Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi on birth-control funding as part of the $825 billion stimulus package: "Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
Translation: The more babies we abort, the less money big gov't has to spend on feeding, educating and giving health care when they grow up. Babies are a not an asset to society they are liability that must be aborted to levels that fit within gov't budgets!
This statement is so grotesque that even Obama thought it expedient to remove this abortion provision from the stimulus bill. Welcome to change, my friends, welcome to change. It's only the beginning.
Education does not equal abortion, and it is really disingenuous of you to imply that it does. Considering that Nancy Pelosi was talking specifically about contraception (which, incidentally, does not mean abortion, either), then your comment is even more -- well, silly.
Contraception includes abortion--this funding was not merely for "education about family planning." The services provided by "Planned Parenthood" organizations are not exclusively limited to education--at least not in the United States. The President wisely removed this provision from the stimulus bill and was no doubt troubled by the bad PR such a provision would bring---besides the fact that such a provision would hardly create jobs which is, supposedly, the whole raison d'etre of the bill. If anything more children would create more jobs in education, health care, childcare and--better yet--more future consumers for those evil Capitalist scum!
Well done Nancy Pelosi...
Ma'am I think you better stick to writing poetry about Socialist Utopias and leave serious matters to the big boys.
I agree it's the effort of a partisan gasbag like Rush to exploit Pelosi's comments about contraception and education in order to reignite the Right's only trigger issue these days, abortion.
If you care to actually get educated about how "red" (evangelical, mostly) and "blue" attitudes towards sex, contraception, and the like translate into teenage pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease, check out this great New Yorker article.
But NickNY doesn't want to be educated. He just wants to be controversial and spark angry debate.
If educated means accepting your perspective and propaganda, you are quite right! I don't want to be "educated". I want to know what works and makes sense...if I respond by quoting Marx in dactylic hexameter, will you grant me an honorary degree?
I don't think Marx is quite suited to dactylic hexameter, which is suitable for epic verse. Maybe iambic pentameter, the voice of the people?
The New Yorker article isn't an opinion piece - it distills the results of a study. You can see "what works and makes sense" if you're brave enough to have your assumptions challenged.
EVERY piece whether it broadcasts it status as being an opinion or not, makes assumptions and has biases. For every article that asserts one proposition, three articles can be found stating the opposite proposition just as convincingly; and if they can't be found, they can easily be written. The virtue of someone like Rush Limbaugh is that he doesn't hide his biases and opinions--he declares his biases proudly every, uh... few seconds. The most insidious thing about periodicals like the New York Times and the New Yorker, is NOT their perspective. Rather, it's their facade of being "objective" and "professional" that disguises a palpable political slant. ALL PEICES ARE OPINION PEICES. Even "science" is often an opinion peice after handpicking suitable statistics and "accidentally" neglecting evidence that doesn't support predetermined (and often politically determined) conclusions.
Fine. Read it then, since you happily lap up biased material. Again, unless you're afraid of having your assumptions challenged.
Unlike you, I am mindful of potential biases in all the material I happily lap up.
And is the New Yorker a "red" or "blue" periodical?
Let's be real here. People having babies they are unable to care for themselves -- whether they do not have the financial means or the emotional means (are addicted to drugs, for example) creates a strain and drain on the government. And that burden ripples out from county programs to state programs to federal programs to pick up the slack.
Teaching people about responsible birth control -- which starts with PLANNING your pregnancy and does NOT automatically equate with abortion (in fact, the better the planning the fewer the abortions needed).
NickNY, how many children do you have, by the way?
I really do not know how ANYONE can defend the position that to help the economy, people should have less babies. This is a sick position to take, and Nancy Pilosi is a moron for suggesting it.
sounds to me she favors "contreceptives" be it condoms, birth control pill...etc...she didn't say anything about abortion.
"Family planning" doesn't mean having fewer babies necessarily, it means having children when you're equipped to have them (i.e. not a teenager).
No matter your view on the subject, it's hard to excuse this expenditure as "stimulus" to the economy. In fact, this entire "stimulus" bill is not stimulus at all, but is merely a regular budget bill, and a gigantic one at that.
If the bill really focused on government expenditures intended to give the economy a quick shot in the arm, there would be far less argument about it. Government has, despite my objection, been funding contraception and abortion education for decades, but I don't take note of it every time a budget bill arises. I take note now because it's being sold as economic stimulus, which it is not. The Dems won the election fair and square and it is their prerogative to spend according to their agenda, but why not keep controversial non-stimulus spending out of the stimulus bill? Move this line item to a regular omnibus spending bill where it belongs.
For the record, I have two kids plus one due in June. However, you don't need to be a veteran to comment on war; you don't need to be a doctor to comment on national health, and you don't need to be a parent to comment on contraception.
Besides, we need those babies to prop up the Social Security program when I retire!
Oh good grief. Here we are in this mess of a country where lots and lots of people are out of work and/or don't have health insurance and this modest proposal to help states with low cost or subsidized contraception brings on the predictable tsunami of right wing horse crap anyway.
You know, Margaret Sanger risked life and limb to win the mere right to birth control information for women. It used to be against the law to even provide a woman with info on how to prevent pregnancy, never mind the actual birth control itself. At this rate we'll be right back there in no time.
The last thing a family suffering job loss and the threat of foreclosure needs is to worry about unplanned pregnancy. Birth control is not free. Kids are not free either. It's not like this very modest measure was about forcing the women of America to quit reproducing. It's not like Obama or Pelosi were going to go door to door and look for uteri to yank gestating fetuses out of. It was just to keep the birth control AVAILABLE during hardship times.
You guys out there who don't want to take the pill or have abortions--don't. Nobody's forcing contraceptives down your throats. What really frosts me is that the same people raising a big stink about providing money for contraception for poor people are the ones who scream the loudest when poor women have babies they can't afford.
