|
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. |
City of East Lansing bars a farmer from its farmer's market based on a facebook post about his beliefs on same-sex marriage.
The policy requires vendors to agree to and comply with the city’s “Human Relations Ordinance and its public policy against discrimination…while at the market and as a general business practice.” The ordinance makes it illegal for anyone to “make a statement which indicates that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation… is…unwelcome or unacceptable because of...sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression…,” among other designated classes. Yet it does not define “discriminate” or any of the key terms that would govern enforcement.
Based on the new policy, and in response to Country Mill Farms application for the 2017 farmer’s market, an official informed Steve by letter that he was not in compliance and that, therefore, the city was prohibiting him from participating. The notice included an attachment of Steve’s December Facebook post as evidence, despite the fact that the post is constitutionally protected free speech and Country Mill Farms has never turned away a customer based on sexual orientation.
(Source - http://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details/farmer-wants-to-sell-food-to-all-people-but-east-lansing-won-t-let-him)
This source is biased in favor of the farmer.
This action appears to be triply unconstitutional. It defies both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It's also applied retroactively, since the post happened before the rule change.
What's the other side of the story? There must be a reason why they thought this would be a good idea.
|
When it comes to pensions, there's definitely a trade-off between short term financial benefits and long-term benefits. Public school teachers, for example, make far less money than they could be making in a private sector business throughout their careers (30+ years probably) just so they can be (hopefully) guaranteed health benefits and insurance after retirement (15+ years probably). Teachers still pay into their pension/ retirement every year, just like a normal 401k, although many teachers (e.g., private school teachers) don't receive pensions or guaranteed retirement benefits (or tenure, for that matter). There have to be some financial incentives to becoming a teacher; you can't buy bread or gas with your "I Mold The Minds Of The Next Generation" debit card.
I wish that pensions weren't mismanaged by politicians, so that people would stop hating on public servants, as if it were the teacher's fault or the police officer's fault.
|
On September 12 2017 02:39 Buckyman wrote:City of East Lansing bars a farmer from its farmer's market based on a facebook post about his beliefs on same-sex marriage. Show nested quote +
The policy requires vendors to agree to and comply with the city’s “Human Relations Ordinance and its public policy against discrimination…while at the market and as a general business practice.” The ordinance makes it illegal for anyone to “make a statement which indicates that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation… is…unwelcome or unacceptable because of...sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression…,” among other designated classes. Yet it does not define “discriminate” or any of the key terms that would govern enforcement.
Based on the new policy, and in response to Country Mill Farms application for the 2017 farmer’s market, an official informed Steve by letter that he was not in compliance and that, therefore, the city was prohibiting him from participating. The notice included an attachment of Steve’s December Facebook post as evidence, despite the fact that the post is constitutionally protected free speech and Country Mill Farms has never turned away a customer based on sexual orientation.
(Source - http://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details/farmer-wants-to-sell-food-to-all-people-but-east-lansing-won-t-let-him)This source is biased in favor of the farmer. This action appears to be triply unconstitutional. It defies both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It's also applied retroactively, since the post happened before the rule change. What's the other side of the story? There must be a reason why they thought this would be a good idea.
dunno; could just be random idiot bureaucrat does random stupid thing. The country has some 320 million people; being able to find ONE instance of something stupid means very little. there's no shortage of stories really about some random bureaucrat doing something stupid.
Such a policy run by a private org would probably be ok; but if it's run by the town government, it does sound wrong indeed. maybe some stupid bureacrat just copied a policy which is permissible for a private company without accounting for the difference.
google says East lansing has a population of 50k. and the people in town government aren't always the best and the brightest (and some areas just aren't that good to begin with).
i'm getting a 404 error clicking on that link.
I can look at my own town and find some stupid ordinances/laws; when you have outrage machines that comb the entire country for them, it's easy to find stuff.
|
On September 12 2017 02:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
When it comes to pensions, there's definitely a trade-off between short term financial benefits and long-term benefits. Public school teachers, for example, make far less money than they could be making in a private sector business throughout their careers (30+ years probably) just so they can be (hopefully) guaranteed health benefits and insurance after retirement (15+ years probably). Teachers still pay into their pension/ retirement every year, just like a normal 401k, although many teachers (e.g., private school teachers) don't receive pensions or guaranteed retirement benefits (or tenure, for that matter). There have to be some financial incentives to becoming a teacher; you can't buy bread or gas with your "I Mold The Minds Of The Next Generation" debit card.
