Actually in Oregon and Washington at least assisted suicide it legal under certain circumstances. In Oregon 2 doctors have to certify that you probably have less than 6 months to live. Then you can get a prescription for a fatal dose of barbiturates that you must swallow yourself at a time of your choosing.
Money doesn't always buy elections. There are plenty of other factors that can get in the way of it. I doubt though that the Governors elections in Oregon and California would have even been as close as they were if Chris Dudley and Meg Whitman has spent the same amount as their opponents. As I said, name recognition is important in elections and spending money is one way to improve that. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
True, but this was California. Some of the things that being Republican forced her to say are not very popular there. Here in Oregon the R, Chris Dudley (the former NBA Center) lost a close race even though he outspent the Democrat by several million dollars (like 7M to 4M). Dudley's big faux pas was to say we should eliminate the minimum wage. A decade ago Oregonians voted overwhelmingly to set a minimum wage that is automatically adjusted for inflation yearly.
I think money is more effective in low key races where name recognition is important.
Meg Whitman spending her own money on her campaign is not independent expenditures. Independent expenditure is money spent by someone outside of a campaign without coordination with the campaign.
This past election cycle over $400 million was spent on independent expenditures. The US Chamber of Commerce by itself spent something like $34 million. All corporate donations, some of it may have been foreign donations. As of Wednesday, October 27 conservative non-party organizations had spent some $176.5 million vs. liberal non-party organizations including unions spending some $81.6 million. One thing about unions, I believe they are required by law to allow their members to opt-out of contributing to the unions political activities.
Last January Anthony Kennedy, the author of the Citizens United opinion wrote:
“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”
It sounds to me like he naively believed that there would be automatic disclosure. I think given that there is a good chance a full disclosure law would be found constitutional.
I've never considered how the town halls are paid for but I just sent a message to him asking so I may have an answer for you next week. I don't imagine they are very expensive to run. In most counties they're probably held in the gym of a local school or some other low cost venue. There is no admission charged for them and anyone is welcome to attend up the the carrying capacity of the venue. They are not political events in the sense that he is campaigning for reelection at them. He is there to listen and respond to his constituents concerns. Of course the perception that he is willing to listen to them doesn't hurt his reelection chances.
I don't have a problem with individuals spending their own money on their own campaign although if I think they're trying to buy the election by massively outspending their opponent they're less likely to get my vote.
Corporations, unions and other associations should be required to fully disclose any money they spend on political speech so their stockholders/members are aware of where their money is going. The Senate R's filibustered a bill that would have required that a month or two ago.
While I agree with your previous post about population control I read somewhere (and don't have a citation) that it would take a solar array about 40 miles square to provide all of the worlds power. That's a far cry from paving over half the states.
If human CO2 output from fossil fuel burning dropped to zero tomorrow it would take 50 or 100 years for temperatures to stabilize, mainly because of the large heat sink of the oceans. It could take 500 or 1000 years or more for all of the effects such as ice melting to be fully realized.
What is this regulation that makes it illegal to deny a mortgage application from someone not qualified to receive it? I've never heard of such a thing. Please provide a citation.
The weather is more important to you than you may think. It can have huge effects food production for instance. The Russian wheat harvest is expected to be down 27% this year because of the heat wave/drought there this past summer. It's also down in China and Canada.
What they said about the record snowfall in DC is that it did nothing to disprove global warming. A little different meaning than your take. As you pointed out it was not a regional record. Warmer air does hold more water vapor which can lead to greater precipitation. Have you ever noticed that it usually doesn't snow much when it gets really cold, say below 10F. The colder the air temperature the drier it is.
Well, Ron Wyden appeared to pay attention to me just fine the two times I've talked to him briefly. We don't always agree on things and he has other constituents to listen too. One thing that Wyden is famous for here is that he holds a town hall meeting in every county of the state at least once a year and pays attention to their concerns. (If you don't know about Oregon, 2/3's of the state, east of the Cascade Mountains is hard core Republican). It showed in this past election. Wyden won 57-43% while the Governor's race was won by less than 1%.
I suspect if you took those against the PPAAC Act and divided them into those who thought it went too far and those who thought it didn't go far enough you would find that, with the people who favored the bill, substantially more than half the population wanted that bill or something stronger.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. Perhaps you value money more than I do. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I recall some past posts of yours that I heartily agree with so I'm not just a contrarian.
BTW, I don't think of myself as a troll. I'm just giving my honest opinion. But sometimes I get persistent about replying if you consider that trolling.
I don't think the fact that the bill is similar to Dole's proposal has anything to do with it getting passed. I just pointed out that it's not that different from Republican proposals in the past.
I don't give a damn about which team wins. I care about results. I think the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is terrible because it didn't go far enough. It should have at least allowed me to buy my health insurance through Medicare if I choose to. Instead it gives health insurance companies a bunch of guaranteed customers. But it's better than what we've had up to now.
