Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[Yankguy1]

America needs to be more united, instead of being so divided, and we are all equal, I am not going to hire a sound person based on the race or sex of the person, or by how the person votes.

Salute,

Tony V.

I know a couple of Muslim sound persons. 

[Hairy Lime]

"If Harvey Weinstein gets convicted, no man is safe" is basically the sentiment in much of Australia today.

If conviction of rapists means no man in Australia is safe,  that doesn't say much good about Australian men.

It's not only men saying it.
On Sixty Minutes this Sunday there is a segment on this subject...there is no statute of limitations on 'crimes of a sexual nature' in Australia.
"Victims" can allege any crime happened, anytime in the recent or far distant past.

Any male age 10 or over can be convicted.
"A boy in middle school put his hand on my leg inappropriately, he sexually assaulted me, I am a victim, I have suffered a life of torment ever since."

"A 'boyfriend' 17 I attended the drive-in movie with when I was aged 16, touched my chest without permission...sexually assaulted me, my life has been torment ever since".

________________________________________________________________

A female voice sound grab from the Sixty Minutes program; "It's not unusual for women to lie".

Try not attacking women.

[bambu.]

"If Harvey Weinstein gets convicted, no man is safe" is basically the sentiment in much of Australia today.

All the misogynistic men there.

Sorry that it is so many of you, but I believe you.

'Victims' can say anything...

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/charges-in-katoomba-circus-school-abuse-case/news-story/2807f6c9a370d83aea58a37bea95a28c

All charges dropped in Katoomba circus school abuse case

After 206 days behind bars a family accused of running a heinous child sex ring have been reunited after the case was thrown out of court.

More than 100 charges against a family accused of child sex crimes including blood rituals at a Katoomba circus school, have been dropped.

The family were accused of sexually abusing three boys under the age of 10 between 2014 and 2016.
The allegations included rape, assault and kidnapping.

The number of charges had been reduced to 115 charges, and NSW Police said all of the charges have been dropped today.

The magistrate said there was no evidence for the claims.
A court heard in March last year that one of the alleged victims had written a note saying “mum I’m really sorry I’ve been lying about the whole thing”.

[luee]

Oboy what a choice, between a delusional slumlord reality TV star and a septuagenarian socialist who wants to burn baby burn

[FlyingVProd]

I know 3 sound people who are all completely different politically, and racially, and some are men and one is a woman, but they all have things in common that attract me to wanting to hire them. One thing is that they are all 3 mellow and patient, and easy going, and they are all masters of their craft. They take their time and they enjoy their work and they create award winning work.

My friend Nicole would be one of the first people whom I would hire when I get the funding to make my movie, she has done award winning sound work. But, I would hire her because she is cool, and she has qualities which make her good to work with. She is fun, and she is mellow, and she has a great smile.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3493349/

I need people who will enjoy the process and who will help me to create masterpieces. I want people who realize that we are lucky, and not everyone gets to make movies. I want people who look forward to work and who really love to work. I want people to create good memories while they do something they can be proud of.

There are qualities that I look for, I am not looking at race or sex or any of that when I consider a person for sound and I do not care who they vote for.

Salute,

Tony V.

[Hairy Lime]

"If Harvey Weinstein gets convicted, no man is safe" is basically the sentiment in much of Australia today.

All the misogynistic men there.

Sorry that it is so many of you, but I believe you.

'Victims' can say anything...

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/charges-in-katoomba-circus-school-abuse-case/news-story/2807f6c9a370d83aea58a37bea95a28c

All charges dropped in Katoomba circus school abuse case

After 206 days behind bars a family accused of running a heinous child sex ring have been reunited after the case was thrown out of court.

More than 100 charges against a family accused of child sex crimes including blood rituals at a Katoomba circus school, have been dropped.

The family were accused of sexually abusing three boys under the age of 10 between 2014 and 2016.
The allegations included rape, assault and kidnapping.

The number of charges had been reduced to 115 charges, and NSW Police said all of the charges have been dropped today.

The magistrate said there was no evidence for the claims.
A court heard in March last year that one of the alleged victims had written a note saying “mum I’m really sorry I’ve been lying about the whole thing”.

Perpetrators can say anything too, you upside down hate filled bag of pus. I am sorry you have so little faith in the judicial process that you would foreclose every legitimate claim for fear of a couple bad ones. Especially since your example.is one where the process worked.

[bambu.]

Proper evidence as to guilt is what's needed, and should be demanded, in cases, trials, these days.
That's 'watertight', 'airtight' evidence.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/05/texas-couple-kellers-released-prison-satanic-abuse

Texas pair released after serving 21 years for 'satanic abuse'

Dan and Fran Keller, sentenced in 1991 for child sexual assault during US 'Satanic panic' era, released after district attorney conceded trial jury was probably swayed by faulty testimony
 Dan Keller has left an Austin jail, a week after his wife was released – and 21 years after the pair were given a 48-year sentence for sexual assault during America's "Satanic panic" era.

Fran Keller, 63, was released on bond last week after the Travis County district attorney agreed that the trial jury was probably swayed by the faulty testimony of an expert witness.
To supporters of Dan, 72, and Fran Keller, 63, their 1992 trial was a modern-day Texas witch-hunt that recalled the hysterical delusions of seventeenth-century Salem.

The fuse was lit in August 1991, when a three-year-old girl on the way to a behavioural therapy session told her mother that Dan Keller had spanked her at the preschool he ran with his wife in Austin.
The girl told the therapist that Keller had sexually assaulted her using a pen and "pooped and peed on my head".

In subsequent months, two other children made similar claims about the Kellers. By the time the couple went on trial in November 1992, the allegations were significantly more lurid and involved allegations of ritual abuse, murder, dismemberment and animal sacrifice.

The Kellers were found guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child, even though the three-year-old girl at the centre of the case recanted her claims in court.

[bambu.]

Perpetrators can say anything too, you upside down hate filled bag of pus. I am sorry you have so little faith in the judicial process that you would foreclose every legitimate claim for fear of a couple bad ones. Especially since your example.is one where the process worked.

And if the alleged victim hadn't written the note?

Why would I/should I have even one iota of faith in any judicial process that is not demanding proper evidence before tossing people in prison...especially after watching the movie 'Just Mercy' at the cinema recently?
Just Mercy...the true story of Walter McMillian in America;

https://eji.org/cases/walter-mcmillian/

Walter McMillian was sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit.

Walter McMillian, who is black, was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a young white woman who worked as a clerk in a dry cleaning store in Monroeville, Alabama. Mr. McMillian was held on death row prior to being convicted and sentenced to death. His trial lasted only a day and a half. Three witnesses testified against Mr. McMillian and the jury ignored multiple alibi witnesses, who were black, who testified that he was at a church fish fry at the time of the crime. The trial judge overrode the jury’s sentencing verdict for life and sentenced Mr. McMillian to death.

The case had generated an unusual amount of media coverage. Bryan Stevenson and EJI received death threats. Resistance to acknowledging Mr. McMillian’s innocence was intense. But the overwhelming evidence of innocence ultimately forced the State to agree to drop the charges. Mr. McMillian was released from death row as a free man in March 1993.

Walter McMillian was among the first exonerees from death row in the modern era. A 60 Minutes segment and other national press coverage about his case led to other exonerations. Today, more than 160 people who were on death row have been proved innocent and released.

[josh]

"If Harvey Weinstein gets convicted, no man is safe" is basically the sentiment in much of Australia today.

All the misogynistic men there.

Sorry that it is so many of you, but I believe you.

'Victims' can say anything...

So can abusers.

And they do, far more often than your quotation-marked 'victims.' You present this as if it is a large percentage of all rape claims. Maybe it is, Bambi, in Australia.

To date, much of the research conducted on the prevalence of false allegations of sexual assaults is unreliable because of inconsistencies with definitions and methods employed to evaluate data (Archambault, n.d.). A review of research finds that the prevalence of false reporting is  between 2 percent and 10 percent. The following studies support these findings:
    * A multi-site study of eight U.S. communities including 2,059 cases of sexual assault found a 7.1 percent rate of false reports (Lonsway, Archambault, & Lisak, 2009).
    * A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston from 1998-2007 found a 5.9 percent rate of false reports (Lisak et al., 2010).
    * Using qualitative and quantitative analysis, researchers studied 812 reports of sexual assault from 2000-2003 and found a 2.1 percent rate of false reports (Heenan & Murray 2006).

