Take some advice on the Tuesday OPEN thread
Shot by Dan in Salem | Text added
“Wall Street is the only place that people ride to in a Rolls Royce to get advice from those who take the subway.”
Warren Buffett
February 26, 2013 - 10:00 AM
- Contact us |
- Customer care |
- Subscribe |
- Advertise |
- Submit news |
- Sign in
Check It Out
Local efforts are under way to help Oklahoma tornado victims. Find out how you can help here.
February 26, 2013 - 10:00 AM
Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
44 COMMENTS
Error submitting comment
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Add a comment
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
THE ROANOKE TIMES
The Roanoke Times, thus far, three day series on Seat Belts, I hope it’s educational for many. I haven’t bothered to read it for it would just bring back the tears of the many needless deaths over time.
But, I feel the need to comment on the issue. When seat belts came out and we as kids saw them, they were the coolest thing on a car. We couldn’t wait to ride in a car with seat belts. I’ve never not been buckled from the first time behind the wheel at 16.
You belt in your babies from day one, through to car seats and booster seats till age six and seven. Then the children get on a school bus and there are not seat belts for the rest of their lives going to school. Then they get their first car and must think, well it was safe in the school bus so why bother, no matter what they hear from their parents.
What kind of mixed signal do they grew up with? Why is it not worth the cost to put seat belts in school buses? Am I the only one that doesn’t get it?
One perspective on the seatbelts for school buses question:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40820669/ns/us_news-life/#.USzl39Uv75M
I’ve always thought that was strange that school buses don’t have them, but apparently that is by design.
My experience of the early days of seat belts was exactly the opposite. It was distinctly uncool to use them. I used them anyway. One of the cars we looked at when our son needed one had those automatic belts. The owner had rolled up the lap belt and tucked it in so it could not be used. When our children were still at home, we always made sure ALL the occupants of our car were buckled up before we even left the driveway. I, too, wonder why school buses are not equipped.
Old blue:
What I’ve heard in the media on why they do not have belts, is a cost factor and that the design of high back seats and padding. That does nothing for a roll over, which this area had one not long ago. It’s also questionable as to why the NTSB does not require them on long haul buses? Look at all the horrific crashes and roll over of those buses. Same for Amtrak. I was feel naked seated on Amtrak and no seat belt.
Dan… you should look into “Like” buttons for peoples comments.
Justin,
I’m still looking into “like” buttons for posts. If and when we get that, we might add them for comments.
oh how i wish there were thumbs up / thumbs down commenting like on many of the popular internet blogs… especially the type where enough thumbs down would dim the text such that it is unreadable.
This is just funny.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/bill-oreilly-donny-deutsch-michelle-obama-oscar-appearance_n_2764650.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D275633
“Bill O’Reilly harshly criticized Obama’s appearance and described her participation as “Hollywood left boosterism” that was aimed as “propaganda to make [the Obamas look] glamorous.” He commented on how other first ladies did not participate in the awards in such a way. “Laura Bush would never at any time have introduced any award,” he said. ”
By which he means…no one ever asked her.
Of course the republicans’ heads are exploding over FLOTUS’ Oscar night appearance…however they forgot some itsy bitsy FACTS”
—
It is worth noting: First Lady Laura Bush appeared at the 2002 Academy Awards in the “What Do the Movies Mean to You?” opening segment produced by director Errol Morris.
—
Conservative pundits, like radio host Dana Loesch and columnist Michelle Malkin, rushed to defend Oscar appearances by Laura Bush and Ronald Reagan.
—
Mr. Reagan has moved on to another profession, he’s been invited to appear on the Academy Awards program on March 30.
—
In 1981, President Reagan taped an appearance for the Oscars which, as noted by the New York Times, stated: “He will not be the first President to make such an address. Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke to an Oscar audience by radio in 1941.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/12/nyregion/notes-on-people-reagan-on-tape-will-greet-oscars-audience.html?smid=tw-share
Good idea Scott!!
