Re: SOTU Open Thread

1

... sweet as a honey bee


Posted by: Holland–Dozier–Holland | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 5:49 PM
horizontal rule
2

... DONGS


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 5:49 PM
horizontal rule
3

The state of the union is MOLE!


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 5:51 PM
horizontal rule
4

In fact, the state of the union sucks Pope tits.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 5:51 PM
horizontal rule
5

When can we have the STFU Open Thread?


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 5:52 PM
horizontal rule
6

Play SotU Buzzword Bingo drinking game with Digby.

I can't join in because a) I don't drink, and b) refuse to listen or watch the thing. Instead I will listen to Rita and Van, and read about early 20th century Japanese farming sociology. Those Cambridge series really freaking rock. Best reading in years.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:05 PM
horizontal rule
7

...not as bad as it's going to be in the name of bullshit bipartisanship.

But in the new national spirit of compromise: I won't watch the speech, but I will drink, and maybe even make a game of it.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:08 PM
horizontal rule
8

The state of the union is North Carolina, but congratulations to the other contestants for valiant efforts.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
9

Flaccid.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:25 PM
horizontal rule
10

...indeterminate until observed, whereupon it resolves into an eigenstate of the union. And you know who else had eigenstates don't you? That's right, Erwin's fucking cat, who killed my fucking bird. Goddamn if I didn't hate that cat.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:26 PM
horizontal rule
11

I am drinking and watching the speech. It hasn't started yet.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:32 PM
horizontal rule
12

required viewing, as my students will no doubt want to talk about it in class.


Posted by: JennyRobot | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:33 PM
horizontal rule
13

I am laughing at 8. Good one.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:33 PM
horizontal rule
14

Increasing BAC… now.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:33 PM
horizontal rule
15

Also, if you into silly diversions, the Respondomatic 5000 still exists.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
16

I love that "Yay!" is apparently an appropriate exclamation to make at these events.


Posted by: JennyRobot | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:35 PM
horizontal rule
17

Well, it beats "You Lie!"


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:38 PM
horizontal rule
18

Wow, Jim Lehrer sounds old.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:39 PM
horizontal rule
19

...staticky, on my walkman.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:39 PM
horizontal rule
20

Awww, magnanimity!


Posted by: JennyRobot | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:41 PM
horizontal rule
21

I have some sort of bronchial infection, as a result of which I am all loaded up with antibiotics and don't want to drink tonight, which means I probably shouldn't watch.


Posted by: Mr. Blandings | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:41 PM
horizontal rule
22

We have fought a good thing, a robust democracy. A tragedy reminded us where we come from.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:42 PM
horizontal rule
23

Double dip already under way here. Expect to follow shortly. (This is not Bob, it's the BBC.)


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:42 PM
horizontal rule
24

I do like using "Greetings" as it echoes the notices from the draft board.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:48 PM
horizontal rule
25

Arrgh. Wrong thread.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:48 PM
horizontal rule
26

Out Sputnik moment?!!!!!

I just snorted way audibly.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
27

I am not offended by this very boring speech. From my point of view, Obama is beating the expectations game.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
28

Speaking of drinking, does Boehner have a set of shot glasses in front of him?


Posted by: Alfrek Macsteinie | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:54 PM
horizontal rule
29

Bohner looks like he could use a cigarette.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:55 PM
horizontal rule
30

The energy stuff seems interesting and good. Am I missing something?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:56 PM
horizontal rule
31

Clean Coal and Natural Gas kinda suck.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
32

clean coal?


Posted by: Alfrek Macsteinie | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
33

32 to 30.


Posted by: Alfrek Macsteinie | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
34

The abortion of young people with a college degree?


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
35

Ah - I missed clean coal.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
36

By August 14, 2027 13.6% of rural gardens will feature artisanal lawn balls. Precision made in America for real Americans.

My ironic distance is unbridgeable I fear.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
37

Truly, Barack Obama is the apotheosis of the 20th-century Republican president.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
38

God, these things really are interchangeable, aren't they?


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:01 PM
horizontal rule
39

Oh, that's tonight? Thank goodness I'm on GMT+1, so I have an excuse not to watch it. Except that I'm still awake, I guess. Crap.


Posted by: x.trapnel | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:03 PM
horizontal rule
40

Now, if he had come out there and said, "What we need is an improvement in humanities education! America is falling behind in comparative literature scholarship!", that would have been something.


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:03 PM
horizontal rule
41

Lawn ball supremacy turns out to have blandly objectionable policy implications.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
42

40: Otto!


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
43

Amnesty, bitches!


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
44

Nice of him to stick up for the Dream Act.

Of course then he launches into "protect our borders" yadda yadda.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
45

Double dip already under way here. Expect to follow shortly. (This is not Bob, it's the BBC.)

You mean you had a period when it seemed like things were getting better over there?


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
46

Isn't it remarkable how he knows about a mother going back to school in biotechnology so that she can inspire her children? How does he find the time to find these people? Remarkable.


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
47

44.2: Borders is going broke, they say.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
48

SUPERTRAINS!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
49

Density!


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
50

Seriously, what does Boehner have in front if him? Some sort of awesome deco silver thing.


Posted by: Alfrek Macsteinie | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
51

42: oudemia! et alia!


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
52

Dude, when the Congress laughs uproariously about how supertrains don't require pat-downs, it's really time to reconsider the TSA.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
53

Inspiring: jobs, achievement, SUPERTRAINS!
Uninspiring: qualifications, implementation details, bean counting.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
54

50: looks to me like a glass of gin.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
55

50: Receptacles for his patriot tears. He sells them on eBay.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
56

ALso inspiring: beer.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
57

But what this country really needs is a corporate tax cut.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
58

Is South Korea the bad one?


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
59

I buy my artisanal high fructose corn syrup on e-Bay. From Iowa!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
60

Interesting choice of tie by Boehner .


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:12 PM
horizontal rule
61

Is that really Biden's expressionless face?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:12 PM
horizontal rule
62

Radical Obama comes out swinging for the FDA?!


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
63

Barriers to growth and investment, otherwise known as investment condoms, are the scourge of my -- do I have to finish this? TYping is hard.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
64

Was that Congressman Dingle in the crowd looking like Hans Moleman?


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
65

Aren't we technically still in the days when an insurance company can deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
66

Let me guess... tax hikes?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
67

You know what I have passionate feelings about? Accounting trivia.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
68

No... spending freeze. Damn.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
69

Good luck with getting rid of the gas and oil subsidies.

Fuck this deficit reduction shit. Freeze annual domestic spending. Gah. Next up social security.

Watching Boehner is kind of entertaining, though.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
70

But I like discretionary spending!


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
71

Let's just cut foreign aid!


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
72

Boehner looks like Saruman the White would if he just farted.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
73

Necessary waste must be preserved.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
74

I think he just ran afoul of the analogy ban.


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:19 PM
horizontal rule
75

I wish someone would bring me another beer.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:19 PM
horizontal rule
76

Cutting healthcare is fine, social security is not.

Cut defense damn it.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:19 PM
horizontal rule
77

Booooo!


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
78

Fuck the future retirees.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
79

i think biden has to turn the corners of his mouth way down like that in order to not revert to shit-eating grin.

i would NOT mess with kathleen sebelius.


Posted by: ursyne | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
80

I'm willing to let the Republicans get their way on medical malpractice if, in exchange, we can tax the hell out of rich people.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
81

When he says that he's willing to consider capping medical malpractice lawsuits, that means within reason, right?


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
82

FLAT TAX!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
83

Seriously, what does Boehner have in front if him? Some sort of awesome deco silver thing.

It's a cup to catch his precious tears.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
84

We cannot buy a grilled cheese with money denominated in beets.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
85

I'm still honestly not sure whether Obama thinks any of the rebublicans might actually be listening to him.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
86

Dammit Stanley.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
87

Maybe we should raise taxes on salmon.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
88

Let's sell the armed forces!


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:24 PM
horizontal rule
89

Ooooo! A website!


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:24 PM
horizontal rule
90

Awkward long laughter at the smoked salmon line. I take it that there was a physical humor bit in there somewhere? Did Obama look over at Boehner?


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:24 PM
horizontal rule
91

Did the president smoke salmon, and, if so, did he inhale?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
92

No more earmarks means no more elephant snow-angels.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
93

goddamn, 79.1 was so right.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
94

I was kind of intending to watch this, but time zones are confusing. I guess I'll just have to wait another year to find out whether the state of our union is strong.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
95

Fuck the future retirees

Fuck, the future retirees

Fuck the future, retirees


Posted by: teraz kurwa my | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
96

Earmarks? Christ, what an asshole.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
97

In re: defeating the evil enemies


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
98

Fuck the! future retirees


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
99

I can't believe there are no damn commercial breaks. I need a fucking beer.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
100

Boehner would look better wearing Insane Clown Posse makeup.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
101

The START treaty doesn't actually destroy any nuclear weapons.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
102

Imagine how much better the SOTU would be if the President kept drinking instead of the viewers at home.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
103

i wish i could have the joint chiefs of staff sitting in the corner of my living room all the time. i think that'd be fresh.

man there's a lot of dudes in congress.


Posted by: ursyne | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
104

99: Seriously, someone get him a beer. WE MUST NOT HAVE A BURPLE GAP!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
105

hehe kerry and mccain look like they're on an awkward movie date both hoping their arms don't accidentally touch.


