America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,741 comments
  • 1,663,756 views
They never should have been instituted obviously.

Hmm, so you are saying simply changing the rules a little is in order, because in the business I have conducted I've been obligated to to hire x percent of 'minorities' I have a hard time believing those terms will be changed from 'brown' to 'white'.
 
arora
They never should have been instituted obviously.
So long as we agree that my following statement is not me defending affirmative action. I do not.

Hmm, so you are saying simply changing the rules a little is in order, because in the business I have conducted I've been obligated to to hire x percent of 'minorities' I have a hard time believing those terms will be changed from 'brown' to 'white'.
I'm saying they wouldn't change the rules because of the purpose of affirmative action. The goal is to give an advantage to people who supposedly have less of an ability to qualify because their family members were held back for generations. Just because the black population is larger now does not change the fact that many of them are descended from slaves. So, by definition affirmative action is still necessary until the workforce, student populations, and wealthy all have a percentage of black people equal to the percentage of black people in the US population and they have achieved wage equality.

It can be further shown to still be necessary because black people do not outnumber white people. In fact, no single non-white group outnumbers white people. All the groups added together outnumber white people, but the groups rarely share a joint political agenda, so I doubt they will be teaming up to over throw the white man any time soon. Heck, it will be 18 years before the voting population has more minorities than whites.

Also, by your business rules, in 18 years you should be expected to hire 51ish percent minorities if they are looking for a workforce that truly reflects population numbers.

But just so you know:

During the late 1960s and the early 1970s, many educational institutions used minority quota systems that provided for specified numbers of minority students. In 1978, the United States Supreme Court ruled that such racial quotas were illegal.

http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/employment-discrimination/Affirmative-Action.html

The way you all are working is within a very fuzzy legal area. I'm guessing the percentages aren't discussed openly.
 
Michigan speed limits.

Drivers who cruise at the posted speed limit often are more dangerous than those who cruise at the 85th-90th percentile speed because they cause frustration for other drivers which leads to risky tailgating and passing maneuvers. Different limits for various times and vehicle types also cause frustration and delays, contributing to accidents.

I feel the states need to overhaul their driver's training, stressing efficient procedures as well as performance driving techniques such as situational awareness and rapid problem solving abilities. As a student pilot, the lack of training drivers must go through is rather sad considering that flying airplanes is actually easier and safer than driving. Driver training should be much more stringent and performance standards should be much higher than they currently are.
 
All of that is true, but there's yet another problem with having speed limits too low - it makes everyone a criminal.

When laws catch almost everyone (like, say, a 55mph speed limit), suddenly everyone is a criminal. Cops can then pull over anyone they want for a variety of reasons - say they think a particular vehicle is associated with a particular race, or gender - or say they don't like a particular bumper sticker or emblem on the car. Whatever the reason, if everyone is breaking the law they can use their own prejudices to determine who to pick on.

It also creates an unhealthy relationship between citizens and police. People should welcome the police - the rule of law. People shouldn't fear their police unless they're criminals, they should feel represented by their police. When you make everyone a criminal (either through low speed limits, or just a massive legal code that is impossible for anyone to understand) suddenly everyone lives in a state of fear.
 
So, today is apparently National Elderly Abuse Awareness Day. I know because I received an email all about it at work. However, I have an issue that I couldn't ignore with the statistics they quote.

Recent research indicates that because as few as one in 24 cases of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation are reported, it is largely a hidden problem, said Steven Fisher, manager of the Adult Safety Branch, part of the CHFS Department for Community Based Services (DCBS).

Kentucky received 61,285 reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation of people age 60 and older for state fiscal year 2011.
According to the 2010 census, Kentucky has roughly 829,193 people who are 60 and older. http://ksdc.louisville.edu/census/2010data/GCT/GCTP7.xls

I saw the above quote and just knowing a rough estimate of the population of Kentucky (4.3 million) my BS detector went off in my brain. But why would they do something to raise my suspicions with the bare minimum of critical thinking?

Then I got to this:
“More people are talking about elder abuse, neglect and exploitation and that means more people will recognize it and not be hesitant about reporting it,” he said.

Reporting suspected elder abuse is the law in Kentucky. Fisher said people who are unsure about a situation should always make the call. Expert staff can ask the right questions to determine whether a report should be investigated.

Combined with the typical footer note on all these notices stating:
The Cabinet for Health and Family Services is home to most of the state's human services and health care programs, including Medicaid, the Department for Community Based Services and the Department for Public Health. CHFS is one of the largest agencies in state government, with nearly 8,000 full and part-time employees throughout the Commonwealth...
Oh that's right, the state is in a budget crisis and we need to justify every single job.

And with the suggested signs of elder abuse through neglect including things like:
Recent suffering or loss of spouse, family members or close friends
No wonder it is such an epidemic. I mean old people shouldn't be dealing with the recent loss of spouses, family, or friends. Everyone knows the elderly don't associate with people that might die at anytime.


Please don't take this as me downplaying the seriousness of abusing the elderly. This is likely a case of combining very real national and state statistics for effect or no one looking at their numbers to be sure it makes sense, but I know for a fact that these things don't go out without being reviewed as high up as the secretary's office. And it is sent by the communications division, which supposedly has a bunch of professional PR experts tweaking the final drafts. Someone had to catch it, someone had to see the discrepancy, and someone had to approve it with obviously overblown stats. At some level a conscious decision was made to send this out so that if anyone dares suggest reducing the workforce this can be pointed to and people can go, "But the old people!"
 
How can a state like Kentucky get so much right yet so much very, very wrong? Where are the principles?
 
Julian Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and is seeking political asylum, because he thinks his extradition to Sweden is a pretext for sending him to American to be tried in secret:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18514726

Coward.

He's being accused of sexual misconduct. He's being extradited for questioning to see if he should face charges, not to face the charges themselves.

As far as I've read, one of the women is complaining because he didn't wear a condom while they had consensual sex. Allegedly, she told him that she wanted him to wear one post-coitus.

His argument - facing a mistrial and possible extradition to America - is perfectly valid. Would you risk your life on what is essentially a "he said, she said" case?
 
prisonermonkeys
Julian Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and is seeking political asylum, because he thinks his extradition to Sweden is a pretext for sending him to American to be tried in secret:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18514726

Coward.
One has to wonder when charges like this pop up just after Wikileaks released a large amount of confidential data on the US that created some very embarrassing foreign relations issues and brought light to issues of US foreign military activities that the US was trying to keep quiet. And when the guy who supposedly gave Wikileaks the data has been locked up for nearly two years, most of it in solitary confinement, without trial (trial just began in February of this year) you have to wonder what the US intends to do with Assange.

It is likely he is just claiming this to try to avoid what seem like some fairly trumped up charges, but if he actually believes this, I wouldn't blame him.

Pupik
Where are the mathematicians?
We have to import them.
http://www.jklm.us/scod2012/?p=1124

most high school grads cannot do basic math, balance a check book, read with comprehension, nor make change without a calculator.
 
His argument - facing a mistrial and possible extradition to America - is perfectly valid. Would you risk your life on what is essentially a "he said, she said" case?
If the charges against Assange in Sweden are as fabricated as you imply they are, then he should have no problem fighting them. So why does he run and hide in London? Surely Stockholm has embassies. Perhaps not the Ecuadorian embassy, but surely he would be able to find one there. After all, there is no proof that he will be extradited to America from Sweden - he only believes he will be. I'm fairly certain that when all of this started, the Swedes said that Assange would have to face the charges against him in a Swedish court before the Swedes considered any extradition.

Assange isn't hiding in London because of the charges in Sweden. He's hiding because he doesn't want to face up to any charges in America, should they be laid. What he did with WikiLeaks is the same thing as a journalist publishing an article that names an undercover police officer while they are working, and when that police officer is killed, they claim that the public had a right to know what was happening. Did it not occur to Assange that those classified files he published were classified for a reason? Not everything is a cover up. What if he published the identity of the courier who helped locate Osama bin Laden and bin Laden got away because of it?

If Assange doesn't have the balls to face the consequences of what he did, whatever those consequences might be, then he shouldn't have done it in the first place.
 
^I'm in agreement.

Assange seems to be afraid of some sort of fixed trial from the US Government as a way to punish him. From the interviews I've seen, he seems to think that his life is a bit more James Bond than it really is.

Did it not occur to Assange that those classified files he published were classified for a reason? Not everything is a cover up. What if he published the identity of the courier who helped locate Osama bin Laden and bin Laden got away because of it?

"I’m a combative person and I like crushing bastards. I find what I’m doing to be deeply, personally satisfying.”