As a person suffering from one of those dreaded preexisting conditions (type II diabetes) if I wasn't employed I'd have a difficult time getting affordable insurance coverage without it if I wasn't covered by my employers plan.
You may not want to help cover people who can't afford the medical care they need but in fact you are already doing so because hospitals have to charge enough to cover the cost of people who use the emergency room (the most expensive place to get it) for their medical care and then don't pay. In the US we pay nearly twice as much for medical care as any other comparable nation (18% of GDP vs. 10% of GDP). The only way we could make the costs comparable with our current system is if we denied emergency care to someone who couldn't pay. That's a moral place I'm not willing to go to.
Well, my comment was mostly a snark, trying to be funny.
But people may have better access to information today but that doesn't necessarily mean they take advantage of it. Many people are too lazy (or too busy living their lives) to spend any time trying to understand the issues that we face. They just take their opinions from some authority figure. I doubt the percentage of the population that is knowledgeable about political issues is much different today then it was at the time of the Revolution. One of the most intelligent people I have ever met only had a 5th grade formal education.
You still equate money with free speech. Where is the 1st Amendment does it mention money? Soros and the Koch brothers should each have as much free speech as I have, no more, no less. If they spend money to drown me out then they are abridging my right to free speech. If they spend money to get more of my representatives attention than I can get then they are abridging my rights.
As I said before, money is not free speech but merely an amplifier of speech.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say unions have direct control over voters.
Corps give to those in power to further their own interests. I don't think they gave more to Dem's this past election cycle like they did in 2008. Also because of the SCOTUS Citizens United decision there were massive independent expenditures that were mostly on the Rep's side this year.
And rather than thousands or millions of individual lawsuits by individuals against big polluters we collectively assert our right to clean air and water through our government. It's much more efficient that way.
And a technical point. Often you don't own the mineral rights under your property and you have no right to prevent aircraft from using the air over your property (above 500 feet I think).
Yes, that was the point. I'm not sure I agree with it any more. California has one Senator for about each 18,500,000 people while Wyoming has one Senator for about each 272,000 people. That's pretty unbalanced. If Senators are meant to represent a state as an entity then they should have to consult with state government instead of the people.
Yes, there are lots of ways of circumventing detection, my main point was if you've got something to hide the internet may not be the safest way to transmit the information.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, if you can't swallow you can't use the law. But the pills can be crushed up and mixed in liquid to make the dose easier to swallow.
Actually in Oregon and Washington at least assisted suicide it legal under certain circumstances. In Oregon 2 doctors have to certify that you probably have less than 6 months to live. Then you can get a prescription for a fatal dose of barbiturates that you must swallow yourself at a time of your choosing.
Money doesn't always buy elections. There are plenty of other factors that can get in the way of it. I doubt though that the Governors elections in Oregon and California would have even been as close as they were if Chris Dudley and Meg Whitman has spent the same amount as their opponents. As I said, name recognition is important in elections and spending money is one way to improve that. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
The idea is that you are priming the pump.
Evolution requires more faith to believe its constantly changing "facts" than the bible.
That's the beauty of science. It adjusts itself to reality rather than trying to make reality fit it's preconceived notions.
True, but this was California. Some of the things that being Republican forced her to say are not very popular there. Here in Oregon the R, Chris Dudley (the former NBA Center) lost a close race even though he outspent the Democrat by several million dollars (like 7M to 4M). Dudley's big faux pas was to say we should eliminate the minimum wage. A decade ago Oregonians voted overwhelmingly to set a minimum wage that is automatically adjusted for inflation yearly.
I think money is more effective in low key races where name recognition is important.
Isn't the opposite of progress congress?
Meg Whitman spending her own money on her campaign is not independent expenditures. Independent expenditure is money spent by someone outside of a campaign without coordination with the campaign.
This past election cycle over $400 million was spent on independent expenditures. The US Chamber of Commerce by itself spent something like $34 million. All corporate donations, some of it may have been foreign donations. As of Wednesday, October 27 conservative non-party organizations had spent some $176.5 million vs. liberal non-party organizations including unions spending some $81.6 million. One thing about unions, I believe they are required by law to allow their members to opt-out of contributing to the unions political activities.
Last January Anthony Kennedy, the author of the Citizens United opinion wrote:
“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”
It sounds to me like he naively believed that there would be automatic disclosure. I think given that there is a good chance a full disclosure law would be found constitutional.
I've never considered how the town halls are paid for but I just sent a message to him asking so I may have an answer for you next week. I don't imagine they are very expensive to run. In most counties they're probably held in the gym of a local school or some other low cost venue. There is no admission charged for them and anyone is welcome to attend up the the carrying capacity of the venue. They are not political events in the sense that he is campaigning for reelection at them. He is there to listen and respond to his constituents concerns. Of course the perception that he is willing to listen to them doesn't hurt his reelection chances.
I don't have a problem with individuals spending their own money on their own campaign although if I think they're trying to buy the election by massively outspending their opponent they're less likely to get my vote.
