Poverty is about mindset !!!

RetiredUSN said:

Your response has a load of it's own BS. Koch Brothers? Really? What a load of crap! I guess you know much more that the Disabled Veterans @ Disabledveterans.org....or the investigative reporting done by the Military Times, Washington Post, Forbes, and many other institutions.

Some VA centers have improved.......yes. But overall, the VA is right there with 3rd world medicine in many places around the country.

Veterans Affairs Gives ‘3rd World’ Health Care To Veterans

Oooops! The Washington DC VA recently forgot to mail out the cancer results of patients. Incompetent hiring?

DC VA Medical Center Delayed Mailing Patients Their Breast Cancer Test Results - NBC4 Washington

Crappy doctor? No problem. Practice under the safety umbrella of the VA because they wont report you!

VA Medical Centers Fail to Report Substandard Doctors, GAO Says

VA Health Leaders Failed to Protect Patients from Inept Doctors | Military.com

Are you a disqualified doctor. No problem, the VA has a job for you anyways.

GAO Report Shows Disqualified VA Doctors Hired To Treat Veterans


The VA is not improving like you say it is. There are a few decent centers, but overall it's a 3rd world organization.

Click to expand...

If you can’t depend on the VA, then what do you do?

RetiredUSN said:

Your response has a load of it's own BS. Koch Brothers? Really? What a load of crap! I guess you know much more that the Disabled Veterans @ Disabledveterans.org....or the investigative reporting done by the Military Times, Washington Post, Forbes, and many other institutions.

Some VA centers have improved.......yes. But overall, the VA is right there with 3rd world medicine in many places around the country.

Veterans Affairs Gives ‘3rd World’ Health Care To Veterans

Click to expand...

Disabled Veterans dot org? Why aren't you asking the Disabled Veterans of America? The DAV?
Disabled Veterans dot org is run by an attorney who makes a living suing the VA, and you think he's a veterans rights advocate?
He's a trial lawyer.

Yes, the Koch Brothers. They fund and operate "Concerned Veterans of America" which is a front for privatizing the VA, which by the way goes against the wishes of an overwhelming number of disabled veterans.

RetiredUSN said:

Crappy doctor? No problem. Practice under the safety umbrella of the VA because they wont report you!

VA Medical Centers Fail to Report Substandard Doctors, GAO Says

Click to expand...

And as we are about to find out, if you're in the private sector, you will never even get reported at all!

Medscape said:

"Of the 148 providers whose clinical care was reviewed from 2013 to 2017, five were subject to adverse privileging actions and four resigned or retired while under review but before adverse actions were taken."

Click to expand...

Wow, five practitioners out of a hundred and forty-eight? That's all? Have you looked up the same records for private sector care?
Did you also use the NPBD for that, too?

The NPDB was flawed from the beginning. Its purpose
was to make malpractice settlements and judgments
(about 80% of the information reported) as well as hospital and licensing board disciplinary actions available
to insurance companies and hospitals nationwide. It was
hoped that this would restrict providers from practicing
“anonymously” across state lines while concealing previous medical malpractice payments or an adverse disciplinary action history. However, the design of the NPDB
not only included significant reporting exceptions that
have undermined its reliability, but it also failed to take
into consideration the natural reluctance of the medical
community to punish colleagues publicly.

Click to expand...

The flaws of the NPDB are analyzed extensively in the
GAO report. For example, physicians are not required
to report to the NPDB5; this may be a problem under
several circumstances. Because physicians are not
defined as eligible entitles under the law, a private
settlement between physician and patient is not a
reportable event. In addition, a hospital’s legal settlement that includes dismissal of a physician but does
not mention the physician by name in the agreement
produces no reportable event for the physician
involved. Consequently, the NPDB has no record
of any private settlements between the physician
and patient, and no record of any “corporate shield”
settlements made by the hospital.

**SOURCE: National Practitioner Data Bank: Who Can Open theVault?Robert H. Aicher, Esq.**

Click to expand...

RetiredUSN said:

The VA is not improving like you say it is. There are a few decent centers, but overall it's a 3rd world organization.

Click to expand...

I'll patiently wait for you to provide information on how well the private sector compares, and the results of THEIR reporting requirements.
If I don't see comparative data on the private sector from you in 72 hours, I'll provide it.

