Post what you want, as you want it. Self-linking is like chocolate being half-price the day after Valentine’s Day, and who doesn’t love that?
By the way, a couple of you know each other in real life. But I don’t know if both of you know about the “Alas” connection. Intrigue!
- Getting Control of Your Life in Five Easy Steps | Ludum Dare This is more of a game than a self-improvement program.
- “The comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.”
- An excellent overview of Frank Miller’s career (from an artistic perspective, not a political perspective)«
- Black feminists respond to Ferguson
- Should we do more to help paedophiles? | Practical Ethics
- The cost of raising a child: $245,000, according to the government.
- Are Men’s Rights Activists incapable of understanding irony — or are they just pretending? | we hunted the mammoth
- Black People Are Not Ignoring ‘Black on Black’ Crime – The Atlantic
- The Health Benefits of Trees – The Atlantic
- Why We Don’t Avoid Mission Creep | The American Conservative
- Amy Reeder • Spider-woman and Sexual Portrayals of Women
- Manara Responds to Criticism of His “Spider-Woman” #1 Cover – Comic Book Resources
- Is the ‘Orphan Black’ World One Big Metaphor For the Patriarchy?
- Men are more violent than women, and we shouldn’t treat that as natural
- Harassing feminists for expressing their condolences for Robin Williams: Men’s Rights Activism at its finest | we hunted the mammoth
- The US Trailer For Studio Ghibli’s Princess Kaguya Is, Of Course, Beautiful | The Mary Sue
- Me and my #MaleTears: Facing the consequences of ironic hatred
- Nekima Levy-Pounds | Our Silence on the War on Drugs & Mass Incarceration Lead to the Insanity in #Ferguson
- Not Sorry Feminism: The Harassment of Zoe Quinn is About Hatred of Women
- Even When Police Do Wear Cameras, Don’t Count on Seeing the Footage – CityLab
- Will the Panopticon Save Us From the Police? | The American Conservative
- Forcing America’s Weaponized Police to Wear Cameras – The Atlantic
- Watch London Cops Subdue, Not Kill, a Man Yelling and Swinging a Machete » Sociological Images
- Self-Segregation: Why It’s So Hard for Whites to Understand Ferguson – The Atlantic
- By the Numbers: How Dangerous Is It to Be a Cop? : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
- How Do You Fix A Police Department? « The Dish
- Michelle Duggar Goes Full Anita Bryant
- Ferguson and the Urban-Suburban Race Conflict – The Daily Beast
- How Uber Helps Women Break Into the Taxi Industry – The Atlantic
- To the atheist tone police: stop telling me how to discuss my abuse
- Ousted chief accuses border agency of shooting cover-ups, corruption
- Reclaiming ‘Jewish-Looking’ « The Dish
- Scheduling software: Starbucks promises to do better, but low-wage workers need legal protections.
- One Nation, under SWAT: The undemocratic Militarization of the Police | Informed Comment
- Ferguson Missouri government: Why is it so white?
- #IfTheyGunnedMeDown Attacks Portrayals of Black Men Killed by Police » Sociological Images
- The surprising link between lead and teen pregnancy – Vox I wasn’t all that surprised. But still interesting.
- The data on white anxiety over Hispanic immigration – The Washington Post
- Here’s a list of potentially unconstitutional things that police in Ferguson are doing – The Washington Post
- A brief guide to defending your favorite politically offensive pop culture – The Washington Post This. So much this.
- Why Obama has the power to stop millions of deportations without Congress.
- The Civil Rights Movement Is Going in Reverse in Alabama | New Republic
- A Deserved Downgrade of Kansas’ Bonds. Hey, it turns out that radically cutting taxes doesn’t increase revenue; it just makes your state bankrupt. I am shocked, shocked.
Sorry, #Costco Doesn’t Sell Gateways To Narnia http://t.co/H1a2P09mhZ pic.twitter.com/Xl4mhmJrie
— Nerd Approved (@NerdApproved) August 22, 2014
omg pic.twitter.com/UZVUI4j9fj — Veronica de Souza (@HeyVeronica) August 22, 2014
From link #20:
I’m not sure which I find more frustrating: the frequency with which this footage seems to get “lost” in controversial situations, or the laws in some states (and police intimidation in the absence of laws in some others) that prevent private citizens from filming or photographing police performing their professional duties in a public place. I could just be totally ignorant here, but as far as I know there are few if any laws preventing anyone from filming or photographing me in public (am I wrong about that…?) – if that’s the case, I don’t know why it should be different for police as long as the person with the camera isn’t interfering with their job.
In the former case I think for these police cameras to actually serve their purpose, in situations where the camera should be on (based on whatever policies the city or police department establishes) there needs to be a presumption of innocence on the part of the private citizen if the footage is “lost,” with some compelling evidence from other sources required to overturn that presumption. That should provide a pretty strong incentive for individual police or police departments to use them properly.
An update to an earlier post: The U.S. copyright office says that a photo taken by a monkey cannot be copyrighted.
It is the opinion of the Department of Justice and the First Circuit Court of Appeals that there is a clear First Amendment right to photograph the police when they are carrying out their duties in a public place and that any laws or actions to prevent that are a violation of the public’s First and Fourth Amendment rights. A Federal magistrate judge has held thus in Austin, Texas, which will either be accepted by the Austin police or get appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court. The New York Police Department has recently reminded it’s officers that it’s perfectly legal to peaceably record them at work. So has the Baltimore Police Department.
It’s legal to record the cops. That doesn’t mean that if you do, you won’t end up with your recording device in the hands of the cop. But if it does, it’s pretty likely that you’re going to win a court case. Local and State laws to the contrary are unconstitutional.
I really wanted to illustrate “intrigue” with a video clip of the movie-in-movie scene from The Rocketeer, where Neville Sinclair’s character removes a teeny tiny strip of mask to reveal the true identity of The Laughing Bandit, but can’t find it online, dammit.
Interesting that the left is surprised and upset that there are so many military arms in the hands of non-military government forces. Not that he started it, but President Obama certainly promised that it would be greatly expanded. And that’s what’s happening. From one of his campaign speeches:
And everything’s “national security” these days. Heck, the cops use “national security” to try to keep you from photographing them. So, that’s what he promised, and that’s what we’re getting.
Nota bene: I do not at all endorse the conspiracy suspicions advanced on that web site – it’s just the first one I hit in Bing that had the quote and the video from the speech.
Factcheck gives the full context of that quote, and – not a surprise – it looks very different in the original context.
That said, I’m not surprised that Obama hasn’t reversed the militarization of our police forces. Or many other things. It’s not as if we had an infinite menu of attractive left-wing candidates to choose from – we basically had to choose between Hillary Clinton, Obama, and John McCain. Of that group, there is exactly zero people who would reduce the militarization of police.
If I chose the candidates, there’d be a real leftist in the mix. But there really wasn’t.
Figures. Thanks! Still, as you say, he hasn’t done anything about it, and it’s been a prominent issue for a while. The man’s been President for 6 years now. If he’d put forward a bill to stop this – without a bunch of unrelated wish-list items on it – and the Congress had shot it down I’d let him off the hook, but I don’t think he has. He’s got to start wearing the jacket for some of this stuff.
Most of the right-wing commentators (and commenters) I read out on the conservative blogosphere are dead-set against the militarization of the cops as well. Whose idea was this, anyway? I seem to recall that this started out as “The police aren’t as well armed as the drug dealers”, but it’s gone a lot further than that.
It’s interesting how many people on both the left and right are opposed to it now. If I’m not mistaken the federal program to militarize police forces started under Bush senior and was greatly ramped up under Clinton, in each case justified by the war on drugs, with generally strong support from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress (presumably so they could be Tough On Crime). Radley Balko has a book about it from last year which I haven’t read yet but hope to soon.
I’m on the left, I guess, and I’m not “surprised” by the present state of police militarization. I’ve been aware of it, and following it, for a long time. I wonder how many of us really are “surprised” by it. I think that kind of rhetoric is an attempt at distraction — I’ve encountered it many times. “What, you were expecting Obama to be Che Guevara?” when I criticize Obama. No, I was expecting the Spanish Inquisition. (There may also be a mistaken confusion of Obama Democrats with “the left” going on.)
I’ll click through later on that link about male violence and it’s not natural. But my first reaction is to note, again, that “natural” does not equal “good.” No matter how many people all over the political spectrum believe otherwise. Parenthetically, “normal” doesn’t equal “good” either, and a lot of verbiage gets wasted fussing over these conflations. So male violence might very well be “natural.” That’s irrelevant to what we should think about it and what we should do about it.
My favorite part of that article:
Well, then. Problem solved. All scientists and other highly educated folks who have dedicated their careers to studying that sort of thing can put down their notebooks, because the answer is clear!
Sigh.
SCI FI PEOPLE:
I read a ton of books. I own very few of them. I am trying to figure out what these books are (any info is helpful.) Can you help?
Chances are that unless you’re around or over 40 you won’t have read it.
I’m guessing it’s from the 60s or early 70s.
Not a picture book, but a low level book with pictures. Talks about childhood on the Moon (I am fairly sure) or perhaps mars. Drawings of people in bubble helmets. Plot points I remember: every kid carries bowling balls around to avoid flying off the surface. Learning happens while asleep, via tapes. Protagonist has siblings.
Any ideas?
California’s new phone kill switch law requires that all phones sold in California will contain software that enable them to be remotely disabled. The concept is that this will reduce phone theft because thieves will know that any phone they steal can be quickly made useless.
That sounds good. But as the article at the above link discusses, it also makes it possible for someone to kill your phone and remove your ability to communicate whether you want them to or not. Hackers, domestic abusers, law enforcement or other government agencies all come to mind. I’m personally in the camp wherein I’ll take the risk of having a little less leverage over a thief to ensure that other people have less leverage over me. The government’s record on not interfering with other people’s lives – and in strictly obeying the laws and regulations when they decide they DO want to interfere in people’s lives – is not stellar these days. What do you think?
I’m thrilled about the kill switch law. They have it in Australia and cell phone theft is almost zero. I live in the Bay Area, and around 40-50% of all robbery in the past few years has been for cell phones, sometimes with people getting very injured. My partner will NOT stop futzing with his phone in public which drives me crazy, especially when we’re in a high-traffic area or he’s alone somewhere at night. I’m thrilled that I might be able to pull out my phone on MUNI to check email or listen to a podcast without fearing someone will grab it out of my hand and jump off at a stop.
Maybe if you don’t live somewhere with high rates of cell phone theft, you’ll see this as government over-reach, but consumers have been begging the cell companies for this and they’ve ignored us because losing phones means they make money off of us. So I’m glad the state is saying “you have the technology: USE IT.”
I rarely go into an area where someone running up to me and snatching my phone is an appreciable risk. I also tend not to use my phone while I’m walking in a crowd unless someone calls me. So to me, from a personal viewpoint, the risk of theft not something I’m worried about. I’m more worried about hackers or government overreach. I can see where it would be a reasonable compromise to make it an optional feature – but a) that’s not going to happen for production reasons and b) I don’t trust either the phone company or the government to abide by “O.K., you can turn it off if you want.”
So how many people who use phones live in such a high-risk area, and how many people don’t?
It seems that this illustrates a common cultural divide. People who live in urban areas demand solutions to issues in their lives based on government intervention. People who don’t live in urban areas expect to solve those issues through their own individual or voluntary/private group efforts and don’t want government involvement.
People in both urban and rural areas demand government intervention to solve their problems (look at how every rural interest group, say, demands a greater share of public water, even during drought). They just resent, naturally, being hit by blanket solutions which aren’t appropriate to them.
What the track record on killswitches and hackers? Has that ever happened?
yrs–
–Ben
There was a woman who was killed in Chicago a couple of years ago when a thief stole a phone on an El platform and, in his rush to escape, knocked her down the stairs.
Do the kill switches remove the ability to even call 911?
***
I don’t know the story, but this reminds me of a funny anecdote about teaching astronomy. Students were asked what would happen if an astronaut on the Moon was holding a pen and let go of it in midair. Some fraction said the pen would float away. When those students were questioned as to why the astronaut didn’t float away, some changed their minds and said the pen would eventually fall; the others said, because the astronaut is wearing heavy boots.
Well, it’s true that it’s not a binary solution set. But I think it’s fair to say that people in rural areas are much more likely to prefer non-g0vernmental solutions.
