Whatever the constitution says, it's been accepted case law that President's can authorize warrantless surveillence of foreign powers or their agents for more than 25 years. That would include foreign agents acting solely within the United States. That decision has been upheld on every appeal (Truong, 1980)
That being said, this is only for issues related to foreign matters, not domestic. So if a home grown militia group is planning some attack a warrant would be required, but if 2 or more Al Queida operatives are talking to each other, even if they are all in the US, a warrant could possibly be bypassed.
The basic rule of thumb is - Warrantless = external threat (national security) - Warrant = internal threat (law enforcement purposes)
Until the teleprompter gives out. And for the most part all those 'just words' he spouts come from David Axelrod, as is quite clear from the fact all of his previous clients used the same ones.
For all his touted speaking ability as soon as he goes off script Obama gives Bush a run for his money in the "dumbest line of the day" department. Just look up some of his off the cuff remarks on Mount Rushmore, 57 states, 10,000 dead, seeing dead people and you tube ads.
Then there's his personal stories about how his parents met in Selma (4 years after he was born), how his father made it to the US thanks to the Kennedy's (a full year before they even joined the airlift program) or how his uncle liberated Auschwitz (apparently the only American in the Red Army).
Somehow all of his inconsistancies are overlooked in the name of 'change and hope'.
It also helps that Obama is in fact ranked as the most liberal senator (according to the non-partisan National Journal).
Nationally democrats have been moving further and further to the left to try and seperate themselves from the Republicans (who kind of just float around aimlessly center right to mid right on most issues). On local fronts or when actually in office however, Dems, with the exception of their often "talk before they think leadership", tend to vote more center left because they know most of their rhetoric is just that, empty campign talk. Just look at some of the recent upsets in the house and senate, the Dems who were elected are often more conservative than their republican opponents.
Obama's entire adult life has been spent in service to shaping his political career.
From his very colorful list of friends (which include admitted terrorists, blatant racists, and corporate criminals) to his generally refuseal to take any leading stand on any divisive issue (he has a strong record of voting "present" in the Ill. legislature) he has made almost every decision based on furthering his political life.
I'm not saying he necessarily agrees with everything Rezco, Wright, Pleger or Ayers say and do, but many of his backers share enough of their values that his association with them was pretty much a prerequsite to his political run in Chicago and he made it quite clear he was more than willing to follow along as long as it was politically useful.
And like any good politician, every time he is caught it is someone elses fault. Such as the Wright fiasco where first, it was the reporters nitpicking selective events, and he was never there. Then when it was revealed that this was not an isolated event but a long history of racist preaching (including the very sermon he took as the title of his book) he began to point at anyone around him to take the blame, including the grandmother who raised him.
All I know is Obama's bus needs some servicing because will all the people he's thrown under it to help further his political goals, the suspension must be shot.
Though being governor is a fair bit more impressive then being in a job that allows you to vote "Present" whenever anything comes up that you may need to take a stand on.
I agree that Jindal needs to stay in La. though. They need the leadership and it would help him hone is leadership abilities and give him the experiences necessary to make him a real contender in the future.
VP slots are usually used to shore up the ticket by filling in an area that the Presidential candidate lacks and at present Jindal doesn't really bring that to the table. He shows a lot of promise but win or lose, I think it would be a waste to have him in this race.
These type of statement make absolutely no sense to me. Can you point out the issues where Barack support your conservative/libertarian view over McCain? For that matter can you point out issues where Barack has actually proposed legitimate solutions (not just the hope and change mantra or the "we'll make big business pay for it all").
As for "he's not (yet) part of the washington culture" claim so many people make; of course you can say that (although repitition doesn't make it true) since he's hasn't even spent a full term there yet. He is however fully engrossed in the far worse Chicago poilitical culture. The political environment that made being friends with people such a Ayers, Wright and Pfleger are requirement for any Democratic nominee.
And yes, it's hard to find a conservative politician in Washington, but electing the "Most Liberal Senator In 2007" President is not the way to find one.
I just went through there tech support circus a couple weeks ago.
I bought a new XPS system and opted for the extra RAM upgrade (4gb instead of 3) not even thinking that they would ship it with the 32bit version of Vista.
So as soon as I checked and noticed sure enough it was the 32bit install and only 3.3GB was being detected I called up to ask about why they are selling systems with upgrades they know cannot be used, as is (and yes I know you can run the PAE and access the additional RAM). I ended up talking to 5 people on the phone, each giving me a completely different 1-800/866 number for "support" and sending me along, and 1 online tech. I was 'disconnected' at least 3 times.
The online tech openly admitted they knew the OS could not handle the RAM but were more than willing to sell it and if I wanted to use the installed RAM I should just buy the 64-bit Vista (which DELL does not support). He in no uncertain terms said there was no way that he would refund even a portion of the cost of the upgrade since the hardware worked, it was simply a software issue that prevented the RAM from being used (though it was their software choice). After I compared that argument to a dealership blaming GM because their cars can't use the sonar kit they sell their customers, the conversations kind of ended.
I finally decided to give it one last try and lucked out. The sales service rep I talked to agreed that it seemed pretty odd to sell a system and push an upgrade when they know it is unusable and would cause the service agreement to become useless if the customer actually fixed themselves (installed the 64bit). So after a short conversation she simply refunded me the upgrade cost.
The whole process took about 2 hours and reminded me of the horror stories you hear of people dealing with insurance companies.
Part of the shortage is the almost militant response to the concept of "for profit" health care. There is also a very strong "lowest common denominator" mentality in Canada (a far left concept - not to be confused with liberalism) where if someone is seen to have an advantage for whatever reason, then it should be eliminated so that everyone has an equal playing field.
