Those who fight for raising the minimum wage are consistently ignoring the "what happens then" aspect of their idea.
As you point out, when you up the minimum wage in situations where it actually matters (i.e. when the minimum wage is actually not already exceeded by market forces) you start a cycle of inflation pressure. More dollars are casing the same amount of goods and EVERYBODY pays more for stuff. The problem here is that although the minimum wage workers do see a pay increase dollar wise, they eventually see a cost of living increase and fall back to their existing standard of living.
But we are beating a dead horse anyway. Very few people actually get paid minimum wage anyway. At this point, the market price for labor has out stripped the federal minimum wage almost everywhere.
I don't like how this process works, you testify or else. You can take the 5th and not testify, but you cannot pick and choose your questions. It's all or nothing, so as soon as you answer ONE question, you have no choice, even a question like "What is your name?" is enough.
That being said, Manning has competent legal counsel and immunity from prosecution for any possibly related crimes, so there is no pleading the 5th. But if you refuse to testify, jail is the result. Manning knows that, Manning's legal counsel knows, everybody knows.
What ever the reasons are, I guess jail is worth it to Manning. In fact, I wonder if it's not the whole idea, to get another few seconds in the limelight to complain about stuff again.
Ah... Well, I've NEVER called Trump a conservative. I've only said that he was obviously better aligned with my views than Hillary was.
Remember, the way you play this game is you vote for who you think will most advance your views in the primary of the party that best represents your views. Then in the general election you vote for one of the two candidates that has a chance of winning.based on how well you think they will represent your views.
So, I supported (and voted) for Cruz in the primary, but then supported Trump in the general based mostly based on his list of judges he was going to nominate from to the supreme court, and not expecting much progress on the rest. Trump has exceeded what I expected by miles, even if I don't agree with everything he's done.
On the tariff question.. I don't recognize tariffs as being either conservative or non-conservative. I see them as a tool that can be used for conservative purposes or nonconsecutive purposes. I think Trump's use of them has been reasonable and for purposes that I generally agree with. But as a tool, they are very blunt and collateral damage is hard to avoid so I'm not saying I like the individual effects of tariffs in all cases.
Oh please... Of course it's true. Don't be absurd here. The government can clearly put limits on religion, and the case for preventing human sacrifice is pretty easy to make in court. Vaccinating kids is not so clear.
Not vaccinating your kids is not even close to causing them immediate and irreparable harm. It is thus very hard to make the argument that the government has the need to abridge your religious rights and force you to vaccinate your kids.
Please understand the argument I'm making. I'm saying that if this is sufficient legal reason to abridge religious freedom, I'm concerned that the government can now possibly regulate religious freedom in may more ways than it should. I'm saying that if you let this be enough, you are way down the slippery slope and not protecting religious freedoms, one of the core principles of our founding.
The courts have established that such abridging of freedoms must pass the "strict test" or they are unconstitutional. Forcing vaccinations does not clearly meet this test.
Personally, I never thought Trump could make it though the primaries. I was supporting Cruz. Once Trump had the nomination, I voted republican because there was a chance he'd better support my views.
HOWEVER, at this point, given Trump's track record in office, I'm glad Cruz didn't win the primary. Trump has really knocked it out of the park. I wasn't expecting much from Trump, but he's been consistently delivering well beyond what I dared to dream he would.
Bernie doesn't have a snowballs chance in 2020. Trump is the incumbent. He has exceeded all expectations of the right and has been attempting to deliver on as man of his campaign promises as was in his power to accomplish. The economy is doing fairly well, better than it was before he got elected and we've hit nearly full employment. Bernie has to play up the rich vrs poor class envy, when even the poor are getting richer so the socialist tendencies will not play well.
Biden, though.... He's the candidate that has the best chance if you ask me. But he doesn't enthuse the crazy left in the party because he's closer to the center. I'm not sure Biden can thread the needle, appeasing enough of the left to win the nomination, but not being crazy enough to run towards the center in the general election.
