tvashtarkatena

So, if you believe Islam is the root cause of much of the world's violence (and not extremist individuals with a political agenda who've use Islam as a legitimizing tool...just like our Kooky Christians), then what policy recommendations do have Jay for 'dealing with Islam'? I'd love to hear some concrete proposals...someday.

Jimmy Duranty? Who the fuck is this guy going on about? Anyone within that last, oh, 3 decades?

Just say NO to family planning.... 26% pregnancy rate in Memphis school Their answer: the "No Baby!" abstinence program LOL. The bible belt has the highest rates of teen pregnancy (and divorce) in the nation. It's the lack of prayer in schools I tell ya....

My question is this: Will bullet train stations still reek of piss?

Hey, Billcoe buys Jay's rhetorical stupid pet tricks, so that's one sycophant, anyway.

It's awesome to see those McMansion values fall through their own assholes, just so their guilded residents don't have to see any black people.

Found In The Attic Alert! We all want to be right on stuff, but the lengths to which JayB supports that habit is always entertaining. Jay seems like a younger version of L. Paul Bremer III in his certainty of Big Ideas founded on fringe theories, not much real world experience, and little more understanding of basic human nature.

I think the credit would have been a better idea (I prefer incentives to mandates in general), but the Rfucks probably screamed TAX HIKE on it.

That's in the ball park. Another consideration is this: providing affordable transportation for low income folks to get to work...you know, so they don't have to suck off the gubmint tit. You'll never hear a Righty mention this moral (and potentially expensive) aspect of the equation.

Interesting piece regarding mass transit in DC. Property values within walking distance of DC's excellent metro system have gone up 40 to 300%, while suburban properties around the city have actually gone down during the same period. Apparently, the Invisible Hand recognizes the value in speed, convenience, cost, and the positive effect on vibrant growth of mass transit.

The house is debating whether or not to defund Title X, the National Family Planning Program. To get abortions defunded, they're throwing the entire baby out with the bath water. This would leave family planning funding up the the States. Those in the Bible belt have a history of not exactly wanting to pony up for family planning, leaving millions of young women in a very dangerous health care situation. If you give a shit about this, this might be an excellent time, and I mean like right now, to write your congressfolk.

No, that's not correct. It's a penalty paid when you pay your taxes if you don't buy it. There is no tax and credit provision.

Yeah, mine was a simple statement of historical fact. Any 'patriarchy' read into it resides in the mind of the responder - who apparently seeks a debate where there is none to be had.

Congress could reform Obamacare from paying a penalty for non-compliance (which is minimal and has no schemes for enforcement, btw), to an incentive like a tax credit. The problem is that this would decrease overall tax revenues unless there was a corresponding tax increase to make up the difference - a politically difficult thing to do.

I do agree that the Baggers are fantastically out of touch with public opinion. Given that jobs and health care top the list of public concerns, deficit reduction, SS insolvency a couple of decades from now, getting rid of Obamacare, and fighting women and gay rights seem a bit...off the mark. This is what happens when ideologues do the old fiscal conservative > social conservative bait and switch. As I said, it's Gingrich 2.0...which was soundly rejected last time during phat times. It seems to me that it has an even smaller chance of succeeding this time.

I might agree with you if privatizing SS wasn't also on their agenda. Also, insurance companies will certainly NOT benefit if SOTU rules against the mandate - they've pretty much got the sweetest damn deal in the universe under Obamacare right now. I think the numerous legal challenges to the mandate in various states are probably more viral than centrally planned.

