liberal. Conservatives might even liken them to the Koch brothers so evilly cast by Dems.?
http://www.infowars.com/uc-professor-immigration-influx-is-about-re-education-of-society/
-
It is true here as well that you can vote in a primary as either a Dem or a Pub but you can only vote once - we have two part elections - the vote is one part and the other the caucus so if you want to be a part of the caucus representing your candidate than you choose to vote your party in order to be eligible but if the caucus is not a big national count then many times the Dems vote in a primary as well as Pubs vote in primaries for candidates in the other party to help skew the results. its just that too many have not figured out that Blacks are now as savvy and wise as White voters so they too can and do skew an election.
My problem currently is that these kids are not immigrants they are in my mind refugees. There are only a trickle of men accompanying this onslaught of folks seeking asylum, young husbands accompanying their wives - not the typical male migrant only looking for work so that alone says to me this is not a rush of immigrants. When the budget request first hit the news there is included a sum, maybe 300,000 anyhow to work with other nations on a diplomatic level to help take in some of these kids - that news seems not to have captured the imagination of most news commentators - that says to me other nations like Canada are being asked to help.
Everyone is all upset now with Monsento engineered seeds - well when you shut down the ability for 3 straight years of farmers on the west side of the Rockies to grow our seed crop because of stopping migrants and all the imagination in the world does not bring us locals who will work as long and as hard in the fields for even more pay then, the seed industry in our nation went kaput so that Monsento had an easy walk taking over and now we are all paying the price - industry after industry was affected - now most of our food is grown in Northern Mexico using skills they learned here while working our fields and they use Monsento seeds since they do not have the banks of seeds grown on fields - the fields claimed from the desert they want to bring in immediate cash which means their fields can produce more and quick cash by harvesting crops.
In west Texas we no longer grow low price crops like chives, radishes, lettuce, cucumbers etc. without cheap labor those crops are an annual cash loss and so after a few years of fallow land there are volunteers helping these small farmers grow things like avocados that bring about a higher price at market and are less water and worker dependent. Who looses - you and I - remember green onions 3 bundles for 79 cents and later for a dollar - now the price of one bundle can be a dollar and they are grown in Mexico originally from Monsento starts, that does not have to be declared on a fresh food product that comes from Mexico.
All I see is the tax dollars we were so concerned was educating the migrant children and taking care of health care which I had a problem believing knowing migrants seldom use our doctors, preferring their Curandero and heavy use of folk healing, anyhow that saved tax money is not lining our pockets as we now pay more for food shipped in from Mexico and grown from engineered seeds. As well as driving off the land many US farmers.
-
What I find interesting about the Mississippi vote situation (When I said I didn't understand the situation, I was referring more to the pictures of the candidate's spouse in the nursing home and that whole debacle) is that if I, living far from Mississippi, understood before the election that it was illegal for someone who voted in the Democratic primary to then vote in the Republican run-off, then Mississippi voters should certainly have known. It will be interesting to see if those 5,000 supposedly illegal votes really were.
-
I did not read that they VOTED Dem in the primary - just that they were Dems who voted in the run off - you do not have to vote in the primary election and so after missing the first you can simply vote in the run off. Often Dem and Pub primary elections are not scheduled for the same time - the Dems may not need a primary and have only one candidate leaving folks to vote in the Pub primary and/or the run off. I did not read the particulars as closely but I just saw the Dems as being free to vote without being tied to voting in a Dem primary - some even decide their party candidate is a shoo in and so they will vote in the primary of the other party. I sometimes do that because I know a Dem in this state has a snowball's chance in h... of winning and will have a chance if such and such candidate is the opponent and so a few of us add our vote to helping that opponent win.
-
According to ABS news: Under Mississippi’s open primary system, residents can participate in either primary election, but they are not allowed to vote in both.
So those who voted in the Democratic primary could not vote in the run-off.
Yes, I often vote in a different primary than I normally would because there may be no candidate, or sometimes no viable candidate, in the party that I would usually vote for an important office (often local). If I want a say at all in who will represent me, I need to make my voice heard in the primary.
-
There is no party registration in Tennessee, and there are "open" primaries. John and I were election officials for years before we moved to Chattanooga, so we were familiar with the procedures, etc. People would be furious when they were allowed to vote in only one party primary and then had to tell us which one (so we could provide them with the appropriate ballot). Neither of us can remember a situation about a party primary run-off
I've been trying to find out the rules for voting in a party primary run-off election, and cannot seem to find anything that specifically addresses that. This piece is from our county election commission web site, and explains everything else fairly well. I'll keep looking to find out about a party primary run-off.
VOTING AT A PRIMARY ELECTION
In Tennessee, citizens register to vote. No declaration of party affiliation is required at the time of registration. Tennessee does not register by party.
All legally registered voters in Tennessee are issued a “Voter Registration Card” by their county election office. No party affiliation appears on the voter’s card.
When a voter appears to vote during any Primary Election they must declare if they wish to vote in the Democratic Primary or the Republican Primary.
The voter’s declaration is recorded on a signed Application for Ballot. The ballot issued to the voter for the Primary Election will have only the names of candidates in the party that the voter is affiliating with on that Election Day.
When two Primary Elections are being conducted on the same date (Presidential Preference and County Primary), the voter is prohibited from voting in different primary elections on the same day (one political party locally and the other political party nationally). Their ballot will be a Democratic Ballot all the way up and down the ballot or it will be a Republican Ballot all the way up and down the ballot.
-
This is the report that McDaniel filed regarding the voting irregularities. Some counties have still not been reviewed because he was refused entry (which also violates Miss. law):
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=172021608
In New York you can't vote in a primary for a party you aren't registered in. In Miss. you can, as long as you didn't vote in your own party's primary.
This is interesting since I saw results of a study that lists Mississippi as no. 1 state in the US for corruption!
http://fortune.com/2014/06/10/most-corrupt-states-in-america/
(I was actually expecting New York to be among them, since our governor is being investigated by the Feds, along with so many other scandals we've endured. What a surprise! Construction is one of the ways the states waste money; I saw Trump on David Letterman some months back because he had just completed the improvement of water-front property in a couple of years at about 2 million dollars. The city had been "working" on this property for 27 years with millions of dollars poured into it. When Letterman asked Trump how he did it so well, so quickly and at such a reasonable cost, Trump cited corruption. Finally, to Bloomberg's credit, the city hired Trump.)
-
Texas you can vote in either primary but only one -
Whatever primary you vote in does not require you vote with that party for future elections.
And since we have a two part primary election you can caste your ballet in the other party however, you forfeit voting in the caucus of your party - it is a two part vote - only by voting can you be eligible to be a part of the caucus that determines who represents the party at the convention.
-
Speaking of waste, I found this to be ironic since the passage of the bill was Obama's signature bill from the days when he was a senator:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/080614-712168-federal-spend-tracking-website-found-to-have-missed-619-billion-dollars-in-spending.htm
-
Interesting to see that report by McDaniel. Lots of time spent on that.
I wonder how they would go about enforcing the voter's intent to support the candidate he/she voted for in the primary - even based on a person's statement, that can be brushed off as a joke or misinterpretation, or a change of mind. Or even a thought that it's likely my party's candidate will lose, so I'll vote in the other primary so at least I get a say in who might represent me.
-
It will be interesting to see how the court decodes this, I think. I think the campaign believes they have enough votes with those who voted in both primaries; absentee ballots that weren't properly validated, comingled votes, ballot boxes not properly handled, etc. are the other 'irregularities'. I wonder how much weight is given to each type of 'irregularity'?
I know people 'cross over' in the primaries; maybe that's why so few feel that they are being represented? I've heard the Republican party referred to as 'the right-wing of the Democratic party.
But I also think there should be more choices. In this day why shouldn't anyone who meets the qualifications, and is able to get enough signatures have the chance to set their case for why they should receive your vote, how they differ from the others, etc. and make all their life documents available to the public (tax reports, school records, birth certificate, health reports, etc). Let the voters decide, rather than have your choice decided by a small group of individuals vetting a candidate?
-
This is a little scarey! I read an article a few days ago that spoke about ISIS recruiting - especially western women - and how the UK was addressing the problem...
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/214721-feinstein-it-takes-an-army-to-defeat-an-army
-
I agree, we need more choices.
I saw an article last night that reported on the pastor who originally said that he was paid to get people to vote by and then came up with another story and then, finally, when law enforcement got involved, admitted he lied and was paid by someone in the McDaniel camp to lie. A pastor? That's sad - no matter which story is ultimately true.
-
It appears that ISIS is heating up the opposition of Muslims to the US ?
http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/imam-cnn-sharia-will-come-america-and-there-s-no-moderate-form-islam
-
I don't know how we can say that ISIS has any relation to the Muslim religion. They are just a bunch of cowardly thugs and killers.
-
I agree. This group is collecting a bunch of psychopaths (sociopaths) , extremists, as you say Kidsal, thugs and killers, those who love to create mayhem for mayhem's sake. I don't think many of them really care what cause they are supporting, just so long as someone is willing to foot the bill for their propensity to violence.
We hear very little if anything about more moderate Muslims openly opposing these various radical groups. Why is that?
-
a couple of reasons I think - they do live a tribal society which means there is no individual thought or action - it is all group - and we are now realizing it is more than just Sunni, Shia and Kurds - there are other smaller groups or tribes - and unless the group leaders want to go public they stay within themselves - also I do not think even our more knowledgeable reporters have a handle on just how many tribes and the differences so they are not looking for the sublet signs - and I do think sublet since a group that is in opposition to a more powerful tribe would be at risk.
The book that I found to explain how the Shia and Sunni normally operate different than each other and it also goes deeper into the particulars of practicing their religion, explaining the various layers of leadership is The Shia Revival: by Vali Nasr. Although the title sounds like it is all about the Shia the book reads with both Shia and Sunni explored and naming some names of religious leaders that we would recognize that were Hollywood movie stars.
My take is that until we really understand tribal societies and how they operate we are reading the news as if what is happening is either good or bad based on individual self determination from our own understanding of life therefore, we end up with expectations of how to stamp out these barbarians with our western thinking and tools. We analyze the situation from our own frame of reference - we have no idea how many groups are living in the middle east -
I have read in a few places a more in-depth explanation of ISIS and their easy target for recruits have been the Sunni since they were the tribe in power for hundreds of years replaced by Shia during the Iraq war and our interference. The Shia do not have the education or leadership skills of the Sunni - to regain power the Sunni had to come up with something stronger than the western nations who support the Shia. Probably that support, our support, is a byproduct that our leadership (before going into Iraq) did not understand the breadth of influence the tribes practice in running a nation.
The problem getting rid of Saddam was - not only was he Sunni but more important he was part of a new movement with its main group in Syria, who are now among the Syrian rebels, who were attempting to have a government separate from religion that used Sharia law. He was ruthless and later we learned he bragged about having greater military arms but then, the more we read the more we learn the Iraq war was more about advancing our oil interests than getting rid of Saddam - he was simply the easily describable marketing devise to justify the war.
It would be good to know all the tribes, where they historically live - my guess is that ISIS is going after all the smaller tribes that may have a population of up to a million people but they appear to be less protected - if ISIS can eliminate them one by one they have a controlled situation where they can then go after the Shia knowing they would be fighting the west who will support the Shia. It would be interesting to learn if some of the leadership of ISIS have infiltrated Iran's governing leadership - keeping that confrontation alive would keep Iran from putting all its forces into helping the Shia in Iraq.
Through out history you can read how the middle eastern tribes were always good at getting others to take up their causes and fight their wars - I think that is part of the barbarian behavior we are witnessing - to so shock us so that we will revert to anger and go to war over this which brings more arms into the region, more money, a purpose to engage the overwhelming youthful population rather than creating industry to give them work and fighting a war deepens in the youth their allegiance to the tribal system.
-
Thank you for posting the book recommendation, BarbStAubrey. I think you make so many good points in your post. Without some better understanding of the culture of Islam it is difficult to get beyond personally noted anecdotes.
For instance, several years ago I heard of a Muslim father who waited for his 17 yr old daughter to get home after sneaking out to see her boyfriend and beat her to death. I remember noting in that case that he was 'surprised' that he was found guilty of murder. I wondered how he could be so surprised until more recently there was a somewhat similar case in Buffalo where a Muslim couple was operating a small tv program for the expressed purpose of increasing understanding of Islam. Everyone was shocked when the husband delivered himself to the local police station carrying a machete and covered in blood to announce that he had just beheaded his wife. Evidently she had asked for a divorce; he went to the tv station where she was preparing the program and decapitated her. At trial he fired his lawyer and represented himself (though the judge worked hard to stop him from doing this and insisted that he at least have access/receive legal advice) where he gave the defense of being abused by his wife - how she repeatedly dishonored him. He, too, voiced 'surprise' when he was convicted. It surely is a very different religion/culture.
I have not yet finished reading the Koran (though I understand from an Egyptian pastor that there is a 'western' translation that is not the version read/adhered to in the east). Yet, I have heard that there is no 'moderate' Islam as, if Muslims adhere to the teachings of the Koran, the world must be brought under the rule of Allah, either by conversion, death, or exacting a crippling tax on those who do not conform to the teachings of Islam (they appear to be speaking as though Sharia Law is meant here); and that no Muslim is allowed to act against these individuals we have labeled 'radical'?
-
What's this? It doesn't sound like open borders is about farming:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/editorial-green-cards-on-the-table/
-
That's an opinion piece.
-
I found this opinion in many places - based on information from government agencies and not logically refuted by the White House? I guess, coupled with these articles, I wonder if we're getting all the facts:
http://nypost.com/2014/10/25/former-cbs-reporter-explains-how-the-liberal-media-protects-obama/
http://nypost.com/2014/10/27/ex-cbs-reporter-government-related-entity-bugged-my-computer/
-
And yet another editorial, showing links:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102914-724077-la-raza-advocacy-amounts-to-encouragement-of-illegal-alien-voting.htm
-
What isn't mentioned is the registration process, which requires identification and proof of residence. In order to vote, these folks need to register. That's a lot of contact with government officials that most non-citizens prefer to avoid, at least in my experience.
-
Just read a very interesting article in Salon magazine by Davd Maciotra with which I agree:
Sunday, Nov 9, 2014
YOU DON'T PROTECT MY FREEDOM; OUR CHILDISH INSISTENCE ON CALLING SOLDIERS HEROES DEADENS REAL DEMOCRACY
It's been 70 years since we fought a war about freedom. Forced troop worship and compulsory patriotism must end
by David Maciotra
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/09/you_dont_protect_my_freedom_our_childish_insistence_on_calling_soldiers_heroes_deadens_real_democracy/?source=newsletter
Marj
-
From A Word A Day....
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed, and love of power. -P.J. O'Rourke, writer (b. 1947)
-
I am currently reading Margaret Atwood's book, In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination(2011). In the section on how she came to write The Handmaid's Tale, she asked these questions:
How thin is the ice on which supposedly "liberated" modern Western women stand? How far can they go? How much trouble are they in? What's down there if they fall?
I've been wondering, lately, how easy would it be to lose our hard earned, if not always quite equal yet, gains.
Ms. Atwood is concerned about what the US may become in it's effort to combat "unrelenting religious fanaticisms." She appears to be worried that the more "repressive elements" will prevail. She believes that "American society has moved much closer to the conditions necessary for a takeover of its own power structure by an anti-democratic and repressive government." That is something I worry about too.
I've both read The Handmaid's Tale and seen the movie. The movie is more coherent. The book is written more or less in diary format. The diary having been found years after the fact, now is the subject of academic/symposium concern.
-
I didn't get to finish my thoughts, yesterday. I posted here rather than in women's issues. Although it certainly is of interest there, I don't participate in that conversation.
Just wanted to add that Atwood said a little about how she decided on the style of dress the women wore. While some had speculated that it was a take off on nun or Muslim dress, she said not. I forget what she said about the veils, but I think it had something to do with styles used in earlier eras. The dress of the Handmaids she styled after, believe it or not, the image on the Dutch cleanser containers.
-
Interesting and now that you bring up the Dutch Cleanser I remember - do not think it is even available any longer
(http://www.stephaniegehring.com/wp-content/uploads/Old-Dutch-Cleanser.jpg)
-
800 years old this year: The Magna Carta
http://catoinstitute.tumblr.com/post/121601523136/celebrating-the-800th-anniversary-of-the-magna
-
Interesting site with good information about the existing copies of the Magna Carta
http://www.magnacartaworldheritage.com/surviving-authentic-copies/
-
Thanks, Barb. I didn't know the original was badly damage or that (but should have guessed) that the ink had faded from the early documents so as to be practically illegible.
I would have thought that some of our fancy machines used to tease out the text in such charred documents as the papyrus the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum. The villa is situated part way up the slope of Mt. Vesuvius.
-
Back in the 1980s I remember being with a small group to an exhibit of the Magna Carta - I can see the exhibit in my mind's eye with pages on display one after the other in glass display boxes that each held about 5 pages to 6 pages each - Probably not the entire charter on display but there were probably upwards to about 20 cases and now after reading this web site I wonder what I saw - was it the eighteenth century copy or an original - I thought I remembered it was an original but we could read it - the exhibit was crowded, not jammed and I do not remember either, where - I remember it was an upstairs room in a museum and since we traveled all over Britain it could have been in a Cathedral museum or maybe a special exhibition in London or just about anywhere.
The most difficult part of reading was the Old English - one of the gals among us had studied the really old old English and so they were able to read and explain to the few of us who stuck like glue to her - I remember most the part where they talked about the peasants have access to the land for hunting, fishing and gathering fallen wood but what caught us all was it emphatically excluded Church owned forests - our mouths dropped and then we found several other decrees, I guess they would be called, that addressed 'rights' for the peasants under the king again, excluding the church - they were not called peasants but I forget what they were called - since there were so few shop keepers and others who did not work the land the group being given freedoms were all attached to a 'lord' as part of the Feudal System.
It has been since that I finally read some 'adult' explanation because like most of us we learned about the Magna Carta in grade school, as a document that first address freedom for all men - in more recent years I learned it was more a document the church was anxious to put out because what it did was keep the superiority of the church over the crown - and with the more recent discovery that they learned who were two of the four scribes and that they were monks - and that the distribution did not happen by the sheriffs by order of the King so now we do have the door key to know who benefited by the Magna Carta - on top of which, I only recently researched and where most kings at the time and even later were not even literate so they depended upon their 'in house' church representative to write all treaties and guide them in the use of the laws on the books and even write their correspondence to other leaders it seems King John was brought up as a child in France and was highly educated.
I find it fascinating to uncover the history of what and how we were taught - and how easy it is to pass along one viewpoint as if the truth - I am guessing as we hear the current axiom because the winners tell the stories.
-
Thanks for that input Barb, I've started reading a copy I have had on my Kindle for a while. It is a freebie from Project Gutenberg. Just before the start of the text, Gutenberg had a little blurb that it was a combo/compilation of 10 different versions. Hmmm, says I. I am reading it anyway. Yes, I can see a separation of church and state there. Also, I noticed, especially as money lending is concerned, the authors singled out the Jews and then when on to say that other money lenders were similarly constrained. Why mention the Jews if non-Jewish money lenders or lending schemes are under the same constraints. Similar is not the same as. I haven't read far enough to see if there are differences listed. At any rate I would rather get my hands on the 1733 text which includes the original intact than this 10 version mash-up.
-
Interesting - I went to Amazon to see if there was a book that included the complete original document - and boy did I fall into information and evidently controversy with just who are these scribes that were recently named -
You know how so many of the books on Amazon allow you to read the first chapter as well as any Intro and Preface along with the Table of Contents and sometimes the Bibliography or the complete index - well I am read what I can from the books that show up about the Magna Carta and these author all seem to name one author in particular as "the" man to read - J.C. Holt
Reading the Table of Contents in the excerpt of his book I cannot tell if the charter is included or not but most interesting the first chapter says the Magna Carta was a failure and essentially ignored after 3 months BUT was re-written and they give 3 close years to the original - who knew - I sure did not...
Anyhow after Holt's first book some 20 or so years later he issues another with the latest findings and he includes the preface and all the contents with from the first book and includes recent find and enlarges the bibliography - Then, more recently, there is a third book updating Holt's work however, he is too old and infirmed to write it and students at his bedside run everything by him. It is in those pages available on Amazon where he says, "rubbish" to the student telling him of the historians naming one of the monks that is supposed to be one of the scribes - sounds like this naming may be opinion rather than fact - now I have to wonder what evidence did they use to name the scribes - again, more current information is in the third book along with everything from the prior books including the preface from the earlier versions.
Then on top there is a book among the list that says it includes the Magna Carta in both English and Latin - huh - Latin - I never knew or heard of this - so what did I see and is the original in Latin - so many questions just authenticating a document written 800 years ago
here is the Amazon link to the second attempt written by Holt
http://www.amazon.com/Magna-Carta-J-C-Holt/dp/0521277787/ref=pd_sim_sbs_14_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1RY2ABMH29HMVXMF2TWQ
-
My head is starting to spin. As far as I know, the original was written in Latin, but I only just discovered that titbit. I don't think I ever thought about whether or not it was written in Old English or Latin, but Latin is a safe bet for many, if not all official documents at that time. Most of those who could read or write learned from the Church, which would have concentrated almost entirely on Latin and maybe Greek. I was aware that the document was revised, I think in 1225, but didn't know they considered the original a failure.
PS: Our National Archives in DC holds one of the four remaining copies of the 1297 version.
-
Duh, come to think of it, it would not have been called "Magna Carta" (Great Charter) if it hadn't been written in Latin.
British Library Link with nice animated intro/explanation. http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-an-introduction
Another link: http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta
-
Evidently it was re-written in 1216, 1217 and 1225 the year you remembered. Makes sense the Latin bit.
-
Special Announcement
Our website will be down, beginning Monday evening, June 29, GMT, for a large update.
Please do not post at this time as your post will probably disappear.
We do not know how long it will take the computer expert to load this update and have it working.
The website will not look as it has when it comes up until we tweak it, so please be patient. Please continue to check back for news. We hope to be up and functioning by Tuesday, but if not, it shouldn't be too much longer.