Margaret Sanger also favored Eugenics...a Nazi speciality.
That is EXACTLY my point. I wasn't arguing 'pro/con birth control' or 'pro/con contraceptives' - I was arguing pro/con Eugenics.
This is precisely where this position leads, and people like Nancy Pilosi that think this way are a few steps away from 'thinning out the population' through other means. That is what is so objectionable.
If you take the position that abortion is OK, or birth control is OK, fine. You have to live with the decision to kill your baby or not conceive in the first place - but you aren't the U.S. Government trying to force it done other peoples' throats through policy/law/taxes and the bully pulpit.
And a little food for thought (Atheists won't approve of the following):
"Be fruitful and multiply" was the first commandment G-D gave Mankind. Also, a baby is born 'with its bread in its mouth' as it says. G-D provides, not the Government.
Like it? What's not to like? It doesn't take an almighty, invisible being to work out that at some point there must be a limit to how much you can "be fruitful and multiply," before you run out of space.
The man that wrote those words was a little shortsighted.
And this is of course the problem - when you have short-sighted morons saying that they speak for god. No wonder so many have been killed, maimed and tortured in his name.
Or is that a way of allowing "true christians" to take over the world?
"Hypocritical liars," is the term that comes to mind every time I see a statement like the one you just made.
God says abortion should be illegal
And he spoke to you
Seriously - try the irrational beliefs forum. One down in case your god forgot to tell you how to read. This is the lying politicians forum.
The Torah wasn't written by a man, and G-D is NOT short-sighted. He isn't limited by space, and here we are in 2009 and the world is still here. I'll bet you it will continue to be here as long as He wants it to be, despite any growth in the population (or because of it).
G-D speaks for himself - he wrote the Torah, not man. He doesn't need my help to speak for him. How many have been maimed, killed and tortured by Atheists, Communists, and Agnostics? What, you've cornered the market on morality?
I don't recall my calling you names, either. So I'm not sure why you think I'm a moron and you're intellectually superior.
Sorry, I'm an Orthodox Jew, and don't agree with almost all of what Christianity has to say, or what it has done over the ages in the name of it's religion.
I never said G-D spoke to me. I'm glad I made you laugh, though. You can believe whatever you want, but it isn't up to Man to decide what is murder and what isn't. Hitler comes to mind.
And I didn't realize you were in charge of the Forums here at Hubpages.
Yes, the Torah was written by a man.
There is no G-D. You have proven it here by saying that the earth has unlimited space. What doe us being here in 2009 have to do with anything? Clearly we have not reached the limit yet, but if you think there is no limit - feel free to explain that.
I will be here as long as I am and no G-D has anything to do with it. You are the one who bought an invisible super being into the discussion.
G-D does not speak for himself. Others speak for him. A man wrote your book.
I said people who speak for god are morons. Are you now saying that you speak for this invisible super being?
Christians, Jews, Muslims - all the same to me. I stick with it - Hypocritical liars. Sorry. Nothing personal.
Hmmmm. I am all confused. Do you speak for G-D or not? I decide everything in my life - as should you. Take some responsibility for yourself.
Yes - had a good laugh - thank you.
I am as entitled to an opinion as anyone. You want to believe in an invisble super being that can change the laws of physics to suit - be my guest. Just don't be surprised that thinking people find it funny.
The difference between me and you is that when you die and go before G-d for judgement, you are going to feel awfully silly.
Ignorance is bliss.
I didn't say the earth has unlimited space, therefore I don't have to explain words you put in my mouth. Now who can't read?
I said G-d isn't limited.
I don't think God is limited but I don't see God making any more room.
No, what you said was you will wager (a sin) that G-D will change the laws of physics to suit. Or rather that the earth will somehow magically cope with any amount of population:
So the earth does not have unlimited space? Which means it is limited? Yet we should continue to "go forth and multiply"? And it will be all right? Because G-d will do what exactly?
You are right - ignorance is bliss. Denial would be a better word.
What do you think is going to happen? We are going to run out of room and natural resources? When?
If so, you would do what exactly? Start killing people off to thin the population?
The experts have been predicting the end of the world for a while now, yet here we are. Al Gore himself has been predicting Global Warming would destroy the world. He gave the world another 10 years like 20 years ago, and he's still blowing that horn. He keeps revising his deadline.
If you want to believe the world is going to end due to asteroid collision, bird flu, global warming, population growth, ice age, or nukes, go right ahead.
I'm not that cynical.
Of course, since you have all the answers, I'm sure whatever your opinion is must be the correct one.
How silly are you going to feel when you discover it is all a crock? Oh, that's right you will be dead and not know. What a waste of your one and only life. Oh well.........
Waste of a life? So eating, drinking and having a merry time is all life is about to you?
I think you two should continue your arguement on a new thread in the religion catagory and title it, "contined discussion from political forum."
Well, I would add making friends, fighting injustice, sharing fun, knowledge and wisdom, enjoying the world's wondrous abundance and caring for those that need it, but - Yes, that is about it.
Working to get a better afterlife by being a C*** in this one - not interested thanks.
Tell that to the millions of children all over the world who will go to bed starving tonight.
They're not forcing us to use contraception, but they're forcing us to pay for it despite our moral objections to it. You want the poor to have free contrception? Write a check to a charity that does that and leave my wallet alone.
That is exactly why Obama rejected it as part of tarp spending and is rejecting it as a political issue. period.
Many of us would say the same thing about the much, much, much more expensive Iraq War. But we live in a representative democracy, so...
I already covered why that is an Apples to Oranges comparison, but perhaps you're right; I don't doubt for a minute that you said during the war, "We live in a representative democracy, so I guess I'll just accept an expenditure that I oppose and remain silent until my party is in power." I am not so reasonable.
Really, my objection to this expenditure is that it is being sold as "stimulus" which it is not. Put this in a regular spending bill so we can have a stimulus package that America can take seriously.