You've already admitted that you never used the VA, is my memory correct on that?

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Disabled Veterans dot org? Why aren't you asking the Disabled Veterans of America? The DAV?
Disabled Veterans dot org is run by an attorney who makes a living suing the VA, and you think he's a veterans rights advocate?
He's a trial lawyer.

Yes, the Koch Brothers. They fund and operate "Concerned Veterans of America" which is a front for privatizing the VA, which by the way goes against the wishes of an overwhelming number of disabled veterans.



And as we are about to find out, if you're in the private sector, you will never even get reported at all!



Wow, five practitioners out of a hundred and forty-eight? That's all? Have you looked up the same records for private sector care?
Did you also use the NPBD for that, too?







I'll patiently wait for you to provide information on how well the private sector compares, and the results of THEIR reporting requirements.
If I don't see comparative data on the private sector from you in 72 hours, I'll provide it.

You've already admitted that you never used the VA, is my memory correct on that?

Click to expand...

You are full of beans. Your wife got a good shake (and I am glad she did) from the VA and now you have a groupie complex.

Hundreds of thousands of veterans say otherwise about the VA.

The VA medical sucks period!

SheWolf said:

If you can’t depend on the VA, then what do you do?

Click to expand...

I have Tri-Care until I'm 65

Veterans who didn't retire can go wait in line for 3-4 years for a operation in many cases.

Many veterans get shown the door as they don't qualify.

No worries though.......up until recently, the VA was more than willing to give you all the addictive pain killers you could fit into a wheel barrow.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Disabled Veterans dot org? Why aren't you asking the Disabled Veterans of America? The DAV?
Disabled Veterans dot org is run by an attorney who makes a living suing the VA, and you think he's a veterans rights advocate?
He's a trial lawyer.

Yes, the Koch Brothers. They fund and operate "Concerned Veterans of America" which is a front for privatizing the VA, which by the way goes against the wishes of an overwhelming number of disabled veterans.



And as we are about to find out, if you're in the private sector, you will never even get reported at all!



Wow, five practitioners out of a hundred and forty-eight? That's all? Have you looked up the same records for private sector care?
Did you also use the NPBD for that, too?







I'll patiently wait for you to provide information on how well the private sector compares, and the results of THEIR reporting requirements.
If I don't see comparative data on the private sector from you in 72 hours, I'll provide it.

You've already admitted that you never used the VA, is my memory correct on that?

Click to expand...

I can go over to Sentara today and be seen by a doctor. I don't need to call the VA and wait a month, or Tri-Care and wait 2 weeks

RetiredUSN said:

I can go over to Sentara today and be seen by a doctor. I don't need to call the VA and wait a month, or Tri-Care and wait 2 weeks

Click to expand...

We've never waited a month.
So you admit that you never use the VA, so you actually have zero frame of reference except for Trump's privatization squads.



In fact, almost all of Karen's appointments are within a week or less and if it is more urgent, within a few hours.

RetiredUSN said:

This 10th grade drop out decided that he wasn't going to stay in a **** hole New England paper mill town like his friends all did.

Retired from one career at 38.

Ran 2 businesses since then. (owner operator & home repairs)

Put my daughter through 4 years at Radford (with the help of a couple Pell grants)

Helped my son start his own business (s)

I'm nobody special, so any person other than some of the handicapped can get out there and make it. You have to want it, and be ready to fall on your face a few times on the way.

Click to expand...

I have a family friend who broke his neck when he was still a teenager. Father was not around and his mother was in and out of jail. He was able to recover enough to get around with the help of two specialized canes, he drives a modified car. He went to a computer technical school and makes comfortable six figure salary.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I'm no economic expert or any sort of scholar so my measure would be based on memory of personal experiences in the 1970's as a poor and hardworking college student and my awareness of the cost of living today.

I do fairly well today, in my retirement years, and we were a hardworking family up until that and we have children who are just now going out into the world to make their way.
When one takes inflation into account, it is safe to say that a $110 a month tiny bachelor pad apartment would rent today for about 400+ dollars a month, give or take a few bucks in either direction and my "measure" simply points to the fact that, in most of our larger cities and towns, a four hundred dollar a month place to live is generally unavailable.