Michelle Obama is very popular and did a great job. As usual, who knows why the right is butthurt over this.
Here is the joke of the day. Can’t wait to see what Jon Stewart and SNL do with this one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/michele-bachmann-debates_n_2765925.html?ref=topbar
Loved the sign on this thread. It would make a great avatar for Suzie. The only problem would be the overinflated value of the advice.
Dan, all my posts are still disappearing. i am getting a complex…
Surely my wisdom and wit are being missed… lol
“Dan, all my posts are still disappearing. i am getting a complex…
Surely my wisdom and wit are being missed… lol”
–mikeO
mikeO, I for one don’t miss you making up out of whole cloth something (that according to you) I wrote about my employer, and then posting questions to me about that, as if I had written it, when I had not. You really need to acknowledge that fundamental dishonesty if you wish to continue posting here.
Go ‘head on Dan, go ‘head on! Enough is more than enough.
Heading off to a speaking engagement at Virgina Tech, folks. Back later!
Sounds like a whodunit novel to me. THE CASE OF MIKEO AND THE DISAPPEARING POSTS! by that brilliant new novelist Dan O’Casey!
“…are being missed… lol“? Mike O…no, not at all.
Dan,
This one is for you: http://tinyurl.com/ablxmm5
**
Two rulings that benefited a powerful few
-
By Farah Stockman Globe Columnist
-
February 26, 2013
-
SNIP
-
DRED SCOTT and his wife Harriet were slaves with two young daughters who filed suit for their freedom in 1846.
-
SNIP
-
The case, which put us on the path to civil war, is so infamous that it caused a political stir last week, 155 years after Scott’s death.
-
SNIP
-
“People at the time talked about the ‘slavocracy,’ ” he said. “Slave owners were rich. They were a minority. They were corrupting the political process.”
-
SNIP
-
The question before us is not whether money in politics is as great an evil as slavery. The question is: What can ordinary people do to fight against this disastrous court decision?
-
We’re not going to have a civil war about Citizens United, but that doesn’t mean we should let it stand.
**
Thought provoking read: http://tinyurl.com/b4xltqx
**
-
Afterword: The Libertarian Middle Way
-
Randy E. Barnett
-
Georgetown University Law Center
-
2013
-
Chapman Law Review, Vol. 16, 2013
Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 13-011
-
Abstract:
Libertarianism is sometimes portrayed as radical and even extreme. In this Afterword to a symposium on “Libertarianism and the Law” in the Chapman Law Review, I explain why, though it may be radical, libertarianism is far from extreme in comparison with its principal alternatives: the social justice of the Left or legal moralism of the Right. Social justice posits that everyone should get a certain amount of stuff; legal moralism posits that everyone should act in a certain way. But because there is no consensus about how much stuff each person should have or how exactly everyone should act, both of these comprehensive approaches are recipes for societal conflict. And the legal institutions that are necessary to implement each vision must be highly intrusive and coercive. In contrast, libertarianism is far more modest: it stipulates only that individuals may do what they please with what is theirs, requiring a legal system merely to define the proper jurisdiction of each person over their rightfully acquired property. I explain how the basic insight of libertarianism is rooted in the spirit of toleration that was the classical liberal solution to the socially destructive religious wars. Like Westphalian political “sovereigns” who are to leave each other in peace and not to interfere with each other’s domestic affairs, classical liberalism posited the sovereignty of individuals to pursue the good life peacefully within their own jurisdictions, free from outside interference, provided they do not infringe upon the like jurisdictions of other sovereign individuals. I conclude by explaining how libertarianism contributes to the private law that defines the contours of these individual jurisdictions, and the public law that is supposed to confine government to its proper function of protecting the rights of persons better than they can protect themselves. Although many would prefer their own preferred visions of social justice or legal moralism (or both) to be imposed on everyone else, libertarianism represents an appealing “second best” or “middle way” alternative to having someone else’s “wrong” vision of social justice or of morality imposed upon them.
-
Number of Pages in PDF File: 20
**
Thoughts?