Posted by: ursyne | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
106

This SOTU is dull.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
107

The Joint Chiefs seem vaguely repulsed at the thought of buttsex.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
108

Cheap shot on ROTC.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
109

It's not going to be easy? Shit.


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
110

Is he proposing a dictatorship?


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
111

When I think of how special America is, I have an orgasm.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
112

I'd trade places with a Maltese.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
113

105: McCain would *so* do the popcorn dick trick.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
114

That orgasm is why he can stand before you tonight.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
115

Oh my. You people have been busy.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
116

Is he tearing up?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
117

You know whoever wrote that line had money on getting Bohner to cry.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
118

Is he going to fucking cry now? (ICP man, not Obama.)


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
119

I wouldn't mind being Dutch.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
120

Working 3 or 4 hour days!


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
121

We fixed Chile? Go us!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:40 PM
horizontal rule
122

The crowd starts chanting "drill, baby, drill."


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:40 PM
horizontal rule
123

I might not take a shower, but I use a lot of deodorant.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
124

"From the earliest days of our founding, America has been a nation of ordinary people who dare to drink."


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
125

I've decided my life goal is now to get name-checked in a SOTU. I need to find some adversity so that I can overcome it to succeed in the end.


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
126

106 gets it exactly right.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
127

I'm being to suspect we're not the target demo for this marketing campaign.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
128

"From the earliest days of our founding, America has been a nation of ordinary people who dare to drink drill."


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
129

If he had cut out the past half-hour or so, I think it would have been a lot better.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
130

I don't know what 123 refers to but it very nearly made me pee myself.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
131

what 123 refers to

We are a nation that says, "I might not have a lot of money, but I have this great idea for a new company. I might not come from a family of college graduates, but I will be the first to get my degree. I might not know those people in trouble, but I think I can help them, and I need to try. I'm not sure how we'll reach that better place beyond the horizon, but I know we'll get there. I know we will."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
132

Is there some place to watch the response speech online? I can't find anything. This white house Q&A is even more boring than the speech was.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
133

I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV!


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
134

So earlier today I was invited to a SOTU-watching party sponsored by a local (perhaps law-school-related) cell of Organizing/Obama For America. Chirpily and without irony, the invitor promised "you know, lots of fun liberals" in attendance.


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
135

Two 12 oz. beers at 9% ABV each is insufficient beers.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
136

C-Span! That wasobvious.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
137

132: cspan.org


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
138

shoot


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
139

Take it to the chorus, Michael Gerson. Take it to the bridge.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
140

You were smart to go to CSpan. I checked GOP.com and I think I came away with a venereal disease.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
141

Mark Shields's surname, when combined that of David Brooks, and so bringing to mind a famous actress, is no longer an excuse to invite him onto the show.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
142

Most informative SOTU (non) watching experience ever.


Posted by: teraz kurwa my | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
143

Paul Ryan is almost certain to pass the Turing test.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
144

My housemate's ladyfriend wandered into the room during the beginning of the speech and asked, "Who's Gabby? What happened to her?"

I was really surprised she'd managed to miss that news.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
145

Ryan has an honest face.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:55 PM
horizontal rule
146

I'm watching last night's episode of Chuck. Seems more edifying.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
147

Which 30 Rock character is he doing this year?


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:57 PM
horizontal rule
148

Ryan is forgettable. Therefore, he wins.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
149

I'm just staring at my bicycle. Just as informative, and less orange.

The state of my bicycle... is awesome.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
150

At least he's white.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
151

Wait... did I say that?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
152

I've been reading the local news. I just learned that the Packer's coach grew-up just down the road from where I am. I feel edified.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
153

The boring speech was better than this infuriating one.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
154

Ryan started out worryingly well, feigning reasonability and all, but now he's just ghastly boring. Oh, and now he's threatening that we're about to turn into Greece.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
155

We have to cut benefits to seniors now in order to avoid benefits cuts for seniors in the future?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
156

Did he really just say "poor decisions made on wall street"!?

I look forward to a stream of angry op-eds and a net $500b boost to Democratic coffers in 2012.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:04 PM
horizontal rule
157

C-span.com has three continually updating streams of "Members of Congress Tweets", "Congressional Media Tweets", and "Viewer Tweets". (Why?? I have no idea.) It's a tough call which of the three is the most asinine.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
158

Is Congress pooping?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
159

158 gives me an idea? Has anybody invented Shatroulette?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
160

I'm afraid to google it.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
161

157: "Members of Congress Tweets"

Paul Broun Rep. from Georgia. Mr. President, you don't believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
162

The Tweet is not a serious act of political dissent.


Posted by: YK | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
163

Awesome. Michelle Bachman is looking at the wrong camera, off and up. Her practiced gestures now just look weird.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
164

158: congress is eating this amazing panini. Congress is sad tomorrow isn't Friday. Congress has a test tomorrow! :( Congress can't believe he left his wallet at home!'

I don't know enough about twitter to convincingly fake it. So I did Facebook stati. Close enough for government work, right?


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
165

Aaaand she didn't calibrate her makeup right.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
166

I'm surprised to learn that tippling makes me more, not less, likely to censor my comments.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
167

Oh my God, she has a slide of WWII behind her.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:24 PM
horizontal rule
168

It's just so obvious through the lens of beer that my comments are shit.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
169

Reaching a level of happiness often longed for, seldom obtained


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
170

As the camera pans out to her looking off and up, with a nervous and pleased half-smile on her face and a slide of the Constitution behind her, the only possible verdict for this purposeless exercise is: Michelle Bachmann is crazy. Really, what the fuck was that?


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
171

When you start laughing uncontrollably -- that's the thing.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
172

If Michelle Bachmann were a muppet, I'd give her a little more slack. But this is true of all people who are not muppets, were they muppets.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
173

172: I've always thought Geddy Lee was very lucky to be born muppet.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
174

He sings so knowingly of the trees. And of (you may plausibly construe as) pigs in space.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
175

1) Gosh, I'm glad I'm continuing my tradition of saving braincells by not watching speeches, especially SOTUs.

2) When anyone mentions Ryan in this thread I keep thinking they're talking about Rex Ryan.

We are a nation that says, "I might not have a lot of money, but I have this great idea for a new company. I might not come from a family of college graduates, but I will be the first to get my degree. I might not know those people in trouble, but I think I can help them, and I need to try. I'm not sure how we'll reach that better place beyond the horizon, but I know we'll get there. I know we will."

'And just like we're a nation that watched a lot of Judy Garland movies, we're also a nation that says if you're black you're going to jail, if you're poor, you're hosed, if you live in a bad economy, it's hopeless to try and do anything about it. And I'm proud of that.'

max
['MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE!']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
176

I watched Bachmann without the sound on. Pretty great, actually. I sort of love her now.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
177

... is "plasma."


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:37 PM
horizontal rule
178

176: Sound is all we do.


Posted by: Bachman–Turner Overdrive | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
179

[FB check.] Only one wingnut thinks there was something about gun control. So, that's, um, WHAT?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
180

Gun control is about leaving me defenseless against birds and murderers and stop signs. The top post on my FB is about a farm show. The next one about Dan Zanes.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 9:07 PM
horizontal rule
181

I can't find a video of the Bachmann response online. Anybody have a link?


Posted by: BA | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
182

I missed the SOTU as promised, and instead read Comet in Moominland to my daughters. The state of Moominland is...perilous. There's a comet! But I think it'll turn out okay in the end. Am now off daddy duty and drinking bourbon, so entertain me.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 9:38 PM
horizontal rule
183

Imagine Michelle Bachmann looking utterly moonblinked, gesturing earnestly, and occasionally losing control of her facial expressions, all the while making no sound. Very entertaining!


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
184

181: Here. Michele Bachmann Tries To Steal Obama's Thunder By Not Looking America In The Eye.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 9:57 PM
horizontal rule
185

Frankly, I'm disappointed in all of you. The future's not going to win itself, you know.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 9:58 PM
horizontal rule
186

The future's not going to win itself, you know.

Unless it travels back in time and kills Skynet.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 10:16 PM
horizontal rule
187

Skynet

Soon to be part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 01-25-11 10:41 PM
horizontal rule
188

Skynet

We're on to the fifth generation of Skynet now, you know. And we have flying killer robots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28satellites%29


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 6:53 AM
horizontal rule
189

A fourth satellite, Skynet 5D, is planned for launch in 2013

Fucking James Cameron getting his hands on everything.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 6:57 AM
horizontal rule
190

SERIOUSLY I LOVE YOU GUYS!!


Posted by: alameida, channelling pauly shore | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 7:00 AM
horizontal rule
191

Robert Scheer was not impressed:

What is the state of the union? You certainly couldn't tell from that platitudinous hogwash that the president dished out Tuesday evening. I had expected Barack Obama to be his eloquent self, appealing to our better nature, but instead he was mealy-mouthed in avoiding the tough choices that a leader should delineate in a time of trouble.

I remember watching one of (I think it was) Clinton's SOTU addresses on Comedy Central with live commentary from Chris Rock and probably Bill Maher. Rock kept punctuating the cheap platitudes with the phrase "Also, all babies should eat."

