erichcanvogue:

In Response

First, I did not attack anyone. Although you make it seem as though I’ve committed sacrilege to your political beliefs, I’ve done nothing of the sort. I’ve simply expressed my view. There is no affront to your liberties. And there is no affront to the “class” of my blog. If you feel there is, I’m sorry to hear that. But, because the argument you’ve made is baseless, I don’t care.

Second, specifically on Ron Paul, I perceive his politics to be a lack of backbone. Saying that the LGBT and women’s communities do not deserve specific government attention because they aren’t defined by “groups” under the law does not have backbone. Falling back on silly rhetoric is not backbone. Supporting legislation that would prevent federal action on marriage equality lacks backbone entirely.

Finally, I’m sorry if you have concluded that I’m not open minded. I don’t see it that way. I’ve considered what Ron Paul has to say and I have compared to the reality of his policy positions. And I have decided that I don’t support his policies or his outlook on governance. This is not close-mindedness. Frankly, with due respect, you’re the one being close-minded. Implying that my blog has lost class because I do not blazon your specific political opinions? Are you kidding?

Next time you implore me or anyone else to “be open-minded,” please—for lack of a better term—be open-minded.

Note to self: Don’t attempt to talk light politics with fashion bloggers.

For their new study, published on Monday in the journal Pediatrics, researchers Nanette Gartrell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco (and a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles), and Henry Bos, a behavioral scientist at the University of Amsterdam, focused on what they call planned lesbian families — households in which the mothers identified themselves as lesbian at the time of artificial insemination. Data on such families are sparse, but they are important for establishing whether a child’s environment in a home with same-sex parents would be any more or less nurturing than one with a heterosexual couple. (See a gay-rights timeline.) The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression. “We simply expected to find no difference in psychological adjustment between adolescents reared in lesbian families and the normative sample of age-matched controls,” says Gartrell. “I was surprised to find that on some measures we found higher levels of [psychological] competency and lower levels of behavioral problems. It wasn’t something I anticipated.” In addition, children in same-sex-parent families whose mothers ended up separating did as well as children in lesbian families in which the moms stayed together. The data that Gartrell and Bos analyzed came from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), begun in 1986. The authors included 154 women in 84 families who underwent artificial insemination to start a family; the parents agreed to answer questions about their children’s social skills, academic performance and behavior at five follow-up times over the 17-year study period. Children in the families were interviewed by researchers at age 10 and were then asked at age 17 to complete an online questionnaire, which included queries about the teens’ activities, social lives, feelings of anxiety or depression, and behavior. Not surprisingly, the researchers found that 41% of children reported having endured some teasing, ostracism or discrimination related to their being raised by same-sex parents. But Gartrell and Bos could find no differences on psychological adjustment tests between the children and those in a group of matched controls. At age 10, children reporting discrimination did exhibit more signs of psychological stress than their peers, but by age 17, the feelings had dissipated. “Obviously there are some factors that may include family support and changes in education about appreciation for diversity that may be helping young people to come to a better place despite these experiences,” says Gartrell. It’s not clear exactly why children of lesbian mothers tend to do better than those in heterosexual families on certain measures. But after studying gay and lesbian families for 24 years, Gartrell has some theories. “They are very involved in their children’s lives,” she says of the lesbian parents. “And that is a great recipe for healthy outcomes for children. Being present, having good communication, being there in their schools, finding out what is going on in their schools and various aspects of the children’s lives is very, very important.” Although active involvement isn’t unique to lesbian households, Gartrell notes that same-sex mothers tend to make that kind of parenting more of a priority. Because their children are more likely to experience discrimination and stigmatization as a result of their family circumstances, these mothers can be more likely to broach complicated topics, such as sexuality and diversity and tolerance, with their children early on. Having such a foundation may help to give these children more confidence and maturity in dealing with social differences and prejudices as they get older. Because the research is ongoing, Gartrell hopes to test some of these theories with additional studies. She is also hoping to collect more data on gay-father households; gay fatherhood is less common than lesbian motherhood because of the high costs of surrogacy or adoption that gay couples face in order to start a family. (emphasis added) This is robust research. Any banal “WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!1?” battle cry about the sanctity of marriage as an institution solely for manufacturing humans in a ‘good environment’ is not an argument; it’s an opinion. It is something used to justify discrimination and statism in the private matters of parenting. Neocons, meet science.

