Both are important. Otherwise other nations can spy on US citizens, and then just report the results to the US government. It already happens.
Other nations spying on us is already illegal under US law. If you believe that the US government conspires with other nations in them spying on US citizens, a UN resolution isn't going to help because the same US government wouldn't enforce it anyway.
And that's, of course, exactly what's been happening to the Germans. For decades, the German government has had the US spy on its citizens and gotten reports as needed, and those responsible in Germany now need to cover their asses politically and blame the Americans. That's why Germany is pushing for this resolution while, at the same time, it is building out its own domestic surveillance infrastructure.
What does your diatribe have to do with anything I said? All I said is that government should not mandate curricula, because once it does, it invariably leads to abuse as various special interest groups jockey to get their special viewpoints indoctrinated into the next generation.
Or are you really so stupid and ignorant to think that kids will learn history, philosophy, and science if you leave it up to public school curricula? If that sort of argument is what you're implying by your diatribe, you obviously have never seen public school curricula once Catholics, protestants, or communists have gotten a hold of them; or worse, you have, and you don't even understand how distorted they are.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
That provision protects Americans against unreasonable search and seizures by the US government; it's a great principle, and it would be nice if the US government started following it again. Brazil and Germany don't give a f*ck about that, and those nations spy with impunity on their own citizens.
What Brazil and Germany suggest is that the US spying on other nations is a violation of human rights; yes, even the US spying on North Korea or Iran or any of the other repressive regimes. Of course, when nations spy on each other, it violates the laws of the target nation; that's fine. But to call it a "human rights violation" is ludicrous.
But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights
So, the Brazilians and Germans are saying that you may spy on your own citizens to your heart's content, but you can't spy outside your own territory because that violates human rights. Sorry, but I think that's backwards. I hope the US kills this provision. I want the US government to spy on foreign nations and not spy on Americans.
They were men of the late-18th century, there is a great deal they could never have imagined. That said, the current state of things has been 200+ years in the making- and it began almost immediately after the country was founded.
The vast expansion of federal power happened in the 20th century, much of it after WWII. It is neither inevitable nor necessary. And given that many states are now bigger than the US used to be, it makes sense to give more power to the states and counties, instead of creating some unaccountable and uncontrollable mega-government to rule over all of it. The correct response to a bigger and more complex society is not to create ever bigger central institutions, it is to distribute decision making so that historical processes and scales continue to operate.
Maybe in a naive, simplistic view of government.
What's "naive and simplistic" is your belief that the best way of dealing with problems is to create a gigantic, all-powerful central government and elite.
Frankly I rather like not having to deal with corporations on the basis of caveat emptor.
Generally, I would. But if there is to be regulation, it can be at the state level.
Ah, yes, you exhibit the typical progressive response to criticism: ad hominems, lies, and misrepresentations. Rather than face an argument about government, you deliberately and blatantly misquote someone trying to paint them as a religious zealot.
For the record, I'm a scientist and an atheist. But I also believe in political freedom, and that includes the freedom for parents to teach their kids things that I consider wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was imposed by your deity?
Yes, let me correct you: I'm an atheist.
The difference here being that the deity cannot make you
Well, that's the difference. In many versions of Christianity, moral conduct is a choice, and whether you believe that that choice has consequences is entirely a matter of faith. Legislating morality and imposing consequences in this life takes away that choice.
Whether one is an atheist or a Christian, the fact remains that compassion and charity are individual choices; once you impose them through laws, they cease to exist (in addition, attempting to legislate them is ineffective anyway).
Furthermore, if you view the law as a means of imposing moral choices on people, why draw the line at imposing charity? You can then go further and impose other forms of morality. The error progressives are making in attempting to frame welfare as a moral duty is the same error social conservatives are making.
I was responding to "tgd"'s statement about the Founding Fathers and representative government, so don't blame me for bringing this up. And fact is: representative government was intended by the Constitution for districts that were much smaller than what they are today. The fact that representatives today represent districts of nearly a million people makes representative government at the federal level a farce, and means that we should return more power to state and local government, instead of letting more and more decisions be made at the federal level.
You're right that the Constitution should not be a static document, so let's talk about how things have changed. Given the vast increase in the population, complexity, and diversity of the US, it is time that we move power away from the federal government back to the states, many of which are larger and more powerful than the entire US used to be. Creating an unaccountable, uncontrollable super-state that's in the thrall of corporations, like you want, is the wrong direction.
