Being held accountable for what we do is a good thing, but ignoring degrees and distinctions can turn it bad.

Weinstein out of a position of power, out of a job, and quite possibly into jail: good. Deserved, and sends an important message to those that might want to abuse their power in similar ways in the future. Precedent set -- however things worked before, we won't stand for that shit anymore.

Louis CK out of favor, and on record for doing creepy things which reduces opportunity to continue doing said creepy things. Also removed from positions where he could exert pressure to "consent" to said creepery where consent likely wouldn't be granted if the threat of job repercussions wasn't implied or patently stated. Again, good outcome -- in my opinion including the fact that he likely won't face criminal charges while Weinstein may.


Franken, on the other hand, was held accountable for actions in a way that I found troublesome for two reasons:

1) He was under scrutiny for past actions, yet placed under the judgement of current (bleeding edge current, even) behavioral standards. That is trending towards ex-post-facto law. I can't pass a law in December making it illegal to wear white shirts, then throw you in jail for having worn a white shirt in November before the law was in effect.

It isn't the same thing because sexual harassment has been illegal all along, and because he wasn't really facing legal trouble, just professional / political trouble -- where "ex-post-facto" judgments aren't prohibited. Still, it seems like when standards change we should try to limit judgement under current standards to current behavior. There's a reason why it works that way in law.


2) Furthermore, a lot of the scrutiny Franken was under completely stripped the behavior from context. Context is extremely important. That's why Weinstein "asking" women to "consent" to his rapey behavior wasn't OK, even though asking for consent is sort of the baseline "good"/expected behavior -- they weren't actually completely free to tell him to shove it.

Ignoring the context of Franken's behavior means that it is immaterial that he was working for the USO at the time, where on-stage suggestive stuff and raunchiness was/is pretty much the whole idea. Immaterial that on-stage "groping and kissing" stuff may well have been scripted as such, and basically consented to by the actors -- part of the show.

Combine that with ignoring degrees of offense, and we're listing Franken's name in the same sentence with Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein, which is ridiculous. Franken "had to" be a sacrificial lamb to demonstrate that Democrats are willing to walk the walk as well as talk the talk on this issue -- but did he really?

If more Democrats were willing to "tell it like it is", as I'd argue Maher is doing here, Franken could have said that the photo where he mimed groping a sleeping Karri Turner was a mistake, a joke in poor taste done in the context of an entire tour that seems in poor taste by modern standards, and that could have been the end of it. He could still be in office, and the Democrat party at large would have been better off, as would the net balance in Congress with regards to women's issues.

But nope. Context, distinction, and degrees are all meaningless, so Franken's name is in that same list of dirty sleazeball asshole men, no asterisks or footnotes necessary. I don't think the outcome of that game goes in a favorable direction.

I drove a semi sometimes for a couple years for my family farm. Didn't drive a whole lot, and pretty much all on back dirt roads and in lots/fields, to get some experience before possibly getting a CDL. Never ended up getting the CDL because I moved and changed jobs. I was around and learned from skilled drivers (my dad for one), so I know a little bit, but I'm certainly no expert. That being said:

Backing up a vehicle with a trailer is quite difficult because compared to a normal vehicle with no trailer, all your intuition is wrong and little mistakes get amplified quickly.

Backing up a car and want your tail end to go right? Turn the wheel right. Want the same thing to happen in a semi with a trailer? First turn the wheel left while you back up, which will push the tail end of your tractor left, causing a reaction like pressing on a lever that pushes the tail end of the trailer right. But don't overdo it, because that same lever-type action causes more movement the further you get away from the fulcrum point, so a tiny move there can result in a BIG swing.

Complicating that, you have no central rear view mirror. Side mirrors work, but distance can be obscured by the huge trailer very quickly.

Basically, backing up is one of the most daunting things about learning to drive a truck, particularly for people new to it. The "pull ups" he mentioned are the best way to overcome that. Pulling forward a short/medium distance gets the tractor and trailer back into alignment, so that straight back should result in the trailer going straight back. From that point, you can try to make small corrections. If it starts to swing a lot, pull up again and straighten out, lather rinse repeat.


