Genghis on Debt Ceiling II: Return of the Boehner
Gallup: Obama 45, Romney 45
Fact That Things Suck Cited As Impediment To Re-Election
|
Genghis on Debt Ceiling II: Return of the Boehner Gallup: Obama 45, Romney 45 Fact That Things Suck Cited As Impediment To Re-Election |
Read |
There is a new trend among state legislatures to pass laws that are in direct or indirect contradiction to federal statutes.
1. South Dakota/Wyoming – Passed a bill saying that federal gun statutes are invalid if the gun is made and used in SD or Wyoming respectively.
2. Oklahoma/Utah – Passed a resolution allowing them to opt out of any new federal healthcare mandates.
3. Alabama/Tennessee/Washington – Considering measures that would give local police authorities supremacy over federal agents in certain situations.
While there maybe some legal roadblocks to these specific measures that will be played out in court for years to come that I choose not to understand or even list, the message is the same: Keep your federal hands out of our state’s cookie jars – or some such appropriate analogy. Which I think is awesome.
One of the few things I learned in school was that the text book says that Republicans prefer power to be centralized in the state while Democrats prefer power to be centralized with the federal government. Turns out, that was complete bullshit – depending on which party was in power in DC determines who favors the federal government changed each party’s viewpoint on the matter. The idea that the federal government should be in control of state education or that creating a massive bureaucracy for national security are ideas that would have been shunned by the Republicans – had a Democrat been behind them instead of “No Child Left Behind” and the “Department of Homeland Security” during the Bush II administration. But I digress
I personally think it’s great that states are stepping up and having a larger say in how things should be run in their state. As long as nothing too crazy is passed (Dakotas and your wacky abortion laws, I’m looking at you). And don’t get me wrong there times the federal government needs to step in from time to time (segregation, women’s rights, etc.)
My reasoning is as follows:
1. Survival of the fittest states: If an ackbassword state in the south wants to pass a law saying that they don’t want the government to regulate something, good luck. We’ll see how that works out for them, and if it doesn’t, sucks to be that state.
2. Useful state laws: While this idea is commonly propagated from the right, think of the cool stuff left-ish states could do! Legalize marijuana, legalize all forms of gambling, legalize gay marriage – the list could go on and on with stuff that the federal government will never do because it is controlled by the corporate oligarchy but a state could do easily.
3. Innovation in politics: With clean elections in Arizona and Maine, average citizens can run for office and get elected without belonging to the Republicans and Democrats. Think of it: a person in power to enact real change who is not beholden to the idiotic right or the nonsensical left – that’s change I can believe in.
So, are state rights a viable option for change in America? Where is the line drawn between state and federal jurisdiction? What would your state pass? Are these questions getting annoying? You really think so?
By Nancy Benac, Associated Press, May 16, 2012
After the nastiness of the Republican primary race, former candidates have collective amnesia about Romney disses
Note to self: you think you're so smart about this kinda stuff, but you yourself fell for it once again.....so much for all the prognostication about one of our political parties disintegrating from all the primary campaign animosity.
Pew Resarch Center for the People and the Press, May 15, 2012
For decades survey research has provided trusted data about political attitudes and voting behavior, the economy, health, education, demography and many other topics. But political and media surveys are facing significant challenges as a consequence of societal and technological changes.
It has become increasingly difficult to contact potential respondents and to persuade them to participate. The percentage of households in a sample that are successfully interviewed – the response rate – has fallen dramatically. At Pew Research, the response rate of a typical telephone survey was 36% in 1997 and is just 9% today. The general decline in response rates is evident across nearly all types of surveys, in the United States and abroad. At the same time, greater effort and expense are required to achieve even the diminished response rates of today. These challenges have led many to question whether surveys are still providing accurate and unbiased information [....]
On May 16, 2012 at 7:00 PM, the Ride of Silence will begin in North America and roll across the globe. Cyclists will take to the roads in a silent procession to honor cyclists who have been killed or injured while cycling on public roadways. Although cyclists have a legal right to share the road with motorists, the motoring public often isn't aware of these rights, and sometimes not aware of the cyclists themselves.
...
The Ride of Silence is a free ride that asks its cyclists to ride no faster than 12 mph, wear helmets, follow the rules of the road and remain silent during the ride. There are no sponsors and no registration fees. The ride, which is held during National Bike Month, aims to raise the awareness of motorists, police and city officials that cyclists have a legal right to the public roadways. The ride is also a chance to show respect for and honor the lives of those who have been killed or injured.
A new UCLA rat study is the first to show how a diet steadily high in fructose slows the brain, hampering memory and learning — and how omega-3 fatty acids can counteract the disruption. The peer-reviewed Journal of Physiology publishes the findings in its May 15 edition.
"Our findings illustrate that what you eat affects how you think," said Fernando Gomez-Pinilla, a professor of neurosurgery at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a professor of integrative biology and physiology in the UCLA College of Letters and Science. "Eating a high-fructose diet over the long term alters your brain's ability to learn and remember information. But adding omega-3 fatty acids to your meals can help minimize the damage."
While earlier research has revealed how fructose harms the body through its role in diabetes, obesity and fatty liver, this study is the first to uncover how the sweetener influences the brain.
The UCLA team zeroed in on high-fructose corn syrup, an inexpensive liquid six times sweeter than cane sugar, that is commonly added to processed foods, including soft drinks, condiments, applesauce and baby food. The average American consumes more than 40 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup per year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"We're not talking about naturally occurring fructose in fruits, which also contain important antioxidants," explained Gomez-Pinilla, who is also a member of UCLA's Brain Research Institute and Brain Injury Research Center. "We're concerned about high-fructose corn syrup that is added to manufactured food products as a sweetener and preservative."
[Better write this down]
Christopher Doyon, a.k.a. Commander X, sits atop a hillside in an undisclosed location in Canada, watching a reporter and photographer make their way along a narrow path to join him, away from the prying eyes of law enforcement.
It’s been a few weeks of encrypted emails back and forth, working out the security protocol to follow for interviewing Doyon, one of the brains behind Anonymous, now a fugitive from the FBI.
Doyon, who readily admits taking part in some of the highest-profile hacktivist attacks on websites last year — from Tunisia to Orlando, Sony to PayPal — was arrested in September for a comparatively minor assault on the county website of Santa Cruz, Calif., where he was living, in retaliation for the town forcibly removing a homeless encampment on the courthouse steps.
The “virtual sit-in” lasted half an hour. For that, Doyon is facing 15 years in jail.
One problem with Dagblog is it's hard to know where satire begins and where it ends. Taking this at face value then, I agree with you. Despite its tawdry past with respect to civil rights, I'm generally a fan of states' rights, for exactly the reasons you specify. To answer your other question, the lines should be drawn pretty much where the Constitution has drawn them, except that the ICC has been roundly abused by lawmakers, IMO. The problem, of course, is that the federal goverment would seem to have a need to protect basic civil rights (preferably without abusing the ICC), but what constitutes "basic civil rights" is open for debate.
Larry, I started writing a reply, but it turned into its own post: http://dagblog.com/politics/brief-history-states-rights-3205
the message is the same: Keep your federal hands out of our state’s cookie jars – or some such appropriate analogy.
Or, more accurately: "Keep your federal cookies out of our jars! We'll bake our own damn cookies! Empty jars build character!"
Which of course, the states don't really mean. They just want the cookies delivered later.