prev <-> next
[2014-02-07 10:17:27] - but basically, the idea is that governments are making their data more open. coders, designers, people who care come to these "hackathons" to figure out ways to make it useful for the rest of us. i.e. i'm working on a data visualization project similar to what other cities have done. -nina
[2014-02-07 10:14:19] - paul: Good Question! This might help provide some additional context. http://www.codeforamerica.org/about/ -nina
[2014-02-07 09:32:47] - nina: I've read through that a few times and still have no idea what it is. What's civic technology? Is it literal hacking? You are inviting a bunch of programmers to meet up and...? Program something? Hack something? -Paul
[2014-02-07 09:30:14] - a: How is it any different than if a critical employee asked the employer to sign off on 3 months maternity leave (or extra vacation time or any kind of perk)? In this case the employee has the employer by the balls, should they not be legally allowed to ask for anything? -Paul
[2014-02-07 08:58:50] - not to change the subject, but just wanted to let you guys know about this event I'm organizing as part of an international day of civic hacking. Would REALLY love it if you signed up!
http://www.eventbrite.com/e/codeacross-northern-virginia-nova-2014-tickets-10255126359 -nina[2014-02-06 20:28:02] - Note, this paragraph is on page 2 of a 104 page document of policies, not an employment contract. The policies, such as leave policies, are generally only really referred to as needed. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 20:25:16] - [...] atheism, non-respect for human life, grave scandal, offenses against chastity and/or the dignity of marriage, and/or teaching/advocating the rejection of official Church laws or doctrines." -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 20:24:45] - "For Catholic employees, conformance with religious tenets of the Catholic faith is a condition of employment.All employees are prohibited from engaging in conduct, either in the workplace or elsewhere, including online, that is inconsistent with the moral and ethical standards of the Roman Catholic Church, which includes but is not limited to idolatry,[...]
[2014-02-06 20:23:44] - Alright, lawyeristas, here's the morals clause of my employer for us to take as an example. Assume for a moment that the morals clause of ADC and Helena (Montana) are similar, or identical. Is this a razor filled apple? -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 19:56:05] - i see your difference. but i think having you sign to something because i've got you by the balls is fraud. ~a
[2014-02-06 17:29:57] - a: I was signing away my first born... I'm more sympathetic to that. Tricking people isn't allowed. That's fraud. It's like if I offer to sell you something that looks like an apple, but turns out to be filled with razor blades... -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:28:57] - a: Yeah, this is all grey area stuff here, but the key to me is if people understood what they're getting into. If the paper has one sentence telling me I can't have kids or else I get fired, I'm fine with that being enforced. If I'm given a contract that is even just a few pages long, but is filled with such confusing legalese that there's no way of knowing... -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:25:02] - paul: "I'm also on board with judges throwing out lawsuits because nobody could be expected to read and fully understand all those 1000 pages" but you're not on board with judges throwing out lawsuits because they had unreasonable conditions? obviously we'll have to agree with what constitutes unreasonable, but you had to somehow determine what "too long" means. ~a
[2014-02-06 17:23:57] - a: So when you stick some legalese in there saying they get your first born.... then the judge can say "Nope". You get to keep your first born (although the employer then gets to fire you). -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:23:12] - a: Well, I'm ok with 1000 page contracts existing, but I'm also on board with judges throwing out lawsuits because nobody could be expected to read and fully understand all those 1000 pages. -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:21:04] - g: Their crime was that some small amount of their charitable giving went to charities that participated in anti-gay activities. -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:20:47] - well the 1000 page long contract is just one of the issues i have with lawyers. lawyers also like putting in *completely* unreasonable conditions that they know you're going to agree to because they've got you by the balls. there needs to be pushback here. in fact! why are you ok with limiting the 1000 page contract, but not the "unreasonable" contract. ~a
[2014-02-06 17:20:28] - g: Ok, 99%? Does the exact percent matter? I mean, the big "OMG Bigot" story of the past few years was Chick-Fil-A, right? And what was their crime? Did they not hire gays? No, they hired gays. Did they not serve gays? No, they served gays. -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:19:00] - a: "you can't have contracts that are 1000 pages long because you know nobody is going to read them". Sure, I'll agree with that, but what if it's a simple contract? "To work here you must agree to not have kids". If you sign that, and then go ahead and have a kid, I think it's fine for the employer to let you go. -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:18:43] - paul: i think you overestimate lawyers. ~a
[2014-02-06 17:17:47] - paul: I think you overestimate americans. ~g
[2014-02-06 17:17:43] - paul: yes. in some cases, yes. ~a
[2014-02-06 17:17:27] - a: I mean, I'm sure the plantation owners thought it was pretty lame when they lost their slaves.
-Paul[2014-02-06 17:17:00] - a: Right, I completely understand that. But just because it's kinda lame for the person getting fired, is that a good enough reason for basically taking away the right of the employer to decide who they pay money to? -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:16:38] - as someone who hates legalese and (for the most part) lawyers, i think there needs to be somebody pushing back on behalf of the common man saying: no, you can't put whatever you want into a contract. you can't have contracts that are 1000 pages long because you know nobody is going to read them. you can't just have people literally signing their rights away. ~a
[2014-02-06 17:16:08] - g: And those that would are probably going to do it anyway and just come up with some other excuse. -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:15:36] - g: I don't think employers need to provide some justifiable reason to fire somebody any more than an employer needs to provide a reason for quitting. Let's be honest, 99.99% of employers in America (if not more) aren't going to fire somebody because of their sexuality or skin color regardless of the law. -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:14:38] - of course not, nobody is forcing you to work there. but there are uncomfortable situations where your alternative is pretty lame. especially if you're currently at a job, and your other job prospects are shitty, and because of the 'conomy you have no monies. xpovos alluded to this. ~a
[2014-02-06 17:12:55] - a: "the right to live" You couldn't think of a better example?