These are not words that come from a man with a well thought-out plan.
 
Last edited:
522579_315929865142166_454919914_n.jpg
 
OK, we have gone to far. Federal funds to fight bullying?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...e-federal-grants-to-fight-bullying-at-schools

The House is expected to approve legislation as early as Monday that would provide grant money to states to fight bullying at schools.

"It is time for us to stand together and stop bullying," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), the sponsor of the bill. "Everyone deserves to feel safe and free from persecution.

"I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of my bill in order to keep U.S. citizens safe from harassment and to work toward making America bully-free," she added.
Am I the only person to notice that she is using civil rights era and anti-terrorism language? "Safe and free from persecution? Keep US citizens safe?" Really?

Jackson Lee said recent studies show that one-third of all high school students have said violence is a serious problem at their schools, which she said makes it an epidemic.

"Bullying is not just a schoolyard anymore, it is a crisis that's taking over our nation," she said. In addition, she noted that cyberbullying makes it easier for bullies to torment people outside of school.

"Gone are the days that children can come home and seek solace and escape from their bullies; technological advances have made it easy for young people to be tormented on social networks at any time from any place," she said. "They are never out of harm's reach. This needs to end."
Wow, 1/3 of respondents say it is a problem? So 2/3 say it isn't a problem?

And because 1/3 in an opinion poll think it is a problem it is an epidemic? Opinions make epidemics now?

And if kids can't come home and seek solace from bullies then quit forcing them to go online? Oh, that isn't what she meant? So they are victims by voluntarily going online and reading all the horrible things said about them? Ok, I can see that since teens are all basically insecure narcissists, but where the hell are the parents? If your kid is being a bully turn off their computer and punish them. If your kid is being bullied turn off their computer and show them how easy it is to ignore. Guess what. Bullying only works if there is a reaction. Ignore the bully and they move on out of boredom.

Whatever the issue, protecting our kids from learning how to deal with confrontational situations is not good for them. Every kid needs his/her butt kicked (literally or metaphorically) at least once to learn that you can't just charge into every battle, and every kid needs to learn how to defuse a confrontation in order to deal with the egos that fill the world.

So quit acting like bullying is the next national threat to our freedoms and start getting parents to be involved. Otherwise my daughter will rule this world without breaking a sweat.

In honor of Ernest Borgnine's passing I will use a quote from him to sum up my feelings on this and most issues:

I’m 81 years old and I like to speak my mind. As a legacy, on the day I die, I’d like to have a newspaper publish all the things that I find wrong in the United States today. And my first would be to get rid of the politicians.
 
Heres an idea- actually punish bullies? I'm sure Prisoner Monkeys will chime in on this, but it seems that Teachers, Staff, and other school personnel dont really give a rip until someone is physically harmed. And by then, the bully already has what he wants, and has the knowledge that the first couple times he gets caught, he receives zero consequences.

Now, cyberbullies on the other hand...
Someone being mean to you? Block them. Report Them. Problem solved.
 
Yet again the FDA shows why they shouldn't exist without any need to bring up that their existence is unConstitutional.

The FDA has been tracking and punishing employees who have notifying members of Congress and the press of questionable practices that may put the public at danger.


In Vast Effort, F.D.A. Spied on E-Mails of Its Own Scientists

WASHINGTON — A wide-ranging surveillance operation by the Food and Drug Administration against a group of its own scientists used an enemies list of sorts as it secretly captured thousands of e-mails that the disgruntled scientists sent privately to members of Congress, lawyers, labor officials, journalists and even President Obama, previously undisclosed records show.

What began as a narrow investigation into the possible leaking of confidential agency information by five scientists quickly grew in mid-2010 into a much broader campaign to counter outside critics of the agency’s medical review process, according to the cache of more than 80,000 pages of computer documents generated by the surveillance effort.

What began as a narrow investigation into the possible leaking of confidential agency information by five scientists quickly grew in mid-2010 into a much broader campaign to counter outside critics of the agency’s medical review process, according to the cache of more than 80,000 pages of computer documents generated by the surveillance effort.

The agency, using so-called spy software designed to help employers monitor workers, captured screen images from the government laptops of the five scientists as they were being used at work or at home. The software tracked their keystrokes, intercepted their personal e-mails, copied the documents on their personal thumb drives and even followed their messages line by line as they were being drafted, the documents show.

