So, it was okay when the Dems filibustered, and the Republicans shouldn't have used reconciliation?
If the matter was not strictly budgetary, then yes it is was okay for the Dems to filibuster and the Republicans should not have used reconciliation to halt that procedure.
Which is not what the Constitution says, by the way.
Please, the Constitution was NOT designed to spell out in exacting detail the complete rules of Senate procedure. It was and is a statement of our principles and highest law; hence the need for a legislature to pass laws to cover the details. The rules of Senate procedure are a matter of practical necessity (as they are in any other parliamentary body anywhere else in this world). It is not, practically speaking, possible to have a formal legislative body without procedural rules. The Constitution demands that there exist a Senate and a Senate requires rules so it is up to the Senate to decide upon its own rules so that it can fulfill its primary purpose as defined in the Constitution. As I have already said, if you don't like the rules then run for Senate and, if elected, propose to change them (good luck with that).
From the reply (you do read right?): "Thus, the US Senate has the power to set its own rules of procedure"
The Constitution allows the Senate to work out the details of its own procedures (in that it does not explicitly prohibit them from doing so and having some form of formal procedure is necessary as a practical matter). If those procedures need to be changed, then the Senate should debate that separately outside the context of any particular issue and then make whatever changes they deem necessary. The point is this: the Constitution outlined the basic structure of the Senate in such a way as to protect minority interests. The details of precisely how this is to be done were left up to the Senate itself. THE SENATE MAKES ITS OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE. If you don't like those rules then run for the office of United States Senator and, if you are elected, propose that the Senate change its rules of procedure (good luck with that).
Republicans have used reconciliation to stop filibustering Dems before
Reconciliation is a valid procedure if and only if it is strictly limited to matters of purely budgetary significance. I cannot recall a single instance of anyone, Republican or Democrat, using it for something completely outside this purpose (i.e. creating a new entitlement program), but if it has been abused in that way (and I am not saying that it has) it doesn't make it right; two wrongs don't make a right.
Hmm, funny, it was okay when Republicans used it. Hypocrite.
Please don't put words in my mouth. IMHO the filibuster is a valid and necessary rule of Senate procedure and attempting to skirt those rules, for whatever reason, is a particularly odious act no matter who is doing it or for what purpose. Again, why does everyone around here take these binary positions? What ever happened to nuance and its appreciation?
A primary purpose of the Senate, as outlined in the Constitution, is to protect the minority interest; any Constitutional Scholar will tell you as much. That is why large states and small states have equal representation (2 senators). If protection of the minority was not an issue then why have two chambers in the legislature? Of course, the Constitution is not going to have every last detail; it is a statement of basic principles and a mostly brilliant achievement in concise language and clear meaning. Thus, the US Senate has the power to set its own rules of procedure, in so far as those rules do not somehow contradict the Constitution. The filibuster, as a tool of general procedure in Senate debates, has been both praised and denounced by just about everyone at different times in the history of the US Senate and yet it remains as a valid procedural and IMHO important option. Notice that even the Democrats, who have the upper hand right now, are reluctant to debauch this time honored Senate rule of procedure; to do so is to "cross the Rubicon" as it were and forever cheapen the US Senate along the lines of "no Roman general shall enter Rome at the head of his armed legions without the invitation of the Senate and the people".
Is budget reconciliation also valid? Yes it is, but I am of the opinion that using a procedure that was clearly intended for routine budgetary matters (hence the restrictions on its use in the Senate's procedural language) to pass new social policy would be extremely damaging to the US Senate in its role as "upper" house of the US Congress. Indeed, the very word Senate derives from the ancient Roman "senex" meaning "old man" (i.e. some additional amount of experience, judgment and wisdom deriving from advanced age) implying some additional level of judgment and discernment. Is acting rashly or quickly the sign of discernment or good judgment? I wouldn't say so, but then again that is just me.
Single payer is the only real way to go. Simply look at countries that have it. Look at health care outcomes. Look at costs.
You're opinion. Different people want different things. My problem comes when you say that I have to surrender a portion of my property to pay for whatever it is you want. You want it? Buy it for yourself and do it with your own money. One should not, IMHO, force people to be charitable through taxes, giving is by definition voluntary, otherwise it is taking. If you think that single payer is so great then why not consider a move to Sweden, Norway, or any number of other places where single payer is the system? All I hear from the left is how great European living is, so why not just move there and have what you want? We have something unique and special here in the United States that exists nowhere else on this planet. If you want more government and less individual freedom then there are any number of other places which provide that Faustian bargain.
You DO realize that our current system is, quite literally, the worst per dollar spent. The. Absolute. Worst.
Again the mistake. Please listen very carefully this time: JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DOES NOT FAVOR SINGLE PAYER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY LOVE THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND WANT NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER. Single-payer is not the only alternative. You might think that is the best alternative, but darn it quit setting up the strawman argument that any opponent of single-payer must be in favor of doing nothing, as if it was a binary choice between single-payer and doing nothing.
