Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:13 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2006/1/13-17 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Motorcycle] UID:41368 Activity:high
1/13    Live105 DJ says he'd like to see motorists stuck in traffic open
        their doors against motorcylclists:
        Yamaha not amused:
        UPDATE: Live105 offers apology:
        Note: DJ's apology kinda weak.
        \_ Take away the vehicles and make it a straight fight, and I'd put
           money on the bikers over the car drivers.  Especially after the
           second time this happens and all the bikers start carrying
           guns and caltrops.  I ride a bicycle, not a motorcycle, but if
           someone does some shit like this to me, they'd better kill
           me, or the blood on the street will be theirs.
           \_ if you obey the traffic laws you won't be hurt
              if you dont you deserve to get run over
              \_ Your first statement is so patently false to anyone who's
                 ever ridden anywhere but a few select cities as to be
                 not worth responding to.  I obey traffic laws, and I've
                 never been hurt or had a close call, but I've seen cars
                 do things that would have killed me if I had simply obeyed the
                 law and not gone the extra step of assuming that all you
                 car driving motherfuckers will totally ignore it, stopping.
                 at green lights to look, etc.  You all think your so tough
                 when you're surrounded by a 3000 pound murder weapon, but
                 you have to get out sooner or later and then you're not so
                 at green lights to look, etc.
                 \_ So all bicyclists are ranting psychopaths who think all
                    car drivers are inconsiderate potential murderers?  -John
                    \_ I speak only for myself.
                       \_ So you think all car drivers are inconsiderate
                          potential murderers?  -John
                          \_ They're not all inconsiderate, no, but they are
                             all potential murderers.  Cars kill more Americans
                             in a year than the whole vietnam war did.  You
                             can call all of these "accidents", but as some one
                             who has chosen not to partake in car culture, I
                             see it as at least manslaughter, if not outright
                             murder, and I see the whole system as being guilty.
                             What's the fine for blasting through a crosswalk
                             and ignoring pedestrians if you don't actually
                             kill them?  In my state it's a hundred bucks.
                             A HUNDRED BUCKS!!  Now, what would the penalty
                             be for firing your gun into someones home, but
                             missing them?  "But officer, I was aiming for that
                             target on my lawn!"  You better believe it wouldn't
                             be a hundred dollar fine, even if it was a total
                             accident.  Everyone, even the NRA, would agree
                             that gun users should be forced to show a certain
                             degree of responsibility, because if they don't,
                             people are going to die.  But in America we have
                             decided that car drivers do not have to show that
                             level of responsibility, because our whole system
                             is based on allowing every drooling moron in the
                             country to be able to drive any time any any place
                             they want, and that would never work if they had
                             to actually be responsible about it.  And yes,
                             I'm obviously a ranting psychopath.
                             \_ Uhm, you're a moron. Firing a gun into
                                someone's home could either constitute
                                attempted murder, assault, or nothing. It
                                really depends on the situation, e.g. was
                                it an accidental firing, was the owner of
                                the gun aiming at the victim in order to hit
                                or in order to scare, was the firing due
                                to gross negligence or merely negligence, was
                                there a product defect, etc. The same is true
                                for almost hitting a pedestrian with a car,
                                the car in this case would be the deadly
                                weapon vs. the gun. What you are spouting
                                about with your $100 fine is merely the
                                traffic infraction part of the equation,
                                which is a strict liability crime. The motorist
                                in question may still be prosecuted for the
                                above offenses (and depending on your state,
                                there's probably a fine for discharging a
                                gun which is also strict liability). In
                                addition, the victim can sue the motorist
                                for assault if (s)he really wants to. As
                                for your vietnam analogy, that's blatently
                                stupid. So what if cars kill more people
                                per year than in all of vietnam, heart attacks
                                kill more people per year than in all of
                                vietnam also. Should we therefore ban
                                people from being obese and force everyone
                                to exercise? Should we start hunting down
                                every possible dangerous activity that
                                humans engage in and ban them?
                             \_ A cop who saw someone blow through a crosswalk
                                with pedestrians in it could get nailed for
                                all sorts of things in CA starting with various
                                forms of reckless driving.  If there isn't a
                                reason for it like the mechanical failure, it
                                can easily rise to the level of felony.  What
                                state do you live in?
                                \_ Connecticut.  Knowing the 100 dollar fine
                                   for blowing a crosswalk was in the drivers
                                   license test.  As for California I'm going
                                   to simply call bullshit.  I lived in
                                   California for five years, and I never
                                   saw a car pulled over for a crosswalk
                                   violation, and had my life put in danger
                                   hundreds of times by the car weasels who
                                   blew the crosswalks.  I recall people getting
                                   actually hit near campus multiple times.
                                   \_ Ok genius, was a cop nearby?  You're
                                      telling me a cop stood there and was
                                      witness to a car rolling through an
                                      intersection putting life and limb at
                                      risk by nearly hitting pedestrians and
                                      did nothing?  I'm calling big time
                                      bullshit on that one.  I saw one person
                                      get hit while I was in school outside
                                      the dorms.  She was reading the Daily
                                      Cal as she crossed the middle of the
                                      street with traffic oncoming.  Mostly,
                                      cars would actually stop (illegally,
                                      mind you) and let dormies cross the
                                      street when they saw students waiting
                                      for a traffic gap.
                                      \_ You're from LA, aren't you?
              \_ So when a bike is riding on the road do you always give
                 them a full lane?
                 \_ I do.  -!pp
              \_ Lanesplitting is 100% legal.
                 \_ Only for motorcycles, I think.
                    \_ Uh, duh...
                 \_ Do you feel the same way about the Homeland Security Act?
                  \_ When did you stop beating your wife?
        \_ Live105 doesn't exactly have a good track record for rseponsible
           broadcasting.  This should be no surprise.
           \_ Uh, okay... odd little allegation.
              \_ What's odd about it?
                 \_ That you throw it out without so much as an anecdote or
                    url to lend it credence?
                    \_ I figured it was a station enough people here might have
                       heard that I didn't have to explain.  Either way, it's
                       just a music radio station.  The minimal requirement to
                       be a DJ is having a good voice and uhm.  That's it.
                       \_ You clearly have a more finely tuned "responsibility"
                          radar than the rest of us.
                       \_ I too think it's weird to mention something about
                          irresponsible broadcasting and not explain it. -!pp
        \_ If you like getting your ass kicked, telling people to hurt
           motorcyclist in a public forum is a good way to stay happy.
        \_ Scroll down to duc996girl.  Kinda hot.
        \_ Tango and Cash did this about two years ago. They got canned
        \_ Some other idiots did this a few years ago on 92.3. They got canned
           \_ What an ugly asian chick
                \_ Was someone denied sex?
                \_ Did someone get denied sex?
        \_ Kramer and Twitch did this a few years ago on KSJO. They got canned
           a few days later. I am willing to bet this guy gets the boot
           too. Let's make sure that happens by contacting the station.
        \_ Does anyone actually find morning shows like this to be funny?
           Everyone I've talked to just finds them annoying. -gm
        \_ Is this even legal? Can you actually get on the air and
           encourage others to commit murder?
           \_ Anne Coulter said the only way to talk to a liberal is with
              a baseball bat.  I don't see her rotting in jail.
              \_ I'd love to go one one one with that fucking cunt with a
                 baseball bat.  That would be a very short fight.
              \_ The courts have soft spot for the mentally ill.
              \_ Although vile, it's freedom of speech.  Inciting people to
                 assault and kill bikers would never be covered by FoS by
                 even the wildest interpretation of the 1st amendment.
                 \_ Um, that's not what he did.  What he said was stupid,
                    but in no way criminal.
                    \_ If you don't call it incitement then what was it?
                       \_ A great way to boost ratings by getting
                          hypersensitive morons riled?  It's the American
                          way!  -John
                          \_ Why would that boost ratings?  If anything, I'd
                             be less likely to listen.  Morons should not be
                             rewarded for their stupidity.
                             \_ Exactly.  But loudly public righteous
                                indignation is so much more gratifying! -John
        \_ Anyone got a written transcript?
        \_ Okay, so I contacted Beven Dufty, my Supervisor and he promised
           to have the SFPD Chief contact them and express her displeasure
           as well as contacting them personally and asking if the SFMC
           would like to weigh in. If any of you live in San Francisco,
           please contact your Supervisor. I know Ross Mirkarimi rides.
           Is anyone on the motd in District 5?
           as well as contacting them personally and also asking if the SF
           Motorcycle club would like to weigh in. If any of you live
           in San Francisco, please contact your Supervisor. Heck even
           if you don't live in SF, contact your Supervisor, if you think
           there is the least chance that they will be sympathetic.
           I know Ross Mirkarimi rides. Is anyone on the motd in District 5?
2006/1/13-17 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:41369 Activity:moderate
1/12    Funny, I always gave Pamela Anderson more credit than this, but
        apparently she IS as stupid as she seems.  I guess anyone who would
        sleep with Tommy Lee is suspect...
        \_ The question is why you ever gave her any credit at all.
        \_ "FRANKFORT, Ky. - Pamela Anderson is leading a charge to remove a
           bust ......"
           Oh no!!!
           \_ You'll always have the internet.
        \_ She likes swallowing huge pieces of meat, but only if attached to
           Tommy Lee.
           \_ ITYM Kid Rock.
                \_ I have no proof that Kid Rock is huge.  I do have proof
                   Tommy Lee is huge.
                   \_ How many inches?
                   \_ The camera, um, adds inches.
                   \_ So does your mom.  Now explain to me how having a pet
                      cause (no pun..sorry) makes you stupid?  -John
                      \_ Are you kidding?  You've got to be an idiot to support
                         \_ PETA are slugs--they've ruined the business of
                            some of my family's friends.  That said, if any
                            of what they're claiming is even halfway true,
                            it's wrong.  Hitler liked dogs, I like dogs, does
                            that make me a nazi?  (Go Godwin!)  -John
                            \_ Ja Nazi. Heil German John! HEIL!!!
                               \_ No free speech for fascists.  -John
2006/1/13-17 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:41370 Activity:high
1/13    You think Bay Area housing prices skyrocketed?  Check this out.
        $60K -> $4.95M in 30yrs.
        \_ Synopsis of this article: Many dumb asses bought useless FL
           swamp lands during the 1960's land scam, and got paid millions
           of dollars 4-5 decades later.
           My interpretation: The land/real-estate market is dumb ass
           dummy-safe. If you hold it long enough, and in this case
           2/3 of your lifetime, you'll still come out ahead. So go
           ahead and buy your first home or 5th income property regardless
           of the bubble, you'll still do well 4-5 decades later.
           \_ Why is it a surprise that land might have tremendous value
              *50 YEARS* after purchase?  You seem pretty bitter that these
              people had the foresight to give themselves a nice retirement
              package starting *50 YEARS* ago.  Why are you so upset that
              other people have done well in life?  Nothing is stopping you
              from putting some money down on cheap land today and *maybe*
              retiring well on it in *50 YEARS*.
        \_ "...I will never be able to freely do what I wanted to do."
           With $4.95M?  I'd think he could afford a big place somewhere just
           as rural.
           \_ He was apparently forced off his land.  I see a problem with
              \_ Go bother Jeb
                 "Bush said Thursday that it looked as if negotiations with
                 Hardy would not succeed and that the state would have to
                 pursue eminent domain against him, something Bush said he
                 doesn't like to do. He said Hardy would be
                 'well-compensated.'" (Oct 17, 2003)
                 Hardy sure wants to:
                 "So, you can do the math, people, 160 acres at $50,000 per
                 acre, equals $8 million dollars - a far cry from the
                 'staggering' $4.95 million I 'shrewdly' negotiated!"
                 ... along with his lawyers:
                 "My negotiator, Will Smith, let me get ripped off, just like
                 my attorney, Charlie Forman. I would do anything to get my
                 land back, even if I didn't have anything else left."
                 \_ I'm happy to bother Jeb.  Why does that matter?
        \_ 70 year old with a 9 year old son..  This guy sounds like a trip..
                    \_ just telling you who's to blame in this case.
                 \_ This is horseshit, Jeb or not.  There is a reason for
                    the existence of eminent domain, and the fact that it's
                    been abused crazily by corrupt politicians and property
                    developers doesn't mean it's always bad.  Ask yourself:
                    qui bono?  The guy got $5 million for a piece of swamp he
                    acquired for 60k--that's a lot of money.  -John
                    \_ It doesn't matter what he got for it or what he paid
                       for it.  We still like to pretend in this country that
                       we have property rights.
                       \_ Not after Kelo.
                          \_ Well yeah, like I said: "pretend".
                    \_ So when someone lubes you up and reams you, it's just
                       haggling over remuneration?
                       \_ Re. property rights:  if you don't pay property
                          tax, your property is taken away from you.  So that
                          sort of scotches that argument.  Re. reaming: you
                             \_ Scotches what?  In no manner does the concept
                                of property taxes scotch an anti-ED point.
                                [erased my own long rant].  In short, what
                                the hell are you talking about?
                          don't seem to be getting the fundamental difference
                          between taking away land for someone else's
                          profit (a la New London) and taking away land that
                          was initially probably developed at least shadily,
                                \_ Probably?  All land in this country was
                                   initially stolen from the natives.  By
                                   your logic it is therefore ok to ream all
                                   current land owners just because.
                          like much of the Everglades, and returning it to
                          the commons.  And yes, I know there's a huge grey
                          area.  -John
                                \_ There's no grey area.  Land taken from an
                                   owner for anything more than strictly
                                   defined public use (such as needing a
                                           \_ I hope you realize that after
                                              Kelo pretty much anything the
                                              gov says is a public use is a
                                              public use, including taking
                                              away your home and giving it
                                              somebody wealthier b/c they
                                              will pay more property taxes.
                                   school, firehouse, etc) without first making
                                   all reasonable efforts to use other land and
                                   not *fully* compensating the victim for
                                   their loss is theft by government.  There
                                   are way too many ED cases where the ED isn't
                                   for a real public use and the compensation
                                   figures are calculated falsely (such as
                                   after prices in the area drop by 80% after
                                   they announce an ED) that it is impossible
                                   to defend ED and it's advocates without
                                   associating one's self with some of the
                                   scummiest people in local government.  This
                                   isn't Europe.  We've always been allowed to
                                   actually *own* our property here.
                                   \_ Nice dig, there.  The money allocated to
                                      him was not calculated falsely, as
                                      property prices could would not drop
                                      in the conventional sense if the property
                                      was not being commercially allocated.
                                      You may have noted the bit about it
                                      being returned to its natural state.
                                      That said, of course there is a grey area
                                      and it is huge.  I agree fully that ED
                                      is vastly over- and too often misused.
                                      But do you seriously believe that
                                      communities as such could make _any_
                                      economic progress if they had no way at
                                      all of occasionally expropriating
                                      resources?  And no, before you hint at it
                                      again, I do not believe in some socialist
                                      utopian idea of land as a public good,
                                      but as a limited resource to be handled
                                      judiciously.  And let's face it, the guy
                                      _did_ get $5 million for a swamp.  -John
                                      \_ Ah, so the lube is okay if the price
                                         is high enough.  Thanks for sharing.
                                         If the government can take land not
                                         for public use, then private property
                                         doesn't exist.  Period.
                                         \_ Parks are for public use.  -tom
                                            \_ Not state park and "preserves."
                                               Too often they're off limits
                                               for people.  ED is reasonable
                                               for roads and ... well pretty
                                               much nothing else.
        So let's take this ad absurdum--if I build a house on a pristine _/
        natural resource under some sort of homesteading "nobody's using it,
        come 'n git it" initiative, and the land is later found to be the
        last remaining preserve of the rare spotted mud iguana whose
        secretions cure cancer, and my presence is killing off the last few,
        then the gub'mint takes my land, fences off the area and doesn't let
        anyone in, you would oppose this, right (like I said, ad absurdum)?
        Also, I'll freely admit that maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see the
        difference in the big-picture between this and the gub'mint taking
        your land if you don't pay property taxes.  In both cases, the land
        isn't really yours unconditionally as such.  -John
        \_ I'm not the op or anyone who responded to your post. I just
           want to say that all this talk is further proof that the
           concept of ownership (I give you XX trinkets so that you will
           give me YY acres of land) makes people greedy and do really
           evil things. The land is precious, and an individual has very
           limited scope in what he/she can do to fully use the land for
           greater goods. Given that most common people have been proven
           to be selfish & stupid in the entire history mankind, it should
           have been the case from the beginning that the land is not
           monopolized by individuals. Land belongs to the common habitats
           of the land.
           \_ Is this a troll?  Are you really actually advocating some form
              of socialism or just looking for enraged responses?
              \_ What?  You haven't learned to pick up on the subtle
                 article-abuse we have all come to know and love of Chicom
                 troll? Get with it.  Nevermind. I re-read the post, and I
                 believe it to be an imposter.
                 \_ I didn't see the expected ChiComTroll grammar at all.
                    I'm sure it is someone else but still a troll.
        \_ I'm not the above poster you're responding to.  With that in mind:
           Cancer: it doesn't matter how you came about the land as long as
           it is legally yours today.  ED'ing cancer cure land: first, it is
           necessary to keep the frogs on that land to harvest them directly
           for a cancer cure?  If so, we're screwed anyway since there won't
           be enough of $rare_animal_or_plant_X to matter.  If someone wants
           to "steal" all the frogs off the land, I don't have an issue with
           that.  We're assuming the rare plant/animal is secondary to the
           normal land use pattern for the owner.  If the owner was actually
           raising and farming these things for a cancer cure then I've got
           a problem with stealing his frogs.
           Property taxes: this is what all land owners pay in exchange for
           the State (be it local, state or federal) to support and protect
           the owner and their land claim so they don't have to raise their
           own private army to defend their stake.  The resource being paid
           for with PT is protective physical and legal enforcement of the
           land ownership claim.  The State usually uses that cash to do
           things like provide water, roads, schools, etc, but it doesn't
           have to.  Once the PT are paid, the State does what they want with
           the money.  By not paying your PT you are not paying the State what
           they need to protect your land claim.  Since the State is
           effectively forced to defend all land claims, you can't opt out of
           your property taxes.
           Back to the core idea: I don't think the vast majority of people
           have a problem with the concept of ED.  I don't.  The problem is
           that local governments have been very seriously abusing it for
           years and in the last 15-20 years the abuses have skyrocketed
           both in number and severity well past the point of thinking of
           ED as anything more than theft.  Far far far too many cases all
           over the country go like this:
           1) Business Developer buys a few beers and kicks a few bucks at
              a local mayor or board.
           2) Locals find some nice water front land inhabited for the previous
              $MANY_DECADES by honest, hard working tax paying, working class
              folks and retirees and announces ED on the whole area calling it
              a "blighted area".
           3) ED announcement naturally causes huge drop in housing prices in
              the area.
           4) Locals use new lower comp figures as pay out number to determine
              worth of remaining houses and small businesses.
           5) Citizens get pennies on the dollar and evicted.
           6) Locals hand over the land to the Business Developer we saw back
              in #1 who builds yacht club, fancy hotels and condos.
           7) Locals and Business Developer claim victory for The Community
              and "Yay!  ED makes everyone a winner!" except for those
              Community Members we decided weren't adding enough to the tax
              base and were kinda lower class anyway and couldn't afford a
              yacht club membership, screw them.  Welcome to ED in the
              current era.  Oh yeah, we might have built a school or small
              park in there somewhere, too.
           The alternative to the above is less common but has happened here
           and there is they steal some dumb bastard's land, don't do a thing
           with it and then sell it on the public market 20 years later after
           real estate sky rockets.  Not even a token park is built.  Just
           pure raw flat out theft under color of authority.
           \_ Well, I think we agree that (a) this is theft, and (b) ED has
              been massively abused and is a slippery slide in itself.  I do
              however still think that this particular case falls under the
              few "legit" uses of ED--both due to the intended use of the
              land ("for the public good" in the greater sense) and the
              amount paid.  -John
              \_ I believe in this case he ended up in some sort of
                 negotiated settlement that he felt was forced upon him
                 under threat of ED.  Negotiating under the gun isn't much
                 of a negotiation and he probably could've gotten more which
                 I think is what his gripe is.  Anyway, at least we agree on
                 the major points which is the part I was here for.
2006/1/13-17 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:41371 Activity:nil
1/13    Jenn Sterger
        \_ Who?
           \_ obGoogle
              \_ returns no result.  Amazing.  Is she that
                 \) don't use google images.
           \_ Another girl with fake boobs.
2006/1/13 [Uncategorized] UID:41372 Activity:high
1/13    Hillary and Bill thank the organizer for the fraudulent $700k
        in campaign contributions.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:13 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>