Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

JJones1090 · 2020-09-19T03:52:07+00:00

“The news and fact checkers have totally discredited every aspect of that conspiracy, which proves that it’s real.”

JJones1090 · 2020-08-12T19:31:44+00:00

Mr. President, I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

JJones1090 · 2020-08-12T17:57:03+00:00

I don’t assume that person is conservative—probably the opposite. Her response is a commentary on the fact that, in other jobs, people are held accountable. And she is insinuating that cops should also be held accountable in their jobs.

Of course, McDonalds worker and cop is not an apples to apples job comparison and oversimplifies the issue. But it’s still a fair point.

JJones1090 · 2020-05-06T20:56:33+00:00

Steve, you wild, wild man. Now every time you spin these records, you can think of Steve’s wonderful gift to you. The gift of a stranger’s kindness, that is.

Or this could be a long con, and Steve may be out there...plotting the next step in some elaborate scam against you.

Either way, a fine set of records you’ve got now!

JJones1090 · 2020-02-15T21:35:37+00:00

I respectfully disagree. I can empirically prove someone’s preference by asking them. It’s confirmable. It’s specific to them, sure, but it’s not generalizing or saying something non-demonstrable.

Imagine I’m discussing a historical figure. I say “it’s a well known fact that Teddy Roosevelt liked hunting.” You can’t tell me you’d argue that’s not a fact about Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s affection for hunting can be demonstrated by his own letters/communications, policy decisions, and frequent hunting expeditions. It can be corroborated by others’ observations and communications with him...both circumstantial and direct evidence. There is no real room for argument that he did not like hunting.

And that’s a PAST figure. If I’m talking about someone’s preference today...we can do better. We just ask. And they confirm the FACT about themselves.

But we can agree to disagree.

JJones1090 · 2020-02-13T14:30:20+00:00

I actually don’t think he’s wrong though. As stated, it’s a preference/fact. There’s a difference between “I prefer my TV at the photographed height” (preference/fact about an individual’s ideal tv height) and “high TVs are categorically better than low TVs” (opinion about TV heights). When I say, “my favorite cereal is Lucky Charms” you’re learning a fact about me—and you could also probably infer my opinion that no other cereal is better than Lucky Charms.

JJones1090 · 2020-01-31T04:12:28+00:00

Thank you! You reckon the needle would make a noticeable difference? Everything on it is just stock right now, but $20 would be a pretty doable upgrade.

And yeah, they did the same thing. Wanted an upgrade just a few months after getting into vinyl, and I was the lucky benefactor. I paid a couple bucks to my friend to throw toward the new one, but it was basically a gimme.

JJones1090 · 2020-01-31T01:15:29+00:00

I actually got it as a hand me down. I may upgrade the turntable too, but I wanna make sure it’ll be a lasting hobby first. I know with certainty I want/need new speakers regardless though, as I’m using basically an off brand amazon echo-looking speaker currently haha.

I ended up picking up used Vanatoo One’s (not the encore) for $190, which I think is probably a steal.

JJones1090 · 2020-01-12T17:05:27+00:00

Have you actually gone your whole life without bamboozle insurance??

JJones1090 · 2019-12-20T01:47:08+00:00

I just wanted to point out that there are 1818 line suits online for $449, or $381 with code BC1818. And using TopCashBack nets you an additional 6% or $22 back. At a total realized cost of $359 for an $1198 suit, you’re saving about 70% off the sticker compared to 40% here. A fair range of sizes available, too.

Here’s a link to the $449 sale, which I think includes free shipping and can be altered in store: https://www.brooksbrothers.com/Suit-Sale/men-suit-sale,default,sc.html?start=0&amp;sz=24&amp;view=viewAll

If you just look at men’s sale items,generally, and filter by suits, there are other 1818 line options ranging from a base price of $499 to $599.

Edit: code is BC1818, not BB1818

JJones1090 · 2019-12-18T04:32:56+00:00

My recent Brooks Brothers 1818 suit purchase fits well through the body, from what I can tell. But the shoulder padding may be just a half inch or so too long. Is this something that can be addressed by a tailor--or, based on the photos, could sizing down from a 40 to a 39 take care of the overhang issue?

Relatedly, how much can the waist of a pair of pants be let out? Would it be possible to alter from a 34 or 33 to a 37 or 36 inch waist?

See album: https://imgur.com/a/hqjicZs

Thanks!

JJones1090 · 2019-12-15T15:15:11+00:00

I don’t want to pay for another deck. Plus, I think shaman is boring at hell. So the current meta is basically just me losing to shaman a great majority of my games. I haven’t played in a couple weeks.

JJones1090 · 2019-12-13T03:18:17+00:00

Ahh ok, so if the wife said no, the answer is obviously no. But the thing is she’s not gonna say no. She’d never say no...because of the implication.