I think part of the problem is the results from these test can scare the shit out of the average Joe
Yes, that's the problem: instead of trusting people to make reasonable decisions for themselves and live with the consequences, an intellectual elite treats everybody as "the average Joe", unable to make decisions for himself. That's true for medicine as well as mortgages and all the other things government has started interfering in over the last few decades. But the people substituting their judgment for that of "the average Joe" are neither impartial, nor do they know the exact circumstances of "the average Joe". For example, they may want to protect the financial interests of existing testing companies, and they can't distinguish between the small minority who would do something stupid with a test result and the vast majority who would use these results sensibly.
The more you treat people as immature children, the more dependent and immature they'll become. It just gets worse and worse over time.
Likely to prevent quacks from diagnosing patients with problems and then charging an arm and a leg to fix the problem.
But that's exactly what many medical doctors are frequently doing. You used to be able at least not to pay the worst of these quacks, but with ACA, everybody is forced to pay them.
Actually what they're really afraid of is the return of the ancient aliens that society was built upon. And there's equal evidence for both our conclusions.
There is plenty of evidence for what I said, because FDA explicitly justifies the rejection of medical tests with "cost/benefit analyses". So you continue to prove that you don't know what you're talking about.
Suppose I started marketing an HIV test, or a Hepatitis C test, or a tuberculosis test without demonstrating the test was effective?
Why should you have to demonstrate that to the FDA, instead of to your customers? As long as you are truthful in your disclosures, I think you should be able to sell your test.
You see back in the 1920s, soon after the discovery of Radium and X-Rays...and you just KNOW when a sentence starts like that its gonna end badly..a bunch of companies started selling "Health restoring radium water" which of course not only had zero oversight since there wasn't an FDA but also had zero standards when it came to doses.
If you poison people by irresponsibly selling something that harms them, you are already liable. The FDA might well give advice to companies on what labeling would protect them from legal liability, but there is no justification for making these tests unavailable.
on industrialist whose jaw literally rotted off
How many stupid, wealthy people do you think kill themselves with FDA-approved drugs every year? How many people do you think doctors kill each year with FDA-approved drugs? Nobody has ever shown that FDA oversight survives a cost/benefit analysis.
Fine and dandy although I would argue that a bad test result could cause folks to die as they might ignore symptoms because "The test says I'm not at risk for X", not to mention we have ZERO proof that their labs are even monitored in any way.
As long as they are honest about what they are selling, I don't see the problem. If they properly disclose what's known about the test and you draw the wrong conclusions, that should be your problem, not theirs.
There's a reason the "founding fathers" intended that your voice carried no weight at the national level -- or even largely at the state level. The "public" doesn't have the knowledge to have their opinions really matter on most topics.
The Founding Fathers never imagined or desired a federal government that regulates every aspect of our lives and runs 25% of the economy. They certainly did not imagine or want anything like the FDA, DEA, or other such institutions. The federal government is supposed to defend the nation and make sure that nobody interferes with free trade between the states, that's all.
but beyond that *those* officials voted on national matters.
Yes, and health care, education, drug laws, etc. should not be national matters.
And its a DAMN good thing that the dimwit "will of the masses" is not involved in the vast majority of things the government does, because the will of the masses is both ignorant and easily controlled.
And it's high time that we kick representatives with that kind of arrogant attitude out of office.
"Some of the uses for which PGS is intended are particularly concerning, such as assessments for BRCA-related genetic risk and drug responses (e.g., warfarin sensitivity, clopidogrel response, and 5-fluorouracil toxicity) because of the potential health consequences that could result from false positive or false negative assessments for high-risk indications such as these. For instance, if the BRCA-related risk assessment for breast or ovarian cancer reports a false positive, it could lead a patient to undergo prophylactic surgery, chemoprevention, intensive screening, or other morbidity-inducing actions, while a false negative could result in a failure to recognize an actual risk that may exist.
That reasoning is utter and complete bullshit. Tests aren't just "positive". When these genes are reported in the literature, the strength of the correlation between markers and disease is reported as well. Doctors and patients can evaluate their risk based on that information. They aren't going to undergo "prophylactic surgery" unless it makes medical and financial sense to them, based on all available data.
