Carles Puigdemont, regional leader of Catalonia, will be addressing the regional Parliament this evening (local time, UTC 0...a mere 30 minutes after I am writing this); he is still expected to declare independence from Spain but is likely to use language which leaves the door open for negotiations with Madrid. The separatist parties have backed the region into a corner and there is no easy out for them. If they declare independence then Madrid might (likely, actually) respond with another widespread crackdown; if they don't declare independence then the hardcore separatists are likely to resort to violence to achieve their goal.
Reality Winner (her name is still awesome, you have to admit), NSA spy/whistleblower, has been denied bail a second time.
The suspension of the Jones Act for Puerto Rico has expired; as of now the law is once again in effect.
5.4 million unionized workers are on strike in France in response to a government plan to lay off 120,000 people, roll back sick leave, and cutting take-home pay.
*************
Why are people still so upset with Christopher Columbus? I don't see any reason to have a Federal holiday for him, myself, but he wasn't the first European to make it to North America--Lief Erikson made it to present-day Newfoundland centuries before Columbus stumbled into the outermost Caribbean Islands.
Oh, I get it--being exploited and fought by an outsider is significantly more terrible than exploiting and fighting each other, culminating in capturing each other's people and offering them up as human sacrifices to the gods. Brilliant.
Personally, I don't see any reason to commemorate Columbus or have statues dedicated to him. Sure, it takes balls to sail off into the unknown but it isn't like he was doing it altruistically or merely for the sake of adventure or exploration--the Crown had offered him 10% (!) of all valuables he found and brought back. Besides, the story of him bringing diseases to the New World is presented in a skewed manner--no one in the world knew that most diseases were carried/created by microorganisms at the time, so that is hardly his fault. Not only that, but many people on his voyages picked up syphilis (don't ask how--you should already know) and took it back to Europe, where it was unknown at the time; the disease there ultimately killed over five million people. That sword cuts both ways.
And the European explorers were responsible for the outbreaks in both locations. The Native Americans didn't sail to Europe. Europeans and their ships are probably responsible for more death than anything in human history, as they also brought in the rats who spread the bubonic plague.
Kellyanne Conjob said Senator Corker should not disrespect the President!
After the President attacked Bob Corker with a series of 'Neener, Neener, Neener' tweets responding that the President is acting like a child, that is taking things too far. What a fake authoritarian White House to say the President is beyond criticisms, while he sends out playground taunts on Twitter. This is the same guy that claimed Obama was born in Kenya I guess it was ok to criticize the President then but not now.
Who are the 30% that approve of this guy?
And while he was at it, Trump also challenged his Secretary of State Tillerson to an IQ Test over Twitter. Much like his net worth, Trump's IQ is a vast unknowable number that is more than you think it is and higher than his enemies. He has a long history of challenging other people to IQ tests apparently with CNN pulling up 22 tweets with him criticizing other peoples IQs or just claiming his is the best ever. Preshudenshul!
jjstraka34 "That is not the point, the point is who is going to decide when and if a women is taking birth control pills for "acceptable" reasons to be covered by a employer's insurance??"
The doctor. If their office reports that its for medical reasons then boom. Covered.
Patient/Doctor confidentiality has an issue with this.
Doctors do not percribe medication unless it is an acceptable reason to begin with.
jjstraka34 "That is not the point, the point is who is going to decide when and if a women is taking birth control pills for "acceptable" reasons to be covered by a employer's insurance??"
The doctor. If their office reports that its for medical reasons then boom. Covered.
Patient/Doctor confidentiality has an issue with this.
Doctors do not percribe medication unless it is an acceptable reason to begin with.
If that was true, then why do we have the opiod epidemic that we have across the States and things like pill mills and fake pain clinics.
jjstraka34 "That is not the point, the point is who is going to decide when and if a women is taking birth control pills for "acceptable" reasons to be covered by a employer's insurance??"
The doctor. If their office reports that its for medical reasons then boom. Covered.
Patient/Doctor confidentiality has an issue with this.
Doctors do not percribe medication unless it is an acceptable reason to begin with.
If that was true, then why do we have the opiod epidemic that we have across the States and things like pill mills and fake pain clinics.
