The majority opinion finally and directly rejects the decision that upheld Japanese internment. It’s technical not overruled because the decision isn’t about that issue, but anybody who says it’s still technically good law will look even more foolish, if that were possible.
The two liberal justices I thought most likely to uphold the ban, Breyer and Kagan, wrote their own dissent that they basically didn’t have enough information to decide whether there was unlawful discrimination against Muslims. They would have sent back to lower court to investigate how many waivers and exemptions were granted, which in their view could make the ban not unlawful. They’re trying to take a pragmatic approach, but I don’t think their reasoning makes much sense.
Sotomayor and Ginsburg’s dissent straight up found religious discrimination.
Travel ban is how it’s usually described since that’s what it does. But yeah the travel ban seen as discriminating against Muslims. I think there will be at least 6 votes to uphold it but we’ll see. If not today then later this week.
Edit: upheld, but only 5-4
Today the Court should issue its ruling on the travel ban.
Did you still get a tip?
A modest one.
I never go to Wendy’s but on recent travel stopped at one. They mistakenly gave me an extra order of fries and a cheeseburger in addition to my order.
I once served a salad with a small well-marinated living frog in it. Manager only comped the salad. They didn’t seem to have much of an appetite after that.
To put my terrible advice more eloquently:
If you’re looking for a relationship because you want to share life with someone interesting and intelligent and helpful, then go for it. If you’re looking for a relationship because you’re depressed and think that a relationship will make you less depressed, then don’t because I have a strong feeling that relationships built on that mindset will not work.
I shouldn’t have generalized earlier, I admit.
Well said.
If there’s anything sitcoms have taught me, it’s to value your friendships over romance. The girl of the week will disappear, but the supporting cast will be there to the end.
Don’t take advice from sitcoms.
That advice is half-right.
I would like to know in what respect it’s wrong.
The part about the “supporting cast” being there to the end. People move, people die, people outgrow each other. It happens. Friendships come and go too.
Truth. Finding the one person who sticks around is a great win.
Basing your happiness entirely on a partner is a really bad idea. It’s pretty obvious that a relationship based on that premise probably won’t work or, ironically, be happy. Also, finding a partner in order to make yourself happy seems like bad reasoning to me.
EDIT: And you left out the divorce and ensuing custody battle in your list of pleasantries.
And I don’t think finding fulfillment that isn’t based on the behavior of other people is bad advice.
A person should be able to be happy in their own right (i.e. have their own interests and independence) but having the need for human companionship satisfied by one person isn’t bad.
If there’s anything sitcoms have taught me, it’s to value your friendships over romance. The girl of the week will disappear, but the supporting cast will be there to the end.
Don’t take advice from sitcoms.
That advice is half-right.
I would like to know in what respect it’s wrong.
Kinda like an industrial pizza oven.
Those should be illegal. Who the hell buys cooked pizza?
Pizza is too important to be left to the private sector.
What have any of these posts had to do with the government sector?
Nothing, that’s the problem. Government should provide our pizza.
But should they cook it?
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Kinda like an industrial pizza oven.
Those should be illegal. Who the hell buys cooked pizza?
Pizza is too important to be left to the private sector.
What have any of these posts had to do with the government sector?
Nothing, that’s the problem. Government should provide our pizza.
Kinda like an industrial pizza oven.
Those should be illegal. Who the hell buys cooked pizza?
Pizza is too important to be left to the private sector.
That was a good run. Problems seem worse when one doesn’t sleep well so hope you get back to a more restful state.
They’re not wrong though.
opinion ^
In all seriousness, it’s actually a fact. The “disputes” were all just perceived and largely manufactured by you. No one was in any kind of an OT.com feud with you.
I think it’d be best if you just dropped it and moved on, as I don’t think anyone has an issue with you when you’re just contributing as you do normally. And I’m not trying to pick on you, I think if everybody just got on with things, we’d be all right.
Vindaloo 🔥
The only person explaining the context of the use here is the person who used it (and is potentially trying to save face). We don’t necessarily have the full picture.
Agree we don’t have the full picture. But the memo we have is from the CEO who fired him, not the person who used the word. And contrary to flametitan’s reading, the use is described as “descriptive” during a meeting on “sensitive” words, for which he was told inappropriate after the fact. Then he used the word again with colleagues when discussing his original use.
It’s obvious to me he wasn’t calling anyone that word.
I take it that instead of saying “n-word”, he said the word full out. Yeah, that is a no,no.
I will say I take issue with the article saying you shouldn’t say the n-word when reading from a script. Is it now wrong to have movie, plays, etc depicting racists saying the n-word? Are we know going to say all the white actors in Roots were racist cause they said the n-word when playing their parts?
http://gawker.com/has-don-lemon-lost-his-goddamn-mind-1713267216
I agree it’s an offensive word and people should have the good sense to not use it. But at least there was some kind of context: it was a meeting about words that are sensitive/offensive to use, presumably in Netflix productions. As you observe, it is used in a variety of contexts…like in media productions.
