@FinneousPJ "What's the difference between removing the choice not to carry and forced carry? I guess I don't understand what you're advocating for." There isn't. But did you actually read what I wrote? Its a hypothetical situation where someone was given incentives, should they CHOOSE to carry the baby to term. Again, I invite you to point where exactly in this example that choice is removed.
So you think abortion is literally the murder of children but you do not think the option should be removed? I guess that's commendable in a way.
@AstroBryGuy "Actually, Exodus says someone who harmed a pregnant woman and caused a miscarriage would have to pay reparations to the *husband*, not to the mother. Because the Bible considers a woman property of her father (if unmarried) or husband (if married)."
People keep quoting the Old Testament as if that is all the Bible is. I get it, the OT is easier to criticize, but its also been rendered outdated by Jesus' ministry. You know, the CHRIST that the term CHRISTIAN comes from.
Ok, New Testament:
“Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.” Ephesians 5:21-24
“…the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Doesn't look like the attitude towards women changed much.
My grandpa performed the rites for my parents' marriage, but he couldn't do all the normal vows. My mom specifically told him not to include to include the word "obey," because if he did, she wouldn't say "I do."
Soooo one big bit of news in Canada today is that the Ontario premier is going to invoke the "notwithstanding clause" in our constitution to get back at his political opponents force a change to the size of the Toronto municipal government right before an election. Basically allowing his government to override a ruling today that had to do with what ward boundaries were going to be used (the judge basically argued that the freedom of expression of the candidates was being affected because the changes came so last minute that nobody knows what the area they are running in is).
Its basically only been used a handful of times. It's basically like the nuclear options of nuclear options, because by normalizing it its giving permission for future governments (from other parties) to pull this kind of vindictive crap. So outside of a few really exceptional circumstances its never been used.
Soooo one big bit of news in Canada today is that the Ontario premier is going to invoke the "notwithstanding clause" in our constitution to get back at his political opponents force a change to the size of the Toronto municipal government right before an election. Basically allowing his government to override a ruling today that had to do with what ward boundaries were going to be used (the judge basically argued that the freedom of expression of the candidates was being affected because the changes came so last minute that nobody knows what the area they are running in is).
Its basically only been used a handful of times. It's basically like the nuclear options of nuclear options, because by normalizing it its giving permission for future governments (from other parties) to pull this kind of vindictive crap. So outside of a few really exceptional circumstances its never been used.
It would seem that Canadian and American conservative office holders have something in common. In 2016 when a Democrat managed to win a very close race for Governor in North Carolina, the Republican legislature immediately set out in the lame duck session to reduce the power of the Governor's Office in that State:
I know I heard @deltago talk alot about the corruption of the liberal party in Ontario in recent years, and I have no reason to doubt him on that front, so I would be interested to know what he thinks of what here appears to be the kind of naked power grab by the newly-elected conservative leader that Republicans south of the border have used in regards to the Supreme Court. Essentially, fundamentally changing the landscape of political norms to secure power. Because my cursory reading of this attempt is that Ford wants to flat-out ELIMINATE half the wards being represented in Toronto, and the only reason he would want to do that would be to get rid of even the very seats that liberals might hold. I don't know if Canadian conservatism is as obsessed with local government as the American version is, but if so, the move to take power AWAY from these local wards is stunningly hypocritical. Maybe I am missing something here, but even if this is technically above board from a legal perspective, it seems to me to be not really all that different than canceling the election altogether if you happen to live in these wards. It's repulsive. Again, it reminds me of another move Republican Governor Scott Walker pulled last year in Wisconsin. It was evident Democrats were going to win in certain races for vacancies to statewide office, so Walker just flat-out REFUSED to schedule the elections, thus denying everyone in those districts of representation.
Yea like basically at this point the only option to stop this lies with the federal government and the use of disallowance. It also hasn't been used in like 57 years. So its like the tsar bomb option. I can't see the federal government doing it. But I didn't see the provincial government doing this so who knows.
@jjstraka34 Yeah, it's gettin nasty here in my home state of NC. I think the republicans might regret doing what they did to reduce the guv's power when the next GOP guv gets the office after democratic Cooper, especially if by some chance they loose the majority again. They have had it since 2010 so who knows though.
How I see things there is the pro-abortion camp, the anti-abortion camp and the undecided camp. Pro-choice and pro-life are silly products of political branding. I've never had a pleasant conversation on this topic with anyone who declared themselves either "pro-choice" or "pro-life", because it seems to me that these ideological sectarians can't get past cheap rhetorical moves.
I think you're arguing semantics. There's literally no difference between your position and mine. I think a woman is entitled to make whatever choice she needs to about her body.
When I say that I wish no woman needed an abortion, it is only because I recognize that under most circumstances, it's an emotionally challenging decision. I really truthfully believe no one wants to be in the position of having to make that choice. However, once they're in that position, they ought to be allowed to make whatever decision they want, free of legal/moral/philosophical judgement.
I wanted Ford to win a minority government so he wouldn’t pull this crap.