-
http://tinyurl.com/anhmwjx
-
Warren wins court battle over holiday display
February 26, 2013
-
It’s not unconstitutional to have reindeer, snowmen and a nativity scene on display in the center of town, with no antireligious slogan next to it.
-
That’s what a federal appeals court ruled Monday in finding that the City of Warren didn’t trample on anyone’s free speech rights when it refused to add a sign that attacked religion to its annual holiday display.
-
The sign, proposed by a Wisconsin-based group called Freedom From Religion Foundation, would have read: “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, No heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but Myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
-
SNIP
**
Could some Republicans be writing off the extreme right wing?
-
http://tinyurl.com/bfvhsky
-
Influential Republicans Champion Same Sex Marriage
-
A new effort by a large group of influential Republican luminaries to champion same sex marriage represents a breakthrough for the party and the cause.
-
At least 75 current and former Republican officials and intellectuals have signed on to a draft legal brief calling on the Supreme Court to overturn California’s Proposition 8 and similar laws prohibiting gay marriage, according to the New York Times [ http://tinyurl.com/bftpf6m ].
-
SNIP
**
Worth far more than 5
Good well reasoned read in MIT’s school paper:
-
http://tinyurl.com/ausklxe
-
**
Opinion: Gun control could prevent lawful self-defense
-
By A.J. Edelman
STAFF COLUMNIST
February 26, 2013
-
SNIP
**
HayFrank! Hagel confirmed!
LOL!
-
Love this one: http://tinyurl.com/b9voct7
-
Most. Dangerous. World. Ever.
-
The ridiculous hyperbole about government budget cuts.
BY MICAH ZENKO | FEBRUARY 26, 2013
-
Sequestration of the defense budget is a bad policy idea. However, living in denial about the need to prepare for sequestration is nearly as bad. Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), repeatedly reminded military officials last year: “They are obligated to plan for the worst-case scenario. They will not wait until December 2012 in hopes that things get better.” However, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta directed the armed services not to plan for how sequestration could be implemented for over a year, noting, “I can’t plan for something that was designed to be crazy.”
-
In fact, the military is actually pretty good at developing worst-case contingency response plans for any number of foreseeable or crazy crises, using the operations — or “3″ — planning staffs at combatant commands and in the Joint Staff. But the Pentagon’s budgetary and programmatic managers did not plan in advance of sequestration, and now they find themselves scrambling to finish the job. In September, Defense Department comptroller Robert Hale said, “We will wait as long as we can to begin this process.” Last week, he defended the lack of planning: “If we’d done this six months ago, we would have caused the degradation in productivity and morale that we’re seeing now among our civilians.” History will judge whether or not the Pentagon gambled correctly, if the already once-delayed sequestration is triggered as scheduled this Friday.
-
SNIP
-
I will not repeat Gen. Dempsey’s questionable threat calculus again in this column. However, it is worth noting that Dempsey has claimed for over a year: “We are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime.” Now, Dempsey argues that we are not merely living in the most dangerous moment since his birth in 1952, but since the earth was formed 4.54 billion years ago.
-
SNIP
**
-
-
Yeah, right. That doesn’t jive with my childhood memories of WWII, my family members lost and our neighbors with Gold Star Mothers flags (often with more than one gold star); having been on the Cuban Missie Crisis blockade; etc, etc, etc.
Dave
Some interesting posts. I actually attended high school in Warren. While I agree the sign proposed by thr freedom from religion group is insulting , I expect warren will end up having to take down the nativity scene. Liked the thoughtful words on libertarianism compared to traditional lef and right.
Dave Hicks,
I think I’m just few years younger than you, but not much. Is the current world a dangerous place? Yep it sure is. Is it the most dangerous world ever? I’m not sure.
As a historian, I’ve studied many periods of history. I’m certainly not an expert on ancient history, but have studied the 19th & 20 centuries a little. The challenge we have today is that we have countries in possession of weapons that literally could destroy major parts of what we call civilization today. We have several more who are trying to get that capability.
