Republican atrocity of the day - New Mex. Guv vetoes all higher ed funding.

I'm going to keep to try and keep track of what the Repubs are doing in Congress, both overtly and covertly.

We'll start with this:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/gop-bill-would-let-your-boss-demand-to-see-your-genes.html

The referenced bill would allow employers to force their employees to get DNA tests as a pre-condition of getting health insurance. Then, depending on the results, they would have the right to charge you more for your insurance.

I guess this has to do with individual freedom or liberty or something something.

Those Repubs! Always looking out for our interests!


And I can't let pass the most racist statement by a sitting Congressperson in ages:



So he's gone full Nazi.


Blame Iowa's 4th District. If not for them, he'd still be under the rock from which he emerged.


While I'm repelled by these scumbags, from Trump to Cruz to King, this is the country we live in.



GL2 said:

While I'm repelled by these scumbags, from Trump to Cruz to King, this is the country we live in.

Its so horrid that you can't even contribute to your own GOP 201(7) thread because the situation is a parody of itself.

My other long dead thread asking the question of whether Trump is a Nazi seems a lot more relevant as his administration moves on.




hoops said:



GL2 said:

While I'm repelled by these scumbags, from Trump to Cruz to King, this is the country we live in.

Its so horrid that you can't even contribute to your own GOP 201(7) thread because the situation is a parody of itself.

My other long dead thread asking the question of whether Trump is a Nazi seems a lot more relevant as his administration moves on.

...

And mine.


CBO projection: 24 million uninsured by 2026 under Trumpcare. Can't they do anything right?



fairplay said:

CBO projection: 24 million uninsured by 2026 under Trumpcare. Can't they do anything right?

But you know, that's the CBO.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/12/mick-mulvaney/fact-checking-white-house-attack-nonpartisan-cbos-/


I'm pretty sure 24 million was the number they were shooting for. So, good job Repubs!

fairplay said:

CBO projection: 24 million uninsured by 2026 under Trumpcare. Can't they do anything right?




drummerboy said:

And I can't let pass the most racist statement by a sitting Congressperson in ages:

I actually am shocked by the amount of racism that exists in the Republican Party. I don't know why I didn't realize it before. 2008 should have been a tip-off, but I still am shocked.

(And, no, I don't think all Republicans are racist. It's just there seems to be a lot of blatant racists in the Repubs vs. the Dems).


I find the bill introduced in Congress -- by Republicans who pretend to value privacy and the individual -- to completely go against the notion of privacy and the individual. It allows corporations (which the Supreme Court many years ago ruled that they can be considered as persons at least for certain legal standards like free speech) to demand your DNA profile if you participate in a program. This certainly says you -- the employee -- cannot maintain your privacy in light of the corporation, supposedly, trying to reduce its risk.

A DNA profile that suggests an individual may have a higher chance of cancer -- ovarian, breast, prostate, lung, colon or whatever -- is only that, a possibility slightly higher for them than those who do not have the DNA profile. But the onset of cancer is not a certainty in virtually all forms of cancer. The bill in Congress -- at least it appears to me to indicate this - conflates DNA profiles with pre-existing conditions. Pre-existing conditions -- eg, Type I diabetes -- likely over time require higher health care costs for the individual and hence for the insurance provider. How these costs and charges are handled is certainly an issue for public policy debate.

But a DNA profile is not an indicator of an already pre-existing condition. Not everyone with certain DNA profiles will come down with the disease or affliction. It is not clear to me what has provoked the Republicans -- at least the ones backing this bill -- to go after this in the midst of the revisions to the Affordable Care Act.

At Columbia HS I have distributed the news article on this bill yesterday (Monday) to my Sophomore section of Science Research. We try to not only encourage students to initiate real research projects in an area of science they are interested in, but we also try to get them to think about ethics in science and research. A wonderful and true example is always the scientists in the tobacco industry who knew better supported the corporate line that smoking cigarettes did not cause cancer.

I want the kids in the Science Research sequence to always be aware that while "science" in the abstract is pretty much tentatively true (eg, Newton's Laws were the end-all and be-all of physics until scientists delved into the very small -- elementary particles, the very fast -- light, and the very large -- stars and galaxies. These led to Quantum Theory, Special Relativity and General Relativity), the role of individuals in practicing science can easily corrupt the process. The framework of society at any time dictates -- at least to some extent -- what scientists perceive to be "ethical." The dreadful work on the mentally ill, on prisoners, and many marginalized groups were done by scientists. They crossed a line and many victims suffered tremendous abuse.

