Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The teocracy of Canceri: Nation of the damned file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The teocracy of Canceri: Nation of the damned book. Happy reading The teocracy of Canceri: Nation of the damned Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The teocracy of Canceri: Nation of the damned at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The teocracy of Canceri: Nation of the damned Pocket Guide.

I know other Madisonians readers of of the Federalist Papers don't. RE: Huey P. I must be a crazy kind of libertarian, if I can even without abuse of language continue to apply the label to myself, because part of the above makes sense to me. While I favor dramatically less overall government taxing and spending, I think taxes on gifts and inheritances should be increased and extended to more estates, so that income taxes can be decreased.

A certain amount of tax money has to be collected to run the government, so why not tax the receipts of those who did nothing to earn the money before taxing the income of those who worked for it? Of course, this would create a huge incentive for folks to spend their every dime before they died rather than saving for posterity, and who knows what unforeseen consequences this would have on the economy?

Moreover, federalists and libertarians emphasize separation of powers because of the threat that concentrated power poses to liberty. The same concern about concentrated political power would also seem to apply analogously to vast concentrations of inherited financial power and wealth. Well some guy earlier in the comments assumed I was sincere when I asked what the hell the big deal is about religion and why the religious are so serious and morose. The question posed is obviously bait; that someone took it seems only to prove my point.

I will never understand the Brownback's of the world. I'm too busy having fun. Would rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, etc. We need a break" Not to mention a break from those pernicious secular Jews! It's sort of alarming that the Althouse comments section's biggest opponent of "secular Jews" also calls a profoundly disabled human being a "rutabaga" and argues for the ability of the federal government to do whatever it needs in the service of progress and the Fatherland's I'd say I agree with you about disliking Brownback's statements, but I'd rather agree with someone less, well, frightening.

So in that case I'll agree with Elizabeth. I'm also sick to death of these people. John Kindley: "I think taxes on gifts and inheritances should be increased and extended to more estates, so that income taxes can be decreased. The solution to the problem, that a "certain amount of tax money has to be collected to run the government" should not be finding ways to rob more money from citizens, it should be to figure out how to run the government for less. I agree with Pogo, one of the primary duties of a government is to enforce property rights.

Attempts to tie this to slavery are simply misdirection. This is about modern property rights. Brownback managed to make himself instantly less appealing than any other candidate who's so far declared. May he and his followers exit the race as precipitously as they entered it. Have you ever wondered why that is? Have you ever had the feeling, deep down, that you should try to emulate them? Look inside yourself, hd.

Listen to your conscience. I know it must be a faint and resigned little voice that is very hard to hear, but if you be quiet and listen, you might just hear it saying: "You're not doing yourself, or your ideas, any service by writing like a slobbering moron! Redeem thyself!

Dave wrote: "Well some guy earlier in the comments assumed I was sincere when I asked what the hell the big deal is about religion and why the religious are so serious and morose. Are you mocking me because I took the time to read your post, think about it, then respond? Well, mock away pal! I thought you were a legitimate poster. My bad. Won't happen again. All that would result in is people blowing all of their savings instead of leaving it to their kids. It wouldn't help the needy at all.

Follow by Email

I'd rather leave my money to my nieces and nephews or kids, should I one day have some then spend it all on myself. But if I'm not allowed to do that, you can bet your sweet as that I'm going to spend every red cent I can manage on yours truly, and do the best I can to die a pauper. That's a fact of human psychology that that sort of braindead populism misses: most people work to build things for their children and grandchildren.

Make it impossible for them to do that -- by confiscating their life's work to feed the children of some worthless welfare mother -- and they'll stop doing it. Why bother building something when the people you care about will be forbidden from enjoying it when you're gone? The only Republicans that will even be left to vote in the primaries will be the religious nuts. Everyone else will be a Democrat by then.

I think Brownback has an excellent shot. DTL hasn't been paying attention to the recent utterances of certain Republican senators, e. Brownback's odds of being nominated, much less elected, are about the same as those of John Kerry. Re: 'Brownback's odds of being nominated, much less elected, are about the same as those of John Kerry. I don't think God appreciates the sort of folks who report aloud that the Almighty has been conferencing with them and yes a run is advised.

It speaks poorly of God's network; His people really ought to get in touch with Backbrown's people and, you know, clear a few things up. DTL mistakenly assumes that the number of Republicans is equal to the number of those who express support for Bush. Or John McCain, for that matter, who has been sharply critical of Bush since the primary season. But a lot of right-wingers abandoned Bush over his support of illegal immigrants, his ineffective prosecution of the war on terror, and his embrace of welfare programs like the drug entitlement.

They're obviously not going to get those things from a Democrat. That's irrelevant tjl. I don't know one person who supports Bush who plans on voting for the Republican - unless the nominee were Giuliani. I'm sure there are a few, but there aren't many. Check out the polls of the number of people who consider themselves Republican vs. The Republican numbers of plummeting. I used to be a Republican. Bush drove me from the party. You won't catch me voting for another one of those hateful bigots in my lifetime. You tjl - are still drinking the Kool-aid. Let's face it. Brownback has a great chance, because all of the other Republicans are untouchable.

McCain - hated by the right. Giuliani - likes gays. Who's left? Give me a break. Well he's a clone of Brownback so who cares? Besides Romney is a Mormon - and that makes him a certified lunatic. In the past few years, an increasing number of articles and stories about tax reform have appeared in the media and the internet.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the current US tax code has become a problem that we must address and solve. Filing simplified tax returns on a postcard is appealing and has some popularity. However, history shows us that a flat tax doesn't offer a permanent or satisfactory solution to our tax code problems. The income tax started out as a single rate flat tax. Under the control of government and isolated from the People, it gradually grew into an oversized, complex mess, with numerous loopholes, multiple brackets and high rates. In , the tax code was overhauled, simplified and reduced down to two brackets.

Many deductions and loopholes were eliminated. Today, we are up to six brackets, and most of the loopholes are back. This demonstrates twice over that a flat tax simply won't stay flat due to the precedents that have been set. The flat tax leaves the current tax code in place and sets the stage for another return to the system as it is now; Congress with its power of legislation, and We the People with little input or control. Lobbyists have more access to congressmen than we do, and will continue to use their influence to procure tax breaks for special interests.

Finally, a flat tax is still income tax; a direct tax contrary to the founders' vision as set forth in the Constitution. The income tax was made possible only after self-serving politicians did an end run around the Constitution and the People in and took powers for themselves that the Constitution denied them.

It already has 35 co-sponsors. Popular support for the FairTax is strong and growing; flat tax support has all but vanished. Two very successful FairTax rallies have taken place; no flat tax rallies have been held or planned. Income tax in any form, flat or graduated, is unacceptable. It's time to scrap all income-based taxes once and for all and replace them with a single one-time retail tax, one that we control.

At the same time, we need to repeal the 16th amendment so that income taxes will remain a memory. Once enacted, the FairTax will shut down the income tax code and replace it with the consumption tax. Companion legislation, to be introduced to Congress soon, will start the process toward a constitutional amendment that will repeal the 16th amendment. The flat tax was a good idea in its time, but that time has come and gone. Let's give the FairTax a chance. I do think control over one's body is a right. But I don't make then proceed to err by conflating autonomy with ownership.

To avoid high brackets people would work less. Re: "I do think control over one's body is a right. How can one engage in true self-government or self-determination if one is not in fact in charge of oneself? By what tortured definition does one gain autonomy without ownership?. If you own a car and I drive it away from the parking lot, I am stealing, not practicing autonomy. Autonomy presumes self-ownership. It makes no sense to suggest otherwise. Pray tell, how do you have a right to yourself, your bodily integrity, to be free of violence and coercion, if you do not somehow own yourself?

The child's cry It's mine tells us how basic this concept is. Confiscatory taxes also make people move with their feet. This explains the flight of the rich from England, either physically, or via monetary shell games. This is an old, old lesson that governments simply refuse to learn. The best evidence that taxes are too high is the prevasiveness of methods of tax avoidance and evasion. No, it has not always been thus, not in the US. Dude, most of us conservatives do not think about people's sexual orientation. It is irrelevent to us.

Liberals are fascinated with people's orientation and race, not us. We are more practical than that. Many of us oppose gay marriage, but that is different from getting out the pink triangles and lining people up for the "showers. Just cause you guys are focused on orientation and race does not mean we are. Perhaps The Jerk has his eyes on abortion when he says people don't own their bodies. If a woman has autonomy over her body but she doesn't "own" it, then if she gets pregnant the state can come in and say, "Sorry, no more autnonomy until the baby is out. You don't own your uterus, the state does, and if you get pregnant, the state owns it for nine months, and since you're attached to it, we own you.

After the birth, you have autonomous control of your body again. Also, conscription into the armed forces. I'm sure there are more examples. The Jerk, that is just my extrapolation of where you were going with that argument, I apologize if I'm wrong. The reason this kind of hyper-religious language irks a lot of people is not that they we really fear that the country is heading towards some kind of theocracy or that government policies would be changed radically to reflect the president's religious views.

Its that this rhetorical style is very exclusionary. It is easily embraced by people who share the candidate's brand of faith, but it signals to others me that our input isn't informing his or her decisionmaking on behalf of all of us. One can argue that more secular rhetoric alienates the religious voters, but I think that's a harder case to make. I'm not quite sure how this post ended up with comments so focused on tax issues, but I wanted to comment on that too: Palladian: As much as I, having been born a lower class kid, am inclined to dislike the inheritance rich, I still have to trust my rational mind here: it is none of the government's business or it shouldn't be where or how a private citizen acquired their legal fortune, or whether they "deserve" their inheritance and it should not be in the government's power to take that inheritance away.

I think this kind of misses the point. Of course, the government should be run efficiently and use as little tax money as possible. But what sources of income are taxed and how efficiently the government should be run are separate issues. The argument in favor of estate tax is not really about whether trust fund kids "deserve" their wealth. Its about efficiency. What wealth can the government tax while causing the least distortion to ordinary market incentives?

Taxing earned income creates a disincentive to work, to employ others, to be productive as the market would define productivity. Taxing accumulated wealth creates an incentive to spend the wealth you have while you're alive or donate it to tax deductible charitable causes if you don't want it to fund the government. Joseph H wrote: "One can argue that more secular rhetoric alienates the religious voters, but I think that's a harder case to make.

The secular rhetoric that worries me is the rehtoric that positions me a Conservative Christian as a threat to America. Ownership is a shorthand for a set of rights that includes control, but control does not always and everywhere imply ownership. Ownership usually includes the right of alienation and the right to destroy what is owned. One's control over one's body does not typically include those rights. That is why the control one has over one's body is not really akin to ownership. Me's post contains other examples where the right of control over one's body differs from the rights traditionally associated with the concept of ownership.

Revenant: "most people work to build things for their children and grandchildren. In contrast to the ideas of Bill Gates Sr. Admittedly, by doing that you are ultimately not taxing every person in direct proportion to their lifetime earnings, but I think there is something to the arguments typical of those who favor progressive taxation that the rich benefit more from the stability and status quo of the economic infrastructure protected by government than do the poor, and therefore should pay more for it. Philosophically, there is no basis for asserting that that higher amount should be based simply on taxing the income of everyone, rich and poor alike, based on the exact same percentage.

I think I recall one them pointing out that a lot of challenges came from Facebook trying to be everything for everybody. Moderating content so people don't get pictures of Boston Marathon gore next to their grandkids' photos is problem they made for themselves. There is a lot of hypocrisy going on, but this doesn't mean there is no right answer or that the right answer is to invite government fucking censors to control everything. There are pretty obvious things platforms can do: 1.

Instead of opaque algorithms, give people control over what they see. Either do bare legal minimum of moderation or create clear, exhaustive, stable and unambiguous rules for which content is and is not allowed on the platform. Once the rules are set, take a stand and abide by them in all cases.

SkyBelow 5 months ago. Because there is far more freedom to reject a corporation than the government the NGO would depend upon how it interacts with the government. NGOs and governments are susceptible to bias, and while they may be less susceptible than a private corporation, they have far stronger enforcement of what ever bias they do have once again assuming the NGOs are somehow working with government, if not then this only applies to government.

Take for example someone determining what is allowed to be printed in a book. Let's go back about two or three decades, so during the timeframe when most of us were alive even if not at all aware of politics, when social norms and even laws enforced views that we would find objectionable today. Now, consider two possibilities. One, corporations decides what isn't allowed and thus chooses to ban any pro-LGBT content. Two, government decides what isn't allowed and thus chooses to ban any pro-LGBT content.

Which is better? In my mind, the corporate ban is far better because it is much easier for other smaller corporations to be started that will publish pro-LGBT content. As social norms change, corporate enforcement of morals give rise to more freedom. Perhaps an even better example that is still relevant today instead of a few decades ago: according to the federal government marijuana has no medical benefits. I'd rather lawmakers not be making any more laws that further restrict my freedoms.

And I think there's a reason why it's the First - if the government controls the speech, then it controls election of the next government, and so on - so it pretty much ends the democracy or at least severely limits it. NGOs can already arbitrate anything they want - as long as it is voluntary to listen to them. There are many NGOs that already issue their opinions about speech. As long as it is not mandatory - it's fine and already exists. As soon as it starts to be mandatory - see above. Corporations already exercise judgement and always had.

But so far there was freedom for every corporation to exercise whatever judgement they have, either good or astonishingly bad as in case of Facebook and for the users to choose if they want to deal with this corporation or another one. Introduction of the government in the equation kills it. In the US, one of the basics of limitations put by the people on the government is that government, outside of the very narrow task of preventing imminent crime, does not get to say what is or isn't allowed to be said. I don't doubt regulation would help Facebook in some respects, but in usual Bloomberg fashion this article is also stretching some things a bit.

I agree with this. Having a private corporation that's invested in engagement, which is also headquartered in the US very far geographically and culturally from some of the places it moderates be in charge of defining what's right and what's wrong, is and has been a recipe for disaster— let alone the implications it could have around the sovereignty of nations. Excuse me, what? Isn't this the government's job though? Isn't this why we have laws? I don't think anyone is vouching for "big brother" type government control here, but governments always have a principal role in civil rights, inclusion and the moral development of a nation.

It's part of their job, and the reason people care to have leaders with strong moral compasses as public servants. Has this view of government been lost in the US? I'm there's things that should clearly be blocked or allowed. But the gray areas are what's being discussed here, and honestly I don't think that should be Facebook's job or any private, American, for-profit corporation for that matter.

It has never been the US government's job to decide which speech is 'harmful' and should be silenced. The First Amendment prevents that. Of course, some things like slander are illegal, but that's nothing like the 'harmful speech' Facebook is talking about. It is entirely the US government's job to decide which speech is harmful: it just takes the view that most speech isn't harmful, and should be allowed. The First Amendment is part of the US government's decision on speech: its view is that most speech is more good than bad, and thus is protected.

When it does decide that certain speech, like libel, is harmful, it bans it. It even can ban speech in specific contexts! For example, in Brandenburg v. Ohio the court upheld that speech "which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action" could be banned. So, saying an inflammatory thing privately to your friend, for example, could be fine, but boosting that post to millions of people could be viewed as "likely to incite imminent lawless action" such as a riot.

Here are the rules for what you're allowed to do. You're acting like it's the opposite. This is also why the gov't can't just rewrite the 1st amendment willy nilly— all of the US government's legitimacy with the American people comes from respecting the Bill of Rights. Stop respecting those rights and a rebellion is right around the corner.

Historically, the States had to approve the Bill of Rights and the rest of the new Constitution in order for it to come into effect. All of the power resided in the States. Interestingly, the "Federalists" that re- wrote the Constitution were mostly opposed to the Bill of Rights —that's the contribution made by the anti- Federalists to the US Gov't as it exists today.

Isn't it funny how most citizens treasure the Bill of Rights more than anything else in the Constitution? That makes it pretty clear which "side" had the well-being of the people in mind. Same with fraud. Both of these are cases of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Not in many non-USA countries. Just damage and negligence is enough in many other English speaking countries [1].

It also depends if it's a tort or criminal. I think there's a bit of a disconnect when it comes to "harmful" speech, and "illegal". The US government isn't going to decide what is "harmful" at least not for long as a legal challenge would quickly do away with any such rules. In the end the platforms have to decide for themselves and police themselves unless they want to be 4chan or whatever the next "post anything" kinda place is now a days. Right or wrong they're the only folks who can do it. The only problem I see here is Facebook is offloading the 'hard problem' of algorithmically dealing with such massive data that requires top-notch machine learning algorithms to be able to detect sentiment at 'Facebook level Scale' to a massively more technically inept party.

Look up how much money it cost to do the ObamaCare website, then tell the same party to develop an algorithm that Facebook, one of the biggest technology company's in the world, is having a hard time solving. This problem is only going to get harder and harder as the amount of data created is rising. If Facebook decides it, it's a threat to sovereignity of countries other then the US, but if the USG decides it, it isn't?

Lol, what does this even mean? You want a Theocracy with Zuck writing the scripture? Are your views tainted in any way by Facebook Incorporated? The government and their role in defining "harmful" has been defined already. It's called the First Amendment. Might want to check it out. Each person's, hopefully. All of this moderation stuff feels like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for Facebook. People have been crapping on Facebook for making judgement calls on what's allowed on its platform. When Facebook does so without government backing, people get up-in-arms saying that it should be the government's role to decide free speech.

But when the company goes and requests that government start doing that, people get up-in-arms about how it'll be "regulatory capture". I can't predict what the outcome of all of this will be. I can however, predict that there will be an angsty article Bloomberg? New York Times? Wall Street Journal? I feel like this entire opinion piece is just a knee-jack reaction against anything what Mark Zuckerberg has to say.

I was giving it the benefit of the doubt until it started talking about how bad GDPR is. GDPR has some short-comings, but it's a bit less black-and-white than what this article makes it out to be. Maybe what Mark Zuckerberg saying really is self-serving but this article doesn't make any good arguments for it. It's just making assertions which it doesn't back up. I don't know if it's just me getting old, but I started noticing this kind of intellectual dishonesty more and more recently in the media and even here on HN.

I think a lot of psychological research confirms that people start with the opinion or position and find evidence any will do to back it up, not the other way around. So it's not surprising it shows up in lots of debates between people. NickBusey 5 months ago. There are, as far as I'm aware, essentially no competitors left to Facebook anymore. That being the case, I'm not sure that statement is correct at all. On the contrary, it seems like if FB were required to offer an easily exportable data format, that other services would pop up overnight to try and lure people away from FB onto their hopefully more privacy conscious platforms.

It would also lower the bar for people to make the switch to something else, as they know their friends can switch just as easily without losing their data. I agree with the rest of the points of the article, but I don't see how data portability can be anything but a net positive for the consumer. If "data portability" were interpreted widely enough, it would mean that people using other social networks could have a "proxy" Facebook account which is automatically synched with their main non-Facebook account.

Ideally, any posts that your Facebook account could see would be fetchable by your non-FB account, and anything you post on your non-FB account would be re-posted on FB for you. This way, as far as your friends are concerned, you are a normal Facebook user, but you would never actually browse the site or use the app. That would allow competition in how the UI works, but also less ad revenue for Facebook and more engineering work, which they would presumably claim is unfair.

There are several active competitors depending on how you define the market. The things you listed do one or two, but I don't think any of them do all 3. If company A is selling hot dogs and ice cream, and B is selling hot dogs and C is selling ice cream, does that mean A has no competitors? WeChat does all three of those, plus payments and food ordering. Basically everything Facebook wishes they could do, WeChat does it for about 1B people. WeChat doesn't have a significant presence in Western markets, and Facebook doesn't have a significant presence in China.

They don't really compete with each other, even though they provide a lot of the same features. I'm pretty sure WeChat does all By that standard you could claim that the Honda Civic has no competitors because no other vehicle has its particular combination of features. The problem with this is that it presupposes a certain data-format, that doesn't allow for innovation. How exactly would you export facebooks data to twitter or vice versa? For a start, facebook doesn't have a character limit, twitter does.

Twitter threads can be nested infinitely, facebook's can't, etc. There are still ten or so of us on Diaspora. Dating sites. It's almost comic villainy - like, everything they say, do, propose, etc. Can anyone on the inside give some insight into current morale? Is the constant deluge of negative press cutting through the indoctrination or nah? It's a thing we HN, reddit, etc choose to do together, rather than a specific fact that's true or false. Former Facebook employee here: One thing that you don't appreciate from the outside, is that FB employees hear more FB criticism than you do.

This is just true of anyone working for any company. And one of the side effects of hearing more, is that you hear a lot of very wrong, very poorly thought out stuff. So it does get easier to sit out from a group narrative like this, because the parts that are wrong or misleading jump out at you.

Morale is high because paychecks are high. How much you get paid is the key indicator of how much you are worth as a human being. I'm curious what your experience is with this? The closest it ever got to that was when I once remarked to my lead that I wish I felt like the work I do mattered to which he replied something along the lines of, "We play but a small part in the grand movement that is the progress of technology, but don't forget we do play a part. This is also the same for almost every employee I've seen in other sized companies.

Some people may think this way but it's a choice to surround yourself with those kinds of people. Yeah, it's all a drop in the bucket. Fifty years down the road, nobody will care about Facebook's transgressions of today. You can look at an ape in the jungle as getting the most food. Is that the worth of that ape? To the apes, maybe so. To us, it's just an ape. In your view, are there ways of "extracting value" that are not "some kind of exploitation".

Is "changing the world for the better" incompatible with "extracting value" somehow? From what I've heard, they have nice cushions of dollar bills to block out any negative thoughts.. I really dislike comments like these, and I find it dismaying that they've gained currency on HN recently. Almost every article about Facebook or Google has some variation of this comment. The problem I have with it is that you can replace the meaning of "they", and have this comment "work" for any number of biased echo chambers. Go ahead and replace "they" with Facebook, Google, Obama, Trump, Exxon-Mobil, scientists, billionaires, politicians, Internet trolls, the media, ad nauseam.

If this sentence can work for any of these scenarios, verbatim, then what's the point of uttering it? To bring this back to the issue at hand: is there anything Zuckerberg could say that would make you not respond this way? And if you can't come up with anything, are you sure you aren't completely biased against Facebook such that nothing they can do will ameliorate you?

I agree with your premise, not just from the ethical sense of wanting to treat others as human beings, but I think when I manage that I make a more compelling argument. That said, let me try to answer why you're seeing this pattern. Facebook has a business model that works for certain strategic choices, and doesn't work for others. A big one is they don't charge a subscription fee to users. That puts hard constraints on how they generate revenue. That's why it's nigh impossible that Zuckerberg will come along and announce, "we've ended our policy of treating users as the product. It doesn't guarantee they'll behave well, but the fact that customers can take their money elsewhere does tend to keep them grounded in the long run.

I think most social media, for that reason and others, has a bad business model. I'd like those businesses to fail to clear out space for alternatives to be built. And they're not villains working there, so I'd also hope they all land on their feet and find new jobs. In the real world where Facebook will continue to exist, is there anything that the company or its employees could do that would meet with your approval?

Are you going to justify that claim? It's been made repeatedly about prior companies that were too big to fail, especially tech giants, and they all fall or become obsolete. I gave an example: "we've ended our policy of treating users as the product. I was in this industry through all of that. It takes a long time for a company to fall that far. Yes, given enough time anything can happen, but I'm not interested in tautologies. In any time span relevant to this conversation, it's not going to happen.

If you want to claim otherwise, that's your burden not mine. Even if Facebook moved to a subscription model, "treating users as the product" is not a phrase they'd use for what came before. So you still haven't indicated that you'd be satisfied by anything that could actually happen. If you want to play "high school debate champion" you'll have to try harder.

If they made that promise to investors, they could go to prison. You're demanding that everyone else has to show that they're ready to abandon their principles, lest you judge them instransigent and unreasonable. What changes have you made to your worldview, without seeing something significant change? Probably never: your views are shaped by observations of concrete realities and reflections on the consequences of those.

And unless those realities change or you get new information, you couldn't come up with a coherent set of new views if you wanted to. I wasn't saying that makes it invalid, it's just annoying if you're repeating it while dismissing the answer given. It seems the one working on vague generalities is your statements, not his. And maybe now it actually is.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just for myself, of course. Things have been done that I might not have agreed with. It does hurt when the "Facebook is evil" meme gets thrown in my face, especially from so-called friends. So yeah, morale takes a hit, but it's not clear how my leaving would make it any better. Don't you want for there to be some good people at Facebook? Or do you deny the possibility, as if people who were good at their last company magically become bad the moment they accept the offer? Believing in no good outcome except extinction is a working definition of hate, and I have no time for that.

I and literally thousands of others are here, solving technical problems, trying to influence the non-technical ones, and if you think we shouldn't be than that's just counterproductive by any standard. Ah, the first--or maybe second--week of freshman ethics. Change from the inside, or from the outside Take some responsibility. Are you evil for signing on? No, but let's not pretend they're welcoming you because you're going to shine a light on unethical practices. Are you evil for staying? That's a judgment call you have to make in your own heart-of-hearts, measuring what you've enabled and contributed, who you've enriched--against the moral influence you've exerted not to mention the questionable influence you've empowered.

There is a standard. I offer you a baseline: if you're solving technical problems and you're systematically failing to influence the non-technical ones, you shouldn't be there. I give you the benefit of the doubt. Your failure is likely measurably less than systematic. But enough so? Bear in mind the alternative is not yelling at Facebook from the outside, it's building a better world, a better product, a better community And how many of the critics are doing that? How many are making a positive moral difference at their own companies, however good or bad those companies already are?

I posit that moving forward at a "bad" company is more valuable than standing still at a "good" one. In my group at Red Hat, generally regarded as a "good" company, our project plans were influenced by demands from some pretty shady customers - big banks, government agencies, even a Russian propaganda agency. At Facebook, my work supports data scientists who are detecting and eliminating that same kind of propaganda.

But I'm supposed to feel worse about myself now? You talk trash about freshman ethics, but that's exactly the kind you yourself are engaging in. I was in fact a philosophy major long ago though more logic and metaphysics than ethics so I should know. No, it doesn't make them shitty. If they don't have any suggestions other than extinction, they were shitty already.

JustSomeNobody 5 months ago. I'm sure morale is fine. They've hired for this type of culture. The only think Zuckerberg is missing is a thick mustache he can twirl. People gave him a pass for his "dumb fucks" quote because he was a "kid" when he said it, but look where we are now with Facebook and the state of the internet in relation to it.

I have zero faith in Facebook as an organization doing the "right" thing. Their machine is fueled by highly targeted advertising. If you erode their targeting capabilities, then marketers will be quick to invest elsewhere. Funny enough, with ITP 2. I am going to butcher this, I can't articulate it how I think it Why do we need regulation for social network that is only as strong as its network. Is the network effect so strong users can't or will not leave on their own accord?

I left FB and instagram a few years ago. It is just so funny to me that this entity a people aggregator is powerful but all we need to do is leave it. How many people in your network have to leave before it loses its value? Networks expand exponentially. Is the opposite true? HeWhoLurksLate 5 months ago. Why am I not surprised? At this point I have no trust in that company. It would be very unwise to listen to them, and very unfortunate for someone like Senator Warren and those who want to break them up to adopt their policies.

Most government regulation benefits large companies at the expense of small companies, because large companies have more resources to make sure they are in compliance and have the lobbyists who help write the rules. So it's no surprise that new regs here would be helpful to big companies and harmful to small ones.

I'm not even upset that Facebook is lobbying for their own self interest. I just wish such a blatant attempt would have a lower chance of success. You just quashed your own fears. Fortunately this is going nowhere because it's so blatant. TAForObvReasons 5 months ago. That was said about many deeply unpopular pieces of legislation over the last few years the Friday Night Tax Bill comes to mind. Nasrudith 5 months ago.

Too Much Magic

The problem is blatant isn't a guarantee of not doing something - nor being a spectacularly bad idea. How are you so sure about this? I'm not but Zuck isn't winning any popularity contests in congress or among the general public these days. Odd time for him to publish this piece IMO. It may be blatant to us but America has demonstrated an amazing ability to buy into delusions lately. To be fair, Facebook has said since the beginning that regulation had a strong possibility of making competition harder and entrenching established players.

To be fair, Zuckerberg has said anyone who trusts him in any way is an idiot. Look, most government regulations ultimately favors the incumbent while making it much harder for new entrants to challenge the large organizations. Thus creating less competition which ultimately solidifies the status quo. Facebook knows regulation in coming and is transitioning from being anti-regulation to regulation on their terms ie.

  1. Stealing Kathryn (The Gatherers)?
  2. The Zeitgeist Knows - Kunstler.
  3. The Cassini Division (The Fall Revolution, Book 3).
  4. The Democratic Socialists of America want to eliminate Israel « Why Evolution Is True.
  5. Robert Schwalb?
  6. Teaching Toward Freedom;

Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in our government to properly regulate technology, for one Congress seems totally unaware of how Facebook works "Senator There's no need to "regulate the internet", we only need to regulate social network operators. The content policing problem will solve itself.

This seems like an attempt at classic regulatory capture. Alternative take: this is an attempt by Zuck to push regulation preemptively in order to counter the recent bad press. Better that the gov't create rules affecting all players all companies affected, including FB than to continue having just your own company in Washington's crosshairs.

Even if he doesn't get to dictate the regulation thus not achieving regulatory capture , it would still accomplish the mission of keeping the business alive. They will continue selling their ads and making money, regulation or no regulation. It's possible for both of these to be true. Supporting regulation - particularly known regulation that it pretty similar to what you have to do anyway to compete internationally - both takes the PR crosshairs off your company and creates a barrier to entry for any potential competitors.

Moseman23 5 months ago. He's just as clueless about how he's seen as a CEO as he was as a Presidential tire-kicker. Eh, it's pretty tough to communicate something really concrete in an op-ed. People's brains would turn off and the opportunity for a conversation would be squandered.

There's an opportunity here for more sincere activists to promote meaningful transparency, because now he's put it on the radar of otherwise low-tech-literacy audiences. For me, true transparency is being able to look at code. If your code is interpretable, and it looks okay, it is okay. When it's difficult to interpret, like with a collaborative filtering algorithm used to select newsfeed items, an independent group ought to be able to query the "baked" system or measure user behavior and come to its own conclusions. I wouldn't call this a "transparency report," it's more like an "independent analysis.

But to actually answer them would take an afternoon: a database connection, really. After all, they have incredibly comprehensive user behavioral data, so you can pretty much answer anything you can think of. There's no cost burden or competitive disadvantage. Their entire tech infrastructure is built around answering user behavior questions easily.

And most of the value is tied up in the data, not the models. The problems they're experiencing are related to their particular implementation of collaborative filtering. Maybe you don't believe it's implementation related, and you think it's something innate to social media. Well, what if the newsfeed just showed content randomly?

Clearly that would bury enemy action content, just because it's so relatively infrequent. It's important not to be too dogmatic with this sort of stuff, because it will obscure your ability to reach across the aisle to stakeholders like Facebook and get them to do stuff in a sincere way. That is unfair, my daughters, at the time, were 13 and 16, at the cusps of sexual awareness and proud of an intact family from which were a part of.

Lots of unknown and uncertainty that concerned them as well. Who is this person? And why does he think that we should accept his behavior? Luckily for us, it was not front and center as it was for you. They have had years envisioning the day of reckoning, none of us have that luxury. They wanted us to act like everything is normal, in fact, none of it is.

My children did not sign up to be children of a mixed orientation household. None of it is fair. For me, I lost 20 plus years of my life, to a man who could not love a woman, the way that a spouse should, for him, it was a great marriage, and that he thought we could just wrap things up and move on. I have lost a lot, my children lost a lot, but we all go on the best way we can. They are both in college, they have a good relationship with both of us, and their extended families. They truly are gifts. I know you are and your sister are a gift to your parents.

You are a whole life ahead of you and you get to choose how you conduct your life. I always told my kids, you can have any kind of relationship you want with anyone you want or not have a relationship. Good luck to you and your sister. My dad came out when I was He and my mom married when she was 18 and they were married 22 years and had 3 children. He was a beautician by trade. He and my mom owned a salon and he worked there six days a week He was off on Sundays. We lived what most would call a great life in material terms. She was very religious and we went to church 3 days a week, without my dad.

He was not religious. In his rare spare time he would make beautiful stained glass windows and ornate victorian lamp shades. Looking back, I say how could she NOT have known? Or did she and it was just easier to ignore it than ask?? There was never any discussion. One day my mom said Dad is going to be moving out and he showed up with his truck and took only his clothes. That is such a surreal memory for me.

I feel like at that moment,I numbed myself to any feelings associated with him leaving. I knew he was out of the house but I never grieved his leaving, it was easier to just not process it. I then went into protector mode because I wanted my mom to be okay. I would see her crying and would want to make everything okay for her.

I think what hurt me more than his leaving was seeing all of the emotional pain and turmoil she was going through. This has really affected me on many levels. When my dad moved in with his partner, he invited us over for weekend visits, however he didnt tell us a- that he was gay, b that he was living with his partner. So here i was this 13 year old girl in this house that he was clearly sharing with someone, I just didnt know who… Once we were introduced to his partner, I think i was more concerned with being polite and not making anyone feel uncomfortable, so I just tried to make nice and go along with it all, because after all he was the only dad that I had gay or not and I wanted to love him and NEEDED him to love me too.

I dont have a problem with my dad being gay. I think that everyone needs to be who they are , but trying to live a life as something that you are not and involving your spouse and children is just a very painful thing for everyone involved. If I had to give any advice to my parents I would say that I just wish that there had been discussions to process all of this, and I wish there had been therapy at the very least, because these feelings that are stuffed down for so long are going to surface at some point and the sooner they are dealt with openly and honestly the sooner everyone can get down to the very important business of healing and continuing to grow as a family and as healthy individuals.

Why is this open only to public school students? What about home-schooled kids, kids in Catholic schools, etc.? I think it should be open to anyone under 19, including drop-outs, kids who got a GED or passed the California Equivalency exam. Thanks for making L. Gregory, Dulce, and Co. I look forward to more discussion and the continued sharing of ideas. Warmest congratulations, Gregory! Specially to my daughter Dulce. Congratulations to Zocalo finest people that every day work so hard to bring us their excellent ideas. Especially to my daughter Dulce.

I commute into central Phoenix from the east valley in Arizona. And I thought my commute was bad! PSS is doing amazing things in the healthcare technology space. Keep it up!! We certainly have a great sandbox to play in with our diversity of people, research facilities such as the UCLA wireless health institute, numerous healthcare organizations all based right here and large and complex payer systems. Ann Romney— whatever the motivation— to me comes across much the same way.

Congrats guys. You made me a more informed person and made my years in LA even more enjoyable. May you be around for many more years.

  • The Wife Hes Been Waiting For (Mills & Boon Medical)!
  • Subscribe To Althouse;
  • Israel (Modern World Nations).
  • Zuckerberg’s Rules Would Hurt Everyone but Facebook | Hacker News?
  • Ultrahigh-pressure Metamorphism: Deep Continental Subduction?
  • Sea Gold (A Rick Brant Electronic Adventure, 3)!
  • Theocracy of Canceri - Paradigm Concepts, Inc. | Arcanis |
  • Your essay reminds me why my work is important. Please know that you have good company in your good intentions for your community. Thank you, Rodney! Thank you for this excellent article highlighting the need for our cultural institutions to step down from their pedestals and find ways to engage the public once they step through the doors of a museum. Museums, being a relatively modern institution in the history of art well, in the history of history really , are subject to the pangs of growth and development; they, like all things, must adapt or perish.

    At the inception of museums they were self-indulgent collections, privately held aggregations of personally curated pieces for the display of wealth and personal prestige; they were exclusive, access granted only to the elite or otherwise worthy. Fast-forwarding through the timeline we see the expansion of the role of the museum as the curator of major, minor and independent art in every viable location. In spite of all of this, the egalitarian nature of selections does not result in museums experiencing a similarly inclusive demographic of attendees. We cannot hold strictly to the forms which served us in the past and expect the public to follow along; each era, each period, sees new innovation on a broad scale and while museums have adapted to some degree they have become simultaneously mired in the rigid formality of the past and forgotten by sociocultural architects as footnotes or archives.

    Instead of this stagnation, museums should be vibrant institutions, distilling at once the admiration of our past mastery of expression and celebrating the continuation, abandonment or destruction of these traditions as our cultural identities develop throughout the modern era. In this regard, Mr. Reiter expresses the desire to envision a new direction for the concept of the museum. Implied in his article, or rather following from his article and in concert with other similar calls to action by other writers, I see several important ways by which the museum as a cultural institution may be recast these are offered without particularly extensive research.

    The most important, and most generically addressed, would be to consider, at every level, the role and emphasis of Art within the educational and cultural spheres. Were we able to comprehensively renew our approach to teaching about art and the experience of it, then even without any alterations to the museum model we would see an increase in attendance and likely an accompanied increase in engagement.

    Archive for the ‘General’ Category

    As more and more individuals find themselves equipped to think in the language of art, they will begin to understand its role and expression, and ultimately they will come to appreciate the experience of it. To reinforce this societal reframing of the importance of the arts, we must similarly adapt our appreciation for the museum-space and its role in the public square. Similar to the interdisciplinary refocusing that must occur on the educational level, a more active integration of museums and the museum-esque usage of public spaces into the cityscape or psychic landscape must simultaneously occur.

    The incorporation of elements of the Krens formula as well as other components such as conference and lecture space, public book collections related or generic , and mixed studio space should create an attitude that these museums are a logical destination for a variety of common and possibly everyday purposes.

    Existing museums should aggressively reach out to form coalitions and partnerships to increase cross-utilization of their existing space for a broad variety of programming, they should immediately reevaluate their existing architecture and address whether or not it is conducive to a broader view of the art experience as multi-modal and interdisciplinary, and, short of exterior and structural renovation, they should strongly consider reorganizing their existing space to accommodate visitors with coherent and intuitive viewing experiences.

    Finally the gallery and curation of art itself must be addressed, while some of the gap may be closed given a campaign for renewed passion for the fine arts, patrons are often left feeling the intimidation of the uninitiated to which Mr. Reiter refers. To combat this disconnect, the museum, or any cultural institution seeking to remain simultaneously relevant and enriching, should seek to provide additional layers of information and interactivity.

    As museums have opened their doors to all art, so too must museums open their doors to all patrons, however, this has less to do with being open and more to do with being approachable. I agree with Mr. Armageddon scenarios and replacement theology are driving forces, neocon values gaining momentum since the Reagan years. It all makes me wonder if using a lightweight titanium bicycle instead of a heavier one is cheating.

    And look at what he did for cancer! Who knows? In the case of Lance Armstrong it really is sad, because he was and is an incredible athlete and generous human being who translated his fame into helping countless people through raising money for medical research by using his name to be a spokesman no pun intended for cancer awareness and research. And now we are supposed to make him a scape-goat for all our fantasies about bigger, better, stronger, longer.

    Madison Avenue has doped— or is that duped— us all. I hope Lance Armstrong finds his way out of mess and into a happy and productive future. Yes, Armstrong is responsible in the end. But his level of athleticism is still artistry. And his generosity and work for cancer has done a lot of good. We constantly recycle celebrities who go straight from re-hab to talk shows despite tawdry and criminal behaviors from shoplifting to shooting up. I think we could cut Lance Armstrong a little slack. Given the level of deceit, intimidation, extortion, lying and actual cheating that he engaged in repeatedly and constantly, Lance needed to shore up his own sense of morality and self-worth; and lo and behold he found something that had afflicted him cancer that he could get behind to help him absolve himself of his guilt for his treatment of fellow cyclists and numerous others how about that young masseuse whose life he ruined, just to mention one.

    What a sham! But of course I recognize the good that his cancer fighting leadership did. Speaking of that, there is no reason why another sports or other celebrity cannot step up and begin another anti-cancer crusade — except that they may want to wait because in the short run they may fear that their goodwill is being perceived as covering up something else — a la Lance Armstrong.

    It was a slippery slope for him. Hard to say why Lance Armstrong started to work for cancer— was it because he survived, or because he felt guilty about surviving, or about using performance enhancing substances for cycling? Only he can do that— And the whole issue of performance enhancing substances is a pretty mixed bag. Across the board athletes are looking for a boost. Amateurs, pros, college athletes— the standard should be the same. No slack. This tragic fiasco is not the fault of Madison Avenue.

    Lance Armstrong may be a great athlete but that does not make him a great sportsman. If we ignore his bad behavior, we are just continuing to lower the bar for heroism. I feel tremendously sorry for Mr. Armstrong, like I did for my beloved Bill Clinton. But they both got what they deserve. Hurricane Sandy is a catastrophe of epic proportions.

    Many people, including this writer, would find it in poor taste to analogize the loss of human life and property to the unthinkable and meteoric fall from grace of Lance Armstrong. Lance, events like Hurricane Sandy teach and remind us that despite steel ripping turbulent winds, and earth churning 35 foot waves and water surges, the storm ultimately will pass. And while there is devastating destruction left in the path of storm, the human spirit is larger than anything on earth and we, as an advanced society, rise to the occasion, brush off the dust and debris and turn to the light of the sunrise.

    The sun peering above the horizon and the dawn of a new day serves as our hope that we can, and will, endure whatever challenges are put in front of us. The devastation is unimaginable and surreal. Being diagnosed with cancer is a life changing event. Walking through the portals of cancer and cancer treatment teaches us that outside of human compassion and care, little else matters.

    We are a forgiving and loving society and we operate from the heart when we extend our sympathy and understanding. There is so much more at stake here than money and pride. The lives of people like you, me, our children, our families and friends who may hear today that they or their loved ones have cancer are at stake. They need us, we need you, we all need each other.

    There is no other way through this storm than to take ownership of your actions. In doing so, you will once again regain your position as a leader who can point us towards the sun rising on a new day and to give us the hope that we can endure whatever may come our way. Evolution allows absolution. Unless one of course is above positivity. But after the evidence was made public, nearly all of them, including Nike, Trek, and Oakley sunglasses, dropped Armstrong as a client within days of one another. Multi-million dollar companies cannot afford for their products to be connected with doping.

    I live in a country that marks you innocent till proven guilty. I just voted in community elections where I live and I also felt that even about in-person neighborhood democracy. I usually wait until the night before election day to complete the ballot. The important thing is voting, in whatever way. We definitely need more civic rituals but voting in person, despite its charms, is destined to wither. I do think that theologically you might be slightly askew with the church.

    My comment is that much like the ballot box that I hope everyone will utilize this week—with your faith and those rituals you do have choices as well. A lot of those saints remembered on All Saints Day gave their lives for service and even reform. And there are liberal Catholics who uphold the struggle— living saints like Hans Kung, and ones past, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. There are progressive Christians and people of varied faiths that really work hard for growth, and inclusion, gender equality, reproductive rights. And they do it because of their faith not in spite of their religion.

    To die with dignity is to live with dignity. If I die in peace, then I have lived in peace. They are perhaps the wisest of the bunch of us. My thinking also Martin. Of course there is not enough left of a moderate GOP today that would hand over control to someone like Jon Huntsman. Oh Andy. This is a misunderstood religion with a complicated history. Calling Mormons pathetic only holds a mirror up to your own shortcomings.

    I grew up in Belmont, MA and although we went to the Unitarian Universalist church, I went to local public schools with many, many Mormons. My experience of these kids and their parents was that they were kind, thoughtful, generous, caring, smart, hard-working, and community-oriented. They volunteered. They baked for bake sales. They played sports and joined the theater club and so on. Their parents donated to the band and orchestra and chaperoned field trips and served on Town Meeting and were very integrated into the community.

    This being the Boston area, many of them were even Democrats. And it was well known there in the 80s and 90s that the Utah Mormons disliked Romney because they saw him as too liberal. We had school wide discussions in history classes, blogs where students could post opinions and issue related comments, interactive bulletin boards for posting comments and even an interactive election related hop-scotch on our hallway floor.

    The election provided an opportunity for massive community involvement, dialogue and participation. Students went home passionate about issues and eager to engage with family members in provocative discussion. Several members of the Congress are Mormons and no one cares. There are few Mormons who could name them all.

    Romney is a Mormon? The guy who laughs at the poor, balks at the prospect of relieving the disadvantaged, and wants to persecute illegal immigrants into deporting themselves and calling that compassionate? Political correctness aside, Mormons are gullible. Thank you, again, for your continued contributions to society. This is another gem. We are all in awe of your knowledgeable opinions. And I cannot speak for them personally, but I would imagine that millions of Mormons are now questioning their faith based on your comments. Thank you for this public service. And your genius is clearly what will save us all, MCCohen.

    Thank you for gracing us all with your brilliant opinions. I can now sleep well. Keen insight from the heartland of a crucial state but Joe maybe you should have been in Hilton Head. Down South where I live we sometimes feel that no one lives in Ohio because it seems most Buckeyes have moved into South Carolina.

    We joke that the real capital of Ohio is Hilton Head. Good piece! Many Republicans are acknowledging that they need to do a better job at engaging and connecting with the Latino electorate in their post-mortem analyses. Whether through family, friends, social connections, whatever, it is an issue that is very important because we know our people heavily contribute to the U. The trend is not and will not shift in the opposite direction. Each month, 50, U. These are serious numbers and facts the GOP must ponder.

    An Open Letter to Rev. Franklin Graham from a “Small Church” Pastor | Peter's Outer Cape Portico

    There is perhaps no other electoral administrator in this country who was more willing to use every tool including illegal tools at his disposal in attempts to disenfranchise voters of the other party. I must say that this is very clear contextual placement of what appears to be a mystery to the Republican movement. That describes so well, in clear language, what is more nuanced but obvious in commentary all over the dial. It is the very rare Repub that has that association.

    Bravo to you both. Thanks Gregory for this important perspective. How do we get to a different kind of politics that lets us recognize both real differences e. More of the latter would help begin to erode these toxic walls we keep seeing reinforced…. The fact is, various commentators noted, the American system works.

    For all its antiquated absurdity like that strangeelectoral college and those partisan electoral authorities , the thing works. This is a really boring cliche. Chie Nakane made many of the same points forty years ago. The author attempts to adopt a critical viewpoint yet falls victim to the pessimism that Japanese social commentators have shown since the economy slowed down in the mids. Japan remains more interesting and vibrant than the island where the author apparently lives, Great Britain.

    Did anyone else yawn like I did? I stayed several weeks with a family friend who gave me an insight tour of Japan. I came back to the US struck by the complexity and beauty of the culture, but I did get a sense of a disjointed people. Many spoke in negative terms of their superior technological achievements. They could not see the point, for example, in a country so small, why do you need fast speed rail?

    I think there is credibility in the fact that this article is self-reflective and self-critical, not merely critical and not merely pessimistic. The struggle is clear and important. I did not yawn like you did. And yet, whether or not this capacity will be drawn from for actual change and what those changes would look like is another story. Really Ryan? What if we were honest with one another about. What if we talked about the end of life as we do its beginning — a necessary part of what it means to be human.

    Everything that we value about life and living — its novelties, challenges, opportunities for development — would be impossible without death as the defining boundary of our lives. Living a good death begins the moment we accept our mortality as part of who we are. The end of life can be a time of extraordinary alertness, concentration, and emotional intensity.

    Healing and helping professionals are in a unique position to help the rest of society desensitize death and dying. Great piece Sarah! My grandmother also read Everyman in her late 80s and loved it as well. Great article! I loved the insight of the UCLA sociologist added to your own personal experiences.

    Excellent article. I enjoyed reading your story very much as well. The only other thought I had was that the unresolved murders of the women of Juarez would have been worth mentioning to further contextualize the heavy violence the city has suffered. Thank you for telling your story. Dad spent time TDY in Alaska in the early s, so I wound up spending nearly thirty year in that state, the first third working out of Sitka, the latter portion at Cordova, the more maritime clime in Prince William Sound.

    What a wonderful and compelling story! It opens a window into a world that is both entirely authentic and believable, yet strangely exotic at the same time. Thank you! Delicious Tale, Joseph!. Yes, we definitely need Mistery in our lifes , in order to live intensely, properly. This brought back many memories of my own youth. My father had his MS in Biology from the University of Washington but career choices for Asians were limited so he ran a small grocery store. Lawrence Church would give me street car tokens that parishioners would put in the collection basket and I would ride a PE train and explore the city.

    I could catch the Watts Local there too. For someone my age, it made me feel like a grownup to be able to go there by myself. From my many rides, I befriended a conductor who would let me hop on board his train and ride to the end and back. I still remember him in his uniform and he always had a smile on his face. Emboldened with some familiarity of the geography outside of our neighborhood, my childhood friends and I would ride our bikes and explore.

    As bicyclists, our rite of passage was to be able to ride to Long Beach and back! I was able to scrape up a few dollars with jobs. In my case, I worked at a cafe on 5th near San Pedro, in the heart of Skid Row so I got to see another segment of Los Angeles but it gave me enough money to buy that Chevy and my streetcar days were over too and I became part of that migration from urban rail to an individual car. Horrible injection indeed. On his shows, he deliberately speaks slowly so no viewer misses his information.

    In a room full of intelectuals; he can more than hold his own in both speed and brilliance of speech. They shower him with affection in person and he stops what he is doing to give them his time and his complete attention. Especially for people who lived in the LA area from the late s through now — the sight of a Huell t-shirt instantly tells us that the wearer is from southern California or is faking it. Whereas people not from So Cal can only wonder who is this Huell guy?

    Seattle erected a bronze statue of J. Patches — a completely different type of TV personality but he had a similar hold on the cultural imagination. One big difference though, and I wonder if this weakens D. Similarly I moved to Los Angeles in , which was when Huell Howser started producing those Videolog shorts, so I will always count my history in LA as starting with the Howser Era even though it took me a couple of years to stumble across Videolog.

    I guess the answer is that there was only one Huell Howser. We knew we were in for a treat. He has brilliant ability to make his subject matter accessible to everyone while never being condescending. Although he has a bigger-than-life personality it never made him too-cool. We respect the guy a lot. I have been watching Huell for years, always enjoying his genuine enthusiasm for California and its citizens whether they be human or animal.

    PBS has consistently squeezed modest donations from me every year thanks in large part to Huell. What struck me was that many Californians, particularly from SoCal had regional, usually Southern or Southwestern accents. I had earlier decided that Oregonians and Washingtonians spoke the purest, non-inflected American English. When I moved to Los Angeles in , I came face to face with many of these transplants and understood better their habits and accents.

    I was a preteen and hated Xmas with no snow.. Wonderful piece on a wonderfully complex man. In , at age nine, my sister and I were moved by my mother to California from Illinois. I often wonder what shape my life would have taken had I not come here. But it matters not because, over time, California seeped into my every pore and I am inextricably bound by its spell. In the 16th C. Mailander has captured this mythology! Yet, many of us have first hand knowledge of friends and family with troubled children who early on show signs of psychosis and bi polar disorder.

    In my experience, there seems to be a connection between possible genetic component and lack of affection from the mother. Thank you for addressing this case. I remember the Cleveland Elementary School tragedy very well because I was 10 years old living in Stockton. With all the gun-related tragedies that have happened since then, I also continue to wonder if the culture of violence in America will ever change. Gun control will never be enough to prevent these types of tragedies. Thanks for the arm chair adventure.

    Reminds me of my many trips up and down I-5 and the little adventures that make a dull drive so memorable. Drive on! This article is a good look at the hypocrisy of the medical establishment. Where do I start? Certainly the above article has some interesting facts in it, but each person should be unjudged for how they treat or do not treat potential end of life threatening illness. Goodman leaves out the most important factor: machismo.

    Like most NBA players, Howard could sharply increase his free-throw percentage by shooting underhand. Prostate cx is the 2nd largest killer of men who die of cancer. All the men on both sides of my family died of prostate cx. I chose to have proton therapy 13 years ago. There are several more modern treatment modalities now available and more yet on the horizon.

    The two worst are surgery and x-rays. Prostate cx is a killer! Watchful waiting is for those who intend to die young. Thank you for this wonderful history lesson! Dare we say, that liberal oikophobia may be in play here? Agree with most of it. But there are certain aspects which leads to men going to the other side of the city to drop you.

    You mix with many people from your own sex, and tend to know what they say, so as an Indian man you naturally end up being protective. Its the society which makes us this way. I feel India has a bigger problem in dealing with women on a day to day basis. Most men have that odd sense that women dressing scantily are easy, and if that does not work out try and force it. Great article, Joe. Many have never ridden public transportation of any kind. Some have never been to a baseball game. Their eyes open wide as they come up the stairs in the right field bleachers and see the field for the first time.

    As someone who took this specific journey every day, twice a day last summer, I loved this article. Really great article. Huell was a national Republic of California treasure. There will never be another like him.

    These are the Most Democratic Countries in the World

    Gone too soon, but not to be forgotten. Wonderful piece about a fairly new L. All Angelenos should read this. Lovely article. Not the one with the Hawaiian shirt, loud mouth, and big camera slung around his neck, but the tourist of life who finds something interesting around every corner.

    Thank you for such a sweet article about spending quality Dad time with your boys in our great city. It reminded me of my father, who after working 8 to 10 hour days would come home exhausted but still find the time to take me and my two siblings to get a treat. Chinatown was a weekend venture for us back in the 80s, before there was a Goldline.

    The teocracy of Canceri: Nation of the damned

    I will never forget as a child the great time we had visiting all the interesting shops, eating at all the restaurants, and meeting new people. Django kills all the bad guys at the end. Django was in no way submissive. Thank you for your story! National Historic Memorial site in Atlanta.

    Thank you for your contributions to justice! Rex Curry. The robotic daily brainwashing in government schools socialist schools continues to inspire that type of behavior, only the gesture has changed. Remove the pledge from the flag; remove the flag from schools; remove schools from government. The whole point of this article is not about choice but is written to make you feel guilty for choosing to try to beat a terminal illness.

    It is part of preparing the battleground for limiting your freedom to choose the type of care you want. Murray first appeals the authority of doctors and then calls out as role models those who choose not to fight and incur medical costs. Thank you, Dr. Without your guidance my aunt would not have seen her grandkids be born let alone seem them turn 8 and 6 and she is still doing fine. Life is terminal too, do you know that?. See the example I gave of my aunt, just one example.

    She was diagnosed with a terminal illness, given less than a year, and is still with us 9 years later. You have to have a trusting relationship which takes time and periodic patient-doctor interaction with a doctor with good judgement so he can advise you and separate the grain from the chaff. Anthony lays it out in the most clear and honest way. This is an excellent article and one which I think points out some interesting topics. The worst things I see in my job as a hospitalist are almost never illnesses or injury.

    And it goes both ways.