|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 20 2015 04:19 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
i can see some reasonable presentation of both velr and nyxisto's points, but "humanist morality comes from christianity" is just bull. The ideas can be supported without Christianity, but it's unlikely their progenitors would've come up with them without it. Locke and the other big humanists were pretty heavily influenced by Christianity. Humanism stands on it's own; you don't need any religion to be moral. But to say that religion has nothing to do with our morality is naive at best. Christianity was at least some of the inspiration of western morals. first of all christianity is itself an evolving culture, and this evolution from less humane to more humane, particualrly when seen as continuous with older jewish tradition, is itself an illustration that moral reasoning is not a product of religious doctrine. why does pauline doctrine of grace prevail over old testament style retribution? because the doctrine was spread and accepted, partly due to it being more appealing.
|
Well Christians would argue that the scripture is progressive revelation and the story only makes sense as a whole and written the way it is, so you're basically the one putting the cart before the horse. (because you're not accepting the assumption that it's divinely inspired to begin with)
|
On February 20 2015 05:13 Nyxisto wrote:
Well Christians would argue that the scripture is progressive revelation and the story only makes sense as a whole and written the way it is, so you're basically the one putting the cart before the horse. (because you're not accepting the assumption that it's divinely inspired to begin with)
The Bible means different things depending upon which kind of Christian you ask. You will even find shockingly wide variance among Catholics.
|
On February 19 2015 02:55 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2015 08:28 hannahbelle wrote:On February 18 2015 07:52 oneofthem wrote:On February 18 2015 05:36 Sub40APM wrote:On February 18 2015 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote:
looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway. States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence. no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues. legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well. also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards. btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word. I mean, maybe on the income tax thing. But participation in the economy is still the more important thing, and honestly if we just made it broadly easier for people to immigrate we would improve the economy in all sorts of ways, both low wage/low skill and high wage/high skill. It's the US's loss if we throw out all the hardworking people who legitimately want to join us and help us. Also, really on the "forseeable future?" Hispanic immigrants are just as poor as Irish/German/Whatever immigrants used to be, and they seem to acculturate about as fast, despite similar levels of bias. Show nested quote +On February 18 2015 09:42 Introvert wrote:
For the millionth time, no one opposing immigtation... Hannahbelle is, and opposing immigration outright is VERY popular in Europe, but point taken that most US folks would be happy if we just switched to legal immigration with border security.
Where? I oppose illegal immigration. Somehow I just live with a crazy notion that people that break the laws of my society from the beginning of their time here will have less respect for the rule of law than people that come and join legally.
Granting amnesty or any benefits to people that came here legally is a slap in the face to people that did it the lawful way. Blanket amnesty has been tried before by Reagan no less, utilizing the same silly arguments that people are putting forth now to try and pass amnesty. It did not work then, hence we thirty years later we are dealing with the exact same problem.
