[nige1]

cherdano, on 2016-December-28, 01:19, said:

I'd put it slightly differently.

The actions that Jon took that got him banned were

• very surprising/shocking to Kaitlyn, but
• pretty much in character for most of us who has seen him post here over the years.

If event X happens that is completely surprising/shocking to me, but not totally unexpected to everyone else, then maybe I should reconsider some of my underlying assumptions.

It's unclear why moderators were persuaded to ban jonottowa but I feel that continuing personal attacks on him are in doubtful taste, now that he can no longer defend himself.

[Cyberyeti]

nige1, on 2016-December-28, 07:02, said:

It's unclear why moderators were persuaded to ban jonottowa but I feel that continuing personal attacks on him are in doubtful taste, now that he can no longer defend himself.

It was VERY obvious what he did to get banned although I haven't checked if the posts have been removed now. Going away from these boards and making allegations to somebody's IRL contacts is a pretty big no-no.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2016-December-28, 07:02, said:

It's unclear why moderators were persuaded to ban jonottowa but I feel that continuing personal attacks on him are in doubtful taste, now that he can no longer defend himself.

Nigel, if this was unclear to you, then you are far more stupid than I thought. (and that's saying something)

Please recall, the specific incident that caused Jon to be banned was selectively forwarding comments that MikeH had made on these forums to members of his law firm and asking them to take steps to have MikeH disbarred.

This was coupled with the fact that Jon didn't post any bridge related content for a several years. His only reason for participating on the forums was posting a bunch of racist clap trap, forwarding this to his Alt Right followers on Twitter and the like, and use this do try to generate credibility with a bunch of neo-Nazis.

Jon had been warned by the moderators about making racist posts.
He responded by trying to have a forum member fired from their job.

is that simple enough for you?

[billw55]

cherdano, on 2016-December-28, 01:16, said:

But now that the election is over, that's all minor quibbling about posturing. The questions that matter are:

• What will Republicans actually do to replace ACA with - after they haven't told us for the last 6 years? They don't actually care. They will take whatever profit engine that industry gives them, pass it through and uniformly praise it as the final glorious proof of how bad Obama was.
• Why on earth are Republicans set on replacing Medicare with premium support for ACA-style insurance exchanges - just after we have seen those work badly? They'd be more expensive than Medicare by a big factor. They don't actually care about that either. Rs are only against big government, spending, and debt when Ds do it.

[y66]

nige1, on 2016-December-28, 07:02, said:

It's unclear why moderators were persuaded to ban jonottowa but I feel that continuing personal attacks on him are in doubtful taste, now that he can no longer defend himself.

Personal attacks are not in doubtful taste. They are in poor taste. Period. Let's not equivocate about this or pretend any of us are saints.

Let's also not equivocate about the grounds for banning jonottowa. He was unsubtle, ungracious, repetitive, intentionally annoying and an incredible boor which is grounds enough for me. For everyone else, except you it seems, his lack of judgement in using comments intended for the sole consumption of members of this forum to attack a fellow forum member at his place of work was unforgivably mean spirited, a betrayal of the sanctity of the water cooler and clear grounds for banishment.

[Trinidad]

For me this has always been the reason to separate my BBF identity from the real life identity: I stand by what I am writing here, but I don't want some $%@#$% to cherry pick some oneliners out of context and put them on my boss's desk (or my mother's for that matter).

Rik

[diana_eva]

nige1, on 2016-December-28, 07:02, said:

It's unclear why moderators were persuaded to ban jonottowa but I feel that continuing personal attacks on him are in doubtful taste, now that he can no longer defend himself.

I've always appreciated your efforts to keep some balance around here and give benefit of the doubt to even most moronic posters in the name of freedom of speech or whatever but with this statement you're falling into the camp of "we can't be sure this is a fact". You do remember there are facts and some ways to check truths and all that, right? Not everything under the sun is a matter of opinion.

I've left Mikeh's and Jon's posts that got Jon banned specifically to allow everyone to see that there was a VERY solid reason to ban the guy and not try to say we're gagging anyone who disagrees with liberal views or the "usual gang" or who knows what else.

[kenberg]

rmnka447, on 2016-December-27, 16:09, said:

BTW, Ivanka isn't Donald's wife, it's his daughter. She was travelling with her young children and apparently handled the situation with great aplomb. The strongest reaction seems to have been from women. They were very concerned about the traumatic effect that such a confrontation would have on the toddlers.

Think of it this way, how would you react if you heard, say 2-4 years down the road, that Chelsea Clinton was travelling with her child on a commercial flight and was confronted by a right wing zealot ranting about what a crook, liar, and despicable person her mother was. It would be as entirely out of bounds as this incident was.

The airline handled it exactly right as there was no guarantee they'd be able to handle the situation if it flared up again during the flight, so they took the protesters off the plane. So the only real penalty the perpetrators of this instance paid was the time and inconvenience of taking a later flight.

Yes, daughter of course. I corrected it, thanks.
I did not, ad do not, want to much get into this dispute, mostly I think they can settle it without my help. I certainly agree, and said, that it is bad manners to accost a person on a plane to talk about their (or anyone's) political beliefs. If the incident took place as described, I have no problem with the passenger being escorted ff the plane. I have no plans to look into this further.

Quote

As for Trump's policies, let's be realistic --

I can go with that.

Quote

Repealing and replacing ACA has to include some viable means for most, if not all, people covered by ACA to have healthcare insurance. It would be political suicide to do anything different. So the contention of 25 million without any healthcare is just progressive propaganda. Clearly, ACA is in a death spiral now. People with family coverage for $1000 a month and a $12,000 deductible know that's not any real insurance just high cost catastrophic coverage. Certainly, it's not affordable care. Trump has already endorsed retaining "stay on family insurance til 26" and "no pre-existing conditions" and these are things a majority of Republicans have always been for. Any repeal would also include a several year transition period to whatever the replacement would be according to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Let's see what Trump and the Republicans come up with.
[

I can also sort of go with waiting to see what they come up with.. The pre-election rhetoric strongly suggested that the wait would not be long.I know people who have run up against problems such as you mention above.I have no problem, and I have said it, understanding why some people at the low end have not been enthusiastic with the way the ACA has worked out for them Others have found it very helpful. I also have no problem understanding why some at the low end are more than a little worried about what happens next. I really have no idea of where this will go. Had the Ds and the Rs been able to work together on this in 2010 or whenever it exactly was, we might have a better system in place right now. Perhaps we agree on that. I put more blame on the Rs than on Obama for this lack of cooperation [Note I said more, not all], and there I gather we disagree. We will have to wait. I do not have a lot of faith in Trump. To put it mildly.

Quote

On education, apparently you missed President-elect Trump's emphasis about wanting school choice for all. This would include a voucher system where student funding followed the student. The student could attend any school that had space for them. Apparently, some pilot programs have shown success with this approach, not only for students changing schools, but also for the schools students were leaving. These "underperformers" were forced to compete and therefore had to make changes that improved learning for all the students that remained. A Democrat, an ex-DC Councilman, who is a strong advocate for better education touted these results. Betty Devos, Trump's choice for Education Secretary, has long been interested in education and an activist in trying to improve our education system and strong advocate for educational choice. He thought she'd be a good choice to help implement this program.

Certainly, something has to change in our educational system to get better results. The US spends the most per capita for education of any country and we were something like 137th in the world. Just tossing more money at the problem isn't a real solution.

First, we might agree that nobody much has much to brag about in education. I recall we were to be number one in the world in math and science by the year 2000. Well, maybe 3000. So it has been a mess.

School choice for all? How would this work? I have modest direct experience, in two very different ways. becky and her sister: Becky, my wife, went to Lowell High in SF. She had to take an exam, or get recommendations, or both, to get in. She had a fairly long trip in via BART. It went very well. Her sister did not get in, but she was still able t go to a different school from the one that she would be automatically sent to. If another school had a specific program of interest you could go to that one, so her sister developed a sudden burning issue in studying Russian. After graduating, she went on to art school. Russian art, maybe. Now me: I lived on the dividing line between tow districts so I could choose, and I did. Wrongly. My parents were not at all involved in this choice. The only time I can recall my mother discussing what school I should go to was when I was in eighth grade. Her friend May was explaining that Kenny should transfer to Holy Cross because it was much better. May's daughter Shirley was in eighth grade and already studying algebra. Neither May nor my mother had the slightest idea of what algebra was, but no doubt it was good that Shirley was studying it. My mother pointed out the obvious, we were not Catholic and Kenny was not going to Holy Spirit. The discussion then switched to what my mother had against Catholics. Then they moved on to something else. My schooling was not further discussed. Btw, I am not in the least complaining about my upbringing. I was given a lot of independence, and this can be far more useful than algebra. The point is that we need the nearby schools to be good so that a long BART ride is not needed and mothers do not have to get involved in how to choose the proper school.

The teaching at the high school I attended ranged from quite good to godawful. The situation today, as near as I can tell, is that the best public high schools are far better than what was available to me, even if I had made the better choice, and the bad ones are far worse than what I attended. Letting kids, or their parents, choose could help some, but there are only so man spaces at the better ones, and the kids need a way to get there. Part of the basis for my choice of schools was that I could go a block and a half to a main street, hitch hike a ride, and get off a block from the school. The other, better, one was harder to get to. And I had no idea, when I chose, that it was better.

There is a lot that needs doing. And family life plays a strong role, a complicating fact. And a very subtle one, I think. My father once mentioned that if he had to read all these books I was reading it would drive him nuts. Yes, but he expected me to behave responsibly, not embarrass the family, and grow up to be self-supporting.This can be more important than help with algebra.

We have to get this right. My seventeen year old grandson goes to a good school in a good area taking AP this and AP that. Far more than what I had any access to and that's wonderful. This part of our education scene is very good. But we have to educate others as well. This part needs work. And it has to be solved without ruing the good stuff for my grandson or the kids who will come later. I wish us luck. I will treat a good idea as a good idea, wherever it comes from.

[MrAce]

nige1, on 2016-December-28, 07:02, said:

It's unclear why moderators were persuaded to ban jonottowa but I feel that continuing personal attacks on him are in doubtful taste, now that he can no longer defend himself.

Nige1 I appreciate your being brave and not agreeing with the majority in many different topics and trying to be on the same side with people who are being ganged up on.

But this Jonnottowa thing is different. I know you are also one who is against racism and one who defends the free speech. With all due respect to you, you started to sound like you will take stance in the opposite direction of certain posters and you do not care anymore whether what they say is right or wrong.

If and when you do that, don't you think that your opinions are being decided by other people and where they stand? That's not the Nige1 I know. What this guy did was worse than awful and there is nothing to defend about it. Just because he did it to someone you are not fan of, should not affect where you stand on this imho.

You know I am in disagreement with you in topics not less than others. I never said anything mean or insulting to you personally. I always believed and still do that you have the right to express whatever you believe. But ask yourself "Am I reacting to X or Y or Z opinion because it is supported by Richard, Arend, Mike or am I reacting because of what I really believe" Imo in some cases you react to things just because you want to take a stance against certain people. And this is getting old.

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2016-December-26, 17:23, said:

This is straight out the the elitist progressive left playbook. If they can't refute the argument, attack the arguer. For 12 years the left used political correctness to keep republicans on the defensive. Each republican allowed the democrats to define them. Luckily Trump isn't actually a republican. Trump will define himself, thank you. Trump knows forcing PC speech on others is just censorship. It is a violation of the opposition's 1st amendment rights.

It's time for your meds.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-December-26, 15:24, said:

Quote

Karen Stenner's "The Authoritarian Dynamic"
Research published a decade ago by Karen Stenner provides insight into a psychological trait known as authoritarianism: the desire for strong order and control. Most people aren't authoritarian as such, Stenner finds. Instead, most of us are usually capable of fairly high tolerance. It's only when we feel we are under threat—especially what Stenner calls "normative threat," or a threat to the perceived integrity of the moral order—that we suddenly shut down our openness and begin to ask for greater force and authoritarian power. People want to protect their way of life, and when they think it's in danger they start grasping for more extreme-seeming alternatives. In 2005, Stenner offered a prediction that seems clairvoyant now. In response to the increasing tolerance in Western societies, she wrote, an authoritarian backlash was all but inevitable:

Are we being told here that people who feel under threat are apt to be more combative than people who do not feel under threat? I am trying to think of a way to interpret "It's only when we feel we are under threat—especially what Stenner calls "normative threat," or a threat to the perceived integrity of the moral order—that we suddenly shut down our openness and begin to ask for greater force and authoritarian power." so that the response is not "Well, yeah, duh".

And earlier in the article we find the assertion

Personally, I think it quite critical for us to understand the authoritarian personality - IMO, it was this group who crosses party lines and desires order and safety who created the Trump victory. To that end, I tried to find what Stenner meant by "normative threat" and found this:

Quote

3.2 Normative threats

Social norms — and not a deep understanding of society — form the eternal and unquestionable basis of authoritarian behavior; consequently authoritarians cannot respond flexibly to changing social norms. In fact they respond highly fearful to what Stenner calls normative threats (2005, p17)

I refer to these critical catalysts as “normative threats” or “threat to the normative order”. By the “normative order” I simply mean some system of oneness and sameness that makes “us” an “us”: some demarcation of people, authorities, institutions, values, and norms that for some folks at some point defines who “we” are, and what “we” believe in. “Normative threads” are then threats to this oneness and sameness. In diverse and complex modern societies, the things that make us one and the same are common authority and shared values.

These people crave stability and order. They will vote for a "strongman" when their perception of order and stability are threatened. Somehow, that threat must be addressed by any party wishing to garner their votes.

[Winstonm]

Supporting the notion of authoritarians creating the Trump support, I found this from the Kaiser Family Foundation Poll:

Quote

The November Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, conducted one week after the 2016 presidential election, finds health care played a limited role in voters’ 2016 election decisions, with larger shares of voters saying the biggest factor in their vote was the direction of the country (31 percent), Donald Trump’s personal characteristics (15 percent....

Direction of the country (more open and less white) along with the strongman personality trait of Trump pretty much correlate with the normative threats and responses to normative threats described in the research paper.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2016-December-28, 09:25, said:

School choice for all? How would this work? I have modest direct experience

Letting kids, or their parents, choose could help some, but there are only so man spaces at the better ones, and the kids need a way to get there. Part of the basis for my choice of schools was that I could go a block and a half to a main street, hitch hike a ride, and get off a block from the school. The other, better, one was harder to get to. And I had no idea, when I chose, that it was better.

There is a lot that needs doing. And family life plays a strong role, a complicating fact. And a very subtle one, I think.

A major problem with any voucher system, whether it be in education or health care (which Ryan is apparently promoting) is that the system requires a knowledgeable or interested end user.

Many parents lack the knowledge and/or the interest to be able to make a good, informed decision about where to send their kids. For every kid sent by a concerned parent to a 'good' school, you are going to get kids who are sent to a bad school on purpose or to a bad school through neglect.

On purpose? Yes. Devos' public utterances make it clear that she sees the use of vouchers as a way to push kids into overtly religious training grounds. While many Americans are (rightly, imo) horrified at Islamic madrassas, they seem ready to embrace Xian equivalents, all in the name of choice. So the religious people will send their children to learn superstition and myth instead of reality. Good luck with that in a few generations.

And the uneducated, or ill-informed, or simply neglectful parents won't take steps to become informed and so their children will end up as the dregs....doomed to horrible schools.