I’d guess that the technology hasn’t been out long enough and hasn’t been widespread enough for this to come up. Give it time. Implementing it in California should do it – especially since the phone companies are unlikely to have two OSs for their phones, one for California and one for the rest of the country. It’ll end up in all of them.
Uhm, no. A partial list of government programs rural people care deeply about:
Grazing on public lands.
Water rights, including conflict between farmers, ranchers and fishermen.
Farm subsidies.
Agricultural standards laws.
Roads.
Mail.
Rural electricity systems.
Rural hospital systems.
Keeping rural schools open.
Remote learning programs.
Agricultural research and education.
Indian relations laws and organizations.
Hunting licensure.
Fishing licensure.
Management of fish stocks.
Management of game stocks.
The park system.
If by “interested in government programs” you mean “votes for the democratic party” then, yes, less people do that in rural areas. But rural politics isn’t one note and it isn’t — importantly — stupid. Rural people rely heavily on regulation of the commons. They may disagree with the way the commons is regulated, but I’ve known pretty much no rural person except a crackpot to seriously suggest that, for instance, we should get rid of the entire fisheries management system.
You seem to be confusing suburbanite and exurbanite politics for rural politics: they are not the same.
yrs–
–Ben
P.S. As it turns out, the killswitch is software: any hacker who has access to your phone can already install and use one. So, really, the phone company adding one is not a big deal, from a hacking perspective.
If you gain access to someone’s smart phone, you can install kill switch software on it, you don’t need for it to already have it. We just call it ransomware.
Actually, it looks like the recent iPhone ransomware attack uses the existing iPhone kill switch application (TrackMyiPhone) to carry out the attack…
But an opt-in rule rather than an opt-out rule wouldn’t help, since having the TrackMyiPhone app exist means that hackers would still be able to install it on your phone and then use it.
The new kill switch software of the sort Apple has and Samsung is developing (basically, your phone has to contact a main server to do a factory reset) would require hacking into either (a) an individual account (already possibly without a kill switch to do pretty much anything once you are into an individual account) or (b) hacking into the Apple and Samsung servers themselves. Of the two, hacking individual accounts is massively easier than hacking corporate servers themselves. But the ability to shut-off people’s ability to do factory resets seems much less interesting for hackers than the existing ability to break a phone for everything but a factory reset.
Remind me to introduce you to my in-laws some time. They suggested exactly that a few years ago. Fishermen know more about fisheries management than scientists, something something something.
Blazer’s Edge has a nice post up about domestic violence. Dave is one of my favorite sportswriters and it’s nice to see him start his piece with “Women Are People” in bold text. And then he goes on to explain why the overwhelmingly male audience that nodded to that text doesn’t really believe it. That’s something you don’t often see on sports blogs.
Bechdel is a genus. No, really, it’s official.
….She’s a level in the hierarchy of biological classification, superior to species and inferior to family?
(Why let a typo go unnoticed when you can mock the person who did it? :))
*snort!*
Hey, what else would you expect from a Bechdel sapien?
Is it just me? Should professional journalists be able to write better than this?
This leaves me wondering whey Mr. Washington was expected to be true to the reporter’s wife.
Media outlets used to hire people known as “editors”. This apparently has fallen by the wayside.
So, you think you’re a cartoonist, eh?
This may be one of the finest things that the Chicago Tribune has ever published. And they’ve been around long enough to have endorsed the Presidential candidacy of Abraham Lincoln. Stantis ought to get a Pulitizer. It was even more powerful because all the panels were assembled into one single full page of the Trib – it was the entire “Commentary” page.
Stantis’s cartoon is gated, but I found a PDF here.
Oof..
It almost seems wrong to associate the word “cartoon” with it. “Essay” fits, though. “Ripping a piece of one’s heart out and spreading it out on newsprint” also fits.
Thanks for that link, nobody.really. It’s even better than the one I had because it shows the full page spread.
That is a really nice piece – thanks for pointing it out.
[This comment and the following two comments have been moved to this thread from a thread in which they were off-topic. –Amp]
“Of course, you’re a fairly unusual sort of feminist writer in that you’re less of a zealot; you distinguish between facts, speculation, and opinion; you’re quite open to competing data; and you change your mind with some regularity based on new information.”
