Jump to content

U.S. Politics: There's Identity Politics, On Many Sides


Mr. Chatywin et al.

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, polishgenius said:


It's not normal as far as I know but neither is it immediately indicative of dealings any dodgier than you'd standardly expect from an embassy. Every consulate in the world is going to have stuff in it that they don't necessarily want their host government to get their hands on. Some of it may well be things that they know that they theoretically shouldn't, but equally much of it will be their own sensitive information that they don't want getting out. They might choose less old-school theatrical ways to get rid of it than chucking it in the fire, but they'll have it.

Sure maybe.  And I edited my post to try to make it seem a little less heavy-handedly accusatory.

They could just shred or bring it with them too.  Burning with billowing black smoke indoors on an already scorching day seemed to me to hint at equipment that could not be easily shredded or taken with.

Or not.  You clearly think not or that it's cool either way.  I'm not trying them in a court of law here for anything, just speculating on the Internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Wethers said:

By burning it.  Indoors.  On a day that was over 100F, close to 40C hit in an ordinarily cool city.  Not throwing it away or recycling or getting it hauled away or composting (lol) or shredding it.

Of course I'm not up on standard consulate procedure.  Could be normal.  Just didn't seem normal to me - the burning that is.

It depends on the machines at one's disposal. Throwing it away or composting it is a non-starter for secret data. Getting it hauled away is likewise a non-starter unless they intend to haul it all the way home which they almost certainly don't. Shredding it or recycling it would work, but you need access to machines that can do this in high volume. Fire has the drawback of smoke, but it is extremely low tech and very reliable as long as you are thorough -- a machine that reconstructs shredded documents is not inconceivable as long as the shredded fragments are macroscopic, but good luck reconstructing ash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Zorral,

Corporations have always been considered people since their invention in the middle ages.  That's why they are calling "corporations". What is new is allowing the direct rights of shareholders to flow through to corporations without causeing a loss of protection for the shareholders.

That was then.

This is now:

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Zorral,

Corporations have always been considered people since their invention in the middle ages.  That's why they are calling "corporations". What is new is allowing the direct rights of shareholders to flow through to corporations without causeing a loss of protection for the shareholders.

Yeah, I'm not fan of the corporation as a person concept either. The ones I'm interested in protecting are the living, walking, breathing kind. Not the legal fiction kind.
There is no inherent right to do business as a corporation, nor to have it defined as a "person" in my view.
If the legislature wanted to write a law that said: "Henceforth all corporations will be recognized as Vulcans and not as humans and accordingly every communication done on behalf of a corporation must end with 'live long and proper'", I'd see little problem with that from a constitutional point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, I'm not fan of the corporation as a person concept either. The ones I'm interested in protecting are the living, walking, breathing kind. Not the legal fiction kind.
There is no inherent right to do business as a corporation, nor to have it defined as a "person" in my view.
If the legislature wanted to write a law that said: "Henceforth all corporations will be recognized as Vulcans and not as humans and accordingly every communication done on behalf of a corporation must end with 'live long and proper'", I'd see little problem with that from a constitutional point of view.

Exactly.  Corporations only exist at the sufferance of the State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

/The grift that keeps on grifting.

He is meeting victims and loading car packages on cars today, whole lotta "today is the day he yadda yadda yadda". Photo ops are worth a million dollars.

I suppose when he will negate this media goodwill by axing DACA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New York Times Op-Ed Page is Not Your Safe Space

Who wants the New York Times opinion pages to turn into the New York Times agreement pages?

Quote

 John B. Oakes, the Times editor who almost willed the page into existence, believed that a newspaper’s “deepest responsibility” was to make readers think. “The minute we begin to insist that everyone think the same way we think, our democratic way of life is in danger,” he said in a 1954 speech.

