tvashtarkatena

I'm giving a talk to about 100 high schoolers on civil liberties since 911. This should make for a spicy 'current events' topic! Give a talk to a mostly Saudi women ESL audience the other day on freedom of speech. I made them pretend they were high school principals who had to decide whether or not to allow certain T shirts to be worn at school. "Bong hits 4 Jesus" got unanimous 'no's - too offensive to religion. "George Bush: Chicken Hawk" got unanimous 'OK's I had to explain what a bong was, though. Fortunately, the word 'hookah' was a familiar synonym.

I'll tell ya, Jefferson may have been kind of a back stabbing prick in a lot of ways, but he was probably right in one sense: The feds really do suck.

LULZ

I don't look where the puck is, I look where the puck is going to be.

Somebody needs to kit those Predators with a 'drop net' accessory. Problem solved.

sure can't do it as easily, and i prefer the predator approach to the take over the whole fucking country to put a base in every village idea... As I mentioned before, that is a false framing of the options, however many times it's been parroted in the media rags. There were always more than these two options available in this case. And doing what's 'most convenient' isn't that great a reason for violating our most basic rule of law.

Clearly, the government invoked the 'easier to ask forgiveness' principle in this case. We all do it. We don't all do it after killing someone, however. Is that the way we want our government to operate...in the eyes of the rest of the world, no less? So much for being the beacon of liberty and all that PR rot. Countries, like people, with true balls stand by their most basic principles even when they're scared or threatened. That's real strength. That's true honor. That's playing the long game.

Few folks side with the American Nazi Party, Larry Flynt, or Westboro Baptist, but the strength of our values depends on separating the people from the principle. The fact that our government 'claims' that certain terrorist acts were 'inspired' by our man in Yemen may constitute treason, but it certainly doesn't make him an enemy combatant in any sense of the word...even the modern one. Now, the government may claim that he had an 'operational role'. Really? Prove it by due process. Any of you trust the government that much? God, I certainly hope not at this point.

And last time I checked, the US wasn't in the business of summarily executing its citizens for treason. There's usually a trial involved. If the US can target a citizen with a Hellfire, it can arrest and try him...and maintain the rule of law rather than what essentially is a monarchy.

There is no clear evidence that he ever took up arms against the United States. Words are not arms, amigo. That's another principle you (supposedly) fight for.

Says you. How do we know what his 'crimes' were? Due process. That's one of the handful of central principles that define our democracy. You know...the one you've spent your life fighting for.

Um...it was a blank form for me to fill out. There wasn't any information on it. Jesus...I had to explain that. And, yeah, I figured out the second part all on my very own.

Contacted my doc's office today. They have a form to get your chart on the web...which they mail to you. As in snail mail. Can't you email me a copy? "Oh...we don't do email." SO FUCKING LAME.

Obamacare was a giveaway to those corporations running the current fucked up system. This year's premium increases were the highest on record. My GF works for the state. They used to have awesome health care...then the switched to Regence (supposedly a 'non-profit'). She broke her arm in a faultless bike accident (she braked too hard to avoid a car and did an endo). They sent her a letter stating that the nature of her injuries indicated that there might be a driver at fault...and that they wouldn't cover her injuries at all unless she proved otherwise by filling out a six page form. Meanwhile, their premiums have increased at a steady 15% a year. TOTAL FUCKHEADS

The more unified the end goal of health care is (better per capita health), the more proactive care will be covered. Today's 'every corporation for themselves' approach produces the opposite result, of course.

The whole idea of universal health care is to improve care/reduce per capita costs by: SIMPLIFICATION of the system BARGAINING POWER for purchasing AMORTIZING health risks across a larger population. From the consumer standpoint, its win/win/win. Charging fatties more contradicts all three principles. Sorry...ya can't have it both ways. The fatty issue is really just a way for progressives to express their general dissatisfaction with the modern world in general, which, admittedly, just might have some room for improvement. Who cares if everyone's fat? Mind what's on your own plate and stow the urge to judge how others live their lives, I say. Aren't there enough busy bodies these days?

