The General American Politics Thread

[Patticus]

Apparently, Monsanto actually authored that Monsanto Protection Act, and the man responsible for letting this happen was Missouri's Republican Senator Roy Blunt.

 

Is it not illegal for corporations to write their own laws and regulations? Is it not illegal for a public official to be so brazenly corrupt?

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Apparently, Monsanto actually authored that Monsanto Protection Act, and the man responsible for letting this happen was Missouri's Republican Senator Roy Blunt.

 

Is it not illegal for corporations to write their own laws and regulations? Is it not illegal for a public official to be so brazenly corrupt?

I recall seeing a documentary about how many of the people who pull this kind of crap are people who originally worked within the company themselves, so it's not only just corruption, it's also loyalty to a company that is corrupt to the core, and loyalty for their OWN personal interests.

Edited March 28, 2013 by 743-E.D. Missile

[Patticus]

I just saw this on Facebook:



Somebody get that man away from any and all Monsanto-related cases. This clear conflict of interest should disqualify him from ruling in any and all Monsanto-related cases.


Edit: It seems that many websites have spent the day debunking the entire 'Monsanto Protection Act':

 

The bill as signed did not provide immunity to Monsanto or any other company, it only brought US Code into compliance with the Supreme Courts ruling, while also speeding up the litigation process over unregulated food crops. As for the other half, the fight against genetically modified organisms, remind yourself, you yourself are a genetically modified organism, created when genes from one parent were spliced into the genes of the other. Don’t let your fear of the new and unknown blind you to the advantages found in these crops. Instead work on some common sense regulations, and work to bring labels to all farming methods, not just a singular one you are afraid of. That would be a breath of fresh air in this argument.

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/28/conservatives-laugh-as-liberals-attack-president-over-non-existent-monsanto-protection-act/

 

I feel a lot better about the whole situation now... but not about Justice Thomas. What a dick.

 

Any news on whether DOMA  and Prop. 8 will be overturned?

[Tani Coyote]

Apparently, Monsanto actually authored that Monsanto Protection Act, and the man responsible for letting this happen was Missouri's Republican Senator Roy Blunt.

 

Is it not illegal for corporations to write their own laws and regulations? Is it not illegal for a public official to be so brazenly corrupt?

 

I don't think it's illegal for private actors to write legislation and "suggest" it to legislators.

 

Unfortunately it's not currently classed under corruption. While we have all these regulations against lobbying, ultimately the fact money enters politics means there will be some sort of conflict. Elections should be federally-funded at the first opportunity, so we can finally make any and all donations to political campaigns illegal.

 

Somebody get that man away from any and all Monsanto-related cases. This clear conflict of interest should disqualify him from ruling in any and all Monsanto-related cases.

 

Technically allowed under the status quo.

 

I would however support an amendment that says Justices can't vote on such cases. As I recall the President and all federal officials have to relinquish control of a business they own for their term of office; logically we should expand this principle and make it so you can't give opinions on businesses or industries you've worked in. 

 

Any news on whether DOMA  and Prop. 8 will be overturned?

 

Not sure how true it is, but I guess the conservative talkshows have been posting some clips from within the hearing, at least based on the discussion my father and I were having.

 

Sounds like one of the Justices has been expressing concern that if they legalise gay marriage they're opening the door to legal incest.

 

Which... while a homosexual myself, I actually think is probably the best use of the slippery slope for gay marriage arguments I've ever heard. The "bestiality" or "pedophilia" arguments are just dumb and forget the key notion of consent, but this one is different.

 

If we say that two consenting adults should be able to get married regardless of how society feels on its morality or "ickyness," it flies in the face of logic if incestuous couples are denied that right. Barring traditionalism, we'd have no real leg to stand on in that case. We have consent, so the most one could reasonably argue is higher risk of deformities in the children, but by that logic homosexual incest should be fine, and people with serious inheritable disabilities shouldn't be able to reproduce.

 

Pretty muddy subject overall I think.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Patticus]

Alan Grayson delivers a petition with some 300,000 signatures to John Boehner's office, asking the Speaker to end the Sequester:

 

 

Boehner probably just threw the whole thing into the rubbish bin...

 

 

Anyway, equal marriage rights potentially resulting in falling down a slippery slope toward legalized incest seems to be a bit of a shitty argument to me. Incest can be LGBT or straight - why, then, are straight people allowed to marry, but not adult mothers and sons, fathers and daughters? Is hetero marriage not also at risk of granting these couples the legal ability to marry? Um, nope. It's the same situation with LGBT marriage rights. They do not in any way lead to legalized incest.

 

 

 

Oh Ryan, you so hypocritical.

[Tani Coyote]

Alan Grayson delivers a petition with some 300,000 signatures to John Boehner's office, asking the Speaker to end the Sequester:

 

 

Boehner probably just threw the whole thing into the rubbish bin...