We have to send a message once and for all. We will not allow people to break our laws to come here to be rewarded, regardless of whatever sob story they purport for their reason to come here. Ship them all home. If they won't reveal where they came from, drop them in Mexico as a reward to the Mexican government for using its embassies to show its citizens how to game our legal system. Or better yet, all of these bleeding heart Euros can sign their country up as a destination and we can ship them there. Shouldn't be an issue given they provide nothing but net positives for the receiving society, correct Euros?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 20 2015 05:13 Nyxisto wrote:
Well Christians would argue that the scripture is progressive revelation and the story only makes sense as a whole and written the way it is, so you're basically the one putting the cart before the horse. (because you're not accepting the assumption that it's divinely inspired to begin with)
wat. this is irrelevant. what is relevant is evolution or change in christian doctrine and what is considered 'christian morality'
|
On February 20 2015 03:18 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 01:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 20 2015 01:54 Nyxisto wrote:
Well there's the whole "Manifest Destiny" and "City upon a Hill" stuff, too. I feel like US history, especially American exceptionalism has heavily utilized a pretty twisted version of Christianity, which is still relevant and used today. For that reason I think dealing with Christianity in a critical way might be more important than in most other countries. Yes but there's a difference between teaching the influence of Christianity on our culture (which is absolutely everywhere) vs. teaching an in-depth course about Christianity. Any half-decent world history curriculum had better touch on Christianity, Islam, Confucianism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism and at least some concepts in Animisms. Some ordering of most to least influential in the modern world is probably in order (the above is a rough cut), for length of time devoted, but generally, yes, all these things should be basically familiar to a high-school educated person. You have been failed by your education if you can't give a reasonable accounting of the ten commandments, five pillars, beatitudes, key analects, and so on. Of course Locke and the like are crucial too. But to try to understand Locke without understanding that he could not have come out of any other tradition is to miss the point. Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 00:51 puerk wrote:On February 20 2015 00:45 Nyxisto wrote:
By unique I was referring to the way how in Christian countries the idea of social security and community was combined with at least some degree of personal liberty. (by historical standards obviously). In almost any other region of the world you either had some kind of all encompassing theocracy or non religion at all but instead some kind of despotic ruler. But it still missplaced it as "christian". You know how it came about that europe had this seperation. Christianity was a foreign minority religion, slowly establishing itself in greek mediteranean colonies and rome. Places with a long standing foundation of rule of law and secular politics. Islam was a foreign minority religion that worked out in a remarkably different way. Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 01:08 Velr wrote:
Not killing/stealing/pissing everyone in your own society off is probably the most important rule there is and i don't see how anyone could nail this on "christianity, or any religion, did it!"...
Even Apes and other Pack animals follow some of the 10 commandments... And i highly doubt they are christian... This is a straw man. I'm not saying Christianity invented "morality." I'm saying our humanist morality comes from Christianity. The very root concepts of basing society on the individual and their choices, the notion of separation of church and state, the idea of charity given to the poor to make things more fair, basically the entire debate we have around state violence, the idea of the civil disobedient, the ideas of Romanticism and modern Pragmatism, indeed, modernism itself... all this has root in the tradition of Christianity. Hell, while we're keeping score, rationalist Atheism is basically a Christian development. The point is that other cultures have had very different moralities. We inherited ours both directly from the Christian tradition, and the Enlightenment humanists (both secular and religious) who were a part of it.
Looking at history through the lens of generalized causality is a huge mistake; notions such as "said ideology comes from such and such" are fundamentally flawed in that they cannot avoid over-generalization and a lack of crucial granularity.
Take the above humanism as byproduct of Christianity discussion above. The procession of history and human society did not and does not occur in a rational or discrete manner. Theories of morality, perspectives on knowledge, and other complex systems cannot be meaningfully referenced when their substantial or genetic epistemology is compartmentalized into what end up being vulgar short-hand references that fail to take into account the necessarily interconnected nature of human belief or knowledge. If we are to regard knowledge, in the general sense, as an elongated series of faith-based communications between human actors, the problems in attempting to make convenient what end up being inherently complex dynamics rising out of that series are pretty glaring.
To get semantic, even though that's oftentimes seen as a bad thing lol, the utterance, "humanist morality comes from Christianity," begs a practically infinite set of very difficult questions. What does "comes from" really mean in this case, and what does the absence of particular qualifying statements imply? You refer to roots as though you are tacitly referencing the soil of humanity's sense of morality, aesthetics, and politics, but you don't do any of the legwork behind establishing that you've hit bedrock in naming Christianity as a generating force. Christianity can very easily be seen as an amalgam of what were then contemporary notions of anti-Pantheonic spiritualism, Judaism, and what amounts to ancient Greek scholastocism. The books of the Bible themselves were very likely written by a wide variety of religious and political scholars who came from tremendously different circumstances individually; in a sense, the very foundation of Christianity is nothing more than another series of foundations. The thing is even broken up into separate books, and the name we have for it comes a Koine Greek word for "the books." lol
Additionally, anthropological research such as the evidence that the ten lost tribes of Israel may not be as fictitious as once thought indicates that our once solid insistence on the discrete nature of Western and Eastern systems of belief should probably be revisited. This is not to say that there were not demonstrably "isolationist" periods of history in which the West and the East had time to differentiate, rather that difference among systems usually collapses into similarity if one goes back far enough.