There was nothing wrong with having Brown as the leader, and the party panicked, so this is what we are left with.
First thing, I wouldn’t mind seeing a reduction in Councillors in Toronto to see if they can start getting things done in the city. I however, shouldn’t have a say in the matter as I don’t live in there.
It should have been an election issue this round, with reformed borders if the people of Toronto want it, next election. This should have been discussed with everyone involved, including the residents of the city, to see what they would like. Having it an election issue would have been a perfect time to have this type of dialogue.
The redrawing of the electoral maps, I don’t think has to do with left leaning politicians being forced out, I just think Ford thinks the city will be able to save money if there are less councillors and the staff for those councillors to pay.
If enough people complain about Ford’s antics, they will step in. They maybe planning an election soon too and not listening to Toronto’s needs would bite them harder than stepping in Fords toes.
Soooo one big bit of news in Canada today is that the Ontario premier is going to invoke the "notwithstanding clause" in our constitution to get back at his political opponents force a change to the size of the Toronto municipal government right before an election. Basically allowing his government to override a ruling today that had to do with what ward boundaries were going to be used (the judge basically argued that the freedom of expression of the candidates was being affected because the changes came so last minute that nobody knows what the area they are running in is).
Its basically only been used a handful of times. It's basically like the nuclear options of nuclear options, because by normalizing it its giving permission for future governments (from other parties) to pull this kind of vindictive crap. So outside of a few really exceptional circumstances its never been used.
It would seem that Canadian and American conservative office holders have something in common. In 2016 when a Democrat managed to win a very close race for Governor in North Carolina, the Republican legislature immediately set out in the lame duck session to reduce the power of the Governor's Office in that State:
I know I heard @deltago talk alot about the corruption of the liberal party in Ontario in recent years, and I have no reason to doubt him on that front, so I would be interested to know what he thinks of what here appears to be the kind of naked power grab by the newly-elected conservative leader that Republicans south of the border have used in regards to the Supreme Court. Essentially, fundamentally changing the landscape of political norms to secure power. Because my cursory reading of this attempt is that Ford wants to flat-out ELIMINATE half the wards being represented in Toronto, and the only reason he would want to do that would be to get rid of even the very seats that liberals might hold. I don't know if Canadian conservatism is as obsessed with local government as the American version is, but if so, the move to take power AWAY from these local wards is stunningly hypocritical. Maybe I am missing something here, but even if this is technically above board from a legal perspective, it seems to me to be not really all that different than canceling the election altogether if you happen to live in these wards. It's repulsive. Again, it reminds me of another move Republican Governor Scott Walker pulled last year in Wisconsin. It was evident Democrats were going to win in certain races for vacancies to statewide office, so Walker just flat-out REFUSED to schedule the elections, thus denying everyone in those districts of representation.
It's definitely extremely problematic. Basically we have an election in little over a month and candidates (because of this) don't know if they should be campaigning in twice the area they should be campaigning in (the ward count is going from 47 to 25)
@AstroBryGuy Replies in spoiler tags so we don't get too far off politics. If you want to continue this discussion, we can use the actual religion thread.
"“Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.” Ephesians 5:21-24"
I love that you left out half of the passage, so it looks like only the women have commands.
"25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. " Ephesians 5:25-30
Husbands are also required to treat their wives well. To love and support them in all things. As Christ does for the church.
"“…the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35"
Oh look, another partial reading. Time for more context. This passage is referring specifically to times when someone is "speaking in tongues". And you know, everyone is expected to not talk out of turn in church. The Bible likes to be super specific and address different demographics in turn. So you can take any mention of a specific dempgraphic (men, women, children) and make it look they are the only ones required to follow a set of rules. The preceding passage is targeted directly at men, which also tells them not speak out of turn.
"26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. 1 Corinthians 14: 26-33
"“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” 1 Timothy 2:11-15"
Purely a religious statute. Not a comment or view on the value of a woman.
Considering that for much of history, women were treated as so many objects that could be bought or sold, and here men are commanded to show them all the love and support that they would show the church itself, thats a huge deal. Women went from being forbidden in the temple, to having free access just like anyone else. Jesus himself specifically taught women directly. This was HUGE in the middle east. I'd say the treament and stadning of women was MUCH improved by Christianity.
@FinneousPJ "So you think abortion is literally the murder of children but you do not think the option should be removed? I guess that's commendable in a way."
Well here's the thing. I've already stated that in a life or death choice, someone needs to be saved. Whether the mother or the child is saved, its better than letting both die. So in some cases, an abortion can be necessary, not GOOD, but neccesary. Killing a child because you don't want it is murder, killing a child because both of you were dying and you had to make a choice, is just a horrible situation. Ideally we would have better sex, preganancy, and child care education as a standard, so people won't make bad choices out of ignorance. Better support for mothers and families as well, so the idea of raising a child wouldn't be seen as a burden. I want poeple to choose life. I cannot, and WOULD NOT, force choices onto someone else. I will, however, keep debating in support of what I believe is best. People will always (and should) choose for themselves.
