finknottle

You underestimate the staying power of the Democratic party and those who benefit from racial politics.

They are conceptually exactly the same. The difference is that the discrimination against those who wear white after labor day - like that against those sporting bad toupee's - is not seen as a pervasive enough problem to galvanize the population. When prejudice against a class become systematic *and* the media plays it up, that's when the public recognizes it. On a more serious note, what is the difference between racial discrimination and height discrimination? Among males, there is a strong correlation between height and promotion and earnings, particularly in government and large corporations. One need look no further than the 25 presidential races of the last century, 1904-2000, in which the taller candidate pervailed at a rate of almost 4 to 1 (18-5-2). If you score the popular vote instead, it is almost 5:1 at 19-4-2! The taller candidate wins five times as often. There is little doubt that height discrimination for males is fairly broad and broadly accepted, in the workplace, in politics amd the public spotlight, and even in dating. So why isn't this phenomena investigated? Why does the federal government happily dissect race and sex in its work force and the impact on promotions, but can't be bothered to investigate grades-by-height? Simple - the public doesn't recognize it as a problem. One might argue that that dismissiveness, or 'blind spot', is itself the strongest argument that prejudice is at work. But, like wearing white after labor day, the public will not recognize it as discrimination untill the media tells them to.

Didn't you get the memo? Bush.

Here is my favorite MJ tribute: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/2...?eref=rss_world I'm picturing Tobias from 'Arrested Development' as the Warden.

Gotta love the NIH - $423,500 to figure out why men don't like condoms. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/19...ke-use-condoms/ But the best ones are mentioned in passing at the very end: Definately shovel ready!

I got the same picture (albeit softened) in the Washington Post.

The monetray value to the Chinese of grabbing an ELINT plane far exceeds the cost of a fighter, both technically and politically. I would be reluctant to say that they planned it - it would take a lot of hutzpah - but it's not impossible. It would easily be worth it if one were reasonably confident of the outcome. Yes shadowing always occurs. But the active harrassment took a definite upturn this spring, just as it did 8 years ago. It is to their advantage to nuture concerns in a new administrations mind about being too provocative to China. Doing it early over something modest like this ensures that a policy of constraint is accepted immediately and that the doubts will amplify later over things like military sales and gestures of support to Taiwan.

It should be quite clear. I would not want that to be the policy of my school board. I would want a policy of notifying the parents of any strip search. And I would vote my school board members accordingly. But I also believe that my school board has the legal right to set restrictions of what goes on on school premises beyond those in a public place. They have the option of banning concealed weapons, for example, something which is legal elsewhere in my state. Their policies should be determined by them - that's why they are there - with the primary check-and-balance on their decisions the response of the voters. Defining what is 'unreasonable' to my community should be determined by my community, not 9 individuals on a Supreme Court elsewhere. Just because I want a particular outcome for public schools - whether it be no strip-searches for Ibuprofan, mandatory school uniforms, or banning gang colors - doesn't mean that I want the Supreme Court to impose it. The school board should be empowered but answerable to the community.

Was it? Or was it about testing a new president's resolve four months into office? By coincidence, here's what has been happening three months into the Obama administration: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/09...ational-waters/ So what is going on in Chinese internal politics that they've decided to make a bogey-man out of Obama? Nothing, I'd say. They are just deciding whether they can push him around without any real response.

Interestingly enough, Greenpeace has come out in opposition to the bill. Their main objection is that this is a pivotal moment in history which calls for real leadership - and this bill doesn't provide it. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center...ses-waxman-mark

So it comes down to society's defination of 'unreasonable.' I would let the local communities define it, via action through their representative school board system, while you would let nine unelected individuals decide it for us.

In fairness to Obama, I don't think it's cap-and-trade that is supposed to create the jobs. It is putting solar panels manufactured in China on top of our buildings that is going to stimulate the economy and re-energize the American worker.

I believe in the importance in fighting global warming. That said, this bill (and the way the deliberations have been managed, producing a sweeping solution with no national consensus and no international matching) will likely damage our economy with no meaningfull gain. On the contrary, the politicians will check off their little global warming box, tut-tut the costs, and chop off at the knees any further discussion of what ought to be done. We are now taking an economic hit because of the bill, so the problem must be solved, right? All in all, more harm than good if the problem is as serious was proponents such as myself believe. A global problem requires a global solution.

It illustrates the stupidity of the school officials. But last time I checked, stupidity and incompetance were not unconstitutional.

When you say 'how far do you think it should go?', are you asking what I as a citizen would want my school board's policy to be, or are you asking what the limit is based on the Constitution? Likewise, are you suggesting that a parent must be present because the Constitution says so, or because that's the policy we would want to adopt? Pick one.

This presupposes that 'harrassment,' even if uniformly applied, is unconstitutional rather than merely unacceptable. That makes it a subjective determination by the courts. I would argue that fairly applied 'harrassment' should be constitutional, and that the extent allowed should be determined by community standards through the school board.

Not so. They have a right to control its running through an elected school board, but the board is not obligated in their policies beyond uniformly applying them. - Suppose a public school offers a bunch of sports you don't care about, but cancels your rythmic gymnastics team. Are you getting equal treatment? - Suppose a public school requires you to pass through a metal detector and daily suffer the indignity of a pat-down because of your nipple rings. Is that not harrassment? - Suppose a public school forbids you to wear your Death Junkie concert T-shirts. Is that not harrassment? - Suppose a public school institutes a school uniform policy. Is that not harrassment? - Suppose a public school teaches its classes in English instead of your native Tagalog, and insists that you take English as a foreign language. Is that fair? Don't like the public schools policy? Maybe you're not a fan of evolution or cheerleaders - so, as with a private enterprise, you are not obligated to attend. You can go to private school or home school. Or you can vote the board out.