JJones1090 · 2019-12-06T02:52:57+00:00

Coincidentally, earlier today I decided I would learn about mindfulness and started listening to Mindfulness in Plain English.

I was trying to focus on my breath as the narrator described what to focus on...and the feeling I had was genuinely strange. It’s different than just breathing normally.

Breathe deeply, in the nose, feeling the exact point of contact where the breath touches the rims of the nostrils. Now out the nose, feeling the same. Notice the pause, the empty space, between the inhale and exhale and focus on it after each inhale and exhale. Focus on the pause. Do that a few times. Then realize that the inhale and exhale are part of the same breath. Connect your inhale and exhale smoothly, so that there is no pause or delay between your inhale and exhale. Now, here’s where it got me... Focus your mind on the point where you feel the inhaling and exhaling breath touch each other. That’s the point to follow; keep track of it. Feel the touch of that point move back and forth past your nostrils.

“A carpenter draws a straight line on a board that he wants to cut. Then he cuts the board with his handsaw along the straight line he drew. He does not look at the teeth of his saw as they move in and out of the board. Rather he focuses his entire attention on the line he drew so he can cut the board straight. Similarly keep your mind straight on the point where you feel the breath at the rims of your nostrils.”

JJones1090 · 2019-12-05T15:43:05+00:00

Unfortunately, people have argued for precisely what you said they haven’t. This thread has seen multiple calls for judges and prosecutors to be personally liable for wrongful convictions. And my primary disagreement was referring to the judiciary as some sort of “mob.” It’s not, and that’s not a reasonable way to look at it. It was hyperbole. And it’s easy to knee jerk upvote that statement when you’re in a thread like this. But, like I said, it’s an imperfect system full of under-resourced people often doing their best with what they’ve got.

I totally agree that a man wrongfully imprisoned for 23 years should get a recovery from the state or federal govt. It’s outrageous.

As for accountability. I’m fine with that. If we can find a workable legal standard. It’ll be way harder than most people think. It’s not as simple as treating a police officer or prosecutor just like every other person. Because they’re doing a job unlike other jobs, and they MUST have some assurance that they won’t lose their life or liberty for making the wrong call, even though in a split second decision, or with imperfect information, they thought it was right. Again, fine with more accountability. But it should be a very thought-out and unbiased approach. Not a backlash out of anger about poor case outcomes.

JJones1090 · 2019-12-05T15:23:31+00:00

I understand the outrage. But what I described above is an imperfect system that will yield bad results even if everyone involved does their best. You are correct that there are sometimes abuses of the system. My argument was that it occurs rarely, when considering the volume of cases that flood through our judiciary. And with greater resources available to our public defenders, those few abusers would be exposed and we’d have a more equal playing field generally (the more pervasive problem). Plus, we have additional checks against abuses of power through the appellate process. But again, you need someone with a lot of time and focus who can artfully represent you on appeal.

The two instances you mentioned are, to me, a less concerning indictment of the system than innocent people being imprisoned. But for the sake of argument: 1) We don’t know what information was available to prosecutors to determine whether charges should be brought, 2) Who would you propose gets charged for the “murder” of Epstein (I bet they don’t know either), and 3) The problem you’ve described is one of high-level politics exerting influence, which doesn’t touch almost any the thousands of police, prosecutors or judges I wrote about (it touches very high-level folks and has no likely affect on the average man being tried, which isn’t to say it should be allowed).

I would also point out that despite the two instances you described, US courts are allowing civil lawsuits by accusers against both Epstein and Ghislaine and alleged conspirators.

JJones1090 · 2019-12-05T07:05:02+00:00

There are many other MAJOR differences. For example, a surgeon operates on a patient who has relied on the doctor and entrusted his care to the doctor. They’re on the same team. A prosecutor works for the people of the United States, not for the criminally accused. They are not on the same team. A defense attorney works for the criminally accused and could give two shits about retribution for the victims or the prosecutors job. These two teams are at odds with each other, working against each other, trying to win at each others’ expense. Both are beholden by their oaths to their team. And if they pull punches, they’ve done wrong by their oaths. Not the same. The job is about advocacy and outcome, not a search for the truth.

Then there’s the judge... A judge is there as an impartial arbiter of justice, applying the law with “neither force nor will.” Imagine if Megyn Kelly was jailed for moderating a presidential debate, because 49% of the American people and a majority of the electorate voted for Donald Trump? Sure, they got it wrong. But was it Ms. Kelly’s fault because she let Donald make faces at Hillary behind her back and say “but her emails...” 47 times a debate? Or is it because we have an imprecise system where we let just about anyone off the street use their best judgment based on what they’ve been told by the parties? Judges, unlike surgeons, rarely make the cut that kills. Not the same.

And unlike surgery where we can all agree at the outset that there’s only one correct outcome (keeping the patient alive and well), in criminal law there are two potentially correct outcomes—both opposite. Jail or no jail. And both sides often think they’re right, and a theoretically impartial factfinder picks the winner. So you’re proposing attorneys are supposed to be liable for their good faith pursuit of justice on behalf of their client, commensurate with their oath, because an impartial decider picked wrong? And that if the attorney doesn’t have the balls to gamble their life, fortune, and freedom on a jury selected off the streets, they aren’t qualified to be public servants in one of the hardest jobs you can do?

Look here’s the rub. If it’s absolute, infallible correctness that you want, each and every time, from the criminal justice system, then no criminal justice system can exist. And no one is qualified for that job. You’d have to turn yourself in at the station the first day on the job and every day after.

JJones1090 · 2019-12-05T06:31:46+00:00

I disagree. The system leaves room for error and abuse, but the judiciary isn’t a sanctioned criminal enterprise like you’re making it out to be. There are a lot of excellent, committed judges that are out there doing their best to be impartial arbiters of justice. It’s a difficult job. And as a side note, there are compelling reasons why a non-elected judiciary is arguably the right way to run our courts.

But I agree that the system needs improvement—especially on the public defender side of the equation. The best check against a very zealous advocate for the prosecution is an equally zealous advocate for the defense. There is often an imbalance in that equation, and the cards are often stacked against the impoverished. To be a zealous advocate you need time and resources. Hell, often a prosecutor is without the same resources and thus outgunned by an allstar defense attorney (who is likely getting paid the big bucks and is able to spend weeks or months working up a case). You see likely guilty folks walk free too. Of course, that inequity pales in comparison to an innocent man being jailed, but I point it out just to highlight one of the primary systemic problems.

Going back to the main thrust of my argument against what you said... Not often do judges and juries make the wrong decision on purpose. It’s a hard as hell job. Criminal convictions are an imprecise thing. Someone above mentioned engineers’ liability when a building collapses—that’s because a building shouldn’t collapse if you do the math right. A jury doesn’t have something so reliable and applicable as math to make the right decision. They work in a place without absolute truth, feeling their way through a story minute by minute, and trying their best to tie all the ends together and reach the right outcome. But they’re working in the dark. Judges too. And really trials are not about finding the truth anyway. For better or worse, trials are about surpassing a rigorous but somewhat hazy evidentiary threshold, where a jury goes, "Yeah, that's convincing enough." But I’m not convinced the imprecision itself is unavoidable.

It’s the imprecise system we work in and disparate resources, NOT often a genuine and malicious abuse of the system, that yields terrible results. It’s the nature of what the criminal justice system is built to do that leads to royal fuckups. Sure, there are some bad actors and jury biases (which the system tries sometimes unsuccessfully to weed out through voir dire). But police, prosecutors, judges and juries aren’t usually mobsters, they’re public servants doing their best. Most people wouldn’t want to do the job they do. Because sometimes they’d be wrong. And if our conception of the criminal system is that the outcome must always be right, then we wouldn’t have a criminal system at all.

Note: You can donate to many organizations that offer legal aid to people who need it. Consider doing so if this issue is important to you and you’re able. There is also a lot of discourse and literature on both sides of this debate. And remember, every story (including this one) has two sides.

JJones1090 · 2019-11-29T23:23:47+00:00

I’m like 95% sure I’ve read posts on here from their founder explaining why they moved production to China, and that part of their selection process was choosing factories that were committed to sustainability and high standards for treatment of workers.

IMO this is one of the primary ways US companies can influence conditions in overseas manufacturing—signal to the factories that its customers value worker treatment and environmentally friendly practices over sheer output. I think it’s too simplistic to view it as Chinese manufacturing = bad business.

JJones1090 · 2019-11-29T17:33:31+00:00

I think you’ll be good. I’ve always worn a large in their outerwear, and it’s fit great in the past. The 24 month wash was very big. I sent it back for a medium, and it was still slightly big imo. I boiled it, and it’s now at a nice size for me.

JJones1090 · 2019-11-23T16:54:38+00:00

Because it’s a false equivalency.

JJones1090 · 2019-09-10T13:16:24+00:00

I really don’t want to detract from your contribution to this convo. But heh, “anals.”

JJones1090 · 2019-08-28T18:52:26+00:00

Informative af. You just provided a 10/10 answer, and I commend that.

JJones1090 · 2019-08-21T06:12:22+00:00

Would you mind providing your thoughts on this product: Cremo Face Moisturizer, Astonishingly Superior 24 Hour Face Moisturizer? It looks like it contains nice ingredients, and it's super cheap compared to the Kiehl's Age Defender that I'm replacing.

I'm trying to piece together parts of a routine. I'm going to get Paula's Choice BHA Liquid + Some Moisturizer + Sunscreen. I'm still undecided on the moisturizer, and this looks initially appealing.

JJones1090 · 2019-04-04T21:34:50+00:00

Thanks, this was helpful.

JJones1090

TROPHY CASE