In other words, I can't help but smile when Western self-proclaimed agnostics, atheists, or even believers reference Christianity as though its this separate thing that they can point at. Getting into enough detail to speak meaningfully on something as stupidly complex as how belief systems interrelate or even exist separately enough to identify just isn't worth it unless you are willing to do a lot of work lol.
|
On February 20 2015 05:19 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2015 02:55 Yoav wrote:On February 18 2015 08:28 hannahbelle wrote:On February 18 2015 07:52 oneofthem wrote:On February 18 2015 05:36 Sub40APM wrote:On February 18 2015 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote:
looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway. States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence. no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues. legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well. also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards. btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word. I mean, maybe on the income tax thing. But participation in the economy is still the more important thing, and honestly if we just made it broadly easier for people to immigrate we would improve the economy in all sorts of ways, both low wage/low skill and high wage/high skill. It's the US's loss if we throw out all the hardworking people who legitimately want to join us and help us. Also, really on the "forseeable future?" Hispanic immigrants are just as poor as Irish/German/Whatever immigrants used to be, and they seem to acculturate about as fast, despite similar levels of bias. On February 18 2015 09:42 Introvert wrote:
For the millionth time, no one opposing immigtation... Hannahbelle is, and opposing immigration outright is VERY popular in Europe, but point taken that most US folks would be happy if we just switched to legal immigration with border security. Where? I oppose illegal immigration. Somehow I just live with a crazy notion that people that break the laws of my society from the beginning of their time here will have less respect for the rule of law than people that come and join legally. Granting amnesty or any benefits to people that came here legally is a slap in the face to people that did it the lawful way. Blanket amnesty has been tried before by Reagan no less, utilizing the same silly arguments that people are putting forth now to try and pass amnesty. It did not work then, hence we thirty years later we are dealing with the exact same problem. We have to send a message once and for all. We will not allow people to break our laws to come here to be rewarded, regardless of whatever sob story they purport for their reason to come here. Ship them all home. If they won't reveal where they came from, drop them in Mexico as a reward to the Mexican government for using its embassies to show its citizens how to game our legal system. Or better yet, all of these bleeding heart Euros can sign their country up as a destination and we can ship them there. Shouldn't be an issue given they provide nothing but net positives for the receiving society, correct Euros?
humans are rightless property to be moved around like chesspieces by an all powerful government... i would have never guessed that you would show your real face so soon....
|
The Jefferson County, Colo. school board has cancelled its review of the controversial new AP U.S. History course framework, more than four months after students initially protested the board's attempts to revise the course.
The board will instead defer any reviews to existing committees comprised of students and parents, CBS Denver reported on Thursday.
"The JeffCo Board discussed reviewing the curriculum, but ended up passing revisions to current district policy that added community members and students to existing review committees and rejected board-directed review of any curriculum," Board President Ken Witt said in a statement.
After the College Board's revised AP U.S. History exam sparked controversy among conservatives, the Jefferson County board of education proposed the creation of a committee to review the course. The committee was tasked with ensuring that the AP U.S. History course materials "present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage" and do not "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law."
The school board's proposal prompted students to stage major walk-outs protesting the potential changes to the AP history curriculum. The board then removed the references to patriotism and civil disobedience from its proposal and voted to include students in the review process. Now, the review has been scrapped all together.
The news in Colorado comes as an Oklahoma lawmaker said he would "fix" a bill he introduced that would have eliminated state funding for AP U.S. History courses.