What the FDA is really afraid of is that people with a positive test demand costly follow-up tests, costs that would be quite inconvenient for Medicare/Medicaid and (now) the new Obamacare programs.
how is it not in their jurisdiction? its a company performing a health and medical test. of course they should have research behind their you will get cancer promises
There is research behind it. It's just not research that the FDA likes. For example, the FDA is worried that people receiving positive DNA tests are going to run out to demand additional tests from their doctors. Those tests may well make sense from an individual point of view, but the FDA doesn't like them because they don't make sense in an average cost/benefit analysis across all insured.
Creationism is nonsense. But so is a lot of social science and history that you currently do find in text books.
Ultimately, if you insist on a standard curriculum for everybody, that curriculum is going to become a political football and it's going to be abused by politicians.
Politicians don't get their rewards through revenue-generating web sites, they get their rewards through being able to convince the public to re-elect them. Although Obama clearly screwed up on this one, usually it's not a problem when government sites or projects are over budget or don't work: costs are shifted around, data is presented in more favorable ways, and taxes are used to pay for it. The result is that voters get fooled into thinking that they are getting value for their money, vendors get paid off and end up supporting the politicians that shoved money their way, and the politicians get reelected. And the system works so well because nobody ever wants to admit mistakes: politicians want to pretend everything is working, and if that fails find someone else to blame; companies and even competitors pretend everything is fine because they want to get more contracts; and voters don't want to admit they were fools voting for this.
The reason you're arguing against this is that you are a typical freeloading "conservative" trying to get something for nothing.
I haven't argued for or against anything in this thread. I pointed out that you misrepresented the conservative position.
Personally, I favor financing of government primarily through real estate taxes, which is similar to what you favor, except that it is actually workable. But your blind hostility makes it pointless to have any discussions about tax policy with you.
The basis of Christianity is to do right by your fellow human. To reject greed. To reject avarice. To be humble. To give away everything you don't need. How the fuck does a Christian based nation allow a CEO to make enough money each year to buy a jumbo jet while the employees doing the actual work that earns the company the actual profits can't make basic ends meet on their salary?
Doing right by your fellow human, rejecting avarice, and humility are individual choices. Once you simply impose them as government policy, they cease to be moral choices. Furthermore, you're presuming that government policies to redistribute money are actually effective; Christians and conservatives generally believe that they are ineffective and harmful.
How to the religious right... the conservatives... argue that capitalism (every man for himself, grab what you can) is an appropriate system when they state they believe the exact opposite?
They believe in liberty and individual choice. They also believe that capitalism makes everybody better off, even those "at the bottom".
Yes, believe it or not, economic conservatives (Christian or not) are by and large not selfish pricks, they take the positions they do because they believe they are best for everybody. If you want to attack them, attack their reasoning, not their values and motives.
Conservatives hate this because they want to be able to complain about how unfair "taxes" -- which they are if they tax economic activities -- while receiving, for free, the primary service of government.
Economic conservatives aren't generally complaining about "unfair taxes"; "fairness" is a principle progressives and socialists cling to, and when conservatives talk about it, it is only in response to progressive political arguments. Economic conservatives are concerned with wealth and creating wealth for everybody.
Furthermore, economic conservatives do not want to receive government services "for free", they want government to provide fewer "services" and therefore pay less for it. Economic conservatives are perfectly happy to pay for defense and limited infrastructure. What they object to is using taxes to pay rent seekers: bailouts, subsidies, handouts, bad services, and welfare.
Slashdot Mirror
Other nations spying on us is already illegal under US law. If you believe that the US government conspires with other nations in them spying on US citizens, a UN resolution isn't going to help because the same US government wouldn't enforce it anyway.
And that's, of course, exactly what's been happening to the Germans. For decades, the German government has had the US spy on its citizens and gotten reports as needed, and those responsible in Germany now need to cover their asses politically and blame the Americans. That's why Germany is pushing for this resolution while, at the same time, it is building out its own domestic surveillance infrastructure.
What does your diatribe have to do with anything I said? All I said is that government should not mandate curricula, because once it does, it invariably leads to abuse as various special interest groups jockey to get their special viewpoints indoctrinated into the next generation.
