We share good ideas and conversation here.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
yellowoftops's profile

following: 10
followed tags: 43
followed domains: 1
badges given: 7 of 7
member for: 1438 days
style: clean

comments 58

I dug that article, man. He's been a dick every time I've ever met him, but I really like that he appreciated the music. Even if he did do the Chuck Berry thing, and take credit for almost all of it.

I saw Electric Six at his club (Blueberry Hill) on Sunday. They did play You Never Can Tell which was really cool. I, myself, was hammered and it was a ton of fun.

I use reddit daily. Love it. Way more content than Hubski. But I also don't have pretty much anything that's a part of r/all or the defaults. I don't go there for news, politics, etc. Because it's garbage for that.

But I do go there for this. I go there for r/Drugs, r/RedditLaqueristas, r/Tinder, r/Woodworking, r/Mustang, r/WhatIsThisPlant, r/BirdsWithArms, and r/NatureIsFuckingLit. Because the internet is fun time for me, and Reddit at its heart for me is just a forum site that is super effective at getting me the information that I need for hobbies and stuff. And memes.

Hubski is more thought time for me, which is why I don't always make time for it. My mind gets space taken up by other things, and so I do those things. Memes require a hell of a lot less brain power and commitment to take a look at.

So a profile for Reddit doesn't really mean anything to me. Your profile was already your comment history anyway, and very few people are going to be stupid enough to link a photo, and their name to their reddit profile (Ken Bone, ha!). It's the reason google+ failed (among other reasons), why would Reddit be any different. Although I hope my girlfriend makes one so I can creep on her shit.

Republicans broadly want less restriction on banking and healthcare (barely, Jesus what the fuck is that ACA replacement? It's like Obama wrote it with his left hand), but greater regulation on marriage, gender issues, abortion, etc.

Dems want greater firearms regulation, financial regulation etc.

Neither of those is an anti-regulation stance.

None of the current parties are functionally anti regulation anymore.

Sure perfect regulation may be possible, but I'm saying it's hard to come by to a great enough extent that I'm not optimistic about it. And when things do get screwed up, when the government has less authority over whatever it is that it's getting screwed up, it impacts fewer people negatively.

An example off the top of my head is Tom Wheeler. He shocked everyone by not doing a terrible job as head of the FCC. And what that really looked like was him saying that he wouldn't allow telecoms to operate directly in opposition to their customers. But now his replacement comes in and is going to totally screw up net neutrality to everyone's detriment (minus the cronies). But he can only do this because we had to regulate right of way to make utilities possible.

So we have this excellent legislation with right of ways that makes telephone networks possible, but also is a huge threat to the internet. And it wouldn't be a big deal if we could trust the people in charge, but we obviously can't because they seem to be 90 percent plus in the pocket of whatever industry wants to buy them.

I'm not saying sensible legislation and regulation isn't a good idea, but I would say it's less common than you'd expect. And there are always unforeseen risks that will have to be dealt with later. The one that's blowing my mind now is that young people are bitching about not being able to buy a house, but then scream idiot at adjusting the laws which prevent banks from lending to them more easily.

Yeah. One of the concepts I had trouble with in the title comparison is that I can't choose to create clean drinking water from scratch because I don't have the technical know-how (or maybe I could, but I also have the benefit of years and years of education). But just about everyone here knows that getting hooked on Oxy is possible and dangerous enough that it's hard for me to feel as if a life with clean and easily available drinking water is equivalently as treacherous as a life without easy access to OxyContin.

    Peter Thiel apparently has argued for that too. But [the Nobel laureate in economics] George Stigler argued a long time ago that one of the worst things about regulation is that it gets captured by the people who are being regulated. My guess is that the FDA is acting pretty much in the interests of the pharmaceutical companies, not the other way around. Or at least that this is an equilibrium that they’re very happy about.

Love this. Agree with it a lot. Who eventually finds themselves in charge of the regulators? The people with the most expertise in how the regulation works, the people who matter within that system, and the companies who are largely regulated. That's going to consistently breed a new generation of former lobbyists, then regulators, who return to lobbying post-government 'service' now with even better connections and a bit of power.

It's one of the major arguments for Libertarianism. I acknowledge that it is entirely possible for the government to do good, but find the risk that they will be inefficient and self-serving in the long-term too great to make that decision. Unfortunately this allows us to be demonized for 'not wanting to help the poor or less fortunate.' Not true. I do want to help them, and think that the federal government has a role in that which involves much less control of money and programs.

    This sort of absolute lack of a reason to exist is the hallmark of Frank Bruni columns.

Ouch. That's a burn of epic proportions.

I just realized that I didn't type constellation program in the post above. I just typed it. That's my bad.

But then I was reading up on it anyway. Consteallation was the program Bush announced to get back to the moon by 2020 with the end-goal of a manned mission to Mars somehow based on the lessons learned from that program. Obama did in fact cancel that program on the recommendation of the Augustine commission. But they recommended it because he delayed funding for the program for five years to fund education, during which time the project became impossible to complete.

It implies that Obama cancelled the program. Is that true or was it more or less the sequester that did it?

Oh I'm sure there's no need to worry. These kind of tools are never used against us, the proper and upstanding citizenry. Now if you've got something to hide, just speak clearly into the phone mike and the CIA can catalog it for you so that you can avoid any unpleasantness in the future. We're only trying to help.

This was extremely short sighted of him. Think about it. He literally said "Great again!" So if we have lower than expected job numbers next month, he has reduced us to un-great status by comparison.

I have a feeling we're in for years and years of 'minor setbacks.'

posts and shares 14/20