Public Voice Network
- ios7 147147
- Pic of the Day 7540075400
- Halp! I need a photograph… 2727
- NBA Finals 2013 3737
- San Francisco... 6868
- QBNTPhE 2013 107107
- NIKE MMA / "Glitch A… 101101
- Mid-Sr Level Designer NYC 66
- Sci-Fi of the Day 101101
- Font help
- The Million Dollar YouTub… 1717
- the gif animation thread 1880018800
- new MEC logo 2222
- Vid of the Day 1529215292
- a screen printed, black-l…
- WANT of the day 14331433
- blog 5785157851
- Retro Dunk Idea 1212
- EC: Storm Thorgerson 1944 – 2… 44
- Scary Cool Tech Thread 317317
- Architecture of the Day 449449
- The Healthy Thread 5050
- Trailer Of The Day 817817
- fight of the day 142142
Politics 1884318843 Responses
Last post: 22 hours, 43 minutes ago | Thread started: Sep 4, 08, 4:24 p.m.
- waterhouse
&feature=player_embedded


- Dog-earMar 27, 12, 9:07 a.m. – Permalink
- deathboy
http://reason.com/archives/2012/…
interesting insight into how and why judges might decide


- Dog-earMar 27, 12, 9:44 a.m. – Permalink
- drgs
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5728
http://www.newscientist.com/arti…First investigation of the architecture of international ownership network, which finds that the entire corporate property belongs to the same oligarchic group
As I was saying, the theory of free market and competition belongs in a museum, together with gramophones, video casettes, bloodletting and phlogiston theory, hehe


- Dog-earMar 27, 12, 10:26 a.m. – Permalink
- bliznutty
how can you rationally justify government mandated health insurance? where does it stop?!
"The justices' questions in Tuesday's hearing carried deeply serious implications but were sometimes flavored with fanciful suggestions. If the government can force people to buy health insurance, justices wanted to know, can it require people to by burial insurance? Cellphones? Broccoli?"


- Dog-earMar 27, 12, 2:46 p.m. – Permalink
- deathboy
IRN
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-br…
Democrats fully supporting the term obamacare. Perhaps in the past it was used it was used by many as a sort of derogatory party terminology. But hey to each their own on what they think it conveys. I think its mor recognizable than the affordable care act or whatever the generic terminology is.
i mean this http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-a…
thing about wether obamacare should be banned is just playground whining. they should grow up.
And as far as shoved down throats...
"But the problem with Obamacare is not that it represents the illicit wishes of a majority — it’s that it doesn’t represent majority wishes at all. According to recent polls, two-thirds of Americans want the individual mandate repealed. Indeed, the law has never enjoyed majority support. Still, the Democrat-controlled Congress shoved it down the public’s throat through wildly unorthodox methods.To overcome resistance within its own party, it used horse-trading so brazen that horse traders would be embarrassed. Remember the Louisiana Purchase? This deal bought Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s support by cleverly writing disaster relief rules so that only the Bayou State qualified for $100 million in aid. Then there was the Cornhusker Kickback. Public outrage forced Democrats to withdraw this deal. Otherwise, federal taxpayers would have been on the hook, forever, for the entire tab for Nebraska’s Medicaid program in exchange for Sen. Ben Nelson’s “yes” vote.
Despite all this, Democrats could not pass the law through normal parliamentary procedures. The election of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts to the seat left vacant by Sen. Ted Kennedy’s death ensured that. Brown explicitly ran on a platform of stopping the Obamacare train wreck, and his election gave Senate Republicans the 41 votes they needed to filibuster the law.
The only way for Democrats to avoid the filibuster was for the House to pass the Senate version exactly as written to avoid another Senate vote. However, opposition to the Senate version ran so deep in the House that Democrats had to cut an eleventh-hour deal promising pro-life Democrats that the law’s abortion-related provisions would be eliminated through a procedure called reconciliation. Under it, the House appended the pro-life revisions to an unrelated bill the Senate had already passed — one it could approve by a simple majority vote."
I think it was justified in the writers explanation. Made decent arguments in methods used to push it through. Or shove it down our throats. Shove is more violent of an expression and id stop reading if the whole article was written in that kind of language without explanation. That kind of writing is better left the becks and think progress types.
But i was more interested in the judicial modesty and stare decisis stuff. I was unaware of those terms. figured supreme court would look more along the lines of consitutional or not. I didnt know there was a couple other ways with terms theyd could look at it. Words are symbols used to help clarify thoughts or confuse. And If they only look along those 2 terms instead of pure constitutional oversteppin on federal powers its interesting.


- Dog-earMar 27, 12, 6:19 p.m. – Permalink
- ukit2
The irony of all this is that Obama campaigned against a mandate and even attacked Hillary Clinton for advocating one.
http://www.ohiodailyblog.com/con…
He never really explained, or was asked to explain by the media, why he changed his position on this.