Many published reports do not clearly define false allegation, and often include data that falls outside of most accepted definitions (Lisak et al., 2010). The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) upholds that, “The determination that a report of sexual assault is false can be made only if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted” (IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center, 2005, pp. 12-13). The FBI and IACP have issued guidelines that exclude certain factors, by themselves, from constituting a false report (Lisak et al., 2010, p. 1320). These include:
    * Insufficient evidence to proceed to prosecution
    * Delayed reporting 
    * Victims deciding not to cooperate with investigators
    * Inconsistencies in victim statement

While some police departments may follow these guidelines, it is not mandatory, and as a result, many do not. In addition, gaps in law enforcement training may inadvertently encourage identifying any of the following factors as indicators of a false report: delayed reporting, victim indifference to injuries, vagueness, or victim’s attempt to steer away from unsafe details, suspect description, or location of offense (Archambault, 2005). As a result, many reports are classified as “false.”[/quote
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

Further, research from the British Home Office showing that in the early 2000s, of the 216 cases that were classified as false allegations, only six led to an arrest.
https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/
But what about the Innocence Project?! HUNDREDS of innocent folks who have been convicted!

"Of all the cases taken on by the Innocence Project, about 43% of clients were proven innocent, 42% were confirmed guilty, and evidence was inconclusive and not probative in 15% of cases."

Wow. That seems pretty high.

But...

About 3,000 prisoners write to the Innocence Project annually, and at any given time the Innocence Project is evaluating 6,000 to 8,000 potential cases.[27]

All potential clients go through an extensive screening process to determine whether or not they are likely to be innocent. If they pass the process, the Innocence Project takes up their case. In roughly half of the cases that the Innocence Project takes on, the clients' guilt is reconfirmed by DNA testing. ... In about 40% of all DNA exoneration cases, law enforcement officials identified the actual perpetrator based on the same DNA test results that led to an exoneration.

"As of November 2019, 367 people previously convicted of serious crimes in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing since 1989, 21 of whom had been sentenced to death."

If they had only taken 6000 cases in those 30 years, then 367 would be ~6.1%, but that's not the case, Bambi. 3,000 per year over 30 years gives us 90,000 cases, give or take, or just over 0.4% (1 in 250) cases. It's somewhere closer to the latter number than the former, but most likely in the middle --> 2-3%. There have been roughly 4 times that number whose convictions have been overturned because of DNA, including their 367.

But the problem looks a lot smaller than you make it out to be.

[barton]

Most politicians are millionaires, given that having a million dollars in assets no longer makes you wealthy (this I know from personal experience).  For many millionaires, it is just a matter of having one house,  some savings,  and an IRA.   It's not 1952, when a millionaire was generally someone who could buy a yacht and a second mansion.   

Anyway,  being affluent is not a substantial argument for or against a politician's position on worker rights and advancement.   If someone has an actual point about their policy ideas,  then there would be an actual discussion.   Otherwise,  zzzzzzzzz

Having a million dollars in assets makes you wealthy.

"The median net worth of the average U.S. household is $97,300." Under 35, it's about $73.5 k.

That you have an IRA and a house sufficient to put your wealth in that category is great - but while it is not J. Paul Getty land, you are so far above the median as to make a claim that you are not wealthy absurd.

I'll grant you that "a household in the U.S. has an average net worth of $692,100, according to the most recent data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances," but that's the arithmetic mean, Barton, which is more than a tad skewed by the folks in the top 1%.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-how-do-you-compare-to-others-2018-09-24
Figures are from 2016

Josh,  I had a middle class income,  and still do.   Assets, for people over 60, compute a little higher because homes are paid off,  and IRA has accumulated more,  and they are less likely to have debt.   The fact that I squeak near to one mill is mostly due to flukes of owning property in a city where house values doubled in the past decade,  inheriting a few antiques that turned out to be worth something, and some inheritance money that greatly helped with kids college meaning more years we could save.   Without those bits of luck,  and our good health,  we'd be below that household average.   What all this does is make us further aware of where middle class folk find themselves when they don't have so much good luck.  It's why I gave 6K to someone who needed it for a medical issue... pretty much every penny that came my way through luck or someone's generosity (I didn't earn it,  IOW) is going to be donated to people or groups that will benefit from passing that along.  A roofer who took my down payment of 5K died,  leaving a wife and four small children and a bankrupt business.   I decided,  though we didn't get a roof,  that there was no way to get a refund without doing harm to the surviving family,  so I let it go.   If I could sell the antiques and give the proceeds to Habitat or Nature Conservancy or a dozen other groups I could list,  I would do it tomorrow.   (spouse would not go for that)  If I could downsize to a smaller house,  and donate the difference, ditto.   

 I'm basically a Buddhist.   Stuff just doesn't matter.   It's ridiculous that I have the stuff I do when people more hardworking than I ever was are struggling.   Insane,  really.

[josh]

Most politicians are millionaires, given that having a million dollars in assets no longer makes you wealthy (this I know from personal experience).  For many millionaires, it is just a matter of having one house,  some savings,  and an IRA.   It's not 1952, when a millionaire was generally someone who could buy a yacht and a second mansion.   

