|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 29 2013 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 05:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 29 2013 04:22 Gorsameth wrote: Nice attempt at redirection. Tobad its was not about who spies more on who's citizen's but about spying on allied governments and illegal spying by the NSA on its own people. I'm much more concerned with how much surveillance the government is allowed to do. Annoying allies is a distant concern. But you do notice these "allies" are people right? In case you didn't notice, you are even talking to them right now!
Yea but those kinds of things are international relations. Like Germany is supposed to be all pissed at America for spying on you. That's the normal kind of ridiculous and stupid things that allies do to each other and get unnecessarily pissed off at each other for.
Spying on American citizens is more of a straight-up criminal justice issue. But they're solutions are basically the same thing, which is that we demand more oversight and we have a right to know what information the government is collecting about us. And they must comply with the 4th Amendment.
|
On July 29 2013 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 05:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 29 2013 04:22 Gorsameth wrote: Nice attempt at redirection. Tobad its was not about who spies more on who's citizen's but about spying on allied governments and illegal spying by the NSA on its own people. I'm much more concerned with how much surveillance the government is allowed to do. Annoying allies is a distant concern. But you do notice these "allies" are people right? In case you didn't notice, you are even talking to them right now! Yeah, I know they're people. What's your point?
|
On July 29 2013 05:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:On July 29 2013 05:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 29 2013 04:22 Gorsameth wrote: Nice attempt at redirection. Tobad its was not about who spies more on who's citizen's but about spying on allied governments and illegal spying by the NSA on its own people. I'm much more concerned with how much surveillance the government is allowed to do. Annoying allies is a distant concern. But you do notice these "allies" are people right? In case you didn't notice, you are even talking to them right now! Yeah, I know they're people. What's your point?
Well at least it sounded like spying on people in the US seems like a serious problem, while spying on people in other countries is a "distant concern".
|
WASHINGTON — Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.
Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.
The findings come as President Barack Obama tries to renew his administration's emphasis on the economy, saying in recent speeches that his highest priority is to "rebuild ladders of opportunity" and reverse income inequality.
As nonwhites approach a numerical majority in the U.S., one question is how public programs to lift the disadvantaged should be best focused – on the affirmative action that historically has tried to eliminate the racial barriers seen as the major impediment to economic equality, or simply on improving socioeconomic status for all, regardless of race.
Hardship is particularly growing among whites, based on several measures. Pessimism among that racial group about their families' economic futures has climbed to the highest point since at least 1987. In the most recent AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of whites called the economy "poor."
"I think it's going to get worse," said Irene Salyers, 52, of Buchanan County, Va., a declining coal region in Appalachia. Married and divorced three times, Salyers now helps run a fruit and vegetable stand with her boyfriend but it doesn't generate much income. They live mostly off government disability checks.
"If you do try to go apply for a job, they're not hiring people, and they're not paying that much to even go to work," she said. Children, she said, have "nothing better to do than to get on drugs."
Source
|
On July 29 2013 05:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 05:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 29 2013 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:On July 29 2013 05:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 29 2013 04:22 Gorsameth wrote: Nice attempt at redirection. Tobad its was not about who spies more on who's citizen's but about spying on allied governments and illegal spying by the NSA on its own people. I'm much more concerned with how much surveillance the government is allowed to do. Annoying allies is a distant concern. But you do notice these "allies" are people right? In case you didn't notice, you are even talking to them right now! Yeah, I know they're people. What's your point? Well at least it sounded like spying on people in the US seems like a serious problem, while spying on people in other countries is a "distant concern". It is a distant concern. We have intelligence agencies for the express purpose of spying on people in other countries. Yes things can go too far, but the main focus of the US government is not to protect the privacy rights of Germans.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
as i've mentioned in that spying thread, governments don't like information void on internet activities. they at least have to have access and know the 'landscape', much like needing a survey map for land and sea.
now, this surveying can't really be done without looking at the internet 'land', but this looking is also physically the same as spying (in the most basic sense of peeking), though the intent may not be 1984 Big Brother style control. there's too much physical grayscale in the digital realm between survey and spying, and the legal vacuum only exacerbates the problem.
|
In economic news, US home building continues to improve. A few good posts on the topic:
Calculated Risk: New Home Sales Calculated Risk: Comments on New Home Sales Alpahville: US Housing's Resilience
Some highlights:
![[image loading]](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/07/CapEcon-e1373660139746.png) ^ Most notably chart 3, if housing starts continue to follow the NAHB index, construction will roughly double over the next year.