I wish that pensions weren't mismanaged by politicians, so that people would stop hating on public servants, as if it were the teacher's fault or the police officer's fault.
Well, I don't know about US perspective, but it's generally well known that most smart people are in the private sector. Partly because this is where money is. That said, I'm not saying public servants are dumb, it's just that job requirements aren't always that high, and pay isn't always high... Obviously, doctors and teachers are an exception to that rule.
|
On September 12 2017 02:36 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 02:28 Danglars wrote:On September 12 2017 01:55 Nyxisto wrote:On September 12 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On September 12 2017 00:58 Nyxisto wrote:
policing by consent and all of this community stuff is only possible if the population is disarmed, because there'll never be mutual trust between police and citizens if the former don't hold the monopoly on force. So in a sense the statement that "police is built through brutal force" is correct, it just happens to be that this should have happened in the abstract.
That's why it's possible for the police in the UK to never shoot a bullet or approach anybody without automatically threatening them. I'd prefer the population to be armed rather than only the criminals in the population to be armed. It's simply rubbish to assume citizens that exercise their 2nd amendment rights erode mutual trust. It's no excuse for police training for SWAT style home breaches or the Castile cop. Most people aren't criminals and most interactions involving the police probably also do not involve dangerous criminals. But if you're in a place where everybody could be armed and has the means to kill you, your first thought as a police officer will not be to "serve and protect" and engage people like citizens, they'll engage them like they're dangerous. The fact that you immediately draw the attention to "armed criminals" shows how deep this goes instinctively. The permanent threat thinking is so baked in that everything involving police matters automatically involves 'criminals' and danger and the need to protect yourself. And of course a widespread presence of guns indicates a lack of trust. That's why guns exist, they're tools to kill and nothing else. Carrying them around at all times doesn't exactly scream trust. And the trust issue extends into the other direction as well. To be wiling to give up the right to use force citizens need to be able to trust the government with it. Hardly. You presume both that police must be dolts and that citizens do not know how the fuck to lawfully carry a gun. Well, with your ridiculous presuppositions, I can see how you'd arrive at your conclusion. Secondly, nope for why I "immediately draw the attention to." You said "if the population is disarmed." You cannot actually mean that, because criminals that already don't legally own a gun will also not be disarmed when you disarm the law-abiding. Thirdly, the "widespread presence of guns" indicates a responsible attitude towards self defense and the deterrence of crime. The "lack of trust" bit is nothing more than a propaganda line. Talk to some actual gun owners. Don't let the internet or politically opposed groups rule your understanding of the issue. Police aren't somehow doomed to antagonistic relationships simply because of the second amendment. They aren't unilaterally aligned either though. I some of the other owners i know are definitely weary of the possibility of other folks carrying, heck its a big factor in why some of us started carrying in the first place. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they aren't, and it is a difficult assumption to make that everyone with a lawful gun will continue to be a law abiding citizen when pushed to the edge by some situation or another. My guess is also that that mentality will vary regionally. and isn't just part of propaganda from the left.
I have only noticed the stated attitudes by Nyxisto by people who merely suppose what is true about others. Also, I didn't see him make points involving some gun owners carrying only because they're afraid of other law abiding citizens.
|
On September 12 2017 02:39 Buckyman wrote:City of East Lansing bars a farmer from its farmer's market based on a facebook post about his beliefs on same-sex marriage. Show nested quote +
The policy requires vendors to agree to and comply with the city’s “Human Relations Ordinance and its public policy against discrimination…while at the market and as a general business practice.” The ordinance makes it illegal for anyone to “make a statement which indicates that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation… is…unwelcome or unacceptable because of...sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression…,” among other designated classes. Yet it does not define “discriminate” or any of the key terms that would govern enforcement.
