Would you agree that where a particular occupation's culture (rather than required skill set) is biased against certain groups that organizations are hardly stomping on anyone's rights to create a workplace culture that minimizes that bias?
For instance, take this essay. This person clearly contributes to a workplace toxic to women. Don't you think Google trying to deal with that toxicity is well within their rights?
I'm looking at the ACA repeal failure and I'm seeing an extremely divided Conservative movement. And really, when have the Republicans since the post-war period ever actually delivered on smaller government when they've had the chance.
Most Republican lawmakers and strategists know very well that while lots of conservative and libertarian voters demand smaller government, few would ever accept the consequences of what that meant. As the ACA repeal failure shows, there is absolutely no will to roll back any entitlement program. Quite the opposite, in fact. I suspect in the back rooms, even as we speak, the murmurs of a single payer system are beginning to be whispered in hushed tones. The sheer unpopularity of both the House and Senate repeal efforts with the voters means there is no going back, and that ultimately, as some Conservative commentators have put it, the "Europeanization" of American health care is already beginning.
Here's the hard reality of democracy. Voters often have no idea what they need, or have often contradictory views on problems and solutions. Lawmakers, being elected to their offices, have to play to voters' fears and prejudices, but once they're in a position to deliver on those promises, the harsh reality sets in that keeping some of those promises would be disastrous, and worst of all, for any elected official, could cost them the next election. With the ACA repeal, there really was very little appetite for a repeal among most Republican lawmakers. They had never imagined they'd be in a position to actually do it, and once there, many realized that to actually repeal Obamacare, and replace it with legislation that would probably see many lose insurance, and for others (particularly older voters, the most reliable voters of them all) would see drastic premium hikes, could have severe ramifications for their electoral prospects.
I imagine there were a good many Republicans very pleased when McCain and two other GOP senators scuttled the deal.
I spent my time at fivethirtyeight, where it was made clear that while Clinton held the advantage, Trump's pathway in the last weeks was not insurmountable. A 20-30% chance of victory is a fairly significant chance of victory. Yes, some other aggregators put Clinton's chances well in excess of 90%, but Silver and his team were far more cautious, and in several articles made clear some of the flaws in the ground-level data, particularly in some states (I believe he went into some detail about states like Michigan).
It's only a 100% chance once the ballots have been counted. Up until election day (or at least a few days before), Clinton still had the better odds, but she did not enjoy perfect odds. You do understand the nature of probability, right?
Redistribution has been part of governing systems since the beginning. Your libertarianism is a fantasy that would lead to revolution. What counts is sustainable redistribution.
I blame a governing system that essential created anemic checks to the presidency. The Presidential system works in the US because Congress and the courts have enjoyed considerable prestige and legitimacy, and have been since the beginning very willing to challenge the executive. Sadly in other republics in the Americas, the legislative and judicial branches have all too often become little more than vestigial appendages. I firmly believe these countries would be better served by a parliamentary style of government, where the executive is marshalled from the legislature and remains directly accountable via parliamentary confidence.
Can you define "leftism"? Some of the most successful economies in the world could be defined as "leftists" if you include social Democrat nations like Sweden and Germany.
The Chavista regime certainly can be defined as leftist, but a more accurate description would be a kleptocracy.
Trump is slumping in some of the states he'd need to win, presuming he's even in the race in 2020. So it isn't the same situation it was nine or ten months ago.
And Congress is doing an admiral job of restraining Trump.
Well, first of all, Federal Courts exist precisely to give people remedy when the Government won't enforce existing laws, so he's wrong on that front. And even if he was right, if an Administration refuses to enforce one set of laws, how precisely does passing even more laws remedy the situation? So he's just being absurd on that point.
You are seriously asserting that the only remedy to an Administration not obeying the law is more laws? I think you may be confused, perhaps from chasing your own tail too much.
No, it cannot consent. It isn't legally a person, and even if it was, it would not be of the age of majority, and therefor its parents would have the right to authorize the treatment. I will repeat, doctors do not require the consent of four year olds to begin treatment, they require the consent of the legal guardian(s), so why is it you assert a right for an embryo that doesn't even exist for an actual fully-formed human being?
Your point is nonsense. If you want to talk about the ethics of designer babies, fair enough, but what your asserting is irrational.
