Thought for the Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I’m not sure Americans even give a damn anymore about the message of any party. We’ve become tribal. We vote lifestyle. Just keep us entertained and we’ll vote for you.

---

I think people have forgotten the connection between policies and their lives. Maybe it's the lag in the time it takes for a law to have effects. One example is how Obamacare has become more popular the more time passes since its enactment. As Stavros says jobs and wages are extremely important bc that is what the voters told us and it is crucial to their well-being. At the same time, any action by the government in this regard facilitates jobs rather than directly creates them, which again leaves voters without a clear understanding of cause and effect.

As Stavros pointed out, cutting taxes, which will be a part of Trump's tax reform is not likely to create jobs. There's never been any evidence that unemployment numbers are sensitive to a lower corporate tax rate or that corporations increase wages in response to greater profits. Stronger unions should be a priority, although I don't know enough about the national labor relations act to know in what ways it has not served employees well enough. The way in which we try to stimulate jobs is going to be as important as putting it on the agenda. A lot of the things Republicans do give lip service to the cause but do not have much impact on employees (protectionism without improving labor conditions, tax cuts that improve profitability but which do not provide an incentive for a larger workforce). The fact that it is very difficult to measure economic effects of policies (and lag time which allows politicians to sometimes reasonably blame their predecessor) aids them in paying lip service without showing results.

I think one problem we'll find is that our priorities will start to shift as we see what sorts of policies are enacted by Trump. Who would have ever thought that not building a wall would be a relevant position. Or not attempting to void the citizenship of naturalized citizens by finding trivial, technical failures in their applications for citizenship from decades ago. I haven't read Trump's new tax proposals yet, but I've heard two provisions are lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% and eliminating the estate tax. The estate tax at the federal level is only imposed on estates larger than 5.45 million for individuals or 10.9 million for couples with the unified credit. It would be nice if we could convey that this has no salutary purpose except to enable people to inherit very large estates tax free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I’m not sure Americans even give a damn anymore about the message of any party. We’ve become tribal. We vote lifestyle. Just keep us entertained and we’ll vote for you.

---

This question -do political parties matter?- cuts to the heart of the debate which is also part of the question, what is the modern state for?

It could be that just as globalization appeared to some to make the 'modern nation-state' redundant in theory and practice, the conflict in Iraq and Syria is also about the legitimacy of the modern state as the expression of 'who the people are, and what they want'. Not least because in the Middle East, the identity of the state and its boundaries were made by the British and the French, and the Arabs have had to live with that without regard for their own needs or desires.

The modern state has given a few people staggering wealth and power, but it has also been forced through popular revolt, to concede power and wealth to the broader mass of people without whom there would be no food, no clothing, no shelter, and no hope. I can see how a global economy in which we all participate blurs the boundaries, but there are cultural differences between the British and the Japanese, and it is still up to us to decide how we bake the cake and distribute the slices, we are still states wit constituents, rather than a collection of markets with customers.

For the same reason, for all their imperfections, I don't see political parties ceasing to be the primary vehicles for the expression of difference and diversity, but history shows that just as most people most of the time are not obsessed with politics so people with ulterior motives can hi-jack a party and use it for their own selfish purposes.

So it may be that the names and the affiliation of the parties in the USA -Democrat, Republican, Progressive can change -one thinks of the radical difference between the Party of Lincoln and the Party of GW Bush- but will parties be replaced by a loose coalition of like-minded people who select an individual to be their voice, much as Truman suggested to Eisenhower that he run on the Democrat ticket in 1952, and the current Why's Leader and Daughter No 1 are fringe Democrats and fringe Republicans or frankly not that interested in party compared to money?

It may appear that sectional interests have replaced broader national interests, but that is also because in the absence of strict rules on who can represent the Republican Party in public office, anyone claiming to be a Republican can put their name forward, with the additional observation that if that candidate insults and abuses fellow-candidates and even states publicly he might run as an independent if the party rejects him, the party could have, even should have denied him the right to stand in their name. If you are going to have political parties, they should have rules, a members register, clear financial regulations, a programme etc -perhaps it has been the absence of a clear structure that enabled a maverick to enter the party and win the nomination even though he did not believe in most of its policies.

The US system offers anyone the opportunity to become President, as also appears to be the case in France given that Macron has no solid party affiliation and has invented his own vehicle- Eisenhower did not emerge from the political system or party, the same I believe is true of Ulysses S. Grant; Clint Eastwood was elected Mayor of Carmel by the Sea and Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor of California, both of them vaguely associated with the Republicans although Schwarzenegger is married to a Kennedy but neither with a strong party background.

If there is already some flexibility in the opportunities the US political system offers potential leaders at the local, state or national level, how on a day to day basis is politics to be organized given the complexity of the economy and society? I see the reasoning behind the 'tribal' concept, whether it is the lobby for Wall St, the Fossil Fuel industry, Gay Rights, or a Vegan Diet, but if the US allows itself to become atomized to the point where politics is just an anarchic life and death struggle of the fittest, the richest will always win and the poorest will always lose.