Source
|
On February 20 2015 05:45 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 05:19 hannahbelle wrote:On February 19 2015 02:55 Yoav wrote:On February 18 2015 08:28 hannahbelle wrote:On February 18 2015 07:52 oneofthem wrote:On February 18 2015 05:36 Sub40APM wrote:On February 18 2015 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote:
looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway. States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence. no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues. legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well. also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards. btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word. I mean, maybe on the income tax thing. But participation in the economy is still the more important thing, and honestly if we just made it broadly easier for people to immigrate we would improve the economy in all sorts of ways, both low wage/low skill and high wage/high skill. It's the US's loss if we throw out all the hardworking people who legitimately want to join us and help us. Also, really on the "forseeable future?" Hispanic immigrants are just as poor as Irish/German/Whatever immigrants used to be, and they seem to acculturate about as fast, despite similar levels of bias. On February 18 2015 09:42 Introvert wrote:
For the millionth time, no one opposing immigtation... Hannahbelle is, and opposing immigration outright is VERY popular in Europe, but point taken that most US folks would be happy if we just switched to legal immigration with border security. Where? I oppose illegal immigration. Somehow I just live with a crazy notion that people that break the laws of my society from the beginning of their time here will have less respect for the rule of law than people that come and join legally. Granting amnesty or any benefits to people that came here legally is a slap in the face to people that did it the lawful way. Blanket amnesty has been tried before by Reagan no less, utilizing the same silly arguments that people are putting forth now to try and pass amnesty. It did not work then, hence we thirty years later we are dealing with the exact same problem. We have to send a message once and for all. We will not allow people to break our laws to come here to be rewarded, regardless of whatever sob story they purport for their reason to come here. Ship them all home. If they won't reveal where they came from, drop them in Mexico as a reward to the Mexican government for using its embassies to show its citizens how to game our legal system. Or better yet, all of these bleeding heart Euros can sign their country up as a destination and we can ship them there. Shouldn't be an issue given they provide nothing but net positives for the receiving society, correct Euros? humans are rightless property to be moved around like chesspieces by an all powerful government... i would have never guessed that you would show your real face so soon....
No. Nations have a right to determine who is allowed in and who is not. Otherwise, it would be lawless chaos. Stop being ignorant.
|
Republican senators Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, and Rand Paul have all been high profile opponents of the Obama administrations current plan to regulate the internet -- in particular, Lee has called the regulation a government "takeover" of the internet and says it amounts to a "a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.”
And when Lee says that the American public isn't aware of what's going on, that is in no way hyperbole. FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has emerged as a hero for those opposed to the regulation because Pai has been taking to the airwaves decrying the fact that the public is not allowed to see 332 pages of proposed internet regulation before they are potentially passed. Pai's crusade to make the proposed regulations public is the theme of the the latest ad from Protect Internet Freedom:
Source
Everything must be ok since we aren't allowed to see it, right kids?
|
On February 20 2015 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- In a move that could alter the minimum wage debate and improve the image of the world's largest retailer, Walmart announced it will raise the baseline wage of its current store employees to $10 per hour, bringing pay hikes to an estimated 500,000 workers.
The company said in an announcement on Thursday that it would raise its wage floor to $9 in April, followed by a second boost to $10 by next February.
The decision follows similar moves by other major retailers such as Gap and IKEA, but the sheer size of Walmart sets the company apart. The Arkansas-based retailer is the largest private-sector employer in the U.S., with an estimated 1.4 million employees, and it is largely seen as a trend-setter in the retail industry.
On a quarterly earnings call aligned with the announcement, Doug McMillon, the company's CEO, said raising wages would be good for both employees and customers.
"Overall, these are strategic investments in our people to reignite the sense of ownership they have in our stores," McMillon said. "As a result, we firmly believe that our customers will benefit from a better store experience, which can drive higher sales and returns for our shareholders over time."
According to a Walmart spokesman, the new wage floors will apply to current employees. New hires next year will be earning at least $9, but will be bumped up to at least $10 per hour after roughly six months of training. Source
The labor market has been looking better lately. Hopefully this is indicative of a broader trend.
|
On February 20 2015 07:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- In a move that could alter the minimum wage debate and improve the image of the world's largest retailer, Walmart announced it will raise the baseline wage of its current store employees to $10 per hour, bringing pay hikes to an estimated 500,000 workers.
The company said in an announcement on Thursday that it would raise its wage floor to $9 in April, followed by a second boost to $10 by next February.