Or are you really so stupid and ignorant to think that kids will learn history, philosophy, and science if you leave it up to public school curricula? If that sort of argument is what you're implying by your diatribe, you obviously have never seen public school curricula once Catholics, protestants, or communists have gotten a hold of them; or worse, you have, and you don't even understand how distorted they are.
Yup, you do your nick justice: UnknowingFool.
That provision protects Americans against unreasonable search and seizures by the US government; it's a great principle, and it would be nice if the US government started following it again. Brazil and Germany don't give a f*ck about that, and those nations spy with impunity on their own citizens.
What Brazil and Germany suggest is that the US spying on other nations is a violation of human rights; yes, even the US spying on North Korea or Iran or any of the other repressive regimes. Of course, when nations spy on each other, it violates the laws of the target nation; that's fine. But to call it a "human rights violation" is ludicrous.
So, the Brazilians and Germans are saying that you may spy on your own citizens to your heart's content, but you can't spy outside your own territory because that violates human rights. Sorry, but I think that's backwards. I hope the US kills this provision. I want the US government to spy on foreign nations and not spy on Americans.
The vast expansion of federal power happened in the 20th century, much of it after WWII. It is neither inevitable nor necessary. And given that many states are now bigger than the US used to be, it makes sense to give more power to the states and counties, instead of creating some unaccountable and uncontrollable mega-government to rule over all of it. The correct response to a bigger and more complex society is not to create ever bigger central institutions, it is to distribute decision making so that historical processes and scales continue to operate.
What's "naive and simplistic" is your belief that the best way of dealing with problems is to create a gigantic, all-powerful central government and elite.
Generally, I would. But if there is to be regulation, it can be at the state level.
Which part of "I think there should be no government mandated curricula at all." did you not understand?
Ah, yes, you exhibit the typical progressive response to criticism: ad hominems, lies, and misrepresentations. Rather than face an argument about government, you deliberately and blatantly misquote someone trying to paint them as a religious zealot.
For the record, I'm a scientist and an atheist. But I also believe in political freedom, and that includes the freedom for parents to teach their kids things that I consider wrong.
You're simply a totalitarian and a liar.
Yes, let me correct you: I'm an atheist.
Well, that's the difference. In many versions of Christianity, moral conduct is a choice, and whether you believe that that choice has consequences is entirely a matter of faith. Legislating morality and imposing consequences in this life takes away that choice.
Whether one is an atheist or a Christian, the fact remains that compassion and charity are individual choices; once you impose them through laws, they cease to exist (in addition, attempting to legislate them is ineffective anyway).
Furthermore, if you view the law as a means of imposing moral choices on people, why draw the line at imposing charity? You can then go further and impose other forms of morality. The error progressives are making in attempting to frame welfare as a moral duty is the same error social conservatives are making.
I was responding to "tgd"'s statement about the Founding Fathers and representative government, so don't blame me for bringing this up. And fact is: representative government was intended by the Constitution for districts that were much smaller than what they are today. The fact that representatives today represent districts of nearly a million people makes representative government at the federal level a farce, and means that we should return more power to state and local government, instead of letting more and more decisions be made at the federal level.
You're right that the Constitution should not be a static document, so let's talk about how things have changed. Given the vast increase in the population, complexity, and diversity of the US, it is time that we move power away from the federal government back to the states, many of which are larger and more powerful than the entire US used to be. Creating an unaccountable, uncontrollable super-state that's in the thrall of corporations, like you want, is the wrong direction.
Yes, that's the problem: instead of trusting people to make reasonable decisions for themselves and live with the consequences, an intellectual elite treats everybody as "the average Joe", unable to make decisions for himself. That's true for medicine as well as mortgages and all the other things government has started interfering in over the last few decades. But the people substituting their judgment for that of "the average Joe" are neither impartial, nor do they know the exact circumstances of "the average Joe". For example, they may want to protect the financial interests of existing testing companies, and they can't distinguish between the small minority who would do something stupid with a test result and the vast majority who would use these results sensibly.
The more you treat people as immature children, the more dependent and immature they'll become. It just gets worse and worse over time.
But that's exactly what many medical doctors are frequently doing. You used to be able at least not to pay the worst of these quacks, but with ACA, everybody is forced to pay them.
There is plenty of evidence for what I said, because FDA explicitly justifies the rejection of medical tests with "cost/benefit analyses". So you continue to prove that you don't know what you're talking about.