Based on the new policy, and in response to Country Mill Farms application for the 2017 farmer’s market, an official informed Steve by letter that he was not in compliance and that, therefore, the city was prohibiting him from participating. The notice included an attachment of Steve’s December Facebook post as evidence, despite the fact that the post is constitutionally protected free speech and Country Mill Farms has never turned away a customer based on sexual orientation.
(Source - http://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details/farmer-wants-to-sell-food-to-all-people-but-east-lansing-won-t-let-him)This source is biased in favor of the farmer. This action appears to be triply unconstitutional. It defies both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It's also applied retroactively, since the post happened before the rule change. What's the other side of the story? There must be a reason why they thought this would be a good idea.
First, you don't even have the issue framed correctly. The farmer outright denied use of his farm for homosexual weddings in the format of a business response to a potential customer inquiry through Facebook and then reaffirmed that commitment to not hosting same sex weddings later on. In other words, Country Mill and its owners have a stated policy whereby they will not entertain same-sex wedding inquiries and they made this repeatedly clear through public means typical to business communication. Further, the farm and farmer are located in Charlotte, not East Lansing, so there isn't even a residency interest at stake relative to East Lansing local government functions.
So, you have a local ordinance that prohibits the denial of services due to sexual orientation, a locality that puts on a farmer's market in ostensible compliance with that ordinance, and an outsider farmer with a repeated public denial of services to homosexuals to his name. The idea that the terms of the ordinance's prohibition are too vague is standard 1st amendment scattershot.
Look, even the Washington Times gets it more right lol
The situation started in August, when someone inquired on Country Mill’s Facebook page whether they hosted gay weddings at the farm. Mr. Tennes said no, explaining that his Catholic family believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, he told Fox News’ Todd Starnes.
City officials found out about the post and reportedly urged Mr. Tennes to comply with its ordinance. After taking a break from hosting weddings at the farm, Mr. Tennes decided to refuse the order and announced on Facebook that the farm would continue to block same-sex weddings, the State Journal reported. Mr. Tennes was later informed that his farm would not be welcome back for the 2017 season.
“It was brought to our attention that The Country Mill’s general business practices do not comply with East Lansing’s Civil Rights ordinances and public policy against discrimination as set forth in Chapter 22 of the City Code and outlined in the 2017 Market Vendor Guidelines, as such, The Country Mill’s presence as a vendor is prohibited by the City’s Farmer’s Market Vendor Guidelines,” the city said in a letter to the family, obtained by Fox News.
The city manager said East Lansing recently updated its civil rights ordinance to include discrimination at “all business practices” for the city’s farmers market.
“When [Country Mill] applied, we decided to exclude them from the market based on that,” Mr. Lahanas told the State Journal.
East Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows said the farm’s exclusion is based on the Tennes family’s “business decision” to exclude same-sex weddings.
“This is about them operating a business that discriminates against LGBT individuals and that’s a whole different issue,” Mr. Meadows said.
Link
Personally, I think EL got sloppy with this but are in the right otherwise.
|
On September 12 2017 01:40 Plansix wrote:
A four year degree with continued training is sufficient. I believe being a police officer should be just as burdensome as being a teacher.
Police officers are given the right to take lives and generally do a ton of stuff that is extremely privileged. I know teachers do some sensitive stuff as well, but to me, being given the right to take a life is deserving of some truly insane vetting.
In my eyes, police officers should also be paid significantly more. So increase their pay to like 110K/year, require a law degree, and suddenly you've got something for all these shitty law students who aren't good enough for a good firm to do.
|
On September 12 2017 02:44 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 02:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
When it comes to pensions, there's definitely a trade-off between short term financial benefits and long-term benefits. Public school teachers, for example, make far less money than they could be making in a private sector business throughout their careers (30+ years probably) just so they can be (hopefully) guaranteed health benefits and insurance after retirement (15+ years probably). Teachers still pay into their pension/ retirement every year, just like a normal 401k, although many teachers (e.g., private school teachers) don't receive pensions or guaranteed retirement benefits (or tenure, for that matter). There have to be some financial incentives to becoming a teacher; you can't buy bread or gas with your "I Mold The Minds Of The Next Generation" debit card.
I wish that pensions weren't mismanaged by politicians, so that people would stop hating on public servants, as if it were the teacher's fault or the police officer's fault. Well, I don't know about US perspective, but it's generally well known that most smart people are in the private sector. Partly because this is where money is. That said, I'm not saying public servants are dumb, it's just that job requirements aren't always that high, and pay isn't always high... Obviously, doctors and teachers are an exception to that rule.
public is nice because in most positions you don't work more than 40 hours, and it's stable. plenty of "smart" people end up choosing to go into the public sector for lifestyle reasons. you won't get insanely rich (though if you left after a decade and became a lobbyist or consultant you could!), but there is definitely upside.
my dad works for the fed (not like janet yellen, but the government in general). he's been at the same place for more than a decade. he's a very smart guy and works fairly hard, and he's been steadily promoted. his hours are quite regular and he gets great benefits - good vacation, TSP for retirement, etc. it's very linear and stable - he does his job well, his comp is solid and he has work life balance.
i on the other hand work something like 70 hours a week on average. it's my belief that if you really want to push the career trajectory in the private sector, you kind of have to bust your balls. in a few years i'll make probably as much or more than my dad, but he can still rub it in my face that he gets to walk home and eat lunch and gets off before 6 each day. it's just a trade off.
|
On September 12 2017 02:39 Buckyman wrote:City of East Lansing bars a farmer from its farmer's market based on a facebook post about his beliefs on same-sex marriage. Show nested quote +
The policy requires vendors to agree to and comply with the city’s “Human Relations Ordinance and its public policy against discrimination…while at the market and as a general business practice.” The ordinance makes it illegal for anyone to “make a statement which indicates that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation… is…unwelcome or unacceptable because of...sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression…,” among other designated classes. Yet it does not define “discriminate” or any of the key terms that would govern enforcement.
Based on the new policy, and in response to Country Mill Farms application for the 2017 farmer’s market, an official informed Steve by letter that he was not in compliance and that, therefore, the city was prohibiting him from participating. The notice included an attachment of Steve’s December Facebook post as evidence, despite the fact that the post is constitutionally protected free speech and Country Mill Farms has never turned away a customer based on sexual orientation.
(Source - http://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details/farmer-wants-to-sell-food-to-all-people-but-east-lansing-won-t-let-him)This source is biased in favor of the farmer. This action appears to be triply unconstitutional. It defies both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It's also applied retroactively, since the post happened before the rule change. What's the other side of the story? There must be a reason why they thought this would be a good idea.
Damage to the other farmers at the market. Even though the language is protected under free speech, the other farmers at the market would be seen as supporting that speech through a joint business venture. In general, discrimination of any form is not good for business. Freedom of religion isn’t a defense for lost revenue.
But you are right that the city enforcing these rules complicates the matters a bit. It isn’t private industry making decisions to protect their interests, but a government enforcing a policy.
Edit: ok, someone already addressed this and it looks like a bunch of key facts were omitted.
|
On September 12 2017 02:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 02:44 sc-darkness wrote:On September 12 2017 02:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
When it comes to pensions, there's definitely a trade-off between short term financial benefits and long-term benefits. Public school teachers, for example, make far less money than they could be making in a private sector business throughout their careers (30+ years probably) just so they can be (hopefully) guaranteed health benefits and insurance after retirement (15+ years probably). Teachers still pay into their pension/ retirement every year, just like a normal 401k, although many teachers (e.g., private school teachers) don't receive pensions or guaranteed retirement benefits (or tenure, for that matter). There have to be some financial incentives to becoming a teacher; you can't buy bread or gas with your "I Mold The Minds Of The Next Generation" debit card.
I wish that pensions weren't mismanaged by politicians, so that people would stop hating on public servants, as if it were the teacher's fault or the police officer's fault. Well, I don't know about US perspective, but it's generally well known that most smart people are in the private sector. Partly because this is where money is. That said, I'm not saying public servants are dumb, it's just that job requirements aren't always that high, and pay isn't always high... Obviously, doctors and teachers are an exception to that rule. public is nice because in most positions you don't work more than 40 hours, and it's stable. plenty of "smart" people end up choosing to go into the public sector for lifestyle reasons. you won't get insanely rich (though if you left after a decade and became a lobbyist or consultant you could!), but there is definitely upside. my dad works for the fed (not like janet yellen, but the government in general). he's been at the same place for more than a decade. he's a very smart guy and works fairly hard, and he's been steadily promoted. his hours are quite regular and he gets great benefits - good vacation, TSP for retirement, etc. it's very linear and stable - he does his job well, his comp is solid and he has work life balance. i on the other hand work something like 70 hours a week on average. it's my belief that if you really want to push the career trajectory in the public sector, you kind of have to bust your balls. in a few years i'll make probably as much or more than my dad, but he can still rub it in my face that he gets to walk home and eat lunch and gets off before 6 each day. it's just a trade off.
I've heard about long work hours in the US, but I think it's insane. There is effective work and work for the sake of work (60-70 hours). It's like if you practise 15 hours of SC every day! You would be burnt out. 
|
On September 12 2017 03:02 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 02:57 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 12 2017 02:44 sc-darkness wrote:On September 12 2017 02:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
When it comes to pensions, there's definitely a trade-off between short term financial benefits and long-term benefits. Public school teachers, for example, make far less money than they could be making in a private sector business throughout their careers (30+ years probably) just so they can be (hopefully) guaranteed health benefits and insurance after retirement (15+ years probably). Teachers still pay into their pension/ retirement every year, just like a normal 401k, although many teachers (e.g., private school teachers) don't receive pensions or guaranteed retirement benefits (or tenure, for that matter). There have to be some financial incentives to becoming a teacher; you can't buy bread or gas with your "I Mold The Minds Of The Next Generation" debit card.
I wish that pensions weren't mismanaged by politicians, so that people would stop hating on public servants, as if it were the teacher's fault or the police officer's fault. Well, I don't know about US perspective, but it's generally well known that most smart people are in the private sector. Partly because this is where money is. That said, I'm not saying public servants are dumb, it's just that job requirements aren't always that high, and pay isn't always high... Obviously, doctors and teachers are an exception to that rule. public is nice because in most positions you don't work more than 40 hours, and it's stable. plenty of "smart" people end up choosing to go into the public sector for lifestyle reasons. you won't get insanely rich (though if you left after a decade and became a lobbyist or consultant you could!), but there is definitely upside. my dad works for the fed (not like janet yellen, but the government in general). he's been at the same place for more than a decade. he's a very smart guy and works fairly hard, and he's been steadily promoted. his hours are quite regular and he gets great benefits - good vacation, TSP for retirement, etc. it's very linear and stable - he does his job well, his comp is solid and he has work life balance. i on the other hand work something like 70 hours a week on average. it's my belief that if you really want to push the career trajectory in the public sector, you kind of have to bust your balls. in a few years i'll make probably as much or more than my dad, but he can still rub it in my face that he gets to walk home and eat lunch and gets off before 6 each day. it's just a trade off. I've heard about long work hours in the US, but I think it's insane. There is effective work and work for the sake of work (60-70 hours). It's like if you practise 15 hours of SC every day! You would be burnt out.
I work on average 50-60 depending on how swamped we are. Public sector jobs also pull some very smart people who enjoy the work and stability. Having worked in both, there isn’t a lot of difference between the two. The public sector being filled with lazy underachievers is a bit of a myth.
|
United States43898 Posts
On September 12 2017 02:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
When it comes to pensions, there's definitely a trade-off between short term financial benefits and long-term benefits. Public school teachers, for example, make far less money than they could be making in a private sector business throughout their careers (30+ years probably) just so they can be (hopefully) guaranteed health benefits and insurance after retirement (15+ years probably). Teachers still pay into their pension/ retirement every year, just like a normal 401k, although many teachers (e.g., private school teachers) don't receive pensions or guaranteed retirement benefits (or tenure, for that matter). There have to be some financial incentives to becoming a teacher; you can't buy bread or gas with your "I Mold The Minds Of The Next Generation" debit card.