2 dead and more than 10,000 protesting in Bahrain. Next on the list? I was kind of hoping it would be Iran, but Bahrain's good. Meanwhile, Jordan's monarch claims that 'it can't happen here'. LOL

Nah. It's more like you've misinterpreted my limited initial opinion - you're arguing essentially with yourself, so I've given up on the discussion. Perhaps you and FW might continue it. And...what if historical analogies are always ridiculous, by definition. It didn't happen.

so far, there have been 4 rulings on the mandate: 2 against and 2 for. The primary argument against is that the Commerce Clause doesn't grant the gubmint the power to punish people for NOT purchasing a commercial product. The argument for relies on teh principle that the gubmint has long required citizens to pony up for programs like social security. Interestingly, privatizing social security, one of the Right's pet projects, would make that program substantially equivalent to the mandate: forced purchase of a commercial product. In addition, the Right's argument against the mandate could be nullified through, you guessed it, a gubmint administered single payer program. It seems, therefore, that the Right is stepping on its own dick regarding their support of privatized social security and opposition to a public option in their attempts to fight the mandate. Oh well, no one ever accused the Right of long term thinking or consideration of easily predictable consequences. Still, the jury...or SOTU in this case, is still out on the issue.

comparing what we did to Iraq to pre revolutionary America is...imaginative.

.

.

Thanks for reading all my stuff, Dwayner! And remember folks, as Dwayner says: Don't be antagonistic!

I am interested in this part of your statement. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of what you say. By saying that we have "not allowed" a people their own revolution is an inheirently patriarchal stance. (Please forgive my crappy spelling, I am too lazy to spell check.) If a person really does see another group as or another individual as self-determining, then that person cannot assume that have the ability to override that self-determination. In other words, we Westerners cannot take away something which we do not own and cannot control from someone else. The fact that we seem to think so speaks only to our egos. We, too, were once a colonial abomination. We fought. Other countries got involved on many different levels, but we still did our thing, right? Ultimately, no one "allowed" us to do anything nor did anyone "take away" anything from us. That's because it is no more possible to take away something that is self-generated than it is to make or destroy mass or energy. The desire to be in control of one's own life is an immutable element in the human nature; and although an individual will die in pursuit of that self determination, the desire itself will always remain. So I guess all I am saying is that I don't believe that Iraq's revolution is over. It would be easier to believe that if anything, that revolution is just starting. It can take a long time to get past the humiliation of being invaded and occupied by a foreign power. So much better if that step is never taken. Recognition of this isn't patronizing, it's just recognizing a fundamental aspect of human nature. I could agree with that. Although there are "benefits" as well (if you can call them that). For example, having an external threat can act as a powerful catalyst to internal unification. It helps people ban together and forget their infighting. It might also help a group really examine and define who they are and what they want. It forces them to declare that to others. What you said was that their unity and strength has been taken away forever. I just think that is a bit strong. If that external threat completely destroys your society, however, that's usually a recipe for chaos and civil war. Hence, Iraq. I never said their unity and strength had been taken away forever - I said the chance for their own revolution, and the unifying pride that comes with that, is gone forever. Two very different statements. It's kind of like living with an abuser. Yeah, the parts of you that survive might be 'stronger' for it, or you just might remain really fucked up; however it turns out, it's just way better if it never happened.

I am interested in this part of your statement. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of what you say. By saying that we have "not allowed" a people their own revolution is an inheirently patriarchal stance. (Please forgive my crappy spelling, I am too lazy to spell check.) If a person really does see another group as or another individual as self-determining, then that person cannot assume that have the ability to override that self-determination. In other words, we Westerners cannot take away something which we do not own and cannot control from someone else. The fact that we seem to think so speaks only to our egos. We, too, were once a colonial abomination. We fought. Other countries got involved on many different levels, but we still did our thing, right? Ultimately, no one "allowed" us to do anything nor did anyone "take away" anything from us. That's because it is no more possible to take away something that is self-generated than it is to make or destroy mass or energy. The desire to be in control of one's own life is an immutable element in the human nature; and although an individual will die in pursuit of that self determination, the desire itself will always remain. So I guess all I am saying is that I don't believe that Iraq's revolution is over. It would be easier to believe that if anything, that revolution is just starting. It can take a long time to get past the humiliation of being invaded and occupied by a foreign power. So much better if that step is never taken. Recognition of this isn't patronizing, it's just recognizing a fundamental aspect of human nature.