Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


ck4829's Journal
ck4829's Journal
December 15, 2022

Oh, THOSE 'different ideas'

“It used to be thought that a university campus was a place where you’d be exposed to a lot of different ideas,” DeSantis said during a bill signing ceremony. “Unfortunately, now the norm is, these are more intellectually repressive environments. You have orthodoxies that are promoted, and other viewpoints are shunned or even suppressed.”

Read more: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/06/florida-students-faculty-will-declare-political-views-prevent-liberal-indoctrination

"Oh, so you mean like in sociology; you have functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory; and now they're only teaching one of those things and not even talking about the other two at all?"
"No, not like that."

"Oh! So in studies of evolution, you mean they're only teaching gradualism OR punctuated equilibrium and not having discussions of both, while they both have merit?"
"Uh... no, we're not talking about that."

"OH! You mean they're stifling the "is the universe explained by quantum mechanics or general relativity" debate in physics and have come down on the side of one and are refusing to talk about the other at all? Those jerks!"
"... no, no."

"OK, so in the college restrooms, they have now cruelly decided to put all the toilet paper under instead of over? Those totalitarians!"

"Oh... so by 'different ideas', you mean...

Andrew Torba proclaims that “Christians must support and uplift explicitly Christian leadership in: tech, media, news, entertainment, culture, and politics. No Pagans. No Atheists. No Jews. They can still enjoy the fruits of Christian leadership, rules, nations, and morality; but they can not lead us. No more. Never again.”

Ali Alexander believes that he has prophetic abilities: “I think one of my spiritual gifts is that I am a seer. I do think that is one of my spiritual gifts. I have an uncanny ability to either flirt with prophecy or be endowed with prophecy.”

Finally, Shane Vaughn remains outraged that Democrats are being elected to the U.S. Senate and is now demanding that the 17th Amendment be repealed.

... right?"





November 14, 2022

Republicans ran faster to defend a SCOTUS justice than to protect kids getting mowed down in school

And they "found out" what happens when you do that.

October 2, 2022

Republicans playing doctor - Republicans eager to raise prescription prices. THEIR words.

It was one of the biggest wins in the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act: For the first time, Medicare will be empowered to negotiate the cost of some of the most expensive prescription medications with the pharmaceutical industry. Democrats have worked on this issue for nearly three decades, but Big Pharma’s lobbyists successfully stood in the way. This year, Democrats succeeded anyway. (And) Republicans aren’t just eager to undo the breakthrough policy, they don’t mind admitting that this is a GOP goal.

Republican Rep. Morgan Griffith of Virginia told Axios, in reference to the Democratic policy measure, “If the courts haven’t gotten to it beforehand, yeah we’ve got to do our job and try to defend the Constitution.” Republican Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia replied “yes” when asked if he backed repeal of the drug pricing law.

Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, is retiring, but he nevertheless added, “I would imagine that will be a top priority for Republicans in the new session.”

In the coming days and weeks, if Democrats warn voters that a GOP majority would make prescription medications more expensive, the warning will be rooted in fact.


Republicans Playing Doctor, always a bad idea.

July 18, 2022

If you as a patient are going to be treated like trash, then maybe your money is also trash

If she's trash, then clearly you don't want her trash money, right? And if that money is all good legal tender, then clearly you don't want anyone's trash money.

Let's start using the language hospital administrators understand if they don't want to stand up to red states.

Some hospitals in Texas have reportedly refused to treat patients with major pregnancy complications for fear of violating the state’s abortion ban, the Texas Medical Association said in a letter this week.

The association did not name the hospitals but said it’s received complaints that hospitals, administrators and their attorneys may be prohibiting doctors from providing medically appropriate care in some situations, The Dallas Morning News reported.

The letter, sent Wednesday to the Texas Medical Board, cited several examples in which medical care was delayed.

In one case, a central Texas hospital reportedly told a physician not to treat an ectopic pregnancy until it ruptured, the letter said. An ectopic pregnancy, which occurs when a fertilized egg attached outside of the uterus, is not viable.