IMO the issue is muddled by the difference between constitutionality and bad policy. I thought the school was rediculous, but am swayed by Thomas' objection. Can a school board have such a policy? I think yes. Should they? No. The remedy is for the voters to tell them to throw out the policy. If it is constitutionally permissable to have a building policy bypassing what would be a protection outside of the school - searching students, such as a pat-down or metal detectors - then I fail to see why the line of constitutionality falls short of a strip search. Alaska Darin has a point worth considering about who does these searches. But the logical consequence is a loss of 'local' policing in favor of the police. Like a strip-search, a monitored drug test is pretty intrusive. Should the Buffalo Bills - and indeed any employer who makes random drug testing a condition of employment for certain individuals - be only allowed to allow the local police to conduct the tests? And only on police terms with respect to probable cause? Good luck. What about employers who maintain the right to monitor your phone calls and/or computer at work? It seems to suggest that any employment clause that would otherwise be an enfringement of your normal rights could only be exercised at the convenience and willingness of government legal authorities.

Shumer is advancing a national work papers system: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

Why don't we just pass some regulations that make it illegal for people to make dumb financial decisions and be done with it?

I don't know about the guidelines... In my experience, they set the list prices absurdly high as a sort of opening bid. Then, following the review you describe, they provide charity to reduce the bill to the most they think the patient will pay rather than stiff the hospital or declare bankruptcy. So if you are genuinely poor, or an illegal immigrant likely to disappear, you generally pay nothing - it's not worth the effort trying to collect. The real victims are those who are uninsured but have the ability to pay. By way of example, I had an emergancy gall bladder removal. No advanced warning, no opportunity to shop around... Actual price of the proceedure and two-day stay? About $4,000, according to the medical tourism sites. List price as billed? ~$30,000. Amount I had to pay after the bargaining? ~$22,000. It was an outrage, but - having a house and savings for my retirement - I was a sitting duck. They figured, probably rightly, that any more than that and I would have declared bankruptcy out of spite. And what are they doing with the extra money? Using it to subsidize those they can't collect from. (Btw, if you ever find yourself in this position, treat it like buying a car. Negotiate with the hospital - they do the actual assessment of your ability to pay. Cite the discount they give you to the various specialists you also receive bills from for the proceedure, and they will generally follow suit.)

I don't know this for sure and please correct me, but I believe the key issue is not private v public, but rather whether or not there is an emergancy room (in some regulatory sense). If there is, you cannot turn anyone away, insured or not. If there isn't, and it is a private hospital, you can do anything you like - think clinic, or a practice. Tax status makes sense, but I hadn't heard that angle before.

Hospitals are obligated to provide emergency care to anyone, regardless of whether they can pay for it. Those costs are real - the money must come from somewhere. The way the hospitals recoup the money is by raising their rates to the insurance companies and to those who actually pay for service. In turn the insurance companies raise the premiums to you. In other words, the premiums you are paying now are not calculated to cover your expected needs, but rather your needs plus a portion of those who cannot pay. The big problem is the danger of it spiraling out of control. The more the uninsured use emergancy services, the higher the rates go for the insured. This causes some to drop insurance entirely and join the uninsured, driving rates up even higher. You have a smaller and smaller portion of the public subsidizing an ever-growing pool of uninsured, with predicatable results. So unless you want to see rates continue to rise, the key issue in health care reform is that you either mandate that everybody purchase some kind of coverage, or else you no longer require that hospitals treat anybody who shows up in the emergancy room.

I'm really railing against those who take positions on the subject while implicitely suggesting that it will preserve our artifically high standard of living. Trade barriers are counter-productive and will leave us behind - India has learned this lesson and is only now turning it around. If we want our people to make more than others for doing essentially the same thing, I can only think of two approaches. One is to game the trade system - that's the approach of the Chinese and the Europeans (albeit in different ways). Another is to stay ahead of the curve through innovation - that's the approach of the US. As long as Cisco is out-selling Huwai, the janitor at Cisco will make more for doing the exact same job as the janitor at Huwai. Our best strategy is to level the field by striving for free trade and knocking down barriars, and rely on our natural advantages to bring home a disporportionate share of the wealth: technology, innovation, and flexibility. We need to maintain our educational edge on the world (something which US academia actively undermines) and maintain an environment which encourages a dynamic startup business environment with an educated and fluid labor pool. If we want to stay ahead, we need to be a constant source of new companies, products and ideas which the rest of the world is always trying to catch up to.

I have news for you - you make 10 times as much even when you factor in the cost of living. Is it safe to assume that you have your own car? Very few Indians do, even the highly paid engineers. How big is your apartment? How often do you eat out? No matter how poor you are here, you are wealthier than your counterpart just about anywhere else. My point is not to underscore the sense of entitlement that is so common here. Rather, it is to focus on a simple question. Whether we were to erect trade barriers or have perfect free trade, why do people here think the productivity of a bricklayer in the US generates so much more wealth than a bricklayer elsewhere? He doesn't. A pile of bricks is a pile of bricks. His relative wealth is owed not to his efforts but to the trickle-down effect of those who are generating disporportionate wealth - ultimately through international trade. He gets paid higher wages not because of what he does, but because those who pay his wages have more money to pay. But he had better hope that that advantage doesn't dry up, as it has been slowly over the decades, or his standard of living will truely reflect what he contributes - that of a day laborer, indistinguishable from one in Bangladesh or Brazil or the Philipines. Trade barriers will only speed up the decline by reducing the source of wealth.