Thank you for your patience
|
-
Have you been reading that the American currency is going to change? Do you know what this means? I don't understand it.
Marj
-
I understand they are replacing the picture on the $10 bill with a woman's face.
I also know they've introduced color to some of the bills. I had occasion to get some $100 bills at the bank, and they are, to me, a definite lavender/lilac color shading at least on one end. I no longer have them, so I can't look now. I also think there are more holograms...in an effort to stop counterfeiting, esp. internationally, I think.
I also read that Oct. is a deadline for getting us caught up with Europe and Scandanavia (sp?) in having our credit cards have the chip in them that makes hacking into businesses for credit card info useless. They've had this overseas for 10 years or so.
The computer chip gives the business a one time code...and so it's useless to the hackers who want to sell the credit card info. About time, I say.
jane
-
No, the article I read had to do with devaluation of our currency, not changing the color of the bills or the pictures on them. I will try to find more about it. Perhaps it was just something someone was trying to scare people with because they think the U.S. debt is getting too large.
Marj
-
Marj....sounds like just that....some scare tactic, to me. If you can't find out anything about it easily, then that's a big clue for me that it's rumor or scam.
-
I just heard there will be a GOP debate tonite at 8 pm Eastern Time on the Fox News Channel. (I'm not sure which channel that is, as I can't stand to watch Fox.) I think the photographer tho snaps Trump's picture must be a Democrat, as he always gets Trump with that stupid look on his face (altho. I guess it matches his policies) I may watch the debate just for laughs.
Marj
-
Marj, the debate tonight will be on CNN. Fox News ran the first one.
-
Well I did watch some of the 2nd part of the GOP debate. Being a liberal Democrat, there's only so much of that ilk I can take.
Sounded as if most of them could hardly wait to get us into war, either with Iran or North Korea. Was amazed (altho I suppose I shouldn't have been) at Jeb Bush's comment that his brother had "kept us safe" by starting that war in Iraq.
Marj
-
Believe Dr Carson just lost the Muslim vote -- stated he wouldn't want a Muslim as president. Think he was surprised that two Muslims served in Congress. Wish the media would stop asking about a candidates religion. Don't believe it is a requirement to be a Christian to serve in the government!
-
We went through this before regarding Catholics, when Jack Kennedy ran for president.
-
It's a relief to hear that Scott Walker has withdrawn from the race. He seems like a fine gentleman, and I've no doubt he is a good governor, but the thought of building a wall on the Canada, USA border (all 5000 kilometers? ) is as unreal as it could possibly get. I'm just reading a serious book that proposes just the opposite: Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country, by Diane Francis. She makes a pretty good deal out of it. I have no doubt Donald Trump would go for it.
But what a surprise. He's been trumped himself. USA TODAY has Carly Fiorina as the leading candidate. What an impression she made in the debate. Showed real executive traits and commander-in-chief tendencies, with a good handle on the dangers facing the USA.
The prospect of a Carla/Hilary matchup should make for a campaign-of-the-century. God Bless America.
-
Yes, wouldn't that be something. I like Carly in spite of her getting booted from Lucent and HP. Have any of the people who actually worked for her weighed in? There are several others with potential, too, so my mind is far from made up.
-
I believe there has been talk of bringing Canada, the USA and Mexico together as a North American Union such as the EU.
Wish Carly would tone it down -- she is a little strident.
-
Ah thought - back when the concern was that it was taking so much longer to train either Afghan or Iraqi soldiers as compared to US soldiers and we were informed that it meant learning to read and to get out the mentality of the middle ages - so that there was much talk of how do we help these nations when they are living a lifestyle of the middle ages and then how long it took to get from there to democracy in the west and how do you change an entire region - well it looks like it is being done - called the biggest immigration movement since WWII with over a million so far from the Middle East walking into the twenty-first century.
-
While the Middle East is walking into the 21st century, I can understand the concern of Europe that this may cause them to re-enter the 6th century. That is just a huge number to assimilate.
-
I also had the thought assimilation is even more difficult when a people group doesn't want to assimilate. I've heard that complaint about those flooding our border to the south - that many don't want to be citizens, they just want to work here. And I also heard that from a symposium jointly presented by three Hispanic groups in the US.
I have also heard the plan to have a North American Union. I believe that idea is shared by Paul Ryan - open borders - so it will be interesting to see if he becomes the House Majority Leader.
A PBS panel had a young man representing the growing tech group who shared a view of the world where each region/group would contribute to the world those things that they are best suited for: in terms of their resources, climate, work force, etc. He envisioned our role as been 'innovation'. When someone on the panel asked what citizens would do if they weren't gifted in that area, he replied that there would always be a need for service professions to support the innovators - nurses, teachers, mechanics, carpenters, etc.
I kept hearing people wanting change - but didn't know what vision they were pursuing. There is a group wanting to do away with the Bill of Rights, and some others proposing that the Constitution be dissolved and that we 'start over'. I fear they are forgetful that those who established our government did so having a good understanding of other forms and how those have led to oppression and tyranny.
-
Watching Rachel Maddow -- Huckabee, Cruz, and Jindahl attended a conference held by Pastor Swanson of Colorado who wants to kill all homosexuals in the world if they do not "convert." His group had even discussed the method of killing -- throwing off a cliff, etc.? What were these three men thinking when they showed up at this conference???? They are lucky the other news outlets didn't pick this up!
-
I am not fond of extremists, left or right. The National Religious Liberties Conference was created by Swanson the name of which doesn't appear to fit their agenda. This looks like another case of religious freedom only as long as it is his version/vision of religion. It is hard to believe that Huckabee, Cruz and Jindahl weren't aware of this guy's rantings. I'd like to hear their reasoning for going. Thank you for bringing this to my attention Kidsal.
-
I’m not sure where this information comes from? This is such a politicized, emotional issue that, in my view, it has become increasingly difficult to sort fact from opinion.
I went to Right Wing Watch as that is what came up in a google search. Although I was told that this pastor has defended laws calling for the killing of homosexuals – and this part of the article was highlighted – I had to click on it several times before it finally took me to a source. Many attempts sent me to other articles like this one: Cruz, Huckabee And Jindal Will Join Pastor Who Wants Gays Put To Death
Meanwhile, I kept wondering what state or federal laws could possibly be designed to kill homosexuals that this pastor would be defending. Well, it turns out that I was finally sent to a source, a book (with no reviews) called: Gay Rights on Trial: A Reference Handbook, written by Lee Walzer consisting of 65 pp. (at least that is what turned up, keeping in mind that it might be an excerpt from the book) with 16 references, but no citations; apparently a history as it were of the gay rights movement.
Although the article, along with some of those I was sent to in my search, states that a pamphlet was distributed, again highlighted, none was produced.
I have only begun listening to the speeches made by the three presidential candidates listed, and have not had a chance to listen to Rachael Maddow (though I read the account given) so I can’t yet attest to what is being said here.
I went to the site for National Religious Rights Conference and found nothing objectionable, just speeches discussing the imposition of the homosexual agenda on people of faith, a common topic given that it raises serious moral and ethical issues.
So, I researched Kevin Swanson. He is the pastor of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Now, I am fairly familiar with this denomination’s creedal positions. And, unless he is seriously misrepresenting his denominational stance on homosexuality – which I don’t believe is the case – there is no way that he could be advocating the killing of homosexuals.
This is how such misinformation/rumor gets set in cement in people’s minds; someone on a side of an issue uses obfuscation and innuendo, along with guilt by association, as ‘fact’.
I will continue to search this out – as well as going back to listen to the actual speeches when I have more time – but, as a relatively cursory glance, I do not hold out much faith in the message given. However, if I find these accusations to be accurate, I will certainly post that as well.
Thanks for posting this kidsal. I never would have heard about it and, since she (and others mentioned) are making serious accusations that could conceivably have an affect on the election, it gave me an opportunity to research it for myself. I appreciate that.
-
Pennsylvania is one of only seven states that have not objected to taking in Syrian refugees.
This is an article from Lehigh Valley Live about concerns over the new influx of Syrian refugees. I was particularly interested to note that the local, long standing Syrian population in the area are Assad supporters. I didn't know that. The Lehigh Valley generally takes in Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, and surrounds.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/syrian_refugees_in_lehigh_vall.html
This is an article from The Morning Call (Allentown) with a bit more detail about the Syrian community in the area. http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-pa-accept-syria-refugees-wolf-20151116-story.html
-
Frybabe I cannot figure out what our government has against Assad - sure after the war on him started he used methods that the media reports show an outrageous response but if we are honest no less than our own use of weaponry. Difference ours is more sophisticated. Of Course Assad was going to fight hard, he was not going to just give up -
When you look at those who started the war in Syria they are mostly ex army officers - but cannot find out what tribes they belonged to - we do not think that way but tribal association as well as religious affiliation have been waring against each other since time immemorial - and tribes are very adept at getting others to fight for them by attacking them which brings them into the fray.
Then the biggie is that Assad is a Ba'athist as was Saddam - the Ba'athists want a sectarian run nation rather than one using Shea law or representing one religious group. Having read the history of this conflict all stemming from a terrible drought it confuses me why we are so dead set against Assad. From what I read we want Syria to be a Sunni run nation - why?
A few good links
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/understanding-syria-from-pre-civil-war-to-post-assad/281989/
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/4198/tribalism-in-the-arabian-peninsula_it-is-a-family-
http://cemmis.edu.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280%3Atribes-and-tribalism-in-the-arab-spring&catid=77%3Apoints-of-view&Itemid=95&lang=en
http://www.the-map-as-history.com/maps/2-history-middle-east-ottoman.php
-
I don't know much about Assad. The whole area is a big muddle. I was under the impression that the current and ongoing conflict between the US and Iraq, Iran and Syria has to do at least partly with the Kurds and the supposed use of chemical weapons against them.
After WWI when the Britain, France and the US got together and hammered out an agreement to carve the whole area up into states, it looks like Britain and France pretty much got their way. The report by King and Crane,sent by Wilson to study the situation, was ignored. The first map in the article I linked to shows the King-Crane suggested split. Mouse over it to get more info. I noticed that the Kurds would have gotten their own territory, but it recommended "close mandatory rule" because they thought the Kurds not capable of ruling themselves. Also, the last sentence remark about "full security" for several different groups, including Christians, lead me to believe that the Kurds were (are) a very unruly group indeed. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/the-middle-east-that-might-have-been/385410/
-
Frybabe as I understand it Kurdistan was eliminated - part of Kurdistan is now part of Turkey and that is causing a problem for Turkey because the Kurds are and always had been capable of ruling themselves - I forgot the news reporters name but he is often on the Charlie Rose show and has been reporting form that part of the middle east since at least 9/11 if not before - he suggests that it is these construct nations like Iraq that no one is willing to fight for - the Kurds will fight an die to protect their area - so will the Sunni and Shea but no one is willing to die for Iraq and Turkey is so afraid the Kurds will unite and admits they are a strong fighting force given today's weapons - in order to Fight ISIS the only effective group has been the Kurds and to arm them is a problem between US and Turkish relationships - I've a text on the history of the Kurds that I have not gotten into yet, The Kurds: Nationalism and Politics
There is another new book this year that speaks to the Kurdish Spring as it is being called and how their fight against ISIS is helping them unite towards a retake of their nation that was obliterated by the Great Powers after WWI The Kurdish Spring: A New Map of the Middle East
-
Wow what we did not know about ISIS is astonishing and it appears none of our national leaders understand who and what ISIS is all about
http://www.alternet.org/print/election-2016/6-keys-understanding-isis-barbarism-apocalyptic-vision-and-desire-end-times-battle
here are more articles by Graeme Wood - Canadian who writes for The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/author/graeme-wood/
-
I suppose some of you heard about the horrific shooting in Southern California in San Bernardino where 14 innocent people attending a Christmas party were slaughtered.
I can't understand how anyone should be able to go into a store and buy those awful weapons and the magazine clips they used to reload. I heard a couple of conservative congressmen talking about it, and they construed the talk about the need for gun control into what they felt was something the government would try to do to keep them from getting shotguns. As if hunters needed the guns used in that mass shooting which had enough power to pierce the safety vests worn by police officers. It amazes me that people love guns so much they don't want to have their purchase controlled in any way.
Marj
-
marjifay I think it is not so much a love of guns as a love of freedom without government mandating their behavior and also the belief that we take care of ourselves - a rampant belief the further west you go till you hit the other side of the Sierra's - it is not helping to show rogue police mis-using their fire arms which makes those who believe in self-protection more adamant.
An issue not being talked about probably because it is dicey - serving in the army teaches you about assault weapons and the use of them as a means of protection - we think the battle field should be left psychologically when it is left physically but remember these are young men, often not out of their teens when they are being trained - any training received as a young person stays or else we would not have collages available where values are adjusted - those who serve are taught to protect themselves and returning home there is a vulnerability felt when your battle field buddies are not around to help protect.
And then finally we have an industry that supplies anyone in the world with assault weapons - you do not feel it is right that others in other nations should have more fire arms than those of us at home. Finally my rational is that every product we mandate as against the law to purchase only sets up an alternate market that we have no control over and so, we are setting up another Cartel for those in Mexico just as we have for drugs and just as we have for banking off shore. Folks who want something will go to any measure, even if it is to create a new market for what they want.
I think this fight over guns is bypassing the real issues - when there are so many whose values have been discarded - see the new movie, 99 Homes to see what this nation has become - and self protection means becoming insular, taking care of yourself, making your own hope with faith only in yourself rather than the law, then those who are not as capable of letting go the dream of what was America feel not only hopeless but angry. Some can contain their anger or re-direct it but many cannot and it takes one thing like the proverbial straw on the camels back to put them over the edge.
I have a friend who is convinced the additives in our food is messing with our cognitive abilities and our behavior control is affected. And then I have seen on PBS some behavior therapists who point out each event is more horrific than the last with few coming out alive so that they believe it is a form of suicide that will take as many with them as they can AND they want to out do the last guy. There is even competition in dying .
At this point no one knows what is at the bottom of all this but as long as we focus on the gun we do not look for other influences almost like years ago we thought there was only one kind of Cancer and we were looking for the silver bullet - this behavior may have several causes. Certainly anyone not radicalized to another philosophy of death is risking their death out of a hopelessness that they can make their life better.
-
Looks as if young women will now be subject to register for the draft into the armed forces when they reach age 18, the same as young men, since the Pentagon has ruled that all jobs in the Armed Forces are now open to women.
I guess that's only fair.
Marj
-
So you think, Barb, it's a love of freedom, not guns, that makes conservative congressmen refuse to do anything about controlling the sale of those awful guns? That's what they say, but I think they are just paranoid about guns and afraid that government will take away their right to hunt, never mind that people are getting killed every day by guns in this country. No one needs those kinds of guns to hunt, except terrible people who want to hunt and kill human beings!
Marj
-
Oh my I think Congressmen have many more influences to satisfy - bottom line they want to stay in office which means being electable - they have big money to satisfy and certainly gun manufacturers fall in the category of big money - and yes, the mandating of gun control was not specific and folks are afraid they will loose their hunting guns - in gun culture areas of this country the idea of assault weapons is not the first thing that crosses anyone's mind - their ability to have rifle or handgun in their pickup, part of actually necessary equipment on a ranch, is what first comes to mind.
As to Congressmen I do not think they are in a job that allows them to have a Mr. Smith goes to Washington value system - there are too many folks to satisfy that have far greater ability to back a future run for office than the average middle class voter who does not vote unless again big money gets out the vote. I think Congress only acts after there is a huge concerted movement that leaves them little choice - the Civil Rights movement, Mother's March on No Drinking while Driving- etc.
The 1% movement had legs that those with money were shaking in their boots over and so what happened they used their money and influence to shut it down - that is what any Congressmen knows will happen to them if they do not satisfy those with money - and so it is not only the gun manufacturers but those who are invested in stock that will be affected if guns are curtailed and then also, it keeps us on edge so that it gets harder to be a peaceful people and easier to sell the idea of another war where investors can make a bundle.
Congressmen are not the kings or queens on the chess board - they are becoming more and more nothing but pawns.
-
Yes, I agree Barb, those congressmen who refuse to vote for any kind of gun control are afraid of losing their jobs if they don't cow-tow to those idiots who are paranoid about our government. I wonder how they would vote if their loved ones were killed with one of those guns like the ones used by those two murderers in San Bernardino.
Marj
-
again I do not think losing a loved one would make a difference - few folks want to loose their job and if they are working for a company that the product was instrumental in the death of a loved one they will blame the one who administered the product long before they blame the product.
You can already see the politics at play here as they are trying to be sure we understand this was an ISIS attack to drum up a 'go to war' mentality.
Have you read any of the posts on facebook from service men who were devastated by how so much of their job and what they were trained to do was taken over by Haliburton that is now a private army doing far more than the menial tasks that the armed services was sold on - Haliburton is paid of course by our national treasury and they are stymied when there is no active on the ground war so they can make their billions. All the men who fight just like our soldiers but for Haliburton are paid 4 to 5 times the salary of the average soldier. This privatization of the army is taking the stuffings out of the average soldier and is defiantly adding to the feeling of uselessness especially after being wounded when they are most vulnerable thus we have all these suicides.
There appears to be no room for emotions in todays world and what active emotion there is shown is then easily manipulated - sad - as to the removal of guns as a movement just look at how the folks in Massachusetts who were organizing after Sandy Hood were shut down - I do not even know if there is anything left to that movement.
My hope is that we can get rid of Citizens United - that would be one step but I am not naive enough to think that where there is a will there is a way and folks with more money than God have the will - I look around and see nothing left that money is not the controlling factor. It is as if it is the only thing that is valued - certainly not home or craftsmanship or a rounded education but rather only an education that will lead to a job and any craft is relegated to the lowest common denominator with manufactured anything, well advertised as 'the' preferred product - well you know - on and on it goes.
-
Per Barb, "again I do not think losing a loved one would make a difference - few folks want to loose their job and if they are working for a company that the product was instrumental in the death of a loved one they will blame the one who administered the product long before they blame the product."
Who said anything about "blaming the product (guns)?? I blame those people who buy and use them to kill people and those in Congress who want to continue to let people buy this "product".
-
ah so - yes, but Wow that is a lot of folks who's behavior we hope to change and even with a law we still have the change the behavior because a law is only as good as it is processed and in order to be charged you have to be seen by someone who will prosecute - sheesh - however, if someone has an arsenal as so many of those who execute these massive shootouts - how in the world do we get just the guns that are out there out of the hands of those owners - this is an overwhelming task isn't it no matter how you come down - I guess I have been thinking more along the lines of Mother's Against Drunk Driving where yes, it took years but our attitudes have completely changed about drinking while driving, still have work to do on driving while under the influence - but to me the vast number of those who drank is similar to the vast number of gun owners who do not want their ability to buy whatever gun they can afford is restricted. Just thinking outloud here because I can see this as a huge task that I do not seeing a law will solve - not that I am against a law - its just that I do not see it solving anything.
-
Per Barb " however, if someone has an arsenal as so many of those who execute these massive shootouts - how in the world do we get just the guns that are out there out of the hands of those owners."
Obviously, we don't. What we DO is keep them from being able to get them in the first place. Geezz... how hard is that to understand!!....
-
Talk about coincidence - going through my email and this was on one of my regular news sites.
Here’s how Vox’s Dylan Matthews, who notes that “America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population but almost half of its civilian-owned guns,” puts it:
Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.
Other countries have done exactly that. Australia enacted a mandatory gun buyback that achieved that goal, and saw firearm suicides fall as a result. But the reforms those countries enacted are far more dramatic than anything US politicians are calling for — and even they wouldn’t get us to where many other developed countries are.
Think about it this way. In 2013, the US had 106.4 gun deaths per million people. In 2011, the last year for which we have numbers, the UK endured 146 gun deaths total — or 2.3 gun deaths per million people.
To get to UK levels, we’d need to reduce gun deaths by nearly 98 percent. Even if we wanted to reach the same levels as Finland — another developed country with a relatively high rate of gun deaths — we’d need to drop from 106.4 deaths per million to 35 — more than a 67 percent reduction.
For anyone who finds the new normal of seemingly daily massacres unbearable, Matthews’ conclusion is at once hard to dispute and profoundly depressing: “The U.S. doesn’t just have a gun violence problem because of its lax gun regulation. It has a problem because it has a culture that encourages large-scale gun possession[.]”
So the problem isn’t a technocratic flaw in our regulatory system; and it’s not even the currently NRA-friendly Supreme Court (as one of Matthews’ sources notes, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which reform makes it through Congress but doesn’t survive the Court). It’s not just that there are too many “assault” weapons out there, either, since any serious attempt at reform would require looking at handguns.
All of these things may be problematic, but they are not the problem. No, the problem, unfortunately, is both simpler and more complicated. The problem is U.S. culture, which venerates firearms as symbols of self-control and rugged individualism; which is so taken by the seductive power of guns that it’s willing to give absurd myths like “a good guy with a gun” a serious hearing; which bestows someone like Wayne LaPierre with influence and riches.
The problem, in other words
-
France has very strict gun laws. The civilians in that attack were unarmed - the terrorists had plenty of arms.
The two who carried out the attack in California did not buy those guns, did they? I thought a friend bought them for them. The terms 'assault weapon' and 'semi-automatic rifles' are thrown around a lot; these rifles still only shoot one bullet at a time, they aren't like machine guns. At any rate - the statement that 'people on a watch list can't fly but they can still buy guns' would not apply to them, since they were not on a no-fly list. They weren't on anyone's watch list.
You don't need a gun to make a bomb.
This man worked at the county health department for five years. He had been to a Christmas party before. His co-workers gave them a baby shower. All seemed normal.
I guess it's hard to ask people to give up guns when they're told that studies show that 25% of American muslims believe it is alright to attack Americans; when other mass murders are perpetrated by emotionally ill people and we know that about 40% of adults are on some mood-altering prescription drug - many of which have suicidal/homicidal thoughts as a side effect; when they see a movement toward legalizing pot which is not 'just like taking a drink', but is fat soluble (cumulative) and alters your emotional state. In short, I don't think you can convince people that they live in a dangerous world and that their government is not able to protect its citizens and then expect them to give up their guns.
