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 |
It's probably a fool's errand to make attempts at parsing the paranoid, hysterical rhetoric that's been flying around in the healthcare debate, but that's never stopped me before. So, I'm watching the fun on C-SPAN this afternoon. Listening to some of the "against" calls, I noticed something that I probably should have noticed before, which is this: The bizarre dichotomy of professing your undying love for the Constitution, while breathlessly spewing venom at the fundamental evil of the government.
Folks, I have to tell you that I love you very much for your dogged support of the Constitution. I'm with you. I believe that it's been a net positive for humanity despite its flaws, which in many cases have been adjusted over the years in a manner that, I would contend, has been largely for the better. Through our history, we've righted some serious wrongs by broadening and deepening our commitment to the ideas that are embedded in that oft referred to document. And we may yet have some way to go in that respect.
However, it should be noted that the one thing the Constitution does, first and foremost, is establish a government. I must say that the people who cling tenaciously to the Constitution while hurling invective at the very institution that the document creates have perhaps missed the point.
Don't get me wrong. It's perfectly valid to criticize that institution and its operations. Not only is it valid, but it's necessary for the health of the system in my opinion. However, that's a debate that acknowledges the question of whether or not to have a government at all as settled. We can disagree with specific things that the government does, but that's different than attacking the very notion of government itself.
Now, you could be a bona fide anti-statist. Hey, that's fine. You're entitled to that point of view. However, you can't be an anti-statist and claim allegiance to the Constitution at the same time. It's fundamentally nonsenscial. The Constitution establishes a state government. If you really believe that the state is fundamentally evil, then the Constitution is the bane of your existence.
And this goes for people who make silly claims like it's un-Constitutional to pass a healthcare reform bill. If you're referring to the Constitution that I know and love, then you know that Article I gets the party started by establishing a legislative body and describing how that body will be selected and proceed. Well, that body is using the power vested in it by Article I to pass law. Again, you could be somebody who fundamentally disagrees with this scenario or the power of legislators to legislate, but their doing so is anything but un-Constitutional.
And lest we think that the people who make this argument are just random callers into C-SPAN, I listened to a Republican member of the House again invoke the notion that a healthcare reform bill is un-Constitutional as I typed that last paragraph.
In closing, I would go one further and put it that fundamental hatred of the government is un-American. America is nothing if not a state. Again, you're perfectly entitled to hold the idea of state in question, but debating how that state should function and whether or not there should even be a state are different things. I'm fine with having both debates, but it's either terribly erroneous or perhaps even disingenuous to confuse the two. And that confusion seems to underline a sense of alienation from government rather than ownership of it.
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.
You sound like one of those close-minded Western thinkers who believe in the Law of Excluded Middle. Something's either true or it's not true. Well, sometimes something is both true and not true. Light is both a wave and not a wave. It's both a particle and not a particle. I can hate the idea of government while loving the idea of government. It's really not a hard concept. If you have to ask me how this is possible, then you have not yet opened your mind to Zen.
This should help: what is the sound of one Republican in the forest if no one is there?
Suspend logic for just a second and understand that these people of whom you speak support the state when their people are running it. It's only un-Constitutional to make laws when their opponents are running things. I call it "The Toddler Principle."
I guess that's really my point. The debate is fundamentally disingenuous, just as the debate about the "free market" is. These aren't really questions of state or no and regulation or no, but that frame is decidedly beneficial to one side of the argument.
It shouldn't be hard to understand that the constitution does NOT give government the right to take over private businesses at will, or that the constitution does NOT give the federal government the right to run the healthcare industry in America.
The constitution was written to LIMIT government, as the Founding Fathers of America knew that only by limiting government could they allow the INDIVIDUAL freedom they intended each American to enjoy.
The Constitution gives the government the power to tax and regulate business and to operate administrative entities. That's all that's required. Your argument is precisely the one that doesn't understand what the Constitution is and does.