Boondock Saint posted:

Let's not forget the best part of all of this. After he made the vaccine, he made sure it was distributed to anyone who wanted it. He didn't patent it. He didn't profit from it.

When someone asked him about a patent for it, he said...

Orange Devil posted:

Jonas Salk is a hero and when patent law finally gets decently reformed it should be named after him. Also we should build a big fuckoff monument to him and teach our kids about him daily.

CellBlock posted:

Yes, but it's really more of a legal technicality that keeps them running. Each team is an independent business, and so they normally wouldn't be allowed to collude and do things like have a draft and trade players around, but because a sports league doesn't really work without such things, they're allowed to do it.

It's why the NFL players couldn't sue the league during the lockout until the union decertified. One of the reasons the NFL monopoly is allowed is because the players are unionized, too, so it's a players union and a league, not a giant entity and a bunch of individuals.

MLB's legal standing goes back a lot further, because baseball has been around forever, but every sports league is, in effect, a protected monopoly.

TheOneOutside posted:

I'm fairly certain I'm going to see more of these sorts of posts. I cannot understand how someone could use Edison or Ford as examples of people who built their businesses outside of help. And then Bradbury? Bradbury was vocal about his support of things like public libraries. The Wrights, Bell, a number of other inventors are notable just because they did it first; the knowledge, materials, infrastructure were all there and if they had not invented those things there were always people right on their heels that would have. Elisha Gray would have a lot to say about the idea that "Only Bell could've invented the Telephone." I swear I've spent too much time today poking wholes in this sort of sentiment. It's been funny to watch people bend over backwards trying to justify their "Obama was wrong" sort of thought from this and I've been trying my hardest to respond with examples instead of just flipping the gently caress out on them.

TheOneOutside posted:

My facebook arguments don't get nearly as entertaining as some people, but I'll post this in case anyone might be looking for more canned responses (and of course, if people can poke holes in my own responses/recommend better ones).



I'm fairly certain I'm going to see more of these sorts of posts. I cannot understand how someone could use Edison or Ford as examples of people who built their businesses outside of help. And then Bradbury? Bradbury was vocal about his support of things like public libraries. The Wrights, Bell, a number of other inventors are notable just because they did it first; the knowledge, materials, infrastructure were all there and if they had not invented those things there were always people right on their heels that would have. Elisha Gray would have a lot to say about the idea that "Only Bell could've invented the Telephone." I swear I've spent too much time today poking wholes in this sort of sentiment. It's been funny to watch people bend over backwards trying to justify their "Obama was wrong" sort of thought from this and I've been trying my hardest to respond with examples instead of just flipping the gently caress out on them.

Goatman Sacks posted:

Hey, your dads an idiot and should probably never vote again.

TheOneOutside posted:

My facebook arguments don't get nearly as entertaining as some people, but I'll post this in case anyone might be looking for more canned responses (and of course, if people can poke holes in my own responses/recommend better ones).



I'm fairly certain I'm going to see more of these sorts of posts. I cannot understand how someone could use Edison or Ford as examples of people who built their businesses outside of help. And then Bradbury? Bradbury was vocal about his support of things like public libraries. The Wrights, Bell, a number of other inventors are notable just because they did it first; the knowledge, materials, infrastructure were all there and if they had not invented those things there were always people right on their heels that would have. Elisha Gray would have a lot to say about the idea that "Only Bell could've invented the Telephone." I swear I've spent too much time today poking wholes in this sort of sentiment. It's been funny to watch people bend over backwards trying to justify their "Obama was wrong" sort of thought from this and I've been trying my hardest to respond with examples instead of just flipping the gently caress out on them.

Sarion posted:

You should stop trying to convince them of the argument, and just show them that Obama is not making the argument they think he is. Namely with these two quotes from the speech:

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

This is the line Romney, FOX, and company are taking out of context. In particular, leaving out that sentence at the start. Its obvious from the context of the rest of the speech that what he's saying is, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that --> roads and bridges" not "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that --> business."

