patrick.net

I think the Center for Consumer Freedom serves more support. :)

We need to defend our food liberties against vegans and other food polices.

Bap33: The ACLU does not draw any lines in their interpretation of constitutional freedoms. That is the )(*&%*(&^'ing point! They are not saying that it's okay to send a gay scoutmaster into the woods with a bunch of 12 year olds. They are saying that they will challenge every single case where prejudice and preference are shown, so that society makes an informed choice. You know what? A lot of stuff in our society gets decided by default. If the ACLU constantly challenges the default ruling when things even remotely smell suspicious, it doesn't mean that the ruling gets overturned. But it DOES mean that the ruling is more precisely considered, and that citizens are made aware of the various hidden factors.

Again. I am a moderate conservative and usually vote Republican. But I am not willing to take the endless number of defaults on laws because a lazy society decides (existentially) to go passive on its own freedoms. The founding fathers were smart; most Americans (and Britons and Australians and Asians) are myopic and foolish.

John Philpot Curran wasn't kidding: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Eternal. Not immediate. Once the creeping infringement is knocking on your door, it's already too late.

I think there are many companies that keep sexual diviant dead weight employed because they are afraid of the ACLU.

Anyone watched The Closet (French movie)? :)

Perhaps employers should have more groups representing them.

Bap33

You are one of the more frustrating folks around here to argue with. It's not because you don't raise some points that need to be discussed. It is because every statement you make is absolutist, with your opinion being declared undeniable, divine truth which is unquestionable by any of us. So why do you bother with us? You're not particularly interested in debating. If you were you'd have listened to those who pointed out to you that the ACLU, commies under the bed, or "libs" had nothing to do with Imus. It was a free-market capitalistic corporation which fired him because of pressure from their advertisers, who themselves are also free market capitalist organizations interested in selling the most products to the most people.

So either (a) your original point is at least partially wrong or (b) "Americans" who are "RIGHT" and in your own image hate free market capitalism.

So, which is it?

Bap33,

Please go back and read what I wrote. Imus was fired for issues related to his job performance, those gay scoutmasters were not. Imus didn't have a civil liberties issue that ACLU could intervene in, just like ACLU has no business when LA Times fired Robert Scheerer (both of which happened) for holding opinions that went against the LA Times management.

Peter P,

Answering your earlier question. With the "U".

Freedom fighting is best left to corporations. In order to defend and expand markets, corporations have huge incentive to protect our liberties. Combined with anti-trust laws, we can count on business entities to ensure our freedom of choice.

Answering your earlier question. With the “U”.

Quick, grab them before they are gone forever! They are not making any more domains!

lol

Peter P.: They may not be making any more domains, but are they making more serfs? :o

Bap33,

I'm still interested in what your perfect world would be. Would deporting illegal aliens be enough? Do you want to deport non-white people? Would ending welfare be enough or do you want something more drastic? What do you want to do with all the "libs" who disagree with you?

(Be careful what you wish for, if all your enemies are vanquished, you may find yourself in the unenviable position of being a "moderate"amongst people who hold even more extreme positions)

Peter P

Thus my ongoing, evolving theory that a frightening number of Americans -- in fact I now believe *most* Americans -- don't like Capitalism or Free Markets. Both the "left" and "right" continually do their best to destroy what we have left of it. I'm not as optimistic as you, I'm afraid.

Brand,

LOL! For P$100*, I will grant you the title of "the Grand Duke of Domains with Strategically Placed Us."

* P$ is a currency unit in Patrick.net.

I’m not as optimistic as you, I’m afraid.

Perhaps I was so pessimistic that I became comically naive.

Peter P,

"Perhaps I was so pessimistic that I became comically naive."

Perhaps. But I chose to believe that you're actually an extremely cunning jukubot sent to confuse us into surrender.

Perhaps I was so pessimistic that I became comically naive.

What else can you say about a guy who loves California and lives for the thrill of sushi? :) Except that by most Zen standards, you are closer to mastery than those who hoard resources or stress out over arbitrary boundaries like national borders.

One thing though: it is illegal to fire somebody because he is gay but it is not illegal to fire a gay person. Sometimes, it is just too confusing.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Perhaps. But I chose to believe that you’re actually an extremely cunning jukubot sent to confuse us into surrender.

The plan was to confuse you guys into buying me sushi.

Except that by most Zen standards, you are closer to mastery than those who hoard resources or stress out over arbitrary boundaries like national borders.

LOL.

Bap33

And my point is that that is the free market at work!!! and a few more "!!!!"s

So if a majority of consumers have what you believe is a "racial double standard", which well they may, then of course corporations are going to accommodate that in their commercial behavior. If enough people later believe more like you, then corporations will service that.

