US Politics Mega-thread - Page 175

On March 23 2013 11:48 farvacola wrote:

I'm still deciding on exactly what I want to pursue a graduate education in, so yeah, I would never use my own experience to inform another in regards to the benefits of pursuing a specific path; I've already proven myself entirely too mercurial in that regard. Hence the "Anecdotes can only take us so far".

If I gave you the impression that I consider the standard liberal arts form of education without flaws, I apologize; one of the reasons I'm considering teaching deals specifically with my desire to try and make a difference in how things are done. I'd love to have good conversation in regards to reforming our approach to the humanities; it desperately needs to be done.




And oh yeah, where exactly is your step taken aback? You know, the requisite prostration you seem to insist on being present alongside a defense of an idea or concept? Because at this point, all we've gotten from you is that you think that the benefits of a liberal arts education are not unique in any way, and that they can be developed equally as well elsewhere, presumably in line with your own educational experience. Seems a little silly.

On March 23 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:

Both ignored biological fact and instead depended on ignorance and pseudo-science to be justified. Both established that by some biological difference the one human being was worth less than the other, and both give the complete physical control of the body of one human being over to another. Both are as old as society itself, and both are predicated on the rights of the one who currently holds the power, rather than the rights of the one who is oppressed. Both attempt to justify their existence, to some degree, from the standpoint that the subject under control is benefiting from the imposition of said control. Both argue from tradition, and both are justified with fear. Fear that losing control of the controlled means losing the fundamental rights of self-determination, and fear that the forces fighting for the "emancipation" of the controlled have ulterior motives.

They are remarkably similar positions. Of course there are some differences. One was mostly racial, the other based on development. But at the core, the positions are largely the same.

Development of the fetal neocortex begins at 8 weeks gestation, and by 20 weeks each cortex has a full complement of 10^9 neurons.34 The dendritic processes of the cortical neurons undergo profuse arborizations and develop synaptic targets for the incoming thalamocortical fibers and intracortical connections.35,36 The timing of the thalamocortical connection is of crucial importance for cortical perception, since most sensory pathways to the neocortex have synapses in the thalamus. Studies of primate and human fetuses have shown that afferent neurons in the thalamus produce axons that arrive in the cerebrum before mid-gestation. These fibers then "wait" just below the neocortex until migration and dendritic arborization of cortical neurons are complete and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation (Fig. 1).36-38

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39 By 30 weeks, the distinction between wakefulness and sleep can be made on the basis of electroencephalo- graphic patterns.39,40

CONCORD -- The House on Thursday voted to forbid the executive branch from privatizing the state prison system, saying that to do so would shirk the state’s constitutional responsibility to rehabilitate inmates.

The 197-136 roll call by the Democratic -controlled House sent House Bill 443 to the Senate, where Republicans hold a slim, 13-11 majority and the bill’s fate is uncertain, at best.

The legislation, while prohibiting prison privatization, allows the governor to enter into a temporary contract with a private provider during times of a “corrections emergency” with the approval of the Executive Council.

The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee had recommended that the bill pass on a 13-5 vote.

Those who opposed the bill said that with a study of privatization underway, it is premature to have a ban take effect. A move to table pending more information on privatization failed.

Rep. Dan McGuire, R-Epsom, argued that the state should not prevent itself from undertaking a private option. He said the prison population is expanding.

But Rep. Robert Cushing, D-Hampton, privatizing prisons “is different than talking about who is going to pick up our garbage and plow our roads.

“I don’t think we should be outsourcing incarceration,” he said.

He said the state constitution requires the state to rehabilitate its prisoners, “yet there is a financial incentive for a private operator to keep those cells filled” and “fill corporate coffers.

“When we take somebody’s liberty away from them, those who are overseeing that bondage should be responsible to the Governor of New Hampshire as opposed to a corporate entity,” said Cushing.

House Republican Leader Gene Chandler argued unsuccessfully that with a study underway, “There are facts coming in on the issue and we have an obligation to look at the facts.”

UNFIT FOR WORK
The startling rise of disability in America

In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed. The rise has come even as medical advances have allowed many more people to remain on the job, and new laws have banned workplace discrimination against the disabled. Every month, 14 million people now get a disability check from the government.