Don't allow yourselves to be sold out by the very same class of political activists who want to end political debate by demonizing citizens because of the colour of their skin, their religious belief, or their sexual orientation. Social divisions run the risk of making the US as a unit difficult to manage to the extent that secession of states could become the 'big thing' in the future. Why should 'liberal' California subsidize segregation in Alabama and Louisiana, or trigger-happy Texans be allowed to holiday in Colorado with their weapons on display?

E Pluribus unum should mean what it says, and not just be an aspiration.

Thank you Stavros for yet another thoughtful post.

Quote:

---

It may appear that sectional interests have replaced broader national interests, but that is also because in the absence of strict rules on who can represent the Republican Party in public office, anyone claiming to be a Republican can put their name forward, with the additional observation that if that candidate insults and abuses fellow-candidates and even states publicly he might run as an independent if the party rejects him, the party could have, even should have denied him the right to stand in their name. If you are going to have political parties, they should have rules, a members register, clear financial regulations, a programme etc -perhaps it has been the absence of a clear structure that enabled a maverick to enter the party and win the nomination even though he did not believe in most of its policies.

---

There is a large segment of the GOP base that will tell you they are staunch conservatives, who believe themselves to be be dyed in the wool republicans and will even repeat the conservative lines on about diminishing the role of government, reducing social safety nets, cutting regulatory agencies and taxes on business. Yet when push comes to shove these same people demand the government keep its mits off their medicare, they rise against threats to social security, they want government aid should a tornado reduce their town to rubble, they complain that government should be more vigilant if there’s lead, or mercury or arsenic in their water, and they obsess over politicians being bought off by powerful, wealthy interests that get tax breaks and regulatory reductions in return.

What binds these people together may be disguised as a political philosophy, but is isn’t one: it’s a commitment to a brand, a resentment of the other (the other ethnicity, the other religion, the other political party, the other sex, the other sexual orientation etc.) and a naturally human inability to admit one’s political commitments were mistaken. Trump depends on this latter human foible every time he utters a blatant lie; e.g. he was never a birther, Obama had him wiretapped and spied on him through the microwave, he (Trump) had the largest inauguration audience in history, etc.

I believe modern media encourages and amplifies these commitments we all have to political brands. Once we post our opinion and our whole world of friends, relatives and acquaintances see it; it’s difficult to go back on it. All day talk radio, twenty-four hour cable news networks (Fox and MSBN), social media (facebook and twitter) not only serve to polarize and divide us, they have also been co-opted by governments and organizations who invent fake news both to influence us and to win our clicks simply make money.

If you live in the U.S. you know the rural areas are emptying out. The few plants and factories there are cutting back and hiring less, if not closing down entirely. What corporate executive wants to live in and have his children educated in rural Iowa? Farming was once the primary activity in most of these areas, and most jobs were farming related. But farms have become automated and taken over by big corporations. We don’t need lots of manpower to sow, fertilize, poison and reap anymore; we need machines that take up the whole road as they’re driven from one farm to the next. Kids are moving to the cities, where the jobs are, where the culture is that they yearn for. Yet these rural areas have disproportionate political power because of gerrymandering and an outdated electoral college. I read today that 98% of the people who voted for Trump are still solidly behind him__yet his approval rating is at 42%, the lowest ever for a president at this point in his first term. How the fuck did he win the election? I hope all green democrats who just couldn’t compromise themselves and vote for Hillary are happy with what’s Trump’s doing with the EPA, the National Monuments and the Park Service.

See how tempting it is to thrash out at the other. I just succumbed. How do we break these ties to our political philosophies that get reinforced everyday by our constant awareness of current events and breaking news? Notice my ties are to a political philosophy. They are reinforced by actual events. Their ties are to a brand, and they’re reinforced by a constant stream of lies. I’m sure if you ask them, I’ve got it exactly backward.

Difference and the division of society into 'us' and 'them' does not have to be entirely negative, as there have always been differences and divisions. The assumption behind the liberal democratic state where power is diffused from the centre through local government, is that such differences and divisions can be managed without the country collapsing into civil war. This also means the citizen can be/should be given a stake in the operational aspects of government, and use it to ensure the political class does not just loot the treasury, lock up people it doesn't like and shut down newspapers, schools and societies that threaten its leadership, as happens these days in Turkey.

From this perspective, the 2016 election was either an aberration and politics will return to normal in due course, either before the present incumbent is impeached or resigns, or in 2020; or that this is the beginning of the end of a long period in American politics since the Civil War when the foundations of the political system were not seriously challenged from within. The negative long term impact on this is where difference and division becomes so unfair that the alienation of citizens from the political system undermines its integrity, and thus the Union, with secession becoming the hot topic over the next 25 years. But even if you take this present situation as an aberration, returning to normal appears to mean returning to a Congress where parties are divided and a decline in bi-partisan agreement makes decision making difficult, on some issues almost impossible.

