A mixed-color group of high school footballers was going to toilet-paper the house of a girl on the same cul-de-sac as the school athletic director. Seems the house had been TP'd at least once already, and cars may or may not have been egged, during the school's homecoming week shenanigans. When the group pulled into the circle, dad was already in the yard, with what I'm guessing was one of these but may have been one of these. Adults step out in front of the kids' jeep, wave them down, tell them to turn the car off and maybe get out, maybe get on the ground. Maybe the torch gets pointed at them, and they definitely get cussed out. The athletic director intervenes, speaks quietly to the kids (per the recording described in the police report, final section), and they are leave in less than three minutes.
Of course, it's suspected that this is racially motivated, despite it being (it seems) a white kid driving the Jeep. (EDIT: I was wrong about who was driving, as pointed out below by /u/Gdanning) I guess had the other four individuals also been white, Mr. Kolar would have put away his torch and enjoyed watching people toilet paper his house? Or perhaps that neighbors don't mind people hauling ass through the cul-de-sac as long as there aren't colored folks in the car? I really don't know. But the AD will probably lose his job behind the deal.
eudemonist
1yr ago
The government started giving a bunch of money to companies, and telling individuals they must do the same; I didn't give any money to any companies so the IRS made me give them money instead. Questions to determine the amount I had to pay were based on things like AGI, part of my tax calculation, and the resulting amounts were entered back into my tax calculation. If I increased my withholding, I had to write less of a check in April--but I only ever wrote one check, to the same people I'd always written checks to when paying my taxes.
Is there any other thing where one can be "fined" or punished for doing nothing? Aren't negative consequences usually to deter behavior, not compel it?
eudemonist
1yr ago
When neither the proponents nor the opponents of the bill claim it's a proper tax
I'm not sure if you're making a distinction with "proper" tax, but opponents, heck even Democrats, definitely claimed it was a tax, and it was a live enough question to get addressed in a one-on-one (sorry, it's an amp link):
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. that's not true, George. the -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase....
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy...
OBAMA: No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I -- I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax -- "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what...
eudemonist
1yr ago
But in those cases, I've parked somewhere, or broken my contract with the library--there is a punishable action.
eudemonist
3mo ago
No law is perfect to the letter. The spirit of the rules would certainly prohibit backhanded insinuations via second helpings just as it prevents backhanded compliments--in fact I'd argue that clause does cover such a situation in letter, but that is debatable. Nonetheless, calling someone fat isn't okay just because you don't use the word fat.
eudemonist
1yr ago
They're not talking about something else, though. Did you read the full conversation? I just quoted that bit (and elided some) because I found Stepho's pulling out a dictionary and President Obama's swift about-face on "words have a meaning" amusing. But prior to that bit, it's quite clear they're discussing a penalty (Shared Responsibility Payment, "responsibility" being the buzzword) for not buying insurance:
STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: (evasion evasion)... we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's...
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That's not true, George.
You're correct that in 2012 SCOTUS ruled the penalty (which is what makes the purchase a "mandate" rather than a friendly request) a tax--it's the only way Congress has power to impose such a thing. It's simply amusing because of how hard the administration has pushed "it's not a tax!", then subsequently had to go to court and argue it was a tax.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Your examples are actions one is duty-bound to take by the terms of the contract that was entered into, by parking in the spot or by checking out the book. Don't you see the difference?
"Breaking a contract" is an "action", and in either of these cases is directly comparable to petty theft of the equivalent funds--the library has a loss of the use of its book, or the city has loss of its parking space (or remuneration therefor). Someone who never did anything but sit at home, and consequently never used the streets or the library, would never be subject to those fines.
eudemonist
1yr ago
The neighbors audio recording described at the very end supports the guy's (AD's) story, too. He's said to be talking softly, not telling, and not using profanity. That officer takes a bit of a swipe at the detectives who were supposed to find video, heh.