-
Here is the latest face of ISiS supporters, arrested right here in Harrisburg.
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2015/12/profile_of_an_isis_supporter.html#incart_river_home
In the article, it states that neighbors didn't even know he lived there. Actually, according to last night's on air news interviews with neighbors, most never saw any of the family, and one stated he didn't know anyone was living there at all. At least one Muslim community in the area has been quick to condemn terroristic activities. Good for them.
-
I am reading a Scifi book which, in large part, is a comparison of Earth political and societal norms and that of another planet. The security, laws and morals of today are not too exaggerated versions of what we see today in the US. The other world is, as the title, Freehold (Michael Z. Williamson) , implies exists in what I think is from a Libertarian point of view. Government is practically nonexistent there as well as no licenses, fees or taxes, few or no laws or regulations, sexual freedom and clothing optional (not a book for youngsters), but there are contracts and insurance of all kinds is a necessary part of life, oh, and guns are recommended. The fear of being sued, or worse, seems to keep most of the populace from pursuing criminal activities, but they do try to take every advantage for gain through contracts and compensation expected for helping others. Is this an exaggerated form of Libertarianism I wonder?
Some interesting quotes from the chapter headings of the book and things to keep in mind:
"If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example."
Oliver Wendell Holmes
"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him
But the stanger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you..."
Laviticus 19:33-34
"I would say that my position is not too far from that of Ayn Rand's; that I would like to see government reduced to no more that internal police and courts, external armed forces--with the other matters handled otherwise. I'm sick of the way the government sticks its nose into everything, now."
Robert A. Heinlein, as quoted by J. Neil Schulman in The Robert Heinlein Interview and Other Heinleiniana
Well, that just makes me want to read Rand even more. I've only read one short story, "Anthem". I had no idea Heinlein supported similar thoughts.
"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility."
Admiral Sir John A. Fisher
Admiral Fisher achieved the rank of Admiral of the Fleet, and received the Victoria Cross, among other medals.
"Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer."
Ludwig Von Mises
"Prostitution involves sex and free enterprise. Which of these are you opposed to?"
Joseph A. Hauptman
Gee, this sounds like my best friend's attitude, although I have no indication that he has ever availed himself of such.
With freedom comes responsibility for your own self and actions, as the main character in this story is finding out as she adjusts from a crime ridden and increasingly repressive government to one of almost total freedom. Along with her, I am a bit uncomfortable with some of those freedoms. She is learning, and beginning to adapt.
-
I guess I just answered my question. Freehold was nominated for a Prometheus Award back in 2005. The award is sponsored by The Libertarian Futurist Society. I was unaware of this group before today.
-
I missed the democratic debate last night, so I was reading a transcript of it on the internet. Really depressing. Not their debate exactly. But because I could only understand about half of what they were talking about, and I bet a large portion of the U.S. voters are just like me.
They mentioned Goldman Sachs' fraud. I have no idea whether they committed fraud.
Clinton also talked about the Dodd Frank saying it is just what we need. What the heck is Dodd Frank?
Bernie Sanders wants to restore Glass Steagall. (Say what??)
Bernie also made a statement that the Wall Street business model is a fraud. Oh yeah?
They also discussed a big problem with wealthy investors using the earned interest loophole.
I think most people don't understand much of this and vote simply for the person whose personality they prefer. Or they listen to people they respect tell them who to vote for.
I guess the only thing we can do is depend on experts to tell us if
something is wrong or right, but I wish I could understand more. I'm afraid my vote will be based simply on who I like best Sadly.
Marj
-
No Marj - please - do not depend on others to tell you from their viewpoint what is going on - those days have long since past since we have now at our fingertips the web - Those issues you do not know about or had only heard about in the speech just look them up -
The issues you named are all the current issues that are either possible cures or concerns for all of us. If we do not know something that obviously many do know about, it is simply a lack of knowledge - however, if we choose to continue accepting this lack of knowledge as our way of life then we really are what is called ignorant - please you are too smart to be ignorant - just look up on the internet the words that are new to you and are issues most kids learn about in High School and Collage these days.
Even I remember in 8th grade having to learn about the Banking Act of 1933 - no I do not remember all the provisions however, two provisions are called Glass Steagall named after two congressmen that recently after the banking crisis Congress wants to repeal. These provisions kept aspects of banking and investing separate and was a successful cure after the crash of '29.
-
Thanks, Barb, for your encouragement on voting and on researching things we think we ought to know. You are so right..
Yes, we are very fortunate to have the internet today to refer to. Actually, after I wrote that message, I looked up Goldman Sachs on the internet and read an article there from Forbes Magazine which recommended reading a book entitled WHY I LEFT GOLDMAN SACHS by Greg Smith.
The author, Greg Smith, is an economist (oh how I hated that subject in college) but I think I therefore should learn something from his book.
I don't remember learning about the Banking Act of 1933, but when you mentioned it I remembered reading someone's opinion that we should keep ordinary banking and investment banking separate. I'll read more about that, and about Glass Seagall.
And, no, I won't let someone tell me how to vote. I like to form my own opinions, but I'll look at alternate opinions as a help.
Thanks again,
Marj
-
Great - and it sounds like you are on to a good book - need to look into it - and Marj you may have forgotten or we were in school at different times - I started grade school in 39 so it would have been in the 40s and there were all those dates we had to know - I bet you did too and just forgot. There was the The Sherman Act of 1890 then the Clayton Act in 1914 that prevented companies from stopping Unions, the Banking Act 1933 and the Maloney Act 1938 and the Federal Credit Union Act 1934 and the Wagner Act 1935, the Labor act that stopped child labor in 1938 and Trade Unions Act 1939.
Golly those dates were drilled into us almost like having to memorize the multiplication tables. Which to this day I have trouble with the 7 times table. I never could get 7 times 8 or 7 times 9 and the same for the 8 times table could not remember 8 times 7 or 8 times 9 and of course same with the 9 times table - to this day I have to stop and figure it out.
Not sure if I know what all those acts did and for sure never understood the provisions when I was a kid but we sure knew their names and dates and what the act addressed that affected us.
-
Good heavens, Barb, you have a terrific memory! Your teacher must have either drilled or scared the heck out of you. My problem is spelling. I had to check to see if terrific had one or two r's.
Wouldn't it have been wonderful if we'd had calculators when we went to school? I remember taking bookkeeping and finance in college and having to do all those calculations in my head.
Marj
-
Haha yes we used our head for so many tasks - from note taking to math - the thing that I remember most was the fun we had if a couple of us were at the grocery store at the same time and the grocer was adding up the bill by writing on the outside of the paper sack in a column the price for each item - with the pencil always stuck behind his ear he drew his line and added - we kids would race to add it up not only trying to beat the grocer but each other with smiles all around if any of the kids won because the grocer would look up with his broad grin. The simple things that were fun -
I notice the gal who is helping all the Syrian immigrant kids who moved into our neighborhood - they are in middle school and must attend regular classes but when they arrive do not know a word of English. The whole neighborhood has been helping them in all sorts of ways and what is astonishing the women who is coordinating and bringing in volunteers to help these kids is Jewish and she has all the kids that are working towards their Bar Mitzvah doing their obligatory project by helping with some aspect of the needs of these folks -
Anyhow all that aside one of the tricks she is using to help these kids is having them jump rope counting by 2s and 5s and 10s - those were the things we did when we were kids and today's kids do not even jump rope. We had all sorts of sing song games with rope and with a bouncing ball that we put our leg over the ball on a bounce - that was how we learned the states and the presidents and even poems - kids do not memorize poems but we did. Looking at the state of education and what kids know I am thinking we may have had a better education that affected our ability to use our head because where kids are great at using technology their knowledge of history, civics and literature is woeful.
-
I'm so glad Sanders is in the presidential race; I think I finally get what he's talking about regarding the process being 'rigged' and why he's drawing so much of the young vote. I couldn't believe that, after all his effort in trouncing Clinton in New Hampshire she still walked away with as many delegates as he got there. Because she went in earlier and secured 9 super delegates (360 across the country) and walks away unscathed, though the good people of the state clearly do not want her. The DNC and the big money people will have their way it seems.
And Iowa still will not release actual numbers. Why would anyone vote if their vote doesn't matter anyway? If a handful of people at the top of the ladder dictate what's good for the rest of us? And when - and how - did the Democratic Party not only stop caring about the 'little people' and actually, blatantly scold and attack them?
The only way out of that is to drastically reduce the size (and power) of the federal government; term limits, some kind of flat tax, HSA's, state races financed solely by donations raised in that state, no corporate or union monies, and no donations from agencies receiving public funds! That should begin to rein it in. And how about a line-item veto and constitutional amendment for a balanced budget?
-
Mogamom....re. "If a handful of people at the top of the ladder dictate what's good for the rest of us? "
I think that's happening in both parties, and has been happening for years. It's more obvious this year and things aren't going as the "top of the ladder", to use your expression, ever dreamed would happen. And maybe that's a good thing. One can hope that the career politicians, and that seems to be most of Congress, will finally get a message. The Eric Cantor defeat should have awakened them but apparently didn't.
I'm an Iowan and the whole caucus thing, for me, is ridiculous. A few thousand determine the results for all of us. I would much prefer a vote in a private voting booth and the ability to vote absentee or "early" as it's called in some places if I can't get to the polls on whatever date is decided upon.
But, that is just another example of the politicians not really wanting, in my mind, for everyone to have a voice. Bah humbug!
-
How right you are! It does indeed occur in both parties! Sanders has just shined a light on it (as well as people who have pushed candidates who are not career politicians into the limelight) and it becomes more obvious every day. The whole process is so 'refined' that they know exactly which precincts in which states they need to cater to and win and can completely ignore the rest if they choose, or give them a passing nod. No wonder most Americans feel as though they are not being represented in Congress.
Oh..I also meant to suggest that anyone involved (directly or indirectly) in the legislative process - whether they be in congress, aides to judges or congress people, judges, in some position in the executive branch, etc. - should never be allowed to be a lobbyist. Some former congress persons actually have more political influence through lobbying than they had in congress.
-
Just what we've been saying:
"The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.
The decision, which may provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington.
“It is a major step in the wrong direction,” said longtime reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. “And it is completely out of touch with the clear public rejection of the role of political money in Washington,” expressed during the 2016 campaign.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
-
I just saw the news that Antonin Scalia has died. What an earthquake this causes!
-
I had the same reaction, Mary!
Now the "fun" begins...and with the election, this will now become an added ring to what's become, to me, a circus.
-
Bunch of legal heads on our neighborhood facebook page discussing how many cases now being considered would end up with a 4-4 vote which automatically means the decision by the lower court becomes the law. Several cases in favor of woman's choice. It throws back to the decision of the lower court the Obamacare issue as well as the immigration issue - a Mom deputing deportation - that is a lot of loss to the Republicans - presently Obama would most likely choose a moderate where as if a Dem wins in November they could be faced with someone far more liberal and if they block Obama's candidates than they look bad and that does not help a win among independents in November. This will be interesting to see it play out...
-
I found this interesting article about Pres. Clinton (Bill) and pension reform.
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2016/president-clinton-chilean-model?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=8ce010c176-Cato_Weekly_Dispatch_January2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_395878584c-8ce010c176-143082153&mc_cid=8ce010c176&mc_eid=2c8ff74b52
Gosh, you think that website address is long enough?
Anyway, I don't remember talk of pension reform back then, just Hillary's attempts to get health care reform going.
-
John Boehner really let go on Ted Cruz in an interview at Stanford yesterday! WOW....
“Lucifer in the flesh,” Boehner said, according to the Stanford Daily. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a b---h in my life.”
See the whole thing here and in other news outlets, as well.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/john-boehner-ted-cruz-lucifer-flesh-article-1.2617390
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/28/john-boehner-just-called-ted-cruz-lucifer-in-the-flesh-he-does-this-sometimes/
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-28/boehner-would-vote-trump-but-not-cruz-in-fall-report-says
-
Boy do I agree with his assessment Jane - and yet in this state he is popular - I think it is the idea of independence that is not as valued or as valuable today - we are no long single handed taming anything - in towns we realize in order to get anything done it is through and with a group but that goes down hard among those who see their life as pulling up your boot straps and not belly aching if life throws you a punch. Plus rural areas are still the individual versus the land or cattle. It is that view on life that is disappearing and so the traditionalists and the super duper Christians have an easier relationship with each other which gives Cruz a following -
Personally the man scares me and I hate that he represents us in Congress - I think there has been so much change in the last 30 years with so many losses - and no clear path for most folks towards a better life so that the statement made by Obama in the early months of his first term are a good analogy - when people are scared they turn to their Bible and their guns.
Frankly I am fed up with the news controlling with their slant on happenings and not bringing important happenings to our attention so that you almost have to read foreign newspapers to have any idea of what is going on and most of all the circus the media has made of this political race that the candidates are more about saying whatever will get them free press -
I am worn out feeling like a two year old throwing a tantrum being dragged into voting for any of those who present themselves as the potential leader of this nation.
-
The "what in the world is this circus" theme is what I hear from the people I know. Granted, these are "old" people and most, in this area, are very conservative. However, they are also baffled by this "circus" and unsure of what to do or think. I'm in that group, as well.
-
Jane I am hearing it from all ages - I must say though most of the young that I hear from hardly watch or read traditional news sources - they seem to have their own underground news feed - the "circus" was an attention grabber for awhile - I think we were more aghast at what we were hearing and seeing but now it is beyond that - it feels like an assault on everything we stood for as a nation - I just do not know - to have to put on this kind of shocking show for attention reminds me of these wild life shows we see of prairie birds strutting with all sorts of body contortions for the attention of the opposite sex. And to figure out where in the food chain these birds fit is about what it is like trying to sort out these candidates. Lordy... I need my clothes closet again so I can scream without the neighbors calling 911...
-
I guess by now most everyone has heard of the IMO silly law that was passed in one of the Carolinas (the northern one, I think) regarding the restrooms transgender people can use. I guess that, if not already required, soon anyone wanting to pee in a MacDonald's restroom will have to show a birth certificate to prove that the restroom they choose to enter is the one god intended them to use.
Marj
-
Sometimes common sense flies out the window.
-
I sincerely hope that if they have stipulated that the transgender person carries paperwork that they are in the treatment process for those who haven't yet had the surgery. Those that have had surgery won't look much if at all any different than you and me and the birth certificate will be changed, on application to the post surgery result. Otherwise, we will have all kinds of pervs taking advantage.
My Ex is transgender. After two years of psychiatric treatment and evaluation. Part of the treatment was that she dress as the gender to which she wanted to be changed. She carried paperwork to the effect that she was under treatment, etc. At the conclusion of the treatment and surgery, she was able to get her birth certificate changed to female. When she relocated, her new gynecologist could only tell that she had presumably had a hysterectomy, not a sex change; the surgery was that good. End of problem with bathrooms.
-
I don't understand why we would have any more "pervs" taking advantage of this than we have in the past. The biggest problems seems to be same sex issues, especially in men's rooms.
-
I was thinking about that last night, nlhome. I doubt there would be much more of a problem with pervs than there already are. All of my Ex's problems during transition and afterword were from people who already knew about the change, like co-workers, neighbors and friends who knew the before and after. Lots of fear, disgust, feelings of betrayal. Only one of my Ex's friends stuck by us during the transition and divorce. Strict company policy kept co-workers from causing a lot of trouble and they had someone who at company headquarters that had already undergone treatment to contact for help and counseling in work situations.
I dropped one good friend because instead of supporting me, she and her husband chose to criticize both of us and pull the religious card. I guess I wasn't supposed to try to understand and learn about the problem. I guess I was supposed to get really nasty and try and "take" everything when I went. I am not like that. I got two years of college paid for, a new car and half the price of the house without nastiness. Dad wasn't about to lose a daughter over it, but since Mom was so upset and embarrassed that he was able to convince her to finally make the move to Florida because of it.
Newest APA guidelines for therapy. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf
For those who are truly interested, there is a lot of information out there regarding not only psychological and hormonal treatment and surgery, but also extensive research in sexual differentiation stages during the growth of a fetus. This also encompasses such disorders as Turner's Syndrome where miscues during pregnancy cause chromosomal conditions that affect the physical growth of the baby as well as the associated developmental problems in mental capacity.
The Romans didn't have a problem with unisex bathrooms: http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo&position=8&with_photo_id=5935732&order=date_desc&user=1105719
-
Neither do Concert goers or Construction workers.
(https://2onthebeat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/potties-001.jpg?w=426&h=319)
-
My piano teacher when I was young was the next door neighbor's college-aged daughter. She wasn't good with children and I learned a very regimented way to play, but she also introduced me to classical music and how to listen for different instruments - all things I would not have learned in my tiny rural school. A few years later when I was in high school, my mom told me that the neighbor girl was now a "he" and had changed her/his name. As far as I remember, that was all, just those facts. My mom would update me about him over the years, as he moved around, taught music and married. My parents stayed friends with the family, and if he came home, they visited. I never thought much about it then, it was done in such a matter-of-fact manner - now I look back in wonder at how accepting my parents were.
-
As far as the Romans go with public toilets, think togas and stollas.
The problem isn't with single admittance unisex toilets. It's with gang johns and locker room showers.
-
I am not concerned about transgenders using individual bathroom stalls. My concern is the adolescents who are in jr. high, high school and college who will have to shower with someone with the opposite genitalia. Neither of my grandchildren who are in their early teens, one a boy and one a girl, want anything to do with having to share a locker room or shower after sports or gym class with someone with the opposite genitals. Young teens are already so very uncomfortable with their bodies and their own personal changes taking place, now this president is forcing them to deal with such a very confusing issue at such a young age. He really did not give this any thought whatsoever.
I wish this were JUST about bathroom stalls and adults, but it is not. It is clearly a violation of 99.7% non transgenders civil rights and privacy. The American Pediatric Assoc. has spoke out against this mandate stating the concerns of the pre teens and teens it will involve with locker rooms and showers. There are much more sensible ways to deal with this transgender issue but it seems our president rushed to judgement, forced the mandate and is digging his heels in and punishing schools refusing to abide by it. Clearly it will end up in the Supreme court which they will have to rule down the mandate. It is not up to the president to make or enforce a mandate, he has once again overstepped his position.
-
I agree with you, Bellamarie, on both counts. There will be trouble in the locker rooms and showers.
I fear that the POTUS has lowered the bar on the use of executive orders and has set a precedent that future presidents will be tempted to emulate or extend.
So much for democracy. It is being eaten away by presidents overstepping their authority, supreme court justices and lower court justices making law through judicial judgements, and a congress full of congressmen who are more interested in making it a life long occupation, giving themselves perks, and exempting themselves from things not allowed for the general public.
-
I wonder if the easiest solution is simply rename the locker rooms and showers so they do not fall legally within the executive order - rather than all this gnashing for teeth - however, renaming can also be abused by those who are attempting to shame anyone who does not fit the neat physical profile of a male or female.
-
I think the only logical solution is to have a female, male, and gender neutral, bathroom, locker room and shower. How is a transgender going to feel any more uncomfortable going into the gender neutral bathroom, locker room or shower, than they would be standing next to someone with the opposite genital parts? It's not about shaming or being insensitive, it is allowing all civil rights and privacy to be met.
Frybabe, I could not have put it more eloquently as you stated about the out of bounds of president, courts, and congress. Everyone seems to forget their responsibilities and who actually "makes the law", who "enforces it", and who determines when it is not being accurately constitutional. Not to mention they all have forgotten they are "elected" by the people to serve the people, not their own personal agendas and ideologies. In the process they are trampling our Constitution and civil rights. I see them using the transgenders as a political chess piece, just as they use race, religion and creed. Nothing is sacred anymore.
-
A brief scan of executive orders, numbers per president and subjects, over the years is illuminating. I suspect the objections to them are more related to whether a person approves of the order or not, rather than whether they exceed authority.
-
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order
-
I don't believe it is not about if you agree or disagree with a particular president's executive order that makes it exceed authority. It is if the president has single handedly taken it upon himself to bypass congress and make a mandate, or order that is out of his jurisdiction. It is not about how many presidents have done it, and how many they have done. Any president who does such acts for the soul purpose to further his own ideology and agenda, refusing to allow the legislative branch of our government to do their job, which is to "make the laws" only chips away at our Constitution and the democracy of our nation. We have the three branches of government to protect our Constitution, and to prevent a president from becoming a dictator.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-3-branches-of-government-executive-legislative-judicial.html
-
Well said Bellamarie.
-
So all Presidents have made executive orders, from minor to major, often many more than our current president - which ones "exceed authority"?
FDR, for example, made a large number of executive orders, from creating the CCC camps to interning Japanese Americans in WWII. Each President, as far as I read, made minor orders such as making someone eligible for benefits to major orders.
One could argue that without executive orders changes and actions that were/are considered necessary would not be made. Congress moves exceedingly slow.
-
I think when it comes to the immediate, eminent safety of our country that is entirely different.
Like I said, we have three branches so no president can become a dictator. This president has boldly stated, "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone." meaning he plans to bypass congress when he feels like it or if they do not give him what he wants, or acts in the time he wants it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-will-use-my-pen-and-phone-to-take-on-congress/
It's interesting how he used this back in 2014 in his argument for giving the kids the best education, yet he passes a mandate now in 2016, that will penalize schools not giving them federal money who refuse to follow his mandate, which would hurt the education of the kids now.
"The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine"
In his speech in February 1941 Churchill says calling on America to join the war "Here, then, we see the beginnings of a process of reparation and of the chastisement of wrong-doing which reminds us that though the mills of the gods grind slowly they grind exceedingly small."
Gottesmühlen mahlen langsam, mahlen aber trefflich klein;
Ob aus Langmut Er sich säumet, bringt mit Schärf' Er alles ein.
- by Friedrich von Logau (1604-1655), in Sinngedichte, (1653), III.ii.24.
Translated by H.W. Longfellow:
"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds He all."
(Cite: Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 3rd ed.)
I say, let the three branches to their jobs they are meant to do, in whatever time it takes them to do.
-
Absolutely. Our government was designed so that no one person/group could control all. It was meant to go slow and do the work well. If all three branches operate as they were designed to (which includes not allowing the Supreme Court to make laws), the people are protected from fads, whims, and a push for power.
-
Speaking of Conflict of Interest and over-stepping authority: the president just endorsed Clinton, a woman under investigation by the FBI which involves his Department of Justice. And the time-line?
met with Hillary Clinton this am
met in the oval office with Sanders this am
released a three-minute video endorsing Clinton this am
@2:25 pm met in a closed-door meeting in the oval office with Loretta Lynch
The FBI investigation has been designated a 'criminal investigation'; let's see how all this pans out. I can't imagine a President Nixon or Bush getting away with doing this, what appears to be an attempt to influence an on-going investigation. It really puts the president on the spot since he could be implicated as well? But, time will tell.
Oh...and I'm a bit rusty on history here - didn't Congress give FDR unusual powers during WWII, resulting in the executive orders? Perhaps not, but I thought so.
-
Yes, FDR was given extra authority to conduct war-time affairs. I believe the rationale was that going through congress for some things would hamper the US from acting quickly regarding wartime necessities.
From the Free Dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order After reading this, I wonder why no one (or have they) tried to pass legislation to restrict the use of Executive Orders. It appears that while the Constitution gives the president the use of Executive Powers it is not specific.
History lesson trivia. The Romans (during the Republic) had a system where, at times, extreme necessity required that a dictator be appointed for the duration of a crisis or war. They felt that reduced conflict (differences of opinion) between the two consuls and focused everyone on obeying only one consul's decisions until the crisis was over. Once the crisis was over, they reverted back to the two consul system. The Romans were paranoid about allowing any one person to have extensive powers; their consuls served only one year, and each one alternated being lead on a monthly basis. Consul's could be re-elected.
-
Interesting...
The Glass Ceiling We Must Shatter in 2016
by March Elizabeth Twisdale
It would be nearly impossible to live in America today and not know that there is a woman running for the position of President. Indeed, with a campaign hashtag that focuses your attention entirely upon her gender (#ImWithHER), how could you miss it?
Let me be clear that I am a feminist, and a product of feminism. I was born in 1972. My mother and father have long fought against the institutionalized form and gross depredation of sexism. My mother lost several jobs as a direct result of refusing sexual advances of her male managers. Her access to a bank account and college loans was predicated upon her having a parent or husband co-signer. She and my father knew, through personal experience, the harm of sexism.
So when they became parents of a baby girl, they named me March. My name is intentionally androgynous—the result of my parents’ feminist leanings and their hopes that I would be hired for who I was, not my gender. In the 1970s, it was normal for a person sorting applications to toss female applications into the “secretary pile” while male applications would be placed into the “managing position” pile. My parents figured that if no one knew whether I was a man or a woman (when they saw my name on an application) that I would be more likely to live a life based upon who I was, how I thought and what I did. A person-based life, not a gender-based life.
When we vote for a candidate, we are—in effect—hiring that person for a job. Given that, I find it offensive to see Hillary Clinton using her gender to solicit votes. It feels like a personal insult to see Hillary Clinton use her gender to further her election potential.
True feminism means you seek to eliminate the role of gender, not capitalize on it. Far from being a vote for feminism, a vote for Hillary is a vote for a President willing to promote sexism for personal gain.
I am not alone in holding a view that reflects the achievements of the feminist movement. Across the board, young feminists (male or female) are not drawn to Hillary’s gender as a reason to vote for her. This is because the feminist movement has, to a very large degree, been a monumental success. All over our country, glass ceilings have exploded into dust. In fact, in most universities women outnumber men, sometimes nearly two to one. [3] Between 1998 and 2014, the number of women in charge of Fortune 500 companies (CEOs) went from one to 24. [4] Business ownership by women has expanded dramatically since 1997, partly as a result of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the Women’s Equity in Contracting Act. [5]
What do these persistent and growing changes prove? That women can do anything as well as a man can…and vice versa.
That is, after all, the whole point of feminism, isn’t it? To equalize the sexes? Even the playing field, institute official standards that prevent a slide back into sexism (of any sort), and ensure that every person is free to excel based on who they are and what they do—not the body parts they were born with.
As such, a campaign that focuses on one’s gender is nothing more than a slide back into the very sexism that feminists have long fought and suffered to overcome. Yes, Hillary Clinton has busted through a political glass ceiling of sorts, but she did it by showing us that a woman is just as capable as a man at being power-hungry, lacking in scruples, opportunistic, misleading, and otherwise machiavellian. Do we really need more proof that a female politician can be just as bad as a male one? While not often acknowledged, history abounds with evidence that women, just like men, can be bought.
However, there is another glass ceiling that matters greatly in 2016. It is a thick slab of muddy glass, obscuring our view of the puppeteers who manipulate our fair nation for their personal gain. I’m talking about the global glass ceiling of economic privilege.
Since the earliest beginnings of our nation, the wealthy (or the puppets of the wealthy) have held a near monopoly on the American government. Rarely before Bernie Sanders have we seen a man or woman with such a humble beginning, middle and end succeeding in government. Bernie Sanders’ lifetime of political service has aligned consistently with the needs of the common men and women of America, of which he is one.
Every temptation, every moneyed threat, every opportunistic bribe extended to him has been denied. In doing so, he has triumphed time and again. When the integrity of our government hangs by a thread, Bernie Sanders is continuing to prove that our system actually can work!
In a very real way, Bernie Sanders’ campaign represents the culmination of centuries worth of philosophical thinking and the highly-esteemed concept of a society based upon self-governance. America is on the brink of readiness to enact the fullest purpose of its constitution: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
In a world awash in governments by the elite and for the few, we stand poised to throw out the facade in favor of honest progressiveness and egalitarianism. Which makes Hillary Clinton’s bald-faced abuse of the ethics of “feminism,” in her pursuit of personal gain and elitism, all the more disingenuous and contemptible.
Rule by the wealthy falls under many names, none of which have anything to do with representational democracy. We are a nation of diversity. As such, our leaders ought to reflect that diversity, and today, they do not. Let me run through a few numbers, just to drive home the point.
Typical American Earnings: $53,657
Typical U.S. Senator Earnings: $190,000
Typical American Average Net Worth: $301,000
(Average # is driven up by wealth of our economic elites)
Typical U.S. Senator Average Net Worth: $14,013,596
Typical American Median Net Worth: $44,900
(Median # is more accurate, as 50% of our citizens have LESS than this amount)
Typical U.S. Senator Median Net Worth: $1,008,767
That is our reality. For the first time ever, the majority of elected officials in Washington D.C. are millionaires. Over the past 10 years, while the median American citizen’s net worth has decreased by -0.94%, a handful of American citizens (who have the power to control our government and regulatory agencies) have seen a median annual increase to their net worth of +1.55%, equaling a total increase of $316.5 million in assets. [2]
This is why 2016 matters. Sometimes, things have to get “bad enough” for us to wake up, pay attention and respond to a grave threat. The moneyed elite of the world, who seek to prey upon our people and our land, are a grave threat. Who are their greatest allies? The American elite who are willing to sell the rest of us down the river. Hillary Clinton, woman or not, is a member of that dangerous and corrupted society.
The end game will be accomplished when political literacy has expanded across the country and a new American culture of lifelong political engagement has become the norm.
To those in America and abroad who seek to maintain their corrosive control of our government and society—for the betterment of their class at the cost of all others—I say GAME ON!
[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_and_Representatives
[2] https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_in_Net_Worth_of_U.S._Senators_and_Representatives_(Personal_Gain_Index)
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/2013/jan/29/how-many-men-and-women-are-studying-at-my-university
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/04/the-number-of-fortune-500-companies-led-by-women-is-at-an-all-time-high-5-percent/
[5] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/women-are-owning-more-and-more-small-businesses/390642/
About March Elizabeth Twisdale
March Twisdale and her family live on Vashon Island, near Seattle, where freakishly-hot, California weather is drying out the rain-forests of Washington State. An activist since her teens, March Twisdale's life revolves around Betterment Projects.
She is especially proud to be the producer and host of Prose, Poetry & Purpose, where guest authors share their hope to inspire positive social change...one reader, and one listener, at a time. Listen locally on 101.9 FM KVSH or catch PP&P on-line at: voiceofvashon.org/prose-poetry-and-purpose.
-
A thought-provoking article, BarbStAubrey. I do hope Bernie Sanders didn't just sell out his political influence for a 'place at the table' (I don't think he would for money); we'll see. He has certainly brought much light to bear on many issues.
But, now - there have been 29 terrorist attacks on this country since this administration came into power.
As has been put so aptly, "Not all Muslims are jihadists, but all jihadists are Muslims." This is not a problem that is going away any time soon, I think. And we have much to carefully, thoughtfully, reflectively consider before deciding as a country on how to approach it. Here are two separate reactions:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/mourning-orlando-longing-for-truth-and-love
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/06/13/milo-yianopoulos-islam-is-the-problem/
-
I knew at some point the Democratic party would put the squeeze on Bernie and force him out. This exact same thing happened to Hillary in 2008. She could have won the nomination but of course they did not want her in office, she did not fit their agenda. So the famous meeting between Hillary and Obama took place at Diane Feinstein's home and the next day or so Hillary was announcing she was dropping out and was asking all her supporters to back Obama. I was working on her campaign and was in complete shock to see her back out. So, when all the Bernie supporters were telling me he will never back out I said, just wait and see. He met with Obama at the White House and I knew it was the end for Bernie.
"I find it offensive to see Hillary Clinton using her gender to solicit votes. It feels like a personal insult to see Hillary Clinton use her gender to further her election potential."
March Elizabeth Twisdale
I am a woman, Independent registered voter, and will not be voting for Hillary. She has not proven to me this time around to be worthy of being President of the United States of America. I don't care about "breaking a glass ceiling." She sold out her supporters in 2008, and as SOS I did not see the strong woman I thought I was helping in 2008 to become president. Gender, color, ethnicity, religion, etc., does not sway my vote. She may have proven she can play on the same playground as the big boys, but she has not proven she is up for this job. Since 2008 I have followed her closely, the FBI's investigation for possible criminal actions is just one of the many illegal, corrupt things I feel she has committed, even if they do not recommend she be indicted I will always feel she knew she was using that private server to do dealings that were illegal. Yep, she played with the big boys and turned into one of them. I'm saddened it is Clinton vs Trump. I know this country has better but the fix was in the deal back when she stepped aside for Obama to be the nominee in 2008, and the American people have voiced their desire to have Trump. So let them put their gloves on, get your popcorn and pop, sit back and watch the circus my fellow Americans, and let the show begin.
I just know with the crisis we are having with ISIS, I prefer Trump over Clinton to deal with them.
-
Well...if we just look at the facts here. The FBI had investigated this guy, they had him on a watch list but took him off, they were not allowed to use his 5 facebook pages as evidence of his intentions, they were notified by the gun shop owner of the first gun shop where he attempted to purchase guns that his behavior was suspicious and that he called someone and spoke in a foreign language, but they did not act on this information. The FBI is not allowed to talk about their restrictions, but a former FBI person has said that they are not allowed to even engage in normal investigation tactics when it involves a muslim; they have to wait for someone in the muslim community to notify them of suspicious behavior. And these 'rules of engagement' come from the White House.
And still there are those who would have us believe that we just need more gun laws - like that will keep us safe. That, and going after 'right-wing extremists' are their whole answer. And this administration (including Hillary Clinton) bears the full responsibility for the instability in the middle east and the rise of ISIS in the first place. Amazing.
-
mogamom, Very well put. The laws we have to deal with illegals and even immigrants with visas and temporary permission to be here are not enforced whatsoever. This president/administration, has placed so many restrictions on ICE, FBI, DOHS and CIA when dealing where these situations are involved it's a joke to even think these departments are able to do their jobs to protect our country. The solution is always about gun laws. Radical Islamic terrorists and criminals DO NOT abide by laws. Look at Chicago the worst crime rate in the nation and they have strict gun laws. California is allowed sanctuary cities and ICE is told to back off and illegals who have committed multiple crimes are let go and not deported.
This guy who did the shootings in Orlando should have been flagged and watched carefully. He pledged his allegiance to ISIS as he was shooting the victims, yet this president and the liberals want to blame it on hate for the LGBT, Christians, NRA and gun laws. They could have dealt with this situation years ago and have refused to even call it what it is.... Radical islamic terrorists. Just four days ago Obama said they are making progress. John Brennan CIA director two days later testified and said this: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-isis/
I have NO faith in trusting and believing anything this administration says, and Hillary will be another Obama presidency.
-
I read an article just before this past week-end that France blames its problems with our 'failed multiculturalism' and our state department which has 'promoted Islam around the world'. The French are saying that their Islamic immigrants refuse to assimilate into French culture and insist on Sharia Law as holding their highest allegiance. Since it is this law that the Koran teaches must be the Law of the world, and since 51% of muslims in America agree with this, how can this faith group ever live cooperatively with any other group in a democracy that values freedom of religion for all?
Is it true that there are 85 Sharia Courts in England? Friends tell me that muslims have been trying to establish the same in Minnesota?
-
Had someone say something this week to me that stopped me short - he said if we took all the guns and put them in one gigantic pile - there would be no gun on its own walk out from the pile and shoot someone - it takes a human to use the gun to shoot someone.
Another scenario was offered by a friend, if kids on a playground and one had a stick he was using to bash other kids would we take the stick away or give all the other kids sticks - and then another friend piped up that taking the stick away sounds logical except this kid is angry and willful so, he will use nearby rocks or his fists. He is not going into a corner and feel punished or be calmed but rather he will only become more angry.
All I see is that these guys are blaming it on ISIS or being homophobic or being ignored or taunted in school or stood up by a girl - these are the kind of excuses you hear from guys who beat their wives - as if the world owes them something and they take out their anger on someone who they perceive is not only weaker but who should look upon them as being powerful.
Using a gun is simply an extension of personal power. Another interesting fact is all these mass murders were committed by males - my guess for the couple of women that have been mentioned as supporters, if these guys are lording their masculine power over anyone who they want to express their rage they are probably as much a bully at home with their women and the women do not even realize it - all except the women in the San Bernardino shooting, I think she was a radicalized Muslim.
So, for what is it now 15 years, we have males young and old shooting up many people, all with the excuse of others being wrong. They see guns used on their computer games, in the movies, on TV, in print ads - all showing the gun as a sign of power.
Bottom line I see male entitlement extending their personal power with a gun so they can let their rage out because they do not feel good about themselves or are able to cope with folks who live and think differently and then, they blame their actions on whatever group they think represents either, justification or the group is the subject of their rage.
What I see is if we cannot get a good handle on bullying in grade and middle school than there is no hope - because that is the same behavior only a grade or middle school male does not have a gun but it is the same behavior of hurting others because they feel entitled to be Mr. Bigshot to make up for something they feel is lacking within themselves. They can blame the cliques that form in school or that another kid can build better forts with their blocks or they did not make the football team or the pretty girls do not talk to them or they cannot get their team to win the schoolyard stickball games or whatever - but it is the same behavior.
-
Barb, with all due respect the radical islamic terrorists are not about bullying on the playground, and I too saw that reference to kids on a playground with a stick. We are not talking about kids or sticks, we are talking about ISIS, they are filled with hate and taught as children Sharia Law. No one has said it better than Prime Minister Netanyahu:
https://www.facebook.com/IsraeliPM/videos/1339013092780099/?pnref=story
-
Not in the playground but bullies on the world stage - bringing events and people down to a level of children helps many of us see what we are dealing with and it takes the fear away that prevents our mental and emotional freedom from devising solutions.
As I understand, Sharia Law is law older than the law in most western cultures - it just does not fit today - most of civilization has matured past these old tribal and religious laws however, some Christians also have aspects of religious law that to me are questionable. The difference is we in the US do not want to replace constitutional law with religious law however, our state is the only state to ban the use of religious law to by-pass or usurp constitutional law. I was amazed to learn that many states see the protection of religious freedom as the rational to allow private courts that use Sharia Law to function in the state.
I've only heard stories of what is included in Sharia Law - it would be neat to know what the laws say - I wonder if the laws was practiced by word of mouth - We have many families new to our neighborhood from Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria with over 100 of the children in the elementary and middle school - these children had not ever been in a classroom and none of the women can read since they were children when the Taliban ruled that did not permit girls to be educated - over 60% of these families are Christian and yet, all the women and girls wear Hijabs so it must not be a religious practice but cultural - as Christian they were subject to Sharia Law. I guess because where they came from was essentially a Muslim Theocracy although, the more you read the more I'm learning the tribal culture and Law and Sharia Law, the bedrock of Islam, are tied in knots with each other.
I've been reading The Tribes Triumphant by Charles Glass and he is talking about the return of and increase association and pride those living in the middle east have with their tribal association and roots. He sees a greater association with tribalism now than he did 20 and more years ago during his earlier reporting from the Middle East. He was a journalist captured and kept for I think it was over 2 or maybe 3 years before he escaped. Reading the book I'm seeing this different viewpoint to the world and how it shows itself in why we are not able to make a difference towards calming things down. I also learned that ISIS was mostly the angry disenfranchised Sunni that were put out of power when we invaded Iraq - they were the professionals that ran the nation - and were in the high ranks of the military for over 200 years that we replaced with Shiites, most of whom had little education and really did not know how to make things work or how to govern. It appears we went in without knowing the culture and we did not realize what would happen.
Hate to see that we are gearing up again for war in the area. Most of these journalists that have spent years in the area say the debacle in Syria is really tribal warfare - that the original group of military men who left Assad's army to fight for freedom were really all about replacing him and the Alawite with their own tribe and that was how they disintegrated since each of the 5 were from different tribes and started to fight with each other. I bet when Obama understood that was when he backed out of participating even giving arms to these so called freedom groups. Trying to eek out what the news just glosses over is a challenge isn't it - thank goodness we are all book readers or we would all be in the dark.
The book I really want to read is finally getting into a price range I can afford - also there are finally some used copies - Culture and Conflict in the Middle East by Philip Carl Salzman - has anyone read it - from the excerpt on Amazon he seems to go into how the people are organized to protect themselves and to do the necessary work of a society so that without understanding the value of the various tribes to the entire society and assuring their work continue the society dies.
Seems to me I only read an ad for a book along similar thinking about our life in the US - that the old groupings of families and parishes and small community schools are no longer so that we do not have any groups to identify with except sport teams - I wish I remembered the name of that book - it was new so maybe I will see another ad.
-
We must see it for what they are yelling it is as they are shooting people in mass....allegiance to ISIS. Nothing more, nothing less. Until, and when this president and administration opens their eyes and sees it for what it is, calls it by it's name and deals with it, we will as our generals, CIA, FBI, DOHS and ICE say....It will continue and they are working their way to the western front and are already here. By NOT dealing with it, it has multiplied and has infiltrated many other nations.
-
Agree Bellamarie - the trick now is how to deal with it... we will never rid the earth of all the Sunni - the Shiites have been trying to do that for 1600 years. From what I read these tribal association have always been fighting each other and there is an expression for it - forgot exactly but something like aggression with boundaries or maybe contained aggression - Anyhow it appears to be a culture that only knows to be aggressive with each other and our mixing into the middle of that upset the balance because we can only imagine a goal of peace - it seems the only time in history where the aggression was in check was during the time Turkey was the leader of the Ottoman Empire and WWI brought an end to that -
So I just do not know - everything we currently hear is some of our leaders want to wage war and they are saying Hillary wants to wage war - listening it sounds more like a competition with Russia than the hopes of ending aggression in the Middle East -
In the meantime I just keep reading away to find out what has been said by those who know the area - I pay more attention to those writers who are from the Middle East and whose work is translated -
My gut says the media is simply trying to whip us up so that we will back an initiative for a greater war footprint in the area - we shall see what we shall see.
-
Just heard that the Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to the laws some states have that ban the sale of assault weapons. Thank goodness, the Court has finally made some sense. California, where I live, has a law banning the sale of assault weapons, (and also gun magazines that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition), and some gun loving idiots who think they are so clever by saying that guns do not walk about killing people, can hopefully (but doubtfullly, of course), shut up. Now the ban on the sale of assault weapons here in California will stand!! Yay!! Did you hear that in Ohio some idiots wanted to be able to carry guns into the Republican Convention in July? The federal security people who have jurisdiction denied their petition, and have declared that no guns will be allowed at the Convention. Thank goodness there are still a few people with authority in this country who have brains!!
Marj
-
this is what brought me to my knees today...
http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/clinton-email-syria-israel.jpg
-
Where did this come from, BarbStAubrey?
-
her email that has gradually been made public - as you can see the code and document number
-
Did you see the date on that email you provided? It is 11-30-2015.
This administration has snubbed its nose at Israel. They just made a deal with Iran giving them over a billion dollars, which will help them amp up their nuclear enrichment program.
Barb you ask what is the solution? No matter what the top generals and military experts have advised, this president has ignored. Drones are certainly not the solution. Prime Minister Netanyahu does not trust or respect Obama. He has seen where he refuses to put any pressure on Syria.
Terrorists and criminals will get their choice of weapons illegally, so what the Supreme Court does or does not decide makes no difference. Like I said, look at Chicago, it has the strictest gun laws and has the highest murder rate.
-
I am really tired of hearing that even if the sale of assault weapons is banned, terrorists and/or orther criminals will still be able to obtain them. While that may be true, does that mean that we should just do nothing about controlling the sale of these weapons? I heard that the man who killed and wounded all those people in Orlando, Florida bought his weapon legally. If Florida had had a law banning the sale of these weapons, those poor people might still be alive.
Marj
-
marjifay,
I heard that the man who killed and wounded all those people in Orlando, Florida bought his weapon legally.
Yes, he did but I feel the FBI dropped the ball on this, just like they dropped the ball on the Boston terrorists and the San Bernardino terrorists and now they have allowed this shooter's wife to go free with knowledge she was an accomplice. They were alerted by the gun sellers six weeks prior to the shootings, he was interviewed for possible terror actions three times prior. This administration refuses to enforce laws on the books, they like to make it about guns every time there is a shooting so they do not have to take responsibility for the incompetence, and lack of action on their part. This president has changed the rules of engagement, tying the hands of all the departments that keep them from being able to do their jobs efficiently. He likes to blame everyone but who is really at blame. Obama has created this mess and refuses to even admit we have a problem with radical islamic terror. Just last week he said they are making progress while two days later Brennan says it is worse and we are not able to make progress. Deflect, Distract and Deny is this president strategy, while ISIS grows. Terrorists and criminals DO NOT OBEY LAWS! So make all the laws you want, ban all the weapons you want..... it will NOT stop the terrorists or criminals, it will just leave Americans defenseless in the time of their need.
http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/gun-shop-told-authorities-about-suspicious-mateen-before-slaughter/
-
I am in agreement with marj. I also think that the President is looking at the long picture, hoping to keep our country from more active war. It's not a simple "bomb and be done with it" process, nor does making a religion the enemy discourage terrorism.
Criminals have never obeyed laws, that's why they are criminals. That doesn't mean we don't have laws. Laws requiring background checks, restricting these high power guns with extensive magazines, not allowing people on the "no fly" lists to buy guns - yes, criminals will try to get around those laws, but that process makes them more likely to be caught because it's more difficult than walking into a store.
-
Per Bellamarie, "I feel the FBI dropped the ball on this, just like they dropped the ball on the Boston terrorists and the San Bernardino terrorists.
I agree that it was really too bad that the Orlando shooter was not denied a gun based on what the FBI knew. However, I still feel that if Florida had a law denying the sale of assault weapons to anyone, that Orlando shooting, the worst in our history, would never have happened.
I feel that the sale of assault weapons should be banned. I can't see any reason whatever that anyone would need to have an assault weapon. There are much less dangerous guns to use for target practice, and one certainly doesn't need one for hunting. Do you disagree with that?
I agree with the ACLU's disagreement with using the government's no-fly list to deny the purchase of ANY gun to someone on the list. Evidentlly people have been put on that list more than likely in error. at lease I think that is the ACLU's argument.
Marj
-
How many remember when the political party conventions were really exciting affairs and were when the candidates were selected by votes from each state. Someimes it took several voting rounds before one candidate became the winner. I wonder why and when this method stopped. Now conventions are just mostly rah rah speeches since the candidates have already been chosen by voting in primaries in each state.
I have been hearing that the GOP Party is talking about not allowing Trump to be GOP party's candidate. What do you think about this? Should it be able to happen when Trump received by far the most votes? (I would never vote for him since I am not a Republican, but still wonder if it would be right to do this after his receiving the most primary votes. Just as I think Hillary should not be denied the nomination if she indeed receives the most primary votes (and I would not vote for her either, in fact, did not vote for her in the California primary -- I voted for Bernie Sanders. I think Sanders would have a better chance than Clinton to beat Trump in the Novemberr election
I think a lot of people don't care for Clinton's personality and little sense of humor. Am I the only only one who feels this way? Do you think personality traits are what matter most to people in a national election?:
Marj
-
Oh goodness - I guess we do disagree - I am amazed at still hearing from so many who absolutely believe that those who are not for Hillary are making that choice because she is a woman - I see that thinking as defying logic - Yes, middle age and older men may have that as their top concern but the masses of young have no such preconceived notion of a women as a President ?!?
Both my sisters have this opinion as well that it is all about gender so that I wonder if the media back east slides this rational into their reporting since one lives in the Hudson Valley and the other on the coast of NC - Where as I do not hear this concern to be a featured attribute or issue, I only hear, from both young and old and the women over 50 who are behind Sanders that our concerns have nothing to do with gender and everything to do with a vision for the future that does not include war, is transparent and involves the people's will and is not cozy with wall street and disproportionate taxation. That the next presidency is about a vision for progress that arms us for the rest of the century with initiatives like, affordable education for a more capable and competitive society, fair wages, and affordable medicare for all.
Amazing to me is to hear those who have gender as an issue that for the majority of those who want to see Sanders have more influence and even hold a hope he will be the Dem nominee, gender is not even in play. But then that would be like saying all those against Bernie Sanders have an issue with ageing?!? or that Sanders as an elder is not presidential - We should tell that to the Irish whose president is the exact same age as Bernie Sanders.
Well obviously in this discussion some of us are Republicans and some Democrats and some Independents and so, I am sure we will read from each other a variety of opinions and reasons for support.
However, when push comes to shove most of us know if our vote carries any weight at all - no matter my wishes this state will vote Republican regardless who the candidate and what those of us who like another candidate wish for our future. About the only ones who have a say in the election are those who live in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and California only because early reporting can influence who comes out to vote since they are 4 hours behind the east coast.
We know that Oregon and Washington will go Dem just as we know the Southern states will go Republican and we know that none of us are persuasive enough in our writing to convince another to change their affiliation or vote - and so to fantasize why folks choose a candidate different than our choice is really us coming from our own bias. Ah such is life...
-
Barb,
we know that none of us are persuasive enough in our writing to convince another to change their affiliation or vote - and so to fantasize why folks choose a candidate different than our choice is really us coming from our own bias.
I'm not so sure this is why any of us are posting our views and concerns for the next candidate. I feel we are posting for discussion purpose, to give others our thoughts and not to convince them we are right or wrong in how we see these candidates, or to try to persuade others to vote like we do. I do think the media has an affect on how different parts of the country see these candidates. Most of the media is owned by liberals, they push their positives for the democrats, and the negatives for the republicans. I am an Independent and can clearly see this happening. I watch various news stations and even late night programs, and I sit and laugh at how you can immediately distinguish a network's party allegiance. Those women on The View could scare anyone away, the way they outright attack republicans, make personal, unintelligent remarks and get a bit crazy with their ideology. I stopped watching that show a few years ago and when I see snippet's I just cringe as a woman to think they are so attacking and insulting. Phew.... At least our discussion here are respectful, calm and have substance.
-
marjifray,
However, I still feel that if Florida had a law denying the sale of assault weapons to anyone, that Orlando shooting, the worst in our history, would never have happened.
I disagree with this statement. He would have found other means to carry out his act of terror, because he was a terrorist. The Boston terrorists made homemade bombs.
We MUST enforce the laws we already have. We MUST vet who is allowed into our country, we MUST flag and keep a close watch on those coming in, and out, and coming back in, from parts of the world who radicalize and hate our country. In all these incidents there was a commonality..... prior warning signals that were ignored. This president refuses to acknowledge radical islamic terror, and refuses to act to stop it, so he uses the gun argument and has the media and liberals to push it so you argue about guns rather than hold his feet to the fire for NOT doing anything, allowing ISIS to become a caliphate, and to infiltrate other regions.
-
Just a thought, from Bob Lonsbury in February, 1915:
GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER
On Saturday, the police say, parolee Michael Morris dragged his ex-girlfriend halfway across the county – twice putting a gun to her head and threatening to execute her – before he crashed a birthday her family was holding and shot a half a dozen people, wounding some of them severely.
This was in Syracuse, New York, at an Irish bar in the old Irish neighborhood known as Tipperary Hill.
Twenty-two years old, out of prison in December after doing five years for a crime at 17 he committed while toting a stolen handgun.
On the plus side, the bar was able to hose out the blood in time for the Super Bowl. On the negative side, it all led to an anti-gun lecture from the liberal mayor.
Stephanie Miner, one-time co-chair of the New York Democratic Party, stood up, while some of the wounded were still fighting for their lives, and said that this situation demanded more gun control.
Which is insane.
One, that a politician would so quickly spin what was almost the largest mass murder in city history into a political talking point.
Two, that she would expect anybody with a brain to take her seriously.
New York, with the harshest statewide anti-gun laws in America, had already long since outlawed everything Michael Morris allegedly did – and yet he still did what he did. Does the mayor think that passing one more law will stop the likes of Michael Morris from breaking the laws that are already on the books?
He was a parolee, a felon, and the possession of a firearm was against the law. Kidnapping and terrorizing his former girlfriend was against the law. Shooting up the bar and half the people in it was against the law. Doing so with what apparently was a high-capacity magazine was against the law. It was all already banned, and this ex-con still reportedly did it with impudence.
He is a walking demonstration that gun control – laws limiting access to weapons by people who obey the law – does nothing to limit the behavior of criminals. ...
Anti-gun laws which castrate the rights of good people while doing nothing whatsoever to control bad people.
This is preposterous.
In fact, the reality of gun control is that it empowers and emboldens criminals by disarming their victims. ...
For example, it may well have been the prevalent gun-control passion of Syracuse’s power elite that allowed so many people to be shot at the bar. In Onondaga County, where Syracuse is located, almost no one is given a concealed-carry permit. In a process lorded over by a local judge, requests for carry permits are almost always denied.
That all but assured that as that family found itself under attack on Saturday that it was defenseless against the onslaught. The law-breaker had an unlawfully possessed, illegally equipped handgun in his possession. The law abiders had nothing.
And it was their blood that was spilt.
Note: I believe that all the mass murders (even Ft Hood) were perpetrated in Gun Free Zones. At least we know the bad guys are not stupid as well as evil.
-
Sorry this is so long....but I just wanted to reiterate that the shooter was taken off the watch list because the FBI was told to do this by the White House. I think they're in a tight place - many have complained that they are not able to investigate muslim suspects as they would anyone else.
-
And now Loretta Lynch the Attorney General when asked yesterday where is the wife of Manteen, who is believed to have been an accomplice states:
If the FBI believes she was aware of the impending attack, she could be prosecuted.
"Has the shooter’s wife left the state of Florida?" a reporter asked Lynch during her press conference Tuesday.
"Right now, I don’t know exactly the answer to that," Lynch candidly replied. "I believe she was going to travel but I do not know exactly her location now."
https://news.grabien.com/story.php?id=364
Either Lynch is lying to the American people, or she does NOT not know where she is. Either is unacceptable, and these are the people who are calling for more gun laws. They can NOT even keep track of a suspected accomplice of the radical islamic terrorist who just shot up the nightclub, let alone expect them to keep track of, or vet properly the millions of refugees from regions that hate us the most, coming into the United States.
Not to mention Lynch was ordered to redact the report of the 911 call of Manteen and scrub any mention of ISIS. This administration has their own personal agenda and continues to distract, deflect, deny and try to cover up and hide what is real. Did those democrats really think they could throw a sit in, throw a tantrum and Ryan would give into them yesterday. Gosh I really think we are dealing with incompetent, incapable, immature spoiled children. I can barely believe these men and women represent us.
Where is the emoticon for shaking my head!!! ??? ???
-
So we know that the President personally ordered the FBI to remove him from the watch list? How?
And why would we think that law enforcement has to release all information right away in an ongoing investigation? Is it now expected that all police reports and FBI reports should be released on Facebook or Twitter immediately, before anything has been verified?
-
I think this president sends out his lackies immediately in front of the media and has them lie about things. It is a pattern he has shown throughout each tragic event. He jumps the gun, then later facts slip out, we find out he knew all along, and it shows how he had them lie to the American people: Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, Robert Gibbs, Josh Earnest, even Loretta Lynch.
-
On-going investigations should receive time to follow through. I didn't hear the president ordered the FBI to drop him from the watch list, but that the order came from the White House; someone in the Cabinet? HSA? But presumably the policy was approved by the president, I would think?
-
If there weren't so many guns around, fewer people would get shot. Its a no brainer. As an example--look at that woman politician who got shot in England recently. The guy had an antique weapon which he had restored which he had to muzzle load. That's because it is so difficult to get a gun on the UK. Just imagine the carnage if he had had an assault weapon. Well, you don't need to imagine it really, just think of all the assault weapon carnages that happen with increasing regularity here. People who say guns don't kill people and more guns would kill less people are beyond understanding. There's no logic there.
-
Well, I never heard that any order came from the White House to remove his name from this list - where did that information come from.
-
Again, criminals and terrorists will always find a way to get guns, or any other weapons of their chose. Ban ALL guns and you will NOT see a decrease in crime. Look at Chicago.
-
Perhaps we should let gun owners only purchase gun clips with a certain amount of rounds -- give Bambi a chance!
In Wyoming many people believe the government will take away their guns, This is not the 1700's. I believe the gun owner is outgunned -- Black Hawk!
-
NY already controls the number of rounds a gun can hold - 7. It doesn't stop crime. They look for Gun-Free Zones to attack for a reason!
Sorry - I don't keep articles for long. Here's one that explains the watch list, but keep in mind that this man was background checked twice (2007 and 2013) for his security job (the security group he was with was also involved in transporting illegal aliens from the border to the interior) and the first gun shop he tried did notify the FBI and refused to sell him a gun:
“Once the F.B.I. closes an investigation, agents are required to remove the targets from terrorism watchlists. That rule is intended to prevent the United States from keeping secretive, open-ended watchlists based on suspicions that are ultimately unfounded.
In 2009, the Justice Department inspector general criticized the F.B.I. for not moving quickly enough to purge those lists.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/omar-mateen-fbi.html?_r=0
So, the administration does set the policy!
Also, note he did not use the assault weapon everyone wants to ban:
"Initial reports mistakenly described the rifle used by the attacker as the AR-15, a civilian version of Colt’s M-16 military assault rifle, with the full-automatic and burst fire options removed. According to the Daily Beast, however, Mateen used the .221 SIG Sauer rifle, and a 9mm Glock 17 handgun.
Both are semi-automatic weapons, meaning they fire only once per trigger pull, but have a mechanism that ejects the cartridge and loads another one. One of the earliest examples of a semi-automatic rifle is the M1 Garand, issued to the US Army in 1937."
Almost all guns today are semi-automatic.
Are we all really ready to give up our right to due process?
-
"Anti-gun laws which castrate the rights of good people while doing nothing whatsoever to control bad people.
This is preposterous."
Whar I find preposterous is that 8 million people in this country own these awful weapons.
Marj
-
How comfortable are you with the police having automatic weapons considering the react to situations unnecessarily using arms, killing 986 folks last year, more in one year than all the combined deaths from mass shootings since Columbine.
Given the police use of weapons how do you feel about living in a police state where the police have automatic weapons but average citizens legally cannot own an automatic weapon.
-
I am not comfortable with ANYONE having assault type weapons.
I don't live in a police state, and, unlike some gun-lovers, I don't
believe that the federal government is just itching to turn our country into a police state and take guns from everyone. I look forward hopefully to the day when no one will be able to legally own an assault weapon.
Marj
-
Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
Planned Parenthood affiliates perform about 20 abortions for every prenatal care visit and about 200 abortions for every adoption referral based on the approximately 300,000 abortions they perform each year.[10]
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/disentangling-the-data-on-planned-parenthood-affiliates-abortion-services-and-receipt-of-taxpayer-funding
If this administration is concerned about saving lives why are they going after guns, but continue to fund Planned Parenthood with taxpayer money? I guess this is not a conversation they are willing or wanting to have.
-
I was surprised to learn, as a "new" American, that Hoover brought in the right of private citizens to have a gun in 1927. I guess it was in the constitution but not so common prior to him.
Then sometime along the way the NRA managed to muscle in and exert their control over the minds of citizens and politicians. What I can't understand is, how can the general public be so dumb that they don't get that the NRA is only in it for the money.
-
I've been following the conversation with interest. While I side with gun rights in general, I do think there needs to be a better system of checks and balances.
I was curious to see if what gun laws look like in other countries. Wikipedia has an extensive, if flawed (no or not enough citations), article plus a comparison chart at the bottom. Someone went to a lot of trouble to gather this info and post it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation Although Wikipedia cites a number of the sections for no or little reference material, there are still a lot of links for those who care to follow up.
-
Goodness - right or not this nation was settled by those pushing into the wilderness with guns - trekking across the great plains with guns - homesteading with guns - ranching with guns - searching for gold in California and Alaska with guns - and so whatever Hoover had to say about the legality of individual gun ownership was silly.
Personally my take is if there is a ban on assault rifles then it needs to be a total ban so the balance of power keeps this nation from too easily slipping into a police state. And in fact a ban that includes international trade. How that goes down with so many nations depending on US manufacturers I do not know but here are the problems that I know about and there may be many more.
A big issue is unless you are living on a ranch where wild hogs and boars are invading and destroying fences, crops and the very soil - or at least you've seen the wild hogs descend on a ranch or farm, then and only then can anyone talk of eliminating the personal ownership of automatic weapons - these wild creatures come in packs and there is no way you can get neighbors to create a line of shooters in under 45 minutes and for many over an hour - a whole crop can be decimated in that time - a whole section of fencing can be destroyed in that time - if a rancher takes one shot the herd scatters making it harder to kill this huge increase in animals that scattered will create even more damage -
50 years ago these destructive wild animals were not the huge herds of today causing this problem - a sow births 5 or 6, twice a year - you do the math - 5 sows in 3 years with multiple births and each successive sow the population is over 10,000 in less than 2 years. Wild hogs can weigh over a half a ton, move in groups 30 deep and they fear no man, God or machine that gets between them and their food, which could easily be you, your dog or your rose bushes. They cause $1.5 billion worth of damage to crops and other infrastructure annually, push farther north everyday and not a single one of the estimated 5 million belongs here.
A single rancher needs an automatic weapon to handle an onslaught of wild hogs - there either has to be an exclusion clause or another way to stop the gun violence. Because folks do not like certain guns and they want deaths by guns to stop (the cause of the violence is not yet understood) they are blaming guns that granted, are not needed in most areas of the nation however, there cannot be a law that puts a rancher and his family at risk. Ranchers and farmers cannot take the brunt of such huge losses, nor can we afford the destruction of huge tracts of land that would become useless.
Our history as a nation shows us that once we start making a product illegal we end up with a worse problem as the illegal sales and illegal shipment across our border creates another non-taxable industry that needs federal troops to setup an equal size force to catch the smugglers - illegal sales have no controls - all those we hoped to keep out of their hand whatever the product have a free hand to buy and use.
Then we have the current situation where drug cartels ship across our southern border using private ranches for their route - the personnel transporting the drugs are usually heavily armed and ranchers on the border need to protect themselves and their family - again it would take the Sheriff an hour or more to get there to provide protection.
We already have 70% of the guns owned, used and confiscated by the AFT (U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) and DTO (Mexican drug trafficking organization) from those running the drug trade are made in the US which says our own gun manufacturers have already expanded their market beyond our borders - makes it easy to realize guns will be purchased regardless of any law.
Even I had experienced what it was like to protect ourselves with weapons - I was working at the Girl Scout Camp located about 2 hours from Austin - after midnight a man came up from the lake - actually the Colorado river - walking through camp with a rifle on his shoulder - thank God the director and several of the counselors had their guns that we surprised the guy and held him with 5 guns pointing at him till the Sheriff came - it took the Sheriff 45 minutes and for the last 20 minutes you could hear his siren as he sped along these narrow roads at top speed - so no - he nor were we armed with automatic firearms but then that was over 30 years ago - and now there are two Sheriffs in that county each operating from the opposite end however, it still takes 30 to 40 minutes when you are responsible to protect yourself and those who are in your care.
Even in that situation an automatic rifle is not necessary - however, if the trespasser has an automatic gun or if there is more than one and they are automatically armed then you are at a disadvantage -
In towns and cities you are not responsible for you own protection for a half hour or more, so yes, I agree - folks living in cities or suburbs with a police force that can respond within 10 minutes or less do not need automatic rifles - hunters do not need automatic rifles - sad to even have to say it but the police guarding a protesting population do not need automatic rifles however, there are some folks who legitimately need automatic weapons and so if the questions keeps being asked how come more severe gun laws are not passed it is because there are legitimate reasons - just as we as a nation would not want to have less ability to wage war and depend on others because our military equipment does not keep up so too do those fighting wild boars and hogs and drug cartels have a right to protect their life, livelihood and the land.
See this problem in person and then you can be part of the solution - ranchers are not dumb - some back woods, uneducated sons of the soil - most today have a collage degree - they are sincere but cannot afford the losses that would result from making automatic guns illegal -
http://wildpiginfo.msstate.edu/damage-caused-by-pigs.html
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/27/3002821/wild-pigs-hogs-invasive-desctruction/
http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/big-game-hunting/wild-hogs-threaten-mississippi-economy/
http://dailynightly.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/26/16047580-faced-with-gun-toting-drug-smugglers-arizona-ranchers-demand-security-at-the-border?lite
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/us-guns-mexico-drug-cartels
http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-battle-for-the-border/
-
I've been reading more about Hoover and I think I got it wrong above--he advocated for the FBI to bear arms in 1927 it seems. I don't know the story, will have to get a biography, he interests me since I saw that movie (Edgar).
Re guns......I usually don't comment in the US because I know that Americans have a mental block where guns are concerned and nothing is going to change......so I will stop!
-
Barb, you make excellent arguments for why we need guns for protection of land, and life.
Dana, Then sometime along the way the NRA managed to muscle in and exert their control over the minds of citizens and politicians. What I can't understand is, how can the general public be so dumb that they don't get that the NRA is only in it for the money.
With all due respect, I don't see the general public being dumb or citizens and politicians allowing the NRA to exert control over their minds. That sure doesn't give millions of people credit for knowing what they personally think and feel. They are well aware of the NRA profiting from the sale of guns. Even if there were no NRA, people would still want to exercise their rights to: The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution..... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
-
Hooray! I just heard that the Supreme Court ruled that domestic abusers can't have guns!
I don't know what's happening to the Court, but IMO they're finally making some decisions that make sense, after also recently thrown out a Texas law that would have made it all but impossible for Texas women to obtain an abortion.
Marj
-
Someone here was bemoaning their opinion that Clinton would carry on Obama's policies if she were to become our president.
I am not religious, but I pray that Clinton beats Trump.
Marj
-
I AM religious, and I pray Trump beats Clinton. :)
I am neither a republican or democrat, I see both ideologies, and their policies, and Clinton will be the same as the past eight years, we NEED change!