Translation: Fuck, he's right, I'd better bring in some irrelevant mutterings about transexualism, so that way I have a response.
I'll be blunt. Doctors do not require the consent of four year olds to begin treatment for life-threatening illnesses, so why in the fuck would anyone imagine an embryo that lacks anything beyond the most rudimentary central nervous system suddenly be bequeathed that which a minor child does not possess.
The point of the GP, and maybe that's you too, I dunno, seeing as both of you are too fucking lazy to even create a/. account, is absurd, stupid and irrelevant.
The cable companies' lawyers went WAYYYY beyond any search warrant, clearly violated his legal rights by refusing him access to legal counsel while they were questioning them, and somehow they still can keep possession of what amounts to ill-gotten evidence (seeing as the warrant was fairly narrow in what it was allowing them to seize) because they have an ongoing appeal?
In a properly running judicial system, there would currently be disbarment hearings against the lawyers in question and significant financial penalties against Rogers and Videotron.
I can tell you this, civil proceedings or not, anyone who wouldn't let me get my lawyer in the room while they were interrogating me would find themselves faced with this simple statement from me "Either my lawyer is a present, or I leave this room, and if you try to detain me, I'll be filing criminal charges for unlawful confinement", because nowhere in the Common Law world am I aware of lawyers in a civil case being allowed to detain anyone for questioning.
Not even infants and children under the general age where they are deemed to be able to give consent in fact are consulted. If I had a four year old child with a brain tumor, I'm going to seek treatment, and I'm not going to ask the child whether they want to be treated or not. The GP's point is just gibberish. Why would an embryo, without a central nervous system, or at least one of sufficient complexity to even respond in anything but the most simplistic and instinctual way, get a level of consent that a ten year old usually doesn't get?
Have you even been paying attention to what is going on? At the moment, the British cabinet is pretty much in near civil war, the EU basically holds all the cards, and short of Hard Brexit, which it's pretty clear even the leading Brexiteers in cabinet know would be a disaster, Britain will end up doing exactly what the EU requires. And there's no one who is taking Trump's claims of a quick trade deal very seriously, so the idea that somehow free trade agreements will magically make up for the loss of access to EU markets is just another bit of fantasy like the claims of all the money that would flow into the NHS.
Even as we speak, Remainers in both the Tory and Labour parties are working to prevent a Hard Brexit. In other words, the majority of MPs in Parliament are sending strong signals that any attempt by May and Hammond to simply drop the UK out of the Common Market will lead to defeat. So tell me, what message does that send to EU negotiators? What it tells EU negotiators is that Parliament does not in fact want to leave the EU at all, and it means that when the chips are down, whoever is the PM come the final stretch, Britain will do whatever it has to get at least a Norway-style agreement.
Here's the reality. Brexit as millions of Britons imagined it will never happen, and frankly, at this point, if it wasn't for the absurd 1922 Committee right wing Neanderthals and the equally absurd Corbynite faction of left-wing Neanderthals, it's likely every attempt would be made to prevent Britain from leaving the EU. There are even some EU leaders who are beginning to wonder if it will even happen at all, so great are the divisions between Parliament on the one hand and the Government and Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle on the other. It's quite conceivable that if this alliance of Parliamentary Remainers can stick together enough to create an effective voting bloc, that the current government could be toppled.
That "someone" is an embryo that in most legal systems isn't even a person, so I'm failing to see the objection. And if you're going to treat certain genetic conditions, the closer to conception you can get, the easier the process is likely to be. Otherwise, you're attempting to edit the genome of an organism nearly or fully developed.
You're talking about a country where a slim majority voted to cut off the metaphorical branch they were standing on because some con-artists sold them the illusion that they somehow get control (oh, and apparently vast amounts of money for the NHS).
Slashdot Mirror
Would you agree that where a particular occupation's culture (rather than required skill set) is biased against certain groups that organizations are hardly stomping on anyone's rights to create a workplace culture that minimizes that bias?
For instance, take this essay. This person clearly contributes to a workplace toxic to women. Don't you think Google trying to deal with that toxicity is well within their rights?
And how much of those differences between males and females are cultural?
