YIKES!

Deaths are now over 11500 and expected to skyrocket.
Temperatures in Turkey are in the 20s at night.
Some areas are expected to be uninhabitable for years.

People complain that California building codes are insane…this is why. We will have a 7.8 or higher in a major population center some day, and just hope those codes are enough to prevent this kind of destruction.

They do have codes, Florida actually has some of the strictest building codes in the country. The building was actually being worked on and updated to meet additional local hurricane codes at the time of the collapse.

Every state has to meet the codes established by the ICC or one of the organizations that existed separately before they merged. The only city to ignore these codes and go completely by their own code is Chicago.


At the municipal level, the city can add more building codes to meet specific local hazards or weather. Miami/Dade has very strict hurricane codes that need to be met.

I suspect that we will find that the fault in this lies with the building owner failing to meet code or maintenance updates in a timely manner, as well as the fact that the building experienced subsidence in the amount of 12 cm between 1993 and 1999. This is not that unusual in structures built on barrier islands and it ceased sinking in 1999.

Then we’re back full circle to I'm curious why you think enforcement of existing usury laws (without special rules for those who bribe enough) is the same as new building codes. Removing the special rules for predatory lending companies simplifies the law, it doesn’t complicate it like new, often contradictory building codes (that seem to be being used as an excuse for slow work by his contractor).
I feel like you’re comparing apples to brisket.

The last paragraph addresses the irony, which is the entirety of my first comment. I did not expect him, when pushing for a legal/policy solution to her problem, to then start attacking red tape for building codes. Enough loans regulation and you'll have the same thing - complaints about not being able to get a loan and the extended processing times.. Then Bill will do a schtick showing us

I think that's at the discretion of the judge, if you asked for 15%, likely you'll get your principal back, if you asked for 1500%, chances are you won't get a dime back as punishment, and may end up owing the borrower if you went overboard trying to collect.

I live in California, building codes change constantly. I agree, it is maddening and often backwards. He was specifically talking about codes for building stand alone solar, which are newer building codes. Even old building codes are often poorly thought out and contradictory. I'm not saying there isn't an abundance of red tape here, especially for building.
That said, his contractor should have been aware of all codes, submitted his plan, and would have approval or notes on what to change in weeks tops. There's something wrong when it takes over a year to get a shed built, some reason his plans weren't approved like they weren't to code.
Citation : personal experience - I installed solar in California, it took 3 days for my permit approval....and only that long because my contractor was being lazy.

That's the thing I disagree with, no new laws are needed at all, just a removal of exemptions/deregulations for businesses that pay large enough bribes (contributions) to elected officials. Even making all credit businesses operate on the same rules, allowing them 30% interest, seems ok, but that isn't reality today. It's unconscionable to allow 1600% interest on loans peddled to desperate people that don't actually qualify for a real, legitimate line of credit, many of whom don't understand it's what they're agreeing to, but the payday loan lobby is well funded and connected.
Citation:
Although U.S. states set their own maximum legal interest rates, a Supreme Court interpretation of the National Bank Act of 1864 preempted state usury laws and created a path toward a national consumer lending economy. The most important federal case in credit card interest rate deregulation was decided in 1978.

Her problems were multifold. The predatory loan took a fixable issue, her terrible customer service, and compounded it with insurmountable and ever expanding debt, which in turn undoubtedly hurt her customer service more, thus increasing her debt..... It sounds like she never should have purchased a service oriented business, and likely overextended herself from day one just to do it.

I'm unsure of your point in the last paragraph.

I think you mean they wouldn't have to pay you the interest. They would have to pay you back the principal. And that would be under specific cases and usually when no contract is involved, also all depends on where you live.

Also, I don't think either Bill's building codes are "new" vs. the usury laws being "existing". Please cite to support.

The irony is that additional laws to stop predatory lending are, in fact, what red tape is made of, by definition. So I found it amusing that he would look at her situation, say that Nancy and team were trying to solve it for her by passing new laws, then go on to complain about all the red tape surrounding this building. That red tape exists because someone else before him saw a problem or safety issue or concern, and put yet another policy or law in place to solve it. In reality, as your posts prove, her problem was not that a predatory lender got involved in her life, but that her business was in bad shape because she had gone off the deep end and was thus losing customers.

I could easily imagine a bit where he showed a stack of papers four inches thick that he had to sign to get a loan, and complain about the processing time, then showcase an SMS based loan that works in another country and funds in one day.

I'm curious why you think enforcement of existing usury laws is the same as new building codes.
If you loaned a friend money and charged over 10% interest, in many cases they don't ever have to pay you back anything because that's usury. Payday loan companies are only allowed to charge 1600% because they bribed congress to make them exempt from the law.

It's unfair to compare this remote rural town with a big urban city with well established infrastructure. A better comparison would be the tornadoes that hit rural towns in the US, annually destroying many homes and taking several lives. Yes, those houses could be built to be tornado-proof, but they aren't because it would cost 3x as much and the average residents are too poor to afford it (and storm shelters and advanced warning make it less deadly)

(Of course, China should still be more strict about building codes. Although they'd have to tackle corruption first- too easy to bribe inspectors, and too many contractors cut corners to save money. They are rightly focused on improving food safety now - what other country would you find counterfeit eggs?? )

MONEY!

Seriously though, a cement or brick house isn't going to make any difference if it takes a direct hit from a tornado. It will handle the debris flying around at 200+ mph much better, but cannot sustain a direct hit. There are a few structures (like steel frame houses) which might fare a little better, but the cost is prohibitive.

I think it is also important to consider the size of the region we are talking about here. According to Wikipedia, "Tornado Alley can also be defined as an area reaching from central Texas to the Canadian prairies and from eastern Colorado to western Pennsylvania." That's an area of approximately 1.5 million square miles. Where exactly do you draw the line on enforcing extremely expensive building codes? How do you justify the increased building costs in one town but not the town 2 miles down the road?

The building codes in the core of Tornado Alley (north Texas to Nebraska) are more restrictive than you imagine. They focus on strengthened roofs and secure foundations that can take a fair amount of straightline wind. But really, the odds of any given house in Tornado Alley sustaining a direct hit are extremely low (about 1 in 10 million in any given year) so it is much more cost effective and reasonable to require storm cellars which protect life instead of worrying about property. Notice how not a single person was injured in this house despite the destruction.

This is a video of a WIN not a FAIL.

It happens SO DAMN OFTEN in Florida, that there are now building codes, where we have to put FRIKKIN LASER sensors so that the arm stops and doesn't go down when people are dumb enough to stand directly below them.

It STILL DOESN'T STOP THEM from running into the damn things; it just stops them from coming straight down onto their heads.

Keep linking to videos of hard right extremists. You're really not making an honest case. You're making a partisan case.

? The video was congressional hearing where Kathleen Selibus gave testimony concerning the contraceptive mandate. How is that "hard right extremists?" Did someone program her answers for her?

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.

Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.

Imagine a religion that believes you should not attempt to prevent someone from accidentally dying because you're interfering with God's will. Therefore, seat belts are against their religion. The Church then goes out to buy vehicles. Of course, the federal gov't regulates the automobile industry, and requires every vehicle to have seat belts. So federal regulations requiring seat belts are against the 1st Amendment?!

That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.

Um, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since the constitution says the purpose of gov't, among other reasons, is to promote the general welfare, it has passed laws to provide minimum quality guidelines for meat in the Meat Inspection Act, food and medicine with the Pure Food and Drug Act, cars, building codes, I could go on and on. This provision in Obamacare is intended to mandate minimum socially acceptable health insurance coverage for various things. You can't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, etc. Included in this is to say medical insurance must provide coverage for these kinds of contraception. This has nothing to do with favoring certain religions over others. In fact, the use of these types of birth control can be for reasons that haven't a thing to do with preventing pregnancy, and therefore can have absolutely zero religious implications. Everyone can still practice their religions as they want. This isn't the portion of Obamacare that will get declared unconstitutional, or else the legal precedent it would establish would imply that much of the transformational and positive laws we've passed over the last 100 years would also be unconstitutional.

There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/7-states-sue-to-block-contraception-mandate/

There are provisions of the bill that there is honest debate about the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate is an interesting constitutional question. But this? Please. And this isn't far left by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe prescription birth control is amoral, and most believe that it's a basic drug that should be covered by health insurance. Not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike 1...

Not according to this poll:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/poll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/

Repeal of DOMA? Not far left. All DOMA does is say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, and the federal government does not consider a gay couple married. Obama's stance is states should decide if gay marriage is illegal.

Let's look at what the Obama administration has a problem with in DOMA. It's Section 3, which is what states the US gov't won't recognize a gay marriage, legal in the state where those people live and in which it was performed, as legal for the purposes of federal taxes, insurance benefits, and the like. IE, Obama wants it to be that if a state says it's legal, the federal gov't will recognize it the same. If it's considered illegal by the state, the US gov't will not supercede it either.

That's far left?! NO! Far left would be supporting legalization of gay marriage via federal legislation or otherwise against states' wills if necessary. That is NOT what Obama has proposed in any shape or form.

Strike 2...

Repealing DOMA has been on the far left agenda since it was enacted. Whatever Obama says his position is, which has switched three times, is irrelevant to the point.

Supporting FOCA is far left? FOCA attempts to codify Roe v. Wade. It declares a woman has the right to get an abortion up to the point the fetus is deemed viable, or in the case that the fetus is a threat to the health of the mother.

That's far left?! Dude, it's what's already pretty much the law!!! Far left would be unrestricted abortions for any reason all the way up to birth. That's not what FOCA is.

In other words, anyone who thinks abortions should be protected even in limited cases, you consider extreme. I submit FOCA isn't extreme; clearly, you are.

Strike 3, thanks for playing.

Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.

That's just scratching the surface.

So, you pretty much said it yourself. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe Obama is someone apparently from the hard left, and you have nothing to base this on other than your warped ideology. This is a guy who is criticized by the very far left of his party for not being to the left enough.

I'm sorry, but your views are absurd.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.

>> ^heropsycho:

Keep linking to videos of hard right extremists. You're really not making an honest case. You're making a partisan case.

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.

Imagine a religion that believes you should not attempt to prevent someone from accidentally dying because you're interfering with God's will. Therefore, seat belts are against their religion. The Church then goes out to buy vehicles. Of course, the federal gov't regulates the automobile industry, and requires every vehicle to have seat belts. So federal regulations requiring seat belts are against the 1st Amendment?!

Um, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since the constitution says the purpose of gov't, among other reasons, is to promote the general welfare, it has passed laws to provide minimum quality guidelines for meat in the Meat Inspection Act, food and medicine with the Pure Food and Drug Act, cars, building codes, I could go on and on. This provision in Obamacare is intended to mandate minimum socially acceptable health insurance coverage for various things. You can't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, etc. Included in this is to say medical insurance must provide coverage for these kinds of contraception. This has nothing to do with favoring certain religions over others. In fact, the use of these types of birth control can be for reasons that haven't a thing to do with preventing pregnancy, and therefore can have absolutely zero religious implications. Everyone can still practice their religions as they want. This isn't the portion of Obamacare that will get declared unconstitutional, or else the legal precedent it would establish would imply that much of the transformational and positive laws we've passed over the last 100 years would also be unconstitutional.

There are provisions of the bill that there is honest debate about the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate is an interesting constitutional question. But this? Please. And this isn't far left by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe prescription birth control is amoral, and most believe that it's a basic drug that should be covered by health insurance. Not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike 1...

Repeal of DOMA? Not far left. All DOMA does is say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, and the federal government does not consider a gay couple married. Obama's stance is states should decide if gay marriage is illegal.

Let's look at what the Obama administration has a problem with in DOMA. It's Section 3, which is what states the US gov't won't recognize a gay marriage, legal in the state where those people live and in which it was performed, as legal for the purposes of federal taxes, insurance benefits, and the like. IE, Obama wants it to be that if a state says it's legal, the federal gov't will recognize it the same. If it's considered illegal by the state, the US gov't will not supercede it either.

That's far left?! NO! Far left would be supporting legalization of gay marriage via federal legislation or otherwise against states' wills if necessary. That is NOT what Obama has proposed in any shape or form.

Strike 2...

Supporting FOCA is far left? FOCA attempts to codify Roe v. Wade. It declares a woman has the right to get an abortion up to the point the fetus is deemed viable, or in the case that the fetus is a threat to the health of the mother.

That's far left?! Dude, it's what's already pretty much the law!!! Far left would be unrestricted abortions for any reason all the way up to birth. That's not what FOCA is.

In other words, anyone who thinks abortions should be protected even in limited cases, you consider extreme. I submit FOCA isn't extreme; clearly, you are.

Strike 3, thanks for playing.

So, you pretty much said it yourself. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe Obama is someone apparently from the hard left, and you have nothing to base this on other than your warped ideology. This is a guy who is criticized by the very far left of his party for not being to the left enough.

I'm sorry, but your views are absurd.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:
http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secre
tary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate
All of this is far left.
Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.
They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.
He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/ob
amas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/
The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.
When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.
Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.
>> ^heropsycho:

>> ^quantumushroom:

Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.

>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.



To use your metaphor, QM: I don't see shiny and his fundamentalist ilk as firefighters or concerned neighbors rushing to save anyone from flames. I see them as self-appointed building inspectors who refer to an ancient building code and attempt to demolish any house that isn't constructed according to their specifications.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I think the main point of this video, which wasn't explained very clearly, is that the water resources would've been stretched to the max. Fighting so many fires in such a large area at the end of Manhattan could potentially have made the building's sprinkler/standpipe system practically worthless. I'm surprised they didn't stress that point. But I think that's what they mean by saying that no building like that ever burned "uncontrollably". That's what makes it a unique situation.
I'm not sure how old building seven was but I used to be a project manager for a major construction firm in NYC. And I can tell you that the fireproofing regs have changed a lot over the years. Not to mention, NYC's department of buildings is huge, and there's not a lot of checks and balances. If you know what you're doing, you can get an examiner to ignore just about anything. And people either make mistakes, or intentionally bypass the building code all the time. Especially the big companies who build the big buildings. The bigger and older your company is, the more you can get away with.
That's the first time I've ever heard of/seen that penthouse footage as well. I'm not an engineer but I think that was pretty compelling.


http://www.dykon-blasting.com/faqs.htm#implode
In a controlled demolition, the interior structures are removed first, in order to make the building fall inward. This video frames this fact as being against the theory of controlled demolition. How misleading.

Also this video compares a tanker truck fire to an office fire. Still need for someone to explain how a burning stack of coffee filters generates the same heat as a truck filled with 9000 gallons of fuel.

I think the main point of this video, which wasn't explained very clearly, is that the water resources would've been stretched to the max. Fighting so many fires in such a large area at the end of Manhattan could potentially have made the building's sprinkler/standpipe system practically worthless. I'm surprised they didn't stress that point. But I think that's what they mean by saying that no building like that ever burned "uncontrollably". That's what makes it a unique situation.

I'm not sure how old building seven was but I used to be a project manager for a major construction firm in NYC. And I can tell you that the fireproofing regs have changed a lot over the years. Not to mention, NYC's department of buildings is huge, and there's not a lot of checks and balances. If you know what you're doing, you can get an examiner to ignore just about anything. And people either make mistakes, or intentionally bypass the building code all the time. Especially the big companies who build the big buildings. The bigger and older your company is, the more you can get away with.

That's the first time I've ever heard of/seen that penthouse footage as well. I'm not an engineer but I think that was pretty compelling.