While I'm waiting for my nails to dry...

[oddish]

I simply don't have time to look around for copy and pastes. Would anyone like to discuss issues or what is really important to them.

Ending the war is important to me. I don't believe we had a right to go into Iraq. I do believe we had a right to go into Afganistan.

Health care is concerning to me. If I understand this correctly (and I might not so feel free to explain better, just not with a news article please..your own words)

Anyway if I understand this correctly the democrats favor turning all health care over to the government and everyone have access. So the hospitals and doctors would be public employees?

That is scary to me. I would like to see all American's have the opportunity for health care. If they can afford insurance then buy it themselves or go without. If they can't afford it then I like what they did in Mass. Buy policies in bulk, state pays the premium and deductibles.

What issues are important to you?

[Hepburn]

Healthcare, killing off wildlife to get oil, income taxes, border patrol...not necessarily in that order.

[Hepburn]

And watch where youre waving those wet nails. My hair is still in rollers and I dont want them to stick together due to wet nail polish, missy.

[oddish]

Brahahaha, that was the funniest mental picture Hep.

Killing off wildlife to get oil. I haven't heard too much about that subject. Tell me more.

What about income tax concerns you? The IRS? The possible raising of taxes? Should we even have income tax? Who to raise taxes on?

[la gazza ladra]

Anyway if I understand this correctly the democrats favor turning all health care over to the government and everyone have access. So the hospitals and doctors would be public employees?


No, not really, that would be closer to Nader's plan and the British system. Currently, all three candidates want to still work around existing insurance companies and make them conform to some sort of schedule.

I think we first have to have some sort of equal reporting of accounting from the insurance companies of what they do and do not cover and for how much. If all these companies were forced to conform to an easily understood form that clearly showed what they were providing, we could get to the bottom of this mess quicker. I doubt most people actually can compare one company against the other in any effective way at this point.

The benefits to doctors and other medical employees in the British and French and German systems is that University is essentially free if you can keep up your grades. Also, malpractice insurance would be handled differently and risks lowered.

[oddish]

and make them conform to some sort of schedule.

What does this mean?

Do you have any more information on the specific plans of Clinton and Obama?

[kim]

iraq - that imo is costing us so much and because of that everything else is going down the drain...

i think obama will get us out quickest...

afghanistan - imo we should get out of there too - unfortunately none of the candidates still running are suggesting that - again - imo obama would handle that situation better than any of the other candidates - i like his calmness - i like that he listens to people - i believe that he understands conflict and he knows how to resolve it - clinton and mccain both seem to me more than half cocked ready to shoot anyone who doesn't follow their lead...

the economy - matters to me a lot - imo obama's ideas on how to fix it are better than the other candidates - i like what he says about regulation and accountability - much more - but - his economy speech is around here somewhere - so i won't go into that further right now...

i will say - i don't trust the clintons - yes - the economy was in better shape during bill's terms in office - however certain segments of the population were hit hard by welfare reform - i have personal experience with that particular program since it was former wisconsin governor tommy thompson who came up with the original plan many wisconsinites were hurt by that long before that plan made it's way to washington...

i've done a lot of research over the years - since the internet it's so easy - way back during the iran / contra investigation i caught some of it but missed out on a lot because during it (and then for just about a whole decade after i haad no television) anyway i completely missed the fact that john kerry was doing the investigations until bill clinton took office and shut it all down - why did he do that - then on his way out he pardons a fucking illegal arms dealer (who was i beleive connected to iran contra) one who to this very day is still dealing in shady arms deals thanks to his pardon / release from by bill clinton...

so i've been reading as much as i can about that - and - yeah some of it is real sordid - and - some comes from the right - but - a lot - comes from the left - and also - the middle...

then today i come across and item that hillary - way back in the days of arkansas (like in 1985) was lobbying for the contras...

i can hardly believe it - all these years i thought it was just the republicans involved in iran / contra...

ha...!

okay - sometimes besides just missing stuff i can be real naive...

instant access on the internet has been very helpful however...

sorry - enough of that - back to other current issues...

one more quick note on that: if clinton manages to steal it - expect new alliances from the left - working with the right - in order to destroy the clintons - rofl...

yes - health care matters very much to me - i don't have any health insurance...

i'd like total govt. health care...

however...

>>>>>>> no candidate is suggesting total government health care...

i don't know what or even if mccain has a health care plan...??

obama's and clintion's health care plans are both are fairly similar - but imo obama's is (slightly) better - clinton's plan would require all to purchase insurance - obama's plan would require children to be covered - (also purchased) - i don't really like either plan all that much - but will go with what seems the least worst to me - hahaha...

- i think the Mass. plan (i need to read more about it) might be workable - altho i know some (few as far as i know) have criticized it (i don't know exactly why - yep - i need to read more about it)...

p.s. my fingernails are stubby painting them would only highlight their stubbiness... :p

*

[kim]

edit: wish we had real edit / fix many typos...

[la gazza ladra]

What does this mean?

Do you have any more information on the specific plans of Clinton and Obama?


Both Clinton and Obama have their plans on their respective websites. Nader has his on his site.

McCain doesn't have a plan.

Since you don't read C&P's, I guess you'll have to go fish. I'm not going to paraphrase such long presentations into digestible and [what would be surely incomplete] bullets.

[kim]

quick note / more on what matters to me:

environment / education / civil rights...

- as i said above i don't trust the clintons and i also don't trust mccain on any issues so the only real viable candidate for me is obama i think he will work hard to address these issues however much needs to be done in these areas and no one person nor even one admin. can carry it all out (nor even two - this is going to take a long time and we all really need to get working very hard on it) imo obama will give us a hefty boost in a positive direction...

[gigilee]

I'm concerned about health care, too.

I don't think either Democratic candidate is advocating turning health care over to the government, but there are some differences in their health care platforms. Mainly that Clinton would require everyone to participate, and Obama would not.

In my own words, the Clinton plan for universal heath care is this.

If you are happy with your current coverage, keep it.

If you don't have access to coverage because you 1) can't afford it or 2) have a preexisting condition that precludes the insurance companies from accepting you, you can buy into the same policy that covers our lawmakers in Washington or you can opt into a public plan (like Medicare, Medical, etc).

There will be subsidies provided to those that cannot pay, however, those that can pay something should.

How will we pay for this?

As I understand it, most of the savings will come from increased efficiencies in modernizing the health care system which should make fraud easier to detect. The plan also calls for focus on prevention. Some of the funding will come from repeal of the Bush tax cuts for those making 250K or more a year.

The reason that Clinton's plan insists on universal coverage (mandated) is that without a mandate, insurers will continue to cherry pick customers who are less likely to require expensive services, and leave those with serious pre-existing medical conditions to fend for themselves. This forces the uninsured into the emergency room for routine care, and this cost is spread around, again raising costs for everyone.

It's going to be very hard to get this passed, even in a friendly congress, but we have to do something. I've been in the emergency room several times this year with my aunt. It's a mob scene and the ER staff seemed overwhelmed. My brother is disabled and has limited access to health care. He has to schedule appointments with a specialist at the county hospital months in advance, if he can get one at all. How many millions more are in the same boat?

[kailin]

Mandate = punitive measures if you go against it

Probably unconstitutional, depending on who is on SCOTUS at the time.

There are some people whose right to refuse mandatory health insurance, e.g. Amish, should be respected. Probably not children, but I'm talking about adults.

Mandate = fines and/or other punishment if you refuse to participate.

Against individuals only? or also against businesses? Not sure, but I'm certainly against pushing adults who won't participate. My body belongs to me, not to any government!!!!

[gigilee]

Sigh. Were you hovering over the keyboard waiting to pounce, Kailin? Surely you have more phone calls to make.