I'm troubled by 'progressives' who rail against the health care system...then advocate that very same system 'punishing' people for what are only contributing factors to disease. Obesity is just one of several contributors to CHF/Type II and the like. Genetics is just as or more important, as are others. So... should we allow our beloved health care providers to increase the already massive control they have over our lives by giving them the green like to DNA test us, then charge for the 'wrong mix'? In the end, such 'progressives' are differ little from their Tea Bagger 'opponents' emotionally. All stick, no carrot. Seems like there's too much stick in this society already, no?

Again, smoking provides an example. Public education, regulation of advertising and distribution (particularly to minors), proper health studies, and surtaxes. Outright bans are neither necessary or desirable. We've been here before and we know what works. The same could, and frankly should, be applied to heroin. Habits are formed when young. That should be the focus of any program to combat obesity. Obesity does differ fundamentally from smoking in several ways, making it much more difficult to regulate. You need food to live. You can become obese from eating too much of even healthiest foods. You can be remain healthy and still eat lots of sugar. No one wants serious about the issue really considers regulating lifestyle as a whole. GM is less a human health issue than an environmental health issue. Advocates would be taken more seriously if they stopped mixing the two up and putting out so much misinformation, however well meaning. The body doesn't give a damn whether the sugar, and most particularly fructose, comes from GM corn or organic, free range honey. Fructose is slightly worse for you than sucrose, but, in the end, sticking to Mexican Coca Cola doesn't make too much of a difference in the outcome. A steady diet of Mexican coke, however, could conceivably keep a person slim and trim.

And this another issue. I don't think any healthcare system will ever work here, unless you start regulating food industry with a heavy hand: that includes use of hormones, gm foods and school lunches. in 2004 Group Health study showed that an average teen in the US consumed 1200 calories in the form of soft drink a day. The most served food in a cafeteria is a pizza and french fries. No wonder kids of age 9 or 10 have cholesterol above 250. And the answer of AMA is to start prescribing Lipitor. So, sugar consumption is the cause of obesity (it is)...so let's regulate GM foods and hormones and fatty foods in school lunches. Got it. BTW, fat consumption in the American diet has slowly declined in the past several decades. Wrong battle. Public information campaigns have been was pretty successful at reducing smoking...why couldn't they be just as successful at reducing sugar consumption?

If we don't make shit up as we go along, who will do it for us?

Regarding the "invade" or "assassinate" question; there are more than just those two choices available. Doing nothing, for example, is always an option...and often the best one.

It's impossible to determine guilt or innocence with extra-judicial killings due to a) the lack of due process and b) secrecy. The problem is fundamental...if one believes in the rule of law and those values embodied in our present day constitution. BTW, for all you self styled constitutional scholars out there, the document wasn't ratified until 1789 (not 1776). The first ten amendments weren't added until 1791. Even then, with slavery and all, it wasn't worth much more than the paper it was written on. The last two+ centuries of activism, legislation, and jurisprudence are what have given our Constitution meaning and value. The original document was merely list of ideas and promises; most of which weren't acted upon or kept for many decades afterwards. Everyone's an expert these days...it's all the rage, but even the most seemingly straightforward and fundamental rights embodied in that document have very, very complicated histories and issues surrounding them when actually applied in real life. Ah yes, the real world. So inconveniently messy for the American simpleton. You've got to fight for your right to party.

BS. Cliff was a gasbag that nobody took seriously, which I suspect is the entire gist of KKK's "humor". Perhaps we should take a poll on this serious issue. If you can write off Cliff Claven like that, what's to stop you from eating a live baby?

True. A mai tai isn't one of them, though.

Kinda disappointed he bowed out. Looks like it's gonna be ROM - which means zero entertainment factor.