If you're not looking to legislate anti abortion I fully support trying to influence opinions in an honest manner. I just think it isn't right to make a woman lend her womb if she doesn't wish to. Arguing to change her mind - to want to - is good in my view.
@jjstraka34 Yeah, it's gettin nasty here in my home state of NC. I think the republicans might regret doing what they did to reduce the guv's power when the next GOP guv gets the office after democratic Cooper, especially if by some chance they loose the majority again. They have had it since 2010 so who knows though.
To my understanding, the outgoing Governor who lost the election worked with the legislature controlled by his own party to actively undermine the power of the incoming governor of the opposite party, in what is commonly referred to as a "lame duck session" (this is the period between the election and the time in January when newly elected officials take office). So even when a Democrat is able to win a hotly contested race in a mostly red state, he has his legs cut out from under him because the Republican Party simply fundamentally changes the role of the Governorship itself with the help of the person who LOST the election, handing the power to themselves instead, thus basically nullifying the recent vote. And nullification is an emerging trend in the Republican Party, if not from a legal perspective, then certainly from a strategic one. I can count numerous examples off the top of my head: The Nebraska Governor who initially refused to stop carrying out the death penalty in his state even though the legislature had not only voted to do so, but overrode his veto to do so a second time. Scott Walker refusing the schedule elections in Wisconsin. The situation in North Carolina. And of course, Barack Obama not being allowed put forth a nominee for the Supreme Court that would be considered by the Senate. All of these are acts of complete contempt for the democratic process, to the point of ignoring it entirely.
How I see things there is the pro-abortion camp, the anti-abortion camp and the undecided camp. Pro-choice and pro-life are silly products of political branding. I've never had a pleasant conversation on this topic with anyone who declared themselves either "pro-choice" or "pro-life", because it seems to me that these ideological sectarians can't get past cheap rhetorical moves.
I think you're arguing semantics. There's literally no difference between your position and mine. I think a woman is entitled to make whatever choice she needs to about her body.
When I say that I wish no woman needed an abortion, it is only because I recognize that under most circumstances, it's an emotionally challenging decision. I really truthfully believe no one wants to be in the position of having to make that choice. However, once they're in that position, they ought to be allowed to make whatever decision they want, free of legal/moral/philosophical judgement.
Also before they're in that position. And after.
So... Semantics.
I know it's nominally the same (and it's maybe truly the same), but i still find myself disagreeing with standard pro-choice arguments pretty often, especially exclamations such as "woman's right to choose" and the idea that roe v. wade is founded on the feminist concept of body autonomy ("my body my choice")
if you kill someone with a hatchet, it's also your body that you autonomously moved in a certain way so that the hatchet would land on someone's head. everything we do we do with our bodies. no crime can be comited without bodily action so when behaviors are proscribed, they in fact reduce our personal autonomy - or - freedom, for justified reasons. the issue is is proscribing abortion justified?
that is also the grounds of roe vs. wade, when it was found that in general an abortion ban is not justified because there is not much to justify it, especially during a certain early period of pregnancy. that means that abortion as a free, voluntary, action is by it's nature "justified", the same way, say, choice of a partner is justified.
that's why it's ok and more meaningful to say that you support abortion. not "abortion rights", just abortion.
If you're not looking to legislate anti abortion I fully support trying to influence opinions in an honest manner. I just think it isn't right to make a woman lend her womb if she doesn't wish to. Arguing to change her mind - to want to - is good in my view.
I have mixed feelings about it. I WANT to save the life of every child that might otherwise die unnecessarily, but I am likewise morally opposed to anyone forcing their will on someone else. So education and resources are the only good way to go.
For me, it's more of a "limited government" issue than a bodily autonomy issue or a feminist issue. I consider the choice, on the individual level, to be too complex and morally fraught to be entrusted to government officials. The choice depends heavily on the individual's situation, and you can't spell out every individual situation in a federal law.
Theoretically, you could write a law that determined which college everybody should go to. But without a magical Sorting Hat that knows every individual on a personal level, that law is almost assuredly going to be less accurate than an individual's own best judgment and the advice of their friends and family. Realistically, it's better to leave certain decisions to individuals.
Excuse me, verbal commands?? This officer was in HIS apartment and she wasn't even on duty when it happened. What verbal command is this guy supposed to follow when someone breaks into his home to prevent from being shot?? I swear to god, if this woman gets off for this, there is simply no hope. Furthermore, I have NO idea why the media is allowing this is being framed as a cop issuing orders to someone like it was some kind of regular altercation on the street. This was a home invasion by an off-duty cop that resulted in a homicide. The fact that she is even going with this absurd line of defense shows just how invincible and impervious to consequences police officers think they are. If anyone had a right to shoot anyone dead in this situation, it was the guy who got killed, not the cop. The assumption here is that the public and/or jury will buy this line of thinking. And the reason why is because alot of people will instinctively agree with the idea that a black man not listening to what cop says is justification for murder. Even if that cop is off-duty and has entered his residence illegally. And people wonder why NFL players take a knee. Good grief.