Wildfires are raging through California’s wine country. Flooded homes in Houston, Texas, are still rotting. Puerto Ricans are languishing in darkness, collecting drinking water from streams. And South Florida and the U.S. Virgin Islands were still picking through the rubble, as yet another hurricane made landfall over the mouth of the Mississippi River.
Time for the EPA to cut environmental regulations.
On Tuesday the Trump Administration announced plans to repeal the United States’ only major policy to combat climate change.
Michael Wilbon over at ESPN compared Jerry Jones (owner of the Dallas Cowboys) to a slave owner, trying to draw a parallel between his franchise and a plantation. This is not only incorrect but stupid. First, the players are employees and if their CEO is telling them not to do x then they have to comply or risk being fired--if Google can fire that one idiot for making his political comments then Jerry Jones can fire players for making a political comment while on company time and/or representing the company (which players do when in uniform). Second, NFL players are not slaves--they aren't property and may leave their respective NFL team any time they wish to do so (there may be financial repercussions for leaving but no one can force them to stay). Finally, Mr. Wilbon just exposed ESPN to a slander/defamation suit from Mr. Jones; that probably won't happen but you know how litigious some people can be.
Incidentally, a more accurate analogy would be gladiators, not slaves. Sure, some gladiators were slaves but many were not. They are paid to suit up and go into battle for the amusement of people who bought tickets.
*************
Catalan leaders signed a declaration of independence yesterday but subsequently put it on hold so they may continue to discuss the issue with Madrid. That defeats the purpose of declaring independence, people--either you declared independence or your didn't, you can't declare it then go to the bargaining table.
Michael Wilbon over at ESPN compared Jerry Jones (owner of the Dallas Cowboys) to a slave owner, trying to draw a parallel between his franchise and a plantation. This is not only incorrect but stupid. First, the players are employees and if their CEO is telling them not to do x then they have to comply or risk being fired--if Google can fire that one idiot for making his political comments then Jerry Jones can fire players for making a political comment while on company time and/or representing the company (which players do when in uniform). Second, NFL players are not slaves--they aren't property and may leave their respective NFL team any time they wish to do so (there may be financial repercussions for leaving but no one can force them to stay). Finally, Mr. Wilbon just exposed ESPN to a slander/defamation suit from Mr. Jones; that probably won't happen but you know how litigious some people can be.
Incidentally, a more accurate analogy would be gladiators, not slaves. Sure, some gladiators were slaves but many were not. They are paid to suit up and go into battle for the amusement of people who bought tickets.
*************
Catalan leaders signed a declaration of independence yesterday but subsequently put it on hold so they may continue to discuss the issue with Madrid. That defeats the purpose of declaring independence, people--either you declared independence or your didn't, you can't declare it then go to the bargaining table.
As i said before, the correct analogy is to a modern-day minstrel show. The attitude of the majority of white NFL fans in this country on Sunday is "Dance for me, boy, and don't you dare open your mouth."
Now, most minstrel shows were done by whites in blackface, but not all. And the societal impulse of this country has ALWAYS been that it is fine for black people to entertain me, but nothing else. The moment they speak up about any racial issue, the white population starts going into a frothing rage.
As for this whole NFL issue, as I've mentioned, this is an ACTUAL free speech situation, because the President and Vice President are actively trying to influence the employment of citizens based on their speech. And Jerry Jones statement about making his players stand for the anthem comes AFTER the President threatened tax exemptions for NFL owners in a tweet. Jerry Jones can't claim he did it on his own, because the Executive Branch of the US Government is issuing threats and exerting pressure. The moment that happened, this stopped being an employer/employee issue and became about fundamental rights. But I'm sure everyone in this forum would be totally fine if the President was telling YOUR boss what you should or should not be doing. This is about the government trying to squash dissent by actively threatening a business if their employees don't tow the party line. It's fascistic. He is issuing directives to NFL owners and threatening policy punishment if they don't comply. As a libertarian I would think you would be aghast at such a direct intrusion on the free market.
But that pales in comparison to the fact that Donald Trump and the Executive Branch are trying to silence dissent by using NFL owners as a proxy. The moment he and Pence inserted themselves, the normal rules of what the owners can force the players to do went out the window, since it can now be argued they are nothing but agents of Donald Trump being used to silence the rights of the players.
@jjstraka34 "That is not the point, the point is who is going to decide when and if a women is taking birth control pills for "acceptable" reasons to be covered by a employer's insurance??"