I know people like to come up with these nightmarish scenarios when it comes to stuff like this, but that's so ridiculously over the top that it doesn't even make sense. Why would the employer want to hire you if you were required to be dead to work there? -Paul[2014-02-06 17:10:21] - a: You saw my previous post, right? Yes to all. Nobody is forcing you to work there. If for some reason your employer wants you to agree to something ridiculous (like not having children), then that sounds like the time to get a new job. -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:09:41] - paul: wait you are okay with employers firing people when finding out they are gay... or the wrong skin color? or the wrong religion? ~g
[2014-02-06 17:08:34] - a: A little over the top? Sure. But the point is that I can see scenarios where it would make sense to fire somebody even for something like this. -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:08:19] - paul: do you think an employer should be allowed to ask you to sign something (or not take the job) that takes away any rights? without exception? the right to live? does an employer also have the right to demand you sign something (or be fired) while you're a current employee that takes away any rights? without exception? ~a
[2014-02-06 17:05:34] - a: "they're both pretty bad" I dunno, what if somebody is the head PR person for "People against overpopulation", a group that thinks nobody should reproduce because overpopulation is destroying the planet? -Paul
[2014-02-06 17:01:34] - a: I understand that's why she was fired, but I think the ruling only had to do with her right to reproduce, period. I didn't see any mention that the judge cared how it was done. -Paul
[2014-02-06 16:59:13] - anyways, women have been discriminated against for years for their procreating. it's only recently that we're hearing more talk about paternal leave. -nina
[2014-02-06 16:57:24] - "I didn't see any mention that it specifically had to do with the method of conception" "Archdiocese of Cincinnati had discriminated against her by firing her once she became pregnant by artificial insemination while unmarried" "employee signed an employment contract containing a morality clause" ~a
[2014-02-06 16:54:45] - they're both pretty bad. ~a
[2014-02-06 16:52:51] - a: Would it be better if the employer said they weren't allowed to have kids at all? -Paul
[2014-02-06 16:52:34] - a: Maybe. The article seems to imply it was just about waiving the right to have a child, though. I didn't see any mention that it specifically had to do with the method of conception. Besides, does it matter? I don't see why it's "worse" this way. -Paul
[2014-02-06 16:47:05] - paul: it's not about waving your rights to have a kid even though. it's worse than that. it's about waving your rights to have a kid in a way that they find distasteful/heretical. ~a
[2014-02-06 16:46:45] - Xpovos: I mean, hell, any removal of the "voluntary" part on the employee side is practically considered slavery (see Daniel's reddit post), but society is routinely fine removing a bunch of the "voluntariness" on the employer side. -Paul
[2014-02-06 16:45:16] - Xpovos: Understood, and I certainly understand it's not a popular opinion, but I just believe employment is an exchange that should be voluntary on both sides. I don't like the idea of one side being told they have to employ somebody (or be employed by somebody on the flip side). -Paul
[2014-02-06 16:43:43] - Yeah, you're probably more ideologically pure-libertarian than I am. I'm tainted. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 16:43:31] - a: Not if it involves waiving your right to have a kid, apparently. -Paul
[2014-02-06 16:42:36] - paul: certain rights i'm having trouble figuring out why you'd want to wave them. others i guess are more obvious. ~a
[2014-02-06 16:42:35] - Paul: Duress. With employment contracts, it's always there a little bit. I NEED this job. It pays the bills and keeps food on the table, and if I lose it, I may never find another one. Particularly right now. Who knows how long I've been unemployed before finding this opportunity. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 16:42:17] - Xpovos: I don't think you have to throw hypotheticals at me. My stance is pretty clear and neatly avoids these kinds of quagmires: Employers should be able to let people go for any reason. -Paul
[2014-02-06 16:41:27] - paul: i can do whatever i want. ~a
[2014-02-06 16:41:02] - "lose their right to waive their rights"
~a[2014-02-06 16:40:10] - a: But that's not accurate. It's: "If you don't like your rights under the law, you can't get rid of them". -Paul
[2014-02-06 16:39:00] - and therefore illegal. You can be as merry as you want, and I can go fuck myself. Oooh... though I do wonder if Ohio is right to work (or Montana for that matter). Since Ohio is probably not, that might impact things. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 16:38:52] - nina: What's the real pro-freedom side, though? Either this person loses their right to have a baby while working there, or they lose their right to waive their rights (and the employer loses their rights to fire somebody for violating their contract). -Paul
[2014-02-06 16:38:23] - paul: you're right, the wording is ambiguous. i interpret it as such: if you like your rights, you can keep them. ~a
[2014-02-06 16:38:17] - Paul: New hypothetical then. I'm the CEO of Gloom Industries. No one here is allowed to be happy. If you want to work for me, you have to forever forgo any hope of being happy, not just at work, but ever during your employment. If we catch you making merry, we'll fire you. This would, in that judge's opinion, be attempting to circumvent discrimination laws...
[2014-02-06 16:35:03] - a: I can't tell if it's awesome. The phrasing on that just seems too confusing to me. -Paul
[2014-02-06 16:33:35] - Anyway, the article is further interesting to me because it also references another case. Frankly, the situation in Butte (without more information) looks like a botched job by the folks there. They shouldn't have fired her (more on this later). Whereas the Ohio case... not only were they making the right move in firing that teacher (morally), they lost the case!
