California passes prop 8

[ygmir]

It would depend on what you're trying to prove, but not a great examplar.

A lot of states require insurance if you don't wear a helmet, but the amounts are too low to be meaningful and there is no protection from head injury in most cars and no helmet requirement.

yeah, but, I don't think the risk is anywhere near comparable......and, I'd think seatbelts and airbags would offer some head protection.....


How do you calculate the cost of the multiple caretakers that end up giving up their lives when there is no coverage, as happens for many tbi survivors now? ( and other types of patients too)
They are lost as resources when they leave other jobs to take care of relatives, and lost as a tax base too.

well, yes, but, I'd think the cost to society, in that circumstance, is less than the cost of the long term care.


What did they do that they should be held responsible for?

nothing, but, what did society do, to be held responsible?.......
It's no more societies job to care in that circumstance than the family and friends......


How is the cost to society of the many people that die now, as a result of valiant but inadequate care by relatives, to be calculated.
This is not such a rare thing already.

It's not a matter of sympathy, I think anyone has, I know I do, sympathy for a person in those situations, but, I just don't think it's societies job if a person is reckless.......as referenced originally.


And if you are satisfied that no support isn't costing society more than support, then you have to start talking about other forms of risk, diet, environment, habits, unnecessary trips to harsh environments over dangerous roads, alcohol, pointless risk from travel due to failure to live in a dense city, climbing trees, and so on and on...

and, I agree, there are many circumstances to be considered....and, unfortunately, arbitrary lines to be drawn.....but, a lot of the above, to me, is in the same category we are discussing.
But, then again, I'm against most government programs of any sort......
so, perhaps, my opinion is biased by that.
I also believe in the "good of humans" in that, if there were no government programs, a lot of folks would help their neighbors, etc....but, since they know the gov. will do it, they don't even consider it.......I know I would help, and, try to when I can.
I know it's not a simple subject, but, limits, IMHO, need to be in place for public responsibility for individuals choices and actions.

[gyre]

What I was saying is that the government doesn't address this issue now.
No one picks up the slack unless you are very lucky.
Hence, cases like my friend having to lock his mother in while he went to work.
And the routine cases of people wandering and being found dead, or never found.

But you are still talking about deciding what is reasonable risk.
You may have a clear idea of this, but you will find everyone else's idea of it varies.
What is the government's job is actually up to us to decide.

Not helping people has a high societal cost to it.
There are plenty of examples in both directions in other countries.
The usa is far from the top of the list, by these standards.

It is very hard to calculate the costs from the impact of loss of people from neglect on the rest of their family.
There is, at the least, an impact on productivity.

I suppose you could consider alienation and warfare the ultimate adverse side effect to disaffection.
I believe this country came close to that in the early part of the last century.

It is up to us to decide what our government should be.
When enough people believe they have no control over that...

[ygmir]

What I was saying is that the government doesn't address this issue now.
No one picks up the slack unless you are very lucky.
Hence, cases like my friend having to lock his mother in while he went to work.
And the routine cases of people wandering and being found dead, or never found.


yeah, that is a tough call. I understand......it's hard to think of where to draw the line.
I'm sorry for your friends predicament. I would help as I can. But, I think I like it by choice. I'm just not sure government should take the burden, but, not sure where to draw that line. How much personal responsibility and control should we have as individuals? It is true, sometimes things aren't fair. sometimes others can help, some times not.

But you are still talking about deciding what is reasonable risk.
You may have a clear idea of this, but you will find everyone else's idea of it varies.
What is the government's job is actually up to us to decide.

Exactly, it is up to us as a society to decide. that's how it should be......
I know my opinions, but, also know others feel differently. I can accept the different opinions, and, as with a "free" society, democratic and all, the majority should decide and set the parameters, IMHO.......

Not helping people has a high societal cost to it.
There are plenty of examples in both directions in other countries.
The usa is far from the top of the list, by these standards.

yeah, again, it's the limits that are the "devil in the details".......

It is very hard to calculate the costs from the impact of loss of people from neglect on the rest of their family.
There is, at the least, an impact on productivity.

I'm sure. but, somewhere, a limit to taking care of people has to be drawn. Maybe not total "survival of the fittest" but, somewhere between that and "womb to the tomb" care and cottling.....

