by Ugh
As I'm sure you've heard, it appears that somewhere in the Volkswagen management structure a decision was made that it would be "good for the bottom line" to program its cars to cheat on the U.S. emissions test. It now appears that VW has done this in more than just in the U.S., and at least 11 million cars sold worldwide have this, uh, "issue."
VW has set aside $7.3B to deal with the fallout, although that might not be nearly enough as fines in the U.S. alone could run to $18B. VW shares have dropped by more than 25% and a class action lawsuit has already been filed. In my mind this should, quite frankly, lead to the bankruptcy of the company and land many people in jail (see, e.g.).
But I have my doubts. It seems to me that this is much like the 2008 financial crisis and all the MBS shenanigans where so many people committed so much fraud that to throw them all in jail and impose the appropriate fines on their employers would be impossible and possibly just make things worse (so we showered them with cash instead! At least in the immediate aftermath).
I guess we'll see how the DOJ's new supposed emphasis on white collar crime pans out in this case. Or if we get the same pattern here as we've had with the banks – eventually they will pay what appear to be large fines in a settlement, but which are in fact smaller than they appear because they are tax deductible ("no admission of wrongdoing") and are really only 10 cents on the dollar (or less) of what they would have paid had the penalties in the law been strictly applied. Oh, and almost no one goes to jail.
Feh.
Just a pedantic note: the $7.5 B VW/Audi/Porsche is setting aside is for recall/repair of the 11 million affected cars, not the rest of the potential liability.
Mind-boggling.
Just a pedantic note: the $7.5 B VW/Audi/Porsche is setting aside is for recall/repair of the 11 million affected cars, not the rest of the potential liability.
Mind-boggling.
Just a pedantic note: the $7.5 B VW/Audi/Porsche is setting aside is for recall/repair of the 11 million affected cars, not the rest of the potential liability.
Mind-boggling.
I hope that some day we hear the real story of how this happened. I’m guessing that someone made a bet that soon they would be able to engineer an emissions system that passed the test legitimately and they could then remove the hack and never get caught. But it’s hard to justify committing engineering resources to a problem that on paper has already been solved. This must have caused great stresses within the company. Many Volkswagen owners are disappointed in the company — think how employees who were kept in the dark must feel.
If I’m wrong and this was a cynical monetary calculation which was widely known and tolerated in the company, then the situation is even uglier.
I hope that some day we hear the real story of how this happened. I’m guessing that someone made a bet that soon they would be able to engineer an emissions system that passed the test legitimately and they could then remove the hack and never get caught. But it’s hard to justify committing engineering resources to a problem that on paper has already been solved. This must have caused great stresses within the company. Many Volkswagen owners are disappointed in the company — think how employees who were kept in the dark must feel.
If I’m wrong and this was a cynical monetary calculation which was widely known and tolerated in the company, then the situation is even uglier.
I hope that some day we hear the real story of how this happened. I’m guessing that someone made a bet that soon they would be able to engineer an emissions system that passed the test legitimately and they could then remove the hack and never get caught. But it’s hard to justify committing engineering resources to a problem that on paper has already been solved. This must have caused great stresses within the company. Many Volkswagen owners are disappointed in the company — think how employees who were kept in the dark must feel.
If I’m wrong and this was a cynical monetary calculation which was widely known and tolerated in the company, then the situation is even uglier.
Between this and the hedge fun manager who bought up a generic drug and raised the price to $750/pill, I’m beginning to think Shakespeare was wrong. The first people we kill are not the lawyers, it’s the MBAs.
Between this and the hedge fun manager who bought up a generic drug and raised the price to $750/pill, I’m beginning to think Shakespeare was wrong. The first people we kill are not the lawyers, it’s the MBAs.
Between this and the hedge fun manager who bought up a generic drug and raised the price to $750/pill, I’m beginning to think Shakespeare was wrong. The first people we kill are not the lawyers, it’s the MBAs.
i’ve had two VWs and two Audis. none of them were diesel, thankfully. but i can’t help but wonder (as i’m sure all VW/Audi/Porsche owners are) if there are any of these tricks going on with my car. am i i going to get a big surprise next time i have to have an emissions check?
(luckily, NC just did away with emissions checks for cars less than three years old!)
i’ve had two VWs and two Audis. none of them were diesel, thankfully. but i can’t help but wonder (as i’m sure all VW/Audi/Porsche owners are) if there are any of these tricks going on with my car. am i i going to get a big surprise next time i have to have an emissions check?
(luckily, NC just did away with emissions checks for cars less than three years old!)
i’ve had two VWs and two Audis. none of them were diesel, thankfully. but i can’t help but wonder (as i’m sure all VW/Audi/Porsche owners are) if there are any of these tricks going on with my car. am i i going to get a big surprise next time i have to have an emissions check?
(luckily, NC just did away with emissions checks for cars less than three years old!)
I guess we’ll see how the DOJ’s new supposed emphasis on white collar crime pans out in this case.
Pretty tough, I’m guessing – after all, this isn’t a US firm which makes campaign donations to congresspersons…
More pertinent is the question of how many other auto manufacturers have been playing this game, and just how many diesel cars are going to get recalled.
This could be a very big deal indeed in Europe, where there is probably a lot less leeway in terms of emissions – and certainly less leeway for national governments to change the rules to give the manufacturers a ‘breathing space’, even if they wanted to.
I guess we’ll see how the DOJ’s new supposed emphasis on white collar crime pans out in this case.
Pretty tough, I’m guessing – after all, this isn’t a US firm which makes campaign donations to congresspersons…
More pertinent is the question of how many other auto manufacturers have been playing this game, and just how many diesel cars are going to get recalled.
This could be a very big deal indeed in Europe, where there is probably a lot less leeway in terms of emissions – and certainly less leeway for national governments to change the rules to give the manufacturers a ‘breathing space’, even if they wanted to.
I guess we’ll see how the DOJ’s new supposed emphasis on white collar crime pans out in this case.
Pretty tough, I’m guessing – after all, this isn’t a US firm which makes campaign donations to congresspersons…
More pertinent is the question of how many other auto manufacturers have been playing this game, and just how many diesel cars are going to get recalled.
This could be a very big deal indeed in Europe, where there is probably a lot less leeway in terms of emissions – and certainly less leeway for national governments to change the rules to give the manufacturers a ‘breathing space’, even if they wanted to.
As I thought, this is gaining traction…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11881819/Volkswagen-live-VW-issues-profit-warning-sets-aside-6.5bn.html
As I thought, this is gaining traction…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11881819/Volkswagen-live-VW-issues-profit-warning-sets-aside-6.5bn.html
As I thought, this is gaining traction…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11881819/Volkswagen-live-VW-issues-profit-warning-sets-aside-6.5bn.html
From the link I just posted…
Diesel cars account for about 4pc of US sales.
In the UK, they make up almost a third of the cars on the road – 11m in 2014, out of a total of 32m…
This also accounts for the disconnect between manufacturers figures and the local air quality monitoring around the country (mandated under EU rules) which has been throwing up rather disturbing figures.
From the link I just posted…
Diesel cars account for about 4pc of US sales.
In the UK, they make up almost a third of the cars on the road – 11m in 2014, out of a total of 32m…
This also accounts for the disconnect between manufacturers figures and the local air quality monitoring around the country (mandated under EU rules) which has been throwing up rather disturbing figures.
From the link I just posted…
Diesel cars account for about 4pc of US sales.
In the UK, they make up almost a third of the cars on the road – 11m in 2014, out of a total of 32m…
This also accounts for the disconnect between manufacturers figures and the local air quality monitoring around the country (mandated under EU rules) which has been throwing up rather disturbing figures.
Nigel – i meant to note in the post that it seems doubtful that VW was the only company doing this.
Nigel – i meant to note in the post that it seems doubtful that VW was the only company doing this.
Nigel – i meant to note in the post that it seems doubtful that VW was the only company doing this.
It’s fraud.
Everyone who was knowingly involved with perpetrating it should be subject to legal penalties, and the higher up the food chain, the more stringent those penalties should be.
It’s fraud.
Everyone who was knowingly involved with perpetrating it should be subject to legal penalties, and the higher up the food chain, the more stringent those penalties should be.
It’s fraud.