Hillary's mandate argument is based on the idea that universal health care won't work unless everyone is required to participate.

Without a mandate, many will choose not to get health insurance. This will include many young, healthy people whose financial input is needed to cover the costs of the sick. And many of the uninsured WILL get sick or have accidents. Hospitals will be stuck with their bills, which will in turn raise costs that will ultimately be passed along to those WITH insurance.

Mandate may be a dirty word to you, but it makes complete sense to me that we can't allow a large segment of the population to go without coverage and think we can fix the current heath care crisis while containing costs.

[mivona]

I can't understand the antipathy to the British system, anyway... As a working tax-payer, I pay a fraction of what health care costs in the US.

[kailin]

Mandate may be a dirty word to you, but it makes complete sense to me that we can't allow a large segment of the population to go without coverage and think we can fix the current heath care crisis while containing costs.

Yes, it's a dirty word. I'm a grown up. If the plan is attractive, I'll join it. I do NOT need to be FORCED to take care of myself by any freakin' government!!!

That's insulting.

Who is this "we" that "can't allow" -- and if there is a "large segment of the population" that is not participating, isn't that an indication that something is wrong with the plan?

A 'large segment of the population' is people who are making decisions every day, like, um, for example, who should be the Commander in Chief of the biggest war machine in the world? And "we" can't "allow" them to make decisions about their own health care?

That's insulting.

[kim]

- from what i know of the british system i think it's great...

[oddish]

Kim

I loved reading your post!

Iraq- I agree with you that Obama would probably get us out the quickest.

Afghanistan- clinton and mccain both seem to me more than half cocked ready to shoot anyone who doesn't follow their lead...

I agree with that statement which is what worries me. I'm curious, why do you think we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

I agree with you about the Clinton's as well (gesh who'd have ever thought we'd agree so much eh?)

Giglee-

Thank you!!! I appreciate your taking the time to lay that out in layman terms. It makes much more sense to me now. I don't really see any problem with that plan..in fact I rather like it with the exception of the mandate. If people choose to opt out, they should have that option..however...they would do that with the knowledge that no one is going to bail them out later.

Miv- I'm against putting anything in the governments hands. I don't think they do a good job and I believe medical care will suffer or decline in quality if the government is in charge of it.

[gigilee]

:::hands Kailin a brown paper bag:::

Please do calm down and explain how the O-Plan is superior. If you would stop hyperventilating every time you disagree with any point, people might actually listen to you.

And by the way, since you are so deadset against mandated social programs, should I take it that you agree with Bush on privatizing social security? After all, most working adults have no choice about participation in the current system.

[agogoboots]

if clinton manages to steal it

Why is it that if your choice wins it's an "election", and if any other choice wins it's a "theft"?

[kim]

oddy - i'm glad that we agree on the clintons - lol...

afghanistan: why do i think we should get out: cuz i'm anti-war (any war)...

some reasons (i think you stated) for going into war (where is that i thought it was in this thread) well anyway i think you said if a country asks for our help if there are human rights violations going on (and some other reasons darn wish i could find that post) anyway i agree we should be involved if other countries want help but i don't think that war is the best way to help...

i admit i'm not a total pacifist if an army invaded our country i'd fight against them (unless they were here to liberate us lol)...

i understand that sometimes things escalate and sometimes war is very hard to avoid however it is also very profitable for some few and those few are so often the ones pushing for war and pushing division among differing factions playing upon old grudges fears prejudices pitting people against eachother and all those people end up the losers so often while big weapons manufactors make a killing...

there are so many ways to work out problems by discussing all of the issues and by understanding people's needs and by being willing to take the time to carefully work through grievances war is really so unnecessary most of the time...

another thing that is imo very important is to do very thorough investigations of all grievances (and accusations) but some were pushing to go to war without that...

- in any case i think that we agree on a lot of stuff and i'm glad of that... :)

*

[oddish]

I can see where you're coming from Kim. I'm probably much more pro-war than you are but I still wish the reasons we went were more thought out and we really only used it when everything else had been tried.

One reason I'm really for going into Afganistan is not only because the Taliban was using that as their base and they are the ones who attacked us but also because the Afganistan women were so abused. They had asked for our help getting the Taliban out of their country and we did nothing to help them..until of course it helped us.

[mivona]

Kim
Miv- I'm against putting anything in the governments hands. I don't think they do a good job and I believe medical care will suffer or decline in quality if the government is in charge of it.

How worse do you think the medical system would be in the hands of the government? It is not as if we have politicians in the operating rooms or running hospitals here.

Health rationing is real, no matter what kind of system you have. Here, it is based on balancing cost and likely outcome. In the US, it is based on ability to pay.

[oddish]

I think it could get much worse. I'm not saying the current system is great or doesn't need some kind of reform but I couldn't really point to any system that government has taken over that is better off. That's putting an awful lot of trust in government which I just don't have.

[mivona]

How do you see the current system as benefiting the country as a whole?

How would you fix it without any government stake in it?

[oddish]

I don't see the current system as benefiting the country.

I like the health care plan that Massachusetts enacted. Basically everyone that can insure themselves needs to do so. Then people who can't afford it or wouldn't be covered, the state buys policies in bulk for those people and also helps to pay any deductibles.

This leaves medical care private without government and also provides a way for everyone to have health care.

[kim]

oddy i had a post almost ready to post in response to your previous one but then i crashed dang it...

- anyway basically what i was going to say was that imo our involvement in afghanistan way back in the late 1970's (during the carter admin.) and the early 1980's (during reagan's admin.) aiding the mujahideen (bin laden was mujahideen) led to the mess we (and they) are in now...

[oddish]

I agree with that too Kim. We created the mess, the least we can do is help the people of Afganistan get out from under them.

Please..we have to stop all this agreeing. It's weird LOL

[mivona]

So what happens to those who refuse to have some kind of health care coverage? Kids? How much will be spent in looking at checking whether a patient has insurance or not? Who pays for the emergency healthcare for someone who is later found to have no insurance? Do you make their family homeless as the house is repossessed because he didn't have heathcare when he crashed his car?

It just makes more sense to me to have everyone covered, administered centrally. There are no questions on admittance to hospital. Everyone has access to preventative medicine - which has a beneficial effect for the whole population.

Personally, I wouldn't mind that people had a to pay a small amount for access to a doctor at the outset. This would help reduce the "social" visits that make it so much harder sometimes to get care.

I think it would make people think about how they use healthcare services, and perhaps have a greater commitment to attending all appointments made for them.

I don't see the government role in the healthcare system to be a big problem - it is more that people take the service for granted, and don't cherish it for what it offers them.

[oddish]

I'm torn really. On one hand I do not like the government being able to mandate how people spend their money or what they should do. In order to keep that freedom then yes, if one chooses not to have insurance then they would risk losing everything. Not the choice I would make but I don't need someone telling me what is best for me and yes that includes the consequences of those actions.

Children are different. I support mandatory insurance for children.

On the other hand, I can see that it could cause some problems with people not getting insurance, even though they could afford it and some of those costs passed onto others. I'd still prefer to maintain the freedom to govern my own actions and afford everyone else the same.

[mivona]

The reality is that government already chooses how to spend your money, many of them with absolutely no direct benefit to you.

They choose to give money to the war. They offer corporate tax breaks and welfare to companies that will do nothing for you. They will fund employment-generating projects that are more like "make work" than projects that are needed.

Given the plethora of things that the government already spends your money on, with or without your support, I just don't get the incredible angst that comes up on the idea of health care, where many Americans would clearly benefit.

[oddish]

I agree and I would dearly love to see less government in all of those areas. For instance, the war. Of course it is not possible that government is going to consult me personally but I would like to see congress more a part of the decision to go to war, stay at war etc. I'd like to see better reasons for war.