The guy in the video does a good job (way better than I could do), but he seems to think he's the shit. I don't think you earn real trucking community bragging rights until you can reverse double trailers, or even triples if you want to be worshiped as a god.

Here's a video with doubles:


One of the full-timers on my family farm was quite good with doubles. Not "obstacle course" good, but I saw him reverse a slow circle around a grain bin. And he liked to tell stories about a some semi-mythical whiz guy that could reverse triples around a corner, etc.

Bwaahahaha!

Both infrastructures destroyed, but PRs is much better, yet they got less. PR is American, and begged for help during the storm. Haiti almost had no government after the earthquake, we just showed up to help.
You know SOME damage will happen, so prepare....but that ignores the point, Haiti had no warning and no preparation, but twice the help in 1/8 the time, even though they're also an island, surrounded by water, big water, and even though near 100% of structures were destroyed in Haiti with roads blocked and bridges impassable.
FEMA spent millions preparing in Texas and Florida...what's different?
PR requested FEMA help before landfall, and haven't stopped begging for it since.
Really, federal agencies cannot go where they aren't specifically requested by locals even in emergencies...and you think declaring the island (and San Juan specifically) a disaster zone and requesting FEMA and the military isn't a request....who's a moron again?
Couldn't that be 'Joseph Curl admits he hasn't met with San Juan mayor'? It's his job to provide emergency services and supplies, he's failed completely. Hypothetically, if she were killed, incapacitated, or trapped, San Juan just gets abandoned? Besides, pretending they don't have permission to enter town or knowledge of the need without her in person properly formatted request is just ludicrous and moronic.
They have permission, they need drivers that aren't there. They blame locals for not answering their phones and showing up to drive....but 95% don't have electricity, most cell towers are destroyed, and most roads are impassable because FEMA and the military continue to do little....but sure, it's those lazy Puerto Ricans that are the hold up.

Your ridiculous hyper politically biased opinion article actually discredits your contention. She has met them, is in constant contact, and her subordinates are stationed in the FEMA headquarters...she just hasn't wasted her time visiting that headquarters personally because there's no reason to besides a photo op, and she's busy trying to save lives. I'm sure Trump will play that game though, he likes having his picture taken.

Not so funny that our president believes freedom of speech only comes into play if he likes what you have to say, otherwise he, as president, can and will have you punished.

Not so funny who's standing with him on that issue either...this is fascism by definition, so your support of this hyper authoritative nationalism makes you a fascist. You might consider that and rethink.....
Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce...

Such a sad lack of critical thinking, and complete lack of comprehension of what freedom of speech means, or even what the protest is about. I wish there was a civics education test to hold office, he would have failed miserably.

Pretty sure he'll be running as an independent in 2020....good luck with that. Know ahead of time that he won't fund his campaign, you will. Also know that he will lend his campaign millions...at usury level interest, paid by you. Start saving your pennies now...he's going to need them.

My Upvote for this video was lost with the comment that totally wrongly put me on their side. Past that, anything posted by Bob that begins by calling itself "no bullshit" is clearly going to be pure bullshit, so I didn't waste another 10 minutes watching his bullshit. I've been watching the media call out antifa since they first appeared in Berkeley....what Bob calls the left media, so he failed on the basic premise and fails on honesty before I watched a thing.
Bob does just fine posting anti antifa videos, and when they're honest, I Upvote them. Look close, I've posted anti antifa videos. They're moronic fascists I rebuke and denounce at every turn, but Bob ignores that because he cannot accept or understand that someone left of him isn't actually in antifa, so clearly we must all be supporters of the group we call fascist criminal morons. Just yesterday I posted at least 3 comments denouncing antifa extremely strongly, all replied to by Bob, only to have him forget it all instantly so he can say I'm in antifa. What a moron, that only makes him look incapable of reading, it doesn't make me a fascist.