Everyone who was knowingly involved with perpetrating it should be subject to legal penalties, and the higher up the food chain, the more stringent those penalties should be.
Ayn Rand got it wrong in Atlas Shrugged. The sociopathic chosen don’t find their way to Galt’s Gulch. They live among us, f*cking us every unregulated, profitable way they can conceive of.
The opportunistic Dagny Taggerts running for President and their cohorts who swoon over and tongue-bathe the regulatory prevaricators and cheats, and this includes their conservative forbears of the past 50 years who fought EVERY regulatory and safety measure mandated for auto emissions and safety, to name just one area, and who seek to decommission and defund environmental and safety regulation on the books at the federal, State, and local levels, make an ideological fetish of it in their “jobs” as “public servants” in our legislative bodies as they are paid off the private sector actors who pull this crap, or would, if the regulatory state is demolished as desired by so many.
Thus, in related matters:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/09/climate-change-pope-paganism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pope-franciss-fact-free-flamboyance/2015/09/18/7d711750-5d6a-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html
The Pope is a trained chemist, among his other pagan attributes, which is merely one free flamboyant piece of facticity Will ignores while looking down his eminently punchable snot nose at the rest of us.
The Pope is not calling for rolling back technological progress to the Middle Ages, anymore than he is calling for abortion to be legalized.
The air in the London of Dickens’ (that bleeding heart liberal) “Bleak House” Will references, was cleaned up in spite of the tut-tutting, nattering, conservative nabobs of the day, and if there were conservatives who favored that progressive action, they were conservative in the true sense of the word.
Will, in turnabout, needs to read the first page of Dickens’ “A Tale Of Two Cities” to see what happens when frenchified, frilled collar toffs like him are provided free haircuts for scattering crumbs and calling it cake.
George Will is an unctuous, sniffing, patrician trained seal in big boy pants, alternating between swallowing three-day-old fish tossed at him by his conservative benefactors, and barking out their do-nothing scripts using five dollar vocabulary.
That he loves baseball is little comfort.
Let’s see, Scott Walker is out so who cares what he says. Will the remaining vermin in the Republican primary race have the cojones to stand with VW and call once again (it’s only been three or four days since the last similar utterance) for getting rid of the EPA and letting flourish the true exercise of freedom that VW’s actions represent to them.
Cruz will, I’m guessing, though first probably he’ll blame Obama’s Muslim sympathies for causing VW to act in this way.
Paul’s on the record in favor of rescinding all regulations except for the ones that prevent me from physically kicking his a*s, so he’s got nothing to lose by coming out in favor of VW’s right to f*ck with us.
Trump, I expect, will come up with an angle no one expects (probably naming VW as the pace car for his campaign) and Bush et al, will follow these others by incoherently exposing their Putin nipples like so many chimpanzees in rut, just to look like they have what it takes to let VW have its way.
Ayn Rand got it wrong in Atlas Shrugged. The sociopathic chosen don’t find their way to Galt’s Gulch. They live among us, f*cking us every unregulated, profitable way they can conceive of.
The opportunistic Dagny Taggerts running for President and their cohorts who swoon over and tongue-bathe the regulatory prevaricators and cheats, and this includes their conservative forbears of the past 50 years who fought EVERY regulatory and safety measure mandated for auto emissions and safety, to name just one area, and who seek to decommission and defund environmental and safety regulation on the books at the federal, State, and local levels, make an ideological fetish of it in their “jobs” as “public servants” in our legislative bodies as they are paid off the private sector actors who pull this crap, or would, if the regulatory state is demolished as desired by so many.
Thus, in related matters:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/09/climate-change-pope-paganism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pope-franciss-fact-free-flamboyance/2015/09/18/7d711750-5d6a-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html
The Pope is a trained chemist, among his other pagan attributes, which is merely one free flamboyant piece of facticity Will ignores while looking down his eminently punchable snot nose at the rest of us.
The Pope is not calling for rolling back technological progress to the Middle Ages, anymore than he is calling for abortion to be legalized.
The air in the London of Dickens’ (that bleeding heart liberal) “Bleak House” Will references, was cleaned up in spite of the tut-tutting, nattering, conservative nabobs of the day, and if there were conservatives who favored that progressive action, they were conservative in the true sense of the word.
Will, in turnabout, needs to read the first page of Dickens’ “A Tale Of Two Cities” to see what happens when frenchified, frilled collar toffs like him are provided free haircuts for scattering crumbs and calling it cake.
George Will is an unctuous, sniffing, patrician trained seal in big boy pants, alternating between swallowing three-day-old fish tossed at him by his conservative benefactors, and barking out their do-nothing scripts using five dollar vocabulary.
That he loves baseball is little comfort.
Let’s see, Scott Walker is out so who cares what he says. Will the remaining vermin in the Republican primary race have the cojones to stand with VW and call once again (it’s only been three or four days since the last similar utterance) for getting rid of the EPA and letting flourish the true exercise of freedom that VW’s actions represent to them.
Cruz will, I’m guessing, though first probably he’ll blame Obama’s Muslim sympathies for causing VW to act in this way.
Paul’s on the record in favor of rescinding all regulations except for the ones that prevent me from physically kicking his a*s, so he’s got nothing to lose by coming out in favor of VW’s right to f*ck with us.
Trump, I expect, will come up with an angle no one expects (probably naming VW as the pace car for his campaign) and Bush et al, will follow these others by incoherently exposing their Putin nipples like so many chimpanzees in rut, just to look like they have what it takes to let VW have its way.
Ayn Rand got it wrong in Atlas Shrugged. The sociopathic chosen don’t find their way to Galt’s Gulch. They live among us, f*cking us every unregulated, profitable way they can conceive of.
The opportunistic Dagny Taggerts running for President and their cohorts who swoon over and tongue-bathe the regulatory prevaricators and cheats, and this includes their conservative forbears of the past 50 years who fought EVERY regulatory and safety measure mandated for auto emissions and safety, to name just one area, and who seek to decommission and defund environmental and safety regulation on the books at the federal, State, and local levels, make an ideological fetish of it in their “jobs” as “public servants” in our legislative bodies as they are paid off the private sector actors who pull this crap, or would, if the regulatory state is demolished as desired by so many.
Thus, in related matters:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/09/climate-change-pope-paganism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pope-franciss-fact-free-flamboyance/2015/09/18/7d711750-5d6a-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html
The Pope is a trained chemist, among his other pagan attributes, which is merely one free flamboyant piece of facticity Will ignores while looking down his eminently punchable snot nose at the rest of us.
The Pope is not calling for rolling back technological progress to the Middle Ages, anymore than he is calling for abortion to be legalized.
The air in the London of Dickens’ (that bleeding heart liberal) “Bleak House” Will references, was cleaned up in spite of the tut-tutting, nattering, conservative nabobs of the day, and if there were conservatives who favored that progressive action, they were conservative in the true sense of the word.
Will, in turnabout, needs to read the first page of Dickens’ “A Tale Of Two Cities” to see what happens when frenchified, frilled collar toffs like him are provided free haircuts for scattering crumbs and calling it cake.
George Will is an unctuous, sniffing, patrician trained seal in big boy pants, alternating between swallowing three-day-old fish tossed at him by his conservative benefactors, and barking out their do-nothing scripts using five dollar vocabulary.
That he loves baseball is little comfort.
Let’s see, Scott Walker is out so who cares what he says. Will the remaining vermin in the Republican primary race have the cojones to stand with VW and call once again (it’s only been three or four days since the last similar utterance) for getting rid of the EPA and letting flourish the true exercise of freedom that VW’s actions represent to them.
Cruz will, I’m guessing, though first probably he’ll blame Obama’s Muslim sympathies for causing VW to act in this way.
Paul’s on the record in favor of rescinding all regulations except for the ones that prevent me from physically kicking his a*s, so he’s got nothing to lose by coming out in favor of VW’s right to f*ck with us.
Trump, I expect, will come up with an angle no one expects (probably naming VW as the pace car for his campaign) and Bush et al, will follow these others by incoherently exposing their Putin nipples like so many chimpanzees in rut, just to look like they have what it takes to let VW have its way.
It’s fraud, but NOT by a financial entity, so the law might actually apply in this case. Will have to wait and see if the ‘money’ guys at VW qualify for the ‘we got to look forward not backwards’ rule of law.
It’s fraud, but NOT by a financial entity, so the law might actually apply in this case. Will have to wait and see if the ‘money’ guys at VW qualify for the ‘we got to look forward not backwards’ rule of law.
It’s fraud, but NOT by a financial entity, so the law might actually apply in this case. Will have to wait and see if the ‘money’ guys at VW qualify for the ‘we got to look forward not backwards’ rule of law.
One has to wonder how many deaths this is responsible for.
In Europe, with the high number of diesel cars and high urban density, it’s possibly a fairly large number.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/02/air-pollution-may-cause-more-uk-deaths-than-previously-thought-say-scientists
One has to wonder how many deaths this is responsible for.
In Europe, with the high number of diesel cars and high urban density, it’s possibly a fairly large number.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/02/air-pollution-may-cause-more-uk-deaths-than-previously-thought-say-scientists
One has to wonder how many deaths this is responsible for.
In Europe, with the high number of diesel cars and high urban density, it’s possibly a fairly large number.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/02/air-pollution-may-cause-more-uk-deaths-than-previously-thought-say-scientists
This could be a very big deal indeed in Europe, where there is probably a lot less leeway in terms of emissions – and certainly less leeway for national governments to change the rules to give the manufacturers a ‘breathing space’, even if they wanted to.
Actually, US emissions standards tend to be tougher than European ones, at least concerning the type of pollution that the Volkswagens were emitting (nitrogen oxides). That was part of the reason they got caught in the US; the organization that blew the lid off was trying to make the case that clean diesels could pass the tough US standards and have very high fuel efficiency, since, they figured, Volkswagen had already done it.
In practice, this seems to be feasible only using a system that catalyzes the bad stuff out of the exhaust using a consumable fluid called “AdBlue”. But while some Volkswagen diesels have all this, the cars that were cheating on the tests didn’t; they just modified their engine tuning depending on whether an emissions test was being run.
This could be a very big deal indeed in Europe, where there is probably a lot less leeway in terms of emissions – and certainly less leeway for national governments to change the rules to give the manufacturers a ‘breathing space’, even if they wanted to.
Actually, US emissions standards tend to be tougher than European ones, at least concerning the type of pollution that the Volkswagens were emitting (nitrogen oxides). That was part of the reason they got caught in the US; the organization that blew the lid off was trying to make the case that clean diesels could pass the tough US standards and have very high fuel efficiency, since, they figured, Volkswagen had already done it.
In practice, this seems to be feasible only using a system that catalyzes the bad stuff out of the exhaust using a consumable fluid called “AdBlue”. But while some Volkswagen diesels have all this, the cars that were cheating on the tests didn’t; they just modified their engine tuning depending on whether an emissions test was being run.
This could be a very big deal indeed in Europe, where there is probably a lot less leeway in terms of emissions – and certainly less leeway for national governments to change the rules to give the manufacturers a ‘breathing space’, even if they wanted to.
Actually, US emissions standards tend to be tougher than European ones, at least concerning the type of pollution that the Volkswagens were emitting (nitrogen oxides). That was part of the reason they got caught in the US; the organization that blew the lid off was trying to make the case that clean diesels could pass the tough US standards and have very high fuel efficiency, since, they figured, Volkswagen had already done it.
In practice, this seems to be feasible only using a system that catalyzes the bad stuff out of the exhaust using a consumable fluid called “AdBlue”. But while some Volkswagen diesels have all this, the cars that were cheating on the tests didn’t; they just modified their engine tuning depending on whether an emissions test was being run.
I’m actually glad that VW is looking at big fines, massive profit drops, and possible bankruptcy. Why? Because it investors lose big on this one, i.e. from stocks becoming worthless, other investors will have some serious incentives to make sure that the companies they invest in don’t do the same. If the days when boards of directors are stacked with friends of the CEO and friends of the company CEO (overlapping categories) are gone, it will be good for us all.
But that said, I also want to see the company managers who signed off on this to get two kinds of penalties:
a) massive fines, intended to take away most of what they earned during the years that they were doing so,
b) prison time — and not in a “white collar” prison either.
The whole point is to make sure that managers have a massive personal incentive to avoid this kind of thing.
And finally, I’d like to see some kind of penalty for the technical guys who suggested, and oversaw the implementation. Managers are generally clueless about how something like this could be done, or even that it would be possible. So somebody had to let them know that is was technically possible. And he shouldn’t get off scot-free either.
Business school classes in ethics are all very well. But some kind of 2×4 up side the head, to get managers’ attention on the subject, is also required.
I’m actually glad that VW is looking at big fines, massive profit drops, and possible bankruptcy. Why? Because it investors lose big on this one, i.e. from stocks becoming worthless, other investors will have some serious incentives to make sure that the companies they invest in don’t do the same. If the days when boards of directors are stacked with friends of the CEO and friends of the company CEO (overlapping categories) are gone, it will be good for us all.
But that said, I also want to see the company managers who signed off on this to get two kinds of penalties:
a) massive fines, intended to take away most of what they earned during the years that they were doing so,
b) prison time — and not in a “white collar” prison either.
The whole point is to make sure that managers have a massive personal incentive to avoid this kind of thing.
And finally, I’d like to see some kind of penalty for the technical guys who suggested, and oversaw the implementation. Managers are generally clueless about how something like this could be done, or even that it would be possible. So somebody had to let them know that is was technically possible. And he shouldn’t get off scot-free either.
Business school classes in ethics are all very well. But some kind of 2×4 up side the head, to get managers’ attention on the subject, is also required.
I’m actually glad that VW is looking at big fines, massive profit drops, and possible bankruptcy. Why? Because it investors lose big on this one, i.e. from stocks becoming worthless, other investors will have some serious incentives to make sure that the companies they invest in don’t do the same. If the days when boards of directors are stacked with friends of the CEO and friends of the company CEO (overlapping categories) are gone, it will be good for us all.
But that said, I also want to see the company managers who signed off on this to get two kinds of penalties:
a) massive fines, intended to take away most of what they earned during the years that they were doing so,
b) prison time — and not in a “white collar” prison either.
The whole point is to make sure that managers have a massive personal incentive to avoid this kind of thing.
And finally, I’d like to see some kind of penalty for the technical guys who suggested, and oversaw the implementation. Managers are generally clueless about how something like this could be done, or even that it would be possible. So somebody had to let them know that is was technically possible. And he shouldn’t get off scot-free either.
Business school classes in ethics are all very well. But some kind of 2×4 up side the head, to get managers’ attention on the subject, is also required.
Car companies are having a difficult time catching up with computer technology, so expect the revelations this year (someone can wirelessly hack your car! VW screwed up engine software) to be just the tip of the iceberg.
C’mon. You all know what programmers are like. How many OTHER ‘fortune cookies’ are embedded in car firmware?
Hit the right sequence of inputs, and the steering starts ‘doing the hokey-pokey’.
It is truly a Brave New World that we inhabit.
Car companies are having a difficult time catching up with computer technology, so expect the revelations this year (someone can wirelessly hack your car! VW screwed up engine software) to be just the tip of the iceberg.
C’mon. You all know what programmers are like. How many OTHER ‘fortune cookies’ are embedded in car firmware?
Hit the right sequence of inputs, and the steering starts ‘doing the hokey-pokey’.
It is truly a Brave New World that we inhabit.
Car companies are having a difficult time catching up with computer technology, so expect the revelations this year (someone can wirelessly hack your car! VW screwed up engine software) to be just the tip of the iceberg.
C’mon. You all know what programmers are like. How many OTHER ‘fortune cookies’ are embedded in car firmware?
Hit the right sequence of inputs, and the steering starts ‘doing the hokey-pokey’.
It is truly a Brave New World that we inhabit.
i’ve never put a fortune cookie in anything i’ve written.
it’s hard enough to get the stuff to do what it’s supposed to do to have time to fiddle around with making it do more than that.
i’ve never put a fortune cookie in anything i’ve written.
it’s hard enough to get the stuff to do what it’s supposed to do to have time to fiddle around with making it do more than that.
i’ve never put a fortune cookie in anything i’ve written.
it’s hard enough to get the stuff to do what it’s supposed to do to have time to fiddle around with making it do more than that.
@Nigel: One has to wonder how many deaths this is responsible for.
I did some quick, back of the envelope calculations, and figure it’s probably in the low thousands per year in the US. This affects about 500K cars in the US, and those cars are putting out as much as 40x the legal limit for NOx. That means they’re generating as much pollution as 20M cars that meet the standards. There are about 250M cars on the road, so that’s roughly 8% of the total NOx pollution in the country. Recent estimates put the early deaths due to automotive exhaust at about 53K/year, so that would mean 8% of the emissions would be responsible for about 4K deaths per year. It’s probably a bit lower than that- the cars in question are only terrible for NOx, not for CO or PM2.5- but it’s still substantial.
@Nigel: One has to wonder how many deaths this is responsible for.
I did some quick, back of the envelope calculations, and figure it’s probably in the low thousands per year in the US. This affects about 500K cars in the US, and those cars are putting out as much as 40x the legal limit for NOx. That means they’re generating as much pollution as 20M cars that meet the standards. There are about 250M cars on the road, so that’s roughly 8% of the total NOx pollution in the country. Recent estimates put the early deaths due to automotive exhaust at about 53K/year, so that would mean 8% of the emissions would be responsible for about 4K deaths per year. It’s probably a bit lower than that- the cars in question are only terrible for NOx, not for CO or PM2.5- but it’s still substantial.
@Nigel: One has to wonder how many deaths this is responsible for.
I did some quick, back of the envelope calculations, and figure it’s probably in the low thousands per year in the US. This affects about 500K cars in the US, and those cars are putting out as much as 40x the legal limit for NOx. That means they’re generating as much pollution as 20M cars that meet the standards. There are about 250M cars on the road, so that’s roughly 8% of the total NOx pollution in the country. Recent estimates put the early deaths due to automotive exhaust at about 53K/year, so that would mean 8% of the emissions would be responsible for about 4K deaths per year. It’s probably a bit lower than that- the cars in question are only terrible for NOx, not for CO or PM2.5- but it’s still substantial.
I understand an auto company or two are working on a seat belt system that via optical and movement sensors will automatically strap you in, but only when a police cruiser stops your vehicle, so you can avoid being ticketed for not wearing those freedom-sapping confinements the rest of the time.
If you are black or Mexican, the seat belts will sense an approaching squad car and will engage and an automated billy club and taser device emerges from the dashboard and softens you up a bit before the cop even gets to your car window.
Technical experts at the Google driverless car testing facilities have perfected an airbag system for the clueless passenger that instead of exploding a possibly life-saving airbag in your gob, merely sends out a vapor that forms itself into the message “Hold On, Suckers!” in front of your eyes long enough for you to read it before you are launched thru the windshield, which itself belies its advertising and is made of glass that breaks only into jugular-slicing, maiming shards.
Some freedom lover in a think tank, which no one ever filters or otherwise cleans out, came up with those ideas at the request of Newt Gingrich and John Kasich.
Apparently, Fiorina is being considered for the top job at VW because she has an ability to look squarely in to the camera and repeat endlessly that something is not so when it plainly is, or vice versa, especially the vice part.
I understand an auto company or two are working on a seat belt system that via optical and movement sensors will automatically strap you in, but only when a police cruiser stops your vehicle, so you can avoid being ticketed for not wearing those freedom-sapping confinements the rest of the time.
If you are black or Mexican, the seat belts will sense an approaching squad car and will engage and an automated billy club and taser device emerges from the dashboard and softens you up a bit before the cop even gets to your car window.
Technical experts at the Google driverless car testing facilities have perfected an airbag system for the clueless passenger that instead of exploding a possibly life-saving airbag in your gob, merely sends out a vapor that forms itself into the message “Hold On, Suckers!” in front of your eyes long enough for you to read it before you are launched thru the windshield, which itself belies its advertising and is made of glass that breaks only into jugular-slicing, maiming shards.
Some freedom lover in a think tank, which no one ever filters or otherwise cleans out, came up with those ideas at the request of Newt Gingrich and John Kasich.
Apparently, Fiorina is being considered for the top job at VW because she has an ability to look squarely in to the camera and repeat endlessly that something is not so when it plainly is, or vice versa, especially the vice part.
I understand an auto company or two are working on a seat belt system that via optical and movement sensors will automatically strap you in, but only when a police cruiser stops your vehicle, so you can avoid being ticketed for not wearing those freedom-sapping confinements the rest of the time.
If you are black or Mexican, the seat belts will sense an approaching squad car and will engage and an automated billy club and taser device emerges from the dashboard and softens you up a bit before the cop even gets to your car window.
Technical experts at the Google driverless car testing facilities have perfected an airbag system for the clueless passenger that instead of exploding a possibly life-saving airbag in your gob, merely sends out a vapor that forms itself into the message “Hold On, Suckers!” in front of your eyes long enough for you to read it before you are launched thru the windshield, which itself belies its advertising and is made of glass that breaks only into jugular-slicing, maiming shards.
Some freedom lover in a think tank, which no one ever filters or otherwise cleans out, came up with those ideas at the request of Newt Gingrich and John Kasich.
Apparently, Fiorina is being considered for the top job at VW because she has an ability to look squarely in to the camera and repeat endlessly that something is not so when it plainly is, or vice versa, especially the vice part.
The whole point is to make sure that managers have a massive personal incentive to avoid this kind of thing.
Does anyone know what the legal bar is for an individual to be criminally or civilly liable for things they do while acting on behalf of a corp?
In other words, at what point is the “corporate shield” no longer sufficient to protect an individual from personal prosecution or lawsuit?
Is there any such point?
The whole point is to make sure that managers have a massive personal incentive to avoid this kind of thing.
Does anyone know what the legal bar is for an individual to be criminally or civilly liable for things they do while acting on behalf of a corp?
In other words, at what point is the “corporate shield” no longer sufficient to protect an individual from personal prosecution or lawsuit?
Is there any such point?
The whole point is to make sure that managers have a massive personal incentive to avoid this kind of thing.
Does anyone know what the legal bar is for an individual to be criminally or civilly liable for things they do while acting on behalf of a corp?
In other words, at what point is the “corporate shield” no longer sufficient to protect an individual from personal prosecution or lawsuit?
Is there any such point?
russell :
The term of art is “piercing the corporate veil”
Googling it will be informative.
too rushed to explicate myself
russell :
The term of art is “piercing the corporate veil”
Googling it will be informative.
too rushed to explicate myself
russell :
The term of art is “piercing the corporate veil”
Googling it will be informative.
too rushed to explicate myself
The GOP brainuntrustworthy have gotten ahold of Roger Moore’s 4000 early deaths figure and are mulling it over to see where those premature deaths fit into the their overall political platform and strategy.
The general tenor of the debate among these hopeless romantics is that 4000 dead is all well and good in and of itself, if chump change is your thing, but if you want to really kill Americans by the carload, let’s get rid of Obamacare, deregulate completely the clips permitted on weapons carried openly in public, and for the really big game body counts, squash Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
The GOP brainuntrustworthy have gotten ahold of Roger Moore’s 4000 early deaths figure and are mulling it over to see where those premature deaths fit into the their overall political platform and strategy.
The general tenor of the debate among these hopeless romantics is that 4000 dead is all well and good in and of itself, if chump change is your thing, but if you want to really kill Americans by the carload, let’s get rid of Obamacare, deregulate completely the clips permitted on weapons carried openly in public, and for the really big game body counts, squash Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
The GOP brainuntrustworthy have gotten ahold of Roger Moore’s 4000 early deaths figure and are mulling it over to see where those premature deaths fit into the their overall political platform and strategy.
The general tenor of the debate among these hopeless romantics is that 4000 dead is all well and good in and of itself, if chump change is your thing, but if you want to really kill Americans by the carload, let’s get rid of Obamacare, deregulate completely the clips permitted on weapons carried openly in public, and for the really big game body counts, squash Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
The noxious fumes issuing from Republican mouths these last seven years smelled worse than the reality turned out to be, but that’s no reason not to mandate that a cork be put in it, with force:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-employers-hiring
The noxious fumes issuing from Republican mouths these last seven years smelled worse than the reality turned out to be, but that’s no reason not to mandate that a cork be put in it, with force:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-employers-hiring
The noxious fumes issuing from Republican mouths these last seven years smelled worse than the reality turned out to be, but that’s no reason not to mandate that a cork be put in it, with force:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-employers-hiring
@russell: Does anyone know what the legal bar is for an individual to be criminally or civilly liable for things they do while acting on behalf of a corp?
I would assume the line for criminal liability is when they do something that they could be prosecuted for were they not doing it on behalf of a corporation. So I can’t, for example, commit burglary and expect to be let off the hook personally because my boss told me to.
A more interesting question in this case is whether VW’s pattern of behavior would qualify it for prosecution under RICO. For example, people here have already accused VW of criminal fraud. If they were also guilty of obstruction of justice for lying to the EPA, they would meet the criteria for a RICO prosecution and the corporate leaders would potentially be criminally liable for actions of their subordinates. I rather doubt it would go that far, but the threat of a RICO prosecution might be enough to get people to come clean to protect their own hides.
@russell: Does anyone know what the legal bar is for an individual to be criminally or civilly liable for things they do while acting on behalf of a corp?
I would assume the line for criminal liability is when they do something that they could be prosecuted for were they not doing it on behalf of a corporation. So I can’t, for example, commit burglary and expect to be let off the hook personally because my boss told me to.
A more interesting question in this case is whether VW’s pattern of behavior would qualify it for prosecution under RICO. For example, people here have already accused VW of criminal fraud. If they were also guilty of obstruction of justice for lying to the EPA, they would meet the criteria for a RICO prosecution and the corporate leaders would potentially be criminally liable for actions of their subordinates. I rather doubt it would go that far, but the threat of a RICO prosecution might be enough to get people to come clean to protect their own hides.
@russell: Does anyone know what the legal bar is for an individual to be criminally or civilly liable for things they do while acting on behalf of a corp?
I would assume the line for criminal liability is when they do something that they could be prosecuted for were they not doing it on behalf of a corporation. So I can’t, for example, commit burglary and expect to be let off the hook personally because my boss told me to.
A more interesting question in this case is whether VW’s pattern of behavior would qualify it for prosecution under RICO. For example, people here have already accused VW of criminal fraud. If they were also guilty of obstruction of justice for lying to the EPA, they would meet the criteria for a RICO prosecution and the corporate leaders would potentially be criminally liable for actions of their subordinates. I rather doubt it would go that far, but the threat of a RICO prosecution might be enough to get people to come clean to protect their own hides.
Business ethics? There is only one: A duty to their shareholders. And of course that duty is limited to the time-horizon of whichever figure is making the call, who plans to parachute out and upward after his options vest.
And they won’t, as long as those making the calls are safe from prosecution — and the fines lower than the profits. (And let me tell you, despite them fancy MBAs, so many of them calculate profits using only a first order assessment over a very short timeframe. So damages to stock, reputation, future sales? Doesn’t exist. Only “Is Probable Fines > Profits While I Work Here”).
Business ethics? There is only one: A duty to their shareholders. And of course that duty is limited to the time-horizon of whichever figure is making the call, who plans to parachute out and upward after his options vest.
And they won’t, as long as those making the calls are safe from prosecution — and the fines lower than the profits. (And let me tell you, despite them fancy MBAs, so many of them calculate profits using only a first order assessment over a very short timeframe. So damages to stock, reputation, future sales? Doesn’t exist. Only “Is Probable Fines > Profits While I Work Here”).
Business ethics? There is only one: A duty to their shareholders. And of course that duty is limited to the time-horizon of whichever figure is making the call, who plans to parachute out and upward after his options vest.
And they won’t, as long as those making the calls are safe from prosecution — and the fines lower than the profits. (And let me tell you, despite them fancy MBAs, so many of them calculate profits using only a first order assessment over a very short timeframe. So damages to stock, reputation, future sales? Doesn’t exist. Only “Is Probable Fines > Profits While I Work Here”).
Yes, but aren’t we told ad nauseum and ad Miltonauseum Friedmanauseum that the magic results of that single business ethic are the actions of the Invisible Hand (think Peter Lorre) which reaches into your VW digital systems and turns off the pollution control measures when the Visible Hand of government isn’t looking/fondling?
A similar story, except that the scientists/employees (read: hoaxing elitists/overhead-burning, redundant manunits, in conservative MBA-speak) of the company, Exxon, warned the executives/managers (God’s chosen/Ayn Rand’s pimps, in conservative MBA-speak) braindeadtrust what was likely to be up:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/exxon-they-knew-in-1977-by-gaiuspublius.html
Yes, but aren’t we told ad nauseum and ad Miltonauseum Friedmanauseum that the magic results of that single business ethic are the actions of the Invisible Hand (think Peter Lorre) which reaches into your VW digital systems and turns off the pollution control measures when the Visible Hand of government isn’t looking/fondling?
A similar story, except that the scientists/employees (read: hoaxing elitists/overhead-burning, redundant manunits, in conservative MBA-speak) of the company, Exxon, warned the executives/managers (God’s chosen/Ayn Rand’s pimps, in conservative MBA-speak) braindeadtrust what was likely to be up:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/exxon-they-knew-in-1977-by-gaiuspublius.html
Yes, but aren’t we told ad nauseum and ad Miltonauseum Friedmanauseum that the magic results of that single business ethic are the actions of the Invisible Hand (think Peter Lorre) which reaches into your VW digital systems and turns off the pollution control measures when the Visible Hand of government isn’t looking/fondling?
A similar story, except that the scientists/employees (read: hoaxing elitists/overhead-burning, redundant manunits, in conservative MBA-speak) of the company, Exxon, warned the executives/managers (God’s chosen/Ayn Rand’s pimps, in conservative MBA-speak) braindeadtrust what was likely to be up:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/exxon-they-knew-in-1977-by-gaiuspublius.html
it’s hard enough to get the stuff to do what it’s supposed to do to have time to fiddle around with making it do more than that.
Having spent the last two weeks (including weekends) on this kind of problem research/attempted fix, I can definitely relate. Guess that’s why I don’t have the potential to become a hacker.
it’s hard enough to get the stuff to do what it’s supposed to do to have time to fiddle around with making it do more than that.
Having spent the last two weeks (including weekends) on this kind of problem research/attempted fix, I can definitely relate. Guess that’s why I don’t have the potential to become a hacker.
it’s hard enough to get the stuff to do what it’s supposed to do to have time to fiddle around with making it do more than that.
Having spent the last two weeks (including weekends) on this kind of problem research/attempted fix, I can definitely relate. Guess that’s why I don’t have the potential to become a hacker.
the corporate veil
All the “corporate veil” does is keep you from being personally liable for the corporation’s debts. So if the fines to the corporation exceed the value of its assets (and the corporation goes bankrupt), the officers and shareholders cannot be required to make up the difference out of their own funds.
But if the individual is fined (for example, for engaging in the sort of behavior that VW’s execs did), the corporate veil does nothing for them.
the corporate veil
All the “corporate veil” does is keep you from being personally liable for the corporation’s debts. So if the fines to the corporation exceed the value of its assets (and the corporation goes bankrupt), the officers and shareholders cannot be required to make up the difference out of their own funds.
But if the individual is fined (for example, for engaging in the sort of behavior that VW’s execs did), the corporate veil does nothing for them.
the corporate veil
All the “corporate veil” does is keep you from being personally liable for the corporation’s debts. So if the fines to the corporation exceed the value of its assets (and the corporation goes bankrupt), the officers and shareholders cannot be required to make up the difference out of their own funds.
But if the individual is fined (for example, for engaging in the sort of behavior that VW’s execs did), the corporate veil does nothing for them.
All the “corporate veil” does is keep you from being personally liable for the corporation’s debts.
yes, though “you” = “owner” above. That’s key.
This seems more a principal-agent problem?
All the “corporate veil” does is keep you from being personally liable for the corporation’s debts.
yes, though “you” = “owner” above. That’s key.
This seems more a principal-agent problem?
All the “corporate veil” does is keep you from being personally liable for the corporation’s debts.
yes, though “you” = “owner” above. That’s key.
This seems more a principal-agent problem?
This seems more a principal-agent problem?
Yes, that’s really more what I’m asking about.
Not so much about “piercing the veil” in terms of the limited liability granted to shareholders, but rather (what appears to be) the normal procedure when people do harmful or criminal things while acting on behalf of corps.
Which is, the corp is fined, but no criminal or civil penalties reach the actual people who did the harmful actions, or took the harmful decisions.
Maybe the corp will fire them, but then again maybe not.
What do you have to do to find yourself *personally* criminally or civilly liable?
Is it something that is decided on a case-by-case basis? Or are there some set of legal or procedural standards that apply?
This seems more a principal-agent problem?
Yes, that’s really more what I’m asking about.
Not so much about “piercing the veil” in terms of the limited liability granted to shareholders, but rather (what appears to be) the normal procedure when people do harmful or criminal things while acting on behalf of corps.
Which is, the corp is fined, but no criminal or civil penalties reach the actual people who did the harmful actions, or took the harmful decisions.
Maybe the corp will fire them, but then again maybe not.
What do you have to do to find yourself *personally* criminally or civilly liable?
Is it something that is decided on a case-by-case basis? Or are there some set of legal or procedural standards that apply?
This seems more a principal-agent problem?
Yes, that’s really more what I’m asking about.
Not so much about “piercing the veil” in terms of the limited liability granted to shareholders, but rather (what appears to be) the normal procedure when people do harmful or criminal things while acting on behalf of corps.
Which is, the corp is fined, but no criminal or civil penalties reach the actual people who did the harmful actions, or took the harmful decisions.
Maybe the corp will fire them, but then again maybe not.
What do you have to do to find yourself *personally* criminally or civilly liable?
Is it something that is decided on a case-by-case basis? Or are there some set of legal or procedural standards that apply?
From here:
There’s lots more on the subject at the link.
From here:
There’s lots more on the subject at the link.
From here:
There’s lots more on the subject at the link.
The PDF at the link regards federal law, specifically, BTW. I’m sure that would apply in the VW case, though. I would also guess that similar rationales would apply to laws enacted by lower levels of government, though places like Delaware and Florida, off the top of my head, would likely be more loose (again, guessing).
The PDF at the link regards federal law, specifically, BTW. I’m sure that would apply in the VW case, though. I would also guess that similar rationales would apply to laws enacted by lower levels of government, though places like Delaware and Florida, off the top of my head, would likely be more loose (again, guessing).
The PDF at the link regards federal law, specifically, BTW. I’m sure that would apply in the VW case, though. I would also guess that similar rationales would apply to laws enacted by lower levels of government, though places like Delaware and Florida, off the top of my head, would likely be more loose (again, guessing).
What do you have to do to find yourself *personally* criminally or civilly liable?
You’d have to violate a statute with the requisite intent, not that you don’t know that.
For example, in the VW case I assume (but don’t know) the statute governing the emissions rules makes the “manufacturer” (or “producer” or whatever term it uses) liable for violations of the rules and thus subject to $37,500 (or whatever) fine and then goes on to define manufacturer in a way that would ordinarily exclude individuals, at least as a practical matter in modern automobile construction.
But, there are other statutes, RICO mentioned above and other conspiracy statutes, that could get at the individuals as decision makers and subject them to criminal liability for a conspiracy to violate the emissions standards. That is, it is one thing to produce a car that violates the emission standards because of shoddy manufacturing, say, (no one is going to jail although a fine may be owed) and another to produce and execute a plan specifically to violate the emissions standards and cover up the evidence thereof (someone should go to jail).
But again, it all depends on what the statute says.
Also, as Slarti notes upthread, this also amounts to just straight up fraud – claiming they’re selling a clean emission car when they know they’re not – which itself carries criminal penalties.
And it occurs to me that this is going to create a huge problem for VW with its dealers, who have significant clout at the state and federal levels through the National Automobile Dealers Association. VW defrauded them too (unless they were in on it).
What do you have to do to find yourself *personally* criminally or civilly liable?
You’d have to violate a statute with the requisite intent, not that you don’t know that.
For example, in the VW case I assume (but don’t know) the statute governing the emissions rules makes the “manufacturer” (or “producer” or whatever term it uses) liable for violations of the rules and thus subject to $37,500 (or whatever) fine and then goes on to define manufacturer in a way that would ordinarily exclude individuals, at least as a practical matter in modern automobile construction.
But, there are other statutes, RICO mentioned above and other conspiracy statutes, that could get at the individuals as decision makers and subject them to criminal liability for a conspiracy to violate the emissions standards. That is, it is one thing to produce a car that violates the emission standards because of shoddy manufacturing, say, (no one is going to jail although a fine may be owed) and another to produce and execute a plan specifically to violate the emissions standards and cover up the evidence thereof (someone should go to jail).
But again, it all depends on what the statute says.
Also, as Slarti notes upthread, this also amounts to just straight up fraud – claiming they’re selling a clean emission car when they know they’re not – which itself carries criminal penalties.
And it occurs to me that this is going to create a huge problem for VW with its dealers, who have significant clout at the state and federal levels through the National Automobile Dealers Association. VW defrauded them too (unless they were in on it).
What do you have to do to find yourself *personally* criminally or civilly liable?
You’d have to violate a statute with the requisite intent, not that you don’t know that.
For example, in the VW case I assume (but don’t know) the statute governing the emissions rules makes the “manufacturer” (or “producer” or whatever term it uses) liable for violations of the rules and thus subject to $37,500 (or whatever) fine and then goes on to define manufacturer in a way that would ordinarily exclude individuals, at least as a practical matter in modern automobile construction.
But, there are other statutes, RICO mentioned above and other conspiracy statutes, that could get at the individuals as decision makers and subject them to criminal liability for a conspiracy to violate the emissions standards. That is, it is one thing to produce a car that violates the emission standards because of shoddy manufacturing, say, (no one is going to jail although a fine may be owed) and another to produce and execute a plan specifically to violate the emissions standards and cover up the evidence thereof (someone should go to jail).
But again, it all depends on what the statute says.
Also, as Slarti notes upthread, this also amounts to just straight up fraud – claiming they’re selling a clean emission car when they know they’re not – which itself carries criminal penalties.
And it occurs to me that this is going to create a huge problem for VW with its dealers, who have significant clout at the state and federal levels through the National Automobile Dealers Association. VW defrauded them too (unless they were in on it).
What do you have to do to find yourself *personally* criminally or civilly liable?
IANAL
I am under the impression that a great deal depends on the AG or DA or prosecutor’s discretion, and that it is very unusual in the US for individual directors to be sued for actions taken by the corporation.
I am also under the impression that many corporate directors are provided with insurance by their employers that covers them in the case they are charged.
What do you have to do to find yourself *personally* criminally or civilly liable?
IANAL
I am under the impression that a great deal depends on the AG or DA or prosecutor’s discretion, and that it is very unusual in the US for individual directors to be sued for actions taken by the corporation.
I am also under the impression that many corporate directors are provided with insurance by their employers that covers them in the case they are charged.
What do you have to do to find yourself *personally* criminally or civilly liable?
IANAL
I am under the impression that a great deal depends on the AG or DA or prosecutor’s discretion, and that it is very unusual in the US for individual directors to be sued for actions taken by the corporation.
I am also under the impression that many corporate directors are provided with insurance by their employers that covers them in the case they are charged.
I’m actually glad that VW is looking at big fines, massive profit drops, and possible bankruptcy. Why? Because it investors lose big on this one, i.e. from stocks becoming worthless, other investors will have some serious incentives to make sure that the companies they invest in don’t do the same. If the days when boards of directors are stacked with friends of the CEO and friends of the company CEO (overlapping categories) are gone, it will be good for us all.
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight? For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong? Me too! Kill ’em all!
Look, something like this is just too stupid not to be able to find the “who did it?” answer. It looks like a fairly discrete point of production: rigging output on test vehicles. Someone, or a group of someone’s, inside VW with a particular interest in diesel sales in the US decided to fudge the books. My guess is VW already knows who it is, thus the reference to “our internal investigation” and the target defendants already know who they are.
They are probably in Germany. So, getting jurisdiction over the individuals may be problematic. We will be stuck with fining the shit out of VW.
Ugh is right about mens rea and BP is right, that it’s principal/agent, not veil piercing. You’d never pierce a publicly traded entity, by definition.
