Actually, there's a really teeny, tiny grain of truth to what he said but he botched it magnificently:
1) We're not really sure how it crossed over from monkey to human and his suggestion is one possibility. Gay guy haves sex with monkey and then also has gay sex! See: they're all just giant perverts. Except no one is sure at all how the transition happened or even who the first AIDS case was because it wasn't until 3-5 years later that they were really getting somewhat of a handle on the disease. How do you look for cases of a disease that you don't even know exist?
2) Patient Zero, as he is called in And The Band Played On, was a flight attendant who was linked to a fairly large number of early AIDS case and he liked to have unprotected sex with men. By a fairly large number, I mean like 40 of the first 250 cases (from wiki). He was not the first case and it's unlikely he even brought it to North America.
3) Like any viruses, there are different strains. In theory, the strain that was more prevalent in North America was more virulent (and thus more likely for the initial infection to not be fought off) in anal as opposed to vaginal tissue. It was easier to catch it from homosexual sex but you could still catch it from heterosexual sex. Honestly, I remember reading about this for a paper I wrote at least 15 years ago so the science may be debunked by now as we were still learning a lot about the virus.

So, between 2 and 3, it was mostly thought of as a gay disease initially even tho that was more circumstantial. Honestly, I think because of that circumstance, it was given less gravity until Magic Johnson told the world he had HIV. But if all you wanted to hear was "monkey humping gay guy spreads AIDS", I guess you could hear that from what I type above.

SI

The article that quotes him, I believe, says that there is no certainty on how it was passed on to humans. However, given the physiology of monkeys and humans, it's highly unlikely it was passed to humans from a monkey/human sexcapade.

Yes, it was initially thought to be a gay disease. However, for over 20 years now, that has not been the consensus of the properly informed. I'm sure all those AIDS babies in Africa have not been having homosexual sex. They got it from their mother. Where did the mother get it? From either the father or some other man she had sex with or through a tainted blood transfusion. I don't think there's much use of dirty needles in drug use in africa, so that's probably not as likely as it would be here in the states.

The Tennessee state senator's point was, AIDS is really really really hard to be transmitted from heterosexual sex, when that is just not true. It's just a typical willfully ignorant claim from someone of his mindset that obviously hates teh gays and doesn't let science get in the way of his ideology.

I know, he's a moron. I was just trying to point out where he got those claims from and how badly he distorted them

SI

:confused: :confused:

No, they don't.

I think he deserves the P.H.P.P.ofS. award (Picard Hand Palm Picture of Shame).

There is significant re-usage of needles in Africa in health clinics though.

That would be bad. I could understand why they do it though.

Sorry, I didn't even realise this was a question, and I don't have time to go through the long list of policies they put in place and continue to put in place and speeches they make supporting those policies that make folks dependent on government rather than helping them through an occasional rough patch.

I call BS

Elizabeth Warren:


Barack Obama:

Nothing untrue in either of those quotes.

Saw Mark Cuban on TV the other night - he even admitted that it was true. He never built a road. And yet his computers got to market on roads. He doesn't have his own private air traffic control system for the planes that carried his goods, or his own private railroad to carry them to every city. He didn't pay private police & fire to watch over the homes of all of his workers so that they didn't die while they were working for him.

It's not fucking rocket science people. It's just saying...everybody benefits from the things that a civil society provides. It's one of the major reasons we advanced past being fucking cavemen.

Yeah. I didn't think there would be anything in those quotes that people here would disagree with. It just seemed obvious to me (and I assume gstelmack) that it was a core principle of the Democratic Party.

I can easily see where that is "you are dependent on the government", which to me leads to a 1984-esque dystopia. Or some sort of bribes-for-votes thing.

Personally, I see it more of a "we need to work together to do things better". I believe that few things I accomplished I did solely on my own and I have a duty to give back so that others can have a similar opportunity.

SI

I'm going to ask this question to everyone who likes to bring up welfare queens and dependent families (not necessarily in this most recent set of thoughts but it's a good jumping off point).

