EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 805
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On January 21 2014 08:59 zlefin wrote: So a crazy conperson did a lot of lying, and their lying was exposed by someone. I fail to see a serious problem. The critique does not impress me; she was not mistreated or treated differently than any other famous person would be because of her status. The serious problem isn't that her lies about her qualifications were exposed, but that the writer disclosed deeply personal information to the public that wasn't relevant to the effectiveness of a golf club. It seems that in hindsight the editors and likely the writer deeply regret this mistake, and they should. | ||
KwarK
United States42784 Posts
On January 21 2014 08:14 xDaunt wrote: Alright, the thread has gotten boring, and I need some help understanding some LGBT issues and perspective. For those who are unaware, Grantland (www.grantland.com, a subsidiary of ESPN) published a story concerning a potentially revolutionary putter and its inventor. It turns out that the inventor was transgender, and this issue and the circumstances surrounding the lie that the inventor had woven around herself to hide her identity figure prominently in the story. I saw the article, but didn't read it until I saw Bill Simmons' (Grantland's editor) apology letter today. Grantland also posted a critique from a transgender writer at ESPN. I've read the critique a few times now, and I am not sure that I accept it or even fully understand it. My initial impressions still hold: "so what?" and "that's some dedicated reporting and good journalistic work." I'm sure that at least some of you are horrified by this, so please enlighten me. NOTE TO THE MODS: I posted this here instead of in a blog or separate thread because there are a lot of posters in this thread that I am interested in hearing from. Also, this is a rather prominent political issue in the US. If you want to move it, feel free. As a dirty unamerican librul I am able to confirm "so what?" | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 21 2014 09:20 Mercy13 wrote: The serious problem isn't that her lies about her qualifications were exposed, but that the writer disclosed deeply personal information to the public that wasn't relevant to the effectiveness of a golf club. It seems that in hindsight the editors and likely the writer deeply regret this mistake, and they should. So how exactly do you separate the flubbing of the qualification from the reason for the flubbing the qualifications? But that's besides the point. I just don't see any kind of transgender animus in the original article. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42784 Posts
On January 21 2014 09:20 Mercy13 wrote: The serious problem isn't that her lies about her qualifications were exposed, but that the writer disclosed deeply personal information to the public that wasn't relevant to the effectiveness of a golf club. It seems that in hindsight the editors and likely the writer deeply regret this mistake, and they should. Transgenders don't create false identities, they have real identities who happen to be the opposite gender to the sex they were born with the physical characteristics of. This woman created a false identity with a false employment and educational history which was then looked into on the basis of her defrauding investors. Her previous identity was then uncovered and described where relevant. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 21 2014 09:20 Mercy13 wrote: The serious problem isn't that her lies about her qualifications were exposed, but that the writer disclosed deeply personal information to the public that wasn't relevant to the effectiveness of a golf club. It seems that in hindsight the editors and likely the writer deeply regret this mistake, and they should. Yeah they didn't need to publish that aspect. It's awkward for the journalist though - they know the truth but have to redact aspects to protect the liar. They probably could have done better than they did, but it's easy to armchair QB these things after the fact. Edit: anyone else kinda interested in trying out the putter now? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Rockefeller Group, the company at the center of explosive allegations made by the mayor of Hoboken, N.J. over the weekend, has an extensive history of spreading campaign cash around New Jersey. Records show the company and its executives have doled out more than $70,000 to Jersey candidates and committees from both parties, including $2,500 to Gov. Chris Christie. Rockefeller Group became a focus of attention Saturday when Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer alleged that Christie aides had threatened to withhold hurricane relief money unless she approved a development project that involves the company. Rockefeller owns the land where the project was to be built and was also represented by a law firm founded by a close Christie ally. In an email to TPM Monday, Dwayne Doherty, a spokesman for Rockefeller Group, said the company allows its employees to make "personal donations." "The Rockefeller Group has a long-standing company policy that prohibits political contributions on behalf of the company. Employees may make political contributions personally," Doherty wrote. But even though Doherty initially said Rockefeller Group does not make campaign contributions as a company, campaign finance records show the company has been making political donations for more than two decades. From 1989 until 2011, records show Rockefeller Group has made 21 campaign contributions in New Jersey totaling $77,500. Source | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
