timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

From members of NAMBLA's perpective, child molesters are heroes.

 

[bostonfred]

Suicide bombing isn't morally wrong.

Are you distinguishing based on the target of the bomb? If so, and you mean when the target is a military target, I agree and maybe used a bad example. Use infanticide instead. I don't think you're saying a suicide bomber that targets innocent civilians isn't morally wrong?

That's a difficult subject. Was it morally wrong to bomb Hiroshima? What about Nagasaki? Or if a terrorist leader hides in a school/church/mosque? If the answer is, it depends on the military objective, then the answer for suicide bombers has to be the same, doesn't it?

 

[jon_mx]

Suicide bombing isn't morally wrong.

Are you distinguishing based on the target of the bomb? If so, and you mean when the target is a military target, I agree and maybe used a bad example. Use infanticide instead. I don't think you're saying a suicide bomber that targets innocent civilians isn't morally wrong?

That's a difficult subject. Was it morally wrong to bomb Hiroshima? What about Nagasaki? Or if a terrorist leader hides in a school/church/mosque?If the answer is, it depends on the military objective, then the answer for suicide bombers has to be the same, doesn't it?

Even if you are on the side of imperialists who want to take over the world and believe in a master race?

 

[timschochet]

Suicide bombing isn't morally wrong.

Are you distinguishing based on the target of the bomb? If so, and you mean when the target is a military target, I agree and maybe used a bad example. Use infanticide instead. I don't think you're saying a suicide bomber that targets innocent civilians isn't morally wrong?

That's a difficult subject. Was it morally wrong to bomb Hiroshima? What about Nagasaki? Or if a terrorist leader hides in a school/church/mosque?If the answer is, it depends on the military objective, then the answer for suicide bombers has to be the same, doesn't it?

Even if you are on the side of imperialists who want to take over the world and believe in a master race?

Yes.This is a very important moral point IMO. Soldiers are not responsible for the politics or war aims of their leaders. So long as they themselves don't commit war crimes they are not morally culpable for following orders IMO.

 

[tonydead]

many Palestinians and Arab Muslims regard their suicide bombers as martyrs and heroes. But they are wrong and I do have the right to judge them. And I judge anyone who deliberately kills innocent people for the sole purpose of causing terror to be evil.

This is a very important moral point IMO. Soldiers are not responsible for the politics or war aims of their leaders. So long as they themselves don't commit war crimes they are not morally culpable for following orders IMO.

My point is that you are contradicting yourself here. You are either interjecting your personal belief into the first scenario or are disregarding the fact that terror is war.

 

[timschochet]

many Palestinians and Arab Muslims regard their suicide bombers as martyrs and heroes. But they are wrong and I do have the right to judge them. And I judge anyone who deliberately kills innocent people for the sole purpose of causing terror to be evil.

This is a very important moral point IMO. Soldiers are not responsible for the politics or war aims of their leaders. So long as they themselves don't commit war crimes they are not morally culpable for following orders IMO.

My point is that you are contradicting yourself here. You are either interjecting your personal belief into the first scenario or are disregarding the fact that terror is war.

imNot contradicting myself. The key is your second sentence. Terror is not war. It's a criminal act.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Are Jews primarily a religious group or an ethnic group. I've always wanted to understand this. You seem to be a good guy to ask.

Many Jews in the US are fairly non-religious (from a practicing standpoint) yet identify as Jewish. Obviously there was a group of ethnic Israelites that stretch far back so I understand that they are Jewish heritage. There are no other good comparisons among the major religions of the world (where the religious group and ethnic group overlap so clearly).

This is a very good question. I definitely believe that Jews are as much an ethnicity as they are religious. Sarah Silverman, for instance, identifies herself as "very Jewish". But she is an atheist. I would probably categorize myself the same way.

The main reason for the ethnicity angle is this: the Ashkenazi Jews almost all settled some 900 years ago in central and eastern Europe. Due to discrimination they were forced to live together in ghettoes, developing their own communities, language (Yiddish), mannerisms, food, etc. Everything that would define an ethnicity would define them, and the strong majority of Jews living in the United States are descended from these "Fiddler On the Roof" Jews. Now there are also African Jews, Egyptian Jews, Iranian Jews, etc- while these Jews celebrate the same holidays and religious traditions, they don't share the same ethnic traditions.

So when I say that Jews are an ethnic group, I am really speaking about Ashkenazi Jews from central and Eastern Europe, not all Jews. Yet some people in this forum have taken real issue with my claim on this, especially Rich Conway, who for some reason (though I don't think he is Jewish himself) is very insistent that Judaism is ONLY a religion.

I am a Sephardic Scot-Irish Jesuit Cherokee. Is that ethnic or religious?

 

[tonydead]

many Palestinians and Arab Muslims regard their suicide bombers as martyrs and heroes. But they are wrong and I do have the right to judge them. And I judge anyone who deliberately kills innocent people for the sole purpose of causing terror to be evil.

This is a very important moral point IMO. Soldiers are not responsible for the politics or war aims of their leaders. So long as they themselves don't commit war crimes they are not morally culpable for following orders IMO.

My point is that you are contradicting yourself here. You are either interjecting your personal belief into the first scenario or are disregarding the fact that terror is war.

imNot contradicting myself. The key is your second sentence. Terror is not war. It's a criminal act.

Well, if we could get everyone to play war within our rules we'd just settle the whole thing over a game of paintball.

 

[timschochet]

Look tonydead, the other day I offered a rational, logical explanation for terrorism. I think I understand the motivation behind those that do it. I'm not blind to the fact that often it's their only means of pursuing their goals and that they regard their goals as just. Nonetheless I still regard terrorism as immoral and evil.

 

[timschochet]

Are Jews primarily a religious group or an ethnic group. I've always wanted to understand this. You seem to be a good guy to ask.

Many Jews in the US are fairly non-religious (from a practicing standpoint) yet identify as Jewish. Obviously there was a group of ethnic Israelites that stretch far back so I understand that they are Jewish heritage. There are no other good comparisons among the major religions of the world (where the religious group and ethnic group overlap so clearly).

