Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«106 »
  • Locked thread
Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008




Dr. Tough posted:

George Soros: a modern day Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Wow the really needed to put a face to every crazy right wing theory out there didn't they? I guess no one should be suprised it landed on the mysterious Jewish finaceer.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

PeterWeller
Apr 20, 2003

I told you that story so I could tell you this one.


quote:

After Barack Hussein Obama suddenly cast-off his Muslim roots, rejected his mother’s disbelief in God, turned tail on the Islam of his early life

I like how he apparently thinks that Muslim roots and Islam are two different things.

Jhoge
Sep 10, 2008


quote:

Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Did Wal-Mart's Mexican subsidiary pay bribes, in 2005 and earlier, to the Mexican officials who grant permits for stores like Wal-Mart? And did Wal-Mart cover up these actions for several years, after an internal investigation discovered the bribes, before finally reporting the internal investigation to the Department of Justice and the SEC last December?

The answer, according to recent news accounts, is yes. This could mean that Wal-Mart violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, adopted in 1977, which forbids U.S. companies from paying bribes to foreign officials.
If Wal-Mart violated the law, U.S. officials should prosecute. No one should be above the law, whether the law is sensible or not.

Yet the public and policymakers should also consider whether the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is good policy. And despite good intentions -- particularly, the goal of reducing corruption -- it is not.

The act is difficult to enforce on a consistent basis, since companies that wish to pay bribes can circumvent the law in numerous ways, mainly with minimal risk of exposure. So, most violations go undetected. The act therefore hurts companies that break the law clumsily and get caught, thereby creating a competitive advantage for companies that break the law cleverly and get away with it.

The most likely outcome is therefore that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has minimal impact on bribes but enriches the least honest companies. And if the act deters bribes by U.S. companies operating abroad, that is even worse.
The reason is that the threat of prosecution under the act discourages U.S. companies from doing business abroad in the first place. This holds especially with respect to poor countries where corruption -- pay to play -- is endemic. Thus foreign investment, along with the higher wages and increased competition this investment promotes, is less likely to occur in these countries, condemning their citizens to ongoing poverty.

The act is also harmful, especially when it reduces bribes, because much bribery is an attempt to get around laws that make little sense in the first place. Such laws include barriers to entry, union protections that make firing or plant closures all but impossible, and excessive environmental, health and safety regulation.
These policies have good intentions, but they are frequently so onerous that their main effect is to discourage economic growth, which is critical for alleviating poverty. These policies are a key cause of corruption; it is impossible to do business in some countries without paying bribes that limit the impact of costly regulations.

The Wal-Mart example is a perfect illustration of this dynamic. Mexico has a messy permitting process for allowing companies like Wal-Mart to open new stores. This permitting barrier is bad for Mexicans because it reduces the number of new Wal-Marts or slows their opening. Mexicans therefore pay higher prices for the wide array of inexpensive goods sold by Wal-Mart.

If these negatives were not enough, the act harms U.S. companies relative to those from other countries that do not face something like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Other countries have adopted similar laws in recent years, but enforcement is often weak.

Corruption is a huge problem in many countries, especially the developing world. Much of the corruption, however, arises from excessive government that hurts economic productivity and creates the incentive to pay bribes. The best solution is to scale back these aspects of government. Since that is not always possible, however, it is better to allow companies from the United States and other rich countries to pay the bribes that diminish the negative impact of excessive government.

Half credit for agreeing that prosecuting Wal-Mart is a good idea, minus five credits for thinking that allowing companies to bribe their way into countries is a good thing because it will, "...diminish the impact of excessive government". It's almost as though companies might bribe their way out of good laws too.

Jhoge fucked around with this message at Sep 29, 2013 around 16:26

The Dark One
Aug 19, 2005

I'm your friend and I'm not going to just stand by and let you do this!


So, bribes are bad, but professional bribers have an unfair advantage, so we should legalize this immoral thing in order to create a level playing field. But also, bribes are OK if they're used to circumvent laws that get in the way of a giant multinational corporation setting up shop, driving down wages and bankrupting small local businesses.

Makes perfect sense.

Political Whores
Feb 13, 2012



quote:

The act is also harmful, especially when it reduces bribes, because much bribery is an attempt to get around laws that make little sense in the first place.