In general, people would rather shut down a private MRI clinic that, while charging the government the exact same cost as a public hospital per exam, makes a few dollars due to improvements in efficiency then to allow someone to actually make a dollar. I'd like to stress that these clinics charge the government and not the clients, so it's still free to the user, but because they can run a better facility with more modern equipment and less staff they can actually make money based on the standard rate.
The elimination of these clinics is directly responsible for the long wait times for these types of tests. Something that can be done in a matter of hours in an average US City can takes months up here.
Once you entirely remove the financial incentives for someone to enter the highly stressful medical profession you get a shortfall in supply. While some doctors and nurses stick around because they like the area or just love living in their country, others see the availability of much higher paying jobs elsewhere and move.
My sister-in-law is a nurse with a masters and a Nurse Practitioner certification and she has had offers to basically triple her salary if she would move south the the States but they like where they are so they decide to stay but more than a few others jump at the chance.
I've always been a proponent of the 60/40 or 70/30 model where a doctor or clinic is required to give at least 60% of their time to the public social system but is also permitted to spend 40% of their time in a for profit system. The baseline numbers would be determined by an average of procedures performed at the 100% socialized institutes.
So for example, if a doctor at a local hospital can do 100 exams in a week, a doctor at a private clinic would be required to do at least 60 as part of the social system but the other 40 they could do on a for profit basis. So 60 people who would normally be waiting in line at a hospital are serviced and 40 people who can afford to jump the line can pay a little extra to do so.
This would require strict oversight on work weeks to prevent doctors from meeting their minimum requirements and then running extended shifts to make as much money as possible on their for profit hours, which would put all patients lives at risk. But simple policies like 10am-4pm (public hours) 5pm-8pm (private hours) or certain days of he week as private (whichever works best for that particular doctor) would ensure public access to top level medical care but also allow those professional an opportunity to make more money based on their skills.
Socialized medicine is good, to a point, but is not the only solution to the many problems the various worldwide health care systems face.
Socialized medical system can be great in that they prevent people from having to go into heavy debt or declare bankruptcy just because of medical expenses but the trade off is long waits and often a lack of access.
Just to be forthright, I'm Canadian, so I've seen many of the good and bad parts of socialized medicine and from people I know from Britain, they have many of the same issues we are facing.
My mother has been in the hospital for more than 2 months now, having undergone 3 major surgeries and facing another 3-4 weeks recovery before she can finally get out. The only cost to her has been the $40 airplane ticket to fly to the hospital (a special set medical rate as the ticket is normally around $1100) and the $40 to fly home. So in her case she saves tens, and possibly hundreds of thousands in bills.
One of my old neighbors on the other hand, required knee replacement surgery but was put on a 18 month waiting list, and by the time a slot was available she required surgery to both (from the extra strain of one knee doing the work of 2 for so long). She was actually told that if she wanted it sooner (as in a matter of days or weeks, not months) she could simply cross into NY state and have it done there but that OHIP (our government plan) would not cover it. (Just FYI, the current wait time is down to just 243 days for knee replacement.)
The waiting list to get a family doctor where I live (one of the largest cities in Canada)is around 2 years, and even then it requires a recommendation to even be put on the list.
There is a good website set up by the Ontario government to see what the estimated wait time for treatment for most major ailments and tests are. (Google "Ontario Wait Times").
So while socialized medicine is great to help spare people outrageous expenses, it sacrifices speed to do so. What is needed is for someone to find the proper balance point of the social/user system so that services can be provided at a timely manner and so far it doesn't seem many (if any) countries with any significant population has truly managed to do it without bankrupting themselves in the effort.
And what does the reasoning behind your actions doesn't matter to the insurance companies or the government or even have to do with this bill? Whether because of genetics or just bad choices, once you partake of those actions you are legitimately self selecting your coverage availability.
This law is for the protection of people not already showing signs of any particular disease or not partaking of already recognized unhealthy activities who, with the increase of genetic testing could be denied coverage purely based on a genetic marker that increases their odds by a percentage point or two through no fault of their own.
And yes it is a form of socialized health care in that it creates a line in the sand over which the government is dictating to private insures that they cannot pass, where a truly free market system would allow coverage determination to be based on every available criteria, but it's a line apparently enough people support to make it law.
This bill protects against genetic predisposition NOT actions.
If you choose to drink or smoke your ACTIONS dictate you belong to a higher risk group. If you have a genetic predisposition to become addicted but through will power choose not to your risk is not elevated. The same goes for overeating for people with a genetic tendency for diabetes.
The basic idea of the bill is that you can still use lifestyle based evaluations and pre-existing conditions to calculate an insurance premium, you just can't use genetic evaluations on the possible likelihood of certain diseases to adjust current rates. Since thats the way the system is right now I'm not sure how this will cause rates to go up.
When genetic tests actually get to the point of being able to identify potential disease candidates to a closer to 100% certainty, as opposed to the current "2 to 3 times more likely" type tests, then maybe this bill will need to be revised/revoked.
Using this logic nothing would ever get done, which when it comes to most politicians is not exactly a bad thing, but still.
Just substitute almost any other concept into the equation and you can see how useful the idea of not doing anything unless you can go directly for the ultimate solution is.
'Why rebuild and reinforce the New Orleans levees when we could just raise the entire city to a level that is safely above the water line. As soon as that is done they will become obsolete.'
For that matter, even if there were government instituted health protection, without a policy such as this in place those with genetic predispositions for specific ailments could still be required to pay additional fees/higher taxes.
