Tag Archives: medical

The Oklahoma Supreme Court Gave a Bizarre Explanation for Restricting the Abortion Pill

by RamonaWadham161 Posted on February 23, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld restrictions on the abortion pill, but the justices also noted that “by the state’s own evidentiary materials, more restrictions on abortions result in higher complication rates and in decreased women’s safety.”

Since the Food and Drug Administration gave its approval to mifepristone—a.k.a. the abortion pill—in 2000, more than 2 million women have ended their pregnancies using medication alone. The law in question, which went into effect in 2014, requires physicians to abide by a decade-old FDA protocol when administering abortion medication. That protocol includes high dosages of abortion drugs (mifepristone is one of two drugs used) and three visits to the doctor’s office—requirements that medical experts describe as unnecessary, as well as less effective and more expensive than the off-label use of these drugs. The FDA protocol also makes the medication harder to tolerate—failure rates more than double compared with those from off-label use, and almost every woman experiences at least one severe side effect like nausea, vomiting, or cramps.

That’s why, when prescribing abortion medication, over 80 percent of physicians follow an off-label method, developed by medical organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and supported by the World Health Organization. That regimen has fewer side effects and a lower failure rate than the FDA method. And it can be used later in pregnancy: Physicians typically prescribe abortion drugs until the ninth week of pregnancy, while the FDA regimen can only be used until the seventh week.

Abortion rights groups, including the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, sued Oklahoma in 2014, arguing that the law ignores medical evidence and harms women.

The court on Tuesday ultimately upheld the law and ruled that it doesn’t violate the constitution, even though it’s bad public health. And one justice, Douglas Combs, wrote an opinion in which he concurred with the court but questioned the law.

“Once again, those who do not practice medicine have determined to insert themselves between physicians and their patients, with the insistence they know what is best when it comes to the standard of care,” wrote Combs. “The medical community should take heed: now that the Legislature has declared itself willing to dictate medical protocol and practice within this limited context, what areas of the practice of medicine are next?”

Read article here:

The Oklahoma Supreme Court Gave a Bizarre Explanation for Restricting the Abortion Pill

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Oklahoma Supreme Court Gave a Bizarre Explanation for Restricting the Abortion Pill

Studies Show: Marijuana Does Not Make You Stupid

by ukiczp43 Posted on February 22, 2016

We’ve all seen those old Public Service Announcements on the dangers of marijuana: poor decision making, laziness, stupidity general uselessness. Further stoking this ideology, stoner stereotypes in film and television show us drooling teens and college studentslaughing over nothing, stringing together incoherent lines of thought and binge eating very, uhm, interesting food choices.

However, not one but two new studies have furthersmokedthe notion that smoking pot makes you dumb. One Journal of Psychopharmacology study focused on a large group of British teenagerswhile the other, perhaps more interesting, focused on the cognitive function in sets of identical twins one using marijuana, and one drug-free. Twin studies tend to be more reliable as they focus on subjects with identical genetic makeup, offering up more conclusive results.

While methods differed, results in both studies were the same: Marijuana use has no impact on overall levels of intelligence.

While marijuana fans can use these findings as an excuse for a celebratory toke, it’s important to note that this has been an ongoing discussion, and that these findings are not ground-breaking.

A study published in 2011 led by Robert Tait at the Australian National Universitylooked at the long-term cognitive effects of marijuana use in 2,000 subjects between the ages of 20 and 24. The scientists followed participants for 8 years, at the end of which they concluded weed consumption had no concrete measurable impact on cognitive performance.

A similar 2014 University College of London study showed that marijuana use does not impact your IQ. However, while the London study showed no ill impact on overall smarts, it concluded that marijuana use can affect your ability to actively learn; Scientists in that study found a 3 percent drop in test scores on school exams taken at the age of 16 among the test group. (Interestingly enough, the study also noted that alcohol usenot marijuanawill indeed impact your overall levels of intelligence.) However, way back in 2001 Harvard researchersnoted that learning impairments among marijuana users diminish within 28 days of smoking cessation.

So if it doesn’t make you dumb, what does it do? Aside from medical treatment for ailmentslike glaucoma, epilepsy, anxiety and more,the plant has been shown to improve creativity, relieve stress and promote alternative ways of thinking you can thank weed for that aha! moment.

It’s important to note that weed isn’t merely for teenaged stoners. The age range of cannabis users is as vast as the reason they use, and the country-wide consumption of the plant impacts everything from politicsto the housing industry.