July 15, 2022

I'm sure this was all a one-time thing and will NEVER happen again

* 10 year old girl gets pregnant and Republicans deny it happened

* Oops it happened! And now Republicans want to prosecute the doctor who provided the girl an abortion because she didn't notify authorities. Oops! She went by the book.

So just a month into our post-Roe political landscape and it is already a minefield? Nah, don't believe those liberal lies. I'm sure it will never happen to you, your daughter, your sister, your partner, etc.

You'll never be called a liar and a hoax on national TV.

You'll never have your medical information leaked out to the world.

You'll never be in legal danger if you performed the abortion or helped perform the abortion.

All just a fluke. This will never happen ever again. Sure.


June 25, 2022

I think it's time to end the concept of cheap/"unskilled" labor

I don't want one of these "precious lives" to just end up as some interchangeable cog of meat in an uncaring and unfair economic system that serves to exist the pleasures of billionaires, and nobody wants that, right?

So this is a very rough draft that I'm just spitting out here so please bear with me:

I think that if you're employing over a hundred people and you're not:
* Paying 100% of your employees well over the minimum wage (150% maybe?)
* Giving robust and generous benefits (Healthcare, vacation, sick leave, maternity leave, bereavement, tuition reimbursement, commuting reimbursement, etc.)
* Providing 100% of your employees with opportunities for growth in terms of wage, position, and personal development

Then you are simply not entitled to:
* Subsidies
* Tax cuts
* Government contracts
* Non-compete clauses
* Putting up job ads in government job assistance portals
* And more

And we don't need to wait for a bill to pass, this doesn't need to be a far off dream, we don't need to say "But we don't have the votes", we can start on some of these things today.

Can I show you something?


This a job description that simply should not exist IMHO, it's down to half a dozen now, it used to be a hundred on any given day. You want to know the reason why it's down to half a dozen now?

... Hi.

So don't tell me there's nothing we can do, because that would be lying to my face and denying my personal experiences.

No more "cheap labor"
No more "unskilled labor"
I don't want to hear these things and "greatest economy", "billionaires", "superpower", etc. in the same sentence or in the same paragraph for that matter. I didn't want to hear it yesterday, not today, and definitely not tomorrow.

I'm done with these contradictions. You should be too.
June 24, 2022

You want an interesting read? Look at what Republicans/Conservatives say about the SCOTUS today and

compare that to what they said about the SCOTUS in the past...

Their respect for the judicial branch and proclaiming it to be a sacred institution is what we in sociology call an "invented tradition", I'm old enough to remember when the "other side of the aisle" considered them to be "nine black-robed tyrants", let's look at the footage, shall we?

Conservatives today:

“Next we go after Obergefell v Hodges and then the rulings banning Christianity from public schools,” white nationalist Vincent James told his followers on Telegram last Tuesday afternoon, less than 24 hours after a draft opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito indicated that the Supreme Court was poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

James was among a chorus of far-right and Christian nationalist activists looking forward to using the SCOTUS decision to implement their theocratic agenda. Not satisfied with simply removing the right to abortion protected in Roe, they’re eager to pass a total abortion ban, dismantle the right to same-sex marriage, and institute their ultraconservative version of Christianity on others. They see an ally in the Supreme Court, and there’s reason to believe that they’re right.


And conservatives in the past:

Yesterday on Newsmax TV, Ben Carson said that the federal government does not need to recognize a Supreme Court decision on gay marriage because the president is only obligated to recognize laws passed by Congress, not judicial rulings.

“First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works, the president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch,” Carson said. “So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law.”


Conservatives today:

Now three Republican senators have unveiled a bill that would hold future Supreme Court leakers accountable with a $10,000 fine and 10 years in prison for releasing information about pending decisions.

“The recent leak was an attempt to publicly intimidate justices and undermine the integrity of the Court—all while putting lives at risk,” the main sponsor, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, said in a statement.

“My bill holds leakers accountable and takes away any hopes of profiting off their crimes.”