[2014-02-06 16:31:44] - And this is one of the few places it could happen, since Virginia is (still) anti-homosexual marriage, and we're one of the few dioceses that have this level of jurisdictional overlap. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 16:31:29] - a: yeah, i'm actually a little conflicted on this, too. -nina
[2014-02-06 16:31:09] - We'll likely see some interesting examples over the next few years, quite possibly in our own backyard. With Maryland and D.C. having defined marriage as a fundamental right between any two consenting adults, all it's going to take is one of our employees who lives in Maryland or D.C. (a number do) getting married to a same-sex partner. Fireworks! -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 16:29:35] - a: I don't know that I disagree. I need to ponder it, and the ramifications more. It seems like something I'd be in favor of, though. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 16:27:33] - "The jury was told that an employee cannot waive his rights to be free from unlawful discrimination" we'll probably disagree on this, but i think this is awesome. ~a
[2014-02-06 16:27:20] - xpovos: umm...having a right to both seems like a better an option than only having a right to one. i like having more rights. don't fuck with my freedom. durrnit. 'murica! -nina
[2014-02-06 16:26:37] - Hypothetical was: you must do something. Real is: you can't do something(s). -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 16:26:23] - nina: That's because I can't require you to participate in my religion for employment. I can give preferential treatement to those who are in my religion already, but I can't compel you. That's one of the differences between the hypothetical and the real. Action vs. inaction. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 16:25:09] - nina: You're on the right track. But the court has already intervened and said every person has an innate right not to have children (abortion). So, the courts opinion that having an innate right to children isn't absurd. The further question then, is if innate rights can be voluntarily relinquished; or if somehow employment contracts constitute some form of duress
[2014-02-06 16:23:53] - xpovos: at the same time, if I was a DogKillian. And I chose not to kill puppies. And, my DogKillian leaders fired me for not killing a puppy as part of my duties. The US Courts would definitely intervene and say the DogKillians were wrong. it wouldn't even be a debate. -nina
[2014-02-06 16:22:14] - xpovos: I don't think that's quite the same. not having children is an innate part of celibacy, no? so, if you're not supposed to have children b/c of the church, it does seem kinda wrong to have the courts intervene and say that every person has a right to have children. -nin
[2014-02-06 16:20:03] - Therefore, when later I become aware that you are not attending our puppy sacrifices, I fire you. Is that a fair assessment of the hypothetical which you've constructed? I want to know so I can go about deconstructing it; but I don't want to waste my time if that's incorrect. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 16:19:00] - nina: I don't follow your argument at all. Let me try to recreate it. I'm a DogKillian, as part of our faith, we ritually sacrifice a puppy once a week. I hire you to be our secretary with a morals clause indicating that you agree to abide by the tenants of our faith, one of which is that non-DogKillians are sinful for their lack of sacrifice...
[2014-02-06 16:17:08] - xpovos: wow. that's a really weird case, and sounds unreasonable. but, if some non-judeo-christian religion came into the US and started killing puppies for religious reasons, public opinion wouldn't be swayed their way. -nina
[2014-02-06 15:54:45] - Another 'fun' article that might prompt some interesting discussion. Once again I'm standing at the intersection of employment law and Catholic moral teaching. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 15:14:43] - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-9-2009/peter-schiff I didn't realize Peter Schiff had been on the Daily Show before (a live interview with Jon Stewart) and seemed to have gotten a good reaction from both Stewart AND the audience. -Paul
[2014-02-06 14:43:28] - woo!
[2014-02-06 14:43:14] - *** Daniel nods.
[2014-02-06 14:12:41] - daniel: you have to use "/me" at the beginning. and use " -daniel" at the end. ~a
[2014-02-06 14:04:37] - *** Daniel high fives Paul. Yeah!
[2014-02-06 14:04:17] - is that a msg board emote? Not sure I've seen that before. -Daniel
[2014-02-06 13:59:31] - *** Paul high fives Daniel
[2014-02-06 13:53:31] - I think this quote from the article is useful, "In some nations, victims have received bare-bones support even as civil legal systems have left oversight entirely to the church. The U.S. church, on the other hand, has made major institutional changes since the abuse crisis came to light in 2002 [...]" -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 13:46:36] - Highest upvoted question on a Reddit AMA (albeit one of low popularity)? Check. http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1x6ou3/i_am_jennifer_sky_former_model_modeling_is_an/ -Daniel
[2014-02-06 11:12:20] - In terms of the religious views and condeming them for it... I feel like the UN can say what they want but the Catholic church isnt going to change its views based on the UN committee's findings... ~g
[2014-02-06 11:12:11] - Daniel: None to less than none. Though obviously they can say whatever they like. As a citizen of a U.N. affiliated country (sadly) I'm disappointed by the use of resources, but--meh. It's meaningless in the big picture. The clergy abuse issue is the bigger part of the story, and the bigger part of what I work with anyway. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 11:11:46] - so barely skimmed it I think the UN should try to step in on the child abuse cases, I feel like the church does try and hide it and cover up the sins of its priests. Obviously I have a biased view based on popular media and dont see behind the scenes, but the curtains are drawn so I cant see behind the scenes. ~g
[2014-02-06 10:52:37] - Xpovos: I heard about it on NPR. I'm unclear on what authority the UN actually has over the Vatican (my guess is little to none) but I don't mind them calling out the church on the issues. -Daniel
[2014-02-06 10:28:58] - Xpovos: But I really don't think it's the UN's place to dictate to any religion what they should be teaching (with regards to gay rights, gender equality and abortion). They (the UN) are free to have whatever opinion they want, as long as they aren't forcing that opinion on others (Catholic Church). -Paul
[2014-02-06 10:27:33] - Xpovos: I honestly haven't been following it much. My ill-informed opinion is that it seems like the Catholic Church still has a problem with secrecy and over-protection of priests who have been accused of improper behavior towards minors. -Paul
[2014-02-06 10:19:40] - Curious if anyone else has thoughts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/un-panel-blasts-vatican-handling-of-clergy-sex-abuse-church-teachings-on-gays-abortion/2014/02/05/2a6f1b26-8e75-11e3- I mean I'm pretty closely involved with a lot of this, so sometimes I can't see the forest for the trees. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-06 09:49:46] - aaron: That would be surprising (to me) if interview targets got to see how things were cut and got to OK the edits, considering how bad a lot of the edits make people look sometimes. I know I've read a few stories of people who complained about hours of interviews being cut down to like 30 seconds of embarrassing things they might've said. -Paul
[2014-02-06 09:39:09] - a: yeah i know it's not exactly a laugh track, i call it a "laugh track" on shows like seinfeld and big bang theory because it gets the point across and is shorter than saying "laughter of the studio audience" - aaron
[2014-02-06 09:37:57] - a: hmm that would make sense. The show's format has actually changed a lot over the last year or so. - mig
[2014-02-06 09:37:34] - a: I agree something like that looks a little silly to somebody not a believer in gold as an alternative currency, but like you said, bitcoin probably looks equally silly to others. To me, both seem reasonable-ish (but also a little silly).