I think it's amusing that some of the kids say they weren't going there to TP but only to look at how bad the house had been "got", and another kid is like, "Man, it happened so fast we hadn't even opened our toilet paper yet!"
eudemonist
3mo ago
Generally don't smoke leaves, mate. The good stuff concentrates in the flowering portion, the female sex organs specifically.
eudemonist
5mo ago
I'm curious about the effects of a 536-like event once 40% of the world's energy production is solar.
eudemonist
1yr ago
The Corner
You've seen the shows?
eudemonist
8mo ago
Beg pardon? I'm missing a reference I believe.
the "it's a tax" argument was widely regarded as pretextual at best.
Again I'm gonna have to differ here, and I think the Stephanopoulos interview bears me out. George brought out a dictionary and Obama handwaved away the meaning of "tax", for gosh sake.
was up to my eyeballs in debates (mostly with other lawyers) about this issue at the time and I just never encountered a serious and well-developed claim that the question turned on "it's a tax."
What question, precisely? "Can Congress make people pay this" or "Is a penalty for inaction constitutional"? Because, if it's the latter, your lawyer friends missed the forest for the trees, I'd say.
this is all a weirdly autistic tangent
You know, I seem to be called/implied to be autistic fairly frequently online. Maybe I should get checked or something. Is there a test? To me, if it was important enough for you to use as a point in your post, it's important enough to warrant accuracy, or further exploration if needed. If we retcon the shit out of history, we can't learn much from it.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Would you agree that borrowing a library book is a type of contract one enters into with the library?
eudemonist
1yr ago
Very generally speaking, Conservatism is based in risk avoidance: the core conflict is basically a risk/reward evaluation of courses of action, weighing potential benefits of further societal optimization against potential dangers of disrupting a currently-mostly-functional complex dynamic system. It seems like such a thing might well have genetic components.
Individualism vs. Collectivism also seems as though it could well be genetically influenced: different species are gregarious to different extents, and that almost certainly interplays with genetics. Williams syndrome in humans is a clear display of genetic changes to sociability and desire for the presence of others.
Besides, if we accept that genetics affect I.Q., well then obviously--the genes that give the low IQs are the liberal genes, duh! (jkjk don't hurt me)
eudemonist
1yr ago
Are you an auditor? What you did with the names would be referred to as "vouching": taking a sample from your population and finding the source documents for those in the sample, to verify management's assertion that those transactions actually exist.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Those are the same bucket. Hispanic isn't considered a race (anymore); most Hispanics are actually white.
eudemonist
1yr ago
We must love each other, show affection for each other and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.
Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs including the KKK, neo Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.
We are a nation founded on the truth, that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our creator, we are equal under the law and we are equal under our Constitution.
eudemonist
1yr ago
But we're trying to sell Optimeme performance-enhancing "cognition supplements" to twitchy med students who find mainlining Adderall doesn't do it for them any more, which takes more sophisticated online marketing.
Is...is this an ad? Because I want some Optimeme now.
eudemonist
3mo ago
Interesting take. Nonetheless, we should acknowledge that the letter of the law prohibits implied insults, does it not? One such insult is illustrated, but it seems obvious there are innumerable forms such an insult could take. So we are left with two propositions: either the clause applies to all such implications, or it applies specifically and only to compliments given directly to an individual directly and exempts other forms of breach not specifically mentioned. The latter would support your premise of "secretly evil", I suppose, but it makes me wonder why outlaw backhanded compliments in one specific use case, and not outlaw, for example, complimenting the horse fatty rides riding for its perseverance? Is it that complimenting the mount is less obvious somehow? I think not. Thus I'm forced to believe implied insults, of whatever form, are prohibited by the letter of the law.
Although the question of the spirit of the law seems moot, given the explicit callouts in the text, I'm curious if there are other laws which you believe have a spirit diametrically opposed to their text? If we want people to stop at a given intersection, should we install Yield signs, or no signs? I don't quite understand how this works.
The Corner, but more particularly, The Wire, which is the fully flourished version. Without overstatement, one of the best television shows ever made.
EDIT: Looks like The Corner is on YouTube, free. https://youtube.com/watch?v=iMJMOoW8y6o
eudemonist
1yr ago
I agree, and would suggest an ever better question might be "does a husband have more moral status than a wife?", given his scriptural position of head of household. The relationships are, in my mind, very similar between animal husbandry and familial husbandry.
eudemonist
1yr ago
Might be good to note that, in the case of No Country For Old Men, Moss' death occurring offstage is true to the source material, the novel by Cormac McCarthy. The film was notable for very tight adherence to the book, almost scene-for scene, and using McCarthy's dialogue line-for-line in many places.
Not showing Moss' death, as part of that keeping to the source, does very much go against "standard" movie storytelling and audience instinct, leaving the viewer with a weird sense of incompletion. Something in our brains likes resolution, a phenomenon we can see in music as well, where chord progressions "return home" and conflicting passages resolve into harmony. McCarthy's subversion of that internal expectation is absolutely intentional, another iteration of the themes of the novel, that our pasts are inescapable and our futures subject to influences beyond control: we don't always, or even most of the time, get things wrapped up tidily with a bow on top, even if they're things we don't like (sad endings for protagonists), and the world moves whether we are paying attention or not. It's a "brave" choice by the filmmakers to stick with the script perhaps, but I don't think Moss' offscreen death is the, or really even a, reason the film is highly regarded.
One thing I would like to add with regard to the climax: the film actually pisses me off a bit in that regard. It's been a while since I've seen it, but as I recall in the film Moss, at his final hotel, is sitting outside drinking a beer when a pretty girl walks by, and he whistles at her or some such. In the novel, Moss picked up a 15-year-old hitchhiker runaway girl headed to California, who offers herself to him for sex, more than once. He books them separate rooms at the ultimate hotel, and the absolute last word we hear from him is him turning the underage runaway down once more:
There's a lot of good salesmen around, and you might buy somethin yet.
Well darlin you're just a little late. Cause I done bought. And I think I'll stick with what I got.
The climax is Moss' internal struggle, really, and it's emphasized again in the description of the gun battle: the Mexican has a gun to the girl's head, and Moss has him in his sights. Moss, being the ultimate Good Guy, puts his gun on the ground. At which point the Mexican shoots the girl, then shoots Moss. The whole hitchhiker subplot (and it's gorgeous dialogue) are all excised, and we end up seeing a lecherous Llewellyn, an ugly representation of our Hero, as the last interaction with him.
Chigurh getting hit by a car is manifestation of, no matter how badass we are, we really don't run shit.
eudemonist
1yr ago
It's not the most important story in the world, I agree, but I felt it was an example of "Culture War" so shared it to the Roundup.
To me it's pretty emblematic of the larger CW on a very micro scale. In the culture I grew up in, teenagers TPing houses and grownups trying to catch them was a common trope, as was the "extra-grumpy old man" whose land/lawn nobody cut across or messed with. These were experiences universal among my peer cohort, regardless of ethnic or economic background--everybody knew That Guy, he was a dick to everybody, and that shared experience helped create peer bonds across ethnic barriers. Everybody pranked somebody, whether having their car sitting on blocks when the bus got back from an away game, or TPing a house, or dying coach's dog green, or saran wrapping a car, or pennying a new teacher's door shut, or whatever. There was pretty much a peace convention on egging dating back to before my time due to some severe paint damage, but being rowdy and having fun is great for kids....as is getting hemmed up by some grown folk when they go a bit too far.
I see no reason to read, or even suspect, racial bias in this incident, and based on what I read in the police report, I see no reason for Langkamp, or anyone really, to be arrested or lose a job. This is, or was, a pretty run-of-the-mill enactment of an old drama with deep roots in my culture.
The inversion of responsibility, the holding of instigators up as heroes, the apparent compulsion to shove race into every possible story, the fact that the arresting officer found it necessary to take all three dudes into custody immediately, without even allowing them to put on shoes, the failure of the detectives to find any video when the lady next door had some....all of these are things I find interesting. But not everyone shares my interests, I do understand. Hope you find a more interesting story to engage with!
Wait, what? Who thought that? My sense is that everyone knew it was a tax, but that label had been avoided by proponents of the bill.
It sure felt a lot like a tax, given that it was a box to check or uncheck when filing a federal tax return which changed the amount of the check one had to write to the treasury.
More options
Context Copy link