The doctor. If their office reports that its for medical reasons then boom. Covered.
The religious zealots still won't be satisfied, because any gynecologist worth their salt would write the perscription and just list the reason as regulating the menstrual cycle, since it does so no matter the other reasons for taking it. And, again, the legal basis for the Hobby Lobby case was opposition to how the pill works and what it does, regardless of symptoms it's treating.
There's a point where "religious freedom" becomes harmful to other people. I'm not a fan of forcing ideals on someone else, nor of the government or laws doing the same. If your religious practices are actively harming another, then they shouldn't be protected.
As for this whole NFL issue, as I've mentioned, this is an ACTUAL free speech situation, because the President and Vice President are actively trying to influence the employment of citizens based on their speech. And Jerry Jones statement about making his players stand for the anthem comes AFTER the President threatened tax exemptions for NFL owners in a tweet. Jerry Jones can't claim he did it on his own, because the Executive Branch of the US Government is issuing threats and exerting pressure. The moment that happened, this stopped being an employer/employee issue and became about fundamental rights. But I'm sure everyone in this forum would be totally fine if the President was telling YOUR boss what you should or should not be doing. This is about the government trying to squash dissent by actively threatening a business if their employees don't tow the party line. It's fascistic. He is issuing directives to NFL owners and threatening policy punishment if they don't comply. As a libertarian I would think you would be aghast at such a direct intrusion on the free market.
But that pales in comparison to the fact that Donald Trump and the Executive Branch are trying to silence dissent by using NFL owners as a proxy. The moment he and Pence inserted themselves, the normal rules of what the owners can force the players to do went out the window, since it can now be argued they are nothing but agents of Donald Trump being used to silence the rights of the players.
I am already on record stating that players do have and should have the right to kneel during the anthem if they so desire. If, however, the owners are now saying "don't do it" then the players have a choice--don't kneel and stay employed or kneel and get benched or fired. If I openly defy my boss in such a manner I would wind up cleaning out my cube and brushing up my resume.
Trump can say whatever he wants but he cannot *force* any team owner into taking a course of action, so the argument that the owners are now agents acting on behalf of the Executive Branch is exceedingly thin.
I do agree that Trump should have kept his big mouth shut on the subject, though. That is one of his primary problems--he doesn't know how to stop talking.
*************
How could an employer ever know what medications one of their employees is taking? Whether it is prescription-strength ibuprofen, birth control pills, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or anything else if an employer manages to learn that information that is a violation of HIPAA and could cost them a lot of money in fines. The employer has no right to knowledge of any individual employee's medical conditions or prescriptions, other than whatever knowledge might be needed for ADA compliance.
Trump can say whatever he wants but he cannot *force* any team owner into taking a course of action, so the argument that the owners are now agents acting on behalf of the Executive Branch is exceedingly thin.
I do agree that Trump should have kept his big mouth shut on the subject, though. That is one of his primary problems--he doesn't know how to stop talking.
*********
Trump threatened the NFLs tax exempt status, the next day the commissioner comes out with a policy saying players need to stand. There's a connection there.
Today, Trump is threatening to take away NBCs broadcasting license. That's good right? Having the government decide which news is allowed?
Trump can say whatever he wants but he cannot *force* any team owner into taking a course of action, so the argument that the owners are now agents acting on behalf of the Executive Branch is exceedingly thin.
I do agree that Trump should have kept his big mouth shut on the subject, though. That is one of his primary problems--he doesn't know how to stop talking.
*********
Trump threatened the NFLs tax exempt status, the next day the commissioner comes out with a policy saying players need to stand. There's a connection there.
Today, Trump is threatening to take away NBCs broadcasting license. That's good right? Having the government decide which news is allowed?
Imagine for one second what the outcry would be if Obama had called for FOX News and affiliates to lose their broadcast rights based a negative coverage. Of course, he never would have done so, despite 24/7 lies about him for 8 years.
