Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Dave said:
Two things, one about this and the other because it's hilariously stupid. First, Trump tried to blame Obama/Clinton's policies for the death of their child. He died years ago during the Bush presidency.

Second, the fundraising stats have come out for July. This is what the Trump campaign put out. Okay, maybe not. I got no proof for that. But you could totally see it.

Click to expand...
He was bragging about how raising $35 million was "unprecedented". Unprecedentedly LOW, maybe. Mitt Romney raised over $100 million in the same span in 2012. :p
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Bubble181

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
While amusing, aren't most such state office positions such that they can be fired and replaced by the governor? Seems like this might be a quick way to find one's self out the door.
Click to expand...
I don't know, but either way it's a definite way to make an emotional appeal that'll run favorably in most media. If he can (and is) fired over this, it's an even bigger sacrifice on his behalf, and an even bigger "this has gone on long enough, we're in deep shit" signal. A bit of a grand and utterly useless gesture, perhaps, but still.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
While amusing, aren't most such state office positions such that they can be fired and replaced by the governor? Seems like this might be a quick way to find one's self out the door.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure this was the modern equivalent of the "protest" seppuku. His career is probably shot, if not outright ended, but if the situation was getting untenable (it sure sounds like it from the letter), then this is a way to go out with a lot of style.

Alternatively, the public defender office might be under the judiciary, in which case the executive usually has the power to appoint but not replace.

Here, I looked it up. A brief gander through their website got me to their 2015 Annual Report, which explains:
MSPD is an independent department of state government, located within, but not supervised by, the judicial branch. Instead, it is governed by a seven‐member Public Defender Commission, each of whom is appointed by the governor. Commissioners serve six year terms and no more than four may be of the same political party. The Director of the Missouri State Public Defender System, Michael Barrett and Deputy Director, Joel Elmer, are appointed by the Public Defender Commission.
Click to expand...
 
Eriol

Eriol

GasBandit said:
While amusing, aren't most such state office positions such that they can be fired and replaced by the governor? Seems like this might be a quick way to find one's self out the door.
Click to expand...
I agree, but it's still damned amusing. If people cause shortages, and they have a capability to address them, forcing them to do so is OK IMO.

And while I certainly don't support a lot of what John Oliver says, he did do a good report on this general situation some time ago:
 
Null

Null

stienman said:
Apparently the "Don't tread on me" flag used in pre-US time to tell the british soldiers that they couldn't just do as they pleased is now considered racial harassment, and as such you can't wear it or display it at your workstation if you are employed by the government:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...signia-could-be-punishable-racial-harassment/
Click to expand...
I think that's due to the flag being co-opted by the Tea Party and certain white supremacists. That certainly isn't the historical meaning of the Gadsden Flag, and I think the complaint - that it was the flag designed by a slave owner and is therefore racist - is a bit ridiculous, so I hope the case is dismissed. But I can see why an African-American might be uncomfortable with it. Mind you, this is an entirely different case than the Confederate flag, which was the flag a) of the armies of a nation that literally considered slavery to be the cornerstone of their culture and b) was revived as a symbol of rejecting the Civil Rights movement a century later.
 
strawman

strawman

Frank said:
What's the point of posting this?
Click to expand...
Demonstration of media bias. The article fairly clearly makes the case that there's a stark difference in coverage if the story is pro life vs pro abortion, or about people involved in either side.

Frank said:
Posting the story without comment is kind of bullshit.
Click to expand...
I attempted a few different synopsis, but I couldn't find one that puts the bias story forward in a way that wouldn't get clouded by the subject of the bias - abortion. And, as you've demonstrated, it's not easy to read the story and then not comment about the validity of the case, despite the article really being about media bias.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
But this sort of thing happens all the time where the initial headline gets ramped up yet there's no follow up. So it's not a story about media bias as much as a piece about how the poor anti-abortion people are so ignored.
 
Shakey

Shakey

stienman said:
Demonstration of media bias. The article fairly clearly makes the case that there's a stark difference in coverage if the story is pro life vs pro abortion, or about people involved in either side.



I attempted a few different synopsis, but I couldn't find one that puts the bias story forward in a way that wouldn't get clouded by the subject of the bias - abortion. And, as you've demonstrated, it's not easy to read the story and then not comment about the validity of the case, despite the article really being about media bias.
Click to expand...
Didn't most of the attention from this begin with the original "whistle-blower" video? They didn't even mention the coverage of the initial story. They start with the indictment. I wonder why. Possibly because coverage of it was everywhere, even though it was a pro-life story.

I have a feeling it has more to do with the story being old and no one caring. But it fits a better narrative to be bias.
 
strawman

strawman

Dave said:
But this sort of thing happens all the time where the initial headline gets ramped up yet there's no follow up. So it's not a story about media bias as much as a piece about how the poor anti-abortion people are so ignored.
Click to expand...
If that's true, and it's not an issue of bias but an issue of "no follow up" then would you also say that if they were convicted there'd be little to no media coverage? I have a hard time believing that, but perhaps you're right.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

stienman said:
If that's true, and it's not an issue of bias but an issue of "no follow up" then would you also say that if they were convicted there'd be little to no media coverage? I have a hard time believing that, but perhaps you're right.
Click to expand...
He is. I mean there could be some of what you say in it, but it's a long long standing complaint that news outlets don't follow up on the things they've hyped. Dropped charges generally just rate a sentence or two on page 8, nestled with a bunch of other similarly unspectacular tidbits. That's newspapers. I guess the TV equivalent is a few words in the crawl, jammed between the currency exchange and today's weather.

It's only the really spectacular stuff that you'll see them continue with.


As for the columnists and pundits and opinion spewers. They're biased. Of course they're biased. that's what they're paid for. They're gonna say what they're gonna say, using whatever is big news right now. There's no reason to ever expect them to address something that doesn't fit their agenda. That's not what they do. And that's not why we read and listen and watch them. Or what @Frank said.


I guess Mollie Hemingway is learning this. And it's good that she's explaining that it happens. But she's doing a disservice to her readers by not explaining that it happens with pretty much every story, in every news outlet. Or maybe she's working on that, and this is just the start of her investigation into the attention span of newspapers.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

Oh, and to answer your other question. I think a conviction in this case would've resulted in a lot more coverage than this got (if it really did get little coverage), but only if the trial itself was interesting.

But that would have also been the case if the trial resulted in a not guilty verdict, too.

As it is, dismissed charges are a step far below any of that, story wise.


This has always been my experience, regardless of whether I'm reading the Toronto Star (our NYT) or the Globe and Mail, (our conservative, business focused paper), or the Toronto Sun (for the Sunshine Girl)
 
strawman

strawman

Occasionally in discussions about whether patrons have the right to force a cake store to serve wedding cakes for a same sex wedding, someone will bring up the idea that you can't force a Halal restaurant to serve pork. Comparing the two is a big stretch, but it hardly matters now as a town council is set to do just that:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/828...told-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork-or-face-closure

It comes down to the term "general food store" which is contained in the lease. The government contends that a store which serves everything but pork and alcohol isn't "general food" enough, and thus they are in violation of their lease terms.
 
Frank

Frank

Wait, are they telling a restaurant what to serve on their menu?

Can I force McDonald's to make me a pork chop now? I really want a fast food pork chop.

Oh, it's a super market and not a restaurant.

That's still messed up.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
So just saw these on imgur:






Did this person not realize that their first 3 pictures basically amount to "the government should be in charge of critical things in your life," but the fourth picture says "the government is bad and cannot be trusted?" DO THEY NOT SEE THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE HERE?
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Ravenpoe said:
But just as racist, if not more so.
Click to expand...
Not racist, Islamophobic. Not any better, mind, but we really need to try and clean up our language, there's way too much stuff getting stuffed into "racism" these days. being Muslim isn't a race. You should definintely be allowed to not sell alcohol or pork, to be clear, in my mind, but it's not a race issue.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Like is there a rule for how much stock they have to carry? What if they're in an area where there are a lot of Muslims and pork and alcohol don't sell well? They'd just have to throw money away at stock they know won't move.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
blotsfan said:
Like is there a rule for how much stock they have to carry? What if they're in an area where there are a lot of Muslims and pork and alcohol don't sell well? They'd just have to throw money away at stock they know won't move.
Click to expand...
It's almost like government should just leave them alone to do their business, isn't it?
 