Most 'new' legislation isn't really all that new but tend to be just a few new ideas thrown on top of pre-existing law. So before you can get to the comprehensive government protected health care plan you seen to advocate you need stuff like this to lay the groundwork.
You left out the part that studies also show the less education you receive the more like a person is to be "Liberal".
In general "Conservatives" are more likely to have graduated high school and/or have a bachelor degrees while "liberals" are higher represented in the high school drop out and Masters/PhD's categories. Although in almost all categories (except the drop out rate which tends to lean Liberal by up to 20% more than Conservative)) the variance is usually less than 10%.
PEW has some good studies that compare political leanings to happiness, education and almost anything else you can think of.
$1.7+ billion is a hell of a lot of money in my world; and thats just US grants. Thats up from the single and barely double digit millions in the 80's. Where do you think all this money goes if not to the researchers? Yes a lot of it is used on equipment and other necessities but it is also what many of these researchers live on.
I've know a few people who have lived off of grants and done quite well for themselves. I had two profs in university who got research grants (in comp sci and math not environmental studies) and even they were amazed at how much they were given and the complete lack of accountability. And those were in fields where the findings had to be more or less concrete. For most environmental studies all you need to do is produce a model that 'proves' your thesis. The fact that people 3 doors down have a completely different model to prove theirs is inconsequential; neither can be truly tested in the real world and by the time the theories are tested (which for most of these models is in the length of decades) no one will care. As long as you cross your "t"'s and dotted your "i"'s most of those paper will pass peer review; hence the global warming causes hurricanes/global warming reduces hurricanes stories we've all seen in just the last year. Both based on peer reviewed studies done by serious researchers.
Even more telling though was the fact that the one voice who came out saying GW, if it exists, would have no impact on the occurrence or ferocity of hurricanes was decried by people like you who take the church of GW as the end all be all of science as being a fraud and crazy even though he presented his research and was considered an expert in his field (as are many of the other GW detractors) but since the word at the time was "NO, GW will cause the south eastern US to be wiped off the map if we don't all start driving Priuses")he was ignored. Then lo and behold, a relatively calm hurricane season with no real newsworthy events (exactly as he predicted) and then suddenly the new line changed to "GW will cause all the air to stop flowing and hurricanes to cease".
And I just have to laugh at your "-ALL- non-coporate scientists have come to the conclusion" line. In fact when the numbers are actually totaled it's not even a majority, at least not based on their actual findings. Most studies done on global warming come to the same conclusion = "maybe, but if so, we're not sure why". Its the politicians and various other interested parties who take inconclusive findings (such as a satellite photo of a smaller ice cap which in and of itself has no meaning) and try to build a great global conspiracy around it. The IPCC report from last year being a shining example of just this. The summary, being the only part journalists and the general public ever read, was written by bureaucrats, NOT the scientists themselves, and comes to conclusions not supported by the actual findings. But people hold that up as an example of scientific consensus.
This has been going on for years and covers every field of study. Holding a belief in something, even if you are a scientist, does not mean that you can prove it and saying it's so, even though your research does not actually show it to be necessarily true, does not make it any more a scientific fact then the belief that the sun revolves around the earth.
Scientists who happen to receive funding from energy companies = frauds Scientists who happen to receive money from the government = beyond reproach Scientists who do not receive money from energy companies but also happen to disagree with GW = those you just want to ignore
The entire grant system is based on the idea that what a particular researcher wants to study is of some importance to the rest of the community and therefore worth government funds. The more important, the more funds. By its very nature it is designed to fall victim to people who are willing to hype a particular cause in order to ensure more money for their particular field of study. And the dollar amounts for single grants can easily boost a researchers income by 50% or more.
Does that mean that all researchers are willing to sell themselves out for the almighty dollar, of course not, but it does mean that the temptation for someone to word their summary or interpret their findings to fit a particular view is very strong. Even then they aren't necessarily lying, but they are allowing outside forces (the need to pay their rent, eat, own a car) to color their findings. Hence you have completely opposite papers which both somehow making the same conclusion; GW causes an increase in hurricanes/GW causes a decrease in hurricanes, GW shrinks ice sheets/GW increase ice sheets, and so on and so on.
The same is true with the paid experts that the corporations hire but those you want to ignore outright because they don't hide the fact that they didn't choose their profession for wholly altruistic reasons.
The actual hard data (satellite and balloon based temperature readings) show no real temperature increase. At best just a fraction of what is currently claimed by GW proponents, at worst(?) a mild global cooling. I tend to discount land readings because of the various significant issues related to station maintenance, location and the funky math they tend to use when actually averaging their readings.
There is doubt about everything in science. Our current understanding of science is simply put, just a collection of educated guesses about how things work and why. All subjects are open for discussion/debate. For crying out loud gravity has yet to be fully explained but for you, one photo of a shrinking ice cap (of which newer photos show are growing) is enough to stop all debate and call the matter closed.
As for the money issue, this has been debunked many times over. Sure energy companies spend money on researching affects of their products on the environment, and I'm sure many of their results are bias in their favor but not every expert who has come out against the GW phenom, or even a significant percentage, have connections to Big Oil.
The real money is on the side of the GW proponents who have managed to take a field that generated just a few million dollars in grants just a few years ago into a field that now receives several billion in funding from various governments (easily dwarfing any money spent by Big Oil). Not to mention the obscene amounts of money people make selling indulgences to the masses (excuse me - "carbon offsets") or "green" technologies, which as often as not cause more harm than good. So I'm assuming you don't take their opinions seriously either.
Bullshit. Global warming is happening. The facts (i.e. temperature readings) show it is.