- Dog-earMar 27, 12, 6:56 p.m. – Permalink
- fooler
Did Santorum almost call Obama the N word?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?fea…

- Dog-earMar 30, 12, 10:37 a.m. – Permalink
- deathboy
What Foxconn Changes Mean for Workers, the Industry and You
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2…
This bugs me a bit. Creating rules and regulations for workers who would prefer to work and earn money. Some people say well theyre slaves and its the only jobs they can get without any competing companies or labor suppliers. If thats the case it only hurts them that much more. It doesnt give them options or competition it just hurts their ability to make a living while barely hurting the "Corporations" profit margins. If thats the job they choose over other options than its really their own decision and agreements with the company they work for. If the ends was to hurt corporate america than it failed especially in comparison to the workers livelihood it effected.
And in the end it was probably a larger protectionism mechanism of corporations who werent using that labor force to profit from. What should be promoted for real equality and options is to get competing companies to compete who want a cheaper labor force. Than the workers would have more choices to choose form and drive livelihood up. Might sound insane to promote companies to take adavantage of cheap labor but it seems the best outcome for workers with choice and options. Cheap labor shouldnt be frowned upon. It should be seeked and used regularly. It might hurt others making more money but thats competition. And competition with multiple companies benefits everyone with lower prices. If pussy ass bitches who feel guilty they make more for working less should be appreciative and not force policies that hurt the people they think theyre protecting. They should enjoy it while it lasts and abstain from the basic protectionism mechanisms of human emotions. Or at least be honest about their protectionsim desires. Its a selfish act of trying to wash away their own guilt and other emotions. Their best measure of protest should lie solely in consuming the product or not... which if not it could eventually lead to less consumerism of the product which would hurt workers finances but it would make them work less overtime too... It would be fair and just and would satsify peoples desire for others to work less hours in a more honest manner addressing what a loss of income means for them at the sake of their beliefs and values.


- Dog-earMar 31, 12, 10:33 p.m. – Permalink
- deathboy
Structural violence also seems like a political term used to call for more equality while ignoring the idea that inequality is natural. And it seems to generally be used when ignoring the causes of greater unnatural inequality and that many are created by good intentions and aid trying to create equality.
Huxley wrote this...
For example, we go to a tropical island and with the aid of DDT we stamp out malaria and, in two or three years, save hundreds of thousands of lives. This is obviously good. But the hundreds of thousands of human beings thus saved, and the millions whom they beget and bring to birth, cannot be adequately clothed, housed, educated or even fed out of the island's available resources. Quick death by malaria has been abolished; but life made miserable by undernourishment and over-crowding is now the rule, and slow death by outright starvation threatens ever greater numbers.And what about the congenitally insufficient organisms, whom our medicine and our social services now preserve so that they may propagate their kind? To help the unfortunate is obviously good. But the wholesale transmission to our descendants of the results of unfavorable mutations, and the progressive contamination of the genetic pool from which the members of our species will have to draw, are no less obviously bad. We are on the horns of an ethical dilemma, and to find the middle way will require all our intelligence and all our good will.
I think he is spot on. After all if we try to create more working equality for the foxconn people we really only hurt their ability to make enough money to survive. And there will be enough labor supply to justify no need to increase wages. Those working will just find a way to get by on less. Perhaps even offer more people just enough money to get by by picking up the hours workers arnt allowed to work. Thus creating a larger poorer population of people getting by enough to procreate and thus furthering the growth of so called structural violence inequalities. Its all cause and effect and people usually never analyze either one. They see something they dont liek and offer the first idea they have to create equality (usually give more work less) and completely space the effects of such decisions. And when things get worse they still never look at what the causes were and just employ new directives that are filled with good intentions.
But than again i didn't completely read any books describing the idea of structural violence. I jsut got the cliff notes from wikipedia and noticed it didn't address pertinent details for evaluation and seemed to be more focused on quickly labeling inequalities. And i can see it being used in more of the pot calling the kettle black scenarios.


- Dog-earApr 1, 12, 9:59 p.m. – Permalink
- 74LEO
Tibet Self-Immolation Wave Among History's Biggest
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20…

- Dog-earApr 2, 12, 11:59 a.m. – Permalink
- ukit2
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs, but also public health and information about gang affiliations.
“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are admitted each year to the nation’s jails.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/0…
That offhand statement Kennedy made is almost more shocking than the ruling itself...13 million people (almost 5% of the population) are admitted EACH YEAR to American prisons.

- Dog-earApr 2, 12, 3:42 p.m. – Permalink
- drgs
Pirates are winning in Germany
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com…
http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/25/…
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/…
http://blog.ksnh.eu/en/2012/03/2…"The party’s leading candidate, Jasmin Maurer, is 22 years old and known mainly for her animal rights activities."
"•On January 26, 2012, the Parliament (Landtag) of the German State of Saarland took a decision to dissolve after the Saarland Government, a so-called Jamaika-Coalition made up of Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Liberal Democratic Party (FDP), and the Greens (Bündnis90/Die Grünen), failed to carry on due to severe internal disputes."
Awesome, true political freedom right there


- Dog-earApr 4, 12, 2:35 a.m. – Permalink
- 74LEO
Our Nation - News and Analysis on the State of Tibet (2012 Episode-01): http://youtu.be/3d48nBAq0qk via @youtube


- Dog-earApr 4, 12, 9:18 a.m. – Permalink