I love this logic. This is basically saying that,if you feel the law doesn't make sense, you should be entitled to pay money to the government to circumvent it. Asbestos in the walls? Screw it, bribe the inspector, wouldn't want to shut down business for well-intentioned but foolish ideas like "health concerns". Farm operation dangerously close to poisoning the nearby river due to improper containment of animal waste? Screw it, bribe time, wouldn't want to impose extra safety costs on industry.



Free Market Principles at their finest!

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007



Well the dude that wrote that bribery piece works for the Cato Institute so of course it's completely insane.

swimgus
Oct 24, 2005
Camlin bought me this account because I'm a Jew!

Saw this in the Denver Post today:

Mike Rosen posted:

No More Furloughs
This was a recent e-mail from the Jefferson County Public Schools:

"Dear Parents,

"This is a reminder that Wednesday, April 11, is a furlough day. That means that all Jeffco neighborhood and option schools and district offices will be closed. The furlough day is the result of funding cuts at the state level. A furlough day means that Jeffco employees will not be paid as a cost-saving measure. The money saved will help keep class sizes small and excellent teachers and principals in our schools. Thank you for your understanding during these financially difficult times."

A number of Jeffco teachers, students, teachers union officials and sympathetic parents took this day off from school as an opportunity to participate in a protest at the state Capitol, demanding more taxpayer money for public schools. They were joined by sympathetic parents unconstrained by economic reality and blind to the systemic undermining of public education by the teachers unions.
Also in attendance were liberal activist groups who perpetually advocate for more spending and higher taxes, along with like-minded Democrats from the state legislature whom they support.

While I don't believe more money would improve the quality of public schools or fix their systemic problems, it would be nice if we had more for other government undertakings like higher education, Medicaid, highways and public transportation, to name a few, but we don't — and won't until the economy markedly improves.

This protest is against fiscal reality, like the thousands of overpaid government workers on the public dole in Greece who regularly take to the streets to demonstrate against cuts dictated by its national bankruptcy that they were instrumental in bringing about. As protests go, this one at the state Capitol was more of a show, unlike in Egypt or Syria, where citizens have risked their lives seeking to overthrow tyrannical dictatorships.

But let's return to that e-mail above, regarding this first of two scheduled furlough days in Jeffco schools this year. State government and the city of Denver, faced with revenue shortfalls, have also furloughed their employees. The rationalization for this practice is that workers should be given days off to make up for the pay cut. Now, it's unfortunate that there's not enough money in the public till to pay these government workers what they were expecting, but why give them the day off?

When private-sector workers whose employers come up short on revenues have to take pay cuts, they don't get extra days off. If you're self-employed and business is slow, not only won't you take the day off, you'll work longer to make up for the revenue loss. If we regard the services of government workers as essential — whether they're teachers or the folks who man the counters at the Department of Motor Vehicles — why should the public be denied those services? Sorry about the pay cut, but they should still show up for work.

One other point: When faced with budget cuts, school districts and their unions routinely claim they have no choice but to lay off teachers and increase class sizes. Not true. If, as they often declare, "it's for the children," there's another obvious option. The unions, theoretically, are collegial collectives. But union contracts mandate that layoffs be based on seniority, not performance. So young and enthusiastic teachers are the first to go, regardless of talent, while those with seniority, even if they're burned out and ineffective, are protected. Instead of heartlessly firing anyone, why not share the burden? All could keep their jobs and class sizes could remain the same if the payroll shortfall were collectively distributed. A very small pay cut across the entire population could preclude the layoff of any.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the unions to agree to that.
Teachers should work for free because small business.

swimgus fucked around with this message at Apr 27, 2012 around 03:04

Neptr
Mar 1, 2011


I imagine it would be hard to argue that laying off older teachers would be expensive because you would have to give them severance pay and such when the response would be, "gently caress them, we shouldn't pay for that poo poo."

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


swimgus posted:

Saw this in the Denver Post today:

Teachers should work for free because small business.

I really, really hope that the author of this letter isn't self-employed or owns their own business, so that their boss can tell them that they have to work for free.

Seriously, how insane and stupid do you have to be to think that employees, private sector or public sector, would and should ever simply work for free because their employer couldn't pay them?