Netflix executive fired for using the N-word several months ago in an internal meeting about offensive words and when discussing the incident a few days later in a meeting about his usage of it.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jonathan-friedland-exits-netflix-1122675
Seems crazy to me. If there were other incidents or later usages I could see it.
Problems with crime rate numbers is they don’t habitually account for citizenship and crimes can go unreported for fear of legal repercussions.
Economic effect involves numerous competing variables that are extremely difficult to account for. Also, a person may reasonably find fault on the basis of negative impact in one area, notwithstanding the overall impact.
No doubt we can both compile facts and links to support one argument or the other, but we can’t pretend there is a pat answer.
Some studies on the matter are pretty comprehensive, and there are quite a lot of them. It’s better to look at the studies that exist (keeping their limitations in mind) than to imagine that for every existing study, there must be an equally valid and politically opposite study somewhere else that you haven’t seen. That assumption may turn out to be as safe for crime statistics as it is for global warming. This is how researchers get scapegoated – people assume because science is neutral that if all the research answers a political question one way and none of it answers it a different way, all of the scientists involved must be politically biased. When what it really means is that this particular political question is pretty easy to answer and we can spend our efforts trying to answer one of the many harder ones.
This is a pretty comprehensive and recent study:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9125.12175
You previously merely asserted facts (such as illegal immigrants are more law abiding) and I responded on the basis that I haven’t reviewed all the research and analyzed it, nor do I want to. The study you link to appears persuasive far as it goes, but again I don’t have real desire to really go through it all. The study concerns violent crime, which is important but not the whole enchilada. There are the caveats previously mentioned: issues of under-reporting and whether all crime stats recognize citizenship status.
It sounds reasonable to me that illegal immigrants do not have a very different rate of criminal activity. Even accepting that illegal immigrants overall have a lower crime rate (at least for violent crimes), a person may nonetheless reasonably take issue with violence by illegal immigrants who are gang members, or take issue with the fact that gangs benefit from illegal immigration (at least for money earned for human smuggling).
You are correct that crimes absolutely do go unreported when the victim is undocumented, which is the whole reason sanctuary cities improve public safety. The extra undocumented-specific disincentive for reporting is exactly the same as the extra undocumented-specific disincentive for criminal behavior – fear of deportation.
And that under-reporting is another problem of illegal immigration. The permanent second-class status is a problem and sanctuary cities are a terribly flawed non-solution.
Overall, the NCVS results demonstrate that the findings reported in the main analysis are more likely reflective of less crime, not just less reporting. Though it remains possible that the NCVS results are driven by nonresponse bias among undocumented immigrants, several points suggest this is unlikely to be the case. First, this would not explain the homicide findings, which preclude reporting omissions, and homicide rates tend to parallel trends in overall violent crime substantially (the correlation between murder and the NCVS robbery rate in our data is .83). Second, if nonresponses were driving the NCVS results, we might expect to see substantial differences in nonresponse rates for racial/ethnic groups more likely to be undocumented. But we find little evidence for this.
Not saying I disagree that there are hard aspects to the subject of immigration, and areas where the data isn’t clear, and I honestly probably agree with you on more than either of us would expect. But this crime rate stuff does appear to be very much like global warming. It all points one way.
That well may be true. What I probably should have said to your assertion (that illegal immigrants are generally more law abiding) is that I don’t think that’s the issue. As I also said, I don’t think there’s a “crisis.” Yet I also don’t think that framing is necessary in order to try to solve what is a big problem.
It’s Harold.
I’m reserving judgment, but welcome!
They hurt my feelings, and it wasn’t the first time. If I can’t have an honest conversation with them about it, what good is that? I don’t want to sound like a victim, I want to be able to talk candidly and honestly, and I am unable to get that from anyone I know. This person acts like a great friend sometimes, but I also get that general impression from time to time, and it really bothers me. They’re so closed off. I really should move on.
Why do you say I sound “like a victim”? All I want is a good friend. Someone who’ll let me just be a part of their life. Someone to just do things with whenever. Someone to confide in. Or just someone who’ll ask me how my day has been, and answer me the same question. Are these not the qualities you’d expect of a friend?
This day has been exhausting.
To be fair, I do have one such person and that is very important. However, I have a low tolerance for socializing in general and don’t open much beyond my one person. I don’t know if your friend is of a similar nature or what. How do they seem to shut you out?
You are right about your expectations of a friend.
This thread is the best.
I wonder if the other liberal members in this thread who take issue with Jay’s comments also think your hypothetical criticisms of conservatives are dishonest and unfair.
I would assume so. I don’t know. It doesn’t really matter to me what they think.
Well it matters to the extent that others are expressing similar complaints about Jay’s comments that you say nobody cares about anyway (though you don’t care what those other people think). I don’t expect you to answer for others, of course.