Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"The RNC says they’ll be handing out hamburgers and soda with plastic straws at Senator Elizabeth Warren’s New Hampshire rally today to 'push back on climate messaging.'"

link

That shit's pretty dumb, and lame. But it's also just embarrassing, and not really indicative of where the adults are: https://grist.org/article/on-climate...ike-democrats/

"Some 77 percent of younger Republicans said that climate change is a serious threat, one percentage point more than Democrats in the same age range. Meanwhile, the survey revealed a deep chasm in opinion among older folks: 51 percent of Republicans over age 39 agreed the problem was a serious threat compared with 95 percent of Democrats."

I know it's your thing to call conservatives reactionary. You've a fixation with this that I think stems from a personal belief that you're enlightened, and those who don't think like you are not enlightened. That's true to an extent. On climate change, the GOP deniers are unenlightened. They are not skeptics with serious science behind them.

But that's one issue. And this is one dumb event where the RNC is doing something really fucking stupid. It does not speak for all Republicans.

And as to this reactionary line you keep pushing, you're as reactionary as any Republican. Trump does something and you respond, Pavlovian, utterly predictable. You see progressives moving us forward and conservatives throwing hand grenades at every noble progressive policy. In reality, it's more of a ping pong game. Both sides (oh, there.. I used the dread term once more) are slapping the ball back and forth at each other. Both are interested in doing that because that benefits them politically.

There are only a few instances in which the progressives wear the white hat. GGG listed a few. The wall, kids in cages, climate. In most instances, neither side can claim to be on the side of the angels. Both are wearing grey hats.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There are only a few instances in which the progressives wear the white hat. GGG listed a few. The wall, kids in cages, climate. In most instances, neither side can claim to be on the side of the angels. Both are wearing grey hats.

So name something current conservatives push that isn't in the kids in cages, wall to nowhere, etc. category.

Tax policy? The last tax bill was a clusterfuck to benefit the 1% and little more, even people in my tax bracket are discovering that many of them pay more under it if their income is mostly from salaries or they in a blue state or both.

Big Government/Small Government - conservatives are pushing big government in all kinds of spheres, including military and policy powers, incarceration policies, marijuana, abortion, immigration.

What? Give us a case where you think conservatives aren't just assholes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Well, keep going. Find something conservatives get excited about today that isn't about being an asshole. Go ahead, show me I'm wrong and that these folks aren't just assholes, plain and simple.

Rolling back federal regs and limiting, via conservative judges, application of laws that create too much red tape. That's a mouthful, so I'll explain.

I had to cover HR for a 1900 person organization a few years back. You'd think this would be easy -- that the HR head would call in the rare occasion of a legal claim. Well, that was almost every claim. That fucking department annoyed the living shit out of me and everyone around it and in it. Lawyers came out of the woodwork every time anyone was terminated. It was whack a mole. Once a day, some fucking call, some complaint, some assertion of some right violated. The drag on resources was simply amazing. Few of the cases resulted in payouts, but the cost in hours expended where we could have been dealing with other matters was staggering. In the millions, easily.

Why? Because between labor and employment law, we've created so much fucking red tape that even the simplest grievance or complaint, the weakest EEOC filing, has to be addressed and this takes so much time. Add in workman's comp (because a lot of these folks who want to cash out work numerous angles at once) and you have the most fucking confusing mess of conflicting laws imaginable.

I consult for a few companies on how to handle problem employees. Some lazy pill eater's request for accommodations, and his comp claim, costs the company several thousand dollars by the time its done. I have to spend hours on the phone counseling on how to best paper the file.

It's fucking nuts. These laws work like an attractive nuisance, giving the laziest people in the workforce a way to get "on the dole." And it hurts the people with real claims. Because the companies say, "Fuck it. Fight them all."

And that's just HR shit. Tax, OSHA, environmental regs on disposal of med waste... It's a road to hell paved with good intentions. All it does is make money for us, the worst human beings in the economy. If there's any silver lining to the rule of law losing respect under Trump, it's that maybe, if we're lucky, people will start disregarding the approximately 10,000 laws on the books that have no business being there.

Where's the party that will advocate the following:

"Our first response to any problem shall never, under any circumstance, be, 'Let's pass a law.'"

