StrangeSox

The man has done phenomenal work after his Presidency. It looks like they're pretty close to eradicating the Guinea Worm, a pretty awful disease that Carter's foundation has worked on for decades.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 10:05 AM) But you're still relying on Iran to provide the IAEA with samples, right? The IAEA can't collect them themselves, which is sort of the point when you have an independent agency. This is all still based on trust of Iran to tell the world the truth, which is the whole moronic thing about this deal. It's slightly better than having no idea what they're doing, except now we've lifted economic sanctions, which could potentially ramp up their efforts rather than stop it. No, it's not based just on trust. It's based on verifiable sampling methods. The IAEA has their own credibility at stake here. Why shouldn't we assume that if they say the agreed methodology meets their standards and requirements that it really is sufficient? Sanctions weren't going to last much longer, anyway. edit: and keep in mind, as the Yahoo story points out, the AP story is unconfirmed and relies on draft documents, not the final agreements.

IAEA says access to Iran's Parchin military site meets demands

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 09:47 AM) Great, so again this deal has less teeth than we were told. Iran gets a loophole on inspections. If the whole point here was to lift sanctions in exchange for full disclosure and an end to their nuclear ambitions, we didn't really get that if they're able to set up these exceptions. What's to stop Iran from basically telling the IAEA "no, uh, that building over there is for, uh, other military equipment. You can't go in there. Our inspectors have checked it though and they say it's totally fine! Nothing to see here, move along." The actual process by which the IAEA verifies when and where the samples were taken from prevents Iran from just making things up. That's what Balta was explaining--it's not just relying solely on Iran self-reporting violations and inspections [insert shot at "self-regulating industry" here], it's using approved Iranian officials to go into very specific places and collect samples in a detailed and verifiable manner. The IAEA would still be the ones testing the samples. The initial reporting and headlines make it seem like it's the scenario you're depicting, but that doesn't appear to be what it actually is.

A lot of Republican candidates are jumping on the "end birthright citizenship/amend the 14th amendment" bandwagon.

Josh Duggar, "family values" activist/teenage child molester, apparently had a couple of active Ashley Madison accounts.

The Score's new Bears post-game show will be Hub Arkush, James "Big Cat" Williams and Olin Kreutz.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 12:08 PM) There are multiple definitions of miracle. I'm not saying it's based on some unexampled, unknowable divine act. It's a wonder. A marvel. An outstanding, extraordinary event. And it's not just the child, it's the whole process. I think Crimson's getting a little hung up on the definition of miracle here, but you did say "literally." It's not supernatural, and it's not improbable (generally speaking, of course) or uncommon.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 11:55 AM) If it's a dollar it's a dollar too much. And as Alpha said earlier, also illegal. I was questioning your hypothetical "PP would push for more abortions so that they could get all the money." The financial incentive isn't really there, even if we assume that multiple PP affiliates (it's not a centralized, top-down organization really) across the country would be willing to commit felonies routinely and would discuss them with some small, previously unheard of biotech group. Maybe she was made uncomfortable by these activists who were trying to push her to agree to illegal actions? Either way, she was crystal-clear that they only recover costs and do not profit from facilitating fetal tissue donations.

Abortions already represent a small fraction of the services that PP provides, and abortions when the pregnancy is far enough along to result in usable fetal tissues even less so. And exactly how much money do you think PP would be making on $75 or even the $100 the activists tried to push her to take? How many fetal tissue samples do they even process? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 11:13 AM) She could have easily stopped talking about it. Why are you even discussing that outside of an official meeting in a conference room when you have all the facts/figures in hand? And again, she never once said covering costs or recouping costs, at least that I can remember. The whole thing seemed off to me. She was playing along with him. She was meeting with a supposed biotech group to discuss fetal tissue donations for research purposes. I don't see anything wrong with discussing that in an open manner in some initial meetings. She did state, repeatedly, that they do not profit from this and that they only recover the expenses they incur. If you only watched the shorter video, then you watched the one where the activists edited it to deliberately lie to you and give you exactly that misleading impression.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 10:40 AM) 1) Regarding PP, while they might not be harvesting/farming fetuses like a factory, the problem I have, if it's true they're selling this stuff for profit, They're not and there's zero evidence, anywhere, that they are. What does it even mean for PP to "push for more abortions?" How many abortions that they perform do you think end up with donated fetal tissue? They are. How should professionals discuss it? How do you imagine discussions with hospital administrators for parts from organ donors go? She said that she wasn't sure what the costs were and would have to check. She threw out an estimate of $75, and the activists kept trying to pressure her to take more. What is your basis for assuming that most people don't understand fetal development?