My heart hurts knowing there are over 300,000 abortions performed by Planned Parenthood annually, with taxpayer money. We need a Supreme Justice appointed that will give hope to end this atrocity. People moan about gun control while they sit back and have NO problem at all with Planned Parenthood butchering unborn babies and selling their body parts. What has this world come to?
-
I find it amazingly sad that anyone would want to see Trump be our president. Most Republicans feel that way also, and Trump cannot find any Republicans who would speak in support of him at their convention in Ohio. Thankfully, it looks as if he won't be our next president.
Marj
-
I wouldn't be too confident Marjifay - traditional Republican states cannot see voting anything but Republican which is what I see here in Texas - when I mention Trump they simply shrug their shoulders and talk about the next subject. With all the counting and polls for the past 5 presidential elections it appears the voting that makes the difference is down to about 5 states - the others pretty much follow party lines - as I understand it is Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada and North Carolina that actually choose our president. This year I understand there are a few more swing states like Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Iowa.
I think it is the Dems chosen candidate that will tell us if Trump has a chance - so much that Hillary is just pushing through that could still be a toss up with Sanders at the convention. There are several law suites now in progress about how the primaries were fixed and placed on her doorstep and only the President and Lynch are keeping her from being indicted over her email server - and there are huge numbers of folks who will not vote for her - they may not vote at all or leave that part of the ballot blank and that leaves the door open for Trump. Surety is nice but I think we are still too early for a good read on this.
By the way did you know - because I did not know - that Trump's sister is a well respected District Judge, I think on the Appellate court, who the gossip is if he were to become president he would choose her as his candidate for the Supreme Court. I'm just preparing myself in case he does pull this off -
-
The second amendment is a right we have as citizens. And concern about the federal government becoming too powerful was a reason for establishing it. If you check what congress has deemed an 'assault weapon' you will see that it encompasses many guns used for sport and hunting. The term 'assault weapon' was a label they put on them. Many people are not willing to give up their rights in a free society for someone's mis-guided concept of 'security', which is a false security. I am personally not willing that the government should take our right to due process in order to - supposedly - keep us safe. How many times have we been down that road not to learn from it?
Hillary Clinton supported China's policy of one child per family.
Hillary Clinton supported her husband's trade deal.
Hillary Clinton supported the present administration's stance on homeschooling - that 'parents have no intrinsic right to educate their children if an alternative (ie. government school) is available.
Hillary Clinton is in favor of strict gun control. (NY already has that and it doesn't stop gun violence.)
Hillary Clinton states every sexually abused woman should be believed (except if they are abused by her husband)
Hillary Clinton and her primary advisor, Blumenthal, created the problems in Libya. Why? Because he had business interests.
Hillary Clinton wants to put coal mines in West Virginis out of business. Her solution for all those she would have unemployed? Government hand=outs; which, incidentally, is her solution to most things.
Hillary Clinton is not a friend to our Constitution or our freedoms. No Hillary!!
I don't know anyone who votes straight party lines, actually. But then NY is very blue.
-
Loretta Lynch, landing in Phoenix, who is in charge of the investigation into Hillary's e-mails, has a private conversation with Bill Clinton in an empty private jet just prior to the Benghazi Report's release (which Hillary dismisses by suggesting we should 'move on'; remember this: 'What difference does it make now anyway!?') and 'only talked about their grandchildren'.
-
Hillary Clinton also supports continuing to fund Planned Parenthood with taxpayer's money.
Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch had a meeting yesterday. Can't imagine what that was all about. They call it a chance meeting....I just have to laugh at that. This is so Clintonish, and so inappropriate.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/index.html
Mogomom, we were posting at the same time. Also kinda like, all those emails she deleted were personal like discussing wedding plans, yoga classes etc. It amazes the level of crime and lies she gets caught in, and gets away with.
-
Maybe that's why some people like her? Sad. And now it seems that Kerry is telling us that he's working with others to over-turn the vote in Britain to leave the EU?
-
If Trump's sister is anything like her brother, putting her on the Supreme Court would be a big tragedy. I am not a big Clinton fan, I had preferred Bernie Sanders, but either one of them would be better for the country than Trump. One of the reasons we need a Democratic president is so we don't get more Republican Sup. Court justices.
Marj
-
Marjifay,
One of the reasons we need a Democratic president is so we don't get more Republican Sup. Court justices.
Why do I feel the Republicans feel the same way about needing Trump, only so they don't get more democratic Supreme Court Justices? :) :)
Kerry has no weight in overturning the vote in Britain. He helped make that horrible Iran deal that gives Iran billions of dollars to help them with their nuclear program. Kerry has been such a huge disappointment at SOS.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/08/meet-donald-trumps-sister-the-tough-federal-judge-ted-cruz-called-a-radical-pro-abortion-extremist/
-
Well, I guess we find out why Clinton and Lynch had their private 30 minute secret meeting on her plane.
http://freedomoutpost.com/after-lynchs-mystery-meeting-with-bill-justice-dept-shields-clinton-foundation-emails/
Yesterday’s mystery meeting on the tarmac between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch has now been clarified.
Obviously, it wasn’t a social visit as Lynch publicly claimed, but an arrangement clarifying how the powerful Clinton dynasty would be kept above the law in the face of heated publicly scrutiny as Hillary Clinton seeks the presidency.
Instead, the Justice Department filed a motion that would keep from release thousands of emails potentially exposing conflicts of interest on the part of the Clinton Foundation and overlapping state department officials, such as Hillary’s chief of staff Huma Abedin.
If those were personal emails about wedding plans and yoga classes why would they need time to release them. This wreaks of corruptness.
-
Remember those 45 (at my last count - all reported receiving 100k - 200k annual salary) 'czars' appointed by Obama to virtually every major federal agency who have been busily re-writing federal policy?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/25/obama-invites-18-7-million-immigrants-avoid-oath-allegiance-pledge-defend-america/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/20/exclusive-video-veteran-forcibly-dragged-air-force-ceremony-saying-god/
Just more attacks on the freedoms Americans enjoy - an attack Hillary has vowed to continue.
This comes after hearing Gruber make thousands telling groups how to bamboozle gullible Americans with legislation, and finding out how the White House controls the 'talking points' of the media with the 'expert' foreign policy knowledge of a man with his expertise in writing fiction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html
-
Alice Waters questions if Hillary is right for this election cycle? I think that may be the issue... a good article explaining her point of view. Has nothing to do with Hillary being a woman nor does it refer to any of the negative reports that have covered the media news.
http://alicewalkersgarden.com/2016/06/the-chaos-of-a-hillary-clinton-presidency/
-
This is a sad day when the FBI Director Comey stands and gives a complete laundry list of the things Clinton is guilty of, and then says,
“Although there is evidence of potential violations, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,”
It was NOT his call to decide if a prosecutor would take the case, it was his job to report the findings.
“This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences,” Comey added. “To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”
It is no wonder that Americans have lost faith and trust in the justice system, congress, politicians and in our administration. Bill Clinton sealed the deal when he met with DOJ Loretta Lynch, the fix was in, now we are hearing Hillary say she could appoint Lynch as the Attorney General. I just hope the American people rise up against this gross misjustice at the polls in November. Comey said it is likely that hostile actors have her classified emails. This could make her weak and vulnerable if elected president, opening her up to blackmail. From his findings she has shown gross negligence and incompetence. As he put it, "extreme carelessness".
http://time.com/4393271/james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton-email/
-
Something very fishy about the whole sequence of events the last day or two. Comey surprised everyone (almost) with his conclusion. IMO, he was practically begging someone else to pick up the gauntlet. My first thoughts were that he was either bribed, blackmailed, or threatened into recommending she not be prosecuted.
In other news, after seven years, the Chilcot report is out. Here is a synopsis: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36721645
-
What is so sad is the vast number of folks who think this is all because she is a women - there are several liberal groups on Facebook that have been noting the problems with each candidate and my oh my the issues that Hillary has manipulated is un-believable - none of which includes the things the media has skewed like Bhangazi - also, there were so many Trump issues they quit noting them - what people forget is she still does not have the nomination - neither she nor Sanders have enough votes - she has been using her chutzpah to persuade folks that she is the nominee hoping to overwhelm the support for Sanders and hold on to her super delegates that have not yet voted.
All I can say is Jill Stein is looking better and better - only problem is she is only on the Ballot in 40 states. Both conventions should be interesting. My take there is no longer a Republican or a Democratic party - there is an angry protectiveness party - a liberal progressive party - and a party for the upper income folks that is a combo of the traditional Republicans and Bill Clinton centrist Democrats.
The Democratic party is no longer the party that elevated unions, the party of either Roosevelt much less Kennedy, Johnson or Carter - Clinton moved it to the right and even Obama kept it to the right. As much as I like Obama, especially that he kept us out of war his record of disseminating the party is pretty grim. Under his leadership the party lost 12 Senate seats, 69 House seats and 13 governorships and the party has so few young new voters that if they do not switch from Bernie Sanders a whole generation will be lost.
And goodness only knows what will become of the Republican party after Trump - at least he has uncovered the anger kept under wraps and like Pandora's box there is no putting it back.
What is so sad to me is to see out in the open the amount of corruption - just the counting of votes that was forced on California to see county after county flip - the corruption is so blatant now it is right out in the open for us to see - and then we have the nerve to bring UN observers to other countries when they vote or to call out another country for its corruption - we are no better.
I keep saying I am going to shut it all down - I have eliminated several daily email notices and changed my home page from the BBC news to a lovely page of nature photography - no longer listen to any news except on Friday night and the Charlie Rose show on PBS - but there is no escaping completely - I need to pull out some needlework or make a quilt - something that will so engage me that I can shut off all this sad sad state of affairs and pretend I live in the land of integrity.
-
Yes, I want to see if Jill Stein is on the PA ballot. We can always write in her name come November.
Sad to say my sister is a Hillary fan. She makes every excuse under the sun for her. She blasts Trump (not undeservedly, IMO), blasts Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and refuses to watch or listen to anything that doesn't fit her view. I try not to get involved with her on politics because I can't have a reasonable debate with her. While I will concede some of the problems I see with my "side", she refuses to acknowledge any with the Dems and Hillary. Oh, and of course, she saw absolutely no impropriety with Bill visiting with Loretta on her plane.
In general, I don't voice my opinion. I am not a good debater. I do like to post an article or two for anyone interested so that people form their own opinions. I believe you really need to check out both sides of the argument in order to form an informed opinion. And who was it that said you had to study your opponents and what they stand for in order to form a rational opinion and effective debate (or something like that)?
Oh, quilting! My Mom used to quilt. I still have one she made for my bed way back in the sixties. That makes it 50 years old at the least and in such excellent condition. I let her have it for her bed when she was in assisted living. When I did the math and recalled how old it is, I put it away in the cedar closet. Don't want the cats to damage it.
I never picked up on quilting, but I do knitting, crochet and needlework.
-
Barb and Frybabe, I completely agree with your posts.
I have always been an Independent, and respect everyone's right to their party choice, but what I see is the party these people have been loyal to for years, no longer exist. When I feel comfortable trying to discuss party politics with either Dems or Republicans, they don't really seem to see the changes that have taken place. If I ask them what does their candidate stand for, their views, policies and ideology, they can not give me anything. They truly are for a candidate because they are against the other person/party.
I had the neatest conversation with my 8 yr. old grandson who is on the Autism spectrum and is highly intelligent, when we had a sleepover a week ago. He truly wanted me to tell him what I thought about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and asked who I liked better, and who I was voting for and why. Wow, I was so impressed he cared that I started with telling him I can't honestly say I like either one of them as a candidate. I told him Hillary does not stand for what I as a Christian feel is good for our country, and how I feel she has broken laws, and did not send help to our Americans when they were being killed, and that I can not ignore. He said, "So she is a bad person, and should go to jail." Imagine an 8 yr. old being able to deduce it down to that one statement. Then I told him how Trump says things without thinking and really makes people upset, but I do think he wants to make our country safe. He has built a very big successful business, but has never been a politician (someone who has worked in government and been elected before), but because the politicians are doing such a horrible job and not working together to keep our country safe and great we might need someone new. He said, "Well I think you should vote for Trump, because he has built big buildings, given lots of people jobs, and knows how to get people to work together so he could be successful and rich, so he will do the same for our country." I laughed and told him I will vote for the person who most aligns with my faith because first and foremost I am a Christian and want someone who will protect my Christian rights, and the rights of the unborn baby. He just made his First Communion this past Spring so he has a good understanding of what I meant, since we talk about religion as well from time to time. His response was, "That would make God happy."
If only life were that simple, seeing it through the eyes of an 8 yr. old.
I am watching far less news anymore. A couple shows at night to catch up, but the tv is off the entire day in my house. If there is breaking news I won't learn about it until I turn it on after dinnertime. In truth I don't care for either candidate, or either party. After the FBI Director Comey said yesterday Hillary was "extremely careless" with the handling of classified emails, but he couldn't see a "reasonable prosecutor take the case" I just shook my head and thought, the justice system is as corrupt as the politicians. I heard many prosecutors who have practiced criminal law who said they would have taken it in a second, so what Comey really was saying, go home folks....nothing to see here, the fix is in and once again the teflon Clintons are going to get away with criminal corrupt acts. So, if I ever had any doubts which I didn't, after Comey ran down a laundry list of her wrongdoings, and saying anyone else would have been punished, I threw my hands up and said, we are in deep trouble. Bernie will now be pressured to drop out, give her his votes and support her on the trail. Obamas and Clintons hate each other, but he is now flying around on Air Force One with her, using taxpayer money to help her campaign to get elected. Voter fraud will elect her even if the American people resoundly don't. I'm not a cynic, I am a realist. I will still cast my vote against her. My conscious will never allow me to vote for a someone who refused to send help to our Americans in Benghazi, who lied to the American people about it being about a video, who stood in front of four caskets, family and friends and the Nation and blatantly lied, knowing she had emailed her daughter, leader of Libya and the prime minister saying it was a terrorist attack, and NOW the FBI found her guilty of multiple criminal acts, but refused to recommend indictment.
I just may write in my 8 yr. old grandson Zakary Michael Reinhart's name in November, he says one day he might like to be president, so he can help our country. :)
Quilting is sounding good to me........
-
Barb,
And goodness only knows what will become of the Republican party after Trump - at least he has uncovered the anger kept under wraps and like Pandora's box there is no putting it back.
It's not JUST the Republicans who are angry with the corruption and the establishment, Independents and Democrats are as well, that is why Bernie Sanders has lasted this long.
-
I find it hard to believe the dumb contradictory statements Trump has made and gotten away with, and that there are still people who plan to vote for him in November. The Sunday 60 Minute Show was an example. He and his VP running mate, Gov. Mike Pence, were interviewed by Leslie Stahl. The subject of the Iraq War came up. Trump said "That was a war that we should not have been entered."
Stahl reminded him that Pence had voted for it. Trump replied "I don't care."
Stahl couldn't believe what she'd heard him say, and she said "You don't care that your running mate voted for the war, a war you've been ranting against?
Trump just said "Well that was a long time ago. He's entitled to make a mistake every once in a while."
Stahl said "But you've used Clinton's vote for the was -- which was the same as Pence's -- as an example of her bad justment. Isn't she also entitled to a mistake?
Trump: No, she's not.
I really think there is something mentally wrong with Trump and the idea of his becoming our president is really scary to me.
Marj
Stahl couldn't believe what she's heard him say and said "You don't care that your running mate voted for the Iraq War when you've been ranting against it? What do you mean by that?
Trump just said "Well it was a long time ago. He is entitled to a mistake every once in a while."
Stahl said, "But you've used Clinton's vote for the war as an example of her bad judgment. Isn't she entitled to a mistake? Trump said, "No, she she's not."
I really think there is something mentally wrong with Trump. The idea of him being our president is very scary.
Marj
Stahl was shocked at this, and said, "You don't care that Pence voted for the war. What do you mean by that?
Trump just said "Well that was a long time ago. Pence is entitled to make a mistake every once in a while." Stahl could not believe her ears. and said But you use Clinton's vote--which was the same as Pence's--as an example of her bad judgment. Pence is entitled to a mistake, but she's not? Trump said "No, she's not."
I really think there is something mentally wrong with Trump. The idea os his becoming president is really scary.
Marj
t
t
-
I must apologize for messing up my last message. Did not mean to repeat parts of it.
Marj
-
Marj just cool it - Trump will say anything outrageous and the more outrageous the better because it guarantees him free press - the idea of marketing is not showing how good you are but, to get your name repeated and then the listener makes their judgment - we do not use our logic to make a judgment call we make an emotional discussion and then back it up with selective logic. - Having been a Real Estate Broker for 36 years I can vouch for that process - it took me about 9 years to learn it and another 9 to verify what seemed off the wall but it is true.
Surrounded as I am with more Pubs than Dems the various folks in this city who are behind Trump think he is the best thing since applesauce and were enchanted with his acceptance speech - while some of us were ready to hunker down as if Nazism was around the corner or at least move to Canada and for some, really, no joke, they are planning to move to Denmark.
All to say your outrage is someone else's cup of tea.
-
I found this to be very helpful - the results are extensive showing where on the map of the US there are more folks who think as you think and by what percentage - on and on - I found it one of the best I ever came across
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
-
Yes, Barb, I suppose Trump says such outrageious things just for the free publicity. But I think he really believes some of the junk he says. And I still think he should see a psychologist to get some work done on his brain. And it's hard for me to understand why anyone would vote for him. (and I'm not for Clinton -- I plan to write in Bernie Sanders' name on the November ballot.)
Marj
-
We cannot do write ins - plus even if a write in got the necessary paper work in the state does not allow anyone to be a registered write in if they had been campaigning and lost - so that eliminates Bernie - I took the quiz and was shocked to learn I had equal marks to Bernie and Jill - since the quiz was on issues and not all the faldarah in the press and facebook I felt better about having some direction because they have decided they are not going to allow Bernie to be a candidate.
Actually it will not matter - this state is Red and has been deep Red - there are a few isolated places in the state that are blue - I happen to live in one of them but there is 1 blue to 10 reds in this state plus the blues this year are split so Trump gets this state.
-
Well if what you say if true, Barb, about write-ins not being allowed, then that is a real shame.
And the more I think about what you said about Trump using outrageous statements as a cheap means of advertising, the more I think if true, it makes the people who vote for him bigger boobs than he is. I can't imagine Obama or Clinton or Sanders or any other intelligent candidate doing that. That would be insinuating that the candidate thinks that the majority of voters are dummies and/or the candidate is trying to appeal to the dumbest voters in the country.
-
that has been the reason he has run his campaign at 1/10 the cost as compared to the others - he knew what to do to get media attention - the pundits agree he studied the media and knows how to use it better than most who are pros in marketing - at first they thought he was following the formula used by the wrestling fans but soon realized he knew how to manipulate all the media - and so if any watch certain programs on TV he knows what will attract their interest and for most they are shocked by enjoy and like that they are acknowledged for the kind of locker room crude talk that they partake in their life - even the most educated guys will let their hair down so to speak among each other out of the workplace.
It is the biggest wall that men have to keeping out women where as a few will join in as one of the boys - remember he is only after the white male vote. That is why many think he has been a set up from the beginning to assure Hillary gets the vote. He attracts the only demography Hillary cannot get to back her. However, I am thinking they over estimated the numbers who will vote for her. What a mess.
there was a map - can no longer find it that showed the states where write ins are allowed and those that do not allow any and those that you need to register etc. etc - there are less than 20 states where you can do a write in - some do not allow it at all - either 7 or 9 forgot - this state only allows it if they person registered with the State as a possible candidate and again in this state they will not accept a registration from anyone who had run during the primary and lost.
-
WikiLeaks has set up a way to find specific topics in the emails they released. Trump knows how to manipulate the media for coverage. Reading through the emails, it appears that Clinton manipulates the content, which is ever so much more dangerous to a democratic nation.
-
My little eye opener this morning while watching the news was the youngish fellow who thought that Republican equated with Republic and Democrat equated with Democracy. :o eye roll, please.
-
Hahaahaaa! That was a good one! Do you think he ever went further and put it together to mean we have a Democratic Republic? That might actually be a teachable moment? :)
Anyway, Trump said there has been an increase in violent crimes, President Obama says it is the lowest it has been in thirty years:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/violent-crime-report-us-cities-homicides-rapes/index.html
How come the Palestinian flag was present and the Russian flag was present last night, but no American flag was displayed?
-
How come the Palestinian flag was present and the Russian flag was present last night, but no American flag was displayed?
I missed that. I TV back on to watch at least the roll call vote, but by the time I did, it was over. Turned it back off and continued reading.
-
Before this flag thing gets totally out of hand, please read the snopes item below and see the photos of the American flag at the DNC. The Palestine flag was from the audience.
Both the RNC and the DNC used digital backgrounds, and the RNC shot of all the American flags behind some of their speakers was also digital and so not always seen.
As Snopes says below, the websites spreading this false information are cherry picking their camera shots.
Please read
http://www.snopes.com/flags-banned-at-dnc/
-
Interesting Jane, though I had assumed, since I didn't watch it, that she was talking about the protesters.
-
Having heard that same comment from a TV person and rebuked as shown in the Snopes link, I assumed she meant on stage.
Nobody has control over the protesters who wave flags or boo people, be they at the RNC or DNC, as I see it.
-
The pictures I saw were: Russian flags outside by Sanders' supporters; Palestinian flag - inside in audience;
this claim is that the American flag was added on day 2 of the DNC convention:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/26/american-flags-missing-on-day-one-added-to-dnc-stage/
I think the issue was who the DNC is attracting and/or playing to.
And it really doesn't matter to me what symbols are being used, except to see how it plays to big business and special interest groups - from both sides.
-
Mogamom there are far more important things to be concerned about than if either party have so much control over the average folks who attend any political event - talk about Nazism - come on - folks have issues - they want those with more power than they have to pay attention to their issues and so they use flags to represent their issues - period - nothing nefarious.