While you don’t necessarily need to smoke the plant to feel its benefits (apparently you can juice it, too), news of cannabis’ non-effect on intelligence has many fans lighting up.

Related
Should Medical Marijuana Be Legalized For Pets?
10 Health Benefits of Marijuana
Masturbation: The Sexy Meditation Alternative

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

See original article – 

Studies Show: Marijuana Does Not Make You Stupid

Posted in alo, cannabis, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Studies Show: Marijuana Does Not Make You Stupid

GOP Abortion Investigation May Endanger Researchers, Democrats Warn

by KaceySdpmoki Posted on February 18, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The House Energy and Commerce Committee panel that formed last October to investigate Planned Parenthood’s policies regarding how fetal tissue is handled has issued requests for documents to more than 30 agencies across the nation. The “Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives” was formed by Speaker John Boehner as a final act before he stepped down over a possible government shutdown due to the battle over funding for Planned Parenthood.

Committee Chair Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) announced last week that the committee had issued subpoenas to three of those groups because they “failed to fully cooperate with document requests.” The subpoenas went to Stem­Express, a California firm that provides human tissue for medical researchers, the University of New Mexico, whose Health Sciences Center conducts medical research using fetal tissue, and Southwestern Women’s Options, which has abortion clinics in Albuquerque and Dallas that perform late-term abortions.

A letter from the panel’s Democratic members expressed outrage at the demands, and called Rep. Blackburn’s subpoenas “unilateral and unjustifiable.” They urged the panel to “abandon your plan to issue subpoenas or immediately schedule a special meeting of the Select Panel in order to vote on your proposed use of compulsory process to force healthcare providers and others to disclose the names of doctors, medical students, and clinic personnel.” The Democratic members described the actions as “an abusive and unjustifiable use of the chair’s unilateral subpoena authority.”

Recalling the attack on a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Colorado—in which a gunman murdered three and injured, later saying in court that he is a “warrior for the babies”—Democrats expressed concern that the subpoenas could put the subjects of the investigation at risk.

This is not the first time that StemExpress has found itself in the middle of controversy. As Mother Jones previously reported, the Placerville, Calif. tissue provider cut ties with Planned Parenthood after the Center for Medical Progress’ discredited sting videos, which purported to show evidence of the illegal sale of fetal tissue, prompted a congressional inquiry into Planned Parenthood and made StemExpress’ CEO, Cate Dyer, a target of anti-abortion trolls on Fox Nation. Dyer’s home address was posted alongside threats against her life.

The subpoena demands documentation of all entities from which fetal tissue was procured and documentation of recipients of tissue samples. It also requests the “name and title of all StemExpress current or former personnel whose responsibilities included procuring, researching, storing, packaging for donation, sale, transport, or disposal of fetal tissue, and the identity of any supervisory personnel under whom such individuals worked.” A statement from StemExpress said the company has been cooperative in all the government investigations thus far. “Throughout this process, StemExpress has continued to protect its clients’ confidentiality, and to abide by its legal obligations,” the statement reads. “The Select Investigative Panel now seeks confidential client information and the identity of individual scientists and researchers through the issuance of a subpoena.”

Southwestern Women’s Options is a clinic that provides abortions through the third trimester at its New Mexico location. It serves women from the Southwest, and as abortions become more difficult to access in the state of Texas, the clinic serves an even greater population. The subpoena sent to Southwestern Women’s Options also calls for documentation of “all entities to which any fetal tissue was transported, sold, donated, or moved from Southwestern.” The committee also wanted to know the names of those involved in the procurement or disposal of fetal tissue and their supervisors, as well as documentation of any partnership that Southwestern Women’s Options had with the University of Mexico.

The University of New Mexico’s Health Science Center has used tissue from abortions conducted at Southwestern Women’s Options over the past decade for research aimed to improve outcomes for premature babies. In December, the Health Science Center halted their medical training program at the Albuquerque clinic, which teaches UMN School of Medicine fellows and residents specializing in reproductive health and family planning how to perform abortions, among other obstetric and gynecological procedures.

Also this week, a lawyer for New Mexico Alliance for Life filed a suit against the university that alleges the UNM Health Sciences Center violated the state Inspection of Public Records Act by failing to release documents from a 2015 study “that used extracted eyeballs from babies aborted up to 24 weeks gestation,” according to a statement from the anti-abortion group. The committee subpoena to the University of New Mexico is along similar lines, requesting identities of employees who have worked with tissue, a list of tissue suppliers, and documentation of any UNM physician who assisted Southwestern Women’s Options as an abortion provider.

