Stats

Comments Posted By SanityNow

Displaying 181 To 210 Of 429 Comments

Souls on ICE

here is a Wiki definition of Biometric Data:

Biometrics comprises methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits. In computer science, in particular, biometrics is used as a form of identity access management and access control. It is also used to identify individuals in groups that are under surveillance.

Biometric characteristics can be divided in two main classes:

* Physiological are related to the shape of the body. Examples include, but are not limited to fingerprint, face recognition, DNA, hand and palm geometry, iris recognition, which has largely replaced retina, and odor/scent.
* Behavioral are related to the behavior of a person. Examples include, but are not limited to typing rhythm, gait, and voice. Some researchers[1] have coined the term behaviometrics for this class of biometrics.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 10:11 am

Health Bill Basics

Hear, freaking hear!

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

in 1750? I don’t think so.

I think what I am about to cite was not the norm for women in early colonial America and didn’t last more than 50 years:

In 1756, Lydia Chapin Taft became the first woman to vote in America.[3] She voted on at least three occasions in an open New England Town Meeting, at Uxbridge, Massachusetts, with the consent of the electorate. This was between 1756 and 1768, during America’s colonial period.[4]

Women in New Jersey could vote (with the same property qualifications as for men, although, since married women did not own property in their own right, only unmarried women and widows qualified) under the state constitution of 1776, where the word “inhabitants” was used without qualification of sex or race. New Jersey women, along with “aliens…persons of color, or negroes,” lost the vote in 1807, when the franchise was restricted to white males, ostensibly, to combat electoral fraud by simplifying the conditions for eligibility

So, I should think that the Tea Bagging Party would probably be happiest if the clock were to turn back to anywhere between 1808 and 1910. 1750 would also work but I would think the bulk of the 19th century was a meaner time and the baggers would enjoy that more.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 6:59 pm

I should think they might think they’d be happiest in the year 1750: still the King’s colonies, slavery is legal, only landed white males allowed to vote, no health care system at all, only about 2 million people in the whole country. Those were the days…

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 6:43 pm

I think “repurposing” them is a better idea Sue. Maybe foot stools? maybe firewood?

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

those tables need a good flipping

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 5:52 pm

:+) = 🙂

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 5:20 pm

I heart Barney

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 5:18 pm

Happy birthday CL!

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 2:55 pm

are you absolutely sure about that CL? Have you received inside confirmation on that? because I just visited the Rules site and I read the Amendment and my understanding is that the language of the Amendment only amends the corresponding parts of the Reconciliation Act. In other words, just because there is no mention of the PO in the Amendment does not mean that the PO is out of 4872. Unless, I hear otherwise, I think the Public Health Insurance Option is still in 4872.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 2:54 pm

don’t think this comparison will show the PO as it really only exists in the Reconciliation Act

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 1:36 pm

Cher, here is another, a bit more interactive side-by-side comparison tool provided by Kaiser Fam Fdn

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 1:19 pm

I think one could correctly argue that the PO has the single most positive effect on cost controls in HCR.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 1:01 pm

Hot off the CBO presses: EFFECT ON THE DEFICIT OF RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION AND H.R. 3590 COMBINED

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11378/PreliminaryReconciliationTables.pdf

a quick perusal shows my eyes that the Reconciliation Act will have an overall effect of lowering the ten year cost of HCR by 156 Billion for a total ten year cost of HCR being 789 Billion as opposed to the 940 billion over ten years reported Thursday morning. ( know those numbers don’t quite add up but it is just a quick look….correct me if I am wrong.)

also, it looks like the Reconciliation Act will also reduce the federal deficit during those ten years by an additional 25 Billion.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 12:55 pm

KQ, you are correct. The issue has no relevance under the Byrd Rule which demands that any reconciliation item be directly related to budgetary matters and specifically that they reduce the budget effect of the bill being reconciled.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 12:51 pm

actually, from what I am seeing there, it is quiet.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

I wouldn’t bet my last dollar on a single republican yea

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 12:39 pm

exactly and since the vote on reconciliation will be voted on first, the sting of voting on the Senate bill will be mitigated. somewhat.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

ridiculous but whatever…modern democracy sure ain’t pretty.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

if he lives in their house, he is a part of their Family.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 12:35 pm

so the XO will just confirm the Hyde Amendment then? What a waste of time, but hey, if it appeases the Kaputs Krowd then so be it.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

exactly. and the Hyde Amendment, which already prohibits federal funding of abortion, is current law and has been the law of the land since 1973. The Stupak agenda is clearly trying to go beyond the Hyde Amendment and deny legal abortions to any woman who has even a partially federally funded insurance plan even if though no federal funds actually pay for legal abortion services, which they do not because of the Hyde Amendment.

Stupak’s goal is a blatant attack on Roe v Wade. Isn’t he affiliated with the Family?

» Posted By SanityNow On March 20, 2010 @ 11:19 am

orange man is shameless.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 19, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

I think his biggest weakness is that he expects representative leadership, regardless of party affiliation, to behave rationally.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 19, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

from a Facebook blog of the Coffee Part Movement:

Rep. Suzanne Kosmas will support the
bill. Kosmas was among the group of nearly 40 Democrats who voted
against the health care bill last fall.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 19, 2010 @ 2:32 pm

Ha! true enough. The old man in my avatar pic is my 5th g-grandfather, from VA. It is a strange place to be sure.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 19, 2010 @ 1:50 pm

I think you are correct: people are focusing almost solely on the Senate bill (3590) and not at all on the Reconciliation Act of 2010, which will alter some very onerous provision in 3590 and add (hopefully) some brilliant, cost controlling measures (read: PO) that will mitigate the individual mandate issue.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 19, 2010 @ 1:33 pm

Perriello is a “yes.” Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va)

» Posted By SanityNow On March 19, 2010 @ 12:33 pm

of course. the msm are the master of the short term tactic and give no thought whatever to long term strategy.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 19, 2010 @ 8:30 am

I wonder if there is any efficient way to check the legislative records of any state that tried the same efforts right after Civil Rights for example. I would bet good money, if I had any, that we would see a similar pattern that we see today brewing.

» Posted By SanityNow On March 18, 2010 @ 11:50 pm