I wish that pensions weren't mismanaged by politicians, so that people would stop hating on public servants, as if it were the teacher's fault or the police officer's fault.
That's not a wholly accurate representation of how it works. They don't get a bad salary and a good pension. They get a medium salary, from which mandatory pension contributions are made. The pension is simply a product of making a lifetime of contributions into the plan, it's nothing special. If anything, for most teachers it'll actually be worse than the offer of a comparable 401k.
Public employees don't really get great benefits that aren't available to the general populace, and certainly not enough to make up for their low general compensation. It's closer to imagine them as moderate income individuals who have 24% of every paycheck put in a 401k against their will.
|
On September 12 2017 02:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 01:55 Nyxisto wrote:On September 12 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On September 12 2017 00:58 Nyxisto wrote:
policing by consent and all of this community stuff is only possible if the population is disarmed, because there'll never be mutual trust between police and citizens if the former don't hold the monopoly on force. So in a sense the statement that "police is built through brutal force" is correct, it just happens to be that this should have happened in the abstract.
That's why it's possible for the police in the UK to never shoot a bullet or approach anybody without automatically threatening them. I'd prefer the population to be armed rather than only the criminals in the population to be armed. It's simply rubbish to assume citizens that exercise their 2nd amendment rights erode mutual trust. It's no excuse for police training for SWAT style home breaches or the Castile cop. Most people aren't criminals and most interactions involving the police probably also do not involve dangerous criminals. But if you're in a place where everybody could be armed and has the means to kill you, your first thought as a police officer will not be to "serve and protect" and engage people like citizens, they'll engage them like they're dangerous. The fact that you immediately draw the attention to "armed criminals" shows how deep this goes instinctively. The permanent threat thinking is so baked in that everything involving police matters automatically involves 'criminals' and danger and the need to protect yourself. And of course a widespread presence of guns indicates a lack of trust. That's why guns exist, they're tools to kill and nothing else. Carrying them around at all times doesn't exactly scream trust. And the trust issue extends into the other direction as well. To be wiling to give up the right to use force citizens need to be able to trust the government with it. Hardly. You presume both that police must be dolts and that citizens do not know how the fuck to lawfully carry a gun. Well, with your ridiculous presuppositions, I can see how you'd arrive at your conclusion. Secondly, nope for why I "immediately draw the attention to." You said "if the population is disarmed." You cannot actually mean that, because criminals that already don't legally own a gun will also not be disarmed when you disarm the law-abiding. Thirdly, the "widespread presence of guns" indicates a responsible attitude towards self defense and the deterrence of crime. The "lack of trust" bit is nothing more than a propaganda line. Talk to some actual gun owners. Don't let the internet or politically opposed groups rule your understanding of the issue. Police aren't somehow doomed to antagonistic relationships simply because of the second amendment.
god created man and sam colt made them equal
|
www.nytimes.com
“Gradually, I lost interest or exhausted my interest,” he said. “So for the last 10 or 15 years, I’ve just been focused on the court.”
He called his approach to judging pragmatic. His critics called it lawless.
“I pay very little attention to legal rules, statutes, constitutional provisions,” Judge Posner said. “A case is just a dispute. The first thing you do is ask yourself — forget about the law — what is a sensible resolution of this dispute?”
...
The next thing, he said, was to see if a recent Supreme Court precedent or some other legal obstacle stood in the way of ruling in favor of that sensible resolution. “And the answer is that’s actually rarely the case,” he said. “When you have a Supreme Court case or something similar, they’re often extremely easy to get around.”
|
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/new-analysis-suggests-fox-news-is-working-shifting-votes-to-r-column/
Pretty neat article, based on this study:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160812
For most of the period analyzed, CNN was indistinguishable from neutral (it saw a slight tilt toward Democrats during the 2010 midterm elections). MSNBC was also quite neutral up until midway through the last decade, at which point its management made a strategic lurch toward the Democrats. Since this happened late in the study and MSNBC's viewership is relatively small, the authors were never able to find an effect of viewing this channel that was statistically distinguishable from zero.