Anyway,  being affluent is not a substantial argument for or against a politician's position on worker rights and advancement.   If someone has an actual point about their policy ideas,  then there would be an actual discussion.   Otherwise,  zzzzzzzzz

Having a million dollars in assets makes you wealthy.

"The median net worth of the average U.S. household is $97,300." Under 35, it's about $73.5 k.

That you have an IRA and a house sufficient to put your wealth in that category is great - but while it is not J. Paul Getty land, you are so far above the median as to make a claim that you are not wealthy absurd.

I'll grant you that "a household in the U.S. has an average net worth of $692,100, according to the most recent data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances," but that's the arithmetic mean, Barton, which is more than a tad skewed by the folks in the top 1%.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-how-do-you-compare-to-others-2018-09-24
Figures are from 2016

Josh,  I had a middle class income,  and still do.   Assets, for people over 60, compute a little higher because homes are paid off,  and IRA has accumulated more,  and they are less likely to have debt.   The fact that I squeak near to one mill is mostly due to flukes of owning property in a city where house values doubled in the past decade,  inheriting a few antiques that turned out to be worth something, and some inheritance money that greatly helped with kids college meaning more years we could save.   Without those bits of luck,  and our good health,  we'd be below that household average.   What all this does is make us further aware of where middle class folk find themselves when they don't have so much good luck.  It's why I gave 6K to someone who needed it for a medical issue... pretty much every penny that came my way through luck or someone's generosity (I didn't earn it,  IOW) is going to be donated to people or groups that will benefit from passing that along.  A roofer who took my down payment of 5K died,  leaving a wife and four small children and a bankrupt business.   I decided,  though we didn't get a roof,  that there was no way to get a refund without doing harm to the surviving family,  so I let it go.   If I could sell the antiques and give the proceeds to Habitat or Nature Conservancy or a dozen other groups I could list,  I would do it tomorrow.   (spouse would not go for that)  If I could downsize to a smaller house,  and donate the difference, ditto.   

 I'm basically a Buddhist.   Stuff just doesn't matter.   It's ridiculous that I have the stuff I do when people more hardworking than I ever was are struggling.   Insane,  really.

Accusing you of being wealthy in America (let alone the world) is not accusing you of being a bad person (or your wife, for that matter), Barton. It's just numerical.

I don't have a problem with Bernie's wealth, as I already said, just his duplicity. (His defensiveness grates, too.)

Our ages are not hugely different, as I recollect. I was a millionaire about 30 years ago, briefly. It allowed me a ton of lattitude for things of the sorts you describe - $50k per year of unearned income will do that. But I was dependently wealthy; the money went away about the same way that it came into my life, through no fault/credit of my own. (It took hard work and stupidity for my parents to undo in two years what my parents had done in 8 with an inheritance, building it up to something that might have been $20 million, down to $0. And how do you lose money on a TV station, anyway?! (One of their clever investments.))

But that household average of yours is wealthy! Sure, it is a combination of consistent work and good luck, but the result is still wealth. You're in the top quintile for your age, not the middle three! How is that not wealthy?!

I hope that there is an afterlife or reincarnation or something so that your goodness gets rewarded beyond this mortal sphere, though I will be very pleasantly surprised to discover it! I appreciate what you do, in the here and now - and appreciating, too, that that is neither why you do it nor why you told me.

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/politics/michael-bloomberg-nondisclosure-release/index.html

Separately, a campaign aide said Bloomberg had been "thinking about this as a CEO, and then decided to think about it as a person."

Bloomberg said in a statement he tweeted that moving forward, his company would not offer confidentiality agreements to resolve claims of sexual harassment or misconduct. He said nondisclosure agreements, "promote a culture of silence in the workplace and contribute to a culture of women not feeling safe or supported."

I welcome the change and wish he had gotten there without needing this impetus - but he got there.

Elizabeth Warren should be pleased.

But he's got further to go, yet.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Most politicians are millionaires, given that having a million dollars in assets no longer makes you wealthy (this I know from personal experience).  For many millionaires, it is just a matter of having one house,  some savings,  and an IRA.   It's not 1952, when a millionaire was generally someone who could buy a yacht and a second mansion.   

Anyway,  being affluent is not a substantial argument for or against a politician's position on worker rights and advancement.   If someone has an actual point about their policy ideas,  then there would be an actual discussion.   Otherwise,  zzzzzzzzz

Having a million dollars in assets makes you wealthy.

"The median net worth of the average U.S. household is $97,300." Under 35, it's about $73.5 k.