We might not be able to agree that a fetus constitutes a human being, but I think we can agree a black person is.
I can't help but suspect that that AP headline would never make it to print that way if the races of the two people involved were reversed. I don't think it's purposefully malicious on the media's part, just a ingrained bias that comes from years and years of being conditioned to think of African-Americans as the default American "criminal". So even when a totally innocent man who was doing nothing but residing in his own apartment is killed, the narrative that it would even be remotely reasonable that he would have to obey orders or verbal commands considering what took place is just.....preposterous. The headline should read "Off-duty cop who admits to killing innocent resident in home invasion offers excuse".
The real questions that should be being asked here are: 1.) Why and how did this woman think she was in her own apartment (if that is even true)?? 2.) Was she drunk when this happened (how else do you end up in the wrong apartment unit)?? 3.) Why did it take 3 days for her to be charged with manslaughter or at LEAST immediately arrested as any normal citizen would have been given the circumstances?? Nothing about this woman's story adds up.
I heard on the radio that she had just finished a 15 hour shift so it's possible she was exhausted. However, I too was wondering about the drinking thing. This is a synopsis of what I heard:
A-15 hour shift B- Parked on wrong level of parking deck C- Didn't notice she entered on wrong floor D- Hallway was poorly lit E- Had only been in apartment for a month F- Failed to notice red mat in front of door which she does not have G- Her key did not work in lock F- Door was unlocked so she entered anyway
It all adds up to inebriated to me. What do you want to bet they never even gave her a breathalyzer test?
Edit: I just read they took blood samples so, assuming the evidence isn't tampered with, we'll find out.
I heard on the radio that she had just finished a 15 hour shift so it's possible she was exhausted. However, I too was wondering about the drinking thing. This is a synopsis of what I heard:
A-15 hour shift B- Parked on wrong level of parking deck C- Didn't notice she entered on wrong floor D- Hallway was poorly lit E- Had only been in apartment for a month F- Failed to notice red mat in front of door which she does not have G- Her key did not work in lock F- Door was unlocked so she entered anyway
It all adds up to inebriated to me. What do you want to bet they never even gave her a breathalyzer test?
ONE time when returning from a trip to the Twin Cities I walked into the wrong building because my GF at the time parked out front and I never did. The buildings are essentially identical. I immediately thought the lighting was much darker, and once I got up to the apartment that was "mine" and the key didn't work, I had figured out my mistake.
I agree the likelihood is that she was drunk, but since she wasn't immediately taken into custody, who knows if they administered a blood or breath test?? Even if they did, since she wasn't under arrest at that time, we may never find out anyway. That's where the whole "3 days" aspect comes into play. It may have allowed her to escape any sort of drug/alcohol test AND confer with her lawyers and/or other cops and come up with a defense to push in the media before she was charged.
The Trump administration is considering issuing sanctions on China as punishment for spying on ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang and locking up Muslims en masse. So far, the only sanction being considered is preventing American businesses from selling surveillance technology to the Chinese government, just so American tech isn't being used to commit human rights abuses.
I find the comments in the linked article deeply confusing and distressing. If you look at the comments, it's just a long string of people saying the same thing:
"Why should we complain about China locking up Muslims if the Trump administration is locking up immigrants?"
It stuns me that so many people are willing to vocally defend China's human rights abuses simply because Trump is in office... as if the Trump administration's misdeeds excused those of other countries. As if it was okay for the Communist Party to try to stamp out an entire religion on spurious grounds. As if the Trump administration's treatment of immigrants, however indefensible (as we've pointed out before, even the targets of legal immigrants were being kidnapped without due process of law), was remotely as severe as the Chinese government's many years of concerted repression of their own people.
It reminds me of the criticism of John Kerry for calling out Russia's violent interventions in other countries, saying that Kerry shouldn't talk because the U.S. waged the Iraq War--even though Kerry was an opponent of that war, for the same reasons he was condemning Russian imperialism.
"Russia's attack on Crimea is just like America's attack on Iraq. We should only criticize the latter, and ignore the former."
"China's illegal detention of Muslims is just like America's illegal separation of children. We should only criticize the latter, and ignore the former."
If these things are truly comparable, we should condemn both. Otherwise, we're indulging in the same kind of callous "whataboutism" that undemocratic governments have always used to excuse human rights violations. The Chinese government's own response to these accusations has always been some variant of "Well, the U.S. does bad stuff too, so stop talking about us." These people are echoing Chinese Communist Party propaganda.
What could be more un-American than rushing to the defense of an undemocratic foreign government that's actively trying to stamp out religious freedom?
So, today is 9/11. For this post, I'm not so interested in rehashing the nearly unending fallout of that day, but more a simple exercise. I often hear people say that 9/11 is very similar to the assassination of Kennedy in that everyone who was alive and over a certain age knows exactly what they were doing when it happened.
