Thursday, March 1, 2012

Think The Long Thoughts. Woot!

 Some Thoughts I Thought Were Separate Once, Until I Thought A Full Long Thought. 

Today, I joined several of my colleagues in sending a letter to the Republican House leadership asking that they renounce the offensive comments made by Rush Limbaugh regarding Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke.
Top of Form
Unlike · · Share · 63 · 23 minutes ago ·
Congresswoman, I didn't hear what Rush Limbaugh had to say, but I have read several different posts wondering about the math of Ms. Fluke. She put herself out there with the outrages claims she was making. Additionally, the Chair of the DNC, Ms. Wasserman CONSTANTLY makes personal attacks against those she disagrees with. Where is the outrage there? Limbaugh is a private citizen who just happens to have a large audience. He doesn't speak for me or for the Republican Party, but himself.
14 minutes ago · Like ·
THANK YOU! News for limbaugh slut watch "something for it"

ABC News

Limbaugh: Contraception advocate should post online sex videos
Rush Limbaugh follows up his disgusting anti-woman remarks from yesterday with even more ... birth control with health insurance should be required to post sex tapes online “so we can all watch. ... We want something for it.
Rush Limbaugh Calls Law Student a 'Slut' Again

We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had called on Limbaugh to apologize ...
.----Hey Russell, are you for or against this type of language----does free speech ever come with responsibility? Does the requirement to do public good seem honored here to you? Russell?
Soup McGee Rush Limbaugh: I'll Buy Georgetown Women 'As Much Aspirin To Put Between Their Knees As They Want' ---Russell?
Television was invented in the late 1920s, but didn't become popular un...See More
3 minutes ago · Like ·
Soup McGee Russell Doolittle
Congresswoman, I didn't hear what Rush Limbaugh had to say, but I have read several different posts wondering about the math of Ms. Fluke. She put herself out there with the outrages claims she was making. ---My wife was given contraception at a Catholic Hospital after she gave birth to our baby---not because she asked for it but becuae the CATHOLIC DOTOR deemed it medically necesssary. Are you saying my wife is immoral, sir? Is my wife putting herself out there by needing medical attention you never will? Sir? "These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases,
women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire
consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome
and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries.
Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not
intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans,
it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or
Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be
made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t
accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university
administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate
whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a
back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance
representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these
prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend,
and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover
her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was
denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to
prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much
more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100
out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop
taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message
from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency
room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up
thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the
size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove
her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony,
she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night
sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the
removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body indeed does
enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me
have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately
desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally
unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I
needed it.” Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that
come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart
disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.
Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us
doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so
the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend
of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to
pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers
erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication
since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an
ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these
women are taken seriously." Sir? ---Russell Doolittle
Congresswoman, I didn't hear what Rush Limbaugh had to say, but I have read several different posts wondering about the math of Ms. Fluke. She put herself out there with the outrages claims she was making. ----Sir?
Soup McGeeposted toEric Cantor
Dear American, I
by Soup McGee on Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 10:49am ·

am partisan, but you don’t have to be. Vote for who you wanna, please, by all means- I encourage you to vote for incompetence even, should that be your choice. I fundraise and talk shit, not electioneer--but vote your conscience, exercise your right to vote your choice. PLEASE. And drive someone you like and someone you don’t like with you. Walk with some friends. Find a senior or a veteran, take them. Vote! One caveat:

If you believe man has no authority to govern man, ok. State that. Aloud. To your pastor. In your church. If you believe that Our American Government, with All Of the Checks and Balances in place and review undertaken over the course of a full century…if you believe that Our Shared Institution of United Federal government is an illegal Authority forcing taxation on you, ok. You have that right. Go to church on Voting Day instead of the voting booth, and register your Concern for the Direction of America by praying for voters. Give to God your honor and Allegiance and Authority to govern you and your Family of Churches and Spiritual Warriors. Cool. And don’t vote. Don’t register as voters, don’t run as candidates, don’t refuse to raise MY taxes---I vote. I give to the Government willingly. I pledge Allegiance to the United States of America. When you make your “secession statement” to your pastor, the “right” to evangelize-“to tell me or my wife what contraception we can use, which Amendments states ought to apply within Civil Law, etc. are not lost, but indeed, Given To your God. Awesome!

