Disqus - Latest Comments for Amanda

Re: Kill Qwerty! (Guest Voice)

Amanda — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:02:24 -0000

Voice input isn't a bad idea, but it isn't really necessary. To avoid texting while driving, you can just call the person and use speakerphone. And in an office environment, the monotonous clicking of keyboards is a heck of a lot less distracting than listening to everyone else talk at their computers. Sometimes you want to send something private - setting up a doctor's appointment or writing a gossipy email to a friend are not generally the sort of things you'd want to say out loud in a public space. And with the advent of wifi internet access, more and more people will be using computers in public. If someone wants to develop this technology, that's great. But I don't think it's necessary, nor is it imperative enough to warrant that large a prize or Federal involvement.

Re: North Dakota to Take a Run at Roe?

Amanda — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:04:38 -0000

My question for the folks in the ND House, is what do they intend to do to women who have abortions? If this law passes, are they planning to prosecute the doctors and the patients on murder charges? Will they throw them in jail?

And what happens to a woman who miscarries? If the embryo is a protected, recognized human life, than isn't miscarriage the equivalent of negligent homicide or manslaughter?

Re: The Five Day Rule. "Well,really it was more of a guideline."

Amanda — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:54:47 -0000

SCHIP and Lily Ledbetter were already heavily debated in the 110th Congress. The people know what they are and what the laws will accomplish. If Obama skips the 5-day rule on new bills, then I'll join the chorus of detractors. For now, it just seems like you're complaining about nothing.

Re: Prop 8 & Race & Obama & The South

Amanda — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:11:04 -0000

The only thing churches have to do to maintain tax exempt status is stay out of public policy. That's why the Mormon church is in such a fix now - they actively lobbied and raised money for a secular law. They can continue not allowing gays to have church weddings (after all, they don't let non-Christians have church weddings) without fear of repercussions from the federal government. The whole separation of church and state thing goes both ways. As long as the churches stay out of government business, the government leaves the churches alone.

I guess my question for you, and other Prop 8 supporters, is this. Why do oppose gay marriage if you think being gay is ok?

Re: Prop 8 & Race & Obama & The South

Amanda — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:04:55 -0000

The hamer Study of 1993 looked at genetic links to homosexuality.

There's another study being done now that MSNBC has an article on.

The general consensus among psychologists and doctors these days is that homosexuality is probably a combination of factors from genetic predispositions to the environment in which people are raised - in other words, things that are beyond the control of the homosexuals themselves.

I don't think that there is a "gay gene" any more than there's a hetero gene or a bisexual gene. I for one don't like cheese. Everyone in my family likes the stuff, but I hate it. Just the smell makes me nauseous. Is there some whacky gene that makes me this way? Maybe, but I doubt it. But at the same time, it's not something I can help feeling. It's just the way I am. That's how my brother described his homosexuality to me once. Sure, it's a little unusual, but it's just the way he is.

I don't know about your hypothetical situation. The idea of engineering children is just...creepy. Somehow it seems wrong to be able to pick and choose which traits our babies have. I would hope that, aside from curing diseases or fixing health-defects, we would stay out of manipulating human DNA. Veering into eugenics is an ugly can of worms I'd rather not open.

I am a supporter of abortion rights, not because I think abortions should be performed, but because it's not my business to tell someone else what to do with her body. Also, the people who generally oppose abortion are also opposed to common-sense sex education. We wouldn't have so many abortions if everyone had a comprehensive knowledge of how to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

Re: Prop 8 & Race & Obama & The South

Amanda — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:37:39 -0000

wally, homosexuality isn't a choice. One cannot help being attracted to one sex or the other (or both in some cases). Marriage, however, is a choice and one that Prop 8 doesn't allow gays to make for themselves. In no way did the previous law allowing gay marriage force churches or other religious groups to recognize or perform ceremonies for homosexual couples. It didn't infringe on the rights of those who would prefer to keep marriage as a heterosexual bond.

Your implication that marriage is strictly for procreation is also a fallacy. Marriage is also a partnership between two adults, a committment to stay together and love and respect each other for the rest of your lives. When I was a kid, my next door neighbors didn't have children, yet they were married and seemed to be happy. I learned when I was a bit older that the wife had had 3 miscarriages and decided to get her tubes tied rather than go through that again. If her inability to have children isn't a reason to deny her the right to get married, then I see no reason to deny that right to someone like my brother who is gay. They were born with those traits and there was no choice involved - why punish one and not the other?

