| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2007/6/4-10 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:46845 Activity:high |
6/3 Ahh, that good 'ole suburban lifestyle:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/28quwx (Washington Post)
\_ I spend 20 minutes commuting each way. That's pretty short.
Having a short commute is the only way I have time to exercise
1+ hours/day, which is in turn the only reason I'm not
completely fat. (I'm only a little bit fat.) I don't know
how anyone can live the way this guy did.
\_ Plenty of people are fat, stressed and ulcerated.
\_ haven't we seen this before? motd necromancy!
\_ I think the last one was a NYT article.
\_ I live so far from the city my city friends never heard of the
place. I also commute < 15 minutes each way, have lunch with
my wife at least once a week and work no more than 40 hours a
week over time. Just because some people choose to live their
lives poorly doesn't mean everyone has.
\_ You must work in the same small town where you live.
\_ Wait, so you're saying you work between 40 and 80 hrs/wk?
What's your average, 60hrs/wk?
\_ I mean I have an odd schedule where I work 44 hours one week
then 36 hours the next, so 40 hours/week averaged out. It is
9 hours a day M-Th + 8 F, then 9 per day M-Th and Friday off.
I haven't done one of those 60-80 hour weeks in a few years.
I make a few $K less than I used to but not by much and have
a life now.
\_ Which company is this? We just started doing this
9/80 schedule as well.
\_ To be fair, not everyone has the skills that can give them that
kind of job. Tech work is really nice that way.
\_ When I used to BART into the city I'd see the same folks
every day and chat with a few of them. Mostly they were non-
tech people who would have been better off not coming in to
the city for work. One guy was a counter guy at a deli shop
who drove 30 minutes to BART and then another hour to the
city. I don't know what he made but c'mon... counter guy at
the deli with a 90 minute commute.
\_ Bart time, while still suck, is much less suck when
compared to driving.
\_ Depends on how many hours/week you get stuck standing
the whole way bodily pressed against smelly people.
\_ At one job I worked at, I used to always come in late
and work late, so I got to know the janitor. Turns out
he drove in from Stockton (!) every day and had three
kids. He made $17/hr as a janitor in SF and could only
make $6.15 in Stockton. I guess 3X your salary is worth
a 2+ hr/day commute.
\_ Or better would be to move to another state where he
could live on $5.25 and not waste 2+ hr/day commuting
which he could spend going to school, starting a
business or just enjoying time with his family.
\_ The cost of living is less in other states, but it
is not 1/3 the cost of living in Stockton. This
guy was buying his own house, which you can't do
on minimum wage anywhere.
\_ It isn't just pure cost of living but the value
of his time as well. If he spends it commuting
it is lost. If he spends it in school or doing
something useful he can move up in society and
stop working as a janitor or sandwich maker.
\_ I think that way and you think that way,
but not everyone does. Once you have three
kids, your options narrow considerably.
\_ Once you have three kids, the *last* thing
you should be doing is spending 3 hours a
day commuting. -tom
\_ Once you have +1 kid you're whipped
and your wife will forbid you to
make any drastic changes to their
lives. I presume you never had kids.
\_ Someone deleted my response, but the
best thing for the kids is if this
guy triples his salary and gives his
kids a better lifestyle. Do you
think the kids who have parents on
welfare (and who are home 100% of
the time) are better off? Studies
show that education and income
correlate to success, not "quality
time with the kids", even if that
seems illogical. I presume it's
because beyond a certain age kids
are influenced more by teachers and
peers than parents. Getting your
kids away from gangsters is worth 3
hours per day commuting.
\_ Correlation is not causation.
Kids need food, shelter, and
good relationships with their parents
far more than they need a huge
house in Dixon or the latest
Transformers toy. -tom
\_ You think this janitor is
working for a huge house in
Dixon and a Transformers toy?
What kids need are parents who
are able to care for them.
