Slashdot Mirror

So how many Republicans in power actually said he wasn't a legitimate president?

Let's see, Try here. That's a lot of gabbling, isn't it? At best, you have them pandering to the Birthers, which is shameful on its own, perhaps more so.

That's just in Congress, doesn't count Sheriff Arpaio or Donald Trump.

You kinda lose on the Birther High Ground with Donald Trump there.

How many made it a point to boycott his inauguration?

I dunno, but at least one was asinine at a State of the Union. Plenty of incivility from the GOP at that.

And face it, Scalia had been running his mouth off for a while too. And Alito got so hysterical he totally had a bitchfest over a majority opinion that he joined a dissent just to whine.

DeVos alone as education secretary is enough to make up for any slack in other picks. She may actually be able to help fix the dire state of public education.

***FACEPALM***

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.theatlantic.com/edu...
https://theintercept.com/2017/...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Menopause is not normal

OTOH, this experiment shows how menopause could be adaptive.

Trump has pledged no new foreign investments during his 8 years in office. Trump has also pledged to donate all foreign profits to the US Treasury.

That's what he and his lawyers said anyway, during the press conference they held and subsequent memos. That press conference was in response to people suggesting he is in breach, so they at least felt strongly enough to counter those claims with a press conference and some vague promises to do the right thing when the time comes. He's not just outright saying it's not an issue, which is telling. And there is still discussion about whether his lawyers' arguments are even correct. Moreover, it does not matter who controls the company, what matters is that Trump still benefits from the company and can influence things like whether or not governments invest in it, he can lobby Scotland to allow his golf courses to expand, etc. He can use his office for his direct personal benefit. Things get even more cloudy when his son-in-law is his advisor as president even while his daughter is negotiating on behalf of the company. There is a whole web of ways this can go wrong for us (not for him, for us). If he wants to avoid this kind of thing then he turns his company over to a blind trust, not his kids. It's laughable to even consider that turning his businesses over to his kids absolves him of this. That's what a blind trust is for.

They've been saying foreigners staying at a Trump hotel are giving him emoluments, when no, that is a fee for service.

That's not the issue, or at least not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is the fact that various foreign state-owned corporations have invested in his various businesses. Imagine if those earlier plantation-owning presidents had an agreement where Britain owned part of the plantation, or even a controlling interest, and they had leverage to directly benefit or harm the president. That's the kind of relationship that should be avoided.

would never dream that business owners should have to sell off their businesses in order to serve as president.

A blind trust is not selling. It is someone else who is making investment decisions without any input from you, and without telling you what they are doing. You are trusting them to manage the assets in an intelligent way where they will increase in value, and once the term of office ends you get it back.

during his 8 years in office.

That's a little optimistic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/int...
Who Started the Israel-Gaza Conflict?
By Robert Wright
Nov 16 2012,
A summary of events in the renewal of Israeli-Palestinian hostilities, Nov 8 - Nov 15
By Emily Hauser
There's a constant back and forth, and on both sides, there's always something or someone to avenge.
According to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as of November 13, Palestinian militants had fired 797 rockets into Israel in the course of 2012 , and according to the Israeli human rights organization Btselem, between January 2009 (the conclusion of the last all-out Gaza war) and September of this year, 25 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, and 314 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces, with six more being killed by Israeli civilians.
Wednesday November 14
Reports emerged that Israel has targeted Ahmed Jabari, head of Hamas's military wing; Israel confirmed the assassination, citing his "decade-long terrorist activity," and said that killing was the part of an operation in which the military struck 20 different targets across Gaza. HaAretz [Note: Later reports indicate that Jabari was considering a permanent truce agreement at the time of his assassination]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11...
Op-Ed Contributor
Israel's Shortsighted Assassination
By GERSHON BASKIN
Published: November 16, 2012
Passing messages between the two sides, I was able to learn firsthand that Mr. Jabari wasn't just interested in a long-term cease-fire; he was also the person responsible for enforcing previous cease-fire understandings brokered by the Egyptian intelligence agency. Mr. Jabari enforced those cease-fires only after confirming that Israel was prepared to stop its attacks on Gaza. On the morning that he was killed, Mr. Jabari received a draft proposal for an extended cease-fire with Israel, including mechanisms that would verify intentions and ensure compliance. This draft was agreed upon by me and Hamas's deputy foreign minister, Mr. Hamad, when we met last week in Egypt.
Gershon Baskin is a co-chairman of the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post and the initiator and negotiator of the secret back channel for the release of Gilad Shalit.