I must say, I find anal sex rather icky too. I would not fire anyone over that, unless they don't thoroughly wash their hands after sex.

On Tuesday, Bloomberg News reported that the top Democrat and Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Spencer Bachus of Alabama, respectively, said that mortgage-bond investors should be liable for deceptive lending practices.

Congressman Bachus issued a statement saying there has been no specific agreement or decision on provisions in any subprime lending reform legislation. Congressman Frank's office confirmed the no-agreement agreement on the phone. A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17.

Let's hope the committee calls some mortgage-bond investors to testify. If they can be sued for someone else's actions, they aren't going to buy any mortgage bonds. Period.

Higher yields may compensate an investor for increased risk, but they don't offer adequate protection against class- action lawsuits.

Precedent

Chairman Frank might want to call some folks from the state of Georgia, where the enactment of a Fair Lending Act in 2002 rocked the mortgage industry.

The law assigned liability for predatory lending to everyone along the food chain, from lender to securitizer to investor.

The reaction was predictable. Many lenders pulled out of the state, the rating agencies refused to evaluate the pools of home loans and the secondary market dried up.

The law, which took effect in October 2002, was amended the following March ``to address a number of unintended consequences'' and to limit assignee liability.

New Jersey's Home Ownership Security Act of 2002 had to be amended in 2004, too, because ``the market shut down,'' according to Robert Levy, executive director of the Mortgage Bankers Association of New Jersey. The amended law put limitations on assignee liability.

Liability ``does apply to high-cost mortgage loans, which carry more than 4.5 percent in points and fees and an interest rate greater than 8 percentage points over the comparable maturity Treasury,'' he says.

Aligned and Assigned

There is no market for securitized high-cost loans, Levy says, and not many loans originated.

Which is probably what Congress is getting at. The common theme to the hearings on subprime lending has been that Wall Street is ``eager to securitize, rate and buy as long as the originators feed the beast,'' Laperriere says. ``Many members of Congress want the major players in the secondary market -- holders of mortgage-backed bonds and the investment banks -- to have their interests more aligned with homeowners.''

It would seem a lot easier to fix the problem at the source, tightening regulations on the lenders themselves.

But hey, we still have two final stages of dying before the bubble is fully exorcised: depression and acceptance. If Congress follows through on its legislative reforms of the subprime market, the housing recession may turn into a depression. If that happens, can the rest of us find acceptance?

I must say, I find anal sex rather icky too. I would not fire anyone over that, unless they don’t thoroughly wash their hands after sex.

Especially in the food industry.

Bap33,

On illegal immigrants and welfare, I largely agree with you. I think both encourage the sort of lawlessness and culture of dependence that degrade the economy and social life in this country.

However, you hate beyond just disagreeable neighbors. You also want more than to be left in peace. You also want to impose your belief of God and law on others, who may have a different view.

Peter P

A company can fire anyone at any time without reason. CA is not a "right to work" state, but an "employment at will" state. The exceptions are that companies have to abide by their own self-imposed HR/personnel policies, and that companies cannot fire people solely based upon a protected status. Protected status includes, race, religion, ethnicity, age beyond 40, and in some areas sexual orientation.

I have fired many people. I am safe firing anyone even in those protected groups, and have done so more than once. I am not safe if later someone can come back and show that I *only* fire people in those groups (or a vast majority). By the way, I have never given a *reason* when I fired anyone. It is purely a separation without cause or explanation, even if they know why it has occurred, I don't reference or create a case on that.

So in practice, the only companies that have to fear legal retribution besides a small, unlucky few who get singled out by pressure groups are *big* companies and *stupid* companies. By stupid I mean small companies that go overboard on trying to appear progressive and shackle themselves with restrictive employment policies.

RE: borders

IF

1. minimum wage is repealed
2. welfare is abolished
3. flat tax is implemented

the need for a physically border will be greatly reduced.

So in practice, the only companies that have to fear legal retribution besides a small, unlucky few who get singled out by pressure groups are *big* companies and *stupid* companies.

I agree.

Also, the only persons, natural or corporate, that have to fear legal retribution are those who cannot afford legal representations.

RE: borders

I am for the elimination of all borders once the American hegemony is complete.

* I won't hold my breath.

* I won't hold my breath (waiting for DS' witty reply).

Brand,

(slightly sheepishly) Yes, phrasing scoutmasters as "fired" was overplaying my hand. I'm actually rather uncomfortable with that decision (I think it should receive rational basis scrutiny and while there's no strong evidence that gay men are more significantly more likely to be pedophiles, it should be left to the boy scouts to make that decision), though I think sexual preference discrimination should endure strict scrutiny in the employment context.

