>> ^NetRunner:
^ The topic under discussion was the bill that would strip ACORN of all Federal funding, because it's supposedly corrupt.
Now, pay attention when they talk about why bills of attainder are wrong. To paraphrase, it's to keep Congress from taking on issues that should be the purview of the judicial branch -- namely determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, and meting out punishments for the guilty.
The move to strip ACORN of Federal dollars is entirely about trying to use the legislature to pass judgment on alleged criminal activity, and dispense a punishment.
It's set up so that perhaps there's a way to narrowly define "punishment" so it doesn't count, but any rational person knows that's the entire point of the bill.


Wouldn't this apply to the amendment that Franken passed that dished out a punishment for KBR/Halliburton? Would that be considered a Bill of Attainder?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here and trying to discern the difference.

Also, I'd like to interpret Winstonfield_Pennypacker's post to what I saw it as:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now if only he could start practicing what he preaches and stop his party from stiff-arming the constitution(Attack aimed at the Democratic Party). Here is the conversion simplified.
Mr. Grayson: "Are bills of attainder bad?"
Mr. Brown: "This isn't a bill of attainder."
Mr. Grayson: "I asked you if bills of attainder were bad."
Mr. Brown: "This isn't a bill of attainder."
Mr. Grayson: "Answer my question. Aren't bills of attainder bad?"
Mr. Brown: "Sure - but this isn't a bill of attainder."(but it IS a Bill of Attainder)
I assume Mr. Grayson believes that if enough people hear him call something that isn't a bill of attainder a bill of attainder enough then someone may start believing it(He quoted and interpreted the constitution in a way that even I was able to interpret this bill as a Bill of Retainder, and I'm not a politician). Politicians have a pretty long history of using technicalities, buearucrat-speak, legalese, and other textual skullduggery to get around the Constitution to accomplish political objectives (this applies to both sides)(this also applies to your posts as well). Mr. Grayson is a pot calling a kettle black in that regard. Congress has been violating constitutional law for decades, and he's getting all testy now? (Personal attack on Grayson, expletive deleted). I guess that's what politicians do best though. Blame others for their own faults.


Take away your blatant lies and personal attacks and you're just re-iterating what was in the video without bringing any new information into light. NetRunner at least explains his comments and tries to inform the sift public what the hell the video is about. I'd like to ignore your comments, but it's amusing to watch you employ tactics to try and prove a point.

You are becoming more transparent with every post.

Carry on.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now if only he could start practicing what he preaches and stop his party from stiff-arming the constitution. Here is the conversion simplified.
Mr. Doofus: "Are bills of attainder bad?"
Guy: "This isn't a bill of attainder."
Mr. Doofus: "I asked you if bills of attainder were bad."
Guy: "This isn't a bill of attainder."
Mr. Doofus: "Answer my question. Aren't bills of attainder bad?"
Guy: "Sure - but this isn't a bill of attainder."
I assume Mr. Doofus believes that if enough people hear him call something that isn't a bill of attainder a bill of attainder enough then someone may start believing it. Politicians have a pretty long history of using technicalities, buearucrat-speak, legalese, and other textual skullduggery to get around the Constitution to accomplish political objectives (this applies to both sides). Mr. Doofus is a pot calling a kettle black in that regard. Congress has been violating constitutional law for decades, and he's getting all testy now? What a dingus. I guess that's what politicians do best though. Blame others for their own faults.

Now if only he could start practicing what he preaches and stop his party from stiff-arming the constitution. Here is the conversion simplified.

Mr. Doofus: "Are bills of attainder bad?"
Guy: "This isn't a bill of attainder."
Mr. Doofus: "I asked you if bills of attainder were bad."
Guy: "This isn't a bill of attainder."
Mr. Doofus: "Answer my question. Aren't bills of attainder bad?"
Guy: "Sure - but this isn't a bill of attainder."

I assume Mr. Doofus believes that if enough people hear him call something that isn't a bill of attainder a bill of attainder enough then someone may start believing it. Politicians have a pretty long history of using technicalities, buearucrat-speak, legalese, and other textual skullduggery to get around the Constitution to accomplish political objectives (this applies to both sides). Mr. Doofus is a pot calling a kettle black in that regard. Congress has been violating constitutional law for decades, and he's getting all testy now? What a dingus. I guess that's what politicians do best though. Blame others for their own faults.