A popular and effective President could make the difference whereas in the present situation the focus on using public office for private gain, an indifference to the costs of government, and the lack of interest in the quality of life for citizens, suggests that a deeper rejection on conventional politics could follow the current experiment. On the one hand you have a President who can barely spell and doesn't read documents, who makes his mind up based on what the last person said to him and has no strategy for any policy, and on the other a Republican party which sees his administrative incompetence as the means to control policy making, yet as health care showed, cannot even agree amongst itself and is also reluctant to call the President to account.

If the centre falls apart, as Yeats put it, anarchy is the result, and people out there in rural areas or urban areas may decide if government doesn't work, then they will go their own way. When they see tax cuts being implemented to benefit the people at the top, they may wonder what the state is for, if they think they are getting a raw deal and see no benefit in either tax cuts or whatever economic growth takes place.

So far the trend toward an insular nationalism has failed in the Netherlands as it look set to fail in France, with the real outcome of Brexit unsure not least within the UK itself where there are tensions in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I don't see American nationalism being a solution, it has always been something romantic and theatrical, so that these are worrying times all over the place, particularly with the absence of leadership, give that over here, we no longer see the USA as a trustworthy ally, indeed, no longer see it as a defender of liberty and human rights, a topic which the present administration seems to regard as an irrelevance. But that's me, seeing a glass half empty, others may not be so concerned.

As an outsider I don't know if I will ever be able to understand the mess that health care in the US appears to be. The link below is a biased, and angry assessment of the latest version of a 'Health Care Act' to get through the House of Representatives that may not make it through the Senate. The author, for example, states-

If there has been a piece of legislation in our lifetimes that boiled over with as much malice and indifference to human suffering, I can't recall what it might have been. And every member of the House who voted for it must be held accountable.

But he does go on to examine its provisions and conclude:

It is no exaggeration to say that if it were to become law, this bill would kill significant numbers of Americans.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7718901.html

Well ,at least Paul Waldman , the American columnist for the UK `The Independent` as well as the US `The Washington Post` , took the trouble to read the bill unlike many of the Republican congressmen who voted for the thing . Shameful.

What's really bizarre is that Trump's support base (white working class and older people) would be among the main losers from this, yet 98% per cent of them still say they support him according to a recent poll.

He does a very good job of summarizing its many problems. It makes people with chronic conditions practically un-insurable and allows the sale of low quality insurance products that have coverage limits such as spending caps and don't cover the kinds of essential services insurance is supposed to cover.

As for new underwriting practices, the link below has a list of pre-existing conditions and the estimated premium hikes that come with them. Someone with a life long condition could shop for insurance that only covers emergency care or provides the most basic coverage so they are covered for something catastrophic. But it might not be worthwhile for someone with type 1 diabetes to pay for insurance that covers basic care or they just may not be able to afford it at all.

For those unfamiliar with our health care system, Medicaid is insurance that is provided to people below a threshold of income. It is administered by states but has usually received large amounts of federal funding. It provides for health insurance but has also provided supplemental income for those who are disabled or elderly and below a threshold of income. It remains to be seen exactly what relationship there will be between 880 billion dollars less funding and either qualifications or benefits but one can only imagine.

If new actuarial practices price a lot of people out of the market, as they would, these people might actually quit working in order to qualify for medicare disability. It may seem unlikely but if medical costs would bankrupt them, then they will do what's necessary to qualify for coverage. Medicare disability is non-means tested, which means someone who is disabled does not also have to be below a threshold of income to receive its benefits. Since Medicaid requires someone to be disabled and below threshold of income, Medicare fills the gap for people who have some means but are physically restricted.

So there is the possibility that a system that does not provide adequate coverage to a mass of people creates stress on other social welfare programs. But those too can be repealed.

http://time.com/money/4769050/ahca-p...ions-surcharge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

As for new underwriting practices, the link below has a list of pre-existing conditions and the estimated premium hikes that come with them. Someone with a life long condition could shop for insurance that only covers emergency care or provides the most basic coverage so they are covered for something catastrophic. But it might not be worthwhile for someone with type 1 diabetes to pay for insurance that covers basic care or they just may not be able to afford it at all.

---

This is not that clear. If someone has a major condition they may not get insurance that covers preventive care or typical doctor visits because it is cost-prohibitive. They may only purchase insurance whose services protect them against bankruptcy if their condition becomes life-threatening. When they get to this point they may not be able to renew their insurance at its current price for the next term because they would have a new pre-existing condition. So a diabetic (one pre-existing condition) would use insurance in case they need to be hospitalized but if they develop renal failure (another more costly pre-existing condition) because their care has been so poor, they are now priced out of the market. With renal failure they would at least qualify for one of the two types of disability coverage we provide.

Our health care system is not much of a system at all. With the new law, the regulations on private insurance are very limited, so what is left is for emergency care and assistance for the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. For those interested in reading and want a place to start, the substantial laws and programs that remain are EMTALA which mandates emergency treatment regardless of ability to pay, and Medicare and Medicaid, which include numerous and complicated qualifications and benefits that are too difficult to summarize here. A few other protections such as COBRA for continuation of insurance post-employment and HIPAA are fairly insubstantial.