Why I’m tired of people demanding government ‘protect’ traditional marriage ‘for the kids’.

logicallypositive:

ObamaCare: An Rx for Crisis

It’s a long article, but it’s very good because it does a fantastic job at explaining exactly why ObamaCare is a horrible, horrible piece of legislation that hurts working and poor people the most, and benefits nobody but pharmaceutical and insurance corporations. Worst of all, it’s sold to you under the guise of the opposite: helping out the working man at the expense of the Big Evil Corporations.

When people think of Medicare, they usually think of the government health insurance program for seniors over age 65. They may even recall that the program also extends to the disabled who are under 65. Few, though, see it as a program that big business and their D.C. lobbyists can use to drive smaller competitors out of business.

But that’s a perspective shared by many individuals who work in physician-owned specialty hospitals (PSHs). For years the “Big Hospital Lobby” waged war on physician-owned specialty hospitals, trying to drive the latter out of business by making it illegal for them to treat Medicare patients, a major revenue source.

With the March 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “ObamaCare”), the Big Hospital Lobby finally succeeded. ObamaCare prevents any physician-owned specialty hospitals built after 2010 from treating Medicare patients. Additionally, those PSHs already in existence will no longer be able to expand unless they jump through nearly insurmountable regulatory hoops. 

By limiting the access that physician-owned specialty hospitals have to Medicare, the big hospitals, which are often bureaucratic, have protected themselves from smaller, quicker competition. In so doing, they have choked off a major source of efficiency and innovation in the health care system and limited patients’ options.

…

When businesses face new competition—as general hospitals faced from PSHs—they have two basic recourses. They can find ways to lower their costs and improve their products, thereby preventing their competitors from drawing away customers. Or they can ask politicians to pass laws and regulations that will drive their competition out of business. Since Medicare is such a large portion of all medical payments, the second recourse is the preferred option for those already established in the business of health care. ObamaCare was the culmination of a decade-long effort by the Big Hospital Lobby—represented by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals—to use Medicare to stop PSHs.

 Of course, companies will almost never admit that they are using government to drive their competition out of business. The resulting negative press could undermine the effort. Rather, they dress it up in the rhetoric of the “noble purpose.” As one supporter of PSHs put it, the Big Hospital Lobby “hides behind their community mission” in order to “stifle competition.” (Mark Sherman, “Medicare bill clamps down on physician-owned specialty hospitals,” Associated Press, November 26, 2003.)

YES. READ THIS.

evilteabagger:

stoprobbers:

evilteabagger:

stoprobbers:

shortformblog:

Breakdown: Paul Ryan’s new plan to cut $5.3 trillion in spending in 10 years

The budget-buster’s latest attempt: On Tuesday, powerful Rep. Paul Ryan pitched his latest attempt to trim the deficit by focusing on spending cuts, choosing to leave spending at the Pentagon intact while focusing more on domestic programs. The pitch is largely the same as Ryan’s plan last year. “We owe the country an alternative path if we don’t like the path the president is taking us on.” Ryan said about his plan. “Whoever our nominee is going to be owes the country that choice of two futures. We’re helping them put this together.” A breakdown:

• one The plan would cut major spending initiatives for the poor and handing their administration over to the states. Popular funding programs like Pell Grants would be restricted to the neediest.
• two The Ryan plan would also add new restrictions to Medicare, raising the age and encouraging those on the system to buy private insurance. The current Medicare would still be an option.
• threeThe current tax bracket structure would be simplified from ten into six: The highest tax rate would fall significantly, and corporations would get taxed lower rates on overseas profits. source

» Detractors abound: Ryan’s plan did not go over well with the Obama administration: “The House budget once again fails the test of balance, fairness, and shared responsibility,” claimed White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, who said the plan benefited the very rich while shouldering the poor with the bill. Others complained about the lack of detail, including Howard Gleckman, blogging for the Christian Science Monitor, who complains about the lack of details: “His budget includes a convincing and articulate explanation about what’s wrong with a tax system with high rates and a narrow base,” Gleckman writes. “He just doesn’t say what he’d do about it.” What do you think of Ryan’s latest budget plan? (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Follow ShortFormBlog

NO MORE CORPORATE TAX BREAKS AND LOW TAXES FOR THE RICH. IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW MATH WORKS. HIGHER TAXES + REASONABLE BUDGET CUTS (AKA: NOT TO SOCIAL SERVICES AND MEDICARE ASSHOLE) = BALANCED BUDGET. STOP FOOLING YOURSELF AND START TAXING RICH PEOPLE AND CORPORATIONS!!!!