The big obstacles right now, according to builders, is access to enough materials, labor and land at the right price. That's actually good news as it will mean increased hiring and investment throughout the supply chain.
And before anyone worries about a new bubble, there's plenty of room for added construction given that inventory levels ares still very, very low:
|
On July 29 2013 09:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:In economic news, US home building continues to improve. A few good posts on the topic: Calculated Risk: New Home SalesCalculated Risk: Comments on New Home SalesAlpahville: US Housing's ResilienceSome highlights: ![[image loading]](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/07/CapEcon-e1373660139746.png) ^ Most notably chart 3, if housing starts continue to follow the NAHB index, construction will roughly double over the next year. The big obstacles right now, according to builders, is access to enough materials, labor and land at the right price. That's actually good news as it will mean increased hiring and investment throughout the supply chain. And before anyone worries about a new bubble, there's plenty of room for added construction given that inventory levels ares still very, very low: ![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gxYUceRHs7s/Ue_fkoTM2MI/AAAAAAAAbMw/eFLU5Cr6Oh8/s320/NHSInvJune2013.jpg) I wonder if/when the higher interest rates will shock the system. They're still low, but there was quite a hike recently.
|
On July 29 2013 11:48 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 09:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:In economic news, US home building continues to improve. A few good posts on the topic: Calculated Risk: New Home SalesCalculated Risk: Comments on New Home SalesAlpahville: US Housing's ResilienceSome highlights: ![[image loading]](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/07/CapEcon-e1373660139746.png) ^ Most notably chart 3, if housing starts continue to follow the NAHB index, construction will roughly double over the next year. The big obstacles right now, according to builders, is access to enough materials, labor and land at the right price. That's actually good news as it will mean increased hiring and investment throughout the supply chain. And before anyone worries about a new bubble, there's plenty of room for added construction given that inventory levels ares still very, very low: ![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gxYUceRHs7s/Ue_fkoTM2MI/AAAAAAAAbMw/eFLU5Cr6Oh8/s320/NHSInvJune2013.jpg) I wonder if/when the higher interest rates will shock the system. They're still low, but there was quite a hike recently. At some point higher rates will knock housing down, but rates and house prices have a long way to rise before they have a big impact:
Paul Diggle of Capital Economics has a helpful note today explaining that rates can climb a bit more before they’ll really have an impact on housing affordability, and in any case it is home price gains that matter more: "The sell-off in the bond market has already had a marked detrimental impact on the benchmark 30-year mortgage rate. The MBA measure has increased from 3.59% to 4.46% over the past few weeks. … Nevertheless, in our central case, mortgage payments as a proportion of the median income will increase from 14% today to around 16% by the end of 2015. That’s well below the long-run average of 22%. A rise in mortgage rates to, say, 7% or a continuation of double-digit house price gains would still leave affordability better than the historical norm. It would take a combination of both before stretched mortgage affordability became a real threat to the housing recovery." ![[image loading]](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/06/CapEconHousingCharts-e1372281551990.png) Link
|
|
Am also not sure that rising interest will affect housing prices that much. Rising interest always comes with rising inflation (though i am not sure what comes first) , if you look at thoose charts then you can see that the interest was higher at the peak of the housing prices in 2008 then it is now, and the chart of mortgage payments as % of median income shows that there is alot of room! its at 12% now with a long run average of 22%, it could easily go back to 22% again wich would allow for a nearly doubling of interest rates with prices staying flat.
|
The whole point of due process is to punish people who have done something wrong. If Snowden really is guilty of all these things these politicians say he is, then due process will put him in prison forever. It's always incredibly suspicious when people want to circumvent due process. We have an existing framework and institution for punishing criminals. We don't need legislators making fiat pronouncements of guilt and punishment.
|
FORT MEADE, Md. — Pfc. Bradley Manning could learn as early as Tuesday afternoon whether he will be convicted of aiding the enemy – punishable by life in prison without parole – for sending more than 700,000 government documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, a military judge said Monday.
Col. Denise Lind said shortly before calling a noon lunch recess that she expects to announce her verdict at 1 p.m Tuesday in Manning's court-martial. Lind planned to return to the bench later Monday, the third day of her deliberations. It wasn't clear whether Lind has arrived at her findings or was merely giving guidance to court-martial participants, spectators and reporters.
The charge of aiding the enemy is the most serious of 21 counts Manning is contesting. He also is charged with eight federal Espionage Act violations, five federal theft counts, and two federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violations, each punishable by up to 10 years; and five military counts of violating a lawful general regulation, punishable by up to two years each.
Lind has tentatively scheduled a sentencing hearing beginning Wednesday.
Manning is being tried by a judge alone, which was his choice. The trial began June 3.
Source
|
On July 29 2013 22:37 Klondikebar wrote:The whole point of due process is to punish people who have done something wrong. If Snowden really is guilty of all these things these politicians say he is, then due process will put him in prison forever. It's always incredibly suspicious when people want to circumvent due process. We have an existing framework and institution for punishing criminals. We don't need legislators making fiat pronouncements of guilt and punishment.
But what if the legal framework established right now protects the NSA's right to continue spying on American citizens? What if, according to legal technical terms, he is guilty of all of those things (e.g. "treason"), despite the fact that most people's common understanding of the meaning of the word "treason" would find Snowden not guilty of it?
Legal systems in this case seem like they are usually well designed by government agencies to protect government agencies. What the NSA is doing is technically "legal".
"Due process" seems like it would actually fail at providing real justice in this circumstance. But hey, that's open for debate. Maybe you think the NSA SHOULD be spying on American citizens...
Due process isn't the be-all-end-all final word on what should and shouldn't be done. Sometimes laws can be fucked up, and stay fucked up for a long time.
|
On July 30 2013 04:59 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 22:37 Klondikebar wrote:The whole point of due process is to punish people who have done something wrong. If Snowden really is guilty of all these things these politicians say he is, then due process will put him in prison forever. It's always incredibly suspicious when people want to circumvent due process. We have an existing framework and institution for punishing criminals. We don't need legislators making fiat pronouncements of guilt and punishment. But what if the legal framework established right now protects the NSA's right to continue spying on American citizens? What if, according to legal technical terms, he is guilty of all of those things (e.g. "treason"), despite the fact that most people's common understanding of the meaning of the word "treason" would find Snowden not guilty of it? Legal systems in this case seem like they are usually well designed by government agencies to protect government agencies. What the NSA is doing is technically "legal". "Due process" seems like it would actually fail at providing real justice in this circumstance. But hey, that's open for debate. Maybe you think the NSA SHOULD be spying on American citizens... Due process isn't the be-all-end-all final word on what should and shouldn't be done. Sometimes laws can be fucked up, and stay fucked up for a long time.
If due process really would protect these agencies and make what the NSA is doing "legal," then why are legislators trying so damn hard to circumvent it?
I totally agree that legal systems can be flawed and that they tend to protect the people that established them in the first place. But if the system is stacked in your favor and you still can't get through it...why should we listen to a damn thing you say?
|
I found this article very enjoyable.
There was plentiful schadenfreude on the Internet this morning at the news that Rush Limbaugh (along with Sean Hannity) is apparently parting ways with the company that distributes his show on some 40 stations around the country. Limbaugh’s been a liberal bugbear for as long as he’s been a right-wing poster boy, and as such, the former are responding to news of his apparent downfall with glee. But really, this should be a source for celebration for everyone, because Limbaugh both personifies, and has at least partially responsible for, much of what is problematic about American politics in the 21st century.
Clearly, much of what liberals find objectionable about Limbaugh is perfectly valid — this is, after all, the man who gave us “Barack the Magic Negro,” who back in the 1970s told a black caller to his top 40 music show to “take that bone out of your nose and call me back,” and once claimed that “feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of American life.” He’s a shit-stirrer and a professional troll, and those who find such statements offensive will rejoice in his absence from the airwaves as much as devoted fans will lament it.
But then, it’s that exact polarization that speaks to a more fundamental reason why Limbaugh shouldn’t be missed: the type of political discourse in which he trades has been responsible for the sorts of deadlocks that have plagued Washington over the last few years. It’s easy to forget these days, but politics doesn’t have to be the sort of adversarial spectacle we’re used to seeing today, where the two sides behave like spoiled schoolchildren, where filibustering and other obstructiveness for the sake of political point-scoring take priority over effective governance. It’s been on the rise since the 1960s and 1970s, but really took hold during the 1980s — there’s some interesting statistical analysis here.
The world is undoubtedly a less straightforward place than it was in the years when polarization was at its lowest. Discontent tends to breed in adversity. But then, it’s how we deal with that discontent that’s important, and people like Limbaugh tap into and exploit it in the most populist and destructive of ways. In Australia, we call it dog-whistle politics, the sort of subtly nasty electioneering of which former PM John Howard was a master (and which his chief attack dog, Lynton Crosby, is now peddling for the Tories in the UK). It’s something of a cliché to say that electorates get the politicians they deserve, but equally, politicians get the electorates they deserve — the more they trade in institutionalized polarization, the more they perpetuate the problem.