-Paul[2014-02-06 09:33:56] - only for one of their segments. ~a
[2014-02-06 09:33:51] - a: red eye doesn't use laugh tracks I 'm pretty sure. It's basically 5 people talking at a table for about 45 minutes. - mig
[2014-02-06 09:32:56] - a: Red Eye uses a laugh track? I didn't know they even pretended to be in front of an audience. -Paul
[2014-02-06 09:21:34] - aaron: "the laugh track" i know what you meant. regardless . . . the daily show and the colbert report do not use a laugh track. it's significant, in my opinion, because some of the other fake-news-shows do use laugh tracks (red eye / .5h news hour). ~a
[2014-02-06 09:04:59] - paul: and that basically, without the laugh track, and with just the interview -- the guests usually think they're represented fairly, and they OK the edits. i don't remember where i read this though, and i can't find it anymore - aaron
[2014-02-06 08:52:47] - paul: hmm, that interview contradicts something else that i had heard about the daily show. i had heard that they always showed the final 2-3 minute edit to interviewees before it airs, to make sure they're satisfied with edits - aaron
[2014-02-05 18:47:11] - paul: I've read the mediaite article on it and some of the details do seem bizarre. Assuming what Schiff says is true, Why a 4-hour interview for a 5-minute segment, and he speaks for what 2 minutes? - mig
[2014-02-05 17:55:46] - nina: I love those, but usually it just shows of the rhetroical skills of the debators. In this case, the lack of skill of Gray Davis, I'm guessing. I'll watch it and see if I change my opinion.
-- Xpovos[2014-02-05 17:09:10] - paul: it's funny i dunno, it just seems ridiculous. though i'm fully willing to admit when people watch me use bitcoin, they probably think i'm being ridiculous too. ~a
[2014-02-05 16:49:25] - a: From what I know of him, he's an outspoken defender of free markets and a believer in Austrian economics, so I can see how he might espouse some views you aren't necessarily too fond of (and I don't know if he is the biggest fan of bitcoin), but what kind of bizarre/weird stuff has he said? -Paul
[2014-02-05 16:41:06] - you don't have to edit stuff out of context to get him saying bizarre stuff. ~a
[2014-02-05 16:40:31] - peter schiff is such a weirdo. he shows up on my bitcoin feed wayyyy too often. ~a
[2014-02-05 16:38:41] - I've heard a few stories about people upset with the editing from shows like the Daily Show and Colbert Report, and it does make me feel a little bad for some of the people sometimes. -Paul
[2014-02-05 16:35:29] - http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/05/peter-schiff-talks-to-mediate-about-the I'm a little torn on this. On the one hand, Schiff should've known what he was getting into when doing an interview with the Daily Show. On the other hand, it does suck that what he said was taken out of context. -Paul
[2014-02-05 16:20:46] - a: Approve. -Paul
[2014-02-05 16:15:16] - a driver "flashed his high-beams to warning oncoming cars that there was a cop ahead. He was given a ticket for doing so. He went to court to fight the ticket, and a judge ruled that flashing lights are free speech" wow! ~a
[2014-02-05 16:01:44] - what's the issue? ~a
[2014-02-05 14:30:45] - It should not be this difficult to get someone to get me data from a database table. I seriuously want to punch this person. - mig
[2014-02-05 14:06:33] - yeah. i've thought about it. i'll probably end up bringing in a keyboard/monitor one of these years. ~a
[2014-02-05 13:41:05] - No external monitor or keyboard? I don't like typing on laptop keyboards enough to do it all day. -Daniel
[2014-02-05 13:36:55] - me doing work ~a
[2014-02-05 11:17:29] - xpovos: the article reminds me of an intelligence squared debate "For a better future, Live in a Red State". I was surprised by the audience voted outcome. http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/908-for-a-better-future-live-in-a-red-state -nina
[2014-02-05 11:14:14] - I played a game called Edgeworld for a while. It was moderately fun, but the experience has turned me off the publisher (Kabam!) permanently, because to get any value at all you had to spend $200. The game was 'fun', and I had a good community I was playing with. If they'd offered a package at $50 that was good I'd probably have bought it. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-05 11:12:41] - I "spent" $2 on Hearthstone, but that was $2 from my Blizzard account that I got by selling an item on the RMAH for Diablo 3. Other than that I'm a total leech. I've contemplated spending on games occasionally, but either the benefit is very transient on certain p2w games or outrageously expensive, or both. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-05 11:08:51] - daniel: i spent a grand total of about $90 on League of Legends over the course of two years, but it was pretty deliberate like, "i think this company deserves my money, i'll buy some credits". honestly i only spent maybe $40 of it. the rest is still sitting in my LoL bank. i never spent money on any other F2P games. - aaron
[2014-02-05 10:59:53] - Daniel: I can't think of any money I've spent on f2p games, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if I forgot about an instance or two. -Paul
[2014-02-05 10:51:13] - I don't think I've ever spent more than $15 on a F2P game, I was just wondering if anyone ever gets into big numbers. For LoL I could see spending closer to 50 on it if you play a bunch but like the candy crush / mobile ones do people really pay 20+ dollars? Do you feel you get appropriate worth back for the money? -Daniel
[2014-02-05 10:49:12] - I think I've spent maybe $20 in hearthstone so far, mostly on arena runs. Dota 2 is difficult to keep track of because I do participate in the cosmetics market so I'm not sure my net spending is that much. - mig
[2014-02-05 10:45:02] - f2p is not necessarily p2w. Dota 2 as an example, has nothing for sale that will give you an edge in game. - mig
[2014-02-05 10:41:56] - "Critics of such games call them 'pay-to-win' games"
~a[2014-02-05 10:41:14] - what is f2p? based on the name, wouldn't it be free? i guess it's free to play, but then you pay for add-ons or something? ~a
[2014-02-05 10:37:26] - For those who play F2P games: How much do you think you actually end up spending? I've never played any of them but there has been a fair bit of discussion on reddit about them recently. Do you actually spend a lot or is it just 5-15 dollars over the course of time you play the game? -Daniel
[2014-02-04 21:59:03] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/04/scenes-from-a-militarized-america-iowa-family-terrorized//?print=1 -- Xpovos
[2014-02-04 20:37:30] - as an aside, i like this connolly fellow. - mig