The decision follows similar moves by other major retailers such as Gap and IKEA, but the sheer size of Walmart sets the company apart. The Arkansas-based retailer is the largest private-sector employer in the U.S., with an estimated 1.4 million employees, and it is largely seen as a trend-setter in the retail industry.
On a quarterly earnings call aligned with the announcement, Doug McMillon, the company's CEO, said raising wages would be good for both employees and customers.
"Overall, these are strategic investments in our people to reignite the sense of ownership they have in our stores," McMillon said. "As a result, we firmly believe that our customers will benefit from a better store experience, which can drive higher sales and returns for our shareholders over time."
According to a Walmart spokesman, the new wage floors will apply to current employees. New hires next year will be earning at least $9, but will be bumped up to at least $10 per hour after roughly six months of training. Source The labor market has been looking better lately. Hopefully this is indicative of a broader trend.
Just imagine what will happen to low end wages when we legalize 11M new low wage workers...
|
On February 20 2015 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Jefferson County, Colo. school board has cancelled its review of the controversial new AP U.S. History course framework, more than four months after students initially protested the board's attempts to revise the course.
The board will instead defer any reviews to existing committees comprised of students and parents, CBS Denver reported on Thursday.
"The JeffCo Board discussed reviewing the curriculum, but ended up passing revisions to current district policy that added community members and students to existing review committees and rejected board-directed review of any curriculum," Board President Ken Witt said in a statement.
After the College Board's revised AP U.S. History exam sparked controversy among conservatives, the Jefferson County board of education proposed the creation of a committee to review the course. The committee was tasked with ensuring that the AP U.S. History course materials "present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage" and do not "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law."
The school board's proposal prompted students to stage major walk-outs protesting the potential changes to the AP history curriculum. The board then removed the references to patriotism and civil disobedience from its proposal and voted to include students in the review process. Now, the review has been scrapped all together.
The news in Colorado comes as an Oklahoma lawmaker said he would "fix" a bill he introduced that would have eliminated state funding for AP U.S. History courses. Source
So glad that it looks like they are giving up on this shit. I just moved from JeffCo a few months ago and even though I don't have any kids this was still making me mad. I know it's a controversial point of view, but teaching patriotism to children is borderline unethical. If the U.S. is so great (and in many ways it is) then they will develop a healthy amount of patriotism on their own as they learn more and more about the world. But indoctrinating children by not teaching them what actually happened in history in order to make the U.S. look better should be criminal.
I can't believe it got as far as it did.
|
On February 20 2015 07:29 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Jefferson County, Colo. school board has cancelled its review of the controversial new AP U.S. History course framework, more than four months after students initially protested the board's attempts to revise the course.
The board will instead defer any reviews to existing committees comprised of students and parents, CBS Denver reported on Thursday.
"The JeffCo Board discussed reviewing the curriculum, but ended up passing revisions to current district policy that added community members and students to existing review committees and rejected board-directed review of any curriculum," Board President Ken Witt said in a statement.
After the College Board's revised AP U.S. History exam sparked controversy among conservatives, the Jefferson County board of education proposed the creation of a committee to review the course. The committee was tasked with ensuring that the AP U.S. History course materials "present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage" and do not "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law."
The school board's proposal prompted students to stage major walk-outs protesting the potential changes to the AP history curriculum. The board then removed the references to patriotism and civil disobedience from its proposal and voted to include students in the review process. Now, the review has been scrapped all together.
The news in Colorado comes as an Oklahoma lawmaker said he would "fix" a bill he introduced that would have eliminated state funding for AP U.S. History courses. Source So glad that it looks like they are giving up on this shit. I just moved from JeffCo a few months ago and even though I don't have any kids this was still making me mad. I know it's a controversial point of view, but teaching patriotism to children is borderline unethical. If the U.S. is so great (and in many ways it is) then they will develop a healthy amount of patriotism on their own as they learn more and more about the world. But indoctrinating children by not teaching them what actually happened in history in order to make the U.S. look better should be criminal. I can't believe it got as far as it did.
Nah, if you look more closely at Colorado politics, JeffCo was in an uproar because it instituted teacher evaluations and merit pay raises based on them. By shifting the debate to history classes, they got their protest but they also managed to squeeze more money out of the state budget for bigger pay raises than they initially planned, and now they're dropping the discussion about the curriculum.
I'm pretty convinced at this point that the whole curriculum thing is just razzle-dazzle politics to attract more money to education along with policy changes like teacher evaluations, without everyone giving their opinion on such matters because they're too busy spitting about how history should be taught. It is a brilliant way to manipulate politics in the internet age, where people are prone to fighting culture wars and ignoring everything else on the agenda.
|
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will designate three new national monuments on Thursday and announce a new initiative to increase the number of children who visit national parks.
Obama will formally name the three monuments this afternoon in remarks near Chicago's Pullman neighborhood, an industrial community known for its historic role in labor and civil rights organizing. The Pullman neighborhood will be the first National Park Service-protected area in Chicago.
Obama is also designating Honouliuli National Monument in Hawaii, which was the site of a Japanese internment camp during World War II, and Browns Canyon in Colorado.
Under the Antiquities Act of 1906, presidents have the power to grant federal protection to certain areas due to their historic or natural significance. National monuments can be managed by several agencies, including the National Park Service.
"Together, these monuments will help tell the story of significant events in American history and protect unique natural resources for the benefit of all Americans," said a White House statement. The latest additions bring the total number of national monuments designated by Obama to 16.
Conservation groups celebrated the news. "Few sites tell the story of American industry, labor, urban planning and African American workers as well as Pullman," Clark Bunting, president of the National Parks Conservation Association, said in a statement. "There is no doubt that those who lived and worked at Pullman helped shape our country. We owe it to them to preserve their story."
Obama will also formally announce what the administration is calling its "Every Kid in a Park" initiative, which aims to get more children into the country's national parks ahead of the National Park Service's 100th anniversary in 2016. All fourth-graders in the U.S. and their families will be granted free admission to national parks and public lands during the 2015-2016 school year.
Source
|
On February 20 2015 07:19 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 07:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 20 2015 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- In a move that could alter the minimum wage debate and improve the image of the world's largest retailer, Walmart announced it will raise the baseline wage of its current store employees to $10 per hour, bringing pay hikes to an estimated 500,000 workers.
The company said in an announcement on Thursday that it would raise its wage floor to $9 in April, followed by a second boost to $10 by next February.
The decision follows similar moves by other major retailers such as Gap and IKEA, but the sheer size of Walmart sets the company apart. The Arkansas-based retailer is the largest private-sector employer in the U.S., with an estimated 1.4 million employees, and it is largely seen as a trend-setter in the retail industry.
On a quarterly earnings call aligned with the announcement, Doug McMillon, the company's CEO, said raising wages would be good for both employees and customers.
"Overall, these are strategic investments in our people to reignite the sense of ownership they have in our stores," McMillon said. "As a result, we firmly believe that our customers will benefit from a better store experience, which can drive higher sales and returns for our shareholders over time."
According to a Walmart spokesman, the new wage floors will apply to current employees. New hires next year will be earning at least $9, but will be bumped up to at least $10 per hour after roughly six months of training. Source The labor market has been looking better lately. Hopefully this is indicative of a broader trend. Just imagine what will happen to low end wages when we legalize 11M new low wage workers...
There are no existing difficulties for those 11M. Fake social security cards are extremely easy to get. It is rare that illegals can't even get a fake social.
|
A Detroit-area pediatrician refused to treat a newborn baby girl because her parents are lesbians, according to local media reports that have highlighted a lack of legal protections for LGBT people in many states.
Krista and Jami Contreras brought their six-day-old baby girl to see Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville, Michigan for her first checkup in October 2014. They were dismayed when a different pediatrician greeted told them Roi had “prayed about it” and decided she could not treat the baby for religious regions, the Detroit Free Press reported on Wednesday.
Roi was not immediately available for comment to Al Jazeera.