As with so many debates started by Americans on this board, this one leaves me bemused.
Under the NHS, unlike other drugs, contraceptive prescriptions are free, as are contraceptives. Condoms, the pill, coils, implants, they are all provided by the NHS.
The logic is that if women are put off by costs, they certainly aren't in a position to bring up a baby. And society's interests aren't served by unwanted, uncared for children.
Just to be focused, the origin of this dicussion is the inclusion of provisions in a bill intended to INCREASE EMPLOYMENT. These provisions under discussion were intended to support "contraception" on the grounds that children a liability to the state. The House Speaker wants to "reduce costs" by aborting away excess population. Not only is this irrelevant to increasing employment and stimulating the economic, it is grotesque and a thinly veiled preview of the kind of society these individuals want to impose on the American People.
Well you know what, tell the governenment that I will take every single unwanted, unplanned, unhealthy, abused or otherwise helpless, forgotten baby out there and all they have to do is help me financially to take care of them all.
If the government would agree and allow people like to to do this and help support them, then end of arguement. No need for abortion or contrecptives but it don't work like that because politians like you would say, "why should I have to pay for other people to take care of those unwanted babies?"
Government also makes it pretty hard for "poorer" but loving people to foster children, and these include things like...a home big enough, a wage large enough, time enough, do you smoke, have you had an abortion...
You are saying that a baby is better off being alive, starving, unloved and forgotten then to just not concieve. I think that is not just.
Making contraception available during times of high unemployment makes perfect economic sense. It has nothing to do with imposing anybody's values on the American people. It has to do with making birth control possible at low cost or no cost when families do not have access to money or health insurance. A baby costs more for the state to raise to maturity than a couple months worth of birth control pills will ever cost. People who don't want the pill can pass and just keep on having lots and lots of babies--nobody is forcing anything on them. You need a license to get a dog, but in America you can have baby after baby after baby even if you have no job, no future, and no common sense. This will not change. But people who don't want that to happen would have had better access if the clause had been left in.
But I think you know this. I think you just like to stir the pot.
You've got the right of it.
Nick is simply a troll who gets off on finding the ways to respond to people that allow the most passionate and vehement responses and then being a troll back at them.
If we ignored his posts, maybe he'd eventually go away. But then, by commenting here I'm breaking my "Nick isn't worth my time" rule, and am going to go back to work now before he swoops in to quote the book 1984 at me more.
Not just at times of high employment, though, I reckon. It doesn't cost much, and prevents an awful lot of human misery (both adults and babies) to avoid unwanted children all over the place.
In New York City, there is an organization called "Planned Parenthood" that specializes in providing abortions are demand.
In California there is an organization called Planned Parenthood that does everything they can to talk you away from abortions first and they do not provide abortions on demand.
Why are trying so hard to spread lies? You ever been to a planned parenthood?
Wouldn't it be great if there was a check off box on our tax forms like there is when you contribute to United Way or your college where you can specify which programs you want your money to go to or you can specify "general fund"? That way those of us who have moral objections to killing innocent people -- for example, Iraqi children -- would not have our taxes used to fund ignoble wars. Same principle, dontcha think?
I opted to just stop paying them altogether.
That's a fine idea as long as we include boxes not to have our tax money used for dismembering children in the womb, or funding ineffective welfare programs, or public schools (which are ineffective without qualification), or "neighborhood stablization programs" aka ACORN.
The Constitution specifically enumerates government's ability to fund and conduct war. It is not an action than can be accomplished by private enterprise or charity. Birth control for the poor can be accomplished without government subsidy. Apples to Oranges.
I think we all agree this is desperate times. And desperate times call for creative measures. Any and all proposals that help Americans should be brought forth and examined. Some will be good ideas. Some will be tabled. I agree, there is no direct correlation between funding birth control and economic STIMULUS. However, it is one way the government can help Americans during this extremely stressful time. If you've lost your home and your job and have no financial reserves, what's left? Sex! It's free. However, without birth control (which does cost money) it can lead to unintended consequences that will end up worsening your stress.
I look at it sort of like this, only (obviously) in reverse: If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.
No, it's not the same as giving someone a paying job or food stampes. But... access to free or affordable contraception has long-term benefits which have been brought out in comments above much better than I could put them.
Abstinence is free. Contraceptives from the government costs money, but since the government doesn't HAVE ANY, they take it from me and you. Which means your costs go up.
So, this amounts to ME paying for YOU to have care-free sex.
You obviously aren't paying for anyone to have care-free sex. You would be more popular if you did.
Not really. More like you paying to avoid a hell of a lot of misery and degredation.
I don't think it matters at the moment, Obama already rejected the bill. Intending for funding to go to places like Medicade or medicare and leaving the funding for contreceptives and planned parenthood facilites up to their descrition or charity I guess.
I like you Mighty Mom and I'm going to give you a serious response. I'm not at all against contraception--I make regular use of it myself! However, I think you're giving the proponents of this bill to much the benefit of the doubt. Contraception is not all that expensive and it is already given out FOR FREE in many locales. This includes most college campuses and even NYC. If you want want free condoms, good old Mayor Bloomberg gives them to you on a silver platter in whatever color and flavor you may fancy. The contraception proposal, which--mind you--Obama actually removed, is about giving a certain constituency public money and that constituency isn't Joe-Blow looking to get laid tonight. There are organizations that the Democrats want to funnel public monies which have an political perspective and agenda that I DO NOT support and that many other Americans (if they were aware of their true nature and objectives) would not support as well. I find this all the more objectionable in light of the fact that this bill purports to "create or save" jobs. The single best way to create jobs, is to LOWER everyone's taxes including business and free up money so that people can spend it on goods and services of their choosing, be it condoms, laps dances, factories or big screen TV's--it should not be redistributed to political favorites. I might be able to forgive money spent on a bridge or highway or a new public school (even though that is effectively channeling money to unions), but money for contraception! because "it reduces costs to the state"--that is grotesque. More children not only stimulate the economy, but I think you, "Mighty Mom", would agree children have a non-pecuniary value. I'd rather see money spent helping children and mothers, then go to organizations that have an agenda more far-reaching than mere birth control. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not so naive as to think this is only about buying condoms--it's about something larger and more insidious, and it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots.
I'm almost afraid to look at what comes next these days.
This thing about Nancy Pelosi--who cares? Last time I checked, politicians were politicians. It's clear you picked up this non-issue stupidity, indeed, from someone like Rush Limbaugh, NIck. How I read this, and Obama's staff was indeed right--is that it is something of a public relations disaster. People make funny stupid gaffes all the time, every day and in every organization. Obama was correct in the way he dealt with it.
And of course the democrats want to funnel money into consituencies they support, uh duh? And policies they support, etc., etc. We are now under a democratic administration! I'm sure you heard.
Things are never cut and dried or black in white in any human endeavor, I might add. You are just trying your hardest because you must need to for some reason, Nick, to make it thus. Now you want to talk of a disaster of a bill, how about No Child Left Behind? Just bloody stupid in the way it was written. (One asks was that done purposely to encourage privatization, or were Bushites really that stupid?--tough call.)
As far as every piece of writing holding biases, etc. What decade are you living in again? How old are you really? Isn't this given thought by now, with the development of blog writing--or even go back to new journalism and the age of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. Of course there are intelligent voices and then there are truly bellicose, stupid ones. This reminds me of the study that was actually done on the wiring of progressive vs. conservative brains. From this study, it was ascertained that there was a more visceral, direct electrical impulse in the brains of conservatives. (Out, out, brief candle, hehe.) In progressives, there was a more diffuse and long brain wave pattern involving more of the frontal lobes, the seat of reason.
Anyway, Limbaugh absolutely falls into the stupid loud mouth category of voice. Intelligent people and Op Ed writers of all persuasions disdain him--including George Will, Andrew Sullivan, and William F. Buckley, Jr. (Maybe I will soon change my mind about your even having a brittle-type of intelligence.)
And WTF are you now beating up on Teresa? Dislike women who have achieved more than you and that's just it, I think... DO NOT say this is a personal attack. Telling someone they are not keen enough to 'play with the big boys' in that context, when they have done far more than you--be fighting words.
Abortion, finally, will rapidly become a non-issue as more advanced emergency birth control such as Plan B, etc. is made more available. That is why the abortion debate is such an ultimately stupid argument for high school juniors and those who have a reason to stir up 'partisan' politics (if that is what this can truly be classed as, because it is pretty low-level Rush Limbaugh stuff). And I really think you need to do some serious reading about population density at this point in time and the problems associated with it--to save yourself from sounding like (and pardon my class-oriented French) a true redneck idiot--in my humble opinion, of course.
It would be a matter of great concern if Obama were more concerned about PR than actually substance. But, true, this appears to be a running theme with liberals like yourself.
This is not a "duh" issue to be cavalier about. This is about GENUINELY wanting to help the American people get jobs and recovery from this economic slow. I love my people and I want EVERYONE to prosper. Republicans and conservative would be foolish not to fight tooth and nail against this program. Even if the Republicans don't have enough votes to prevail, they should STILL VOTE AGAINST it so that when it implodes in the democrats' faces, as it surely will, the Republicans can say "I told you so." I am disturbed by your unapologetic partisanship, especially when your hero so often speaks about his desire to be "non-partisanship". "Non-Partisan" only applies to situations where Republicans cave on Democrat demands apparently. This bill is NOT about helping the American people; it's about helping VERY NARROW constituencies of the democrat party and the American people will unfortunately suffer.
This is foolishness and not worthy of a response.
I have absolutely no doubt that these individuals disdain him. That says more about them than it does about Rush. I EMPHATICALLY support Rush Limbaugh--he is the bulwark of the conservative movement and contributes mightily to creating TRUE political dialogue in this nation. One has ever right to disagree with him, but surely if he were so stupid and ineffective, he would not hold the attention of MILLIONS of devoted listens for so long. Indeed, he even holds the attention of your Messiah who recently mentioned him by name. Just as I'm demonized for my political views by you, so he is demonized for his conservative views by the liberal infested, mainstream media. He speaks TRUTH to hypocrisy and that's why he is SO INFURIATING to people like yourself who are only able to respond with venomous ad hominem attacks on his credibility--never on his substance. It's a lot easier to dismiss someone than to ACTUALLY ENGAGE THEM INTELLECTUALLY--this is becoming ever so clear to me.
I play rough with people who challenge me. I have nothing person against her. I respect her intelligence and her alternative perspective.
You are a foolish woman. The Western World has a problem with population DECREASE. That is, in fact, one of the main arguments AGAINST socialism where an aging population becomes unsustainable without sufficiently large population and tax base to support them. The population density problem is NOT a North American or European problem. It's an Asian problem, and so you can kindly take your abortionist propaganda to them. If endorsing conservatism earns me the label of "red-neck", I PROUDLY and DEFIANTLY ACCEPT THE LABEL.
UH... Suppose that Redneck is 'refreshing' in NYC? Here it usually mean meth mouth and kinda a low intelligence factor.
And you are SO weird. Latin, Aristotle, the Hamptons and RUSH Limbaugh. Very very confused. Or is this your PR ploy to appeal to the common masses out there?
On this one, truly--though you garnered a smidgen of respect for at least being studied on some issues--you do start to lose any interest for me whatsoever. He simply is not serious, except that he incites the masses of fools out there who need an identity and something to be angry about. There is nothing good I can say about him. There is no substance there, unless you enjoy 'engaging' or listening to people at the emotional and intellectual maturity level of a 12 or 13 year old. I don't.