And the point about the NFL remains. Trump has now made EXPLICIT threats to the owners that pertain to government policy (taxes). He has demanded the owners get their players in line, or he will punish them. So Trump, from his position as the most powerful man in the country, is now dictating the working conditions and speech rights of NFL players. If he had never inserted himself, then the owners would have every right to limit protest. But since Trump has both made demands AND threatened the league's owners, it is now no longer their perogative to do so. It is now a constitutional issue, because anything the owners now do is de facto having Trump do it himself. He issued demands and threats to a private business to suppress speech. It's so blatantly obvious that it's stunning more people can't realize it's one of the most blatant examples of the actual GOVERNMENT attempting to silence protest in modern history. I pointed to the statute I thought Trump was violating 2 weeks ago, and @semiticgod mentioned he had issued no specific threats or coercion. He now HAS issued those threats. Trump is likely breaking the law at this point.
I must have missed where he threatened tax-exempt status. The problem with a threat like that, though, is that it isn't one upon which he can follow through--the President doesn't directly set tax policy.
He definitely did question when/how licensing for NBC could be challenged, though. On the one hand, this goes beyond typical arrogance directly into the realm of virtually megalomanical chutzpah, the word used when someone has gone so far beyond the norms of polite interpersonal dialogue that others, upon hearing it, are left speechless. On the other hand, they are empty words because the President is not in charge of FCC licensing. Sure, he could order Ajit Pai to revoke or fail to renew their licenses, but the FCC Director would--legally--ignore such an order.
As noted in the CNN article, I suppose it is a good thing we are undertaking this experiment to see what happens if the government were run like a business. The data we are collecting from testing that particular hypothesis will likely lead us to the conclusion that "running the government as if it were a business" is a bad idea since the CEO of that corporation would be, in every sense of the word, a despot. There is a law they don't like or is getting in the way of implementing an agenda? Nullified. They don't like an actual treaty? (note: the Iran deal is not a treaty) Cancel it. Media outlet saying something with which you disagree? Shut them down.
We fought a war to get away from stuff like that, once upon a time.
I must have missed where he threatened tax-exempt status. The problem with a threat like that, though, is that it isn't one upon which he can follow through--the President doesn't directly set tax policy.
He definitely did question when/how licensing for NBC could be challenged, though. On the one hand, this goes beyond typical arrogance directly into the realm of virtually megalomanical chutzpah, the word used when someone has gone so far beyond the norms of polite interpersonal dialogue that others, upon hearing it, are left speechless. On the other hand, they are empty words because the President is not in charge of FCC licensing. Sure, he could order Ajit Pai to revoke or fail to renew their licenses, but the FCC Director would--legally--ignore such an order.
As noted in the CNN article, I suppose it is a good thing we are undertaking this experiment to see what happens if the government were run like a business. The data we are collecting from testing that particular hypothesis will likely lead us to the conclusion that "running the government as if it were a business" is a bad idea since the CEO of that corporation would be, in every sense of the word, a despot. There is a law they don't like or is getting in the way of implementing an agenda? Nullified. They don't like an actual treaty? (note: the Iran deal is not a treaty) Cancel it. Media outlet saying something with which you disagree? Shut them down.
We fought a war to get away from stuff like that, once upon a time.
Anyone who cares about net neutrality (and I assume no one here wants to pay more for their internet service) should be very worried about Ajit Pai. He is almost certain to kill it. And I doubt there is much of a question in society at large at this point that internet service is a nescessary public utility (I'd argue it has surpassed phones in that regard). But he has bascially been installed by the telcom companies. If Trump serves 4 years, you can expect restricted access to high-speed internet behind insanely high paywalls before the end of this term, certainly if you live in a major metropolitan area where Comcast or Time Warner are in charge of the market.
Al Franken has emerged as the leading Democratic voice in favor of net neutrality, and is also one of the most effective communicators im the party.
On the other hand, they are empty words because the President is not in charge of FCC licensing. Sure, he could order Ajit Pai to revoke or fail to renew their licenses, but the FCC Director would--legally--ignore such an order.
Didn't Trump appoint Pai (and Republicans rubber stamped him). Presumably that makes Trump his boss and he could fire him. So I'd say no they are not empty words. He fired the FBI director because he did not like him.
The good news for the NHL is that it didn't turn into a political spectacle as many people assumed it would. Besides some slight backhands (calling the international team "true patriots" and naming the other teams that visited the White House this year), there was no mention of any of the other major sports during the address.
I found it amusing that no one stood behind the president besides his wife. There was a large golden split behind him. Comparing it to last years visit by the same team (or even the first visit) the tone was more formal and rigid but surprisingly didn't turn into an about Trump speech. It was also noted that the Penguins didn't give Trump a jersey like they did Obama on their first visit.
