Rov_Scam
5hr ago
As I said in another comment, if Nazis marching through the neighborhoods of Holocaust survivors and the Westboro Baptist Church harassing mourners during the funerals of soldiers is constitutionally protected, this certainly is.
Rov_Scam
5hr ago
The state legislature can pass all the laws they want, but their application is limited to the bounds of the Constitution. Impeding the path of law enforcement may rise to the level of obstruction depending on the specific circumstances, but blowing whistles and shouting insults are expressive activities that don't fall within any exception to the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has already addressed this directly, and since they've already ruled that Nazis marching through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors and members of the Westboro Baptist Church yelling insults during soldiers' funerals are protected speech, it's safe to say that people blowing whistles around ICE agents isn't going to cut it.
Rov_Scam
16hr ago
There's not a "positive" for which anti-ICE can be in the right. Furthermore, ICE is right X% of the time and wrong (1-X%) of the time, whereas anti-ICE is wrong 100% of the time.
That's simply a value judgment that doesn't get us anywhere. Being anti-ICE is only "wrong" when the activity in furtherance of that position breaks the law. You may not like the fact that people are protesting, recording their activity, or warning the community of their presence, but all of these things are both legal and constitutionally protected.
Rov_Scam
17hr ago
There's a degree of equivocation though. The worst thing the mobs you described did was mildly irritate people for periods lasting up to five minutes (if I'm being generous). The feect on one guy was that there was a parade of cars behind him honking, which happens to anyone who drives in rush hour on a daily basis. It's not nothing, but it isn't in the same league as being detained for a day or more. The acceptable false positive rate you're really looking for is the number of people who were accosted by ICE but weren't detained.
Rov_Scam
20hr ago
The fact that Jennifer Welch is a divorced divorce attorney probably puts her in the 99th percentile for hatred towards men.
I'm willing to give divorce attorneys a pass on pretty much anything. Back in April I was having a really bad day at work. I was appearing for a Zoom deposition and instead of doing it at a hotel Plaintiff's counsel thought it was a good idea for an old guy with limited technical ability to do it from his home without assistance. He lived in the middle of nowhere. And there had just been major storms in the area. The whole thing was delayed due to technical difficulties beginning about 15 minutes in, and every time we tried to continue with questioning some other issue would occur. After several hours of this the court reporter had a "technical expert" call in and try to walk the guy through some process. This woman had a high, whiny voice and talked to the guy like he was in kindergarten. I was about at the end of my rope, it was 1 pm, and the guy had answered about ten questions so far.
I went into the kitchen to get coffee and the wisened old of-counsel in my office asked me how I was doing. I told him that I probably died in a car wreck on the way to work and was actually in hell, and proceeded to tell him about my shitty morning. He said "Just look on the bright side: You could be practicing family law. And you'd have to carry a gun." That pretty much stopped me cold and I vowed that I wouldn't get too annoyed by minor professional inconveniences anymore.
I would add that I interned for a family law judge in law school, which judge handled child custody, and it's nothing I have any desire to get within a mile of.
Rov_Scam
20hr ago
From January to October of last year, only 170 US citizens were detained by ICE as reported by ProPublica. Of those 170, many were arrested for interfering with ICE operations. Compare this with 234,211 removals (I don't have data on arrests or detentions, but I can assume the number of arrests/detentions is greater than removals. The "US Citizen arrest rate" is at most 0.07% of the ICE arrestees, probably much smaller due to fact that there are more detentions than removals.
It's interesting that you preceded this little tidbit with examples of four non-ICE being accused of ICE. How many people accused of being ICE actually were ICE? If you're implying that a certain false positive rate is acceptable, at least show that the behavior you're complaining about is above that rate.
Rov_Scam
20hr ago
if anything I might expect group 3 to be more free with their money, justifying a higher fee
This is not true. The reason credit card companies aggressively market Group 4 cards, and are able to charge higher fees for them, is because Group4 cardholders generally have more money than Group 3 cardholders, and since interest isn't a factor, they charge a much higher percentage of their purchases. They are the most valuable customers which is why credit card companies aggressively market rewards programs. Merchants tolerate the higher fees because the people with those cards spend more money. When you tell them that they have to pay the same fees for low-value customers, it doesn't make sense, especially since the banks are already getting paid for the processing costs through interest payments. The only reason they charge fees at all on these is to offset the cost of offering lower interest rates than on other cards.
Rov_Scam
1d ago
Tagging @Opt-out and @magicalkittycat to continue their inclusion in the discussion.
You got it half right. I practiced bankruptcy law for a couple years, and I've seen the credit card industry a little closer-up than I would have liked. The first thing that should be noted is that all credit cards charge interchange fees ranging from around 1%–3% to cover the cost of processing the transaction. From there we can put cards into four rough categories:
-
Secured Cards: These are the lowest level, and aren't advertised. I dealt with them a lot, though, because they exist more or less to help people who just filed for bankruptcy build credit. The way they work is the borrower puts a small amount of money down (I usually recommended around $500) that acts as their credit limit and collateral for the "loan". Then they use it like any other card, except I usually recommended they only charge a small amount on it each month and just pay it off to build a consistent payment history. There are still interest rates and late fees, but I honestly never looked at them because they aren't designed for people who are going to be paying interest.
-
Cards for People with Terrible Credit: These are just what they sound like. They have no rewards and the highest interest rates, and are only given people with the worst credit scores. People with recent bankruptcy discharges would often get applications for these in the mail; I would tell them to put them in the garbage and go the secured route. These were people trying to reset their financial lives, and the last thing they needed was access to easy cash whenever things got tough. With secured cards the loss is limited to the amount of the deposit, while with these things can quickly spiral out of control. I gave this advice even to responsible bankrupts who filed due to e.g. medical debt or because of an atypical rough patch (divorce, unemployment, disability) where they were forced to rely on credit cards; these people didn't need my lecturing and were quite different than people who just overspent. Most of the overspenders, though, were so chastened by the experience that they never wanted to look at a credit card again, and I had to talk them into the safety of the secured route since it was worth it for them to build their credit if they wanted to get a car loan or mortgage in the future.
-
Credit Cards for People Who Use Them For Credit: These last two categories are available to anyone with a halfway decent credit score, but they're targeted at people who pay interest. It's really easy to target this market—advertise low rates. No one would be enticed by a low interest rate if they didn't have any intention of paying interest. These predictably have the lowest interchange fees, since the banks are making money from the interest payments. They don't offer any rewards, because the reward is the lower monthly payment. They're marketed through their interest rates, credit limits, and introductory 0% periods.
-
Reward Cards: These cards are specifically marketed towards people who don't run balances. After people realized that getting a credit card and paying the balance off every month was a convenient way to build credit and not deal with the inconvenience of cash, banks realized that that they were ignoring an important market segment. The ubiquity of credit card use allowed the companies to charge higher interchange fees, and since the fees were accounting for a share of revenue on par with interest payments, it made sense to try to attract these no-balance customers through reward enticements, which are paid for out of the fees. The interest rates are relatively high because the people who apply for these cards aren't concerned about the rate, and if they end up paying it it's just a bonus for the issuer.
The point I'm trying to make here is that outside of the absolute bottom of the market, credit worthiness doesn't really play into how these cards make their money, because the cards' users are differentiated by what marketing segment they belong to. There's nobody out there who would qualify for a low-interest card that wouldn't qualify for a rewards card, or vice-versa. The reason the interest rates are so high on credit cards (the lowest I've seen a client have was around 15%) is because of the ease of use. I may be able to get a better rate from a bank, but I have to go to the branch and submit paperwork and wait and then get a fixed amount of money with fixed repayment terms. With a credit card I get a limit and I can borrow money pretty much on the spot. Regardless of credit worthiness, this is an inherently riskier form of lending.
Rov_Scam
1d ago
Tagging @WhiningCoil since this is an appropriate response to his comment as well.
This is what I call "Smartest Motherfucker in the Room" syndrome. I think law school does this to a lot of smart people because they spend three years arguing edge cases with professors who do nothing but theorize in edge cases and when they get into the field they realize that edge cases are rare and that most cases are fairly routine. Compounding this is that most of the work is looking through documents and doing a lot of writing. I think the drive is that these people are constantly looking for opportunities to prove to the bosses how smart they are, while the bosses are looking for people to, you know, get the work done. They constantly bitch about how tedious the work is and are always planning an exit strategy, thinking that if only they worked for a firm with better management or a in different practice area that was more exciting they'd be happier. I give them that name because they seem to forget that they were hired to do actual work, not to be the smartest motherfucker in the room.
On the other end of the spectrum are the people who don't necessarily hate their jobs, and maybe even like their jobs, but have them down to such a routine that they don't want to do anything to rock the boat. These people tend to be reluctant to ask the bosses for advice or bring up their ideas to them. They are significantly less annoying and last a lot longer than the smartest motherfuckers in the room, but they tend to get pissed when they are passed over for promotions by people whom they perceive as lower on the totem pole, usually by virtue of how long they've been with the company.
They're basically two sides of the same coin: The gifted kid who gets As without studying on the one hand, and the overachiever whose grade is a one to one reflection of the work put into it on the other. The gifted kid balks when he finds out that homework is a big part of the grade, not based on its quality but on the fact that it was done, and the overachiever balks when he finds out that 8 hours of consistent studying might not result in an A. The most successful attorneys I know are the ones who embrace the drudgery, not because it's a necessary evil but because it's part of the job, and nonetheless aren't afraid to be the smartest motherfucker in the room if the situation presents itself.
Rov_Scam
2d ago
Combover flapping in the breeze works just as well. In all seriousness, losing my hair was a blessing in disguise. Once you realize you can pull off the buzz cut look all the needless attention you've paid to your hair in the past will seem pointless. No more haircuts when you can spend five minutes doing it yourself for free with a pair of trimmers every week or two. No looking like you need a haircut. No looking like you just got a haircut. No more combing your hair. No more combing your hair and having it undone by a stiff breeze. No more hat hair. You can be out on the trail for a week and still look put-together. And perhaps most importantly, no more looking at your hairline in the mirror wondering how much time you have left. I now understand why some guys with perfectly good heads of hair elect for the #1 buzz.
Rov_Scam
2d ago
I think the best period is when you've accepted the position and are waiting a few weeks for your start date, assuming you have enough money that you aren't desperately waiting for that first paycheck. It combines the joy of not working with the security of not wondering how you're going to pay the bills. And it's better than a vacation because it's usually longer and you're actually excited about going back to work rather than dreading it. It's also a situation I hope to never be in again.
Rov_Scam
2d ago
Haha, I have a friend who I found out had a boat when he was younger. I knew him for years before another friend (who had known him since college) mentioned this in our presence. When I said something like "I didn't know you used to have a boat", his response was "It's a part of my life I don't like to talk about".
Rov_Scam
2d ago
If you really want to complete the look, and are bald, you should get a toupee to go along with the car and attach it insecurely enough that it moves around/has visible seams/blows off when driving with the top down. You also shouldn't drive the car faster than 40 mph under any circumstances.
Rov_Scam
2d ago
I go one better and try to take a DLSR and tripod with me if it's feasible, and even if I'm stuck using my phone I try to at least take a good picture and not just snap away. With the DSLR, especially, I find that it actually enhances the experience because when you're trying to take a good photo, i.e. something that you might want to get a print of and frame for the wall of your office or living room, you spend a lot more time looking than you otherwise might. If you're at an overlook a small building you wouldn't have otherwise noticed may either become a distraction that needs to be kept out of the shot or the focal point of the whole composition, depending on the situation. Lines, topography, geometric shapes, framing, color, points of interest, etc. And then I get to go into Photoshop and coax the image that I saw out of the raw data dump, and try to capture its emotional impact.
The end result of this process is that I might get 2 or 3 images that are frame-worthy, if I'm lucky, as well a as a few that just don't work at all. The upshot is that a standard vacation album still ends up being a lot better than the one from the guy with the phone who just snaps everything he sees without thought, allows the JPEG algorithm in the phone to make all the processing decisions, and ends up with a whole bunch of pictures that all look the same.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
Now that Tomlin has gone the current fringe rumor is that he stepped down to avoid a media circus cause by him impregnating a 30-year-old white bartender. You can tell it's obvious bullshit because there's a discrepancy; sometimes the bar is on the North Side, and sometimes she's from New Castle. It's not clear if he had to step down because she was about to start showing, or if the baby was born in December. The biggest tell is that the rumor first surfaced back in July, then again after the loss to the Bills, and is resurfacing again now that he's stepped down. For some reason these rumors only circulate when the team is losing, as if the coach is incapable of infidelity when the team is winning.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
I don't think rented mobs and planted newspaper articles would have prevented the Islamic Revolution. People seem to forget that the Shah still controlled the police and military in 1953, and the issue was that he didn't feel like he had the popular support to use them to take out Mossadeh. In 1979 he was deposed despite having that power tenfold and not being afraid to use it. Propaganda making the Ayatollah look bad wasn't going to stop that tidal wave.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
How many protestors do you thin there are? I can't find good estimates on numbers, other than "millions" on the high end. So let's assume for the sake of argument that somewhere between 5 and 6 million people have been involved in the protests in some fashion. That's about the equivalent of the number of protestors who turned out for the George Floyd protests, proportionally speaking. The Floyd protests were different in that they weren't calling for the government to be deposed, but other than that they were similarly based on generalized grievances and weren't organized and coordinated on a nation-wide level. If the Floyd protestors had called for a new government, do you think that airstrikes by a capable nation would have made that happen without invasion? If protestors are getting shot at in Washington DC I don't know that bombing the Navy Yard is going to do much to help them. And that's one of the few places where there's a major military base in a large city; here in Pittsburgh the closest you'd get is the 911th Air Refueling Wing, the bombing of which would be beyond useless. And it's not like you can take out military positions, either, because those enforcing the current regime's laws are out amoung the populace, not concentrated on battle lines. My point is that bombing is a good way to take out strategic military targets, but you're suggesting that it can be used to essentially take out law enforcement, which I've never seen happen.
Rov_Scam
6d ago
There are protests, not a mass uprising in the sense that there is a rival faction ready to take power. The situation in 2011 was markedly better than the current situation in Iran, as large parts of the country were already under rebel control, and foreign countries, the US included, had already recognized a different government. That's the only instance I can think of where we did "regime change by bombing only", and I haven't heard too many people describe that campaign as something we should try to replicate.
Rov_Scam
6d ago
Bombing and regime change aren't the same thing. They could have bombed Iran into a parking lot but it would have done nothing to change who was in power unless they were able to actually occupy Tehran and take control of government. That's a tall order considering the size and remoteness of the country and Tehran's location within it. Not that it couldn't be done, or even be done easily, it just wouldn't be same quick in and out operation and would almost certainly involve taking significant casualties.
Rov_Scam
8d ago
This kind of theorizing is based on nothing more than conjecture, though. First, you're describing a single incident of the three. Second, if it had happened in Austin we would have talked about how the woman exhibited a typical Texan brashness in a city that's known for being a liberal enclave in a stereotypically conservative state.
Rov_Scam
8d ago
My whole life I had problems with cold hands until about a dozen years ago when I switched to mittens. After that it's been a complete non-issue, even when skiing in -10 F. For boots, just make sure they're reasonably waterproof and not too tight. There's a temptation to load up on socks for extra insulation but this just makes matters worse; the lack of circulation is what kills you. In ski boots I don't really have that option so I just have to live with cold toes and the pain of the circulation returning when I take them off, but getting more comfortable ones would cost money and performance, so I just use boot warmers and deal with the tradeoff. To illustrate how big of a deal having extra space is, last year I went skiing and after several hours outside my feet were freezing. We were tailgating in the parking lot at the end of the day and I changed in to the tennis shoes I drove up in, thin mesh ones that I was sure in the ~20 F weather would let the wind in and make my feet even colder. But once I was moving around in them my feet actually warmed up significantly, at least after the pain of the blood returning had subsided. Now, I'm sure that if I had been out there longer than an hour or so they would have gotten cold, so insulation is still important, but don't make the mistake of loading up on insulation at the expense of breathing room. I'd prioritize the latter over the former if you have to make a choice. Also, modern toe warmers last about 6 hours and aren't expensive.
Rov_Scam
8d ago
I think people below are reading too much into this. It's just a coincidence. If the same thing happened in any other city there would be similar explanations.
Your scenario is a bit vague so I'll dress it up for you: If Alice feels strongly about the wrongness of the murderer's conviction and subsequent incarceration and she decides to engage in a boisterous on-woman protest on a street corner during which she yells words of encouragement for the fugitive and expresses hope that he will escape justice, then yes, she would be engaging in constitutionally-protected speech. As repugnant as one may find her views, opinions about the appropriateness of criminal convictions are a fairly common subject of public protest, and the fact that the police may find them distracting doesn't exempt them from constitutional protection. And even then, this case would still be somewhat stronger than what's going on with ICE, where the protestors don't even know the identities of the people ICE are looking for, or indeed if they're even looking for anyone (Renee Good was shot while ICE was returning to headquarters). They're just generalized warnings about law enforcement presence, and are as illegal as flashing your brights to warn a fellow motorist about a speed trap.
More options
Context Copy link