And in case that's not clear enough, a few sentences later...

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

He's absolutely not saying businesses don't succeed because they work hard, in fact he says the exact opposite in the speech. And he is precisely making a "no man is an island" point. Regardless of what 'J' thinks. His broader point is you have people saying "I'm successful, you should not take away some of what I've earned all by myself through taxes". Which completely misses the point that if they, and others before them, hadn't paid taxes to build roads, fight fires, invent the internet, educate their employees; their business could not have been possible. That is why they need to pay taxes, so their business can continue to succeed, and other businesses not even imagined yet can succeed in the future.

Emron posted:

I'm up to three separate people saying that if someone in that theater shooting had a gun, the tragedy could have between averted. Two saying that stories like that are the reason they carry. I think I'm going to keep count.

Sarion posted:

You should stop trying to convince them of the argument, and just show them that Obama is not making the argument they think he is. Namely with these two quotes from the speech:

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

This is the line Romney, FOX, and company are taking out of context. In particular, leaving out that sentence at the start. Its obvious from the context of the rest of the speech that what he's saying is, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that --> roads and bridges" not "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that --> business."

And in case that's not clear enough, a few sentences later...

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

He's absolutely not saying businesses don't succeed because they work hard, in fact he says the exact opposite in the speech. And he is precisely making a "no man is an island" point. Regardless of what 'J' thinks. His broader point is you have people saying "I'm successful, you should not take away some of what I've earned all by myself through taxes". Which completely misses the point that if they, and others before them, hadn't paid taxes to build roads, fight fires, invent the internet, educate their employees; their business could not have been possible. That is why they need to pay taxes, so their business can continue to succeed, and other businesses not even imagined yet can succeed in the future.

Facebook posted:

Friend 1:
Someone else did. Steve Jobs was a great PR person but he didn't invent anything. Obama was saying that no man is an island. With the help of others including the government, businesses happen. They don't happen with only one person.

Friend 2:
OMG! That's such a load of BS. I've never been a fan of Obama, but he's really gone way too far with that comment. I can tell you right now that no government organization ever helped my father start and build his business, and they certainly haven't been around in recent years doing anything but demanding their taxes. Absolutely sick!

Friend 1:
I don't want to step on any toes here. It requires a lot of hard work and a lot of luck to build a business but it was not built in a vacuum. So, I don't think Obama crossed any lines.

Random Person 1:
I didn't get government help with my business. Nor did my husband. We worked two jobs and put in 20 hour days, trying to build our business, and accumulate what we have. I don't appreciate being minimalized, and vilianized by our president for working hard all these years. His end game is for all to be dependent on the government for their existence. The Government then decides the winners, losers, and (uh hum) fair share. btw, over half are now paying "0"... what is their fair share? And do you really think half the people would ever vote away their gravy train to work harder?

Friend 2:
Friend 1, I understand that you have your opinion, but I have to concur with Random Person 1's point of view. My parents both worked two jobs while starting up our business in the garage. My father didn't take out any loans. He worked and saved and bought old machines that people said would never work again, then just kept fixing them to keep them going. It wasn't done in a vacuum, but there was no government or bank involvement. My uncle quit his job to work with my dad while my dad worked at AT&T and startup, and my mother worked as an RN, then came home to help my father in the evenings (even while pregnant with me). I grew up spending my out of school time in the office, with a playpen next to my mother's desk. It was a lot of hard work, and a lot of group effort, but it was all family and life savings and living on half a check to support the startup.

Me:
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” - President Barack Obama

That is the entire paragraph. The "that" in the cutout quote refers to roads and bridges, not to your business. Read the last line of that quote. That's the summary. You're picking apart the one line in the speech that you don't agree with and running with it (along with the rest of the internet) without looking at the context of the entire thing. The point is we all help each other out and we see better results. Like Friend 1 said, no one is an island. The president recognizes it's a lot of hard work on the part of the individual; he says so. He's just also saying though that you didn't lift yourself up by your own bootstraps (an impossible feat). You had help along the way even if indirectly. Highways to drive on, inspected houses and buildings to live and work in, clean drinking water, clean air, teachers, doctors, etc.