AND
The Vegas Golden Knights also had their opening ceremonies. This is their first year in the league and forgo the typical opening ceremony that teams do in order to honour both the victims and first responders of the mass shooting. The boards were also advertisement free, instead saying "Vegas Strong." Sports teams can bring a community together, help the healing of tragedies such as this. Vegas also won the game.
Meanwhile in Canada (er Washington):
Trudeau visited the white house amid NAFTA talks, hinting at just cutting Mexico from the deal. Signing three separate deals (US-Canada, US-Mexico, Mexico-Canada) could be an option moving forward.
I think if this the course the US is going to take on this issue and if Mexico does walk away from table, You'll see NAFTA still in place until a new deal is agreed upon between at least Canada and the US before NAFTA gets scrapped. That'll put more pressure on Mexico to give in to some of Trump's demands.
Trump threatened the NFLs tax exempt status, the next day the commissioner comes out with a policy saying players need to stand. There's a connection there.
Trump has now made EXPLICIT threats to the owners that pertain to government policy (taxes). He has demanded the owners get their players in line, or he will punish them.
First, the NFL ended its tax-exempt status in 2015. Second, the tax-exempt status has only ever applied to its league office; the teams themselves have always been subject to regular taxes.
That is not the point, the point is who is going to decide when and if a women is taking birth control pills for "acceptable" reasons to be covered by a employer's insurance??
A medical professional capable of perscribing it. Like most things.
Complaining about the cost of Presidential trips is meaningless in my view, I won't say both sides don't do it when their respective candidate is in office (Fox News), but every President in recent decades has spent large amounts of money traveling around the country for personal and buisness related matters. It's just reality.
That is not the point, the point is who is going to decide when and if a women is taking birth control pills for "acceptable" reasons to be covered by a employer's insurance??
A medical professional capable of perscribing it. Like most things.
That's the thing, though. Some folks believe that it's not just the doctor who should be able to say yes or no--some folks think the woman's employer should be able to refuse to cover birth control in company health insurance plans that would have no such gaps in coverage for a man.
On the other hand, they are empty words because the President is not in charge of FCC licensing. Sure, he could order Ajit Pai to revoke or fail to renew their licenses, but the FCC Director would--legally--ignore such an order.
Didn't Trump appoint Pai (and Republicans rubber stamped him). Presumably that makes Trump his boss and he could fire him. So I'd say no they are not empty words. He fired the FBI director because he did not like him.
Indeed. Pai has been in the FCC since 2012, but Trump is the one who appointed him chairman. It was Tom Wheeler who was Obama's FCC chairman when net neutrality originally blew up as an issue years ago.
Ironically, Pai would probably back NBC over the government because of his anti-regulatory stance.
As noted in the CNN article, I suppose it is a good thing we are undertaking this experiment to see what happens if the government were run like a business. The data we are collecting from testing that particular hypothesis will likely lead us to the conclusion that "running the government as if it were a business" is a bad idea since the CEO of that corporation would be, in every sense of the word, a despot. There is a law they don't like or is getting in the way of implementing an agenda? Nullified. They don't like an actual treaty? (note: the Iran deal is not a treaty) Cancel it. Media outlet saying something with which you disagree? Shut them down.
Yeah, no shit. I could have told you that years ago. "Run government like a business" is a catchy saying, but even a cursory thought about it should reveal how witless it is.
Government and business are FUNDAMENTALLY different. Their objectives and responsibilities are different, their capabilities and methods are different.
Chiefly, the principles of sovereignty of the state and its derived powers over law, violence, and finance are capabilities and methods that no business can usurp.
The function of government is to provide the framework for society such that businesses and customers are best served.
Many of the goals and objectives that follow make no sense in terms of money. Running a profit is way down on the list, and I posit that it's actually not possible to run a "profit" on government. (That being different from running a budget surplus. Sure, Government could tax more, get more income, and run a surplus to run down the debt, but that is offset by the cost to society of the increased taxation dragging down society's productivity). Basically, it's a multi-dimensional zero-sum, adding to anything removes from somewhere else in some fashion.
So the crux of the issue is to have the most efficient government running society the most fairly. Except those are two competing issues straight out of economics (equality vs. efficiency).