Bob has every right to post what he likes (within the rules). He doesn't have a right to post insane bullshit without contradiction. What he often posts is not factual, but is pure fantasy. That will be contradicted. For instance, his conflation of me and antifa, even after reading how I decry them at every turn as idiotic fascists...Typical Bob stupidity that only reflects on him. He should stop that, but he can't.

I think that's totally up to you to decide.

What he ignores is that what you say IS something you are doing...with your mouth. Being verbally derogatory gives others permission to go farther.
Actions are more important and telling, but words still matter. They set the tone for actions to come.

That said, he has every right to say and think whatever he likes, imo...but listeners have a right to react (reasonably) as they like.

Nothing is ever simple. I'm just not properly explaining what I was saying -- Jon Stewart went off and did his public speaking, crowd organizing thing with this belief in something that he couldn't quite define. He lost his mojo, in a way, saw that he was naked, bereft of his staff. Any talking/figure head with a staff of writers or information feeders can be comparable to other leaders of a similar make up. Trump and Stewart are reality tv stars of a similar make up.

Dag suggested that the writers of the Daily Show are what created Jon Stewart as we know hom, and so I ran with the idea that he, like the figurehead and reality star, Donald Trump, are products of other people's opinions -- this, when left to their own devices, while successful entertainers, they realize the emperor's clothes are transparent and now they have to rely on their own smaller slice of knowledge. Not that Stewart is dumb, but Stewart without writers and correspondents, is a similar archetype to Trump. Stewart's writers and correspondents, including the man whose show he is on in this clip, are akin to the media that Donald Trump treats like his writing staff. But instead of leaving the Daily Show, Trump is leaving *most* of the media, revealing he is not as knowledgeable without his sources.

Anyway, I was following the logic as laid down by dag's logic for why Jon isn't as funny or put together. I also know that good leaders put themselves in other people's shoes before giving advice to other leaders. Stewart MUST do this because he is a decent figurehead, but Trump doesn't -- that's why the media questions him on what biographies he is reading; leaders are supposed to put themselves into their rivals AND heros shoes as a matter of critical self analysis -- so, Stewart is speaking to the media almost as if he is also putting himself in Trump's shoes and speaking about how his own writing staff and correspondent's left him and succeeded.

Stewart has a 4 year contract with HBO. He will have the structure and writing teams he needs. Trump should utilize the media, including books and newspapers, and follow the subtext Jon laid out here.

Edited for spelling, grammatical errs and additional context. Done editing.

Give this guy a job doing what he loves. He's obviously good at it and how often do you see someone so enthusiastic to go to work. He's only a felon because he likes it so much.

He likes the Final Fantasy 9 soundtrack

jesus,could we all stop with the histrionics already?

there are reasons why trump won,and it certainly was not because he is a decent human being,he is not,he is a terrible human being.

so if you are going to assume what kind of president he is going to be based solely on his emotionally,super-charged rhetoric,then you are..by definition..pre-judging.

i do not know what kind of president he is going to be,and neither do you.

i suspect it going to be in the area of horrifying and bumbling buffoon,but we won't know until he gets in office.

all rubin is pointing out is that there are some positives,and freaking out does nothing,and is based on assumption.

but chew on this for a minute.
both the democrats and republicans HATE trump and the fact he won has scared the living shit out of both parties.the political elite just got kicked in the balls.

i have been watching in horror as trump began to surround himself with some of the most vile,and opportunistic people:gingrich,gulliani,christie,and let us not forget the christian supremacist mike pence.

yet two days ago pence cleared all the lobbyist choices trump had made for positions in his cabinet.they are calling it the "pence purge".was this a political ploy to stick with the "drain the swamp" meme?

sure..that is possible.
but it is still a good sign.

and rubin brings up a good point in regards to trump.he likes being popular and loved.while i find this narcissistic and childish,and not a quality i want in a president,it does offer a window where normal people can apply pressure to his presidency,and that is no small influence.

hey,i get it,trump is a bumbling buffoon who is a terrible human being,but he won't be this countries first awful human being to hold the presidency.

and we really do not know what kind of president he is going to be.so all rubin is saying is:remain cautiously optimistic.

i say:be cautiously optimistic,but prepare for the worst.

because many people have concerns,and i think those concerns are valid.i suspect that a trump presidency will rival the bush era,possibly worse,but i could be wrong.not the first time i was wrong.

so this could all manifest in a pleasant surprise..or a horrible nightmare,but we won't know until trump actually takes over the job.