The federal government spends more money each year on cash payments for disabled former workers than it spends on food stamps and welfare combined. Yet people relying on disability payments are often overlooked in discussions of the social safety net. People on federal disability do not work. Yet because they are not technically part of the labor force, they are not counted among the unemployed.

In other words, people on disability don't show up in any of the places we usually look to see how the economy is doing. But the story of these programs -- who goes on them, and why, and what happens after that -- is, to a large extent, the story of the U.S. economy. It's the story not only of an aging workforce, but also of a hidden, increasingly expensive safety net.

For the past six months, I've been reporting on the growth of federal disability programs. I've been trying to understand what disability means for American workers, and, more broadly, what it means for poor people in America nearly 20 years after we ended welfare as we knew it. Here's what I found.

In the early morning hours Saturday after almost 13 continuous hours of voting, the Senate passed a budget resolution for the first time in nearly four years.

The proposal, which Democratic drafters say will reduce the deficit by $1.85 trillion between spending cuts and tax increases, passed narrowly 50-49 on a largely partisan vote at 4:56 a.m.

A handful of Democrats, all up for reelection next year and representing conservative states, voted against the measure: Sens. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska). Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) was absent.

Nerves started to fray about 2 a.m., with Democrats pushing to end the voting and Republicans trying to continue to consider amendments. In total, they considered 101 amendments.

The standoff brought leadership from both parties to hushed huddles on the floor as tired senators tried to intercede and speed the process.

More than an hour of negotiations ensued until a deal was struck, more than 30 amendments would be passed without a vote as a package. Another 14 amendments would be voted on beginning just after 3 a.m. to allow them to finally be able to vote on the budget.

It was then that conservatives in the Senate were finally able to move on some of their more controversial amendments. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) offered amendments dealing with foreign relations in the Middle East and U.N. funding related to the legality of abortion, all of which were defeated. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) offered an amendment reiterating the rights in the 2nd Amendment, which was shot down after being ruled unrelated to the budget.

As part of a deal to move forward, the members agreed to remain seated and vote out loud as their names were called, an unusual event on the Senate floor.

The 12-hour series of votes — more than 100 amendments were considered, breaking a previous “vote-a-rama” record — is mostly political theater and gives both sides the opportunity to force votes on pet issues. The budget is non-binding, therefore none of the passed amendments will likely carry the weight of law.

But the votes are symbolic victories, demonstrating the ability of one side to rally enough senators to support a measure in hopes of using those votes for future bills. It also gives both sides a litany of roll calls to try to clobber their opponents during the next election.

Republicans claimed victory on some key amendments, including passage of one to repeal the medical device tax included in Obamacare and one calling for the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/senate-passes-budget-89244.html?hp=f2

In total, they considered 101 amendments.

amendments dealing with foreign relations in the Middle East and U.N

funding related to the legality of abortion

amendment reiterating the rights in the 2nd Amendment

On March 24 2013 07:57 Gorsameth wrote:





The biggest problem with American Bills summed up nicely there.

On March 24 2013 08:31 DeltaX wrote:


A budget resolution is not a Bill/law, it is just a statement of belief. It just is a way for a majority of politicians to formally state what they think the government should spend money on, or anything else for that matter. The hope is afterwords they can sit down and work out their differences, not that I'm holding my breath.

On March 24 2013 07:57 Gorsameth wrote:





The biggest problem with American Bills summed up nicely there.

On March 23 2013 12:17 farvacola wrote:

Your rhetoric drips with so much self-aggrandizing unequivocality I feel I need to grab a roll of paper towels. That you can so demonize one side of the debate without even the slightest hint of moderation is endemic to the Republican Party as a whole, and it is why they lost the 2012 election. Let's look at the very first line.


To simply throw out phrases like "biological fact" and "pseudo-science" is to put forth the notion that your referenced concepts are standard fare and common parlance; nothing could be further from the truth. The precise status of a fetus and it's place relative to the mother is a point of incredibly hot contention; if you'd like to level a claim of pseudo-science and dominion over biological fact, you are going to need to way more than simply say "these are mine".