For me, my best friend and I had driven across Minnesota the night before to pick up my mom's old car to bring with me to college because she had just bought a new one. We stayed in a hotel the night before, and my friend had to leave in his pick-up much earlier than I did to make it to work (it was a 4 hour trip). I woke up and noticed when I was checking out of the hotel that everyone was gathered around the TV in the continental breakfast area, but didn't think too much of it. Once I got on the highway after about 10 minutes driving, I turned on the radio and started getting filled in. Once I got to the nearest large town on the way back, I stopped at a Best Buy, and saw one of the towers fall on a series of display televisions in the electronics department.
I also remember distinctly telling myself I would give Bush the benefit of the doubt for a significant period of time after the attacks, which MOST of the country did. I have to wonder how many liberal-minded folks could have been turned into independents rather than life-long Democrats if not for Iraq War.
I was laying in bed, listening to my alarm clock radio. The announcer came on and said that there was a plane that just flew into the one of the Towers.
I woke up, went downstairs and turned on the TV. We watched the second plane hit the tower. We watched the towers fall and I didn't clue in that there was actually people still in the towers until much later.
At 11 o'clock where we both had to go to work in downtown Ottawa (In a building called The World Exchange Plaza) at a movie theatre. One of my co-workers fathers lived in New York and he hadn't heard from him (we found out later that he was OK). Another girl came in and in a panicked tone said "Welcome to World War 3" she wasn't that far off.
We were all worried, we worked a stone's throw from Parliament Hill, probably the one place that someone would fly a plane into in Canada except maybe the CN Tower in Toronto. The RCMP agreed with us as it was an hour later (after no one had come in to the theatre to watch a movie) that they showed up to close the building down. All of downtown Ottawa was shut down that day IIRC.
We went home where I forgot to phone my father to wish him a Happy Birthday. He was ok with that though. We had some co-workers over and we just watched the news on my roommates giant screen tv, silently.
9/11 I was in the military overseas attending a weeklong class we were getting re-certified on something or other. I came into the class on 9/11 and they said class was cancelled because 'something was going on' . We saw the plane crash then the 2nd on TV.
After I got home I went right back to work later that night for 12 hour shifts without breaks for the next several weeks. We were all riled up ready to prevent more attacks where we were or to go out and do our jobs.
There's an idea that all you need to escape poverty is a job, and that poverty is caused by laziness beyond all else. Apparently only 2% of people living in poverty are able to work but do not work:
Today as then, the able-bodied, poor and idle adult remains a rare creature. According to the Brookings Institution, in 2016 one-third of those living in poverty were children, 11 percent were elderly and 24 percent were working-age adults (18 to 64) in the labor force, working or seeking work. The majority of working-age poor people connected to the labor market were part-time workers. Most couldn’t take on many more hours either because of caregiver responsibilities, as with Vanessa, or because their employer didn’t offer this option, rendering them involuntary part-time workers. Among the remaining working-age adults, 12 percent were out of the labor force owing to a disability (including some enrolled in federal programs that limit work), 15 percent were either students or caregivers and 3 percent were early retirees. That leaves 2 percent of poor people who did not fit into one of these categories. That is, among the poor, two in 100 are working-age adults disconnected from the labor market for unknown reasons. The nonworking poor person getting something for nothing is a lot like the cheat committing voter fraud: pariahs who loom far larger in the American imagination than in real life.
Of people in poverty, a third are children who can't work. 11 percent are seniors who can't work. 24 percent are adults working or searching for work. 12 percent are disabled and can't work. 15 percent are students and caregivers who can't work. 3 percent are early retirees. Only the remaining 2 percent stand to benefit from a new job. Even if you lump in that 3 percent with the 2 percent, 95 percent of people in poverty aren't just lazy people who are choosing not to work. You can't say "just get a job and you'll stop being poor" to a child.
Wages have been stagnant for decades even as worker productivity has skyrocketed. People provide massive value to their employers but simply don't get paid as much as they contribute to the company, for the sole reason that it's in your employer's best interest to pay you as little as possible. Without strong unions or government-mandated benefits or a high minimum wage, employers have every reason to keep wages and benefits low. We want wages to increase, but we don't expect employers to actually pay higher wages--we expect workers to somehow force their employers to pay reasonable wages.
What is a "reasonable wage?" A reasonable wage is a wage that matches what the worker contributes to the company. You should earn as much money as you make for your employer. In other words, a reasonable wage should match productivity. How much is that?
Since 1973, American productivity has increased by 77 percent, while hourly pay has grown by only 12 percent. If the federal minimum wage tracked productivity, it would be more than $20 an hour, not today’s poverty wage of $7.25.
This is why I think we need a corporate tax rate that depends on how many Americans the company employs and how much the company pays its employees in wages and real benefits. That will actually provide an incentive for employers to pay higher wages, without simply pricing out minimum wage jobs (which people have feared a higher minimum wage might do) or subsidizing low-wage positions (which amounts to corporate welfare, since it lets companies like Walmart skim off the top).