Do you want a welfare net that is cast too deeply or too shallowly. There is no such thing as a perfect fit when you're using a set of rules over a 300M person population. There are roughly 40M people in the US below the poverty line at any moment and 60% of the population will spend at least 1 year below the poverty line in their 25-75yo lifetime (source: wiki).

So, if you're creating a welfare system, casting a safety net, etc, and your choice of sizes is 30M or 50M, which would you rather do? 10M over or 10M under? Because, realistically, that's the choice that is made.

SI

I'll put it this way. I agree with both of those quotes. I support social safety net programs and would even make many of them much stronger. I also don't think "it is impossible to succeed without lots of government aid". Thus my response.

I don't really care about the number of people included in the safety net, I would just like it to be geared more toward helping people get back in the job market and less as a permanent "here's some money" program.

I generally agree with this, but, where's the jobs for them to do? You can't put people to work if there's no work. If there's XXX amount of people that don't work, but, there's only X amount of jobs, what do you do?

Setting aside the obvious infrastructure arguments, when I look at my own industry and the innovations, I see a great mix of government and private industry working together. A lot of the research and dirty work is done by government institutions (universities), and private industry adapts to the research findings.

We've had somewhat of a revolutionary change the past 15-20 years in how we house dairy cattle and the catalyst to all this was almost all driven by government. Originally there was no motivation for profit to change anything within the private industry. They could keep putting up the same types of buildings and housing for the rest of time and still make the same amount of money. It took people working for government institutions to see a greater opportunity for overall economic benefits to drive the change that was necessary.

And this hasn't been a recent development. Here in Wisconsin, it's deeply rooted in the "Wisconsin Idea" that the borders of its university extend well beyond campus and throughout the whole state (and country even).

It's kind of similar to the gun control thing in that the debate is more about ideals and emotional reactions rather than what number is the best number. It doesn't really matter what the number is, people will be either on the "more" or "less" side based on their raw first impression of welfare/government assistance in general. Which is really the only way anyone can do it, it's hard to make sense of numbers that big and what they really mean.

And I agree with what Obama said about everyone getting help along the way, but not what I think he was implying - that every American citizen contributes to the success of the successful and therefore they all deserve a bigger piece of that success. I mean, we all deserve "something" minimal just for existing, but not credit for the success of others. What I take from Obama's statement, is more like ya, maybe governments should pay those teachers and construction workers that actually help the system, more.

It's entirely possible I'm wrong, but based on my observations I don't believe there is a shortage of all jobs, just a shortage of unskilled jobs. So if someone with no job skills can't find a job, then they're SOL. The solution though isn't to give up. There are tons of skilled jobs that don't need any kind of college degree. You just need some basic on the job training.

The problem is how do you get that training. Without some basic job skills you're never going to get an entry level job so you can learn the ropes. Our schools are phasing out vocational programs so you probably didn't learn anything useful there. If the government could provide some basic vocational training, a lot of these people that have permanently left the job market could re-enter.

There are lots of jobs like machining, welding or even things like system administration that are in huge demand but don't need anything more than a high school diploma and some work experience. There's just nowhere to get that experience now.

The only permanent "here's some money" programs are geared to defense contractors.

Definitely not a shortage on all jobs. I think I read something recently where there is A LOT of manufacturing jobs, but, no skilled labor to fill them.

But one thing to consider is, for people who have been on some kind of government assistance, is that money they are getting from the government more than taking one of these jobs pays? I don't think anyone in their right mind would take a job that pays them less if they already have a job that pays them more**. So if I'm on assistance receiving 2000 a month, but, a job pays 1700 a month before taxes, I can see why people would not take the job and utilize that 300 dollars. I think a good first step is, the jobs have to pay more than what they are receiving from the government. Otherwise, the government will still have to subsidize
things for that person. They will never be completely weened off of government assistance if the jobs don't pay enough.