Marco Rubio, a co-sponsor, said: “You shouldn’t receive a badge of honor or financial reward for leaking confidential documents from one of our nation’s most sacred institutions - you should face serious penalties.


And conservatives in the past:

This past Saturday, Phyllis Schlafly hosted former House GOP Majority Leader Tom DeLay on “Eagle Forum Live” to discuss the alleged threat of gay marriage. Schlafly segued into the topic of gay marriage by describing an open letter to the Supreme Court, signed by conservative pastors and politicians, pledging to defy any Court decision which strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage.

DeLay lamented that “people don’t understand the constitution. We haven’t taught our children now for three or four generations what the Constitution is, and the separation of powers, and what our Founding Fathers had in mind as this brilliant understanding of how you can limit government and limit the tyranny put on us through people or oligarchies.”

Because of this supposed constitutional ignorance, DeLay claimed, “right now, the American people don’t understand that the Supreme Court, when it makes a ruling, it’s just an opinion if no one enforces that ruling. The Supreme Court doesn’t have a police force; the Supreme Court doesn’t have an army; the Supreme Court doesn’t have people that can enforce their ruling.” Therefore, if conservatives “stand up to them and invoke the Constitution, then we don’t have to accept a ruling on marriage that redefines marriage. And that’s basically what this ad is all about. We’re sending a message to the Supreme Court that, number one, it’s illegal that they have this case before them; it’s not in their jurisdiction.”

Proving his Constitutional prowess, DeLay argued that “it’s not in their authority to write law by ten unelected, unaccountable people, lawyers, and if – this is a red line that we’re drawing. If they rule against marriage, we will all defy them.”


Conservatives today:

While overturning Roe has been an intense focus and will be a massive victory for the religious right and right-wing legal movement, reversing Roe is just one part of a much broader agenda that has been promoted by the right-wing Federalist Society and allied political operatives who have worked with it to pack the federal courts. Trump basically outsourced his judicial picks to the group’s activists. Now, with the Trump justices cementing a hard-right majority on the Court, Federalist Society lawyers and judges and their political allies can move even more aggressively to reverse a century’s worth of precedents, pulling the constitutional rug out from under the New Deal and Great Society anti-poverty programs like Medicare and Social Security; further gutting voting rights in favor of states’ rights; weakening the separation of church and state; and undermining the federal government’s ability to regulate corporations and protect workers and communities.


And conservatives in the past:

The goal of “court-stripping” legislation is to simply declare that federal courts are no longer allowed to hear the claims of citizens that their rights are violated. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins–decrying the “judicial activism” behind the Supreme Court decision finding unconstitutional Bush’s military commissions to try Guantanamo detainees–encourages court-stripping, along with right-wing judicial nominees, as a long-term strategy, citing two court-stripping bills in the works:

Congress needs to resist this judicial activism. One way to constitutionally check the courts is with measures like the Pledge Protection Act sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) and another way is Cong. John Hostettler’s (R-IN) Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA). Finally, we can give a fair up or down vote to judicial nominees like William J. Haynes.

Now, even as the House vote on the anti-gay marriage amendment looks to fail, Human Events endorses a court-stripping bill to circumvent the Constitution on the issue of marriage:

Unfortunately, the (marriage) amendment failed in the Senate last month, receiving only 49 votes. It is also destined to fail in the House: In the last Congress, it received only 227 votes, more than 60 shy of the super-majority needed. But there is a way Congress can act this year to protect state marriage laws from activist liberal judges. Rep. John Hostettler (R.-Ind.) has proposed a bill that would strip all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction to hear any challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). …

June 16, 2022

Helpful legal advice

June 16, 2022

Is it really wrong to want protection for the SCOTUS?

I want the SCOTUS to have protection from the right-wing bent that Republicans have forced onto it and have made it a political court.

I don't think that is extremism to want the SCOTUS to have protection from the right-wing.

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Mar 20, 2004, 10:37 AM
Number of posts: 34,679

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»ck4829's Journal