kelpdiver

A good example of a historical accident that is politically nearly impossible to change now. Not only is it an unfair subsidy to home owners, it artificially increases the price of homes making it harder to buy one. Ironic since the original idea was to help make them more affordable. Any economist will tell you it is a bad policy. It's bad policy that fixes for other bad policy - graduated tax brackets that treat income in California the same as it does in Arkansas. Most MI deductions are taken in high cost of living states like CA and NY, two states that pay far more to the feds than they get back, because the cost of living is higher there, and thus so are salaries and taxes. And...it used to be that all interest was deductible. That was chipped away at to where only the mortgage one remains. It's not inherently unfair to renters - no more than them not having to pay or deduct property taxes. The cost of the housing is reflected in the rent (with many distortions due to demand v. supply and other external factors like rent control).

How many unjustifiable shootings can you cite? Not shootings, which we best know to be in the high hundreds per year. The (too high) number of actual police murders may well not exceed the number killed in SB. San Francisco's board of supervisors had a day honoring Mario Woods who was shot by police, holding a knife. The fucker actually stabbed someone (random) with it shortly before. It was perfectly justified shooting to most citizens of SF. Multiple rounds of bean bags and pepper spray were used first.

If we looked just at black owned assets, do you think it would further widen to 90 (95?) and 5? Would that mean anything? As to your statement....given that most of the murders being committed by those 13% (blacks) are against other blacks, it seems unlikely that the wealth owned by that 10% is a factor. In reality, it's mostly felons killing felons, presumably for control over illicit markets (ie, drugs).

Ah, you don't know that. And neither do I. But there are reasons to believe that black men attract more negative attention from police, and white society in general than their white peers. The police, and their attitudes are merely a reflection of the culture they are from. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/11/study_finds_police_officers_no_more_likely_to_shoot_black_suspects.html "It finds that while blacks and Hispanics are in fact more likely than whites to experience nonlethal force after being stopped by law enforcement, they are not more likely to be shot." "After controlling for all the circumstances surrounding the incidents, such as the kind of crime involved or the time of day, Fryer found that police were 47 percent less likely to shoot black suspects who hadn't already attacked them compared with whites. And they were 43 percent less likely to fire on Hispanics, compared with whites." There's a clear difference in the stop/arrest rates for minorities, but when it comes to use of lethal force, that's not supported by the data. Given how recently this person released this study (got in the new in early July), there will be considerable followup, but this is a well regarded up and coming economist.

Maybe. Not certain. How can you be certain? As you go on to discuss later, misuse of tasers by LEO is systematic and the Oscar Grant shooting is why I oppose their issuing. They're not the "non lethal" devices they're promoted as, and they're used as retaliatory weapons without the bruising that sticks cause (unless the guy dies).

seems like rotational period would need to be part of it as well.

That would be a bit of a distortion, Jake. 'Follow any order' != 'Avoid actions that could be seen as threatening.' Pulling a black metal object out of your waistband...fail. Pull an actual bb gun out - suicide. Charge at a cop? These are all pretty obvious. In the more courteous area - don't use your cell phone during a traffic stop. Ask before you reach into the glove or under your seat to get your wallet or registration. Perhaps you heard a bunch of cops got killed by snipers? And that's hardly the first time they've been killed during traffic stops. If they ask to search, you don't have to say yes. If they insist on taking actions that may be improper - well, don't resist with force. I believe the ACLU has a runlist for how to behave. If the LEO oversteps, don't give them a free pass by acting badly as well. All things equal, the cop usually wins.

He's being audited. The purpose of an audit is to correct any misinterpretations of his tax responsibilities. So anything people catch later - has already been covered, or is in the wide grey area. His return is also not going to confirm his wealth. Tax returns address income, not assets. When you're a billionaire, everything you do attempts to minimize realized income. But it is certainly going to confirm that he's been lying his ass off about charity donations, the reason why he blackballed the Post all summer. It's likely to show a personal self interest in the tax proposals he's made. It will likely show that his various projects (mostly S corps) don't show large profit, which is great for paying less, but blunts his claims of economic genius. If the ongoing audit really were a legitimate excuse, he could have released last year's (and prior) returns. But we all know better. He might have had a better shot at claiming a principled stand if he hadn't called out Romney for the same. Hadn't demanded birth records and college transcripts for Obama.

Given that the MSM gave Trump 2-3B in free coverage, isn't it really his biggest PAC? They even legally meet the requirements to act independently (with the exception of Fox from June onward).

I wouldn't know the reference either, and my grasp of foreign geography is well above average, and my college study focused on international use of force. Based on the other replies, once clarified that it was re Syria, the man answered the question no? Isn't that really what you want to know? Seems as daft as spending 10 of 30 minutes of the Commander in Chief interview on email and then ask HC to quickly answer how to deal with Isis. Same way I can't be bothered if Herman Cain didn't know the leader of 'Ubeki beki stan stan.' I barely acknowledge the existence of most of these FSRs. If that man had won the nomination, I'd have wanted him spending his time on the 9-9-9 stuff. We could talk about the illegal nuclear weapons program that Israel bombed out of existence a few years ago, but I couldn't tell you the town in Syria for that either. Does it matter?