You are skirting on eugenics with this 'white persons' must breed for lack of a better term, 'argument.'
And to address public relations--I work in public relations. Every organization and administration has the need to form the right message at some point or another. This isn't so simple and stupid as you would put it. Just more proof you don't know how things work--or don't want to on this issue, as YOU see it as partisan.
Obama I feel is deadly as a politician (my own feelings and to quote Sullivan--who you, if you want to be taken seriously in I would even imagine the conservative smoking corners of NYC, you should from a PR perspective, lol, read). I reiterate, he made the right decision on this PR matter, and I respect it.
The material about journalistic writing and blogs and current theory I see you know nothing about.
I see you don't know that much about the implications of No Child Left Behind, or don't want to talk about it, anyway (which is OK).
I do not want to discuss Limbaugh further. Not worth my time.
Everyone has their opinion as to what is "serious". If feel the same way when people start quoting Op-Eds from the NY Times as if it were the word of God. People! Mix it up a bit with an Op-Ed from the Wall Street Journal on occasion! The difference between Rush and your liberal cohorts whose names are not worth the time in keystrokes is that he has the decency at least to proclaim his bias. He makes no secret where he stands and doesn't pretend to a fake "objectivety." He gives his humble opinion--the difference is that he communicates it effectively and commands a HUGE following. Indeed, he is a master of this medium of communication. This cannot be denied or he truly would be a non-issue. Pooh, Pooh and dismiss all you like.
I just think we should be clear WHERE the population problem is. I have nothing against Asians.
Your stances are mere formalism and show. The fact that you work in public relations only serve to highlight my point. I am well aware of the effect of appearances and PR...I think my articles on attraction demonstrate this sufficiently well for your purposes.
This judgment remains to be seen. As Misha said earlier, report back to me in four years on this one.
Why don't you share with me an insight and show me what I don't know rather than blindly accusing me...you are intellectually lazy.
I am ALL TOO FAMILIAR with No Child Left Behind. It was a thorn in my side for three years and multiplied my workload unnecessarily. I never said I supported this policy, but I can assure you that I'm very familiar with its mechanics and it's practical implications--more, I daresay, than you are.
Any other reaction on your part would only serve to reinforce my point. A- for PR, C for content.
It is the big supposedly education 'reform' bill that Bush passed. It has caused a great deal of grief to teachers and school administrators for the way it was written. It is based on standardized testing for its proofs--which has an extreme iffy factor (especially for me) in itself.
However, besides this, the way it technically was written-- meeting those standards include marginalized students--ESL students and special education students, which can bring down the average of a school. If a public school is found to be 'underperforming,' the Republican administration could then shut it down... The irony was, even in Iowa City, IA--a university town full of excellent teachers where I lived & was getting a teaching certificate (the American Midwest is actually the greatest exporter of good teachers) very good schools were found to be 'underperforming.'
Was this just the writer's stupidity (because I really don't put it past Bush cronies, truly) or was it an attempted forced hand to force us toward privatization of schools (who you see identity starved Republican Nick here very much espouses)?
There were also issues with the way it was written concerning these special needs students, if I recall-and what the classroom teacher would be required to do. Extreme accomodation--when before special education teachers were the main proponents of these students' education (which I feel they should be.)
Funny, I didn't know Presidents wrote laws - I thought Congressmen and Senators do that, like Senator Kennedy, who co-authored this bill, no?
And isn't he a Democrat? And didn't Bush jump into bed with him at the beginning of his first term to try and be 'Bi-Partisan'?
OK, Bush wanted to raise the standards of education - anyone surprised the Govt. didn't do a good job of this EITHER?
Well done. You do actually know something. The last factor especially was a tremendous burden on teachers--particularly foreign language teachers where children who couldn't read and write English were expected to master Latin (or French or Spanish) grammar at the same pace and with the same resources as students with ordinary abilities. The main problem with this regulation was that it raised the bar on schools without providing the funding to allow them to meet the new standards. If, indeed, the intention was to rattle public schools and give a boost to the private sector, it certainly succeeded.
On the contrar, from my limited perspective as a parent with real children in a real public school, (unlike you youngsters with no kids:D) there was plenty of increase in money dispersed over the years for no child left behind...it was just up to the schools, teachers and administrators to be creative and use it in new and innovative ways...which I never saw them do (in the midwest, mind you). except for a few of the charter schools I was involved with.
It was never really about money--as I saw it. But standardized tests and an overburden on teachers. Made me blanch, really, when I saw what I'd have to accomodate to be a teacher.
My experience was otherwise with the public schools in NJ. If any moneys were actually received, they were sift through several layers of bureaucracy before we could so much as buy a crayon...but such is NJ. No Child Left Behind was not a good program by any measure--I can't bring myself to defend it.
layers of money sifting through bureaucracy.. yea, big time...but I think interpretation of the NCLB "rules" was part of the problem too. anytime a liberal tries to interpret a conservative, or vs versa, the result is not going to jive with the words of the written rules.
I was seeing it as an opportunity to be creative to raise the bar, but people just couldn't go there. I always felt those in charge in school systems, had more concern for being in power than for change to help the kids.
something as simple as meeting the needs of individual learning styles, wasn't an acceptable option...teachers beat themselves and the kids over the head with do it my way or the highway mentality. control issues out the whazoo!
And even in some Christian schools that wasn't an accepted way to perceive children, as having individual needs; it was the same thing, my way or the highway.
This is laughable. Please review my hubs. Motion to dismiss on the grounds of res ipsa loquitur.
I think you mean prima facie, not res ipsa loquitur. And you'll note the phrase itself is singular, so can't refer to hubs plural.
I do think people using Latin phrases to show off should spell them correctly...