I'd vote for that party regardless of the rest of its plank.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So name something current conservatives push that isn't in the kids in cages, wall to nowhere, etc. category.

Tax policy? The last tax bill was a clusterfuck to benefit the 1% and little more, even people in my tax bracket are discovering that many of them pay more under it if their income is mostly from salaries or they in a blue state or both.

Big Government/Small Government - conservatives are pushing big government in all kinds of spheres, including military and policy powers, incarceration policies, marijuana, abortion, immigration.

What? Give us a case where you think conservatives aren't just assholes.

Actually, conservatives are split on incarceration. In shitty areas with low education, where "tough on crime" is a popular election slogan, both Ds and Rs are regressive. In more educated areas, you'll find Rs advocate against jails on both social and economic bases (the latter more so). You can easily sell and R on ankle bracelets and drug treatment in lieu of jail on the basis that it's cheaper.

On the military, Rs are also split. They'd prefer to spend less. Recall it was Rumsfeld, under Bush, who sought to cut the Pentagon budget. The problem there is, defense is a jobs program for many states (each part of a plane is built somewhere else, etc.). Ds and Rs with defense contractors in their districts fight like hell against any effort to pare the military.

I totally agree that conservatives are pushing for big govt. I think they're just a different version of progressives. Both sides want to spend more and have people live the way they want them to live. This is why I said progressives are excellent in terms of tolerance, but lousy in terms of passing new rules and laws and starting new agencies. They want people to be free to do as they want in their personal lives... but they want to manage business more aggressively. And that'd be fine if it were limited to big business. But it's not. When they pass new laws, like Dodd Frank for example, it doesn't just address the big banks. It nails the little ones as well.

Conservatives attempt, badly, to leave you on your own in matters regarding commerce. That's not an asshole policy. It's a form of freedom that progressives don't offer. Unfortunately, conservatives don't execute on that very well, because they allow crony capitalism to run amuck, which allows monopolies and big players to crush the little guys at every turn. But at least in theory, they're trying to leave people alone to make money as they like.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Conservatives attempt, badly, to leave you on your own in matters regarding commerce. That's not an asshole policy. It's a form of freedom that progressives don't offer. Unfortunately, conservatives don't execute on that very well, because they allow crony capitalism to run amuck, which allows monopolies and big players to crush the little guys at every turn. But at least in theory, they're trying to leave people alone to make money as they like.

I just don't believe you on incarceration - tell me who among them has done squat on that.

As to commerce, this is the first time you've said anything that seems to propose a serious, non-assaholic policy for conservatives, so let's look at it.

There are many ways in which conservatives are pushing plenty of government regulation of businesses, they are just different ones than progressives push. Sure, they're fine if a Soy farmer sprays their crops with all kinds of shit, and if they hire low wage workers and discriminate on the basis of sexual preference in their hiring (OK, low wages and discrimination are positively assaholic, but let's not focus on those). But they've used government power to eliminate the Soy farmer's main markets. Isn't that pretty serious government regulation? And they don't want the Soy farmer hiring undocumented workers, and have even been staging raids on farmers. If you look at banks, sure, they don't care about the bank's capital levels as much, or whether the bank decides to use its money to buy equities or go into the venture capital business, but they are pretty eager to prevent any pot related business from being able to use a US bank and you have a President with an explicit goal of using monetary policy to push banks into negative interest rate territory - that's kind of a big deal, isn't it? We can hit other businesses, but looking at commerce broadly, I still see plenty of assaholic policy at place and not the kind of broad "free commerce" approach that we were taught was a hallmark of conservativism back in grade school.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Is the GOP worse on climate than the Democrats? Yes. But Republicans are embracing the urgent need to do something about climate change.