And then there's Fox. Fox started out with a slight tendency to talk more about what Republicans were saying, but that tendency grew dramatically more pronounced around Obama's election. (The dramatic shift with Obama's election is probably worth a separate study on its own.) It remained more polarized than MSNBC right up until the end of the study period in 2012, when MSNBC finally caught up with it. In fact, the authors' analysis suggests that Fox is teetering on the edge of being so relentlessly Republican that it risks losing business by driving any liberal viewers away.
Media does have a good bit of power in swaying opinions of the electorate.
|
Are people from southern US finally going to believe that global warming is real? Or do they want hotter waters for even more brutal hurricanes?
|
On September 12 2017 04:03 sc-darkness wrote:Are people from southern US finally going to believe that global warming is real? Or do they want hotter waters for even more brutal hurricanes?
please. don't forget that one instance of extreme weather doesnt indicate a pattern, and certainly doesn't legitimize the climate change myth.
(/s)
oh, also, not all southerners are science deniers. we got some good folks down there man. always better to call out the science deniers instead of talking shit against the south. they have all the guns!
|
On September 12 2017 02:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 01:40 Plansix wrote:
A four year degree with continued training is sufficient. I believe being a police officer should be just as burdensome as being a teacher. Police officers are given the right to take lives and generally do a ton of stuff that is extremely privileged. I know teachers do some sensitive stuff as well, but to me, being given the right to take a life is deserving of some truly insane vetting. In my eyes, police officers should also be paid significantly more. So increase their pay to like 110K/year, require a law degree, and suddenly you've got something for all these shitty law students who aren't good enough for a good firm to do.
You'd have to pay them a lot more than that. That's why cops are required to not have too high of an intelligence.
It was once phrased as "There are only two types of cops, stupid or dirty".
It's to say that only an idiot wouldn't be able to exploit the power of being police for their own benefit and only an even bigger idiot would choose not to.
Smart, law versed cops just means the 1 out of 100 or 1000 or whatever the ratio is that actually get convicted for the crimes they commit would go down while the amount of crime cops committed would go up or stay the same.
Like think about how egregiously stupid some of the crimes/coverups have been and they still got away with their crimes, if they weren't morons it would just be that much easier to get away with it.
|
On September 12 2017 02:53 farvacola wrote:First, you don't even have the issue framed correctly. The farmer outright denied use of his farm for homosexual weddings in the format of a business response to a potential customer inquiry through Facebook and then reaffirmed that commitment to not hosting same sex weddings later on. In other words, Country Mill and its owners have a stated policy whereby they will not entertain same-sex wedding inquiries and they made this repeatedly clear through public means typical to business communication. Further, the farm and farmer are located in Charlotte, not East Lansing, so there isn't even a residency interest at stake relative to East Lansing local government functions. So, you have a local ordinance that prohibits the denial of services due to sexual orientation, a locality that puts on a farmer's market in ostensible compliance with that ordinance, and an outsider farmer with a repeated public denial of services to homosexuals to his name. The idea that the terms of the ordinance's prohibition are too vague is standard 1st amendment scattershot. Look, even the Washington Times gets it more right lol Show nested quote +The situation started in August, when someone inquired on Country Mill’s Facebook page whether they hosted gay weddings at the farm. Mr. Tennes said no, explaining that his Catholic family believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, he told Fox News’ Todd Starnes.
City officials found out about the post and reportedly urged Mr. Tennes to comply with its ordinance. After taking a break from hosting weddings at the farm, Mr. Tennes decided to refuse the order and announced on Facebook that the farm would continue to block same-sex weddings, the State Journal reported. Mr. Tennes was later informed that his farm would not be welcome back for the 2017 season.
“It was brought to our attention that The Country Mill’s general business practices do not comply with East Lansing’s Civil Rights ordinances and public policy against discrimination as set forth in Chapter 22 of the City Code and outlined in the 2017 Market Vendor Guidelines, as such, The Country Mill’s presence as a vendor is prohibited by the City’s Farmer’s Market Vendor Guidelines,” the city said in a letter to the family, obtained by Fox News.