The right is reacting to Trump's scandals by making up false scandals about those on the left. This is not new for them, but they usually have at least one or two facts they can use to stoke paranoia. However, the accusation that Susan Rice spied on Trump associates is based purely on the fact that she is known to have requested unmasking of identifying information for U.S individuals speaking to a subject of surveillance.

There is nothing out of the ordinary about this, and the accusation does not make a great deal of sense since the identity of the party being unmasked cannot be known until they are unmasked so it would not be a very effective way to target someone. It's amazing that the right's intentional spread of disinformation has not caused more harm than it has, because supposedly mainstream figures on the right are making shit up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

...It's amazing that the right's intentional spread of disinformation has not caused more harm than it has...

---

Well, it did get Trump elected and we're learning that's about as much harm a misinformed public can do.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.52eb389a83e6

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c0c530e4f6ca

I highly recommend these stories, particularly the opinion piece by Seth Rich's parents, which is a plea for common decency directed at those with none.

This is the danger we all face from fake news. Fake news is not news you don't want to hear or a biased take on known events, it consists of intentional distortions. Sean Hannity of Fox News has been pushing the narrative that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was murdered in what appears to be a botched robbery attempt in DC, was really the person who provided DNC emails to wikileaks. His murder, the theory goes, was in retribution for his cooperation with wikileaks.

Astute observers will notice that this theory collides with certain facts we already know, for instance that 17 intelligence agencies believe the Russians hacked both the DNC and RNC and decided to only release the DNC's emails. It also doesn't provide much of an explanation for why Macron's emails were hacked or for the enormous amount of propaganda Russia directed at our electorate. It also has the demerit of having no evidence to support its premises. The fact that a media outlet would ever consider allowing one of its commentators to broadcast this utter nonsense, this pure wish fulfillment fabrication is disgusting and frightening. Sean Hannity simply has no soul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I highly recommend these stories, particularly the opinion piece by Seth Rich's parents, which is a plea for common decency directed at those with none.

---

Thanks for these links, I read about this in the UK press the other day.
The 'fake news' trend and its links to conspiracy theories have surely reached a bleak nadir with the despicable attacks on the families who lost their children in Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. I can't be shocked easily these days but this report raised incredulity at the cruelty of some people to a new level. The full report is in the link but it begins:

It was one of the worst school shootings in American history, but some people insist that the Sandy Hook massacre never happened. They post YouTube videos and spread rumours online, and their false theories have been repeated by a media mogul conspiracy theorist who has been linked to Donald Trump. Now, after years of harassment, the families of the victims are fighting back online.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-39194035

GOP congressional candidate Greg Gianforte (running in Montana) attacked Ben Jacobs, a reporter for The Guardian yesterday. Jacobs asked Gianforte to comment on the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment of the House legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act. When Gianforte passed off the question without answering it, Jacobs persisted. Fox News reports that Gianforte became agitated, screamed, “I’m sick and tired of this!” and punched Jacobs. Jacobs said Gianforte body-slammed him and broke his glasses in the process. Gianforte was charged with misdemeanor assault.

My prediction is that this behavior toward the press will only help Gianforte in the election. It ties right in with Trump’s outrageous claim that the press is the enemy of the people, his rants about fake news and his complaints about being the most abused president ever.

Would that the GOP defend and cherish the 1st Amendment as feverishly as they do the second.

Gianforte was just announced the winner of the special election. Shortly after assaulting Ben Jacobs, he released a statement riddled with lies claiming that Jacobs had been aggressive and that the encounter was virtually mutual combat. At the time he didn't know his statement was contradicted by an audio recording of the incident. It was also contradicted by three eyewitnesses who said the assault on Jacobs was even more severe than Jacobs himself had said and that Jacobs did not get physical at all with Gianforte.

One eyewitness claimed Gianforte had his hands on Jacobs' neck, then later altered her take to say his hands were positioned differently but maintained that he threw Jacobs down and punched him. All day on right wing media people have been claiming that this eyewitness recanted her story and should be sued. Other right wing figures such as Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and others spent the day mocking Jacobs and claiming that he represented the aggressive liberal media, as well as a crybaby snowflake because he diligently did his job and did not fight back.

It appears Trish is right that the action did not hurt him but actually made people stand in solidarity with him. Callers into radio shows, it's been reported, were mostly supportive of Gianforte's actions. So his win is another feather in the cap of...whatever the hell this movement is.

Breaking news: Gianforte issued an apology. It is a well written apology and I think it's important to accept sincere apologies but if Jacobs had not been able to corroborate what happened, he would have just continued lying about it. Still, it's better than not apologizing because he's not defending the action. Still, again, without the corroboration he wouldn't have had to defend the action he would have just claimed it didn't happen.