Register this statement with census. Fair enough? By registering your belief that America is an Illegitimate Authority forcing Taxation on You, you have agreed to not vote, as a vote is for where to direct tax dollars. It is tax dollars that provide the essence of Our Ability to Enforce the Constitution as a Social Contract. A zero percent tax rate…nothing is more Un-American. You will, through your pastor, still have to pay taxes, just at the Church Rate, whatever that is decided to be Fair by the Voting, Accepting of America American Public.…say, ten percent of the yearly tithing’s to your Church.

Such statement, once registered, ought last ten years, and one consequence can be: and because we love our neighbors, we will not take up arms, but-This will mean not allowing you to withhold your taxes to the detriment of the People’s Treasury, for example. “Any exemptions?” No. Not corporate, not personal--nope---no vote, no tax exemptions----there ya go! No new taxes? Awesome!

The Starve the Beast Strategy is hereby described as executed long-term sedition, which can only be described as a slide Toward Treason. When you choose not to vote, you choose to not take part in the social contract, and so disrespect the rest of Us who do, and when you refuse the Agreed and Codified rights of All in the Name of Individual freedom, you are, in fact, seceding from America. Americans who love their country support the services and rights that are degraded merely by our births. That’s right; we each scratch the varnish on American Freedom, and are responsible for cleaning up after ourselves---if we do, we are also responsible for turning to our neighbor and discovering how else to be best useful. This is called Humanity. So you still have to pay taxes…you are making sure your God has a record of your “registering your concern.” Let God do the Rest! have Faith!

Those who do not accept these Human Contracts with the American Constitution give up and do not attempt to recover the very basis of their philosophy: if the Constitution is Bible-Based, then the Bible is also merely a document stating the very basic rights given to all Humanity, and under any threat may not be separated by any Human. You, in the name of your god, are doing just this. This is coercion toward faith, a perversion of God’s Love, a version of America that cannot be allowed to exist.

Cos you don’t get to do this, Occupy Our Government Covertly, under the Guise of Jesus Loves Me. Our American Family is starving at the Hands of Your Jesus. You pray publicly for the end of the world, you starve your neighbor and call him “beast” while claiming Jesus- Blasphemers you are, you Domionionist, until you secede from the union outright and in a less cowardly fashion than you have chosen currently. Here I have outlined one solution for you.