I agree, seems like he likes the attention

It's not IN a vacuum. the pressure is just very low, like a high-altitude jet airliner. The skis the pod runs on aren't even electromagnetic, they use micro jets of compressed air, like an air-hockey table.

As for Thunderfoot, I get he likes debunking things like those retarded snake-oil "smart pavement" people. However, saying Musk is one of them is ignoring what Elon's already accomplished. I can GUARANTEE Elon Musk has dumped more money than Thunderfoot will make in his lifetime in engineers and pure scientists just to see if it was FEASIBLE, let alone possible.

He likes sausages.

I just read it.

I get that it's a complicated issue and emotive for many, I've been on the receiving end of abuse myself and I do understand what being "triggered" feels like (not that I think it should change anything outside of a personal context). I also understand that a subject such as this kind of requires some nuance and intelligence if it's going to be tackled comically, without coming across as simply crass.

But, finding some material crass seems like a necessarily consequence of experimentation and having a diverse artistic community. And moreover, Jim's material here didn't come across as crass, or intentionally hurtful to me. (beyond a deliberate faux crassness clearly intended to emphasise the effect of the material)

I can only assume that it cut too close to the bone for your own sensibilities and/or experiences? Or perhaps instead that you are concerned that it might in some way encourage or validate the twisted attitudes of unevolved brutes?

I understand and respect this, but I have always seen such things as my own weaknesses and obstacles to be overcome. By way of example; to me death and cruelty are the ultimate comedic premises. They represent the deepest fears and anxieties inherent in the human condition, and as such conduits to the deepest catharsis.

Life is unfathomably cruel and brief; to find true levity in the darkest reaches of that, I think represents one of the highest and most liberating state a human being can strive for. (the temporary suspension of ego and care)

We all die and awful things can happen at any moment, this for me is the divine joke and I suspect the underlying power of all things we find humorous to a greater and lesser extent. (one could re frame that as "life is pointless and as such hilarious", but it would mean the same here)

I guess after all that self indulgent waffling, I'm saying that I don't think the collateral of other peoples sensibilities should hold back the pursuit of such lofty things. I'm sure Jim wouldn't see it in quite such terms, but in his own small way this is what I think he, like all good artists, is doing.

There will always be Devils and Ignavi but would be Ubermenschen (or if you will Uberdamen) should never pander to such creatures, lest they allow them to pollute the light they seek to create.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
Love is the law, love, under the temperance of will.

(That last part is just a lunatics way of saying; never let the fear of the foolish compromise the pursuit of ones highest arts. Life is short, shine brightly and apologise only on your own terms.)

(^ I do unfortunately suck at actually living by the above, because I'm lazy and cowardly)

Apologies for the gender mixup, I'll make a mental note for future reference

Much love.

I think it depends on how you define "worse". I believe that Hillary is capable of being the shadowy, sleazy politician that knows the corrupt system, knows how to use/abuse it, and is 100% willing to bend it to her own goals.

Trump is a largely incompetent blowhard. He, like Hillary, says what he thinks he has to say to get the support of his base, and then flip-flops to suit his purposes. He isn't a Washington insider, he doesn't have the network of connections that Hillary does.

If Trump could be another Bush, Hillary could be another Nixon. I'm not convinced that Hillary is the lesser of two evils here.

And that's still working under the assumption that Trump would be as bad as Bush. Bush was bad, but without Dick Cheney and Karl Rove whispering in his ear, maybe he'd have been a merely incompetent president instead of a terrible one. For all the negative things that I think can fairly be said of Trump, I don't think that he's very likely to become someone's sock puppet like Bush.

I'm definitely not sure that Trump would be better than Hillary (for whatever definition of "better" one chooses), but I don't think it is cut and dry to the point of delusion for someone to see either of them as the bigger threat.