Geeto67

Most state and local laws in this country give the pedestrian the right of way for a reason, so that drivers take extra care in operating their motor vehicles. Let's not play the blame game, regardless of the contributing factors the car is at fault for the purposes of insurance and restitution. The only thing I think this demonstrates is that autonomous car technology is not far enough along to be testing in a live environment, and that when you rely on humans as your system redundancy you are just going to get the same human errors that you had without the technology. Maybe the autonomous tech will reduce accidents in time, who knows, but right now I think the technology needs to slow down on it's push toward adoption, maybe go back to controlled environment testing.

It's a lame duck, but it is a start. The Dickey Amendment is kinda brilliant and kinda nefarious in how it works. It isn't written as a specific bar to research, it was in a spending bill after all, so what it does is say that any research that the CDC does can't be used for creating gun control laws. That means if the CDC does study gun violence, none of that research can be used for policy making. It neuters the effect of the research, why study something if you are barred from making changes based on the outcome? The practical effect is that the CDC zeroed out it's budget for research on gun violence and directed the funds toward studying traumatic brain injury. restating that the CDC is not barred from studying gun control, but keeping in the provision that the research cannot be used for policy making really doesn't change the landscape other than to make the republican politicians look like they are slightly less in the pocket of the NRA. This was always a true statement - the CDC wasn't barred from law from doing the research, it was barred from using the research in a meaningful way, this new measure doesn't change anything. cue Tim to tell us research in this area is evil and unnecessary.

Apartheid is only the final incantation, SA was still part of the transatlantic slave trade and had slaves until 1833 when they became indentured workers, plus the Boers weren’t exactly keen on black rights. So really not 40 years you want to look at it historically. Comparatively speaking it is as if the US didn’t ban segregation until 1991 so in many ways the SA problem may be longer and worse than ours, which probably explains the violence. It is not almost identical to Israel, but I can’t deny there aren’t similarities. The biggest difference though is that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel and are governed by Hamas. That means Palestinians are not citizens of Israel. This is like saying the US is an apartheid state because of our immigration policies with Mexico. I am not going to defend some of Isarel’s Policies which are human rights violations, but it’s a little much to say they are identical to apartheid. Two good opposite numbers are the Jim Crow segregation laws that existed in the US from the late 1800’s till the 1960’s and the reservation policies the US has with the Indian Nations.

insurance. If you are a renter, do you really want your future tenant in there hanging pictures before the lease agreement goes into effect? If he bursts a pipe or trips and breaks a leg its on you as the landlord, after the agreement, the tenant assumes some of the liability (but not all). This is just speculation but, think about it like this: potential tenant does this event before they take possession through the lease. The end result is a bunch of fines or penalties against the landlord so he is now in a position to either say "I authorized this activity" or "they were acting outside my permission". And in order to distance himself from them and others who may trespass to do the same thing, he has to cancel the lease. Add in potential pressure from the city due to noise complaints and you end up kind of where we are. Again this is just me spitballing, I have no actual knowledge, it could be something completely different.