You're right. It's the catch-22 of finding a job. Employers want experience, but, how can an employee get experience if they can't get the job? So it turns into this vicious cycle that keeps on rolling.

It's not an easy fix and there is no easy solution like so many in the republican party or lean towards that line of thinking seems to think it is when they say, "Just get back to work". Unfortunately that doesn't...work.


**People do this all the time due to relocation or job satisfaction, etc... I'm referring to this in a 'all things being equal' type thing.

Part of the problem is that there is never any mention of just how much a welfare payment is. Your example of $2000 is almost 6 times what the average family of 4 receives in welfare payments each month ($347), and nearly double what their combined welfare plus food stamps allotment ($347+$668) is each month.

Welfare Touted As Unemployment Alternative - Money News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

I hope that the numbers I used were not to be taken seriously. They were just an example as to why someone would not take a job if the job pays less than what they are getting from government assistance. I'm sure the payments vary from state to state. How much? I have no idea.

Yeah, I wasn't meaning to single your figure out. It is just that I've heard from more than one person in more than one place the opinion that people on welfare are being paid at a comfortable lower middle-class rate, when that is far from accurate.

Ahhh gotcha, I see now. They definitely do not live a comfortable lower middle-class lifestyle. Some may be more frugal than others and give that appearance, but, for the most part, if they didn't have government housing assistance, they'd more than likely be living in shanty towns right here in the good 'ol U S of A.

You're right. There's an excess of population.

Explain to me again how much money we put into:

- teaching inner city kids the value of an education (my local NAACP chapter would rather sue the county to get more busing than spend that money to help those kids learn to value their education, which would go a lot farther)
- train people for jobs rather than just hand them a welfare check (prisons seem to do more to teach a trade during a time when we keep cutting vocational educational programs)
- keep passing laws to extend how many days kids are in school for, as if that will somehow magically increase the amount they learn

compared to the handouts that are related, off the top of my head. We could get into farm subsidies as well. The typical Democratic response to a problem is to create a new government program, in part to buy votes.

Mind you, lately I've been equal-opportunity party bashing, the Republicans haven't met a business hand-out they didn't like either, and I'd argue both are stealing from each others' hand-out pages these days (Obama's stimulus package was very Republican, and my state-level Repubs are the ones that just added 5 days to the school calendar without handing over any extra money to pay for it). We've created a society where more and more folks expect government handouts, and don't think twice about taking money when someone has passed a law saying they ought to get it. That's just sad.

I find that a really pessimistic reading of the quote. My thoughts are again about social responsibility. If you are successful, you didn't do it on your own and you have a duty to help further that society. It's not about someone else, it's about the successful person.


Similarly, I think that's it's a bit intellectually lazy, first to draw the equivalency and then to just throw your hands up and say (to paraphrase George Carlin): "anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac? ". Yes, I asked the question in really broad strokes as a jumping off point but if given a slow week at work and no fantasy draft (neither true this week), you don't think I'd have some equally long list of welfare changes similar to the mile long list from the gun control thread and many would expand it but some would also subtract. This can be done with more of a scalpel than a machete.

SI

I mean this good naturedly but you have made this statement before and every time you do, I just have this image in my head of Scrooge McDuck talking about reducing the "surplus population" (because it is so much funnier than any depiction of Ebeneezer Scrooge)



SI

Actually, studies show the summer gap actually really hurts lower-income children, who do not receive the same opportunities middle- and upper-class during that period. This builds up year-after-year, and is something many never recover from. Safe to say your other points regarding education are equally well researched?

The total number of days differs from the calendar and breaks involved. What did those studies say about year-round schools with their much shorter breaks? One way the extra 5 days does help is that it's an extra 5 days of school lunches for the families too poor to provide their own.

FWIW, studies have also shown (I used to have a list, did lots of research on this topic back when we were busy getting a new schoolboard in) that the way to fix low-income schools is to institute community programs that help instill a sense of the value of education and build community pride in their local schools, not throwing more money at the schools or busing kids out of the area. Yet we still demand more money and busing to fix low-income schools.