You know, the US likes to proclaim itself as the land of the free, and as a country where everyone is treated equally. It's never been true but the trend has, historically, been in the right direction. That is about to change, bigly. Vouchers are going to be a disaster, especially since they will, it seems, be used to create business opportunities for the unscrupulous and not opportunity for children.

Imo, there are solutions to at least some of the US's educational problems, but they would be massively unpopular with those who tend to vote. Delink school funding from local taxation. Pay teachers more. Increase the resources to schools in the worst economic areas, so that the schools where kids have a poor environment out of school have a good environment in school.

Here is an idea I have long thought would be wonderful: require that ALL elected officials with school age kids send their kids to public schools. No private school for the children of any elected official. Want to bet that school funding improves? Ok, I am being delusional.

[nige1]

I don't defend JonOttowa's actions or opinions but I agree with Y66 that it's wrong to continue personal attacks against him (especially when he can no longer defend himself)

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2016-December-28, 11:51, said:

I don't defend JonOttowa's actions or opinions but I agree with Y66 that it's wrong to continue personal attacks against him (especially when he can no longer defend himself)

Isn't that like complaining about someone calling Charles Manson a crazed mass murderer after his conviction for being a crazed mass murderer? When you can't follow the rules of society, you lose your right to bitch about how unfairly you are being treated.

[mikeh]

nige1, on 2016-December-28, 07:02, said:

It's unclear why moderators were persuaded to ban jonottowa but I feel that continuing personal attacks on him are in doubtful taste, now that he can no longer defend himself.

I don't know that anyone 'persuaded' the mods to ban jon. I didn't. I did not, in any way, approach the mods to seek any sanction of him or comment about him. I posted on BBF, and that post was the ONLY response I took to his disgusting effort to have my partners kick me out of my law firm and to diminish me in the eyes of my employees.

As for you: you come across as a nasty piece of work. Firstly, you insinuate that someone (me?) 'persuaded' the mods to ban him. Secondly you imply that he did nothing worthy of being banned. That implies one of two things. One is that you missed the posts concerning what he did outside of BBF or you felt that what he did was ok...ok, in the sense of not justifying being banned.

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you overlooked the posts that set out his behaviour (including a post in which he admitted to doing what I had described), but then, after being called out on your post, you say that you can't defend what he did.

That means that you know what he did. So, knowing what he did, you feel or at least felt that it wasn't worthy of a ban???? It was ok for him to do that???

You think for a moment of how you would react to that sort of behaviour aimed at you. I can assure you that it was profoundly upsetting and embarrassing. I had to explain to my business partners what was going on. I had to try to explain that I may be reported to the Law Society for unprofessional conduct....not as a lawyer but as someone who posted personal opinions in the WC of BBF.


As for continuing attacks on jon, afaik the only times he has been mentioned are in response to posts, firstly by Kaitlyn and more recently by you.

Kaitlyn lamented that she was part of a small group of posters who were, she seems to think, unfairly criticized. That post invited responses. Mine was to identify the characteristics that, in ny view, resulted in what she saw as attacks.

Your comment was, in essence, to claim that someone (me?) had got jon banned and that he didn't deserve it. To which, and I am grateful for this, several posters reminded you of what he did.

The 'attacks' are all in your mind. You don't like some of us, and you allow that dislike to cause you to act like an asshole. That is regrettable.

[billw55]

When Rs push for school vouchers, I do not think that they really expect to improve educational outcomes, or care whether that happens. Their main intent is to reduce funds to public schools (namely unions), and divert those funds to private enterprise (namely their buddies and preferred religious outlets).

mikeh, on 2016-December-28, 11:36, said:

Here is an idea I have long thought would be wonderful: require that ALL elected officials with school age kids send their kids to public schools. No private school for the children of any elected official. Want to bet that school funding improves? Ok, I am being delusional.

Yes, delusional and also obviously unconstitutional. Legislators are still citizens! Besides, all that would happen is their kids would go to the well-off public schools in well-off suburbs.

In the same vein, I sometimes think that military service should be required for the presidency - but I doubt that would fly either.

[kenberg]

mikeh, on 2016-December-28, 11:36, said:

A major problem with any voucher system, whether it be in education or health care (which Ryan is apparently promoting) is that the system requires a knowledgeable or interested end user.

Many parents lack the knowledge and/or the interest to be able to make a good, informed decision about where to send their kids. For every kid sent by a concerned parent to a 'good' school, you are going to get kids who are sent to a bad school on purpose or to a bad school through neglect.

On purpose? Yes. Devos' public utterances make it clear that she sees the use of vouchers as a way to push kids into overtly religious training grounds. While many Americans are (rightly, imo) horrified at Islamic madrassas, they seem ready to embrace Xian equivalents, all in the name of choice. So the religious people will send their children to learn superstition and myth instead of reality. Good luck with that in a few generations.

And the uneducated, or ill-informed, or simply neglectful parents won't take steps to become informed and so their children will end up as the dregs....doomed to horrible schools.

You know, the US likes to proclaim itself as the land of the free, and as a country where everyone is treated equally. It's never been true but the trend has, historically, been in the right direction. That is about to change, bigly. Vouchers are going to be a disaster, especially since they will, it seems, be used to create business opportunities for the unscrupulous and not opportunity for children.

Imo, there are solutions to at least some of the US's educational problems, but they would be massively unpopular with those who tend to vote. Delink school funding from local taxation. Pay teachers more. Increase the resources to schools in the worst economic areas, so that the schools where kids have a poor environment out of school have a good environment in school.

Here is an idea I have long thought would be wonderful: require that ALL elected officials with school age kids send their kids to public schools. No private school for the children of any elected official. Want to bet that school funding improves? Ok, I am being delusional.

Wrt Xian education: A child is entitled to a good education whether or not he accepts Jesus as his savior. It seems to me most Christians agree with this simple statement. You will not have much success (I assume you have noticed this) convincing Christians that their beliefs are a superstition. But no need. All that is needed, in the current discussion, is the argument that every child is entitled to a good education. The parents can provide religious guidance as they see fit.

Also, insisting that school officials send their kids to public schools sounds attractive but I think it doesn't stand up. The problem, one of them, is that there is a vast gulf between the good schools and the bad schools. I know of people living in good school districts who still send their kids to private schools but this seems like a waste of money to me unless they are seeking some sort of social isolation. Now if you made a list of the poorly performing schools and insisted that the officials send their kids to one of those schools that would be interesting. Mostly it would mean that nobody would take the job. [added: I see Bill posted something like this above. Great minds and all that..]

But on the larger view I think we agree. Every kid should be entitled to a decent education, it should not require large travel times or savvy parents working the system. Becky has told me that where she grew up there was a sudden great interest in learning Russian, once it became known that if a parent claimed such an interest on behalf of the child then s/he could send the kid to a better school. This is nuts. I have nothing against learning Russian, I might have been interested, but that's not what was going on. .

[Winstonm]

There is supposed to be a separation between church and state; unfortunately, the FF did not also foresee the dangers of a lack of separation between corporations and state. To wit:

Quote

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources's web page was scrubbed of all uses of the word "climate" and altered to imply a lack of consensus about global warming in the scientific community.

Rated True by Snopes.com.

[mike777]

Regarding vouchers for education, it seems in many common forms they are legal in the USA. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris,

It looks like vouchers for education have been around since 1869 or so in the USA as well as in many other countries.


I would be in favor for the voucher experiment. Yes I agree as MIkeH points out there are bad parents and uninformed parents. I dont find this argument persuasive to stop the experiment. Like all experiments this one may fail. If it does destroy the program and try something else or ten something elses.


The biggest problem with our public schools has always been it is so difficult to destroy a local community school when it is in failure and replace it with something else. The biggest problem is not that a local public school may fail, the problem comes when we try and destroy and replace it with something.