I suppose you could consider alienation and warfare the ultimate adverse side effect to disaffection.
I believe this country came close to that in the early part of the last century.

You mean like civil war? I think we've been close a few times.......

It is up to us to decide what our government should be.
When enough people believe they have no control over that...

good point. we have to participate, all sides, all views. each will win some and lose some, without compromise, we will fall apart,and, then, be taken over by the Canadians, and, I shudder to think what that would mean........

[gyre]

good point. we have to participate, all sides, all views. each will win some and lose some, without compromise, we will fall apart,and, then, be taken over by the Canadians, and, I shudder to think what that would mean........

What would it mean?
Health care and working toilets that aren't trying to operate on six ounces of water.
And a ready supply of angst available for export from quebec.

I often think we should invade canada.
We haven't won a war in some time and it would be a treat if we did.
Might cheer people up a little.
And if we lose, we get health care!

Of course, we might be forced to be friendlier.

I heard about the nazi internment camps in canada.
They forced them to put on plays!
Plays!

[ygmir]

good point. we have to participate, all sides, all views. each will win some and lose some, without compromise, we will fall apart,and, then, be taken over by the Canadians, and, I shudder to think what that would mean........

What would it mean?
Health care and working toilets that aren't trying to operate on six ounces of water.
And a ready supply of angst available for export from quebec.

I often think we should invade canada.
We haven't won a war in some time and it would be a treat if we did.
Might cheer people up a little.
And if we lose, we get health care!

Of course, we might be forced to be friendlier.

I heard about the nazi internment camps in canada.
They forced them to put on plays!
Plays!

can you imagine the horrors?..............

learning an new language, "ey" at the end, and how to sporadically put it in the middle, of each sentence?

changing "ou" to "oo"...........etc, etc.......

of course, health care, but, you gotta wait in line, and, then, go to mexico if you want anything not immediately life threatening done, or, optional.....

we'd have dual language conflicts:
english/french, english/spanish, and, then add, probably: french/spanish.......we'll all end up speaking "esparanto".......

if we invade, we could walk in backwards, waving, and saying goodbye......they'd think we're leaving........

but, if we lose:
imagine the re-education camps:
being forced to sit at long tables, on benches, drinking beer and learning canadian folk songs..........and being friendly to EVERYONE........

to quote Col. Kurtz: "the horror, the horror".....

[Ugly Dougly]

Health care and working toilets that aren't trying to operate on six ounces of water.

Where did that come from?

[Elderberry]

Interesting back and forth on this so far. Rather than try and quote and reply to each detail, I'll just give my thoughts and feelings in general.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the government providing assistance to the less fortunate (which is where ygmir and I disagree); but I also think there is nothing wrong with the government having certain stipulations in order for those being helped to recieve the help. I also do not think that the government should be allowed to dictate how I want to live my life and what I do--as long as it doesn't hurt others.

So, for me I have no trouble reconciling the government saying "you are required to wear a helmet if you want us to take care of any injuries you might recieve while riding your motorcycle (or seat belt)". I have the choice of wearing or not wearing my helmet and I am fully aware of the consequences of both actions. Seems fair to all concerned.

I would also expand this to smoking and eating habits too. (That remark should really stir the pot.) If people are not willing to take care of themselves, then I don't think it is the government's responsibility to take care of them.

Welfare? If needed. Conditions? You betcha. Temporary sterilization with norplant. Child care while attending gov't paid educatioin for job training. Gov't paid job placement--maybe even required community service.

Part of the problem with this country is that people are brought up to believe they do not have to be accountable for anything and the the world owes them a living.

I have a long list of 'conditions for services and benefits' but no need to go into all of them here.

OH, and don't think this is any new and radical idea--almost all of the religious charitable organizations practice this--no food unless you hear the sermon first.

JK

[ygmir]

Hey JK:
I agree with you on the entire above post.

I've not said (that i remember), or tried to imply, I don't feel there should be help for those less fortunate, and, even government help.....I have stated that people should, and IMHO, will, step in as gov. steps out......but, at least I don't recall, making a statement about no gov. help. Just quite limited........I think the gov help should be the last resort, not the first......but, there definitely should be a "safety net" minimal, but, there.......

[Elderberry]

Hey JK:
I agree with you on the entire above post.