There's the feeling that there are certain people who cannot be reached. Not to be pessimistic as there are still a core of decent people left and right, but they're getting scarce. I used to see someone with the National Review and feel a petty rivalry because they were on the other side of the aisle, but compared to Breitbart or Fox, these might be the people willing to condemn assault or unconstitutional acts. I think. Well that's my bipartisan thought for the day.

As Bronco said, Gianforte won the election. I heard a number of man-on-the-street interviews this morning in which Gianforte supporters were exclaiming that Ben Jacobs deserved what he got.

Yes, Gianforte apologized (a very unTrumpian move), but he did wait until the polls were closed and he after he accepted the win. Did he know his base (which broadly overlaps with Trump's in Montana) would be spurred on by this burst of violence? I think so; just as he knew they'd be turned off by an early apology.

So do I accept his apology? It's not my place to accept or not accept his apology, I'm not a Montanan for one thing. That's a decision for Ben Jacobs and the Montana electorate. Gianforte supporters certainly don't accept it - not in any real sense - they applaud the behavior he was apologizing for.
I'm not sure who's pressing the misdemeanor charges in this case: Jacobs or the State. Should the charges be dropped because of the apology? Call me vindictive but I think not. The legitimate press has been getting a bad rap for too long. We need to defend the First Amendment.

I hope voters in the future will remember the incident and consider it along with Gianforte's performance in his new office when it's time to reassess his fitness for office. However, given the current mindset of the GOP base, this will only help him.

Finally, Gianforte's violence did successfully allow him to avoid answering Jacob's question. We still don't have Gianforte's reaction to the Budget Office's assessment of the House bill repealing the ACA - or do we?

Lower down the line maybe, but the Republicans lost two seats in their State legislatures they won last November, in Long Island and New Hampshire.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0ec129d3082d0

For a while I didn't know whether the Russia story was real. I knew there was evidence to raise suspicion, and the firing of Comey was improper, and the connection to Alfa bank suspicious but not conclusive. Then there were the apparently independent corrupt actions of the Russian government during the election. So there was a ton of smoke. Now we have evidence that Kushner wanted a private channel with the Russians.

My guess: Trump's properties are financed with large Russian loans. I was surprised when Forbes did a report on his wealth, they concluded he does indeed have a probable net worth of 4 billion dollars. There were a bunch of loans worth tens of millions of dollars. How did he get that money? Who would lend to him in such amounts given his history? To me, this is the simplest explanation I can think of. The Russians knew he was beholden to them, wanted him in the White House, and through his statements it was obvious he wanted to favor them. Further, both Eric and Donald Jr. had made statements about Russian financing. Maybe Kushner wanted his own loans from Russia or maybe he simply was acting as agent for Donald.

But the key probably lies in his financials, which there will be an even stronger cry to subpoena.

I was astonished to read in the Independent that in some states in the USA there are no restrictions on the age at which someone can get married. I don't understand how this can work if there are laws that govern both the legal age for marriage and consent to sexual intercourse. In the UK it is legal for a boy or girl aged 16 to get married with parental consent -otherwise it is 18- but legal without parental consent in Scotland. The age of consent is 16 throughout the UK but not in the US where it is 18 in some states. It is also possible for someone aged 51 to marry a 16 year old, as happened when the actor Dug Hutchison married a 16-year old aspiring singer Courtney Stodden.

The story in the Independent concerns a woman in Florida who claims that when she was 11 years old she was forced to marry the man who raped her, and that-

Florida is one of 27 US states that permits children of any age to be married with their parents’ permission.

In addition, Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey vetoed a law that would outlaw child marriage:
“An exclusion without exceptions would violate the cultures and traditions of some communities in New Jersey based on religious traditions,” Mr Christie said in a statement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7761816.html

It seems the child in the Florida case was a member of some sort of Christian fundamentalist church, so I don't know what the religious and/or cultural argument is, but then I clearly do not understand this at all.

Pretty much the same story was covered in the Sunday edition of NYT ( https://nyti.ms/2s3vGHc ).

Quote:

---

“An exclusion without exceptions would violate the cultures and traditions of some communities in New Jersey based on religious traditions,” - Chris Christie

---

Christie must be talking about the culture of child rape. There are religious groups in the U.S. (like the Mormons - who have a disproportionate representation in the Federal Government and certain State and local governments) which have a history of polygamy and child marriage.
Although the main branches of Mormonism have disavowed the principle of polygamy and child marriage, practice has not always followed suit. Officials in power have been able, repeatedly, to obstruct laws and against it and to obstruct the enforcement of existing laws against polygamy and child abuse. (This was one of the themes of the HBO TV drama Big Love.)
Not sure that this explains Christie's behavior, however. As far as I know, Christie is Catholic. Although the Catholic Church has had its own pedophilia scandal, the Church has not endorsed child marriage.
I can imagine some protestant sects in the American landscape would privately endorse the marriage of a pregnant child in lieu of abortion, which seems to be the case with the 11 year old Florida girl in the Independent's story.

