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

Faces were to Stones as Pistols were to Clash.

But... In terms of most killer tunes stuffed into one record, and killer production, Bollocks edges out London Calling.

But the Clash’s broader catalogue? Fuck. Even if I bring in PIL’s “Album,” which is great, but really isn’t a Pistols record by any means, the Pistols are nowhere near the Clash.

I’m not counting “Sandinista” as a Clash record, either. It’s bloated shite.

ETA: You also can’t give Bollocks street cred as an intentionally raw record because the guitar is so layered, and Jones has admitted being a studio perfectionist. The Clash was slapdash produced. Well done, but much sloppier. Bollocks is great, but for sheer abandon, it’s lite beer next to the Velvet’s “White Light White Heat” of ten years prior. And let’s not forget the Stooges, who were better than the Pistols and Clash put together. I’m of the opinion the Stooges and Sabbath own every good riff in rock that wasn’t stolen from Willie Dixon, Howlin’ Wolf, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, or any of the ‘60s rock bands that stole from them. If it ain’t blues based, you’re robbing the Stooges, Sabbath, or the Velvets.

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

Body screaming fucking bloody mess
It's not an animal it's an abortion>he who fucks nuns will later join the church

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

Most recently, I recall the subjective/objective mea culpability. GGG, on the other hand, is tthe type of attorney who gets himself or his client sanctioned.

LessinYangon, Myanmar

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

In fairness, I had no choice but to admit the subjective/objective thing. And it wasn't much of an admission. It was an obvious fuck up (which caused me to wonder if I might need to slow down some of "indulgences" a bit, or be MRI'd for brain damage of unknown origin).

Also, I'm generally throwing ideas at the wall here. I expect to be wrong on a lot of stuff. That's the fun of these types of places. One can be wrong and think out loud (obviously, I'm a talk-while-I-think kind of person, which I have to suppress in work situations) in ways that are impossible in most other places.

I think some people view the place differently.

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

The reason we set minimum wage is pretty straightforward: slave wages aren't good for a society, and the businesses that pay them are usually shit businesses we shouldn't want anyways. All the bs about agriculture* or table waiting or walmart needing shit wages to be viable is just that - bullshit.

You hire someone, you should pay them a living wage. It's a moral issue. Economics are secondary to the morality of it.



* I've dealt with the economics of agriculture, really, this is a total sham.

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

That’s a mouthful, but well done. Strine is the man, of course, so that’s expected.

But re arbitration, can’t we just require it be explicitly bargained for? Say in a credit agreement, offer two rates. One for agreeing to arbitrate. Another higher rate for refusing to do so. Or in a brokerage contract, fees of XX for trades with agreement to arbitrate, fees of XXX for refusing to agree to arbitrate.

I’ve always wondered how arb clauses survive an argument of lack of consideration based solely on language in the agreement stating consideration for everything in the agreement is acknowledged.

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

I'm more defensive of arbitration I think because I see it in the international business context, where it gives us a good alternative to the wide range of national systems.

Maybe if we had a form of arbitration to use for consumers that was perceived of as less biased? Why can't courts sponsor arbitration alternatives that are less expensive but still public forums for consumers?

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

Yeah, nothing you or Les said convinced me that conservatives and republicans today aren't mainly motivated by the asshole thing. Sure, there may be some places around the edges where they're just greedy sons of bitches or where they have genuine religious belief that they should be able to dispose of hazardous waste or fuck over employees without regulation, but they're basically a bunch of assholes. Some call it resentment culture, but that's just too nice.

That's why they rally around someone like Trump instead of someone like you guys.

I'm mostly pretty much entirely correct here.

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

Less' dumbass victory lap over his "better class of immigrant" example is hilarious. First, it's pre-textual in that they're just looking for ways to keep people out and they think that's a good one that reads well on its face to people like Less. Second, the very idea is antithetical to what this country has been about, and therefore, the policy itself is a reflection of the assholic nature of the entire party.

TM

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

Yeah, I'm all in favor of special status for highly educated immigrants, but it's not an either/or and it very much doesn't mean you screw refugees. It's crazy the way policy is being made based on resentment and little more.

The turning on the Kurds stuff today is another example of assholes at action. And we're going to watch all kinds of people defend Trump on this.

If Atticus won't come around, someone has to do it.
 

I think Less's point was a fair one, which is that if you accept the premise that we will let in a certain number of immigrants, you can make an argument that you should let in people because of what they offer the country economically, rather than because they are related to people who are already here. I think people can disagree about that in good faith. The problem, for me, is the premise. People who point out that Australia and Canada have preference systems like what I just described usually ignore that both of those countries let in many more people, proportionately. We could let in a lot more immigrants than we do, and I have yet to see arguments against that point which are more than polite bigotry. Immigrants are willing to do something that Americans used to do, relocate to where opportunity is. My wife was saying this weekend that her grandparents, her parents and she all moved across the country for better jobs, and that a lot of people in states that aren't doing so well seem to have some sense of entitlement around staying where they are.

Also, zoning makes it harder to move. It's always really about zoning.

Re: If Atticus won't come around, someone has to do it.
 

I actually wasn't defending the policy, but merely pointing to an R policy that is reasonably debatable, in response to GGG's hyperbolic and histrionic challenge. GGG responded predictably, as did Adder.

LessinIssykKul, Kyrgyzstan

Re: If Atticus won't come around, someone has to do it.
 

One can be polite, make a bunch of premises, "disagree in good faith", and still be a total frigging asshole. I mean, we're lawyers, right, doesn't that describe much of our profession?

I understand staying where you are, where I grew up is a lot more beautiful than where I live now, has tons of open spaces, and a lot to say for itself, just not a very successful economy. It's not just an unwillingness to move or a sense of entitlement, it's also resentment against those who do. And it's not everyone back home who has that, it's a particular very vocal subset of established white men.

Re: If Atticus won't come around, someone has to do it.
 

Yes, of course. But that's not what you were asking before. And while there are people of all stripes who are assholes, what's remarkable about a lot of what animates conservatives is that being an asshole is integral to it. I mean, rolling coal. WTF? Triggering libs really motivates conservatives.

Empirically, Americans are moving less. Maybe the resentment is particularized, but the broader trend is clear.

Re: If Atticus won't come around, someone has to do it.
 

Just lawtalkers talking law with other lawtalkers.