[2014-02-04 20:16:06] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC-bAI7q4G8 Is it just me or is the pro drug prohibitionists looking more and more desperate these days? - mig
[2014-02-04 13:31:03] - But all else isn't equal. I know this is kind of making the same point you did, but it's really the author's point as well. The issue (politically) is that politicians take simple surveys like Politicos and assume them to be facts and then reason to policy decisions from them--and then wonder why they fail. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-04 13:30:06] - Paul: The jobs bit is actually called out by Rasmussen. Weather is not, but neither is it accounted for in Politico's survey. The point is the Politico's survey is 'too simple', rather than Rasmussen making it even more black and white. The point is that all else being equal, of course we'd rather live in a low crime area (one of the survey issues)... -- Xpovos
[2014-02-04 13:28:20] - a: Your states link is a much better version, of course. The survey was done by Politico and is being attacked by Rasmussen, who you might know from polling. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-04 13:24:54] - Xpovos: Not sure the issue is as black and white as the author seems to think. People could be moving to warmer climates. Also, people could be moving to where the jobs are. -Paul
[2014-02-04 13:20:06] - Nina: To me, it's like bringing up murder rates in the US and drawing the conclusion that I guess police forces don't work. -Paul
[2014-02-04 13:19:50] - xpovos: i'm pretty sure i don't understand your link. "A theoretical listing of the best states put together by a publication for Washington insiders" who made this listing? it sounds lame if this list doesn't take into account your opinion on issues. it also reminds me of my "states" link at the top of this page. ~a
[2014-02-04 13:19:01] - Nina: But I think it's unfair to point at these things and use them as examples of the free market not working. I don't know of anybody who claimed that businesses would always be perfect saints and nothing bad would ever happen in a free market. There are going to be chemical spills and building collapses and factory explosions no matter how careful we are. -Paul
[2014-02-04 13:17:18] - xpovos: "well, i guess we have that kind-of" regarding this part? i was referring to the constitution and the bill of rights, i guess. of course, the government likes setting up ways it can reinterpret the documents. too bad we can't reinterpret their laws as we see fit. ~a
[2014-02-04 13:16:56] - Another link that may or may not foster useful debate. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/03/dc_theory_colliding_with_reality_in_america_121439.html -- Xpovos
[2014-02-04 13:16:54] - Nina: I want a lot less regulation. Sure, removing regulations wouldn't help in some of these very specific instances, which appear to be relatively freak occurrences and not consistent problems (and I do think it might've helped with some of the financial ones...). -Paul
[2014-02-04 13:12:25] - a: I assume you're talking about lobbyists? -- Xpovos
[2014-02-04 12:43:46] - nina: I'm just curious did you ask that because that's an impression you get from either me or paul? - mig
[2014-02-04 12:35:17] - i propose negative regulation. that's where the companies/people put regulations on their government. well, i guess we have that kind-of. ~a
[2014-02-04 12:29:33] - nina: I'm probably for a level of regulation that you probably wouldn't agree with but that level is greater than 0. - mig
[2014-02-04 12:08:05] - nina: I don't think there are any genuine anarchists on the board. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-04 12:04:45] - mig: ok, so you're not for a complete lack of regulation. -nina
[2014-02-04 12:04:15] - does talk about overregulation/deregulation always have to be an all or nothing proposition? It's not like onerous regulations don't exist. - mig
[2014-02-04 12:01:25] - paul: but don't you want the government completely out of the picture? how does that help in any of those situations? -nina
[2014-02-04 11:52:23] - Nina: It just seemed like it was trying to attribute every accident/disaster/pink slime to some sort of market regulation failure, even when those areas were often heavily regulated. For a lot of those, I could almost turn it around and use it as an example of how government regulation fails. -Paul
[2014-02-04 11:46:23] - paul: yeah, i was just curious how you would go about attacking the article. i don't care to debate it. -nina
[2014-02-04 11:41:35] - Nina: I could go on, but I know I won't be changing your mind and I'm not sure anybody else here cares to hear me blabbing to myself...
-Paul[2014-02-04 11:39:42] - Nina: And the banks that WERE affected by that deregulation (BoA, Citi, JP Morgan) were the ones that actually survived the meltdown, possibly because they were more diversified. -Paul
[2014-02-04 11:38:30] - Nina: For Lehman Brothers, it mentions "8 years after Graham-Leach-Bliley legislation deregulates the financial services industry." Except the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had to do with allowing regular banks to merge with investment banks. Lehman was primarily an investment bank not affected by that regulation... -Paul
[2014-02-04 11:32:09] - Nina: And then moved onto strange (to me at least) things like pink slime and the phone hacking scandal. Even when they did try to tie those disparate events to market regulation, it was seemingly unrelated (what does a lack of liability insurance have to do with CAUSING the fertilizer explosion?). -Paul
[2014-02-04 11:29:02] - Nina: "i put the link out there to start a discussion". I think that link needs to tighten it's focus some. To me, it was all over the place. It started off with income inequality (not sure how it's related to market regulation), moved onto some examples of disasters that have happened (often without explaining how lack of regulation played a role)... -Paul
[2014-02-04 11:23:26] - a: you're right. just saying that his views were much more in line with Paul and Mig's a decade ago. and, he's strayed from that view of things since. -nina
[2014-02-04 11:21:21] - "it's not due to the commentary on here" i don't know how you could know that
~a[2014-02-04 11:16:31] - "do you think those changes are directly related to the content on this board or outside factors?" definitely both. ~a
[2014-02-04 11:15:57] - agreed. not in the foreseeable future. ~a
[2014-02-04 11:15:30] - a: but do you think those changes are directly related to the content on this board or outside factors? i know that pierce's opinions have changed over time, but it's not due to the commentary on here. -nina
[2014-02-04 11:14:18] - a: i'm not sure if it'll ever take shape in the US, though. as much as i would like it.