You must not have seen this report then that says the Buffet rule would only result in a trivial amount of additional revenue. Not nearly enough to really combat our growing debt and spending.

What we need in order to balance the budget is a massive reduction in spending and a cut in government programs and responsibilities as a result. 

I’m not talking about the Buffet Rule. I’m talking about how Bill Clinton balanced the budget in the 90’s. You cut frivolous government spending, redirect those budgets into social programs, public education, and a nationalized public health care system, and you RAISE TAXES on the wealthiest Americans and, most importantly, ON CORPORATIONS. 

It’s called MATH; you need a refresher, badly. Welcome to reality, buddy.

I agree with you on the cutting of frivolous government spending, but I think you and I would disagree on what is frivolous.

Frivolous means to not have any purpose or value. Well most government spending and programs are inherently wasteful and of poor quality or service.

Take a look at the examples you provided. Our public education system is failing miserably. We keep increasing funding, as you suggest, and scores do not improve. Our schools are drop out factories. The detrimental effects of this are compounded when you acknowledge that these kids are the next generation of potential leaders and workers and entrepreneurs. How many opportunities is our country going to miss out on because our government operated and funded school system keeps failing our children? What has improved results in education? Tax credits for families so they can send their kids to a different public school or even a private school. Voucher programs and magnet schools introduce competition to education, resulting in lower costs and better quality.

Nationalized healthcare would do a lot of things, but balance the budget it would not. The government is inherently wasteful. You hand over the decision making process in the costliest part of many people’s budget to the government and watch prices rise. Prices rise as a result of government interference. The government has shown in the past that it cannot afford or will not pay the best price for healthcare procedures. This often results in rationed care and waiting lists. So now we have an exploded budget, higher taxes and worse quality and access to healthcare. This sounds like a great idea.

The math is that Obamacare added billions to the debt when it was passed and will continue to add trillions the longer it exists. The math is that entitlement spending plus interest on the debt is going to consume 100% of total government revenue in the next few decades. THAT is unsustainable and no amount of rich people on this planet can pay that back. 

Cut spending. Cut programs. Lower taxes. Let the productive sector get back to work and put the pieces together. The reallocation of resources cannot be done from the top down by government. The economy is a natural bottom up institution that needs government out of the way in order to operate.

People need to stop insisting everyone else doesn’t understand math. You don’t need coursework in econometrics to understand how the concepts X inefficiencies, cost distortion, incentivized waste, and lack of risk calculations, in addition to the hard empirical data (as provided above), make government cuts, especially in important sectors, absolutely crucial to the overall wellbeing of this country.

(Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ryan-introduces-gop-budget-plan-slashing-social-programs-and-tax-rates/2012/03/20/gIQASVkSQS_story.html)

evilteabagger:

We need to explain to people that Obama is nothing but Bush’s third term. Their foreign and domestic policies have no real difference. Even from a progressive standpoint, the Obama administration has been an epic failure. We need to explain to people that this man was not qualified to be president and should not be granted another four years. He has expanded the scope of and created new powers that the executive branch may now wield in the future.

If you have a post critical of Obama tag it Obama 2012 or any other way you think will get it to the right eyes. Show tumblr that he is not the rock star with all the “swag.” Instead, open their eyes and show them what he really is, a corporatist warmonger that could not care less about your precious civil liberties.

statistsgonnastate asked: “When you believe in peace for the sake of peace, we’ll talk. Until then, let’s not bullshit each other.” Please offer proof that Libertarians do not care about peace. Please recognize that isolationism and non-interventionism are not the same thing. Please offer proof that when/if we ever get out of this war Libertarians will stop caring about peace. If you cannot do these things, then I suggest you revise your blanket statement against Libertarians. Thank you.

evilteabagger:

mohandasgandhi:

anticapitalist:

squashed:

If you would prefer a more qualified statement, let me offer the following:

Having interracted extensively with a broad swath of libertarians I have observed a haste to condemn U.S. actions and involvement coupled by a lack of knowledge or interest in anybody else involved in the conflict. This leads to statements like “We need to leave Afghanistan so its people can live in peace.” The libertarian making this suggestion seemed wholly unaware of both the prolonged internal struggle that won’t end the moment the U.S. leaves and serious controversy within Afghanistan regarding whether, when, and how the U.S. should leave.