The city manager said East Lansing recently updated its civil rights ordinance to include discrimination at “all business practices” for the city’s farmers market.
“When [Country Mill] applied, we decided to exclude them from the market based on that,” Mr. Lahanas told the State Journal.
East Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows said the farm’s exclusion is based on the Tennes family’s “business decision” to exclude same-sex weddings.
“This is about them operating a business that discriminates against LGBT individuals and that’s a whole different issue,” Mr. Meadows said. LinkPersonally, I think EL got sloppy with this but are in the right otherwise.
This still doesn't address the retroactivity issue at all. The 2016 version of the rules didn't discriminate based on business that happened outside the city jurisdiction. All the speech and alleged conduct occurred before the 2017 Market Vendor Guidelines were updated.
It also doesn't address the religion angle. The ordinance as-applied forbids sincerely holding a specific religious belief, though it allows insincerely holding the belief while acting to the contrary. This is ironic, because the same ordinance also forbids the Farmer's Market to discriminate by religion.
|
On September 12 2017 04:14 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 02:53 farvacola wrote:First, you don't even have the issue framed correctly. The farmer outright denied use of his farm for homosexual weddings in the format of a business response to a potential customer inquiry through Facebook and then reaffirmed that commitment to not hosting same sex weddings later on. In other words, Country Mill and its owners have a stated policy whereby they will not entertain same-sex wedding inquiries and they made this repeatedly clear through public means typical to business communication. Further, the farm and farmer are located in Charlotte, not East Lansing, so there isn't even a residency interest at stake relative to East Lansing local government functions. So, you have a local ordinance that prohibits the denial of services due to sexual orientation, a locality that puts on a farmer's market in ostensible compliance with that ordinance, and an outsider farmer with a repeated public denial of services to homosexuals to his name. The idea that the terms of the ordinance's prohibition are too vague is standard 1st amendment scattershot. Look, even the Washington Times gets it more right lol The situation started in August, when someone inquired on Country Mill’s Facebook page whether they hosted gay weddings at the farm. Mr. Tennes said no, explaining that his Catholic family believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, he told Fox News’ Todd Starnes.
City officials found out about the post and reportedly urged Mr. Tennes to comply with its ordinance. After taking a break from hosting weddings at the farm, Mr. Tennes decided to refuse the order and announced on Facebook that the farm would continue to block same-sex weddings, the State Journal reported. Mr. Tennes was later informed that his farm would not be welcome back for the 2017 season.
“It was brought to our attention that The Country Mill’s general business practices do not comply with East Lansing’s Civil Rights ordinances and public policy against discrimination as set forth in Chapter 22 of the City Code and outlined in the 2017 Market Vendor Guidelines, as such, The Country Mill’s presence as a vendor is prohibited by the City’s Farmer’s Market Vendor Guidelines,” the city said in a letter to the family, obtained by Fox News.
The city manager said East Lansing recently updated its civil rights ordinance to include discrimination at “all business practices” for the city’s farmers market.
“When [Country Mill] applied, we decided to exclude them from the market based on that,” Mr. Lahanas told the State Journal.
East Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows said the farm’s exclusion is based on the Tennes family’s “business decision” to exclude same-sex weddings.
“This is about them operating a business that discriminates against LGBT individuals and that’s a whole different issue,” Mr. Meadows said. LinkPersonally, I think EL got sloppy with this but are in the right otherwise. This still doesn't address the retroactivity issue at all. The 2016 version of the rules didn't discriminate based on business that happened outside the city jurisdiction. All the speech and alleged conduct occurred before the 2017 Market Vendor Guidelines were updated. It also doesn't address the religion angle. The ordinance as-applied forbids sincerely holding a specific religious belief, though it allows insincerely holding the belief while acting to the contrary. This is ironic, because the same ordinance also forbids the Farmer's Market to discriminate by religion.
It doesn’t stop them from holding a religious belief. If prevents them from discriminating and using the religious belief as an excuse. They couldn’t claim their religion barred them from accepting money from black people and expect to be in business. The entire argument always falls apart if applied to any group but “the gays”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