I think I’ve mentioned in earlier threads that one of my prized possessions is a collection of daily journals my grandfather kept from 1911 through most of 1962. Most of the material in the journals are mundane things related to the farm on which I was reared. However, among those mundane details are insights into what was happening in the U.S. & the world between 1911 and the early 1960s. I can tell you that my grandfather thought the world was coming to an end a few times between those years. I also benefitted, in my younger days, from the insights of my grandmother who literally lived from the time of horses and buggies to the days of men on the moon. Both my grandfather and grandmother believed that the world was likely going to be destroyed during the Cuban missle crisis. It wasn’t.
Nonetheless, the world in which you & I now live is a very dangerous place. It is not just because of the weapon systems we and many others have available, but also because we are on the precipice of a serious economic situation. Our economy, with the appropriate steps, could build upon the progress that has been made since 2008 and roar ahead. Or, as the economists say, on the other hand, it could fall back into a deep recession or perhaps a depression. It all depends upon whether our current political leaders can find a middle ground out of our current mess.
The dilemma is both military and economic. My meetings earlier this month with members of Congress from both sides of the aisle don’t make me particularly optimistic. It is my hope that I am wrong and that our political leaders can finally find the common ground out there and find balanced solutions to the challenges we face. We don’t have much time. Miracles do happen.
Re: Ron May at 10:08 pm
-
I was not suggesting that it was not dangerous times.
–
FWIIW, we could add to your litany global warming/climate change, pandemic exasperated by worldwide travel and international food shipments; etc.
-
However, I don’t buy that things are the worst in the history of the world.
-
As always, YMMV.
Could this be a driver…?
-
http://tinyurl.com/b35nkuv
-
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon: ‘We Actually Benefit From Downturns’
-
Posted: 02/26/2013 11:47 am EST | Updated: 02/26/2013 6:53 pm EST
-
Like most soft-spined Americans, you probably have painful memories of the financial crisis and consequent recession. Perhaps you even think of those things as “bad.” Fortunately, Jamie Dimon is not like the rest of you losers.
-
That is because, unlike you, Jamie Dimon is CEO of JPMorgan Friggin’ Chase, America’s greatest bank, which just so happens to snack on financial crises and recessions like so much KIND bar.
-
“This bank is anti-fragile, we actually benefit from downturns,” Dimon bragged to his bank’s investors at a conference on Tuesday.
-
And it is true! The bank definitely benefited from the last downturn. It got to buy Bear Stearns in a government-backed fire sale, getting itself a brokerage business on the cheap in exchange for shouldering only a few tiresome legal burdens. It also got billions of dollars in government handouts, from $25 billion in TARP funds to billions in savings from low-interest-rate borrowing programs to a permanent subsidy arising from the idea that the government will bail out the bank if it ever gets in trouble.
-
That permanent subsidy amounts to about $17 billion per year, according to a recent Bloomberg View study, representing nearly all of the bank’s profits. No other bank gets such a large subsidy, according to Bloomberg’s study (although, to be fair, some find Bloomberg’s methods unsound, to quote from Jamie Dimon’s favorite movie).
-
SNIP
**
Mr. Howard,
Reading your comment sure brought back memories. It was my experience that people that didn’t like seatbelts started with bucket seats. They would go to the Elliston straight and see how fast they could go with their girlfriend. Those of us who started with a benchseat had a somewhat different experience. People should experience driving an old truck without seatbelts. Like a Ford F1 manual stering, manual drum brakes all around, vacuum wipers, 3 on the tree, no hump in the floor board, battery under the passenger side floor board, and a hard bench seat. Driving at about 20 mph and make a hard left or a u-turn. Not so easy to drive from the passenger side. Ahh, but to have your girl able to sit right next to you, your arm around her going to the drive in…kids don’t know what they’ve missed.
