What are you talking about? Compliance with alcohol sales laws should fall on the seller and the buyer, not the owner of the venue where the booze is advertised.
Much like a three-year old denied his favorite candy, these legislators are mentally and emotionally unequipped to deal with a world in which they cannot do whatever they want by passing a law.
They are saying, essentially, that if someone takes out a classified ad to provide/sell/buy something in a way the legislators do not like, they ought to be able to hold the newspaper accountable. The real goal the legislators have is to prevent an activity they don't like without obligating the city to do the work. And, of course, the legislators don't want to incur either the expense of dealing with the rental providers individually or the public scrutiny that will result when people start taking their offerings off the market because the city wants individual renters to comply with the mountain of regulations and taxes that they foist on hotels, which most large cities think of as cash cows. They probably also don't want people figuring out that they are carrying water for the hotel industry.
(BTW, I feel bad that the hotel operators have to deal with such nonsense as well. But, the fix for one person's misery is not to make everyone else equally miserable.)
Hillary Clinton was the only State Department employee proactive enough to set up her own email server
PROACTIVE enough? Whew! That has be the kindest characterization I have heard of it. LOL! I wonder if anyone asked Nixon why he wasn't proactive enough to burn the tapes? ;-)
If the mass media no longer serves the public, it serves no purpose at all.
The "mass media" isn't obligated to "serve the public". Nevermind that neither of those terms is sufficiently well defined for any such supposed obligation to mean much, something not serving the purpose one might prefer doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. Not that I, too, wouldn't prefer that the public at least be educated (directly) from media coverage of events. But, the quoted statement is something I cannot agree with.
Of course, I totally agree that the Fox cameraman in question did a poor job in that case. Of course, local TV stations often have a too-cozy relationship with local authorities that minimizes other important stories. How many TV stations send reporters and cameras to cover arrests and perp walks (sometimes wholly staged), with no one reporting that the police called up the station? My guess: All of them. Sure, a perp walk might mean a salacious 8 second clip (with essentially no hard news value), but isn't it also news that the police arrange such an event around the media coverage of it, instead of just doing their jobs without making publicity a consideration?
BTW, the Senators cluelessness about encryption is clear to many of us here because we have a basic understanding of the topic (or, at least, we are willing to listen to those who do). The terrible thing is that, what we spot here is the tip of the ignorance iceberg. If we were informed about other topic areas that come before legislatures and we watched the proceedings, it would quickly become clear that politicians are often similarly clueless about almost every topic where they propose bills, pontificate, and vote. My background is in engineering and when I listen to most legislators discuss a topic where I actually know what's going on, I get the same sinking feeling I do when hearing these two clowns discuss encryption. I have friends with degrees in economics who almost can't stand to watch congressional testimony on economic issues because the level of misunderstanding on display is so terrible. Same for medical doctors. Etc.
Of course, it's unreasonable to expect someone, especially a politician, to understand the intricate details of every issue. Nevertheless, we are supposed to trust them to get up to speed on the issues in front of them and to have staff who can provide them with sound advice when the issue is beyond their grasp. But, it's clear they haven't done either. How could these Senators, with the resources at their disposal, have never asked someone competent whether what they are proposing is technologically and practically realistic? Do they just not care?
Politicians often have a "magic faerie dust" view of the way legislation interacts with the world. They think that writing a law somehow rewrites reality, making the stated intent of the law happen and, if necessary, making the impossible possible. On the flip side of the coin, when some system works well, they assume it must be because good legislation made it happen.
Feinstein and Burr embarrass themselves with proposals like this. "We want strong security, but with an on-demand backdoor. We generously won't specify how it has to be done." Because it can't be done, you idiots!
It's hard to determine where their arrogance stops and their ignorance begins. Though, I suppose, the mistake is in thinking there are boundaries to either...
BTW, since any propose law will punish failure to provide the backdoor but not punish insufficiently strong security, you can guess where the compromises will come, if this nightmare passes.
Is the issue totally one-sided or just mostly one-sided?
There's a lot of outrage here because it's Chevron and blah-blah-environment. I get that and it's understandable that people want governments to be able to protect the environment.
But, a central point of the article is that ISDS sometimes discourages legislatures and regulatory bodies from taking actions that they know will provoke ISDS lawsuits. In other words, they won't be as tempted to write certain laws and so on if they know an ISDS suit may conclude they have gone too far. (Keep in mind that it's far from a foregone conclusion that an ISDS suit will be successful.) My question is: Is that always such a bad thing? What if Apple had been able to sue the FBI over its attempted use of the All Writs Act? What if the next time Congress considers a law like SOPA/PIPA, they have to worry that Google is going to sue the crap out of whatever agency tries to enforce it? In other words, what if the potential for such a suit makes Congress hesitate before it passes the next marginal law?
(Of course, I understand that in most cases the disincentive is very limited because the legislators and bureaucrats don't personally pay for anything they do that exposes this or that agency to ISDS liability.)
BTW, this isn't some general defense of ISDS; like any legal mechanism, it will be abused. But, it's worth keeping in mind that (popular or not) government actions aren't always right and that it isn't necessarily a bad thing when it has to consider consequences of those actions, even when the actions purport to affect an unpopular target, like a corporation.
On the post: Cities Rushing To Restrict Airbnb Are About To Discover That They're Violating Key Internet Law
Re:
(BTW, copied and pasted what?)
On the post: Cities Rushing To Restrict Airbnb Are About To Discover That They're Violating Key Internet Law
They are saying, essentially, that if someone takes out a classified ad to provide/sell/buy something in a way the legislators do not like, they ought to be able to hold the newspaper accountable. The real goal the legislators have is to prevent an activity they don't like without obligating the city to do the work. And, of course, the legislators don't want to incur either the expense of dealing with the rental providers individually or the public scrutiny that will result when people start taking their offerings off the market because the city wants individual renters to comply with the mountain of regulations and taxes that they foist on hotels, which most large cities think of as cash cows. They probably also don't want people figuring out that they are carrying water for the hotel industry.
(BTW, I feel bad that the hotel operators have to deal with such nonsense as well. But, the fix for one person's misery is not to make everyone else equally miserable.)
On the post: Not Just Hillary: State Department As A Whole Pretty Careless With Handling Of Classified Communications
very nice wording
PROACTIVE enough? Whew! That has be the kindest characterization I have heard of it. LOL! I wonder if anyone asked Nixon why he wasn't proactive enough to burn the tapes? ;-)
On the post: Local Fox Affiliate's Reaction To Brutal Police Beating Is A Dereliction Of Its Duty
The "mass media" isn't obligated to "serve the public". Nevermind that neither of those terms is sufficiently well defined for any such supposed obligation to mean much, something not serving the purpose one might prefer doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. Not that I, too, wouldn't prefer that the public at least be educated (directly) from media coverage of events. But, the quoted statement is something I cannot agree with.
Of course, I totally agree that the Fox cameraman in question did a poor job in that case. Of course, local TV stations often have a too-cozy relationship with local authorities that minimizes other important stories. How many TV stations send reporters and cameras to cover arrests and perp walks (sometimes wholly staged), with no one reporting that the police called up the station? My guess: All of them. Sure, a perp walk might mean a salacious 8 second clip (with essentially no hard news value), but isn't it also news that the police arrange such an event around the media coverage of it, instead of just doing their jobs without making publicity a consideration?
On the post: Senators Burr & Feinstein Write Ridiculous Ignorant Op-Ed To Go With Their Ridiculous Ignorant Bill
Of course, it's unreasonable to expect someone, especially a politician, to understand the intricate details of every issue. Nevertheless, we are supposed to trust them to get up to speed on the issues in front of them and to have staff who can provide them with sound advice when the issue is beyond their grasp. But, it's clear they haven't done either. How could these Senators, with the resources at their disposal, have never asked someone competent whether what they are proposing is technologically and practically realistic? Do they just not care?
Politicians often have a "magic faerie dust" view of the way legislation interacts with the world. They think that writing a law somehow rewrites reality, making the stated intent of the law happen and, if necessary, making the impossible possible. On the flip side of the coin, when some system works well, they assume it must be because good legislation made it happen.
On the post: Senators Burr & Feinstein Write Ridiculous Ignorant Op-Ed To Go With Their Ridiculous Ignorant Bill
It's hard to determine where their arrogance stops and their ignorance begins. Though, I suppose, the mistake is in thinking there are boundaries to either...
BTW, since any propose law will punish failure to provide the backdoor but not punish insufficiently strong security, you can guess where the compromises will come, if this nightmare passes.
On the post: Chevron Lobbied For Corporate Sovereignty Rights In TAFTA/TTIP To Act As 'Environmental Deterrent'
Is the issue totally one-sided or just mostly one-sided?
But, a central point of the article is that ISDS sometimes discourages legislatures and regulatory bodies from taking actions that they know will provoke ISDS lawsuits. In other words, they won't be as tempted to write certain laws and so on if they know an ISDS suit may conclude they have gone too far. (Keep in mind that it's far from a foregone conclusion that an ISDS suit will be successful.) My question is: Is that always such a bad thing? What if Apple had been able to sue the FBI over its attempted use of the All Writs Act? What if the next time Congress considers a law like SOPA/PIPA, they have to worry that Google is going to sue the crap out of whatever agency tries to enforce it? In other words, what if the potential for such a suit makes Congress hesitate before it passes the next marginal law?
(Of course, I understand that in most cases the disincentive is very limited because the legislators and bureaucrats don't personally pay for anything they do that exposes this or that agency to ISDS liability.)
BTW, this isn't some general defense of ISDS; like any legal mechanism, it will be abused. But, it's worth keeping in mind that (popular or not) government actions aren't always right and that it isn't necessarily a bad thing when it has to consider consequences of those actions, even when the actions purport to affect an unpopular target, like a corporation.
Next >>