In MOST...maybe not all, but the general consensus is that rent is so high these days in most locations that it is difficult or even impossible for a person just starting out to find a place to live, unless they are just starting out with an awful lot of good luck in their corner.
Of course, we all make our own "luck", but it generally consists of OPPORTUNITIES, opportunities such as affordable living quarters.

Lack of those sufficient opportunities contributes to the measure of the so called "despair quotient".
Simply put, the cost of living is skyrocketing while wages remain relatively flat.

The opportunities available to working Americans was far greater in my youth than they are for the youth of today because, quite simply, the opportunities available today are often too costly.

If you want less homelessness, cheaper rental housing would help. If you want less crime, lessening despair helps.
If you want a highly skilled and trained workforce instead of mostly minimum wage workers who cannot move up the ladder, offering either free or very affordable education helps.

If we withhold these things, despair increases, and most of our largest issues relate to despair.

Click to expand...

Yup. Cost of education is much more higher than yesteryear and student loans dog those who take them out for many yrs.

Wow. $400 for a 1-bed. In 1973-74 I paid $180 for a 1-bed upstairs duplex that would go for $2,000 now. Easy. That was when I was living in a California beach community.

bluesmoke said:

Yup. Cost of education is much more higher than yesteryear and student loans dog those who take them out for many yrs.

Wow. $400 for a 1-bed. In 1973-74 I paid $180 for a 1-bed upstairs duplex that would go for $2,000 now. Easy. That was when I was living in a California beach community.

Click to expand...

Minneapolis 1978.
Rent in a tiny sardine can bachelor pad: $110/mo
Tuition was somewhere around $1200 for the entire course (tech training)

Believe me, I do realize that no one should expect sumptuous accommodations for four hundred a month today, but people WILL take it anyway.
I only spent a year in that tiny apartment and it was maybe 15 feet by 12 feet, with a tiny shower-bathroom and a kitchenette built into one wall.
But it was MINE, and for a young guy making about 420 to 450 bucks a month as a dishwasher while going to school it was still wonderful.

If we can extend that much opportunity to the lower strata today, I am confident that people will take advantage of it and move up the ladder same as I did, same as thousands of other students I knew did.

Funny thing about those California beach towns...as recently as 1987 I had a tiny two room subterranean apartment in Venice, right on the corner of Westminster and Speedway, for $160/month. I managed to hang onto that until late 1989. It did not have a kitchen or bathroom but there was a bathroom just outside the door next to the basement storeroom. I used it as my videotape editing studio.

The Morrison Apartments - Venice

Checkerboard Strangler said:

View attachment 67268142

Click to expand...

The comment regarding wages is very problematic because we are not told (1) where he got those numbers, (2) how he adjusted for price changes and (3) even more importantly who's wage are we talking about?

Regarding publicly available data, the Federal Reserve of St-Louis offers a measure of real median personal income. It is broader than wages, but it is public, goes back to the 1970s and it is not taken at the level of households. Moreover, it displays a measure of central tendency that is considerably less sensitive to the righthand side tail of the income distribution. The only two quibbles I would have with this is: (1) I'd love to have more quantiles than just the middle one and (2) it uses the CPI. The second problem has no easy solution besides doing the computations using multiple price indexes. Nevertheless, the graphic shows clear gains across time:

Real Median Personal Income in the United States (MEPAINUSA672N) | FRED | St. Louis Fed

By the way, the second critique implies this graph is a large understatement of the improvement -- it doesn't deal well with improvements in quality and innovations. So, I don't know where he got his figures, but there's clearly something fishy about it.

The other problem here in this type of discussion is that people seem to not understand what it means to track some statistics regarding a group of people we define as poor. When you look at the lower quantiles of income in 1980 and compare each of them to their 1990 counterparts, you're not looking at how each poor fellow did over the course of a decade. You're looking at how a lifestyle changed over the decade. Many of those poor Joes and Janes changed income bracket as they aged, acquired education and/or experience. One of the more interesting aspects of the issue is not that someone eats instant ramen while another eats dry-aged steak, even though this tends to be what sparks outrage. The very important question is: can someone who really puts in the work reasonably expect to improve their lives?

It's a lot less troubling that people have a tough time if they can hope to get out of this, but people don't seem to bother with data when it comes to social mobility. People further on the right just assume mobility and people on the left just assume immobility. And for some reason, both of them will take stances on policies based on what we might call nominal aspects. Figuring out what is the best way to promote social mobility so that people born poor do not remain poor seems to be the proper question.