Dan, were you speaking to the journalism students at Tech? If so, did anyone ask about blogs’ place in the new mediascape, and/or this one in particular? Also, I don’t know if you were asked this, but I’ve occasionally wondered what you think of writers who publicly describe their own writing with superlative adjectives (e.g. fascinating, marvelous, hilarious, insightful, wonderful, trenchant, etc.). Do you have any particular reaction upon seeing a writer describe their own work this way?
Warren, I was not speaking to journalism students. And nobody raised any questions about the use of superlatives.
With regard to the latter, why don’t you get to your real point?
Re: Dan Casey at 4:42 pm
Pending thread / column on who you were addressing, subject, etc?????
Dave Hicks,
Probably not anytime in the short term. The Virginia Tech Freethinkers Club invited me to talk because of columns I’ve written on the 10 Commandments in Giles County and the issue of sectarian prayer at the Roanoke County Supes. I told them 2 stories I’ve written on this blog: The time I was chased out of the Church of Scientology mission in Arlington, and the day Pat Robertson’s bodyguard pulled a gun on me. And then the topics ranged far and wide: The Tea Party, the Illumanti, the Bohemian Club, Hitler, the difference in effect on neurotransmitters of cocaine and methamphetmine, Operation Snow White, antidepressants and side effects, the Family Channel (aka How Pat Robertson scored big), and the young earth creationist who addressed them at their last meeting.
Re: Dan Casey at 5:39 pm
-
Sounds like fun.
-
If things were addressed civilly, I do believe I’d enjoy attending such a meeting, myself.
Dan, knowing that area media personnel have sometimes been drafted to speak to journalism students, I thought maybe that was your engagement. And I just wondered if the group you spoke to had either questions or comments about blogs generally, presumably from them knowing that you maintain one. I thought they may have asked questions or given you feedback that would be outside the realm of that given here. And given the blogosphere’s lack of barriers to entry, my point about superlatives really was to ask about your reaction when you encounter a writer describing their own work with them. Does it shade your opinion of the writer or their work? If so, does it shade it in the direction their superlative indicates, or away from it?
Warren,
I’m having quite a hard time thinking of any writer who describes his own work with the effusive use of superlatives.
Perhaps you can be just a little bit more direct, and cite a specific example or two?
#37 Pretty weird post, Warren.
38.(comment by Dan):
Warren,
I’m having quite a hard time thinking of any writer who describes his own work with the effusive use of superlatives.
Perhaps you can be just a little bit more direct, and cite a specific example or two?
39.(comment by gdad)
#37 Pretty weird post, Warren.
Dan and gdad, sorry if it seemed weird; I was answering Dan’s reply to my first post (#32), when before he told us about his speaking engagement, I had wondered if he spoke to aspiring journalists. I know that they sometimes have had such guest speakers. It occured to me that he might be asked about blogs as part of journalism by today’s students. Since Dan’s been addressing blog issues like accuracy and anonymity lately, the part about self-description and hyperbole was an extension of all that.
(New paragraph)
To elaborate on the second thought, as Dan asked me to do, since the blogosphere has no barriers to entry beyond ‘net access, it seems that we could be seeing more writers who describe themselves and their writing in inflated ways, at a risk of creating new norms. There’s always been a spectrum of advertising puffery, friendly reviews, self-promotion, and even bought and/or faked praise. The word blurb itself was coined to describe self-interested praise: as “Praise from one’s self, inspired laudation.” And: “Blurb, n. 1. A flamboyant advertisement; an inspired testimonial… Blurb, v. 1. To flatter from interested motives; to compliment oneself.” (http://fictionafter50.com/2011/07/23/the-pain-of-self-praise/)
(New paragraph)
On self-description, it seems like the ‘net’s anonymity may have engendered an increase in both sockpuppet self-praise and sockpuppet criticism of one’s critics, from CEO’s (Whole Foods, Hollinger International), to cartoonists (Scott Adams of Dilbert), to numerous writers, some well known, posting positive reviews of their work and criticism of others using pseudonyms. And those are just the ones exposed so far. Hollywood has been busted using fake reviewers more than once, and politicians often use bragging, hype and phony info, like Michele Bachmann bragging this week that she’d gotten nothing wrong in the 2012 debates.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/michele-bachmann-calls-virtual-wikipedia-article-1.1273964
(New paragraph)
One frequently hears the use of self-description superlatives in spoken contexts; it’s what Rush Limbaugh has in common with gangsta rappers. As I said, it just occured to me to wonder if it’s increasing in the context of blogs, even though in writing I’ve usually associated it with the L. Ron Hubbard type of self-promoter. I guess it’s the opposite of libel. I’ve anecdotally noticed it happening more often with bloggers. To give an example, I did notice one on this blog recently, which I’ll cite, but first I must emphasize that I chose it for it’s proximity on this blog, I regard it benignly, and don’t intend citing it to be a personal attack.
(New paragraph)
Dan has received and published several responses praising his columns, like his recent Chile chili piece, and because he often earns such positive responses, it seems like gilding the lilly to describe his own work with a superlative: “Ridiculing (the NRA) with a hilarious October 2009 post”
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2013/02/help-casey-get-on-the-nras-enemies-list-today/
(New paragraph)
Anyway, that’s just an example that is relevant to this blog. Judging by his usual style, I really don’t think Dan intended to seem immodest. I’ve encountered examples other places too, even if I can’t cite them immediately, and I wonder what forces may be behind it in those cases, if indeed it’s an expanding trend in the blogosphere, where publicity is so often self-generated. As I said, I fear it may reflect a newly emerging norm first established by rap and talk radio’s spoken braggadocio. But that’s as full an explanation as I can offer at this time. Maybe my perception is just flat wrong, too, but self-deprecation puts me at risk of committing a humblebrag!
Warren, thank you for citing a specific example. As I explained before, none of the students asked about the trend you perceive regarding the writers’ used of superlatives to describe their own work in the blogosphere.
They also didn’t ask about another trend that I and others on this blog have perceived: anonymous commenters launching weirdly personal, passive aggressive-style attacks on others who are not anonymous.
“Dan has received and published several responses praising his columns, like his recent Chile chili piece, and because he often earns such positive responses,…”
-
And he receives piles of responses calling him biased and untalented.
#41: “As I explained before, none of the students asked about…the writers’ used of superlatives to describe their own work in the blogosphere.”
Dan, in my original post, I didn’t ask you if any of the students asked that;
it was just part of some other thoughts I added. I only asked if they’d brought up blogs generally, because I didn’t know at the time that it wasn’t journalism students you were addressing. Then you wanted an example on the extended topic, which I hadn’t intended to include since it was only secondary musing to begin with.
And please note this part of my last post (#40), which you may have overlooked: “I must emphasize that I chose (that example) for it’s proximity on this blog, I regard it benignly, and don’t intend citing it to be a personal attack…Judging by his usual style, I really don’t think Dan intended to seem immodest”.
I hoped that explanation would be taken as it was intended: sincerely.
I apologize if my post was poorly written or easily misconstrued; it was not intended to be an attack. I realize in a text format like this both sincerity and sarcasm are often ambiguous, with inflection so difficult to convey. But I’ve thought my criticism of other posters is pretty plainly contentious when it’s given, rather than hidden in passive-aggressive terms. Obviously, as is true with humor, each person will judge for themselves what feels like an attack; and as with humor, there’s no expectation of explaining one’s judgement, nor of recognizing other’s opinions of us.
Since in the past you’ve sent things to me using my full name and address, and I use my real name and email address with every post, I’m surprised if I’m as anonymous to you as those who use screen names. Perhaps we could arrange a lunch or something to solidify your sense of my identity. Although I’m deeply hesitant to award myself the label “freethinker”, I’m always interested in learning from others, and I’m sure I could learn from you, whether it be politics, science, culture, or the more specific topics that you cover here, such as the debate about psychedelics and whether they help one transcend one’s ego in any lasting way. I’ll contact you offlist if you’re amenable to it.
paragraph breaks, paragraph breaks,
wherefore art thou paragraph breaks?