Trump is unqualified and unstable to be president. Bernie can easily win. FYI Bernie is pretty centrist to the average European. Only on shithole America where people die and go bankrupt from curable diseases who actually have health insurance actually consider him radical. America is so extreme right and corrupt that it needs Bernie more than you can imagine
I'm discussing polls here. In the polls I'm seeing right now Bernie loses to Trump, even worse than Hillary did. Also, don't forget the incumbent advantage goes to Trump this time. But we are nearly 2 years out from the only poll that counts, actual voting and ANYTHING can happen.
I actually think that until Biden gets in or announces he's not running, the polling is generally useless. If Biden is in, he's going to suck all the air out of the room and the other democrat hopefuls will start to drop like flies. Until that happens, it's a jump ball for the democrat nomination and any polling between the "unnamed democrat" and Trump is not worth the paper it's printed on.
I do hate to tell you this (ok, not really), but by all appearances, Trump would win the election today with Sanders as his opponent with far fewer competitive states than the previous election with Hillary. The one you want on your ticket is Biden.... He's polling the best of the flock right now, even though he's not actually IN the race officially yet. But the star player doesn't take the field until near the end anyway as they don't have to, they already have the donors lined up and willing to give, they don't have to do the "generate excitement" thing with the media.
I'm just going to say that when you start to curtail religious freedom recognized in the 1st amendment, you better have a damn good reason. This isn't one of them...
You may *think* that it's "for the children" but it's a dangerous slippery slope you are on. I don't want the CPS camel's nose in my tent anymore than necessary, today it may just be vaccines, but what will it be tomorrow? I'm teaching my kids stuff CPS doesn't agree with or my choice as a parent doesn't live up to the community standards because I don't mind them playing in the dirt and getting dirty or I require them to perform what I consider age appropriate physical labor to teach them responsibility and a strong work ethic? Or I let them drink unpasteurized milk from my own cows?
I urge much caution here... I vaccinated my kids, but I can see how some have religious objections and it's not my business to judge the validity of their religion and certainly NOT government's business, in the absence of a clear and immediate need to abridge religious freedom. Unvaccinated kids are NOT in immediate danger, and do not pose an immediate threat to public safety and health. I don't think we can constitutionally force this issue with parents and make it stick in the courts. Why waste time trying? Perhaps education would be a better approach? Certainly it has the possibility of helping and won't waste piles of money in the courts finding out the law is unconstitutional anyway.
Yes PLEASE, give us Bernie, the guy who embraces the crazy left wing of your party... PLEASE! Talk about an entertaining election, the old aging socialist on the left and Trump standing clearly in the middle making Ole' Bernie look like the hypocritical leftist he is every day. It will be a land slide to the right, both in the House, the Senate AND the Whitehouse. It will be fun to watch... You do know that he's already behind in the polls right?
In fact, I may need to send Bernie a few dollars, just to make sure he has a chance this time.. That the Democrat party doesn't cheat him out of the primary win again with all their "super delegate" creative accounting and slight of hand.
I hear Hillary hasn't ruled out running yet... That would be fun too.
Seriously, if you think "Net Neutrality" or "Save the Internet" or what ever you want to call it today is going to help your chances, bring it on, power to you, whatever, just know, it's a show vote and nothing more. Also know that when push comes to shove, by the time the democrats get back into power this will be about as relevant as all the "blue laws" from the 60's are now.
I don't think playing the abortion idea is a good one.. It may shore up the base but if the polling is any indicator, it's a net loss for democrats as the overwhelming majority of voters do NOT support unlimited right to abortion past viability (say about 22 weeks), much less up to the moment of birth. And I believe that the polling is about 50/50 for abortions just before a detectable heartbeat.
It may play better in heavily democratic areas, and shore up the base, but abortion is an issue that inflames the other side of the debate too, so I'd be *really* careful about that issue as a democrat running for a national office. It could hurt the overall stance of the democrat party nationally, using this issue in local elections.
Here we go again.. They want to have *another* run at net neutrality...
Have at it guys, but we all know what is going to happen. It *may* make it out of the House, but it is dying in committee in the Senate. Nothing but the next election can possibly change that and by the looks of things, that's rapidly slipping into a snowballs chance of surviving in a very hot place....