I spent the entire address last night thinking "all babies should eat."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 7:12 AM
horizontal rule
192

My favorite SOTU-related tweet of the evening was: "Tonight we'll be hearing rebuttal from GOP and Teabaggers. Hell, why not give some of those ComicCon Klingon guys some time?"

I tried to spend the speech and its various responses playing Civ V, conquering the shit out of England, but I misgauged my timing and came downstairs to rejoin Rah, having surrounded London with Giant Death Robots, just in time for the Republican response. "Oooookay, nevermind," I said, stood back up and went upstairs to fold laundry. Then I came back downstairs again to feed the cats just in time for Bachmann. I had to ask Rah to change the channel; I can't afford to buy a new TV and I'm pretty sure watching her would make me want to break the one we have.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 7:15 AM
horizontal rule
193

Michelle Bachman is looking at the wrong camera, off and up. Her practiced gestures now just look weird.

Not sure if someone's already said this, but apparently she was looking at the Tea Party Express's webcam (for online streaming on their website). As someone on the radio said this morning, "And so, for them, she was looking straight into their souls."


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 7:50 AM
horizontal rule
194

189: It's a real leap forward; he's only done 3D up to now.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
195

having surrounded London with Giant Death Robots

Like Londoners would even notice.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 7:59 AM
horizontal rule
196

192. RMcMP is a Martian.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
197

I support our president! He's the BEST!


Posted by: Pauly Shore | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
198

||

Let Despots Tremble Everywhere Egypt Edition ...Mubarek Jr running to Great Britain

This is why you gotta be prepared, because Revolution just happens spontaneously, without warning, when and where you least expect it. Of course the objective materialist can see the necessary conditions, but no one can know when the people will recognize their always already existing freedom from petit bourgeois passivity.

The Leninist will lead from the rear, sweeping up the refuse of history from behind Peabody & Sherman's march back to the future.

|>


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
199

195: we would notice; it might affect property prices.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
200

199 => 198 works, too.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 9:01 AM
horizontal rule
201

We of the Home Counties Rapid Airborne Deployment Force are powerless to act in cases of violent revolution, unless it has in some way interfered with the London housing market.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 9:12 AM
horizontal rule
202

Does David Cameron at least get a pedal-powered Giant Death Robot?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
203

re: 202

Cameron will get one powered by some super-polluting fuel derived from rendering poor babies. However, he'll drive it about while lecturing the rest of us to be Green.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 9:16 AM
horizontal rule
204

202: no, he'll stick to the army's tried and tested force of Man-Eating Badgers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6295138.stm


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 10:13 AM
horizontal rule
205

I missed the SOTU, but this thread reminded me of my favorite episode of Angel, the one where Angel gets turned into a muppet, so I probably got more of the speech than the rest of you.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
206

I endorse Amanda Marcotte's take on the State of the Union address.

So, that speech sucked. The prior sentence could refer to all of the speeches last night, but obviously the one in question is Barack Obama's State of the Union address. Last night, the emptiness of it pissed me off, particularly how he talked a big game about innovation and moving forward and education, and then proceeded to concede the argument to Republicans that we really shouldn't do any of those things because they cost money. But this morning, I've mellowed out on it a bit and basically feel like I saw a man who has given up. And I can respect that; it's not like anything can be done with the den of wingnut weasels the country just elected to Congress. All he's got left is admonishing us to try harder, while knowing we totally plan to fail and fail hard. Until people who care more about the possibility that women are having unauthorized orgasms than about the state of our economy and our future, we're going to continue this slide downhill, and that's basically all there is to it.

We are a country that's basically given up.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
207

Nice how they've decided not to fix the filibuster either.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 1:19 PM
horizontal rule
208

100: Boehner would look better wearing Insane Clown Posse makeup.

Which thought I passed on to my peeps (aka my daughter*), pulled some strings and viola!

Fuckin' Congress! How does it work?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
209

206: I had the "given up" thought. It also occurred to me, however, that Obama and the Democratic party in general have been accused of failing to put forward a vision, and that speech was a viable version of a vision, the intended audience for which was some generalized constituency of independents.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
210

206:What a negative person. There are some Americans all bullish and optimistic, you know. Quitters never win.

"The S&P 500 closed at a 29-month high on Wednesday led by gains in tech and commodity shares, as investors largely ignored the U.S. Federal Reserve's lukewarm economic assessment."


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
211

Sarcastic bob is funnier than doomsday bob.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
212

Most of the retail small investors are long long gone from the markets of course. Just hedge fund traders playing with each other.

The Decline of the Publicly Traded Firm ...Yglesias, from Felix Salmon. I've linked to a commenter I like "half-kidding", Yggles doesn't get it at all.

Now this is fucking fascinating. Like woah! Less public corporations or IPOs being formed every year, previously public corps buying back stock or delisting.

The very rich don't need us anymore. This is oligarchy on steroids. There are reasons I am studying Japan.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
213

I can't remember which thread got on to predicting (or not) civil unrest, but Scientists working on a project sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory now have a forecasting model that they claim can accurately predict civil unrest against foreign governments.

Egypt only came in at #36, however.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
214

Like woah!

You're trying to drive me over the edge, aren't you?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
215

There are reasons I am studying Japan.

Largely already aware of your lunatic apocalyptic tendencies, you know, but what are you expecting, Godzilla and Mothra?


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
216

There are reasons I am studying Japan.

Hello Kitty?


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
217

208: A very slight modification to make it The Tears of an Insane Clown (when there's cameras around).


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
218

"The very rich don't need us anymore."

I should explicate this.

The very rich, the MOTU, don't need our savings or consumption anymore. They don't need the taxes of the lower 75% of Americans any more. They don't need to work for our votes, they don't care about our opinions, they don't need to sell us anything.

What isn't locked into a TBTF place (healthcare reform, Wellpoint will soon run us) is trivial. They are free.

We are serfs, immobile and ignored. All the free play is entirely within the top, games without frontiers.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
219

The GIS for "japanese inventions" is very odd.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
220

215:Hello kitty and Lolita fashion.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
221

the MOTU

Munchers of Tacos United?
Mean Old Twats Union?
Men Of Taste Unlimited?
Moldy Open Torn Underwear?


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
222

221

Masters of the Universe from IIRC the Tom Wolfe novel Bonfire of the Vanities.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 3:12 PM
horizontal rule
223

Ben Bernanke with a special message to bob mcmanus (and by extension all of us!).


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
224

I'm on Bob's side in this thread. The powerful people in our country have no particular interest in our country doing well as opposed to other countries, particularly other countries with "growth" potential. The idea that what's good for various corporations and their executives is good for any country where they're technically "based" is odd as well.

Moving from elite consensus to the punditry consensus, Ryan Avent and M. Yglesias point out from time to time that all our bickering over American politics is really pointless because the true story of our generation is that working-class people in poor countries are taking the jobs of working-class and middle-class people in rich countries, and that that is such a moral good that everything else is a footnote.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
225

he true story of our generation is that working-class people in poor countries are taking the jobs of working-class and middle-class people in rich countries

Not true, of course; there are more jobs in America now than there were 10 years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago, despite all these foreigners coming on the job market. 100 years ago, China was a peasant nation, and all those guys in the rice fields weren't taking any American jobs. But guess what? Twice as many jobs in America now as then.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
226

As our population has increased, the supply of jobs has also increased, such that many people who once had good jobs now have bad jobs instead of no jobs. Except for all the unemployed people.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
227

Reading about Daniel Bell tonight. Malcolm Waters, Routledge, 1996

They had a common Jewish immigrant experience, they often spent their early years as socialists if not communists, and they were educationally mobile, often through CCNY and Columbia. In its maturity, the tone of the circle was distinctly illiberal, refusing to denounce McCarthyism or the American military engagement in Vietnam, opposing affirmative action for blacks and women, standing radically opposed to student protest, and endorsing unquestioning American support for the state of Israel. They were highly integrated - Kadushin finds that over 50 per cent of the American intellectual elite lived in NYC and that about half of that elite was Jewish, although he does not specify the exact overlap (1974: 22-3)[11]. More importantly, most of the key intellectual journals were located there. There is little doubt that Bell was a key figure in the circle...

I didn't think I'd like him, and I don't. Wrong Waters, the McCarthyism and warmongering and the rest is distinctly and essentially liberal. This is what these folks became when they abandoned socialism and communism.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 6:52 PM
horizontal rule
228

It is also a little interesting that while I can abstract economics from politics, I have a very hard time distinguishing sociology from political science or theory.
The seller and buyer of apples are engaged in an equal exchange, but all personal relations and structures are power relations. "Hello" "What do you mean by that?"

I guess that means I could be a better feminist than Marxist.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
229

The very rich, the MOTU, don't need our savings or consumption anymore. They don't need the taxes of the lower 75% of Americans any more. They don't need to work for our votes, they don't care about our opinions, they don't need to sell us anything.

I don't agree with this - we're still worth some looting. And the killing of brown people is viewed as very handy.

It is also a little interesting that while I can abstract economics from politics, I have a very hard time distinguishing sociology from political science or theory.

I'm finding it more difficult to abstract econ from well, anything.

max
['It all comes down to what the rich want.']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
230

We are a country that's basically given up.

Come on, there are still blogs to comment on. You never know where the revolution will erupt!


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
231

230:You never know where the revolution will erupt!

That's right.

Egypt Revolutions and Food It is about the stresses on the system, and the desperation of the actors, and the ambition and overconfidence of the elites.

Of course, you should be reading Juan Cole or whoever on Egypt.

Paul Krugman may have forgotten, but I never will. He said in 2003 I think that the Bush tax cuts in time of war was a revolutionary act, and social breakdown was a matter of when, not if. It was an instinctive reaction on Krugman's part. Since then, he is in a "Is everybody crazy?" mode. No, Paul, the people aren't crazy, the system is broke. Reality is crazy.

Everybody, everybody, right and left, Tea Party or Firebagger knows we need systemic structural change. Nobody knows how to get there easily, so we (maybe not me) are pretending the system can get us there, but we know we are in denial, lying to ourselves and each other.

And the Estates-General or Duma gets called and then it is "what just happened."

I am old, and I have never felt this. The 60s weren't this, everything looked chaotic but was under control. What I am seeing, feeling now is everything breaking down, and everybody pretending it's under control. Insane Potemkin play-acting. The pretending, the averting of the eyes and making the joke, is what tells me Revolution is on the way.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-26-11 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
232

Egypt Erupts Pt 2 ...Richard Estes

Meanwhile, the conditions facing workers are growing worse. The official unemployment figure is 12 percent, but the real figure is 24 or 25 percent. Food prices are out of control. One kilo of tomatoes--a staple good--is $2; it used to be 35 cents not long ago. That's prohibitively expensive in a country where government workers make only about $26 a month. The question of hunger is real. And now the IMF is pressuring the government to remove the subsidies on gasoline prices.

Estes discusses Tariq Ali's novel Night of the Golden Butterfly

"Ali has publicly said that he was motivated to become a novelist by his interest in discovering what do you do in a period of defeat?"


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 7:28 AM
horizontal rule
233

Tariq Ali should go ask the experts.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 7:31 AM
horizontal rule
234

"Ali has publicly said that he was motivated to become a novelist by his interest in discovering what do you do in a period of defeat?"

Hate to break it to you Bob, but la Quatrieme doesn't have a big presence in Egypt. Used to in Algeria, but that was a long time ago and in another country, and besides Ernest Mandel is dead.

A revolution in Egypt would almost certainly be co-opted by the Muslim Brotherhood, because the repression has been quite effective, so the balance of class forces is less favourable even than in Iran in 1979. In which case, we will be able to briefly enjoy the humiliation of Mubarak, and then we will be able to briefly enjoy the pretty light show from all the explosions in the stratosphere.

Which isn't an argument against supporting the Egyptian workers (though not necessarily their leaders). Far from it. But this is still a period of defeat.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 7:41 AM
horizontal rule
235

everything breaking down, and everybody pretending it's under control

God, yes.

The pretending, the averting of the eyes and making the joke, is what tells me Revolution is on the way.

I'm not sure what it means when Bob is wildly optimistic compared with me. From my seat, it looks like the clampdown is on the way and I can't see any viable resistance.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 7:45 AM
horizontal rule
236

If your seat has no resistance, you should probably do some time on the stairmaster or something.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
237

I'm inclined to agree with 234. If the Mubarak government falls, fundamentalists will take over. (I hope event prove me wrong, of course.)

235: Clampdown? What do you mean? Is there even something to clamp down?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 7:55 AM
horizontal rule
238

Now that my seat has no resistance, I'm saving *tons* of money on poppers.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 7:55 AM
horizontal rule
239

As I've said before, with regard to other political shake-ups around the world, our only choice right now is between the neo-liberals and the fascists. In Egypt, I have to agree, the neo-liberals probably aren't going to get much traction.

I know most people here feel differently, as it is the conventional wisdom that you must do so when you have kids, but I just don't see any potential for change through authorized processes of representative democracy. That's what I said prior to voting for Obama, and that's what I've thought ever since.

I do hold out some hope for collective action bringing about social revolution, because otherwise, why not just become an investment banker or an oogle (as if there's a dime's worth of difference between the two)? I guess my main hope is that we do come to a point of at least partial industrial collapse while there's still time, in an ecological sense, to build something new. But it's a pretty faint hope at this point.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:00 AM
horizontal rule
240

Is there even something to clamp down?

Yes.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:02 AM
horizontal rule
241

240. It must be lonely being a criminal in San Marino.

In other news this:

In 1980, there were about 40,000 people in American jails and prisons for drug crimes. These days, there are almost 500,000.
Is only slightly less proportionally than the entire prison population in Britain. WTF is going on?


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
242

240: But what do you mean that a clampdown is on the way? Prison populations exploded a while ago.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:18 AM
horizontal rule
243

What's an "oogle"?

As I've said before, with regard to other political shake-ups around the world, our only choice right now is between the neo-liberals and the fascists. In Egypt, I have to agree, the neo-liberals probably aren't going to get much traction.

Not between neo-liberals and reactionary religions people?

Aren't neo-liberals and fascists on the same side? I guess the neo-liberals are more about free trade.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
244

241
WTF is going on?

The War on Drugs went about as well as the Vietnam War, and for the same reasons, but there haven't been enough casualties to generate the same level of outrage.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
245

What's an "oogle"?

An investment banker that finds nine cents.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:22 AM
horizontal rule
246

I don't want to be an investment banker, so oogle it is.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
247

Of course, Moby had to go ahead and ruin my comment, that fucker. I hope the Pirates have 50 more losing seasons.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
248

The oogles on the Look at this Fucking Oogle site don't look like I'd mistake them for investment bankers easily (unless this is rhyming slang).


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
249

243: I thought I'd explained oogles before: See, back in the olden days, there were gutter/crusty punx who layabout all day, sparechanging for money to buy cheap beer. They would come to shows with certain bands and cause problems, but there were never that many of them in any one scene. Then, sometime in the mid-1990s, they realized that they could take the show on the road (I attribute this to two factors: 1. The re-mythologizing of the hobo tradition and 2. Cross-pollination from jam-band followers.) So now you have these big groups of crusties converging on various popular locales at different times of year. Mpls is lucky in that the cold weather does indeed keep most of them away from October to April. But during the summer they all show up. They're parasites on the scene. Their dogs have fleas. Their sleeping bags have bedbugs. They have scabies. They ripoff other people in the punk scene, sit around outside venues hassling people, get drunk and start fights for no reason, etc. Most of them never engage in any political or community-building activities. Some of them are genuinely messed up people, and deserve pity rather than censure, but a majority are the classic "kid with rich parents with mommy/daddy issues who is going to fuck around for 10 years and then dry out and become upper middle class again".

Neo-liberals and fascists are not the same thing, I don't think. And while in the past I certainly saw some challenges to hegemony on the part of the radical religious groups, I think they have pretty much all been coopted into fascism at this point.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
250

But what do you mean that a clampdown is on the way?

I mean that past a certain level of unemployment, social unrest is more or less a given. But I doubt that unrest stands much chance of leading to the glorious revolution, rather than to the construction of yet more prisons for those who don't just get gunned down in the streets.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
251

248: They have the same mentality, if not the same dress sense.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:33 AM
horizontal rule
252

there haven't been enough casualties in America to generate the same level of outrage

Fixed that for ya


Posted by: Annelid Gustator | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:33 AM
horizontal rule
253

So what's the difference between an oogle and a gutter punk?


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
254

Apparently, gutters have standards.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:45 AM
horizontal rule
255

I'm not sure what this is evidence of, but it's evidence.

My theory du jour is that we've moved very rapidly to a new set of tiers in our society. People with verifiable identities -- US passports, credit histories, health insurance and medical records, jobs that create long online trails -- are on one tier. Let's call that the reputational tier.

The other holds everyone else.* They're the people with contingent identities, and contingent privileges. They can drive -- most of the time. Travel -- but not without hiccups, and always with the danger on highway or bus or train** or plane of being cuffed, arrested, detained, imprisoned. Get jobs -- but at the whim of background checks, federal databases, and other difficult-to-contest screening tools. Have phones -- but more often throwaway and prepaid, and nearly always without the expectation of privacy (landline-to-landline is a very big privilege these days). Have healthcare -- but haphazardly, without security, without predictability in cost, without reassurance that prescription medication for serious conditions won't be interrupted, and certainly without the ability to plan for events like a pregnancy.

*Not bob's Masters of the Universe.

**Customs and Border Patrol has declared that they have the right to search all public conveyances within 150 miles of a US border or port. Which is almost all of the inhabited US. And they're regularly doing so, on Greyhound, Amtrak, etc.

The major difference between these tiers and the segregation and other tools of the past is the invisibility. You don't know that your phone number is automatically causing you to be screened into the "long wait" customer service line when you call, while mine is zipping me ahead. You don't know when reporters are deciding not to contact your business for comment because you don't have a website, or when you lost a job opportunity because you have no credit history. You don't know when a travel website gives you certain options or an airline codes you a certain way or even when the government puts you on a certain watch list, not just because you don't have the right to ask but because you don't even know to ask.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:46 AM
horizontal rule
256

Witt: Are you imagining "everyone else" to include more people than just undocumented or partially documented immigrants? Is your idea that the amount of bureaucracy you have to navigate to be a functional citizen is just unmanageable, even for people who were born here?


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 8:52 AM
horizontal rule
257

No, it's much more a class thing that a race thing, or even a nationality thing. The rich Chinese international students are not having these problems, for example.