The women had searched for a pediatrician who would be open to treating the child of a married lesbian couple, and their midwife had recommended Roi as having “a more holistic approach,” Krista Contreras wrote in a Facebook post about the incident. After meeting with Roi, the Contrerases decided the doctor was a good fit, and they were instructed to schedule their baby’s first appointment once she was born.
Roi “was well aware that we were lesbian moms. We canceled meetings with other pediatricians because we were happy with her,” Krista wrote in the Facebook post. “Now our little girl was six days old, and we were in a room with a doctor we have never met, feeling pretty humiliated, distraught and hurt.”
She added, “The fact that [Roi] refused to see our innocent little girl is disturbing. But the fact that she did not have the decency to let us know ahead of time that she had a problem with the sexual orientation of her parents and would not be willing to take her as a patient really just pissed me off.”
While the incident happened in October 2014, the mothers told the Detroit Free Press that they decided to come forward with their story to highlight the plight of same-sex parents who experience discrimination.
Roi, who has been a pediatrician for nearly 20 years, told the Detroit Free Press that she couldn’t comment on the case, citing HIPPA, the federal law protecting the privacy of patients’ medical information. But she apologized to the women for refusing to treat their daughter in a letter printed by newspaper.
Source
|
On February 20 2015 09:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A Detroit-area pediatrician refused to treat a newborn baby girl because her parents are lesbians, according to local media reports that have highlighted a lack of legal protections for LGBT people in many states.
Krista and Jami Contreras brought their six-day-old baby girl to see Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville, Michigan for her first checkup in October 2014. They were dismayed when a different pediatrician greeted told them Roi had “prayed about it” and decided she could not treat the baby for religious regions, the Detroit Free Press reported on Wednesday.
Roi was not immediately available for comment to Al Jazeera.
The women had searched for a pediatrician who would be open to treating the child of a married lesbian couple, and their midwife had recommended Roi as having “a more holistic approach,” Krista Contreras wrote in a Facebook post about the incident. After meeting with Roi, the Contrerases decided the doctor was a good fit, and they were instructed to schedule their baby’s first appointment once she was born.
Roi “was well aware that we were lesbian moms. We canceled meetings with other pediatricians because we were happy with her,” Krista wrote in the Facebook post. “Now our little girl was six days old, and we were in a room with a doctor we have never met, feeling pretty humiliated, distraught and hurt.”
She added, “The fact that [Roi] refused to see our innocent little girl is disturbing. But the fact that she did not have the decency to let us know ahead of time that she had a problem with the sexual orientation of her parents and would not be willing to take her as a patient really just pissed me off.”
While the incident happened in October 2014, the mothers told the Detroit Free Press that they decided to come forward with their story to highlight the plight of same-sex parents who experience discrimination.
Roi, who has been a pediatrician for nearly 20 years, told the Detroit Free Press that she couldn’t comment on the case, citing HIPPA, the federal law protecting the privacy of patients’ medical information. But she apologized to the women for refusing to treat their daughter in a letter printed by newspaper. Source
Handwritten letter by pediatrist
Includes,
I am writing this letter of apology as I feel that it is important and necessary. I never meant to hurt either one of you. After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients. I felt that was not fair to the two of you or to Bay. I felt that you deserved that type of relationship and I knew you could get that with Dr. Karam. [...]
Again, I am very sorry for the hurt and angry feelings that were created by this. I hope you can accept my apology. I wish you all the best.
Blessings,
Dr. Veina Roi
Mark that letter well, it's the discriminatory statement of another religious bigot. I think this pediatrician will soon face a similar order to the Colorado bakers: Make them bake cake! I'm guessing this community isn't willing to carve a religious exemption for delivering babies conceived in a gay marriage (or however you write that), much as they might for doctors performing abortions, or pastors refusing to marry them.
|
Yeah, refusing to treat a child because you're offended by their parents sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from being a bigot just because you write a nice letter. Is this even legal behaviour?
|
On February 20 2015 10:26 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah, refusing to treat a child because you're offended by their parents sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from being a bigot just because you write a nice letter. Is this even legal behaviour?
Well, this is America we're talking about...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