It seems pretty clear that there's no civil or criminal liability. Reporters have a lot of first amendment leeway to report about people's lives, ex: tabloid reporters. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On January 21 2014 09:20 xDaunt wrote: Let me rephrase the question another way. I'm trying to understand why Grantland is in trouble and whether the ridicule that it is receiving for posting this article is even warranted. There seem to be two major sets of issues. The first are laid out well by Simmons: Suddenly, a line like “a chill ran down my spine” — which I had always interpreted as “Jesus, this story is getting stranger?” (Caleb’s intent, by the way) — now read like, “Ew, gross, she used to be a man?” Our lack of sophistication with transgender pronouns was so easily avoidable, it makes me want to punch through a wall. The lack of empathy in the last few paragraphs — our collective intent, and only because we believed that Caleb suddenly becoming introspective and emotional would have rung hollow — now made it appear as if we didn’t care about someone’s life. These issues were all noticeable while reading and I am surprised they made it to the final version. But it seems even the harshest critics of the article deem these to be comparatively minor issues, as Kahrl does early in her piece. The real issue concerns outing, in particular whether it was acceptable to out Dr. V while alive to her investor or to out her to the public posthumously. On the latter point, I feel the pull of each side. As Simmons points out, it makes perfect sense in this type of piece to go into Dr. V's faked credentials, but there's really no way of doing that without explaining the complications that her name change makes to verifying these things. I'm not sure there is any good way of writing up an article that accounts for her fraud without revealing this fact about her. At the same time, outing is not to be taken lightly, especially in light of our culture's current level of thinking on trans issues and the trans community's horrifying suicide rate. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 21 2014 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Well why would the federal government *have* to do it when state and local governments already set minimum wages higher than the federal level? Because some won't? Than let's have what we have now - a low-ball federal level with room for states and municipalities to mandate higher levels. Because the article that started it proposed a $10.10 federal minimum wage. You are like a sidebar in this thread posting obvious, off-topic trivialities and it makes you look aggressively ignorant. Go back and read the posts from whitedog up to one by zlefin that I responded to. You start off posting one oblivious question and now are completely ignoring the premise of the discussion which revolved around a sizable increase in the minimum wage. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On January 21 2014 09:29 KwarK wrote: Transgenders don't create false identities, they have real identities who happen to be the opposite gender to the sex they were born with the physical characteristics of. This woman created a false identity with a false employment and educational history which was then looked into on the basis of her defrauding investors. Her previous identity was then uncovered and described where relevant. About a third of the article seemed to be about her being a trans person... how is that relevant? Edit: To be clear, I'm not pulling out the pitchforks or anything. I think the editor and writers made a mistake, but it's a mistake that many people could make, myself included, at least before I took the time to learn about these issues. I think the editor did the right thing by acknowledging the mistake, and explaining where he thinks they went wrong. Death threats and the like are totally out of line. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 21 2014 09:54 IgnE wrote: Because the article that started it proposed a $10.10 federal minimum wage. You are like a sidebar in this thread posting obvious, off-topic trivialities and it makes you look aggressively ignorant. Go back and read the posts from whitedog up to one by zlefin that I responded to. You start off posting one oblivious question and now are completely ignoring the premise of the discussion which revolved around a sizable increase in the minimum wage. I already read whitedog's posts... and made a couple replies as well. Go back and read those  Edit: and what goes on at the state level matters too. MA is proposing to increase the min wage to ~$11 over the next few years... and this is a high cost of living state. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 21 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog.The reality (as I see it) is that some employers will react negatively to the higher wage - reduce hours, number of employees, benefits, increase prices, reduce other spending, etc. Others will shrug it off, which will be fantastic for everyone. How that nets out throughout the economy isn't really known, and so there's policy risk associated with raising the minimum wage. Until unemployment is lower I have to err on the side of caution here. That of course leaves the risk that we'll leave low income workers in the cold. But we haven't been ignoring them these last few years so that's an acceptable risk to me. That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone. The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread). | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On January 21 2014 10:13 xDaunt wrote: Here is one of the things that is on my mind: the LGBT community can't have it both ways. Either this stuff is going to be out in the open for public discussion (and, hopefully, public tolerance) or we are simply going to sweep it all under the rug. I think we are getting a bit afield from the point of this thread, so I'm going to TRY to make this my last post on the subject. Anyway, I would agree that having an open discussion about issues affecting the LGBT community is a good thing, and I have a lot of respect for trans people who are willing to discuss it openly. However, if a person doesn't want to discuss it openly, that should be his or her right. It was extremely insensitive of the writer and editors to take this right away from the subject of the piece against her wishes. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On January 21 2014 10:21 Danglars wrote: This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog. Add disincentives to job creation on top of that. Like Jonny said, there is great risk that side-benefits will not outweigh the immediate negative impacts. I read from various economists with doctorates in their field that go into great depth discussing the opposite: Current raises in minimum wage are not justifiable. Knowing the great disagreement amongst doctorates in the discussion proves that this is not just a novice understanding but a hotly debated topic (Note that you don't have to believe the 'banana market' is all there is to argue the macro negative effects are part of the net negative effect. That forcing the costs to rise above the market-clearing one will still reduce demand). The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread). I have adressed everything that Jonny said. It is nothing more than a simple offer and demand model : if you put a minimum wage higher than its equilibrium, the employment level will be lower than that of equilibrium because of a shrinking demand and an excess offer. As I said, in reality the labor market does not strictly behave this way. Jonny just blatantly state that "employers will react negatively" like employers' actions are not define by the context in which they act. You read things that please you. Economy has become a field full of bullshit since 1970 it is not hard to find someone to defend a point of view against a higher minimum wage no matter what the context or whatever. Do you know why I know your point is wrong ? Because it's everything equal. Reality doesn't work this way, it's always historical, what is true is always true in regards to the context in which assumptions are made. Our context is a context of unemployment, high output gap, rising productivity and stagnating wages. Neumark and Wascher is an article from 2006 : what do they know about current context ? Considering it was written before the crisis (and the data used most likely are even older, most likely 1990s...). If you see people such as Krugman backing up an increase in minimum wage, while Krugman himself actually wrote quite a lot of paper on the negative effect of minimum wage on employment, you might understands that you need to push your analysis further than a simple offer and demand model and actually think about reality. I questionned myself the idea that it would create jobs, I think it is a candid dream to believe that a higher minimum wage would create a virtuous circle considering the (political) situation we are in right now. But on the other side, saying that a higher minimum wage will push us far from equilibrium - like we're in any equilibrium to begin with ! - is really nonsensical to me, and historical data (like Neumark's work) will not make me change my point of view. You would need historical data on a comparable context. I've heard an economists giving a shocking argument : today's biggest employer in the US is Wal-Mart, with an average wage at 8 dollars something an hour. In today's value, the biggest employer in 1950 was general motors with an average wage at 37 dollars an hour. Just looking at those number, one can see there is something to think about. Even Neumark actually did a study on the effect of the arrival of Wal-Mart in a state, showing that it had almost no clear effect on employment, and a huge negative effect on wages. As I've stated before, the power Wal-Mart might have on wage, pushing them down as they wish far away from equilibrium, could be linked to a monopsone situation : Wal Mart has become so big that it can define its own wage, no matter the state of the offer of labor. The same case could be made for other kind of company, such as McDonalds for exemple. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Nine-time Olympic gold medalist Carl Lewis says Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie dropped a plan to appoint him the state's first physical fitness ambassador when he launched a political campaign against a Christie friend. Lewis said Monday the governor called to dissuade him from running as a Democrat for state Senate in 2011 against Republican Sen. Dawn Addiego (ah-dee-AY'-goh). Lewis says he was told the fitness program they'd been developing wouldn't materialize if he ran. Lewis says the governor felt the post "was a carrot he could pull away." Lewis withdrew from the Senate race after a court ruled he didn't meet a residency requirement. He now lives in Houston. Source | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
This might be the most perfect use of the idiom "when it rains it pours" that I have ever seen. | ||
| ||