I'm not against welfare. I believe it helps in a great many situations but I would like to see more accountability.

I think those two examples are two good reasons why I don't want to see government with it's hands in anything else. I think the solution I promote would help just as many people without the government taking it over.

[mivona]

I think that the money spent on checking for eligibility for healthcare would be better spent on actualy providing healthcare. I think that the obsession with individuality and the antipathy for collective action will eventually be America's downfall. It already appears in some people's views that they will do nothing to stop pollution, or reduce energy use, or whatever, because they think they will miss out on something, and they - come hell or high water - are going to do what they want. Because they can.

[kailin]

Given the plethora of things that the government already spends your money on, with or without your support, I just don't get the incredible angst that comes up on the idea of health care, where many Americans would clearly benefit.

Miv, I think that the angst comes from what a lot of people have seen and reported of cases of really awful treatment that people have gotten here. It's almost an adversarial system in some ways -- run by the adversarial legal system. There's doctors who are doing operations while under the influence, there's cases of malpractice which get swept under the rug and end up with settlements including draconian non-disclosure agreements, there's stories about pills with ingredients from China that are killing people while pills from over the border at Canada are considered "risky" etc etc etc

People are wary, for good reason. It's a crappy system. Most people can't even visualize any other system -- like being able to decide YOURSELF if/when you need a specialist rather than having to get some local clinic to refer you, etc.

My Dad is now 91 now. We've been through enough medical horror stories just with him. Fortunately, he takes vitamins and keeps busy and takes good care of himself, but from time to time, we've had to challenge the health care people pretty firmly.

[kim]

a bad doctor here murdered my mom...

- it's happening here a lot...

[Rawbunzel]

An HMO murdered my dad [in a round about way of course, not overtly]. It does happen. I'd love to do away with HMOs.

[suzyqueen]

Health Care, education, taxes, the elderly, jobs (look at all the plants closing) (whatever you want to call them), fuel prices, the cost of living. Our children.

[kim]

hello and welcome suzyqueen...

[suzyqueen]

Thank you Kim and hello to you.

[oddish]

because they think they will miss out on something, and they - come hell or high water - are going to do what they want. Because they can

I think there are extremes in anything and I like to avoid extremes. I don't feel like I'm the way you described at all. I simply do not feel it would be a benefit to the most people in the long run. I like middle of the road. Compromise. I'm willing to do things because they benefit other people and at the same time I don't want "government" choosing for me. "Government" is an establishment not actual people. Whenever an establishment takes over red tape ensues and people become the casualty. The more we can move towards local people looking out for local people the better. Once it gets so big, people lose their humanity.

[kim]

- i think we are too big too...

p.s. hahaha we're agreeing again...

[mivona]

That is an interesting view of government, as an establishment not actual people. It is seen as a separate entity, acting without regard for the people it is supposed to govern?

The very basis of our country's democracy is about having a voice and representation. If you really don't believe that government is made up of people who are there to represent a group of people behind them, then you must also believe that this ideal has utterly failed.

The government is made up of actual people. That's the truth. Whether they act in the interests of their constituents is the big question - and in truth, I think many of them are completely disconnected from the voters who supposedly put them into office. The selection of individuals who are welcome to join that elite group ensures that "establishment" view remain paramount (no revolutionaries allowed...) - but the big question is what are the values and goals of that "establishment" ethos?

The need to conform in order to join that select group means that there is a diminishing opportunity for minority interests to be represented. The "two party" structure has sidelined more and more people as "minority interests" as elected representatives focus more on those who support them in their election bid and forget about the "representative" aspect of their role. That is one of the things that disgusts me most about the influence of neocon views - that "with us or against us" attitude that divides Americans rather than seeks to find collective ways forward for everyone that used to exist.

Unless people feel empowered to influence their government in their small way, unless they see the government as acting in their interests too, I think that American democracy is a failed experiment. It's failure has been shown in the increasing disengagement with elections, when they don't really care who to vote for, because it's "always the government who gets in".

That's one the reasons I think that Obama is so interesting... he might actually inspire the disenfranchised and disengaged to feel that once again the might have some say over the political direction of the US. Unless someone, sometime actively attempts to reconnect the vast population of the US and to address their concerns and serve their needs, I can't see how it will be sustained as a cohesive country. Except by force and fear.

[oddish]

When this country was first established I don't think the founders had any clue,nor could they have, how big it would get. I don't view it as failed at all. Perfect, certainly not, but not anywhere near failed either.

I don't feel like I don't have a say in governement. I'm realistic in that my vote is one vote and there are millions of people in this country and their votes get to count too. There are hundreds of ideas and different ways of looking at problems so the chances of my particular ideas being the ones to prevail aren't really very good. I would also very much like to see more third-parties because I think it would help control apathy but again my particular viewpoint might not win.

I believe in a very limited federal government. States rights should prevail in most cases and as far as services go they should start at the local level and only move to the county level if the city can't do it and only move to the state level if the county can't do it and only move to the federal level if the state can't do it. The federal government is an establishment, and that's not a bad thing per say. It's simply too big and covers too many people to tend to each one personally and look at each circumstance. I believe less money would be spent and would be spent on people who really need it if programs are administered at a more local level where the "establishment" is run by Mr. or Ms. whomever, who was voted in by the people and actually knows the people. It's impossible to do on the federal level.

[la gazza ladra]

There's a lot more going on than what is touted by the candidates regarding healthcare that most people aren't aware of and that includes the FDA which is a scary organization. The FDA seeks to regulate everything. Some of the more practical things that we had been using for many years are now restricted by the FDA. Things like Iodine and the old Phisohex and mercurochrome etc. Iodine kills bacteria and fungus. Yet now we have prescription pills that are pushed to solve those with deleterious side effects. It starts in the medical schools and is kept fostered by the medical culture through medical trials, pharmaceutical companies and the congress. Now we have prescription drug commercials. If you need a prescription and aren't allowed or qualified to make a judgement as to whether it might be beneficial, why are they allowed to advertise it?

One reason I knew the Hillary story about the woman who lost her baby and died and was refused service was a lie is that hospitals receive huge grants to ensure our infant mortality/morbidy rate goes down. If you're pregnant, they'll accomodate your every need and pay for it. Their bottom line demands it, the more positive outcomes, the more money they get. Our rates in this regard are pretty shabby compared to the rest of the world. Money flows like water for these programs.

Insurance has the people's business and the doctors' business and the hospitals' business, and business insurance, key man and on and on. We're boxed in by insurance any way we turn. That's why an aspirin costs $8 to administer. Most people can't even read their policies, and the insurance companies know that, they count on it. They'd rather pay a lawyer $100k to fight and not pay your claim of $10k. The problem with lawyers is not of the John Edwards type, it's the rank and file insurance company lawyer and there are many more of them, great huge office towers full of them. Tort reform would only make them more brazen. They have vast resources paid for by millions of policy holders' premiums to fight the policy holders. Plus they are reinsured by the other insurance companies like a daisy chain. Read "The Invisible Bankers" by Andrew Tobias for a realistic and shocking view of how it all works. Ever wonder who the big movers and shakers on Wall St. are? It's the insurance companies buying up everything and trading back and forth and buying up real estate both here and abroad and basically gambling and parleying policy holders' money. They'd rather do that than pay for medical services. Which brings us full circle to our latest economic situation of how we got sub prime loans and a devalued dollar and $4 gas. It's all interrelated, but they don't want you to know that.

[mivona]

The thing that bothers me about state rights is the potential for different laws and different treatments - particularly for minorities of any kind - based on majority rules.