Well that depends on which readings you use. Most satellite or balloon derived readings show a a very small variance of global temperature, and often in the negative (global cooling?), while only land based readings show a steady increase (and even those aren't universal). So choose your source.
Of course before you do you may want to look into all the issues surrounding ground based temperature readings. Issues with placement (some have even been located near exhaust vents of large buildings), the various systems used to assign weight factors to stations (which have for some reason tended to assigned more weight to the more unreliable stations (urban as opposed to rural)) and even station construction (something as simple as the choice of paint used has had many people questioning reliability - i.e. they no longer use whitewash for station shells).
And before you attack satellite readings because of issues with decaying orbits, the records have already been recalculated using that new data and no significant increase was found.
You are right on the affects on current gas prices though. Drilling in Alaska and various other currently protected sites (off the coast of Florida for example) would have little impact on current markets. Most of those sites would take at least 5 (and most people estimate 7+) years to become operational, but, and this is a big but, it would help to reduce foreign dependency as well as give the US a stronger position to help affect global costs. As it stands, OPEC can pretty much set the price of oil on a whim, but as more resources are developed that are out of their control (and this would include other forms of energy in addition to the new oil fields) then that ability is greatly weakened. At that point, while the price of oil may not fall, it should at least become more stable.
I must admit I don't really understand you argument about the jobs. So creating hundreds/thousands of new jobs in the oil industry is not a good things because it can't single handedly make up for losses in all other industries? Until American trade unions learn to adapt to a changing global environment then those jobs are not going to come back but you'd think that creating new jobs that by there very nature cannot be shipped overseas would be a good thing.
I'm also at a loss on your wealth argument. Even you admit wealth will be generated and put into the economy but because some people will get richer than others, and you don't personally want those people to get any richer, than everyone should suffer? Isn't that the quintessential example of cutting off your nose to spite your face?
So your claim is that the thousands of dead, illegal, and ineligible voters who show up at every US election have had no impact on any outcome.
And how can you be charged with voter fraud when there is no requirement to even prove you are who you say you are? For anyone who wants to stack the numbers in any district all that they require is a bus and some willing (paid or unpaid) participants (I hear you can even pay in crack). For that matter as long as you vote in different precincts you can forgo the bus and do it yourself.
New York State alone has over 77,000 people on their voter rolls who are legally dead (some are just technical issues but still that should make them legally ineligible to vote until corrected) yet there is no control to prevent anyone from claiming to be them and casting a vote, especially using the absentee ballot process. People are on record having admitted they've voted in their dead spouse/parent's names; usually by write in but even some in person.
Every election the news is filled with voter fraud stories from all over the US and pretty much every case that is proven involves old fashioned fraud and not electronic.
And thank you for attributing my argument to some organization I've never heard of instead of to the nightly news and various news papers which have covered the attempts by Democratic officials and operatives across the country to prevent any type of voter ID requirement law from passing. But hey, I guess actually answering the question as to how it services a democracy by not requiring some form of validation of those participating in the process is too tough. Even in the Iraq elections they realized that 1 person 1 vote was such a fundamental concern to a democratic process that they willingly marked themselves, at risk of their own lives, to ensure a accurate election. Maybe the States can adopt the thumb and dye approach, at least then there is still no ID requirement.
Of course what do I know, I'm from a country whose government actually takes it upon itself to send people door to door to register voters and requires some form of ID to be presented at the polls. I can't even remember the last voter fraud story to make national headlines here. Dirty politicians sure, but voter fraud, just can't think of one.
Worse yet, I don't even believe New Hampshire requires you to be a resident to vote in their primaries, only that you "intend" to move there sometime in the future.
As for any type of voter verification, that will never happen in a Democratic primary; for some reason I can never find a legitimate rationalization for, the Democrats seems to think voter verification is equal to voter suppression.
Actually the exit polling system used in the US have a rather terrible accuracy rate, and the unadjusted values, which most people use to try and show fraud, even more so. Lack of controls, lack of training and a variety of regional laws about interactions with voters all lead to poor results.
Internationally, exit polls are pretty good because they are handled in a completely different manner, but within the US they are little more than a tool to keep political junkies busy during the day.
Now thats not to say there aren't some area and times when exit polling in the US isn't properly carried out, just the most recent few federal elections have not been one of those times. Even Clinton's win had aberrations against the unadjusted exit poll resuts.
Yeah, and I'm just shocked that no one (or very few people) are questioning what type of computer power and storage and retrieval systems the government must have to copy the entirety of the Internet. Now THAT'S a Slashdot story.
Instead all you get a delusional rants about violations of rights (most of which were never rights to begin with as they usually pertain to foreigners on foreign soil, or have been previously been ruled within the governments authority, pre-Bush) based on yet another hearsay story.
Though if this program is in place they do help the NSA refine their search and targeting criteria. That will probably keep a few truthers up at night wishing that they never wrote that comment.
Ok, when even the person who made the statements calls the claims of cover up "ridiclous" you can't give them much weight.
And I love the attempt to blame Bush and Global Warming for the forest fires in California when in fact the leading contributors have been arson (now that's a form a man-made global warming we can all protest against) and the myriad of legal blockades various environmental groups have put up to prevent all levels of government from properly managing California's forests.
It's also a little telling about how much Ms. Boxer cares that she couldn't even spell Dr. Gerberding's name correctly throughout her letter.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever the constitution says, it's been accepted case law that President's can authorize warrantless surveillence of foreign powers or their agents for more than 25 years. That would include foreign agents acting solely within the United States. That decision has been upheld on every appeal (Truong, 1980)
That being said, this is only for issues related to foreign matters, not domestic. So if a home grown militia group is planning some attack a warrant would be required, but if 2 or more Al Queida operatives are talking to each other, even if they are all in the US, a warrant could possibly be bypassed.