 

In all likelihood. We don't have politicians like the President of Portugal, who didn't approve of gay marriage but signed the law because it was obvious what the People wanted.

 

Anyway, equal marriage rights potentially resulting in falling down a slippery slope toward legalized incest seems to be a bit of a shitty argument to me. Incest can be LGBT or straight - why, then, are straight people allowed to marry, but not adult mothers and sons, fathers and daughters? Is hetero marriage not also at risk of granting these couples the legal ability to marry? Um, nope. It's the same situation with LGBT marriage rights. They do not in any way lead to legalized incest.

 

Well the problem is heterosexual couples have a lot of tradition and morality in their favor. On the other hand, such things as homosexuality and incest do not.

 

Let us evaluate the common reasons incest is illegal:

 

"It's gross." The idea of two guys kissing is also repulsive to a lot of people, but we don't see that as valid to ban the practice anymore. Never mind we've established what people find distasteful shouldn't be the basis of our laws; this is why flag burning is legal.

 

"It's immoral." Gay unions are likewise seen as immoral. We cannot use this. Morality is ever shifting and can be highly relative barring topics such as murder, so it's not a good leg to stand on generally.

 

"It causes messed up kids." This is likewise invalid as there are plenty of diseases that are readily inheritable in the heterosexual population, yet we allow these individuals to reproduce as well.

 

If we run with the argument that any union of two consenting, loving adults should enjoy legal recognition, I see no reason we can only have one and not the other. What two people do in the privacy of my home is not and never will be my business. Never mind, if they truly, really love eachother in that manner, how can I oppose it with good conscience? I know what it's like to have a relationship people frown upon, no matter how much you love that other person, or that the emotions you feel are "unnatural" or "immoral."

 

This is why, even if I find personal issue with it, I find myself supportive of legal incest. Yes, I find it personally distasteful, but I can't use that as an argument because that would make me a hypocrite.

 

Oh Ryan, you so hypocritical.

 

Considering red states are net recipients of federal funds... I think we established the GOP is the biggest den of hypocrites there is by this point. Oh, they also talk of the power of a strong family unit but work as hard as they can to make it hard for gays to adopt. About the importance of democracy while actively trampling on its practice around the world. Or how America's a land of opportunity yet keep an obsolete immigration system in place to keep people from making the most use of that.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Patticus]

The idea/concern that one thing may as well lead to another is valid I suppose, and the idea that the government should keep out of everyone's bedrooms is one that we should all hold dear (even in cases of consenting adults engaged in incestuous relationships), and a precedent could be set for the future of possibly legalizing incest if one of the arguments swaying the Justices is 'government should stay out of the bedroom'... but the Justices are only contemplating marriage equality for the homosexual community, not everybody under the sun. Legal incest is not on the table, and no matter what alarmist concerns might be raised, it is in no danger of being on the table in the foreseeable future.

Even Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have been saying things which indicate that they believe marriage equality to be inevitable and not the cause of America's certain doom. It's going to happen, if not now then in the very near future.

[Tani Coyote]

Well, they may be contemplating marriage for homosexuals at the moment, but common law has it that we review past cases to decide future ones. As such, the way the final verdict is worded must be made very carefully. Otherwise it could be used to support a whole variety of things in the future, which is where the concern is coming from.

 

Of course, what's likely is that however they word this, a later court would in the case of incest overturn the past decision and replace it with a new one that would establish some key difference between the two. Thus preserving homosexual marriage but not allowing those of the incestuous variety.

 

As for Limbaugh and O'Reilly:

 

Social conservative causes are ultimately destined to get mowed over by change. Every latest right-wing cause thinks it's going to be different, but history has time and time again shown that conservative policies get demolished. Universal healthcare, religious tolerance, atheism, social security, labor regulations, and democracy itself were all unpopular at one point or another but those opposed were eventually defeated and most of these now are viewed as perfectly acceptable or ideal in most places today.

 

As such, Limbaugh and O'Reilly are just acknowledging they're fighting for the losing side. Part of me wonders if they even are actually conservative or just are acting for the profit of it all. Let's be honest, right-wing fearmongering is more entertaining than left-wing statistics and data, and it's no wonder conservative talkshows get such great ratings.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Tornado]

It's not even really a slippery slope argument so much as a logically equivalent one. It's not that the justices are saying that if marriage between homosexual couples is allowed it could be used too allow incest to be legal somewhere down the line. It's more that they seem to be implying that if they make it so marriage is allowed between same sex couples that they have to make it universal and not just apply to LBGT and heterosexual couples because the arguments for why it should be allowed for LBGT couples also apply equally to other "taboo" relationships; and it actually surprises me that it's taken so long for that issue to come up (rather than the much more typical "next they'll be marrying sheep" comparisons). As such, the verdict could have implications far wider reaching than probably intended by either side of the debate, so the justices also have to take that into consideration.