Eriol

Eriol

stienman said:
An eminent domain lawsuit where the government actually lost:

http://ij.org/press-release/judge-sides-piano-man-government-land-grab/
Click to expand...
Right decision, wrong reason IMO. Just because other redevelopments have failed STILL isn't enough reason to take somebody's house. If they had a plan of "building here will bring Google World Headquarters and $100 Billion (say it like Dr. Evil) but one person has to move that doesn't want to" then they shouldn't have to move. Property rights should be as inviolate as any others as long as it doesn't interfere with another individual. "The Good of All" should be right out. Occasionally this type of thing has a legitimate usage for highways or something similar, but that's about it. Any hint of commercial interest should automatically disqualify it.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Eriol said:
Right decision, wrong reason IMO. Just because other redevelopments have failed STILL isn't enough reason to take somebody's house. If they had a plan of "building here will bring Google World Headquarters and $100 Billion (say it like Dr. Evil) but one person has to move that doesn't want to" then they shouldn't have to move. Property rights should be as inviolate as any others as long as it doesn't interfere with another individual. "The Good of All" should be right out. Occasionally this type of thing has a legitimate usage for highways or something similar, but that's about it. Any hint of commercial interest should automatically disqualify it.
Click to expand...
Back when the Eminent Domain abuses first started popping up like mushrooms, several states enacted laws specifically designed to prevent those abuses. Thankfully, Texas is one of those states.
 
Null

Null

Eriol said:
Right decision, wrong reason IMO. Just because other redevelopments have failed STILL isn't enough reason to take somebody's house. If they had a plan of "building here will bring Google World Headquarters and $100 Billion (say it like Dr. Evil) but one person has to move that doesn't want to" then they shouldn't have to move. Property rights should be as inviolate as any others as long as it doesn't interfere with another individual. "The Good of All" should be right out. Occasionally this type of thing has a legitimate usage for highways or something similar, but that's about it. Any hint of commercial interest should automatically disqualify it.
Click to expand...
My friend John works for the NJ DOT and a significant portion of his job is going to court to explain why the state needs to use a certain piece of property, using geological surveys, topographic maps, traffic flow patterns, and the relevant regulations. For example: "We need to use a portion of this person's property because the other usable locations are too close to wetlands / would involve removing half of a hillside / would be prone to flooding or subsidence, etc". He was telling me one time of how a local group attempted to file suit because they felt the rock catch fences were an eyesore. The rock catch fences are barriers alongside a highway to prevent falling rocks from rolling onto the highway, preventing traffic obstruction, damage, and potentially fatal accidents. The rock catch fence also allows crews to knock loose rock free (preventing uncontrolled rockslides) without having to completely close the highway. This is a picture of a crew working in the area in question:

 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Null said:
My friend John works for the NJ DOT and a significant portion of his job is going to court to explain why the state needs to use a certain piece of property, using geological surveys, topographic maps, traffic flow patterns, and the relevant regulations. For example: "We need to use a portion of this person's property because the other usable locations are too close to wetlands / would involve removing half of a hillside / would be prone to flooding or subsidence, etc". He was telling me one time of how a local group attempted to file suit because they felt the rock catch fences were an eyesore. The rock catch fences are barriers alongside a highway to prevent falling rocks from rolling onto the highway, preventing traffic obstruction, damage, and potentially fatal accidents. The rock catch fence also allows crews to knock loose rock free (preventing uncontrolled rockslides) without having to completely close the highway. This is a picture of a crew working in the area in question:

Click to expand...
Using eminent domain to build a highway/railroad is one thing.

Using it to sell the land to a developer to build a casino/mall/housing development and then twisting the definition of "public use" up to the point where it means "anything that might increase tax revenues" is something else entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top