Politics and Science

I am a physicist who taught graduate courses and did fundamental research for almost 40 years. This also included 2 Summers as a NASA research fellow. After reading some of the statements by our esteemed Congressmen, I have decided that we need a law that requires everyone who runs for Congress to have at least a basic course in Physical Science, to include Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Geology. Tell me what you think. Many if those statements can be found on Politifact.com and in the following link http://www.livescience.com/22640-politicians-science-wrong.html

Prescriptive Rights

BLM: We are Worried Cliven Bundy Might Have Prescriptive Rights & He Might Use that Defense in Court
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescriptive-rights-might-use-defense-court/#w0LA5ej0EQLwdks6.99

For Rick As I have stated the origination of the landline program numerous times.

Age seems to be getting to you as your memory slips. 

As to yous BS origination comment.

You should take some time to read the original paper written by Stuart Butler and compare it to the abortion you call Obamacare which is the ACA.  Similar, Mandate.

The Butler's solution was excellent however the Dem's morphed it into this mess.

Look under solutions that will not work.

Direct and indirect government assistance should be concentrated on those that need it most.  *)K is need it most?

Employer healthcare would be taxable.  ACA seemed to miss that one.

Long term nursing costs, had that and cancelled it.

A number of suggestions to purchase long term care, missed that one.

Free physicals, BC pills, Colonoscopies, mammograms, FREE.  No nothing like in the plan. 

No nothing like 26 years olds in the proposal.

No nothing like one size fits all insurance.

Expansion of high risk subsidized pools subsidized by government.  No that didn't happen instead it was dumped into standard insurance.

All in all Rick you comments are bullshit and you didn't even bother to read the proposal  just more blather talking points.

Here's a direct link read it this time.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf 

Hundreds of teachers leaving Wake schools; pay cited

Principal: Teachers making 'heart-wrenching' decisions to leave profession

Raleigh, N.C. — More than 600 teachers of the almost 9,000 employed by the Wake County Public School System left their jobs between July 1, 2013, and April 9, school leaders said Thursday.
“Teachers in Wake County have been leaving their jobs mid-year at a greater rate than in years past," Assistant Superintendent Doug Thilman said. "Given the flat pay scale over the past few years, the recent legislated removal of both career status and higher pay for teachers with graduate degrees, increased teacher turnover has been expected.”
At a leisurely lunch Thursday afternoon, Melissa Taylor cited the same financial pressures as the reason she left her job at Laurel Park Elementary School. Taylor's last day was March 17.
She gave her employers a month's notice and copied her letter of resignation to the local media. It used words like "absolute disrespect" and "heartbreaking."
"We are failing our students, our teachers and our future," she wrote.
Taylor, who has a master's degree, said after 13 years in the classroom, seven of them without a raise, she could no longer make ends meet.
"The opportunity came up for something else. To take a chance of not finding something at the end of the year was too big a chance," Taylor said.
So she made the heart-breaking decision to leave the career she loved. "I was told many times that I was born to be a teacher," she said.
Her leaving and her letter resonated through the education community.
"I had many teachers, not just from my school, but other schools just write me and thank me," she said.
Taylor took a job at a software company where she is able to cover her bills, take a lunch hour and no longer has a second job.
"I worked through my lunch every day when I was teaching," she said. "It was about 20 minutes."
Still, she loved teaching and cried when she left.
Thilman pointed out that it is common for teachers to leave their jobs as the traditional school year ends, but that spike has yet to occur this year. "We typically see a spike in teacher resignations in June and July," he said. "The data we have does not yet capture that increase."
Wake County has historically had a lower-than-average rate of teacher turnover compared to other districts in the state, leaders said, but that rate, about 12 percent in 2012-13, was expected to climb in 2013-14.


Jacqueline Jordan, principal at Underwood, listed teachers from her school who had left the profession because of the financial pinch.
"If we're losing teachers, what's happening in other communities around the state that do not have the same level of support from the county or the beautiful facilities?" Jordan asked.
That pinch has forced Tracy and Britt Morton, both teachers, to consider other options. They are moving to Georgia for better pay.
"We have go to make changes now," said Britt Morton, a teacher at Apex High School. "We can't wait. And that's why we are having to leave."
The Wake County Board of Education has proposed a budget which would seek an additional $39 million from county commissioners to fund an across-the-board raise of 3.5 percent for teachers and staff.
Wake schools’ average teacher salary is $45,512 while the national average is $56,383, the district said.
"We are not just begging the government for more money, we are talking about a critical shortage of teachers and a lack of respect for the profession of teachers," school board vice-chairman Tom Benton said.
Taylor now uses her freedom from teaching to give voice to those still in it.
"I feel I still have a fight. I'm not done fighting," she said.