>> ^cybrbeast:
So extremely ridiculous for the Netherlands to start using these drones. Sure the sale from coffeeshops and use of marijuana is legal. But the growing is illegal and somehow the government feels like it's a good idea to go after all the growers. The only sound somewhat rational reason for this is that many growers steal electricity and some are a fire hazard. The solution, legalize or decriminalize the growing, not this stupid enforcement. Or in the very least make enforcement a non-priority.
I'm curious as to how effective the drones are and if I should be worried for my small personal grow-op. Though apparently they are only supposed to use it when they suspect large scale growing in a certain area.


The laws that allow a coffee shop to sell pot were put in place when the Dutch government was a lot more progressive. Since then, the conservatives have come into power (as they usually do everywhere, on a wave of xenophobia, intolerance, and fear - their relationship with the Muslim world has been more strained because of them), and they have stopped issuing new coffee shop licenses - there are no more new coffee shops springing up. There are ways around the legalese (for example, a marijuana seed bank needs no license to sell seeds, or to give away samples of pot to its potential seed clients), but the conservatives are doing what they can to tighten their grasp of the citizenry.

The whole legalese to help the economy is stupid , yes it would help the economy but that's not the primary issue and its not a counter issue to the ethical arguments (which is the primary argument against it) . as a result you have people still claiming a false ethical argument against it.

The Primary resoin to legalese pot should be because it can help people that are ill and is currently better than pharmaceuticals that have worse side effects.

If pot was legalized i would not want to see people binging on it or smoking it all over the place, just as i don't like people drinking ore smoking all over the place.

i would not mind people eating small amounts of it so long as thay remain coherent and its not effecting there desisoin making and ability to communicate. its unfortunate that culturally it is seen as amusing if sum one has taken to much alcohol ore pot.

but all in all taking into account how idiotic a big bunch of society is we would be better legalizing pot for medicine ore people who want to take it responsibly for recreation in the same way some people drink.

We should have stiff fines and penalties for anyone selling large amounts to one person.

In fact i believe it should be the same way for alcohol if a shop or pub is cought selling to sum one that is intoxicated thay should get a £5,000 fine ore a fine dependent on profit margins for that night after salaries for general staff.

^Yeah, but a majority of laws on the books are written in legalese instead of plain English which is what the Constitution, BOR and DOI were written in. They seem to be purposely misleading and verbose, and they tend to favor the authoritarian statist attitude where police and bureaucrats are given privileges the rest of us aren't afforded.

I doubt you'd see a cop get his assets seized, black or white.

I disagree that free markets are highly prevalent in modern economies.

One tenant of a completely free market is the lack of asymmetrical information, that both the buyer and seller are aware of all other buyers and sellers.

In your example, the parent would know of all other kids competing for money to mow the lawn, the kid is aware of all parents seeking his services and at what price point.

This is just a small local example, this can be taken further on international levels, where it gets even more complicated as we factor in protectionist trade policy, trade agreements, trade restrictions, trade quotas and so on.

For example in the 70s, the Japanese auto industry was decimating the local auto industry in the US, the Big 3 lobbied the government to do something about it. Through negotiations the Japanese agreed to a voluntary quota system, they would import only a limited amount of their more efficient cars, this drove up their price artificially in the market, allowing them to gain alot of profit by re-branding their cars for a luxury car market known today as the Lexus.

The Big 3 gained via continued dominion of the US auto market, the Japanese gained through a new luxury auto market, while the consumer lost because market efficiency was not there, the cheapest model cars made in Japan were not available to the US consumer.

International trade fails free market ideals in many ways, since a lot of first world nations do not allow third world nations into their markets especially in terms of agriculture. In the 1920s to 1950s, there was highly restrictive trade as various international economics locked off their markets to rebuild their economics, this took over 70 years to slowly unravel via the GATT and the emergence of the WTO. However there are a lot of barriers, the G8 also have larger influence and bargaining strength over third world nations, they also understand WTO legalese better.

Now think of something that holds a large control of the market like Wallmart in the retail industry, in some areas they are the sole superstore thus this is already not a free market, everyone is forced to purchase their products at one place. This doesn't stop the seller to change their price because the consumer is dependent. This is where we can say no free market exists due to regional monopoly.

The closest we come to a free market is the stock market but only on price, all sellers and buyers know the price however not everyone knows profit forecasts, insider information, business conditions, corporate structure and so on.

Great article. A Palin Administrations would be terrifying. He's pretty much dead on with this article, except I disagree with his blind celebration of elitism. This notion that being smarter than someone else qualifies them to exclusively represent a body of people is lunacy. He'd probably rather have Mensa International elect our government than the people of this country, because Mensa's collective intelligence represents the best 2% of the world's population, therefore they must know best for all of us, right? Maybe we can enact a law that states before any citizen votes they must pass an IQ test? If he/she scores poorly they cannot vote. That would ensure the dumb people aren't fucking up the country for the rest of us. What a wonderfully tyrannical world of the elite that would be.

To denigrate the import of a representative government by citing bad quotes from a cross section of voters ("someone fit to have a beer with") is bad form. It goes against the very notion of reason he unflinchingly touts as sacrosanct. Our founding fathers gave us a simple blueprint by which all men could read and understand our government: the Constitution. Freedom is a simple idea. It fits nicely in plain text within a couple pages. Tyranny is complicated and fits in thousands of law books and only an elite few can truly understand its verbose legalese.

Anyhow, I'm going to climb off this soap box now and get back to sifting cat fart videos. I just wanted to add my two cents. Great article, though.

>> ^shuac:
^ To address the larger point: I think spelling and grammar do count. Given enough time and ever-diminishing education spending, all these errors could eventually become the norm, and I don't feel that's a good thing. It would be similar to "1984" where each edition of their dictionary is thinner than the last because they actively destroy words. We may not be actively destroying spelling and grammar but doing little to correct it produces a net equivalent, so to speak.

I, like you, want to be correct. You want to be correct in pointing out how silly I am spending time with this sort of thing. I simply want to be correct in my spelling and grammar because that's my profession. I feel we can both be right.


If writing is your profession then surely you are aware of the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar--particularly the fact that most prescriptive rules (the rules against double negation and split infinitives for instance) were completely arbitrary and not even being followed at the time of their invention?

Grammar and spelling change over time in any language, unless it is a dead language such as Latin. There's absolutely no stopping that. There's an estimated 800 new words added to English every year and that's not counting how we use old words in new and innovative ways. At the same time, other archaic words fall out of use. It's a natural process.

Language change is inevitable and is actually a good thing. I'm reminded of my Portuguese friend. He was telling about how the government in Portugal strictly regulates the language, particularly in publishing. It was a huge hassle for him as an academic back in the 80s because Portugal refused to allow the importation of foreign words. Personal computers were becoming common on college campuses, but because the government had yet to approve an official Portuguese word for them yet, they needed to be referred to in official publications as something like "machines that use electricity to calculate and process" or some such extremely long moniker. Of course, most Portuguese at the time in private simply referred to them by their English name of "computers."

Standards of language have their place in the realm of academia and legalese. The standards exist because precision in these areas is crucial to preventing costly misunderstandings. Even these standards change over time (as evidenced by the annually updated manuals of style), though much more slowly than common usage.

I, for one, am not concerned about grammar of spelling errors on the Internet at all. If those errors become accepted usage someday it will only be because the vast majority of English users agree that the supposedly incorrect form is easier to read, write, or understand than the supposedly correct one. And what's wrong with that?

From YT Blog on July 14, 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=AnA3ulGpWsE

"As we let you know on July 4, YouTube received a court order to produce viewing history data. We are pleased to report that Viacom, MTV and other litigants have backed off their original demand for all users' viewing histories and we will not be providing that information. (Read the official legalese here.)

In addition, Viacom and the plaintiffs had originally demanded access to users' private videos, our search technology, and our video identification technology. Our lawyers strongly opposed each of those demands and the court sided with us.

We'll keep you informed of any important developments in this lawsuit. We remain committed to protecting your privacy and we'll continue to fight for your right to share and broadcast your work on YouTube.

Sincerely,
The YouTube Team"

If she started smashing fat fingers(which would be much better TV incidentally than the interview that her producers cut), then Scalia might start crying about the 4th and 5th amendments if he were really delirious. But 60 Minutes is not a state actor or the government so he wouldn't get too far there.

To address rottenseed's timing question, it should be made absolutely clear that torture inflicted upon American citizens is not legal whether they are incarcerated or detained before trial or seized from their homes by the popo. If you read the 8th as part of a legal procedural continuum (arrest,detention,conviction)along with the 4th and 5th, it makes sense for something crafted in legalese.

If you are unlucky enough to be tagged an "unlawful enemy combatant," however, it is now completely unclear (thanks to the purely Dick Cheney and his legal enablers) what law or procedures protects that person from torture of any kind. That is the awful truth that Scalia dances around in this clip.

To parse the word punishment or torture or even the history of 8th amd jurisprudence misses the point about what is truly outrageous about Scalia's position.