The basic rule of thumb is
- Warrantless = external threat (national security)
- Warrant = internal threat (law enforcement purposes)
That was also FISA's take on the subject.
Until the teleprompter gives out. And for the most part all those 'just words' he spouts come from David Axelrod, as is quite clear from the fact all of his previous clients used the same ones.
For all his touted speaking ability as soon as he goes off script Obama gives Bush a run for his money in the "dumbest line of the day" department. Just look up some of his off the cuff remarks on Mount Rushmore, 57 states, 10,000 dead, seeing dead people and you tube ads.
Then there's his personal stories about how his parents met in Selma (4 years after he was born), how his father made it to the US thanks to the Kennedy's (a full year before they even joined the airlift program) or how his uncle liberated Auschwitz (apparently the only American in the Red Army).
Somehow all of his inconsistancies are overlooked in the name of 'change and hope'.
It also helps that Obama is in fact ranked as the most liberal senator (according to the non-partisan National Journal).
Nationally democrats have been moving further and further to the left to try and seperate themselves from the Republicans (who kind of just float around aimlessly center right to mid right on most issues). On local fronts or when actually in office however, Dems, with the exception of their often "talk before they think leadership", tend to vote more center left because they know most of their rhetoric is just that, empty campign talk. Just look at some of the recent upsets in the house and senate, the Dems who were elected are often more conservative than their republican opponents.
Obama's entire adult life has been spent in service to shaping his political career.
From his very colorful list of friends (which include admitted terrorists, blatant racists, and corporate criminals) to his generally refuseal to take any leading stand on any divisive issue (he has a strong record of voting "present" in the Ill. legislature) he has made almost every decision based on furthering his political life.
I'm not saying he necessarily agrees with everything Rezco, Wright, Pleger or Ayers say and do, but many of his backers share enough of their values that his association with them was pretty much a prerequsite to his political run in Chicago and he made it quite clear he was more than willing to follow along as long as it was politically useful.
And like any good politician, every time he is caught it is someone elses fault. Such as the Wright fiasco where first, it was the reporters nitpicking selective events, and he was never there. Then when it was revealed that this was not an isolated event but a long history of racist preaching (including the very sermon he took as the title of his book) he began to point at anyone around him to take the blame, including the grandmother who raised him.
All I know is Obama's bus needs some servicing because will all the people he's thrown under it to help further his political goals, the suspension must be shot.
Though being governor is a fair bit more impressive then being in a job that allows you to vote "Present" whenever anything comes up that you may need to take a stand on.
I agree that Jindal needs to stay in La. though. They need the leadership and it would help him hone is leadership abilities and give him the experiences necessary to make him a real contender in the future.
VP slots are usually used to shore up the ticket by filling in an area that the Presidential candidate lacks and at present Jindal doesn't really bring that to the table. He shows a lot of promise but win or lose, I think it would be a waste to have him in this race.
These type of statement make absolutely no sense to me. Can you point out the issues where Barack support your conservative/libertarian view over McCain? For that matter can you point out issues where Barack has actually proposed legitimate solutions (not just the hope and change mantra or the "we'll make big business pay for it all").
As for "he's not (yet) part of the washington culture" claim so many people make; of course you can say that (although repitition doesn't make it true) since he's hasn't even spent a full term there yet. He is however fully engrossed in the far worse Chicago poilitical culture. The political environment that made being friends with people such a Ayers, Wright and Pfleger are requirement for any Democratic nominee.
And yes, it's hard to find a conservative politician in Washington, but electing the "Most Liberal Senator In 2007" President is not the way to find one.
Actually, I believe it was the National Journal who after analysing Obamas record announced he was the "Most Liberal Senator In 2007".
I just went through there tech support circus a couple weeks ago.
I bought a new XPS system and opted for the extra RAM upgrade (4gb instead of 3) not even thinking that they would ship it with the 32bit version of Vista.
So as soon as I checked and noticed sure enough it was the 32bit install and only 3.3GB was being detected I called up to ask about why they are selling systems with upgrades they know cannot be used, as is (and yes I know you can run the PAE and access the additional RAM). I ended up talking to 5 people on the phone, each giving me a completely different 1-800/866 number for "support" and sending me along, and 1 online tech. I was 'disconnected' at least 3 times.
The online tech openly admitted they knew the OS could not handle the RAM but were more than willing to sell it and if I wanted to use the installed RAM I should just buy the 64-bit Vista (which DELL does not support). He in no uncertain terms said there was no way that he would refund even a portion of the cost of the upgrade since the hardware worked, it was simply a software issue that prevented the RAM from being used (though it was their software choice). After I compared that argument to a dealership blaming GM because their cars can't use the sonar kit they sell their customers, the conversations kind of ended.
I finally decided to give it one last try and lucked out. The sales service rep I talked to agreed that it seemed pretty odd to sell a system and push an upgrade when they know it is unusable and would cause the service agreement to become useless if the customer actually fixed themselves (installed the 64bit). So after a short conversation she simply refunded me the upgrade cost.
The whole process took about 2 hours and reminded me of the horror stories you hear of people dealing with insurance companies.
Part of the shortage is the almost militant response to the concept of "for profit" health care. There is also a very strong "lowest common denominator" mentality in Canada (a far left concept - not to be confused with liberalism) where if someone is seen to have an advantage for whatever reason, then it should be eliminated so that everyone has an equal playing field.