Poll: 80 percent of Americans don't trust the Republican party

          

January 27, 2014

The distrust of Washington and our elected officials only continues to grow and it's Republicans who are taking it on the chin.
Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, questions hang over your head whether both parties can work together and actually get something done. While both sides were able to put enough of their differences aside in order to pass a recent budget, the majority of the American people don't seem to put much stock in Washington. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 80 percent of Americans don't trust the Republican party. Democrats fair slightly better, but still 72 percent of Americans lack confidence in them. Even Americans who identify as Republicans have a hard time trusting their own party as only 36 percent of self-identified Republicans believe the party is working in their own best interest.
The parties are also split when it comes to how Americans view them handling particular issues. Americans believe Republicans can handle the economy and the budget deficit better, but side with Democrats when it comes to health care despite all the negative press coming from "Obamacare."
President Obama has found a dim light at the end of the tunnel with his approval rating jumping 4 points since last November, now standing at 46 percent. The number the president should be worried about is that 50 percent of the country rates his performance negatively. President Obama's approval rating is nearly identical to George W. Bush at this point in his presidency but falls behind both former President Clinton and Reagan who held a strong 60 percent approval at this point during their time in the White House.
As the 2014 mid term elections inch closer, both parties will need to fire up their base, but it seems Republicans will need to get on that even faster.

http://www.examiner.com/article/poll-80-percent-of-americans-don-t-trust-the-republican-party

Poll: 81 Percent of Americans Think Obama is a Liar, Including 66 Percent of DEMOCRATS!

April 17, 2014 By Matthew Burke

A new scientific poll indicates the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that Barack Obama is a liar, at least to some degree.

When asked, “How often do you think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters?,” 37% said that Obama lied “most of the time,” 24% said, “some of the time,” while 20% thought that he lied “only now and then,” according to a new FOX News poll released on April 16. The combined total of 81% of Americans believe that Obama lies on important matters at least some of the time.

Surprisingly, two-thirds of Democrats, 66%, believe that Obama is a liar as well, including 13% who said that he lies “most of the time,” 25% who believes he lies “some of the time,” and 28% who think he lies “only now and then” on important matters.

It is not known how many Democrats believed that Obama is a liar on important matters, yet chose to vote for him anyway during the 2012 presidential election.

 http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/17/poll-81-percent-of-americans-think-obama-is-a-liar-including-66-percent-of-democrats/

A variant of Milgram

While looking at one of the posts today, I thought about something I saw in a psychology class years ago about the Milgram obedience study. There is a wiki link and also a youtube link that talks about it. Basically, the study allegedly meant to try and shed some meaning on why so many people obediently followed orders to commit atrocities for the Nazi's. Seeing this, amongst many other things, has made me very wary of any individual or group who uses a variant of authority to get people to do things or believe things they otherwise would not believe. I've certainly seen it in left leaning causes and I've also seen it much more recently in the alleged conservative movement.

In the video link, Milgram states, "What is it in human nature that allows an individual to act without any restraint whatsoever so that he can act harshly, inhumanely and in no way limited by feelings of compassion or conscience" Ever since Reagan, I think we have heard an endless wail that a faceless "Big Government" has devolved people and rid them of their sense of responsibility and need to work. Simultaneously, however, we have also been subconsciously fed a non stop drivel that if a person is not successful and wealthy, it is because they are stupid and/or lazy and should be looked down upon. While that may not have been Reagan's entire message, the passage of time has warped it even further and spawned a plethora of figures like the talk radio crowd and the icons of right leaning press and internet who are seen by their audience as undisputed authorities on every thought the founding fathers ever had while they were alive as well as undisputed authorities on what the founding fathers would say if they were alive today.

What scares me is the complete lack of individuality I see in many who ape and preach the words of the founding fathers rather than their own thoughts. More, what I really sense is that what many in that movement want is not so much a reduction in government, but rather a complete lack of any sort of social standard or need to consider anyone but themselves. Publicly, this is displayed as patriotism and defense of individual liberty. In practice, however, it is appearing to me as just a catalyst to justify a "Fuck you, me first" mentality. Something I always thought the founding fathers believed in was to be wary of ANY group that amasses power, especially when people begin to follow them blindly. For a select few, what Reagan started has been nothing short of a smashing success. Regulations are fewer, union membership is sharply reduced, pensions are extinct everywhere but in government, and at long last, those in poverty have come to be viewed as equal to an annoying case of herpes that never goes away.

Looking in the video, there are individuals actually laughing while trying to convince themselves that what they were doing needed to be done. Strangely, even while wages are being destroyed and the majority of this country's middle class is being hammered into nothingness even when they do work hard, a wave of people are willing to keep letting themselves be whipped into a frenzy of anger and hate toward whomever their leader tells them is the enemy. If you can succeed in creating that sense of victimhood/entitlement, you can eventually justify any behavior you want no matter how predatory or unrestrained it becomes. Going back to Milgram's question about what it is in human nature that allows this, I don't think there is anything in human nature that "allows" it. Rather, I think it is the destruction and overriding of human nature that causes it. If you can see someone as an equal, it becomes harder to hurt them and watch them suffer, especially when you directly benefit from it. If you see them as beneath you and as an object of contempt, you can crush them and feel justified in doing so. This is where I see our country headed today. It's the attitude we use to conduct our affairs in the greater world, and it's becoming the metric we use to govern at home.

A Truly Funny Political Ad.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/15/boehner-challenger-makes-electile-dysfunction-video.html#url=/articles/2014/04/15/boehner-challenger-makes-electile-dysfunction-video.html

Dollars for Dialing

Joel Stein    April 10, 2014

The Supreme Court just made being an ultra-wealthy American a lot more annoying

 

I don’t know if the Supreme Court’s decision to allow people to donate to as many candidates as they want will cause trouble for our democracy. But I do know it will cause a lot of trouble for rich people. There are a lot of misconceptions about the extremely wealthy. Most have pools that are completely finite. Many are so secure in their first marriages that they include their spouse’s name on their museum wing. Also: They don’t call up candidates to offer them money. Candidates call them. Now that the $48,600 limit on donations to federal candidates per election cycle has been wiped away by McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, everyone running for office will be bothering them. And now they have no excuse. The only reason Shaun McCutcheon was willing to incur the wrath of all the other rich people in the country is that he lives in Alabama and therefore will never meet any of them.

I asked Jeffrey Katzenberg, who gave more than $3 million to help elect Obama in 2012, if he was worried about getting hundreds of calls from Democrats running for Congress this year. “I just changed my email and phone numbers and am now wearing a hoodie,” he responded. “The Founding Fathers must be sick of watching our democracy disintegrating as elections are put up for sale to unlimited contributors.” And if our nation’s founders are not sick about this, there’s a good chance the court will soon allow Katzenberg to retroactively donate to their campaigns and convince them to feel that way.

Damon Lindelof, the co-creator of Lost, had already come up with a strategy to deal with the court’s decision: “I have had no choice but to change my party affiliation every time someone calls and asks for money. It’s tiring but worth it,” he explained. Though getting a call asking for money is actually a welcome relief for Lindelof, since it means someone wants to talk about something other than the last episode of Lost.

It turns out that, like Lindelof, most rich people don’t max out: in fact, only about 600 do. This might be the Supreme Court decision that affects the fewest people since U.S. v. People With Full-Time Jobs Who Know the Details of Malaysia Flight 370. When I contacted billionaire Mark Cuban, he wasn’t even aware of the details of McCutcheon. “But,” he said, “I can tell you what I tell all politicians asking me for money: No.” Which is the exact opposite of what he tells every journalist asking for a quote.

Those who did give the limit are already so entrenched in the donor system that a little more is not going to affect their lives. Phil Rosenthal, the creator of Everybody Loves Raymond, who came within an accounting error of maxing out to Democratic candidates in 2012, said, “My problems are minor compared to some members of the Supreme Court, who seem to be suffering from a mental deficiency.” Ken Kies, who runs a tax-lobbying firm and has–along with his wife–maxed out giving to Republicans, isn’t worried either. “It’s already so irritating. I get 50 emails a day, so I can’t imagine that’s going to increase,” he said. The really big donors, he explained, are already giving as much as they want through super PACs. The really really big donors just run for office themselves.

The biggest change, he said, is that people in D.C. will claim to give more. “There are a lot of people throwing cocktail parties, saying they have given the max, but they apparently don’t understand there are basic websites you can look at to check,” he said. It’s the equivalent of celebrities in L.A. bragging about how much plastic surgery they haven’t had.