Conservatives really don't understand anything about business or economics.

Edit: That letter kind of reminds me of Goodfellas

Henry Hill posted:

Now the guy's got Paulie as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Paulie. Trouble with the bill? He can go to Paulie. Trouble with the cops, deliveries, Tommy, he can call Paulie. But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week, no matter what. Business bad? gently caress you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? gently caress you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? gently caress you, pay me.

but instead, it's "Got a pay cut you didn't agree to? gently caress you, get back to work. Not getting paid at all? gently caress you, get back to work. Union contract violated? gently caress you, get back to work."

Bruce Leroy fucked around with this message at Apr 27, 2012 around 04:48

Political Whores
Feb 13, 2012



Mike Rosen seems to have confused employment with indentured servitude.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


colonelslime posted:

Mike Rosen seems to have confused employment with indentured servitude.

I don't think it's really "confusion," it's that many employers in the US do treat their employees like indentured servants and simply fire them if they complain.

Pope Guilty
Nov 6, 2006

The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

People call me crazy when I call wage labor an authoritarian relationship, and yet.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Pope Guilty posted:

People call me crazy when I call wage labor an authoritarian relationship, and yet.

It very much is, but so many Americans are obsessed with the idea that they themselves will one day become one of those rich authoritarians that they don't want to do anything about it (e.g. enact a living wage, "card check" legislation, decouple healthcare coverage from employment, etc.) because it would work against them later when they want to oppress their employees.

This is not to say that all businesses treat their employees like poo poo, but rather that those employees only enjoy their privileges because their employers feel like giving them. Without any kind of codified regulations, employees are at the whims of their employers and all it takes is a personnel change in the organizational leadership for employees to lose all those privileges.

ThePeteEffect
Jun 12, 2007

I'm just crackers about cheese!


Fun Shoe

swimgus posted:

Saw this in the Denver Post today:

Teachers should work for free because small business.

"Why didn't the economy improve when we keep cutting people's pay?"

And as if they'll fight for more teacher pay when the economy improves. What loving bullshit.

T Zero
Sep 26, 2005
When the enemy is in range, so are you

Bruce Leroy posted:

It very much is, but so many Americans are obsessed with the idea that they themselves will one day become one of those rich authoritarians that they don't want to do anything about it (e.g. enact a living wage, "card check" legislation, decouple healthcare coverage from employment, etc.) because it would work against them later when they want to oppress their employees.



I was listening to a podcast today about the lottery and they said that 40 percent of Americans see the lottery as their only chance at wealth. So not only do they think they are going to be rich, they think it's going to happen overnight. That's why the state lottery is hugely profitable - it's a voluntary tax on the stupid and delusional. People are shaping their entire outlook on circumstances that have less than a one in a million chance of panning out.

Tacky-Ass Rococco
Sep 6, 2010

by R. Guyovich


T Zero posted:

That's why the state lottery is hugely profitable - it's a voluntary tax on the stupid and delusional.

Gee, I wonder why so many members of the working class vote against their own economic self-interest. If only they'd see that their true interests demand that they unite in a voting bloc with educated liberals and their sneering contempt.

I'm not a socialist, but the lottery is definitely one of the masses' opiates.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Jack of Hearts posted:

Gee, I wonder why so many members of the working class vote against their own economic self-interest. If only they'd see that their true interests demand that they unite in a voting bloc with educated liberals and their sneering contempt.

I'm not a socialist, but the lottery is definitely one of the masses' opiates.

Maybe the way T Zero put it was a bit extreme (on par with atheists calling religious people "stupid" or "retarded"), but you have to admit that viewing the lottery as "your only chance at wealth" at least requires you to be very ignorant of how probability works. It's a huge part of why people keep coming back to casinos, in addition to prospect theory, framing effects, and aspects of the psychology of decision making.

Tacky-Ass Rococco
Sep 6, 2010

by R. Guyovich


Bruce Leroy posted:

Maybe the way T Zero put it was a bit extreme (on par with atheists calling religious people "stupid" or "retarded")

Yeah, this is my essential point. Yes, buying a lottery ticket is a terrible, and therefore stupid, bet. Certain people are all too happy to make the inference "Joe made an idiotic wager, therefore Joe is 'stupid and delusional.'" Simply put, anyone who knows anything about gambling knows that this is not a valid inference...but it says a lot about the person who makes it.

Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006



T Zero posted:

I was listening to a podcast today about the lottery and they said that 40 percent of Americans see the lottery as their only chance at wealth. So not only do they think they are going to be rich, they think it's going to happen overnight. That's why the state lottery is hugely profitable - it's a voluntary tax on the stupid and delusional.

This is a totally invalid chain of reasoning. You're assuming that 40% think winning the lottery is likely, and then because that idea which you ascribed to them is stupid, you are calling them stupid. It's possible that these people are so cynical that they believe they have a better chance of winning the lottery than advancing in society. I don't know if they believe that, so I'm not going to assume they do, but it's one of many alternatives to your "they must be stupid because I imagine they have stupid beliefs" chain of thought.

T Zero
Sep 26, 2005
When the enemy is in range, so are you

Arglebargle III posted:

This is a totally invalid chain of reasoning. You're assuming that 40% think winning the lottery is likely, and then because that idea which you ascribed to them is stupid, you are calling them stupid. It's possible that these people are so cynical that they believe they have a better chance of winning the lottery than advancing in society. I don't know if they believe that, so I'm not going to assume they do, but it's one of many alternatives to your "they must be stupid because I imagine they have stupid beliefs" chain of thought.

You're right and I concede the point. The program is here incidentally: http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/04...-radio-podcast/

The stat was 40 percent of people making less than $25k see the lottery as their only chance at wealth. The stats is 1 in 5 overall. The discussion was in the context of gambling versus saving money.

However, by delusional I meant the idea that people think they will become wealthy, not necessarily the lottery. I meant the Joe the Plumbers who want to ensure low tax rates for rich so that the tax bracket is nice and warm for them once they get there.

T Zero fucked around with this message at Apr 29, 2012 around 16:48

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Arglebargle III posted:

This is a totally invalid chain of reasoning. You're assuming that 40% think winning the lottery is likely, and then because that idea which you ascribed to them is stupid, you are calling them stupid. It's possible that these people are so cynical that they believe they have a better chance of winning the lottery than advancing in society. I don't know if they believe that, so I'm not going to assume they do, but it's one of many alternatives to your "they must be stupid because I imagine they have stupid beliefs" chain of thought.

But why can't it be both? Why can't these people be cynical about the myth of upward mobility in American society while simultaneously having poor understandings of probability to the degree that they think they have realistic chances at winning the lottery?

ProperGanderPusher
Jan 13, 2012


Bruce Leroy posted:

It very much is, but so many Americans are obsessed with the idea that they themselves will one day become one of those rich authoritarians that they don't want to do anything about it (e.g. enact a living wage, "card check" legislation, decouple healthcare coverage from employment, etc.) because it would work against them later when they want to oppress their employees.

I'd love to know the money making schemes of each one of these people. Do they really think they'll squeak into the richest 10 percent or so by scrimping and saving? Or be lucky enough to be noticed by some big shot who drops in on them out of nowhere and is impressed by their industriousness a la Ragged Dick? The only common idea I remember is a lot of people were looking on getting in on the house investing craze before Stuff Happened in 2008 (even my otherwise skeptical pop was considering it), or even dumber people investing in Beanie Babies back in the 90s, thinking they would appreciate in value forever.

Pope Guilty
Nov 6, 2006

The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

It's almost like poverty fucks up your judgment and your ability to evaluate and manage money, to the point that it damages your ability to provide for yourself and others.

Saint Sputnik
Mar 31, 2007

Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!


ProperGanderPusher posted:

I'd love to know the money making schemes of each one of these people. Do they really think they'll squeak into the richest 10 percent or so by scrimping and saving? Or be lucky enough to be noticed by some big shot who drops in on them out of nowhere and is impressed by their industriousness a la Ragged Dick? The only common idea I remember is a lot of people were looking on getting in on the house investing craze before Stuff Happened in 2008 (even my otherwise skeptical pop was considering it), or even dumber people investing in Beanie Babies back in the 90s, thinking they would appreciate in value forever.

I think it was Cal Thomas who recently wrote in praise of the Horatio Alger Society. Fuckwit.