The political establishment at the time also dictates what is deemed to be "true". We see this today in a switch of administrations from Democrat to Republican in the "truth" of climate change and global warming and the role of humans in the process. Politics is in part dictated by economics and in this administration the fossil fuels industry has a different idea of what is "true" and that position is dictated by economics, not science.

I know the District budget is tight -- very tight. I have tried for years to initiate a course at the high school whose focus is Science and Society. The number of issues that can be discussed that are relevant today are many -- like the bill to force employees to give their DNA profile to corporations. I believe that a course like this would be very instructive and useful to students who will confront these issues for the rest of their lives,



drummerboy said:

I'm pretty sure 24 million was the number they were shooting for. So, good job Repubs!

fairplay said:

CBO projection: 24 million uninsured by 2026 under Trumpcare. Can't they do anything right?

Apparently the White House trusts nothing that goes against their own numbers so they commissioned their own analysis that shows 26 Million uninsured.


Heres some of the backlash being seen around the country - in this case Joe Barton's Texas




thanks for your thoughtful post Jude.

Understanding the purpose of a bill like this is less complicated than one would think, once you realize that the overriding concern of the Republican party is always to help the wealthy.

If personal freedom vs. corporate profit is what is being considered, the R's will choose the latter every time.


Jude said:

I find the bill introduced in Congress -- by Republicans who pretend to value privacy and the individual -- to completely go against the notion of privacy and the individual. It allows corporations (which the Supreme Court many years ago ruled that they can be considered as persons at least for certain legal standards like free speech) to demand your DNA profile if you participate in a program. This certainly says you -- the employee -- cannot maintain your privacy in light of the corporation, supposedly, trying to reduce its risk.

A DNA profile that suggests an individual may have a higher chance of cancer -- ovarian, breast, prostate, lung, colon or whatever -- is only that, a possibility slightly higher for them than those who do not have the DNA profile. But the onset of cancer is not a certainty in virtually all forms of cancer. The bill in Congress -- at least it appears to me to indicate this - conflates DNA profiles with pre-existing conditions. Pre-existing conditions -- eg, Type I diabetes -- likely over time require higher health care costs for the individual and hence for the insurance provider. How these costs and charges are handled is certainly an issue for public policy debate.

But a DNA profile is not an indicator of an already pre-existing condition. Not everyone with certain DNA profiles will come down with the disease or affliction. It is not clear to me what has provoked the Republicans -- at least the ones backing this bill -- to go after this in the midst of the revisions to the Affordable Care Act.

At Columbia HS I have distributed the news article on this bill yesterday (Monday) to my Sophomore section of Science Research. We try to not only encourage students to initiate real research projects in an area of science they are interested in, but we also try to get them to think about ethics in science and research. A wonderful and true example is always the scientists in the tobacco industry who knew better supported the corporate line that smoking cigarettes did not cause cancer.

I want the kids in the Science Research sequence to always be aware that while "science" in the abstract is pretty much tentatively true (eg, Newton's Laws were the end-all and be-all of physics until scientists delved into the very small -- elementary particles, the very fast -- light, and the very large -- stars and galaxies. These led to Quantum Theory, Special Relativity and General Relativity), the role of individuals in practicing science can easily corrupt the process. The framework of society at any time dictates -- at least to some extent -- what scientists perceive to be "ethical." The dreadful work on the mentally ill, on prisoners, and many marginalized groups were done by scientists. They crossed a line and many victims suffered tremendous abuse.

The political establishment at the time also dictates what is deemed to be "true". We see this today in a switch of administrations from Democrat to Republican in the "truth" of climate change and global warming and the role of humans in the process. Politics is in part dictated by economics and in this administration the fossil fuels industry has a different idea of what is "true" and that position is dictated by economics, not science.

I know the District budget is tight -- very tight. I have tried for years to initiate a course at the high school whose focus is Science and Society. The number of issues that can be discussed that are relevant today are many -- like the bill to force employees to give their DNA profile to corporations. I believe that a course like this would be very instructive and useful to students who will confront these issues for the rest of their lives,



King's great-grandfather was probably one of the guys telling my great-grandfather "no Irish need apply."

drummerboy said:

And I can't let pass the most racist statement by a sitting Congressperson in ages:



don't be so shocked.


angelak said:



drummerboy said:

And I can't let pass the most racist statement by a sitting Congressperson in ages:

I actually am shocked by the amount of racism that exists in the Republican Party. I don't know why I didn't realize it before. 2008 should have been a tip-off, but I still am shocked.

(And, no, I don't think all Republicans are racist. It's just there seems to be a lot of blatant racists in the Repubs vs. the Dems).