But I know more and more white and black US-born people who just don't have entré to these worlds, and often they don't even know it.

The flip side is that there is a huge informal exchange, where people are having all kinds of interactions without it showing up on the "official" radar, and technology is making those interactions easier as well. But they don't "count" as reputational points, so as far as the reputational tier is concerned, they don't exist.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
258

that s/b than


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
259

re: 255

The taking photographs in a public place thing has been a massive issue here over the past two years. Or massive at least in the press I read. Without getting too tinfoilhat about it, it does seem a fairly deliberate move [despite public avowals to the contrary].


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:04 AM
horizontal rule
260

And it isn't about navigating bureaucracy, per se. The people in the contingent tier are often much better at navigating systems, because they're constantly having to do it. The reputational tier is always getting waved through the fast lane, and they don't even realize how much of a pass they're getting unless and until they lose it.

It's as if the old days when poor people had to be good at dealing with the welfare office suddenly got massively expanded to way more than poor people, and way more than welfare.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:04 AM
horizontal rule
261

I've noticed, in the UK, the increasing use of vaguely worded laws, which are part of that process. It's a little like 'Italy' [of myth, at least] where half the shit ordinary people want to do is technically illegal, but everyone turns a blind eye except when someone in a position of power decides to fuck with you. Technically a load of ordinary shit can be rendered illegal, but in practice, if you play nice, you won't get fucked with.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
262

The reputational tier is always getting waved through the fast lane

The liquor store by my office has all these signs about how you can't carry bags in the store. Last time I was there, they ordered a kid to put her bag at the front. I was standing right next to her holding a similar-sized bag and nobody said anything.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:10 AM
horizontal rule
263

If I buy the premise of 255, I'd say an additional aspect is that a large swath of people are barely in the reputational class, and that too many voters don't believe that the contingency class exists, or at least they don't believe it contains substantially many "good" people.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:12 AM
horizontal rule
264

many voters don't believe that the contingency class exists, or at least they don't believe it contains substantially many "good" people.

Exactly. You got stopped for a broken taillight because you're eeevil; my son got stopped for a broken taillight because of a simple mistake and the officer was being ridiculous.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
265

250:I've never said the good guys were gonna win.

If you want, you can characterize what happened/what's happening as a coup, a usurpation of power entirely within the elites. But something happened to make not only Krugman, DeLong, Stiglitz, Dornan etc but their counterparts on the Right feel lost and irrelevant. The center hasn't held.

This was obviously not a triumph of the paleocons and social conservatives. The Tea Party feels just as disenfranchised as we do.

It is too easy to say Goldman Sachs and Morgan Chase rule now. I don't think they do. I think they also serve.

I think the coup was by the global creditor class (very definitely not Jews). Why Iraq and Afghanistan? Why borrowing instead of taxes in 2002-2003? The bond-holding ultra-elite, the SWFs, the Saudis and oilarchies, Chinese, top Japanese took over with 9/11.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
266

I think Witt's point is well taken. See those kinds of things happening around me all the time. Had a demoralizing experience the other day: Went to the library in my neighborhood to pick up a book I had reserved online. Library was less depressing than I had feared, although it is still freaking me out every time I go in and see the security guard giving every patron who goes in the hairy eyeball. Anyway, after I got my book, I went to wait for the bus. There was a young, 20-ish African-American man standing at the bus stop. I nodded to him, and he asked me how to get to Lake St. So I told him, and pointed out that he would probably be better off standing at the stop across the street if he wanted to get to his destination more quickly. He said "Oh, I can't go back over there, I stood there for 10 minutes and nobody would tell me which bus I needed to get on." Not that it should matter, but this was a very polite, soft-spoken kid, very studious-looking and friendly. I don't know what's wrong with people sometimes.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
267

And it is very very wrong, as I said before, to call it fascism. And most of the leftish analysis of racism misses the point. There ain't no nationalism out there.

In fascism, ultimately the state rules corporations. We are going stateless at lightspeed.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
268

We are going stateless at lightspeed.

Not really stateless, but certainly moving to a new paradigm, alternately more federalized and more parochial. In a couple hundreds years, states-as-mercenaries-for-corporations? Could happen. Maybe even faster.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
269

Here's Richard Seymour aka Lenin arguing with Zizek about racism in Europe. Anti-immigration waves.

Look above at Egypt importing masses of Asian labor to work their factories. The Egyptian workers just wanted jobs, and in any case you can't claim that the elites are fomenting racism and nationalism to suit their purposes, as would be the case in fascism. As far as I can, the opposite is true.

Seymour is pointing at an outmoded target.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
270

No, I think it's pretty clear what's happening: The fascists are being let off their leash a little bit to scare everyone into accepting the neo-liberal agenda without question. So, in one sense, you could say that there really isn't any choice at all, on a global level. But in places like Egypt, the choice is pretty clear: Get with the neo-liberal program or we'll condemn you to 40 more years of a slightly different kind of fascism.

All of this stuff about the corporate state or whatever is completely negotiable. It may have been a feature of Fascism and/or National Socialism, but it's not a necessary condition for small-f fascism.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
271

I wouldn't count the state out just yet. States are very convenient things for corporations. It would be really hard to enforce the requisite amount of labor discipline without the majesty of the state to back you up. Maybe in the far future we would see something like the Wm. Gibson future where states are essentially meaningless frameworks of vague ideas about borders and stuff. But that's a long way away. It's certainly not going to be the cast by the fourth quarter of this century, as Gibson posited.

I think we will see some changes to the degree in which it is uncontroversially public knowledge that corporations have the largest voice in the bourgeois democracies. And for those of us who cling to a modernist/Englightenment/20th century narrative of statehood, that's going to seem like a horrifically radical change. But is it going to really alter how power has been working for some time now? I'd argue no. "What's good for General Motors is good for America" wasn't even that much of a shock when it was originally advanced. The degree to which it is shocking is largely a matter of more and more effective public relations campaigns.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
272

"case" rather than "cast", obvs.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 10:08 AM
horizontal rule
273

I do hold out some hope for collective action bringing about social revolution

Given that all of the social-revolution-bringing-about collective actions in the past have only brought about, in the best cases, representative democracies or something similar, or, in the worst cases, human catastrophes, how is there any more potential for change in a social revolution (and I take that to mean a political revolution, not a spiritual one) than there is through the authorized processes of representative democracy? Neither of them are likely to end war, feed the hungry, heal the sick, or comfort the alienated.

There's never been a time when I didn't feel lost and irrelevant and I'm one of the world's lucky.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
274

This is all over my head, but man are you guys THE SMARTEST!


Posted by: Pauly Shore | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
275

255: My theory du jour is that we've moved very rapidly to a new set of tiers in our society. People with verifiable identities -- US passports, credit histories, health insurance and medical records, jobs that create long online trails -- are on one tier. Let's call that the reputational tier.

My spin du jour on this is that it might be conceived as the difference between the legally empowered (enfranchised) and the rest. That is, with a verifiable identity and attendant records and relationships (credit history, health insurance) attached to your name, you have more legal power to raise a stink should you be faced with obstruction in your endeavors. Organizations -- governmental, corporate, bureaucratic -- slide you on through in your mutual dealings in recognition of this fact.

This sounds like a somewhat lame downgrading of the trend in question, from grand considerations of the balance of power between state and corporate interests, encroaching fascism, or what have you, to a base utilitarian emphasis merely on what motivates individual and organizational behavior. But there's been a significant shift involved in what could be called simply the rules of the game: citizens people are treated with the respect we theoretically accord to all just in case failure to treat them so may result in a lawsuit.

I blame the lawyers, of course.*

*That's glib because this series of thoughts is unfinished.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
276

the SWFs

Now, Bob, I don't think single white females are the villains here.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 10:33 AM
horizontal rule
277

Witt, I see what you mean, and am really interested in the mechanisms here. The individual credentialing systems you take about in 255 are each quite small and each came to be for different reasons. Differences in familiarity and comfort with the Web haven't sprung up because of any decisions of anyone with power, but they are becoming a huge social barrier. Public education in Ohio is rapidly and deliberately moving to a model where computer literacy is a prerequisite for education, not the result of it. No one is doing this intentionally. We just need to move education online to save money.

The arcane policies that govern the way call centers prioritize people, or the way that travel websites show results are more the direct result of the decisions of individuals with power. They are also decisions that are made without anything resembling transparency. But again, who has this power, why they are making this decision, and even whether they are being economically rational varies from case to case.

The other thing is that a lot of these mechanisms are socially necessary. They just aren't being done properly right now.

No, i don't know where this thought is going.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
278

In a couple hundreds years, states-as-mercenaries-for-corporations? Could happen. Maybe even faster.

Banana republics?
States today that are mercenaries for Shell Oil?


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
279

In a couple hundreds years, states-as-mercenaries-for-corporations?

United Fruit Company?


Posted by: Annelid Gustator | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
280

(or the Banana Wars, if you'd prefer)


Posted by: Annelid Gustator | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
281

The other thing is that a lot of these mechanisms are socially necessary. They just aren't being done properly right now.

Rob, could you give examples of these mechanisms that are socially necessary? I don't say that none of them is; I'm just focused in thinking about this on ones that don't seem socially necessary, so I'm having trouble shifting perspective.

It also occurs to me that what we might call socially necessary can easily be conflated with what might be considered to be economically necessary. That's a problem. We all know that western society shifted to a conception of humankind as homo economicus some time ago; I don't know if it's too late to push back on that.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
282

I was just thinking about things like the need to screen job applicants somehow. Credit rating may not be the right way to do it, and the way credit ratings are done now is all screwed up, but you still want to be sure you are hiring someone who will show up on time and not take money from the till.

I suppose that's economically necessary, but barring the end of capitalism, that also means socially necessary.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 11:44 AM
horizontal rule
283

282: Okay. I'm tempted to ask how society managed to screen job applicants in the past without falling apart and without checking credit rating. Relying on seemingly objective metrics (credit rating) in order to provide the semblance of due diligence and avoid personal blame is troublesome.

Now I blame Taylorization. I'll be ready to blame capitalism shortly.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
284

The old system of discrimination was based on skin color and family connections. The new one is creepy and impersonal without bringing us any closer to a meritocracy.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
285

284: Though there was an interim system in which employers (say) simply phoned references in order to get a read on a prospective employee. That allowed, arguably, for a human approach to the matter.

I'm not sure how much I'd want to insist that that interim approach had any merit, whether it was just a cloak for the skin-color-and-connections approach. We'd need the sociologists to tell us that. I may be dreaming.

None of this explains cases like call centers or travel bookings fast forwarding certain customers, though. There I still don't know where to look for an explanation besides who has electoral power, who can raise a stink and involve lawyers, and so on. I suppose there's the possibility that less egalitarian organizations, who favor certain clients, win repeat customers. How grim.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 12:22 PM
horizontal rule
286

employers (say) simply phoned references in order to get a read on a prospective employee

This came from the mouth of a former employer, and I don't know if it's true. But he said that when another employer called to check a reference on a former employee, by law all he could confirm was (1) whether that person had worked for his company, (2) when that person had worked for his company, and (3) whether that person was eligible for rehire.

I guess #3 suggests something or other about, uh, character(?), and the employer I was talking to routinely tried to pry more info when he himself checked references on potential hires. But he believed that employers were under some legal limitations on the references thing.

Again, not sure if that's true and, if so, if it represents a departure from the past.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 12:33 PM
horizontal rule
287

That's by policy, not law, although the policy is to avoid litigation. I'm not really sure why they're so worried about litigation -- it's not my area, so I may be missing something obvious other than defamation, but I can't see any real risk of losing a defamation suit over a reference -- but most companies are.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
288

287: They don't care about losing the suit. They don't want to pay to defend the suit.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 12:39 PM
horizontal rule
289

287: Ah, that makes sense, thanks. I could see this guy using "by law" as shorthand for "a lawyer I trust advised I do this".


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 12:41 PM
horizontal rule
290

I guess, but given that it's a wildly long odds suit, how many people are going to bring it? Someone looking for a reference from a prior employer probably doesn't have the money to straightup pay a lawyer to engage in frivolous litigation, and it's frivolous enough that I can't see anyone taking that kind of thing on contingency, barring really weird facts.

I think a lot of silly policies that are put in place for fear of litigation really don't recognize how unlikely it is people will sue them when there isn't a pretty solid case. (Or in an area that can easily be turned into a swearing contest, which this isn't.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
291

Even figuring just the risk of having to pay for a legal defense, it probably isn't necessary. But, why risk your neck for somebody else, especially if somebody else is a grasping multinational corporation or the guy you want to get rid of so you can hire your cousin.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
292

287 is my answer as well, but this part--"the employer I was talking to routinely tried to pry more info when he himself checked references on potential hires"--is weird, and doesn't match that explanation, unless a lot of employers have that same policy, which to my knowledge they don't (although they do often have policies, they're not generally that restrictive).


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 12:45 PM
horizontal rule
293

it's a wildly long odds suit

I'm not sure where you're getting this. It's not a long-odds suit at all if the former employer genuinely says something stupid. (Not just defamation--more likely is intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (IIPEA).) So if you don't trust your managers not to say stupid things, it might be best to straightjacket them. (Especially when, as moby points out, there's really no advantage to be gained from giving out information in this situation.)


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
294

I continue to blame the lawyers, or rather, the legal profession, or rather, our excessively litigious society, or rather, our collective freakout and felt need to protect against potential suits.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
295

Well, both truth and opinion are complete defenses to defamation -- to get in trouble under defamation you'd need to say something that the plaintiff could credibly argue was a statement of fact rather than opinion and was false, which would have to be pretty stupid. And tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, or business relations, or whatever it is in your state, is a pretty high standard at least in NY; I've defended a bunch of tortious interference litigations, and while I'd need to refresh myself to be sure, I think it'd be really hard to meet the standard with a reference that didn't include false statements of fact.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
296

I'm so afraid of potential suits that I once burned a bolt of pin-striped navy blue fabric.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
297

I'll be waiting for LB -- as stand-in for the legal profession -- to argue in favor of society's backing off the use of credit ratings in assessments of job candidates any time. The argument would go that the risk of litigation in using personal references is virtually nil, so we might as well go back to that.

I am not being sarcastic.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
298

295 cont.: In NYS, the interference has to be by unlawful or wrongful means, which I'm pretty sure that giving a truthful even if negatively opinionated reference wouldn't qualify as. Tortious interference only really holds up for really bad behavior; stuff like fraud, except that the tortfeasor hurt the plaintiff by making misrepresentations to a third party.

It's not logically impossible that a bad reference could give rise to a tortious interference suit, but it's long enough odds that I'd really doubt you could find anyone to take it on contingency.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
299

295: I think it would be a very tough suit to win, agreed, but it strikes me as a suit with enough potential settlement value (even without any weird facts) to make a hungry plaintiff's lawyer willing to bring it.

But of course I'm one of the conservative transactional lawyers, whose main job is doing everything possible to avoid ever having a client face a lawsuit. (See 294.)


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
300

I'm not really following 297. When you say 'society backing off', do you mean legislation barring the use of credit ratings in evaluating prospective employees, or just that employers would stop doing it?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
301

I'm with the end of 293. There may not be a good reason, in a legal context, not to talk about former employees, but what's the positive advantage from doing so? Expecting to take advantage of a norm where everyone is willing to do this? Nobody's going to make the first move here.


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
302

300: Actually, I just meant arguing for it here, which would amount to coming out in favor of employers stopping doing it, not just because there's a minimal legal risk, but because it would be better for society, and we've been hampering ourselves societally by doing it.

But the idea of legislation barring employers from doing it is interesting.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:24 PM
horizontal rule
303

299: I still don't think so. Title VII cases have a lot of settlement value because they're very uncertain -- if you can credibly allege facts constituting discrimination, then it's all down to who the jury believes. And personal injury, you're likely to have a genuinely confusing fact situation with causation, and a sympathetically injured plaintiff -- there's a big risk of a big downside. For a plaintiff to win on a tortious interference claim for a bad reference (without arguably false statements of fact) you'd need a judge to let it through summary judgment, which would be really unlikely, and then a jury to fall for the plaintiff.

It's the summary judgment stage that cuts down the risk of a big judgment enough that I'd be really surprised at finding a plaintiff's lawyer hungry enough to do that sort of thing for a share of the award.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:24 PM
horizontal rule
304

I'm pretty sure that giving a truthful even if negatively opinionated reference wouldn't qualify as

Again, I agree that it's only an issue if you're worried that your managers might say something stupid. So it's pretty easy not to fall afoul of this standard. But there are plenty of stupid things that are within the realm of things that might be said that could at least argubly cause problems.

"I can't prove it, but I always suspected Bob might have a drinking problem." "Bob was a good enough employee. Although he did cheat on his wife, which I don't approve of." etc.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
305

302: It would take legislation, not suits. In the case of a reference, you're asking somebody to risk a suit and they get nothing. With a credit report, the company seeking information pays the company giving the information. As noted, the risk of being sued is actually that high, if they are going to pay you.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
306

There may not be a good reason, in a legal context, not to talk about former employees, but what's the positive advantage from doing so?

If there's literally no significant disadvantage, businesspeople do each other small favors all the time, and they do their ex-employees who they think well of small favors all the time as well. Homo economicus might not, but actual people are usually delighted to say good things about people who did a good job working for them.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
307

You're the litigator, I'm sure you have a better sense of the settlement value here than I do. I'll just say again that it doesn't surprise me in the least that a lawyer was worried enough about the potential liability on this sort of thing to implement a pretty tight policy. Again, the risk (however small it is) is being measured again no appreciable benefit.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
308

300, 302: I think strangers shouldn't be able to check my credit report without my specific, affirmative consent.


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
309

How about being sued for failing to warn a prospective employer that someone had a history of violence?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
310

308: they can't. Many employers obtain that consent as part of the application process (and won't consider you for the job if you don't authorize it).


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
311

307: I think that's bad cost-benefit analysis. The risk is really de minimus, and the benefit of being able to give references isn't zero, it's just diffuse and hard to measure.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:35 PM
horizontal rule
312

310: Huh. I don't have concrete evidence to the contrary, but this is really not what I thought. Isn't unauthorized credit-checking the mechanism for all those annoying pre-approved credit card offers?


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:36 PM
horizontal rule
313

286: Speaking as someone who's been on both sides of that conversation, an awful lot can be said with tone of voice. Of course, the annoying thing is you can't get (or give) details.

I guess, but given that it's a wildly long odds suit, how many people are going to bring it?

Not that many overall, but they're likely to be just exactly the ones you fired because they were crazy (in the non-clinical sense), petty, and convinced the company was out to get them.

I think a lot of silly policies that are put in place for fear of litigation really don't recognize how unlikely it is people will sue them when there isn't a pretty solid case.

I mostly agree with you, but litigation paranoia can also be a rational overreaction to an irrational legal system. Having worked for small (

I once worked at a place where staff used their personal vehicles for business use at times. The claims adjuster told us that even one claim, ever, would probably cause the company to drop us. That just seems insane to me. What on earth is the point of car insurance, then?


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
314

The risk is really de minimus, and the benefit of being able to give references isn't zero, it's just diffuse and hard to measure.

Right. The ultimate harm is that it makes the company a slightly less good employer for its employees (if it hinders the employees ability to network/find jobs when they leave).

Which is important because there are a million examples of companies that have policies that provide minuscule benefit at some small but not minuscule cost to their workers. That seems to be something that's currently in vogue, and it isn't a good trend.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
315

313: Not that many overall, but they're likely to be just exactly the ones you fired because they were crazy (in the non-clinical sense), petty, and convinced the company was out to get them.

Thing is, they have to be not just crazy, but either capable of spending tens of thousands of dollars on pointless litigation, or they have to find a lawyer who's just as crazy (and so will take it on contingency), but competent enough to keep the litigation going. This really cuts the numbers down: if you phrase the risk as "I won't give anyone a reference because I'm afraid an offended employee will spend tens of thousands of dollars on harassing me with no hope of recovery," it sounds a lot less likely, doesn't it?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:42 PM
horizontal rule
316

Whoops. Forgot that I can't use the "less than" symbol.

Having worked for small ($10M or less annual budget) organizations my whole career, I am keenly conscious of how ruinously expensive ONE claim will be. I've never worked at a place with in-house counsel; I've been through several harrowing employee departures where it wasn't at all clear whether the organization would be sued -- and if we were sued, it almost certainly would have put us out of business immediately, since cash flow was always tight and unrestricted revenue nearly impossible to come by.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:42 PM
horizontal rule
317

litigation paranoia can also be a rational overreaction to an irrational legal system.

Well, it can be a rational overreaction to incomplete knowledge about the nature of where the irrationalities are in the legal system. Businesses with this sort of policy probably have a rational belief that they're avoiding significant risks, but their legal advisers should be giving them better advice.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
318

315: The costs ligitation are not symmetrically if the hurdle to get into discovery is reached.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:46 PM
horizontal rule
319

By the way, the apostropher's link in 240 is good. Sorry it took me so long to get to it. While I'd been aware that the US imprisonment rate is high, this line is striking:

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:49 PM
horizontal rule
320

This really cuts the numbers down: if you phrase the risk as "I won't give anyone a reference because I'm afraid an offended employee will spend tens of thousands of dollars on harassing me with no hope of recovery," it sounds a lot less likely, doesn't it?

It would, if that's how these things always went. But in my experience it's not, especially for small organizations. At most of the places where I've worked, a threatened lawsuit would have triggered:

1. A frantic scramble with friends, board members and contacts to get the name of an attorney who could represent us

2. Significant investment of the president's and/or senior staff people's time in screening the lawyer options to make sure they actually had experience in the appropriate area of law and didn't have any conflict of interest with this case. (Repeat 2-4x as necessary.)

3. Emergency meetings with staff to ensure that we had properly documented everything the ex-employee had done, so that we had a defense for why we fired them.

4. Time spent preparing materials and briefing our new attorney on our company, the employee's history, and other relevant plot details.

And that's all BEFORE the lawyer agrees to take our case and writes a stuffy letter on letterhead that -- maybe, hopefully -- scares the opposing side enough that they drop the case.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
321

318: Sure, but it's still a lot of money from the plaintiff's side, and there's no reason for a lawyer to take it on contingency. To get a tortious interference claim like this started, you'd need to pony up a couple of grand for a retainer at the absolute minimum, and keeping it going past a motion to dismiss would be tens of thousands.

Now, if someone's crazy and hates you enough to bring frivolous suits just to harass you, and has the money to spend on it, they can do that. But a policy that prevents you from giving references isn't actually any protection against that -- if they want to bring a frivolous suit, they can just make shit up, no problem. They don't need to prove anything to get to discovery, they just need to tell a good story.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
322

My last paragraph in 321 is really the crux of my argument. You can protect yourself against losing lawsuits by behaving well and staying within the law. You can't protect yourself against people bringing frivolous lawsuits against you at all -- you just have to hope that no one who hates you has that kind of money to throw down the drain. It's not that frivolous lawsuits aren't possible and aren't scary, it's that restrictive policies like this aren't any protection against them.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
323

I forgot the most important thing -- those steps 1-4 above have high opportunity costs. Again, we're talking small companies with small margins for error. If a senior staff person spends three days dealing with this sort of thing, those are three days where really important, time-sensitive contract negotiations, proposal writing, or political networking wasn't happening.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
324

322: But one way to make crazy people hate you is to say nasty things about them when they have prospective employers call you. So it's not that you're protected against the lawsuit from the enraged loony; it's that you're trying not to enrage the loony in the first place.


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
325

It's not that frivolous lawsuits aren't possible and aren't scary, it's that restrictive policies like this aren't any protection against them.

That's kind of overstating it, though, right? I mean, it's like a supply/demand curve or something. On one axis you have the likelihood of a suit, and on the other you have potentially-illegal behavior by your company.

You're right that a person who's out to get you can file a frivolous suit regardless of whether you did anything at all wrong. But the odds that they can find a lawyer and can press a case increase with every step your company takes along the axis of "potentially illegal behavior." Which is where you get these blanket HR policies that seem crazy on the face of them.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
326

The risk of a non-frivolous tortious interference claim may be minimal, but I don't think the same is necessarily true for defamation. If you go beyond just a recitation of basic facts like those in 286, you're quickly going to find yourself giving factual answers to all sorts of touchy questions. ("Why was X fired?" "Why wasn't X promoted in the last N years?") If the former employee can make out a genuine dispute about the truth of those answers, you're looking at a trial. The other elements--harm to reputation and damages attributable to the falsehood--are generally easier to make out in this context than in others, for obvious reasons. And likely cheap enough to litigate for a hungry plaintiffs' lawyer to bring on contingency and squeeze for a settlement, even if odds of victory at trial are longish.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
327

324: Sure, but that kind of concern wouldn't generally block you from giving detailed, enthusiastic recommendations for good employees, and a "Meh" for horrors.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
328

319: The latest figures I could find were from 2006, but at the time we had 2.2 million prisoners compared with 1.5 million for China. Given that there are at least a billion more people in China than in the US, it does make one wonder just which country is more deserving of the title "police state".


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
329

They don't need to prove anything to get to discovery, they just need to tell a good story.

I KEEP TRYING TO DO THIS BUT NO ONE WILL LET MEE FEENISH!!!


Posted by: OPINIONATED ORLY TAITZ | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:04 PM
horizontal rule
330

Would I take a job reference case as a plaintiffs' lawyer? It depends. If the job offered was valuable enough -- a couple hundred thousand a year -- and there was something genuinely factually wrong about the reference, sure I would.

If the referral was nothing more than "I did not like this person's work" with no further details, of course you wouldn't have much of a case. But a "say nothing" policy is probably much easier to enforce than a "make only vague statements of opinion, and if you have to mention a fact double check to make sure that it is 100% accurate and can be immediately and definitively proven to be so" rule.

Frex, I could see beating summary judgment as a plaintiff if there was an email that said something like "On a team of 4 people, candidate x consistently did the worst work and no one here liked her work," so long as there was a reasonable dispute about whether or not that was true.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
331

327: Right. That's what most people actually do, but you can't set a policy saying that or it defeats the whole purpose of saying 'meh' instead of 'run away from this person.'


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
332

327: True. I'd speculate, though, that an HR department might have a harder time issuing and enforcing a policy of "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" than simply "don't say anything at all."


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
333

If you go beyond just a recitation of basic facts like those in 286, you're quickly going to find yourself giving factual answers to all sorts of touchy questions. ("Why was X fired?" "Why wasn't X promoted in the last N years?") If the former employee can make out a genuine dispute about the truth of those answers, you're looking at a trial.

But the answers to those questions are mostly not going to be facts -- "We didn't like the quality of his work" is either a statement of opinion about the guy, or an unfalsifiable statement of fact about your beliefs. Staying on objective facts or statements of opinion really isn't hard.

Make up something negative that you think a reference would be likely to say that could constitute defamation? It's not impossible, of course, but it seems really easy to stay away from to me.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
334

324: But one way to make crazy people hate you is to say nasty things about them when they have prospective employers call you. So it's not that you're protected against the lawsuit from the enraged loony; it's that you're trying not to enrage the loony in the first place.

Back in the old days, an employer letting a crazy employee go might tell him or her that it was best not to use the employer as a reference.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
335

330:

Would I take a job reference case as a plaintiffs' lawyer?

On contingency? For realz? With your best fact "if there was an email that said something like "On a team of 4 people, candidate x consistently did the worst work and no one here liked her work"?

