The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2

[El Barto]

they picked Western Pennsylvania as a socially conservative venue

As a resident of Western Pennsylvania, I will say that they knew what they were doing when they made that choice.

Didn't really matter, though.  It seems that a jury never heard any of it.  The legal wrangling before hand exhausted their ability to defend themselves at all.

Frankly, the whole thing's really repugnant.  What they're doing is applying the community standards of one locality to something made elsewhere, solely on the basis that somebody there could order it if they so desired.  It's not like California is foisting this up a bunch of Amish in Pennsylvania.  California is making something available only to people who actually want to purchase it, and the people of Pennsylvania are prosecuting them because some of their citizens might actually want to buy it. 

Alas, this is all a function of the Burger court.  In the late 60's/early 70's they heard a plethora of obscenity cases, culminating in Miller.  The upshot of it all was that the law can't prevent a person from possessing obscene material.  The law can prevent it from being disseminated within a jurisdiction.  The bummer part of that is that it includes mail order materials, so even though it's legal to possess porn in Bumfuck, it's not legal to obtain there.  Compounding this is that the same standard was applied to the internet.  The folks in Bumfuck can therefore prosecute the people who run an adult website, but not the person who downloaded the material.

The only saving grace is that each bit of material has to be deemed obscene, and rarely do communities care enough to actually take it to court to find out.  Every day juries would be having to decide if Back Door Sluts 9 was obscene, even though 8 and 10 were already deemed acceptable.  What has happened is that certain acts greatly increase the likelihood of getting that conviction, which created an enormous chilling effect in American pr0n. 

[antigoon]

How do you know all this stuff?!

edit: to add, somewhat tangentially, to the conversation I came across a great article in The New Yorker about the circumstances surrounding Lawrence v. Texas (2003 case holding laws prohibiting homosexual sodomy are unconstitutional).

The gist of it:

That’s the punch line: the case that affirmed the right of gay couples to have consensual sex in private spaces seems to have involved two men who were neither a couple nor having sex. In order to appeal to the conservative Justices on the high court, the story of a booze-soaked quarrel was repackaged as a love story. Nobody had to know that the gay-rights case of the century was actually about three or four men getting drunk in front of a television in a Harris County apartment decorated with bad James Dean erotica.

[El Barto]

When I walk in the evenings I'll frequently listen to oral arguments from the SCOTUS.  First amendment cases intrigue me (and that's what we're dealing with here), as does pornography.  I listened to quite a few of the Burger cases.  Add to that my disgust with Ashcroft and Gonzalez,  which led me to check out some of their prosecutions of smut peddlers.  I was following AE, Max Steiner and a one or two others pretty closely.

I also listened to the arguments for Lawrence, and don't recall any of that being in the case.  If it's still in my phone I'll check it out again in the shop, as I recall they did go into some detail about what Johnny found when he went barging in.

[Sigz]

The idea that a website owner can be charged for distributing porn to a given jurisdiction is fucking absurd. Don't get me wrong, the idea of obscenity laws in general are pretty absurd, but jesus.

[El Barto]

The idea that a website owner can be charged for distributing porn to a given jurisdiction is fucking absurd. Don't get me wrong, the idea of obscenity laws in general are pretty absurd, but jesus.

It's worse than that.  The website is charged for merely making it available, which is passive.  Distribution implies that they were actively trying to get it into the jurisdiction.

How do you know all this stuff?!

edit: to add, somewhat tangentially, to the conversation I came across a great article in The New Yorker about the circumstances surrounding Lawrence v. Texas (2003 case holding laws prohibiting homosexual sodomy are unconstitutional).

The gist of it:

That’s the punch line: the case that affirmed the right of gay couples to have consensual sex in private spaces seems to have involved two men who were neither a couple nor having sex. In order to appeal to the conservative Justices on the high court, the story of a booze-soaked quarrel was repackaged as a love story. Nobody had to know that the gay-rights case of the century was actually about three or four men getting drunk in front of a television in a Harris County apartment decorated with bad James Dean erotica.

Interesting read, now that I got around to it.  And in the oral arguments, the only references are to being accused of, and of defending their rights to commit such conduct.

Fascinating aspect that I'd forgotten about.  The State's argument to the equal protection challenge was that the law didn't bar homosexuals from committing such conduct.  It barred all people from committing homosexual conduct.  That's a damned interesting distinction, if you think about it.   I haven't gotten to the opinions yet, but I can certainly see how that would sway some of them away from that challenge.  It might even hold with me.  Factor that in with their fundamental disregard for due process and I can understand how the conservative bloc dissented (though I obviously disagree with them). 

[antigoon]

I haven't listened to the parties' oral arguments or read their briefs, but Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion quites from the Texas law in question: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex"

In fact, I believe that was the main reason Justice O'Connor changed her position from Bowers v. Hardwick.

[El Barto]

The majority decision was based on the due process challenge.  They did not agree with the equal rights challenge, although I suppose that might be why SDO wrote her separate concurrence.  I haven't read it, but I just listened to the arguments and decision summaries.

Honestly, the state's position on the equal rights aspect is compelling.  There is no class that they're discriminating against, as they're prohibiting straight or bisexual people from the same action.

On a side note, it was a pretty bad showing for Scalia.  Aside from coming off as a snarky douchbag in his dissent announcement, his behavior during the arugments was pretty questionable as well.  The State's counselor wasn't particularly adept, and there were several instances of Scalia helping him out, almost to the point of prompting him.  I've listened to a lot of cases and I don't recall every hearing such behavior.  Given his attitude during questioning and the amount of emphasis he placed on the outcome of this leading straight to the legalization of gay marriage, which had absolutely no bearing on the matter at hand,  it really seemed as if he was just acting on personal interests and opinion.  I don't much care for the guy, but this is the first time I've really thought he was just doing what he wanted to see happen.

Here's audio of the arguments and announcements, if anybody's interested:  https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_102#argument

[antigoon]

Honestly, the state's position on the equal rights aspect is compelling.  There is no class that they're discriminating against, as they're prohibiting straight or bisexual people from the same action.

This isn't true though. The law facially discriminates against homosexuals. The majority and the concurrence both refer to the law as prohibiting gay sex only.

And I have a begrudging respect for Scalia. I don't really ever agree with him but his dissents are usually great reads. His dissent in Lawrence was just really hard to stomach.

I'm gonna check out the oral argument.

[El Barto]

The law doesn't single out a class of individuals, which is the key.  It singles out an activity that anybody can engage in, but is usually practiced by homosexuals.  It's a subtle distinction, but one that I can see them hanging their hats on. 

It occurs to me that a more valid argument for the equal protection aspect wasn't presented.  What the law did is to preclude people from committing the same act based on their own sex.  According to the statute, women could give all the blowjobs they wanted, while men were legally prevented from giving any.  Since I gather that some people of both genders enjoy giving blowjobs, you're now denying a specific right to one group based on their gender.

It's a simple matter of the way it was presentec.  Petitioners claim that the class effected was homosexuals.  What they should have claimed was that the class effected was men.  They might have had something with that. 

I'm gonna check out the oral argument.

Pay attention to when Breyer starts going to work on Rosenthal, who's pretty clearly outmatched.  Scalia will start asking him questions and then answering them to address Breyer's arguments.  It was pretty clear he was trying help the guy out.

[antigoon]

Wait, hold on. How is This

"A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex"

not singling out a class of individuals? What non-gay man gives blowies?

[El Barto]

Bisexuals.  Men who experiment as youngsters.  Rape victims.

Look, I get that the practical effect is to single out homos, but I don't think that's necessarily the same as making a law specifically citing them as a class.

[antigoon]

I suppose so. It's certainly an interesting argument. I listened to the petitoner's argument last night - Scalia was really on him from the get go.

[El Barto]

Scalia is generally pretty even handed in his questioning; that's what makes him so hard to predict.  Like I said, the state's petitioner was fairly weak, and I think that made a difference in Scalia's approach.

[antigoon]

Just listened to the other argument...my god I have never heard anything like that before. Scalia was straight up making the guy's arguments for him when he felt Rosenthal's answers weren't sufficient.

[GuineaPig]

An interesting article about how transit funding in the US is often used to fund roads.

[Super Dude]

We should be going after corporate America and the military-industrial complex and try to rein them in, not totally dismantle them or blame it entirely on the government.

https://www.peoplesworld.org/heat-ray-weapon-a-threat-to-collective-action/

[Super Dude]

Do you guys think this is legit? Because something about it smells fishy to me, and I'm usually the guy with an interest in having this be true.

[Sigz]

https://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Don't have the time to look at it (two finals on monday woop woop), but I have a hard time taking a UCSC hosted webpage called "Who Rules America" seriously.

[YtseBitsySpider]

oh...wow.....humans are evil.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/world/mauritania.slaverys.last.stronghold/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

after reading this article I wondered though....as I did with the Somalia thing when Canadian peace keepers and our Airborn unit were told to sit on their hands while 700,000 people were slaughtered.......

is it our place to act in situations like this.
these countries are progressing through their history at different times than us.
The American Civil war, slavery, women's right to vote.
USA has gone through these struggles.
Are we morally obligated to force our "don't do this" attitude on these nations?

[Super Dude]

European nations including Britain did the same for the US back in the mid-1800s. Sure, it didn't work out the way they hoped, but it's not like they didn't do it.

[YtseBitsySpider]

the Crusades?

[Super Dude]

Que?

[Super Dude]

Just fyi Ytse, I didn't understand that comment.

In other news, an interesting read in the saga of the Culture War: https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/forget-the-money-follow-the-sacredness/?partner=rss&emc=rss#

[AcidLameLTE]

Fox News strikes again:

[El Barto]

Wow.  I certainly understand why they'd throw in the apology to the Asian community; misguided apologies are a staple of anti-liberalism.  What I don't get is why they wanted it to be a Buddhist.  I would have thought they'd be calling him a Muslim under any circumstances.

[GuineaPig]

Wow.  I certainly understand why they'd throw in the apology to the Asian community; misguided apologies are a staple of anti-liberalism.  What I don't get is why they wanted it to be a Buddhist.  I would have thought they'd be calling him a Muslim under any circumstances.

Because it's fake.

C'mon guys.  Let's have a little skepticism here.

[El Barto]

Okey dokey, then. 

[AcidLameLTE]

Meh, the fact that I just expected Fox to do something like that says something about them really.

[Riceball]

I don't think this needs its own thread, but based on the figures presented here, Apple is the 21st largest country in the world (in USD terms, not PPP terms I couldn't find that on short notice).

Now market cap =/= GDP, but its a reasonable comparison to make for mine.

[AcidLameLTE]

The BBC had a decent article on that recently:

"Is Apple really worth more than Poland?"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17344386

"At $500 billion, Apple is worth more than Poland" - so shouted the headlines last week. Can the technology giant really be worth more than this entire country? No, and here's why.

CNN started this news line, which was picked up by media organisations around the world.

It seems like an amazing fact - that Apple's stock market value, or market cap, of $506bn (£323bn) makes it worth more than Poland, whose Gross Domestic Product is about $470bn (£300bn).

This would make Apple around the 20th biggest economy in the world.

But it is not true. It makes no sense to compare the two like this. You might as well compare… apples and pears.

This is because the market value of a company is linked to the expected value of all future profits. GDP, on the other hand, is a measure of the value of goods and services a country has produced in a single year.

It is possible to compare the size of a company and a country, but it has to be done properly, says Prof Paul De Grauwe, of the London School of Economics.

"We would have to make a forecast of future growth of GDP in Poland, and then you would take the present value and use an interest rate," he says.

"My guess is that it would multiply the Polish number by a factor of at least five."

This would give Poland a comparative value of almost $2.5 trillion (£1.6tn), putting it well ahead of Apple.

There is another respectable way to compare the two. For this, calculate Apple's "added value" and compare that to Poland's GDP. (The Financial Times' business glossary defines added value as "an increase in the value of something that has been worked on, so that it can be sold in a new form".)

This makes sense because GDP is essentially a measure of a country's added value - it is the value of all the goods and services there, minus anything that has been imported.

"We would take the sales of Apple and subtract everything that is in the iPhone, but that Apple has not produced itself," De Grauwe says.

"For example, some chips, or the screen, which has been produced in China somewhere. And the difference then is what you could call the value added by Apple. And that we compare with GDP which is the value added in Poland."

Apple's relative value would shrink four or five-fold if you did the comparison this way, De Grauwe estimates. This would make it the 56th largest economy in the world, not the 20th. It would be 36 places behind Poland, just ahead of Bangladesh and just behind Vietnam.

Even with these corrections, it is true that Apple is a big company.

But if a company is bigger than a country, does that mean it is more powerful?

Not necessarily, says De Grauwe.

"Just looking at the size doesn't tell us much about relative power of the company v the country. Countries are still sovereign in the sense they can set the rules of the game. They can tax companies, and they do."

And he points out that companies tend to have much more dramatic ups and downs in their fortunes than countries. The market cap - properly called "market capitalisation" - of a company is calculated by multiplying the current value of a single one of its shares by the number of shares in existence.

"When you take the market cap of a company like Apple this can change very quickly," says De Grauwe. "It is quite possible that in five years the market cap of Apple could have dropped to $100bn or $200bn.

"Look what happened to Microsoft. Not so long ago Microsoft was the biggest company in the world. Now it has weighed down. The price of a company's shares can move up a lot, but can [also] crash."

[Riceball]

I agree with everything in that article

Still, being the 56th largest economy in the world - its pretty intense for a corporation to be that big.

[Sigz]

Creator of "Don't Re-Nig 2012" bumper sticker says it's not racist

lol

[Ryzee]

   Yeah one of my facebook friends posted that yesterday I think.

[Scheavo]

Creator of "Don't Re-Nig 2012" bumper sticker says it's not racist

lol

https://teamcoco.com/video/deon-cole-bumper-sticker


Well, she's even more of a moron then... seeing as how she's actually saying re-elect Obama.

[Scheavo]

So there's something I don't get in the Trayvon case...  Zimmerman argument is that he was acting in self-defense, and he showed signs of being attacked, and witnesses report Trayvon being on top of Zimmerman. Well, if Zimmerman was following Trayvon, and Trayvon felt threatened, wouldn't he have been defending himself? If he was defending himself, how could Zimmerman be defending himself?