———————————————-
Oh Puh-leeze. Feminist Critics have a complaint that he doesn’t change his mind, even faced with real evidence.
I could compile examples from this website, but I know how the game works. I would be instantly banned “for other reasons, not related to my post” and then mocked on top of it. I will likely be banned for this post, although a bit later and for “different reasons”.
But come on. Do you feel that great a need to suck up? Why?
I would start with the baffling worship of Mary Koss, for instance.
I know that if I work up a detailed post here, it is just going to be instantly deleted.
Sorry. I had failed to consider the complaints by some folks on another blog over my own personal experience here, over many years. I’ve been arguing with Amp for years, and based on my experience I think you’re incorrect. So they complain but don’t consider my views, so we’re even.
ORLY? How? Do you have a set of rules?
No, I doubt it. If you’re banned, it will be because of your post.
No, that would be mean. tempting. But mean.
Wait, what? Didn’t you just say you would be banned for things OTHER than your post? are you sure you’re sober?
Do you mean different reasons, “different reasons,” different reasons, or different reasons? And are you really saying this in a post about evidence? And are you SURE you’re sober?
Man, I am really having a hard time sticking to the “don’t mock” thing here.
Because Amp is my father.
Dude. It isn’t baffling. I didn’t cut my fucking foreskin off and give it to her for nothing, you know.
Oh, no. that would make it impossible to mock you for it. I’m sure it will remain.
I considered dropping in a comment in response to Wahr’s, pointing out that only Daran, Tamen, and I speak for Feminist Critics, but I thought, “that would be a little derailing and it goes without saying, anyway.” Your comment, g&w, — though no doubt well-intended — suggests my original impulse was correct.
As most who read us know, we strive very hard at FC to avoid ‘character-based’ complaints and strongly prefer critiques of what people have specifically said or done. FTR, my opinion of what Amp has said and done runs the gamut, but I do tend to agree with your observation that his willingness to admit that he’s wrong exceeds that of most other feminist bloggers.
Out of curiosity, Ballgame, if Wahr’s comment about me had been posted on Feminist Critics, would you say it had run afoul of your rule against “character-based complaints,” or would it be allowed?
Wahr: I’ve just searched the comment archive to remind myself of who you are. It turns out that I put you on moderated status two months ago. You shimmied around it by changing your email address, and I didn’t notice because I had forgotten you.
Let me save you some time: You can’t bother me. Make more personal attacks, and I’ll ban you and forget you existed ten minutes later. Your accusing emails will be deleted by me halfway through reading the first sentence (more than enough to recognize a hostile troll email), and the following five paragraphs that you crafted so carefully will never be read by anyone. Your comments don’t mean anything to me, and you’re not under my skin.
The only route you have to make me notice you, is to post a series of interesting, intelligent, witty on-topic comments that engage me and other folks here and make us think, without stooping to boring personal attacks. Do that, and I’ll actually be paying attention. But I honestly doubt you’re capable of it.
Amp, I thought you would appreciate it. It tells a meaningful story, it’s got a powerful presentaion and it’s very skillfully done. It’s also tremendously personal and took a lot of guts to publish. And while the Tribune called it a “cartoon essay”, it seems to me that with all the work out there called “graphic novels” it would have been more fitting to call it a “graphic short story”.
I’ve recently noticed that there have been a string of suspiciously similar comments and commenters from a certain I.P. Range. Many of these commenters have been banned, the overwhelming majority of them have engaged in personal attacks on Ampersond, and many of them seem oddly concerned with the Alas moderation policy.
Wahr is part of that IP Range.
Tüssi was part of that IP Range.
He was put on moderated status for generally responding with hostile off topic drive-byes, and for:
rbu2 was part of that IP Range.
He was also banned for hostile off topic drive-byes, and for:
Huh2 was part of that IP Range.
He made only one comment:
This is relevant because it’s a pathetic, poorly-thought-out attempt to masquerade as a feminist in order to attack Ampersand personally.
Rbu2 did the same thing, in his first comment:
Same tactic.
Iseter was part of that IP Range.
He was banned for personal attacks on Ampersand. Though the comment itself has been lost to the sands of time, Ampersand’s commentary on it is here:
The answer, to Ampersand’s final question, BTW, is that there is one anti-feminist here who has a creepy ongoing obsession with Amp, and continually makes personal attacks as a result, all while decrying the unfairness of being banned for it.
There have been a few other trolls in that IP range (notably “LOL” “LULZ” and “Aragon” from the ‘deleted comments’ folder, fellow moderators. Take a look!), as well as a few useful comments from productive adult commenters who understand how moderation works.
Despite that, I think I’d suggest that we put the entire IP range on auto-moderation. We can manually let the useful people through, and maybe this shit-sieve will keep YoSafBridg out, or at least make it more difficult for him to piss everywhere.
—Myca
Jesus H. Christ and his little brother James. I abandon you all for a while and you get all distracted by blatant trolls. What did I tell you all about theologians, pastors and missionaries?
Don’t debate the village idiot like he’s a fellow theologian. Either lock him out of the church like a pastor would or give him a baptism that’s indistinguishable from a water boarding like any good missionary would.
I know most of you suffer from self inflicted Ambiguous Disorder and love to debate endlessly without actually listening or thinking, but seriously. Delete troll posts, don’t engage.
BTW I can’t figure out how to put money JUST for stamps into Robert’s account. I don’t want him giving my money to conservative causes so I want to specify. Anyone figure out a way to keep from enabling his addiction to rigid thinking?
http://imgur.com/gallery/loibbwW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omelPRnVCbM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmbiguousDisorder
Hey! My disorders are perfectly well-defined, thank you very much! :)
If a first-time commenter said something like, “Amp never admits he’s wrong, even when you present evidence,” I probably would have moved the comment to an RP thread and responded the same way I did here. (I.e., “That isn’t true, and our aim at FC is to focus on specific things people have said and done, not to critique ‘who they are.'”)
If someone continued to ignore that directive, ‘moderatorial’ responses would become increasingly severe.
Brian, where Robert is I’m thinking he’s not making a lot of donations to anything but life’s necessities or some minor creature comforts. I could be wrong, but I rather doubt he’s sending money to political causes.
RonF, I have spent my entire adult life seeing every single time I have ever tried to help a friend or acquaintance wind up eventually biting me in the ass. Let me walk you through it.
I give Robert seven bucks and seventy seven cents towards his commissary fund, with the intent he use it for stamps and stationary to reply to the 7 page letter I mailed Monday. He decides it will be funny to send that money to Sarah Palin’s latest vanity project, her on line Wayne’s World level TV show.
That $7.77 is used to buy dollar store flags which JUST pushes her over the top image wise that people take the half- Governor seriously again.
Four years later, IRON SKY goes from my favorite Finnish film to being a docu-drama.
Do you REALLY want to take that risk? I know that I don’t.
Wow, Myca, that’s impressive. Thanks for figuring all that out!
Although I hate to disagree with you after all your work, I don’t want to set up auto-moderation if it means that we’d be auto-moderating “useful comments from productive adult commentators.” I just dislike the idea of punishing good comment-writers because Wahr is a dink. But I’ll try to keep a tighter eye on any future newbies who write like Wahr.
Thanks, Ballgame. I wasn’t meaning to put you on the spot, I just wanted to confirm my impression with someone who can’t be accused of being in my evil pocket. :-p
Yeah, you’re probably right, and I share your basic principle. After more investigation, though, literally the only useful comment coming from this IP range ever was this comment from Grace in February of this year.
Before Iseter, it was Tristan, who was banned by Charles for being a big racist fuck.
There are no comments from this IP range before January of this year, and Tristan was the first to post from it.
Like I said, I think you’re right about valuing “letting good commenters through” more then “blocking all potentially abusive commenters,” (especially since the second is impossible) but I do want to emphasize how much of a problem this IP range seems to be.
—Myca
Not being a mod: what does an IP range even mean in this context? Why would it be the same for so many people–are you suggesting they’re the same person, or would it imply that they all share a connection )e.g. at a college?)
for all the other lawyers on the list:
CLIENT RED FLAG BINGO
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0RvnsbW5iACenZKTU9tUFdrZnM/edit
G&W – as I understand it (and my understanding is, to put it mildly, limited) it makes it likely (although not 100% sure) that many of those folks are the same person using different names.