Complaining about the cost of Presidential trips is meaningless in my view, I won't say both sides don't do it when their respective candidate is in office (Fox News), but every President in recent decades has spent large amounts of money traveling around the country for personal and buisness related matters. It's just reality.
A new reality . Sure trips cost money, although Trump is unusual for the scale of those. What's new though is that a significant proportion of the cost being paid by the State is going to the President himself.
Trump basically said this morning he is pulling FEMA and military out of Puerto Rico, after 3 weeks. 89% of the island is still without power. He reinstated the Jones Act after 10 days. This malignant, malicious bastard needs to be removed from power.
Yeah, no shit. I could have told you that years ago. "Run government like a business" is a catchy saying, but even a cursory thought about it should reveal how witless it is.
As with all such thought experiments, though, it is best to test it in a real-world setting and see how it plays out. The results might be a little skewed, given the degree to which the current government CEO is used to having people jump at his every whim, but at least we have experimental data with which to draft more informed conclusions.
*************
Trump *will* be removed from power...in 2020 when he loses his reelection bid. I agree, though--he is screwing over Puerto Rico pretty badly.
Trump basically said this morning he is pulling FEMA and military out of Puerto Rico, after 3 weeks. 89% of the island is still without power. He reinstated the Jones Act after 10 days. This malignant, malicious bastard needs to be removed from power.
Puerto Rican friend of mine posted this from 4 days ago
Citizen report: earlier Today in the Santurce area. Flooded streets in many areas due to heavy rain on extremely saturated terrain and clogged storm drains.
I suppose being released from Taliban control after five years is a good thing...but...erm...I get that you were pregnant when you were captured but why would ever become pregnant again *while* you are still being held by the Taliban? That makes no sense whatsoever, which means that the story we are being told right now doesn't add up.
*************
Trump just signed an executive order changing how small employers and individuals may purchase health insurance plans, including banding together to form what are essentially small group plans for better pricing, even if those plans may not offer the full range of benefits required by the ACA. I got tired of executive orders being issued as if they were Federal laws years ago--they violate the separation of powers of the branches.
On top of that, Trump has a friendly Congress dominated by his own party. Relying on executive orders shouldn't even be necessary to achieve his goals.
I suppose being released from Taliban control after five years is a good thing...but...erm...I get that you were pregnant when you were captured but why would ever become pregnant again *while* you are still being held by the Taliban? That makes no sense whatsoever, which means that the story we are being told right now doesn't add up.
*************
Trump just signed an executive order changing how small employers and individuals may purchase health insurance plans, including banding together to form what are essentially small group plans for better pricing, even if those plans may not offer the full range of benefits required by the ACA. I got tired of executive orders being issued as if they were Federal laws years ago--they violate the separation of powers of the branches.
Purchasing insurance across state lines isn't disallowed under the ACA (which is what this order is mostly about). Insurance companies aren't interested in doing it. Furthermore, even if you DO purchase an out of state policy, good luck finding an in-network provider close to you. As I said before on this issue, you might as well light your money on fire.
I suspect the Democrats back in 2009 - 2010, when they controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, did not implement the ACA all on their own in the way they wanted because they were too afraid that they would have to accept all the blame if it failed disastrously. Similarly, Republicans now, controlling the White House and both Houses of Congress, do not want to repeal the ACA because they are too afraid that it will fail disastrously and they will have to accept all the responsibility for it.
Don't forget that many Republicans still don't like Trump. Yes, they may all have R behind their names but that doesn't mean they are on the same team.
Comments
After the President attacked Bob Corker with a series of 'Neener, Neener, Neener' tweets responding that the President is acting like a child, that is taking things too far. What a fake authoritarian White House to say the President is beyond criticisms, while he sends out playground taunts on Twitter. This is the same guy that claimed Obama was born in Kenya I guess it was ok to criticize the President then but not now.
Who are the 30% that approve of this guy?
And while he was at it, Trump also challenged his Secretary of State Tillerson to an IQ Test over Twitter. Much like his net worth, Trump's IQ is a vast unknowable number that is more than you think it is and higher than his enemies. He has a long history of challenging other people to IQ tests apparently with CNN pulling up 22 tweets with him criticizing other peoples IQs or just claiming his is the best ever. Preshudenshul!