And as a final note, the notion of an economic boom refers to simple arithmetics regarding increased production and employment. It has nothing to do with welfare analysis. The only thing this comment reveals is petty partisanship.

FinnFox said:

PISA Worldwide Ranking - average score of math, science and reading - FactsMaps Finland is at #8 now and US #31 and that's bad for Finland (we used to be better, you know, now we suck).

Click to expand...

Canada is ranked in 6th place.

Each province manages its own education system and I don't think I remember anyone boasting about how education is great in their area. Everyone seems to be convinced they live in their own little slice of public education hell. I recall a lecture gave by a former professor of economics who used to work on education I attended back when I was an undergrad in the fall of 2013. He pointed out we spend a lot on education, but we also tend to rank very high at the international level. Finland too tends to be in the top 10. I'd say being anywhere in the top ten is enviable.

As for the US, their trick is not to raise brilliant minds; it's to swallow the brilliant minds of foreigners with fat paychecks. In fact, that's mostly how we loose our best medical students for example.

TheEconomist said:

And as a final note, the notion of an economic boom refers to simple arithmetics regarding increased production and employment. It has nothing to do with welfare analysis. The only thing this comment reveals is petty partisanship.

Click to expand...

Perhaps but it is shouted from the mountaintops at every opportunity to promote the idea that everyone is better off when that is simply not the case.
WHILE I was a poor student and dishwasher back in 1978, I did face a 175 dollar emergency, 150 bucks being the approximate equivalent of 400 bucks today. My three speed column shifted transmission in my 1967 Chevy pickup grenaded itself and I was forced to seek out a junkyard for a replacement, in the form of a junkyard 4 speed, which I transplanted into the old truck.
Yeah sure, it hurt, $175 was a lot of money to me, but I only rode the bus for about a week and then I was back on the road again.

Today forty percent of working Americans don't have enough on hand to deal with a four hundred dollar emergency.
So from where I sit, if a dishwasher in 1978 could deal with replacing a transmission in an old pickup, it looks to me like people in that strata of society back then were getting a much better deal than today.

So while I appreciate your labeling the meme as overly snarky, it is difficult to escape the simple fact that nothing since Reaganomics reared its head has ever equaled the upward mobility we had prior to. The standard of living as far as upward mobility is concerned has steadily plummeted year after year for the past forty years.

So while the upper middle class and everything above it may be doing spectacular, if you have "an infection" in the lower extremities, then the entire body is NOT doing well, because ignoring an infection can be fatal.

"It's the Despair Quotient."

bluesmoke said:

The cost of education is much higher than yesteryear and student loans dog those who take them out for many yrs. Wow. $400 for a 1-bed. In 1973-74 I paid $180 for a 1-bed upstairs duplex that would go for $2,000 now. Easy. That was when I was living in a California beach community.

Click to expand...

It's not exactly hard to drive housing prices down: you have to find a way to make investing in real estate development more profitable so that someone wants to increase the supply of housing. It's the only thing that will drive prices down. However, if your tax code is not very attractive and you have quirky regulations that make maintenance, ownership or even building new housing costlier, that's not going to happen.

To be fair, I didn't look into the details thereof, but I'm almost sure politicians in California parroting slogans about slamming the rich adopted laws which, on the surface, might seem to be about protecting history, the environment or the little guy, yet which deep down helps only a handful of conveniently rich campaign contributors. It wouldn't surprise me if a large part of soaring prices in those cities, as well as the homelessness problems, were caused by stupid policies that are supposed to fight those problems.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

Checkerboard Strangler said:

So while I appreciate your labeling the meme as overly snarky, it is difficult to escape the simple fact that nothing since Reaganomics reared its head has ever equaled the upward mobility we had prior to. The standard of living as far as upward mobility is concerned has steadily plummeted year after year for the past forty years.

So while the upper-middle class and everything above it may be doing spectacular, if you have "an infection" in the lower extremities, then the entire body is NOT doing well, because ignoring an infection can be fatal.

"It's the Despair Quotient."

Click to expand...