We also need some stronger unions to fight for higher wages and benefits. God knows your employer and your Congressional representatives aren't doing anything to increase your wages. And it's not like the average American isn't doing anything to earn a reasonable wage for themselves--Americans are actively working long hours at high productivity. It's no coincidence that the American middle class was biggest and strongest back when unions were numerous and powerful in the mid-twentieth century, before new government rules crippled them in the Reagan era.
We have a situation where Americans are working hard and being productive and learning more and more skills. Unemployment is low, but working people still have stagnant wages. Young folks in particular are working more hours and have more years of education and training. Yet their employers choose to pay low wages. Why?
Because they can. It's in a corporation's best interests to bleed their workers dry, so they do it. We can solve this problem with a few basic policies: strengthen collective bargaining and provide incentives to employers who pay reasonable wages to their workers.
Comments
“Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.” Ephesians 5:21-24
“…the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Doesn't look like the attitude towards women changed much.
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/72013/theism-the-feel-in-your-head#latest
@AstroBryGuy @jjstraka34 @semiticgod
So as to not clutter this one
get back at his political opponentsforce a change to the size of the Toronto municipal government right before an election. Basically allowing his government to override a ruling today that had to do with what ward boundaries were going to be used (the judge basically argued that the freedom of expression of the candidates was being affected because the changes came so last minute that nobody knows what the area they are running in is).https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2018/09/10/ford-says-hell-invoke-the-notwithstanding-clause-heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-bombshell-move.html
Its basically only been used a handful of times. It's basically like the nuclear options of nuclear options, because by normalizing it its giving permission for future governments (from other parties) to pull this kind of vindictive crap. So outside of a few really exceptional circumstances its never been used.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/12/17/nc-gop-strips-some-democratic-governors-power/95555182/
I know I heard @deltago talk alot about the corruption of the liberal party in Ontario in recent years, and I have no reason to doubt him on that front, so I would be interested to know what he thinks of what here appears to be the kind of naked power grab by the newly-elected conservative leader that Republicans south of the border have used in regards to the Supreme Court. Essentially, fundamentally changing the landscape of political norms to secure power. Because my cursory reading of this attempt is that Ford wants to flat-out ELIMINATE half the wards being represented in Toronto, and the only reason he would want to do that would be to get rid of even the very seats that liberals might hold. I don't know if Canadian conservatism is as obsessed with local government as the American version is, but if so, the move to take power AWAY from these local wards is stunningly hypocritical. Maybe I am missing something here, but even if this is technically above board from a legal perspective, it seems to me to be not really all that different than canceling the election altogether if you happen to live in these wards. It's repulsive. Again, it reminds me of another move Republican Governor Scott Walker pulled last year in Wisconsin. It was evident Democrats were going to win in certain races for vacancies to statewide office, so Walker just flat-out REFUSED to schedule the elections, thus denying everyone in those districts of representation.
When I say that I wish no woman needed an abortion, it is only because I recognize that under most circumstances, it's an emotionally challenging decision. I really truthfully believe no one wants to be in the position of having to make that choice. However, once they're in that position, they ought to be allowed to make whatever decision they want, free of legal/moral/philosophical judgement.
Also before they're in that position. And after.
So... Semantics.
There was nothing wrong with having Brown as the leader, and the party panicked, so this is what we are left with.
First thing, I wouldn’t mind seeing a reduction in Councillors in Toronto to see if they can start getting things done in the city. I however, shouldn’t have a say in the matter as I don’t live in there.
It should have been an election issue this round, with reformed borders if the people of Toronto want it, next election. This should have been discussed with everyone involved, including the residents of the city, to see what they would like. Having it an election issue would have been a perfect time to have this type of dialogue.
The redrawing of the electoral maps, I don’t think has to do with left leaning politicians being forced out, I just think Ford thinks the city will be able to save money if there are less councillors and the staff for those councillors to pay.
If enough people complain about Ford’s antics, they will step in. They maybe planning an election soon too and not listening to Toronto’s needs would bite them harder than stepping in Fords toes.
I love that you left out half of the passage, so it looks like only the women have commands.
"25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. " Ephesians 5:25-30
Husbands are also required to treat their wives well. To love and support them in all things. As Christ does for the church.
"“…the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35"
Oh look, another partial reading. Time for more context. This passage is referring specifically to times when someone is "speaking in tongues". And you know, everyone is expected to not talk out of turn in church. The Bible likes to be super specific and address different demographics in turn. So you can take any mention of a specific dempgraphic (men, women, children) and make it look they are the only ones required to follow a set of rules. The preceding passage is targeted directly at men, which also tells them not speak out of turn.
"26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. 1 Corinthians 14: 26-33
"“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” 1 Timothy 2:11-15"
Purely a religious statute. Not a comment or view on the value of a woman.