Ha ha ha!!! Do you even read the moronic crap you write before you post it? This is the brain-deadiest of cock juggling that you have engaged in since, I don't know, back when you denied that anyone ever called Hillary shrill. You cite to one poll showing young Republicans may be out of step with Republican leadership because they are concerned about climate change. That's because the Republican leadership, including the motherfucking president, are not only climate change deniers, but they are actively and currently rolling back environmental protection measures that could reverse or at least slow down climate change. The fucking RNC plans to pull that stupid hamburgers and plastic straws stunt, to dismissively mock any actual efforts to stop climate change, and you say that does not reflect the "adults" of the party. The RNC is the "U.S. political committee that provides national leadership for the Republican Party of the United States. It is responsible for developing and promoting the Republican political platform, as well as coordinating fundraising and election strategy." (Wikipedia) Those are the adults of the party. I understand you will say anything, no matter how untethered from facts or reality, to avoid having to admit that the thing you said earlier was wrong, but don't think for a second that your half-wit bullshit is fooling anyone here. Fuck, the whole reason my family has gone fucking vegan is because even my daughter is able to see that brain-dead cock-juggling jackholes like you are incapable of doing anything more than to pay the occasional empty lip service bloviation to environmental issues, because you're so fucking worried about getting preferable tax treatment on your real estate investment.

[Full disclosure -- I continue to eat non-plant-based foods.]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Rolling back federal regs and limiting, via conservative judges, application of laws that create too much red tape. That's a mouthful, so I'll explain.

I had to cover HR for a 1900 person organization a few years back. You'd think this would be easy -- that the HR head would call in the rare occasion of a legal claim. Well, that was almost every claim. That fucking department annoyed the living shit out of me and everyone around it and in it. Lawyers came out of the woodwork every time anyone was terminated. It was whack a mole. Once a day, some fucking call, some complaint, some assertion of some right violated. The drag on resources was simply amazing. Few of the cases resulted in payouts, but the cost in hours expended where we could have been dealing with other matters was staggering. In the millions, easily.

Why? Because between labor and employment law, we've created so much fucking red tape that even the simplest grievance or complaint, the weakest EEOC filing, has to be addressed and this takes so much time. Add in workman's comp (because a lot of these folks who want to cash out work numerous angles at once) and you have the most fucking confusing mess of conflicting laws imaginable.

I consult for a few companies on how to handle problem employees. Some lazy pill eater's request for accommodations, and his comp claim, costs the company several thousand dollars by the time its done. I have to spend hours on the phone counseling on how to best paper the file.

It's fucking nuts. These laws work like an attractive nuisance, giving the laziest people in the workforce a way to get "on the dole." And it hurts the people with real claims. Because the companies say, "Fuck it. Fight them all."

And that's just HR shit. Tax, OSHA, environmental regs on disposal of med waste... It's a road to hell paved with good intentions. All it does is make money for us, the worst human beings in the economy. If there's any silver lining to the rule of law losing respect under Trump, it's that maybe, if we're lucky, people will start disregarding the approximately 10,000 laws on the books that have no business being there.

Where's the party that will advocate the following:

"Our first response to any problem shall never, under any circumstance, be, 'Let's pass a law.'"

I'd vote for that party regardless of the rest of its plank.

On the other hand, I help, via my employment group, a lot of tech companies deal with employment issues. There is some overhead, but frankly the market in that area is to treat employees a lot better than law requires, and the main place I see the laws actually bite is not so much in termination and severance as in discrimination and harassment. And companies get away with amazing levels of discrimination and harassment.

To me, the question is how to write effective laws rather than ineffective ones.

But I'd posit conservative policy toward the workplace (pay 'em shit and give 'em no protections, and bust every union) fits the bill of "assaholic" pretty completely. Indeed, the kinds of business that do the legal minimum (Wallmart, I'm looking at you) generally deserve the hassles they get, I just wish all those laws were more effective in keeping them from being assholes.

Have you seen "Superstore"? A light TV comedy that's actually pretty good at spoofing some of this stuff.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Mainly I was fucking with Ty. As I said I can’t imagine why the Red Sox would care enough to screw up their at bats. That said, and I haven’t had any interest in baseball for a year or two, but IIRC the Red Sox take pitches cuz it helps them get hits?

You take pitches in a situation in which you are not sure that the first pitch will be right down the middle. If you know the pitcher is trying to achieve a strikeout goal and is absolutely throwing a fastball down the middle hoping you won't swing because your playoff hopes are over and you "play the game the right way," (whatever the fuck that means) the approach changes. This isn't difficult stuff to understand.

The question is, why is this asshole's strikeout goal more important than my batting average or us trying to win this game?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Don’t you really keep having your standards exceeded or are you prone to hyperbole?