Most tellingly, my post criticizing libertarians for appropriating the banner of pacifism drew outraged responses from libertarians who 1) accused me of hypocrisy, and 2) demanded that I “prove” that there weren’t any libertarians who cared about peace beyond the narrow scope of isolationism. Critically, neither of these moves suggests that I’m wrong in my point—and this is one where it would be extremely easy to prove me wrong … if I’m actually wrong. You could show me the fruits of libertarian peacemaking efforts. You could point to the generous libertarians willing to make sacrifices to pave the way for peace. Really, you could point out anything libertarians do besides call for immediate and unilateral withdrawal, consequences to others be damned. Show me the libertarians working to heal rifts between warring factions or to rebuild war ravaged countries. If it’s happening on any scale, this should be easy to find, shouldn’t it?

What are you going to do for peace? Yes, withdraw from Afghanistan, slash military spending, etc.. But then what? Are libertarians willing to affirmatively promote peace? Or are they just tired of seeing tax money spent on things they don’t like?

squashed is slowly becoming one of my favorite blogs.

Granted, my whole internet existence is me fighting with libertarians.

Something I would love to see: A libertarian who calls for U.S. withdrawal in the Middle East and is actually well-versed in regional politics/issues. It would make my day. I’m not implying there’s a reason for the United States to maintain a presence in the Middle East, I just want to hear a libertarian make a well-informed argument not based in the isolationist principles.

Why does the burden of proof fall on the non-interventionists? You tell us we need to have a reason to not interfere in the internal affairs of any (not just the Middle East) region? Why don’t you give us a reason to intervene? If we have a problem with American lives and resources being used to commit acts of violence against a foreign people that somehow makes us uninformed?

What about 9/11? I think that’s a pretty good reason not to be over there. What about the dozens of terrorists that were recruited a few weeks ago when that soldier went off the wall? What about the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives? You notice we didn’t have an issue with the Middle East until we started messing around over there.

I really can’t wrap my head around how much the left has to contort their worldview in order to remain consistent. War is the central piece of both parties now guys. We can’t abandon the Democratic party just because they’ve turned their back on their anti-war principles. We have to disparage the lowly isolationist rubes who don’t want to spend another dollar or commit another life to these unconstitutional and unjustified conflicts.

I already spend too much time on this damn site, so I’m not going to say much.

Not that I care for the ad hominem, strawman, etc leftist BS, but I’d like to say that I can’t tell what y’all are doing to promote peace, either. I mentored inner-city at-risk middle school girls for two years and have fostered and rehomed 40+ dogs who would otherwise have been killed by the city. I spend a lot of time trying to do right by my fellow human beings and other living things and educating people about constructive charities they can contribute to which actually help alleviate suffering and poverty, rather than perpetuate it.

And I would wager that I know quite a lot more about the intricacies of economic development efforts and the failures of SAPs in West Africa than most leftists know about the entirety of the Middle East. Come at me, Bro.

lalibertarienne: Radio program “This American Life” has retracted a “partially fabricated” story about author and actor Mike Daisey’s visit to a Foxconn factory in China. The retraction was announced in a blog post written by show host Ira Glass. “We’ve learned that Mike Daisey’s story about Apple in China…

Raison et liberte: American Life retracts partially fabricated story about Foxconn factory

