zoogs

It's funny that you're here trying to tell me in belittling terms how economics-literate you are when you don't seem to be aware of the (very prominent) opposing argument, expressed earlier by commando.

To your second, what on earth are you even trying to say? Less than ten years ago it was a costly political move to come out publicly in favor of same-sex marriage. It's not accurate to say "virtually" every Democrat didn't support it; in fact, it's completely ignorant of the long term advocacy that got us here. It's dishonest to make any sort of equivalency argument between the efforts of Democrats and those of Republicans, many of whom still are extremely against this, even though their presidential candidates are no longer running on amending the constitution to circumscribe it from the definition of marriage. (Y'all have upgraded to "Brown people are dangerous", so congratulations!) 

If trying to reshape society so that it doesn't view transgender people as mentally ill puts me in the culture war, then I'm glad to have signed up. If yours is the side that staunchly opposes civil liberties, then pretends that everyone was equally opposed to them back then even while continuing to oppose civil liberties, then maybe you're on the wrong one. Or the exact right one, that's up to you.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/blumenthal-law-would-take-guns-from-those-judged-to-be-threats-1519597084

This is a reminder not to be uncritical in our evaluation of all gun control efforts even for those of us most proactive in our support of gun control. This coming from the WSJ, of course it has a headline like that, but then...it's hard to see how it's unfair. 

This form of gun control may very well be bipartisan. That makes it no more agreeable, and no less dangerous. 

Quote

The National Rifle Association, which has opposed such laws at the state level, didn’t respond to a request for comment. When Oregon passed its law in August, the NRA said in a news release that the protection orders “strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights” and will only be “based on the brief statement of the petitioner.”

Yes, this is the NRA, but I agree with the statement. More on the Oregon law: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/08/oregon_lawmakers_set_out_to_re.html

Quote

 

Under Oregon's law, a judge can issue an order requiring a person to hand over their guns if they're deemed a risk to themselves or people they live with. The person then has 24 hours to turn in all guns before they can be seized.

 

Post, a second-term lawmaker, said he strongly opposes the law because it "calls for the forced confiscation of property by the police with no due process, no accusation of a crime let alone conviction of a crime. It allows people with no mental health credentials to make assessments of other's states of mind and it allows people with no mental health credentials (judges) to punish people they have never met or spoken to."

 

Yes, Post is a Republican, but I agree with him here, too. 

The avenues we have left ourselves that are bipartisan are not necessarily the right ones. I want to see us reducing the number of guns in circulation -- not choosing people to strip of their property, and especially not when ownership of that particular property is considered a constitutional right. In this case, though, it wouldn't be any better without the 2nd amendment. But I can see how politicians on both sides of the aisle will consider such incursions on individual liberties totally fine, and it worries me.

The Huskerboard Inquisition of Jesuits strikes again. Every now and then we let one slip through the cracks and express a thought. But for the most part we're good at nipping such wickedness in the bud.

These are not that related and I think you'll find the polling to reflect that. I can see why people's views on this can be decoupled. Maybe there's something else you can add here: war. I suspect a lot of people who feel that the state shouldn't carry out executions of its citizens are pretty OK with its military carrying out the bombing of another nation's people.

I misread that as "if the problem is not enough revenue".

I don't have a solution to the money in politics problem, although I think one side effect of much heavier taxation at the top is the moderation of the large pools of disposable cash used for lobbying arms.

24 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

So let me challenge you a bit on this Mike ... if a woman is allowed to do anything to her body as long as she "doesn't misuse it with a child inside":

• What should I be eating when I'm pregnant?  Can't my decisions harm a child?
• How many hours of sleep should I be required to get when I'm pregnant?
• Why stop at while a woman is carrying a child - after she has it she should stay healthy to care for it right?  If you're saying that my responsibility is to house a child and do whatever I can to make it healthy does it end at birth?  How will the government monitor how I take care of myself so that I can properly care for a baby?  
• I don't want to wear a seatbelt when I'm pregnant - it hurts.  Are the charges/different different because I'm pregnant?
• What exercise should I do at the gym?  I didn't exercise before I got pregnant, is it a requirement to do so now?
• People say babies can hear through the womb - what tv/radio/music am I not allowed to listen to while pregnant?

 

None of the above are issues that anyone other than the mother and her family and physician should be involved in.  And yet they are all potentially "misuse of my body with a child inside."  You certainly have every right to be involved in a decision involving your significant other and your pregnancies.  I respect your right to apply your opinion to any action you and your partner make.  But you do not have a right to be involved in mine.  That's a discussion for my partner and my physican and me.  NObody else.  

 

Can you see when reading back through your comments how they come across?  

 

"The women can do whatever with her body, so long as she does not misuse it with a child inside."  

"I am not taking anything away from women, I am not trying to control them."  (conflicts a bit with the comment above doesn't it?)

"I respect them and care for them and treat them like they are my daughter."

"They have a voice in this country, which is a great thing. But, I think they are wrong that they can control people with the my body my choice argument on abortion or play the victim to get their way on THIS issue." 

 

You say that you respect women, you're glad they have a voice in the US (? which I have some questions about but that's for another thread) but that on this issue, which effects them to a degree that you will never comprehend they should not have a voice or the respect of the men in this country that make the laws.  And if they speak up to what they think and feel about it, they are "playing the victim" to get their way.

+1, so much. Thank you for this. I didn't notice this earlier, but the phrase "a woman's misuse of her body while it has a child inside" really cuts to the bone of it. 

You can argue that there are reasons why it's necessary for society to dictate what ways a woman is allowed to use her body while pregnant, but "respect for women" is not compatible with it. It's, again, rooted in the idea that women who are afforded free reign will do unacceptable things with themselves and must be stopped from this by mandate. The role of a pregnant woman in our society becomes that of a child-producing automaton. And you may not like your advocacy being framed in this way, but those are the consequences of it. Consider yourself lucky to have the luxury of these things being just words that you can choose to think of in a genial light.

Yes! I'd rather we tax the wealthy more.

Uh, a Republican Congress would welcome it and would create some rubric where it's allowed to happen. Trump would probably be cast as the next FDR.

Guys, you know what is the solution? Go. Vote.

This is the freedom we crave.

This is an ineffective and actually, selectively harmful view on drugs that was both really obvious during election season and something I'd hope most of us should agree we should steer clear from. The way to do that is to stop voting in the politicians who believe in this stuff. It's no surprise that Trump got Jeff Sessions, a kindred spirit on this matter, as the AG. And the AG's discretion in this area matters. 

It is strictly telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, though -- not merely in the nine months or so of pregnancy, but in the entire transformed shape of her life after that. 

I understand the perspective, and I've made the patient, nuanced case many times before. I'm here to advocate against it in the most complete and unambiguous of terms. Because I think anything less than that is not enough. It cedes ground on what I think is at the crux of the divide: again, the idea that women, on their own, if permitted, will make unacceptable choices, and that we know better. The heels are already dug in, and it doesn't need to be danced around. I think it's important to indicate that just as some people find abortion monstrous, those of us on the other side find the impulse to control completely unacceptable. Not commendable.  

There's a lot of "hey, you need to respect the fact that these people think you're monsters, and work with them anyway." Eff that, seriously. We can still work together, on many grounds, but the impasse is there and the feeling is mutual.

Quote

If it was legal to kill a 9 month old fetus I think that would definitely make us monsters yeah .

I don't think this exception needs to be carved out of that answer. This goes to the common Republican refrain of "ripping babies out of wombs" ... like, is this is a thing that happens? Not really.  This type of talk tends to dominate the debate because of its shock value, and that's damaging. This really should not be a discussion driven by the exceedingly rare circumstances. It's a care and access to care issue first and foremost, and the blanket shuttering of that access impacts every case.

On 2/18/2018 at 2:08 PM, BigRedBuster said:

Interesting. 

 

 

This is a good example of how decorum can be wielded as a weapon. The normal, polite thing to do is not make a big thing out of it in such a public setting. The normal, polite thing to do is to let these people receive their fossil fuel sector donations in peace and not cause a ruckus. Inertia is powerful, and results in the messed up bizzaro world where letting crazy things continue is moderacy, and those who take a stand are out of line.

Why should football be exempted? Because we like football?

Why isn't it football that should be changed (or, in this case, not expanded)? 

It's galling that none of the (many!) adults in the room have seen fit to decide the President is not fit for office. 

You know who's a 501(c)(4)? The NRA. 

Quote

To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare. The earnings of a section 501(c)(4) organization may not inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/social-welfare-organizations

This is bonkers. I'm a little less sold on the idea of making churches not tax-exempt. I'm very much not religious, and very critical of organized religion, but this seems punitive. 

9 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Some do though. It stands to reason that if you tax income at a lower rate you increase the incentive (or decrease the disincentive) to generate more income. Lower rates also lead to more businesses choosing to do business here.

One thing I suppose you don't teach is economics; it turns out that fiscal policy requires better arguments than "it stands to reason". You've even somehow managed to peg Rand Paul (the 'libertarian', remember?) as other from the tax cut wing of the Republican Party. 

Buddy! The one who has been triggered here is you. 

And yeah, of course, the culture wars are fought on each side. Some advocate for diversity and inclusion. Others are in the camp that ten years ago felt one of the most urgent threats society faced was the marriage of two people of the same sex, and today feel it's transgender people using bathrooms, and, apparently (?) sex ed that isn't abstinence-based. Among other things. These noxious ideas need to be fought.

I'm sorry to offend you while you advocate for a society that gets to tell women what is or is not an appropriate use of their bodies. 

You may find my disgust with this view bothersome -- curiously, while you would like to proudly reclaim the idea that disgust for my view is appropriate and commendable -- but the result, justified or not, is control. At its root is the idea that if left to their own, silly devices, women make wasteful, wrong, monstrous choices, and so the public needs instruments to stop this.

No. It is formed of the patronizing conviction that society can define for women what is a good and what is a “wasteful” use of her life, and results in the dominion over not only her body and will during her pregnancy but also over the course of the entire rest of her life. 

Most people are happy to become parents, and that’s great. Pregnancy and parenthood should always be by consent, not by the systematic deprivation of agency.

The desire to control a woman’s body is what makes a monster. Right to choose, full stop. And often there are cases where it’s medical necessity — this is also a healthcare issue. And there’s so much here, as many people have mentioned, that we can work together on policy to make better.

We all want fewer abortions. People who choose or have to get abortions would rather have avoided the situation in the first place. The gray areas and the corner cases of this issue should not be dominating discussion and nor should it be guiding policy. If you’d never choose an abortion under any circumstance unless you had to, great. More power to you!

Ha, ha, can’t the University devote a lion’s share of its offered resources and opportunity to men’s athletics, the ones that matter, and get away with it by pretending to care about women’s sports?

There’s probably a measure of this going on already. But balance should be assertive and genuine.

The lingerie comment is telling. Women do not matter, and to the extent that they do they’re most useful or relevant as sex symbols for our consumption. It’s a joke but then it’s not really a joke, and it reflects pretty fairly there way the world works, and the resistance to efforts like Title IX to keep things balanced.

This is a bad thing:

Yep, we agree. 

Ah. I’m not arguing for the EC, as you know. Someone posted a while ago saying that without it the big, very blue metro areas of the US would just outvote the entire rest of the country. And well, yeah, they can do that, but if they do then it’s more people in the country at the end of the day. Right now living in NYC means your vote just doesn’t count for as much as if you lived in Wyoming.  And that’s a lousy deal which can be called many things, but maybe not “democratic”.

I think the worrying thing is that folks like Ric are not mentally unstable at all, and shouldn’t be regarded as such. These are normal, respectable people in our society who have wholly subscribed to a set of awful beliefs. Energetic activism is not a bad thing, but it can be deployed towards “protect the DREAMERs” as much as it can be towards “crush the libs, fight the GOP-fanned culture war.”