The challenge, and the primary non emotional argument used by those opposing, is that legalization gives cover to these criminal acts. And is there action that can be taken for the murky cases of indentured servitude? Particularly when the women in question are immigrating illegally, they aren't in a position to bear witness - it's keep hooking, or get deported.

This thread diverged into a number of interesting sub topics, but challenges having any focus. So scattershooting away: 1- 'Hunters provide more income than non shooting tourists.' I'd love to see some supporting evidence for this. I think I paid over $1000 in tourist taxes when I visited Tanzania for a climb + safari, and employed a number of guides. Didn't shoot any animals, but how likely would I have come if they weren't there? There are only so many 'trouble' animals that need to be culled, particularly in the big 5. So what's the relative draws in money? 2- 'Hunting fees is keeping the rest of the herd secure.' As I asked - is it actually working? Not for some species. At risk of diverging into that other thread- legalized prostitution should be straightforward but leads to secondary effects around traficking and slavery. Legalized gambling does as well. If you charge $10000 (no idea what pricing is like) to cull an old lion, then aren't you setting up a market for poachers to offer this for $5000 with no regards to resource management? Humans the world round have shown an inability to think about long term resource management, and enough for the the immediate revenue that the herd suffers unless the species in question has a very short lifecycle (< 2 years). 3- 'facts were wrong about the dentist poaching the lion.' Again, a bit devoid of any factual info here. My memory is pretty clear that the lion died a slow and horrible death due to the poor shooting of the guy. The uncertainty was in how illegal the actions where, and how ignorant he really was about any violations in the regs. 4- 'giraffes are hard to shoot' - given what I just wrote, that's not a good thing. The offending animal count have been humanely dispatched and fed to the local village. And pretty sure it's not a dangerous hunt. The most offensive variant of this are web cam hunts - hopefully more a joke than a reality at any scale. 5- 'I live here, so I know better than you' Disproven all around the world, esp when coming from people with financial interests in the topic. Argue with facts, not that. 6- From someone else 'People in cities shouldn't dictate what the people in Africa do.' This one is a great potential separate topic. Lots of meat to this one. I think about the recent uproar over Tanzania building a road across the Seregenti. I wish they could avoid doing that. It certainly could impact a decision for me to go there, though in all honesty, if I wanted to repeat that sort of trip, I'd probably go further south in Africa to something different. I don't see why I shouldn't discourage other Americans from engaging in this sort of killing tourism, just as we prosecute the fuck out of Americans who engage in sexual tourism, particularly against minors. As I suggest above, I question that it's possible for Americans to participate in only well managed culling without encouraging negative consequences. 7- 'Is fishing different in any way?' Another interesting one - we don't value non mammals to nearly the same extent, do we? While much of fishing is for consumption, there is the sport fishing angle, and the trophies. Worse, the best trophies are the biggest specimens, and for most species these are the most prolific for breeding. In response, many engage in catch and release, though done poorly, the released may be dying soon. Huge lobsters are being photographed and returned.

That it benefits some locally doesn't cover for the bad. People come to Africa to look at and take pictures of animals too, spending substantially more money, I suspect. Trophy shoots...I'll never get it. Particularly against a target like a giraffe, a species that doesn't hunt or fear man? And how humane is the killing? Does the shooter dispatch the animal with one shot? Giraffes seem like tough ones to do that. That dentist who got guides to lure the lion out of a reserve failed so badly with his shot that the animal took over a day to die. That guy happily bought his way past any rules. The premise you repeat is that by bilking rich people who want to 'hunt' trophy pieces, including endangered species, that the money collected can be used to protect the rest. Is that really working? Or does it just raise the price that poachers can charge for the same activity? And how many non shooting tourists do you lose if (when) the animal does disappear, like the various rhino species? Years ago Palau estimated that each live shark was worth $7 million in tourism dollars, and based on that took best efforts against shark finning. This particular article doesn't show it, but the girl has also proudly posted pictures of feral cats she killed with a bow. Historically, it's serial killers that start with cats and dogs. Me personally - if I'm going to engage in a hunt that isn't about eventually eating it (ie, deer), then I'd want it to be a bit more primal. Not inside a protective car, spear/bow/black powder (single shot)...and even then...how the fuck do I justify killing for the sake of killing?

that's too narrow a definition - he does already qualify, and has for years.

why even give the chance to screw it up? This event is the result. I'm not going to point the muzzle of a handgun at another person, let alone pull the trigger. "Blanks" are another source of confusion for some - if you shoot someone at close range, and especially in the head, they can be lethal. See Jon-Erik Hexum.

a number of the accidental deaths each year entail someone cleaning their gun or general handling where they presumed it was empty and shot a friend or family member. Frankly, I often wonder if some of them are intentional acts of murder, given how egregious the safety violation is (breaking 3 of the most basic rules of handling). It seems like the perfect alibi. I presume in most cases, they are considered for involuntary manslaughter charges, since intent is not indicated. And that would be true here as well. For a trainer to engage in such gross negligence is certainly a civil violation...not sure it rises far enough in a criminal sense. It's not the same as driving drunk and knowing that you pose a mortal risk.