This is a completely fair point in theory, but usually when you see this logic in practice it extends to things like clothes, language, customs, holidays, etc... stuff beyond the boundaries of the law. Examples like the virgin cleansing myth is def beyond the boundaries of the law and it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the community to police itself (as well as work with LEOs) with respect to it not being accepted. Nobody is expecting jobs to alter work ethic standards to accommodate a cultural difference (religious/cultural holidays are not work ethic). There also seems to be in practice this application of stereotypes (just read any number of Tim's missives on somali's here in Cbus) to groups of people whole cloth. The line is pretty clearly drawn along the criminal laws and industry customs, but for many who push respectability politics as a solution in lieu of legislation the line is too low, and most of their demands are too discriminatory to be passed as law anyway. true, but there are other places that have more opportunities than here. Also, for a country that strives for equality there is a pretty clear disproportionate success results drawn along race lines regardless of national origin, culture, economic standing, etc. What's wrong with...you know...actually looking to improve based on the ideal we actual hold out to the world? There are still laws on the books that keep the tendrils of Jim Crow alive and we need to keep working to undue the harm that they continue to do. I am not a fan of lowering standards, those are band aid fixes at best. In most cases the systems need a new approach and an overhaul (but how do you get the money to do that with an administration that wants to cut programs not spend for new ones?). A lot of this work has to happen at the local level too, but you need people willing to acknowledge there is a problem in the system as well and you don't get that with someone playing politics of respectability. white people are going to be blamed for poverty, et al for a long time. It takes generations to purge those effects. and it's not unwarranted, they did create whole laws and systems and schemes to keep black people in poverty under apartheid. Are you saying "STILL" like it is somehow unwarranted? because it isn't - this shit takes lifetimes to undo. 150 years in the US and we still haven't figured it out, SA has what? 30 years in? I'm surprised they moving as fast as they are. Is it rose tinted? or just willful ignorance because it doesn't fit some narrative about macho-ness or personal responsibility or some other such nonsense? In the legal community the concept of the school to prison pipeline is a real problem that lawyers from both political backgrounds are trying to solve for, but outside that industry in the larger political sphere you have mainstream conservative politicians, pundits, and lobbyists still calling it a myth and a hoax. How do you expect to accomplish something in that environment? Furthermore, there are people that oppose it just because the ACLU and NAACP recognize it as an issue and those organizations are made up of "pussy liberals who want to put gayness in the water (and it turns the frogs gay)" so it must be bad or some part of the liberal agenda. You hear Tim all the time say "its not that complex" or "you are making this complex" but that isn't taking the time to research and understand the facets of the problem - it's just ignoring the details to try and make the problem fit his moral relativism. And I get it, most people don't have time to learn about things that some people make whole careers out of studying - but if that's the case, then get out of the way of the people that actually do know the problem and are working on it and stop being the guy saying we don't need more research, or we don't need more understanding because guns are like cell phones or some other such nonsense.

point proven.

It's all part of the concept of the "politics of respectability". When you hear people like Tim say that immigrants need to assimilate to our culture that is what he is saying - rather than accept the cultural difference that is brought in as part of the American experience it sets up the idea that the majority experience IS the American experience and since we are not going to accept your differences you have to accept ours. It walks a fine line because every community should police itself (in addition to real police) with respect to societal ills like crime and poverty, but where it becomes despicable is when it blames inherent racial problems built into the system by decades of discrimination on the actions of the group instead of the actions of agents of the system; i.e. it's black people's fault that the police are more likely to kill black people than white people in an police stop, and the black community not the police need to do something about it. How long have you lived in America? what did Queen Gertrude in Hamlet say? oh yeah...."The lady doth protest too much, methinks" The fallout of Jim Crow in America is "sneaky" racism. Being faced with laws that banned overt racism, those looking to maintain their southern heritage ...er...I mean way of life resorted to disparate impact laws: laws that on their face seemed unbiased but due to the circumstances and environment had sever affects against a particular race. Then as time passed those who enacted those laws taught future generations that if it isn't on it's face racist, it's not. So then we get to now where we have people who say "it's black people's fault they do poorer on tests culturally, because everyone gets the same test" when in reality those tests were written with inherent bias originally specifically to disadvantage black people and then have been refined over the years to hide it. I've said this many times about Tim: I think he means well, and legitimately doesn't think he is, but he buys into a lot of seemingly inert things that have really ugly history and subtext just below the surface.

It's very hard to say they don't believe in it when they fly it's fery intentional symbol. And let's be clear if they are celebrating southern pride, then they are celebrating that their ancestors believed in it because again - very intentional symbol of bigotry. Geographic pride is not directly linked to racisim, but you bet your ass that flag is. There are a million other ways to show southern pride than to display a standard used to cause fear and intimidation in a race of people. mediocre dodge. The Germans have a word for it - geist. It means spirit. Volksgeist is the spirit of the people (or world), zeitgeist is the spirit of the age. Nobody is making any official deceleration in meetings to...whatever...some things and just collectively understood because of the history of the thing. In the zeitgeist and volksgeist that symbol will always be associated with bigotry by nearly everyone. I think you probably understand it best as common sense. It's funny that you give a pass to people who fly an intentional symbol of hate and bullying that is common sense to get a reaction from people of a certain race get a pass where their feelings must be understood, but those whom the symbol was used against aren't afforded the same luxury. Why? because they are white? Because their southern heritage is more important than the harm it causes others? you didn't answer my question: is flying a confederate flag a smart choice? In your span of choices where does it rank? below public urination at a st paddy's day parade? The fact that you are even 1% serious is unsettling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_traitor

Every time you start to make a decent case that you may not have an obvious racist outlook, you post something like this and hit the reset button. Come on man, even you has to realize sentences like these are just not a good look.

I'm sure it has all that good stuff like southern (white) pride once you conveniently ignore the 150+ years it was used as an outright symbol of oppression and racial hatred. thing is though - once it becomes associated with that, and it was intentionally associated with that, you can't really dis-associate. Just by flying it you can't "take it back", esp when southern "pride" is in itself 100% the white experience from that era. There was a movement in the 1960's and 70's to re-appropriate the confederate flag by black culture, it didn't have the intended effects and actually empowered those who understood and supported the hateful message. Would you be this tolerant or understanding of someone flying the nazi standard in front of their home? The Swastika was a good luck charm prior to the third Reich, but if you were walking down the street would you think that? So your argument is they are stupid and have good intentions? and that makes them good people? Nobody is confused about the message the southern cross conveys, expecting people to give them the benefit of the doubt as to their character when they fly a symbol that is rightfully associated with bigotry is just asking too much of people. So what are people who completely disregard the hostile message toward a particular race that their actions convey? I mean think about it, really think - to them the collective opinion of a race of people as to the message being conveyed by the flag which is specific to that racial characteristic is less important than the display of "southern heritage". What do you call that when you treat another race as lesser just because of their race? I'm pretty sure the word is racist, but you tell me. Let's go even further - would you call this insensitivity a good measure of character? Or since you are so critical of the choices people make would you say this is making good choices?

English, please? you were talking about how my general statements applied to you, as if you were the only person to which some of this stuff was directed. I think the thing you object to is that I don't always separate you from your latently racist white opinions. But then again they are your opinions. Also this "taking the lead" nonsense is flimsy - assuming I do the thing you are complaining about, so you doing it makes it ok? Do two wrongs suddenly make a right? Do three rights not make a left anymore? Are dogs and cats living together? oh wait...no, and again assuming you are just taking the lead - somehow you doing it is worse because you should know better. Lets not forget this is a political discussion thread. I'm gladly admit I have very little tolerance for religious discussions of any kind in political discourse because I think it's general bad policy to let government policy to be dictated by religious agenda. Plus I'm not even sure what's considered a "christian" opinion. You can be against legal abortion laws and not be christian, Christianity doesn't own a patent on shitty ideas. 1/2 of Christianity is Judaism or Islam anyway (that old testament thingy? yeah that's called the Tanakh in Judaism, and that new testament thingy? yeah that's 93 verses in the Quran) so if I have been crapping on a "christian" ideal I would by extension be shitting on Muslim or Jewish one as well. Are you sure I wasn't just being dismissive of a generally shitty idea that happens to be a part of "Christianity" and you want to make some religious discrimination case out of it? because I am pretty sure that's what's happening. Then why are we still talking about it and why do you keep bringing it up? Also why do you use it as a point to indicate my opinion is somehow inferior? Good because I am pretty sure I wouldn't vote for you.

Let's define "had" - there is a big difference between owning one, and even displaying it in their own home, vs displaying it in a very public place with the intention of communicating to the world this is a part of your identity. I own a confederate flag, I bought it for a play in college. I'm not going to go out of my way to waive it in front of my house or put it in the back window of my car...because frankly it doesn't represent me. So did I know good people who "had" flags? yes. Did I know people I considered to be "good people" who publicly displayed those flags? no, not really where my definition of good includes "racially sensitive". It doesn't mean those people had no redeeming qualities what so ever, but it does mean that hate was a very public part of their character. I'm glad we had different experiences, but again see my definition of good vs your definition of good. I suspect you are willing to overlook something I am not. And when did you think that was exactly? As in what year? First off, what we know as the confederate flag isn't actually a representative flag of the confederate states of america. That flag looks like this: The flag we have come to know as the confederate flag was actually the battle flag of the northern VA army. Why is this important? well after the end of the civil war symbols of the confederacy were considered taboo. So those still aligned with the cause of southern independence picked this obscure symbol to fly as a way of protesting reconstruction and showing solidarity for the southern cause (slavery). So if you want to know when it became an "issue" - well that was the first day one was hung post civil war. It took 100 years from the end of the civil war for attitudes to change enough for black people to be granted civil rights in this country in it's laws. It's no surprise that at 150+ years people still haven't come around on this clearly intended symbol of hate. see my above discussion as to the difference of a good person or not. Good itself is a highly subjective concept and more complex than the black and white in which you seem to want it to be. We are all flawed characters, and i'm sure to the ones we have wronged in life we aren't "good" and to those who love us we are. The fundamental difference here isn't about PC on the surface or deep down - it's about whether a very public display of bigotry as personal identity is a deal breaker for wanting to interact with someone or not. It is for me, is it for you?

World doesn't revolve around you Tim. Don't confuse whites with racist whites. The sum total of the white race isn't playing these tribal games, it's just a small vocal sect. I take particular offense that you seem to want to separate me from the white race as well since my paternal Italian heritage puts me into that group as well, and for a lot of society the Jewish heritage is considered a subset of white. You know who goes out of their way to draw these exclusionary distinctions? hate groups. As for the rhetoric toward Christians - well that's a matter of opinion. Christianity in general comes with it's own hypocrisy, e.g. hatred of LGBT, hatred of the poor, etc and pointing it out isn't any different than those people who feel they need to point out the hyprcrisy of certain political positions. I personally find it laughable that a religion that preaches love all and be kind to all is the basis for hate and discrimination, and there are plenty of Christians that feel the same way. your words and rhetoric say otherwise. yeah, maybe I brought it up once initially (twice at most), but you seem to bring it up more often. As I have said in the past - I don't go out of my way to start these conversations, I mostly am just responding to the nonsense people post here. Nobody is saying that discounting the opinions of others whole cloth is wrong, just those where you go out of the way to do it on the basis of race. You realize you are basically calling me a race traitor here. By saying I discount the whole shared opinion of all whites (of which we established earlier i am one) is inferring I am selling out my own race. Also, don't presume that because I discount your opinion that I am discounting the opinion of all whites, because I am pretty sure you weren't elected the white person spokesperson.

I lived in Louisiana for 4 years. My Cousins grew up on a farm in Fayetteville, AR (go razorbacks) and I visited them more than a few times.

Nothing like some good old fashioned sneaky racism. This is right up there with "Intersectionality" as an academic concept.