Peter Buttenwieser, a philanthropist and Lehman Brothers heir who reached the limit for giving last year, also isn’t worried about getting more calls from candidates. “I basically know all these people, and they know me,” he said. “It’s not like a strange nonprofit calling in the evening.” Still, he hates the decision because raising money wastes so much of candidates’ time. “I’ve spent an entire life working with public schools in the inner city. I’d much prefer to be influential there than someone who is a major player in the Democratic Party. It’s not a great calling,” he said.

When America doesn’t provide great callings to the rich, we are all failing. Soon, there will be children who don’t even care about making as much money as they can, since they know so much of it will go to negative campaign ads they’ll have to watch before their 48-second YouTube videos about unusual cats. What the authors of the Constitution didn’t realize is that when we have too much freedom, we express it in really lame ways. I hope Katzenberg can talk them out of that

Obamacare: Mend it, Don’t End it

Joe Klein , April 3, 2014

 

The Affordable Care Act has problems. But the GOP campaign to junk it is now finished

 

The endless, blindingly obtuse debate about the Affordable Care Act–also known as Obamacare–has been almost entirely about politics, not substance. There are two reasons for this. We haven’t had much real substance to go on. And politics is a lot easier for us wizards of the media to report and opine upon. The abysmal debut of the HealthCare.gov website is a lot easier to comprehend–government can’t tie its own shoelaces–than the heroic efforts to bring the site back to life. The people who “lost” their insurance because of new coverage requirements are more famous than those who were able to get better, cheaper coverage through the new government health care markets. (Actually, they’re many of the same people.) The fact that 7.1 million people signed up for insurance is more important than who they actually are: Were they uninsured in the past? Will they pay their bills? Will they get the care they’re paying for? Will the system be able to handle all the new traffic?

But we have now turned a corner. the system is up and running. It has 7.1 million customers (plus 4.5 million more in the expanded Medicaid program). The word of mouth seems to be … not bad: a recent ABC News–Washington Post poll actually had more Americans in favor of Obamacare than opposed to it, by an overpowering 49% to 48%. Those numbers may well improve over time as the public learns that the program isn’t the socialist cataclysm that Republicans predicted. It may even happen by November. It is not impossible that Americans will be pleased that a significant social injustice has been rectified: the hardworking poor finally have health care protection, just as the indigent on Medicaid have had. Indeed, there is one political thing that we know for sure: the Republicans have lost this debate substantively. The law won’t be repealed. “There is no off switch,” says Professor John DiIulio of the University of Pennsylvania, who is studying the system from the bottom up in 35 states. “There are financial obligations to the people who have signed up [and receive subsidies from the government]. There are 50 different stories here. The program is different in every state. That makes it difficult to formulate a national policy response,” whether it be repeal or sweeping reform.

Which doesn’t mean the Affordable Care Act doesn’t need reform. It is a slovenly piece of legislation that will need constant modification and in some cases structural overhaul. The very notion that there are 50 stories here demonstrates a glaring inefficiency. There should be four or five regional exchanges–they should be supermarkets, not corner stores, providing greater economies of scale. There ought to be (as six moderate Democratic Senators proposed) a wider variety of insurance options, including plans with lower premiums and higher deductibles. There should be fewer mandated coverages: if the Jones family believes it receives all the mental-health counseling it needs through its church, it shouldn’t be required to pay for mental-health coverage. Businesses that currently provide health coverage for their employees in the private market, especially moderate-size companies, should be free to shop for better deals in the health care exchanges. The President has been open to negotiation on most of the above, as well as conservative evergreens like medical-malpractice reform.

A recent Kaiser family foundation poll shows that 59% of Americans want to see this program improved, not repealed–another reason the Republicans have lost this debate. There are legitimate arguments against government expansion, but the Republicans haven’t been making them. Instead they’ve resorted to fear tactics (remember “death panels”), demagoguery (socialism!), concocted bad-news stories and irrelevant bean-counting. One reason the 7.1 million people signing up became such a big deal is that Republicans made it a litmus test. Given public disgust with the noxious atmosphere in Washington, you might expect that the GOP would be ripe for a reset on this issue. They could argue, We’re gonna reform this thing, make it an efficient free-enterprise model for the world. After all, the bone structure of Obamacare–the exchanges, the individual mandate–came out of the conservative Heritage Foundation 25 years ago.

But no. John Boehner and other GOP leaders sent a reflexive message to the 7.1 million enrollees: they’re still against it, no retreat, no surrender. That makes political sense in a dull, conventional-wisdom way. Current polls have them winning the House and perhaps the Senate in November. But what happens if Obamacare brings better coverage to millions of Americans between now and then? What happens if the good-news stories start outplaying the bad? Politics is never static, especially seven months from Election Day.