dailyrorschach

Where it is prevalent, this is standard good advice, advice that we even taught in the BSA 18 years ago in the NE. Lyme is a really nasty thing to get, and not everyone even realizes they were bit, or is symptomatic at first. My case was when I was 15, worked at a camp, got bit, came out before I could notice, no rash. At some point later that summer came down with flu like symptoms, which went away in a standard flu timeframe.

Two months later I had extreme fatigue, I'm talking couldn't stay awake longer than 6 hours. Luckily a blood test confirmed it, but not before it had spread to my spinal fluid, requiring two hospitalizations, over 30 days of IV antibiotics and additional treatment.

So perhaps what works for you down South doesn't work where this is an issue, and hopefully it won't ever be something you or your neighbors need to worry about the way we do.

This is an interesting article in The Atlantic on that subject: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/the-scar...

In truth it'd be likely to fall under federal statutes governing systems access, and probably I'd guess the 1917 Espionage Act.

If you think exercising and eating right are going to save you from heart disease, you've got another thing coming.

It's about 18min long, but well worth it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8

They've responded to a shrinking market in the US and other highly developed nations, by doubling down on their efforts to sell to everyone in the rest of the world. And woe to the country with a smaller GDP than Phillip Morris who decides to try to put restrictions on a pack of smokes.

But, not only is it fast on OS X, the battery life optimization is amazing. I run Safari without Flash installed, and only need to pop over to Chrome once and a while.

I've come to understand Chrome is making more power consumption adjustments in it's OS X version, and look forward to seeing if it can compare, but I'd also like to see memory usage addressed.

But for me, Safari loads everything I need, save for the odd video that is only available in flash, which now happens very rarely. And for me being able to use the web browser for hours and hours each day without a similar hit from Chrome to both power and memory is worth it for me.

The folks you seem to be saying are part of discourage and marginally attached workers, and are counted as part of the U5 and U6 measurement. When we talk about the large big pot of unemployed and want to work or don’t have enough work, U6 is the measure usually referred to.

We are improving on that measure as well. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

There’s all kinds of reasons for that, many of which are related to lifestyle. Payment is an issue, but there are programs in the US available for the those that have no other option to afford treatment thanks to the Ryan White CARE Act. But even if the medicine is paid for, unfortunately in this cohort we see a lot of additional issues prevalent such as: drug use, homelessness, mental instability - all leading to patients not staying on their drug cocktail regimen.

Will be interested to see how it inevitably changes.

Of course, but the norms in society do shift, things that were once seen as deviant standards from the norm, may become accepted for a wide range of reasoning, society and what it expects of its members continually evolves, and has for millennia. I disagree that this is trying to vilify any thought, society has largely shifted, especially in coastal regions on this topic. It is accepted among many in metropolitan, young, urban areas that gay marriage and the rights of gays to couple and be recognized is a civil rights issue. Calling out someone who opposes that, are for many people the same as calling out someone who would presume that interracial marriage is wrong, or that segregation should still exist.

I believe everything starts to collapse when I try to use my beliefs to rally against another individual. Do you really believe that? The nature of the marketplace of ideas, and how society shifts, is essentially exactly this. Beliefs are pursued through elections, advocacy, legal systems, exposure to people. 50 years ago it was unthinkable that gay’s would be accepted and have a protected right in some states to marry, 100 years ago it was unthinkable that blacks and whites would attend the same school together and just about 150 years ago, a war was fought to end slavery. These all come about because beliefs are rallied against other individuals in position of influence and power and a side wins.

I have the belief that our founding fathers knew America would be a melting pot of religions, cultures, and beliefs and that is why they established state's rights to accommodate the beautiful array of citizens of which would make the United States of America. I’ve studied this period in American history a great deal, and I don’t think I’m making a leap to suggest that I do not believe this to be the case at all. The founding fathers in reviewing many of their writings, federalist papers and more, do not seem to anticipate anything but a society rooted in the landed aristocracy they knew and were a part of. The application of the rights in the Bill of Rights was slowly but surely expanded to all people and then slowly but surely enshrined to the states. Consider the text of the 14th amendment, to come after the Civil War and finally settle the issue of who a citizen is, the 15th protecting the right to vote for blacks, the 19th to only come after World War I giving women the right to vote, and the 26th passed in 1971 allowing 18 year olds to vote.

If we’re going to credit the founding fathers with anything its a system that places branches of government at odds with each-other, and that does tend to evolve with society, and not be locked into a set of rules understood as necessary in 1789, although there are plenty who would disagree as well.

If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc? Because we aren’t jailing people, we aren’t executing people, we aren’t using the power of law to say you may not speak about an issue. But society and people can decide not to support a position any longer.

This slippery slope has existed always and predates America, imo.

Edit: sorry for any grammatical, formatting errors wrote this from mobile and quickly.

I understand your point, but I think it belies the reality of what takes place in most campaigns from my professional experience here in DC, though yes it is anecdotal of course. Yes, a small group of individuals can seek and gain funding, and they do, but in order to have a serious outcome on a race, you need to be able to shift vast sums of money and fast, often in the last 2 months. The Tea-Party influence on the 2010 midterm elections is a great example, the money that supported those candidates, did not come from the tea-party grassroots, but from a band of very rich donors, with very vested interests in legislative outcomes. And I don’t mean to single out the GOP here, the DNC has it’s own fair share of lobbied well-connected interests. Then of course there are the industries and organizations that simply fund the most likely to win in many races, ensuring candidate support for their industry when the time comes for considering legislation.

If I was to start a Super PAC for lower class family concerns, say universal Pre-K, how much of their disposable income do you think they could afford to donate to a political cause? It’d be no where near the vast checks that can be written by opposition groups. And even if successful, I will still likely get outplayed in the long game with legislative lobbying since I don’t have the continued funds to support an ongoing effort.

Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change.

Finally, of course votes aren’t being bought in the election - but a campaign costs a lot of money. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-cos... The average US House race will cost 1.6M to win and the Senate 10.4M to win, and that increase far outpaces the rate of inflation. That money coming in is critical to reaching voters, paying for GOTV, and ensuring victory, beyond just the money spent on ads and outside group advertising. Then of course, all of that money these candidates raise, it’s not free money from well meaning corporations, they will expect to be repaid when the time comes, and they are.

Between Expressed Powers and Necessary and Proper there’s certainly enough justification - it relies even less on the Commerce clause.