I would rather have a court that can actually read the constitution than sending a congress to wrap the constitution in more legalese. I'm so angry at Scalia, I can't even see straight. I won't legitimize Scalia's argument by responding to it.

>> ^Krupo:
I'm definitely going to Audiosurf those mp3's


lol - damn you! Actually, the only reason the "legalese" is in there is that I've actually (really, really, not kidding) been approached by a label, largely on the back of this vid. So it'll all be "paid for" itunes content in a few weeks - download for free whilst you still can! :>

There is a severe misconception when it comes to discussing the World Trade Organization. Very briefly I will try to clear some things about what the WTO does...

The WTO negotiates trade agreements on the global level between governments for trade standards, it succeeded the General Agreement on Trades and Tarrifs (GATT).

Trade is one of the most important factors of economic development, if one country is good at producing one specific item it would trade with another nation that is good at producing something else, both parties benefit in a fruitful trade environment. This is important because trade creates what is called comparative advantages, e.g. Germany is good at producing beer, Russia is good at producing vodka, the both trade to gain benefits. Basically some countries are better at producing goods A and others at goods B, both trade and both expand and benefit as such.

Before the great depression and both World Wars, trade between nations was fairly open, nations would freely allow the movement of goods from one point to another. However post these economic shocks protectionism entered, countries started to close borders and introducing tariffs, import restrictions, quotas and variable import restrictions. This is problematic, some countries would not say have the infrastructure for heavy industry so cannot efficiently produce cars, other countries don't have the labor for cost efficient agricultural development. So there is a economic opportunity cost when investment takes place in industries that the benefit has no basis or advantage in, for example in my country they opened a computer factory during soviet times even though we were so far behind in development and software. There is a waste of scare economic resources then.

With GATT and WTO afterwards it, many of the trade restrictions have fallen the world over, leading to the cases we see of economic development in areas like South East Asia (China, India and the Asian Tiger economies).

However there are problems.

- Both WTO and IMF represent private corporate interests, siding with larger economies over smaller ones, so private interests in Western Nations can dictate the terms to smaller ones.

- Larger players possess the legalese and knowledge to push charges against smaller players, e.g. in the form of dumping charges (country A is dumping goods at below cost of production to penetrate the market to country B). For example the South East Asian economies are commonly accused of dumping their goods to the western world, when in fact its simply comparative advantages such as larger labor poll and such.

- Since trade barriers were existent already, large areas were already protected via political interests, the biggest being agriculture between 1st world and the 3rd world or smaller ones like timber trade between US and Canada.

An organization like the WTO is needed in that its a common form for discussing trade on a global scale, but it does not represent the interests of all fairly or provide a platform for such, one glance of their website will show you how many nations the US accuses of unfair trade advantages because its protections local interests.

However this is illogical, no nation can possess all production assets, due to scarcity, and the global economy is tightening year on year and becoming interdependent, which is a good thing, its very hard to bomb someone if your and theirs economies are connected through trade, this is happening between the US and China.

Its also presentative of the different rearrangement of economies over the long term, take the case of the UK a country that has went from primary industry, secondary and now is almost purely a services economy. China is now the worlds producer of simple secondary goods, the US is now a bigger R&D developer. The third world if it was allowed could feed the whole world and so on and so forth.

The economies are now interdependent as well, take your average laptop, the technology was probably developed in the US and Japan, the semiconductors were made in Malaysia and South Korea, and it was all put together in China.

Its not a perfect system by a long shot, however looking over the ages, economics is far better at leveling the playing field and brining together nations then idealistic statements and or anarchy which is common seen at WTO/IMF/G8 meets.

Of course there is a million other issues to consider... but I said this was a *cough* very brief description.

>> ^moodonia:
That game looks really good. No idea what any of that meant but does anyone know what that final song was? Takes me back to days...


The game is Eve Online - and it's truly excellent. http://www.eve-online.com for more info and 14-day free trial. And yes, I wrote both those tracks specifically for the video. And double yes - imo you can never have too many howling 303s and gliding arps.

Downloadable mp3s of both tracks are available here, though forgive me a bit of legalese first:

By downloading these tracks you agree that you will only use them for your own personal enjoyment, and may not repackage or redistribute them in any way, shape or form.

Approaching 4-4: http://tinyurl.com/2stf2h
Into the gatecamp: http://tinyurl.com/2rzmow

Glad you enjoyed them. Plenty more tracks I've written are available. Get in touch with me ingame (character: jnb).

Best,

jnb