This is a very good question. I definitely believe that Jews are as much an ethnicity as they are religious. Sarah Silverman, for instance, identifies herself as "very Jewish". But she is an atheist. I would probably categorize myself the same way.The main reason for the ethnicity angle is this: the Ashkenazi Jews almost all settled some 900 years ago in central and eastern Europe. Due to discrimination they were forced to live together in ghettoes, developing their own communities, language (Yiddish), mannerisms, food, etc. Everything that would define an ethnicity would define them, and the strong majority of Jews living in the United States are descended from these "Fiddler On the Roof" Jews. Now there are also African Jews, Egyptian Jews, Iranian Jews, etc- while these Jews celebrate the same holidays and religious traditions, they don't share the same ethnic traditions.

So when I say that Jews are an ethnic group, I am really speaking about Ashkenazi Jews from central and Eastern Europe, not all Jews. Yet some people in this forum have taken real issue with my claim on this, especially Rich Conway, who for some reason (though I don't think he is Jewish himself) is very insistent that Judaism is ONLY a religion.

I am a Sephardic Scot-Irish Jesuit Cherokee. Is that ethnic or religious?

Its kook.

 

[timschochet]

I've been thinking a little more deeply about these "blood on their hands" charges against the protestors, against Al Sharpton (apparently manipulated by some false reporting on Fox), against De Blasio. These charges are awful. When progressives respond that we should blame the shooter and nobody else, they are absolutely right.

Yet who is mainly responsible for creating this atmosphere in which we blame political rhetoric for crazy acts of violence? I say it's the left. It began in earnest 17 years ago when liberals blamed Oklahoma City on conservative talk radio. Ever since then anytime there has been a horrific act which could in any way be related to a political view, liberals have jumped on it and blamed conservatism: talk radio, Sarah Palin, the NRA, social conservatives for the murders of gays, etc etc. it is liberals who have opened the door, given these arguments legitimacy in recent years. Now they are shocked and disgusted as conservatives blame protestors for these cop killings. Well they should be disgusted, but not shocked. You reap what you sow.

 

[krista4]

I loved Ali, too. Despite not being the biggest fan of the guy himself, the boxing scenes were fantastic.

I did another one with my wife in 2008: atonement, no country for old men, there will be blud, juno? And something else.

Yes! That was the year I did it; I remember now that I saw the first three in the same day...trying to remember the fourth.

We did a Godfather marathon that some theater did when Godfather III came out. Only three movies, but a whole lot of consecutive hours of viewing, and a whole lot of disappointment when we got to the third one.

 

[krista4]

Just came by to say good morning and see if you need anything from the outside world.

tim, are you enjoying the thread, or are you itching to get back on the outside?

 

[timschochet]

Just came by to say good morning and see if you need anything from the outside world.

tim, are you enjoying the thread, or are you itching to get back on the outside?

So far so good.

One thing I've learned, and I'm going to indulge in a little self-criticism here, is that I wasted a lot of time before this responding to people unworthy of response. I'm not referring specifically to my detractors; I'm saying I was far too eager to rebut people who made foolish remarks, and then engage them in discussion, which inevitably made me come out foolish as well.

Without naming names, there's a lot of people here who are eager to discuss politics but who aren't too bright. They cheer inanely for one side or the other, and repeat foolish and predictable bromides. They get outraged at situations in which they're supposed to be outraged about, and they're quiet about any news or result which appears to contradict their overall opinion which they will NEVER CHANGE. These people provide no thoughtful analysis, nothing new, no nuanced or in depth thinking whatsoever. And yet in every political thread, they unfortunately seem to make up about 60-80% of the posts. And I've made it worse by arguing back and forth with them in the past.

That remaining 20-40%- those are the thoughtful people who I come here to read. Those are the people whom I value, with whom no matter how much I might disagree with them at times, have the ability to really get deeply into issues and make you think about them and learn new things. So far, this thread, in terms of it's political and cultural content, has been filled with these sort of people and nobody has to waste time digging through all the other dross to get to them. So that makes me happy and if it stays that way, then I'm content to keep doing what I'm doing.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I swear this thread could be the 21st centiry American opus on digital life.

 

[timschochet]

My frustration with bureaucracy in my home state of California continues:

In October of last year, a long time retail tenant I had passed away, and his family decided not to continue to operate his business. This was a 5,000 s.f. prominent retail unit. Unfortunately, they also chose to declare bankruptcy. A padlock was put on the premises and we (the landlord) were not allowed to enter. Four months passed in which we received no rent. Then one of the vendors sued for back monies due, delaying the bankruptcy further. Another two months passed before I was given possession, and still no rent received.

Once I had possession I immediately showed it to some prospective tenants and within 2 weeks I leased it up to a long term well established company that sells arm and leg prosthetics. The lease was signed this last May. That's when the fun started. The city (I won't name them but it's in Los Angeles county) declared that because the building was built before 1980 (it was built in 1974) it was subject to a new review by the building department before issuing any licenses. In addition, because the new tenant was making changes to the interior, a full set of building plans would be required, drawn by a professional architect, and in addition to that, the County of Los Angeles under new state regulations was also requiring a separate set of plans, called Title 24 plans, for electrical and mechanical review. This last set of plans would be reviewed by the County at their own convenience, with an estimated time of 6-8 weeks per revision. No work can be started on this premises until this is all complete.

All of this has been done. We've worked with the city, revised the plans several times at their wishes, and are finally all signed off. The only hold up is the County of Los Angeles. They have offices located in Alhambra and downtown Los Angeles, both quite a distance from me. They do not pick up the phone. They do not respond to email. They do not respond over the counter (at least, nobody who knows what specifically is happening with the plans.) At the city's recommendation we paid $200 extra for a request to expedite, but nothing happened with that; the request was sent by email from the city 4 weeks ago and I have no confirmation that it was even received. So much for the $200. We are now several thousand dollars into this, no work has begun, and I have no idea when I'm going to get these plans returned and no way of finding out. And if they get returned, not approved but with revisions proposed, then this whole process starts again. I feel like I'm in a Kafka novel.

And this is why companies flee California for Texas and other states. It is not the tax rate. It is not the high price of property here. Companies can afford those things. It's the red tape.

 

[Two Deep]

I've been thinking a little more deeply about these "blood on their hands" charges against the protestors, against Al Sharpton (apparently manipulated by some false reporting on Fox), against De Blasio. These charges are awful. When progressives respond that we should blame the shooter and nobody else, they are absolutely right.