Thank god we have not come to the place in this country where a political party has such complete control over folks that they cannot even show evidence of their concerns and needs - this is silly mogamom - with folks all over the world being summarily killed and web sites want to make an issue over flags? Please, mogamom you have more brains than that to fall for such a concern that is so removed from the horrors those flags are attempting to bring to our attention.
-
Gee, Barb, I am just about speechless.
Flags have always been a rallying point for all kinds of things from the soldiers who follow their flag bearers into battle to rallying points for sports teams. And yes, they become symbols of a country's political philosophy. While we are all allowed to express our opinions and such, these folks should be a little more careful about what they choose for a symbol of their discontent unless they truly understand and agree with that particular political philosophy. Many people here in the US consider those particular symbols an affront because to them they mean mean death and destruction, oppression and terrorism. In fact, we have several Southern states that are making or have made an effort to remove the Confederate flag from state lands because of the oppression it still represents to many of our citizens.
Mogamom asked a simple question. Jane provided an answer.
Personally, I think we should all be concerned about how the Media spins things by taking things out of context (verbally and photographically) to pursue this or that agenda. People are forming their opinions on bit and pieces, not the whole. But I guess, that was ever so. Incomplete or slanted reports have been known to reek havoc or cause the downfall many. We do the best we can with what we are given.
-
Personally, I think we should all be concerned about how the Media spins things by taking things out of context (verbally and photographically) to pursue this or that agenda. People are forming their opinions on bit and pieces, not the whole. But I guess, that was ever so. Incomplete or slanted reports have been known to reek havoc or cause the downfall many. We do the best we can with what we are given.
Agree 100% however, my concern is this finding fault with flags held by those in the audience as if they were representative of the DNC or the RNC I think is suggesting that both organizations control those in the audience- as it is the control over signs is bad enough but I still think it is silly to make an issue over folks who are feeling beleaguered and are expressing their pain by showing a flag as a member of the audience to a group they think can help them or at lest gain the attention of anyone who sees the flag.
Falling for the media's desire to reek havoc is not how I see the smart folks who post with SeniorLearn - yes, I saw it last night when reporters were watching two groups heading for each other as the marched toward the convention hall - the reporters were talking as if it were going to be volitive and instead the two groups befriended each other and marched together - and so yes, my opinion adding to this discussion - with all the horrors in the world today I think worrying about flags in an audience is far less sinister than is intended.
-
Flags are symbols. The first night the DNC didn't display the flag. The second night - at 10pm - Bernie protestors burned the Israeli flag.
The DNC, knowing the Bernie supporters were going to walk out of the convention, put an ad on Craigslist for 700 paid actors to fill the seats so it would look good on camera - unity. They received $50, and were required to applaud and cheer.
I always said with Bill Clinton, who made the office of President a moral dunghill in my opinion (and we elected him twice), that he was all about 'smoke and mirrors'; I always said of Barak Obama, who removed any reasonable expectation that the office of President would require some kind of expertise in my opinion (and we elected him twice), that he was all about 'the shell game'.
Bernie Sanders is in a hard place right now - as is Ted Cruz. I am merely observing the process. Since it is difficult to discern 'fact' anymore, given the 'back scene' information we've been given about the media we have trusted to bring us news, I'm watching a broad swath of information gathering groups. Somewhere there is truth.
Smart people are not just listening to candidate speeches, but watching what they are doing as well, yes? Remember when Clinton was asked why he didn't follow through on his promise for a middle class tax cut he said that he had to say that to get elected and America needed him? There are vital issues at stake. How they do/have followed through on their stated beliefs is just as important as what they say.
-
I hope we're all looking at a lot of different sites for our news and that we are looking into the places like Snopes.com to see what's false and what's unproven, etc. The Craig's List thing mentioned above is an example. Since anyone could list that, I wondered if it'd been shown to be true. Alas...apparently not:
http://www.snopes.com/dnc-hiring-actors-via-craigslist-to-replace-delegates/
CLAIM: The Democratic National Convention's organizers published a Craigslist ad seeking actors to replace missing or ejected delegates.
UNPROVEN
WHAT'S TRUE: A Craigslist ad appeared purporting to seek "actors" for a "national convention."
WHAT'S FALSE: The ad was not traced back to the DNC.
WHAT'S UNDETERMINED: Who placed the ad; whether it was a joke or protest.
-
Jane, did they also refute the two interviews conducted at the DNC with 'seat-fillers'? These young people are much more media-savy than many, for sure. Oh...how did you come to trust Snopes for verification? Who are they? Who filled the seats of the 700 Bernie fans that walked out; were they just people who couldn't get in? or are they saying that there was no walk-out?
Is MSN to be believed?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/day-3-at-the-democratic-convention/ar-BBuYtQZ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP
-
I did not see the interview, but who conducted it and how was it verified that the DNC or some other official placed the ad and hired these people?
Yes, I do believe snopes. I've not ever found them to be untruthful.
I don't know about MSN. I don't have any experience with them.
I just shake my head at the things that come out of the candidates' mouths...be it about wanting Russia to hack into American citizen emails or whatever happens to float to the top of the brain. What a time for us all.
-
This is troubling.
http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/site/article/hillarys_health_concerns_serious_say_most_doctors_polled_by_aaps/
-
Thanks for sharing Mogamom. Regardless of who you are voting for in the elections, with these two to choose from, I think everyone should take a good look at the prospective VP's. I don't think Trump is in tip top form either.
-
Re the presidential debate, I thought the debate was a tie. Hilary's voice often grates on my nerves when she gives a speech. I did not find her voice grating during the debate. I am a democrat, but not especially in favor of Hilary Clinton. I preferred Bernie Sanders. I am very much hoping that Trump does not win the election, so will vote for Hilary to keep Trump from becoming president. Although Hilary was not my favorite Democratic candidate, I I believe she would be a good president.
Marj
-
Mogamom, I did not find that troubling. I find it boring that so many physicians, most of whom are at such a long distance from her and never having seen her or the medical reports from her personal phyhsician feel obligated to diagnose her health. Who cares what they think? Not me for sure.
Marj
P.S. I read reports of people who watched the debate and commented on Mr. Trumps' sniffling as though he had a cold and they said it distracted them from what he was saying. I did not notice any such sniffling on his part, did anyone here?
-
Did you see Frontline on PBS last night - very interesting how often Hillary during her life chose to fall on her petard so that things could move ahead - a usual woman's role so that it was a surprise considering how many women think of her as representing the new woman -
I have not made the switch to Hillary or Trump, marjifay after Bernie - not as happy with Jill as I was - not sure what to do but in this state it really does not matter - the state will be for Trump regardless what I do - it is just following my conscious and values which no one seems to match - I like what Jill stands for but I do not like some of her more recent actions -
Trump does not bother me as much as he does many - I see him using the style of the Kardashians and Paris Hilton so that he is all about entertainment even if it is appealing to those who watch wrestling. As to what he will do - I doubt if even he knows - if he is looking at the job as a business negotiator you have no idea what will happen till the parties involved are together and you see the emotions involved. He reminds me of a Feudal Lord who says give me your all, get in behind the castle gate that I will shut behind you, and in return I will protect you.
Where as Hillary reminds me of a monarch who practices Bentham's/Mills Utilitarianism where the few or one sacrifices for the many just as she did everytime there was a problem she sacrificed what mattered to her from backing not only off health care but staying out of the west wing and devoting all her time to the cookie baking, tree decorating mistress of the White House preparing Christmas, to supporting Bill when he was being impeached. And so if she can do it than others can do it for the best interest of the nation moving forward.
The same war of systems that Le Cid was all about - and so we are reliving that eleventh century story.
-
I agree with you Frybabe that voters should pay attention to the VP candidates and their positions on the various issues. I look forward to the VP candidates debate. Reminds me of how we could have, god help us, had Sara Palin as a president had candidate McCain become president and died in office.
Marj
-
Marjifay, I noticed Trump's sniffing, starting about half-way through the debate, plus drinking a lot of water.
I recorded the Frontline program and watched it this afternoon. Excellent reporting! I consider myself to be a liberal, but I've been watching most of the campaign coverage on PBS. Their reporting and balance has been exceptionally good.
-
I watched the debate on ABC. I noticed Trump's sniffing once...didn't think much of it. I expected him to drink water (they usually do) and was surprised that Hillary didn't, especially as dehydration has frequently been cited as a cause for her falls. At one point there was a close-up of Clinton's face when Trump was answering a question; she was swaying and appeared to be having trouble staying awake.
Of course - with my medical background (limited to be sure) - I wondered what medication they may have given her. I also wondered if her pneumonia was aspiration pneumonia and if difficulty swallowing was a cause for her frequent coughing 'fits'; she was shown to be drinking water in her debates with Bernie, as well as her campaign/fund-raising speeches, so again I was surprised that she wasn't hydrating herself.
Clinton seemed stiff walking after the debate. I re-watched their greetings after the debate with the sound off. Her nose was running and she wiped it with her left hand which she carefully kept the fingers raised while shaking hands. Her husband held her hand firmly as she stepped back up on the platform, tucking her arm under his, then wrapped his arm across her back and around her arm holding her firmly. Her head was down. I thought at that moment that she looked very old and very tired.
-
I haven't watched any campaign coverage on the public TV station, as I've found their news coverage pretty boring. I like MSNBC and CNN better. I do listen to PBS radio and like their book reports. I was just reading that several Republican newspapers, including the Arizona paper had endorsed Clinton because they found Trump to be a deplorable candidate.
Marj
-
Last evening our local news program broke in to broadcast the tape that has been released by the Washington Post of Trump's disgusting remarks about how, upon meeting certain celebrity women, he liked to grope their bodies. It is beyond my understanding how anyone, after listening to those remarks of Trump could consider voting for him. I feel sorry for his daughters and even his wife whom I think is probably just Trump's temporary trophy until he finds a younger one.
I cannot remember a national election where both candidates were so very much disliked by so many people. I will vote for Hilary only because it will possibly mean we will have a more liberal Supreme Court.
Marj
-
No saints in this election - Trump - Bill - Hillary stayed with Bill - big pot of stew... for broth there is always Jill.
-
Who is Jill?
Marj
-
Jill Stein the Green Party - running mate Ajamu Baraka - many Bernie Sanders supporters are voting for Jill - the corporate media is not showing her as either an alternative or are they showing her support just as they shut out showing the support for Bernie Sanders
http://www.jill2016.com/
-
Interesting that Jill Stein is the first nominee for president that I've heard of who admitted being agnostic. That's a point in her favor as far as I'm concerned.
Marj
-
The video regarding Trump was released 4 hours before the wikileak dump on Clinton. You have to admit, their timing is good, since they've sat on that video for months. But the new emails provide some very interesting reading; if you don't follow the Dems down every rabbit hole, you find what Hillary is really about. Sad. We've always felt manipulated by the Clinton's, the emails show why - because we were.
-
You can bet that this article is getting a lot of local comment (over 560 comments since its posting yesterday). http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/10/no_prayer_no_food_shelters_tur.html#incart_river_home_pop
I am not aware of any groups that "require" prayer in order to get a meal. Is this a matter of much ado about nothing? It appears that most of those refusing further Federal food aid already do not require prayer, but are refusing because they don't like the Feds requiring them to do (or not do) something they are already practicing. There are other groups that operate food/soup kitchens, but the comments I read all seen to point fingers at Christian based operations.
I see it as just another insidious encroachment on our freedoms (religious and otherwise) even though many organizations already take a non-prayer required stance on their own..
-
I'm thinking this is less about prayer and more about rebelling against institutional control using their need to gain access.
-
Some info from emails I find most egregious:
1. Obama lied re knowing about Clinton's private server
2. DNC paid 'trolls' to work the social media
3. Dems on Select Benghazi Committee coordinated with top Clinton lawyer
4. Saudi Arabia and Qatar financed ISIS; donated to Clinton Foundation
5. Numerous instances of coordination in access to State Department with Clinton Foundation
6. DNC colluded with CNN on questions for Trump and Cruz
7. E-mails between Bland and Podesta - Band relationship with Clinton and Foundation for personal enrichment of Clintons
8. Collusion between DOJ, FBI, WH, Sate Dept. with release of emails and Benghazi
9. Changes in positions:
a. against fracking - but, told Deutsche Bank that she has promoted fracking in many countries, said it was developed by US Govt
b. immigration reform, control of borders - adopts Soros' vision of open borders, open trade
c. Syrian refugees - to Goldman Sachs, admits refugees a problem in Europe, but wants to increase numbers, relying on US ability to vet them (though all our main intelligence agencies say that is not possible)
d. Syrian no-fly zone - debates said she would establish it; speech to Goldman-Sachs says it would not be effective and would result in too many civilian deaths
e. Keystone pipeline - for, then against
10. Used issues to 'distract' from email server scandal:
a. changed position on Keystone pipeine
b. Benghazi - "In one exchange from March 2015, for example, Podesta advised his fellow campaign hands that "we want the fight to be about Benghazi, not about servers in her basement."
11. Discuss ways to interfere with 2008 Republican primaries
12. Apparently had 'moles' on Biden team, Elizabeth Warren's team (discussed changing position on Glass-Seagull to keep Warren from endorsing Sanders
13. Obama adm. senior level jobs suggested being filled by Citibank (and many apparently were)
14. employment rate confirms Trump stance
15. Many instances of journalists/news media coordinating with Clinton campaign
Also:
1. 2 videos show: DNCand Clinton campaign (with Hillary's knowledge and permission) coordinated with agencies (Soros' agencies) to incite violence at Trump rallies, take credit for shutting down Chicago rally
Plans for voter fraud
2. President Obama assures illegals that nothing would be done if they vote
3. videos showing that Bill Clinton and Obama (at different times) both stated that the 'system is rigged' re elections
4. videos showing Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address) calling for protecting border (redeived standing ovation)
5. video showing many times Hillary Clinton called for controlling immigration - side by side with Trump's speeches - saying essentially the same things.
6. Her stances on the 1st and 2nd amendments; and her praise of Merckle, China's policy of '1 child per family', and Germany's education system (which includes agreement with this adm that 'parents have no intrinsic right to educate their own children...') also raise concerns for me.
And these:
"...And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging. ..."
"..2.Immigration: The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between those two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells...."
"Center for Public Integrity study detailing the federal campaign-finance filings of journalists, reporters, news editors, television news anchors and other donors working in journalism. The study found that 96 percent of those contributions – or about $382,000 – went to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, while the remainder went to Donald Trump.
Federal Election Commission campaign-finance records show that top-level executives at some polling firms conducting presidential polls for major news agencies have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign in this election cycle."
Haiti protest in NYC: ‘Vote Donald Trump’
When asked if the Clinton Foundation came to the aid of the Haitian people following the 2010 earthquake, Andre laughed.
“We understand the Clinton Foundation has been stealing money from Haiti since 2003,” he responded. “In 2008, the United Nations placed Bill Clinton as a special envoy to Haiti. So, this family has been stealing special envoy money, they have been stealing Clinton Foundation money, they have been stealing Interim Haitian Relief Committee money, they have been stealing Clinton-Bush Fund money. The list goes on.”
Andre charged the Clinton Foundation has not been shut down only because “it is being protected” by the Obama administration, specifically by the IRS and the Department of Justice.
“It’s corruption from beginning to end,” Andre asserted. “With Hurricane Matthew, the Clintons cannot even show their head because the whole world knows that they are thieves, and the only reason the Clintons would come to Haiti would be to steal money.”
WikiLeaks has a site that is searchable, for anyone interested, so I didn't put in all the links, but am happy to do so if you want.
Though some would say these are not directly to/from Clinton, reading them you realize fairly quickly that they appear to represent her thinking since she did not refute them.
Whatever the results tomorrow, I'm sure it won't be over. Many issues have come to fore that really need honest discussion. I do hope we won't all just switch up sides on bigotry and hatred, but seek real answers that address the multiple views/concerns expressed.
"The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell
-
Since we are also a Constitutional Democracy, I found Gloria Alvarez' speech particularly compelling.
Gloria Alvarez, youtube
Gloria Álvarez - Parlamento Iberoamericano de la Juventud (settings: subtitles)
-
One side here is not going to convince the other side of what is right, true, and believable, I'm convinced. I think, at this late date, each voter has made up his/her mind, and many of us have voted already.
My hope is that there is a peaceful transition of power.
-
Yep I agree on the vote tomorrow - and for several weeks I think that most voters have decided -
The concern for me and many I know is where do we go for real news - and what do we do to untangle the hold major banks, oil and the pharmaceutical industry (we could add Insurance and Monsanto to the list) has on our system so that except to give our representatives a stamp of approval with our vote, we are no longer represented -
That has to change or we can no longer call ourselves a Republic with a Democratic system.
Part of any change is knowing what we are dealing with and having the information known by the public that can show who is influencing our representatives and how - that takes a media directing journalists to find and report on issues that are against the best interest of the CEO's, Board and Owners of the various news outlets.
-
I agree with Jane and hope that there will be a peaceful transition of power.
I have voted early by mail. BTW,, this is the first year I have known that we have early voting (other than by mail) in California and so many other states.
I am looking forward to seeing how some of the propositions that are on this year's ballot here in California turn out. One of them (for which I voted a "yes" vote) is to repeal the death penalty. Another, for which I also voted "yes" was to legalize the smoking of marijuana. I do not smoke marijuana and I am sure my two adult sons do not, nor will not, smoke it, but It seemed logical to me that if it is okay to drink hard liquor, then why not make it okay to smoke marijuana. And it will save our state a large bunch of money for paying for the cops, et al, necessary to track down and incarcertate people. The cultivation of it in the nothern part of our state is California's largest agricultural crop.
I can hardly wait to see the outcome of the election. Am so tired of listening to all the hatred spewed back and forth.
Marj
-
I'm with you - not only the hatred but all the sleaze - my concern is that it is the new norm...
-
I found this in an article in The Hill:
Obama cast Clinton as a guardian of his accomplishments, warning voters in stark terms that a Trump presidency would “reverse every single thing that we’ve done.”
That, I think, pretty much sums up the reason for Trump's win: not racism nor sexism - just the stark reality of Americans deciding they did not want to stand by and continue to have a progressive/liberal agenda forced on them. It's simple, really. They're tired of being bullied.
Obama's 'legacy' was doomed to failure from the time he stated that Congress was not doing their job, but that he had 'a phone and a pen' so he would have to do their job for them. Now we see that Congress was actually representing some 'folks', and that those people simply disagreed with his agenda.
And the media is still getting it wrong.
-
I think the reason Trump won was because so many people across the nation are having such a hard time finding good jobs, especially in manufacturing, jobs which have gond overseas. And they can thank Bill Clinton for that, not Obama.
I didn't realize that Obama's health plan was getting to be so costly. My don found a health plan under the Affordable Health Program that was better smf cheaper than the one his employer offered. I think people with previous or current medical conditions are going to be very disappointed when Trump and his gang get rid of Obamacare, and they find they cannot get health insurance at any cost.
I see that the sock market has taken a big jump, mostly some say because the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies will be able to again screw people who need health covgerage and prescription drugs.
Marj
-
You're right about Clinton sending good jobs overseas. But Obama's TPP would put the nail in the coffin - and he was pushing it mightily.
Obamacare seemed to have been falling apart; some states were facing well over 100% hikes in premium, others were finding many fewer options for insurance companies, and the deductibles necessary to keep premiums affordable were going so high people were questioning why they needed insurance - saying they'd rather pay the fine.
We'll see what competition can do. I was getting disappointed by news reports encouraging people to plan health care premiums into retirement costs - saying they would need an avrage of $500 per month to cover the premiums. That, in my opinion, is ridiculous. Who could retire with that albatross around their necks?
I do also think it's a statement against globalism(now being labeled 'internationalism') - which seems to mostly benefit Big Banks and Corporations.
-
I share your opinion about Globalism benefiting the business and banks, yet some small bit of me sometimes squeaks that it could end up being a good thing in the end, as in way, way down the road. What bothers me the most is that the farther away government is from the common folks, the more bureaucratic it becomes, the less likely it is to respond to local or regional issues in a timely manner, if at all. And "once size fits all" - doesn't.
There are already global overseers with or without much clout, right now, but someday I foresee them becoming more global regulatory, with or without national treaties. Some global organizations come to mind which we have had for a quite a while now, like the World Bank, the World Health Organization, and the global radio frequency overseers (their name escapes me at the moment). Add the that the recent hand-off to a global organization to oversee web addresses, and the international accounting changes that are in the works. Their goal at the moment is to align accounting methods worldwide so that international businesses are all on the same page for reporting income etc., rather than having to do several different reporting statements depending on the method of the countries use now. This essentially means that accounting standard in the US will be loosened rather that other countries comment up to ours. And who will oversee these global overseer organizations? The UN? Give me a break! Oops! I let an opinion sneak in there.
-
I just heard on CNN that Trump has said he may keep parts of Obamacare; for instance, the part that requires insurance companies to cover people with prior medical conditions, and the part that enables parents to keep their children on their medical plan until they reach age 26. Trump apparently still has some Democrat left in him (and doesn't want to alienate any more people!)
Marj
-
He's got Ben Carson working on it - and the article I read had Ben being quoted as saying it will take time to have a good replacement - that it would not happen next year. What ever they do must be voted on in Congress
-
i just heard Trump talking to some journalist about amending and not completely repealing Obamocare. He said it could be amended quickly so there would not be a long period when people would not be able to get coverage if they had a current or previous medical condition. He also said that what he has in mind would greatly improve Ogamacare and at the same time keep costs much lower. I wonder whether he's right about the costs being lower; I bet insurance companies would not agree with him. Costs for them are bound to increase when they have to insure people with serious medical conditions.
Marj
-
I need to get his book because he is supposed to be a good deal maker - he will have Congress to convince - did you see his 10 point initiative to improve the lives of Black folks - impressive - not at all like a list you could even imagine from a Republican - more like an old fashioned FDR Democrat - I wonder if this guy has like in business they call it a hostile take over and he took over both parties - we shall see but so far what he has said and done I am impressed and I did not even vote for him - the fact he is including his family as his closest team says to me the career Pubs may not have that much of an in with him - it appears we will have a maverick in the White House
-
Good Grief - he laid out his plan last summer - here is the link - how he plans on making America Great again...