Doctors do not percribe medication unless it is an acceptable reason to begin with.
Time for the EPA to cut environmental regulations.
On Tuesday the Trump Administration announced plans to repeal the United States’ only major policy to combat climate change.
Incidentally, a more accurate analogy would be gladiators, not slaves. Sure, some gladiators were slaves but many were not. They are paid to suit up and go into battle for the amusement of people who bought tickets.
*************
Catalan leaders signed a declaration of independence yesterday but subsequently put it on hold so they may continue to discuss the issue with Madrid. That defeats the purpose of declaring independence, people--either you declared independence or your didn't, you can't declare it then go to the bargaining table.
Now, most minstrel shows were done by whites in blackface, but not all. And the societal impulse of this country has ALWAYS been that it is fine for black people to entertain me, but nothing else. The moment they speak up about any racial issue, the white population starts going into a frothing rage.
As for this whole NFL issue, as I've mentioned, this is an ACTUAL free speech situation, because the President and Vice President are actively trying to influence the employment of citizens based on their speech. And Jerry Jones statement about making his players stand for the anthem comes AFTER the President threatened tax exemptions for NFL owners in a tweet. Jerry Jones can't claim he did it on his own, because the Executive Branch of the US Government is issuing threats and exerting pressure. The moment that happened, this stopped being an employer/employee issue and became about fundamental rights. But I'm sure everyone in this forum would be totally fine if the President was telling YOUR boss what you should or should not be doing. This is about the government trying to squash dissent by actively threatening a business if their employees don't tow the party line. It's fascistic. He is issuing directives to NFL owners and threatening policy punishment if they don't comply. As a libertarian I would think you would be aghast at such a direct intrusion on the free market.
But that pales in comparison to the fact that Donald Trump and the Executive Branch are trying to silence dissent by using NFL owners as a proxy. The moment he and Pence inserted themselves, the normal rules of what the owners can force the players to do went out the window, since it can now be argued they are nothing but agents of Donald Trump being used to silence the rights of the players.
Trump can say whatever he wants but he cannot *force* any team owner into taking a course of action, so the argument that the owners are now agents acting on behalf of the Executive Branch is exceedingly thin.
I do agree that Trump should have kept his big mouth shut on the subject, though. That is one of his primary problems--he doesn't know how to stop talking.
*************
How could an employer ever know what medications one of their employees is taking? Whether it is prescription-strength ibuprofen, birth control pills, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or anything else if an employer manages to learn that information that is a violation of HIPAA and could cost them a lot of money in fines. The employer has no right to knowledge of any individual employee's medical conditions or prescriptions, other than whatever knowledge might be needed for ADA compliance.
Today, Trump is threatening to take away NBCs broadcasting license. That's good right? Having the government decide which news is allowed?
And the point about the NFL remains. Trump has now made EXPLICIT threats to the owners that pertain to government policy (taxes). He has demanded the owners get their players in line, or he will punish them. So Trump, from his position as the most powerful man in the country, is now dictating the working conditions and speech rights of NFL players. If he had never inserted himself, then the owners would have every right to limit protest. But since Trump has both made demands AND threatened the league's owners, it is now no longer their perogative to do so. It is now a constitutional issue, because anything the owners now do is de facto having Trump do it himself. He issued demands and threats to a private business to suppress speech. It's so blatantly obvious that it's stunning more people can't realize it's one of the most blatant examples of the actual GOVERNMENT attempting to silence protest in modern history. I pointed to the statute I thought Trump was violating 2 weeks ago, and @semiticgod mentioned he had issued no specific threats or coercion. He now HAS issued those threats. Trump is likely breaking the law at this point.
He definitely did question when/how licensing for NBC could be challenged, though. On the one hand, this goes beyond typical arrogance directly into the realm of virtually megalomanical chutzpah, the word used when someone has gone so far beyond the norms of polite interpersonal dialogue that others, upon hearing it, are left speechless. On the other hand, they are empty words because the President is not in charge of FCC licensing. Sure, he could order Ajit Pai to revoke or fail to renew their licenses, but the FCC Director would--legally--ignore such an order.