I've not said (that i remember), or tried to imply, I don't feel there should be help for those less fortunate, and, even government help.....I have stated that people should, and IMHO, will, step in as gov. steps out......but, at least I don't recall, making a statement about no gov. help. Just quite limited........I think the gov help should be the last resort, not the first......but, there definitely should be a "safety net" minimal, but, there.......

I think I was more referring to your general distrust of government and politicians in general to do anything and get it right.

JK

[ygmir]

Hey JK:
I agree with you on the entire above post.

I've not said (that i remember), or tried to imply, I don't feel there should be help for those less fortunate, and, even government help.....I have stated that people should, and IMHO, will, step in as gov. steps out......but, at least I don't recall, making a statement about no gov. help. Just quite limited........I think the gov help should be the last resort, not the first......but, there definitely should be a "safety net" minimal, but, there.......

I think I was more referring to your general distrust of government and politicians in general to do anything and get it right.

JK

which is quite accurate, referring to my opinion.........

but, that doesn't mean I don't think we should try........
I know they'll screw it up, but, you can't just let people starve in the streets........
that darn compromise thing again.....dang.....

[theCryptofishist]

I heard about the nazi internment camps in canada.
They forced them to put on plays!
Plays!

Terizin. Or Teresienstadt.



And we may have to ween ourselves off the water toilets. Although in order to get the LEED rating our building put in toilets with big and little flushes.

[Elderberry]

Hey JK:
I agree with you on the entire above post.

I've not said (that i remember), or tried to imply, I don't feel there should be help for those less fortunate, and, even government help.....I have stated that people should, and IMHO, will, step in as gov. steps out......but, at least I don't recall, making a statement about no gov. help. Just quite limited........I think the gov help should be the last resort, not the first......but, there definitely should be a "safety net" minimal, but, there.......

I think I was more referring to your general distrust of government and politicians in general to do anything and get it right.

JK

which is quite accurate, referring to my opinion.........

but, that doesn't mean I don't think we should try........
I know they'll screw it up, but, you can't just let people starve in the streets........
that darn compromise thing again.....dang.....

Actually ygmir, I think you'd make a great politician or ambassador. Maybe you missed your calling.

JK

[ygmir]

I think I was more referring to your general distrust of government and politicians in general to do anything and get it right.

JK

which is quite accurate, referring to my opinion.........

but, that doesn't mean I don't think we should try........
I know they'll screw it up, but, you can't just let people starve in the streets........
that darn compromise thing again.....dang.....

Actually ygmir, I think you'd make a great politician or ambassador. Maybe you missed your calling.

JK

thank you, thank you very much........*Elvis voice*.............

[gyre]

I heard about the nazi internment camps in canada.
They forced them to put on plays!
Plays!

Terizin. Or Teresienstadt.



And we may have to ween ourselves off the water toilets. Although in order to get the LEED rating our building put in toilets with big and little flushes.

I'm probably thinking of Feller, Angler or Gravenhurst.
It was housing pilots and other german officers.
It was famous for one escapee, started before the us was in the war.
He finally crossed the border but was caught again, third time I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PO ... _in_Canada
http://www.foxmeadowbooks.com/gildedcage.html
http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter23/in230803powcamp.html

[gyre]

Health care and working toilets that aren't trying to operate on six ounces of water.

Where did that come from?

Many places that have outlawed functional residential toilets have smuggled real ones from canada.
Married with Children ran a whole series about it.
A friend laughed at this until he got a new house with a non-working toilet.
He was having to flush it 5 to 6 times routinely.
He finally had to replace it.
Commercial toilets still work though.

[wedeliver]

When Jerry Brown was Gov, a maid hurt her back making his bed. He didn't use a frame,.

today abcnews

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: California Attorney General Jerry Brown called on the state's Supreme Court on Friday to strike down a recently approved ballot measue which eliminated the state's court recognized right to same-sex marriage.

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," said Brown.

The attorney general's legal brief constitutes a turnaround for Brown. Back in November, the mercurial former governor said that he was planning to defend the voter-approved proposition even though he personally voted against it. The attorney general of California is duty-bound to defend state law as long as there are reasonable grounds for doing so.

But after weeks of consulting with lawyers in his office, Brown, who is considering a run for governor in 2010, changed his mind.

He now believes that all the residents of California enjoy an inalienable right to liberty and privacy that includes a right to marry that cannot be stripped away by majority vote.