Great Again: How to Fix Our Crippled America (https://www.amazon.com/Great-Again-How-Crippled-America/dp/1501138006/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478921614&sr=1-1&keywords=Great+Again%3A+How+to+Fix+Our+Crippled+America)
-
Someone here, I believe, mentioned they wanted to read Trump's book. Re Trumps book, Art of the Deal, I listened recently to an interview with the co-author of that book who said Trump did not write it and he doubted very much if Trump had even read it. He also said that as he got to know Trump, he believed the man is a psycopath and that his only concern is for himself.
Marj
-
Psychopath (or sociopath) is the wrong term. He may be a narcissist though. Do a search and you will find plenty of websites that explain both.
-
Paychopath, sociopath, or whatever, I was just repeating what the co-author of the book said about Trump during the interview. I have no knowlege of the accuracy of his opinion.
Marj.
-
I know, Marj, I was just pointing out that he may have used the wrong term. My limited education in Psychology doesn't give me the best knowledge background, and I certainly never met Trump, but from all the descriptions I've seen in the media, I'd say he exhibits some narcissistic traits. I can see, however, where the author might consider his behavior as psychopathic. I think there is some overlap in behaviors associated with both, like being egotistical and maybe a lack of empathy. It depends on degree and what other traits the person exhibits. You're going to make me drag out my old Psychology books (what is left of them), aren't you.
I see that the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual is up to version V. now, so some of the criteria have changed, possibly a lot, since I had my hands on a DSM-III.
-
Regardless if he personally wrote the book he has a string of books - they may all be shadow written - but I want to find the essence of the man - all we have is what the campaign machine to make him appear unworthy has said about him. Sure he has flaws but then I look at his family and obviously he did something right - if in these books his tactics to get things done is explained than we have a better understanding of how he solves problems.
So I found used copies of - The Art of the Deal - Think Like a Champion: An Informal Education in Business and Life - Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again.
I did notice the 10 initiatives listed in the news yesterday to help Black Communities were the chapter titles for his book How to Make America Great Again. Had any of us read his books we would have picked up on it and picked up on lots of things he was saying at his various conventions instead of just all the ways he was not fit that the media cooperated with the Clinton decision; that was announced if you remember at the Dem Convention when they said everytime Hillary mention Trump was when she received the loudest and longest reaction and so, that was what they decided would be the focus of her campaign speeches - the result, none of us picked up on what Trump said other than his Paris Hilton approach for attention or how he was proving the focus for Hillary of his not being worthy that was supposed to highlight her worth.
I am not trying to review who started what - only that this man is going to be the president - I do want to learn something about him - so far I see he has disdain for those in the GOP who did not support him and has disseminated the GOP - I also read that he was a Dem until about 5 years before he ran for office - so what does that mean - I may not be able to deduce what we can expect but at least I can learn how he goes about his decision making.
I am not willing to take sides and keep going with the vitriol of the campaign - its over - how I feel about this president elect is not helping me if I only evaluate him based on what was said by him to gain free attention and by his opponent to elevate her own voteability - I'm thinking it is time to go beyond emotion and start learning more about the man.
I am aware as the vote was split as the nation is split but I choose to learn rather than stay with my media affected preconceived opinions.
-
Trump talked about keeping those two provisions of Obamacare, if he can work it out, in his campaign speeches. So, I wasn't surprised to hear it.
There were things he said that caught my attention:
At his convention speech he said: "I understand the dignity of work." Wow! That was big!
When someone accused him of not understanding the ave. American because he was a billionaire, he agreed that he was wealthy and stated that he wanted to help everyone do well.
To the W. Virginia coal miners he said that renewables are not practical yet and that miners could be re-trained in renewables as they grew and be offered first dibs on those jobs (Clinton offered federal subsidies to families instead)
A black woman did a personal video from her car with her two boys in the back seat. She was excited and said she was on her way to vote. She said that because she was a woman and African American she was supposed to vote Democrat, but she was voting for Trump; she was not a slave and did not live on the Democrat Plantation; she cited a speech Micelle Obama gave on TV1? (a predominately black channel?) where viewers were told: It doesn't matter what they said, it doesn't matter what they've done, you need to get to the polls and vote straight Democrat." This woman said no one was going to tell her how to vote - that she was voting for jobs instead of the old rhetoric that has kept blacks down. She even said that white people were not the only ones who had slaves - that blacks were often given authority over slaves and helped keep them in line, suggesting that that was what the Obamas were trying to do.
Whatever else this election has done, it is finally at least different in terms of the power grid in Washington, I think. I wish Soros (MoveOn.org) would give up the rioting - but I suppose making 24 billion dollars as a Hedge Fund Manager (weren't they responsible for the '08 recession?) isn't enough for him. And I see that the NYT is vowing "to rededicate themselves to reporting honestly"!
I've known about Donald Trump my whole adult life (since I live in NY); he's often been in the tabloids, as you can imagine. I never heard of any rapes or unsolicited attention to women; offensive talk was plentiful and was always meted out fairly among all - an equal opportunity offender, you might say. But there are more stories than you can shake a stick at of his abundant generosity, willingness (eagerness) to learn and get feedback from his workers (and to use that information to improve the project), and generally to encourage everyone to do better. I don't think his idea is to do things for people, but to 'unleash their potential' - that is, to help them to do for themselves and to experience the pride and dignity that comes from building something for yourself.
His claim to bring every job in "ahead of schedule and under budget' has pretty much rung true - even in this election. I do think he values excellence and quality in work and in people, whoever they are. That he sticks right now with people he trusts as he navigates largely unchartered waters is not surprising to me. I'll wait and see in what directions he moves. It may be that he felt that the Democratic Party had left him.
PS My last DSM IV would hardly show Trump as a Psychopath or Sociopath; terms loosely thrown about, I think. If you'd ever worked with either group I don't think you'd use those terms to describe him. And one man's narcissism is another man's pride of accomplishment?
-
Belatedly, I am reading a copy of Foreign Policy Magazine which had in its Feb. issue an article about insurance companies and slave insurance policies. I noted that the article says that the slave trade was banned in 1808, but I wonder if that meant bringing new slave in from overseas rather than within the country. I thought slaves were still being bought and sold within the country all the way up to the Civil War.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/16/decoder-slave-insurance-market-aetna-aig-new-york-life/
-
The U.S. Congress passes an act to “prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States…from any foreign kingdom, place, or country.”
The first shipload of African captives to North America arrived at Jamestown, Virginia, in August 1619, but for most of the 17th century, European indentured servants were far more numerous in the North American British colonies than were African slaves. However, after 1680, the flow of indentured servants sharply declined, leading to an explosion in the African slave trade. By the middle of the 18th century, slavery could be found in all 13 colonies and was at the core of the Southern colonies’ agricultural economy. By the time of the American Revolution, the English importers alone had brought some three million captive Africans to the Americas.
After the war, as slave labor was not a crucial element of the Northern economy, most Northern states passed legislation to abolish slavery. However, in the South, the invention of the cotton gin in 1793 made cotton a major industry and sharply increased the need for slave labor. Tension arose between the North and the South as the slave or free status of new states was debated. In January 1807, with a self-sustaining population of over four million slaves in the South, some Southern congressmen joined with the North in voting to abolish the African slave trade, an act that became effective January 1, 1808
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-abolishes-the-african-slave-trade
The Slave Trade Act 1807 or the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on 25 March 1807, with the title of "An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade".
-
Thanks for looking that up, Barb.
-
I've just been looking through the SeniorLearn.org Discussions and found this website! I'm loving it! One thing I'd like to say is that the American People did not have much to choose from for President because so many people can only run if they can afford to run! Way too expensive!! To me it became the lessor of two evils. Many stayed home and didn't care, but when it came time to complain they did. All I know is that if we don't stand together we will surely topple! As they used to say he may be a son of a gun, but he/she is ours. We need to stand together as citizens and yes, he is OUR president. Not sure Hillary would have been any better or worse. We just all need to move on!! It's time!!! I enjoy all of the comments and I know there are many that are much more well educated than I am. However, we all have an opinion and that is mine! :)
-
I'm agreeing, jelizondo!
Painful as the process is, I am grateful that we are seeing the direction the 'fundamental change in America' was headed. I read a piece by George Soros where he states quite unabashedly that the Constitution of the United States is the biggest stumbling block to globalism - his ultimate goal - and where he prefers the changes be made. I think citizens are quite divided on that - moving to embrace globalism and socialism. Maybe there just isn't any place to come together? I hope that isn't so, but that is the way it feels right now.
-
Agree and here I am a third generation Dem. but after reading a few books on banking and the Federal Reserve and then books explaining the impact of the IMF, World Bank etc and how they destroy and buy up the resources from nations they have financially destroyed and not only reading about Soros but the Bilderberg group - all I can say is, thank God for this administration that is using the chaos theory to plow up those who, behind the scenes within our government has been actively undermining this nation since we went bankrupt in the 30s so that we are now owned by the Federal Reserve, who calls all the shots - looks like we finally have someone, who was independently wealthy and did not need the office of presidency to do the bidding's of those who hold out wealth in exchange for tipping the US further and further away from its sovereignty and the Constitution.
-
When I was in my twenties, I caught a PBS special on WWII. They were showing film of a liberated concentration camp in Germany (I believe, if memory serves) that everyone in the town was required to tour. The line went around the block and was comprised mostly of women and men too old for military service. A narrator explained the exercise in English - the only voice you heard.
They stood outside the gates as a speaker explained how they were to enter and progress through the area. I watched the three women in the front of the line. They were jabbing each other and whispering, glancing at the soldiers waiting to escort them, gesturing, laughing - as though they were out shopping. The narrator explained that the residents did not know what had actually been taking place behind the gates.
The gates swung open…a soldier stepped forward and led the women into the courtyard. Long tables were set up end-to-end the full width of the area; on these were placed a variety of items carefully displayed and labeled.
The women looked a little confused, then followed directions and began walking quickly along the tables. They were instructed to slow down and to look and read.
They began to walk slowly along the tables. They turned to each other in surprise….then anger….as they looked at the display and read the plain labels - rope, made from human hair…belt, made from human skin…denoting items made from teeth, fillings from teeth, bone, hair, skin, etc.
The women became agitated - yelled at the soldier escorting them. At one point they refused to continue, but were quietly, gently but firmly, assisted along by the soldier.
Then their countenance changed to horror and shame. They looked at the ground. One woman appeared weak-kneed and turned to vomit. The soldier was quickly at her side with a handkerchief and water. Then, they sobbed.
From the tables, they toured the barracks…and the gas chambers…and the pit where German guards were now being forced to finish burying the dead, which resembled rigid skeletons.
Everything was explained…everything was seen. I watched these three women as they were escorted back to the gate. Much calmer…quiet…they appeared to thank the soldier, wiping tears from their eyes…and silently went out.
There are many things I would much rather not see or know about. Yet - even though the waking up process is often so very painful - I just was determined that I did not want to be caught sleeping if and when things were being done to manipulate us here. So, although I am seeing things that sometimes make me shudder, make me wonder how I got caught napping, I am so very grateful to finally begin to see and, hopefully, understand where we are. So I'm hoping they continue to bring on the light.
-
opening a can of worms but this along with many other thoughts by professionals in medicine says so much...
Ohio Physician, Dr. Chuck Gbur. Dr. Gbur is a cardiologist and veteran and his recent post concerning Covid-19 is excellent.
“I have been dark for the most part since this pandemic thing started. I have seen enough now that I feel it is time to share my experiences and thoughts. I am not an “Expert” like you see on CNN.
However, I did earn a BS in combined sciences with an emphasis in biology and chemistry, a Doctor of Medicine degree, and completed an Internal Medicine Residency and Cardiology Fellowship.
I also did post graduate work towards a PhD in Physiology, completing essentially everything short of the final few experiments to complete my thesis. I did extensive lab work using molecular biology looking at heat shock proteins. I also spent 25 years in the military working on numerous staff’s, participating in exercises and courses covering the spectrum of CBR warfare to medical logistics, Naval War College, etc. etc. I have been a practicing Interventional Cardiologist for 25 years.
When this COVID-19 “pandemic” started, I was skeptical and felt that there were a lot of people and politicians overreacting.
By the end of March, I was asked to be part of our Hospital Incident Command System. At that time, I remained a little skeptical, but did my job to plan for the “worst case scenario”. I did this based on projections and models, realizing full well that no plan survives the first shot.
I watched the local and national news, I tracked data from numerous sources, I read peoples responses and comments on social media.
As time went on, the dots became less and less connected. Things didn’t and don’t add up. I am no longer skeptical, now I am convinced that this entire “pandemic" has been massively mismanaged and when this is looked at retrospectively in the future, nothing short of a massive Charlie Foxtrot.
Several comments/observations:
• First, I believe that this virus was not naturally occurring, but genetically manipulated. I still have not formed an opinion as to whether the release was accidental or intentional.
• I think this virus has been present at least several months prior to being recognized.
• People need to understand that the entire draconian response that we are witnessing was designed with a mission statement to “flatten the curve”. Not to save lives, reduce deaths or anything like that. Flattening the curve is like squishing a water balloon. You don’t change the volume in the end. You just spread things out over a longer period of time- thereby not overwhelming the hospitals.
• New York and Ohio are different. So is Wyoming and South Dakota and every other geographic area in the country. It made and makes no sense to develop blanket policies and apply them to a very big and diverse country. This includes nearly every policy developed by medical professional organizations, regulatory bodies, state and local health departments and the government as a whole.
• This virus is much more prevalent than reported or realized, some studies suggest that that may be 50 times or more people exposed than detected. I suspect that it is much larger than that. So, if we accept the 50 X number, for every diagnosed case, there are 50 people out there that have it. Of those diagnosed, 80-90+% have either no symptoms or minimal to moderate symptoms. A small percentage get seriously sick, and many will die. Those that die in general are old, have other medical issues and comorbidities.
Yes, I know, there are the occasional children and young people that get sick, have other manifestations (Kawasaki like illnesses, strokes, etc., etc.), however you see that in most viral illnesses, such as the flu. It just receives absolutely no attention from the media or social media.
• This virus will run it course and we can’t stop it. We may change it’s velocity or trajectory, but in the end, the same number of people will die. Keep that in mind. The same number will die. We have destroyed the economy and in the end the only thing we will be able to show is an economy in shambles and policy changes that have far reaching and irreversible consequences.
• For those of you that argue that it is worth giving up “freedom” for “protection”- you are dead wrong. And in the end, you will have given up freedom and not be any safer.
• Again, we have done nothing to “cure” anyone. There is no FDA approved treatment. Hydroxychloroquine has been reported to be effective in numerous small trials. The drug is safe and cheap. Most of in the military have taken it at some point. The use of this drug has been affected by politics and finances.
The media and pharmaceutical companies do everything is their power to discredit a drug that cost $0.06 and is mention by Trump for another unapproved drug that cost $1,000.00 a day. Am I being cynical? Maybe. But keep following the money.
• “Herd Immunity” is the only thing that will really protect us. Either by vaccine (which doesn’t exist yet) or naturally occurring. By that people need to be exposed, infected and then develop antibodies and immunity.
• People should be allowed to social gather. We should not be under this ‘soft’ Martial Law. If consenting adults make a decision to gather, especially on their private property, they should be allowed to. In fact, they should be encouraged. If they become infected, most will not even know it. But they will be growing the herd.
• High risk people, the frail, the sick, the elderly - they should be social distancing, sheltering in place and wearing mask. Otherwise mask and gloves are stupid and largely ineffective. A huge waste of resources.
• Speaking of wasting resources - wiping down every grocery cart, limiting access to stores, and all of the other stupid things we are doing haven’t shown to really do anything. Just wash your hands.
• Closing the schools was a mistake. And all of the policies being made to reopen some time with desk 6 feet apart, not allow kids to eat in the cafeteria, etc. are not going to be effective, not protect anything, cost an immense amount of money and place a huge unnecessary burden on the school systems.
Kids for the most part do really well and account for a small fraction of the cases, despite what the media tells you. They are little vectors of disease. If they stayed in school, they would all have been exposed, immune and happy and healthy, and no longer be a risk to their grandparents and other relatives at risk.
• Life in this country will never be the same. The “new norm” isn’t normal at all. In fact it’s bullshit.
• The unintended consequences of our decisions have yet to be realized but will be far reaching. I am going to LMAO once the Sokolove Law commercial comes out looking for people exposed to hand sanitizer who have cancer. Just wait, it’s coming.
• There will be a “second wave” as we relax the martial law mandates. It’s is inevitable. Again, we didn’t do anything to stop the virus.
• If the government tries to tighten things up again, I do not think people will comply this time. Sure, the uninformed sheep will, but most people won’t.
• Yes, I know some of you have had this and were really sick, felt like hell. That’s what viruses do. That’s what the flu does too.
• Yes, I know this isn’t the flu. The major difference clinically though is that there is no immunity anywhere. So, it is much more virulent. But it also isn’t some alien virus like the Andromeda Strain.
• There is most likely going to be a major food shortage this summer and fall. Partially due to supply chain disruption, decreased production and panic buying.
• There will likely be a spike in violent crimes- hungry people do things like that. Plus, many communities are being forced to cut back on social services due to decreases in revenue. Our local community has cut 10% of the police force because of revenue shortfalls.
• If the virus gets introduced to a tight group of old and frail people with multiple medical problems and no immunity- many will get infected and many will die. That’s what happens in nursing homes. It happens with the flu too, just not as bad because some partial immunity and protection from the flu vaccine. But it still happens.
• All of the statistics are garbage. When the State comes out and instructs you to list COVID-19 as the cause of death on death certificates regardless of actual cause of death, something is wrong. The asymptomatic COVID-19 + person hit by a truck didn’t die from the virus. Then 2 weeks later you are instructed to count a suspected case as an official case- we will never be able to look at the data and draw reasonable conclusions.
• The sooner people get out and get on with their lives, the better we all will be. A flatten curved is just a long drawn out tragedy causing far more harm than good.
• There is going to be increasing polarization in society, it has already been pretty bad. But mix in an election year and throw in a pandemic, gasoline on the fire.
• Speaking of gasoline- when oil hit -$40.00/barrel (that’s negative forty dollars), think what that means. Yea, maybe lower gas prices, but it also crippled the American oil industry. The environmental extremist may be thrilled- but wait until they are hungry. The appearance of the virus during this glut is one thing that makes me wonder about an intentional release of the virus.
• The next war isn’t going to be guns and bombs- but economic warfare, cyber warfare and using viruses to wreck economies.
• The future isn’t really that bright.
-
and this is over an hour long but an excellent explanation of viruses - life - and this virus from the doctor who actually predicted covid-19 - Dr. Zach talks about how local pollution and the way our food is grown as culprits making those who live with these twin pollutants as hosts for the virus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RAtFBvKrVw&fbclid=IwAR0oF8JAj0ULPzOWixpiEJ_oEfF_EGWbauT_QtERDS_wsZVEiUd7DjI76aw
-
and this from Robert Kennedy Jr. a Democrat - about 10 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-5Zpmh6yPI&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2DbT9QSBkP6ZNEcaxP1818LI8SEf1zfvVUt4hLEGc927EIg1Y8j7yg0fI
-
Dr. Gbur's use of the word "sheep" and "herd" in relation to masks, etc., being "stupid" reminds me of a news clip from two days ago, where a woman accosted a group of people coming toward her in masks, shouting something about "99 percent cure rate, and you are wearing masks: you are all SHEEP!"
It's amazing to me how people interpret "freedom." What business is it of hers if people want to wear masks to help protect others? What right has she to accost people in the street about how they dress or look?
Is it really necessary for her or Dr. Gbur to liken people to sheep or say they are "stupid" when they want to try to protect themselves and others? I don't see an absence of masks among those having to deal with the consequences in hospitals?
Hilary Mantel speaking at the Hay Festival in Wales, now on video, talks about how the Tudors were very aware of the need for distancing in the various plagues and were actually very good at it, at least the king's court was, they kept moving.
There are many people speaking out with authority in this pandemic, not all of them constructively or nicely, or even coherently, so what is the public worried about bringing it home supposed to do? Be insulted for following what was said by those supposedly in charge to be effective?
-
Yes, difference between what Dr. Gbur has to say compared to what Dr. Zach has to say - I'm thinking we will learn what works in two weeks after thousands in a city rioted without masks or distancing - one city in California had over 50K jammed together protesting in one spot - unfortunately all I see is everything that happens is politicized and then looses truth in order to create drama for media attention, further dividing the nation - divided we fall...
-
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jan/19/open-letter-calls-for-publishing-boycott-of-trump-administration-memoirs?utm_term=18728835c71552dc1c121582d672c11c&utm_campaign=Bookmarks&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=bookmarks_email
Didn't want to bog down the general discussion with this, but I do think it is important. Everything, but everything seems to be getting politicized now. This kind of call for censorship from the publishing industry comes close to curtailing if not squelching or freedom of speech, a basic right guaranteed by our Constitution. Fortunately, self publishing is much easier these days what with the computer and internet. Well, almost. Posting or advertising an author's works to the internet could be cut off by those in power (whether political or in business). While I believe in the right of business leaders choose what they want to associate themselves with, I do not believe they have the right to bully others to do the same. I also think they should be taking a step back, calming down, and thinking things through before committing to what appears to be an over-board response to current rhetoric and emotions. Let the readers decide what they want to read or not, or for that matter watch. I do not have to buy or read a book or watch a show I am not interested in or agree with, but that doesn't mean I have the right to say, you can't if I don't. There are a few exceptions (ex: child porn), but this expanding censorship, and might I say hatred and vengeance, especially regarding political views is disturbing.
-
Notice several books i had an interest in were taken down and one is now only available on the Amazon Japanese book site - it was available last week when I put it on my list but now not in the US - UK - France or Germany - All this does is make the books I'm interested in seem more important to read - if they are pulling it down it must have some merit rather than possibly a conspiracy theory - well now we know what folks in Russia and China have been living with all these years - need to read how they got around their censorship.