Looks like rather obvious agenda driven messaging. Can't blame the reporter for this one - that person relied on USPA as an authority and Ed takes advantage of this. He didn't cite specifics, just put out a vague "don't know" scare message. And given a long history of not really sanctioning USPA DZs for safety violations, is "You don't know what you're getting" even correct? We have a second active thread going about a nearby USPA member DZ.

Nope, I wasn't being serious. I am glad you were taken aback by that statement. Yes, it is silly to compliment a group of people for NOT doing something they almost did. That's true whether it's cops or criminals. uh...how many situations are there where citizens can justifiably shoot LEOs? Extremely few. How many situations are there where LEOs can justifiably use their weapons in an arrest situation - quite a few. An uncooperative suspect armed with a gun or a knife presents a real threat to the life of the LEO and others nearby.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html?_r=0 As some of us have said over and over, no new laws are needed. what's needed is efficient and strict enforcement of the existing laws (which have already been deemed to be constitutional). and since this thread was resurrected ... if after 3 days the reviewer had the information needed to deny - why do nothing for 2 months? The counter to the GOP suggestion about a 3 day time limit for special cases is countered with it being non viable, but the reality is you still have a fairly open and shut case of someone illegally obtaining a weapon, and usually lying on the 4473 on top of it. Coupled with the ID information, they have all they need to pursue further. But hardly surprising when we don't even bother to pursue the denials. Out of 73,000 denials in 2010 - 62 were referred for prosecution. 13 guilty pleas obtained. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-the-brady-law-prevented-15-million-people-from-buying-a-firearm/2013/01/23/77a8c1d4-65b4-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_blog.html

In this case, the evidence is overwhelming and so I doubt the delay is due to the prosecution not being ready. Since it is a death penalty trial, I would speculate that the 18 months is to allow the defense to prepare for trial. Talking about the guy who assaulted him, and then made bail the next day. His was not a capital case. And then there's the oddness of Roof 'not pressing charges' for the incident. It's pretty obvious it occurred, as well as obvious that there was a breakdown in protocol for handling Roof's safety. We don't let battered women 'not press charges;' what's different here? I'm also not a fan of the tendency of the minority party (seems more common by the GOP, but not unique to them) to block even voting on nominations. It shouldn't require a constitutional amendment to put a deadline on this, but maybe the only way to end it.

Why are people in jail for 18 months before trial? Not really speedy. By the time convictions happen, time served is most of the sentence.

utter bullshit. Did you actually believe it when you wrote it? That would be the definition of trumpiness. John McGraw cold cocked a guy that was being escorted out by the event police. There is no way to argue that the victim was directing violence at McGraw.

Trump can only blame himself for this one. Be honest - your problem with Khan is that he makes your draft dodging, Constitution hating, racist candidate look like ... well like that. Was it Joe the Plumber in the last election that the GOP played the same game? The Trump campaign should have taken their licks and STFU. Instead they: - suggested Obama killed him, 5 years before he took office. Suggested Hillary killed him, because she voted yes to the authorization. (Somehow Bush, the President, the one that sold the war on a pile of propaganda, wasn't remotely involved) - suggested the Dad viciously attacked for saying mean words to the remarkably thin skinned Trump. - suggested the Mom was being suppressed by scary Muslim culture - and probably worst, claimed that Trump too had made sacrifices by building jobs instead of serving. This behavior only reinforces the belief that he's trying to lose. Trump started that one too when he encouraged his supporters to beat up protesters and promised to pay their legal fees. This lead to a number of cowardly sucker punchings. In legal terms, this is called inciting violence. Then opponents escalated it even further.

Don't know about you, but power tools certainly accumulate in my household. Beds and cars are silly - they're large items that match up to the number of people in the house. Cars and furniture are also items that have finite lifespans before they are either non functional or dated. Guns are very durable items - at least if you avoid buying utter shit. They aren't going to wear out, and therefore the count will only go down if you choose to sell it. In most states, selling is a pain. In CA, they keep declaring many of mine unsaleable unless they pay a yearly ransom tax for BS drop tests. All of the "AW"s remain unsaleable since 2001. So a given household is only going to trend upward. When the people in a household die, where do the guns go? Likely to relatives/friends who already own guns. So again, the number trends up.

"Marshall's supporters argued Huelskamp's combativeness harmed the district. Huelskamp lost his seat on the House Agriculture Committee in 2012; farm groups turned against him, and many Republican voters saw it as a crucial issue in a farm state." Wouldn't draw a bigger conclusion with this obvious explanation. That a guy as disdained as Cruz could be a close runner up in the nomination process suggests that faction still has some legs left, though it may be fair to describe it as the group that is against stuff rather than for anything in particular.