The Constitution never meant for 41 votes to be able to stop 59 votes, sorry.
Excuse me, but that is exactly what the Constitution is designed to do: protect the minority position. If the United States was simply about majority rule (i.e. rule of the mob) then no Constitution would be needed. Why do you suppose that they bothered with the Constitution? Precisely to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Sheesh, didn't you pay attention in civics class?
Perhaps the people on the left are, but they are NOT the mainstream. Your answer to the mainstream backlash is, "they are angry because we weren't radical/revolutionary enough"? That's just brilliant; it completely absolves the left of having to explain why it is that they failed. While it does have a certain sort of Nihilistic appeal, it is flawed none the less. Think about it, that excuse could be used anytime by anybody and cannot be tested or refuted; it ads nothing to anyone's understanding, it is like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "la, la, la...I'm not listening!" after the other side has won the argument.
As far the poll, they didn't explain their methodology, they didn't state the margin of error, and they didn't ask enough people (or the blogger chose not to include this information). Although I did like this observation:
"Health reform is extremely important to their base and appeared to drive up turnout for Coakley -- yet reform also drives turnout on the other side and is unpopular in national polls. People think it's going to raise costs and lower the quality of care, [emphasis added] Rasmussen said, and don't like the raw deal-making they've seen in the legislative process."
and this
The sooner the Democrats can get the legislative process behind them, the better off they're going to be," he said. "One, because of the ugliness of it. And two, they've got to focus on other issues that are more pressing to voters.
they should get it behind them by passing a smaller bill and sending it back to the Senate so that Scott Brown has an opportunity to vote on it (thus honoring the will of the Massachusetts voters). Any attempt at skulduggery by the Democrats (i.e. the "nuclear option" of budget reconciliation on the previous senate bill, passed before the Massachusetts election, plus revisions) at this point are likely to backfire even more forcefully than they did in Massachusetts.
Finally, the insurance mandate is likely to be among the biggest sticking points (it has arguably been the most controversial part of the Democratic bill). It raises serious Constitutional questions on the power of Congress to issue arbitrary orders to citizens under penalty of taxation. The Supreme Court has granted wide latitude to Congress with regard to taxation but the power to tax cannot be permitted to extend into the power to compel any citizen to do anything that Congress mandates; which is effectively where the "individual mandate" takes us. It is the first step down the road to capricious government power over the lives (and bodies) of individual citizens.
You make some good points. However, wouldn't almost all of them be solved by providing a time and place for them? For example the D&D materials could be kept in the library, with searches for those entering and leaving, and only used during allowed recreation hours. It seems to me that an outright ban is perhaps not the best approach.
Clearly, no-one involved in the case has ever played a decent game of D&D.
This is more often the case than not when it comes to D&D, which has often been criticized over the years by those who don't understand, haven't played or have other underlying issues or agendas because, lets be honest here, typical gamers make easy targets. Fantasy role playing games in general and D&D in particular have endured many cheap shots of the years from outsiders looking for a scapegoat; the evidence is well documented on Google for anyone who cares to look.
There's something in their psyche that would rather have a violent response to a problem which doesn't work, than a peaceful response which does. The first is somehow more satisfying to them. The second one is sort of.. offensive to their sensibilities.
It may not be entirely their fault. For example, it is probably fair to say that for most of human history, or at least up until relatively recently anyway, the "violence first questions later" approach probably conferred some survival advantages. After all, we are the descendants of conquerors and barbarians who looted and pillaged, not the enlightened pacifists. When it comes to human nature, refined through natural selections, old habits (perhaps very old in the case of violent urges) can be tough to break.
I agree. One wonders what this warden is thinking by banning D&D because it "emulates gang structure"? This sounds like something that a politician, who has never worked in or run a prison, might say or do to get votes. Any warden of any prison in America will tell you that privileges are a HUGE part of what makes any prison run smoothly; they are a vital tool. Absolute punishment 24/7 tends to backfire in the long run because people who have little or nothing left to lose are not easily controlled. Offering rewards and incentives for good behavior is therefore in the best interests of both the prison staff and the prisoners. The great thing about D&D, from the standpoint of the warden, is that it has the potential to be tremendous occupier of both time and mental energy. Time and mental energy which, as the parent points out, could easily be put to other devious uses by prisoners. Most of us here on Slashdot have probably played D&D at some point so we know how tremendously complex and engrossing the game can become whereas some prison wardens might not recognize this valuable tool of control. So here it is for all of you prison wardens out there: Do you want to make your job and life easier? Do you want to have fewer problems with physical violence? How about enhancing the education program with basic math, statistics, social interactions, and strategic thinking (the sort the might be useful in returning to productive society)? If you want these things then, D&D should be promoted as a privilege rather than banned as "gang simulator"; it has the potential to be many times more effective than either cable television or working in the metal shop as privilege.
Most recent polls show a supermajority of the population supports radical health care reform and socialized medicine.
No way. That's completely bull. The Massachusetts election is only the most recent proof that Americans absolutely don't want socialized medicine ala single-payer or individual mandates. It was a mistake on the part of the left to assume that because many Americans favor some sort of health care reform, they also favor socialized medicine ala single-payer; THAT WAS IN ERROR! There is no way that so many Americans, from such diverse and varied backgrounds, could all be so clearly against the Democratic bill if it was simply astroturfing by big pharma and the insurance companies. Incidentally how do you explain Coakley's attendance of a big-money fund raiser in Washington DC, on the eve of the election, jammed packed with pharma and insurance lobbyists? She took her thirty pieces of silver from the very people you claim to detest. Ask yourself this: If a supermajority of Americans favor radical health care reform then why are Obama and Pelosi back-peddling like crazy after the Massachusetts election? Americans favor radical health reform and socialized medicine...yeah right.
Money is a source of power in this world that is true, but it is not the only one. The ultimate power is the power to destroy (which is also a power of the government via the military). Governments reserve both of these powers, the power to destroy and the power of money (the money supplies of the world are ultimately controlled by governments) onto themselves. However, please note that I did not say no government, but rather limited government...there is an important difference. It is wrong to frame the choice as, "big government OR no government whatsoever". The left often sets up that strawman; if you disagree with them then your position is exactly the opposite (whether it actually is or not). For recent example, anyone who disagreed with the proposed health care reform in the US was said, by the left, to be in favor of "let them die in the street"; as if that was the only possible alternative position. Getting back to the issue of big government, it is my own personal opinion that here in the US we are going too far in that direction: the bailouts, the stimulus, the health care bill, etc...(and that is not I think a minority sentiment). Big concentrations of power, particularly government power, attract those seeking to corrupt and direct those powers to their own best advantage (whether it is good for the nation or not). There is a balance to be struck, but that won't happen with a government takeover of the economy or sweeping government regulation. So perhaps now you can better understand my position with regard to limited government.
There is a core group of Americans who are all about "getting back basics" or restoring America to the "original formula"; we are called libertarians. Unfortunately, as you have already stated, most of our neighbors are more concerned about what goods or services the government can offer to them gratis or how the power of government can be used to enforce morality than they are about true freedom as the founding fathers envisioned it. They would rather "get theirs" (never mind how) than be free; sad but true.
All the more reason, IMHO, to cut the budget for manned space flight and spend the money elsewhere in the Federal government or, gasp, return it to the taxpayers from whom we took it in the first place. I don't think that its too controversial to say that manned space flight is the highest cost and lowest value program that NASA is currently involved with. The International Space Station has become little more than an orbiting hotel for bored billionaires subsidized by ordinary taxpayers. There are virtually no experiments worth doing, at least as far as I am aware, that couldn't be done both better and more cheaply here on the ground.
Until then, they're just a vehicle to privatize what is otherwise be a government research function.
Which raises the question: "What more is there to learned about manned space flight given our current limitations"? After all, you can only do the "study of weightlessness on human body" experiments so many times before nothing new or useful is learned by additional repetitions. Personally, I feel that we should shelve manned space flight, or at least place it on the back burner, until we have substantially better propulsion systems (aka interstellar drives) and somewhere interesting to go. As you have already stated, there are few compelling reasons (other than national pride or prestige) for continuing manned space flight at this time. If there were, then private companies would do it, provided that they could earn profits; except right now they really cannot earn much (if any) profit, with the possible exception of government contracts, with manned space flights.
Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder.
If the government wasn't so darn powerful then there wouldn't be as many or as high bids and yet the Libertarians here on Slashdot are always modded down for having the temerity to suggest that bigger government is not the answer. One cannot have lots of individual choice and freedom in a big government country; the desire to use the power of big government to limit choices, "manage" freedoms and control outcomes is simply too much for some to resist. The high-minded left often forgets or ignores the fact that not everyone is as altruistic or benevolent as they claim to be and that human nature absolutely will misuse the levers of power given the opportunity; so why magnify the damage by increasing the size and reach of those levers?
It is perhaps instructive to remember that it was not so long ago that China considered itself the center of the "celestial universe" and all outsiders as "barbarians". It is not difficult to guess, given this cultural context, how the Chinese feel about criticism of their "enlightened" ways. Times may have changed, but cultural sensitivities die very hard in China.
Big deal. We probably own different cars and different brands of shoes. There are people who affect a stance of superiority over that bullshit, too.
Hmmm...Do I detect a hint of jealousy over those black turtlenecks, rimless glasses and sleek industrial design? Maybe we just can't handle how "cool" Jobs and his disciples look with their MacBooks? Hehe...then again maybe not.
though the insurance industry would sure love to see "tort reform" (aka, fuck over anyone who is genuinely harmed by malpractice).
Here it is (don't strain your brain too much thinking about this): Imagine that you are a doctor who has high malpractice insurance premiums which get higher every time you are successfully sued for malpractice; whether legitimate or not. It doesn't cost you, as the doctor, anything to order additional tests because the patients and insurance companies pay for those and even if they refuse to pay for them, you can mention in court that you ordered the tests but the patient or insurance company refused to get them. Here is the point: doctors have everything to gain and little (or nothing) to lose by ordering every conceivable medical test that might be even remotely useful in defending a malpractice lawsuit brought by...wait for it...the attorneys!
If every patient receives dozens of tests or procedures, regardless of actual medical necessity, then OF COURSE the cost of health care is going to go up because demand for these services, which are in limited supply, is automatically pushed up by doctors looking to cover their butts against malpractice litigation. The employer provided third party payer insurance system exacerbates the problem by disconnecting the patients from the true prices of medical services so they generally agree to whatever tests or medical procedures, short of surgery, that the doctors recommend because, darn it, they have their paid for insurance through their employer and they are going to use it. Do you see now why attorneys are a big part of the health care problem? You could probably find any number of specific examples if you wanted to look, but what I have described above is a well known problem in the American health care system today.
Now, I would argue that faced with a very small chance of winning the legal lottery (should I be a victim of medical malpractice) OR the certainty of higher medical costs over my lifetime due to overzealous malpractice attorneys; I would be better off paying much less in exchange for a more limited payout in that legal lottery. Attorneys love to use the argument: wait until you need us and you cannot sue for millions! However, for most Americans that is a come on to a sucker bet with a very low payoff matrix because most of us will use health care, and pay more for it, during our lifetimes without ever being in a position to win a big legal judgment due to a legitimate case of medical malpractice.
I wasn't talking about Intuit's contributions, I was talking about the attorneys. As I pointed out in my previous post it is the attorneys who make the biggest contributions to the Democratic party because they benefit most from larger government, more laws, and more regulation. Incidentally a huge part of escalating health care costs is due to lawsuits and threat of lawsuits against doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc...by, you guessed it, attorneys. For example, the doctors don't care how much all of the extra tests cost as long as they cover their butt in a malpractice suit. In some states, notably Mississippi, it is becoming extremely difficult to find an OBGYN and certain other medical specialists because the malpractice insurance costs are insane. At least corporations offer us something in the form of goods or services, but whenever people are forced to deal with attorneys the first thought in their minds is, "how much is this going to cost me"?
The tax filing and preparation industry, of which Intuit is a part, has long been an obstacle to any change in the tax code that would serve to simplify and reduce the need for their services. However, they are far from the only special interest group with an incentive to keep the US Tax code as complex, opaque, and unintuitive as possible. The tax attorneys who help the wealthy arrange their affairs to minimize taxes under the complex rules, the Federal Law Enforcement agencies who periodically use the tax code as a tool to prosecute those who they cannot otherwise charge (i.e. organized crime, income from illegal activities, etc) and of course the tax accountants who work at all levels as guides through the byzantine labyrinth of the US tax codes. Each of these groups, and especially the attorneys (who are the number 1 contributors to the Democratic Party btw), lobbies vigorously against any change in the law which they perceive to be a threat to their ongoing and profitable stream of revenue. Few things in life are as certain as death and taxes after all and one would be hard pressed to think of a more stable source of revenue, as an attorney or tax industry insider, than a system mandated by the Federal Government that every American must use at least once per year.
Wait, I thought SS was some kind of govt retirement plan, right?
Wrong. Social Security was originally intended to prevent the elderly from becoming completely destitute in their final years. It was never intended to be a primary source of retirement income.
It doesn't hurt the poor, as they'll get more out of it proportional to their income.
It hurts them in the sense that just about any alternative savings investment, even US Treasury Bills, would provide a better rate of return. Several in-depth studies have documented the terrible returns offered by Social Security over the years; these days it really amounts to little more than another confiscation of wealth by the Federal Government and from those who can least afford it (you will note that the wealthy, Congressmen and Senators have statutory or de-facto exemptions from participation...what's good for the goose isn't so good for the gander it seems).
I don't think you could do that for a couple of grand.
They would basically have to take the car completely apart to get at every sensor and computer, replace all of them and then put everything back together again. The newest cars are the worst in this regard; they are literally jammed full of electronics, sensors and computers. It would probably take them at least a couple of weeks to finish everything with a couple of grand just for the parts alone. Then you have to factor in the labor, which would probably have to be done by a factory authorized dealer with all of the licensed diagnostic software and manufacturer parts support; so figure about five times the cost of the parts in labor. Unless your vehicle is a late model luxury car, it is likely that all of this is going to cost more than the residual value of the repaired vehicle or in other words the insurance company would "total it out" and sell it on as a used parts wreck.
Nevermind the fact that this has "massive liability" (i.e. instant class action lawsuits) written all over it; especially for the manufacturer of the device (Eureka Aerospace). The car might as well be sent to the crusher after being hit with this device because it will effectively be a complete loss with damaged or destroyed electronics. No doubt the insurance companies, who will be forced to "total out" stolen vehicles hit with this device, will have a thing or two to say as well.
Slashdot Mirror
So, it was okay when the Dems filibustered, and the Republicans shouldn't have used reconciliation?
If the matter was not strictly budgetary, then yes it is was okay for the Dems to filibuster and the Republicans should not have used reconciliation to halt that procedure.
Which is not what the Constitution says, by the way.
Please, the Constitution was NOT designed to spell out in exacting detail the complete rules of Senate procedure. It was and is a statement of our principles and highest law; hence the need for a legislature to pass laws to cover the details. The rules of Senate procedure are a matter of practical necessity (as they are in any other parliamentary body anywhere else in this world). It is not, practically speaking, possible to have a formal legislative body without procedural rules. The Constitution demands that there exist a Senate and a Senate requires rules so it is up to the Senate to decide upon its own rules so that it can fulfill its primary purpose as defined in the Constitution. As I have already said, if you don't like the rules then run for Senate and, if elected, propose to change them (good luck with that).
From the reply (you do read right?): "Thus, the US Senate has the power to set its own rules of procedure"
The Constitution allows the Senate to work out the details of its own procedures (in that it does not explicitly prohibit them from doing so and having some form of formal procedure is necessary as a practical matter). If those procedures need to be changed, then the Senate should debate that separately outside the context of any particular issue and then make whatever changes they deem necessary. The point is this: the Constitution outlined the basic structure of the Senate in such a way as to protect minority interests. The details of precisely how this is to be done were left up to the Senate itself. THE SENATE MAKES ITS OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE. If you don't like those rules then run for the office of United States Senator and, if you are elected, propose that the Senate change its rules of procedure (good luck with that).
Republicans have used reconciliation to stop filibustering Dems before
Reconciliation is a valid procedure if and only if it is strictly limited to matters of purely budgetary significance. I cannot recall a single instance of anyone, Republican or Democrat, using it for something completely outside this purpose (i.e. creating a new entitlement program), but if it has been abused in that way (and I am not saying that it has) it doesn't make it right; two wrongs don't make a right.
Hmm, funny, it was okay when Republicans used it. Hypocrite.
Please don't put words in my mouth. IMHO the filibuster is a valid and necessary rule of Senate procedure and attempting to skirt those rules, for whatever reason, is a particularly odious act no matter who is doing it or for what purpose . Again, why does everyone around here take these binary positions? What ever happened to nuance and its appreciation?
A primary purpose of the Senate, as outlined in the Constitution, is to protect the minority interest; any Constitutional Scholar will tell you as much. That is why large states and small states have equal representation (2 senators). If protection of the minority was not an issue then why have two chambers in the legislature? Of course, the Constitution is not going to have every last detail; it is a statement of basic principles and a mostly brilliant achievement in concise language and clear meaning. Thus, the US Senate has the power to set its own rules of procedure, in so far as those rules do not somehow contradict the Constitution. The filibuster, as a tool of general procedure in Senate debates, has been both praised and denounced by just about everyone at different times in the history of the US Senate and yet it remains as a valid procedural and IMHO important option. Notice that even the Democrats, who have the upper hand right now, are reluctant to debauch this time honored Senate rule of procedure; to do so is to "cross the Rubicon" as it were and forever cheapen the US Senate along the lines of "no Roman general shall enter Rome at the head of his armed legions without the invitation of the Senate and the people".
Is budget reconciliation also valid? Yes it is, but I am of the opinion that using a procedure that was clearly intended for routine budgetary matters (hence the restrictions on its use in the Senate's procedural language) to pass new social policy would be extremely damaging to the US Senate in its role as "upper" house of the US Congress. Indeed, the very word Senate derives from the ancient Roman "senex" meaning "old man" (i.e. some additional amount of experience, judgment and wisdom deriving from advanced age) implying some additional level of judgment and discernment. Is acting rashly or quickly the sign of discernment or good judgment? I wouldn't say so, but then again that is just me.
Single payer is the only real way to go. Simply look at countries that have it. Look at health care outcomes. Look at costs.
You're opinion. Different people want different things. My problem comes when you say that I have to surrender a portion of my property to pay for whatever it is you want. You want it? Buy it for yourself and do it with your own money. One should not, IMHO, force people to be charitable through taxes, giving is by definition voluntary, otherwise it is taking. If you think that single payer is so great then why not consider a move to Sweden, Norway, or any number of other places where single payer is the system? All I hear from the left is how great European living is, so why not just move there and have what you want? We have something unique and special here in the United States that exists nowhere else on this planet. If you want more government and less individual freedom then there are any number of other places which provide that Faustian bargain.
You DO realize that our current system is, quite literally, the worst per dollar spent. The. Absolute. Worst.
Again the mistake. Please listen very carefully this time: JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DOES NOT FAVOR SINGLE PAYER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY LOVE THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND WANT NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER. Single-payer is not the only alternative. You might think that is the best alternative, but darn it quit setting up the strawman argument that any opponent of single-payer must be in favor of doing nothing, as if it was a binary choice between single-payer and doing nothing.
The Constitution never meant for 41 votes to be able to stop 59 votes, sorry.
Excuse me, but that is exactly what the Constitution is designed to do: protect the minority position. If the United States was simply about majority rule (i.e. rule of the mob) then no Constitution would be needed. Why do you suppose that they bothered with the Constitution? Precisely to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Sheesh, didn't you pay attention in civics class?
people are pissed that Dems haven't done enough.
Perhaps the people on the left are, but they are NOT the mainstream. Your answer to the mainstream backlash is, "they are angry because we weren't radical/revolutionary enough"? That's just brilliant; it completely absolves the left of having to explain why it is that they failed. While it does have a certain sort of Nihilistic appeal, it is flawed none the less. Think about it, that excuse could be used anytime by anybody and cannot be tested or refuted; it ads nothing to anyone's understanding, it is like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "la, la, la...I'm not listening!" after the other side has won the argument.
As far the poll, they didn't explain their methodology, they didn't state the margin of error, and they didn't ask enough people (or the blogger chose not to include this information). Although I did like this observation:
"Health reform is extremely important to their base and appeared to drive up turnout for Coakley -- yet reform also drives turnout on the other side and is unpopular in national polls. People think it's going to raise costs and lower the quality of care, [emphasis added] Rasmussen said, and don't like the raw deal-making they've seen in the legislative process."
and this
The sooner the Democrats can get the legislative process behind them, the better off they're going to be," he said. "One, because of the ugliness of it. And two, they've got to focus on other issues that are more pressing to voters.
they should get it behind them by passing a smaller bill and sending it back to the Senate so that Scott Brown has an opportunity to vote on it (thus honoring the will of the Massachusetts voters). Any attempt at skulduggery by the Democrats (i.e. the "nuclear option" of budget reconciliation on the previous senate bill, passed before the Massachusetts election, plus revisions) at this point are likely to backfire even more forcefully than they did in Massachusetts.
Finally, the insurance mandate is likely to be among the biggest sticking points (it has arguably been the most controversial part of the Democratic bill). It raises serious Constitutional questions on the power of Congress to issue arbitrary orders to citizens under penalty of taxation. The Supreme Court has granted wide latitude to Congress with regard to taxation but the power to tax cannot be permitted to extend into the power to compel any citizen to do anything that Congress mandates; which is effectively where the "individual mandate" takes us. It is the first step down the road to capricious government power over the lives (and bodies) of individual citizens.
You make some good points. However, wouldn't almost all of them be solved by providing a time and place for them? For example the D&D materials could be kept in the library, with searches for those entering and leaving, and only used during allowed recreation hours. It seems to me that an outright ban is perhaps not the best approach.
Clearly, no-one involved in the case has ever played a decent game of D&D.
This is more often the case than not when it comes to D&D, which has often been criticized over the years by those who don't understand, haven't played or have other underlying issues or agendas because, lets be honest here, typical gamers make easy targets. Fantasy role playing games in general and D&D in particular have endured many cheap shots of the years from outsiders looking for a scapegoat; the evidence is well documented on Google for anyone who cares to look.
There's something in their psyche that would rather have a violent response to a problem which doesn't work, than a peaceful response which does. The first is somehow more satisfying to them. The second one is sort of.. offensive to their sensibilities.
It may not be entirely their fault. For example, it is probably fair to say that for most of human history, or at least up until relatively recently anyway, the "violence first questions later" approach probably conferred some survival advantages. After all, we are the descendants of conquerors and barbarians who looted and pillaged, not the enlightened pacifists. When it comes to human nature, refined through natural selections, old habits (perhaps very old in the case of violent urges) can be tough to break.
I agree. One wonders what this warden is thinking by banning D&D because it "emulates gang structure"? This sounds like something that a politician, who has never worked in or run a prison, might say or do to get votes. Any warden of any prison in America will tell you that privileges are a HUGE part of what makes any prison run smoothly; they are a vital tool. Absolute punishment 24/7 tends to backfire in the long run because people who have little or nothing left to lose are not easily controlled. Offering rewards and incentives for good behavior is therefore in the best interests of both the prison staff and the prisoners. The great thing about D&D, from the standpoint of the warden, is that it has the potential to be tremendous occupier of both time and mental energy. Time and mental energy which, as the parent points out, could easily be put to other devious uses by prisoners. Most of us here on Slashdot have probably played D&D at some point so we know how tremendously complex and engrossing the game can become whereas some prison wardens might not recognize this valuable tool of control. So here it is for all of you prison wardens out there: Do you want to make your job and life easier? Do you want to have fewer problems with physical violence? How about enhancing the education program with basic math, statistics, social interactions, and strategic thinking (the sort the might be useful in returning to productive society)? If you want these things then, D&D should be promoted as a privilege rather than banned as "gang simulator"; it has the potential to be many times more effective than either cable television or working in the metal shop as privilege.
Most recent polls show a supermajority of the population supports radical health care reform and socialized medicine.
No way. That's completely bull. The Massachusetts election is only the most recent proof that Americans absolutely don't want socialized medicine ala single-payer or individual mandates. It was a mistake on the part of the left to assume that because many Americans favor some sort of health care reform, they also favor socialized medicine ala single-payer; THAT WAS IN ERROR! There is no way that so many Americans, from such diverse and varied backgrounds, could all be so clearly against the Democratic bill if it was simply astroturfing by big pharma and the insurance companies. Incidentally how do you explain Coakley's attendance of a big-money fund raiser in Washington DC, on the eve of the election, jammed packed with pharma and insurance lobbyists? She took her thirty pieces of silver from the very people you claim to detest. Ask yourself this: If a supermajority of Americans favor radical health care reform then why are Obama and Pelosi back-peddling like crazy after the Massachusetts election? Americans favor radical health reform and socialized medicine...yeah right.
Money is a source of power in this world that is true, but it is not the only one. The ultimate power is the power to destroy (which is also a power of the government via the military). Governments reserve both of these powers, the power to destroy and the power of money (the money supplies of the world are ultimately controlled by governments) onto themselves. However, please note that I did not say no government, but rather limited government...there is an important difference. It is wrong to frame the choice as, "big government OR no government whatsoever". The left often sets up that strawman; if you disagree with them then your position is exactly the opposite (whether it actually is or not). For recent example, anyone who disagreed with the proposed health care reform in the US was said, by the left, to be in favor of "let them die in the street"; as if that was the only possible alternative position. Getting back to the issue of big government, it is my own personal opinion that here in the US we are going too far in that direction: the bailouts, the stimulus, the health care bill, etc...(and that is not I think a minority sentiment). Big concentrations of power, particularly government power, attract those seeking to corrupt and direct those powers to their own best advantage (whether it is good for the nation or not). There is a balance to be struck, but that won't happen with a government takeover of the economy or sweeping government regulation. So perhaps now you can better understand my position with regard to limited government.
There is a core group of Americans who are all about "getting back basics" or restoring America to the "original formula"; we are called libertarians. Unfortunately, as you have already stated, most of our neighbors are more concerned about what goods or services the government can offer to them gratis or how the power of government can be used to enforce morality than they are about true freedom as the founding fathers envisioned it. They would rather "get theirs" (never mind how) than be free; sad but true.
All the more reason, IMHO, to cut the budget for manned space flight and spend the money elsewhere in the Federal government or, gasp, return it to the taxpayers from whom we took it in the first place. I don't think that its too controversial to say that manned space flight is the highest cost and lowest value program that NASA is currently involved with. The International Space Station has become little more than an orbiting hotel for bored billionaires subsidized by ordinary taxpayers. There are virtually no experiments worth doing, at least as far as I am aware, that couldn't be done both better and more cheaply here on the ground.
Until then, they're just a vehicle to privatize what is otherwise be a government research function.
Which raises the question: "What more is there to learned about manned space flight given our current limitations"? After all, you can only do the "study of weightlessness on human body" experiments so many times before nothing new or useful is learned by additional repetitions. Personally, I feel that we should shelve manned space flight, or at least place it on the back burner, until we have substantially better propulsion systems (aka interstellar drives) and somewhere interesting to go. As you have already stated, there are few compelling reasons (other than national pride or prestige) for continuing manned space flight at this time. If there were, then private companies would do it, provided that they could earn profits; except right now they really cannot earn much (if any) profit, with the possible exception of government contracts, with manned space flights.
Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder.
If the government wasn't so darn powerful then there wouldn't be as many or as high bids and yet the Libertarians here on Slashdot are always modded down for having the temerity to suggest that bigger government is not the answer. One cannot have lots of individual choice and freedom in a big government country; the desire to use the power of big government to limit choices, "manage" freedoms and control outcomes is simply too much for some to resist. The high-minded left often forgets or ignores the fact that not everyone is as altruistic or benevolent as they claim to be and that human nature absolutely will misuse the levers of power given the opportunity; so why magnify the damage by increasing the size and reach of those levers?
It is perhaps instructive to remember that it was not so long ago that China considered itself the center of the "celestial universe" and all outsiders as "barbarians". It is not difficult to guess, given this cultural context, how the Chinese feel about criticism of their "enlightened" ways. Times may have changed, but cultural sensitivities die very hard in China.
Big deal. We probably own different cars and different brands of shoes. There are people who affect a stance of superiority over that bullshit, too.
Hmmm...Do I detect a hint of jealousy over those black turtlenecks, rimless glasses and sleek industrial design? Maybe we just can't handle how "cool" Jobs and his disciples look with their MacBooks? Hehe...then again maybe not.
though the insurance industry would sure love to see "tort reform" (aka, fuck over anyone who is genuinely harmed by malpractice).
Here it is (don't strain your brain too much thinking about this): Imagine that you are a doctor who has high malpractice insurance premiums which get higher every time you are successfully sued for malpractice; whether legitimate or not. It doesn't cost you, as the doctor, anything to order additional tests because the patients and insurance companies pay for those and even if they refuse to pay for them, you can mention in court that you ordered the tests but the patient or insurance company refused to get them. Here is the point: doctors have everything to gain and little (or nothing) to lose by ordering every conceivable medical test that might be even remotely useful in defending a malpractice lawsuit brought by...wait for it... the attorneys !
If every patient receives dozens of tests or procedures, regardless of actual medical necessity, then OF COURSE the cost of health care is going to go up because demand for these services, which are in limited supply, is automatically pushed up by doctors looking to cover their butts against malpractice litigation. The employer provided third party payer insurance system exacerbates the problem by disconnecting the patients from the true prices of medical services so they generally agree to whatever tests or medical procedures, short of surgery, that the doctors recommend because, darn it, they have their paid for insurance through their employer and they are going to use it. Do you see now why attorneys are a big part of the health care problem? You could probably find any number of specific examples if you wanted to look, but what I have described above is a well known problem in the American health care system today.
Now, I would argue that faced with a very small chance of winning the legal lottery (should I be a victim of medical malpractice) OR the certainty of higher medical costs over my lifetime due to overzealous malpractice attorneys; I would be better off paying much less in exchange for a more limited payout in that legal lottery. Attorneys love to use the argument: wait until you need us and you cannot sue for millions! However, for most Americans that is a come on to a sucker bet with a very low payoff matrix because most of us will use health care, and pay more for it, during our lifetimes without ever being in a position to win a big legal judgment due to a legitimate case of medical malpractice.
I wasn't talking about Intuit's contributions, I was talking about the attorneys. As I pointed out in my previous post it is the attorneys who make the biggest contributions to the Democratic party because they benefit most from larger government, more laws, and more regulation. Incidentally a huge part of escalating health care costs is due to lawsuits and threat of lawsuits against doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc...by, you guessed it, attorneys. For example, the doctors don't care how much all of the extra tests cost as long as they cover their butt in a malpractice suit. In some states, notably Mississippi, it is becoming extremely difficult to find an OBGYN and certain other medical specialists because the malpractice insurance costs are insane. At least corporations offer us something in the form of goods or services, but whenever people are forced to deal with attorneys the first thought in their minds is, "how much is this going to cost me"?
The tax filing and preparation industry, of which Intuit is a part, has long been an obstacle to any change in the tax code that would serve to simplify and reduce the need for their services. However, they are far from the only special interest group with an incentive to keep the US Tax code as complex, opaque, and unintuitive as possible. The tax attorneys who help the wealthy arrange their affairs to minimize taxes under the complex rules, the Federal Law Enforcement agencies who periodically use the tax code as a tool to prosecute those who they cannot otherwise charge (i.e. organized crime, income from illegal activities, etc) and of course the tax accountants who work at all levels as guides through the byzantine labyrinth of the US tax codes. Each of these groups, and especially the attorneys (who are the number 1 contributors to the Democratic Party btw), lobbies vigorously against any change in the law which they perceive to be a threat to their ongoing and profitable stream of revenue. Few things in life are as certain as death and taxes after all and one would be hard pressed to think of a more stable source of revenue, as an attorney or tax industry insider, than a system mandated by the Federal Government that every American must use at least once per year.
Wait, I thought SS was some kind of govt retirement plan, right?
Wrong. Social Security was originally intended to prevent the elderly from becoming completely destitute in their final years. It was never intended to be a primary source of retirement income.
It doesn't hurt the poor, as they'll get more out of it proportional to their income.
It hurts them in the sense that just about any alternative savings investment, even US Treasury Bills, would provide a better rate of return. Several in-depth studies have documented the terrible returns offered by Social Security over the years; these days it really amounts to little more than another confiscation of wealth by the Federal Government and from those who can least afford it (you will note that the wealthy, Congressmen and Senators have statutory or de-facto exemptions from participation...what's good for the goose isn't so good for the gander it seems).
which to me indicates that upper management is hiring sadists to run their development teams.
One should be careful not to attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I don't think you could do that for a couple of grand.
They would basically have to take the car completely apart to get at every sensor and computer, replace all of them and then put everything back together again. The newest cars are the worst in this regard; they are literally jammed full of electronics, sensors and computers. It would probably take them at least a couple of weeks to finish everything with a couple of grand just for the parts alone. Then you have to factor in the labor, which would probably have to be done by a factory authorized dealer with all of the licensed diagnostic software and manufacturer parts support; so figure about five times the cost of the parts in labor. Unless your vehicle is a late model luxury car, it is likely that all of this is going to cost more than the residual value of the repaired vehicle or in other words the insurance company would "total it out" and sell it on as a used parts wreck.
Nevermind the fact that this has "massive liability" (i.e. instant class action lawsuits) written all over it; especially for the manufacturer of the device (Eureka Aerospace). The car might as well be sent to the crusher after being hit with this device because it will effectively be a complete loss with damaged or destroyed electronics. No doubt the insurance companies, who will be forced to "total out" stolen vehicles hit with this device, will have a thing or two to say as well.