Wasn't worried, nor did I take it personally .... it is just my nature to say -- hey, I didn't say that, you misunderstood. Just like to keep the record straight, is all.

I'll eventually learn to just let misunderstandings be, it seems to provoke more confusion than trying to straighten things out.

PSAs. There is a whole 'nother topic....

Kisses!



In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
hey lady,
i didn't take your comment personally if that's what you were worried about.

i always feel like most of the PSA campaigns i see are going about it all wrong.
for instance, i would like to see an anti-drug PSA that's more about human rights and the gross exploitation of the third world thats inherent in the production of hard drugs. I did a ton of drugs as a very young kid, and knowing the kind of kid i was, i would never ever have shoved coke up my nose if i knew how it was made, who made it, how it gets here and how many people died over it on its way to my blood stream. i think that kind of thing would be even more relevant now that the cartel war in mexico is all over the news. the typical 1990 "drugs are bad, mkay?" commercials that were on when i was kid seem completely impotent.

sure, maybe PSA's don't hurt. but i think a very serious cost/benefit analysis should be made.... is this making enough bang for the buck?? is there another, more productive, method of outreach we could use these funds for?? maybe keep the PSA because it undoubtedly gets the message out to the greatest amount of people, but maybe the PSA could be about signs of poorly managed stress and the importance of coping skills and where to get the tools to deal with out of control feelings. or some shit. i don't know. just my 2 cents.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Um, my comment was about the 30% who grow up to be abusers. It wasn't directed to the 70% who didn't.

And you're right, there are other things to do.

The PSA is just a tactic. One tactic.

It certainly doesn't hurt, and it might help.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
The idea that the abused grow into abusers is kind of.... meh.... Only about 30% of people who were abused as children grow up to abuse their own kids. Because 70% of us grow up to see ourselves in the eyes of every frightened child ever.

Abuse is about anger and it's about power. It's the inability to cope with stress or feelings of powerlessness. It's rampant in areas of high poverty, but certainly isn't non-existant in the homes of the wealthy.

Sure, I like the IDEA of PSA's.. but generally find them targeting the wrong side of the issue. This PSA targets the symptom, but not the root. If the root cause of domestic violence is power and an inability to cope with stress productively, then why can't we have a campaign to teach positive coping skills and educate little people and big people and even bigger people how to productively manage stress and take control of their own lives? ..... oh, right.. because that might actually EMPOWER people instead of just scare and depress them.

Um, my comment was about the 30% who grow up to be abusers. It wasn't directed to the 70% who didn't.

And you're right, there are other things to do.

The PSA is just a tactic. One tactic.

It certainly doesn't hurt, and it might help.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
The idea that the abused grow into abusers is kind of.... meh.... Only about 30% of people who were abused as children grow up to abuse their own kids. Because 70% of us grow up to see ourselves in the eyes of every frightened child ever.

Abuse is about anger and it's about power. It's the inability to cope with stress or feelings of powerlessness. It's rampant in areas of high poverty, but certainly isn't non-existant in the homes of the wealthy.

Sure, I like the IDEA of PSA's.. but generally find them targeting the wrong side of the issue. This PSA targets the symptom, but not the root. If the root cause of domestic violence is power and an inability to cope with stress productively, then why can't we have a campaign to teach positive coping skills and educate little people and big people and even bigger people how to productively manage stress and take control of their own lives? ..... oh, right.. because that might actually EMPOWER people instead of just scare and depress them.

The idea that the abused grow into abusers is kind of.... meh.... Only about 30% of people who were abused as children grow up to abuse their own kids. Because 70% of us grow up to see ourselves in the eyes of every frightened child ever.

Abuse is about anger and it's about power. It's the inability to cope with stress or feelings of powerlessness. It's rampant in areas of high poverty, but certainly isn't non-existant in the homes of the wealthy.

Sure, I like the IDEA of PSA's.. but generally find them targeting the wrong side of the issue. This PSA targets the symptom, but not the root. If the root cause of domestic violence is power and an inability to cope with stress productively, then why can't we have a campaign to teach positive coping skills and educate little people and big people and even bigger people how to productively manage stress and take control of their own lives? ..... oh, right.. because that might actually EMPOWER people instead of just scare and depress them.

Awww....Little people after my own tiny, black heart.
>> ^oritteropo:

I had to watch this three times, my little people made me

I had to watch this three times, my little people made me

>> ^blankfist:

It would be very hard for businesses to get as large as corporations do today without the unfair support of government. This means more competition, and logically as a result more small businesses would sprout up, and therefore more jobs could be created.

I think taking away the liability limits ultimately raises the barrier for creating a new business, since it increases the potential downside risk of any new investment, and worse, makes predicting the worst case scenario nigh impossible.

The knock on effects of that would be that investors would be more reluctant to invest, meaning that interest rates would go up, and the tolerance for risk would go down.

In some sense I think we'd see companies that are larger, but also "flatter" in a sense. I'm thinking more McDonalds, Best Buy, and Amazon, and a lot less heavy industry with big, expensive, dangerous, illiquid capital investment.

I sorta say "so what, it's more fair, and restrains corporations' flagrant disregard for safety and the environment".

However, for people who want to see a bazillion small businesses, I think you want the limited liabilities there to help people simplify their risk assessments.
>> ^blankfist:

I don't see why we'd need regulatory requirements or unionization. Most of the responsibility would be held at the top levels, such as CEOs or COOs or supervisors or whomever. And this can all be decided by some form of conflict resolution whether that be the courts or arbitration.

Well, courts are guided by law in those sorts of determinations, arbitration is more guided by the relative strength of the bargaining positions of the participants (i.e. little people get reliably crushed).

Which is to say, we'd need to set some sort of standard on how accountability works, or it'll only be the guy following orders who gets the short end of the stick.

>> ^blankfist:
But my point was that people couldn't escape liability just because they're employed. If your boss told you to murder someone, for instance, you know that to be wrong and would hopefully not follow through. But if you did murder someone, obviously you'd be held accountable, right? kind of the same idea. Maybe not exactly, but it's close enough.

For something as serious and obvious as murder, sure.

But say my boss tells me not to order the scheduled maintenance for critical safety equipment because "it's not in the budget"? If things go wrong later, am I to be held responsible because my idiot boss didn't budget for proper maintenance? Do I really need to constantly present my boss with waivers from legal liability for every decision I think has a potential risk? Can he fire me for demanding them too often?

>> ^blankfist:
If a business spilled oil like BP did, then all the parties involved would be liable within reason. If you were hired to clean the toilets on the rig, then you're probably not going to be responsible in any direct or indirect way. But if you are hired as a professional to do a specific job like supervising the boom or drilling or whatever, and that contributed somehow to the spill, then you're probably going to inherit some substantial responsibility. And I think that's more than fair.


I agree with that, but in my experience as a technical professional, I have to say that unsafe shit is almost exclusively something that happens when management refuses to pony up the cash to do things the right way.

But let's look at the other side of the coin. For the sake of argument, let's pretend management didn't do anything obviously wrong on Deepwater Horizon, and it was just some guy out on the rig who just made a stupid mistake and caused the whole thing to happen.

Should that guy bear all of the financial liability alone, while the CEO's, shareholders, and the company itself are held blameless?

I say even in that case, the blame needs to go upward -- management hired the guy, and someone higher up approved the process that was susceptible to massive damage coming from one guy's human error. They're the ones who put the oil rig in his hands, they're the ones responsible for the damage he did with it.

Even bigger people that don't matter, making posts that matter about posts that don't matter about little people that don't matter reacting to AWESOME INFLATABLE GREEN BALL DUDE!!!>> ^Payback:

>> ^rottenseed:
Little people that don't matter react to shit that doesn't matter.

Big people that don't matter making posts that matter less.

>> ^rottenseed:

Little people that don't matter react to shit that doesn't matter.


Big people that don't matter making posts that matter less.

Little people that don't matter react to shit that doesn't matter.

I'm sure you don't think it's funny for our President to joke about the loss of more freedom?...Besides, he didn't "address" the pat-downs, he attempted to make a joke about what all of us (the little people) are having to endure. Even in the name of safety, what the TSA is doing is wrong. How many more of our freedoms are we willing to surrender under the guise of safety? It'd be one thing if the TSA was effective...But they aren't, they are simply an illusion of security. In addition to that, part of being "free" is having the right to travel in the US without showing ID or being subjected to pat-downs, body scans, etc. without reason.

Journalism was hijacked long ago. Its advent came before CNN, Fox News or MSNBC. But it's gotten so bad I worry we will never truly know where the truth might be hiding. I used to think if I read enough from as many sources as possible, that I could kind of point in the general direction of truth, but the fog's getting thicker each year.

The descent into madness is unfortunately, for many, unavoidable. You either buy the BS or you don't. In the meantime, I'd prefer our President to joke about salmon (which was kinda funny) and not the decline of our personal freedoms. Feeling this way shouldn't be seen as a left or right thing, but a human thing. >> ^cosmovitelli:

Except for bojebees who apparently is more offended at the president addressing the TSA pat-downs in a way he doesn't like (but still on the most public forum in the country) than his country's inevitable descent into madness by the hijacking of journalism for political obfuscation

^I started with 'little people', but got almost no views. I changed it to dwarf and viola... views and votes.

Who was it that said dwarves are the one group for whom the politically correct term (little people) is more insulting than the slur?

lol at quantumushroom's loaded language. "Federal mafia", that's a good one! Except of course the federal mafia is composed of two families, Democrats and Republicans. And they hate each other because the Democrats want to help both Democrats and Republicans but the Republicans only want to help themselves (it's written in the bible!!!).

And the point about the economy being better when Republicans are in office is completely fallacious. The "good economy" of the Bush years was based on war (good for the economy on a short-term basis, but bad in the long run) and shady business practices. Of course, now that we're in the Obama administration, the long-term negative effects of war are starting to show and the economy came crashing when the banks realized their shady business practices were actually non-sustainable (again the banks wanted short-term gains against unknown long-term loses, which didn't happen because they were bailed out. Of course if Obama hadn't bailed them out and people lost everything, then he'd be made to be the bad black demon that didn't help the poor little people). So now the Republicans do what they do best, shifting the blame to the other side. The crazy thing is, it works. It works because Americans don't know shit about taxes or war, they don't know shit about the history of taxes nor the history of war, they don't know shit about how both taxes and war can be used to varying effects. Because after all American history started with taxes and a war, and Americans know all their is to know about taxes and war : War is Good and Taxes are Bad.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Truly words to live by. America should adopt them as its motto and print them on its money. After all, it only elaborates on "In God we trust" : peace is in destroying God's enemies, freedom is in submitting to God's commandments, strength is in having faith in God's all-knowingness. Are they teaching newspeak yet in Sunday school?

That was a very impressive speech by someone who obviously does not speak publicly (constant mic pops from the P sounds and such). And it begins to answer some questions as to why you never see home footage and the "little people" reporting on things, because if the government is going so far as to block big media it should be a small thing to block the little guys from ever gaining popularity.

As for the people not leaving, money might be an issue...but it might be of question of what's going to be left for them when they do and where is it safe to go? If it's already hitting their homes, how far do they have to go to escape it...because the fumes and acid rain coming from it can hit in land. Is leaving the state heading inland enough? Are they in trouble already because they haven't left yet? Will it kill them from the exposure they've had so far?

Plus the whole subject of, if they leave...does that mean they still have a case against BP? Or did they leave for another reason? Because officially at this point in time, no one has released a statement saying what this shit in the water/land/air can do to a person or advised them to do anything.

So if you're potentially terminally sick already and you potentially won't have a case to be made for financial reimbursement and treatment of yourself, kids, and anything you may have lost because of this....why shouldn't you make it your mission in life to fuck BP and those who made it all fall the way it did?

Seriously, I was totally hoping it was a midget (or dwarf... i don't remember which is the more correct way of referring to little people) and that it was going to be funny.

>> ^GoodAttorney:
This is some F'd Up shit here.