I could see taking it if you were getting paid, but not on contingency.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
336

By the way, there's not a general defamation exemption for anything that's an "opinion." So long as the opinion statement could be reasonably be found to imply a statement of fact that could be proven true or false, there's no bar to a defamation case.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
337

334: Probably comes up more often if a prospective employeer calls former employeers of the candidate, as opposed to the actual references. If you worked somewhere for five years, you pretty much have to put on your resume or make an elaborate lie for those five years.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:12 PM
horizontal rule
338

333: I don't know why the answers to those questions aren't mostly going to be facts. "Fired for absenteeism/sleeping on the job," "not promoted because he/she didn't work well with colleagues/was consistently outperformed by others in the same position." Which of course may or may not be true--it's not like petty personnel decisions are never papered over with such rationales. I suppose you could make the policy be "say only that you [liked|did not like] former employee X's work", but that doesn't get you all that much further than the name, rank, and serial number policy.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
339

335 -- Depends on the value of the case and on the underlying facts. But, for example, if the reference said "On a team of 4 people, candidate x consistently did the worst work and no one here liked her work," and I could show that she got performance reviews that were mostly equal to or exceeded the other employees, and if there was an ex-employee who was willing to say that the candidate was a good worker, and if the job that she lost due to the bad reference paid a lot of money, like north of a couple hundred k per year, and the defendant was solvent, I might well think seriously about taking the case.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
340

Back in the old days, an employer letting a crazy employee go might tell him or her that it was best not to use the employer as a reference.

Back in the old days, crazy people had more common sense? Was that a joke?



Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
341

328: it does make one wonder just which country is more deserving of the title "police state".

This makes me vaguely sick to my stomach. I knew it was bad, that we were bad with our incarceration rates, and I knew that it functioned as the effective disenfranchisement of large portions of the population, a project which has only been expanding, but I didn't know that the proportions were so large.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
342

The prison population comparison isn't really fair; China could be keeping their numbers artificially low by executing people.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
343

342: I'm not sure the only comparison we should be concerned about is to China. It's not like as long as we're better than China about these things, it's okay.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
344

339: Okay, but look at the facts you've got there. You don't need a policy saying "no references at all" to get there, you need a policy saying "don't give aggressively negative reviews that are provably false." The only reason why you'd need the more restrictive policy is if your employees have no judgment at all, and if they have no judgment at all, it's debatable whether the tighter policy is going to do you any good.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
345

Back to rob in 277:

The individual credentialing systems you take about in 255 are each quite small

Well, some are, you're right. The driver licensing isn't, for example. The difference in the amount of ID required to prove that you can get a Pennsylvania driver's license (or non-driver ID) has both increased and become ironclad non-negotiable* in recent years.

*Scandals notwithstanding.

Differences in familiarity and comfort with the Web haven't sprung up because of any decisions of anyone with power

I'd say yes and no on this. Lack of affordable (or any!) broadband access was a huge battle in this country and it isn't over yet.

Closer to home, I've seen charter school operators, colleges, and municipalities produce documents and require parents/students/citizens to have not just computer access but specific software to take part in required activities. Choosing MS Office over Open Office, or Blackboard or one of the other proprietary systems is very exclusionary, even if often obliviously so.

And of course, it goes the other way -- the contingent tier people have access to a whole world with reputational points and everything that the others don't, or can't easily figure out -- but the reputational people don't care about that so it's invisible.

I think it was the Pew Internet & American Life Project that released a report a while back on black and Hispanic Americans' use of mobile phones for texting and other handheld Internet access. It was ABOVE Anglo-Americans'. It's just that this huge, vibrant exchange space isn't considered legitimate so nobody tracks it. You get hints in the mainstream media from time to time, like when they write a "Facebook and Myspace are different. Wow!" but they don't grasp or understand the realities of those differences at all.

And unlike in-person code switching, where at least you can watch other people doing it and learn from them, online code-switching is very hard to watch unless you have in-person access to someone who is doing it. I've been jarred several times when I'm included on an e-mail list with people I've met in another capacity and suddenly get a peek into their online worlds.

but they are becoming a huge social barrier.

Exactly.

The other thing is that a lot of these mechanisms are socially necessary. They just aren't being done properly right now.

Right. Well, maybe not "a lot." Some are. You want some system, in a nation of 300 million, of figuring out whether you should lend this person $300,000 to buy a house.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
346

335: low-rent contingency shops will take just about any damn case that walks in the door. They're all about volume, with little regard for quality of the case. Most of the cases are losers, but they put very little work into them. These generally aren't the plaintiff's lawyers who are getting rich--they're barely eeking out a living. Anything that has a chance of bringing dollars in the door gets filed, which is close to costless for the firm. If a case starts to go somewhere, then of the lawyers will actually start paying attention to it.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
347

Well, I agree that the best thing would be to have employees with better judgment, and to have them not say things that could arguably be proven false. But it's not hard to see why you get HR policies about references that are basically "say nothing, and if you have to say anything, make sure that it's positive."

As I say, the alternative policy is "make only vague statements of opinion, and if you have to mention a fact that could negatively reflect on the candidate double check to make sure that it is 100% accurate and can be immediately and definitively proven to be so" which seems a lot harder to implement and enforce.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
348

Given what I believe to be LB's job, I'm sure she's pretty familiar with the types of plaintiffs' firms mentioned in 346.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
349

No doubt China is the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world at executions, what with employing mobile execution chambers and stuff. But even taking the worst-case 10K executions a year, we're still in no danger of being displaced in the incarceration pageant.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
350

The only reason why you'd need the more restrictive policy is if your employees have no judgment at all, and if they have no judgment at all, it's debatable whether the tighter policy is going to do you any good.

I agree with this, mostly, although a blanket policy can be easier for persons with no judgment to comply with. But look at it from the perspective of the lawyer giving the advice: is there any downside to advising a tighter policy? No. There might be some arguable diffuse benefit that the company will lose out on (although I'm still not convinced of that), but nothing significant, and certainly nothing that's going to impact the attorney (or that she'll get any credit for). Is there any downside to saying that the looser policy is fine? Yes. If a fluke lawsuit ever hits the company, and you're on record with this advice, people will be pissed. You might well be fired (or lose the client, if you're outside counsel).


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
351

348: I'm pretty sure she is, too, which is why I'm confused by 335.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
352

346, 348: low-rent contingency shops will take just about any damn case that walks in the door.

I do run into that kind of firm, and IME they're pretty specialized in things that generically have a fair amount of potential; Title VII cases and similar employment discrimination cases, and personal injury.

347: Oh, a policy that said positive references or no reference only would seem reasonable to me, in a big enough organization that you didn't trust people's judgment. It's the step to 'no one gets a reference at all, because we'd get sued if we weren't perfectly evenhanded' that seems loonily overcautious to me.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
353

Oh, a policy that said positive references or no reference only would seem reasonable to me, in a big enough organization that you didn't trust people's judgment. It's the step to 'no one gets a reference at all, because we'd get sued if we weren't perfectly evenhanded' that seems loonily overcautious to me.

And once again, we're all arguing about nothing.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
354

Like, I've talked to people with actually pretty reasonable cases that don't fit into a contingency mill's area of expertise, and haven't been able to find a lawyer to take their case on contingency.

350: Sure, but isn't that putting the lawyer's interests over the client's?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
355

God, I have the most hilarious defamation/false light/use of likeness case ever going on right now. I wish I could talk about it!


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
356

355: Tease!


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
357

354: How does not saying anything hurt the client, except in the general Kantian sense that it hurts society? It hurts some guy who is at another company, possibly a direct competitor.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
358

As near as I can tell, 75% of legal advice ever given is some variant of "You don't have to answer that."


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
359

Sure, but isn't that putting the lawyer's interests over the client's?

I'm not sure how.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
360

357: Overtight policies are damaging to morale; this specifically is damaging to networking with other companies in the business, and to building relationships with old employees. That sort of thing is diffuse, but it's not nothing. It's just that the lawyer can't possibly get credit for not being over-restrictive, and might get wrongly blamed for being under-restrictive if they recommended something reasonable.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
361

Overtight policies are damaging to morale

This would be pretty far down the list of things done to damage morale, especially if we're talking about things that HR does.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
362

But it's part of the one damn thing after another, having to jump through stupid hoops. No particular stupid rule is all that burdensome, but all of them together wear people down.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
363

Maybe, but that's a pretty easy rule to avoid. Co-workers I like have my cell and private e-mail.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
364

Well, everybody has my e-mail.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
365

we're still in no danger of being displaced in the incarceration pageant.

There's a lot variation in this by state. Doubtless the country could benefit a lot from some federal intervention. More use of things like drug courts, housing for mentally ill, better social net overall, etc. For instance, why is Utah's prison rate less than half of neighboring states like AZ and CO? The real eye openers though are the gulf states.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
366

The real eye openers though are the gulf states.

God, you ain't kidding. Here's a map similar to the one from gswift's link, only with rate and rank up front.

What the hell is wrong with Louisiana?


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
367

Isn't unauthorized credit-checking the mechanism for all those annoying pre-approved credit card offers?

That's an exception to the general rule. And you can opt out (for five years at a time, IIRC) if you like. In fact, you should opt out, because pre-approved credit card applications create a massive vulnerability to identity theft.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 5:14 PM
horizontal rule
368

Thanks for those links, gswift, TJ.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01-27-11 5:39 PM
horizontal rule