I'm looking at the ACA repeal failure and I'm seeing an extremely divided Conservative movement. And really, when have the Republicans since the post-war period ever actually delivered on smaller government when they've had the chance.
Most Republican lawmakers and strategists know very well that while lots of conservative and libertarian voters demand smaller government, few would ever accept the consequences of what that meant. As the ACA repeal failure shows, there is absolutely no will to roll back any entitlement program. Quite the opposite, in fact. I suspect in the back rooms, even as we speak, the murmurs of a single payer system are beginning to be whispered in hushed tones. The sheer unpopularity of both the House and Senate repeal efforts with the voters means there is no going back, and that ultimately, as some Conservative commentators have put it, the "Europeanization" of American health care is already beginning.
Here's the hard reality of democracy. Voters often have no idea what they need, or have often contradictory views on problems and solutions. Lawmakers, being elected to their offices, have to play to voters' fears and prejudices, but once they're in a position to deliver on those promises, the harsh reality sets in that keeping some of those promises would be disastrous, and worst of all, for any elected official, could cost them the next election. With the ACA repeal, there really was very little appetite for a repeal among most Republican lawmakers. They had never imagined they'd be in a position to actually do it, and once there, many realized that to actually repeal Obamacare, and replace it with legislation that would probably see many lose insurance, and for others (particularly older voters, the most reliable voters of them all) would see drastic premium hikes, could have severe ramifications for their electoral prospects.
I imagine there were a good many Republicans very pleased when McCain and two other GOP senators scuttled the deal.
I spent my time at fivethirtyeight, where it was made clear that while Clinton held the advantage, Trump's pathway in the last weeks was not insurmountable. A 20-30% chance of victory is a fairly significant chance of victory. Yes, some other aggregators put Clinton's chances well in excess of 90%, but Silver and his team were far more cautious, and in several articles made clear some of the flaws in the ground-level data, particularly in some states (I believe he went into some detail about states like Michigan).
It's only a 100% chance once the ballots have been counted. Up until election day (or at least a few days before), Clinton still had the better odds, but she did not enjoy perfect odds. You do understand the nature of probability, right?
Perhaps you should review a little history as to why the kinds of redistribution in place today came about.
Why would you like about something so trivial to disprove?
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
He gave Trump a 28.6% chance of winning.
Redistribution has been part of governing systems since the beginning. Your libertarianism is a fantasy that would lead to revolution. What counts is sustainable redistribution.
I blame a governing system that essential created anemic checks to the presidency. The Presidential system works in the US because Congress and the courts have enjoyed considerable prestige and legitimacy, and have been since the beginning very willing to challenge the executive. Sadly in other republics in the Americas, the legislative and judicial branches have all too often become little more than vestigial appendages. I firmly believe these countries would be better served by a parliamentary style of government, where the executive is marshalled from the legislature and remains directly accountable via parliamentary confidence.
Can you define "leftism"? Some of the most successful economies in the world could be defined as "leftists" if you include social Democrat nations like Sweden and Germany.
The Chavista regime certainly can be defined as leftist, but a more accurate description would be a kleptocracy.
Nate Silver gave Trump about a 1 in 4 chance, so your claim is factually wrong
Providing one counts only PCs
Trump is slumping in some of the states he'd need to win, presuming he's even in the race in 2020. So it isn't the same situation it was nine or ten months ago.
And Congress is doing an admiral job of restraining Trump.
Clinton isn't running for president now, and there won't be a Democratic candidate for another three years. Pretty piss poor attempt at deflection
More Americans voted for Clinton than Trump. And since then Trump has become one of the most unpopular presidents since presidential polls began.
So tell me again how exactly you have a window on the "average American".
Well, first of all, Federal Courts exist precisely to give people remedy when the Government won't enforce existing laws, so he's wrong on that front. And even if he was right, if an Administration refuses to enforce one set of laws, how precisely does passing even more laws remedy the situation? So he's just being absurd on that point.
You are seriously asserting that the only remedy to an Administration not obeying the law is more laws? I think you may be confused, perhaps from chasing your own tail too much.
No, it cannot consent. It isn't legally a person, and even if it was, it would not be of the age of majority, and therefor its parents would have the right to authorize the treatment. I will repeat, doctors do not require the consent of four year olds to begin treatment, they require the consent of the legal guardian(s), so why is it you assert a right for an embryo that doesn't even exist for an actual fully-formed human being?