The pearl clutching seems a bit overwrought to me–it is highly unlikely the fiddling was a senior management decision. Someone well up and fairly well insulated inside the diesel group is probably looking at hard time and maybe getting his/her stock options yanked.
Companies as big as VW have divisions and units and subdivisions and business-this and business-that, and they operate semi-autonomously. My somewhat educated guess is that a fairly small number of people–people who probably convinced themselves in the first place that our standards were BS and therefore no harm, no foul–found a pretty sneaky work-around that involved a small enough control group that they were able to pull it off–or so they thought.
I’d say before passing sentence, it might be good to hear the actual evidence. This might not be quite the big thing some say it is.
I’m actually glad that VW is looking at big fines, massive profit drops, and possible bankruptcy. Why? Because it investors lose big on this one, i.e. from stocks becoming worthless, other investors will have some serious incentives to make sure that the companies they invest in don’t do the same. If the days when boards of directors are stacked with friends of the CEO and friends of the company CEO (overlapping categories) are gone, it will be good for us all.
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight? For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong? Me too! Kill ’em all!
Look, something like this is just too stupid not to be able to find the “who did it?” answer. It looks like a fairly discrete point of production: rigging output on test vehicles. Someone, or a group of someone’s, inside VW with a particular interest in diesel sales in the US decided to fudge the books. My guess is VW already knows who it is, thus the reference to “our internal investigation” and the target defendants already know who they are.
They are probably in Germany. So, getting jurisdiction over the individuals may be problematic. We will be stuck with fining the shit out of VW.
Ugh is right about mens rea and BP is right, that it’s principal/agent, not veil piercing. You’d never pierce a publicly traded entity, by definition.
The pearl clutching seems a bit overwrought to me–it is highly unlikely the fiddling was a senior management decision. Someone well up and fairly well insulated inside the diesel group is probably looking at hard time and maybe getting his/her stock options yanked.
Companies as big as VW have divisions and units and subdivisions and business-this and business-that, and they operate semi-autonomously. My somewhat educated guess is that a fairly small number of people–people who probably convinced themselves in the first place that our standards were BS and therefore no harm, no foul–found a pretty sneaky work-around that involved a small enough control group that they were able to pull it off–or so they thought.
I’d say before passing sentence, it might be good to hear the actual evidence. This might not be quite the big thing some say it is.
I’m actually glad that VW is looking at big fines, massive profit drops, and possible bankruptcy. Why? Because it investors lose big on this one, i.e. from stocks becoming worthless, other investors will have some serious incentives to make sure that the companies they invest in don’t do the same. If the days when boards of directors are stacked with friends of the CEO and friends of the company CEO (overlapping categories) are gone, it will be good for us all.
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight? For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong? Me too! Kill ’em all!
Look, something like this is just too stupid not to be able to find the “who did it?” answer. It looks like a fairly discrete point of production: rigging output on test vehicles. Someone, or a group of someone’s, inside VW with a particular interest in diesel sales in the US decided to fudge the books. My guess is VW already knows who it is, thus the reference to “our internal investigation” and the target defendants already know who they are.
They are probably in Germany. So, getting jurisdiction over the individuals may be problematic. We will be stuck with fining the shit out of VW.
Ugh is right about mens rea and BP is right, that it’s principal/agent, not veil piercing. You’d never pierce a publicly traded entity, by definition.
The pearl clutching seems a bit overwrought to me–it is highly unlikely the fiddling was a senior management decision. Someone well up and fairly well insulated inside the diesel group is probably looking at hard time and maybe getting his/her stock options yanked.
Companies as big as VW have divisions and units and subdivisions and business-this and business-that, and they operate semi-autonomously. My somewhat educated guess is that a fairly small number of people–people who probably convinced themselves in the first place that our standards were BS and therefore no harm, no foul–found a pretty sneaky work-around that involved a small enough control group that they were able to pull it off–or so they thought.
I’d say before passing sentence, it might be good to hear the actual evidence. This might not be quite the big thing some say it is.
I am also under the impression that many corporate directors are provided with insurance by their employers that covers them in the case they are charged.
Directors and Officers Insurance, called D&O by savvy, in-the-know people like me, seldom covers criminal conduct. Criminal conduct is usually excluded. Ordinarily, insuring oneself against criminal conduct and prosecution is void as against public policy, although there are exceptions, mostly for auto related offenses. But if there was coverage (it depends on the policy–there could be some coverage), it would be to pay for a lawyer. You can’t put an insurance policy in jail.
I am also under the impression that many corporate directors are provided with insurance by their employers that covers them in the case they are charged.
Directors and Officers Insurance, called D&O by savvy, in-the-know people like me, seldom covers criminal conduct. Criminal conduct is usually excluded. Ordinarily, insuring oneself against criminal conduct and prosecution is void as against public policy, although there are exceptions, mostly for auto related offenses. But if there was coverage (it depends on the policy–there could be some coverage), it would be to pay for a lawyer. You can’t put an insurance policy in jail.
I am also under the impression that many corporate directors are provided with insurance by their employers that covers them in the case they are charged.
Directors and Officers Insurance, called D&O by savvy, in-the-know people like me, seldom covers criminal conduct. Criminal conduct is usually excluded. Ordinarily, insuring oneself against criminal conduct and prosecution is void as against public policy, although there are exceptions, mostly for auto related offenses. But if there was coverage (it depends on the policy–there could be some coverage), it would be to pay for a lawyer. You can’t put an insurance policy in jail.
it is highly unlikely the fiddling was a senior management decision. Someone well up and fairly well insulated inside the diesel group is probably looking at hard time and maybe getting his/her stock options yanked.
Companies as big as VW have divisions and units and subdivisions and business-this and business-that, and they operate semi-autonomously.
I don’t know, it was 11 million cars across multiple countries. It also apparently encompassed both the VW and Audi (i.e., the luxury) brands. Moreover, once the EPA caught wind of this there was further efforts to cover up what VW had done, going on for more than a year. So, a coverup to boot.
Yes it could be a small group, but it is hard for me to believe that there isn’t any criminal conduct here. And the U.S. has an extradition treaty with Germany.
it is highly unlikely the fiddling was a senior management decision. Someone well up and fairly well insulated inside the diesel group is probably looking at hard time and maybe getting his/her stock options yanked.
Companies as big as VW have divisions and units and subdivisions and business-this and business-that, and they operate semi-autonomously.
I don’t know, it was 11 million cars across multiple countries. It also apparently encompassed both the VW and Audi (i.e., the luxury) brands. Moreover, once the EPA caught wind of this there was further efforts to cover up what VW had done, going on for more than a year. So, a coverup to boot.
Yes it could be a small group, but it is hard for me to believe that there isn’t any criminal conduct here. And the U.S. has an extradition treaty with Germany.
it is highly unlikely the fiddling was a senior management decision. Someone well up and fairly well insulated inside the diesel group is probably looking at hard time and maybe getting his/her stock options yanked.
Companies as big as VW have divisions and units and subdivisions and business-this and business-that, and they operate semi-autonomously.
I don’t know, it was 11 million cars across multiple countries. It also apparently encompassed both the VW and Audi (i.e., the luxury) brands. Moreover, once the EPA caught wind of this there was further efforts to cover up what VW had done, going on for more than a year. So, a coverup to boot.
Yes it could be a small group, but it is hard for me to believe that there isn’t any criminal conduct here. And the U.S. has an extradition treaty with Germany.
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight?
Artificially? It seems their value was artificially inflated at purchase because of fraud by VW. Their recourse is to VW who has already set aside $7 billion (or took a charge to earnings or whatever the accounting pain is).
For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong?
Of course not. But what does it say about a business where – to take your theory McTx – a small group of employees in business unit subdivision X can take down the entire enterprise? Where are the internal controls? The lawyers? The compliance personnel? The environmental engineers?
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight?
Artificially? It seems their value was artificially inflated at purchase because of fraud by VW. Their recourse is to VW who has already set aside $7 billion (or took a charge to earnings or whatever the accounting pain is).
For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong?
Of course not. But what does it say about a business where – to take your theory McTx – a small group of employees in business unit subdivision X can take down the entire enterprise? Where are the internal controls? The lawyers? The compliance personnel? The environmental engineers?