No one’s arguing that Limbaugh and his ilk are the cause of this; they’re more a sort of pustule on the ass of American politics, a symptom of a more fundamental disease. But equally, the presence of Limbaugh’s divisive politics on primetime radio helps to legitimize the sort of negativity in which they’re rooted. Cheap politicking is a sort of coprophagic feedback loop, where newspapers and talk-show hosts feed the agenda of politicians, who feed it back to whichever media mouthpieces fit their particular agendas. In the end, it helps no one — we all end up eating shit, regardless of whether we’re Republican, Democrat or Monster Raving Loony Party.
Why Everyone — Liberal and Conservative — Should Root for the End of Rush Limbaugh
|
As someone who is in the middle of buying and selling a house right now... the uptick in rates is a big freaking deal.
I'm refreshing the 10 year rates constantly during the day. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^TNX
And I've got a 815-817 credit rating. Whatever the top 98% is,
And I'm putting about 40% down.
My mortgage would be $100-$120 cheaper if I was using rates from two months ago.
|
On July 30 2013 05:09 farvacola wrote:I found this article very enjoyable. + Show Spoiler +There was plentiful schadenfreude on the Internet this morning at the news that Rush Limbaugh (along with Sean Hannity) is apparently parting ways with the company that distributes his show on some 40 stations around the country. Limbaugh’s been a liberal bugbear for as long as he’s been a right-wing poster boy, and as such, the former are responding to news of his apparent downfall with glee. But really, this should be a source for celebration for everyone, because Limbaugh both personifies, and has at least partially responsible for, much of what is problematic about American politics in the 21st century.
Clearly, much of what liberals find objectionable about Limbaugh is perfectly valid — this is, after all, the man who gave us “Barack the Magic Negro,” who back in the 1970s told a black caller to his top 40 music show to “take that bone out of your nose and call me back,” and once claimed that “feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of American life.” He’s a shit-stirrer and a professional troll, and those who find such statements offensive will rejoice in his absence from the airwaves as much as devoted fans will lament it.
But then, it’s that exact polarization that speaks to a more fundamental reason why Limbaugh shouldn’t be missed: the type of political discourse in which he trades has been responsible for the sorts of deadlocks that have plagued Washington over the last few years. It’s easy to forget these days, but politics doesn’t have to be the sort of adversarial spectacle we’re used to seeing today, where the two sides behave like spoiled schoolchildren, where filibustering and other obstructiveness for the sake of political point-scoring take priority over effective governance. It’s been on the rise since the 1960s and 1970s, but really took hold during the 1980s — there’s some interesting statistical analysis here.
The world is undoubtedly a less straightforward place than it was in the years when polarization was at its lowest. Discontent tends to breed in adversity. But then, it’s how we deal with that discontent that’s important, and people like Limbaugh tap into and exploit it in the most populist and destructive of ways. In Australia, we call it dog-whistle politics, the sort of subtly nasty electioneering of which former PM John Howard was a master (and which his chief attack dog, Lynton Crosby, is now peddling for the Tories in the UK). It’s something of a cliché to say that electorates get the politicians they deserve, but equally, politicians get the electorates they deserve — the more they trade in institutionalized polarization, the more they perpetuate the problem.
No one’s arguing that Limbaugh and his ilk are the cause of this; they’re more a sort of pustule on the ass of American politics, a symptom of a more fundamental disease. But equally, the presence of Limbaugh’s divisive politics on primetime radio helps to legitimize the sort of negativity in which they’re rooted. Cheap politicking is a sort of coprophagic feedback loop, where newspapers and talk-show hosts feed the agenda of politicians, who feed it back to whichever media mouthpieces fit their particular agendas. In the end, it helps no one — we all end up eating shit, regardless of whether we’re Republican, Democrat or Monster Raving Loony Party. Why Everyone — Liberal and Conservative — Should Root for the End of Rush Limbaugh
Limbaugh will still be making $20+ million a year - it's getting close to thirty now I think - with 20 million people listening to him every day ten years from now. People just need to get over it. The man is an entertainer and he peaked during the Clinton years.