That comment frames the problem considerably better than the Twitter post you provided earlier, or even how most people in the news frame it. It's also a more intuitive way to put the problem than being concerned with "inequality" proper. Most people tend to intuitively care about a certain sense of fairness, understood as a proportionality restriction. They're not shocked by a lottery winner or someone who built a business of their own. What they do not like is the sense of someone cheating, rigging the board through either illegal or even some legal means.

Connolly, Corak and Haeck (2019) just published a paper on intergenerational mobility in the US and Canada. A copy of the paper prior to its publication is available without the paywall here. It might be interesting to you. Marie Connolly and Catherine Haeck usually do very good work, though our interests are very different. Fun fact, Marie actually taught me two courses as an undergrad: statistics and introduction to econometrics.

TheEconomist said:

That comment frames the problem considerably better than the Twitter post you provided earlier, or even how most people in the news frame it. It's also a more intuitive way to put the problem than being concerned with "inequality" proper. Most people tend to intuitively care about a certain sense of fairness, understood as a proportionality restriction. They're not shocked by a lottery winner or someone who built a business of their own. What they do not like is the sense of someone cheating, rigging the board through either illegal or even some legal means.

Connolly, Corak and Haeck (2019) just published a paper on intergenerational mobility in the US and Canada. A copy of the paper prior to its publication is available without the paywall here. It might be interesting to you. Marie Connolly and Catherine Haeck usually do very good work, though our interests are very different. Fun fact, Marie actually taught me two courses as an undergrad: statistics and introduction to econometrics.

Click to expand...

---Thanks.
A paper like that demands the time to really sink one's teeth into it.
I'll do that tooth sinking later tonight.

TheEconomist said:

It's not exactly hard to drive housing prices down: you have to find a way to make investing in real estate development more profitable so that someone wants to increase the supply of housing. It's the only thing that will drive prices down. However, if your tax code is not very attractive and you have quirky regulations that make maintenance, ownership or even building new housing costlier, that's not going to happen.

To be fair, I didn't look into the details thereof, but I'm almost sure politicians in California parroting slogans about slamming the rich adopted laws which, on the surface, might seem to be about protecting history, the environment or the little guy, yet which deep down helps only a handful of conveniently rich campaign contributors. It wouldn't surprise me if a large part of soaring prices in those cities, as well as the homelessness problems, were caused by stupid policies that are supposed to fight those problems.

Click to expand...

"To be fair, I didn't look into the details thereof,"

To be fair, if you can't or won't back up your own words, shut-up. But you didn't, so your claims are unfounded and dismissed for lack of evidence. You can't back up a single one and you owe it in debate to provided the proof of all of your own claims.

Junk bonds not junk laws!

New Cities in more optimal locations or new seawalls in more optimal locations instead of any less useful landwalls that do nothing to promote the general welfare.

We could help green our environment at the same time.

bluesmoke said:

To be fair, if you can't or won't back up your own words, shut-up.

Click to expand...

Oh, dear... Are you looking to flatter a bruised ego?

bluesmoke said:

But you didn't, so your claims are unfounded and dismissed for lack of evidence. You can't back up a single one and you owe it in a debate to provide the proof of all of your own claims.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sure, because nobody on this forum is riding off assumptions to see where they lead and I have time to write a report on the state of housing in Southern California. I proposed a few ideas. Get over yourself. The only thing you have demonstrated thus far is that you seem to be very passionate about people suggesting bad housing regulations in large urban areas might have something to do with soaring prices.

TheEconomist said:

Oh, dear... Are you looking to flatter a bruised ego?



Yeah, sure, because nobody on this forum is riding off assumptions to see where they lead and I have time to write a report on the state of housing in Southern California. I proposed a few ideas. Get over yourself. The only thing you have demonstrated thus far is that you seem to be very passionate about people suggesting bad housing regulations in large urban areas might have something to do with soaring prices.

Click to expand...

But you don't know what that bad housing regulation is. What makes it bad. In fact, you don't even need to know yourself if you're right or not. You ride so hye on ors, your word is not debatable and cannot be questioned.

That was interesting and exotic. That living in tents isn't even possible here, mostly because of cold winters (by cold I mean when it's colder than -13 F). When I'm camping at winter time, I have always 2 sleeping bags (both thick), but sleeping bag is losing some insulation power if you can't keep it dry - so whole winter in tents is nightmare even with decent equipment (= will cost a lot).