Trish, thank you for the link to the NY article which is even more disturbing than the one in the Independent that I cited in my earlier post. I still don't get it, to put it simply. I can only explain to myself this situation- in which a State can rule that the age of consent is 18 yet a local judge allow someone much younger to get married -as an example of how the 'institution' of marriage is taken to be so pure and necessary for a decent society that once two people are married, they are legally and morally a valid couple. I speak as someone who was once insulted by a relative for not being married, yet when I point out how many marriages fail and contain violent partners, or how many people get married and violate their wedding vows on a regular basis, it cuts no ice. Marriage and children are the acme of success, regardless of whether or not they work. This has even infected the LGBTQIAPN/B communities demanding the right to be hypocrites like everyone one else who elevate marriage from the 'so what?' level it naturally occupies to the 'must have' fantasy where suddenly everything become respectable.

Clearly there needs to be a nationwide change in the law, and for the law to be applied, and this should be universal, not just in the USA. I have not hear of the programme Big Love and will investigate.

I agree there should be a national law on this. Some Republicans seem to deliberately misunderstand the free exercise clause of the first amendment.The Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that even though ingesting peyote was an essential practice of the Native American Church, its use could be prohibited by law and someone could be fired from their job for using it. The court stated that a generally applicable law that is directed at the practice in general, and is passed without an intent to single out a single religion or religion in general, is not prohibited under the free exercise clause. Prohibiting the use of peyote for everyone, even if it has the effect of impinging on a religious practice is acceptable. Prohibiting its use for religious ceremonies only and allowing it for other secular purposes on the other hand would be unacceptable.

I'm sure Jews, Muslims, and other Christian sects would not like this reasoning to be applied to them. It could mean for instance that banning circumcision for children would not violate the free exercise clause. Same goes for banning Kosher slaughter or Halal, again as part of a broader attempt to regulate treatment of animals rather than directed against a particular religion. I'm not saying state legislatures should pass these laws, but if the court believed they are generally applicable laws that were passed without a discriminatory intent, then they would not be struck down for violating the free exercise clause.

Most importantly, it does not violate free exercise clause to demand that someone who owns a store not discriminate against gay couples, even if they (probably wrongly) claim that their religion prohibits them from interacting with gay men and women. It does not violate the free exercise clause to ban child marriage. This should be obvious. In fact, the court has said that states have extra leeway to protect the interests of children, which means that even if such a law were to violate the free exercise clause, protecting children is such a compelling interest that a law sensibly crafted for that purpose would not be unconstitutional. So why would Chris Christie block this law? Cowardice, ignorance, and callousness towards the victims it protects.

Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska ,leader of the 'never Trump' coalition prior to the election and author of the new Best Seller "The Vanishing American Adult" has some interesting and compelling things to say...
http://charlierose.com/videos/30529
http://www.amazon.com/Vanishing-American-Adult-Coming-Crisis/dp/1250114403/ref=sr_1_1/135-2945788-2159349?ie=UTF8&qid=1496716699&sr=8-1&keywords
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rm=.e517328bf3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska ,leader of the 'never Trump' coalition prior to the election and author of the new Best Seller "The Vanishing American Adult" has some interesting and compelling things to say...

---

Thanks for the links. I read the article in the Post, and what I think this relates to is something we call Curriculum Development, and the debate on what it is that children should be taught in schools. In the UK there has been a rift between those who think 'modern' teaching methods and curriculum development are not teaching children 'the basics' in reading, writing and mathematics, and those who argue that has not been sacrificed but is part of a more interactive learning environment which allows pupils to 'own' their lessons, the kind of language that drives UKIP mad and who think a degree in 'Media Studies' is a symptom of everything that is wrong with modern Britain, even though it is one of the most successful degrees in securing graduates a job because of the demand for people who know how the media in all its manifold glories works -and a reflection of the ignorance and prejudice that condemns education as a 'left-wing' conspiracy . Thus it is just not about what it is that children are learning, but how.

What is noticeable in our election campaign is that most of the exchanges on education have either been generalised references to financing, or focused on school meals. Proposals by Theresa May to re-instate Grammar Schools has been an issue, yet there has been no serious or extended discussion about what it is that children in 2017 should be learning that will help them make the transition into work in 2027. It is a complex subject, but for that reason needs more discussion. We have known for years that STEM subjects -Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics- are in demand from employers, and schools have been attempting to boost their teaching of STEM subjects, yet we still anchor this in examination results which become important when those are translated into 'League Tables' and parents seeing one school slip down the league want their child to move to a 'better' school. And, in the end, if we are not producing teachers to carry though these policies the education system fails our children and we are all worse off because of it.

But I have to say, as pointed out in the article, Sasse's belief that Aristotle’s “Ethics,” Plato’s “Crito,” Augustine’s “Confessions,” and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Emile” should be on the reading list of adolescents is lost somewhere between high ambition and foolishness. I read Plato at 16, but simple stuff like the Symposium, but did so as a personal choice having already left school to work. We did little in the way of literature or the arts in my school because of a lack of resources and a lack of interest in all but one teacher who struggled to control the class at the best of times. I am sure things are different now, and more professional, but ultimately resources are the key to good education, from the building and its staff through to the curriculum. I suspect that in the end we get the education that we pay for.