Maybe if you had a time machine.....Naw, after 3 movies, we all know how that ends...
It is still based in their religious views.. Some don't have issues with "modern" technology including modern medical practices, some do.
However, The Christian Scientists DO have religious objections which reject vaccinations along with all sorts of modern medical procedures...
But let's not forget my original point. SOME object to vaccines on closely held religious grounds. This makes the idea of government forcing vaccinations interfere with the free exercise of religion recognized in the first amendment. This is a really heavy legal burden in the courts when you try to enforce such laws, so we cannot just run pell-mell and write some ill-advised law that isn't sufficiently narrow (and thus ineffective) and hope that it survives the court challenge. Such action would be stupid...
They have their ONE study, performed by a now discredited doctor who lost his medical license for his lack of ethical research techniques and lack of effective peer reviews. The study has been condemned as wrong for decades, but you can bet they will quote from that one....
In the mean time, 120,000 kids a year die around the world from the illness prevented by the MMR vaccine.
The other reason Wakefield lost his license was that he was profiteering from his own fraudulent research.
I know. right. Did you read what he was doing to is poor "research subjects" who where young kids with autism? I dare say NOBODY on the anti-vaxx side of this argument would have approved, and most would be appalled at the barbaric medical procedures he was doing. The whole thing was a scheme to sell a treatment for autism, that was very expensive, didn't work when others tried it and was basically supported by his flawed (read as FAKED) research results.
Now this guy lives in Austin TX... He's made a movie "VAXXED" and maintains he was framed and defamed by big pharma in the UK and the USA and keeps making money selling his anti-vaxx materials and running anti-vaxx organizations. Lucky he's lost his medical license, or he'd be torturing autistic kids in the name of a "cure" and fleecing desperate parents of their hard earned money doing the invasive painful medical procedures he's infamous in the UK for.
I so wish "The Lancet" hadn't published that paper....
Actually, the Amish vaccinate. It's a myth that they don't. (Just like it's a myth that there aren't any autistic Amish.)
I never said ALL Amish, I said most. It depends on the community and the stance of their "elders" who establish their own policy based on their views. Some Amish own and drive tractors, some are strictly horse and buggy types.
I suspect their autism rates are similar to the rest of the nation, though I've not seen any studies about that. IF they where different, you can bet there would be a rush of medical researchers out investigating the various possible causes and we'd have cohort studies on top of cohort studies trying to weed out actual causes already.
Isn't that where we are headed anyway? Government control of everything?
Shall we dig out the Jackboots and brown shirts now? (sarc off)
May I suggest we take a bit less aggressive stance here.. Government isn't the answer to everything. In this case, a bit of an educational effort may go a long way towards warding off the dis-information campaigns that come from the AntiVaxx Dogma. Can we at least try that first?
The battle over "fake news" will only be won when "real news" is recognized and applauded for being right and that takes education on the issues, balanced and factual education.
So let's make it nearly impossible to get public services, attend public schools or attend government sponsored gatherings of children without vaccines having been given as recommended,
...nor go anywhere public, since the measles virus (for example) can persist for as long as two hours. No supermarkets, no playgrounds, no airports, no bus depots...
Well... I see your point, but again, we are talking about basic human rights outlined in the construction. It's going to be a hard lift in the courts for the government to legally prevent unvaccinated people from traveling or frequenting public places.
Boy have you fallen for the AntiVaxx dogma in a big way.
You are claiming this is all a big conspiracy between doctors, the FDA and Big Pharma to make money. I'm wondering if your tin-foil hat is a bit too tight..
Just so you know. About 120,000 kids DIE every year from the measles. Not in the USA of course, we are vaccinated here for the most part, but back before the vaccine became available kids died here too. The MMR vaccine saves lives and is available cheap if you cannot pay full price.