How does one do this?

SI

Unfortunately I think only those parents and communities who (1) value education (2) provide a nuturing environment and (3) have means can do this. Otherwise, the odds are stacked against it. Lower income areas obviously have this disadvantage.

Ignorance breeds ignorance. I'm sure there are alot of good theories and good intentions but the successful practical application in general is unlikely.

My best guess is with small wins over a long period of time (e.g. a generation or two) with focused effort backed by financial support.

Another poll, this time by Fox. Romney should get a bump from the convention. Evangelical vote surprises me some, I guess they have reconciled themselves to Romney's faith.

Fox News poll: Race for the White House tightens | Fox News

Didn't you say at one point that you felt you were undecided Edward? If you're posting polls by Fox "News" and actually believing what they're saying then I don't buy the "I'm undecided" bit anymore.

A Fox News poll has as much credibility as a poll conducted by my 3 year old niece.

Unfortunately, Nate Silver hasn't updated his poller ratings in a while but the last one that I can find has them rated a bit below average- not awful but not a good source either.

That said, I think a real wildcard is how all the voter suppression laws are going to play out this year. Those could make those polling biases come to fruition pretty easily.

SI

No, I am decided although I admittedly struggle with it. I will vote Obama and it is primarily due to Healthcare being my #1 issue (e.g. its not safe without a second Obama term). If Romney presented something similar (e.g. an updated MA model) I would seriously consider him ... because all things held equal, I would prefer a successful businessman.

The Fox poll was just another datapoint to share.

This will never happen, but I would love to see higher education institutions to stop providing athletic scholarships.

They provide an unrealistic expectation among the poor, uneducated athlete. So while they are providing an opportunity for higher education, these students are not using it in the proper manner.

I think a more effective method to provide minority and disadvantaged scholarships through faith based organizations. These would have the advantage of moral conduct codes, etc., which would help to overcome some of the obstacles in these households.

The ultimate problem in these areas though is that the population is more interested in pulling other people down or getting theirs rather than improving their lot as a community. The change in attitude needs to come from within the community and unless that happens not much will change.

wtf? Is this serious?

So, I don't totally share this view but it's a decent spot to start another discussion. Every time we try to tackle education, I see a lot of posters saying "well, it's a problem with the community/parents/etc". Ok, let's accept that point, whether it's actually 100% true. You can't just go up to people and say "change attitudes" and it will happen so let's frame this another way.

You're the President of a country with 300M people, 40M of whom live below the poverty line and have a much lower education rate, on average. The question is "do you perceive this as a problem and, if so, what do you do"?

• I guess there's always "it's not a problem". First, I morally disagree with it: if we can help, we should. Second, I pragmatically disagree with it. Poor will just beget more poor and I think we're strongest as a country with a strong middle class. Our economy runs better, our populace is better informed, our culture flourishes, and, on the whole, we just live better lives. I see this a lot on a micro scale at a city-level: just move away from the poor. If you're poor and desperate, you're not going to go trying to steal from other poor people- you're going to steal from those who have more so the problem just follows and one can only build gates so high and elaborate. What's better: a society where you have to escalate your ability to fight crime or one where there are less and less people who would want to commit a crime? In short, I guess if you don't acknowledge it as a problem then nothing needs fixing. I think you're wrong.
• I guess one answer is "Don't do a thing. It's not the government's place to fix everything." Ok, that is a possible answer- basically the libertarian one. However, it still neglects the points made above. Wishing it will go away won't fix it and you'll still be left with the problems above. You can shrink the government's scope but it doesn't solve the problem and seems like the governing equivalent of sticking one's head in the sand.
• I'm going to discount the "Don't do a thing because those people don't deserve help." I've seen it and heard it and- well, it's just sad. Especially in this day and age. It's the 21st century and that sort of discrimination should be left to so-and-so's old racist grandpa. At least he had "those were different times" to fall back on but what's your excuse?
• "Don't do anything because they don't want help." I think in some cases that is true. However, "being poor" isn't a lifestyle choice most take on. And a lot of times, I think a lot of people just need a little help because the bill paying treadmill makes things overwhelming and can cause people to lose hope. The biggest cost of being poor is often time more than money. You can't spend an hour getting groceries so you stop at the convenience store so you pay $5 for milk instead of $3 so you have less money so you need to work more so you have less time, etc. And if you want to help foster more parental involvement: time is important. I can't force people to accept help but I can make it a lot easier to accept it.
• "Don't do anything because there will always be poor people/uneducated people." True- there will always be poor and uneducated people but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve the situation. Is it a matter of one group just has better opportunities and thus they succeed? If that's the case, shouldn't we try to get those opportunities for all so we can all succeed?

