StrangeSox

Rather was fired over it and he and CBS suffered significant harm to their reputation.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 11:59 AM) Having a belief by itself does not constitute discrimination. Discrimination requires an action. I can believe anything I want about people who are gay, Muslim, black, or old, but as long as I don't treat them differently when they patronize my business or apply for a job with me, then I am not guilty of discrimination. If you hold negative views of groups, you will treat them differently. That's pretty much unavoidable.

That's not discrimination.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 11:25 AM) Ann Romney about releasing Mitt's Tax returns. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/...l#ixzz215O3EVG6 Her phrasing there is pretty poor. "You people," several times. I'm also unsure as to why we shouldn't want to see more than a year of tax returns because he gives money to his church.

No, it was a straight-up smear campaign. Only one person who served directly with Kerry was a part of that group. Some of the others explicitly said they joined on as a reaction to his politics afterwards, not his actions in Vietnam. The people behind this group were thoroughly discredited and shown to be dishonest about their own background.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 10:59 AM) 10 days to find another loophole, but that was one that already existed. The MRTU was implemented Q1 of 2009. The rule change you are referring to was an emergency filing with FERC to eliminate the first loophole that JP exploited. The second always existed, it just took a different impetus to cause JP to find it. Having to come up with ad hoc patches to the original deregulation would seem to support Balta's point.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 10:54 AM) Again, I understand that...but the rules are designed in a way where this line you are drawing is very much blurred. CAISO will pay you for doing all kinds of things that really don't serve much of a legitimate market purpose, but instead, serve their silly system because it has so many flaws. For instance, they will pay me money to take energy out of California even when they desperately need energy, because they don't have adequate infrastructure in place to accommodate the flows of electricity necessary. There is no market purpose served here, only a very real logistical purpose which exists only because of their inadequacy. I know you will argue that relieving congestion is serving a market purpose, but then I would argue that JP Morgan was serving a market purpose by having it's units online, even if they manipulated the odds of them being dispatched by changing their bids in the RT market. If the energy was really needed, they would be able to dispatch it, whereas they would not have had they not been incentivized to have it online. I admittedly do not know how these energy markets operate. Perhaps they're inherently flawed. But morality doesn't derive from the rules of the system. I don't think there's a blurry or even questionable line here. Assuming that the allegations are true, they deliberately manipulated the market. They knew that they never truly intended on making honest bids and supplying electricity. I don't see that as equivalent to a possibly flawed system meant as a work-around for insufficient infrastructure. Is that a set of actions we should really accept as moral? That anyone who can find loopholes around the rules to siphon off tens of millions of dollars while providing absolutely nothing in return is acting in a moral manner?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 10:50 AM) And it took JPM what, a couple months to figure out how to cheat that technology upgrade? It took them 10 days to figure out a new work-around to the rules changes.

Related: Second judge rejects state voter ID law (WI)

"Operating within the rules" is not a sufficient basis for morality imo. As you say, whatever rules CAISO sets up is not the basis for morality. If JPM was intentionally manipulating the market, then all they did was suck up hundreds of millions for themselves. There was no market purpose served, nothing added, no economic gain. It's not enough to say "sure, we gamed the system, added zero value, provided zero services, but we found a loophole!" That doesn't justify their actions and points to something inherently flawed in the system where such actions are rewarded.

In my view, it's fraud and theft. It transferred millions of dollars from Californian energy users to a handful of people at JPM. No useful social purpose is present, only a handful of people making themselves wealthy while not actually contributing anything to anyone at best and actively harming the economy at worst.

I refuse to eat there due to their political contributions. I don't really care beyond that and they have every right to make those contributions.

That doesn't mean we should accept the morality of knowingly gaming the system, though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 10:08 AM) So...what happens when they are the ones who write the rules and do so in a way so that they can game them? That's a pretty great summary of our entire system. And an intrinsic flaw in Smith's assumption of a simulation of morality in a free market. “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” (Frederic Bastiat).

Thanks! And good job on creating yourself a new position.

GMO's tend to be bad in practice for a variety of reasons, but they're not inherently a bad thing. Every staple crop we eat has been genetically modified by humans over millenia of selection for bigger yields, better drought resistance, better pest resistance etc. They're still not sure where the hell corn came from and how it diversified into so many species so quickly.

Zimmerman: Shooting 'God's Plan'

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 09:57 PM) That doesnt suddenly make the other 2 non existent, the only 2 that seem willing to cross partisan lines to any degree. I know at least one of them was a GW appointment. So he gets credit for that. Gw had Roberts and alito. Roberts is very pro-corporate and alito is terrible. If your other reference is Kennedy, please understand that Kennedy is an extremist, just in his own way. Some of his opinions are pretty out there

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 09:13 PM) I'd have to say two of the most fair minded SC appointments in the last generation were made by GW. As a matter of fact, one of them just sided with the ACA. And you don't just to get to replace SC members at will...they have to willingly retire (or die) for you to do so. You automatically lose with alito Edit and his attempt at nominating meirs

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 05:45 PM) All I have is.... Nah, as much as I'm not a fan of Obama, there's substantial difference between him and Romney. Notably in potential SC replacements, which are a President's longest legacy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 05:10 PM) How is it dishonest to react to someone spreading lies about themselves being a war hero when the men he went to war with completely disagreed? Come on now. That's not what happened with the Swift Boating. It was a completely dishonest campaign led by the now-birther Jerome Corsi. It was not "the men he went to war with" and he did not lie. I can't believe anyone outside of freerepublic regulars would still believe that garbage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_an..._of_allegations

It'd be worthless. You've got 31 out of 32 options to win the bet, so the payout would have to be incredibly low.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 01:04 PM) National Review has replaced one racist bigot (the Derb) with another: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...rvatism/258749/ More NRO racism!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 02:08 PM) With the unemployment % at what? And the workforce having increased by ~10 million. It's a marginal increase in the grand scheme of things, despite the cost. I think I should clarify that I'm still talking about effective political messaging here, not whether its a strong claim. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 01:40 PM) Actually, all Romney needs to do is spend tons of money advertising he created jobs, even if he didn't. It doesn't matter if these ads are true or not...they can be distorted truths to the point the become lies, and if you spend enough money, and keep telling some variation of the same lies, people will believe them. Since there really are no laws/rules governing political ads...why bother with the truth at all? Just create a bunch of commercials showing Obama is the single person responsible for job losses...even if it's not true...because congress is more responsible for such things than a president could ever be. I don't think that this can work when you're already on the defensive as Romney is now. It makes it look like you're trying to avoid the questions about Bain and the tax returns. Dishonest but repetitive campaigning can be effective (Swift Boating) but not always in every case.