A congregation of FLDS could, in theory, create their own laws that allow them to religiously abuse children. If fundamentalist Christians took over a state, they could deny women contraception and abortion. The scope for oppression is too great. I like the idea of having the basic social fabric overseen by a wider government.

The administration of benefits, etc probably is best administered locally, and I always thought that they were. People don't have to go to Washington to apply for or receive welfare, so I don't understand why welfare is reviled as a "federal" thing. Local service centres can easily provide the administration of such benefits, providing both employment opportunities as well as local awareness the job market, etc. If it is not working like that, why not?

In terms of the kind of welfare support provided, I again prefer the idea of a federal structure, to ensure that those in need are treated equally. I don't mean that everyone is given the same amount of money, no matter where they live, but rather that there is a framework of benefits provision that bring them up a pre-determined income level that takes into account the cost of housing.

It goes back to the oppression of minorities - I would not like a smug community to decide it was not going to have poor people living there and giving them only minimal help so that they would give up and go elsewhere for better support.

I would hate to see personal rights trumped by state rights, and like the idea of a national structure that allows people to travel within the US knowing that there will not be an abridgement of their rights depending on where they live. I keep wondering how the states that refuse to allow civil partnerships are going to deal with couples that have been wed elsewhere, or adopted children elsewhere and then moved.

[oddish]

I can see where you're coming from Miv and I can't totally disagree. Keeping things local does present some problems to be sure but we do have a constitution which prevents the majority from taking over minorities rights. I understand that in practice that does not always happen but I really can't see a way to eradicate any and all abuses. We have laws against stealing and rape and murder as well but there will always be those that do it anyway. A community of FLDS or anyone else engaging in child abuse would not get past the current laws on the books or the constitution as far as engaging in that behavior legally. Since it's obvious they are getting away with it, the problem isn't in the current laws it's the implementation of those laws and yes some communities break those laws. I'm not against state or federal interference in some circumstances, I just don't want it to be the standard. Do everything you can do for yourself and only when the resources are not available go to the next level. In the case of a community not obeying the laws or the constitution then the next level of government would need to step in.

I don't see a problem with loose federal government guidelines to insure people are treated fairly. I just don't want them regulating the heck out of someone in rural Kansas implementing ideas that work really well in New York city. Each community is best suited to know what the needs of that community are, the more you move away from that community making those decisions the worse the decisions are going to be IMO.

[kim]

oddy...

i'm following this thread - and - i planned on posting a bit more - but - haven't completely decided what i want to add - anyway - i just wanted to say - i think that it's a really great thread...

*

[kim]

p.s. mivona - you reminded me of a current situation that our family is going through my cousin recently married an indian woman (from india) and they have been through the ringer trying to get her over here as far as i am aware united states citizens who marry someone from (say europe) do not experience the same sorts of trouble and this really bothers me...

*

[oddish]

Thanks Kim I kinda like it too. I don't think most people are all that different. They may have different ideas on how to get things done or how to accomplish the greatest good but I think most people want the same things.

[oddish]

That is one reason I am really for enforcing the immigration laws. There are so many people who are on waiting lists and have been for years and years waiting to get into this country and they are doing it legally. I believe they should be let in.

[kim]

lol - my first husband was kinda crude - he used to say basically that everybody just wants to eat shit and go to sleep...

:1rotfl2:

[mivona]

I guess it will come down to how you define "rights" and "equality", Oddish. From my perspective, there has already been an erosion of the human rights of gay people in the US. They have lost their right to a family life in some states - and I really, really want to know how those states are going to deal with the legal marriages that have happened elsewhere. What will happen to the children in these "illegal families", if they move there? What will happen to their health insurance coverage if they move to a state that does not recognise them? Are they going to have their free movement around the US constrained by state laws?

There is an overarching set of constitutional rights that we now have put in some uncertainty, based on who is sitting on the court bench. Do you really think it is legitimate to require those who are oppressed by state laws to have to appeal to a body that no longer feels like it has the constitution at its heart? Or that it is going to interpret that constitution in a very narrow way that leaves them out on the ledge?

I firmly see States rights in a much more limited way - determining physical/development change within its boundaries, applying local taxation, addressing local issues and leaving laws about personal behaviour at the federal level, with guidance from state level. That way, we wouldn't have this stupid plethora about illegal sex toys and laws about what you can't do even in the privacy of your own home. When you get down to local communities/states making those kinds of laws, it brings the whole "states rights" thing into disrepute, and clearly leaves the door open for local persecution of minority groups.

Where do you draw the line?

[tabbinosity]

p.s. mivona - you reminded me of a current situation that our family is going through my cousin recently married an indian woman (from india) and they have been through the ringer trying to get her over here as far as i am aware united states citizens who marry someone from (say europe) do not experience the same sorts of trouble and this really bothers me...

*

Kim, how "recently" are we talking about here? Without more specifics I'd have to disagree with your assessment. If I were to file an application to bring Mr. Tabbs (a European) to the US this coming Monday (next possible business day), I could probably expect to collect him at JFK no earlier than a year from now. Maybe longer.

And I'd probably have to come back to the US to file, because DCF (direct consular filing in the country of residence) is no longer an option unless the US citizen spouse has been a legal resident of the foreign spouse's country for six months or longer. This doesn't mean "had a work visa," "had a business visa," "had a student visa," or anything other than the foreign country's equivalent of a green card.

I'm personally aware of legal immigrants from European countries who have been in the US long enough to have qualified for citizenship and become naturalized before they ever received their physical green cards. We are talking five years here, in the majority of cases!

I'm also personally aware of immigrants who came here legally on K1 (fiance/e) or K2 (spouse) visas and when the marriage either didn't take place or it failed and the US citizen involved opted not to sign the relevant papers for the foreign partner who then decided not to leave the US, nothing was done to remove the now-illegal foreigner.

I'm aware of a US family who are facing the deportation of the British husband/father, even though he came to the US legally and they've got kids born in the US. Why? Because the couple met while she was in the UK as a tourist. Then he came to the US as a tourist and they decided to get married and then they set about obtaining a green card for him as the spouse of a US citizen. USCIS is pursuing deportation because they view this as the couple's attempt to circumvent US immigration law.

This US/British family are white. It's not about racism. It's about post-9/11 bullsh!t that applies across the board regardless of ethnicity. To a lesser extent it's also about IMBRA, which seeks to ensure the safety of any foreign national (not just women) who comes to the US as the spouse of a US citizen.

Many of my patients from the Middle East and South Asia were marrying in their native countries according to local law, then arranging US tourist visas for their spouses to get them over here. (Believe it or not, this is easiest if we're speaking of countries where the majority of the population are Muslim.)

The foreign spouses are here legally, but without green cards they have no more rights than if they'd sneaked across the border. If their spouses who brought them to the US in this manner hold US citizenship, they have the option to try to adjust the foreign spouse's immigration status, and they'll probably succeed, unlike the US/British couple referenced above. If the spouses who brought them to the US have green cards but are not yet citizens, everything has to wait till the green card holder gets naturalized -- this may take a few extra years.

We're not even factoring in people who do this while themselves having gone out of whatever status they had when they entered the US. One of my former patients came to the US from Turkey to visit her husband who had arrived twelve years earlier from Turkey on a tourist visa and just decided to stay on, essentially abandoning his wife and their children back home!

Meanwhile, there are more and more restrictions on legal immigration. There has been no increase in funding or in the number of USCIS (formerly INS and then BCIS) staff to handle any of it.

It's a big stinkin' mess, but it's not about not being white or European.

[mivona]

Legal immigration to the US is completely fucked, and I don't understand the rationales for the stupid rules.

When I came to the UK 30 years ago, I came as a tourist, with a 6 month visa. I got it extended for another 6 months, and when that was drawing to a close, I got married and was given indefinite leave to remain in the country.