-nina[2014-02-04 11:13:52] - nina: people's minds change on this board on some things: i know mine has. but, it takes years, not hours. ~a
[2014-02-04 11:13:46] - "developing" countries, like India -nina
[2014-02-04 11:13:35] - starting off with the european countries, and a couple decades from now, making it's way into the
[2014-02-04 11:13:18] - a: the hamburg thing makes perfect sense to me. the US was the only country built around the automobile. bangalore traffic is horrible now, because the city was built around pedestrians and rickshaws, and now everyone owns a car. i can totally see this becoming a trend. -nina
[2014-02-04 11:10:51] - i put the link out there to start a discussion. i honestly don't think i'm going to win any converts through this message board, or even out in person with this group. -nina
[2014-02-04 10:44:40] - wow, hamburg has three times the population of dc. ~a
[2014-02-04 10:41:39] - Hamburg has announced plans to become car-free within the next two decades wtf, really? ~a
[2014-02-04 10:41:07] - no need to apologize to me. ~a
[2014-02-04 10:34:44] - anina: My apologies. -Paul
[2014-02-04 10:34:37] - a: I had done (A) on a link from before, and I decided to go with (B) this time, but I'm fairly certain now that was the wrong decision.
-Paul[2014-02-04 10:34:03] - a: Eh, it probably was hostile. Tact isn't my strong suit. I was trying to decide if I should (A) not say anything, but that seemed a little rude, especially if she was expecting me to express an opinion (B) treat it like a link from a regular and start up the robust discussion. -Paul
[2014-02-04 10:28:37] - ah, ok. . . . maybe hostile was the wrong word. ~a
[2014-02-04 10:28:06] - a: In my experience, there are some people who post political things and they absolutely do not want any challenging of it or discussion of it. I don't understand that, but I respect it, and I just wasn't sure how to approach this one. -Paul
[2014-02-04 10:26:32] - a: "Preaching to the choir" was my way of saying, "If you were just posting this for fun and didn't want to be challenged on it, just let me know. I don't have to turn everything into a debate. Otherwise, I'll be more than happy to oblige". -Paul
[2014-02-04 10:25:22] - a: I post those to start a discussion. Ideally I want to win converts, but sometimes it's preaching to then choir (letting them know about Sarvis or other stuff I figure non-libertarians don't care about). It's almost never just to post a link. -Paul
[2014-02-04 10:24:00] - a: I didn't intend it to be hostile at all, quite the opposite. I actually spent a few minutes trying to figure out how to start. I guess the point is I shouldn't have? -Paul
[2014-02-04 10:22:39] - a: Possibly true, but even then I think it's a stretch to blame a lot of them on market regulation. Also, I don't know of anybody who has ever claimed that market regulation means accidents don't happen. -Paul
[2014-02-04 10:20:10] - "preach to the choir or to try to win converts" this seems overly hostile. can't it just be a normal link? like one of these? http://aporter.org/msg/?action=search&search=reason.com http://aporter.org/msg/?action=search&search=lp.org ~a
[2014-02-04 10:20:08] - Nina: And I don't even know what some of them are trying to argue. Pink slime? What does that have to do with market regulation? It's also passed FDA regulation. It doesn't look appetizing, but I'll bet neither does the slaughter of cows. -Paul
[2014-02-04 10:18:06] - paul: i think in many of these cases there was a remarkably small amount of government regulation. in a few of the cases, the industries were recently deregulated. ~a
[2014-02-04 10:15:30] - Nina: Not sure if you posted this to preach to the choir or to try to win converts, but I find most of the things there fairly unconvincing. I'm supposed to think market regulation fails because sometimes accidents happen? Do I even need to point out how lots of those involved areas that are very heavily regulated by the government? -Paul
[2014-02-04 10:06:38] - http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/03/1271430/-25-Images-of-Markets-Regulating-Themselves?detail=facebook. -nina
[2014-02-04 09:33:43] - Aaron: Yeah... that's something I wish I could forget seeing, but I thought most of the rest involving him was pretty good. -Paul
[2014-02-03 20:50:45] - paul: topless james earl jones? - aaron
[2014-02-03 17:04:17] - a: Maybe I'm forgetting that. Again, I'm not saying this is a change in position, but I just don't remember you espousing views that sound so similar to mine before (except possibly recently with the NSA).
-Paul[2014-02-03 16:53:13] - paul: i don't think that's right. i've talked positively about gold in the past. ~a
[2014-02-03 16:51:08] - my commute into the city would become exponentially worse. ~a
[2014-02-03 16:35:23] - the silence is deafening! ~g
[2014-02-03 15:54:23] - Anyone want an awesome commute to our house? There is a house for sale on Manderley Way! ~g
[2014-02-03 15:43:20] - a: I believe it, but I don't recall you volunteering this information so readily (or in such language) before. Bitcoin has given you some passion for the subject, it seems. -Paul
[2014-02-03 15:40:10] - yes, maybe i do, but this is nothing new. i've been skeptical of the fed for decades. i've never liked the idea of the organization deciding how the USD is organized is completely outside of the checks and balances / separation of powers. ~a
[2014-02-03 15:35:55] - a: You can't be both?
I'm just amused by how you sound like a crazy Ron Paul/goldbug/anti-fed zealot right now. -Paul[2014-02-03 15:22:30] - i'm not a doomsday predictor. i'm a doomsday historian. these things already happened: List of banks acquired or bankrupted during the Great Recession ~a
[2014-02-03 15:20:57] - a: I agree with a lot of what you say, and I'm definitely a supporter of bitcoin. I just "know what I don't know", and I know I'm not knowledgeable about bitcoin yet to feel confident about using it. I hope that might change in the near future. I feel like I've already lost a good opportunity to invest as a safe haven. -Paul
[2014-02-03 15:19:21] - a: Jesus, all it took was bitcoin to turn you into a raving anti-fed, doomsday predictor.
I'm amused. -Paul[2014-02-03 15:13:41] - paul: the issue is: we all pay for theft equally in both systems. just because you can get your money back doesn't mean that money isn't stolen from all of us. "theft", or "corruption", or "misuse of power" is much easier at the highest levels in USD. when a government can create $1T out of thin air, you can't tell me that's "safer". ~a
[2014-02-03 15:11:37] - paul: "it would be more dangerous for me to exclusively use bitcoins than the system I use now with credit cards and paypal" that's possible, bitcoins are still pretty dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. at some point (2014?), the danger of the USD system will eclipse the danger of the bitcoin system. ~a
[2014-02-03 13:59:16] - And with that, I'm going to run out for lunch right now. No compromise on the timing! Because I'm non-moderate like that. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:58:33] - Aaron: Yeah, and we can do that sometime, but this started off with a very general discussion on how those darned congressional Republicans just won't compromise with Obama because he's black.