Then we get to the "do something" possibilities: how many items do you really have in the toolbox to improve things? Throw money at it is the simplest answer. Poorly spent money still probably shows some modest improvement tho- it's just not nearly as efficient as it could be. Even better, of course, is well spent money but we have yet to find and there likely is no silver bullet. However, trying nothing guarantees no solution whereas at least we can try something.

SI

More polling, be interesting to see the bump Romney will/not get at the convention.

CNN Poll: Obama 49%-Romney 47% among likely voters – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Personally, I just think we're running out of middle class jobs. In the past we had the factory worker, but I really don't see that happening anymore because of the global economy. We just can't compete with other county's manufacturing (unless this is self-healing, when the Indias and the Chinas of the world catch up on the wage scale and make paying the American worker more competitive) So, you either engineer or finance/business major your way to a good salary, otherwise you're left out and work in the service economy.

Unless...the point I made earlier about India/China and other manufacturing economies catching up to us on the wage scale and then the middle class is self-healing, but who knows how long that will take. And really, what can Congress and/or the executive branch do to either change and/or accelerate this? Maybe it's just an era we have to accept.

That unfortunately has NO bearing in employment today - simply put manufacturing moved abroad because its cheaper than locally.

The issue is that once the wages in India/China/Where ever reach western standards the jobs will cease to exist - why you ask, at that level automation is cheaper than humans for many jobs.

I believe that most jobs are going to be scarce in 50 years time as most will have been automated by that stage*, if we're still living in a purely capitalist society victimizing non-workers then there will be huge social problems.

(the situation we have presently can continue bumping along happily for another 20-25 years don't get me wrong, but at some point a tipping point will come - ignoring the future only makes the eventual adjustment harder imho)

*Next time your trash cans are collected check - is it purely manual labor picking them up or like me do you have the truck now doing the lifting and dumping .... thats a sign of this, next time you're in a retail store take a look and see if there are any 'self service' checkouts ... thats a sign of this, in some countries now they've even got stores where they no longer stock shelves - a video representation of the item is shown instead of the real thing ... the future is coming, fast.

I suspect he'll get one, then Obama gets it right back (barring some sort of unexpected foul up of course) when the D's hold their's.

CNN Poll: Obama 49%-Romney 47% among likely voters – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs[/quote]

Of course the number isn't as important as where the votes come from. Electoral college & all that.

Not kicking dirt at you for posting it or anything, just thinking aloud that the polls like this really aren't all the meaningful except in a broad sense.

I think this guys was worthy of a real #2 or #3. Obama has done a good job of continuing and expanding GWB lead.

Senior Taliban commander, 12 other militants killed by US drone strike in Afghanistan - World News

To be honest, I was actually thinking these polls were "lies, lies and more lies". They will become more relevant in the last month but do think they give a good idea of demographic support ... not necessarily who will win.

A full week after the Dem convention the polls should start to clarify the race. Normally the person ahead at the beginning of October wins in November.

First night of the GOP convention has been cancelled due to Isaac.

That night was basically going to be cable only, but it still has to hurt to cancel. Kudos to the GOP for keeping people safe.