Since the thread was already Godwinned in the first post, I'm going to say that the Nazis also did similar things to the mentally and physically disabled.
Now, let's be fair to the Nazis: the US pioneered eugenics long before Hitler ever came to power. See, e.g.Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Holmes, J, wrote for the Court:
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.
Which wouldn't be a problem if wages would increase so that a person could feed himself and his family on the reduced wages.
Alternatively, we could reduce the cost of feeding. Technology, changes to distribution methods, increases in productivity of all kinds have done precisely that:
Americans paid a high price to support this balkanized system for conveying food from farm to table. Food was hugely expensive, relative to wages. The average working-class family in the 1920s devoted one-third of its bud get to groceries, the average farm family even more. Most households spent more to put dinner on the table than for their rent or their mortgage. And for the average house wife, shopping for food consumed a large part of the day. This money, time, and effort bought plenty of calories, but only moderate amounts of nutrition.
According to the interview with the author (which I heard while driving, and cannot find a transcript), the budget fraction for groceries is now somewhere near 5%.
As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.
Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.
Very few states require any sort of license or permit to acquire a firearm. Pass the instant background check and in most places you can walk out with your purchase right away.
Put differently, you're saying that we shouldn't just give them money, we should also make buying their product mandatory (or at least make buying the alternative impossible).
And when the receptionist tells me after I've been waiting an hour that it'll be at least another hour, he has three patients ahead of me, and he's always like this? That's not an emergency, that's poor planning and a fundamental disrespect for the patient.
And, for the record, I fired him on the spot and demanded my copay back (that took some doing). Found another doctor who respects his patients' time, and wrote the first doc a note explaining why I'd fired him. He didn't even have the courtesy to apologize.
Housing is a little different--it's a mandatory expense, whether you buy (and pay interest) or rent. My mortgage is actually a bit less than the rent for a comparable property (if one could be found for rent), and there's an end in sight: after 30 years, it'll be mine free and clear, with no more payments to make. Rental goes on forever.
Luxury goods are different: it's not an expense you'll incur no-matter-what, so financing them makes a lot less sense.
Such companies are vultures, they prey on a section of society that wants the latest toys but cannot hope to afford them.
I guess I don't see where giving people what they want as "predatory." Or do you figure that people have a right to "the latest toys" even though they "cannot hope to afford them?"
Personal responsibility goes a long way. Earn the money for your toys, or do without, or accept the costs associated with choosing to live past your means. Don't come whining when a contract you signed of your own free will turns out to be unfavourable.
Or perhaps the problem will be better solved by giving them easier access to credit - from reputable sources such as banks that don't charge ursurous amounts of interest, coupled with sound financial advice designed to prevent them getting into a debt spiral as a result of trying to give their children a chance to get out of the poverty trap.
Most people have access to it--once. You typically don't end up at a payday lender/rent-to-own shop/etc. until you have demonstrated through action that you can't be trusted to reliably pay your bills. The "usurious" interest (which almost certainly isn't, given that most states have usury laws, and would shut down violators) goes to pay the costs of servicing bad debt (that's where people take the product and don't pay as promised). After you fail to pay your bills, you have to earn your good name back in order to get more favourable credit terms.
Giving people with minimal income and a poor history "easier access to credit" sounds like a remarkably bad idea; in fact, it sounds like the kind of idea that could lead to, say, a collapse of the housing market.
For instance, can someone please explain to me why in the hell we are being charged for text messages in the first place?
Because the company offers a service, and you've decided that you want that service, and agreed to the price that the company requested for provision of that service?
If you don't want to pay for SMS, fine: don't. Just don't whine that you have a right to the product of somebody else's labor and equipment for no charge.
Burning Qurans is not "free speech" --- it's hate speech, and you fucking know it.
The protections of the First Amendment apply to unpopular, distasteful, and disgusting speech just as to any other. Popular speech doesn't need protection.
'Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole,' says one union leader."
Yes, $DEITY forbid they should have to get productive jobs! Won't somebody please think of the glaziers, and go smash some windows to keep them employed?
Now there is one exception: if I rented a house from the owner or the like, (s)he'd probably give me a reasonably good contract to start with (my last such landlord did) and probably would be open to changing terms. That'd be a whole different experience though in a number of ways and the last few times I've selected the large complexes for the nice fitness center, pool, maintenance staff, etc.
So...you made a choice to trade better terms for better amenities. Seems to me you knew exactly what you were doing; why would it therefore be "adhesion," let alone "unconscionable?"
Often the full terms aren't even presented to until after you have paid money to reserve the apartment, and you have no real negotiating power. These are unconscionable contracts of adhesion.
1) "Unconscionability" is an extraordinarily high bar to meet. You should be very careful when you describe something as "unconscionable," because the odds are very good that the court is going to disagree with you. 2) They are not contracts of adhesion. First of all, even if the full terms are not presented until later (which is a change from every apartment I've ever rented--I have always had to sign both the lease agreement and the "community rules" documents), that doesn't necessarily mean that you're unable to reject them. As techies, we should probably be familiar with ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), as it is the case which most directly approved shrink-wrap licenses. The court in Zeidenberg said:
Transactions in which the exchange of money precedes the communication of detailed terms are common. Consider the purchase of insurance. The buyer goes to an agent, who explains the essentials (amount of coverage, number of years) and remits the premium to the home office, which sends back a policy. On the district judge's understanding, the terms of the policy are irrelevant because the insured paid before receiving them. Yet the device of payment, often with a “binder” (so that the insurance takes effect immediately even though the home office reserves the right to withdraw coverage later), in advance of the policy, serves buyers' interests by accelerating effectiveness and reducing transactions costs. Or consider the purchase of an airline ticket. The traveler calls the carrier or an agent, is quoted a price, reserves a seat, pays, and gets a ticket, in that order. The ticket contains elaborate terms, which the traveler can reject by canceling the reservation. To use the ticket is to accept the terms, even terms that in retrospect are disadvantageous. See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S.Ct. 1522, 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991); see also Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 115 S.Ct. 2322, 132 L.Ed.2d 462 (1995) (bills of lading). Just so with a ticket to a concert. The back of the ticket states that the patron promises not to record the concert; to attend is to agree. A theater that detects a violation will confiscate the tape and escort the violator to the exit. One could arrange things so that every concertgoer signs this promise before forking over the money, but that cumbersome way of doing things not only would lengthen queues and raise prices but also would scotch the sale of tickets by phone or electronic data service.
In the event that you actually do find objectionable terms after signing (and why didn't you ask for a copy of the lease agreement to begin with?), you have the option of repudiating the agreement when you discover the objectionable terms. By continuing to move in and take advantage of the lease, you signal your acceptance of the apartment complex's offer. You don't get to take advantage of the offer, then complain later that you didn't like the terms.
And, for the record, the terms *can* be negotiated. I know because I've done it with nearly every apartment I've rented, having clauses struck that I didn't like and adding clauses I wanted. The idea that it's a contract of adhesion fails on several points, and "unconscionable" is laughable at best.
Oh, well, that explains everything. Certainly we should trust all of the data that's not obviously in error--after all, just because the people entering data (and presumably the people proofreading it) didn't realize that districts like the 69th, 86th, and 99th don't exist in any state in the Union, and that anybody who has ever watched a Presidential election could figure it out trivially, doesn't mean that we can't trust the facts and figures they've published that don't have such obvious sanity checks.
Of course, it would take a little more critical thinking to realize that saving 5,000 with only $42,000 means that Talladega County was able to save jobs at a cost of only $8.40 per. But we're supposed to trust the accuracy of data from people who didn't realize that?
Sorry, but their credibility is shot. You simply can't make mistakes that obvious, then turn around and expect people to believe statements that aren't independently verifiable (and verified).
That said, though, if you are the kind of person who believe such things, I've a bridge for sale. I'll even cut you a special deal, but it's just between you and me, okay?
How many of you know that welfare is a "loan"? Hmm? That money isn't free. The moment you get a real job, you have to REPAY any welfare money you took. I managed to find a job before I needed to take the first check, and when I went to the Welfare Office in downtown Milwaukee to tell them I was terminating my welfare, they had to call in three managers, one of whom had worked there for 35 years. None of them knew what to do, because in that manager's memory, of 35 years of working, I WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO ASK OUT OF WELFARE.
I don't doubt you for a minute, but can you *please* provide a citation for this? I would *love* to be able to use this as an argument later with other people, and if you can point me toward an answer, I promise to use it aggressively.
(For the record, I took nine years to complete my degree because I had to quit school when I lost my job...three times...and now I'm in law school while working a full-time job. Thank you so much for your post; I'm really getting tired of the whiners who say "it's not easy to do, so I shouldn't have to do it!" Grow the fuck up.)
It's not the "foreign," but the "non-union," that pisses so many people off. They're just not honest enough to admit that it's the unions that have been driving us toward the collapse of the "America" automaker for decades.
Let's also remember that uranium is a heavy metal, like lead. By burning coal, we're spewing heavy metal dust into the atmosphere. Actually, more likely, we're spewing dust containing heavy metal salts and oxides, which is far more harmful to the body than elemental heavy metals (better solubility means it can move throughout the body and accumulate in bad places, like bones). And uranium is chemically harmful no matter what isotope it is, even if it's not radiologically dangerous.
Meanwhile, the dangerous stuff in a reactor is sitting nicely in a little pile inside a big steel pressure vessel.
Slashdot Mirror
William Shatner wouldn't have a problem.
Since the thread was already Godwinned in the first post, I'm going to say that the Nazis also did similar things to the mentally and physically disabled.
Now, let's be fair to the Nazis: the US pioneered eugenics long before Hitler ever came to power. See, e.g. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Holmes, J, wrote for the Court:
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.
Which wouldn't be a problem if wages would increase so that a person could feed himself and his family on the reduced wages.
Alternatively, we could reduce the cost of feeding. Technology, changes to distribution methods, increases in productivity of all kinds have done precisely that:
Americans paid a high price to support this balkanized system for conveying food from farm to table. Food was hugely expensive, relative to wages. The average working-class family in the 1920s devoted one-third of its bud get to groceries, the average farm family even more. Most households spent more to put dinner on the table than for their rent or their mortgage. And for the average house wife, shopping for food consumed a large part of the day. This money, time, and effort bought plenty of calories, but only moderate amounts of nutrition.
http://www.npr.org/books/titles/139761304/the-great-a-p-and-the-struggle-for-small-business-in-america?tab=excerpt#excerpt
According to the interview with the author (which I heard while driving, and cannot find a transcript), the budget fraction for groceries is now somewhere near 5%.
Meanwhile, the standard of living has continued to rise. We talk about our poor, but what do we really mean by "poor?" Consider http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty:
As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.
Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.
Very few states require any sort of license or permit to acquire a firearm. Pass the instant background check and in most places you can walk out with your purchase right away.
Put differently, you're saying that we shouldn't just give them money, we should also make buying their product mandatory (or at least make buying the alternative impossible).
Count me out.
So it's Hollywood-ready, then.
And when the receptionist tells me after I've been waiting an hour that it'll be at least another hour, he has three patients ahead of me, and he's always like this? That's not an emergency, that's poor planning and a fundamental disrespect for the patient.
And, for the record, I fired him on the spot and demanded my copay back (that took some doing). Found another doctor who respects his patients' time, and wrote the first doc a note explaining why I'd fired him. He didn't even have the courtesy to apologize.
Housing is a little different--it's a mandatory expense, whether you buy (and pay interest) or rent. My mortgage is actually a bit less than the rent for a comparable property (if one could be found for rent), and there's an end in sight: after 30 years, it'll be mine free and clear, with no more payments to make. Rental goes on forever.
Luxury goods are different: it's not an expense you'll incur no-matter-what, so financing them makes a lot less sense.
Such companies are vultures, they prey on a section of society that wants the latest toys but cannot hope to afford them.
I guess I don't see where giving people what they want as "predatory." Or do you figure that people have a right to "the latest toys" even though they "cannot hope to afford them?"
Personal responsibility goes a long way. Earn the money for your toys, or do without, or accept the costs associated with choosing to live past your means. Don't come whining when a contract you signed of your own free will turns out to be unfavourable.
Or perhaps the problem will be better solved by giving them easier access to credit - from reputable sources such as banks that don't charge ursurous amounts of interest, coupled with sound financial advice designed to prevent them getting into a debt spiral as a result of trying to give their children a chance to get out of the poverty trap.
Most people have access to it--once. You typically don't end up at a payday lender/rent-to-own shop/etc. until you have demonstrated through action that you can't be trusted to reliably pay your bills. The "usurious" interest (which almost certainly isn't, given that most states have usury laws, and would shut down violators) goes to pay the costs of servicing bad debt (that's where people take the product and don't pay as promised). After you fail to pay your bills, you have to earn your good name back in order to get more favourable credit terms.
Giving people with minimal income and a poor history "easier access to credit" sounds like a remarkably bad idea; in fact, it sounds like the kind of idea that could lead to, say, a collapse of the housing market.
For instance, can someone please explain to me why in the hell we are being charged for text messages in the first place?
Because the company offers a service, and you've decided that you want that service, and agreed to the price that the company requested for provision of that service?
If you don't want to pay for SMS, fine: don't. Just don't whine that you have a right to the product of somebody else's labor and equipment for no charge.
Burning Qurans is not "free speech" --- it's hate speech, and you fucking know it.
The protections of the First Amendment apply to unpopular, distasteful, and disgusting speech just as to any other. Popular speech doesn't need protection.
'Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole,' says one union leader."
Yes, $DEITY forbid they should have to get productive jobs! Won't somebody please think of the glaziers, and go smash some windows to keep them employed?
As the T-shirt says: "Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script." Isn't this why we invented computers in the first place?
Yes, but can it receive video from military drones?
Now there is one exception: if I rented a house from the owner or the like, (s)he'd probably give me a reasonably good contract to start with (my last such landlord did) and probably would be open to changing terms. That'd be a whole different experience though in a number of ways and the last few times I've selected the large complexes for the nice fitness center, pool, maintenance staff, etc.
So...you made a choice to trade better terms for better amenities. Seems to me you knew exactly what you were doing; why would it therefore be "adhesion," let alone "unconscionable?"
I am willing to accept that trade-off, especially since 95% of the privacy stories on YRO are overblown.
That's very gracious of you to accept it on my behalf. And without even consulting me--what a time-saver!
Often the full terms aren't even presented to until after you have paid money to reserve the apartment, and you have no real negotiating power. These are unconscionable contracts of adhesion.
1) "Unconscionability" is an extraordinarily high bar to meet. You should be very careful when you describe something as "unconscionable," because the odds are very good that the court is going to disagree with you.
2) They are not contracts of adhesion. First of all, even if the full terms are not presented until later (which is a change from every apartment I've ever rented--I have always had to sign both the lease agreement and the "community rules" documents), that doesn't necessarily mean that you're unable to reject them. As techies, we should probably be familiar with ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), as it is the case which most directly approved shrink-wrap licenses. The court in Zeidenberg said:
In the event that you actually do find objectionable terms after signing (and why didn't you ask for a copy of the lease agreement to begin with?), you have the option of repudiating the agreement when you discover the objectionable terms. By continuing to move in and take advantage of the lease, you signal your acceptance of the apartment complex's offer. You don't get to take advantage of the offer, then complain later that you didn't like the terms.
And, for the record, the terms *can* be negotiated. I know because I've done it with nearly every apartment I've rented, having clauses struck that I didn't like and adding clauses I wanted. The idea that it's a contract of adhesion fails on several points, and "unconscionable" is laughable at best.
Oh, well, that explains everything. Certainly we should trust all of the data that's not obviously in error--after all, just because the people entering data (and presumably the people proofreading it) didn't realize that districts like the 69th, 86th, and 99th don't exist in any state in the Union, and that anybody who has ever watched a Presidential election could figure it out trivially, doesn't mean that we can't trust the facts and figures they've published that don't have such obvious sanity checks.
Of course, it would take a little more critical thinking to realize that saving 5,000 with only $42,000 means that Talladega County was able to save jobs at a cost of only $8.40 per. But we're supposed to trust the accuracy of data from people who didn't realize that?
Sorry, but their credibility is shot. You simply can't make mistakes that obvious, then turn around and expect people to believe statements that aren't independently verifiable (and verified).
That said, though, if you are the kind of person who believe such things, I've a bridge for sale. I'll even cut you a special deal, but it's just between you and me, okay?
So you think the taxicab (bus, trucking, etc.) industry is inappropriate or wrong?
A wasted syllable? You must be from Texas.
How many of you know that welfare is a "loan"? Hmm? That money isn't free. The moment you get a real job, you have to REPAY any welfare money you took. I managed to find a job before I needed to take the first check, and when I went to the Welfare Office in downtown Milwaukee to tell them I was terminating my welfare, they had to call in three managers, one of whom had worked there for 35 years. None of them knew what to do, because in that manager's memory, of 35 years of working, I WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO ASK OUT OF WELFARE.
I don't doubt you for a minute, but can you *please* provide a citation for this? I would *love* to be able to use this as an argument later with other people, and if you can point me toward an answer, I promise to use it aggressively.
(For the record, I took nine years to complete my degree because I had to quit school when I lost my job...three times...and now I'm in law school while working a full-time job. Thank you so much for your post; I'm really getting tired of the whiners who say "it's not easy to do, so I shouldn't have to do it!" Grow the fuck up.)
Wow. I'd like to introduce you to a friend of mine. His name is "Freedom." Perhaps you've heard of him?
It's not the "foreign," but the "non-union," that pisses so many people off. They're just not honest enough to admit that it's the unions that have been driving us toward the collapse of the "America" automaker for decades.
Let's also remember that uranium is a heavy metal, like lead. By burning coal, we're spewing heavy metal dust into the atmosphere. Actually, more likely, we're spewing dust containing heavy metal salts and oxides, which is far more harmful to the body than elemental heavy metals (better solubility means it can move throughout the body and accumulate in bad places, like bones). And uranium is chemically harmful no matter what isotope it is, even if it's not radiologically dangerous.
Meanwhile, the dangerous stuff in a reactor is sitting nicely in a little pile inside a big steel pressure vessel.
Madison Avenue.