Myca – If Grace is the only person who has ever posted a reasonable comment from that IP range, then we can block that range, since if by chance it blocks one of Grace’s comments, she’s a moderator and can approve her own comment.
It can mean a number of things. In this case, what’s indicated is that they’re all from the same city and share the same ISP.
This is not a US city, and I assume Grace was there on vacation or for medical reasons. Her post is part of why I’m not assuming it’s not a college.
Though it’s possible that it’s a coincidence – that they’re all just randomly from the same city – the various similarities in their comments, language, and creepy obsessions indicate to me that they’re all the same person.
I totally might be wrong! Even if I’m not, it’s certainly possible that someone posting from this city and ISP might turn out to not be an asshat, sometime in the future. Putting the IP range on auto-moderation isn’t the same as blacklisting everyone there, it just means that a moderator would have to OK their post before it gets posted. In moderator-speak, the comment goes into the “pending” queue, rather than into the “trash” or “spam” bins.
—Myca
Gin-and-whiskey:
Y’know, a lot of those feel very, very familiar. With only a tweak here or there, this could be Police Complainant Red Flag Bingo.
Grace
On Grace’s post, she talks about the fact that she was out on surgical leave and didn’t get contacted by her co-workers. Presumably these aren’t friends, since she said that almost all of her friends DID contact her.
That surprised me.* And that made me wonder: what happens in your work? Is the usual thing in your office that non-friend people DO contact co-workers who are out?
In my experience, they don’t. Although I’m now in a small business I have worked at a lot of larger places. And although I may just have worked with a bunch of uncaring a-holes at multiple largish companies, most of them never really did much for anyone else outside of work. We’d pass around a card if someone was hit by a car, or if they had cancer. We’d wish them luck when they left for medical reasons–but if it was voluntary and they seemed healthy enough we would rarely think of them again until they returned. We didn’t feel any loyalty to people merely because we worked together, unless we happened to be friends (though of course we felt loyal to our friends.)
From memory, this was… just what it was. I don’t know if anyone was hurt by it, but I hope not: it was pretty standard and therefore there were no different expectations. But I read Grace’s post and instantly wondered whether my experience is just really strange.
What has everyone else experienced? Same thing? Different?
I don’t have clients hit that bingo card, but Free Advice Guy always does, usually thirty seconds after he tells an extremely tedious lawyer joke.
Here’s a case of multiple examples of voter fraud that would likely have been blocked if the person involved had been required to show a government-issued ID with their current address on it.
Myca, I’m curious as to how big of an IP range you’re talking about? /27? /28? /29?
Ron, is there even a single existing Voter ID law that requires the ID used to have the voter’s current address? It would surprise me if there were.
I just spot-checked a few states, and can say for sure that there is no such requirement in the Arkansas voter ID law. The Kansas voter ID law even accepts an out-of-state driver’s license, as will Michigan, Missouri, NC, NH, Mississippi and others – a form of ID that by definition contains out-of-date address info for legal voters. A whole bunch of states accept photo IDs that don’t necessarily list any address at all, such as student IDs.
So no, voter ID laws wouldn’t have prevented Rep. Ayala’s crimes.
Heya Ron … I kind of don’t want to get into it in too much detail here, just because I don’t want to provide a “here’s how we caught you (and how you can avoid being caught next time)” to the multi-troll.
—Myca
RonF @54: I appreciate you hedging your bets with ‘likely’, but am still curious as to how, exactly, you think an address requirement would have prevented voter fraud? Assuming that CT actually does require the residence address to be on the driver’s license, rather than a mailing address (not the case in many states), per your link, Ayala presented fabricated evidence of where she lived. If she’d used that as her ‘home address’ when getting ID, that wouldn’t have prevented her from using her ID to commit voter fraud.
Keep trying, though!
Would it? The report says the information was “fabricated.” Not “old,” not “omitted,” not “ignored,” not “misread,” but physically and specifically set up to be false.
When someone is willing to fabricate evidence there isn’t much you can do to stop them, other than punish them when they are caught. In my state, you can move your address and all you have to do is put a little sticker on your license: not so hard to fake, I don’t think. The only difference than an ID law would have made is that IDs are supposedly harder to copy.
Well, that depends on whether they’re just looking at the ID or swiping it. Getting an ID that looks real is simple. Getting one that the machines will accept is a lot harder. (I actually think the old system of comparing signatures works a whole lot better for “Is the person standing in front of me the same person as the person listed on the voter rolls?” than checking IDs. It’s way tougher to convincingly fake a signature and look like you’re just signing casually than it is to get a fake ID.)
Oh.
My.
God.
Have you guys seen this?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/01/say_yes_to_the_candidate_rick_scott_ad_knows_women_only_understand_wedding.html
That ad is insulting on so many levels, g&w. What, they couldn’t bother with actual production values or a passable script or people who can act better than me (I’m the worst actor you know)?
It’s the platonic ideal of why nobody should ever pay attention to a political ad.
I know, right? I was, like, “couldn’t they have chosen a nicer looking dress? That cut was all wrong on her!”
Which dress? Cuz the Crist dress should have been a poor fit to complete the metaphor.
I’ve gotta apply to the GOP as a political ad producer. That’s easy money, zero effort required.
Aside from the wedding dress, there’s the implication that the girl’s mother has no sense because of being from an earlier generation.
I say that Pres. Obama should name Michelle as the new head of the Secret Service. She needs something useful to do, and they’re her kids and husband (never mind herself) these clowns are putting in danger.
We went to the coast this weekend for a family celebration. While cruising down I-5 at 72 mph in the center lane, I noticed brake lights on the cars lined up at the upcoming exit ramp. Then I saw a truck (tractor-trailer sort of truck) jump suddenly from the line for the exit in the right lane and into the center lane. From my distance it looked like what trucks do when they haven’t stopped in time and are trying not to crush the car in front of them. So I moved over to the left lane. The truck kept coming across the the road and into the left lane. I hit the brakes. Hard. I realized that there was no way I was going to stop before I got to the truck (it seems that my brakes need some work), so I shifted onto the left shoulder and thought, “I hope he stops before he gets to the shoulder.” He did. I came to a stop in front of the truck – which at this point was blocking all three lanes of traffic. Then this guy comes strolling across the freeway from behind the truck. “What the fuck?,” we thought? Seconds later another guy comes running and tackles first dude in the median. Oh. Figuring that second guy in the median and truck driver and dozens of other cars were handling it and I had nothing additional to offer, I continued on my way while my wife called 911 (which was busy, I guess she wasn’t the only one calling).
That trucker saved suicidal (or deranged or disoriented) guy’s life at no little risk to his own well being. He also saved me – probably, I don’t know if I would’ve seen the guy without the truck blocking my view – from killing a stranger. So thank you trucker for what you did.
My wife remarked that I didn’t panic at all. But I have 40 years of experiencing dreams of the brakes not working and merely slowing my vehicle down verrrry slowly and that greatly influenced my thought process.
Jake, I’m very glad to hear that you and Ms. Squid are well after an incident like that. And well done to the trucker. I was just watching video, the other day, of a truck which suddenly swerves and goes sideways for no apparent reason, and then the pedestrian he was avoiding comes into view. (Not in my jurisdiction; I occasionally watch video of accidents to study the evidence and keep myself sharp.)
Grace
So we get to the coast and go into the hotel to check in. There is an older couple at the counter getting directions to somewhere from the clerk. Once the couple has gotten and understood the directions, older gentleman says, “You look like someone who goes to church. Do you go to church?”
The clerk responds, “I do when I can get my husband to go.”
Older gentlemen says, “We’re Catholics, naturally.”
I turned to Mrs. Squid and mouthed, “Naturally.”
It’s one of the most bizarre things I’ve heard in a long time. I still can’t wrap my head around what he thinks he said or what that could even mean. The coast is one of the parts of this country where Catholics aren’t believed to be Christian, so…
I wanted to thank the people here at Alas, and especially Grace Annam, for the thoughtful discussions about transitioning and how to react. A FB friend, not close to me, came out as a transgender man. I thanked him for sharing his new name and for choosing to share himself with us. The friend responded positively, so hopefully it was a good experience for him.
I feel like if I hadn’t been here to read the threads about Grace’s transition, it would have been much harder for me to casually show support. Thank you all!