That doesn't mean being with
them 24/7. Do you think a 3
hour commute is hurting the
kids? Maybe a little, but it's
a net positive considering the
alternative is the dad at home
and the kids in the slums. Kids
need parents who care, not
necessarily parents who are
present.
\_ reference please. -tom
\_ I cannot find the study
right now, but it stated
that parents' income and
education are the TWO
most important factors
for having successful
children with everything
else having just a slight
effect. Here is one paper
that states that the effect
of employment of the father
is negative, but small.
http://tinyurl.com/2bga74
\_ uh, yeah, and how is
commuting 3 hours for
a minimum-wage job
improving parental
income or education?
You're also reading
the study wrong; it
says that the effect
of father's employment
is small--that is, if
the father is *unemployed*,
there is a small negative
effect. It doesn't say
anything about an employed
father who is spending
12 hours a day working and
commuting. The same study
also notes that children
who experience single
parenthood have
significantly lower
educational attainments.
-tom
\_ Why is it a choice of 3 hours
of commuting to a janitor job
vs. welfare and slums? He
can work for lower pay in a
cheaper place and spend that
wasted 3 hours bettering his
life so he won't be a friggin
janitor forever.
\_ As someone else said,
nowhere is cheap enough
to survive on minimum
wage and a lot of the
cheapest places are full
of redneck hicks, which
makes minorities
uncomfortable. (I am
assuming he is a
minority. Please correct
me if he is not.)
\_ Minimum wage and a family
of 4 puts you well below
the poverty line which
means you're getting
piles of government
assistance for food and
housing, as well as a
free education with those
2-3 saved hours a day so
you don't have to die as
a janitor or sandwich
maker.
\_ "Piles of government
assistance?"
\_ If I had 3 kids I'd definitely move far
far away from the city. My options would
narrow in favor of raising my kids away
from such an incredibly negative influence.
\_ Even plenty of us who think that The City
is an incredibly positive influence would
move away, because we wouldn't be able
to afford to live here. I am kind of
curious, have you ever talked to anyone
who was actually born and raised in
San Francisco? Most of them seemed to
have come out just fine.
\_ Yes, I have. What about it?
\_ If fine == gay.
\- you go past 19th ave, or on top
\- you know past 19th ave, or on top
of twin peaks, or beyond glen park
SF is a very different place from
the downtown, marina, pacheights,
mission, assland, western add,
inner sunset, noe areas. and
bayview type areas are in turn
different in a different way.
like someone i know who grew
up in st. francis wood and then
was ucb/tridelt, might as well
have grown up in menlo park or
mill valley. although i think
people form danville or saratoga
are a little different.
\_ While it may not be true of all
large cities, I've met
disproportionately larger number of
SF born/raised people who didn't
know how to swim or ride a bike.
While this doesn't make them "not
fine," it does give them slightly
different background with which to
view the world. |
| 2007/6/4-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:46846 Activity:moderate |
6/3 Dirty Congressman Jefferson finally indicted.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PI5SRO1
\_ Good --scotsman
\_ Seconded. --erikred
\_ About time. Let's see some real jail time and a felony conviction
from this one.
\_ He's innocent I tell ya, just like DeLay and Libby! Selfless public
servants.
\_ Libby is going to jail for *not* leaking any secrets. He got
totally fucked over on some BS trumped up garbage charge and
sent to the wolves so *someone* could take the fall.
\_ Somehow I don't see "Free Scooter!" t-shirts being big
sellers.
\_ You fail to understand how delusional the Bushies have
become.
\_ You fail to have the facts at hand when posting. See
below for what Libby was convicted of and while you're
at it, compare what happened to Libby vs. Sandy "Stuffed
Shorts" who got probation and a trivial fine for
stealing and destroying national security documents
related to the Clinton administration's policies re:
Al Qaeda in the 90s. If Libby deserves jail then SB
deserves a treason charge with life or hanging on those
scales of justice.
\_ Thanks for making my case for me (btw, I think
SB got off too light as well, but that is tangential
to the Libby case).