Friend 2:
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the "that" in "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." refers back the last noun in the sentence, which is "business", not "roads and bridges". I understand the overall point he was trying to make, and it's true in the sense that as we move through life, many people at some point helped build us and what we are (parents/teachers/mentors) and helped provide the things that we need but didn't have the time to take care of (like building a road to drive on). That's the power of synergy, and if we don't harness it, we're fools.

However, just because we are formed by many people that we encounter and the society we grew up in and can take advantage of things that people built before us shouldn't take credit away from those who put in the extra work to (in this case) build a business. Indirect assistance does not direct assistance make. Despite the president's attempt to summarize his speech at the end, when he states, "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.", he's taking his analogy too far and making it too literal to the point where it detracts from his message and can and did offend many people. It's like a backhanded complement. "Let me make my point at your expense". Running a business is hard work - harder than simply being employed - and it can feel like all the government does is take, take, take, tax, tax, tax. It's a constant struggle, so regardless of how he meant it, when the highest agent of the government makes such a claim, in or out of context, a lot of people who put in that hard work when their peers didn't will feel a sting.

The president made a misstep when crafting his speech. He should have found a more pertinent example (similar to the "great teacher" example) and avoided insulting hard-working business people while he did it, no matter how accurate his final summary might have been.

Me:
If you look at the sentence in a vacuum, you are correct. A pronoun can refer to things not in the same sentence though, so taken as a whole, the only way the paragraph makes any sense is the way I've inferred it. You can't on one hand say the business owner didn't build his business and on the other hand say that we succeed because of our individual initiative. It just doesn't jive (in my opinion) the way you've interpreted.

Friend 2:
Of course it doesn't. That's the president's writer's mistake though if it was intended to be something else. I personally don't trust that it was a mistake though. Just sayin...

RhoanAegis posted:

Summary: I don't like Obama, so I'll choose a way to interpret his speech in a way that makes his speech writers appear stupid. Also business owners did everything on their own without any outside help and have a really easy time having their feelings hurt.

quote:

What "that" refers to depends on what your definition of "is" is.

quote:

Resisting Barbarians
We can't do it with appeasement, accommodation, and sophistry.


By. Clifford D. May
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, I expected there would soon be consensus across ideological, national, and other lines that terrorism is wrong — that no political goal or grievance justifies intentionally murdering innocent men, women, and children. I was wrong.
Last week, Pew released the results of a poll that found that Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, is viewed favorably by 76 percent of the population of Pakistan, ostensibly one of America’s closest allies among nations self-identifying as Islamic. Iran also is viewed favorably by 39 percent of Tunisians, generally regarded as among the most moderate of Arabs. In Egypt, 19 percent — a not insignificant minority — have a favorable view of al-Qaeda.

In America and Europe, fewer people smile on terrorists but many are determinedly nonjudgmental. Recall Reuters’ global head of news, Stephen Jukes, just after 9/11, saying that in the view of his news organization, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Canadian author George Jonas, with his customary verbal precision, called that “an adolescent sophistry.”

Now consider the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), created under the leadership of the Obama administration to “provide a unique platform for senior counterterrorism policymakers and experts from around the world to work together to identify urgent needs, devise solutions and mobilize resources for addressing key counterterrorism challenges.” Twenty-nine countries have been admitted, but Israel, arguably targeted by more terrorists than any other nation, has been excluded. In remarks to a meeting of the GCTF in Madrid last week, Under Secretary of State Maria Otero failed even to include Israel in a list of victims of terrorism. Asked about this conspicuous omission, a State Department spokesman replied: “I don’t have the details of the undersecretary’s speech.” Your tax dollars at work.