No, just the slurs and stereotypes that impact me. Being a decent human is what makes me cringe when I hear the n word tossed into casual conversation, not my heritage or whatever. Apparently being a decent human being means being a senstivie pussy. Again, it's got nothing to do with my heritage - I just don't really want to interact with ignorant jackasses if I can help it. If you are proudly flying the confederate flag in everyday life, it's a pretty safe bet you aren't a "fine person" (to use the president's words). It's your right to do it, just as it's mine to think you are a racist dipshit. hearing someone say they Jew-ed someone down on a price doesn't make me fly into a rage, or wound me emotionally, but I ain't exactly going to go out of my way to interact with that person in a positive way either. I imagine this his how most people of minority races deal with bigotry day to day. But make no mistake it's still bigotry. I think that is just your ignorance as to the fact that antisemitism never went away and is actually on the rise. You don't see it because you don't understand and aren't empathetic to anybody else's condition beyond your own. Also, and I think I need to point this out because you don't seem to grasp it - Being Jewish is not just a religion, it is an ethnicity as well. Doesn't matter what I believe religiously, I can be no less Jewish than someone can be black or Hispanic. This was the driving rhetoric behind the Third Reich and their "Master Race" - a demographic devoid of the RACE of jews, it's the reason why they had all sorts of blood laws as to what defined you as a jew, similar to what the southern states had to determine if you were black during slavery. I don't know why you are saying it's a cry for attention, you bring it up more than I do. Still, bitching and moaning and generally discounting the opinion of someone pointing out the obvious that the world has a negative opinion of their race is an integral component to bigotry.

no I added that bit for fun. he's also fond of saying "I can't be racist, I have a Black relative" which I think is the modern version of "I have black friends", but whatever. Modern St. Paddy's day in NYC is like a character parade at Disney world. Not exactly "mind blowing stuff" if you have ever been around drunk people. Having your mind blown by the poor choices drunk people consistently and predictably make is like saying mayonnaise is spicy - hence why I called him a pussy.

That's an awesome car. I don't understand why the article talks about it being a "strange" combination - people have been putting ford 302's in E36's before they were putting LS chebbies in them, so a ford in a bmw isn't THAT unusual.

Yeah, they are going to have to figure out the ad format. watching it last night and although the ad breaks are 15-45 seconds long there are just so many and awkwardly placed that it's hard to watch. I'd rather have a 1:20-2 min of commercials at the beginning, middle, and end, like regular TV, than 6 30second spots.

So let me get this straight....you objection isn't that alcoholism and violence is a plague upon the irish people and for some reason there is an international holiday that somehow celebrates it as if it were a positive attribute, nor are you objecting to a national holiday in the US that basically encourages reckless drinking behavior. Your problem is that you don't understand why drunk people do generally what drunk people do (because it blows your mind) and they don't make the choices you would make in that situation. Greg is right, you must be fun at parties (<--sarcasm). I can tell you the St paddy's day parades in the 90's were drunken brawls. That was still the era when NYC was more like Beirut than Disneyland. It wasn't riot level, a couple of kids would dust up, the crowd would give them space and then the cops would come in, beat the crap out of everyone brawling, and all went on fine and few people got arrested if any. Now it's just like a really large college kegger. no big deal and no reason to shit on drunk people for being drunk people. Trust me, Mardi Gras is 1000x worse on the pee and puke and semen front.

Now who’s the pussy? St paddy’s day in NYC is a lot of fun. It’s not even close to as violent and shady as it used to be.

Can you two show a modicum of class, please? The story isn't even a day old and one of his victims is fighting for her life.

Apparently they were a band put together for an MTV reality show - making the band. The only thing I know about that show is Dave Chapelle did a skit about it where he "spit hot fire". The only thing I know about Danity Kane is that I found a CD of theirs once in a Chrysler Sebring Convertible I rented once. It was un-listen-able.

LO effing L By the way, anybody want to talk about Donnie JR putting the balls to one of the members of Danity Kane? I read that US Weekly headline and now I can't get that image out of my head. I imagine it's like a slug mating with a piece of closed cell foam....<shiver>.....

I was going to say, just from that clip the parking lot looks like shit. That dude with the camaro couldn't even hold it straight for his entire 600ft run. I would be skeptical about running auto-X through there as well, though it is probably a better space for it. Then again, the OSU parking lot wasn't all that great (are they still doing that by the way?). I will say this - it probably wouldn't be a bad place for a stationary car/bike show and swap meet.