After being here with that for a few years, I became eligible for citizenship, and it is only because I didn't apply for so long that I wasn't British before this. Once I did the test, made the application and paid the money, it was pretty much a done deal.

Simple. Easy to understand.

[tabbinosity]

Is it that easy these days, Mivona? It took a cousin of mine more than twelve years to obtain British residency, and that was with marriage to a British citizen and a legitimate request for political asylum. It was more recently than 30 years ago, though.

I'm not in the least defending the current US immigration process (such as it is). It is indeed "completely fucked." But from what I've seen over the last several years it's pretty much fucked across the board, and Kim's cousin's problems are not due to his having married an Indian rather than a European.

[oddish]

I define rights probably much more narrowly than you do Miv. There are many things which people would like that are not rights. It's actually a very old argument. States rights versus federal control. I prefer states rights. It provides 50 checks on the federal government. If the federal government holds all the power who is to reign it in?

I strongly disagree with you about states rights. I believe that each state does have the right to make it's own laws and set up norms for the people that live there. I also don't agree about the courts. No I don't agree with every decision but again, my opinion is not always going to prevail. That doesn't mean they don't follow the constitution or aren't acting in what they believe are the best interests of the country.

[kim]

tabbi - what you said above probably applies fairly equally to my cousin's wife...

it has been a couple of years - first they got married in a civil ceremony and then a few months later had a traditonal indian ceremony...

prior to their marriage however she had already applied to the u.s. and been approved to go to school to get her masters degree however once they married for some odd reason she was not allowed to come here...

another thing they are being told (by the u.s.) is that they will have to marry again (for a third time) here in the u.s. in order for their marriage to be recognized here which seems odd to me and that in particular is not something that i've heard of as applying to europeans who marry u.s. citizens...

*

[kim]

edit: typos...

[Doofy]

I'm not sure where I stand on our national health service.

Oddish is right in that government manages to mess up, everything they touch. Its criminal how many administrators are needed per actual working person. Compound that by the massive government unions created.

I'm all for user fees, if my younger sister had a hangnail, or sneezed once, my step mom racred her to the doctor.

I remember going to emerg and having a series of blood tests done, than two days later my family doctor ordered the same tests. I asked the technician if things would have changed that much and she blew a gasket when she found out this was a repeat.

She told me if the average person had any idea what these tests cost, they would freak at how casually doctors order them done.

In the end I would say as much as the flaws are huge, I'm grateful.

DW spent a month in hospital, and DD spent a further 3 months in neo-natal. I read everything I could on preemy babies, and most of the stuff I read came from the states. In each book there would be large sections on how a person could try and find the money to pay for the massive expense.

I remember reading a thread here and being surprised at how many here had or knew of preemy babies. Is it that hard to have the costs covered?

There are always stories of people that broke something in the states and drove back to Canada rather than dare trying to pay for it in the States.

I wouldn't think about traveling without buying blue cross.

We have huge problems in this province as we have a small population scattered over a large area. Its hard to fund small town hospitals/medi-centers. Thats with the knowledge that government doesn't care if it runs at a loss.

I wonder how this is handled in the US where profit is all.

[mivona]

It is now much harder to get British citizenship, though it is still pretty easy to come here, I think. I was not allowed to work in this country until after I was married, and then it was fine. There isn't a "green card", but getting the right to work is still not easy. You have to prove that you have employment opportunities, and a skilled Chinese/English translator I know is not having it easy.

Oddish, how far do you support states rights? and what do you see as not rights? What is it that you fear about federal law, and how much do you want existing federal law to be dismantled?

Would you allow fundamentalist Christians outlaw contraception if a state's legislature was dominated by fundamenalist Christians? If cohabiting was against community norms, would it be ok to harass any cohabitees out of the state? It is not all that long ago that it was "normal" to insist that anyone different was out of town by nightfall... is that acceptable imposition of community norms? I just don't get it... I don't understand what it is that the proponents of states rights over federal structure want to achieve. To me, states rights just opens up the door for majority oppression of minorities - if you don't think that is going to happen, why not, and how not?

Kim, there should be, someplace, a list of countries whose marriages the US is supposed to recognise. It is about record-keeping and the laws around how a marriage is defined and recognised in the country that impacts on how it is seen in the US. That is why I wonder so much about how America will deal with gay people who have married in a country with laws that recognise gay marriage, and whose marriages are recognised by the US. Are they going to just decide that those people are not married, even if they were legally married elsewhere in a way in which the US would have otherwise recognised if they were not gay?

[kim]

yeah mivona - there ought to be a list somewhere - maybe wiki has something on it - i'll look around a bit - perhaps u.s. gov. would be a good place to check as well (hahaha) anyway - imo the questions you ask are good ones and i've been wondering the same thing...

*

[tabbinosity]

tabbi - what you said above probably applies fairly equally to my cousin's wife...

it has been a couple of years - first they got married in a civil ceremony and then a few months later had a traditonal indian ceremony...

prior to their marriage however she had already applied to the u.s. and been approved to go to school to get her masters degree however once they married for some odd reason she was not allowed to come here...

another thing they are being told (by the u.s.) is that they will have to marry again (for a third time) here in the u.s. in order for their marriage to be recognized here which seems odd to me and that in particular is not something that i've heard of as applying to europeans who marry u.s. citizens...

*

In most foreign countries they do a better job of separating church and state than we do in the US when it comes to marriage. If your cousin and his wife got married in a civil ceremony they should have a government-issued marriage certificate, and I'm pretty sure that English is an official language in India.

This would mean that the certificate should have been issued in English and also, I'm guessing, in whatever the bride's local language is, plus probably in something like Hindi as well. (If English is one of the languages of the certificate they don't need a translation for her application. If Mr. Tabbs ever comes to live in the US we'll need a sworn, notarized translation of our certificate because ours was issued in Belarusian and Russian, not in English.)

The religious ceremony most likely doesn't count for governmental purposes, whether Indian or USCIS, because few foreign governments recognize religious marriage ceremonies and unlike here, most foreign clergy aren't authorized to marry people in the eyes of the state, but only in accordance with the couple's spiritual practices.

The US embassy website for Mr. Tabbs' country specifically cautions US citizens to be sure they have a civil wedding that is properly registered with the authorities and also states that a church wedding is at the couple's discretion but it isn't considered official by civil authorities.

So my question is if they have an English-language record of their marriage as registered with the proper government office in India, either original or sworn, notarized translation. I'd be interested in specifics about why they're supposedly being told their marriage wouldn't be recognized in the US. This shouldn't be the case if they have that official English-language government-issued record of their marriage or a sworn, notarized translation.

The remarriage thing is probably because they can't satisfy USCIS requirements to prove that their marriage is registered in accordance with civil law in the bride's native country. We have our certificate and Mr. Tabbs also has a stamp in his passport which states that he is married and specifically names me as his wife. This is on record not only in his hometown (where we married) but also in his country's national archives, so we'd just need sworn, notarized translations if we pursue immigration to the US for him.

Where they probably ran into a problem was that the marriage changed her status from that of a student with an approved student visa to that of spouse of a US citizen. This would have put her in a position of having to reapply as the latter, and she would be back at the very beginning of that application process.

If they can't prove that they're officially married as per the rules of the Indian government he'd probably have to try to get her here on a K1, marry her within the K1-allotted 90 days, and then apply to adjust her status and obtain a temporary green card for her. (After two years, he would then apply for her to temporary green card to be changed to a permanent one, and subsequently she would become eligible for citizenship.)

