News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:44 am

Rejakor wrote:Whereas the same thing happening here? Hah. Fat chance.

But, it very nearly DID happen here. In civilized NSW no less.

And I hear rumors that the barbarians in so called "Western Australia" have come close a couple of times too. And thats not even discussing the minor outlying islands, that time Queen Victoria dissolved the largest state on the continent because it offended her, and the whole New Zealand thing.

Also while Australian states largely CHOOSE to co-operate more, they are still remarkably independent of each other if they really want to be, it is, as far as I am aware a voluntary federation, and to some large extent apparently based on the USA model.

So while I have no idea how it works (probably just outright poor information sharing rather than a firm lack of extradition). I personally once knew some guy who rumor had it was hiding out from minor offenses against NSW law by living to South Australia.

I can only assume that South Australia was so hard up for population at the time they they were happy to take petty criminals and guys with multiple unpaid speeding fines.

Either that or most of the state is, as I have always imagined it to be, a lawless Mad Max style waste land where multiple speeding offenses are merely the basic skills you need to escape from the roaming post apocalyptic demolition derby cannibal gangs.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:41 am

PhoneLobster wrote:I can only assume that South Australia was so hard up for population at the time they they were happy to take petty criminals and guys with multiple unpaid speeding fines.

Insert joke about the original colonization of Australia here.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:40 am

IGTN wrote:
PhoneLobster wrote:I can only assume that South Australia was so hard up for population at the time they they were happy to take petty criminals and guys with multiple unpaid speeding fines.
Insert joke about the original colonization of Australia here.

Dammit. Too late.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:03 am

Apparently it's in the AU constitution that you can't secede from Australia. So all those guys who have their own kingdoms in AU can treat them as states or whatever, but not nations: they don't get to decide that murder isn't against the law of their private kingdom, because they can't actually secede.

And WA actually DID try it once, but the rest of the country went "Constitution. Haha."

But (citation needed), I heard it from a friend like 5 years ago, and have taken a lot of drugs since then.

Also, yes PL. It's like Mad Max, but not as comfortable and peaceful.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:59 am

Unsurprising news of the day, states which vote more Republican still take in more Federal dollars than they give in taxes.

Also, you may have heard of a study claiming more dollars went to Democratic districts from the stimulus last year. Well, the study kinda missed a few obvious things...

-Crissa

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:37 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:
So while I have no idea how it works (probably just outright poor information sharing rather than a firm lack of extradition). I personally once knew some guy who rumor had it was hiding out from minor offenses against NSW law by living to South Australia.

Yeah, it boils down to information sharing. The extradition processes are fast (Go to magistrates court, say he's wanted in jurisdiction X, magistrate signs off 100% of the time), but the cops genuinely don't tell each other that dude X had his license suspended and dude Y is wanted for petty theft.

They do if it's a major crime though.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:55 am

Amanda Marcotte takes down that liar, Erick Erickson and his walkback of his anti-Census views.

Of course, I just noticed that Amanda argues alot like Frank.

-Crissa

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:13 am

Crissa, somehow I knew you read that site too.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:51 am

Sammi doesn't like Amanda's language, tho. Alas.

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:26 pm

More vaccine refusers fucking things up for everyone else.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:01 pm

Immunity from vaccines should mean that only the refusers are targeted by the infection. They reap what they sow.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:07 pm

mean_liar wrote:Immunity from vaccines should mean that only the refusers are targeted by the infection. They reap what they sow.

Unfortunately, it doesn't mean that. It means there is more of a reservoir of disease to attack other people and it means that children are in more danger before they get vaccinated and the elderly are more vulnerable as their vaccines wear off.

Immunity isn't a permanent binary ability the way it is in D&D. Refusing to take precautions against infectious disease is like facing xenomorphs or vampires without adequate protection. It's immoral. Not because you are risking your life, or even that you're putting strain on the infrastructure of the rest of society - it's that you are actually becoming a vessel of attack against the rest of the people. An attack which the rest of society, being more responsible about that sort of thing, is better able to end off, but an attack nonetheless.

-Username17

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:56 am

mean_liar wrote:Immunity from vaccines should mean that only the refusers are targeted by the infection. They reap what they sow.

Vaccines aren't 100% effective.

If a vaccine is, say, 95% effective, then 5% of the people who were vaccinated are vulnerable to a disease coming back because of refusers.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:30 am

Vaccine effectiveness isn't binary either. It isn't just "You have immunity so nothing happens to you." It's "You have specific antibodies against that antigen, so you can begin to mount an effective immune response as soon as the antigen gets detected." But you still need to mount an immune response to destroy the actual agents of disease when you are exposed.

This can sometimes take a while. So you can get a "little sick" and have fevers or a runny nose - when the vaccine is working.

-Username17

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:56 am

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html

Obama authorizes CIA assassination of US citizen.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:46 am

IGTN wrote:http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html

Obama authorizes CIA assassination of US citizen.

Wow. First state secrets, now this. I guess the fact that he had Joe Biden (I always hear that name in Palin's voice) as a running mate should have been a warning that he was a tool.

At least he got healthcare through, to some extent...

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:02 am

IGTN wrote:http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html

Obama authorizes CIA assassination of US citizen.

Is that accurate? Like, I wouldn't call myself Obama's biggest fan, but it is extremely difficult for me to believe that he would - or even would dare - authorize assassinating a U.S. citizen without due process.

Being a citizen of free country isn't the difference between a 50% tax rate and a 55% tax rate, but it is the difference between being entitled to due process under the law and being assassinated by the state. If that article is accurate - and I hope someone here will be diligent enough to fact check it - that's simply unforgivable.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:30 am

Well, yes and no.

Yes, Obama campaigned on having assassinations on foreign soil.

No, it doesn't mean they were killing people anywhere, and the Obama Administration isn't the one who wrote the language you're referring to.

I don't see why this is surprising. It's not like we have a strong Progressive/Leftist/Peacenik political will or friendly media in this country.

-Crissa

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:40 am

Anwar al-Awlaki is a US citizen, but only in that the US does not recognize peoples' abilities to lose that title. He has been living outside the US for 8 years, and has been an active Yemeni revolutionary for 6 years. The rule of US Law only applies in the US. Killing Anwar al-Awlaki would not be a matter of the United States passing judgement on one of their own without a trial - it would be providing military aid to the nation of Yemen in their ongoing civil war.

That said, it's pretty fucked up. But the hyperbole about due process is decidedly not the point. The point is that we're supposed to get congressional approval to intervene in any war outside our own borders. But then, that boat sailed a long time ago.

-Username17

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:11 pm

...and no standing armies. That's a miss these days too.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:53 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:The point is that we're supposed to get congressional approval to intervene in any war outside our own borders. But then, that boat sailed a long time ago.

What do you mean by "that boat sailed a long time ago"? That we're ignoring what we're supposed to be doing?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:56 pm

Anyone mind telling me the difference between authorizing the assassination of a terrorist and going 'fuck this' and just shooting up bank robbers whom have already executed some of the hostages? I mean, instead of shooting up said bank robbers you could always just wait until they run out of bullets shooting at your cops and pray that they don't shoot any more hostages. Then they could capture them and have their due process instead of assassinating the bank robbers by police squad.

I am frankly baffled at the whole butthurt whining of the whole thing. It's like liberals are living in a fantasy world where people will always surrender and have a safe and easy trial. That's supposed to be a Hollywood-induced Dirty Harryesque PARODY of progressives, not an accurate fucking observation. But Poe's Law wins every time.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:57 pm

RobbyPants wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:The point is that we're supposed to get congressional approval to intervene in any war outside our own borders. But then, that boat sailed a long time ago.
What do you mean by "that boat sailed a long time ago"? That we're ignoring what we're supposed to be doing?

Are you a U.S. citizen? If you are, what planet have you been living on for the last century or so? The thing with Presidents bypassing Congress to provide military aid and then telling people to go pound sand has been going on at LEAST since Woodrow Wilson and probably longer than that. And he didn't even have a particularly justifiable reason like fighting terrorists, he was just doing it to suck the cock of capitalists.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:04 pm

My question wasn't if we were doing it. I was just making sure I was understanding Frank's wording. I'm assuming that's what he meant.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:04 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Anyone mind telling me the difference between authorizing the assassination of a terrorist and going 'fuck this' and just shooting up bank robbers whom have already executed some of the hostages.

The difference is that no evidence has been offered that Anwar al-Awlaki is a terrorist.

This is the gitmo thing again. Why do we care about giving due process to terrorists? Because without due process we don't know if they're terrorists or not.