 

 

If nothing else, I am quite glad that that is the issue they are currently stuck on, though; because at least that is something worthy of pause.

[Tani Coyote]

It does make sense when thinking of cases such as these why it can take so long for the Courts to finally reach a decision. Unlike the other politicians, they don't really have to worry about leaving their term of office, so can actually spend time considering the long-term results of any decision they make (contrast to the elected politicians who are solely interested in winning the next election). The common law system forms a huge basis of the day to day operation in this country; what the Supreme Court says can easily be used for decades or centuries to come. So logically they do have to sit down and actually think how to word any pro-gay verdict so as to prevent incest from likewise being illegal, since as I mentioned above, any reason you can think of to ban incest can just as easily be applied to the ban on gay marriage or straight reproductive rights.

 

As it stands, incest is easily banned simply because our law system is founded on a strong tradition that says it is wrong; that same tradition says gay marriage is wrong. However, if we overturn that tradition and replace it with any sort of ideology that consenting adults have the right to marry, we are opening the gates to other, less politically acceptable unions, such as incest and polygamy. We've established that the bestiality and pedophilia arguments are just ridiculous since they don't have consent in them, but incest and polygamy most certainly do.

 

That's not to say anything of the difficulty in even reaching a pro-gay verdict in the first place. The politically savvy conservative parts of the bench are most likely going to instead try to find some way to keep this issue at the state level, if only because they'll understand that as the years go by it won't be long before another gay rights case finds its way to the Court.

[Autosaver]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/fast-food-strikes-new-york-city_n_3009780.html

 

The organizers behind Fast Food Forward are explicitly calling for an industry wage of $15 an hour in New York City -- double what many workers currently make -- as well as the unionization of fast food restaurants. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which has more than 2 million members, has been involved in the campaign.

"While I'm making $7.25, my money can't take me anywhere. The price of living is going up it seems every day," Warner, a Bronx resident, said in an interview Wednesday. "I appreciate the opportunity to work. But I want them to consider how much I make and ask [themselves] if they could live off of it."

Didn't Obama advocate raising minimum wage to $10?

 

Honestly, are we going to continually pay ridiculously low wages? Why are huge profit businesses like McDonalds paying their employees around $7? People can't live off that. Sure it might have been reasonable back in 2004 but this 2013. I'm not saying raise it to $15, but Obama's number does sound more reasonable.

[Candescence]

They should raise it to $16. That's the minimum wage Australians have.

[Patticus]

Why are huge profit businesses like McDonalds paying their employees around $7?

 

Because there are no laws forcing pay up to livable standards (even though CEO pay has risen dramatically in the last 30 years), and they probably get quite a lot of money from the government if they, like Walmart, actively help their employees seeking government assistance (i.e. food stamps).

[Tornado]

Honestly, are we going to continually pay ridiculously low wages? Why are huge profit businesses like McDonalds paying their employees around $7? People can't live off that.

 

A single shitty part time job with less than 20 hours a week (and that's an important distinction that the article purposely glossed over) is never going to be something people can live off of because, to be perfectly blunt, no one cares what people who work at McDonald's or Burger King or Taco Bell make. It's the lowest of the low in terms of skills required and expectations; and even customer interaction is practically nonexistent for many positions. People who work at Wal-Mart or something like that, sure. There's something you can get behind when it comes to trying to increase pay because of what those people put up with and how much work and training is required to be done. But no one is really going to look out for the plight of the person working a McJob. Plus, most McDonald's (and fast food places in general) are franchise-leased locally-owned small businesses rather than direct pieces of huge corporations; so McDonalds as a corporate entity (including whatever their CEO makes) really has nothing to do with it anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

And even ignoring all of that, the idea of fast food workers unionizing is still too funny for words, honestly.

[Tani Coyote]

A much better idea is a guaranteed minimum income, which not only achieves the goal of minimum wages (living standards) but also protects the millions of people who don't and can't have a job due to market cycles. Why have one system that protects the employed and one the unemployed, if we can just combine them into one? Bureaucracy is always something you should try and slash.

 

Minimum wages and unions sound good on paper but ultimately they cause market distortions that harm the efficiency of it all. Let us re-evaluate what wages are exactly. They're not meant to make a living off of; they're meant to compensate you for your labor, and only are supposed to be as high as said labor is worth to the employer. This is why we end up with obscenely low wages; if your work is worth a penny, you shouldn't be paid a dollar. If you are easily replaced, there's no reason to pay you as if you could die and the company would tank. This great deal of unskilled labor is also why the state seriously needs to up spending for education.

