dougd Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Ron Paul devotees will be gratified to hear of his latest endorsement... http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/politics/2012/01/05/dnt-brothel-workers-support-ron-paul.krnv d Quote
Choada_Boy Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 I wonder if Dawg would like to comment on the Egyptian police state. Do they accept bribes? Quote
akhalteke Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 seems like a reasonable measure after a ranger was shot and killed less than a mile away... REALLY NOW WHAT WOULD YOU DO? What I said I'd do above. Where do you think you live, man??? Putting the public ON THEIR KNEES WITH THEIR HANDS BEHIND THEIR HEADS is about two steps beyond what anyone should tolerate. I have no problem answering a few polite questions, showing my driver's license or even putting my hands up to show I'm weapons-free...but ordering a general crowd down like that???? This ain't Damascus! You, sir , are fucking high. I was gonna write a bunch of tactical shit, but you are just being a shit disturber or you are as high as ten mother fuckers. Good day. Quote
JayB Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 A rather simplistic view of the societal forces that led to industry regulation during the Progressive era. I find the following much more compelling: "Ending its 27-year stranglehold on proposals for federal pure food and drug legislation, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act and its companion bill, the Meat Inspection Act, on June 30, 1906. An unprecedented convergence of consumer, scientific, and industrial support in 1906 prompted such action; most industries even planned for it, hoping regulation would restore the competitiveness of their products on weak foreign and domestic markets." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646146/pdf/amjph00277-0020.pdf Isn't the authors's point that organized financial interests, far from fighting Federal regulation, actually sought it out in order to secure commercial advantages for themselves? Quote
j_b Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) A rather simplistic view of the societal forces that led to industry regulation during the Progressive era. I find the following much more compelling: "Ending its 27-year stranglehold on proposals for federal pure food and drug legislation, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act and its companion bill, the Meat Inspection Act, on June 30, 1906. An unprecedented convergence of consumer, scientific, and industrial support in 1906 prompted such action; most industries even planned for it, hoping regulation would restore the competitiveness of their products on weak foreign and domestic markets." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646146/pdf/amjph00277-0020.pdf Isn't the authors's point that organized financial interests, far from fighting Federal regulation, actually sought it out in order to secure commercial advantages for themselves? That's a pretty vague statement (of course corporations act toward their commercial interests!). Corporations eventually joined the chorus for federal regulations because a) federal regulations gave uniform guidelines for operation instead of a state by state (city by city) patchwork of often incompatible rules and b) because it enhanced the credibility of their products by getting rid of the rotten apples in the barrel (every brand is hurt when the public distrust industry following scandals). The context of the period being that of a wave of popular support for safety and fairness in the workplace as well as for reining in dishonest business interests who misrepresented their products. For example, Sinclair's The Jungle that described conditions in the meat packing industry was published in 1906 and although Sinclair was making a case against the horrible plight of workers, the public response was horror at the unsanitary conditions prevalent in meat packing. Business interests having a major say in the shape of regulations isn't disputed but painting it as a desire to create monopolies rather than address public perception of their products as well as fitting within a broader context of reining abuses and creating a predictable business environment is rather simplistic (and self serving for the free marketeering crowd). Edited January 6, 2012 by j_b Quote
j_b Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Occupy Wall Street's Livestream Operators Arrested Quote
JayB Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 A rather simplistic view of the societal forces that led to industry regulation during the Progressive era. I find the following much more compelling: "Ending its 27-year stranglehold on proposals for federal pure food and drug legislation, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act and its companion bill, the Meat Inspection Act, on June 30, 1906. An unprecedented convergence of consumer, scientific, and industrial support in 1906 prompted such action; most industries even planned for it, hoping regulation would restore the competitiveness of their products on weak foreign and domestic markets." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646146/pdf/amjph00277-0020.pdf Isn't the authors's point that organized financial interests, far from fighting Federal regulation, actually sought it out in order to secure commercial advantages for themselves? That's a pretty vague statement (of course corporations act toward their commercial interests!). Corporations eventually joined the chorus for federal regulations because a) federal regulations gave uniform guidelines for operation instead of a state by state (city by city) patchwork of often incompatible rules and b) because it enhanced the credibility of their products by getting rid of the rotten apples in the barrel (every brand is hurt when the public distrust industry following scandals). The context of the period being that of a wave of popular support for safety and fairness in the workplace as well as for reining in dishonest business interests who misrepresented their products. For example, Sinclair's The Jungle that described conditions in the meat packing industry was published in 1906 and although Sinclair was making a case against the horrible plight of workers, the public response was horror at the unsanitary conditions prevalent in meat packing. Business interests having a major say in the shape of regulations isn't disputed but painting it as a desire to create monopolies rather than address public perception of their products as well as fitting within a broader context of reining abuses and creating a predictable business environment is rather simplistic (and self serving for the free marketeering crowd). It's just one more example of the fact that the "businesses hate regulation" meme is itself a gross oversimplification that doesn't jive with reality. Business love regulation that creates barriers to entry, creates a vritual monopoly, etc. [video:youtube] Quote
j_b Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) It's just one more example of the fact that the "businesses hate regulation" meme is itself a gross oversimplification that doesn't jive with reality. Business love regulation that creates barriers to entry, creates a vritual monopoly, etc. Not only do you ignore that corporations opposed regulations for decades before they realized it was in their interest but you were the one grossly oversimplifying the dynamics behind regulation during the Progressive era, and now you are grossly misstating the relationship of businesses to regulations as shown by a simple assessment of the forces behind deregulation over the last 40 years (business interests), or the forces opposing re-regulation of the financial sector today (big players of the financial sector). Nobody said that politicians should oblige their cronies by creating regulations that have nothing to do with public welfare, such as appears to be the case in your example (could you have picked a more arcane example?). Big players capturing the political process doesn't invalidate the need to regulate business, it points to electing ethical politicians, which in turn points to getting big money out of politics (step that you likely oppose). Edited January 7, 2012 by j_b Quote
JayB Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 The reason that organized interests are willing to invest large amounts of money to influence politicians is that the returns on their investment can be very high. The less power politicians have to distort the tax, regulatory, and appropriations environment in ways that benefit particular interests, the less money organized interests will spend doing so. The more power congress has to tax and regulate, the more money organized interests will spend. It's a symbiotic, rather than an adversarial relationship. Quote
j_b Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 in other words, you think that regulating business in order to have control over what we eat or to prevent them from shitting in our bed is unnecessary as if history had provided any evidence that it were the case. Fortunately for us, ~80% of the American public disagrees with you. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 The end goal should not be to add or take corporate money out of politics. That is an abstraction. Rather, it should be the greatest public good - a healthier, more sustainable environment, innovative and responsive business climate, high employment, social justice, and an adequate safety net for those in need. Good stewardship of our environment, democracy, and economy. You don't hear those themes much from the today's self described 'conservatives'. No...not so much at all. Quote
j_b Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 It's not the end goal. It's a necessary condition to achieve the goals you listed. Quote
j_b Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 The US schools with their own police The charge on the police docket was "disrupting class". But that's not how 12-year-old Sarah Bustamantes saw her arrest for spraying two bursts of perfume on her neck in class because other children were bullying her with taunts of "you smell". "I'm weird. Other kids don't like me," said Sarah, who has been diagnosed with attention-deficit and bipolar disorders and who is conscious of being overweight. "They were saying a lot of rude things to me. Just picking on me. So I sprayed myself with perfume. Then they said: 'Put that away, that's the most terrible smell I've ever smelled.' Then the teacher called the police." The policeman didn't have far to come. He patrols the corridors of Sarah's school, Fulmore Middle in Austin, Texas. Like hundreds of schools in the state, and across large parts of the rest of the US, Fulmore Middle has its own police force with officers in uniform who carry guns to keep order in the canteens, playgrounds and lessons. Sarah was taken from class, charged with a criminal misdemeanour and ordered to appear in court. Each day, hundreds of schoolchildren appear before courts in Texas charged with offences such as swearing, misbehaving