Huh? Why would "I" insist on teaching it? I think there should be no government mandated curricula at all.
My doctor could be completely wrong too. So could be FDA-approved tests and medicines. It's medicine, not classical mechanics.
Why should you have to demonstrate that to the FDA, instead of to your customers? As long as you are truthful in your disclosures, I think you should be able to sell your test.
If you poison people by irresponsibly selling something that harms them, you are already liable. The FDA might well give advice to companies on what labeling would protect them from legal liability, but there is no justification for making these tests unavailable.
How many stupid, wealthy people do you think kill themselves with FDA-approved drugs every year? How many people do you think doctors kill each year with FDA-approved drugs? Nobody has ever shown that FDA oversight survives a cost/benefit analysis.
As long as they are honest about what they are selling, I don't see the problem. If they properly disclose what's known about the test and you draw the wrong conclusions, that should be your problem, not theirs.
The Founding Fathers never imagined or desired a federal government that regulates every aspect of our lives and runs 25% of the economy. They certainly did not imagine or want anything like the FDA, DEA, or other such institutions. The federal government is supposed to defend the nation and make sure that nobody interferes with free trade between the states, that's all.
Yes, and health care, education, drug laws, etc. should not be national matters.
And it's high time that we kick representatives with that kind of arrogant attitude out of office.
That reasoning is utter and complete bullshit. Tests aren't just "positive". When these genes are reported in the literature, the strength of the correlation between markers and disease is reported as well. Doctors and patients can evaluate their risk based on that information. They aren't going to undergo "prophylactic surgery" unless it makes medical and financial sense to them, based on all available data.
What the FDA is really afraid of is that people with a positive test demand costly follow-up tests, costs that would be quite inconvenient for Medicare/Medicaid and (now) the new Obamacare programs.
Yes, but why should the FDA have the power to regulate these tests in the first place?
There is research behind it. It's just not research that the FDA likes. For example, the FDA is worried that people receiving positive DNA tests are going to run out to demand additional tests from their doctors. Those tests may well make sense from an individual point of view, but the FDA doesn't like them because they don't make sense in an average cost/benefit analysis across all insured.
Creationism is nonsense. But so is a lot of social science and history that you currently do find in text books.
Ultimately, if you insist on a standard curriculum for everybody, that curriculum is going to become a political football and it's going to be abused by politicians.
Politicians don't get their rewards through revenue-generating web sites, they get their rewards through being able to convince the public to re-elect them. Although Obama clearly screwed up on this one, usually it's not a problem when government sites or projects are over budget or don't work: costs are shifted around, data is presented in more favorable ways, and taxes are used to pay for it. The result is that voters get fooled into thinking that they are getting value for their money, vendors get paid off and end up supporting the politicians that shoved money their way, and the politicians get reelected. And the system works so well because nobody ever wants to admit mistakes: politicians want to pretend everything is working, and if that fails find someone else to blame; companies and even competitors pretend everything is fine because they want to get more contracts; and voters don't want to admit they were fools voting for this.
I haven't argued for or against anything in this thread. I pointed out that you misrepresented the conservative position.
Personally, I favor financing of government primarily through real estate taxes, which is similar to what you favor, except that it is actually workable. But your blind hostility makes it pointless to have any discussions about tax policy with you.
Doing right by your fellow human, rejecting avarice, and humility are individual choices. Once you simply impose them as government policy, they cease to be moral choices. Furthermore, you're presuming that government policies to redistribute money are actually effective; Christians and conservatives generally believe that they are ineffective and harmful.
They believe in liberty and individual choice. They also believe that capitalism makes everybody better off, even those "at the bottom".
Yes, believe it or not, economic conservatives (Christian or not) are by and large not selfish pricks, they take the positions they do because they believe they are best for everybody. If you want to attack them, attack their reasoning, not their values and motives.
Economic conservatives aren't generally complaining about "unfair taxes"; "fairness" is a principle progressives and socialists cling to, and when conservatives talk about it, it is only in response to progressive political arguments. Economic conservatives are concerned with wealth and creating wealth for everybody.
Furthermore, economic conservatives do not want to receive government services "for free", they want government to provide fewer "services" and therefore pay less for it. Economic conservatives are perfectly happy to pay for defense and limited infrastructure. What they object to is using taxes to pay rent seekers: bailouts, subsidies, handouts, bad services, and welfare.