Sounds like your cousin is trying to bring his wife on a K1 (fiance/e visa) rather than on a K3 (spouse visa) or as the spouse of a US citizen, with a permanent green card. She'd be entitled to come with a permanent green card if he could bring her as the wife of a US citizen, but they'd have to have been married for two years at the time of her scheduled arrival and they would have had to have lived together in her country.

So I guess he's in the US and therefore they're not living together? Did he ever have actual residency in India or just some kind of visa? All of this throws additional monkey wrenches into the works and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with her nationality or ethnicity.

I'm assuming the rest of their application is in order, and he can demonstrate things like an ability to support her and so on.

Kashtin posted here some time ago about the hell he went through to get his wife squared away with USCIS. Mrs. Kashtin is Mexican and I'm sure all the issues with undocumented aliens from Mexico aren't helpful to legitimate applicants like Kashtin and Mrs. Kashtin.

In addition to everything I noted above, there are similar issues with Indians and tourist/guest visas that get overstayed. There are actually an astonishing number of undocumented aliens from India in the US. It's very easy for them to disappear into the South Asian community here and very hard to track them once they have.

And for what it's worth, Mr. Tabbs would never have been able to get a tourist/guest visa to the US before he married me, and he probably couldn't get one even now. As a single man he had definite ties to his native country, but nothing that would be recognized by the US embassy. He has no significant amount of money, no fancy job, no property. Good candidate for overstaying his visa and then disappearing into the Russian-speaking community in the US!

As a married man, what he has is an American wife who owns property in the US, which the USCIS assumes would make him more likely to overstay a visa -- they'd think we were trying to get him a visa to shorten the amount of time it would take to bring him to the US (the "right" way), shortstopping the process of adjusting his status.

It's bureaucratic insanity, but not necessarily racial bias IMO.

[tabbinosity]

Specifics on registration of marriages in India and information on translations into English here. (http://www.immihelp.com/immigration/marriage-certificate.html)

There is also an increasing rate of marriage fraud, both among Indians and across the board in general, which may be contributing to the problems your cousin and his wife are experiencing.

[oddish]

There are so many circumstances in which one could find themselves that it would be impossible for me to direct a blanket answer for each one. Indeed I would probably feel differently about any given circumstance. That's one of my main complaints. I don't like blanket solutions to problems or to possibilities.

I'll give an example, we studied this case from Chicago. To greatly summarize they had a problem in certain parts of town with gangs. The gang members were taking over neighborhoods through intimidation and paralyzing it's occupants. They would stand on street corners or even on the sidewalks in front of peoples homes and intimidate them through following them, shouting out threats in front of them (such as yelling to their fellow gang member..I wonder what would happen if I shot that woman in the head) or blocking passage so people could not walk. The effect was a horrible chilling effect on the people who lived there. They did not even feel safe sitting in their front yard, let alone trying to get to work or the grocery store. The city counsel listened to the peoples complaints and also watched the phenomenon for themselves. They then passed a set of laws designed to allow the police to deal with this mess. Since the gang members were very careful not to directly threaten someone or to assault anyone new laws were needed in order to stop the abuse and rights violations (that to me is a right, to be able to sit outside your own house or walk down the street without being threatened or intimidated). These laws were fairly restrictive. In another part of the country and under different circumstances I'd even say they would violate the freedom of citizens however in this circumstance they were completely appropriate and needed. They worked too. People were getting their neighborhoods back and crime was down.

The laws were overturned by a federal court for violating the gang members rights. In my opinion that is wrong. The federal court that ruled had no idea of the problem, they weren't the ones that faced the intimidation. The local authorities had a much better handle on what the problem was and how to fix it. It should have been left up to them.

Each situation is different and living with a situation is far different than some bureaucrat trying to solve it in a general way from hundreds of miles away.

To specifically answer your questions. Would you allow fundamentalist Christians outlaw contraception if a state's legislature was dominated by fundamenalist Christians?

No. Contraception is a personal choice and it does not have an effect on other people. People should be able to choose their own beliefs system.

If cohabiting was against community norms, would it be ok to harass any cohabitees out of the state
This is a strange question. I don't understand why in the world anyone would go to another community to harass someone, even if they believed or behaved differently than your own norm. On a bigger scale this is not unlike the world as a whole. So many different cultures and norms and beliefs. I can not understand why anyone wants to force someone else to be the same. I understand sharing or discussion to say hey, my way may be better. Talking if fine even productive but force? I can't understand it. At the same time I also believe that every group or community or country has a right to set their own norms and culture and just because they might differ from ones own norms and beliefs does not mean necessarily they are bad or wrong. The only exception I see to that is abuse. Abuse of any kind should never be allowed to be a norm.

Rights are hard to define in absolute terms because of my example above. In general the right to be safe and by safe I mean no physical harm nor intimidation of physical harm. I do not feel like there is any right not to be disagreed with or even hated. I don't agree with people hating other people but I don't think that's a right. The right to free speech, the right to practice or not practice a religion and the right to have a say through your vote in our government. I'm sure there are more but I've got to get back to this homework :)

[kim]

my cousin lived in india for several years he was sent there by his workplace and while there he met and married his wife then some months later that part of his job ended he still had a position with the company here in the u.s. so he came back he has been back and forth a number of times while they try to straighten all this out so she can move over here and yes their first marriage in india was a legal civil court marriage which as far as i know ought to be transferable also yes her status change from approved student applicant to now wife of a u.s. citizen did complicate matters altho i'm not exactly sure why so anyway they were told that she needed to fill out new forms which she did then after about many months of waiting for those forms to be approved and / or after some kind of a waiting period she was told that those were not the correct forms and that she had to fill out new forms also with another waiting period eventually they will let her come but in the meantime they are just giving them a big run around...

you are probably correct - i know things are different now because of the patriot act...

- thanks for the link and info...

*

[kim]

p.s. thanks tabbi - sorry - i forgot to address that post...

*

[mivona]

I think I would want to look at the reasoning for knocking down that law, Oddy. We have here "dispersal orders" to stop kids congregating on street corners, if they become problematic the police have the law to make them disperse.

Bad law should be struck down, so I wouldn't see it as the end of the road. If the law is focussed on the perpetrators, rather than the acts you are seeking to control, then it is going to be discriminatory. You then have to accept that in making the intimidation done by gang members illegal (as it should be), the intimidation done by anti-abortionists outside clinics will also be illegal. The law has to be written dispassionately and without bias - and I suspect that the Chicago law was struck down for those reasons.

We have already seen divergent views in the states about gay partnerships and abortion - acts that as far as I can see have no direct impact on me, or anyone else other than those personally involved. Where does the line end when there is a seeming majority hostile to gay families - so that they cannot be seen as legal partners, or to adopt even the children of their partners? We already seen some pharmacists restrict the contraceptives that are available to women, imposing their own religious views on others. Has there ever been a case of a Viagra prescription not being filled, as the impotence is "God's will"? If all the FLDS members moved to one state, and gained a majority, should they be allowed to live as they wish because it was now "community norm"?

I see the federal oversight as a very important check on the abuse of majority rule and a bar against discriminatory law.

[kim]

about a decade ago some zealous shop owners here rallied to get rid of loafers outside their shops and got a law passed stating that people aren't supposed to stand / loaf around on state street for more than something like eight minutes...

however all sorts of people not just loafers congregate on state street it's a street designed for congregation (no cars are allowed on state street) it's a street where many protests are held etcetera...

anyway after that law was passed all sort of people started grumbling about how it violates the constitutional right of free assembly...

it occurs to me now that there are usually a number of loafers that the shop keepers were getting riled about...

as well anyone else gathering / congregating / assembling - there has got to be more than one person to make a gathering...

so anyway i don't know how that might apply to just one loafer or just one person just standing around all by their self...

it's loafer groups that get the shop owners upset anyway not single loafers...