Meanwhile, the committee is waiting for the results of the subpoenas.

“While it was our hope that these organizations would voluntarily work with us in this effort, some have refused to cooperate by withholding information that is critical to providing us with answers to questions the American people are asking,” Blackburn said in a committee statement. “Consequently, if forced to do so, we will issue subpoenas to any organization that refuses to fully cooperate with our investigation.”

Original article:  

GOP Abortion Investigation May Endanger Researchers, Democrats Warn

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on GOP Abortion Investigation May Endanger Researchers, Democrats Warn

Maybe Twitter Isn’t Planning to Ruin Your Life After All

by JeanaButcher Posted on February 7, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Twitter, the big outrage over the past few days has been the news that the corporate suits are planning to change the way your Twitter feed works. Instead of simply listing every tweet from your followers in real time, they’ll be rolling out an algorithm that reorders tweets “based on what Twitter’s algorithm thinks people most want to see.” This is something Facebook has been doing for years.

Power users are apoplectic, despite the fact that it’s not clear what’s really going on. A developer at Twitter hit back with this: “Seriously people. We aren’t idiots. Quit speculating about how we’re going to ‘ruin Twitter.'” Nor is it clear when this is really going to roll out. And the rumors suggest that it will be an opt-in feature anyway. Chronological timelines will still be around for everyone who wants them.

In any case, I’d suggest everyone give this a chance. Computer users, ironically, are notoriously change averse, which might be blinding a lot of us to the fact that chronological timelines aren’t exactly the greatest invention since the yellow first down line. Maybe we really do need something better. More generally, here are a few arguments in favor of waiting to see how this all plays out:

I’m a semi-power user. I don’t write a lot on Twitter,1 but I read it a lot. Still, I have a job and a life, and I don’t check it obsessively. And even though I follow a mere 200 people, all it takes is 15 minutes to make it nearly impossible to catch up with what’s going on. Being on the West Coast makes this an especial problem in the morning. A smart robot that helped solve this problem could be pretty handy, even for those of us who are experts and generally prefer a real-time feed.
One of my most common frustrations is coming back to the computer after a break and seeing lots of cryptic references to some new outrage or other. What I’d really like is a “WTF is this all about?” button. An algorithmic feed could be a useful version of this.
As plenty of people have noted, Twitter is a sexist, racist, misogynistic cesspool. There are things Twitter could do about this, but I suspect they’re limited as long as we rely on an unfiltered chronological timeline. Once an algorithm is introduced, it might well be possible to personalize your timeline in ways that clean up Twitter immensely. (Or that allow Twitter to clean it up centrally—though this obviously needs to be done with a lot of care.)
One of the most persuasive complaints about the algorithm is that it’s likely to favor the interests of advertisers more than users. Maybe so. Unfortunately, Twitter famously doesn’t seem able to find a profitable business model. But if we like Twitter, the first order of business is for it to stay in existence—and that means it needs to make money. This is almost certain to be annoying no matter how Twitter manages to do it. A good algorithm might actually be the least annoying way of accomplishing this.
Needless to say, all of this depends on how good the algorithm is. It better be pretty good, and it better improve over time.

So….stay cool, everyone. Maybe this will be an epic, New Coke style disaster that will end up as a case study in business texts for years. It wouldn’t be the first time. Then again, maybe the algorithm will be subtle, useful, and optional. I’ll be curious to try it out, myself.

1Arguments on Twitter are possibly the stupidest waste of time ever invented. Everything that’s bad about arguments in the first place is magnified tenfold by the 140-character limit. It’s hard to imagine that anyone other than a psychopath has ever emerged from a Twitter war thinking “That was great! I really learned something today.”

This article is from:  

Maybe Twitter Isn’t Planning to Ruin Your Life After All

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Maybe Twitter Isn’t Planning to Ruin Your Life After All

Obamacare Enrollment Up About 15 Percent This Year

by Dorcas8538 Posted on February 5, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Open enrollment for Obamacare is over, and HHS announced yesterday that 12.7 million people signed up via the exchanges plus another 400,000 via New York’s Basic Health Program. So that gives us 13.1 million—up from 11.4 million last year. And since HHS is getting better at purging nonpayers, this number should hold up better throughout the year than it did in 2015. Charles Gaba has more details here.

Add to that about 15 million people enrolled in Medicaid thanks to the Obamacare expansion, and the total number of people covered this year comes to 28 million or so. This means Obamacare has reduced the ranks of the uninsured from 19 percent to about 10 percent. Not bad.