Soup Mcgee

(I breathe. I am your tax dollars at work.)
· · 17 minutes ago ·
Mary Elizabeth Excellent post, Soup!
13 minutes ago · ·
Cob Adder You restore my hope, Soup.
10 minutes ago · ·
likes Ombudsman congressmen-as an idea for a massive jobs program funded by 51% taxes on all corporations who have more than 51% profit needing repatriation, or below 20% current applicable corporate tax rate...--a team of 12 randomly polled registered voters--and replace the Duty to register for selective service with an option to serve in the legislative ombudsman service corp instead, also, as well. Let the terms for the non-elected ombudsman be no less than nine months and no more than 1 (one) full year.Let funds be allocated to provide for media access that each ombudsman (independent and as group) may report on the action and decision making ability, etc. of each legislator. Let each ombudsman's presence be a requirement for full application of the Speech/Debate provision...etc.
10 minutes ago · ·
Mary Elizabeth The best gift a man can get.
10 minutes ago · ·
Soup McGee ,"When it is hope against hope/It will be hope that dies last/It's not what we are missing/Instead, what we yet lack/Here we are fighting/A relentless attack/////
9 minutes ago · ·
9 minutes ago · ·
Soup McGee thinks we could have tear-off sections of tax returns that you turn in when you vote. If you have an address, and you don't turn it in, you are saying, "I am willing to pay ten percent more." on the next years tax return. Problems, sure, but at least these aren't ZERO ideas. Here's another one:
Soup McGee I propose an idea to be abandoned or changed as necessary, starting with the idea that fiat money, based on real dollars, could be made available to students, classes, or schools. Support can be built (because all politics are local) for a new Education-Parent-Charity-Government Alliance, which could then be funded locally and mandated nationally. This may help us fundamentally rebuild our system from the ground up. Start with the crafting of some incredibly sympathetic tax exemptions for corporations who give charitably give “X” amount of money to Education equally to each district within in the state claimed as base of operations. Tie this exemption to a carrot- their overall tax rate, currently set at 35%, but paid at closer to 17%. Corporate giving to charity would become non-exempt should the organization choose to not pay its full rate (35%) and/or charitable giving does not meet the predetermined “X”. If “X” dollars are given, the 17% rate will apply. If the tax rate is paid “in full,” and the charitable giving from corporations does not lag because of the carrot, the burden that currently falls on the taxpayer and the outside charity is made lighter.
In turn, when the charitable giving or the chosen tax rate is not the amount needed to fund this new “program,” let there be a bi-monthly ballot initiative in every county across the country. The charitable and taxable money can put into a fund for the students. This fund will focus on helping students, newly involved with the power of the ballot box, creatively and efficiently (with guidance from their elders) craft propositions on how to spent their pool of fiat money. In each district voters of voting age will decide how to adjust the tax rates locally so that the Constitutional mandate for equal opportunity in Education is met. Also, people who earmark charitable giving towards education when they do their IRS statements can be given special exemptions. With parents, teachers, taxpayers and corporations all equally in the game, we may be able to get off of the “grades-for-money” discussion entirely.
Return Swiftly To Existing Standards; An Average Grade is C                                Carl Singleton argues in the essay “What Our System Needs Is More F’s” that failing all students who lack mastery in a subject is necessary and a neglected step in improving the education system in America. According to the author, an “immediate need” exists for all parents, students, and teachers to once again accept responsibility for their role in our educational system. He confidently asserts that F’s given en masse to those who earn them will “dramatically and emphatically” force the accountability he says the school system has ignored; such “force” is necessary because all else has failed.  Singleton contends that “higher salaries,” “merit raises” and “more stringent certification procedures” separately applied have failed to produce acceptable quantifiable achievement to date, but he acknowledges the role of the teacher in missing this crucial step. He insists the growing and successive lack of responsibility each generation of student displays is more than problematic, but indicative of the all too common practice of dispensing passing grades to unworthy students.  
For years now, learning institutions have hired and graduated unqualified and ill-prepared future employees and employers, says the author, because of this dishonorable exercise. In his view, teachers handed out passing grades to failing students and the consequence was the slow mutual diminishment of skill. Singleton then points to “illiteracy …growing” and poor curricular skills from even college-level students as the consequence we now face for our collective apathy. It is his belief that continuing this pattern is unconscionable, and everyone involved must share the burden of correction. Firmly implementing this recommendation, he declares, will establish the needed line between pass and fail. This line has corroded to the point that it is necessary to give a failing grade to all who cannot muster effort enough to pass on their own merit. Otherwise, the essay concludes, the system will continue to corrode and that would be a failure again of all involved.  Yet, Singleton’s plan to restore integrity to the education system is draconian in nature, and furthermore, his underlying message is deceptive. He skirts around his ultimate goal, which if applying his logic, will turn our system into one of pass/fail with no middle ground.
