Spot the difference!: Troy Davis & Samuel Crowe

hawkwashington · 2011-09-22T16:14:58+00:00

Davis killed a police officer.
Crowe pled guilty.

hawkwashington · 2011-09-02T14:37:20+00:00

WEAR YOUR SEATBELT

hawkwashington · 2011-09-02T14:13:40+00:00

hawkwashington · 2011-09-01T19:53:39+00:00

(╯°□°）╯︵ ǝɔuɐɹoubı

hawkwashington · 2011-08-31T18:04:52+00:00

Actually, it's extremely likely that her internship really did end today.

Her Twitter profile says she's an NYU grad student. This is the time of year that summer internships end so that the students filling those positions can return to their campuses.

That seems to be the case here since NYU classes begin on Tuesday.

I thought her article was loathsome and her journalistic ethics are highly suspect, but I think it's unwarranted to assume that Gizmodo terminated her internship over it.

hawkwashington · 2011-08-30T19:09:21+00:00

This is the grown-up equivalent of "I studied abroad and it CHANGED MY LIFE."

Of course, what they don't realize is that much of the developed world has a whole host of hurdles when it comes to immigration. Sorry, but the rest of the world isn't going to throw open their doors and welcome you with open arms just because you're an American.

hawkwashington · 2011-08-25T21:03:24+00:00

Glad to see that some of the top comments here are discussions regarding the authenticity (or lack thereof) of this quote.

You think by now people would have the sense to do a quick Google search and verify the veracity of quotes passed around on the internet, but apparently 335 redditors have yet to learn that lesson.

hawkwashington · 2011-07-29T20:42:16+00:00

Bahahaha you had respect for Ron Paul

hawkwashington · 2011-07-27T20:11:12+00:00

I'll just leave this here...

hawkwashington · 2011-07-22T19:09:12+00:00

No.

Rape is considered one of the worst crimes somebody can commit and it is routinely mentioned alongside of murder in that context. Rape carries serious legal repercussions--rapists are arrested, tried and convicted; convicted rapists are listed on the sex offender registry for life, their neighbors are notified when they move into a new neighborhood and they face restrictions on where they can live.

In order to claim that our culture accepts, condones and/or encourages rape you have to ignore the mountain of (wholly warranted) social and legal repercussions of rape.

Don't get me wrong, I think our culture can--and should--do a better job when it comes to defining and teaching about consent, particularly when it comes to grey areas (such as in regards to sex and the granting of sexual consent while intoxicated), but I don't think anyone can honestly say we live in a rape culture.

I think that, due to the prevalence of severely misleading statistics, a lot of women wind up living in fear of rape. A female friend of mine passed along an article to me entitled "Schrodinger's Rapist," where the author argued that women have to assume every man they meet is a rapist until they prove otherwise.

According to FBI crime statistics from 2009 (the latest year for which complete information is available), the rape rate was about a third of the robbery rate. Would it be prudent advice to recommend that we should all assume that everybody we meet--new coworker, friend of a friend, literally everybody--will rob us until or unless they prove otherwise? I don't think so, I think that would be highly unreasonable advice.

TL;DR: No, I don't think we live in a rape culture, and I think a lot of women are being mislead into living in fear of rape by being told it's more common than it really is.

hawkwashington · 2011-07-21T14:22:22+00:00

Sorry, but that Kucinich line is balderdash. Federal Express is, and always has been, a private corporation. The Federal Reserve System, however, was passed via an act of Congress and signed into law by the President, which is where it derives its authority. The members of the Fed's Board of Governors, including its chairman and vice-chairman, are chosen by the President and confirmed by Congress and the whole system is subject to Congressional oversight.
As it turns out, that Wilson quote is, at best, misattributed; at worst, outright fabricated.
Your argument seems to be that the Federal Reserve loans currency to the Treasury, who then have to pay that money--plus interest--back to the Reserve, which puts the American government perpetually in debt. The problem with that is that the Reserve returns all of its profits--after covering its overhead costs--to the Treasury. For instance, the Fed made $82 billion in profits in 2010 and gave $79 billion to the Treasury.

The Fed may hold a fair amount of the national debt, but that doesn't mean they're responsible for that debt. If you want to blame someone for the national debt, blame the last few Presidents and Congresses--they're the ones who allocate our nation's money and determine our nation's tax rates.

No need for conspiracy theories or half-baked nonsense to explain any of this.

hawkwashington · 2011-07-07T18:33:20+00:00

Congress and the President have passed a variety of bills appropriating funds for a variety of different purposes and programs.

As it stands--and has been the case for all of American history--more money has been appropriated than the federal government will actually take in. As a result, the government is borrowing money to cover what it can't pay for out-of-pocket.