That you have an IRA and a house sufficient to put your wealth in that category is great - but while it is not J. Paul Getty land, you are so far above the median as to make a claim that you are not wealthy absurd.

I'll grant you that "a household in the U.S. has an average net worth of $692,100, according to the most recent data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances," but that's the arithmetic mean, Barton, which is more than a tad skewed by the folks in the top 1%.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-how-do-you-compare-to-others-2018-09-24
Figures are from 2016

Josh,  I had a middle class income,  and still do.   Assets, for people over 60, compute a little higher because homes are paid off,  and IRA has accumulated more,  and they are less likely to have debt.   The fact that I squeak near to one mill is mostly due to flukes of owning property in a city where house values doubled in the past decade,  inheriting a few antiques that turned out to be worth something, and some inheritance money that greatly helped with kids college meaning more years we could save.   Without those bits of luck,  and our good health,  we'd be below that household average.   What all this does is make us further aware of where middle class folk find themselves when they don't have so much good luck.  It's why I gave 6K to someone who needed it for a medical issue... pretty much every penny that came my way through luck or someone's generosity (I didn't earn it,  IOW) is going to be donated to people or groups that will benefit from passing that along.  A roofer who took my down payment of 5K died,  leaving a wife and four small children and a bankrupt business.   I decided,  though we didn't get a roof,  that there was no way to get a refund without doing harm to the surviving family,  so I let it go.   If I could sell the antiques and give the proceeds to Habitat or Nature Conservancy or a dozen other groups I could list,  I would do it tomorrow.   (spouse would not go for that)  If I could downsize to a smaller house,  and donate the difference, ditto.   

 I'm basically a Buddhist.   Stuff just doesn't matter.   It's ridiculous that I have the stuff I do when people more hardworking than I ever was are struggling.   Insane,  really.

All together now!
Barton is the grandest fellow
In the Easter Parade!

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/politics/bernie-sanders-russia-election-interference/index.html

Meanwhile...

[josh]

Most politicians are millionaires, given that having a million dollars in assets no longer makes you wealthy (this I know from personal experience).  For many millionaires, it is just a matter of having one house,  some savings,  and an IRA.   It's not 1952, when a millionaire was generally someone who could buy a yacht and a second mansion.   

Anyway,  being affluent is not a substantial argument for or against a politician's position on worker rights and advancement.   If someone has an actual point about their policy ideas,  then there would be an actual discussion.   Otherwise,  zzzzzzzzz

Having a million dollars in assets makes you wealthy.

"The median net worth of the average U.S. household is $97,300." Under 35, it's about $73.5 k.

That you have an IRA and a house sufficient to put your wealth in that category is great - but while it is not J. Paul Getty land, you are so far above the median as to make a claim that you are not wealthy absurd.

I'll grant you that "a household in the U.S. has an average net worth of $692,100, according to the most recent data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances," but that's the arithmetic mean, Barton, which is more than a tad skewed by the folks in the top 1%.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-how-do-you-compare-to-others-2018-09-24
Figures are from 2016

Josh,  I had a middle class income,  and still do.   Assets, for people over 60, compute a little higher because homes are paid off,  and IRA has accumulated more,  and they are less likely to have debt.   The fact that I squeak near to one mill is mostly due to flukes of owning property in a city where house values doubled in the past decade,  inheriting a few antiques that turned out to be worth something, and some inheritance money that greatly helped with kids college meaning more years we could save.   Without those bits of luck,  and our good health,  we'd be below that household average.   What all this does is make us further aware of where middle class folk find themselves when they don't have so much good luck.  It's why I gave 6K to someone who needed it for a medical issue... pretty much every penny that came my way through luck or someone's generosity (I didn't earn it,  IOW) is going to be donated to people or groups that will benefit from passing that along.  A roofer who took my down payment of 5K died,  leaving a wife and four small children and a bankrupt business.   I decided,  though we didn't get a roof,  that there was no way to get a refund without doing harm to the surviving family,  so I let it go.   If I could sell the antiques and give the proceeds to Habitat or Nature Conservancy or a dozen other groups I could list,  I would do it tomorrow.   (spouse would not go for that)  If I could downsize to a smaller house,  and donate the difference, ditto.   

 I'm basically a Buddhist.   Stuff just doesn't matter.   It's ridiculous that I have the stuff I do when people more hardworking than I ever was are struggling.   Insane,  really.

All together now!
Barton is the grandest fellow
In the Easter Parade!

Translation: "I have no examples of my own generosity to share, but I can belittle others for theirs!"