- in any case it the anti-loafing law is never enforced probably because it would be challenged and reversed...

p.s. thanks mivona...

*

[mivona]

I think that is a perfect case in point, Kim, where the law is defined against a specific group, rather than against a specific behaviour. After all, who are they harming by just hanging around? That kind of broadbrush law is removing the right of free assembly, and should be challenged.

If their hanging around becomes threatening to others, if they are behaving in an anti-social way, then it is the behaviour that is the issue. By using the law to address specific types of behaviour that are unacceptable to community norms, it then is not discriminatory.

[kim]

we have laws concerning disorderly conduct already we've always had laws like that as far as i know just about everywhere in the u.s. has disorderly conduct laws (except for a few unincorporated places) anyway disorderly conduct laws a effectively used to keep people from getting rowdy...

- (sometimes they are used as well when people aren't being disorderly but that's another subject)...

*

[kim]

edit: missing letters (are) effectively...

[mivona]

Wouldn't it be nice if they just used the laws that already exist more effectively, instead of trying to pile more laws on top?

[oddish]

Boy I wish I had kept a copy of that case or could remember what it was called. I believe the law was struck down for restricting free movement if I remember correctly. It was aimed at gangs or people affiliated with gangs specifically but it wasn't struck down for being discriminatory for gangs members. Your dispersement law sound pretty much like what this law was and I believe it was a good law given the situation where it was enacted however it would not be a good law if broadly applied through the whole US.

Abortion is a hot topic and one I don't really want to get into but in short, you see it as not harming anyone. Pro-life views it as saving a life. You view homosexuality as not harming anyone. People against it do not see it that way and especially when it comes to the raising of children. My point is..people view things in different ways. I have my own opinions on things but really who is to say I'm right or you are right or this group or that group. So yes I do believe that communities have the right to set their own norms. Again using a global example, I, personally do not agree with women having to wear head coverings. It seems oppressive to me. However I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to go into another area and tell them how to live or what to believe.

As far as the FLDS, it would all depend on what you mean by "live as they wish". Live their religious beliefs yes, abuse anyone else in the name of those beliefs, no.

Back to that case. They could not get the gang members on disorderly conduct. They were very careful not to overstep the law. They weren't being loud or fighting. They were intimidating with their presence..try prosecuting someone for that with the laws we have now...practically impossible.

[oddish]

I'm also not against federal over site per say. I just want it limited to over site and only in the case of egregious wrongs.

[mivona]

So yes I do believe that communities have the right to set their own norms.

So do I, up to the point where it impacts on others who do not share those norms.

Again using a global example, I, personally do not agree with women having to wear head coverings. It seems oppressive to me. However I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to go into another area and tell them how to live or what to believe.

I personally am not keen on head coverings either, but have no problem with women wearing them as long as I feel that it is a personal choice rather than imposed. They give me the same inward cringe as the identical wig styles of the Orthodox Jews.

As far as the FLDS, it would all depend on what you mean by "live as they wish". Live their religious beliefs yes, abuse anyone else in the name of those beliefs, no.

I support the FLDS to live their religious beliefs only as far as they begin impacting on others who do not share those beliefs, or who are not yet able to make an informed decision for themselves. If they personally, want to live polygamously, and are happy with it, that seems an odd, but acceptable choice, akin to communal living. When it involves the public supporting their "single mother" families, structured in that way for the purpose of obtaining welfare, the support ends. When it involves the forced marriage of young girls who have been denied the opportunity to choose a different path for themselves, I object. When it involves the banishing of young boys, to again be thrown onto public charity for their sustenance and care, I object. The current structure seems to me more like a cancer on society than a religion. Where do you draw the line?


Back to that case. They could not get the gang members on disorderly conduct. They were very careful not to overstep the law. They weren't being loud or fighting. They were intimidating with their presence..try prosecuting someone for that with the laws we have now...practically impossible.

Shouting threats of shooting someone isn't illegal? Not disorderly conduct? We have a law here about "behaviour likely to incite a breach of the peace" - and I think that would certainly fall into that category. Acting like assholes so that a conflict will ensue...

[tabbinosity]

I personally am not keen on head coverings either, but have no problem with women wearing them as long as I feel that it is a personal choice rather than imposed. They give me the same inward cringe as the identical wig styles of the Orthodox Jews.



(Bolding mine.)

Now there's a sweeping generalization! Nice wigs don't come cheap, but there's hardly any requirement that wigs be "identical," or even that wigs themselves be worn by Orthodox Jewish married women. My godson's mother, like many modern-day western Orthodox Jewish women, favors a variety of stylish hats for everyday wear, and reserves her wigs (three of them in completely different styles, colors, and lengths) for more formal occasions.

This website (http://www.sheitel.com/) for a merchant based in the heart of New York City's Orthodox Jewish community, with a representative in London's Golders Green, offers plenty of variety.

(Me? I just keep a large scarf handy and I'm "covered," whether for a mosque, an Orthodox Christian church, or a synagogue. I like to respect the norms of the community I'm visiting.)

[mivona]

Tabbi, I am well aware of the diversity of orthodoxy, and the Golders Green community is quite different from the local Stamford Hill orthodoxy, where I see the same hairstyle, same colour, same cut on a multitude of women. I doubt that it is a prescribed wig, but the fact is that they are the same, for whatever reason.

[tabbinosity]

It's probably economics, and if they choose wigs as their headcovering, well...lack of money equates to fewer choices in fashion as it does in everything else.

I suppose it would be equally bothersome for you to see how many men here are wearing the same design/color of inexpensive casual (not trendy/designer) shirts. ;)

[oddish]

I don't think there are any easy answers Miv. It's a balancing act to insure that people do not lose their own rights and yet everyone is protected.

I don't disagree with you on what you've said above. Where do I draw the line? Probably closer than you'd like me to. I have a real problem with hiding abuse behind religion. The problem comes when it's hard to prove. The laws we have demand proof and witnesses. You and I and everybody and their Mother can know that abuse is going on but unless we've seen it or have some solid proof they can't be prosecuted. It's a similar problem to the gang problem I wrote about. You get a group of people who work the system, who know just how far they can go, who terrify their victims so there is no proof and are no witnesses and the law has it's hands tied. I can't really give a solution because I can't think of one. On one hand I don't want laws that violate the constitution, slippery slope and all that. On the other hand just because people can intimidate, lie and walk the line of the law ..it's wrong that they can victimize people and get away with it. I don't know what the right answer is.

They did try to prosecute for the threats. That is actually what prompted the city council to pass the more strict laws. He was found guilty but the appeals court overturned because of freedom of speech. He did not threaten the person, he asked his friend what if he shot her. Both sides agreed it was not in a threatening tone and yet of course the effect was threatening. This is what I mean, it's frustrating in real application because to me, they were threatening those people, everybody knew it and yet they couldn't touch them because they walked the line and yelled for their constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of assembly. Which people should have protected, just not protected to hurt people but unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way.

So do I, up to the point where it impacts on others who do not share those norms. This is pretty broad. What do you mean by impacts? There is nary a thing people do without impacting (good or bad) someone else.

[mivona]

Here are some examples, Oddy...

I support others opposing abortion. They should have the right to protest about it, if they feel that strongly about it. When it becomes mob action, and intimidating to those who are choosing to access the clinic's services, that is where I draw the line. When they begin promoting the murder of clinic staff, it is over the line. They have the absolute right to their own beliefs, they do not have the right to impose the beliefs on others. They have the right to not have abortions themselves, they do not have the right to restrict others from making their own choices.