Ok, but what he's trying to say is meaningless nonsense. Which is where this started.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 09:12 AM) I don't like the idea of speaking for Dr. Carson, but I think it's of his opinion that it's not the source that's the problem, it's the how and why it was acquired in the first place. So, from what I gather, he's against "harvesting" this type of tissue specifically for the sake of research...it's grey area, but I still get his point. So, it's not the same unless you completely ignore his opinion on the subject. His opinion doesn't make sense, that's the problem. Nobody is "harvesting" fetal tissue for research in that they're getting women pregnant and then terminating the pregnancies in order to collect fetal tissue (and I don't think Carson was trying to say that happens, either). But in order to get fetal tissue for research, it must be "harvested" during an abortion and processed specifically to be used for research. There isn't another way to get it. There isn't a grey area.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 08:24 AM) There's no difference at all. It's the same source. Exactly. It's not like there's some fetal tissue factory, getting women pregnant and aborting the fetuses in order to harvest fetal tissue. It's all sourced from terminated pregnancies.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 07:49 AM) Isn't that what ongoing investigations will prove? How come people can never (either side of this argument) let the facts rise to the surface BEFORE commenting as if they know for sure? Because this isn't a real "investigation" but some crappy 'stings' by an anti-abortion group who heavily edits their videos and lies.

Welp

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 14, 2015 -> 06:53 PM) Dude, there is no chance of this happening. Scouts love the arm, someone will give up the pick for him a multi-year deal.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 14, 2015 -> 04:02 PM) All what SS means is that he is still spending more than we take in, just doing it at a slightly lower rate. Still can't balance a budget. Still adding to the amount we all owe. What I mean is that the deficit now is less than what the deficit was i.e. the deficit is shrinking.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 14, 2015 -> 02:38 PM) 2. He had some health care plan that included the market or something. I didn't understand it but he mentioned it. sounds promising! But the ACA already includes the market. That's what the exchanges are all about. by being smaller than it was previously. no you are probably thinking of the debt. Trump may have also conflated the two--many politicians and pundits often do. Anyway, people have been saying that the debt will cripple us for years now, but much of the scholarship underlying those claims has been shown to be less-than-persuasive at best in the last few years.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 14, 2015 -> 12:53 PM) And sounds like you have equally accepted the PP version. That's fine. But when they negotiate the pricing, that isn't 'recouping costs'. What do you imagine hospitals do when negotiating with various groups over organ donations?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 14, 2015 -> 12:28 PM) They don't 'donate' anything, they sell it. Big difference. And they need the consent of the women to even do that, which the last 2 videos claim they rarely got. They donate it and recoup the processing costs. It's the exact same thing a hospital would do if you are an organ donor. Or what an animal rescue organization does when they adopt out an animal. These videos have claimed lots of things, but so far they've shown absolutely nothing when they aren't heavily selectively edited. You're also not actually addressing the point. edit: besides, I thought the only thing you cared about was some hypothetical program wherein taxpayers would be paying for abortions?

By "clown" I mean more their actual policy proposals and ideas (or lack thereof) than their demeanor.

Isn't "sex addiction" not actually a recognized thing in the DSM?

I'm almost positive I posted about the UIUC-Steven Salaita story last year, but I can't find any related posts. In late 2013 or early 2014, UIUC offered a full tenure position to Steven Salaita (who was tenured at VTech at the time) in the American Indian Studies department. He accepted in early 2014, resigned his position (as did his wife) and moved to UIUC to start teaching in Fall 2014. In June of last year, he tweeted some offensive things about Israel, sparked by the latest exchange with Gaza. Wealthy donors and some Trustees starting heavily pressuring UIUC to "unhire" him, and eventually Chancellor Wise acquiesced. The university has since claimed that he was never formally hired since the BoT had not approved it yet (the BoT vote was scheduled to take place a couple of months after he would already have started teaching at UIUC and officially representing and acting on behalf of the university). Salaita filed a suit against UIUC. Last week, a judge issued a ruling on UIUC's motion to dismiss. He found that both UIUC and Salaita had executed the offer letter and that Salaita did in fact have a valid contract with UIUC. Shortly after this was announced, Chancellor Wise turned in her resignation. She was to move into another position at the school (the department she had come from originally) and take a $400,000 bonus. UIUC also released 1,100 pages of emails from Wise it had not previously released. She had been deliberately using a personal account instead of her official one to avoid discovery, and she even explicitly stated what she was doing and that she was also deleting sent messages in one email. Here's a summary of what's happen since then: Pretty much every step of the way, UIUC administration has screwed up. They show no signs of stopping. And apparently the board will capitulate to outside political pressure to void contracts and agreements at the drop of a hat. edit: this quote from Wise is pretty ironic: “Yesterday, in a decision apparently motivated more by politics than the interests of the University, the Board reneged on the promises in our negotiated agreement and initiated termination proceedings. This action was unprecedented, unwarranted, and completely contrary to the spirit of our negotiations last week.”

Editorial in the Tribune today wherein the writer said she was envious of New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina because the horrific damage, loss of life and general disruption gave room to bust up public unions and city hall. Never mind that 10 years later, much of the city is still only half-rebuilt and many residents have been permanently dislocated. This line is probably the worst part, though: