weekender

+1 And as long as we can have officers willing to kill EVERYONE because they felt threatened or feared for their lives... from an unarmed teen.. It will continue to spiral downward. am i the only person who actually has sympathy for the officer who described how difficult his job is? if half of what he described is accurate it must be a nearly impossible job. how cynical and full of hate have people become that they believe this can only be about the police hating THOSE people. thats it, the police are militarized, racist killing machines. oh and all urban poor people are completely innocent victims of the racist machine. really its that easy? i must be an idiot because it seems the problem is so more complicated and sad than that. UPDATE: my mistake, i didnt realize he was the OP. his first post was rather awful and i left the thread for a while because of it. i responded to what i thought was a police officer describing how hard the job can be. so please read my post as it was intended. a response to his description of the job and not to his original post. which i find awful. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Your experience is not the experience of everyone else. Some layoffs are actually illegal cullings of workers that would otherwise be protected by law for any one of a number of reasons. The company can't simply "fire" the employee, but if they couch it in the lie of "downsizing" then they can fire whoever they want. It's fairly easy to see the lie too when they company just rehires people at lower rates or uses the same people to do the same jobs as "independent contractors." It's a bullshit move. I have seen companies use the "independent contractor" move before. Usually it is not even close to being true. The rules are quite specific on what constitutes a independent contractor. But as far as "The company can't simply "fire" the employee". I am not sure what you mean by that? Of course all of my experience is in Florida (a right to work state). And also all non-union work. i work in NYC and they are very labor friendly. of course, banking is an "at will" employer, so my experiences are different than a shipping company with Teamsters and Longshoremen. i've been layed off and part of the team who makes the decisions for layoffs. its always done with lawyers and compliance personnel making the final call. it costs nothing to sue for wrongful termination and in my experience companies are very careful to avoid them. i cannot imagine a scenario he described being true. you would have to ignore all common sense, lawyers advice, industry compliance guidelines and the laws of the state. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Your experience is not the experience of everyone else. Some layoffs are actually illegal cullings of workers that would otherwise be protected by law for any one of a number of reasons. The company can't simply "fire" the employee, but if they couch it in the lie of "downsizing" then they can fire whoever they want. It's fairly easy to see the lie too when they company just rehires people at lower rates or uses the same people to do the same jobs as "independent contractors." It's a bullshit move. i would imagine if any of that was true it would be a legal mess. the costs in attorney fee's would outweigh any gains in wages. according to your scenario the jobs are protected by law. therefore, the company would not only have civil suits but the gov't on them for violating labor laws. all of which, according to your scenario is fairly easy to see. which means it would be fairly easy to stop. i blatant violation of a civil contract and the law. thats not my experience, nor anyone i have ever known. i would like to meet someone that scenario has actually happened too. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i like your post. i agree we do need regulation to avoid the problems that would arise from none. on the other hand, there is a problem from over regulation too. the U.S. equity markets are highly regulated but are still very much the world standard for fair and orderly. banks understand that its good business in the long run to have this. to your point, i believe it would devolve into a huge mess if the regulators walked away. not because people are evil but because of exactly what you said. the problem, IMO, is finding the balance. the gov't is driven by short term politics that have similar consequences as short term profit motives. some legislation is hurried for election purposes and that is a problem too. again, balance is the key. to reiterate, i do think colluding with competitors to fix wages is wrong and should be criminal. its anti-free market. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

in my experience the only reason ever given for layoffs is, "downsized." Why does an employer need to state a reason to lay off? or why does it even matter? the persons is being payed to provide a service which the company, for whatever reason, feels is no longer needed. i dont understand why an employer needs to justify anything. i got layed off when a large bank i worked for downsized my entire group, eventually about 400 of us. no hard feelings, revenues were down and we had a lot of fixed costs. i was told nothing more than "sorry and thanks." I dont know what more they could have told me or how it would have mattered. for the record, i completely agree with others that have stated colluding with competitors to fix wages is wrong and should be a crime. its anti free market. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i am aware of the story. i will concede that it is a more plausible theory than the October Surprise but i dont think we are at the point of calling it a "truth". right in one of your links is the headline that clearly states the tapes "suggest" this. that's not a fact. that's a suggestion. we will have to agree to disagree. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

In fact, Reagan was following his party's successful playbook. For, similarly, during the 1968 campaign, while peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese, led by the Johnson Administration, were making progress, leading to the possibility that a peace deal might be in place in time for Democratic candidate Humphrey to benefit from it, Republican candidate Richard Nixon's operatives deliberately undercut (and successfully de-railed) the negotiations by secretly contacting the South Vietnamese government and convincing them they'd get a better deal under a President Nixon than under a President Humphrey. When LBJ found out about this, both he and Republican Senate Minority Leader Dirksen privately agreed that this was treasonous. Nixon then went on to campaign against the Johnson Administration's inertia in Vietnam, and promised the public that he (Nixon) had a "secret plan" to end the war quickly (which was a lie). In fact? c'mon you are better than this. this is a conspiracy theory. not as crazy as 9/11 truther stuff but definitely not a "fact." "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

for those not aware this is a reference to the October Surprise conspiracy theory. one of its firsts and vocal proponents was Lyndon LaRouche. its very believable. it was planned by the same people who orchestrated 9/11, faked the moon lading and help funjumper come up with those witty word plays like "Reich Wing", "Shrubco" and Rmoney." "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Better, but it is also the path to conspiracy theory. Why even speculate before a credible source can get to the scene and file a preliminary report? BTW, I'm not just blaming you. There are plenty of news sources who initially claimed it was absolutely shot down. Now they're backing off a little, but still, it's just silly without any confirmation whatsoever. Which is highly unlikely given that the crash site is in Ukraine. I'm going with the assumption it was shot down based on the initial claims of the separatists that they DID shoot it down. Unfortunately they probably thought it was something else. I'm with you. they were bragging about shooting down a plane then news broke Malaysian Air lost contact with a flight and suddenly the boasting stopped. I suppose there is a chance it just blew up AND the separatists misreported a victory. too much a coincidence for me. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

It was satire. It was published on "Funny or Die" not by "liberals," but by comedians. It has nothing to do with my "partisan views." My objection is these people and you not being able to see that. you are so wrong on this. they are mocking the Funny or Die people. they clearly state that. they name Sarah Silvermen specifically. its not even debatable. argue against the message but its clear what the message is. you are just plain wrong. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Your blanket indictment of "the people of the city" is highly presumptuous and probably quite unfair. Jersey City has a population of about 250,000. agreed, quite unfair. just a little color for those not familiar with the area. Jersey City is a large diverse city. The waterfront has offices that house Wall Street trading desks and ops dept employees. There are very expensive waterfront properties and tourism at Liberty State Park because of the Statue of Liberty. (Which is in NJ, fyi). i worked there when i was younger and its a very nice place to work and live. Up the hill is low and middle income areas with very diverse ethnic populations. I always giggle when i go by lots and see children playing cricket. not a normal sport for an American kid but normal for Jersey City. the killers widow is quoted as saying. " "Both families are hurt. Let this cop be laid to rest peacefully. Let Lawrence be put to rest peacefully. That's it," She has also said she does not wish to see her husbands, the killers, memorial put back up. I dont think the "people" sympathize with the killer more than the cop. i think they just miss him. as much as i might hate him, he is someone's husband, brother, son and friend. i understand that they miss him. i certainly do not but they do. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Self interest in the short term, or long term? Like investing choices, timeframe matters. In the short term, we and our allies benefit from all this spending. But in the longer term, they benefit while we're going broke. And it's not that "long" term anymore. So we're in the situation where either we need to stop doing it, or they need to chip in. you got me. i dont really know how we should compensate ourselves for doing what we feel is in our own self interests. i would say any amount was worth defeating the Axis powers in the 1940's. was Iraq worth anything? IMO, probably little at this point. sorry, i dont have a good answer to your question. i just think the tax idea is silly. we should make decisions based on what we think is best, weighing costs. i dont feel we need compensation from Allies. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

True. If that was the reason. And if he paints over and removes the cop memorial. And the private owner is free to get riid of whatever he/she wants. But that's not what happened. The mayor was brazen - he didn't want this out there in his town. The cop memorial can stay - he agrees with that exercise of speech. Not this one. Trust me - I understand the inflammation of passions. But the government taking sides is where I have a problem. i'm going to assume your legally right because your comments make sense and you have mnore knowledge on the subject than me. i am not as upset as you, though. the mayor is human. while i can admit he acted improperly, i feel it was in good faith to the community. i feel he painted over offensive graffiti and was not trying to stifle anyone's first amendment rights. i understand there is a broad academic exercise here but dont really think it was that big of a deal. i doubt my life will be any worse or better because of it. im confident by now his lawyers have sat him down and explained his error and going forward he will react more legally appropriate. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

To me, that's quite possibly the most powerful aspect of the US's First Amendment; for the popular opinion arguably less urgently needs protection of the rule of law. It's why, for example, the courts properly directed authorities to permit local Nazis to march through a mostly Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, IL back in the 70's. It's why Fred Phelps (burn in hell) and his fellow pigs were permitted to do what they did. In just about all other Western democracies such expression would be legally banned as disruptive of public order, etc. In the US, it's referred to as "constitutionally protected speech". I'm proud of that. What the city did was unconstitutional. ETA: weekender raises a fair point about graffiti. If it was on private property without the owner's permission, the owner had the right to take it down. If the owner made a formal complaint to the city, then maybe it would have been ok for the city to essentially act on the owner's behalf to protect the owner from physical harm. But absent that - if there was no request from the property owner - then the First Amendment would trump the graffiti issues, and the city's unilateral action would still, on balance, have been unconstitutional. it was on private property as the sign shows in the picture. i would like to assume the city contacted the owner and they gave permission to paint over it. that would make it less controversial. i reiterate my point though. it seems right to me that the mayor can paint over it if its graffiti. i dont see how that is protected. but that is how i "feel" and its not the same as being right. i know the difference and would like to hear from more scholarly people about the actual laws. also, i would have been fine with the cops spraying over it themselves off duty as THEIR expression of free speech. whats good for the goose... "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I think the ignorance of the First Amendment is more disgusting and far more threatening than the underlying message of appreciation of the thug life. It's quite simple: the government did not like the message so the government censored it. Regardless of my personal hatred of the ideals of the thug life, it was speech. And the First Amendment isn't there to protect the speech the goverment likes. It's there to protect the divisive and even the seditious. Am I alone in this? its ugly. the guy took a gun from a security guard and then told people to watch because he was going to be famous. he ambushed and killed a responding cop. so people are very upset in the area. i dont think your alone that people have the right to say what they want in the USA. but a mayor can apply common sense and apply valid laws with regards to graffiti. if his admirers put up a memorial legally the mayor cannot do anything. this was graffiti and he has a right to have it painted over. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i agree its our choice. i dont think anyone mentioned that we dont do it because we are altruistic. we do it because we believe its in the best interest of our nation. im not being critical, its a reasonable stance. so IMO the tax is silly. we felt it was in our best interest to invade Iraq. no matter of a tax, if you sit on a huge supply of oil and we feel its in our interest to protect it, we will. or historically we have. im not making claim that any of our wars are right or wrong. im stating the tax is silly since we should make a decision based on our own self interest. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

This has already been replied to, and replied to. It doesn't get better with repetition. you forced me to repeat it by saying i was rewriting history. my statement was accurate the first time and remains so in its repetition. as was my comment on a parable. as was my comment on him clearly stating conservatives are always wrong and progressives are always right. i even used a direct quote from him. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

He neither said nor implied that. He was simply one of several voices in here rebutting your revisionist history. im not the one rewriting history. Lincoln was a Republican and the Democrats in the south created Jim Crow laws. those are facts and i'm not the one implying they are not. in all the events described he claims conservatives were in the wrong and progressives were in the right. seems like a clear implication to me. lastly, two people responded. i would not consider that several. a couple would seem like a more accurate description. edit to add: he said this earlier "Nothing positive for US society has ever come about via the practical application of Conservative values." gee, if only i knew what he was saying or implying "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

it seems to me that you have decided that all ideas that are good are progressive and all that are bad are conservative. i find life a bit more nuanced than that. its just not that black and white to me. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Nonsense; that's a culturally-centered perspective. Just because JC (so legend says) used the format skillfully and often, doesn't mean he or his devotees either invented it or cornered the bulk of the market on it. it is not nonsense. its a common definition of parable right out of google and merriam websters. also, i said usually for a reason because most people would associate it with the Bible but not all. JC doesnt even exist in the old testament as i recall so i might not have even been thinking of him. anyway, you missed my point completely. which was that a parable is about a universal truth. i was pointing out that Lincoln and modern day Republicans policies and their similarities and differences are not a universal truth. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

thats not a parable nor disproves my factual statement. a parable is usually biblical and always illustrates a universal truth. that is more of an allegory or apologue and it doesnt change the facts of history. no matter how much you wish it too. The GOP freed the slaves and Jim Crow was a Democratic thing. the world is more complicated than conservative(Republican) bad, liberal(Democrate) good. That really is the only point i was trying to make. its childish to blame all problems on some boogie men. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Ya know, in case you're interested in making a factual point. rewriting my sentence with your personal opinion does not make my post nonfactual. ya know. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm not a conservative. I am just someone who paid attention in 6th grade history. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

The consistent, deliberate lying by Conservatives gets really old. There are many medical uses for birth control pills that have nothing to do with contraception. Two of my sisters have been on BC for years to control issues with their hormone cycles that produce serious behavior issues when they have their period. Depression, anger, uncontrollable rage, etc, is well managed by being on the pill. The treatment and the results are of great benefit to them, their husbands, and their children. Medical insurance pays for Cialis and Viagra. Why would it noy pay for BC? The hypocrisy of Conservatives never fails to amaze me. In theory, freedom from unwanted government intrusion into one's personal life, liberty, and personal responsibility are supposed to be bedrock values for Conservatives. Over and over again, Conservatives make 100% clear that these values apply only to white males of Northern European ancestry. Other races, and all women, are not subject to these values. Due to the practical application of Conservative philosophy, in some states, women are subject to severe government intrusion into their personal, private medical decisions. They are subject to mandatory, unnecessary medical procedures in the hopes of altering decisions that they have made. Nothing close to that level of intrusion is inflicted on men. Conservatives would never allow that. They would flip out completely. Nothing positive for US society has ever come about via the practical application of Conservative values. Women would not be able to vote, would not be able to own real estate in their own names, or have their own credit history. Slavery would never have been ended. The Jim Crow laws would still be in effect. Slavery and Jim Crow were the Democrats. In cause you are interested in making a factual point. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

its not always as simple as racism. sometimes its a coincidence they are of a different race. in NY i hear the same thing about immigrants from eastern europe. they bring crime and gangs and dont speak the language, blah blah blah. they happen to be very white people. so IMO its more about culture than race. they are coming from a very poor place and bring with them problems that a lot of very poor people have. they did leave their homeland for a reason and it not because its a better place than here. to me, it seems so lazy to just label people who have concerns about illegal immigrants as racist. as if, none of their concerns are legitimate and its all based on skin color. there are legitimate concerns and its not always directed at non whites. in this case they are not white europeans but ive heard the exact same said of Polish and Russians. its more about a clash of cultures than racism, imo. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante