Anonymous wrote:We have a 2 year old lab, who is still full of energy and loves to play. This year, only one of my children is in school full time, so there is always someone around the house. Next year, both of my kids will be in school all day, so he will be left alone more often. He doesn't seem to have separation issues, but it's hard to say because being alone is not part of his current routine. Anyway, I'm thinking about what it would be like to get a second dog. If you have two dogs, what are your thoughts? Are they the same breed? What is the age difference? Any regrets?

Twice as much lab-sized poop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous]Do you have just one clue who the inspectors general are? You are a low information stooge.

Yeah, I was waiting for that too. I was an SES-4 in the federal government and was reading to see if anyone knew what they were talking about. They don't of course.

NP here. I actually don't know anything about the inspectors general to know how to interpret this story. Can someone provide more information? Thanks!

The IG is a (generally) politically independent position within federal agencies that is responsible for ensuring that the agencies operate efficiently, effectively and legally. They're similar to "internal affairs" departments within police departments. For example, in Oct. 2006 the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General conducted the investigation that determined that DoI employees wasted $2,027,887.68 worth of taxpayer time annually surfing sexually explicit, gambling, and auction websites while at work.

To dismiss them as a PP did by saying,

"Inspectors General" are like district attorneys - political hacks looking for a better job.

is inaccurate and unfair to both IGs and DAs. While there are DAs and IGs who fit the PP's description, the majority are hard working people who are genuinely interested in doing a good job in their position.

In this case, the IGs complained to Congress that the Administration was interpreting laws and regulations in ways that enabled the Administration to deny IGs access to records they had requested in the Justice Department, the Peace Corps and the chemical safety board. It's not like the Administration is just refusing to turn over records on a whim - they are making the argument that other laws passed by Congress apply and supersede the IG law. I'm still disappointed that an Administration that was elected on the promise of being more transparent than the previous Administration is making such arguments to a degree that it requires the IGs to appeal to Congress for help.

Similarly, journalism groups have complained that the Obama Administration has been far less transparent than previous administrations, and the Obama Administration's treatment of whistle-blowers has been severe compared to previous administrations.

The actual letter from the Society of Professional Journalists is available here - http://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1253 Among other things, they point out that "a survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote."

The letter said:

Some argue that controlling media access is needed to ensure information going out is correct. But when journalists cannot interview agency staff, or can only do so under surveillance, it undermines public understanding of, and trust in, government. This is not a “press vs. government” issue. This is about fostering a strong democracy where people have the information they need to self-govern and trust in its governmental institutions.

It has not always been this way. In prior years, reporters walked the halls of agencies and called staff people at will. Only in the past two administrations have media access controls been tightened at most agencies.

Again, I'm disappointed that a President who ran on transparency is taking this approach. The expectation was that Obama would reverse the anti-democratic, secrecy trends of the Bush Administration, but, instead, the Obama Administration has perpetuated them.

As I said above, I understand how the siege mentality created by Fox News, the conservative blogosphere, and the attention-seeking but consistently futile hearings of Rep. Issa can drive people to hunker down and try and protect themselves, but that's not an excuse. I expect better from the Obama Administration.

As an Obama supporter I've been truly disappointed at the lack of openness and the way the Obama administration has dealt with the press and with whistleblowers.

That being said, I also understand the hunker-down, siege mentality that is engendered when you're constantly under attack for things that are complete fiction (birth certificate, death panels, etc.).

In an environment where vultures are constantly circling looking for even the slightest blemish that can be blown up and spun into the next Tea Party cause celebre, it's no wonder the administration tries to circle the wagons. When there's a group out there dedicated to humiliating you and embarrassing you as much as possible, and that has shown no aversion to twisting and distorting the facts to suit their own agenda, anyone's natural inclination would be to try to control information.

The fact that the conservative media and Republicans are rampantly distorting facts (or just MSU) to provide attack/fundraising fodder, does not excuse the administration from breaking it's promise. It merely provides some level of insight into the administration's motivation for doing so.

I still expect better from my president, and I'm very disappointed that we haven't received it.

Interesting article about a new reversible birth control technology entering testing - a polymer spermicide injected into the vas deferens that prevents sperm from getting out.

Reversible via a second injection that flushes the polymer out.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/09/we-ll-have-male-birth-control-by-2017.html

Anonymous wrote:It was actually a triple blind study....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/

I think NIH is pretty credible... Or should I say not "no good"

I love the "questions raised" section of the NIH study:

We present some of the unsettling questions that arise in these contexts; the questions are unsettling because they invite comparison with human parallels that devalue the concept of God, something that those who pray surely would not have considered.

1. If the number, duration and frequency of prayer are important or if the number of persons praying is important, does God, like a businessman, market boons based on the currency value of the prayers? Or, will God pay attention only if those who pray are sufficiently bothersome?

2. If the type of prayer is important, is God a bureaucrat who is more likely to consider petitions that appear in the prescribed forms?

3. If the addition of vows and sacrifices is important, is God somebody who can be flattered or bribed into granting a boon?

4. If the level of fervency or intensity is important, does God distinguish between “please”, “pretty please” and “pretty please with ribbons on it”?

5. If the practical content of and petitions in the prayer are important, how does God make decisions about what is and what is not a reasonable request?

6. If the faith or conviction of the persons who pray is important, does God value the beliefs of the petitioners more than the merits of the petitions?

7. If the personal characteristics and qualities of the persons who pray (or the persons who are being prayed for) are important, are some people more equal before God than other people? Religions portray God as being compassionate; what sort of compassion is displayed by the selective favoring of an experimental over a control group?

8. If the entity to which the prayer is directed is important, do different Gods have different portfolios? Are some Gods more approachable? Do some Gods ignore some prayers? If the religious affiliation of the person who prays is important, what becomes of the other religions of the world and those who follow such religions; will their prayers remain unanswered?

9. If the magnitude of response to the petitions is total, then all prayers should result in miraculous or near-miraculous benefits. This, clearly, almost never happens. Thus, does God work on percentages; that is, if the petition is for an elephant, does he sanction a mouse? Or, are his responses only subtle ones? If so, how does he choose on the outcome measure to improve?

liamw wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

liamw wrote:YOU don't have to do them, you don't have to say a word, but why should I not be allowed to do it because you don't like hearing it, what makes your right to not hear it more important than my right to do it?

(Not the OP)

You are allowed to do it, and the government can't pass laws to stop you.

The government is not permitted to pass laws or take actions in support of or explicitly adverse to any religion. When the government does something like prohibit prayer in public schools, the reason for that is that if teachers (who are employees of the state) were to use public school facilities to proselytize, that would be a government endorsement of religion, which is not permitted under the 1st Amendment.

The same with putting up statues of the 10 Commandments on a court house lawn or a crèche on the state capitol lawn. That creates an implicit endorsement of Christianity from the government, which is not permitted under the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of religion must also cover freedom from religion, because not having a religion has to also be a valid choice or the government is effectively endorsing religion in favor of non-religion. The government must treat all belief systems equally - if one religion is barred from using a public space to proselytize, then the same prohibition must apply to all religions AND atheists. If a public space is going to be used to support one religion, the public space must be available to all religions and atheists for similar purposes.

If religious institutions are permitted to advertise on Metro busses, which are owned by the government, then atheists must also be permitted to advertise.

The government can't deny an FCC license to a religious broadcaster because of the religious message (be it Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Mormon), nor could they deny a license to an atheist because of the message.

You have every right to stand on a street corner and proselytize, if you choose to, and the government can only stop you if you are doing something that would be stopped regardless of what the person was saying (i.e., you can't stand IN the street and claim that you have a 1st Amendment right to proselytize there, because the cops would ticket you and/or arrest you regardless of your message).

My issue comes in when the Muslim I went to school with was allowed to pray as is required by their religion, how ever I was suspended for wearing a shirt that stated "in the event of rapture this shirt will be unmanned" The double standard is where I have the issue.

On its face that does sound like a double standard, and one that was inappropriate. If you were in a public school you should be permitted to wear any religious t-shirt you choose (unless you were a teacher), and I support your right to do so. The comparison to your muslim classmate shouldn't even be relevant.

liamw wrote:YOU don't have to do them, you don't have to say a word, but why should I not be allowed to do it because you don't like hearing it, what makes your right to not hear it more important than my right to do it?

(Not the OP)

You are allowed to do it, and the government can't pass laws to stop you.

The government is not permitted to pass laws or take actions in support of or explicitly adverse to any religion. When the government does something like prohibit prayer in public schools, the reason for that is that if teachers (who are employees of the state) were to use public school facilities to proselytize, that would be a government endorsement of religion, which is not permitted under the 1st Amendment.

The same with putting up statues of the 10 Commandments on a court house lawn or a crèche on the state capitol lawn. That creates an implicit endorsement of Christianity from the government, which is not permitted under the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of religion must also cover freedom from religion, because not having a religion has to also be a valid choice or the government is effectively endorsing religion in favor of non-religion. The government must treat all belief systems equally - if one religion is barred from using a public space to proselytize, then the same prohibition must apply to all religions AND atheists. If a public space is going to be used to support one religion, the public space must be available to all religions and atheists for similar purposes.

If religious institutions are permitted to advertise on Metro busses, which are owned by the government, then atheists must also be permitted to advertise.

The government can't deny an FCC license to a religious broadcaster because of the religious message (be it Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Mormon), nor could they deny a license to an atheist because of the message.

You have every right to stand on a street corner and proselytize, if you choose to, and the government can only stop you if you are doing something that would be stopped regardless of what the person was saying (i.e., you can't stand IN the street and claim that you have a 1st Amendment right to proselytize there, because the cops would ticket you and/or arrest you regardless of your message).

Anonymous wrote:What stuff was Jesus trying to protect ?^^^

Well, since Jesus didn't write the text that is included in the Bible, and didn't have any involvement in the decisions as to which selections went into the Bible, and has never had any involvement in the operation of the religions created in his name, I'd say it's somewhat irrelevant whether he was trying to protect anything.

As Ghandi said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm personally agnostic. I do lean more toward not believing in a higher power than believing. But I am unable to make the full leap. To me there is currently no way to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power.

My question for the true Atheist; How are you absolutely certain there is no higher power?

Not the OP, but another atheist. I am not "absolutely certain there is no higher power." Logically, it's very difficult to prove a negative, and to quote Voltaire, "While doubt is an uncomfortable position, certainty is a ridiculous one."

However, I do not affirmatively believe in a "higher power," and, in the absence of evidence demonstrating the existence of such an entity, I see no reason to conduct my life as if one exists. If someone provides scientifically testable evidence that a "higher power" exists, or if I end up in some kind of afterlife, I'll have to modify my belief structure.

There's no difference between my outlook on the monotheistic deity(ies) (as well as all other deities) and the way Christians act towards the Egyptian/Norse/Greek/Roman/pick an ancient culture of your choice pantheons.

OP here, I guess it's just a difference in how we define agnostic and atheist. The difference to me between atheism and agnosticism is atheism involves what a person does or does not believe and agnosticism involves what a person does or does not know. My life is driven by what I know rather than what I believe. And my thirst for knowledge is driven by what I don't know.

Well, now you're getting into the 2x2 matrix of belief and knowledge. Technically, it is possible to be both agnostic and atheist, precisely because of the belief/knowledge separation you're talking about.

On that scale, I (and most other atheists) would be classified as an agnostic atheist, because I don't know whether or not there is a deity, but I have no belief in one. I doubt that you'll find many atheists who fall into the category of someone who knows with certainty that there is no deity. That level of certainty is typically reserved for theists. Technically, it's also possible to be an agnostic theist - ie someone who believes in a deity but doesn't know that there is one, but I don't know any.

I would argue that most people who classify themselves as "agnostic" are actually agnostic atheists, but they're choosing to emphasize the "agnostic" part because it's more socially acceptable. If you're sitting there saying, "I don't know for sure whether there's a deity or not." then you don't have a lot of faith in that deity, either.

Anonymous wrote:I am the poster who called out the woman on the other thread for being a child abuser for having sex with her 13 mo in the bed.

First, I have no problem with people being naked in front of their children, etc.

However, why in the hell would ANYONE think this is appropriate behavior for parents. I do not care if your child is a newborn or 10 years old, its completely inappropriate.

I actually think the other woman was bragging about it. Like it was cool they did this. Exposing a child to a sexual act whether you are their parents or not is child abuse and I am horrified that I even stooped to the level of having to type this.

All time low for DCUM on this one.

And to the OP- obviously you know there is something wrong with this because you started a thread about it. Had I just been some "crazy lady" you would not think twice about this huh?

Anyone who can justify this is horrible. I am no prude and my sex life is perfect but I have no need to risk any exposure of it to my kids.

"I do not care if your child is a newborn or 10 years old, its completely inappropriate."

It must be lovely to live in such a black and white world. By your logic a movie that is rated PG-13 is ALWAYS inappropriate, regardless of the age of the child. The difference between having an infant sleeping next to you and having a 10-year old in the room is significant.

If the baby wakes up and sees mommy and daddy doing something under the covers in the dark, (a) the baby has no comprehension of what she's seeing, and (b) the baby has no real ability to form any memories about it. A 10-year old is completely different developmentally.

Obviously you're not going to have screaming, ride-em-cowgirl, kinda sex while a baby is sleeping, but having sex in a way that doesn't disturb the child is absolutely fine. The kid is sleeping and even if a 13-month old does wake up, you can stop what you're doing, comfort the baby until she goes back to sleep, and resume bonking, assuming the interruption hasn't killed the mood.

For someone who claims you're no prude, you sure come across as having a pretty repressed attitude, and using words like "Anyone who can justify this is horrible," tells me you've got some issues when it comes to sex.

Most of your points relate to economics and your inaccurate perception of status symbols like wearing suits and getting a car service.

JD is more intellectual than MD?

Dear god, let's hope not. I'm a lawyer and I know some dumb lawyers and some who are very smart but severely lacking in common sense. Most lawyers do work that doesn't involve things that can kill someone. Someone who wants to become a doctor has to do well in science courses, not poli sci, and then has to go to Med School, where they study science and do it for longer than law students do.