As noted in the CNN article, I suppose it is a good thing we are undertaking this experiment to see what happens if the government were run like a business. The data we are collecting from testing that particular hypothesis will likely lead us to the conclusion that "running the government as if it were a business" is a bad idea since the CEO of that corporation would be, in every sense of the word, a despot. There is a law they don't like or is getting in the way of implementing an agenda? Nullified. They don't like an actual treaty? (note: the Iran deal is not a treaty) Cancel it. Media outlet saying something with which you disagree? Shut them down.
We fought a war to get away from stuff like that, once upon a time.
edit/add: Representative Al Green, D-TX (Houston), introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump...but later reversed himself and withdrew them. Even other Democrats don't want to go down that path just yet, at least not publicly.
Al Franken has emerged as the leading Democratic voice in favor of net neutrality, and is also one of the most effective communicators im the party.
The penguins visited the White House the other day in a cringe worthy spectacle.
The good news for the NHL is that it didn't turn into a political spectacle as many people assumed it would. Besides some slight backhands (calling the international team "true patriots" and naming the other teams that visited the White House this year), there was no mention of any of the other major sports during the address.
I found it amusing that no one stood behind the president besides his wife. There was a large golden split behind him. Comparing it to last years visit by the same team (or even the first visit) the tone was more formal and rigid but surprisingly didn't turn into an about Trump speech. It was also noted that the Penguins didn't give Trump a jersey like they did Obama on their first visit.
AND
The Vegas Golden Knights also had their opening ceremonies. This is their first year in the league and forgo the typical opening ceremony that teams do in order to honour both the victims and first responders of the mass shooting. The boards were also advertisement free, instead saying "Vegas Strong." Sports teams can bring a community together, help the healing of tragedies such as this. Vegas also won the game.
Meanwhile in Canada (er Washington):
Trudeau visited the white house amid NAFTA talks, hinting at just cutting Mexico from the deal. Signing three separate deals (US-Canada, US-Mexico, Mexico-Canada) could be an option moving forward.
I think if this the course the US is going to take on this issue and if Mexico does walk away from table, You'll see NAFTA still in place until a new deal is agreed upon between at least Canada and the US before NAFTA gets scrapped. That'll put more pressure on Mexico to give in to some of Trump's demands.
Complaining about the cost of Presidential trips is meaningless in my view, I won't say both sides don't do it when their respective candidate is in office (Fox News), but every President in recent decades has spent large amounts of money traveling around the country for personal and buisness related matters. It's just reality.
That's the thing, though. Some folks believe that it's not just the doctor who should be able to say yes or no--some folks think the woman's employer should be able to refuse to cover birth control in company health insurance plans that would have no such gaps in coverage for a man.
Ironically, Pai would probably back NBC over the government because of his anti-regulatory stance. Yeah, no shit. I could have told you that years ago. "Run government like a business" is a catchy saying, but even a cursory thought about it should reveal how witless it is.
Government and business are FUNDAMENTALLY different. Their objectives and responsibilities are different, their capabilities and methods are different.
Chiefly, the principles of sovereignty of the state and its derived powers over law, violence, and finance are capabilities and methods that no business can usurp.
The function of government is to provide the framework for society such that businesses and customers are best served.
Many of the goals and objectives that follow make no sense in terms of money. Running a profit is way down on the list, and I posit that it's actually not possible to run a "profit" on government. (That being different from running a budget surplus. Sure, Government could tax more, get more income, and run a surplus to run down the debt, but that is offset by the cost to society of the increased taxation dragging down society's productivity). Basically, it's a multi-dimensional zero-sum, adding to anything removes from somewhere else in some fashion.
So the crux of the issue is to have the most efficient government running society the most fairly. Except those are two competing issues straight out of economics (equality vs. efficiency).
*************
Trump *will* be removed from power...in 2020 when he loses his reelection bid. I agree, though--he is screwing over Puerto Rico pretty badly.
Citizen report: earlier Today in the Santurce area. Flooded streets in many areas due to heavy rain on extremely saturated terrain and clogged storm drains.
*************
Trump just signed an executive order changing how small employers and individuals may purchase health insurance plans, including banding together to form what are essentially small group plans for better pricing, even if those plans may not offer the full range of benefits required by the ACA. I got tired of executive orders being issued as if they were Federal laws years ago--they violate the separation of powers of the branches.
Don't forget that many Republicans still don't like Trump. Yes, they may all have R behind their names but that doesn't mean they are on the same team.