As trade and technical progress increase the purchasing power of our same amount of labor

They don't, or not by much. Most of the benefits are creamed off as higher profits.

The jewelry analogy would be like buying a diamond ring for $3000 only to find out that the diamond is artificial.

Except when you discover that the artificial diamond is identical to the "real" ones, a structure of carbon atoms.

It's far worse to discover that the $3000 "real" diamond is not worth anywhere near $3000. Just a huge marketing scam to sell one of the most common "precious stones" as if it is scarce, at hugely marked up prices.

This article is fairly long, but a good read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...

The primary point by which cloud services are evaluated by government agencies is "does the security meet auditing requirements". That, followed by cost, are important; the rest is negotiable. Amazon is good at that.

Also, since renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy, they should really be covering every square metre of rooftop they own with solar and throwing up some wind turbines anyway.

So you claim. Amazon's obsessed with reducing operational expenses (and goes crazy with capital expenses), so I'm sure they're doing whatever is actually cheaper.

About the only type speech that can be prohibited in the US, is that which actually incites violence against a real group of folks or individuals. Or incites other dangerous behavior (yelling fire in a movie theater)....

Bad example:

https://www.theatlantic.com/na...

Personally, I think the Civil Rights Act had a good deal to do with the change in society. I don't have all that much evidence, but I'm not making a claim.

Notice how you casually switched from gay liberation to race? That's because for race, you can at least plausibly entertain this delusion by not looking at the facts too carefully. For homosexuality, it is crystal clear: legal changes occurred long after societal changes had taken place, not just in the US but also in Europe. So, that alone invalidates your view that government action generally precedes social liberalization.

Now, you might still try to argue that for race in particular it did. I'm not going to argue that with you here in detail because the history of race is complicated. I think the literature on that is crystal clear as well: government was the major cause of race-based oppression and poverty in the US, and minorities have always succeeded despite progressive policies, not because of them. For the details, you really need to read a lot more history and economics.

Just one point...

The government actions included using force to desegregate Southern schools against threats of violence. In some states, their laws were invalidated by Federal action.

Segregation was a creation of government at all levels in the first place. The federal government was one of the main causes behind racial injustice, embracing and promoting segregation, scientific racism, and eugenics; it was particularly Democrats and progressives that were responsible for this, across the country, at all levels. Woodrow Wilson is an example.

So a couple of misguided lawsuits in the US, the home of ill-conceived lawsuits, and a grieving mother who has taken exception to the fact that doctors endeavour to keep blood pumping around a body in order to preserve the organs for transplant. Thankfully the majority of the population are smart enough to consent to organ donation.

Given the trends in fake news, scams on social media that keep finding suckers, etc., don't be so sure. 95% support organ donations, but only 45% when it's their organ that's up for grabs, and 40% of those are blocked by next of kin. They figure it's better to receive than to give.

Just maybe, we might just sorta think about how we could not even book flights until the intertoobz came along. All of those jets sitting on the runwaysnot in use because without the internet, there was absolutely no way to reserve a flight. Sarcasm much intended.

Look at the history of airfare (chart or articleand before the internet, flying also cost twice as much (even after adding in the dreaded "fees" for shit that most people don't need) and was far less accessible to people of modest means. When people talk about how dignified air service was in the 70s, what they usually meant is that poor people weren't flying.

Of course the internet isn't responsible for the entire drop in prices. But the direct-booking (vs paying travel agents for working the system) and fare comparison contributed something.

Related - I suspect you're very close to the truth.