 

The best argument for higher minimum wages is the fact it creates a stable consumption base; one of the reasons the Depression was so horrible was one-quarter of the nation's people were farmers, and they were paid immensely poor wages due to a glut of goods on the market (hence why we pay them to leave land bare today for price control). We try to find a way out of this recession yet GOP politicians are talking of leaving one out of every ten laborers without the ability to consume goods? That's ludicrous.

 

We need to stop viewing finance and economics in terms of what's fair and instead in terms of what will work out best. Everyone being able to buy goods is what will achieve this, not some arbitrary value of "everyone must make their own money" that flies in the face of economic reality.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Patticus]

So, how's that re-branding exercise coming along, Republicans?


Wow. Quite how they managed to get 'pro life' out of the insertion of machines designed to kill things into wombs as a means to prevent killing things, I'll never know. Seems like an Xzibit meme picture waiting to happen.

[Your Vest Friend]

If foetuses had guns, abortion wouldn't even require outside assistance. 

[Tornado]

I'm... honestly kind of confused what that is supposed to be implying. I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he's not equating abortion to self defense laws (or... whatever), but... that's what I keep coming back to him trying to say.

[Your Vest Friend]

I think the meaning is supposed to be that women only abort because they think their foetus is harmless and worthless, and wouldn't think that if a foetus was armed and able to shoot them. 

 

 

Which is fucked up but whatever. 

[Patticus]

He (or rather more likely, his senior staff) seems to be attempting to lump two highly contentious issues into one easily read soundbite message, which tries to argue against abortion and new firearms legislation.

 

In the end though, all he seems to do is imply this:

 

 

In any case, he's doing his party no favors whatever.

 

 

I saw at the weekend that quite a few Republicans (including McConnell and Rubio) don't even want a debate on gun legislation. Enough time has passed since the Sandy Hook tragedy that they feel entirely comfortable in openly trying to deny the victims' families (and anyone else interested in doing something rather than nothing about gun crime) even so much as a discussion of the issue. It really does hark back to the antebellum era of American politics, when an unwritten rule among politicians of that long day decreed that slavery was absolutely not to be discussed openly in the House or the Senate.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

http://act.demandprogress.org/cms/thanks/CISPA_IBM?action_id=8518797&akid=2124.745446.WKQKRT&ar=1&form_name=act&rd=1&taf=1

 

CISPA. STOP IT. NOW.

[Johnny Boy]

http://act.demandprogress.org/cms/thanks/CISPA_IBM?action_id=8518797&akid=2124.745446.WKQKRT&ar=1&form_name=act&rd=1&taf=1

CISPA. STOP IT. NOW.

The bill will be dead within the next week. Calling it now.

[Patticus]

Somebody doesn't like Mississippi's Republican senator...
 

'Ricin' found in letter to US Senator Roger Wicker

A letter containing ricin or another poisonous substance has been posted to a US senator, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said.
 
The letter was intended for Roger Wicker, a Republican senator representing Mississippi, Mr Reid told the Associated Press news agency.
 
It was intercepted at a centre handling post for the Capitol in Washington DC, US media report.
 
Ricin, extracted from castor beans, is 1,000 times more toxic than cyanide.
 
It can be fatal when inhaled, swallowed or injected, although it is possible to recover from exposure.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22178517

What could the motive be? Who would send that to him? What has he done to earn somebody's clearly planned ire?

[-Robin-]

The return address on the letter, according to Senator McCaskill, traced back to an address that had sent multiple (non-laced) letters to the Capitol beforehand. And according to Senator Landrieu, the person the address traces back to is now in custody.

For this one letter out of many from this source to contain ricin, may suggest that this particular letter was tampered with in the delivery process.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

 

The US Senate just rejected a basic background check law for gun sales despite the fact that 90% of Americans support it. Even 74% of NRA members support it!¹

 

Represent.Us has no official position on gun rights/gun control, but you're damn right we have a position on whether America's Congress follows the will of the American people. And they don't. Our leaders are FAILING US, and by letting it happen, by letting them continue to steal our country, we're failing America.

 

It's time to WAKE UP. Stop writing emails to Congress. Stop yelling at your computer screen. Stop feeling hopeless. 

 

Instead, face this simple fact: The insanity in Washington won't end until we cut the corruption and cut the cord between Congress and the Fat Cat lobbyists who run our country. 

 

Let's commit ourselves to this fight. Let's commit to creating a government of, by, and for us, the American people. The Represent.Us plan will work — if we all go the extra mile to make it work.

 

Tonight I'm asking you to do one simple thing: Forward this email to ten people who have not joined the fight to get money out. Tell them we must all work together on this issue, or no other issue can prevail. Tell them to become a "Citizen Co-sponsor" of the American Anti-Corruption Act by visiting this link: 

 

www.represent.us/cosponsor/

 

Together we will take our country back. 

 

Josh Silver, Director

Represent.Us

 

Edited April 18, 2013 by 743-E.D. Missile