In general, people would rather shut down a private MRI clinic that, while charging the government the exact same cost as a public hospital per exam, makes a few dollars due to improvements in efficiency then to allow someone to actually make a dollar. I'd like to stress that these clinics charge the government and not the clients, so it's still free to the user, but because they can run a better facility with more modern equipment and less staff they can actually make money based on the standard rate.
The elimination of these clinics is directly responsible for the long wait times for these types of tests. Something that can be done in a matter of hours in an average US City can takes months up here.
Once you entirely remove the financial incentives for someone to enter the highly stressful medical profession you get a shortfall in supply. While some doctors and nurses stick around because they like the area or just love living in their country, others see the availability of much higher paying jobs elsewhere and move.
My sister-in-law is a nurse with a masters and a Nurse Practitioner certification and she has had offers to basically triple her salary if she would move south the the States but they like where they are so they decide to stay but more than a few others jump at the chance.
I've always been a proponent of the 60/40 or 70/30 model where a doctor or clinic is required to give at least 60% of their time to the public social system but is also permitted to spend 40% of their time in a for profit system. The baseline numbers would be determined by an average of procedures performed at the 100% socialized institutes.
So for example, if a doctor at a local hospital can do 100 exams in a week, a doctor at a private clinic would be required to do at least 60 as part of the social system but the other 40 they could do on a for profit basis. So 60 people who would normally be waiting in line at a hospital are serviced and 40 people who can afford to jump the line can pay a little extra to do so.
This would require strict oversight on work weeks to prevent doctors from meeting their minimum requirements and then running extended shifts to make as much money as possible on their for profit hours, which would put all patients lives at risk. But simple policies like 10am-4pm (public hours) 5pm-8pm (private hours) or certain days of he week as private (whichever works best for that particular doctor) would ensure public access to top level medical care but also allow those professional an opportunity to make more money based on their skills.
Socialized medicine is good, to a point, but is not the only solution to the many problems the various worldwide health care systems face.
Socialized medical system can be great in that they prevent people from having to go into heavy debt or declare bankruptcy just because of medical expenses but the trade off is long waits and often a lack of access.
Just to be forthright, I'm Canadian, so I've seen many of the good and bad parts of socialized medicine and from people I know from Britain, they have many of the same issues we are facing.
My mother has been in the hospital for more than 2 months now, having undergone 3 major surgeries and facing another 3-4 weeks recovery before she can finally get out. The only cost to her has been the $40 airplane ticket to fly to the hospital (a special set medical rate as the ticket is normally around $1100) and the $40 to fly home. So in her case she saves tens, and possibly hundreds of thousands in bills.
One of my old neighbors on the other hand, required knee replacement surgery but was put on a 18 month waiting list, and by the time a slot was available she required surgery to both (from the extra strain of one knee doing the work of 2 for so long). She was actually told that if she wanted it sooner (as in a matter of days or weeks, not months) she could simply cross into NY state and have it done there but that OHIP (our government plan) would not cover it. (Just FYI, the current wait time is down to just 243 days for knee replacement.)
The waiting list to get a family doctor where I live (one of the largest cities in Canada)is around 2 years, and even then it requires a recommendation to even be put on the list.
There is a good website set up by the Ontario government to see what the estimated wait time for treatment for most major ailments and tests are. (Google "Ontario Wait Times").
So while socialized medicine is great to help spare people outrageous expenses, it sacrifices speed to do so. What is needed is for someone to find the proper balance point of the social/user system so that services can be provided at a timely manner and so far it doesn't seem many (if any) countries with any significant population has truly managed to do it without bankrupting themselves in the effort.
And what does the reasoning behind your actions doesn't matter to the insurance companies or the government or even have to do with this bill? Whether because of genetics or just bad choices, once you partake of those actions you are legitimately self selecting your coverage availability.
This law is for the protection of people not already showing signs of any particular disease or not partaking of already recognized unhealthy activities who, with the increase of genetic testing could be denied coverage purely based on a genetic marker that increases their odds by a percentage point or two through no fault of their own.
And yes it is a form of socialized health care in that it creates a line in the sand over which the government is dictating to private insures that they cannot pass, where a truly free market system would allow coverage determination to be based on every available criteria, but it's a line apparently enough people support to make it law.
This bill protects against genetic predisposition NOT actions.
If you choose to drink or smoke your ACTIONS dictate you belong to a higher risk group. If you have a genetic predisposition to become addicted but through will power choose not to your risk is not elevated. The same goes for overeating for people with a genetic tendency for diabetes.
The basic idea of the bill is that you can still use lifestyle based evaluations and pre-existing conditions to calculate an insurance premium, you just can't use genetic evaluations on the possible likelihood of certain diseases to adjust current rates. Since thats the way the system is right now I'm not sure how this will cause rates to go up.
When genetic tests actually get to the point of being able to identify potential disease candidates to a closer to 100% certainty, as opposed to the current "2 to 3 times more likely" type tests, then maybe this bill will need to be revised/revoked.
Using this logic nothing would ever get done, which when it comes to most politicians is not exactly a bad thing, but still.
Just substitute almost any other concept into the equation and you can see how useful the idea of not doing anything unless you can go directly for the ultimate solution is.
'Why rebuild and reinforce the New Orleans levees when we could just raise the entire city to a level that is safely above the water line. As soon as that is done they will become obsolete.'
For that matter, even if there were government instituted health protection, without a policy such as this in place those with genetic predispositions for specific ailments could still be required to pay additional fees/higher taxes.
Most 'new' legislation isn't really all that new but tend to be just a few new ideas thrown on top of pre-existing law. So before you can get to the comprehensive government protected health care plan you seen to advocate you need stuff like this to lay the groundwork.