Austin, TX, despite our already environmentally-conscious culture, has officially banned plastic bags. I’m voting against everyone on city council out this election cycle… This is ridiculous (still not as ridiculous as putting toxic chemicals in the water, though). Although the Austin City Council passed one of the broadest bag bans in the nation early Friday , a few details remain to be ironed out. Among them is what the penalties will be for refusing to comply with the law, which will prohibit retailers from offering single-use paper and plastic bags at all retail checkout counters starting in March 2013 . Penalties and details about who will enforce the ban will be worked out over the next few months, said Jennifer Herber , a spokeswoman for Austin Resource Recovery , the city’s trash and recycling department. Only retailers, not customers, will face penalties, she said. The council also asked staffers to explore creating an “emergency option” that would allow shoppers who forget their reusable bags to pay a fee for disposable bags so that they aren’t forced to buy more reusable bags. It’s not clear exactly how that would work or whether it would simply become a loophole for customers to continue getting disposable bags. Before and after the ban takes effect, the city plans to do a $2 million education campaign to alert shoppers to the change and remind them to bring reusable bags. The council decided not to enact a fee on disposable bags before the ban takes effect. An interim fee had been discussed as a way to help shoppers and retailers begin to change their habits and prepare for a ban. Austin is the first big Texas city to pass a bag ban. More than two dozen U.S. cities have bag laws, most of them prohibiting plastic bags and imposing a fee on paper. “This is about Austin reclaiming its position as the national leader in environmental protection,” said Rick Cofer , vice chairman of the city’s Zero Waste Advisory Commission, who has pushed for a ban for five years. “This ordinance is forward-looking. It may have taken a few years, but we got it right.” The City Council came close to enacting a ban a few years ago but held off when a few big retailers agreed to try to voluntarily reduce the plastic bags they offer. Council members have said that program wasn’t effective enough, and they asked city staffers last summer to begin writing up a ban. Friday’s vote came at about 2 a.m. , after a daylong council meeting. It was unanimous, even though a few council members recently had expressed reservations about the details of the ban, including the idea of prohibiting paper bags as well as plastic. Austin retailers will still be able to offer reusable bags, defined as those made of cloth or durable materials, or thicker paper or plastic bags that have handles. Retailers will decide whether to charge for those bags, though most probably will because such bags tend to be costlier to make. Exempt from the ban will be single-use bags for bulk foods, meat, fish, produce, newspaper delivery, dry cleaning and restaurant carryout foods, and bags that charities and nonprofits use to distribute food and other items. During months of debate, members of the plastics industry argued that thin plastic bags can be easily recycled and reused, such as for lining trash cans and picking up pet waste. But city leaders said the bags often end up as litter or landfill trash and cause environmental harm. Activists urged the City Council to ban single-use paper bags as well, saying they take more energy to make and transport. The Texas Retailers Association was the most vocal opponent of a ban, saying it would discourage retailers from continuing robust programs they’ve built to accept plastic bags and plastic packaging for recycling, meaning more of those goods could end up in landfills. In recent weeks, ban opponents have urged the city to pursue a program that will allow Austin residents to put plastic bags in their curbside recycling carts. Currently, the city accepts paper but not plastic bags through its curbside collection and recycling program because plastic bags can damage recycling machinery. Austin Resource Recovery Director Bob Gedert said adding plastic bags to the curbside program would be costly and difficult to carry out. He also said Austin should focus on reducing the number of plastic bags in circulation, not simply on continuing to make and recycle them. About a dozen people stuck around late Thursday and early Friday to offer the council their thoughts on the ban; most were in favor of it. “It’s time for you folks to make history and take a huge step in cleaning up your community,” said Robin Schneider , executive director of the nonprofit Texas Campaign for the Environment . Chris Bailey told the council a ban could have unintended consequences. “People act like the solution is to just create a crime out of an everyday activity, and all of a sudden, it will go away,” he said. “You’re trying to modify behavior by creating a punishment for it, and this has not been shown to work. … I think common sense is being neglected here.”

Environmental Statism

animalstalkinginallcaps:

YOU GUYS EVER READ KARL MARX?

I THINK YOU MIGHT REALLY LIKE SOME OF HIS IDEAS.

I made a joke about the stereotypical marxist college student with regards to the ‘Story of Stuff’ the other day in class, but it was ‘Psychology of Advertising’, so none of the 200 Communication bros or PR girls laughed. In the future, I think I’ll just assume that only the kids in the sciences and humanities know what Marxism is and that I probably shouldn’t try explaining why I support total deregulation of advertising targeting children (seriously, parenting is hard; if you aren’t up for it, contraception is the much cheaper alternative which lacks the longevity, responsibility, and patience required of parenting (which includes saying ‘no’)).

…the libertarian sees no inconsistency in being “leftist” on some issues and “rightist” on others. On the contrary, he sees his own position as virtually the only consistent one, consistent on the behalf of every individual. For how can the leftist be opposed to the violence of war while at the same time supporting the violence of taxation and government control? And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to private property and free enterprise while at the same time favoring war and the outlawing of noninvasive activities and practices that he deems immoral?

Murray Rothbard (For A New Liberty)