StrangeSox

ESPN laying off hundreds of employees http://deadspin.com/source-espn-laying-off...dreds-509043249

QUOTE (Tex @ May 22, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) Given the choice of punishing innocents or helping them, I believe we should help the innocent. But, in the darkness of my heart, I really prefer jenk's idea. I don't see how it's our choice to make, though, when the lives on the line are those in East Asia and not in the US.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 22, 2013 -> 12:30 PM) By that definition the federal government is a legal fiction. Yeah, more or less. The Constitution of our government creates our government. Social contract etc. etc.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 21, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) Lol, ah, so the "OMG LOOK HOW RACIST WE WERE IN THE 80's" was the true intent. And is prosecuting women who use crack a bad thing? It's more that they were prosecuted for harming the baby. But it turns out drinking is much, much more harmful and yet we don't prosecute pregnant women who drink like we did with pregnant women who used crack. I thought you'd appreciate the first comment on the article, which is true:

Sometimes there is no answer that isn't complete s***. Sanctions don't really punish the people at the top, they punish millions of civilians.

Terrible headline, but an article ripping Rahm is always good: Rahm Emanuel’s Zombie Pigs vs. Chicago’s Angry Birds Short of *maybe* something like the Olympics that can get a whole bunch of infrastructure and transportation built along with it, there's no justification for publicly funding private sports stadiums. They are almost universally money-losers.

Bombing the s*** out of NK will result in 1) lots of dead NK's 2) lots of dead SK's, also possibly Japanese. Hundreds of thousands if not millions.

"reverse racism"? They get a conviction if they can convince the jury that Zimmerman's actions negated a self-defense claim. Whether getting out of his car and following him through the neighborhood to confront him rises to that level, I don't know. Short of having a convincing case of what actually happened when they encountered each other, I agree that it'll be hard to convict.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 22, 2013 -> 11:16 AM) Right, because the public sector has proven to get things done so much more efficiently than the private sector... I'm sort of just thinking out loud in this thread, but I'm not advocating for nationalization of everything here, just for the usefulness and morality of democratic control in general. The public sector gets some things done much better (in that they serve the most number of people with adequate service) due to the nature of those goods. Private entities might do those same things more efficiently, but then some citizens will be cut off because they can't afford them. Private entities can also do things much less efficiently while also cutting off many citizens (health care!) In the Dem thread I posted an article discussing some Republicans' reactions to Obama floating the idea of privatizing TVA. They claim that the fully privatized TVA would be less efficient and not serve the citizens of Tennessee and Alabama (and maybe Georgia?) nearly as well.

Specifically Apple? No, they and plenty of other corporations enjoy these sort of loopholes. GE's gotten press over the last few years for their similarly low tax rates. But big corporations in general? Yes, for the most part, but absolutely there's unintended consequences and loopholes. But then there's pressure on the legislators not to close those inadvertent loopholes.

about five months too late, but probably for the best.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 22, 2013 -> 10:54 AM) As if the current set of politicians is democratically accountable. You have two parties that for all intents and purposes play the game the exact same way. The names in front of the letter might change here and there, but generally the same people stay in elected positions for the long term and the same policies get enacted. It's a completely broken system due in large part to factions and self-interest that some of the founding fathers recognized from day one. You have to sell your soul to become a politician. They're all corrupt, both morally and financially. Pretty much, yeah. I still greatly prefer public regimes of power and accountability over private ones, though. How many realistic choices of operating systems are there? Mobile carriers? Food suppliers? Airlines? TV/Internet providers? Media sources and reliable journalism and investigation? Banks? We've got a zillion choices in the toothpaste aisle, but they're all from just a handful of manufacturers. And we're still not really left with any real amount of democratic control over what these companies do and how they do it. This would be analogous to every state having an unelected government but arguing that it's just as good because we can always just move to another state that we like better. e.g. banks:

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 22, 2013 -> 10:47 AM) I've never said government is bad. I just said I prefer the perspective to be that government intervention is a last resort. Well I was originally responding to ss2k5! When it comes to corporations, government intervention is literally the first step. They do not exist without government intervention. That's more or less my broad point here. If we're going to talk about government power and meddling in free markets, why not start with these fictional entities they create that run the world's modern economy? The liability part wasn't necessary, but my post was a response to ss2k5's question about giving government the power to decide things, not specifically about taxes. If we're anti-corruption-of-government-power, we need to ask what the biggest corrupter is: corporate lobbying and campaign bribes. As long as our campaign system is what it is and as long as the wealthiest corporations and individuals can buy the most speech and access, they will work to expand government in their favor and contract it in their favor as necessary. I don't actually believe that we need to or should abolish all corporate entities, but I do see the focus on government power while ignoring private power and the nature of corporations themselves as a contradiction.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 21, 2013 -> 02:01 PM) Because I can choose to be involved with those corporations? Obviously i'm not talking about getting rid of regulations or oversight or things like that totally, but as a general rule, i'd rather be able to pick and choose the private entities I do business with, even if they are corrupt, instead of being FORCED to deal with corrupt governments (hello Illinois citizens and Chicago residents!) But they're not actually democratically accountable to anyone, and if they're big enough, you're pretty much forced to do business with one of a handful if you want to live in the modern world. Why are governments corrupt? Do corporations and the wealthy people that own and run them intentionally try to corrupt them in their favor as much as possible? How can we push back against this?

Corporate entities are a legal fiction that cannot exist without a government. Giving these fictional, government-created entities limited-liability protection is using the power of government to shield liability. Modern corporations are masters of this, as evidenced by Apple, and create shells and subsidiaries and firewalls all the time to get around actually being held accountable and responsible.

big government is good, then?

Obama has proposed the idea of privatizing TVA, but Republicans from Tennessee are pushing back hard: http://www.alternet.org/economy/shocker-re...ergy-source-tva

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 21, 2013 -> 03:07 PM) What is the problem is giving the government too much power to decide all of these things? Agreed. Abolish the government-created limited liability corporation.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ May 21, 2013 -> 04:53 PM) How about this scenario? "Hey Jim, is your Xbox off?" *Beep* "It is now, asshole" Madden already made a commercial about that

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 21, 2013 -> 01:38 PM) Hey, when we all recognize how f***ed the system is we'll be better off and maybe we can fix our democracy. But your people continue to buy into the idea that government will save them and provide for them. You know, the same government that routinely f***s them. At least if a corporation is shady and corrupt I still have the choice to do business with them at the end of the day. I have no choice with government's involvement. Why do you think you'll be less f***ed if there's even less control on corporations?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 21, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) Lol, ah, so the "OMG LOOK HOW RACIST WE WERE IN THE 80's" was the true intent. And is prosecuting women who use crack a bad thing? Persecuting them may be. And yeah, the whole War on (some) Drugs and (some) People who Use Drugs is pretty racist.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 20, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) Mostly about the media over-sensationalizing something that wasn't even really a thing to begin with. Also this which I didn't feel like putting into my own words yesterday: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...ck-baby/276070/

Apple’s Web of Tax Shelters Saved It Billions, Panel Finds

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/20/us/severe-we....html?hpt=hp_t1 edit: ok I know DailyKos is horrible but a friend sent me the link and they've got a ton of info up with a bunch of updates: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/20/1...kly-Turn-Severe

QUOTE (Cknolls @ May 20, 2013 -> 11:31 AM) http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare...31f9_story.html Hmmm. Just a guess, but I bet this is another case where Narcissus knows nothing. Got around to reading this, this is more troubling than the AP thing. The charges the DoJ were mulling over would essentially make news gathering illegal. At least they thought better of it in the end. Is it supposed to be a bad thing though if the White House is isolated from the day-to-day operations of DoJ, IRS, DHS, etc.? I would think we'd want those agencies kept at arms-length from any administration for exactly the alleged reasons here.