The "matter" speaks for itself. "Res" doesn't necessarily refer to particulars, it can also refer to collections. But if you prefer: res ipsae loquentur. And I do NOT mean my prima facie case, I mean motion to dismiss since the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party shows no triable issue of fact.
Better translated as "the thing speaks for itself", I think. And in the UK, it's a plea only in negligence cases as to causation. But that may differ.
As a legal theory in negligence, the common law is the same in the United States--so you are right to criticism my use of the phrase as a term of art. Nevertheless, the plain meaning of the phrase is apt. Incidentally, "res" doesn't just mean "thing." It also means "matter" or "affair". If you ever flipped through a Latin dictionary you would see that words often do not have one to one translations into English--this is a especially true of "res" which can easily occupy a page to convey all its nuances and idiomatic uses. A noble attempt.
Just the once or twice, in my 6 years of studying Latin.
In law, as opposed to a Latin dictionary, it's translated "thing". As you may know, legal and classical Latin aren't always precisely the same animal.
Well the honorable Judge Cardozo of NY Court of Appeals speaks Classical Latin and translates it as "thing, matter or affair" with due apologies to their lordships in England.
Gosh, well doesn't that one judge just prove it, then?
Of course, "thing, matter or affair" are all singular, hence "things, matters, and affairs". So your error persists, really. As does the unacknowledged but changed mis-spelling.
I'm just imagining saying something like this in court.
"My Lord, you are right to say that my application fails as being from the wrong area of law. Nevertheless, it's apt. I realise we are dealing with asylum law rather than negligence, my apologies. And the Latin definition is rather interesting, may I read your Lordship a paragraph from my handy Latin dictionary?"
Why laughable? You impress me so, lol. Anyway, thought I was not to come near your hubs (creepy, I think was the term used).
I don't understand why this is called a stimulus package when a great % of the money would be dispersed years from now. When I think about the word "stimulus" I associate it with now not later.
That's the least of its problems. The items that are earmarked for money in no way stimulate the economy since only a small portion is devoted to tax cuts and publics works. Most of the money is funneled to special interests. It will be a catastrophe; I just hope the Republicans don't vote for it so that Obama cannot take political cover when his house of cards collapses.
Yeah, Nick--I don't watch Jackass or Dukes of Hazard, either. Truly, from my educated opinion, NOT WORTH MY TIME. As is Limbaugh. I don't mean to see elitist, but truly, the masses of Sarahbots are NOT very interesting to me. Pretty basic bunch, really. Lizard mentality--Feed, Fight, F*ck, Breed. Big yawn. Might as well throw some dirt on top of it already, as the unexamined life is not worth living.
That--incidentally--was how I thought you seemed to be a little different. (Might be wrong.)
Anyway--I read broadly (though less so, since I've so much writing to do at work now): NYtimes, Atlantic, New Yorker, Huff post, locals and a bunch of blogs. Love Andrew Sullivan (conservative who has my respect--you should read his take on Obama, might find it interesting). I don't think it is intellectually lazy not to just type out everything I know or to want to--as I'm sure the professors you encounter (as they seemed to do it a lot when I was in grad school) would direct you to works by so and so or to look at paintings by this artist, etc. When you finally get out of school, you WILL have to do it on your own....So! Look at new journalism and begin with Hunter S. Thompson. Look at theories on blogs--from a PR standpoint, something I am researching right now is that they are taken as more sincere in their reviews than traditional media. And obviously, many of them are not written in the old journalism way 4 W's and an H. Know what I'm saying? (If not--can't start from the very beginning--too long.)
I will say--your take on Limbaugh and 'subjectivity' is way behind the ball and probably only informed from Limbaugh himself--you fell for his PR!
So! You're saying all yer sexploitation hubs (or whatever they are) are slightly, lol, disingenuous?
And Nicky, lol, I've always been an A student. 3.9 average, actually--and I worked 2 jobs through. My judgment is sound as the come. I'm working in PR currently--I didn't say it is how I approach anything. Don't bluff me.
I wonder how he'll dismiss me? Can't do it on the job front, because I'm Miss London Girl, barrister-at-law, member of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple.
I know! "She's from a small, far away country of which we know little". He's said something similar before.
And how interested would he be in your pleading the concept in a trusts or immigration case, do you think?
Relevance is, you "pleading" it in this non-negligence case.
Using legal terms in general conversation is pretty snooty anyway. Because it is designed to obscure, not communicate. Using them wrongly, and spelling them wrongly, just makes you look daft as well as snotty.
Yeah, a daft, snotty Rush Limbaugh fan. It's so confused! And kind of funny.
My spelling was both correct and apt. My use of the singular res ipsa loquitur as opposed to res ipsae loquentur is a non-issue due to the multiplicity of meanings "res" can convey (incidentally the nominative singular and plural forms are the same: "res" et "res"). Finally, I was making a motion and sometimes I like to make motions in Latin.
Sneaky so-and-so. You know very well you completely mis-wrote it originally, not a singular / plural issue but two separate spelling mistakes, one of which was "ispa". Now you've edited the post, without ever acknowledging the errors.
Well, that makes me feel better about my rapidly fading high school Latin.
I was going cross-eyed last night trying to figure out what spelling mistake you were talking about, but I must have only seen the post after he edited it.
I spelled "ipsa" as "ispa", a word only incidental to our discussion
Now you have been embarrassed before a colleague. I see ethics violations in the bright future! What do you figure from a Rush Limbaugh fan?
To the contrary, I have magnanimously highlighted an innocuous transposition of letters for the benefit of the illiterati. As you well know, the gravamen of the dispute pertained to the abstract noun res not the intensive pronoun ipse, ipsa, ipsum.
I, personally, was not paying THAT much attention to that conversation, Nick. (Unless you are addressing Londongirl off handed?) LG said you cheated and edited your posts, so I guess I'm believing her, since we ganged up on you together, .
You sayin' ya didn't lie?