Thanks for that very interesting UK perspective ,Stavros.
Considered by some as 'the thinking mans conservative' and famous for his assertion that he would rather watch a "dumpster fire " than attend the Republican Party's 2016 Trump nomination, Sasse marshals some startling statistics about such things as digital addiction - 18 to 24 year olds spend half of their waking hours with either online porn or gaming ,and the average American spends only 19 minutes a day reading.
The 'crisis of loneliness'. In 1990 the average American had 3.4 friends vs today only 1.8 and 40% of American adults have no confidants.
And his assertion that 10 to 25 year olds are stranded in a neverland of extended adolescence and have lost the culture of self reliance and will be ill prepared for the massive changes required in the post industrial economy .

The Centrist Project, USA. Nick Troiano , its Executive Director on PBS "Open Mind" TV program yesterday discusses the Project's aim to place Independent Centrist Representatives in the House and Senate to break the bipartisan long jam in Congress .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6F5DesfiMw
ww.centristproject.org

Just when you might have thought the hoaxers were being dealt with- a Florida woman convinced Sandy Hook was a hoax has been jailed for 4 months for harassing the families- Megyn Kelly has given Alex Jones a platform to maintain this horrible campaign. How low can it get? Are there really no standards on US television?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...threats-prison

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7786656.html

On the theme of the previous post, news from the sewer, Breitbart recently fired Katie McHugh, a woman who has for years made transparently racist statements on her twitter feed. She previously said that "slaves built the U.S. in the same way that cows built McDonald's", and that without Muslims there would be no terrorist attacks. The last straw was when a Persian-American actor told her she was a disgrace and she said, "you're an Indian" as though being Indian would be an indictment.

Was the comment worse than previous comments? About on par, but Breitbart is apparently faced with a different set of pressures. There are few standards, but they don't directly flow from human decency.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-tweet/529437/

I wonder what people think about the different attitudes in high politics to being gay that appear to change when one moves from one side of the Atlantic Ocean to the other.

1) At the NATO summit last month, a photograph of leaders' partners released by the White House included, as it was obliged to, the husband of the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, but in the accompanying caption did not name him at all even though the women were named in relation to their husbands.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-luxembourg-pm

2) the new Prime Minister of Ireland, Leo Varadkar, is the youngest PM in Ireland's history, the son of an immigrant from India, Varadkar is also gay and married. Given the strong links between Ireland the USA, how will the White House manage relations with someone who Vice-President Pence may believe will be the architect of 'social collapse' in Ireland? If Mr Pence does not like being alone in a room with a woman who is not his wife, would he be comfortable sitting in that room with the Prime Minister of Ireland?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ireland-politics-varadkar-idUSKBN1951Y9
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b02d21bbc8ff9b

3) the leader of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK, Tim Farron, has resigned, even though at last week's General Election his party increased the number of MPs it has in the House of Commons. Farron is an evangelical Christian, and has been criticised for dodging questions on being gay and on gay sex, eventually caving in to repeated questioning to deny that being gay is a sin. Nevetheless, in his resignation speech he complained that "we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society. That’s why I have chosen to step down as leader of the Liberal Democrats.” But then he added "The consequences of the focus on my faith is that I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader."
Or, to put it another way, he was forced to recognise that in the UK his religious views were a burden, not a benefit in his political campaigns. Something which seems to be the opposite of politics in the USA where candidates for office often make a point of declaring their religious zeal as a flag to be waved, dare one say it, with pride.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7790396.html

With regard to your third point Stavros , yes, it's always a safe bet to wave the cross as well as the flag in US politics given the fact that over 70% of US citizens profess to being Christian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi..._United_States
What I find interesting about Tim Farron is his support of same sex marriage, tolerance of some gay rights and support of cannabis legalization which would certainly seem unusual coming from an evangelical Christian , which he professes to be , here in the US.
So now his Christianity suddenly becomes an obstacle for him ?
I don't follow the logic of his reason to step down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Farron

[QUOTE=sukumvit boy;1772980]With regard to your third point Stavros , yes, it's always a safe bet to wave the cross as well as the flag in US politics given the fact that over 70% of US citizens profess to being Christian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi..._United_States
What I find interesting about Tim Farron is his support of same sex marriage, tolerance of some gay rights and support of cannabis legalization which would certainly seem unusual coming from an evangelical Christian , which he professes to be , here in the US.
So now his Christianity suddenly becomes an obstacle for him ?
I don't follow the logic of his reason to step down.
/QUOTE]
I think he got fed up with journalist pressing him for a statement on gay sex because they see it as a weakness and they love to exploit weakness in a candidate particularly if they are a party leader. In the end I think the truth is that he cannot reconcile his religious views with the general attitude in the UK to the social issues such as homosexuality and abortion which suggests to me that he should not be in politics unless he wants to convert people to some evangelical mission. It is a non-starter in the UK. Tony Blair's press spokesman Alastair Campbell when pressed on Blair's alleged Catholicism replied 'We don't go God' and that has been standard for many years now. Blair attended Catholic churches with his wife, but did not officially convert until leaving office as it is not possible for a Roman Catholic to be Prime Minister.