Also in recent days: A resolution introduced by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) and Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) calling on the International Olympic Committee (IOC), at the opening ceremony of the London Olympics on July 27, to observe a moment of silence in honor of the eleven Israeli athletes murdered by Palestinian terrorists 40 years ago in Munich received unanimous Senate support. But the members of the IOC adamantly refuse. Is that because they are not sure whether those who slaughtered the Olympians were terrorists? Or is it because they think it prudent not to offend any terrorists who may be summering in London? Could the fact that the victims were Israelis — or Jews — play a role?

If so, they would be expressing the prejudice most acceptable among certain fashionable elites. For example, Alice Walker has refused to permit a new translation of her novel, The Color Purple, into Hebrew. As Israeli author Daniel Gordis has pointed out, Hebrew “is the only language into which Walker has refused to permit translation.” She has no trouble with translations into Farsi, Dari, Pashto, or Arabic.

In Denver last week, there was the grand reopening of the Counterterrorism Education Learning Lab, a unique museum intended to help teach the public about terrorism of all kinds (not just the Islamic variety), why it’s a threat to all civilizations (not just the West), and how it can be defeated (determination and vigilance will be key). Before an audience of nearly a thousand, Denver Post publisher Dean Singleton moderated a discussion between former secretary of homeland security Michael Chertoff and me. Among the issues with which we attempted to grapple: The destructive potential of cyber-terrorism; the possibility that terrorists will use germs and viruses as weapons; the role of failed states and what it will mean if the rulers of Iran, who have been killing Americans for decades and threatening Israelis with genocide, are not prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Planted throughout the audience were protesters from an organization that calls itself “We Are Change.” Every so often, a member would stand up and begin shouting. One yelled “Terrorism is not real!” Another proclaimed that “bees kill more people than terrorists!” Another angrily insisted that the FBI has no proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 — to which Chertoff replied that not only can we be certain that the al-Qaeda leader was behind the attacks, but also that there has been “a landing on the moon.” The protesters were escorted outside, where they joined demonstrators holding a banner that read, “9/11 was an inside job.”

There were not many of these demonstrators, and they do not represent most people in Denver, America, or the West. But, as noted above, anti-anti-terrorists are hardly a rare species. And aren’t the members of the IOC and GCTF closer in outlook to them than to people like Chertoff and me — people who believe that terrorists, their funders, and their supporters must be confronted and crushed, not appeased and accommodated?

A generation before the attacks of 9/11, in 1980, in a book titled The Recovery of Freedom, the great historian Paul Johnson lamented that we have “almost forgotten how to arm ourselves against barbarism. We can, in fact, do it in only one way: by stating that terrorism is always and in every circumstance wrong . . . that it must be resisted by every means at our disposal; and that those who practice it must not only be punished but repudiated by those who share their political aims.” I’ve always found that logic compelling. I would have thought that by now most people — certainly those in the U.S. State Department, and those dedicated to the Olympic ideal, and American novelists concerned with bigotry — would have grasped it. I was wrong.

— Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism

Econosaurus posted:

RhoanAegis posted:

Summary: I don't like Obama, so I'll choose a way to interpret his speech in a way that makes his speech writers appear stupid. Also business owners did everything on their own without any outside help and have a really easy time having their feelings hurt.

Leon Einstein posted:

I'm pretty impressed at the people that put in 20 hour days to build their business. That sounds totally realistic.

Report Executive Summary posted:

Ten states now have unprecedented restrictive voter ID laws. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin all require citizens to produce specific types of government-issued photo identification before they can cast a vote that will count. Legal precedent requires these states to provide free photo ID to eligible voters who do not have one.

Unfortunately, these free IDs are not equally accessible to all voters. This report is the first comprehensive assessment of the difficulties that eligible voters face in obtaining free photo ID.

The 11 percent of eligible voters who lack the required photo ID must travel to a designated government office to obtain one. Yet many citizens will have trouble making this trip. In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws:

* Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options.

* More than 10 million eligible voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week.

* 1.2 million eligible black voters and 500,000 eligible Hispanic voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. People of color are more likely to be disenfranchised by these laws since they are less likely to have photo ID than the general population.