You left out the part that studies also show the less education you receive the more like a person is to be "Liberal".
In general "Conservatives" are more likely to have graduated high school and/or have a bachelor degrees while "liberals" are higher represented in the high school drop out and Masters/PhD's categories. Although in almost all categories (except the drop out rate which tends to lean Liberal by up to 20% more than Conservative)) the variance is usually less than 10%.
PEW has some good studies that compare political leanings to happiness, education and almost anything else you can think of.
$1.7+ billion is a hell of a lot of money in my world; and thats just US grants. Thats up from the single and barely double digit millions in the 80's. Where do you think all this money goes if not to the researchers? Yes a lot of it is used on equipment and other necessities but it is also what many of these researchers live on.
I've know a few people who have lived off of grants and done quite well for themselves. I had two profs in university who got research grants (in comp sci and math not environmental studies) and even they were amazed at how much they were given and the complete lack of accountability. And those were in fields where the findings had to be more or less concrete. For most environmental studies all you need to do is produce a model that 'proves' your thesis. The fact that people 3 doors down have a completely different model to prove theirs is inconsequential; neither can be truly tested in the real world and by the time the theories are tested (which for most of these models is in the length of decades) no one will care. As long as you cross your "t"'s and dotted your "i"'s most of those paper will pass peer review; hence the global warming causes hurricanes/global warming reduces hurricanes stories we've all seen in just the last year. Both based on peer reviewed studies done by serious researchers.
Even more telling though was the fact that the one voice who came out saying GW, if it exists, would have no impact on the occurrence or ferocity of hurricanes was decried by people like you who take the church of GW as the end all be all of science as being a fraud and crazy even though he presented his research and was considered an expert in his field (as are many of the other GW detractors) but since the word at the time was "NO, GW will cause the south eastern US to be wiped off the map if we don't all start driving Priuses")he was ignored. Then lo and behold, a relatively calm hurricane season with no real newsworthy events (exactly as he predicted) and then suddenly the new line changed to "GW will cause all the air to stop flowing and hurricanes to cease".
And I just have to laugh at your "-ALL- non-coporate scientists have come to the conclusion" line. In fact when the numbers are actually totaled it's not even a majority, at least not based on their actual findings. Most studies done on global warming come to the same conclusion = "maybe, but if so, we're not sure why". Its the politicians and various other interested parties who take inconclusive findings (such as a satellite photo of a smaller ice cap which in and of itself has no meaning) and try to build a great global conspiracy around it. The IPCC report from last year being a shining example of just this. The summary, being the only part journalists and the general public ever read, was written by bureaucrats, NOT the scientists themselves, and comes to conclusions not supported by the actual findings. But people hold that up as an example of scientific consensus.
This has been going on for years and covers every field of study. Holding a belief in something, even if you are a scientist, does not mean that you can prove it and saying it's so, even though your research does not actually show it to be necessarily true, does not make it any more a scientific fact then the belief that the sun revolves around the earth.
So to understand your reasoning,
Scientists who happen to receive funding from energy companies = frauds
Scientists who happen to receive money from the government = beyond reproach
Scientists who do not receive money from energy companies but also happen to disagree with GW = those you just want to ignore
The entire grant system is based on the idea that what a particular researcher wants to study is of some importance to the rest of the community and therefore worth government funds. The more important, the more funds. By its very nature it is designed to fall victim to people who are willing to hype a particular cause in order to ensure more money for their particular field of study. And the dollar amounts for single grants can easily boost a researchers income by 50% or more.
Does that mean that all researchers are willing to sell themselves out for the almighty dollar, of course not, but it does mean that the temptation for someone to word their summary or interpret their findings to fit a particular view is very strong. Even then they aren't necessarily lying, but they are allowing outside forces (the need to pay their rent, eat, own a car) to color their findings. Hence you have completely opposite papers which both somehow making the same conclusion; GW causes an increase in hurricanes/GW causes a decrease in hurricanes, GW shrinks ice sheets/GW increase ice sheets, and so on and so on.
The same is true with the paid experts that the corporations hire but those you want to ignore outright because they don't hide the fact that they didn't choose their profession for wholly altruistic reasons.
The actual hard data (satellite and balloon based temperature readings) show no real temperature increase. At best just a fraction of what is currently claimed by GW proponents, at worst(?) a mild global cooling. I tend to discount land readings because of the various significant issues related to station maintenance, location and the funky math they tend to use when actually averaging their readings.
But there is no doubt about the science.
Spoken like a true believer.
There is doubt about everything in science. Our current understanding of science is simply put, just a collection of educated guesses about how things work and why. All subjects are open for discussion/debate. For crying out loud gravity has yet to be fully explained but for you, one photo of a shrinking ice cap (of which newer photos show are growing) is enough to stop all debate and call the matter closed.
As for the money issue, this has been debunked many times over. Sure energy companies spend money on researching affects of their products on the environment, and I'm sure many of their results are bias in their favor but not every expert who has come out against the GW phenom, or even a significant percentage, have connections to Big Oil.
The real money is on the side of the GW proponents who have managed to take a field that generated just a few million dollars in grants just a few years ago into a field that now receives several billion in funding from various governments (easily dwarfing any money spent by Big Oil). Not to mention the obscene amounts of money people make selling indulgences to the masses (excuse me - "carbon offsets") or "green" technologies, which as often as not cause more harm than good. So I'm assuming you don't take their opinions seriously either.
Bullshit. Global warming is happening. The facts (i.e. temperature readings) show it is.