i really love how trump gets nervous and goes back to hillary. what's weird is why nobody questions his actions. btw: regulars: please provide links because i can't be fucked.

anyhoo: that don is a real dipship. should we go to cuba? what's up with that right?

the don: https://redirect.viglink.com/?format...c-6d7a3f07247b

"...not possible for a Roman catholic to be Prime Minister." ?
That struck me as so strange that I had to find out more about it , only to discover that there seems to be conflicting opinions.
It seems that other than some appointments to the Anglican Church , which it would be odd for a Roman Catholic to be making and which could be delegated to someone else to make , there is no prohibition to a RC being PM.
http://www.conservapedia.com/British_politics

^^^ did that link come out correct? yeah sorry about that if it didn't.

btw: how cool is this? http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/politi...ump/index.html

i hate to say it, but i actually think kellyanne is kinda cute

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpUGdnJ_DRE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

"...not possible for a Roman catholic to be Prime Minister." ?
That struck me as so strange that I had to find out more about it , only to discover that there seems to be conflicting opinions.
It seems that other than some appointments to the Anglican Church , which it would be odd for a Roman Catholic to be making and which could be delegated to someone else to make , there is no prohibition to a RC being PM.

---

Strictly speaking and in legal terms I am wrong, but my understanding has been that it would be problematic for a practicing Roman Catholic to be Prime Minister because the head of the Catholic Church is the Pope whereas the Head of State in the UK is the Monarch, who is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the political leader of the UK -by definition a Christian state- is the Monarch's Prime Minister. So problematic that it has never happened, even though Tony Blair went to mass with his family, although that does suggest most people don't care.

It is part of the question of loyalty that dates from the bloody feuds that followed the schism with Rome under Henry VIII, the anti-Catholic laws, that held sway until the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, and the general view that -until the Blair era I suspect- Catholics could not be relied upon to put the Monarch ahead of the Pope.

It is also complicated by the 'Irish Question' that played a major role in British politics from the mid-19th century to the Treaty of 1921 and independence, and can be seen at the moment in the difficulty surrounding Theresa May's need to agree a voting arrangement with the Protestants of Northern Ireland which will maintain her slight grip of power while the Catholics protest it is a violation of the Good Friday Agreement and should not go ahead.

'Let's not go there' would be the standard view on this issue, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

i hate to say it, but i actually think kellyanne is kinda cute

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpUGdnJ_DRE

---

Hey man, I like Sarah Palin, and this is a Ts board:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Strictly speaking and in legal terms I am wrong, but my understanding has been that it would be problematic for a practicing Roman Catholic to be Prime Minister because the head of the Catholic Church is the Pope whereas the Head of State in the UK is the Monarch, who is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the political leader of the UK -by definition a Christian state- is the Monarch's Prime Minister. So problematic that it has never happened, even though Tony Blair went to mass with his family, although that does suggest most people don't care.

It is part of the question of loyalty that dates from the bloody feuds that followed the schism with Rome under Henry VIII, the anti-Catholic laws, that held sway until the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, and the general view that -until the Blair era I suspect- Catholics could not be relied upon to put the Monarch ahead of the Pope.

It is also complicated by the 'Irish Question' that played a major role in British politics from the mid-19th century to the Treaty of 1921 and independence, and can be seen at the moment in the difficulty surrounding Theresa May's need to agree a voting arrangement with the Protestants of Northern Ireland which will maintain her slight grip of power while the Catholics protest it is a violation of the Good Friday Agreement and should not go ahead.

'Let's not go there' would be the standard view on this issue, I think.

---

Yes , Stavros , you Brits have a lot of interesting history going back hundreds of years with the Roman Catholic Church ,the monarchy and British / Irish politics which I can't even hope to understand as a Yank outsider ,but which struck me as I was researching the Prime Minister issue.
The present one is our first monarchy.
Attachment 1014101

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-handel-239778

This is demoralizing for Democrats. Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff tonight in the special election in GA 6. It was a good test for whether Republicans in a closely contested district would put aside partisan politics and vote for a centrist who was clearly the more thoughtful of the two running. In debates it was obvious early on that Ossoff was articulate, polished, passionate, and qualified, whereas Handel was simplistic, stumbled over her answers and generally came across as a useless wingnut. I ask myself what I would do if the tables were turned and the Republican were the far better candidate; it would be difficult but rarely do Republicans ever put forward candidates who are well-versed in policy and have a clear, positive message.

There is the belief that this was a referendum on the centrist style candidate and some believe that a more "progressive" Bernie Sanders protege will do better by exciting the base rather than trying to appeal to the undecideds. We'll see...this was a red district and I'm sure Democrats will try to spin this as an over-achievement, but it depends when expectations were set. Many believed Ossoff would pull this out and he lost by a clear margin.