* Many ID-issuing offices maintain limited business hours. For example, the office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month. But only four months in 2012 — February, May, August, and October — have five Wednesdays. In other states — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas — many part-time ID-issuing offices are in the rural regions with the highest concentrations of people of color and people in poverty.

More than 1 million eligible voters in these states fall below the federal poverty line and live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. These voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20. By comparison, the notorious poll tax — outlawed during the civil rights era — cost $10.64 in current dollars.

The result is plain: Voter ID laws will make it harder for hundreds of thousands of poor Americans to vote. They place a serious burden on a core constitutional right that should be universally available to every American citizen.

This November, restrictive voter ID states will provide 127 electoral votes — nearly half of the 270 needed to win the presidency. Therefore, the ability of eligible citizens without photo ID to obtain one could have a major influence on the outcome of the 2012 election.

quote:

For example, the office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month.

myron cope posted:

Holy poo poo. How can they even suggest that with a straight face, let alone put it into practice? It's open for 4 days a year?

Xarthor posted:

Yes.

In the full report, they show the calendar for four months (Jan, Feb, Mar, April) and show that January, March, and April didn't even HAVE a fifth Wednesday of the month, so the only day in four months that the office was open was February 29th.

Goatman Sacks posted:

Hey, your dads an idiot and should probably never vote again.

Dr Christmas posted:

This is mind-boggling. Who is the person who has a job that they only perform at those days?

Dr Christmas posted:

That's just so weird. The rich people who need their ID renewed have an easier time fighting thought that Katkaesque nightmare than a working stiff, but they still have to fight through a Kafkaesque nightmare. Even Republican legislators and governors have to deal with it.

Sarion posted:

Nah. They can afford the time off to drive to the one that is always open, even if it is hours away (which it probably isn't). This is what you get when you elect people who want to cut "government waste" instead of guaranteeing service for all citizens equally.

quote:

Bullshit is something we all ought to be able to smell, no?

We know for a fact that US Attorney General Eric Holder has been involved in Problem/Reaction/Solution schemes before and that the puppet in the White House has studiously avoided the topic of gun control.

Following the utter failure of "fast and furious" the emerging pattern is logical - a lone Caucasian gunman dressed in a sort of Mad Max costume shoots up a theater where most of those in attendance are white. He is captured alive. Sounds similar to the failed attempt on Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the lone gunman attack in Europe last year or the Virginia Tech massacre.

We are expected to believe that these are random acts of senseless violence and unconnected in any way.

These attacks have several factors in common:
1. Lone white attacker with 'mental' problems
2. White victims
3. Police response apprehends the shooter alive
4. Takes place in politically 'progressive' regions
5. There is never an armed citizen present who could have stopped the carnage

Before 1990 and the concomitant acceleration of the gun control movement, incidents of mass shootings were almost unheard of.

What we're witnessing is a developing Hegelian Dialectic. A distinct 'problem' for which a predetermined reaction is anticipated and can be pointed to with the 'solution' offered. A scheme designed to bolster the argument for the UN gun ban treaty now pending and which has been getting bad press.

The planned rise of violent crime in the 1970's didn't work. The extreme gun bans of the 1990's proved to be politically suicidal. Gun control is a losing issue in the public arena. And We The People simply will not be allowed to remain armed and purchasing firearms at a greater rate than any other time in American history.

As many people as possible need to be made aware of this and quickly.

Leon Einstein posted:

I'm pretty impressed at the people that put in 20 hour days to build their business. That sounds totally realistic.

lancemantis posted:

WTF is up with the Hegel stuff lately? I've heard people complaining about it coming up in strange ways on philosophy blogs.

quote:

Before 1990 and the concomitant acceleration of the gun control movement, incidents of mass shootings were almost unheard of.

peak debt posted:

It's a "brilliant" debate trick though. As soon as they put out a totally outlandish claim like that, you can either call them a liar and lose sympathy from onlookers for being a jerk, or you accept their claims and make their argument look much stronger than it is.

prom candy posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Americas

In the US I'm counting 4 in/before 1990 and 4 after 1990.