Here's an actual good opinion piece, by Stephen King for the Daily Beast. Excerpt:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...r-f-s-sake.html

quote:

At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, “How come I’m not paying 50?” The governor of New Jersey did not respond to this radical idea, possibly being too busy at the all-you-can-eat cheese buffet at Applebee’s in Jersey City, but plenty of other people of the Christie persuasion did.

Cut a check and shut up, they said.

If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.

Tired of hearing about it, they said.

Tough poo poo for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

Mo_Steel
Mar 7, 2008

Let's Clock Into The Sunset Together



Fun Shoe

Saint Sputnik posted:

I think it was Cal Thomas who recently wrote in praise of the Horatio Alger Society. Fuckwit.

Here's an actual good opinion piece, by Stephen King for the Daily Beast. Excerpt:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...r-f-s-sake.html

But they already pay their fair share!

quote:

Sometimes, it's all just too much to take.

The president himself has admitted, if not in so many words, that the so-called Buffett Rule is little more than a gimmick. Bringing in $4.7 billion per year won't do much to solve $1.4 trillion dollar deficits. And, the administration concedes, this latest attempt at soaking the rich does little to spur growth.

But what's especially galling for those with a bull's-eye on their back is the pious specter of Messrs. Obama and Buffett demanding higher taxes while deliberately ducking -- albeit legally -- the tax man themselves. Just how is it you make a moral argument about "fairness," all the while eschewing your self-described moral obligation?

In the last couple of years, it appears that Mitt Romney, Warren Buffett and President Obama have had effective income tax rates of 15.4 percent, 17.4 percent and 20.5 percent, respectively. All took sizable advantage of charitable deductions, which taken together with other taxpayers costs the Treasury $52 billion annually.

This pales in comparison, however, with the tax code's biggest loophole, the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from taxable income. According to the Congressional Research Service, that amounts to more than $164 billion per year in foregone federal revenue, barely surpassing another middle-class tax break, tax-deferred pension contributions.

So why then is the president so obsessed with the Buffett dodge? True, when not preaching to the rest of us, the Oracle of Omaha has studiously kept his corporate salary at a minimum (i.e., less than his secretary's), thus avoiding a 35 percent top rate on ordinary income.

By deriving the bulk of his annual wealth from his investments, Buffett enjoys the lower 15 percent rate for capital gains and dividends. But the "rule," levying a 30 percent rate on any income for folks like Romney, Buffett and Obama, represents a massive new tax on investment and ignores the fact that corporate profits are already taxed at 35 percent before any gain is realized and even after any dividend is distributed.

Moreover, history shows that the "demand" for capital gains is, in economic terms, the most of elastic of all. If rates go up, gains simply aren't realized, depriving the government of revenue. If rates decline, then revenue tends to rise along with after tax earnings. This is exactly what has occurred every time the capital gains rate was adjusted over the last four decades.

Regardless of the numbers, the larger ethical question remains. If paying more of one's income in taxes is such a moral imperative, why haven't those screaming the loudest for more government revenue voluntarily complied with their own rule?

No one forced the president or Warren Buffett to arrange their affairs in such a way to minimize their individual burden. It is, after all, one thing for those who think taxes are already too high to take advantage of every conceivable strategy to lower their effective rate. It's quite another for those sanctimonious liberal souls yearning for "fairness" to do the same.

Call it the triumph of hypocrisy.

Contrary to popular myth, the wealthy already pay their "fair" share, with just 10 percent of the nation's highest earners shouldering 70 percent of the income tax burden. And when you include the distribution of all taxes on the rich, the top 1 percent have an effective rate of 29.5 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, the Tax Foundation reports that 58 million filers had no income tax liability whatsoever in 2010.

Yet if lower taxes on investment income so offend the sensibilities of the revenue-raisers, let me suggest a modest proposal: Lower the top marginal rate to, say, 20 percent, then tax all sources of income at that rate. Presto -- you've done away with the Buffett dodge without raising taxes overall.

Don't hold your breath -- because this runs directly counter to the administration's increasingly transparent strategy of raising taxes on a select few while taking larger and larger numbers of voters off the roles entirely for crass political gain.

----------

Jason Lewis is a nationally syndicated talk-show host based in Minneapolis-St. Paul and is the author of "Power Divided is Power Checked: The Argument for States' Rights" from Bascom Hill Publishing. He can be heard from 5 to 8 p.m. weekdays on NewsTalk Radio (1130 AM) or online at jasonlewisshow.com.

It's those 58 million people not paying any income taxes that are the problem, those poor bastards!

At least some of the comments to the article aren't terrible:

quote:

Lewis is sticking to the old right-wing canard: "if you think taxes should be higher, no one's stopping you from paying more." That is pure BS and they all know it. The issue isn't having those who are willing pay more while the greedy keep more. It's about people who make millions doing nothing paying a fraction of the percentage of those who get up and work every day. Mitt paid 13% on $22 million while I paid 25% on the money I actually worked for. I'm fine with paying 25%. Mitt should be paying 38% or more. As should everyone else on every dollar above $1 million. The rich are the beneficiaries of a system that punishes the middle class and rewards those with huge portfolios but no job and no jobs being created in the U. S. That's just wrong, and so is Jason Lewis.

Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006



Bruce Leroy posted:

But why can't it be both? Why can't these people be cynical about the myth of upward mobility in American society while simultaneously having poor understandings of probability to the degree that they think they have realistic chances at winning the lottery?

The point is that it could be anything; I illustrated that by making up my own explanation. It could be both, neither, something different altogether, or all of those things. With that much information you simply can't draw any conclusion, which is why the first post was unfair. Any speculation on the point has exactly as much merit as something you just made up out of thin air, so it's quite unfair to attack someone for a position you just imagined they had.

For example: "Obama cancelled the Constellation program because he doesn't want us to find out what he's been doing on the moon! Therefore it's clear that he constructing moon lasers to conquer the world for the Muslim Kenyan Communist Party!" Take a real thing and make a non sequitor conclusion from it, and you can make up anything you want. This one only sounds more fantastical because the non sequitor is more obvious, but there was one present in post I quoted.

edit: at "effective tax rate of 29.5%" for the 1%. I wonder how exactly they define "effective" considering we know Mitt Romney paid 13% on his income this year. Jesus how does he even manage that, you would think it would be somewhere above the 15% for capital gains. (I don't understand the carried interest loophole but I'm guessing that has something to do with it?)

Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at May 1, 2012 around 10:50

eatenmyeyes
Mar 29, 2001



Grimey Drawer

Borneo Jimmy posted:

Jim Goad is human trash

Jim Goad is a national treasure and does not belong in this thread.

Pope Guilty
Nov 6, 2006

The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

No, Goad is the sort of person who has confused "controversial" with "interesting".

Lee Harvey Oswald
Mar 16, 2007

by exmarx


Here's a winner from my local paper today.

quote:

Obama is a foe of religious freedom

Wiping tears generated by Scripture quoters, false accusations of the biased ill-informed, let's get real.

Barrack Hussein Obama is the No. 1 enemy of religious freedom. He's the most pro-Islam president in history. He refuses to host the traditional White House National Day of Prayer, yet hosted an Iftar dinner honoring Islam and recognized Eid-ul-Fiter and Adha. Obama directed the Department of Justice to stop defending Defense of Marriage enacted by Congress. He allows homosexuals openly in the military, reversing George Washington's (1778) policy. He attempts to control hiring policy of charter schools; forces religious institutions and hospitals to finance contraception and sterilization; ordered Catholic chaplains to cease reading an archbishop letter, etc. Where is red, white and blue in the Oval Office?

The commander-in-chief bows and apologizes to Islamists, who are killing our troops because of allegations Americans burned two Qurans, while Bibles are burned with the trash. Elsewhere, Christians face death under Islamic "blasphemy laws."

Thirty-nine months of Obama have increased gasoline prices 84 percent, crude oil 135.9 percent, corn 78.1 percent, sugar cane 164.7 percent, black unemployment 25.4 percent, food stamp recipients 35.7 percent, long- term unemployment 136.2 percent, national debt in trillions 32.2 percent, and new businesses are at a 30-year low. Our country's broke. You can't fix stupid, but can vote it out!

JOHN J. SPITTLER, Signal Mountain

George Washington didn't want no niggers or fags in his military

Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008




Lee Harvey Oswald posted:

Here's a winner from my local paper today.