Sorry. Let me revise. On the list of dumbest shit I've ever read, that is now second.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

environmental regs on disposal of med waste...

Think about that one. Really. You're worried about people having to take care with biohazards?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

To me, the question is how to write effective laws rather than ineffective ones.

I think the lawyers are a big part of the problem. The fee shifting on harassment and discrimination claims encourages filing of some borderline claims. And the EEOC almost never does anything, even when you cross file, so it's just a "wait out the right to sue letter" situation in most cases, which compels litigation.

But I'd posit conservative policy toward the workplace (pay 'em shit and give 'em no protections, and bust every union) fits the bill of "assaholic" pretty completely.

I agree. Treating workers like shit is the other side of the coin. It has caused worker distrust, which encourages anyone who can do so to try to bring a suit.

Indeed, the kinds of business that do the legal minimum (Wallmart, I'm looking at you) generally deserve the hassles they get, I just wish all those laws were more effective in keeping them from being assholes.

Wal Mart should be surcharged for the all benefits the govts and states give to its workers. In which case, it'd earn about 25% less than it does.

Have you seen "Superstore"? A light TV comedy that's actually pretty good at spoofing some of this stuff.

No, but I have seen ads for it and it looked pretty funny.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Think about that one. Really. You're worried about people having to take care with biohazards?

I may have overstepped there a bit. That one hits close to home, as a family member has to dispose of stuff that isn't hazardous as though it were nuclear material.

Strike that one from the list.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You take pitches in a situation in which you are not sure that the first pitch will be right down the middle. If you know the pitcher is trying to achieve a strikeout goal and is absolutely throwing a fastball down the middle hoping you won't swing because your playoff hopes are over and you "play the game the right way," (whatever the fuck that means) the approach changes. This isn't difficult stuff to understand.

The question is, why is this asshole's strikeout goal more important than my batting average or us trying to win this game?

TM

You're pretty much right on all of this stuff.

The only point I wanted to make earlier is that the Sox' view of looking at the first pitch is at the far end of the major league spectrum. It goes back to Wade Boggs, whose almost never swung at the first pitch, even a strike down the middle he knew was coming, because he was assessing what the pitcher had and wasn't worried about having a strike against him. Dude hit over .350 in four consecutive seasons and had like a .330 lifetime average. It's still kind of religion among the Red Sox, so it was strange to see, even if it makes perfect sense generally.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On the military, Rs.... They'd prefer to spend less.

Which is why when they are in power, they spend a lot more, and they run on spending more (and never on spending less).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That shit's pretty dumb, and lame. But it's also just embarrassing, and not really indicative of where the adults are: https://grist.org/article/on-climate...ike-democrats/

"Some 77 percent of younger Republicans said that climate change is a serious threat, one percentage point more than Democrats in the same age range. Meanwhile, the survey revealed a deep chasm in opinion among older folks: 51 percent of Republicans over age 39 agreed the problem was a serious threat compared with 95 percent of Democrats."

"Where the adults are" is a funny slip for you, since it's younger Republicans who are more reasonable on this issue.

I'm not really surprised by those polling numbers, but surely you understand that there is zero constituency within the GOP to do anything about climate change.

I know it's your thing to call conservatives reactionary. You've a fixation with this that I think stems from a personal belief that you're enlightened, and those who don't think like you are not enlightened... [A]s to this reactionary line you keep pushing, you're as reactionary as any Republican. Trump does something and you respond, Pavlovian, utterly predictable. You see progressives moving us forward and conservatives throwing hand grenades at every noble progressive policy. In reality, it's more of a ping pong game.

No, for fuck's sake stop projecting for once. My fixation with pointing out how conservatives are reactionary is an effort to explain their behavior. I don't mean "reactionary" as an epithet, but very literally. Conservative views about climate change are reactions to mainstream views. That is why conservative hostility to climate science has grown as the science has grown more clear and the need to address the problem has become otherwise universally accepted.

In most instances, neither side can claim to be on the side of the angels. Both are wearing grey hats.

If you just put this in your signature, you wouldn't have to keep typing it again and again.

I was describing polarization, but you are apparently incapable of having a thought about what is happening without turning to both sides-ism.