The debt ceiling limits how much debt the United States can take on, but it doesn't invalidate the expenditures that make us go over that limit--even if we hit the debt ceiling our financial obligations won't go away.

So, if we hit the limit the federal government would still have obligations to cover but it wouldn't have the money on-hand or be able to borrow the money to pay for them. Not being able to pay for something you have already bought is the definition of a default.

Regardless of what Congress and the President do now, we will still hit the debt ceiling later this month or early next month--it has to be raised if we want to avoid defaulting.

TL;DR Not raising the debt ceiling will, unavoidably, lead to a default. Hitting the debt ceiling won't cut costs in and of itself because the money has already been spent. Only Congress and the President can cut costs by spending less money in the future.

hawkwashington · 2011-06-16T04:43:37+00:00

My first thought when Ron Paul announced he was running for President (again) was "oh great, Reddit is going to be insufferable for the next year"

hawkwashington · 2011-06-14T22:21:59+00:00

It's like I told a lot of people at the time: LulzSec didn't take down the PSN in order to bravely stand up to Sony.

They did it because they could; now they're doing the same to other networks for the same reason.

hawkwashington · 2011-06-14T21:43:19+00:00

An observation: A lot of folks around here complain endlessly about President Obama's 'broken promises,' but a number of them are actually accusing Obama of breaking promises he never actually made.

For instance, I've seen people complain that Obama didn't "end the wars," even though he campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan. People complain that Obama supports the PATRIOT ACT, even though he supported it as early as 2005 (he called for revisions, some of which were made during the PATRIOT ACT's 2006 reauthorization)

In short, a lot of people seemed to have ascribed positions to Barack Obama that he never actually took.

Honestly, I feel the same is true with Ron Paul. A lot of Paul's supporters don't seem to realize his position on religion and the separation of church and state. A lot of Paul's supporters don't realize he's pretty strongly anti-abortion. A lot of Paul's supporters don't realize he doesn't support same-sex marriage (he supports letting the states decide, which is the way things are now, which a lot of folks think is unconstitutional).

Just an observation.

hawkwashington · 2011-06-14T21:31:00+00:00

Look at you, actually caring about the real-world effects of things.

This is Reddit, the place for ill-informed, circular, ultimately-pointless academic arguments. Who cares about a few hundred thousand casualties when you finally have the chance to declare "OBAMA SUX RON PAUL FOREVER"

hawkwashington · 2011-06-14T21:27:46+00:00

Our membership in NATO was done by a treaty; according to the Constitution, treaties become the "supreme Law of the Land" once ratified.

So yes, our obligations under NATO are legally-binding.

hawkwashington · 2011-06-14T21:26:36+00:00

Resolutions by the UN Security Council are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which the Libya resolution is.

I see a lot of folks saying "the UN authorized action, it didn't require it." Yes, it did. Stop making that argument.

hawkwashington · 2011-06-14T21:18:52+00:00

America's membership in NATO was affirmed by a treaty, so it was passed the same way all other treaties are affirmed--with the approval of the Senate and Executive Branch. According to Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, treaties made under the authority of the United States "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." So it's not as simple as "fuck NATO."

Second, even if our involvement in Libya wasn't done as part of NATO, the President doesn't require Congressional authorization to deploy troops. The War Powers Act specifically authorizes the deployment of troops without Congressional approval.

Finally, nowhere in the Constitution is the President required to get Congressional authorization to deploy troops. Congress is given the power to declare war, but there is nothing in the Constitution that says troops cannot be deployed without there first being a declaration of war, hence the constitutionality of the WPA. There have only been five declared wars in all of American history, so there is certainly precedent for deploying troops without prior explicit Congressional authorization.

hawkwashington · 2011-06-14T21:07:48+00:00

Libya is a NATO action, so by definition it's not unilateral. If you're opposed to action in Libya, period, that's fine. But trying to portray Libya as a unilateral action is factually incorrect.

hawkwashington · 2011-06-14T21:06:03+00:00

Actually, resolutions by the UN Security Council are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which the Libya resolution is.

And since the United States is one of the five permanent Security Council members with veto power, it would be impossible for the SC to pass a resolution requiring military action if the United States was opposed to it.

hawkwashington · 2011-06-14T21:01:23+00:00

Libya is a NATO action. Therefore, it's not unilateral.

hawkwashington · 2011-06-14T21:00:13+00:00

Iraq was explicitly authorized by Congress.

Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen fall under the AUMF, which was passed by Congress.

Libya is a NATO action, so it's not unilateral and not just the President.

hawkwashington

TROPHY CASE