Bap33 says: perfect world?? country?? state?? county?? town?? street?? home?? room?? self …… it all stems from self Astrid. Any answer would just promote self. I believe in God, not man. I belive I was blessed to be born in the greatest country, in the best state, grew up and live in a nice county, in a small town that was awesome before the “invasion”, on a quiet street (until lately), in an itty bitty shack with a warm, dry, room. I do not deserve any of this. It is all a blessing. I did not win a lottery. But, I’m here legally. Should we desolve all borders Astrid?

Invasion?!? How is it that a country of immigrants can believe that it is under invasion from immigrants?!? Nationalist policy can make sense, but it is even more interesting when spouted by first or second generation immigrants who are trying to justify why others of their former nationality should be barred from entry. I have mine, thus nobody else should get theirs. Isn't that the logic?

I won a lottery. Of the 5-6 billion people alive, I was born in the United States of America.

My grandparents were born mostly in shacks, and a very few in farmhouses. Don't wave warm, dry and safe like it's some kind of flag. Circumstances change. Locales change. Even values change.

The more I see, the more I think that individuals aggregated together are more intelligent than the aggregate of individuals.

I prefer to be dominated by the Canadians, especially if the French Canadians are in charge of food.

I prefer to be dominated by the Canadians, especially if the French Canadians are in charge of food.

Ooh, French food. The only thing I remember of Quebec City was Fondue.

Canadians are cool.

Canada has 1/10 the population of USA and arguably more natural resources. No wonder they can afford some social programs.

Anyway, humanity sucks.

astrid: My whole point was that parents risk their children by sending them away with a stranger for long periods of time. Isn't that an idiotic thing to do under any circumstances?!? I have known scoutmasters that I thought were... of the opposite persuasion, but did not doubt them as people.

Parents are lazy. If you want to know that somebody isn't molesting your kid, BE OUT IN THE GODDAMN WOODS WITH THEM. I'd love to see a case study of scout troops with molester problems, on an axis with troops that had plenty of dads out there with them. Why are dads so totally wuss about a few bugs and chopping wood? You're wearing a football jersey and rooting fanatically for the home team, aren't you?

Maybe it's not the kids who need manliness lessons. Maybe it's you. A bunch of pretend manly guys who go to the gym to build fake muscles, wear fashionable "stubble" and then can't start a fire in your own goddamn charcoal grill. Yeah, YOU. That guy. Mr. "I look like Paul Bunyan", but don't know which end of an axe is sharp.

[/rant]

Bap33,

I'm a woman, so I hope when you say "you" you did not mean me.

As for the rest. I'm a "lib" and I don't share your view of God. However, if you can tolerate my existence, I can certainly tolerate you.

But nevertheless, people like you really do scare me. You see things in black and white, "libs"are black and the Bushies, no matter how much they lie, cheat and steal, are still God's own knights in shining armor. I'm damn scared.

you see there …… Astrid you have no trouble putting thoughts in my head. Hate??

Your head must be awfully damned empty then...

You hate Astrid, not me. You say I want to empose my beliefs in God and the law ??? Really ?? You know Astrid, the laws that protect you and me are based DIRECTLY on biblical law. So, by proxy, you follow Gods laws by choice already, without any forced compliance from me. Aint that cool?

Ok, I give you the Ten Commandments argument. But considering that God wins the war, why are you complaining that astrid loses the very tiny battle?

Brand, please put up the Boy Scouts creedo so we can go through it together. Thanks.

What's a "creedo"? I assume you mean the Scout Law: A scout is... trustworthy loyal helpful friendly courteous kind obedient cheerful thrifty brave clean and reverent.

I am not interested in going through the Scout Law with some random person, any more than I am interested in going through the Ten Commandments with an atheist. The Scout Law, the Ten Commandments, Christianity and the American value system are ingrained social constructs that are not purely syntactic in nature. The sematics far supercede the mere words.

Can we talk about cakes?

This is a strawberry thread after all.

Brioches actually make great strawberry shortcakes.

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.

How about some 70% cocoa dark chocolate cake?

Peter P: In the last few days I find myself longing for the buttery taste of yellowfin or sake. But given my overly conservative "it it ain't made of beef, it ain't goin' in my mouth" married friends, how do I get them out to some good sushi?

There is actually an independent sushi chef in town who has a very small restaurant. A ronin chef, if you will.

I prefer to eat it thus:

cut some brioche into 1" slices
toast the brioche slightly
puree some frozen strawberry, adding a little sugar to taste
whip up some heavy whip cream or have some vanilla ice cream handy
assemble