There have to be much stronger denunciations of Representative King, from all corners of the GOP. In fact, he should be a pariah, and shouldn't have any serious committee role in the House of Representatives.

If the GOP doesn't do that, then it's admitting that it does rely, as part of its "base", on people who embrace the kind of reprehensible and racist attitudes demonstrated by Steve King.


King has a very long history of statements like this. The GOP has not denounced him in the past, so there's no reason to think they'll do so now.

That district of his most be a true hellhole of deplorables.

South_Mountaineer said:

There have to be much stronger denunciations of Representative King, from all corners of the GOP. In fact, he should be a pariah, and shouldn't have any serious committee role in the House of Representatives.

If the GOP doesn't do that, then it's admitting that it does rely, as part of its "base", on people who embrace the kind of reprehensible and racist attitudes demonstrated by Steve King.



I agree he has a long history, but his latest is more of a "smoking gun". There is no "context" which could possibly explain away the hatred represented by his statement.

drummerboy said:

King has a very long history of statements like this. The GOP has not denounced him in the past, so there's no reason to think they'll do so now.

That district of his most be a true hellhole of deplorables.

South_Mountaineer said:

There have to be much stronger denunciations of Representative King, from all corners of the GOP. In fact, he should be a pariah, and shouldn't have any serious committee role in the House of Representatives.

If the GOP doesn't do that, then it's admitting that it does rely, as part of its "base", on people who embrace the kind of reprehensible and racist attitudes demonstrated by Steve King.



The context is that he truly isn't very bright


well, he's not trying to explain it away. He's made no apology for this statement.

Here are some of Steve King greatest hits. Note: this is from 2008!

https://thinkprogress.org/the-hateful-and-divisive-record-of-bigot-steve-king-24df96127431#.btxqil7pp

South_Mountaineer said:

I agree he has a long history, but his latest is more of a "smoking gun". There is no "context" which could possibly explain away the hatred represented by his statement.
drummerboy said:

King has a very long history of statements like this. The GOP has not denounced him in the past, so there's no reason to think they'll do so now.

That district of his most be a true hellhole of deplorables.

South_Mountaineer said:

There have to be much stronger denunciations of Representative King, from all corners of the GOP. In fact, he should be a pariah, and shouldn't have any serious committee role in the House of Representatives.

If the GOP doesn't do that, then it's admitting that it does rely, as part of its "base", on people who embrace the kind of reprehensible and racist attitudes demonstrated by Steve King.



Not for nothing, the few families I know with a "King" surname are Jewish.

This vile King, however, has always been a racist. This administration emboldens him. Don't forget this gem:




Whatever happened to "extreme vetting"?

hoops said:

then theres now some proof of a definitive Nazi in the whitehouse.

http://forward.com/news/national/366181/exclusive-nazi-allied-group-claims-top-trump-aide-sebastian-gorka-as-sworn/




South_Mountaineer said:

Whatever happened to "extreme vetting"?
hoops said:

then theres now some proof of a definitive Nazi in the whitehouse.

http://forward.com/news/national/366181/exclusive-nazi-allied-group-claims-top-trump-aide-sebastian-gorka-as-sworn/

What? It's part of the job description for a job in this administration.

"Nazi a plus"...


extreme vetting is only for refugees fleeing for their lives



South_Mountaineer said:

Whatever happened to "extreme vetting"?
hoops said:

then theres now some proof of a definitive Nazi in the whitehouse.

http://forward.com/news/national/366181/exclusive-nazi-allied-group-claims-top-trump-aide-sebastian-gorka-as-sworn/

That's not for white people.


very slight thread drift:

I've just posted this elsewhere, and it was suggested I post here too.

I haven't seen discussion on MOL about demands 'Cambodia pays back its outstanding debt of more than 50 years' to the USA, that the US ambassador delivered a few days ago (last weekend?). I believe that "interest" was somehow calculated into the amount "owed", despite that debt being written off decades ago.
In Asian economic forums, this demand was a shock, and was panned. In the light of all the talk of increased budgets for military spending, and the nature of the military spending, (answering the question raised), "the world" is not impressed, somewhat disparaging, and various communities seem to be about to realign friendships so as to avoid an economic and military bully.



here's where I first saw that; BBC also had a piece. It's our ABC, not yours.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-12/cambodia-us-debt-arrangement-slammed-by-former-ambassador/8347120

Here's the Cambodian media angle:

https://www.cambodiadaily.com/featured/us-hits-back-at-government-over-500m-debt-democracy-124612/

So now, Cambodians are lumped in with the Sudanese -does that mean they'll also be on a banned list??? And Zimbabweans???


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.