StrangeSox

http://prospect.org/article/scalias-weird-vra-spat

Oral arguments on the Voting Rights Act case were today. Scalia had some...interesting statements. Scalia uses initial opposition to the VRA as support that it isn't constitutional, and then argues that it's a bad thing that, once we give people enfranchisement, we tend not to repeal it later. Why can't we leave this to Congress just because it's overwhelming unpopular to oppose voting rights protections? Why does the fact that it used to be ok to be openly racist in Congress but now isn't make this a constitutional issue for the Court to decide? btw the areas that continue to have problems with voting racial discrimination are the areas covered by pre-clearance, so it's still a necessary and useful tool. http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/shelby-c...covered-states/ I'd be in favor of expanding it to the entire country, but that's not a political possibility.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2013 -> 09:09 AM) Undefeated until, almost literally, the last possible second. I still remember the loud, collective groan that went up in the dorms when that happened.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Feb 27, 2013 -> 08:45 AM) Turns out that one of the reprimanded officials from the Monday night ISU-KU game was also on a crew during an Iowa State - Kansas game in 2004 in which Iowa State was at the line shooting two free throws and Kansas rebounded the first free throw, went the length of the court and hit a three. The officials let the basket stand before ISU shot the second free throw. There's still some bitterness. hahaha how does that even happen? how do they keep their jobs after that?

The Supreme Court dismissed a case yesterday over the constitutionality of the FISA wiretapping. Because the program is secret, the respondents can't actually show that they have been harmed, so the Court, in an opinion written by Alito, dismissed the case due to lack of standing. So as long as the government does a good job of keeping the details of this program a secret, no one will ever have standing and the law can never be judicially challenged. http://prospect.org/article/secret-wiretap...ause-its-secret

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 26, 2013 -> 10:58 AM) Robert Bork, often held as a martyr in conservative circles, has a confession in his post-humous memoir that Richard Nixon offered him a spot on Supreme Court if he acted on Nixons demands on the Saturday Night Massacre. He did. Robert Bork was "Borked" by having his stated and written opinions recited back to him accurately.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412...2879185934.html Mr. Monti saved Italy by austerity! But wait, it didn't work, it made the economy worse, unemployment rise and didn't actually reduce their debt. There's no plausible model that says the economy was going to collapse even worse without the austerity. So that means they need more austerity!

Billionaires Secretly Funded Vast Climate Denial Network

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 03:11 PM) Senator Cruz, R-Bats*** Crazy, has a list of Commies who have infiltrated Harvard. As if he wasn't channeling McCarthy enough already. Cruz doubles-down on his Red-baiting: He's a strong early favorite for "Worst Senator of the 113th Congress"

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 23, 2012 -> 05:11 PM) Yep. There's also a lot that people don't know about that program... but don't let those facts get in the way of a massive "boondoggle"... I know, it's like shooting 3 foot bass in a 1 inch barrel for you. Massive boondoggle F-35 fleet is grounded http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_...rounded?src=rss Why can't we blow hundreds of billions of dollars on nice things likes bridges and schools instead of crappy war toys?

This is the same dumb path we're heading down with the sequester and the obsession with DEFICITS AND DEBT! http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2013/02/losin...nomic-strategy/ The Chancellor who argued that protecting our AAA rating was a central aim of his policy (it never should have been!) and has now turned around and argued that the downgrade proves he is right. This is absolutely staggering. This is like the Iraq war all over again--plainly stupid on its face, yet its all anyone can think to do and anyone opposed gets treated as Unserious (see the Sunday morning talkshows review above).

wanted to make a donation this morning but the website's down http://www.helpsavepets.org/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi

I got one in 2008 or 2009

Alex Pareene watches the awful Sunday morning talk shows so you don't have to.

One thing I've heard about the comparisons between US and European doctors: yeah, Euro doctors earn less, but they also don't come out of college with several hundred thousand dollars of debt. So that's a factor in our healthcare costs, too.

My Promise to Congressman Rohrabacher

Montana bill would give corporations the right to vote

Prioritizing control over velocity has to be a big part, no?

BTW, here's an example of when that mandatory language is deliberately misleading or, in the case of the breast cancer claim, outright false. The language is about as medically accurate and reasonable as your typical abstinence-only class is on contraceptives--not at all. Here's a big, long Guttmacher analysis of various states' "Informed Consent" laws, which notes where some are highly misleading: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/4/gpr100406.html e.g. four states simply make up psychological disorders as part of the effort to "inform" a woman:

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 03:33 PM) I put "murder" in quotes because I don't agree that conception=life, but I don't think it's viability outside of the womb either. There's a point where it begins and I haven't really made up my mind on that yet. I know that's you're stance, but you seem to be waffling here between "good, it restricts abortions! shoulda kept 'er legs closed!" and "but it's just information!," which is exactly what the politicians proposing these laws do. Just come out and be honest that the only purpose is to restrict abortions or to inflict suffering on the women who seek them and stop hiding behind flimsy medical justifications for it.

found it: http://www.texasobserver.org/we-have-no-ch...w-sonogram-law/ These waiting requirements, ultrasound laws and mandatory "information" requirements overrule a doctor's decision on what's best for an individual patient. They don't change anyone's minds because it's wrong and insulting to assume that women haven't thought this through in the first place. They only serve to increase the expense, trauma and humiliation of women seeking an abortion.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 03:20 PM) This is anectdotal, but I went to a predominately white middle to upper class high school and I knew several girls that had no idea what an abortion entailed other than no longer being pregnant. They had no idea about the sickness/pain afterwards or the emotional toll that a lot of women experience. And I'd venture a guess that a lot of women (and especially a lot of men) don't know the various developmental stages of pregnancy. Affluent white privileged folks like my wife and I were completely shocked that our kid had an audible and visible heartbeat at 6 or 7 weeks. That's the kind of education i'm talking about. That's information women SHOULD be given. Even if a good portion of them might already know that going in, some women don't. See, doctors should absolutely describe a procedure and potential side effects to patients. Nobody argues against that general concept. Where the problems come in is when the mandatory language is heavily anti-abortion, which it always is, and includes misleading or flat-out wrong information. Can't find the article now, but there was a story of a married woman who was going to have an abortion because the fetus was severely developing wrong and was not going to make it to term anyway. Yet, because of these "informed consent" laws, she was required to have a doctor give her an ultrasound, describe the developmental stages of the fetus and play an audible heartbeat. It was deeply traumatizing for a woman who wanted a child but was aborting for medical reasons. This is where we circle back around to the sexism again: these women just don't know what's best for them or what's going on and we need laws requiring medically unnecessary procedures and anti-abortion propaganda in the doctors' offices.

BTW research has found that waiting periods and invasive procedures don't actually change a womens' minds once they've gone to the clinic: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4411712.html It's behind a paywall, but it doesn't seem like the study addresses any "chilling effect" that might cause and how many women never even sought medical advice due to these regulations. Similar study found similar results with mandatory ultrasounds: http://americanindependent.com/210411/ongo...ortion-decision

The faults with your comparison don't lay with the efficacy of the policies you support or oppose. If you want to argue that abortion is murder and that you approve of any measure that makes getting an abortion more difficult, come out and say it. Don't try to hide behind plausible deniability, this is exactly what this bill and many others set out to do.

Senator Cruz, R-Bats*** Crazy, has a list of Commies who have infiltrated Harvard. As if he wasn't channeling McCarthy enough already.