I'm glad there is so many voluntary people helping poor in US. Still, poverty in different places is different - in Africa, India, NK... it's much worse. I'm not saying it's not bad in US, poverty always sucks, even here where we have pretty solid safety net.

We have same problems here in Finland when it comes to rent (it's not that bad yet, but getting worse). In some areas 30 square meter (around 322 square feet) apartment can cost you around 1000€ / month and I'm currently paying 520€ / month from 77 square meter (828 square f?) apartment (with own sauna, that's big thing for Finn) - so difference is just ridiculous. I'm not sure, but is it really good thing (in long term) if rent is always and everywhere unregulated? What I think, we need some here in Finland, it's getting out of hand in Helsinki. If land lord can rise rent as he likes and when it's happening in every city (nightmare scenario) there's lot of people with serious problems as they have less and less money for food, etc.

We need people with "rich personalities" in public office!

We have a printing press at an official Mint and allege to subscribe to Capitalism.

danielpalos said:

Junk bonds not junk laws!

Click to expand...

Everyone has a problem with junk laws. The issue is that it is hard to come to an agreement about which ones are junk laws.

danielpalos said:

New Cities in more optimal locations or new seawalls in more optimal locations instead of any less useful land walls that do nothing to promote the general welfare.

Click to expand...

First of all, infrastructure is extremely costly, so we tend to privilege updates and improvements to tearing everything down. It's one major reason our largest cities tend to be close to ports: large sunk costs create a geographic form of path dependence. It takes very large and unusual changes in the economic environment to break that effect. A once-in-75 years economic crisis and a near-collapse of the automobile industry more or less killed some large cities in the Midwest, but that's the exception and not the rule.

If you really believe you can benefit people by introducing large urban development in certain areas, why wouldn't you take up the project yourself? Nothing is stopping you from finding partners, digging into the relevant data and come up with a solid plan to make it happen. Look, if the idea is good and really benefits people in a serious way, someone will be willing to pay to get those benefits. If enough people are willing to put enough cash upfront, this means your initiative really can help people because people want to pay what it takes to make it happen. No politician ever needs to be involved. No activism is required. On the other hand, if none of the above works, it's a sign your good idea might not be so good after all. If you are thinking you could use public funds for force massive social engineering experiments like creating new cities, congratulations, you are like dictators in China and North Korea, forcing people to do things they don't want to do to achieve goals you think will benefit them, yet won't.

Second of all, seawalls and walls on land serve very different purposes. Using one does not preclude the other. You probably believe you're in a sort of crusade against the force of evils working in Washington to undermine the lives of minorities. In the real world, things are very different: most people don't care about all immigrants and are only concerned by people who come illegally into their country. That is universally true everywhere and not just in the US. Canada is routinely depicted as populated by excessively polite and kind people, but we have immigration laws and we don't joke about enforcing them. Even when people are squeaky about the details or circumstances surrounding the application of the law, the laws are enforced. It doesn't make the news. Justin Trudeau deports people, Stephen Harper deported people, and all others before them deported people. It also happened under Obama in the US, Bush, Clinton and everyone else before them. And it also happens in all of Europe... What is this idiotic obsession with not enforcing laws? If people cross the border outside official points of entry, they violated the law. Trump's point is that slowing them down might help catch a few more and scare the others. It's hard to not believe that people who usually are poor will not be slowed down by physical barriers. It is expansive, but you have to set that cost against the background of the costs of letting people enter illegally. It's at least a burden on the legal system. Moreover, the subset of people WHO CHOOSE to cross illegally is probably more densely populated by criminals than the subset of people who choose to do it legally. Almost all the people nobody wants to see crossing in the US is among the group of illegals. Even if most of them are just looking for a better life, the fact of the matter is you cannot believe all of them are just fine people. That is a risk you can manage by making illegal crossing harder and costlier.

The intuition behind the Republican position on the border wall is not wrong in any obvious manner. We'd have to actually crunch the numbers to see if the presumed benefits really outweigh their costs.

In general, the case may be that we simply need fewer laws if we use more junk bonds.

We could start with areas already being flooded. Seawalls will improve the usefulness of the area. That adds value.

The point about "illegal immigration" is that there is no social Power delegated by the People to our federal Congress over the whole and entire concept of Immigration in our federal Constitution.

And, the "evil comes from the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy by the right wing in abortion threads concerning natural rights."