Polio is one of the brightest cases for vaccines. The vaccine has *almost* eradicated the three types of polio completely. One has been eliminated in the wild, is no longer included in the vaccine. Polio used to do grave harm to large number of people, now, it sill kills people nearly every year, but the number of cases world wide has fallen *way* down to under a few hundred a year. In this case, if you are trying to get rid of vaccines, then it actually makes sense to push the polio vaccine *hard* because we are so very close to not needing it anymore and will have removed a scourge that killed millions. I call that a success story.
By the way, your "it was going down" really isn't true. Polio went though huge swings, cycling from low to high every 5 to 10 years in the USA. The final push for the vaccine happened during one of the worst peaks in history and drove the mas vaccination campaign that became "The March of Dimes" once the "Childhood paralysis" cause was addressed and we've not seen polio cycling at all since. CLEARLY the vaccine had something to do with this, regardless of what you'd like to imply.
Some sects of the Mennonites and most of the Amish hold such views. The so called "Christian Science" church also have long standing closely held religious objections to vaccines and other medical procedures. I'm guessing there are others, but I've not heard of them. The Mennonites and Amish don't really mix with the rest of society so I don't see any issue with letting them alone.
Just because you don't agree with their views it doesn't give the government the right to interfere without *really* good reason. Given this is a first amendment right we are talking about abridging, it is a really high bar for the government to meet when abridging this right in any way.
They have their ONE study, performed by a now discredited doctor who lost his medical license for his lack of ethical research techniques and lack of effective peer reviews. The study has been condemned as wrong for decades, but you can bet they will quote from that one....
In the mean time, 120,000 kids a year die around the world from the illness prevented by the MMR vaccine.
Why would the government want kids to be autistic?
Oh stop with the logical arguments here... They will fall on deaf ears.. Trust me...
IF there was *any* truth to this vaccines cause autism idea, you can bet people like the ones over at "Autism Speaks" would be up in arms to get vaccines stopped. IN FACT they are not, exactly the opposite. Autism Speaks clearly says there is no link and recommend you vaccinate your children. They have no dog in the hunt with big pharma or the FDA and are a premier authority on the causes and treatments of autism.
But hey, confirmation bias will clearly be used to dismiss any and all facts contrary to the closely held theories here..
This has been studied many times in the last decade or two. Always with the same result....
What they are saying is there is no INCREASED risk of autism in kids who got the MMR vaccine and those who didn't. They are saying that correlation does not imply causation and in this case, MMR didn't cause autism. They are, however, acknowledging that the onset of autism happens to coincide with the giving of MMR vaccine. This is because autism is diagnosed at about the same time as it becomes apparent in the developmental delays about the same time as the vaccine is given. They are debunking the logic error used by the antivaxx dogma to push their mistake.
Morons who don't vaccinate their kids should be dealt with by Child Protective Services.
Well... I agree they are generally morons, but I'm a bit leery of sending CPS into haul the kids away for this. It's a bit too close to jackboots and brown shirts for my tastes and CPS tends to be a bit heavy handed at times to start with. Let's not give them another reason to come calling at your house and take your kids first and ask questions later.
I do support laws just short of making vaccinations mandatory, but there are long standing and closely held religious beliefs that preclude the use of vaccines (along with a host of other medical procedures). So let's make it nearly impossible to get public services, attend public schools or attend government sponsored gatherings of children without vaccines having been given as recommended, except if there are valid and documented medical reasons which make vaccinations inappropriate. IF your religious belief precludes your kids from vaccines, fine, but you don't get to put them in public school, obtain welfare benefits, or use other public services until you vaccinate them (or get the medical waver)...
I always though the goal of the blast was not to destroy the asteroid but to change its trajectory...
Seriously? How are you going to destroy a solid rock? Now put that rock in a vacuum and tell me how you figure on coupling enough energy though nothing to do this?
It's a whole lot easier to deflect something so it misses, than break it apart into harmless pieces. The actual window for things to crash into Earth is pretty small.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who fight for raising the minimum wage are consistently ignoring the "what happens then" aspect of their idea.