-Paul[2014-02-03 13:57:19] - Daniel: I think that's a problem with Boehner all the time. He can't keep them in line because they don't fall in line with the party like other politicians might. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:56:28] - Daniel: So, yeah, maybe some non-moderates are fine with keeping spending flat. But others insist on reducing it. So Obama thinks he's negotiated some deal with the whole tea party (let's just use that name since I think that's what we're all thinking) but he hasn't. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:55:26] - Daniel: And I think that's fair. As much as I wish the general population was for smaller government, I don't know if we're there yet. I think another contributing factor is there isn't one voice for the non-moderates like there is for Democrats/Obama. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:55:08] - paul: well. i'll defend rand paul too, but until i can vote for the randpaulican party on a ballot i'm stuck with the perceived lesser of two evils
- aaorn[2014-02-03 13:53:50] - paul: hmm. well, at that point i'd really need specific politicians/political points to agree or disagree with you. some politicians have a genuine belief in small government and they have answers to spending cuts, but they're the vast minority - aaron
[2014-02-03 13:52:29] - Paul: I think I see your point about compromise. I think in some part I see the non moderates R's as further from the status quo which makes them seem more unreasonable to me in addition I think their "range of compromise" is much smaller which also contributes to them seeming more unreasonable to me. -Daniel
[2014-02-03 13:51:09] - Aaron: "i don't feel like the republicans are offering up alternatives" For health care or spending? Both? I mean, I have no desire to defend the Republican Party or their leadership, but I'll defend guys like Rand Paul and Mike Lee and Justin Amash. I feel like those guys generally do come up with alternate ideas. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:49:08] - It takes two to compromise.
-Paul[2014-02-03 13:48:57] - Aaron: I think those people really do believe in small government and are serious about it and routinely go against their own party (many had to defeat members of their own party in primaries) and I don't understand why their belief in small government gets slammed as a lack of compromise when the people for larger government are also not compromising with them. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:47:51] - paul: but my second point is i don't you can really compromise with the *lack* of an idea. you can compromise between two alternatives, but you really need two specific alternatives to compromise between. i don't feel like the republicans are offering up alternatives, they're just dragging their feet on the democrats ideas - aaron
[2014-02-03 13:46:54] - Aaron: Ok, yes. I almost entirely agree with you. The majority of the Republican party (and the vast majority of their leadership) is not really the party of small government and are mostly out to make political points. But I'm not trying to defend those people. I'm trying to defend those "non-moderates" that I think Daniel and I are talking about. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:45:16] - Paul: Yeah I think we may have had a similar conversation before. -Daniel
[2014-02-03 13:45:13] - Aaron: I feel like spending less is just as legitimate a position as spending more, but for some reason the people who insist on spending less are slammed for not compromising when the people who want to spend more never seem to even consider the idea of spending less. The dialog is all about spending a lot more or a little more. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:44:36] - paul: yeah, i guess i basically made two points. i don't think republicans are truly "the party of smaller government" like they're claiming to be, and i think they're picking and choosing their targets. "see we want smaller government, because we want to shrink these programs which democrats are in favor of". well, okay. that's not small government is it?? - aaron
[2014-02-03 13:43:46] - Aaron: I guess I'm confused now, because the alternative would be to spend less. That's not "nothing". Yeah, my analogy was a little flawed, because the implication is that the waste has to go somewhere... but assume it doesn't! The Republicans just want to dump waste to be jerks.
-Paul[2014-02-03 13:42:10] - Aaron: Are you talking about health care reform specifically, I guess? If so, I agree that the "anti-Obamacare but shrug shoulders on alternatives" position by Republicans is lacking. I do know groups like the Cato Institute have alternative solutions, but I don't know if many Republicans have picked them up. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:41:52] - paul: but you can't just criticize someone's "dumping waste into the ocean" idea and not give them a viable alternative - aaron
[2014-02-03 13:41:28] - paul: if someone offered obama a sensitive alternative, "pay $60M to launch the prisoners into space and now they're god's problem" or something, and obama said, "i don't want to do that", then there's grounds to criticize him. hey, he's not compromising. what about our space idea. - aaron
[2014-02-03 13:40:28] - paul: see that's different though. if republicans wanted to dump a million tons of waste, and democrats had literally no other plan... then it wouldn't make sense to slam the republicans in my opinion. i kind of have the same opinion about guantanemo, like it sucks that obama couldn't fulfill his promise to shut it down, but what's the alternative? - aaron
[2014-02-03 13:39:05] - Daniel: refusing to compromise on dumping 500,000 tons? -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:39:01] - paul: i realize my conversation is a little different than the one you're having with daniel, and i'm sorry to make you argue on two fronts at once
i can wait until you're done with daniel - aaron[2014-02-03 13:38:53] - Daniel: From my perspective, I see the goals and desires of these "non-compromisers" to be fundamentally different from Obama, and so I'm not entirely sure why it makes sense to slam them for not compromising. If Republicans wanted to dump a million tons of waste into the ocean and the Democrats wanted to dump none, should they be slammed for... -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:37:29] - paul: "hey let's get rid of the US patent system" or, "hey let's cap malpractice expenses at $2,000,000" or something, i'd understand that there was an alternative solution that democrats could compromise with. doing nothing isn't an alternative to me, any more than "let's not eat" is an alternative when deciding on dinner plans - aaron
[2014-02-03 13:36:17] - paul: like i totally agree with the concept of "less government" in some ways... maybe medical costs are high because of bad legal precedent, or excessive malpractice suits, and repealing legislation would fix some things. maybe it's because of a broken patent system and we could peel that back, or something like that, if there was a political party saying, - aaron
[2014-02-03 13:36:00] - Daniel: The non-moderates wanted spending to actually go down. The eventual compromise that we ended up with was something closer to a small increase in spending (I think). Is it wrong for those non-moderates to have been against that? -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:34:36] - Daniel: Let me try to use a more specific example. For the some recent budget negotiation, Obama's budget increased spending by some large amount. The Republican leadership (ie, the moderates) proposed increasing spending by a smaller amount. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:33:32] - paul: if there was a political party who specifically wanted smaller government, like some party that was pushing for defense spending cuts, defunding medicare and social security... and if the democrats were impeding that... then my opinion would probably be different, i might think, "hey the democrats should be compromising a little," - aaron
[2014-02-03 13:33:01] - Daniel: "they want no change unless its their way" I guess I agree with that, but I'm not sure how that's any different from most politicians (Obama included). I think we've had this discussion before, though. It feels familiar.