Obamacare’s raw enrollment numbers remain lower than CBO projected a few years ago, but that’s partly because employer health care has held up better than expected—which is a good thing. The fewer the people eligible for Obamacare the better. More on that here. Generally speaking, despite the best efforts of conservatives to insist that Obamacare is a disastrous failure, the truth is that it’s doing pretty well. More people are getting covered; costs are in line with projections; and there’s been essentially no effect on employment or hours worked. The only real problem with Obamacare is that it’s too stingy: deductibles are too high and out-of-pocket expenses are still substantial. Needless to say, though, that can be easily fixed anytime Republicans decide to stop rooting for failure and agree to make Obamacare an even better program. But I guess we shouldn’t hold our collective breath for that.

Original post: 

Obamacare Enrollment Up About 15 Percent This Year

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obamacare Enrollment Up About 15 Percent This Year

Here’s How Morality Shapes the Presidential Contest

by Angelo6721 Posted on February 5, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A few years ago Jonathan Haidt wrote The Righteous Mind, an attempt to understand the way different people view morality. I won’t say that I bought his premise completely, but I did find it interesting and useful. In a nutshell, Haidt suggests that we all view morality through the lens of six different “foundations”—and the amount we value each foundation is crucial to understanding our political differences. Conservatives, for example, tend to view “proportionality”—an eye for an eye—as a key moral concern, while liberals tend to view “care/harm”—showing kindness to other people—as a key moral attribute. You can read more about it here.

So which presidential candidates appeal to which kinds of people? Over at Vox, Haidt and Emily Ekins write about some recent research Ekins did on supporters of various presidential candidates. I’ve condensed and excerpted the results in the chart on the right. As you can see, Democrats tend to value care but not proportionality. Republicans are just the opposite. No surprise there. But were there any moral values that were unusually strong for different candidates even after controlling for ideology and demographics?

Yes. Sanders supporters scored extremely low on the authority axis while Trump supporters scored high on authority and low on the care axis. Outside of the usual finding for proportionality, that’s it. Hillary Clinton supporters, in particular, were entirely middle-of-the-road: “Moral Foundations do not significantly predict a vote for Hillary Clinton; demographic variables seem to be all you need to predict her support (being female, nonwhite, and higher-income are all good predictors).”

So there you have it. Generally speaking, if you value proportionality but not care, you’re a Republican. If you value care but not proportionality, you’re a Democrat. Beyond that, if your world view values authority—even compared to others who are similar to you—you’re probably attracted to Donald Trump. If you’re unusually resistant to authority, you’re probably attracted to Bernie Sanders. The authors summarize the presidential race this way:

Bernie Sanders draws young liberal voters who have a strong desire for individual autonomy and place less value on social conformity and tradition. This likely leads them to appreciate Sanders’s libertarian streak and non-interventionist foreign policy. Once again, Hillary Clinton finds herself attracting more conservative Democratic voters who respect her tougher style, moderated positions, and more hawkish stance on foreign policy.

….On the Republican side…despite Trump’s longevity in the polls, authoritarianism is clearly not the only dynamic going on in the Republican race. In fact, the greatest differences by far in the simple foundation scores are on proportionality. Cruz and Rubio draw the extreme proportionalists — the Republicans who think it’s important to “let unsuccessful people fail and suffer the consequences,” as one of our questions put it.

….One surprise in our data was that Trump supporters were not extreme on any of the foundations. This means that Trump supporters are more centrist than is commonly realized; consequently, Trump’s prospects in the general election may be better than many pundits have thought. Cruz meanwhile, with a further-right moral profile, may have more difficulty attracting centrist Democrats and independents than would Trump.

So which moral foundations define you? If you’re curious, click here and take the test.

Read the article: 

Here’s How Morality Shapes the Presidential Contest

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s How Morality Shapes the Presidential Contest

We Are Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate in New Hampshire

by GenevieveKunkel Posted on February 5, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As debates go, this one was pretty good. The moderators generally did a good job, allowing the candidates to argue when it made sense, but ending things when it looked like there was nothing useful left to say. This is a lot easier with two people than ten, of course, and also easier when both candidates are relatively civil.

Hillary was more aggressive than I’ve seen her before. He complaint early on that Bernie was slandering her with innuendo and insinuation (and “artful smears”) was tough but, I think, also fair. And I have a feeling Bernie felt a little embarrassed by it. He was certainly careful to pull things back to a civil tone after that. Hillary is not a natural campaigner, but she’s a good debater, and this was Hillary at her pugnacious best.