Well that depends on which readings you use. Most satellite or balloon derived readings show a a very small variance of global temperature, and often in the negative (global cooling?), while only land based readings show a steady increase (and even those aren't universal). So choose your source.
Of course before you do you may want to look into all the issues surrounding ground based temperature readings. Issues with placement (some have even been located near exhaust vents of large buildings), the various systems used to assign weight factors to stations (which have for some reason tended to assigned more weight to the more unreliable stations (urban as opposed to rural)) and even station construction (something as simple as the choice of paint used has had many people questioning reliability - i.e. they no longer use whitewash for station shells).
And before you attack satellite readings because of issues with decaying orbits, the records have already been recalculated using that new data and no significant increase was found.
You are right on the affects on current gas prices though. Drilling in Alaska and various other currently protected sites (off the coast of Florida for example) would have little impact on current markets. Most of those sites would take at least 5 (and most people estimate 7+) years to become operational, but, and this is a big but, it would help to reduce foreign dependency as well as give the US a stronger position to help affect global costs. As it stands, OPEC can pretty much set the price of oil on a whim, but as more resources are developed that are out of their control (and this would include other forms of energy in addition to the new oil fields) then that ability is greatly weakened. At that point, while the price of oil may not fall, it should at least become more stable.
I must admit I don't really understand you argument about the jobs. So creating hundreds/thousands of new jobs in the oil industry is not a good things because it can't single handedly make up for losses in all other industries? Until American trade unions learn to adapt to a changing global environment then those jobs are not going to come back but you'd think that creating new jobs that by there very nature cannot be shipped overseas would be a good thing.
I'm also at a loss on your wealth argument. Even you admit wealth will be generated and put into the economy but because some people will get richer than others, and you don't personally want those people to get any richer, than everyone should suffer? Isn't that the quintessential example of cutting off your nose to spite your face?
So your claim is that the thousands of dead, illegal, and ineligible voters who show up at every US election have had no impact on any outcome.
And how can you be charged with voter fraud when there is no requirement to even prove you are who you say you are? For anyone who wants to stack the numbers in any district all that they require is a bus and some willing (paid or unpaid) participants (I hear you can even pay in crack). For that matter as long as you vote in different precincts you can forgo the bus and do it yourself.
New York State alone has over 77,000 people on their voter rolls who are legally dead (some are just technical issues but still that should make them legally ineligible to vote until corrected) yet there is no control to prevent anyone from claiming to be them and casting a vote, especially using the absentee ballot process. People are on record having admitted they've voted in their dead spouse/parent's names; usually by write in but even some in person.
Every election the news is filled with voter fraud stories from all over the US and pretty much every case that is proven involves old fashioned fraud and not electronic.
And thank you for attributing my argument to some organization I've never heard of instead of to the nightly news and various news papers which have covered the attempts by Democratic officials and operatives across the country to prevent any type of voter ID requirement law from passing. But hey, I guess actually answering the question as to how it services a democracy by not requiring some form of validation of those participating in the process is too tough. Even in the Iraq elections they realized that 1 person 1 vote was such a fundamental concern to a democratic process that they willingly marked themselves, at risk of their own lives, to ensure a accurate election. Maybe the States can adopt the thumb and dye approach, at least then there is still no ID requirement.
Of course what do I know, I'm from a country whose government actually takes it upon itself to send people door to door to register voters and requires some form of ID to be presented at the polls. I can't even remember the last voter fraud story to make national headlines here. Dirty politicians sure, but voter fraud, just can't think of one.
Worse yet, I don't even believe New Hampshire requires you to be a resident to vote in their primaries, only that you "intend" to move there sometime in the future.
As for any type of voter verification, that will never happen in a Democratic primary; for some reason I can never find a legitimate rationalization for, the Democrats seems to think voter verification is equal to voter suppression.
Actually the exit polling system used in the US have a rather terrible accuracy rate, and the unadjusted values, which most people use to try and show fraud, even more so. Lack of controls, lack of training and a variety of regional laws about interactions with voters all lead to poor results.
Internationally, exit polls are pretty good because they are handled in a completely different manner, but within the US they are little more than a tool to keep political junkies busy during the day.
Now thats not to say there aren't some area and times when exit polling in the US isn't properly carried out, just the most recent few federal elections have not been one of those times. Even Clinton's win had aberrations against the unadjusted exit poll resuts.
Yeah, and I'm just shocked that no one (or very few people) are questioning what type of computer power and storage and retrieval systems the government must have to copy the entirety of the Internet. Now THAT'S a Slashdot story.
Instead all you get a delusional rants about violations of rights (most of which were never rights to begin with as they usually pertain to foreigners on foreign soil, or have been previously been ruled within the governments authority, pre-Bush) based on yet another hearsay story.
Though if this program is in place they do help the NSA refine their search and targeting criteria. That will probably keep a few truthers up at night wishing that they never wrote that comment.
Ok, when even the person who made the statements calls the claims of cover up "ridiclous" you can't give them much weight.
And I love the attempt to blame Bush and Global Warming for the forest fires in California when in fact the leading contributors have been arson (now that's a form a man-made global warming we can all protest against) and the myriad of legal blockades various environmental groups have put up to prevent all levels of government from properly managing California's forests.
It's also a little telling about how much Ms. Boxer cares that she couldn't even spell Dr. Gerberding's name correctly throughout her letter.
Sorry, "Ever since they got that second escalator their smugness has known no bounds."
(Sounds like someone spent a long time trying waiting for the 'moving stairs' to change direction so they could get back down.)
If you thought talking to the locals in CB was bad try PEI. Ever since that got that second escalator their smugness has known no bounds.