Considering that for much of history, women were treated as so many objects that could be bought or sold, and here men are commanded to show them all the love and support that they would show the church itself, thats a huge deal. Women went from being forbidden in the temple, to having free access just like anyone else. Jesus himself specifically taught women directly. This was HUGE in the middle east. I'd say the treament and stadning of women was MUCH improved by Christianity.
@FinneousPJ "So you think abortion is literally the murder of children but you do not think the option should be removed? I guess that's commendable in a way."
Well here's the thing. I've already stated that in a life or death choice, someone needs to be saved. Whether the mother or the child is saved, its better than letting both die. So in some cases, an abortion can be necessary, not GOOD, but neccesary. Killing a child because you don't want it is murder, killing a child because both of you were dying and you had to make a choice, is just a horrible situation. Ideally we would have better sex, preganancy, and child care education as a standard, so people won't make bad choices out of ignorance. Better support for mothers and families as well, so the idea of raising a child wouldn't be seen as a burden. I want poeple to choose life. I cannot, and WOULD NOT, force choices onto someone else. I will, however, keep debating in support of what I believe is best. People will always (and should) choose for themselves.
if you kill someone with a hatchet, it's also your body that you autonomously moved in a certain way so that the hatchet would land on someone's head. everything we do we do with our bodies. no crime can be comited without bodily action so when behaviors are proscribed, they in fact reduce our personal autonomy - or - freedom, for justified reasons. the issue is is proscribing abortion justified?
that is also the grounds of roe vs. wade, when it was found that in general an abortion ban is not justified because there is not much to justify it, especially during a certain early period of pregnancy. that means that abortion as a free, voluntary, action is by it's nature "justified", the same way, say, choice of a partner is justified.
that's why it's ok and more meaningful to say that you support abortion. not "abortion rights", just abortion.
Theoretically, you could write a law that determined which college everybody should go to. But without a magical Sorting Hat that knows every individual on a personal level, that law is almost assuredly going to be less accurate than an individual's own best judgment and the advice of their friends and family. Realistically, it's better to leave certain decisions to individuals.
Excuse me, verbal commands?? This officer was in HIS apartment and she wasn't even on duty when it happened. What verbal command is this guy supposed to follow when someone breaks into his home to prevent from being shot?? I swear to god, if this woman gets off for this, there is simply no hope. Furthermore, I have NO idea why the media is allowing this is being framed as a cop issuing orders to someone like it was some kind of regular altercation on the street. This was a home invasion by an off-duty cop that resulted in a homicide. The fact that she is even going with this absurd line of defense shows just how invincible and impervious to consequences police officers think they are. If anyone had a right to shoot anyone dead in this situation, it was the guy who got killed, not the cop. The assumption here is that the public and/or jury will buy this line of thinking. And the reason why is because alot of people will instinctively agree with the idea that a black man not listening to what cop says is justification for murder. Even if that cop is off-duty and has entered his residence illegally. And people wonder why NFL players take a knee. Good grief.
The real questions that should be being asked here are: 1.) Why and how did this woman think she was in her own apartment (if that is even true)?? 2.) Was she drunk when this happened (how else do you end up in the wrong apartment unit)?? 3.) Why did it take 3 days for her to be charged with manslaughter or at LEAST immediately arrested as any normal citizen would have been given the circumstances?? Nothing about this woman's story adds up.
A-15 hour shift
B- Parked on wrong level of parking deck
C- Didn't notice she entered on wrong floor
D- Hallway was poorly lit
E- Had only been in apartment for a month
F- Failed to notice red mat in front of door which she does not have
G- Her key did not work in lock
F- Door was unlocked so she entered anyway
It all adds up to inebriated to me. What do you want to bet they never even gave her a breathalyzer test?
Edit: I just read they took blood samples so, assuming the evidence isn't tampered with, we'll find out.
I agree the likelihood is that she was drunk, but since she wasn't immediately taken into custody, who knows if they administered a blood or breath test?? Even if they did, since she wasn't under arrest at that time, we may never find out anyway. That's where the whole "3 days" aspect comes into play. It may have allowed her to escape any sort of drug/alcohol test AND confer with her lawyers and/or other cops and come up with a defense to push in the media before she was charged.
I find the comments in the linked article deeply confusing and distressing. If you look at the comments, it's just a long string of people saying the same thing:
"Why should we complain about China locking up Muslims if the Trump administration is locking up immigrants?"
It stuns me that so many people are willing to vocally defend China's human rights abuses simply because Trump is in office... as if the Trump administration's misdeeds excused those of other countries. As if it was okay for the Communist Party to try to stamp out an entire religion on spurious grounds. As if the Trump administration's treatment of immigrants, however indefensible (as we've pointed out before, even the targets of legal immigrants were being kidnapped without due process of law), was remotely as severe as the Chinese government's many years of concerted repression of their own people.
It reminds me of the criticism of John Kerry for calling out Russia's violent interventions in other countries, saying that Kerry shouldn't talk because the U.S. waged the Iraq War--even though Kerry was an opponent of that war, for the same reasons he was condemning Russian imperialism.