The extraordinary surveillance effort grew out of a bitter dispute lasting years between the scientists and their bosses at the F.D.A. over the scientists’ claims that faulty review procedures at the agency had led to the approval of medical imaging devices for mammograms and colonoscopies that exposed patients to dangerous levels of radiation.

A confidential government review in May by the Office of Special Counsel, which deals with the grievances of government workers, found that the scientists’ medical claims were valid enough to warrant a full investigation into what it termed “a substantial and specific danger to public safety.”

The documents captured in the surveillance effort — including confidential letters to at least a half-dozen Congressional offices and oversight committees, drafts of legal filings and grievances, and personal e-mails — were posted on a public Web site, apparently by mistake, by a private document-handling contractor that works for the F.D.A. The New York Times reviewed the records and their day-by-day, sometimes hour-by-hour accounting of the scientists’ communications.

With the documents from the surveillance cataloged in 66 huge directories, many Congressional staff members regarded as sympathetic to the scientists each got their own files containing all their e-mails to or from the whistle blowers. Drafts and final copies of letters the scientists sent to Mr. Obama about their safety concerns were also included.
It continues on with tales of employees being fired just as they composed a complaint to special counsel and so forth, but what gets me is why this began.

Much of the material the F.D.A. was eager to protect centered on trade secrets submitted by drug and medical device manufacturers seeking approval for products. Particular issues were raised by a March 2010 article in The New York Times that examined the safety concerns about imaging devices and quoted two agency scientists who would come under surveillance, Dr. Robert C. Smith and Dr. Julian Nicholas.

Agency officials saw Dr. Smith as the ringleader, or “point man” as one memo from the agency put it, for the complaining scientists, and the surveillance documents included hundreds of e-mails that he wrote on ways to make their concerns heard. (Dr. Smith and the other scientists would not comment for this article because of their pending litigation.)

Lawyers for GE Healthcare charged that the 2010 article in The Times — written by Gardiner Harris, who would be placed first on the surveillance program’s list of “media outlet actors” — included proprietary information about their imaging devices that may have been improperly leaked by F.D.A. employees.

F.D.A. officials went to the inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services to seek a criminal investigation into the possible leak, but they were turned down. The inspector general found that there was no evidence of a crime, noting that “matters of public safety” can legally be released to the news media.

Undeterred, agency officials began the electronic monitoring operation on their own.
After being told there was no legal grounds for pursuing employees who release this information they went after them anyway in order to be able to fire them first.


What gets me the most is that the concern seems to be the monitoring, not that it is being used to hide public safety issues. It's like Obama getting in trouble for leaks, not that the leaks revealed he has a secret kill list, which includes US citizens.

We find out our own government is spying on us and ignoring our safety and the concern is how we found out about it.
 
Unfortunately, the guy who says it has a contentious past with the president, so unless his findings are verified by neutral sources I doubt we will see much done about.

Currently Romney is being pummeled hard by the Obama campaign's blistering critique of his business career, replete with Swiss bank accounts, Cayman Islands holdings and hidden billions, all of which would disqualify him for President in the popular mind. Especially if he is charged with a crime regarding his SEC filings about his position at Bain. Bleeding from his ears, Romney may choose to hit back with Birther attacks. Oh Joy!, oh Joy! Perhaps they will destroy each other?

Meanwhile, Ron Paul indeed looks like securing his name being placed in nomination, having majorities in Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota and Nevada. Perhaps the tortoise has a chance after all? Oh joy, oh joy!

Respectfully,
Steve
 
I bet money Romney only mentions the birther stuff when directly questioned, and will keep his answer neutral. But Donald Trump will lead the charge for him. Obama gave Romney the ammo he needs in his "you didn't achieve that" speech last Friday.
 
Two stories caught my attention today.

Michigan city shuts down kids hot dog stand he hoped to use to help his disabled parents raise money. Wait until you read why.

A Michigan teenager whose hot dog stand was shut down before it even opened has recouped his losses.

Nathan Duszynksi, 13, said he decided to open a hot dog stand in his hometown of Holland, Mich., to help out his disabled parents. His mother has epilepsy and his father has multiple sclerosis.

He saved $1,200 – mostly money he made by mowing lawns and shoveling snow – and bought a cart.

He also checked with the city to make sure he didn’t need any licenses or permits, and even went to city hall in person with his mother.