Southern California isn't the best place for a subway. There are currently only two underground subway lines, and they came in vastly over budget - the Metro Red line's original cost estimate was $400 million; it was completed for $4.5 billion. It held the record for the most expensive civic construction project until Boston's Big Dig.

The reason is that SoCal is full of oil. If you visit, you'll see functioning oil pumps scattered around in random places. It bubbles out of the ground naturally in the La Brea Tar Pits, and into the surrounding ocean as underwater oil seeps. When they dug the first tunnels for the Red line, the workers returned the next day to find oil and tar seeping in through the walls of the freshly-dug tunnel. They had to stop construction until they could come up with new ways to hold back the seepage and insure it wouldn't become a problem in the future decades of subway operation. (The Big Dig was expensive because of similar problems, except with seawater seepage.)

Oh yeah, the earthquakes tend to be a problem too. Especially if your tunnel crosses over a fault line.

Rather than taking in more sunlight and the heightened risk of skin cancer that it carries, the researchers suggest that making inexpensive and safe vitamin D supplements available to at-risk groups may be a better path forward.

1) more sunlight does not mean heightened risk of skin cancer--it actually *reduces* it:
http://www.realfarmacy.com/sci...

2) vitamin supplements actually *increase* our risk of disease:
http://www.theatlantic.com/hea...

JFC you are a moron.

1 - the wall is an absurdity. the cost is well north of 25 billion dollars in materials alone, not even counting labor and its associated associated costs. much of the terrain to be covered is extremely remote, so you're not going to be able to send the workers home every day. you're going to have to house and feed them as well. and all that cost, can be defeated by a 30$ ladder from home depot. it's pure idiocy.

2 - and that will require increasing the budget of ICE by ~100x. when you release them, you don't have to provide for them. if you don't, you do. clothing, shelter housing. and because you're talking about families often, you cant be splitting them up, detaining, trying, and deporting them separately, especially the children (8th amendment). so your housing isn't going to be simple prison-esque condition, but something that can keep families together, separated from other families. are you beginning to see why we don't do that?

3 - Obama has deported more people than the previous 4 presidents combined, and with a focus on those who are criminals . Your point is complete BS not at all attached to reality.

4 - You can't. Immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government, not cities. You cannot force cities to participate, and if they don't want to spend their resources assisting, they don't have to. They have their own concerns.

5 - What amnesties? This is another BS talking point not grounded in reality. There were no amnesties.

6 - We already do. Yet another BS talking point not grounded in reality

7 - You actually cannot force that. And it can be a bad thing too to do so. We have actually created the current violence and chaos in Honduras by deporting undocumented criminals in such large numbers that the local government was unable to handle the influx. They almost literally just show up in the local airport...and aren't met by anyone, so they're effectively off scot free, to form new criminal enterprises.

8 - $$$$$ Again: how you gonna pay for it? And how are you not going to violate the constitution implementing it? Remember: the Constitution protects all persons subject to the authority of the US Government, not just citizens; the few rights we don't also apply to non-citizens are the exception, not the rule.

9 - So to deter immigration...you're going to hurt American citizens by killing the social safety net? by harming jobs somehow? A social safety net supported in part by immigrant workers, including undocumented workers who contribute more than 11B$ annually into a system they do not get to benefit from? Oh yeah...that's right. you think they just sit on welfare. news flash: that's another BS talking point not grounded in reality. also, immigrants only ever boost the economy , even when underpaid (yes, they should be able to work openly, or at least report bad working conditions that they current cannot because of threat of deportation; but taking away their jobs entirely only hurts things, not helps.) the fact they come here for jobs is a sign of the strength of our economy. you cant actually "turn off the magnet" without harming our own country.

10 - total BS talking point rooted in racism and xenophobia. "historic norms" would be immigration levels far above today's levels . Immigration helps the country, period , and restricting it as we have actually is a drag on the economy. Legal immigration is practically impossible for the majority of those seeking opportunity, ie, poor or poverty stricken. but if you're rich, or semi rich, or connected, it's easy. Hell, the really rich literally get to just buy their citizenship . what was that about "borders" and "not having a country?" oh yeah...just more xenophobic bigotry that ignores the fact that the rich already live in

Don't trust an Aussie website to get the facts of US law correct. The Atlantic, no fan of Trump, even admits that the President is exempt from conflict of interest laws. The Boston Globe, which endorsed Clinton for President, also confirms the exemption.

The point is that if you take the position that the intelligence community was truthful on Iraq and the only people who lied were Bush and Cheney, then Clinton's vote wasn't just "a mistake", it was a deliberate and callous choice.

In any case, what actually happened is slightly more complex. The intelligence report came in two versions, one classified, one unclassified. The unclassified report was misrepresenting the situation, and that's all Hillary ever bothered to read. That means that Trump is justified in distrusting intelligence reports and Clinton showed a callous disregard for American lives by not doing her homework on such an important issue. That is, both the intelligence community and Hillary come out of the Iraq vote like a basket of deplorables, and "I made a mistake" doesn't cut it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/int...

Now remind me who blocked him from closing down gitmo...

No one can block the President from doing whatever he wants with the military. He is the Commander in Chief, remember? And Guantanamo is a military prison — that's the whole reason it was used by Bush to hold foreign combatants out of reach of America's civil legal system.

So, yes, Obama could have just let all of the inmates loose. Into Cuba or into Antarctica or anywhere else... Or he could've killed them — the way he deliberately killed tens and hundreds of would-be detainees to avoid having to explain to his base, why Guantanamo population is growing... Including Osama bin Laden.

Thanks Trump!

Don't forget Bush! Obama inherited DEA from his predecessor, didn't he? 8 years of Presidency is not enough to fix a federal law-enforcement agency, especially if you pick Attorney Generals for their Social Justice credentials, rather than the ability to run a sizeable organization. (An ability, Obama himself never had either.)

And, unlike closing Guantanamo, Obama never even promised to reign-in the Drug Enforcement Administration — so we can't hold him responsible for its abuses, can we?

china is an ascendant power.
they have the worlds largest economy.
they have the worlds fastest growing economy, growing at 8% GDP year after year for the past 14 years or so, including during the global recession.

they even surpassed the US in Purchasing Power Parity , giving rise to a new ascendant middle class in their country.
many European nations had already done so, having more social programs that support people and so stretch their money further.
But the fact china, seen still as a 3rd world hell hole by many (ignorant) americans, has also done it now.

China has in fact been a bit help with NK, being one of the few countries capable of restraining them, that NK is willing to listen to.

Start a fight?
Yes.
They very well might.

Learn your history, specifically Thucydides’s Trap.

We risk China being the Athens to our Sparta, even without Trump throwing all diplomatic caution to the wind.
Hint: it didn't turn out well for Sparta, nor most of the rest of the greek peninsula.

As a (non-Chinese) American, I'd gladly migrate to China.

Good for you, as a Chinese American that doesn't speak chinese, I'm generally unwelcome in China. They apparently are mostly looking for people like you. They mostly look at me as a lazy deskjockey...

Given that you are offering $12/hr cash payment to evade taxes

Nonsense. I am paying MORE taxes. If I pay cash, then the cost of hiring that person is not a deductible expense. So I pay the taxes, not the worker. I am almost certainly in a higher bracket.

Nonsense returned: There is absolutely nothing preventing you from deducting your business expenses that are paid in cash. Of course if you aren't paying into the Social Security program for them, and you aren't paying into Unemployment Insurance, then you would not want to draw attention to your own tax evasion while encouraging theirs, hence you forego your expense deduction.

b. The workers aren't getting credits towards Social Security so no retirement "safety net" for them.

They are illegals. They don't get benefits from these programs, so why should they pay into them?

Do you mean "Why should they obey the law?" Or do you mean "Why shouldn't I take advantage of their tenuous position and profit illegally from their status as undocumented workers?"

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/

Workers who are paid illegally in cash can still pay their taxes with an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN), filing a return just like any other taxpayer; having a history of paying taxes can be an important step in securing legal status. In 2010, about 3 million people paid over $870 million in income taxes using an ITIN, and according to the IRS, ITIN filers pay $9 billion in payroll taxes annually. (The IRS says it does not share ITIN information with immigration authorities.)

And as for your concluding statement:

That is a lot better than picking tomatoes in Chiapas.

Your analysis has just reached the bottom of the barrel.

when is brittain planning to copy this one?

Well, Twitter is already doing it, in America too — an early bird, so to speak. But, hey, they are a private company, so we have no need to worry, right?

Well, the new generation of citizens is being accustomed to censoring selves and others in colleges — including professors — so, in 10-20 years, you'll have it world-wide, US and other elements of the British empire included.

when is brittain planning to copy this one?

Well, Twitter is already doing it, in America too — an early bird, so to speak. But, hey, they are a private company, so we have no need to worry, right?

Well, the new generation of citizens is being accustomed to censoring selves and others in colleges — including professors — so, in 10-20 years, you'll have it world-wide, US and other elements of the British empire included.

A single dose of magic mushrooms can make people with severe anxiety and depression better for months, according to a landmark pair of new studies.

Research into cannabis, MDMA, LSD, etc was the most promising area of psychiatric research in the 1950s. A mental health revolution was on the horizon until a bunch of non-scientists got involved and shut the whole thing down.

A single dose of magic mushrooms can make people with severe anxiety and depression better for months, according to a landmark pair of new studies.

The fish will pay!
Because climate change is a hoax...
By the chinese.
Uh, but seriously, he says whatever it takes to distract. He actually says one thing and then appoints a a team of climate change deniers to the most key positions of his cabinet.
And all of this might just be intended to distract the public from his conflicts of interest.

Without California Hilliary wouldn't have won the popular vote. She won California by over 2 million votes, a total higher than she got for the US overall. California is so overwhelmingly liberal that I don't think Trump even bothered with it knowing that it was hopeless. This is what the electoral college was designed specifically for, to preserve the power of the smaller states so that they don't become marginalized. Worked exactly as designed.

How does the EC "de-marginalize" the "smaller states" (which mean "states with smaller POPULATION"), when those "Smaller States" ALSO have less EC Votes?!?

No, the EC just centralizes POWER in a smaller, much-more CORRUPTABLE, group of Governmental Sycophants, who are all-too-often FREE TO IGNORE the will of the citizenry, and vote what is best for THEM PERSONALLY, F* the Unwashed!

What is unique about this particular election is that the NUMBER of REAL ("Popular") votes that the EC "loser" actually WON by is, by far, the largest in history. In fact, more than twice as large as the next-largest difference (2000).

A difference of well-over 1 percent of the entire voting electorate should not be able to be subverted by an Electoral College comprised of .0002% (538) of the population of Americans of Voting Age (235,248,000 in 2012). To reach any other conclusion is ridiculous.

This happened to IBM once before: http://www.theatlantic.com/tec...

It's not that women have no drive but it is quite a bit weaker than men's.

what?

(sources abound)

TOTALLY AGREE. As an ex-military NCO with top secret security clearance - requiring quarterly briefings and signed documents attesting to your understanding of the responsibilities and penalties - I am fully aware of the offenses and penalties for abridging the classified document handling procedures.
INTENT is NOT a requirement, only that it HAPPENED by the person's personal choice and their own volition.
THIS, along with being a well-entrenched part of the 'establishment', is what cost "Hillary - dillary - can't touch me - I'm a politician, a lawyer, and I'm rich" the election, even though the choice was an agonizing one of the 'known devil' vs the 'perceived devil'.

Take a trip down memory lane with the following: (some pro, many con'vict')
http://rense.com/general80/hop...
http://www.wnd.com/2000/04/447...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
https://peterfrancisgeracilaw....
https://www.truthorfiction.com...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/...
http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://conservativeamerican.or...
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

Americans have made their choice, whether through the electoral college or the basic raw vote count - - - being tilted a bit in Hillary's favor, but with the small margin still showing an inherent distrust of the entrenched 2-party system - either side is the same, just a bit different on the talking points - - - basically, the same old shit !

News reports already seem to indicate that president-elect Trump is willing to accept new information and alter his 'campaign promises __LOL__ ' in order to get down to the actual business of running the country.

I'm expecting a lot more "reality checks" as he approaches the White House - like Obama's promise to shut down Gitmo, it sounds simple enough, until you learn all the facts.

This. You could see the same with Obama: remarkable continuity in many respects in comparison with the previous administration. There can be many reasons for this, and his ideas not being as progressive as some think is only a small part. You learn to take in account factors you disregarded before: for instance you can't cross the pentagon and you have to support the Saudis . And even where you think you could make changes, it turns out you don't have the power. There's a remarkable long interview Obama had with Jeffrey Goldberg where it it transpires if often didn't agree with his own policies ( http://www.theatlantic.com/mag... ). And of course Obama does appear to take on the role a bit of a manager who doesn't interfere unless people do something very stupid.

So in many respects it's possible Trump won't make much difference. But I think it's hard to predict. If he does make a lot of difference it will be because there are big players supporting him. For instance I think Trump can succeed in bringing us closer to Russia because "after all, Russia is peanuts and the real enemy is China". As long as we have an official enemy, the big players can go along.

Trump's going to fix that thin ice, and his supporters are ready to help.

http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

But, if you want to discuss the electoral college and the popular vote we can. There's nothing wrong with people in cities having a lot of votes if there are people there. It is in only because those people don't vote the way you like that you have the opinion you do. Moreover, the actual cause for an electoral college was primarily two things: First, to prevent populist demagogues by having another layer between the population and the electorate. Hamilton discussed this in Federalist 68 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp. In that context, having an electoral college that just votes the way the state popular vote directs it to is exactly counter to that goal. Second, the electoral college preserved the power of the slave states http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar. It should be clear why the second reason is not acceptable.

And if you really want to look at the "popular vote" numbers, you have to take into account the number of votes the Dems should not have gotten due to fraud such as illegal immigrants voting. The D's cheated and STILL lost. Their policies are obviously so popular that they're now trying to implement them by force.

Thank you for giving an excellent further example of the complete disregard for facts that some on the right are demonstrating. There is essentially zero evidence of any substantial immigration voting. See for example here http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-noncitizen-voters-20161025-snap-story.html. Facts matter. And if you want to play that game then it is worth noting that massive numbers of legitimate votes in swing states were disenfranchised due to voter ID restrictions, and even federal judges agree that many of those restrictions were designed to deliberately target minorities. Look for example at North Carolina http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/. Again, facts matter. There's a good argument for not using the popular vote in this *specific election* because we have a system right now, and we don't know if it would have ended up this way if Hillary and Trump had focused on turning out the maximum number of voters rather than voters in swing states, but that's a distinct issue that's completely removed from the basic facts.

Wikipedia isn't reliable. Try here a newspaper with editorial staff subject to corrections, or here a christian research organization which confirms an estimated 19.44% chinese population vs global.

They're still counting the popular vote, but she's ahead and her lead is only likely to grow. Yes, we're well aware this doesn't matter, but I'm mostly just desperate for the concept of "accurate information" to survive into 2017. That is, unless you distrust a journal that's existed for 159 years as being part of a propaganda machine, and instead can only trust a decade-old online publication run by the campaign CEO of one of the candidates.

The law in case requires treatment of what is nothing but medical waste as if it were a dead body.

Throughout the law in case, legislators explicitly removed ANY limitation of gestation time or any choice from the pregnant women on the matter - making it a law that 1-week, 2-week or 20-week abortion MUST be treated the same as a body of a grown human being.
It MUST be issued a burial transit permit and it MUST be either buried in a graveyard (i.e. interred) or cremated - at the expense of the clinic or the parent(s).
It cannot be disposed of as what it is - medical waste. As was the case prior to that law.

Furthermore, law requires informing the parent(s) of the "fetus" about "counseling that may be available concerning the death of the miscarried fetus".
Which is treating a removed cyst as if it is a dead human. And if the human is dead due to a surgery, that means someone killed it.
I.e. Abortion is murder.

Also, parent(s) are required to sign off on the "final disposition of the miscarried fetus" - i.e. the burial.
Thus, the law DOES require families to hold funerals (as only licensed funeral facilities may conduct burials of human bodies) - if they chose not to have the burial of the "fetus" taken care of by the clinic.
In which case, the clinic must bare the costs of the procedure - IF they can even find someone willing to do the "interment or cremation".
Cause while on one side there is an active campaign against anything abortion related in that state, on the other there is no money in it for the funeral homes.
For either of those reasons, they tend to refuse to provide burial services to clinics.

"We're all figuring it out," said Patti Stauffer, the vice president of policy at Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. So far, she hasn't had much luck finding potential funeral homes and cemeteries - a lot of the businesses she's called have told her no. "It's not like we have hundreds of people that are interested in working with us," she said.

That doesn't mean implementing the law won't be logistically challenging, though. "There's going to be a lot of man hours involved," said Curtis Rostad, the executive director of the Indiana Funeral Directors Association. "I think a lot of funeral homes are going to be doing a lot of man hours to do this, for not a lot of income."

Which in practice leaves clinics with a single solution - to shift the burden of the burial of the "fetus" onto the patient.
"Fetus" must be treated as a dead body...
Clinics can't find a business partner to do it for them...
But a patient can simply walk into a funeral home with their burial transit permit and their bag of medical waste and have the "fetus" interred or cremated. Yay!

I.e. Either the parent(s) must take the "body" to a funeral home and have it buried at their own expense - OR the clinics will be forced to have parents take the body to a funeral home and have it buried at their own expense.
Or clinics can simply close. That's an option too.
Just like coat hangers and falling off a stool are an option.

This was so crazy that I had to look it up. Turns out "hold a funeral" is "dispose of remains properly" -- the bill required that fetal remains be either interred or incinerated. Generally speaking that would be the responsibility of the healthcare facility in custody of the remains.

You are understating what that actually means.

Here’s what will happen after a woman gets an abortion in the state of Indiana, starting this July. She will be told, verbally and in writing, that she has the right to choose what she does with her aborted fetus. She will be given a list of her options for disposal, and offered counseling. The fetus does not have to be named, but it will receive its own burial-transit form, just like any dead body. This form will travel with it to a funeral home, where it will be buried or cremated. There won’t necessarily be a ceremony; the fetus may not get its own headstone or urn. But it will be laid to rest in the way of a human. Aborted fetuses in Indiana, nearly all smaller than a peapod, will no longer be treated as medical waste.
The Atlantic: State-Mandated Mourning for Aborted Fetuses

Tell me straight, is "require families to hold a funeral" truly the most accurate and reasonable way you could come up with to indicate the nature of the bill, or is it a purposeful deception?

I'd say requiring that it be laid to rest like a fully-formed human is pretty much the equivalent of a funeral. There isn't necessarily a priest reading passages from the bible nor people dressed in black, but it is significantly more elaborate and requires much more involvement from the mother than previously.

And that was the point of the law wasn't it? Why make any changes at all if not otherwise to solemnize the process in the mind of the mother?

CA wouldn't know how to survive without tax welfare.

You're kidding, right? California is no where near the top when talking about how much the state sends in tax dollars versus how much it receives from the federal government.

What? Several black churches were burned to the ground and N** sprayed painted everywhere. The KKK's brand of racism is alive and well.

You know, it's quite a coincidence that these attacks only occur during Presidential elections and only when Democrats are having a hard time 'motivating' black voters tiger to the polls and vote...

Except that burning down African-American churches is not something that only occurs during presidential elections. In fact, it happens all the time. We just notice it more during elections.