It is, in any case, unnecessary to lie since the error is lost on everyone but me and that girl from England who claims to be a lawyer.
And please read "that girl" as "istam puellam", not "illam puellam".
"claims to be a lawyer"?
No, I am a barrister. I was called to the Bar in November 2001, fully qualifed in October 2002.
Relax, Miss London Girl, barrister-at-law, member of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple--you needn't prove yourself to little old me...and kudos to you for having studied Latin for six years, or at any rate long enough to notice the difference between ispa and ipsa.
You also made two errors in spelling "Loquitur".
Now all it needs is for Mark, Misha, and Sufi to show up and start discussing alcohol.
I prefer cookies.
I can talk about smoking weed, or alcohol. Cocaine anyone?
We need weed! Or maybe I need it, mainly, lol!
She definitely needs something. Hook the babe up, will ya?
hell yeah, I got some, if my wife hasn't smoked it all. it just sits there in its little box in the back of the frig, I can't believe you guys go on like this, my head hurts after five minutes, my attention span is very weak!
Yes, I totally hear ya. Being correct all the time is kinda boring...which is why I will have to bid my thread "salvete" for tonight.
Nope. Being boring in being right is why yer so bored with yourself.
I think I have other reasons to be bored. Now time for bed.
I'd point out you attack us first. We just put you in your place in your own realm. You made your bed! You lie in it now!
Guess you don't have the grades or a job, hhaha.
It's like you concentrate on the surface of all things...
Almost a madness. But suppose you don't get what I'm saying, either.
Snooty & daft, as LG said.
We got it covered here Nicky.
Besides, your a Republican. You don't know what weed is.
Yeah, it does get painful, actually, after a while. Specially when it gets all 'brittle' and about nothing substantive except stupid tactical points or words for their own sake or whatever the hell....
I'm an artist too, we get high & just be... LOL.. Very hard to get anything in this RED state, though... I dunno about CA...
You get dirt over there. Way different stuff my way. A nice little jay, some wine, I think that sounds pretty good about now.
Yeah...does. Haven't had it in a few years. We literally are too freaked about what the law enforcement establishment--cuz that is what it is with Arpiao--would do. 20 years in prison, etc., lol...
Yeah, I hate the guy, I never had to go to tent city but many of my relatives have, whenever I see him being interviewed I wish someone would just take him out, many of the criminals in AZ are of drug offenses and he has some sadistic laughs about that.
20 years, that has to be for bringing it from CA, right? Not just for possessing it?
Mmmkay, Misha. I see how you are.
But--Beer with popcorn? Shouldn't you order you up some pizza to go with that?
Well, get the gist. You said you corrected a transposed letter--she says you edited grammatical errors, basically, covering up your tracks so you look good & proper.
She strikes me indeed as a lawyer. Thinks she strikes you that way, too, or there wouldn't be such a fuss.
Hmm, daft and snooty, still....
(Misha is expecting entertainment.)
"Relax, Miss London Girl"
Nick@NightStick you really need to get a life and learn some manners.
He's starting to really remind me of those Italian guys who work in NYC delis or pizza shops--kinda rude and maybe sarcastic--and they think they are being funny and maybe even cute.
Been so long since I've been around it I'd forgotten how they were....
He's still mad because I wouldn't tuck him in bed last night.
You almost remind me of those drab, feminist graduate students that may have be sarcastic or funny or even smart except that the silly sorority girls were oh-so-much-more fun for me to really care to remember.
damn you are one sexy guy. Your tough and that's sexy.
Very discerning, you! You will find no protests here.
Like I believe that story! Think yer lucky to have ever gotten any date you didn't pay well, lol, sorry--bit of Brooklyn still left in me.
Anyway, yawn, I never dealt with college boys or even graduate students and their little frats/sororities. Went straight for the professors. Smart girls do.
And do you think this former TA had no smart sorority girls in his Classical Mythology section?
...Or pimply TA's... And there is no such thing as a smart sorority girl. Smart girls edit journals and have 3 or 4 degrees, have their own places where they entertain guys. Ain't about makin' good grades while Daddy puts you through and living with 100 other little girlies in a sorority and meetin the classics TA in his dorm room. LOL...
Man, you bring out my worst...
I know all about T and A, does that me me smart?
Anyway.... Never mind! Go answer my legal question in the business section, if you would care to.
I think I'll have to pass for tonight...it's about time for me to enjoy my city. Have fun in Flagpost, Montana or wherever it is youre from.
Ah don't go, I was hoping we can wax together tonight. At least give me a big wet one before you go.
I'm thinking you're going to have to settle for your humping pet rabbit for tonight....and you know San Francisco is not so far away, I'm sure you can find someone who will oblige you. Night!
But no one takes care of the pimples on my butt like you
Ah well, there goes my Friday night, if Nick isn't going to spend it with me...I was also hoping him and I can watch some re-runs of Golden Girls tonight after we waxed.
Naw, he watches the Latin Channel and reruns on BBC only. Maybe with a little teensie sorority porno thrown in. But he definitely waxes, I'd say--the metrosexual thing, lol!
There's nothing necessarily wrong with watching the BBC, though?
Spoken like a true chauvinist Limbaugh fan from Staten Island or who knows, maybe Redhook, Brooklyn.....Never heard of Sedona? Most of the NYC school actors and directors have...lol
Have fun trying to find a good looker sorority girl out there tonight!!!!
The BBC is an instrumentality of the Labor Party. I only have one news source.
Survive the night, Nickny? Do anything I wouldn't do? lol
And oh yes, I quite forgot, redneck Republican newsssss is ALL Rush Limbaugh allll the time!
Pls. answer my legal ? in the business forum, if you would, and if you want to do something productive today. I would appreciate it. I'd ask Londongirl, but don't think they have football and basketball there on the same level...
I hope nickny got his share of the $18 billion Wall Street bonuses funded by American taxpayers.