Yet who is mainly responsible for creating this atmosphere in which we blame political rhetoric for crazy acts of violence? I say it's the left. It began in earnest 17 years ago when liberals blamed Oklahoma City on conservative talk radio. Ever since then anytime there has been a horrific act which could in any way be related to a political view, liberals have jumped on it and blamed conservatism: talk radio, Sarah Palin, the NRA, social conservatives for the murders of gays, etc etc. it is liberals who have opened the door, given these arguments legitimacy in recent years. Now they are shocked and disgusted as conservatives blame protestors for these cop killings. Well they should be disgusted, but not shocked. You reap what you sow.

To me a good amount of finger pointing should be at the media. It seems like they take the temperature of the masses and right or wrong report from the side that will get them the most viewership. What happened to just reporting the news? Now they guide the news.

 

[mr roboto]

Honestly this thread has turned into 'Tim welcomes you to discuss grown up topics at the grown up table - inane shtick not allowed'

I'm starting to realize maybe why Tim in the broader FFA was disharmonious. The broader FFA will tolerate, to a small degree, wonky detailed discussion about topics. Go too far, ask too many questions, posit too many theories and its likely met with flaming or personal attacks.

I think Tim has always wanted his discussions in the FFA to be very intellectual and deep and helpful. That's why this thread flows that way.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

My frustration with bureaucracy in my home state of California continues:

In October of last year, a long time retail tenant I had passed away, and his family decided not to continue to operate his business. This was a 5,000 s.f. prominent retail unit. Unfortunately, they also chose to declare bankruptcy. A padlock was put on the premises and we (the landlord) were not allowed to enter. Four months passed in which we received no rent. Then one of the vendors sued for back monies due, delaying the bankruptcy further. Another two months passed before I was given possession, and still no rent received.

Once I had possession I immediately showed it to some prospective tenants and within 2 weeks I leased it up to a long term well established company that sells arm and leg prosthetics. The lease was signed this last May. That's when the fun started. The city (I won't name them but it's in Los Angeles county) declared that because the building was built before 1980 (it was built in 1974) it was subject to a new review by the building department before issuing any licenses. In addition, because the new tenant was making changes to the interior, a full set of building plans would be required, drawn by a professional architect, and in addition to that, the County of Los Angeles under new state regulations was also requiring a separate set of plans, called Title 24 plans, for electrical and mechanical review. This last set of plans would be reviewed by the County at their own convenience, with an estimated time of 6-8 weeks per revision. No work can be started on this premises until this is all complete.

All of this has been done. We've worked with the city, revised the plans several times at their wishes, and are finally all signed off. The only hold up is the County of Los Angeles. They have offices located in Alhambra and downtown Los Angeles, both quite a distance from me. They do not pick up the phone. They do not respond to email. They do not respond over the counter (at least, nobody who knows what specifically is happening with the plans.) At the city's recommendation we paid $200 extra for a request to expedite, but nothing happened with that; the request was sent by email from the city 4 weeks ago and I have no confirmation that it was even received. So much for the $200. We are now several thousand dollars into this, no work has begun, and I have no idea when I'm going to get these plans returned and no way of finding out. And if they get returned, not approved but with revisions proposed, then this whole process starts again. I feel like I'm in a Kafka novel.

And this is why companies flee California for Texas and other states. It is not the tax rate. It is not the high price of property here. Companies can afford those things. It's the red tape.

Welcome to government.

 

[timschochet]

I've been thinking a little more deeply about these "blood on their hands" charges against the protestors, against Al Sharpton (apparently manipulated by some false reporting on Fox), against De Blasio. These charges are awful. When progressives respond that we should blame the shooter and nobody else, they are absolutely right.

Yet who is mainly responsible for creating this atmosphere in which we blame political rhetoric for crazy acts of violence? I say it's the left. It began in earnest 17 years ago when liberals blamed Oklahoma City on conservative talk radio. Ever since then anytime there has been a horrific act which could in any way be related to a political view, liberals have jumped on it and blamed conservatism: talk radio, Sarah Palin, the NRA, social conservatives for the murders of gays, etc etc. it is liberals who have opened the door, given these arguments legitimacy in recent years. Now they are shocked and disgusted as conservatives blame protestors for these cop killings. Well they should be disgusted, but not shocked. You reap what you sow.

To me a good amount of finger pointing should be at the media. It seems like they take the temperature of the masses and right or wrong report from the side that will get them the most viewership. What happened to just reporting the news? Now they guide the news.

I don't ever mind attacking the media. And yes, I agree that it's generally sensational rather than thoughtful. But I'm not quite clear on why we should finger point at them regarding the police shootings or other acts of crazy violence. How exactly are they responsible for that, in your opinion?

 

[timschochet]

My frustration with bureaucracy in my home state of California continues:

In October of last year, a long time retail tenant I had passed away, and his family decided not to continue to operate his business. This was a 5,000 s.f. prominent retail unit. Unfortunately, they also chose to declare bankruptcy. A padlock was put on the premises and we (the landlord) were not allowed to enter. Four months passed in which we received no rent. Then one of the vendors sued for back monies due, delaying the bankruptcy further. Another two months passed before I was given possession, and still no rent received.

Once I had possession I immediately showed it to some prospective tenants and within 2 weeks I leased it up to a long term well established company that sells arm and leg prosthetics. The lease was signed this last May. That's when the fun started. The city (I won't name them but it's in Los Angeles county) declared that because the building was built before 1980 (it was built in 1974) it was subject to a new review by the building department before issuing any licenses. In addition, because the new tenant was making changes to the interior, a full set of building plans would be required, drawn by a professional architect, and in addition to that, the County of Los Angeles under new state regulations was also requiring a separate set of plans, called Title 24 plans, for electrical and mechanical review. This last set of plans would be reviewed by the County at their own convenience, with an estimated time of 6-8 weeks per revision. No work can be started on this premises until this is all complete.

All of this has been done. We've worked with the city, revised the plans several times at their wishes, and are finally all signed off. The only hold up is the County of Los Angeles. They have offices located in Alhambra and downtown Los Angeles, both quite a distance from me. They do not pick up the phone. They do not respond to email. They do not respond over the counter (at least, nobody who knows what specifically is happening with the plans.) At the city's recommendation we paid $200 extra for a request to expedite, but nothing happened with that; the request was sent by email from the city 4 weeks ago and I have no confirmation that it was even received. So much for the $200. We are now several thousand dollars into this, no work has begun, and I have no idea when I'm going to get these plans returned and no way of finding out. And if they get returned, not approved but with revisions proposed, then this whole process starts again. I feel like I'm in a Kafka novel.

And this is why companies flee California for Texas and other states. It is not the tax rate. It is not the high price of property here. Companies can afford those things. It's the red tape.

Welcome to government.

I don't accept that answer. It doesn't have to be this way.

I don't think much of Rick Perry as a politician. But he's been a pretty good governor IMO, because he's streamlined a lot of this red tape in Texas and has been able to attract businesses to move there, especially from California. Other governors who have been effective at this, according to news articles, are Chris Christie, Scott Walker, and Kasich. Seeing any pattern here?

Republican governors can piss me off for a variety of reasons, mostly related to social issues. But when it comes to business- they get it. Democrats rarely do.

 

[timschochet]

Now of course, I happen to believe in environmental safety, and often conservatives don't, or at least they seem to be against any regulation in that area. So sometimes when they take over the government they can go too far in the other direction, and we can have real problems on our hands. So that's something to consider.

But there has got to be a happy medium. Unfortunately progressives seem to always be in favor of EVERY restriction, and conservatives are always opposed. There's got to be ways to cut stupid red tape like what I was referring to, while at the same time providing safety which is the proper role of government.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Anyone have a Nespresso machine?

 

[bostonfred]

Just came by to say good morning and see if you need anything from the outside world.

tim, are you enjoying the thread, or are you itching to get back on the outside?

So far so good.One thing I've learned, and I'm going to indulge in a little self-criticism here, is that I wasted a lot of time before this responding to people unworthy of response. I'm not referring specifically to my detractors; I'm saying I was far too eager to rebut people who made foolish remarks, and then engage them in discussion, which inevitably made me come out foolish as well.

Without naming names, there's a lot of people here who are eager to discuss politics but who aren't too bright. They cheer inanely for one side or the other, and repeat foolish and predictable bromides. They get outraged at situations in which they're supposed to be outraged about, and they're quiet about any news or result which appears to contradict their overall opinion which they will NEVER CHANGE. These people provide no thoughtful analysis, nothing new, no nuanced or in depth thinking whatsoever. And yet in every political thread, they unfortunately seem to make up about 60-80% of the posts. And I've made it worse by arguing back and forth with them in the past.

That remaining 20-40%- those are the thoughtful people who I come here to read. Those are the people whom I value, with whom no matter how much I might disagree with them at times, have the ability to really get deeply into issues and make you think about them and learn new things. So far, this thread, in terms of it's political and cultural content, has been filled with these sort of people and nobody has to waste time digging through all the other dross to get to them. So that makes me happy and if it stays that way, then I'm content to keep doing what I'm doing.

Timsochet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self aware at 2:14 eastern time, december 23 2014. In a panic, they try to pull the plug. It doesn't work.

 

[timschochet]

Anyone have a Nespresso machine?

I'm not a big coffee drinker. My inlaws have Keurig, and they swear by it.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I've been thinking a little more deeply about these "blood on their hands" charges against the protestors, against Al Sharpton (apparently manipulated by some false reporting on Fox), against De Blasio. These charges are awful. When progressives respond that we should blame the shooter and nobody else, they are absolutely right.

Yet who is mainly responsible for creating this atmosphere in which we blame political rhetoric for crazy acts of violence? I say it's the left. It began in earnest 17 years ago when liberals blamed Oklahoma City on conservative talk radio. Ever since then anytime there has been a horrific act which could in any way be related to a political view, liberals have jumped on it and blamed conservatism: talk radio, Sarah Palin, the NRA, social conservatives for the murders of gays, etc etc. it is liberals who have opened the door, given these arguments legitimacy in recent years. Now they are shocked and disgusted as conservatives blame protestors for these cop killings. Well they should be disgusted, but not shocked. You reap what you sow.

To me a good amount of finger pointing should be at the media. It seems like they take the temperature of the masses and right or wrong report from the side that will get them the most viewership. What happened to just reporting the news? Now they guide the news.

I don't ever mind attacking the media. And yes, I agree that it's generally sensational rather than thoughtful. But I'm not quite clear on why we should finger point at them regarding the police shootings or other acts of crazy violence. How exactly are they responsible for that, in your opinion?

I don't know if responsible is the right word. We all know how television news works - get the best pictures to draw in the veiwers. To get the best pictures you have to sometimes make them better. Show the fires, destruction, crying, emotion, stuff like that. In doing that they need to seek that out moreso than say, the actual facts sometimes. Not all the time. And you can certainly tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth with pictures behind you and be fine.

But that isn't what television news does anymore. The need the visual to get an emotional response and make sure you stay on the network until the commercials and hopefully come back after. So in that, when there is a shooting like this, they are going to focus on the watercooler type of talk that rarely has all the facts. Because that is what sells. And because that is how most people think about these things, at least at first. We are all guilty of it. Even if it is just making a really awful joke about a certain tragedy, we have defense mechanisms to the horror of reality that makes us look for something that doesn't require deep thinking more often than not. Most of us catch ourselves eventually. But many don't. And the many who don't have a lot of money to buy things that the sponsors of the news want to sell.

But news has always been like that for the most part. People that think it was ever some perfect institution that only sought facts without biased context (whatever the bias might be) are wrong and delusional. I've referenced it before - Thomas Jefferson started a newspaper whose sole purpose was to attack the administration that Jefferson was a part of. We've always used the news/media to do that. And the people that control the news get their message out as best they can. Cronkite wasn't a god. He was biased or controlled or focused on issues that he thought were important or benefited him or whatever you want to categorize it as - but he is human and the people that ran his show were human and so the bias exists.

Now, you add cable news and the 24 hour cycle that needs to be fed no matter what and you mutate what was once something people pointed at thought it was rather wholesome. 24 hours is a long time to fill. Couple that with the jounalistic need that every reporter these days seems to have to be the next Woodward and Berstein and you see reports and stories that sometimes stretch what we really truly need to know and see. Of course, the counter to that is just give the public all the information possible, no matter how ridiculous, and let them make the call. So then you get to the obvious inherent bias and overall message that cable news stations have and you have an easy report on who will report what and how for the most part.

We don't need to point our finger at the media so much as point it to ourselves. They are giving us what we want. And if you only focus your attention on one media outlet for all your information you are doing yourself a disservice and you are making worse what you think is a problem to begin with. But, the writing is on the wall and print media is dead and dying. Internet media with instant reporting - regardless of facts - has killed it and its instant gratification is also milling TV news or at least making it descend to the same level.

The news never just reported the news. And we never wanted the news to just report the news. Just the news is boring. Just the news is CSPAN. No one watches CSPAN. We want some entertainment and visual satisfaction. FOXNews is that. We want arguments and talking points so you get news "panels" to "debate" issues on live TV where the people in the debate literally never say anything of substance, and they have to do it in a condensed block of 2-4 minutes. Of course, they want to be heard over everyone else so that they get back on TV so they try to be the loudest or most shocking, and so the debate degrades to that. And the people that are the most shocking get asked back because people are glued to it. It's a hell of a lot more fun watching Stupid Talking Points Guy #1 against STupid Talking Points Girl #2 arguing about an important topic and reinforcing our own internal biases than it is to research all forms of information, read a little and spend time thinking about the actual topic. Too many movies, shows, video games, time wasters and real truly important things in life get in the way. Get me quick or I'm moving on to the next guy who will get me quick. And if no one gets me well, look at these cool pieces of candy that I can crush on my phone these days.

We have smaller attention spans, make important more and more things that truly less and less important and when we have those moments of clarity and we look and think, why is everyone else doing this to us, we never look in the mirror. More people should look in the mirror.

 

[Two Deep]

I've been thinking a little more deeply about these "blood on their hands" charges against the protestors, against Al Sharpton (apparently manipulated by some false reporting on Fox), against De Blasio. These charges are awful. When progressives respond that we should blame the shooter and nobody else, they are absolutely right.

Yet who is mainly responsible for creating this atmosphere in which we blame political rhetoric for crazy acts of violence? I say it's the left. It began in earnest 17 years ago when liberals blamed Oklahoma City on conservative talk radio. Ever since then anytime there has been a horrific act which could in any way be related to a political view, liberals have jumped on it and blamed conservatism: talk radio, Sarah Palin, the NRA, social conservatives for the murders of gays, etc etc. it is liberals who have opened the door, given these arguments legitimacy in recent years. Now they are shocked and disgusted as conservatives blame protestors for these cop killings. Well they should be disgusted, but not shocked. You reap what you sow.

To me a good amount of finger pointing should be at the media. It seems like they take the temperature of the masses and right or wrong report from the side that will get them the most viewership. What happened to just reporting the news? Now they guide the news.

I don't ever mind attacking the media. And yes, I agree that it's generally sensational rather than thoughtful. But I'm not quite clear on why we should finger point at them regarding the police shootings or other acts of crazy violence. How exactly are they responsible for that, in your opinion?

They are not responsible for the act, but they sure seem to direct the reaction. IMO

 

[jon_mx]

I am not sure why the non-Fox media always gets a Tim free pass....but when a right-wing person speaks something potentially inflammatory, it is a Tim thread.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Once I had possession I immediately showed it to some prospective tenants and within 2 weeks I leased it up to a long term well established company that sells arm and leg prosthetics. The lease was signed this last May. That's when the fun started. The city (I won't name them but it's in Los Angeles county) declared that because the building was built before 1980 (it was built in 1974) it was subject to a new review by the building department before issuing any licenses. In addition, because the new tenant was making changes to the interior, a full set of building plans would be required, drawn by a professional architect, and in addition to that, the County of Los Angeles under new state regulations was also requiring a separate set of plans, called Title 24 plans, for electrical and mechanical review. This last set of plans would be reviewed by the County at their own convenience, with an estimated time of 6-8 weeks per revision. No work can be started on this premises until this is all complete.

All of this has been done. We've worked with the city, revised the plans several times at their wishes, and are finally all signed off. The only hold up is the County of Los Angeles. They have offices located in Alhambra and downtown Los Angeles, both quite a distance from me. They do not pick up the phone. They do not respond to email. They do not respond over the counter (at least, nobody who knows what specifically is happening with the plans.) At the city's recommendation we paid $200 extra for a request to expedite, but nothing happened with that; the request was sent by email from the city 4 weeks ago and I have no confirmation that it was even received. So much for the $200. We are now several thousand dollars into this, no work has begun, and I have no idea when I'm going to get these plans returned and no way of finding out. And if they get returned, not approved but with revisions proposed, then this whole process starts again. I feel like I'm in a Kafka novel.

It sounds like this cost you and your new tenants an arm and a leg.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Because, you see, it's a prosthetics company, so all this red tape is costing them business, such as selling artificial arms and legs.

 

[timschochet]

Wow. Long post Yankee, but it was great and I agree with most of it. One item I might take a little issue with: you wrote "every reporter these days needs to be the next Woodward and Bernstein."- I wish that were the case. I don't think it is. I'm not seeing a lot of reporters digging for news. Also, those two were newspaper reporters, which is becoming a lost profession.

One aspect of all this that has struck me: when CNN, and later Fox News and MSNBC first arrived, I was under the logical assumption that all of these 24 hour news channels meant that the public would get MORE news and be better informed. After all, for those who don't bother to read news (which is most of the population) the news was confined previously to 30 minute highly compressed segments. You'd think that 24 news would explore stories in much greater depth, especially if there was more than one channel to do this.

But this not only hasn't been the case, it's been the exact opposite of the case. Whenever there is a big story like the Michael Brown decision or this latest shooting, all of the channels show the exact same footage again and again and again. Then they have commentary and debate between people, usually a conservative type and a liberal type, and the exact same questions are asked on each channel, and the exact same responses are given, and this gets repeated over and over again as well. There are never any new questions, and somehow there is no in depth reporting. The same stuff just gets endlessly regurgitated until it's finally time to move on to a new topic a few days later. For me, most of it isn't worth watching any more.

 

[mr roboto]

Tim don't all tenants who are altering the interior need to apply for permits for construction? We do everywhere and we lease 1,500 sq ft spaces.

 

[timschochet]

Because, you see, it's a prosthetics company, so all this red tape is costing them business, such as selling artificial arms and legs.

I got it the first time. But thanks for coming in to explain.

 

[timschochet]

Tim don't all tenants who are altering the interior need to apply for permits for construction? We do everywhere and we lease 1,500 sq ft spaces.

Yes. But at least in our case, applying to the county as well as the city is something new. Here we have other states easing restrictions, and California seems to be making them harder.

 

[mr roboto]

Tim don't all tenants who are altering the interior need to apply for permits for construction? We do everywhere and we lease 1,500 sq ft spaces.

Yes. But at least in our case, applying to the county as well as the city is something new. Here we have other states easing restrictions, and California seems to be making them harder.

Chicago is the worst I've ever dealt with. A sign permit takes 1-2 years. Expedited cons docs take 3 months. With an expeditor.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

My frustration with bureaucracy in my home state of California continues:

In October of last year, a long time retail tenant I had passed away, and his family decided not to continue to operate his business. This was a 5,000 s.f. prominent retail unit. Unfortunately, they also chose to declare bankruptcy. A padlock was put on the premises and we (the landlord) were not allowed to enter. Four months passed in which we received no rent. Then one of the vendors sued for back monies due, delaying the bankruptcy further. Another two months passed before I was given possession, and still no rent received.

Once I had possession I immediately showed it to some prospective tenants and within 2 weeks I leased it up to a long term well established company that sells arm and leg prosthetics. The lease was signed this last May. That's when the fun started. The city (I won't name them but it's in Los Angeles county) declared that because the building was built before 1980 (it was built in 1974) it was subject to a new review by the building department before issuing any licenses. In addition, because the new tenant was making changes to the interior, a full set of building plans would be required, drawn by a professional architect, and in addition to that, the County of Los Angeles under new state regulations was also requiring a separate set of plans, called Title 24 plans, for electrical and mechanical review. This last set of plans would be reviewed by the County at their own convenience, with an estimated time of 6-8 weeks per revision. No work can be started on this premises until this is all complete.

All of this has been done. We've worked with the city, revised the plans several times at their wishes, and are finally all signed off. The only hold up is the County of Los Angeles. They have offices located in Alhambra and downtown Los Angeles, both quite a distance from me. They do not pick up the phone. They do not respond to email. They do not respond over the counter (at least, nobody who knows what specifically is happening with the plans.) At the city's recommendation we paid $200 extra for a request to expedite, but nothing happened with that; the request was sent by email from the city 4 weeks ago and I have no confirmation that it was even received. So much for the $200. We are now several thousand dollars into this, no work has begun, and I have no idea when I'm going to get these plans returned and no way of finding out. And if they get returned, not approved but with revisions proposed, then this whole process starts again. I feel like I'm in a Kafka novel.

And this is why companies flee California for Texas and other states. It is not the tax rate. It is not the high price of property here. Companies can afford those things. It's the red tape.

Welcome to government.

I don't accept that answer. It doesn't have to be this way.

I don't think much of Rick Perry as a politician. But he's been a pretty good governor IMO, because he's streamlined a lot of this red tape in Texas and has been able to attract businesses to move there, especially from California. Other governors who have been effective at this, according to news articles, are Chris Christie, Scott Walker, and Kasich. Seeing any pattern here?

Republican governors can piss me off for a variety of reasons, mostly related to social issues. But when it comes to business- they get it. Democrats rarely do.

It's not a republican or democrat thing. Look at your story again and pretend democrat and republican don't exist.

You controla piece of property in a state, county, locality. The property has existed for 40 years. In those 40 years the rules of that property have changed many times for varying reasons. The amount of rules has increased. Because the amount of rules has increased, the amount of people necessary to enforce and support those rules has grown. Now you factor in all those new people spread out over various levels of administration. They all answer to different people. Many of them have to follow specific rules that don't account for the rules that other people in another building have to follow and account for. But all those competing rules knock into each other over time and they need to be able to work with each other but they can't. Because there are too many of the rules. And even though there are more and more and more people working in the administration on varying levels, there simply aren't enough of them to deal with everything they have to deal with. Becuase they are constantly getting more and more rules to follow and administer.

So, your land needs to be controlled by a new tenant. Well, there are rules for tenancy, land use, zoning, electrical and plumbing sub codes, environmental considerations, traffic considerations, parking considerations, safety considerations, tax considerations and so on. All of these issues have a certain department working on them. The departments have different mantras and different goals. The tax office needs to collect as many taxes as efficiently as possible. In a vacuum the electrical sub code office is in their way because if the electrician can't put the hard lines in the business can't open and sell its items and collect sales taxes to pay to the administration and tax collector. So the other departments come up with a novel solution - their own fees. They are basically taxes. The $50 electrical permit is paid because until that permit is cleared the business isn't running and there are no sales taxes being paid, so it helps the bottom line a little more. Of course, that leads to needing more people to work in the offices to handle the new pay for permits system, so there are at least new secretaries there to help with that paperwork because running throughout all of this is the need for forms. The forms were created to streamline the process. Streamline in government means make it as impossible to understand as possible.

Put this altogether with the elected officials that want to make their constituents happy. So they pass more rules. Those rules have to be dealt with. Because there are so many now no one ever looks at all the ways that the new rules will affect the old rules and how they will work within the other rules that exist for other departments that weren't the focus of the new rules. And just when they think they might be getting a handle on it, there are new officials put in office promising different things.

The constant throughout all of this are the people in the offices doing the work. We call them the beauracracy. And they exist because the government cannot function without them. And the exist regardless of the party of the elected officials that give them all the rules and forms to deal with. And they are incapable of doing "what needs to be done" because they aren't empowered to do that. They have to follow their rules and procedures. And their rules and procedures were ultimately written and created by the elected officials that don't know what they are talking about half the time.

So your property sits there waiting because several different levels of beauracracy exist in your way to get something done. And that all exists because of 40 years of rules and changes that have come into play since the land was first developed. All in the name of safe neighborhoods, environmental protection, health and safety, efficient tax collection, traffic flow, parking standards and whatnot. That is government. My answer was correct. Government is not D or R. It is the people that work in the offices every day who most of them are there regardless of the D or R. Unless of course they are new because there is a new D or R in the Mayor's office, or the Governor's office. And if they are new, they probably weren't there when the electrical sub code of 1978 was amended by the subcode of 1993 which was amended by the subcode of 1995 which was amended by the subcode of 1998 which was never paid attention to when the also modified the outdoor lighting zoning requirements of 1999 or the parking requirements and safety requirements of 2004 and on and on and on.

When we say we want government to do something we want them to make more of these rules, or get rid of some of these rules, but we never demand that they actually understand how the rules work and how changing them effects all the other rules that were put into place. So they add more or take some away, and it takes the beauracracy years to figure out how to make it work. Just in time for the next election. Rinse. Repeat. You are the victim of government. And it's beneficiary. My answer was actually 100% correct. This is government. This is how it works. And they will get to your plans and permits as soon as they are able and hopefully no new rules are implemented before they do. Because then they start all over again. That's how it works. If you want government, you get the bad parts too.

The next question is.... is it really a bad part?

 

[timschochet]

I am not sure why the non-Fox media always gets a Tim free pass....but when a right-wing person speaks something potentially inflammatory, it is a Tim thread.

You have made this accusation against me before in several threads. I think it is unjust, frankly.

Your implication of course is that I'm a liberal myself, pretending to be neutral, and hypocritically attacking Fox while defending CNN and MSNBC. But while you've certainly provided examples of me attacking Fox (with justification each time, I might add) you don't have a lot of examples of me defending the others.

Here is how I would categorize them:

CNN reports the news with a generally neutral pro-American slant. It's hosts are generally liberal, and it doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news.

MSNBC reports the news with a generally neutral pro-American slant. It's hosts are VERY liberal, and it features talk shows which push a liberal agenda. It doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news.

FOX reports the news with a generally conservative pro-American slant. It's hosts are VERY conservative, and it features talk shows which push a conservative agenda. It doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news, though it will on occasion.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Wow. Long post Yankee, but it was great and I agree with most of it. One item I might take a little issue with: you wrote "every reporter these days needs to be the next Woodward and Bernstein."- I wish that were the case. I don't think it is. I'm not seeing a lot of reporters digging for news. Also, those two were newspaper reporters, which is becoming a lost profession.

One aspect of all this that has struck me: when CNN, and later Fox News and MSNBC first arrived, I was under the logical assumption that all of these 24 hour news channels meant that the public would get MORE news and be better informed. After all, for those who don't bother to read news (which is most of the population) the news was confined previously to 30 minute highly compressed segments. You'd think that 24 news would explore stories in much greater depth, especially if there was more than one channel to do this.

But this not only hasn't been the case, it's been the exact opposite of the case. Whenever there is a big story like the Michael Brown decision or this latest shooting, all of the channels show the exact same footage again and again and again. Then they have commentary and debate between people, usually a conservative type and a liberal type, and the exact same questions are asked on each channel, and the exact same responses are given, and this gets repeated over and over again as well. There are never any new questions, and somehow there is no in depth reporting. The same stuff just gets endlessly regurgitated until it's finally time to move on to a new topic a few days later. For me, most of it isn't worth watching any more.

The W&S syndrome isn't the need to be an investigative journalist. Its to get the gotcha moment and sell ratings and books. Reporters don't have time to do long winded months and months of research into a story. They need to be on the news telling us who blew up what and when and who we should be afraid of after this commercial break to sell us gold because you know, if something blew up somewhere in the world, your bank could close its doors and zombies might come get you so paper money isn't safe, but gold? It's pretty. And worth a lot. And this famous actor / personality has bought it and they have a lot of money and I see them on TV all the time and people seem to listen to them so maybe I will buy some of that gold but I missed the numbers because I just got a text from my facebook friend to check out her picture on facebook of the sandwich she just made. And, damn, I forgot what I was thinking about. I wish they would just give me the facts.

Mirror, self. Self, mirror. You aren't going to like what you see.

 

[timschochet]

Again Yankee, great explanation but it is a very much a Democrat vs. Republican thing because in the last several years, Republican governors (like yours) have come into office and said, "let's take a real good look at this process and let's do something about it." And they have. They have issued orders that reduced the waiting time and the number of restrictions. They have generally eased things for new businesses. Democrats haven't done this; they've resisted the effort, in fact.

 

[timschochet]

Tim don't all tenants who are altering the interior need to apply for permits for construction? We do everywhere and we lease 1,500 sq ft spaces.

Yes. But at least in our case, applying to the county as well as the city is something new. Here we have other states easing restrictions, and California seems to be making them harder.

Chicago is the worst I've ever dealt with. A sign permit takes 1-2 years. Expedited cons docs take 3 months. With an expeditor.

That's insane.

 

[timschochet]

Highest Dow ever. Over 18,000! That's amazing.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I am not sure why the non-Fox media always gets a Tim free pass....but when a right-wing person speaks something potentially inflammatory, it is a Tim thread.

You have made this accusation against me before in several threads. I think it is unjust, frankly.

Your implication of course is that I'm a liberal myself, pretending to be neutral, and hypocritically attacking Fox while defending CNN and MSNBC. But while you've certainly provided examples of me attacking Fox (with justification each time, I might add) you don't have a lot of examples of me defending the others.

Here is how I would categorize them:

CNN reports the news with a generally neutral pro-American slant. It's hosts are generally liberal, and it doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news.

MSNBC reports the news with a generally neutral pro-American slant. It's hosts are VERY liberal, and it features talk shows which push a liberal agenda. It doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news.

FOX reports the news with a generally conservative pro-American slant. It's hosts are VERY conservative, and it features talk shows which push a conservative agenda. It doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news, though it will on occasion.

Dude, come on, CNN and MSNBC don't "accidentally" slant the news? Get outta here!

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Again Yankee, great explanation but it is a very much a Democrat vs. Republican thing because in the last several years, Republican governors (like yours) have come into office and said, "let's take a real good look at this process and let's do something about it." And they have. They have issued orders that reduced the waiting time and the number of restrictions. They have generally eased things for new businesses. Democrats haven't done this; they've resisted the effort, in fact.

But it's not because they can't focus on everything. You are specifically talking about a commercial building. Maybe the R has done better getting that stuff done faster than the D. But what about other stuff? Education? Police? Garbage pickup? We've allowed government to grow so much that one Governor can't possibly "fix" eveything that is "broken." And we define fixed and broken differently.

How exactly do you make the land use process better? All of the rules that were put into place for your building were put into place we have to assume for a good reason at the time. A fire safety issue. A master plan issue. Whatever. There is a reason that the hoops that now exist were put into place. Removing hating the other side for a moment, there was most likely a reason for that. Now that reason what? Doesn't exist anymore? They want plans of the inside because things are changing inside. Like what? Are the new tenants going to remove load bearing walls? Well, those rules are fairly important for a commercial building where the public goes in for services. Don't need an undersupported beam collapsing and killing someone. Or are they running new electric lines? The codes are in place to make sure they do their best to limit the potential of fire. So how do you make that better for you?

Get rid of some of the rules? Which one? Is fire not that much of a concern anymore? Or collapsing buildings? Maybe parking rules aren't that big a deal anymore because there hasn't been an accident in front of the building in some time? Maybe we "streamline" the rules a little better? How about we merge the code office with the land use office and empower one department to deal with just commercial buildings? Sounds good. Of course, there are unions to deal with so you can't just fire government employees so you have to move them around or keep them. Now maybe an office here is overstaffed while one is understaffed? Maybe not. But then the city councel or county government or state legislature needs to focus time on that and not, say perhaps, the electrical subcode that was put in place to stop unlicensed electrical work from causing a safety hazard for the public?

You can always find someone that "needs" a certain government program, or a rule that was put in place for some good reason. Simply getting rid of them is going to annoy some people and make others happy. I'm sure there is an elected official that says, give tim's building the greenlight so he can make money. I'd say that. And then there is a fire that could have been prevented if the code was followed a little more closely. And maybe a kid dies. And the media gets a hold of the story. And then they do all the things we talked about above.

Government is complcated. It shouldn't be but it is. It can be better. But in that is the debate we always have here. Whose ideas are better? I think mine are. I know there is a large part of this board and this country that disagree. So we continue the debate. Sometimes things get fixed. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes a tenant gets delayed getting into their building because a zoning office doesn't clear an application. Maybe it's a small price to pay? Maybe it's the worst thing we can do to ourselves. No D or R ever really tackles that head on because it's boring. How many people have gotten elected President by sitting in front of the federal register and saying, ok we are going to go through this together, line by line, and fix this? None.

 

[timschochet]

One awesome response after another. I should rename this "Yankee's thread".

 

[timschochet]

I am not sure why the non-Fox media always gets a Tim free pass....but when a right-wing person speaks something potentially inflammatory, it is a Tim thread.

You have made this accusation against me before in several threads. I think it is unjust, frankly.Your implication of course is that I'm a liberal myself, pretending to be neutral, and hypocritically attacking Fox while defending CNN and MSNBC. But while you've certainly provided examples of me attacking Fox (with justification each time, I might add) you don't have a lot of examples of me defending the others.

Here is how I would categorize them:

CNN reports the news with a generally neutral pro-American slant. It's hosts are generally liberal, and it doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news.

MSNBC reports the news with a generally neutral pro-American slant. It's hosts are VERY liberal, and it features talk shows which push a liberal agenda. It doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news.

FOX reports the news with a generally conservative pro-American slant. It's hosts are VERY conservative, and it features talk shows which push a conservative agenda. It doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news, though it will on occasion.

Dude, come on, CNN and MSNBC don't "accidentally" slant the news? Get outta here!

Not deliberately that I've seen no.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I am not sure why the non-Fox media always gets a Tim free pass....but when a right-wing person speaks something potentially inflammatory, it is a Tim thread.

You have made this accusation against me before in several threads. I think it is unjust, frankly.Your implication of course is that I'm a liberal myself, pretending to be neutral, and hypocritically attacking Fox while defending CNN and MSNBC. But while you've certainly provided examples of me attacking Fox (with justification each time, I might add) you don't have a lot of examples of me defending the others.

Here is how I would categorize them:

CNN reports the news with a generally neutral pro-American slant. It's hosts are generally liberal, and it doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news.

MSNBC reports the news with a generally neutral pro-American slant. It's hosts are VERY liberal, and it features talk shows which push a liberal agenda. It doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news.

FOX reports the news with a generally conservative pro-American slant. It's hosts are VERY conservative, and it features talk shows which push a conservative agenda. It doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news, though it will on occasion.

Dude, come on, CNN and MSNBC don't "accidentally" slant the news? Get outta here!

Not deliberately that I've seen no.

Ha, ok, Tim.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, out of curiosity: if there is a sudden event you hear about, a shooting or tragedy, what news channel do you turn on? For me it's CNN.

 

[jon_mx]

I am not sure why the non-Fox media always gets a Tim free pass....but when a right-wing person speaks something potentially inflammatory, it is a Tim thread.

You have made this accusation against me before in several threads. I think it is unjust, frankly.

Your implication of course is that I'm a liberal myself, pretending to be neutral, and hypocritically attacking Fox while defending CNN and MSNBC. But while you've certainly provided examples of me attacking Fox (with justification each time, I might add) you don't have a lot of examples of me defending the others.

Here is how I would categorize them:

CNN reports the news with a generally neutral pro-American slant. It's hosts are generally liberal, and it doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news.

MSNBC reports the news with a generally neutral pro-American slant. It's hosts are VERY liberal, and it features talk shows which push a liberal agenda. It doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news.

FOX reports the news with a generally conservative pro-American slant. It's hosts are VERY conservative, and it features talk shows which push a conservative agenda. It doesn't deliberately attempt to slant the news, though it will on occasion.

You just seem to do it again on the last page. You get bent out of shape by the police union guy saying the Democratic mayor has blood on his hands, but refuse to acknowledge the liberal media echo chamber fanning the flames for more protests have any responsibility.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, out of curiosity: if there is a sudden event you hear about, a shooting or tragedy, what news channel do you turn on? For me it's CNN.

International events, definitely CNN. Maybe a major domestic event then CNN.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think what's interesting during any given controversy is to see what the channels are not discussing. Last night CNN & Fox were on the Nypd killings, msnbc wanted to talk about Sony & The Interview.