As the Times op-ed page took shape, its editors assembled a list of prospective authors and subjects they could address. One list, preserved in the Harrison Salisbury Papers at Columbia University, proposes soliciting pieces from Communist Party USA head Gus Hall, John Bircher Society leader Robert Welch, oil man and right-winger H.L. Hunt, labor radical Harry Bridges and revolutionary Angela Davis. The page’s concept was to express ideas and opinions the reader couldn’t find on the editorial page or elsewhere in the newspaper. The range and ambition of the page were such that one of the early editors on the page, John Van Doorn, tried (and failed) to hire Tupac Shakur’s mother, Afeni Shakur, as an editor in 1971, as Socolow writes elsewhere.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

He is meeting victims and loading car packages on cars today, whole lotta "today is the day he yadda yadda yadda". Photo ops are worth a million dollars.

I suppose when he will negate this media goodwill by axing DACA.

I'm beginning to think he's not going to fuck with DACA. Ryan is lobbying him hard to let Congress deal with it, and you know this administration would just fuck it up on the legal end. Besides, when has he bothered to put in work when he could just hand it off anyway? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm beginning to think he's not going to fuck with DACA. Ryan is lobbying him hard to let Congress deal with it, and you know this administartion would just fuck it up on the legal end. Besides, when has he bothered to put in work when he could just hand it off anyway? 

Eh, we know he likes to pander to the lowest common denominator of his base, there was no need for the trans ban, or pardoning Arpaio, getting rid of DACA would please the same people.

Maybe he won't and will try to act like he Actually did something, we will hear him invoke saving DACA as one of his accomplishments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm beginning to think he's not going to fuck with DACA. Ryan is lobbying him hard to let Congress deal with it, and you know this administartion would just fuck it up on the legal end. Besides, when has he bothered to put in work when he could just hand it off anyway? 

He does have 10 AGs threatening him with legal action if he doesn't rescind it.  Although that is abating, or at least down to nine.  If Congress does actually pass something - especially if it has significant GOP support - then yeah I think he signs it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

The constitution says nothing about people.  It simply forbids laws restricting freedom of speech.

That said, corporations are not robots.  They are an avenue through which people organize for various purposes, including speech.  As a member of the public, the vast majority of information that reaches my ears, reaches my ears through the avenue of corporate speech.

Giving the government the power to regulate corporate speech essentially means giving the government enormous power to decide what information does or does not reach my ears.

Oddly, a huge amount of the agitation in favor of regulating corporate speech comes to my ears through corporate channels.  I have to wonder.  Who benefits?

Corporations can literally only do what is allowed by statute.  They are creatures of statute, illusions constructed by law.  As such they can and should have their ability to act limited by the State which enables Corporations to exist in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Toth said:

Yeah, because a torch-wearing mob with swastika flags yelling "jews will not replace us" is so much more trustworthy...

What about  people who are not white supremacist looneys ?  People who are legitimate political conservatives and not extremists.  Do you think Antifa has the right to prevent them from expressing their opinions in public?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Corporations are legal fictions.  They do not actually exist ... or to put it another way, their existence is a legal fiction authorized by statute.  The concept of "corporate speech" is also a legal fiction.  When a corporation "speaks" it is actually people speaking.

When an employee of a corporation speaks (or makes a movie, or whatever) it is people doing this.  This is "corporate speech" under the legal premise that when a person acts in the course  of and furtherance of his employment, his actions can be imputed to his employer for certain purposes.  In this case, the legal fiction is that the employer is a fictional person called a "corporation" (rather than a bunch of other people who have pooled their resources).

When the government tries to restrict freedom of speech of corporations, based on the premise that they are not actually restricting the speech of people, because corporations are not people, the entire argument is based on a legal fiction ... a legal fiction created by the government.

It's a nonsense argument, and (thankfully) the Supreme Court saw through it.  The constitution does not allow restrictions on freedom of speech (with certain narrow exceptions).

It isn't nonsense.  Corporations should not be their shareholders in fact.  If they are the shareholders should be subject to direct suit by people they've injured instead if having the corporation as a shield them between and their assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Do you think Antifa has the right to prevent  people who who are not in the looney white supremacist camp from expressing their views in public? 

 

 

 

That would depend on their methods, but their rights to counter protest should not vary between attempts to supress the speech white supremacists and attempts to supress the speech of anyone else.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

That would depend on their methods, but their rights to counter protest should not vary between attempts to supress the speech white supremacists and attempts to supress the speech of anyone else.  

My main concern on the whole issue of exceptions is that they can be expanded to included other groups. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...