While voters are allowed to amend some parts of the state constitution by majority vote, Brown's brief argues that the state constitution's inalienable rights cannot be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment.

Proposition 8 oral arguments before the California Supreme Court could begin as early as March.

He might be gov again..

[Ugly Dougly]

When Jerry Brown was Gov, a maid hurt her back making his bed. He didn't use a frame,.

today abcnews

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: California Attorney General Jerry Brown called on the state's Supreme Court on Friday to strike down a recently approved ballot measue which eliminated the state's court recognized right to same-sex marriage.

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," said Brown.

The attorney general's legal brief constitutes a turnaround for Brown. Back in November, the mercurial former governor said that he was planning to defend the voter-approved proposition even though he personally voted against it. The attorney general of California is duty-bound to defend state law as long as there are reasonable grounds for doing so.

But after weeks of consulting with lawyers in his office, Brown, who is considering a run for governor in 2010, changed his mind.

He now believes that all the residents of California enjoy an inalienable right to liberty and privacy that includes a right to marry that cannot be stripped away by majority vote.

While voters are allowed to amend some parts of the state constitution by majority vote, Brown's brief argues that the state constitution's inalienable rights cannot be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment.

Proposition 8 oral arguments before the California Supreme Court could begin as early as March.

He might be gov again..

Implying that he had no other reason to look at the Constitution...

[dr.placebo]

Apparently it is OK in California to use the proposition process and a simple majority vote to take away rights from any unpopular group.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/califo ... .marriage/

Who's next?

[Elderberry]

Marching tonight.

JK

[ygmir]

Apparently it is OK in California to use the proposition process and a simple majority vote to take away rights from any unpopular group.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/califo ... .marriage/

Who's next?

yeah, the proposition monster..........
double edged sword, to be sure.
If you agree with the outcome, it's a great device, and, if not, then, not.........
It has been mis-used to take the rights of many........but, depending on the side of the issue you are on, justifiably, or not.

How do we determine the extent to which "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" goes?.........
I voted against prop 8.
I see it as a prime example of "LLPH".
I also like the idea, though, that, at times "the people" can circumvent the politicians and make their will known............
I dislike and distrust the political machine....necessary as it is..........

it seems, that, a course of action would be a new proposition, languaged to revers "8", and, that's that..........

sure, it'd take work and money........well, so did passing it.........

I can't see how the court upheld it, but, now that it has, move on..........
fight it, and, if people see it as you do, then, you win.

tough call either way, IMHO.......

[dr.placebo]

The Cali Supremes are totally wedged on this, preferring a cramped and miserly interpretation of the law to justice.

I strongly disagree not only with the outcome of Prop 8, but the process itself. If essential parts of the California constitution, such as the equal protection clause, can be abrogated by simple majority vote then we are dangerously close to mob rule.

So, I may not be marching tonight (I'm working late), but I have taken the time to contribute to the Courage Campaign.

For what it's worth, I've been married for over 26 years, and I find it unjust that I should enjoy that status when it is denied to others on the basis of prejudice. It is a basic civil rights issue.

[Generic Anonymity]

I haven't heard much about this particular idea lately, but I used to hear that Insurance also played into why we should recognize different ideas of marriage. A family unit can purchase insurance under different circumstances than can a legal union. Married couples can be considered family units, but legal union doesn't proclaim a couple a family.

Does some of the concern have to do with a risk of fraud attempts? I don't see how gender plays into that, either, though. A man and a woman who are not in love could just as easily marry to attain the same insurance plan. People get married for various reasons - aside from love. Is it wrong for people to marry in the interest of their financial status? to keep a friend in the country? to provide a stable home for their children?

Being recognized as a loved one and family member seems to be the more pressing point here, but I think that more things come into play.


To make things clear, though, I don't see why the government has any say in marriage. Marriage is a religious concept, just like Baptism, Communion, Annointing of the Sick, etc.
I look at my parents and think: Yes, they are married. They also have a recognized union under the government. Why are these two things operated in the same way?

[Generic Anonymity]

Sorry for the double post, but I went looking for more info.

Reuters news recently posted an article about the prop 8 ruling that I thought was interesting and informative. **LINK**

Another article followed that described some facts on the US laws regarding gay marriage. **LINK** It seems all of the states have their own take on what is right.