The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

I read this book a year or two ago. It gave me a much greater appreciation for the cultural traditions of the Hebrew Bible and the history of the Jewish people and their faith.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Arch...t/dp/0684869136

 

I think Finklestein has done stuff for History Channel in the past. I think I am going to check this out.

[Soxbadger]

I read this book a year or two ago. It gave me a much greater appreciation for the cultural traditions of the Hebrew Bible and the history of the Jewish people and their faith.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Arch...t/dp/0684869136

 

Just to be clear, I am not saying that I actually believe that events in the Old Testament are real. I highly doubt that there was an Abraham or Isaac, same with Moses and a few others. Now certain parts of the Old Testament do have historical elements (King David), but likely also include cult of personality stories (David v Goliath, Samson, etc). Same for Solomon (splitting the baby and arc of the covenant.)

 

But there are some arguments that some of the big events did occur (great flood), but they were exaggerated.

[StrangeSox]

I didn't think you were taking a literalist stance there.

 

That book looked at several of the historical record-type books of the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Exodus, Kings) but it didn't cover the allegorical Genesis. It looked at the archaeological evidence for the narratives being told and also examined them in light of what other sources tell us were going on at the time. You see narratives change (or originate) based around what the Israelites or Judah-ites were experiencing when the stories were being written down, like exile narratives appearing or strengthening when they were living in exile in Babylon.

 

That cultural aspect is what I enjoyed most. People didn't record, modify and mythologize these stories for no reason.

[Reddy]

btw posts like reddy's are why I refuse to self-identify as an atheist.

lol vs the other bible-hating posts?

 

also i was being hyperbolic. if you couldn't notice.

 

really the reason you and i don't self-identify as atheists is the social backlash.

[StrangeSox]

no even online in anonymous forums. militant atheists are the worst.

[Reddy]

no even online in anonymous forums. militant atheists are the worst.

 

i'm anything but militant about it. i was joking. good lord. i don't believe, but i don't hold it against folks who do, and Life of Pi made me WANT to believe in a god. haha

[Y2HH]

btw posts like reddy's are why I refuse to self-identify as an atheist.

 

I agree with this...I once started identifying myself as such, but I noticed an overwhelming hijacking of what atheism has come to represent...and what that is, is pure, unadulterated intolerance. And I want nothing to do with that.

[Reddy]

i've seen examples of religion doing really amazing, powerful things for people, and obviously we've all seen the negative side of it too. religion isn't bad, intolerance of religious views is bad.* And organized religion, i'd argue, is also generally a dangerous thing because it always inevitably becomes corrupted by money.

 

but in its essence there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing in whatever religion you choose. there's some great stuff in all of them.

 

* I'm intolerant of people who use their religion as a grounds for intolerance. If that makes me hypocritical, so be it.

[StrangeSox]

The Wall Street Journal ran an article today breaking down the new tax policies from the Fiscal Cliff deal. Article itself was a fairly straight-forward, accurate and thorough explanation. What's funny about it is the graphic on the side:

 

 

The lowest income on that chart is a single mother making $180,000 in wages and $35,000 in investment income alone. The people depicted are making several times the median household income, yet they look like someone just ran over their dog because their taxes are going up a little bit. I mean, am I really supposed to feel sorry for the married couple making almost 12 times the median, and over three times the median purely on investment income (enough to live very comfortably and never have to labor another day)?

[southsider2k5]

The Wall Street Journal ran an article today breaking down the new tax policies from the Fiscal Cliff deal. Article itself was a fairly straight-forward, accurate and thorough explanation. What's funny about it is the graphic on the side:

 

 

The lowest income on that chart is a single mother making $180,000 in wages and $35,000 in investment income alone. The people depicted are making several times the median household income, yet they look like someone just ran over their dog because their taxes are going up a little bit. I mean, am I really supposed to feel sorry for the married couple making almost 12 times the median, and over three times the median purely on investment income (enough to live very comfortably and never have to labor another day)?

 

If we are going to read into the graphics, no one looks particularly happy.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, they all look depressed. Even the retired couple who saw no tax increase is despondent. Like none of them know how they're going to put food on the table next week and pay both the electric and gas bills on the 31st.

 

They could have made a better point by showing a single mother who works two jobs to make $35k a year who's going to see higher taxes as a result of the end of the payroll tax reduction. Or at least a point that 99% of Americans could relate to instead of this.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, they all look depressed. Even the retired couple who saw no tax increase is despondent. Like none of them know how they're going to put food on the table next week and pay both the electric and gas bills on the 31st.

 

They could have made a better point by showing a single mother who works two jobs to make $35k a year who's going to see higher taxes as a result of the end of the payroll tax reduction. Or at least a point that 99% of Americans could relate to instead of this.

 

In the Wall Street Journal? I'm guessing that isn't exactly their target audience.

[StrangeSox]

[BigSqwert]

So with Obama's gun control proposals today, what does this mean? These are just proposals/suggestions right? Doesn't Congress have to come up with a bill(s) to enact any of it or is there something else about executive orders that I'm unaware of?

[StrangeSox]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/16/...E9CG39420130116

 

He also announced 23 steps he intends to take immediately without congressional approval. These include improvements in the existing system for background checks, lifting the ban on federal research into gun violence, putting more counselors and "resource officers" in schools and better access to mental health services.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/...slation_on.html

 

The second Joe Biden suggested that the White House might enact "executive actions, executive orders" on guns, the gun lobby smashed the glass and hit the alarm. The Drudge Report illustrated Biden's quote with portraits of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, who (among arguably worse things) restricted gun rights. There were surprisingly few questions from Republicans about what the executive orders might actually be.

 

Here's the list, via the White House. (I did not engage in complication reporter-fu to get this. It's the general fact sheet.)

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

And these are the legislative ideas -- i.e., the ones the president wants to push through Congress, starting with the more pliable Senate.

 

Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the "gun show loophole.")

 

Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.

 

Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.

 

Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.

 

Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.

 

End the freeze on gun violence research.

 

Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.

 

Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.

 

Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.

[BigSqwert]

 

[Balta1701]

"Nominate an ATF Director"?

 

Why did that wait?

[StrangeSox]

Probably due to the huge backlog of other appointments the minority party in the Senate won't let come to a confirmation vote.

[bmags]

Well, how many of those did Hitler have?

[Balta1701]

Well, how many of those did Hitler have?

Even hitler didn't do something as dastardly as having kids.

 

[bmags]

So, anecdote on Community Resource Officers. My high school had one. And I liked the guy, he did do a lot of out reach and stuff.

 

But one time there was a fight in the atrium during a passing period, and dude just runs up and pepper sprays everywhere. It spread all over into the upper floors and pretty much everyone was in class with tears and coughing.

 

I kind of think when they have so little to do, they over reach when a small thing happens.

[StrangeSox]

I dunno, plenty of regular police go hog-wild with pepper spray and tasers.

[BigSqwert]

Dennis Kucinich is getting paid by Fox News to make appearances as a punching bag.

[Jake]

Heil Obama! Heil Biden!