George Washington didn't want no niggers or fags in his military

Being Pro-Islam in a Christian country makes you an enemy of religious freedom.

Political Whores
Feb 13, 2012



Shalebridge Cradle posted:

Being Pro-Islam in a Christian country makes you an enemy of religious freedom.

It's only cognitive dissonance if you accept religions other than Christianity as valid.

Must say, I do like the idea that Obama has personally caused sugarcane prices to skyrocket over the past 3 years. Have these people never heard of inflation? Do they assume he's just going around burning the cane fields to make kids healthy or something?

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation


From the Chronicle of Higher Education's Brainstorm Blog, by Naomi Schaefer Riley:

The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations. posted:

You’ll have to forgive the lateness but I just got around to reading The Chronicle’s recent piece on the young guns of black studies. If ever there were a case for eliminating the discipline, the sidebar explaining some of the dissertations being offered by the best and the brightest of black-studies graduate students has made it. What a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap. The best that can be said of these topics is that they’re so irrelevant no one will ever look at them.

That’s what I would say about Ruth Hayes’ dissertation, “‘So I Could Be Easeful’: Black Women’s Authoritative Knowledge on Childbirth.” It began because she “noticed that nonwhite women’s experiences were largely absent from natural-birth literature, which led me to look into historical black midwifery.” How could we overlook the nonwhite experience in “natural birth literature,” whatever the heck that is? It’s scandalous and clearly a sign that racism is alive and well in America, not to mention academia.

Then there is Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, author of “Race for Profit: Black Housing and the Urban Crisis of the 1970s.” Ms. Taylor believes there was apparently some kind of conspiracy in the federal government’s promotion of single family homes in black neighborhoods after the unrest of the 1960s. Single family homes! The audacity! But Ms. Taylor sees that her issue is still relevant today. (Not much of a surprise since the entirety of black studies today seems to rest on the premise that nothing much has changed in this country in the past half century when it comes to race. Shhhh. Don’t tell them about the black president!) She explains that “The subprime lending crisis, if it did nothing else, highlighted the profitability of racism in the housing market.” The subprime lending crisis was about the profitability of racism? Those millions of white people who went into foreclosure were just collateral damage, I guess.

But topping the list in terms of sheer political partisanship and liberal hackery is La TaSha B. Levy. According to the Chronicle, “Ms. Levy is interested in examining the long tradition of black Republicanism, especially the rightward ideological shift it took in the 1980s after the election of Ronald Reagan. Ms. Levy’s dissertation argues that conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, John McWhorter, and others have ‘played one of the most-significant roles in the assault on the civil-rights legacy that benefited them.’” The assault on civil rights? Because they don’t favor affirmative action they are assaulting civil rights? Because they believe there are some fundamental problems in black culture that cannot be blamed on white people they are assaulting civil rights?

Seriously, folks, there are legitimate debates about the problems that plague the black community from high incarceration rates to low graduation rates to high out-of-wedlock birth rates. But it’s clear that they’re not happening in black-studies departments. If these young scholars are the future of the discipline, I think they can just as well leave their calendars at 1963 and let some legitimate scholars find solutions to the problems of blacks in America. Solutions that don’t begin and end with blame the white man.

EDIT: forgot the URL - http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainsto...ertations/46346

a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at May 3, 2012 around 18:49

A Fancy 400 lbs
Jul 23, 2008



-The person trying to convince us she knows more about the black experience than black people.

PostNouveau
Sep 3, 2011

VY till I die

Grimey Drawer

a foolish pianist posted:

From the Chronicle of Higher Education's Brainstorm Blog, by Naomi Schaefer Riley:


EDIT: forgot the URL - http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainsto...ertations/46346

Oof, what an rear end in a top hat. "Hey let me tell you scholars what you should really be writing about."

And she pulls the Fox News tactic of putting words in people's mouths through questions. "The subprime lending crisis was about the profitability of racism?" Nope. You cherry-picked one sentence out of an entire dissertation, and it didn't even say that.

Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008




PostNouveau posted:

Oof, what an rear end in a top hat. "Hey let me tell you scholars what you should really be writing about."