Obviously foreign affairs are not Bernie’s strong point, but I was still a little surprised at just how poorly prepared he was to say much of anything or to draw much of a contrast with Hillary’s views. Either he really doesn’t know much, or else he thinks his dovish views are losers even among the Democratic base. I won’t pretend that Hillary was a genius on this stuff—almost nobody is on a debate stage—but at least she sounded well briefed and confident.

On financial issues, Bernie was surprisingly weak. This really is his strong point, but he continues to have a hard time getting much beyond platitudes. I get that it’s a debate and 90 seconds isn’t much, but it’s still enough time for a little more detail than “the system is rigged.” Hillary didn’t do much better, but she held her own and gave a strong response to the two (!) questions about her Goldman Sachs speeches.

Overall, I doubt this debate changed many minds. Bernie insisted that we can dream. Hillary insisted that we figure out what’s doable. I’d score it a clear win for Hillary based on her aggressiveness and generally solid answers compared to Bernie’s platitudes and obvious reluctance to attack hard. But I admit this might just be my own biases talking, since Hillary’s approach to politics is closer to mine than Bernie’s.

Debate transcript here.

11:06 – And that’s a wrap.

11:04 – Hillary: We need to “come up with the best answers.” That’s her campaign in a nutshell.

11:02 – No, neither Hillary nor Bernie will pick the other as VP. Come on, Chuck.

10:58 – But Bernie will happily get suckered! It’s campaign finance reform for him.

10:55 – Hillary isn’t going to be suckered into setting a top priority, thus throwing all the others under the bus. Come on, Chuck.

10:47 – I thought this was a 90-minute debate. What’s the deal?

10:44 – Regarding Flint, I will not be happy until either Hillary or Bernie mentions that we now know lead poisoning leads to higher crime rates, “as brilliantly set out in an article by Kevin Drum a couple of years ago.” I will vote for whoever says this first.

10:42 – Bernie on the death penalty: In a violent world, “government should not be part of the killing.” I have to admit I’ve never really understood this particular bit of reasoning.

10:31 – Ah. Hillary now gets to use Colin Powell as backup for her email problems.

10:29 – Hillary is thrilled about all the young people supporting Bernie. OK then.

10:25 – Bernie loves the caucus process? Seriously?

10:17 – Bernie: “Pathetic” that Republicans refused to support VA reform.

10:12 – I hate to say this, but Bernie on North Korea sounds about as well briefed as Donald Trump. Very strange situation. Handful of dictators—or, um, maybe just one. Gotta put pressure on China. “I worry very much about an isolated, paranoid country with atomic bombs.”

10:10 – Bernie does himself no favors on national security. I’m closer to his position than Hillary’s, but Bernie honestly sounds like he’s never given this stuff a moment’s thought. At least Hillary has some views and sounds confident in her abilities.

10:08 – Bernie wagging his finger again. I’m pretty sure the hosts will call on him regardless.

10:06 – Bernie really needs to have a foreign policy other than “I voted against the Iraq War.”

10:05 – Why is there bipartisan loathing of being “the policeman of the world”? What does this even mean?

10:03 – Hillary: we have a very cooperative government in Afghanistan. You bet. Wildly incompetent and corrupt, but pliable.

10:01 – Everyone agrees that a Muslim civil war is the right way to handle the Middle East.

9:59 – Hillary frequently insists on responding even when Bernie hasn’t really left a mark. Leave well enough alone!

9:58 – Hillary provides Shermanesque answer about not sending ground troops to Iraq or Syria.

9:46 – Oh FFS. Is “Release the transcripts!” going to be the next big Hillary “scandal”?

9:44 – Unfortunately, Hillary doesn’t really explain her more complicated financial regulation plan very well. There’s probably no help for that, especially in 90 seconds.

9:42 – I’m with Hillary on reinstating Glass-Steagall. To me, it’s the Democratic equivalent of raising the retirement age to save Social Security: easy to understand, but not the best answer by a long way.

9:41 – Hillary defends her Goldman Sachs speeches competently, but Bernie doesn’t really fight back. He just provides a generic answer about the pernicious power of Wall Street.

9:31 – Hillary is attacking very hard tonight. Bernie voted to deregulate derivatives! Not that there’s anything wrong with that. You think she’s played this game before? Bernie responds by telling people to look up a YouTube.

9:29 – Bernie answers with generic criticism of special interests and money in politics. Not a strong response.