\_ Your case was what exactly? A vague slam against
all "Bushies"? Whatever. DailyKOS awaits your
wisdom.
\_ Libby is really going to jail for obstructing justice. He
still doesn't understand that what he did was wrong, and
apparently neither do a number of his supporters.
\_ Libby obstructed justice how exactly? Specifically what he
got nailed for was this: the prosecution asked ~8 reporters
for their version of events and asked Libby as well. The
reporters gave varying versions, different time lines, etc
that didn't match each other. Libby didn't and in fact
could not have matched what the reporters said so he got
nailed for what exactly? Not matching all 8 reporters who
didn't match themselves? Give it a rest, the man is a
victim.
\_ "It's important that we expect and demand a lot from
people who put themselves in those positions," Walton
"Mr. Libby failed to meet that bar. For whatever
reason, he got off course." From the sentencing judge.
They outed a spy and then obstructed the investigation
into it. You are right that more than just Libby
should have paid, but he was the only case that
Fitzgerald felt was going to stick in a court of law.
\_ Yes, and? He's still going to prison for not having
the same story as 8 reporters who also had different
stories from each other. And let's not forget the
$250k fine on top of 30 months in prison. This is
not justice.
\- i am pretty sure he'll be "made whole"/taken care
for for his loyalty. obstruction of justice by
the powerful is a serious problem and deserves
serious penalties. the plea bargaining system
has some strage pathologies ... e.g. the guy
facing a serious charge with a lame public
defender vs. the guy who can pay his legal bills
though ill gotten gains or directors/officers
insurance or otherwise has deep resources or
something truly bizzare like the fbi/cia mole
cases where the death penalty was taken off
the table in return for cooperation or the
OLYMPIC BOMBER case where death penalty was
taken off the table because he hid a bunch
of explosives in the hills and would not
disclose where unless non-death ... those
are good candidates for waterboarding.
since we've decided to torture people, i think
there is an argument to be made that they are
"consenting" to torture ... i dont think these
people are "entitled" to this arrow in their
legal quiver. anyway, libby got the best of the
legal process. good lawyer, credible judge,
jury, prosecutor. if you want to claim he
was railroaded, the very very heavy burden is
on you to make the case.
\_ Again I ask: *exactly* what did he do that was
illegal, in plain English, please?
\- can you list you name so we can laugh
at you?
\_ The reason he was given such a harsh sentence
is because he used his power and authority in
an effort to pervert justice and he continues
to show no remorse for it (much like his
supporters). No one is above the law, not you,
and not even the White House. A harsh lesson
to have to learn, but one that I wish more
WH crooks would get the opportunity to have.
\_ With Bush's Pardon in his pocket, Scooter
will be above the law. Sucks, don't it?
\_ He isn't going to get a pardon.
\_ Well there is that. I guess he really
is above the law.
\_ Again I ask: *exactly* what did he do that was
illegal, in plain English, please?
\_ Obstruction of justice isn't clear enough
to you? He deliberately lied to the FBI and
\_ no. that's the legal charge. it
doesn't say what he *did*.
the Grand Jury in an attempt to derail the
investigation. According to Fitzgerald,
this actually had the intended effect of
making the Grand Jury unable to make the
case against the true perpetrators of the
crime of revealing a CIA agents identity.
According to the judge the evidence was
"overwhelming" and according to all 12
jurors, it was "beyond a reasonable doubt."
\_ I'll give you an example of "plain
English": Sandy Burglar went into the
national archives, stuffed a bunch of
Clinton era NSA documents related to
Al Qaeda in his socks and underwear,
hid them a few blocks away then returned
later, took them elsewhere and destroyed
them. Libby did what exactly?
\- i think sandy burger is a lamer and a
fool and you have to wonder "what was
he thinking" but i'll be happy to
see him burned at the stake IF the
CIA or NSA or somebody other than
a partisan player says he damaged
national security, which has they
took the trouble to say in the Plame
case. In fact I would be kinda
happy to see that. However, I'm open
to the possibility that what he
took out had no national security
importance [as you may not know,
the govt has often classifies a
lot of things en masse and will only
"lazily evaluate" if they should
not declassified. for example there
are documents that are essentualy
just strings of number from sensitive
simulations which are classified
[possible in the relating-to-nuke
classification, which is differnt
from the Secret, Top Secret etc one],
so just the fact that they were
classified isnt quite enough for a
air assessment. If Plame was say
a IT Manager or Food Services manager
at the CIA, even if it was strictly
by the letter not legal to disclose
her identity, I'd be more willing to
think this might have been something
unreasonable at the food of the tree,
but again, the issue is you dont get
to decide when to cooperate with the
FBI and when you cant.
\_ Sandy Burglar: it doesn't matter
what value the documents had. If
you or I had done it our lives
would have been destroyed over it.
And since he destroyed them we
*can't* know, since that is the
point of destroying them. We are
forced to assume they did have
value or he wouldn't have bothered.
As far as Libby goes since no one
here seems to actually know what
he is accused of, I'll tell you.
In plain English: Libby voluntarily
talked to the grand jury investi-
gating Plame's ID revealing. His
story didn't match ~8 reporters'
stories. Those 8 reporters'
versions of events and timelines
not only did not match Libby, they
did not match each other, and did
not match their own written notes
and did not match their previous
testimony when brought back and
questioned again on the same
topics. Libby's only crime was
trying to do the right thing. Now
here are two kickers for you on top
of everything else: Richard Arma-
tage was *known to the prosecutor*
on *day 1* to be the Plame leaker.
Before he ever talked to Libby,
the prosecutor *knew* who the
leaker was. His entire investiga-
tion was supposed to be about
finding the leaker, but slamming
Armatage wasn't politically useful.
He wanted Cheney, Rove and others
who we now know had *nothing* to
do with it. He couldn't get them
but he was able to get Libby on a
complete crap charge. And the
second kicker: Libby's lawyers
tried hard to get Plame's actual
official status clarified in court
but the judge agreed with the
prosecution that whether or not
she was in fact a "secret agent"
or not was not relevent to the
case! Wow. And then in the
sentencing phase, the judge then
allows the same prosecutor to
argue that Libby should get super
smashed for revealing a "secret
agent's identity" but never allowed
the defendant to examine that in
court or answer those charges. A
giant "fuck you" to Libby and any
sense of real Justice. *THAT* is
the 'plain English' version of
what happened to Scooter libby.
And now we've already started to
see other people refusing to
testify in front of various
congressional committees because
they're afraid they're get Libby'd.
Having one branch of government
literally afraid to *talk* to
another branch of government out of
fear of malicious prosecution is no
way to run a government.
\_ Malicious prosecution, huh...
Sigh. Aren't you guys the
"if they haven't done anything
wrong, they have nothing to
fear" crowd? Or is that just
for us laypeople?
\_ To actually believe all that BS
you have to believe that a
guy who indicted Democrats,
Al Qaeda and Republicans
suddently went nuts. Libby
lied and got caught. His lies
totally screwed up a federal
case (remember various
reporters went to jail to help
keep Libby's lies secret) and
damaged national security and
he paid the price. Get over it.
\_ What the above guy said: but let me dumb it
down a bit more: he lied under oath about
matters relevant to national security.
\_ Yes, nice. See my above example of
"plain English". Thanks.
\_ Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) "So for my friends who think that
perjury, lying and deceit are in some circumstances acceptable
and undeserving of punishment I respectfully disagree." [House
Judiciary Committee, 12/1/98].
Rep. John Mica (R-FL) "If you commit perjury or obstruct justice,
you will be held accountable. If you are a member of Congress or
president . . . you will be held accountable. Even if you . . .
do a thousand good deeds, you will be held accountable." [Orlando
Sentinel, 12/20/98]
Former House Majority Leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) "But Mr.
Speaker, perjury before a grand jury is not personal and it is
not private. Obstruction of justice is not personal and it is
not private. Abuse of the power of the greatest office in the
world is not personal and it is not private." [ABC Special
Report, 12/19/98]
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) "Perjury and obstruction of justice
are serious offenses which must not be tolerated by anyone in
our society." [Washington Post, 2/12/99]
Senator Sam Brownback (R- KS) "Perjury and obstruction of justice
are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the
truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government."
[Congressional Record, 2/12/99]
Oh yeah, that was lying about a BJ, obviously a much more serious
crime than outing a CIA agent. |
| 2007/6/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:46847 Activity:nil |
6/4 In American culture, if a bride invites her parents' buddies from
another state to attend her wedding, who usually pays for their air
tickets and hotel rooms? Thx.
\_ They do. Bride's parents can if they want to. You or your parents
can if you're filthy rich. |
| 2007/6/4-10 [Health/Disease/General, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:46848 Activity:moderate |
6/4 Enron exec gets only 2yr jail time for screwing up so many people's
retirement:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070604/bs_nm/enron_sentencing_dc
\- the real punishment issue is they got to "club fed" type
prisons, not ass prisons. how many years in non-ass prison
would you be willing to do to avoid 1 yr or ass prison?
would you be willing to do to avoid 1 yr of ass prison?
\_ Just send him to Iraq and tell him to patrol the city
neighborhood for road side bomb...
\_ As much as I hate Enron, I hate the idea that repeated gang
rape is an acceptable punishment, especially one to joke
around about, even more.
\_ Quite aside from the gang rape and psych. trauma
there is the very high risk of infection.
\- who is joking? i think it is a very serious inequity
in "the system" along the lines of the crack vs cocaine
sentencing disparity, some weird pathologies in the
mandatory sentencing guidelines etc. is your ass/non-ass
prison multipler less than 5? or maybe we should phrase
it in terms of "how many months are you willing to trade
for change in marginal risk of hepatitis, hiv etc." are
you willing to add a year to your sentence to take the
risk of hiv/hep from 5% to .1%?
\_ The prison system is broken. The sentence itself should
be the punishment. Getting raped, getting a disease, or
getting abused in some other way by the other inmates is
not justice and should not be part of the system.
\_ Agreed, but the solution is not softer sentencing for
corporate pirates.
\- Again, eliminating the abuses in the prison
system is a separate issue than the sentencing
disparity. For example you can feel the penalties
for drugs are overly harsh *across the board* but
it is a separate issue to look at the (racial)
disparate impact of the sentencing guidelines.
A better example, also turning on race, concerns
capital punishment. Again being pro/con capital
pusiment is a separate issue from the fact that
black people killing white people have VASTLY more
likely to get the death penalty than black people
"only" killing another black person. [and of course
this is a spearate issue than quality of repre-
sentation etc. but of course money makes a difference
whether it is law or medicine].
\_ OJ Simpson vs. Scott Peterson.
\_ The plural of ancedote is not data.
\_ I agree with you on the sentencing guidelines for
things like crack vs. cocaine. It's all coke and
should be treated the same. But is it? Isn't
crack a much stronger version of the same basic
stuff? Shouldn't a more serious substance get a
more serious penalty? If not, then why treat
pot use as a decriminalised activity but send
coke users to jail? Some lines? No lines? Or
just one big line that treats all drug offenses
the same?
\_ Coke and crack are both Sched. II substances;
as such, sentencing for possession/dealing
should be the same. However, judges have a
tendency to view coke-heads as still socially
redeemable, whereas crackheads are considered
irredeemable, and so sentences tend to be
harsher for crackheads. This is not consistent
with the espoused purpose of establing Scheds.
to begin with.
\- often there are arguments like "crackheads
are more likely to commit other crimes"
as opposed to upstanding wall street
coke users, or suburban upper middle
class coke heads etc. but it seems like
you should only be able to convict people
for what they did rather than statistical
propensities ... like if the crack head
paid for the crack by stealing car stereos
you need to convict him of that rather than
just infer it from "no visible means of
support". on the flip side, you also have
to wonder about "hate crime" laws with
harsher pentalities, under the theory that
hate-fuelled beatings are worse than run-
of-the-mill beatings ... if a hate beating
averages in 50stiches rather than 25 stiches
surely there is a way to have the sentencing
reflect the "actual damage" and dispense
with the "thought crime" aspect. although
i acknowledge something like hate-graffitti
may be different from "<my gang> rules"
type graffiti ... but once it advances to
something like arson, i dunno if you really
have to consider the "hate" element so
much.
\_ The why is always important in crime.
For instance look at the difference
between a premeditated mob hit and
a crime of passion.
\- fair point. but some whys matter.
like premeditation. does it matter
whether the premediated mob hit was
for financial reaasons [like say
remove competition/turf war ...
fundamentally about money] or say
to prevent a witness from testifying.
but i think we agree sentencing is
complicated and hard to make a
determiistic function of n-variables.
like for white collar crime how do
you factor in the magnitude of the
harm [embezzing $50k, vs $10m in
some kind of securities fraud],
what should be criminal vs civil
penalties etc.
\_ Crack and coke are the same thing, one is
not inherently stronger than the other,
though the method they are used leads to
slightly differrent effects. They may
finally be eliminating the sentencing
disparity, btw:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n656/a04.html
\_ If the method of use of one leads to a
greater (or less socially acceptable)
effect then I'd claim it is "stronger".
\- so for say assault, there should be
different sentencing guidelines
based on whether you are a welter-
weight or heavyweight or a black-
belt? how about just focusing on
the actual damage. if somebody
embezzles $2000 and buys math books
vs. mexican drinking binge, should
they get differnent sentences?
\_ In the case of drug sentencing the
charges are related to possession
not your blood content. So they
have to look at the potential
damage of selling 2kg of crack vs.
2kg of coke. If the potential
damage is the same, then yes they
should be punished the same. If
the crack is going to do more harm
to the community than the coke then
it should be punished more harshly.
Does one actually have the
potential to do more harm than the
other? I don't know. But the
judges dealing with these things
seem to think so.
\- drunk driving in a yugo vs a
humvee are treated differently?
yes, if the humvee drink driver
kills somebody and the yugo
driver just dents a mailbox,
that should be treatement
that should be treated
differently but saything there
are schedule I and schedule II
cars for DUI, is kinda odd.
\_ cars aren't drugs. car
possession is not (yet) a
crime. for a car wreck we
punish the effect. for drug
possession we punish based on
potential effect.
\- in the case of drunk
driving you can go
after them without a
car wreck happening.
it's being in posession
of a car while driving
because that might lead
to a car wreck, a pot-
ential effect.
\_ And for that potential
effect, the punishment
is extremely high. It
presumes that "this is
not your first time
doing it, so we'll
throw the book at you" |
| 2007/6/4 [Reference/Military, Recreation/Dating] UID:46849 Activity:insanely high |
6/4 NWSW Chick with a big gun
link:tinyurl.com/yosafk
\_ Who wants to see a chick with lopsided guns? |
| 2007/6/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:46850 Activity:nil |
6/4 NWSW Which manga is this?:
http://data.tumblr.com/2326329_400.jpg
\_ The Breast Tumor Awareness Week manga.
\_ I thought it was the heads of two Martians at first. -- !OP |
| 2007/6/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:46851 Activity:kinda low 57%like:46864 |
6/4 So ... are global markets going to get fucked starting tomorrow?
\_ Nope.
\_ Why?
\_ Shanghai markets down three days in a row.
\_ positive feedback loop -op
\_ Usually if something bad is going to happen the markets will respond
immediately. |
| 2007/6/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:46852 Activity:nil |
6/4 Enough with the ugly fat chicks, already. |