“We wanted to make sure,” Nathan’s mother Lynette Johnson told WFMY News. “We stopped in there in person about a month ago and asked, ‘Do we need a business permit license?’ and [the city] said no.”

Only 10 minutes after arriving to set up Nathan’s Hot Dog Hut on July 17, a city zoning official shut him down.

“I was like, ‘Wow, I’m getting shut down already, and I haven’t even started,” Nathan said. “I’m just trying to bring in some money for [my parents] and the household when they’re struggling.”

The official said the cart’s location, which was in a private parking lot of a sporting goods store on the edge of the city’s downtown commercial district, violated a city ordinance that bans food carts in that area in order to minimize competition for the eight tax-paying restaurants a couple of blocks away.

“We would like to see him do this,” City of Holland Assistant Manager Greg Robinson told WFMY. “This is a great opportunity for him, so it would be great to work with him, and we can in many commercial areas in the city. This just happens to be one where we can’t.”

Nathan’s parents said they like the location of his stand because it seemed safe, on private property and across the street from city hall, and it made good business-sense.

“[The store’s owner’s] whole idea was that Nate could set up his cart here and help him promote the rental of his bikes.” Nathan’s stepfather, Doug Johnson, said to WFMY. “It kind of worked hand-in-hand.”

After hearing of the teen’s troubles, staff members at a packaging company contacted Nathan and bought the cart for $2,500, more than what Nathan paid for it.

“[Nathan is] just a real go-getter, and at that age that’s unusual,” Carolyn Norman of Shoreline Container company said. “It’s unusual, I think, that they can relate to adults like he does and so he really caught our eye, so to speak.”

Now, Doug Johnson said the family’s next step is to file a petition at city hall in an effort to amend the current ordinance that banned Nathan’s stand in the first place.

In the meantime, Norman said the company plans to let Nathan use the cart for special occasions, such as a wedding Nathan’s Hot Dog Hut has already booked.
So, they actually have laws protecting their current businesses from new competition? That sounds like a sure fire way to grow a city to me. How many of those business owners have brothers or cousins or whatever on city council?

When I first saw his name I honestly thought it would be a copyright infringement issue with Nathan's Hot Dogs. Why did I think legitimate business concerns would play into this?

And then this:

Purveyors and purchasers of small, tiny, spherical magnets take note: You're dealing in forbidden goods. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a ban on the sale of Buckyballs, an "educational toy" consisting of a handful of small, tiny magnets.

The ban is the agency's first in the last 11 years, and apparently there's a solid reason behind it. If swallowed individually, Buckyballs could possibly reattach somewhere in your intestines, damaging tissue to the point where surgery would be required. According to an American Academy of Pediatrics report, there were 60 magnet ingestion cases over the last two years which resulted in 26 surgeries. At least 22 of these cases were connected with Buckyballs.

A number of retailers from Amazon.com to Urban Outfitters have agreed to stop selling the balls, but the creators of the product are digging their heels into the ground and turning the issue into an election year missive on the president. Buckyball creator Craig Zucker says he will "vigorously fight this action taken by President Obama's handpicked agency."

"As a small business owner I'm left wondering what to tell my employees and their families. How can this happen in America," grandstanded Zucker.

If you've purchased the balls in the past, the creators of Buckyballs have been directed by the government to provide refunds. Alternatively, you could just choose to keep and enjoy your Buckyballs while resisting the tempting urge to eat them — for America.
So, 60 inattentive sets of parents in two years and we are taking a cool educational toy away?

What's next, lawn darts? Oh, wait. Organized sports have done more harm than Buckyballs.

"Won't someone think of the children?!" Because their parents are doing a crap job of it.
 
Wow, no wonder Michigan is having a hard time digging out of this economic gloom when it basically restricts growth in order to protect a small handful of businesses.
 
What's with these news stories about 4.5 earthquakes "shaking" Los Angeles? First of all, they get 4.5 mag quakes every week. Second of all, a 4.5 couldn't shake a cup of Jello much less a whole city.
 
According to this website:Earthquake tracker the recent 4.5 earthquake in Yorba Linda, California was the strongest quake near Los Angeles during the past year. I think that a 4.5 quake would make your jello dance, but its unlikely to cause any significant damage.

The website says that the LA area has had 152 earthquakes in the past year.

GTsail
 

Latest Posts

Back