On March 23 2013 12:42 Soralin wrote:

Except it's the ones opposed to abortion that depend on scientific ignorance:
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/

Before the beginning of that process, we can know with certainty that there does not exist a person there, that there is no mind, and therefore no thoughts, no feelings, no senses, no awareness, no mind at all. It's not even the line between person and not person, because even things which are not people, like fruit flies, can have neural activity, but it is a line between certainty that it's not a person and the very edge of a grey area, because nothing that does not have any neural activity (and therefore no mind at all), can be a person. And it's an objective, measurable line, where we know with certainty before this point that no mind, and thus no person, exists.

Which makes your argument even more apt for those opposed to abortion, because they're the ones who seek power, who seek to exert control over the one and only person involved in the process.

On March 24 2013 11:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:

If you view the comparison as "demonizing" than you've misunderstood the whole point. The men and women who owned slaves, or supported the owning of slaves were not demons. In many ways, they were probably perfectly kind, rational people. They just happened to support a heinous position, and in one respect acted heinously. It is not demonizing someone to point out the flaw of their belief, nor to use harsh language in contrasting between one position and it's opposite. And more to the point, it is inevitable that such language gets used: both sides do it. The question isn't whether the language is harsh and needs moderation, the question is whether the comparisons are apt or hyperbolic.

The fetus is undeniably human. It is undeniably a separate organism from the mother and father. It is undeniable that it's separateness, if you will, comes from the moment of conception. And further, it is undeniable that it is alive in the sense that other creatures and human beings are alive. The biological fact of the fetus being a living organism is not under contention. When I hear things like: "Masturbation is murder of thousands then (sperm=fetus)" or "My skin-cell has full human DNA too" or even better: "It's not even alive yet" than I begin to question whether or not the debate isn't actually driven by ignorance of commonly accepted scientific facts. Not that everyone who argues for abortion is going to throw out such obviously ignorant statements, just as not every person who argues against will not toss out their own stupidities from time to time. But I wonder if perhaps if everyone were made fully aware of the scientific fact of fetal development they might hesitate more to unequivocally support such an old (and arguably barbaric) practice.

On March 24 2013 11:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:

Why do you argue philosophy when speaking scientifically? Person-hood is a philosophical concept, humanity a scientific one. Another problem with the pro-choice side of the debate is in conflating the pseudo-religious with the scientific. Keep to one or the other and let the arguments stand on their own merits.

On March 24 2013 11:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:

If you view the comparison as "demonizing" than you've misunderstood the whole point. The men and women who owned slaves, or supported the owning of slaves were not demons. In many ways, they were probably perfectly kind, rational people. They just happened to support a heinous position, and in one respect acted heinously. It is not demonizing someone to point out the flaw of their belief, nor to use harsh language in contrasting between one position and it's opposite. And more to the point, it is inevitable that such language gets used: both sides do it. The question isn't whether the language is harsh and needs moderation, the question is whether the comparisons are apt or hyperbolic.

The fetus is undeniably human. It is undeniably a separate organism from the mother and father. It is undeniable that it's separateness, if you will, comes from the moment of conception. And further, it is undeniable that it is alive in the sense that other creatures and human beings are alive. The biological fact of the fetus being a living organism is not under contention. When I hear things like: "Masturbation is murder of thousands then (sperm=fetus)" or "My skin-cell has full human DNA too" or even better: "It's not even alive yet" than I begin to question whether or not the debate isn't actually driven by ignorance of commonly accepted scientific facts. Not that everyone who argues for abortion is going to throw out such obviously ignorant statements, just as not every person who argues against will not toss out their own stupidities from time to time. But I wonder if perhaps if everyone were made fully aware of the scientific fact of fetal development they might hesitate more to unequivocally support such an old (and arguably barbaric) practice.

On March 23 2013 17:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Full story here.

On March 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:
Man we need to ban cigarettes. I work in a packaging factory and these things are literally killing america. Its like gun control in america but like 500 times the pros for it and almost non of the cons.

we can legalize pot in exchange just as long as we get rid of these death sticks.

On March 24 2013 12:01 farvacola wrote:

This is where your mere insistence on a particular definition as opposed to a sourced argument is simply a disingenuous way of putting forth a position. The debate revolves entirely around these issues. Stop pretending otherwise.