"Russia's attack on Crimea is just like America's attack on Iraq. We should only criticize the latter, and ignore the former."
"China's illegal detention of Muslims is just like America's illegal separation of children. We should only criticize the latter, and ignore the former."
If these things are truly comparable, we should condemn both. Otherwise, we're indulging in the same kind of callous "whataboutism" that undemocratic governments have always used to excuse human rights violations. The Chinese government's own response to these accusations has always been some variant of "Well, the U.S. does bad stuff too, so stop talking about us." These people are echoing Chinese Communist Party propaganda.
What could be more un-American than rushing to the defense of an undemocratic foreign government that's actively trying to stamp out religious freedom?
For me, my best friend and I had driven across Minnesota the night before to pick up my mom's old car to bring with me to college because she had just bought a new one. We stayed in a hotel the night before, and my friend had to leave in his pick-up much earlier than I did to make it to work (it was a 4 hour trip). I woke up and noticed when I was checking out of the hotel that everyone was gathered around the TV in the continental breakfast area, but didn't think too much of it. Once I got on the highway after about 10 minutes driving, I turned on the radio and started getting filled in. Once I got to the nearest large town on the way back, I stopped at a Best Buy, and saw one of the towers fall on a series of display televisions in the electronics department.
I also remember distinctly telling myself I would give Bush the benefit of the doubt for a significant period of time after the attacks, which MOST of the country did. I have to wonder how many liberal-minded folks could have been turned into independents rather than life-long Democrats if not for Iraq War.
I woke up, went downstairs and turned on the TV. We watched the second plane hit the tower. We watched the towers fall and I didn't clue in that there was actually people still in the towers until much later.
At 11 o'clock where we both had to go to work in downtown Ottawa (In a building called The World Exchange Plaza) at a movie theatre. One of my co-workers fathers lived in New York and he hadn't heard from him (we found out later that he was OK). Another girl came in and in a panicked tone said "Welcome to World War 3" she wasn't that far off.
We were all worried, we worked a stone's throw from Parliament Hill, probably the one place that someone would fly a plane into in Canada except maybe the CN Tower in Toronto. The RCMP agreed with us as it was an hour later (after no one had come in to the theatre to watch a movie) that they showed up to close the building down. All of downtown Ottawa was shut down that day IIRC.
We went home where I forgot to phone my father to wish him a Happy Birthday. He was ok with that though. We had some co-workers over and we just watched the news on my roommates giant screen tv, silently.
After I got home I went right back to work later that night for 12 hour shifts without breaks for the next several weeks. We were all riled up ready to prevent more attacks where we were or to go out and do our jobs.
There's an idea that all you need to escape poverty is a job, and that poverty is caused by laziness beyond all else. Apparently only 2% of people living in poverty are able to work but do not work: Of people in poverty, a third are children who can't work. 11 percent are seniors who can't work. 24 percent are adults working or searching for work. 12 percent are disabled and can't work. 15 percent are students and caregivers who can't work. 3 percent are early retirees. Only the remaining 2 percent stand to benefit from a new job. Even if you lump in that 3 percent with the 2 percent, 95 percent of people in poverty aren't just lazy people who are choosing not to work. You can't say "just get a job and you'll stop being poor" to a child.
Wages have been stagnant for decades even as worker productivity has skyrocketed. People provide massive value to their employers but simply don't get paid as much as they contribute to the company, for the sole reason that it's in your employer's best interest to pay you as little as possible. Without strong unions or government-mandated benefits or a high minimum wage, employers have every reason to keep wages and benefits low. We want wages to increase, but we don't expect employers to actually pay higher wages--we expect workers to somehow force their employers to pay reasonable wages.
What is a "reasonable wage?" A reasonable wage is a wage that matches what the worker contributes to the company. You should earn as much money as you make for your employer. In other words, a reasonable wage should match productivity. How much is that? This is why I think we need a corporate tax rate that depends on how many Americans the company employs and how much the company pays its employees in wages and real benefits. That will actually provide an incentive for employers to pay higher wages, without simply pricing out minimum wage jobs (which people have feared a higher minimum wage might do) or subsidizing low-wage positions (which amounts to corporate welfare, since it lets companies like Walmart skim off the top).
We also need some stronger unions to fight for higher wages and benefits. God knows your employer and your Congressional representatives aren't doing anything to increase your wages. And it's not like the average American isn't doing anything to earn a reasonable wage for themselves--Americans are actively working long hours at high productivity. It's no coincidence that the American middle class was biggest and strongest back when unions were numerous and powerful in the mid-twentieth century, before new government rules crippled them in the Reagan era.
We have a situation where Americans are working hard and being productive and learning more and more skills. Unemployment is low, but working people still have stagnant wages. Young folks in particular are working more hours and have more years of education and training. Yet their employers choose to pay low wages. Why?
Because they can. It's in a corporation's best interests to bleed their workers dry, so they do it. We can solve this problem with a few basic policies: strengthen collective bargaining and provide incentives to employers who pay reasonable wages to their workers.