Basketball - no. But football is practically the national religion here!
American to English translation (again)
Football = A game like rugby only played by a bunch of 350lb nancies in full body armor which involves throwing the ball forwards and about 65 players on each team who can only do one thing. Never really understood why they call it football.
Soccer = Real football.
American football, though. But I'd appreciate your opinion, too, if you care to give it!
I think that they mean that game where they all wear padding and very rarely kick the ball. When they get bored, they move to a different city or something.
EDIT: I see that MK shares the same sentiments - the players name themselves after kitchen appliances.
Large kitchen appliances
No "The whisk" here
Jet, "The soufflé ramekin" Weisczkowski.
Must admit, many years ago, I enjoyed watching the Super Bowl highlights on Channel 4. A few years later, I saw the whole thing, with advert every 15 seconds, and that was so dull.
Oh, no one actually watches it. It is just an excuse for a piss-up. I used to work in a bar in Virginia and we would close for Super Bowl day, invite all our friends and have an open bar. Great party. I don't remember seeing much "football" though
Actually, some only glance at it on Super Sunday once in a while to see the advertising. Some of the best creative minds go into making those ads and all the moula that is generated, lol....
I must admit to liking those Budweiser horse ads.
I usually have trouble using the words "creative" and "advertising" in the same sentence.
Well, actually, I do too.
But then reality dawns on you and you realize you gotta feed your face (even so, writing poetry and painting pictures surreptitiously, lol ).
Just another problem with capitalism run amook! So, lets invite Golden Toad--he's got connections for things other than alcohol!
Can understand that one - I have to write sales letters for crappy products sometimes. Dull, and against my principles, but we must eat.
No chance of enjoying GT's goodies here - automatic jail time, if caught.
Yah, well.... The way I justify it is that even when I was working at large newspapers, etc., I was doing advertising for small companies and art groups and the like. Not the NFL! They can afford Madmen (and I really love that show).
With a good connection guy, , you never get caught....
Maybe the party should be in Canada. At worst they might take it and smoke it them selves. It's hardly worth wasting the court's time here. We are suppose to have the best too, but I wouldn't know.
I could live with that - An open bar is a good bar
Once again, the conversation turns to alcohol - never mind economic stimulus packages, get drunk so that it no longer matters
I quite loved seeing Obama get angry and decide to put the kabash on how they use their welfare recipient money... As he very well should! My respect for him continues to grow.
I think Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid should walk their talk and give up their jets.
They aren't broke and receiving tax-money welfare for a PRIVATE enterprise.
I would hope that you'd allow our commander and chief and other high ranking officials the stature and neccessities that their offices command, even if the opposing party is in power at the moment.
And if you haven't heard--government work doesn't pay that much, all together (well, depends on if there is an unethical b*stard in office milking the system for oil interests).
Well, it didn't take long, but here it is - more movement toward genocide in the name of saving the environment and economy:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life … 627634.ece
I never,never did get how conservatives who preach on the irresponsibility of welfare mothers can validly make a leap such as the above.
The 'wealthy' (very much in quotes) are not having all the kids--one point. And never will--various reasons--another point.
And Warren Buffett, etc. have been saying this for years.... I guess the 'green' attachment is what bothers a certain segment of the population.
lol lol lol....
Then you have the absolute insanity of the single mother, with 6 children aged 8 and under, who has just had 8 babies all at once. She lives in a 2 bed house with her 6 kids, and parents, and now another 8 babies. Which is mad.
Completely agree, London Girl. So what is the 'incentive' for them to have all those kids?
I think responsibility should absolutely be emphasized, on many fronts--being 'green,' better care, self respect, etc., etc.. I have no idea why emphasizing responsibility would be considered bad. Of course, I'd stop short at education. Can't force people into birth control and/or abortion, either. Against human dignity and rights.
Just because we have the biological ability (or whatever) to have 10 or 12 kids doesn't mean human beings, especially with our increasingly complex cultures, should or were meant to have so many offspring. We depend on having successful, small families where the children are well cared for and educated properly.
It sounds like from what I have read that she is expecting to get a reality show. Insane.
Is this somebody for real in England or something? Hmmm.
Well, sigh... There there are those who should never have kids, . What can ya do?
It is indeed for real - 14 children aged 8 and under, 8 of them newborn babies. She is in California.
"THE single mother of octuplets born in California last week is seeking $2m (£1.37m) from media interviews and commercial sponsorship to help pay the cost of raising the children.
Nadya Suleman, 33, plans a career as a television childcare expert after it emerged last week that she already had six children before giving birth on Monday. She now has 14 below the age of eight.
Although still confined to an LA hospital bed, she intends to talk to two influential television hosts this week — media mogul Oprah Winfrey, and Diane Sawyer, who presents Good Morning America."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a … 627531.ece
I'm frankly even weirded out when they sensationalize stories of a woman having 6 babies all at once and the intact family is magically given a house, free diapers for a lifetime and featured all over the media. I do not understand what the fascination with this sort of thing is. Just because it is odd?
"Plans a career..." Sounds like she has a mental disorder.
8 babies at once, although 6 still seems to be overdoing it (-:
by Chris Mills4 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a...
by Asa Schneidermann23 months ago
Before, it was all kind of fuzzy. We knew that abortions took place in Planned Parenthood facilities and fought against it, but other activities were unclear. Now, we have clear, undeniable evidence of the evil - and I...
by myvoternation5 years ago
Let's debate this issue!
by Jackie Lynnley11 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by Onusonus5 months ago
A poll for the ladys out there.Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of their services are for abortion. The rest is for cancer screening and other unrelated health services.So how many of you women out there actually...
by Peeples4 years ago
It bothers me that so many parents are uninformed about basic contraception. Why are so many comparing the morning after pill to an abortion? Do they not understand what the pill is or do they know and just ignore the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.