-Paul[2014-02-03 13:31:54] - Daniel: Um... I don't know if we're saying the same thing or not. Let me ask you this: would you say Obama is likewise as against compromise because he insists on getting his way as well? -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:20:31] - Paul: I think that sounds right for a lot of their thinking. They don't want to work with Obama to change how his changes are made (ie make compromises) they want no change unless its their way (ie not compromise). If you are trying to make a different point then I'm not sure I'm getting it. -Daniel
[2014-02-03 13:18:18] - Paul: Right - they don't like the direction its going so they vote for people who won't cooperate at all. I think for proof the best I could do are the studies or whatever you want to call them that look at congressional voting and how often people vote with their party and how often they agree/disagree with the pres. I don't know how far back those go though.-Daniel
[2014-02-03 13:17:05] - Daniel: In other words, I don't think it's a "screw compromise in any form" kind of thinking. I think it's more that if you believe the government should be smaller, than a compromise that makes the government larger (but less large than other people want it) isn't a compromise worth making. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:15:56] - Daniel: True, but I don't think people are voting for the non-moderates because they want to stick it to Obama as a person or anything like that. I think they're voting for them because they didn't like the direction those moderates were taking the government. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:14:17] - Daniel: I mean, is there are evidence that Obama is facing more "I don't want to work with you at all on principle no matter what" opposition than other presidents? The reason I mostly don't want my congressmen to work with Obama is because I feel like he's almost always on the wrong side of the issues. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:13:57] - Paul: I'm not sure people's dislike of gridlock translates to voting for middle of the road, moderate House Representatives. At least not in the last 6 years. -Daniel
[2014-02-03 13:12:14] - Daniel: Re: voting constituents... I guess I'm not sure I see that so much, and I actually see the opposite. If anything, people seem to think gridlock and government shutdowns and the like are a bad thing and that would seem to indicate they WANT congress and the president to work together. -Paul
[2014-02-03 13:09:08] - Daniel: Wow, I guess Reagan was 30 years ago. Holy crap. -Paul
[2014-02-03 12:56:28] - I wouldn't blame Congress not wanting to work with Obama solely on him being black but rather several factors that all boil down to: their voting constituents want no part of Obama and are willing to punish those who work with him in almost any way. -Daniel
[2014-02-03 12:54:11] - -Daniel
[2014-02-03 12:54:09] - I think comparing Obama and his relationship to Congress with almost any other president is a very shaky proposition to begin with. I think the state of politics, media, and partisanship is very different today than it was 30 years ago. 24 hour echo chamber news orgs (on both sides) make it hard for politicians to compromise and negotiate without getting beat up.
[2014-02-03 11:58:28] - Anyway, as a libertarian, that's a good example of how it's frustrating to have this narrative brought up. It's far too convenient of an excuse and seems to be used as a way to distract from real discussions of the issues. -Paul
[2014-02-03 11:55:42] - After some clarification back and forth, he basically flatly stated that some members of the House don't want to deal with him because he's black. After that, all hell broke loose and I had to turn off the show (for unrelated reasons). -Paul
[2014-02-03 11:54:24] - And the Democrat said Obama can't be blamed because Congress is being difficult and not cooperating. Kennedy replied that Reagan managed to work with a Democratic Congress. The Democrat's response was: "Reagan was white". -Paul
[2014-02-03 11:49:06] - Also, a little late, but I was watching an episode of The Independents this past weekend, and Kennedy was talking to a Democrat about whether or not it was hypocritical of Obama to be threatening to bypass congress when he campaigned against the idea of an imperial presidency. -Paul
[2014-02-03 11:00:41] - a: Because if something does go wrong, I'm fairly confident that I can eventually get my money back. With bitcoin, there is no central authority to appeal to if my wallet gets stolen. -Paul
[2014-02-03 10:58:47] - a: Fair enough, but I'm just not as knowledgeable about bitcoins as you and I frankly think it would be more dangerous for me to exclusively use bitcoins than the system I use now with credit cards and paypal. -Paul
[2014-02-03 10:16:11] - paul: amazon is a bad example. i do buy stuff on amazon using bitcoins via gyft. but to answer your first question, i do actually use my credit card on the internet, i just envision a 2015 where i don't do that anymore. ~a
[2014-02-03 10:14:27] - amy: yes, i do remember that song. great song; love it! i noticed the creative-commons link at the end too, that's too funny. creative-commons is so cool. ~a
[2014-02-03 09:56:50] - a: Because not everywhere excepts bitcoin yet? How do you order stuff through places like Amazon? -Paul
[2014-02-02 22:24:38] - i just released a single, "Headlines." a, i know you know this song, and maybe others here do from when i used to perform. http://diodesmusic.bandcamp.com/ check it out, listen/download for free! -amy
[2014-02-02 09:34:40] - (3) a password manager is probably better than using the same (or even a similar) password for two websites. ~a
[2014-02-02 09:33:15] - (2) i hate paypal. but you already know my opinions on how to do money on the internet
when you use your credit card on the internet, it's like giving out your private key. why the hell would you do that? ~a[2014-02-02 09:00:19] - i think correcthorsebatterystaple is better because it's easier for humans. i've been dealing with a lot of new-and-cool passwords used for cryptography, and the (IMO) best systems are the ones that are the truly random english word ones (in my rot13 link from last week you can see the poetry mode) ~a
prev <-> next