And she pulls the Fox News tactic of putting words in people's mouths through questions. "The subprime lending crisis was about the profitability of racism?" Nope. You cherry-picked one sentence out of an entire dissertation, and it didn't even say that.

The worst part is that racism actually played a part in the subprime crisis. Banks would rail road minority customers into subprime mortgages (with higher interest) even when they qualified for regular loans.

LP97S
Apr 25, 2008


colonelslime posted:

It's only cognitive dissonance if you accept religions other than Christianity as valid.

Must say, I do like the idea that Obama has personally caused sugarcane prices to skyrocket over the past 3 years. Have these people never heard of inflation? Do they assume he's just going around burning the cane fields to make kids healthy or something?

For some reason, people act like the government is actively covering up inflation. Every time a relative of mine comments on prices going up she says "But there's no inflation, right *wink*".

Mo_Steel
Mar 7, 2008

Let's Clock Into The Sunset Together



Fun Shoe

Shalebridge Cradle posted:

The worst part is that racism actually played a part in the subprime crisis. Banks would rail road minority customers into subprime mortgages (with higher interest) even when they qualified for regular loans.

Do you have a source that it was racially motivated? I can understand if minorities suffered as a result of the disproportionate representation of poverty level families looking for houses, but it would be pretty troubling if banks specifically targeted minorities within poor areas instead of just poor people.

Not that banks loving over poor people isn't aggravating enough mind you.

David Mountford
Feb 16, 2012


Sadly, there is a source for that awful stuff.

quote:

The banks shady dealings include setting up a special unit to target "mud people" with outrageously expensive "ghetto loans;" targeting black churches leaders because they "had a lot of influence and could convince congregants to take out subprime loans;" and offering cash bounties to loan officers who issued subprime loans to minority communities.

Clicking on the link to the affidavits on the top of the article introduces a whole slew of other racial motivations and, well, straight up racism. Obviously not the only cause of the whole subprime crisis, but it'd be negligent to ignore the impact of race on it.

PostNouveau
Sep 3, 2011

VY till I die

Grimey Drawer

The banking system has a long history of "redlining," systematically denying access to minority neighborhoods. This was especially bad in the '80s:

quote:

As part of a five-month examination of compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act, the Journal-Constitution used lenders' reports to track home-purchase and home-improvement loans made by every bank and savings and loan association in metro Atlanta from 1981 through 1986 -- a total of 109,000 loans. The study focused on 64 middle-income neighborhoods: In the white areas lenders made five times as many loans per 1,000 households as in black areas.

http://powerreporting.com/color/1a.html

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009





a foolish pianist posted:

From the Chronicle of Higher Education's Brainstorm Blog, by Naomi Schaefer Riley:


EDIT: forgot the URL - http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainsto...ertations/46346

I followed the link because the piece by Lastasha B. Levy sounded very interesting and the name seems familiar but either the site is getting hammered to poo poo or they took the entire website down out of embarrassment. I did find this response to Riley's article though, it's great.
http://tressiemc.com/2012/05/02/the...s-as-a-subject/

An excerpt form the link posted:

I want to talk about how Schaefer Riley constructed her argument.

She begins by responding to an innocuous article highlighting the work of doctoral students who just happen to be black and who just happen to be studying issues that impact black people.

Doctoral students.

That’s Schaefer Riley’s target: a group of accomplished, intelligent black doctoral students.
Schaefer Riley went after, arguably, the most powerless group of people in all of academe: doctoral students who lack the political cover of tenure, institutional support, or extensive professional networks. She attacked junior scholars who have done nothing but tried to fulfill the requirements of their degree program and who had the audacity to be recognized for doing so in academia’s largest publication. Their crime is not being loving* invisible.

For that, for daring to be seen and heard Schaefer Riley eviscerates the hard work of doctoral students.
And she does not even afford them the respect of critiquing their actual scholarship. That is beneath her. She attacks the very veracity of their right to choose what scholarship they will do. In effect, she attacks their right to be agents in their own academic careers.

She eschews their dissertation titles as laughable. She pokes fun at their subject matter. She all but calls them stupid.

And The Chronicle of Higher Education let her.

Everybody go give it some love.

e: better link

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN fucked around with this message at May 4, 2012 around 03:42

  • Locked thread
«106 »