Your point is nonsense. If you want to talk about the ethics of designer babies, fair enough, but what your asserting is irrational.
Translation: Fuck, he's right, I'd better bring in some irrelevant mutterings about transexualism, so that way I have a response.
I'll be blunt. Doctors do not require the consent of four year olds to begin treatment for life-threatening illnesses, so why in the fuck would anyone imagine an embryo that lacks anything beyond the most rudimentary central nervous system suddenly be bequeathed that which a minor child does not possess.
The point of the GP, and maybe that's you too, I dunno, seeing as both of you are too fucking lazy to even create a /. account, is absurd, stupid and irrelevant.
The cable companies' lawyers went WAYYYY beyond any search warrant, clearly violated his legal rights by refusing him access to legal counsel while they were questioning them, and somehow they still can keep possession of what amounts to ill-gotten evidence (seeing as the warrant was fairly narrow in what it was allowing them to seize) because they have an ongoing appeal?
In a properly running judicial system, there would currently be disbarment hearings against the lawyers in question and significant financial penalties against Rogers and Videotron.
I can tell you this, civil proceedings or not, anyone who wouldn't let me get my lawyer in the room while they were interrogating me would find themselves faced with this simple statement from me "Either my lawyer is a present, or I leave this room, and if you try to detain me, I'll be filing criminal charges for unlawful confinement", because nowhere in the Common Law world am I aware of lawyers in a civil case being allowed to detain anyone for questioning.
Not even infants and children under the general age where they are deemed to be able to give consent in fact are consulted. If I had a four year old child with a brain tumor, I'm going to seek treatment, and I'm not going to ask the child whether they want to be treated or not. The GP's point is just gibberish. Why would an embryo, without a central nervous system, or at least one of sufficient complexity to even respond in anything but the most simplistic and instinctual way, get a level of consent that a ten year old usually doesn't get?
Embryos have no ability to consent to anything. Consent requires cognition of at least some degree of complexity.
An embryo with a deleterious genetic condition didn't consent to that condition, so I'm trying to sort out what precisely your issue is.
Have you even been paying attention to what is going on? At the moment, the British cabinet is pretty much in near civil war, the EU basically holds all the cards, and short of Hard Brexit, which it's pretty clear even the leading Brexiteers in cabinet know would be a disaster, Britain will end up doing exactly what the EU requires. And there's no one who is taking Trump's claims of a quick trade deal very seriously, so the idea that somehow free trade agreements will magically make up for the loss of access to EU markets is just another bit of fantasy like the claims of all the money that would flow into the NHS.
Even as we speak, Remainers in both the Tory and Labour parties are working to prevent a Hard Brexit. In other words, the majority of MPs in Parliament are sending strong signals that any attempt by May and Hammond to simply drop the UK out of the Common Market will lead to defeat. So tell me, what message does that send to EU negotiators? What it tells EU negotiators is that Parliament does not in fact want to leave the EU at all, and it means that when the chips are down, whoever is the PM come the final stretch, Britain will do whatever it has to get at least a Norway-style agreement.
Here's the reality. Brexit as millions of Britons imagined it will never happen, and frankly, at this point, if it wasn't for the absurd 1922 Committee right wing Neanderthals and the equally absurd Corbynite faction of left-wing Neanderthals, it's likely every attempt would be made to prevent Britain from leaving the EU. There are even some EU leaders who are beginning to wonder if it will even happen at all, so great are the divisions between Parliament on the one hand and the Government and Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle on the other. It's quite conceivable that if this alliance of Parliamentary Remainers can stick together enough to create an effective voting bloc, that the current government could be toppled.
That "someone" is an embryo that in most legal systems isn't even a person, so I'm failing to see the objection. And if you're going to treat certain genetic conditions, the closer to conception you can get, the easier the process is likely to be. Otherwise, you're attempting to edit the genome of an organism nearly or fully developed.
You're talking about a country where a slim majority voted to cut off the metaphorical branch they were standing on because some con-artists sold them the illusion that they somehow get control (oh, and apparently vast amounts of money for the NHS).