Corporations, unions and other associations should be required to fully disclose any money they spend on political speech so their stockholders/members are aware of where their money is going. The Senate R's filibustered a bill that would have required that a month or two ago.
While I agree with your previous post about population control I read somewhere (and don't have a citation) that it would take a solar array about 40 miles square to provide all of the worlds power. That's a far cry from paving over half the states.
If human CO2 output from fossil fuel burning dropped to zero tomorrow it would take 50 or 100 years for temperatures to stabilize, mainly because of the large heat sink of the oceans. It could take 500 or 1000 years or more for all of the effects such as ice melting to be fully realized.
What is this regulation that makes it illegal to deny a mortgage application from someone not qualified to receive it? I've never heard of such a thing. Please provide a citation.
And yet it's been raining from Anchorage to Barrow in Alaska.
The weather is more important to you than you may think. It can have huge effects food production for instance. The Russian wheat harvest is expected to be down 27% this year because of the heat wave/drought there this past summer. It's also down in China and Canada.
What they said about the record snowfall in DC is that it did nothing to disprove global warming. A little different meaning than your take. As you pointed out it was not a regional record. Warmer air does hold more water vapor which can lead to greater precipitation. Have you ever noticed that it usually doesn't snow much when it gets really cold, say below 10F. The colder the air temperature the drier it is.
Well, Ron Wyden appeared to pay attention to me just fine the two times I've talked to him briefly. We don't always agree on things and he has other constituents to listen too. One thing that Wyden is famous for here is that he holds a town hall meeting in every county of the state at least once a year and pays attention to their concerns. (If you don't know about Oregon, 2/3's of the state, east of the Cascade Mountains is hard core Republican). It showed in this past election. Wyden won 57-43% while the Governor's race was won by less than 1%.
I suspect if you took those against the PPAAC Act and divided them into those who thought it went too far and those who thought it didn't go far enough you would find that, with the people who favored the bill, substantially more than half the population wanted that bill or something stronger.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. Perhaps you value money more than I do. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I recall some past posts of yours that I heartily agree with so I'm not just a contrarian.
BTW, I don't think of myself as a troll. I'm just giving my honest opinion. But sometimes I get persistent about replying if you consider that trolling.
I don't think the fact that the bill is similar to Dole's proposal has anything to do with it getting passed. I just pointed out that it's not that different from Republican proposals in the past.
I don't give a damn about which team wins. I care about results. I think the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is terrible because it didn't go far enough. It should have at least allowed me to buy my health insurance through Medicare if I choose to. Instead it gives health insurance companies a bunch of guaranteed customers. But it's better than what we've had up to now.
As a person suffering from one of those dreaded preexisting conditions (type II diabetes) if I wasn't employed I'd have a difficult time getting affordable insurance coverage without it if I wasn't covered by my employers plan.
You may not want to help cover people who can't afford the medical care they need but in fact you are already doing so because hospitals have to charge enough to cover the cost of people who use the emergency room (the most expensive place to get it) for their medical care and then don't pay. In the US we pay nearly twice as much for medical care as any other comparable nation (18% of GDP vs. 10% of GDP). The only way we could make the costs comparable with our current system is if we denied emergency care to someone who couldn't pay. That's a moral place I'm not willing to go to.
Well, my comment was mostly a snark, trying to be funny.
But people may have better access to information today but that doesn't necessarily mean they take advantage of it. Many people are too lazy (or too busy living their lives) to spend any time trying to understand the issues that we face. They just take their opinions from some authority figure. I doubt the percentage of the population that is knowledgeable about political issues is much different today then it was at the time of the Revolution. One of the most intelligent people I have ever met only had a 5th grade formal education.
When they use their wealth to gain more attention from my representatives than I can get then they're abridging my rights.
Jeremy has it right.
You still equate money with free speech. Where is the 1st Amendment does it mention money? Soros and the Koch brothers should each have as much free speech as I have, no more, no less. If they spend money to drown me out then they are abridging my right to free speech. If they spend money to get more of my representatives attention than I can get then they are abridging my rights.
As I said before, money is not free speech but merely an amplifier of speech.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say unions have direct control over voters.
Corps give to those in power to further their own interests. I don't think they gave more to Dem's this past election cycle like they did in 2008. Also because of the SCOTUS Citizens United decision there were massive independent expenditures that were mostly on the Rep's side this year.
And rather than thousands or millions of individual lawsuits by individuals against big polluters we collectively assert our right to clean air and water through our government. It's much more efficient that way.
And a technical point. Often you don't own the mineral rights under your property and you have no right to prevent aircraft from using the air over your property (above 500 feet I think).
Yes, that was the point. I'm not sure I agree with it any more. California has one Senator for about each 18,500,000 people while Wyoming has one Senator for about each 272,000 people. That's pretty unbalanced. If Senators are meant to represent a state as an entity then they should have to consult with state government instead of the people.
Yes, there are lots of ways of circumventing detection, my main point was if you've got something to hide the internet may not be the safest way to transmit the information.