This essay states Singleton’s foremost concern is the current quality of teaching. There is nobility in the occupation, and he appears troubled by the thought that there are millions of teachers not bothered enough by their conscience to take the profession seriously and grade appropriately. The tone of the essay changes rapidly when he makes the comment about A’s being given for laughing at the jokes the professor makes. He is flippant, and this temperament reveals a bitter, tired veteran of the teaching profession. Singleton sees the landscape of his entire professional career razed by sloth and a lost respect for the hard work required to attain scholarly aptitude. He is losing patience with the sum of his years, as parents and students have steadfastly refused the lifestyle changes necessary for serious study. His assertion that the true strength of our schools must begin with parental involvement, demand student accountability and a true north on the teacher’s moral compass exposes his passion, and here a covert argument begins to emerge. Choosing to parenthetically reference “the quality of prisoners” in relation to the topic of education is a cynical turn in tone. Joking that he will not make this reference and then doing so casts a long shadow of doubt regarding his purity of principle.
 Aaron Beck, a renowned psychologist, made popular the concept of cognitive thinking errors. Understanding the cognitive perspective reveals the thinking distortions that severely undercut Mr. Singleton’s premise. He jumps to a false conclusion by providing no definitive facts or sources and maintains passionately but not logically that bad students are being taught by bad teachers- and this must mean low-quality teachers teaching more low-quality students will always be low-quality teachers teaching low-quality students. That this is a process that can never end proves the thinking error. He engages in global-labeling when he justifies his off-putting conclusion (based on negative judgments) that children who get F’s have fathers more likely to be ignorant or uninvolved.  There is no proven fact here, only his opinion, which is biased by sour experience. These thinking distortions are compounded by his “shoulds” thinking. He implies a rule that must be followed or else- but not every student needs or wants to be a cookie from this teacher’s cookie-cutter machine. Many students won’t want or need an A, but instead to learn a subject well enough to apply it in their life for their gain.
Every point is made with exacting clarity except Singleton’s belief that our school system should, as a whole, move to a pass or fail grading system. Upon reflection, he may intend the reader to finish the essay wondering “Is not give credit where credit is due the current system,” in the hopes of a light bulb going off. If so, he makes an excellent, if not emotionally reasoned argument. However, he is unconvincing is stating his desire for this result. Here is the heart of the issue: he wants the student to “learn the required material,” master the material,” receive an F when “it is the only appropriate grade” and respect the line between passing and failing. Were we to accept his assertion that there are no longer many qualified teachers as a result of A’s being given inappropriately, we would find ourselves again on a slippery slope with teachers incapable of complying with his recommendation. Pass or fail-this is the conversion the author actually believes in. Singleton needed to make a more straightforward argument for a precise return to the existing A-B-C-D-F standards, and this position did not materialize. After all, to give credit only where it is due is what we do expect now.
Singleton is correct to assume that the readers’ first reaction to his idea will be to dismiss it, as he admits there is no panacea. No single-shot solution has succeeded as of yet, and although he is correct to emphasize this point, no convincing argument is presented as to why his suggestion would be any more successful in the long run than those that have previously failed. While his stance bears weight, he is too dependent on a series of distortions. In making this case, his premise is heavily reliant not on a credible citation but a fallacy. First, all except accountability has been tried to no avail, according to Singleton. This argument is made weaker in his use of anecdotal evidence and his failure to substantiate his personal experience with a source. More explicitly, he contends that illiteracy is the rise, when in fact the CIA World Factbook states that the literacy rate in the United States is 99%.
Left unanswered is a host of questions: How is a student to earn a B in Singleton’s class? What is “mastery”? If no-one graduates at any level, what is the shared consequence of that reality? For how long will we continue to accept that shared consequence? And how exactly, as he implies, will this “force” more money to be spent? Here, Singleton again relies on his tendency to jump to conclusions; there can be no assuming funds will be made available. In today’s political environment, the idea even becomes laughable. He freely admits lack of such funding is even now a portion of the problem, and admits as well his solution would produce zeroes in some, if not many graduating classes.
The author’s profession lends some expertise to his counsel.  His motives, however, are questionable due to the darker nature revealed in his tone and commentary. While Singleton’s argument is coercive and omits his true intent (to institute a draconian pass or fail standard), it is necessary to hold student, parents, and teachers to an equal standard of mastery where a B is a B and a C is the average grade. Singleton presents the current struggles in America’s schools as an issue of pass or fail, and his case for change is couched in language and an attitude that subtly intimidates the reader into accepting its validity. A case for incentivizing success and renewing pride in personal accountability is indeed valid, but the acceptance of mediocrity when mediocrity is the level achieved by the student is equally compelling. It will be better to incorporate both a return to the standard accepted but forgotten, with more precision and less sympathy, while allowing that some students may not be capable of reaching Singleton’s unknowable level of “mastery.” This inclusive argument Singleton fails to make so his idea must deserve an F.