9:27 – Hillary criticizes Bernie for claiming to run a positive campaign, but constantly attacking her “by innuendo, by insinuation.” Then she asks him to stop the “artful smear” he’s been carrying out against her. This is a tough hit on Bernie.

9:26 – Hillary: “I won’t make big promises.” Not sure that came out as well as it should have.

9:23 – I think Hillary missed a chance to say that of course Bernie is a Democrat and he shouldn’t have to defend himself on that score. It would have been a nice moment for her with no downside.

9:19 – Hillary refers to Bernie as “self-appointed gatekeeper” of who’s a progressive. Ouch.

9:17 – Bernie: Obama was a progressive by 2008 standards.

9:15 – Bernie: none of his ideas are radical. True enough, by non-American standards.

9:14 – Good answer from Hillary on whether she’s progressive enough: Under Bernie’s standards, no one in the party is truly progressive.

9:07 – Hillary: “The numbers just don’t add up” for all of Bernie’s proposals.

9:01 – I see that Rachel Maddow is as excited as I am that Martin O’Malley has dropped out.

9:00 – And with that, on with the debate!

8:58 – This is the second election cycle in which I’ve liked both of the Democratic frontrunners. In 2008 I ended up leaning for Obama, which I don’t regret. This year I’m leaning toward Hillary. Both times, however, I’ve been surprised at how fast things turned ugly. But ugly they’ve turned.

8:53 – Last night on Twitter I said that Hillary Clinton had given a terrible answer to the Goldman Sachs speech question. I was immediately besieged with outraged comments about how I was just another Beltway shill who’s always hated Hillary. This morning I wrote that Bernie Sanders was disingenuously pretending not to criticize Clinton over her Wall Street contributions even though he obviously was. I was immediately besieged with outraged comments about how I was just another Beltway shill who’s always been in the bag for Hillary. Welcome to the Democratic primaries.

Taken from: 

We Are Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate in New Hampshire

Posted in alo, American Standard, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Are Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate in New Hampshire

Rubio Feasts on the Leftovers in New Hampshire

by JarrodLNFcyejkz Posted on February 5, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Apologies for two polls in one day, but the latest CNN poll shows something interesting in the Republican race. Donald Trump is still in the lead in New Hampshire, but in the wake of the Iowa caucuses Marco Rubio has picked up a lot of support. Basically, several other folks have either left the race or lost their fan base, and nearly all of it has gone to Rubio.

It’s only one poll, and the absolute margin of error is large, but it probably shows the trend fairly well. And what it suggests is that as the also-rans steadily drop out of the race, Rubio is picking up the bulk of their support. If this happens in other states as well, Rubio could be well on his way to building a commanding lead.

Originally posted here: 

Rubio Feasts on the Leftovers in New Hampshire

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rubio Feasts on the Leftovers in New Hampshire

Marco Rubio Lashes Out Against Call For Religious Toleration

by GlindaHaight Posted on February 4, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

President Obama, during a speech today at a Baltimore mosque:

If we’re serious about freedom of religion — and I’m speaking now to my fellow Christians who remain the majority in this country — we have to understand an attack on one faith is an attack on all our faiths. And when any religious group is targeted, we all have a responsibility to speak up. And we have to reject a politics that seeks to manipulate prejudice or bias, and targets people because of religion.

Marco Rubio, commenting a couple of hours later on Obama’s speech:

Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today: he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims….It’s this constant pitting people against each other that I can’t stand.

There you have it. Ask Christians to reject the politics of bigotry, and you’re pitting people against each other. And Marco Rubio, for one, will have no part of that.

UPDATE: Revised to include exact quote from Rubio.

Source:  

Marco Rubio Lashes Out Against Call For Religious Toleration

Posted in alo, bigo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Marco Rubio Lashes Out Against Call For Religious Toleration

The Republican Field Is Shrinking Rapidly

by Diane1360ajbo Posted on February 3, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I know how easy it is to lose track of things. So just for the record, we’re now down to seven real candidates on the Republican side of things:

Cruz
Rubio
Bush
Trump
Carson
Christie
Kasich

This doesn’t count the three dead-enders who haven’t officially quit yet: Jim Gilmore, Rick Santorum, and Carly Fiorina. By my figuring, New Hampshire should kill off Bush and Carson and get us down to five real candidates. Maybe even Kasich and Christie, too. For all practical purposes, by next Wednesday we might finally be down to our long-fabled three-man race.

Continue reading: 

The Republican Field Is Shrinking Rapidly

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Republican Field Is Shrinking Rapidly