I would happily take out Rush Limbaugh if I can get MSNBC annihilated in return. If you think Rush Limbaugh is a zit on the ass of America, MSNBC is a boil right beside America's junk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/us/detroit-looks-to-health-law-to-ease-costs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&
Now Barack Obama did say if you like your insurance you can keep it and he should be held accountable for saying it because it has turned out to be not true. Millions of people will have to change their insurance whether they want to or not. But I think when you have all these new front-end costs dumped on you and your entire scheme depends on millions of new sign-ups bringing billions of new dollars into your system, that seems a rather risky situation.
|
On July 30 2013 05:09 farvacola wrote:I found this article very enjoyable. Show nested quote +There was plentiful schadenfreude on the Internet this morning at the news that Rush Limbaugh (along with Sean Hannity) is apparently parting ways with the company that distributes his show on some 40 stations around the country. Limbaugh’s been a liberal bugbear for as long as he’s been a right-wing poster boy, and as such, the former are responding to news of his apparent downfall with glee. But really, this should be a source for celebration for everyone, because Limbaugh both personifies, and has at least partially responsible for, much of what is problematic about American politics in the 21st century.
Clearly, much of what liberals find objectionable about Limbaugh is perfectly valid — this is, after all, the man who gave us “Barack the Magic Negro,” who back in the 1970s told a black caller to his top 40 music show to “take that bone out of your nose and call me back,” and once claimed that “feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of American life.” He’s a shit-stirrer and a professional troll, and those who find such statements offensive will rejoice in his absence from the airwaves as much as devoted fans will lament it.
But then, it’s that exact polarization that speaks to a more fundamental reason why Limbaugh shouldn’t be missed: the type of political discourse in which he trades has been responsible for the sorts of deadlocks that have plagued Washington over the last few years. It’s easy to forget these days, but politics doesn’t have to be the sort of adversarial spectacle we’re used to seeing today, where the two sides behave like spoiled schoolchildren, where filibustering and other obstructiveness for the sake of political point-scoring take priority over effective governance. It’s been on the rise since the 1960s and 1970s, but really took hold during the 1980s — there’s some interesting statistical analysis here.
The world is undoubtedly a less straightforward place than it was in the years when polarization was at its lowest. Discontent tends to breed in adversity. But then, it’s how we deal with that discontent that’s important, and people like Limbaugh tap into and exploit it in the most populist and destructive of ways. In Australia, we call it dog-whistle politics, the sort of subtly nasty electioneering of which former PM John Howard was a master (and which his chief attack dog, Lynton Crosby, is now peddling for the Tories in the UK). It’s something of a cliché to say that electorates get the politicians they deserve, but equally, politicians get the electorates they deserve — the more they trade in institutionalized polarization, the more they perpetuate the problem.
No one’s arguing that Limbaugh and his ilk are the cause of this; they’re more a sort of pustule on the ass of American politics, a symptom of a more fundamental disease. But equally, the presence of Limbaugh’s divisive politics on primetime radio helps to legitimize the sort of negativity in which they’re rooted. Cheap politicking is a sort of coprophagic feedback loop, where newspapers and talk-show hosts feed the agenda of politicians, who feed it back to whichever media mouthpieces fit their particular agendas. In the end, it helps no one — we all end up eating shit, regardless of whether we’re Republican, Democrat or Monster Raving Loony Party. Why Everyone — Liberal and Conservative — Should Root for the End of Rush Limbaugh My grandpa listens to Rush religiously I cringed everytime I came in for lunch during vacation to hear his voice. Needless to say Fox was on the tv most of the day too. It doesn't even matter if I had a similar viewpoint, the media is such crap it's really sad.
|
Clearly, much of what liberals find objectionable about Limbaugh is perfectly valid — this is, after all, the man who gave us “Barack the Magic Negro,” who back in the 1970s told a black caller to his top 40 music show to “take that bone out of your nose and call me back,” and once claimed that “feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of American life.”
Actually, Barack the Magic Negro came from David Ehrenstein. Rush just made fun of it. But that's the typical liberal response to Rush. Say something offensive and when he makes fun of it, accuse him of making it all up. In the 1970's he was an insult-jock, so it was his job to make fun of his callers, and that feminism quote is hilarious.
The world is undoubtedly a less straightforward place than it was in the years when polarization was at its lowest. Oh noes! People aren't lockstep in line with progressivist thinking! How terrible, that people have their own opinions and desires! We should just force everyone to think the same way, because that's what real freedom is.
No one’s arguing that Limbaugh and his ilk are the cause of this; they’re more a sort of pustule on the ass of American politics, a symptom of a more fundamental disease. Ah yes, that dreaded disease of opposing liberal policies. Such a horrible disease. It should absolutely be eliminated.
Rush ain't going anywhere. Liberals just can't get over the fact that liberal talk radio is boring and can't sell.
|
|
|
|