 Don't Forget!----------

     Responses to Questions on Levin’s “The Case For Torture”

What is Levin’s thesis? What specific moral justifications does he provide?
Levin says that believing torture impermissible is unwise. He justifies this madness by providing a hypothetical in which we must suppose at least twice he is already correct in having come to this conclusion. His moral “justification” is that we must torture if doing so may save countless other lives. 

How does he try to convince us that the situations he describes are “moving from the realm of imagination to fact”? Are his hypothetical examples effective? What answer does Levin expect to his question, “Could you sleep at night knowing that millions died because you couldn’t bring yourself to apply the electrodes?” How does the expected answer advance his argument?

He makes the attempt by describing a “supposed” situation where, if there is a bomb, and if this person is caught-- we must assume first that this terrorist, though he prefers death to failure, will magically disclose this bit of information so necessary to Levin’s thesis not being a statement in favor of moral anarchy. The author’s quick denigration (through minimization) of due process allows him to claim only four short sentences later assert that torture, as is, probably unconstitutional. We are supposed to concede to Levin, or else banish ourselves morally in his eyes. This is a frightening piece of inaccuracy used to further the argument for torture. His use of the term “moral cowardice” in light of this inaccuracy is bullying and thus, not a sound argument. Did we not know Pearl Harbor could become a viable target, and allow that attack on December 7, 1942 for the greater Good? What about Lusitania? Levin’s principle is turned on its head by the hollow nature of the logic he uses. He assumes that the reader, bullied, has conceded to his argument. This is the basis for the next piece of the incredibly immoral and childish philosophy…

What distinction does Levin make between his case for torture and torture as punishment?

…where Levin advances the inexactitude that he is making a distinction between torture (a) and torture (b). There is no justifiable moral assertion for this argument. In his rush to justify his hateful rhetoric, Levin fails to remember Stein’s simple line: “A rose is a rose is a rose.” Torturing someone because you believe it is right is not enough to make a lie the truth. The assumption Levin makes in this part of his argument (and he expects us to leap along with him) is that the person applying the torture does in fact gain no satisfaction or feel in any way justified in dealing some measure of justice for the acts already “irrevocably passed”—the bomb we have been threatened with that may not even exist, the hostages we have no proof of life to show for, etc. I cannot make this assumption; I admit my humanity. I am no coward. If the person selected to apply the torture should feel satisfaction, justified, or pleasure at the giving of the pain (“most excruciating possible pain”), it is by no means justifiable. Not by our laws. We would go to war to protect those laws, because they are based on shared higher principles.

What analogy does he make with assignation and preemptive attacks? Is it persuasive?

His weak analogy is the “Well, the Allies shot someone! They would have shot Hitler too!” Yes, we would have murdered Hitler, of course. Hello? World War? A bomb threat is not World War. It’s not. It’s a bomb threat. America does not torture. Well, we said we didn’t. But torture is torture, every time! This does not mean that murder in war is the same thing at all. I cannot make that leap. Not in defense of the ideas outlined here. Besides, an “atomic bomb?” This is a silly premise. We busted a guy on an airplane with his underwear on fire. Meanwhile, some anti-tax anti-government fanatic flies his airplane into an IRS building a while back— no-one could have tortured a stop to that…
What answer does Levin give to the objection that torture violates an individual’s rights?
He has already made himself out as derisive to these “rights.” This made dissecting this essay harder as the days went by; emotionally, this was a draining assignment. I say that because Levin’s objection is to call my running counterargument disingenuous. He suggests in opening paragraph ten that use of torture to extract a confession or as punishment is wrong. Ok. I agree. But he also says that only torture will coerce this terrorist to confess the location of said bomb and hostages. He appears to have confused himself trying to keep up with his twisted logic. It was a struggle for me at times as well. Let me be clear: If satisfaction for the act is received by the torturer, if justice is being delivered, this is indefensible regardless of the moral dilemma (oxymoron?) the author is attempting to box me into.
Grover Norquist, by the way, was given the same choice on the Colbert Report a while back: if the nation’s grandmothers were held hostage and only a tax increase could save them, would he then be for one? He (I’ll paraphrase) said that we should be consoled with memories and photographs. This is the kind of insanity that bothers me: Levin is displaying in a big picture window for me the strange ideology I’m trying to understand.

If we become torturers of terrorists, are we then as guilty of evil as the terrorists? How does Levin answer the question?
Yes we do. I could also not live with being a moral coward enough to follow through on Levin’s order to torture, where he in a position of authority, a la Stanley Milgram’s studies. If I tortured the “terrorists” and he was lying, how could I not kill myself? Levin answers “yes,” and proudly at that. Disgusting. If we start torturing suspected terrorists, why not start torturing suspected serial killers, or other offenders of crime against moral conscience? Preemptively, of course. Again, disgusting.
Bottom of Form
o i dont know why

i even bother with you fools

but here i am

this is what i do

they can't all be gems like this one

just this one

o it's nice to feel superior to everyone you meet

you might have guessed I don't like you

I'm biting back my bile

There are so many stupid people

all in denial

i know the feeling because i have worn the shoes

walked a long mile

walking a long mile

i am unable to resist the urge

to mock the hate

and love the world

i know already i will be told it was wrong

how quickly we forget

"the weak will be made strong"

"the meek will inherit the earth"

i give it up i give it up this was never mine

No comments:

Post a Comment