As you point out, when you up the minimum wage in situations where it actually matters (i.e. when the minimum wage is actually not already exceeded by market forces) you start a cycle of inflation pressure. More dollars are casing the same amount of goods and EVERYBODY pays more for stuff. The problem here is that although the minimum wage workers do see a pay increase dollar wise, they eventually see a cost of living increase and fall back to their existing standard of living.
But we are beating a dead horse anyway. Very few people actually get paid minimum wage anyway. At this point, the market price for labor has out stripped the federal minimum wage almost everywhere.
I don't like how this process works, you testify or else. You can take the 5th and not testify, but you cannot pick and choose your questions. It's all or nothing, so as soon as you answer ONE question, you have no choice, even a question like "What is your name?" is enough.
That being said, Manning has competent legal counsel and immunity from prosecution for any possibly related crimes, so there is no pleading the 5th. But if you refuse to testify, jail is the result. Manning knows that, Manning's legal counsel knows, everybody knows.
What ever the reasons are, I guess jail is worth it to Manning. In fact, I wonder if it's not the whole idea, to get another few seconds in the limelight to complain about stuff again.
Trump in the center? That show's what a moron you are.
Ok, Ok.. He's LEFT of center... Certainly LEFT of me. But I voted for him because he was absolutely RIGHT of Hillary on the issues I care about.
Ah... Well, I've NEVER called Trump a conservative. I've only said that he was obviously better aligned with my views than Hillary was.
Remember, the way you play this game is you vote for who you think will most advance your views in the primary of the party that best represents your views. Then in the general election you vote for one of the two candidates that has a chance of winning.based on how well you think they will represent your views.
So, I supported (and voted) for Cruz in the primary, but then supported Trump in the general based mostly based on his list of judges he was going to nominate from to the supreme court, and not expecting much progress on the rest. Trump has exceeded what I expected by miles, even if I don't agree with everything he's done.
On the tariff question.. I don't recognize tariffs as being either conservative or non-conservative. I see them as a tool that can be used for conservative purposes or nonconsecutive purposes. I think Trump's use of them has been reasonable and for purposes that I generally agree with. But as a tool, they are very blunt and collateral damage is hard to avoid so I'm not saying I like the individual effects of tariffs in all cases.
What's worse?
Lawyers writing laws about technology they don't understand
OR
Technical people trying to write legal documents that become laws?
Either way, the result is sub-optimal.
Remember, there is a legal difference between "shall" and "will"; and lawyers are a necessary evil, just like politicians are.
Oh please... Of course it's true. Don't be absurd here. The government can clearly put limits on religion, and the case for preventing human sacrifice is pretty easy to make in court. Vaccinating kids is not so clear.
Not vaccinating your kids is not even close to causing them immediate and irreparable harm. It is thus very hard to make the argument that the government has the need to abridge your religious rights and force you to vaccinate your kids.
Please understand the argument I'm making. I'm saying that if this is sufficient legal reason to abridge religious freedom, I'm concerned that the government can now possibly regulate religious freedom in may more ways than it should. I'm saying that if you let this be enough, you are way down the slippery slope and not protecting religious freedoms, one of the core principles of our founding.
The courts have established that such abridging of freedoms must pass the "strict test" or they are unconstitutional. Forcing vaccinations does not clearly meet this test.
Personally, I never thought Trump could make it though the primaries. I was supporting Cruz. Once Trump had the nomination, I voted republican because there was a chance he'd better support my views.
HOWEVER, at this point, given Trump's track record in office, I'm glad Cruz didn't win the primary. Trump has really knocked it out of the park. I wasn't expecting much from Trump, but he's been consistently delivering well beyond what I dared to dream he would.
Bernie doesn't have a snowballs chance in 2020. Trump is the incumbent. He has exceeded all expectations of the right and has been attempting to deliver on as man of his campaign promises as was in his power to accomplish. The economy is doing fairly well, better than it was before he got elected and we've hit nearly full employment. Bernie has to play up the rich vrs poor class envy, when even the poor are getting richer so the socialist tendencies will not play well.
Biden, though.... He's the candidate that has the best chance if you ask me. But he doesn't enthuse the crazy left in the party because he's closer to the center. I'm not sure Biden can thread the needle, appeasing enough of the left to win the nomination, but not being crazy enough to run towards the center in the general election.
Trump is unqualified and unstable to be president. Bernie can easily win. FYI Bernie is pretty centrist to the average European. Only on shithole America where people die and go bankrupt from curable diseases who actually have health insurance actually consider him radical. America is so extreme right and corrupt that it needs Bernie more than you can imagine
I'm discussing polls here. In the polls I'm seeing right now Bernie loses to Trump, even worse than Hillary did. Also, don't forget the incumbent advantage goes to Trump this time. But we are nearly 2 years out from the only poll that counts, actual voting and ANYTHING can happen.
I actually think that until Biden gets in or announces he's not running, the polling is generally useless. If Biden is in, he's going to suck all the air out of the room and the other democrat hopefuls will start to drop like flies. Until that happens, it's a jump ball for the democrat nomination and any polling between the "unnamed democrat" and Trump is not worth the paper it's printed on.
That was then...
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
THIS is today.
I do hate to tell you this (ok, not really), but by all appearances, Trump would win the election today with Sanders as his opponent with far fewer competitive states than the previous election with Hillary. The one you want on your ticket is Biden.... He's polling the best of the flock right now, even though he's not actually IN the race officially yet. But the star player doesn't take the field until near the end anyway as they don't have to, they already have the donors lined up and willing to give, they don't have to do the "generate excitement" thing with the media.
I'm just going to say that when you start to curtail religious freedom recognized in the 1st amendment, you better have a damn good reason. This isn't one of them...
You may *think* that it's "for the children" but it's a dangerous slippery slope you are on. I don't want the CPS camel's nose in my tent anymore than necessary, today it may just be vaccines, but what will it be tomorrow? I'm teaching my kids stuff CPS doesn't agree with or my choice as a parent doesn't live up to the community standards because I don't mind them playing in the dirt and getting dirty or I require them to perform what I consider age appropriate physical labor to teach them responsibility and a strong work ethic? Or I let them drink unpasteurized milk from my own cows?
I urge much caution here... I vaccinated my kids, but I can see how some have religious objections and it's not my business to judge the validity of their religion and certainly NOT government's business, in the absence of a clear and immediate need to abridge religious freedom. Unvaccinated kids are NOT in immediate danger, and do not pose an immediate threat to public safety and health. I don't think we can constitutionally force this issue with parents and make it stick in the courts. Why waste time trying? Perhaps education would be a better approach? Certainly it has the possibility of helping and won't waste piles of money in the courts finding out the law is unconstitutional anyway.
Bernie?
Yes PLEASE, give us Bernie, the guy who embraces the crazy left wing of your party... PLEASE! Talk about an entertaining election, the old aging socialist on the left and Trump standing clearly in the middle making Ole' Bernie look like the hypocritical leftist he is every day. It will be a land slide to the right, both in the House, the Senate AND the Whitehouse. It will be fun to watch... You do know that he's already behind in the polls right?
In fact, I may need to send Bernie a few dollars, just to make sure he has a chance this time.. That the Democrat party doesn't cheat him out of the primary win again with all their "super delegate" creative accounting and slight of hand.
I hear Hillary hasn't ruled out running yet... That would be fun too.
Seriously, if you think "Net Neutrality" or "Save the Internet" or what ever you want to call it today is going to help your chances, bring it on, power to you, whatever, just know, it's a show vote and nothing more. Also know that when push comes to shove, by the time the democrats get back into power this will be about as relevant as all the "blue laws" from the 60's are now.
I don't think playing the abortion idea is a good one.. It may shore up the base but if the polling is any indicator, it's a net loss for democrats as the overwhelming majority of voters do NOT support unlimited right to abortion past viability (say about 22 weeks), much less up to the moment of birth. And I believe that the polling is about 50/50 for abortions just before a detectable heartbeat.
It may play better in heavily democratic areas, and shore up the base, but abortion is an issue that inflames the other side of the debate too, so I'd be *really* careful about that issue as a democrat running for a national office. It could hurt the overall stance of the democrat party nationally, using this issue in local elections.
Here we go again.. They want to have *another* run at net neutrality...
Have at it guys, but we all know what is going to happen. It *may* make it out of the House, but it is dying in committee in the Senate. Nothing but the next election can possibly change that and by the looks of things, that's rapidly slipping into a snowballs chance of surviving in a very hot place....
Maybe if you had a time machine.....Naw, after 3 movies, we all know how that ends...
You say to-mate-o, I say to-mot-o...
It is still based in their religious views.. Some don't have issues with "modern" technology including modern medical practices, some do.
However, The Christian Scientists DO have religious objections which reject vaccinations along with all sorts of modern medical procedures...
But let's not forget my original point. SOME object to vaccines on closely held religious grounds. This makes the idea of government forcing vaccinations interfere with the free exercise of religion recognized in the first amendment. This is a really heavy legal burden in the courts when you try to enforce such laws, so we cannot just run pell-mell and write some ill-advised law that isn't sufficiently narrow (and thus ineffective) and hope that it survives the court challenge. Such action would be stupid...
They have their ONE study, performed by a now discredited doctor who lost his medical license for his lack of ethical research techniques and lack of effective peer reviews. The study has been condemned as wrong for decades, but you can bet they will quote from that one....
In the mean time, 120,000 kids a year die around the world from the illness prevented by the MMR vaccine.
The other reason Wakefield lost his license was that he was profiteering from his own fraudulent research.
I know. right. Did you read what he was doing to is poor "research subjects" who where young kids with autism? I dare say NOBODY on the anti-vaxx side of this argument would have approved, and most would be appalled at the barbaric medical procedures he was doing. The whole thing was a scheme to sell a treatment for autism, that was very expensive, didn't work when others tried it and was basically supported by his flawed (read as FAKED) research results.
Now this guy lives in Austin TX... He's made a movie "VAXXED" and maintains he was framed and defamed by big pharma in the UK and the USA and keeps making money selling his anti-vaxx materials and running anti-vaxx organizations. Lucky he's lost his medical license, or he'd be torturing autistic kids in the name of a "cure" and fleecing desperate parents of their hard earned money doing the invasive painful medical procedures he's infamous in the UK for.
I so wish "The Lancet" hadn't published that paper....
Actually, the Amish vaccinate. It's a myth that they don't. (Just like it's a myth that there aren't any autistic Amish.)
I never said ALL Amish, I said most. It depends on the community and the stance of their "elders" who establish their own policy based on their views. Some Amish own and drive tractors, some are strictly horse and buggy types.
I suspect their autism rates are similar to the rest of the nation, though I've not seen any studies about that. IF they where different, you can bet there would be a rush of medical researchers out investigating the various possible causes and we'd have cohort studies on top of cohort studies trying to weed out actual causes already.
Isn't that where we are headed anyway? Government control of everything?
Shall we dig out the Jackboots and brown shirts now? (sarc off)
May I suggest we take a bit less aggressive stance here.. Government isn't the answer to everything. In this case, a bit of an educational effort may go a long way towards warding off the dis-information campaigns that come from the AntiVaxx Dogma. Can we at least try that first?
The battle over "fake news" will only be won when "real news" is recognized and applauded for being right and that takes education on the issues, balanced and factual education.
So let's make it nearly impossible to get public services, attend public schools or attend government sponsored gatherings of children without vaccines having been given as recommended,
...nor go anywhere public, since the measles virus (for example) can persist for as long as two hours. No supermarkets, no playgrounds, no airports, no bus depots...
Well... I see your point, but again, we are talking about basic human rights outlined in the construction. It's going to be a hard lift in the courts for the government to legally prevent unvaccinated people from traveling or frequenting public places.
Boy have you fallen for the AntiVaxx dogma in a big way.
You are claiming this is all a big conspiracy between doctors, the FDA and Big Pharma to make money. I'm wondering if your tin-foil hat is a bit too tight..
Just so you know. About 120,000 kids DIE every year from the measles. Not in the USA of course, we are vaccinated here for the most part, but back before the vaccine became available kids died here too. The MMR vaccine saves lives and is available cheap if you cannot pay full price.
Polio is one of the brightest cases for vaccines. The vaccine has *almost* eradicated the three types of polio completely. One has been eliminated in the wild, is no longer included in the vaccine. Polio used to do grave harm to large number of people, now, it sill kills people nearly every year, but the number of cases world wide has fallen *way* down to under a few hundred a year. In this case, if you are trying to get rid of vaccines, then it actually makes sense to push the polio vaccine *hard* because we are so very close to not needing it anymore and will have removed a scourge that killed millions. I call that a success story.
By the way, your "it was going down" really isn't true. Polio went though huge swings, cycling from low to high every 5 to 10 years in the USA. The final push for the vaccine happened during one of the worst peaks in history and drove the mas vaccination campaign that became "The March of Dimes" once the "Childhood paralysis" cause was addressed and we've not seen polio cycling at all since. CLEARLY the vaccine had something to do with this, regardless of what you'd like to imply.
Some sects of the Mennonites and most of the Amish hold such views. The so called "Christian Science" church also have long standing closely held religious objections to vaccines and other medical procedures. I'm guessing there are others, but I've not heard of them. The Mennonites and Amish don't really mix with the rest of society so I don't see any issue with letting them alone.
Just because you don't agree with their views it doesn't give the government the right to interfere without *really* good reason. Given this is a first amendment right we are talking about abridging, it is a really high bar for the government to meet when abridging this right in any way.
They have their ONE study, performed by a now discredited doctor who lost his medical license for his lack of ethical research techniques and lack of effective peer reviews. The study has been condemned as wrong for decades, but you can bet they will quote from that one....
In the mean time, 120,000 kids a year die around the world from the illness prevented by the MMR vaccine.
Why would the government want kids to be autistic?
Oh stop with the logical arguments here... They will fall on deaf ears.. Trust me...
IF there was *any* truth to this vaccines cause autism idea, you can bet people like the ones over at "Autism Speaks" would be up in arms to get vaccines stopped. IN FACT they are not, exactly the opposite. Autism Speaks clearly says there is no link and recommend you vaccinate your children. They have no dog in the hunt with big pharma or the FDA and are a premier authority on the causes and treatments of autism.
But hey, confirmation bias will clearly be used to dismiss any and all facts contrary to the closely held theories here..
This has been studied many times in the last decade or two. Always with the same result....
What they are saying is there is no INCREASED risk of autism in kids who got the MMR vaccine and those who didn't. They are saying that correlation does not imply causation and in this case, MMR didn't cause autism. They are, however, acknowledging that the onset of autism happens to coincide with the giving of MMR vaccine. This is because autism is diagnosed at about the same time as it becomes apparent in the developmental delays about the same time as the vaccine is given. They are debunking the logic error used by the antivaxx dogma to push their mistake.
Morons who don't vaccinate their kids should be dealt with by Child Protective Services.
Well... I agree they are generally morons, but I'm a bit leery of sending CPS into haul the kids away for this. It's a bit too close to jackboots and brown shirts for my tastes and CPS tends to be a bit heavy handed at times to start with. Let's not give them another reason to come calling at your house and take your kids first and ask questions later.
I do support laws just short of making vaccinations mandatory, but there are long standing and closely held religious beliefs that preclude the use of vaccines (along with a host of other medical procedures). So let's make it nearly impossible to get public services, attend public schools or attend government sponsored gatherings of children without vaccines having been given as recommended, except if there are valid and documented medical reasons which make vaccinations inappropriate. IF your religious belief precludes your kids from vaccines, fine, but you don't get to put them in public school, obtain welfare benefits, or use other public services until you vaccinate them (or get the medical waver)...
I always though the goal of the blast was not to destroy the asteroid but to change its trajectory...
Seriously? How are you going to destroy a solid rock? Now put that rock in a vacuum and tell me how you figure on coupling enough energy though nothing to do this?
It's a whole lot easier to deflect something so it misses, than break it apart into harmless pieces. The actual window for things to crash into Earth is pretty small.