And what about adoption? I personally don't want to have children of my own, but some day I'd like to adopt a child with a future spouse. Should I refrain from marriage because I don't want to procreate? Would you deny a gay couple the right to use a sperm donor or a surrogate mother to have their own child? Would you prevent them from adopting children? If so, please explain why.

As to your other charge, that of Prop 8 opponents being intolerant, well I can't speak for everyone who opposes this measure, but here I am, reading your arguments. I'm listening to what you have to say and while I passionately disagree with you on this particular issue, I hope I haven't come across as rude or disrespectful.

Re: Kill Bill, Part III

Amanda — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:11:35 -0000

The simple answer here is that Hillary Clinton simply is not the best person for the job. There are several (perhaps dozens) of other influential men and women with more knowledge of foreign policy and, more importantly, a deeper understanding of foreign cultures. And as an added bonus, none of them come with the baggage of a presidential spouse. There are guys like Bill Richardson, Senators Lugar, Durbin, and Hagel, various members of the diplomatic corps, and numerous upper echelon university presidents with backgrounds in foreign affairs who would be better equipped to handle the job and far less controversial. I was discussing this with my dad over the weekend, and he said it would be a wise move for Obama to pick someone with a theological background, someone with a deeper understanding of the differences between Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish Islam and who could possibly figure out a compromise solution to the messy divide in Iraq.

Re: Prop 8 & Race & Obama & The South

Amanda — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:18:28 -0000

wally, if you support a ban on gay marriage, you ARE anti-gay. You may not want to admit it to yourself, but by supporting Prop 8 you're basically saying that gays are second class citizens, not worthy of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of marriage. It is bigotry wrapped in semantics and a Bible, which I find especially ironic considering Jesus preached we should love each other despite our flaws and differences and leave the passing of judgements to God.

I have yet to hear a sound, logical argument supporting Prop 8 that doesn't rely on religious traditions or poorly-masked homophobia. If you happen to have one, this is as good a place as any to share it. But for me, there really is only one right way to address the issue of gay marriage, and that is to make it legal.

Re: One Party Rule Is Not A Good Idea

Amanda — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:16:41 -0000

I think that Obama is going to have a really tough time reining in the House and Senate. He's not nearly as liberal as some of his colleagues probably hope he is and if he wants to be re-elected in 4 years, he can't just let the far left dictate policy. The Democrats have only been the majority party in Congress for 22 months, yet they already have lower approval ratings than their notoriously corrupt predecessors.

I'm an Obama supporter and a proud Democrat, but I recognize my party's weaknesses. There are a lot of members who are out for Republican blood and want to win so they can crush the opposition. They aren't concerned with the welfare of the nation as much as they are concerned with victory. If that wing of the party takes control of Congress, then my guess is there'll be a heck of a swing to the right during the 2010 and 2012 elections. Whether it costs Obama the Presidency depends on how he reacts to the far left. It'll be a delicate balancing act, opposing some members of your party while trying to maintain popularity with the rest. Just look at McCain's campaign for an example of how that can blow up in your face.

Re: One Party Rule Is Not A Good Idea

Amanda — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:55:32 -0000

It's a lesson both parties need to learn and let's face it, the two major parties are not exactly brilliant en masse. They have to go through this mess of purging the non-believers to understand that catering to the fringe is a fast-track to self-destruction. The GOP has a couple years of a head start on this, but the Dems tend to crash and burn faster. If they don't figure out a way to compromise with the more moderate members of their own parties and then with each other, my guess is we'll have a new party emerge that caters to the centrists. It'll be a sort of coalition of the old fiscal conservative republicans and the blue-dog democrats and if we're lucky, they won't focus on small government vs. big government, but on smart government that works for everyone.

Re: Gay Marriage: Where The Right Is Wrong

Amanda — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:45:02 -0000

Tully,

The legal benefits aspect is an interesting point. To me, though, I don't think that should matter. Gay people contribute to social security, too. They pay taxes on their income. Why should they not then be allowed to access the benefits in the same way hetero couples do? If they are contributing to the benefits pool at the same level as their hetero counterparts, there's no logical reason to deny them the benefits.

Re: You Can’t be Half-Socialist (Guest Voice)

Amanda — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:47:38 -0000

Geez. Michael needs a chill pill and a reality check. I can think of 3 programs off the top of my head that, technically speaking, are socialist. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have been on the books for decades, yet they haven't forced America into a full-blow Marxist state. Pure communism and socialism don't work - anyone who's at all familiar with 20th century history knows this. But that doesn't mean that certain aspects of socialism can't be blended into a capitalist, democratic society for the benefit of the entire nation.

Re: Test Your Prognostication!

Amanda — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:11:56 -0000

Electoral Votes: Obama 326, McCain 237
Popular Votes: Obama 53%, McCain 44%, Other 3%
Senate: Dem 55, Rep 43, Inde 2
House: Dem 252, Rep 183

Re: News You Need Kleenex For

Amanda — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:45:26 -0000

Well, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. As a nation we continue to reward the two-party system and just accept that it is corrupt. We settle for the lowest common denominator instead of demanding excellence from our leaders. Have an affair and you're out of office in a flash (or impeached). Accept a bribe from a lobbyist and nobody bats an eyelash.

The counter-productive level of negative discourse in DC is not going to change until we, the citizens, demand it with our votes. It is our apathy that is killing this country. So many of us simply choose not to research the candidates beyond checking for the (R) or (D) next to their name. We don't dig into their policy positions or their proposals. We don't research third-party candidates. And in the Internet age, there's no excuse for not finding out what these people really stand for.

Re: A shout-out for "Sarah's Base Hardener"

Amanda — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:06:41 -0000

Billy Mays, 100% irritating on all 7 continents.

Michael, this was a brilliant piece. Hopefully, the actual conservatives, the ones concerned with fiscal sanity and reducing government involvement in everything, will start banding together without the theocratic pseudo-fascists from the far-right. They'll probably pull some of the more centrist DLC Dems with them and we could actually end up with a working 3-party system. Reactionary fundies on the right, New Republicans in the middle, and a slightly more progressive/populist Democratic party on the Left. Hopefully the lack of a majority will force them to cooperate, something both major parties seem to have forgotten how to do.

Re: Sweeping Up the Wreckage After the Debate

Amanda — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:04:14 -0000

Well, if it's any comfort, a friend of mine who works in theatre said it could just be a bad mic and not an actual mannerism.

Re: Is 'liberal' still a dirty word?

Amanda — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:59:31 -0000

And because protectionism and taxing the 'wealthy' will strangle the last gasps of an economy trying to recover?

People keep presenting this line as if it's concrete fact, yet I've never seen or heard anyone actually prove it or defend it with verifiable examples. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just skeptical. especially when you consider that the trickle-down style of economics did more harm than good to the middle class.

It seems illogical to assume that shifting some of the tax burden off of the middle class and onto the wealthy results in an economic slow-down. Middle-class people are the biggest consumers. If they have a little extra money to spend, they will. And that means more jobs for the people who design, manufacture, market, sell, and maintain whatever it is the middle class people are buying. And that in turn means the CEO's of the large companies and the owners of the small businesses are all producing and selling more, and making more money. The wealthier people may not have quite as large a slice of the pie proportionally speaking, but they aren't starving for income either.

Re: Sweeping Up the Wreckage After the Debate

Amanda — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:32:17 -0000

My roommate and I were giggling like mad most of the way through the debate because I made the mistake of pointing out something about McCain during the first response. He has the old man s-whistle. Every time he says a word with an s in it, he whistles a little bit. It's every bit as maddening as "my friends" and it happens far more often. And your wife was right - McCain did look old while shuffling around the stage. My 74-year-old grandfather still walks with a straight back and a sturdy gait. Now granted, he was never in Vietnam, but he did used to work for a utility company and was struck by lightning and fell off of a telephone pole during a storm about 25 years ago. And my other grandfather was a very hearty man, actively pursuing carpentry and world travel into his 80's. McCain seems older than both of them at this point, and having Palin in the #2 spot is not at all reassuring.

Re: Obama McCain Political Debate Context: Polls Still Show Volatile Race

Amanda — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:05:19 -0000

538 and Electoral Vote give a better picture for why the conventional wisdom has Obama in the Oval Office next year. Barring some sort of major gaffe or scandal, it looks like he'll win decisively in the Electoral College, even if it's a close race by popular vote.

Re: Undecided no more: It's Obama

Amanda — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:05:47 -0000

I checked out Project Vote Smart over the weekend and discovered that the Libertarian candidate for my Congressional district (Maryland 2) is actually a better choice for me than the incumbent Dem I was planning to support. You never know - there could be a better candidate out there for you to support in the local races.

Re: The Palin V.P. Interview - Debate 2008

Amanda — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:01:20 -0000

Pacatrue, you took the words out of my mouth. I agree that saying withdrawing from Iraq is waving the white flag of surrender was a bad moment. Palin needs to explain that rationale, because unless I'm mistaken, Iraq is a sovereign nation and they're asking us (politely for now) to get ready to leave. So is it only surrender because a Democrat is calling for withdrawl? How does McCain define victory in Iraq? What are his specific objectives? How does he intend to achieve them? What conditions have to be met, in his opinion, before we can withdraw American troops?

Palin was poised last night. I'll give her that. But she stuck to her talking points instead of digging into the issues. She relied on soundbites over substance and she evaded a lot of direct questions to continue talking about the few areas where she does have some experience. And her kill-em-with-kindness folksiness may have won over some people, but the seemingly forced, false nature of it made my skin crawl.

Re: Obama, listen up!

Amanda — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:38:43 -0000

polimom - in the NY Times article you cited, Obama pointed out that the $700 billion amount is higher than he thinks is necessary. Perhaps that's where the difference comes from between the two statements. He can't single-handedly prevent the current administration and Congress from passing the bail-out as it is, though I do think he should cut down some campaign stops and head to the Senate to state his piece. Perhaps his preferred method of "fixing" our current crisis would have allowed him to move forward with his various plans.

Re: The winning ways of our lying pols

Amanda — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:50:57 -0000

Manjoo is dead wrong when it comes to encouraging the Obama camp to start lying. It won't work for them. Any lie Obama tells or approves that gets caught becomes twice the scandal it would be for a normal pol - he gets hit once for telling a lie and a second time for claiming to be a new sort of politician while playing by old rules. Besides, McCain's stack of lies is starting to wear him down. Obama let him run out all that rope - avoiding the press, issuing attack ads full of lies, and letting the media vet Palin - and now McCain is hanging his campaign with it. The press is turning against him, probably out of frustration since he won't actually talk to them anymore. It seems like every day brings a new Palin scandal and the best defense they can come up with is that it's sexist to ask her questions about her record. McCain and his surrogates are getting reamed out by TV anchors over the various lies he's told both on the stump and in his ads. Between his appearance on The View and Tucker Bounds' appearances on CNN and FOX News, you can tell that the media is not inclined to sit back and let McCain lie his way into the White House. Obama doesn't have to do anything other than present the issues and what he plans to do about them because McCain is busy sinking his own ship.

Re: Palin’s Interview With Gibson

Amanda — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:52:44 -0000

Has anyone brought up Wasilla charging victims (up to $1200) for their sexual assault/rape kits while Palin was mayor? That seems like something that would get the talking heads flapping.

Re: We Don’t Need No Department of Education

Amanda — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:31:21 -0000

jwest, your plan doesn't address the fundamental cause of inner city school failure. It's worse than just throwing good money after bad on the system as is because it takes away all of the extra resources teachers have now that can help them at least try to reach these kids. It also makes the assumption that the kids who are slipping through the cracks now are actually going to follow your plan, which they won't. They drop out because they're poor and need to work, or they get mixed up in gangs, or they start using drugs, or their parents are beyond neglectful or abusive. Sending that kid a voucher for $15 or $15000 isn't going to make a damn bit of difference because he's not going to use it.

Instead of shutting down what doesn't work for 80%, why don't we figure out what makes the other 20% successful? Those kids come from the same neighborhoods, so why are they graduating while their neighbors drop out? Maybe if we kept the at-risk students actually at the school for more hours and more days, they'd have fewer opportunities to slip through the cracks. Maybe setting up boarding schools, providing meals, setting up work-study programs, and offering free tutoring services will make it possible for them to stay in school and finish their education.