I support alternative lifestyles. It doesn't bother me if people choose to have polygamous marriages. No skin off my nose. But, if in their pursuit of polygamy they choose to arrange their lives so that the individual "wives" are seen as lone parents and life off public support, that is where I draw the line. They have the right to pursue an alternative lifestyle, but do not have the right to insist that others support them in financing that lifestyle. I also object to those who have really large families of children they are utterly incapable of supporting.

I think it is utterly ridiculous to make laws about people wearing their trousers around the bottom of their asses. They look stupid... but so what! Eventually, when they find them around their knees one day, they will realise how stupid it is. I have seen a woman dressed in an appallingly slutty way in a shopping mall, and though I didn't like it I wouldn't dream of making her dress differently. It was the flip side of the ass-trousers.

If people find it necessary to evangelise their religion, that is their right. But when they come to my door, I should have the right to have my instruction to not call at my house honoured. I am not stopping them from holding their beliefs or acting on them - it is just that they have to respect my desire to be left alone.

And a hypothetical... If a group of people sharing a particular world-view choose to congregate and live in a particular area, and are able to gain influence and control of decision making bodies in that area - just how far should they be able to dictate how the rest of that non-sharing community? Say... they oppose the teaching of physics, and prefer to promote magic as the science of explaining how things are... They gain control of the school board, and physics is removed from the curriculum and replaced with magic. They legislate locally that no mention of physics can be made without a fine, and the police are then instructed to apply the law. They are ok with that, because they share the view, and anyone who says anything about physics (inside or outside school) gets fined. They have been able to impose their views on others, because they have become the "community norm" simply by outnumbering the original inhabitants.

Does that explain it any better?

[oddish]

They have the right to not have abortions themselves, they do not have the right to restrict others from making their own choices.

I agree with you on everything you said with one exception. I would say people have a right to lobby the lawmakers to make their viewpoints on abortion known and influence law.

They have the right to pursue an alternative lifestyle, but do not have the right to insist that others support them in financing that lifestyle

Again I agree with you. However when actually coming right down to it, what is to be done about it? Sterilize them? Refuse welfare, that will only hurt the children and don't we have a responsibility to look after those who can't look after themselves? What about the crack mom who keeps having children despite the fact that they cost the state millions in hospital fees once they are born premature and crack-addicted? What about the fact that she can't/won't take care of any of them and they not only grow up with medical issues but with a complete lack of any social skills and become a burden to society with crime or dependence or what-have-you. What about the man who has 14 children by 14 different mothers? Do we ban him from having sex? Sterilize him? Put him in jail? What about people who have had one or more children already taken away by the state. Do they get to have more children or do we step in?

There aren't easy answers to those questions. Once we let government start telling people what they can do or forcing sterilization on people it could easily become a slippery slope. Who is to decide who gets sterilized? Jailed? Fined? Do we just say you're parents are idiots so we aren't going to help you out and do we let society pay for that as a whole when they're unleashed on society later? Also who's idea do we use for when abuse is abuse? I know I have pretty concrete ideas on what is or is not abusive but everyone does not share them. I think we can all agree that beating a child is abusive but what about more gray area such as not allowing them to learn physics such as in your example?

I'll be honest here. I don't have all the answers or even a good start to them. There are some things that are very clear should be stopped such as physical or sexual abuse and a whole host of things that are up to interpretation. There are rights that need to be safeguarded even at the expense of letting some guilty people get away with murder and then there is a point in which the cost is too high for society and some rights need to be infringed upon. Where are all these lines? I don't know.

About your example of teaching physics versus magic. In all honesty I'd have to say I just don't know. There would be a free speech problem with banning the mention of physics so I would be against that. Forcing the community to teach it in the schools when no one believes it would be a harder sell. Of course I believe that it would be the wrong choice but do I, as one person, have a right to force my beliefs..however right I may feel confidant they are on a whole community who feel otherwise? Absence of abuse, force or a constitutional violation..probably not.

[mivona]

I agree with you on everything you said with one exception. I would say people have a right to lobby the lawmakers to make their viewpoints on abortion known and influence law.

This is where we part company, because I find it abhorrent that - if they gather a majority of people together in a state - they can change the law of that state without regard for the minority, and thereby impose their own (possibly faith-based) policy on others.

So, if enough people in a state decide that that contraception is just abortion in disguise, and refuse to allow it to be dispensed within the state boundaries, that would be ok?

It just seems like tyranny of the majority to me.

Law should be focussed on sorting out behaviour that impacts upon others.

From your examples...

The guy that fathers a gazillion children should be responsible for their support. I agree that we cannot penalise the children for the behaviour of the parent, but if he refuses to take care of them, he should be jailed if he has the means and is not providing for the children. If mothers persist in having children they have no way of caring for, the children should be removed and placed in a more supportive environment. If people have had children removed from their care because of their inability to provide for them, future children would also be subject to removal - with a review of the situation at each pregnancy to determine that the threat of harm to the children remains. There have been cases in this country where children are removed at birth.

On physics... I don't think that children should be dumbed down on the basis of their parents' beliefs, just as children are not allowed to be harmed medically by their parents' beliefs. If they want to not believe in physics when adults, that is down to them, but their children should not be put at a disadvantage by having whole spheres of education removed from them. I feel the same way about creationism/evolution.

Funnily enough... here is a case where some parents clearly believe in "wizardry"... http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=79533

The point I was trying to make with that scenario is that within that community a majority of people do believe in magic over physics. It wouldn't be a problem for them that it was taught in schools, but for the non-believers, it would. My line is that they are free to believe what they wish, but beyond that they have no rights to impose their own beliefs on others.

[oddish]

About your example of teaching physics versus magic. In all honesty I'd have to say I just don't know. There would be a free speech problem with banning the mention of physics so I would be against that. Forcing the community to teach it in the schools when no one believes it would be a harder sell. Of course I believe that it would be the wrong choice but do I, as one person, have a right to force my beliefs..however right I may feel confidant they are on a whole community who feel otherwise? Absence of abuse, force or a constitutional violation..probably not.

After thinking about this I must change my original opinion.slightly anyway.
The Constitution does provide equal protection under the law so in the case of teaching at a public school I'd have to say teaching the laws of physics (which are not theories but laws) should be afforded to any student in the district. I would not have a problem if someone offered magic as an opposing theory, as long as it was presented as a theory and not as fact. I feel the same way about the big bang or creationism. Teach them all, just be sure the kids are aware of laws and theories and also make sure they are being taught that a theory is an idea that has not been proven.

What difference does it make if someone is forcing their own policy on you if it is faith based or not. I personally wouldn't be any less offended if it was just something they thought was a good idea. The minorities rights should be protected from majority in certain circumstances and I believe they are. I don't believe we will ever see a flat out ban on abortion again.

Your answers about the parents having too many children don't really solve the problem and they don't draw a line really. We're still paying for them. Whether their parents see or keep them or not, we're still paying so that hasn't been resolved. Aside from jailing them or fixing them...we're going to be involved.

[kailin]

hi, oddish -- that's an interesting post --

I do have a question since it's been a very long time since i've been in any formal classroom ...

can you say a little more about how a theory gets to become a law? I'm not sure I understand the difference in science -- because, from my very-long-ago science classes, I think what I learned was that ultimately nothing can be "proven" -- only given a higher score of probability -- but that was in the early days of discovery of the atom -- maybe there's been a change?

I was more recently taught the difference between reliability and validity in the scientific method, but that was in a rather limited application, ie. opinion polling.

Thanks!

[oddish]

Oy Kailen,

I dropped out of school in Jr. High and yes I have gone back but I haven't taken my science classes yet LOL

Any correct definition wouldn't come from me but I can tell you what I meant in my post according to my understanding.

A law would be something that has been proven; law of gravity. Theory would be an idea that can't be proven or disproved or hasn't been proven yet.