on the school bus or getting in to a punch-up in the playground. Children have been arrested for possessing cigarettes, wearing "inappropriate" clothes and being late for school. In 2010, the police gave close to 300,000 "Class C misdemeanour" tickets to children as young as six in Texas for offences in and out of school, which result in fines, community service and even prison time. What was once handled with a telling-off by the teacher or a call to parents can now result in arrest and a record that may cost a young person a place in college or a job years later. "We've taken childhood behaviour and made it criminal," said Kady Simpkins, a lawyer who represented Sarah Bustamantes. "They're kids. Disruption of class? Every time I look at this law I think: good lord, I never would have made it in school in the US. I grew up in Australia and it's just rowdy there. I don't know how these kids do it, how they go to school every day without breaking these laws." [..] more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools Quote
Jim Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 The US schools with their own police The charge on the police docket was "disrupting class". But that's not how 12-year-old Sarah Bustamantes saw her arrest for spraying two bursts of perfume on her neck in class because other children were bullying her with taunts of "you smell". "I'm weird. Other kids don't like me," said Sarah, who has been diagnosed with attention-deficit and bipolar disorders and who is conscious of being overweight. "They were saying a lot of rude things to me. Just picking on me. So I sprayed myself with perfume. Then they said: 'Put that away, that's the most terrible smell I've ever smelled.' Then the teacher called the police." The policeman didn't have far to come. He patrols the corridors of Sarah's school, Fulmore Middle in Austin, Texas. Like hundreds of schools in the state, and across large parts of the rest of the US, Fulmore Middle has its own police force with officers in uniform who carry guns to keep order in the canteens, playgrounds and lessons. Sarah was taken from class, charged with a criminal misdemeanour and ordered to appear in court. Each day, hundreds of schoolchildren appear before courts in Texas charged with offences such as swearing, misbehaving on the school bus or getting in to a punch-up in the playground. Children have been arrested for possessing cigarettes, wearing "inappropriate" clothes and being late for school. In 2010, the police gave close to 300,000 "Class C misdemeanour" tickets to children as young as six in Texas for offences in and out of school, which result in fines, community service and even prison time. What was once handled with a telling-off by the teacher or a call to parents can now result in arrest and a record that may cost a young person a place in college or a job years later. "We've taken childhood behaviour and made it criminal," said Kady Simpkins, a lawyer who represented Sarah Bustamantes. "They're kids. Disruption of class? Every time I look at this law I think: good lord, I never would have made it in school in the US. I grew up in Australia and it's just rowdy there. I don't know how these kids do it, how they go to school every day without breaking these laws." [..] more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools I haven't the foggiest what this has to do with the subject at hand, but maybe that's the point(?). Less regulation needed? Quote
E-rock Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Hey Raindog, what if they had ordered you to strip to your polypro and present your driver's license? What would you have done then? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 The subject at hand is that Dawg still wears stinky polypro. The striped stuff. He doesn't even bring a change of clothes for the ride home. More regulation is definitely required. Legalizing passengers in rocket boxes would be a start. Quote
j_b Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I haven't the foggiest what this has to do with the subject at hand, but maybe that's the point(?). Less regulation needed? Oh, really. You don't see what routine over the top police enforcement of school discipline (in the context of crumbling institutions, massive privatization of the public space and slashing of the social safety net) has to do with a police state? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) It's actually a widespread, serious, and disturbing human rights issue that has worsened our already eye popping incarceration rate. The ACLU calls it the School to Prison Pipeline, and its on the top of our agenda here in WA. Get 'em used to prison early! Edited January 10, 2012 by tvashtarkatena Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Well, you know where to send a check. Don't get mad, get even. We also have a project staffed by a talented young attorney to address the integration of convicts back into society - our policies are seriously fucked in that regard and our recitivism (I'm not going to check that spelling) is through the roof as a result. Like it or not, we get this people back into society. What shape would we like them in when that happens? This is a question the Right doesn't like to think about. We do, however. The two issues are closely related, of course. Quote
billcoe Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Clearly, more hope and change is needed... Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I am officially depressed now. It's always been official Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.