Here, for example are some stories from early 2015: http://www.theatlantic.com/nat...
and https://www.washingtonpost.com...
and https://www.washingtonpost.com...
and https://www.splcenter.org/hate...

And yet under the new deal, there was the concept of fair. Businesses were not allowed to grow so big as to become unfair competition by cornering the market and reaping robber-baron profits while paying ever-dwindling wages because there is no competition for labour in a monopoly environment.

This is a long read, but it lays out the blame for the current situation, and how post-Watergate democrats killed the New Deal and sucked the cock of big business and big finance.

I mean, one in three people has an IQ in or below the low 90s, and over one in three people believes in ghosts. Given humans' inbuilt gravitation towards lying demagogues, I'm frankly heartened that only one in three Californians fell for Trump's con artistry. I think they'd do just fine as a country, and would probably be so kind as to provide their population of erstwhile Trump supporters free mental health services.

and I personally wouldn't mind to see my taxes support my own state, not some farmer in Nebraska.

Well, according to this article http://www.theatlantic.com/bus... California is already at 1:1 in terms of return on federal taxes while Nebraska is at 0.5:1, meaning they only get half back of what they put in. Additional farming states like Oklahoma, Ohio, Kansas, and Illinois are also getting less back. So your taxes ARE supporting your state and apparently no farmers elsewhere.

Well according to this http://www.theatlantic.com/bus... California is nearly 1:1 - so not much of a taker or a contributor. Some solid red states like Kansas and Nebraska get much less back than they put in though. Oregon, at solid blue, is second from the top for the highest pull on food stamps as percent of population. South Carolina gets the greatest return at nearly 8:1 while "meth capitols" like Missouri and Illinois are at the bottom with roughly 1:1 and 0.5:1 respectively. You can't simply equate percent of population on food stamps with the amount returned though since federal dollars enter back in to states for all sorts of reasons beyond safety net. High percentage food stamp states like Oregon rank in the middle at about 1.25:1 in terms of states that get back more than they put in. My armchair view is that there seems to be little to do with red vs blue and more to do with the "pork" influence of the representatives elected by the states.

You are quite wrong - look at the real numbers Californian's pay more in taxes proportionally than they receive back in benefits from the federal govt.

It's the bible belt states, Trump's big supporters, who really suck at the teat of federal government, paid for by those very people in California you deride

REF: http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...

What other parts of the Constitution is it time to 'get rid of'???

The first amendment, apparently. Maybe a little of the second amendment. The pesky fourth still needs some trimming, and the fifth gets in the way of mandatory death sentences. Since we're making edits, why not tweak the sixth amendment too?

Totalitarianism doesn't like technology, except as a means to oppress.

Absolutely fscking true.

I guess this is how democracy dies, to thundering applause.

We may have a sexist buffoon for a president now, but at least democracy has a chance for another four years.

What country is this? I keep being told that Christmas is being cancelled in this country but it just seems to get bigger every year instead.

When Starbucks brings out a plain red cup, replacing one with a snowflake, we get a war on Christmas:

http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...

When they brought out one pertaining to the election, we get more somehow

http://religionnews.com/2016/1...

But don't worry, the next president of the US of A has weighed in on this matter:

http://www.syracuse.com/politi...

When we embrace the insanity, we become insane.

And if the color of a coffee cup is an attack on a person's very being, we call that a psychotic break.

I see a red cup and think that's a red cup.

This woman won 6 of 6 coin tosses to beat Bernie in Iowa.

That is incorrect information that was pushed by the media in initial frenzy of reporting, but completely debunked. Here's the Iowa Register story, which I would the most accurate source for information in Iowa: http://www.desmoinesregister.c...

According to the Register, the report of Hillary winning six coin flips came from social media. Of the seven coin flips to break ties that were actually officially reported through the voting app, Sanders won six, and Clinton one. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/...

Here's a more interesting question: since Clinton did not in fact win a majority of coin tosses, what are the statistical chances that coin flips that happened to get reported in on social media would suggest that she did?

Another link: http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...