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight?
Artificially? It seems their value was artificially inflated at purchase because of fraud by VW. Their recourse is to VW who has already set aside $7 billion (or took a charge to earnings or whatever the accounting pain is).
For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong?
Of course not. But what does it say about a business where – to take your theory McTx – a small group of employees in business unit subdivision X can take down the entire enterprise? Where are the internal controls? The lawyers? The compliance personnel? The environmental engineers?
And VW shares are cheap now! A p/e ratio of 4.91 and dividend yield of 4.58% at today’s share price!
And VW shares are cheap now! A p/e ratio of 4.91 and dividend yield of 4.58% at today’s share price!
And VW shares are cheap now! A p/e ratio of 4.91 and dividend yield of 4.58% at today’s share price!
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight? For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong? Me too! Kill ’em all!
I imagine wj is glad that the company will suffer – given what they did – because he doesn’t want other companies to do similar things that will screw over people who bought the product and their thousands of employees and the people who are breathing the emissions.
I’m sure wj would prefer that VW’s emissions people never committed the fraud in the first place and that no one would be suffering, particularly the people who are breathing the emissions, the people who bought what they thought were compliant vehicles, and the employees who had nothing to do with the fraud.
I know it must be satisfying to think mush-brained liberals like wj (I kid, wj!) are bloodthirsty for big corporations to the point that they don’t care about collateral damage when one can be taken down, but that’s not how it is. If anything he, and I assume others – certainly me – are pissed precisely because of all the other people who will be hurt by this.
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight? For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong? Me too! Kill ’em all!
I imagine wj is glad that the company will suffer – given what they did – because he doesn’t want other companies to do similar things that will screw over people who bought the product and their thousands of employees and the people who are breathing the emissions.
I’m sure wj would prefer that VW’s emissions people never committed the fraud in the first place and that no one would be suffering, particularly the people who are breathing the emissions, the people who bought what they thought were compliant vehicles, and the employees who had nothing to do with the fraud.
I know it must be satisfying to think mush-brained liberals like wj (I kid, wj!) are bloodthirsty for big corporations to the point that they don’t care about collateral damage when one can be taken down, but that’s not how it is. If anything he, and I assume others – certainly me – are pissed precisely because of all the other people who will be hurt by this.
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight? For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong? Me too! Kill ’em all!
I imagine wj is glad that the company will suffer – given what they did – because he doesn’t want other companies to do similar things that will screw over people who bought the product and their thousands of employees and the people who are breathing the emissions.
I’m sure wj would prefer that VW’s emissions people never committed the fraud in the first place and that no one would be suffering, particularly the people who are breathing the emissions, the people who bought what they thought were compliant vehicles, and the employees who had nothing to do with the fraud.
I know it must be satisfying to think mush-brained liberals like wj (I kid, wj!) are bloodthirsty for big corporations to the point that they don’t care about collateral damage when one can be taken down, but that’s not how it is. If anything he, and I assume others – certainly me – are pissed precisely because of all the other people who will be hurt by this.
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight? For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong?
This might not be quite the big thing some say it is.
What I’d say is that your first and last statements are at odds with each other.
Plus, you can add to the list of folks harmed in the first statement all of the people who hold equity in VW, the value of which is significantly lower than it was before this disclosure.
I doubt the environmental damage is all that large, VW just doesn’t sell all that many diesels in the US. But it does seem like there was intentional fraud.
My question here mostly about the weird vagueness of “corporate personhood” as it applies to cases where harm is done.
“Corporations” don’t do anything, they are a legal artifact. Some person or persons make decisions that are harmful, or are negligent or even malicious in ways that are harmful.
That doesn’t always rise to the level of criminality or civil liability – accidents actually do happen – but in this case it seems hard to imagine somebody, somewhere didn’t intend to fraudulently work around the US emission standards.
So, what happens? We have Great Big Fines, which sucks for everyone who owns a piece of VW, or owns a TDI VW, or works for VW.
And VW may decide to find and fire the folks who are responsible.
But what recourse does the *public* have, as regards the actual human beings involved?
I’m not sure that fines are a sufficient deterrent. IMO, when there is clear evidence of intentional malfeasance, at least some degree of personal culpability is appropriate.
So, I’m wondering if that exists, and if so what the bar is for going after natural human persons, rather than hitting the corp with fines.
Ugh’s point about who the law or regulation names as the responsible party – “manufacturer” vs “VP for diesel sales in North America” – seems relevant.
But IANAL.
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight? For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong?
This might not be quite the big thing some say it is.
What I’d say is that your first and last statements are at odds with each other.
Plus, you can add to the list of folks harmed in the first statement all of the people who hold equity in VW, the value of which is significantly lower than it was before this disclosure.
I doubt the environmental damage is all that large, VW just doesn’t sell all that many diesels in the US. But it does seem like there was intentional fraud.
My question here mostly about the weird vagueness of “corporate personhood” as it applies to cases where harm is done.
“Corporations” don’t do anything, they are a legal artifact. Some person or persons make decisions that are harmful, or are negligent or even malicious in ways that are harmful.
That doesn’t always rise to the level of criminality or civil liability – accidents actually do happen – but in this case it seems hard to imagine somebody, somewhere didn’t intend to fraudulently work around the US emission standards.
So, what happens? We have Great Big Fines, which sucks for everyone who owns a piece of VW, or owns a TDI VW, or works for VW.
And VW may decide to find and fire the folks who are responsible.
But what recourse does the *public* have, as regards the actual human beings involved?
I’m not sure that fines are a sufficient deterrent. IMO, when there is clear evidence of intentional malfeasance, at least some degree of personal culpability is appropriate.
So, I’m wondering if that exists, and if so what the bar is for going after natural human persons, rather than hitting the corp with fines.
Ugh’s point about who the law or regulation names as the responsible party – “manufacturer” vs “VP for diesel sales in North America” – seems relevant.
But IANAL.
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight? For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong?
This might not be quite the big thing some say it is.
What I’d say is that your first and last statements are at odds with each other.
Plus, you can add to the list of folks harmed in the first statement all of the people who hold equity in VW, the value of which is significantly lower than it was before this disclosure.
I doubt the environmental damage is all that large, VW just doesn’t sell all that many diesels in the US. But it does seem like there was intentional fraud.
My question here mostly about the weird vagueness of “corporate personhood” as it applies to cases where harm is done.
“Corporations” don’t do anything, they are a legal artifact. Some person or persons make decisions that are harmful, or are negligent or even malicious in ways that are harmful.
That doesn’t always rise to the level of criminality or civil liability – accidents actually do happen – but in this case it seems hard to imagine somebody, somewhere didn’t intend to fraudulently work around the US emission standards.
So, what happens? We have Great Big Fines, which sucks for everyone who owns a piece of VW, or owns a TDI VW, or works for VW.
And VW may decide to find and fire the folks who are responsible.
But what recourse does the *public* have, as regards the actual human beings involved?
I’m not sure that fines are a sufficient deterrent. IMO, when there is clear evidence of intentional malfeasance, at least some degree of personal culpability is appropriate.
So, I’m wondering if that exists, and if so what the bar is for going after natural human persons, rather than hitting the corp with fines.
Ugh’s point about who the law or regulation names as the responsible party – “manufacturer” vs “VP for diesel sales in North America” – seems relevant.
But IANAL.
Oh look, this is not the first time car/truck manufacturers have thought of this particular, uh, trick.
Oh look, this is not the first time car/truck manufacturers have thought of this particular, uh, trick.
Oh look, this is not the first time car/truck manufacturers have thought of this particular, uh, trick.
looks like they got away with some minor slapping.
looks like they got away with some minor slapping.
looks like they got away with some minor slapping.
Here’s a good article that discusses possible criminal charges.
Here’s a good article that discusses possible criminal charges.
Here’s a good article that discusses possible criminal charges.
But what does it say about a business where – to take your theory McTx – a small group of employees in business unit subdivision X can take down the entire enterprise? Where are the internal controls? The lawyers? The compliance personnel? The environmental engineers?
I’m going to make up the phrase “negligent incompetence” for the people running the show if all this was able to happen without them knowing about it. At some point, saying you didn’t know what was happening isn’t a defense if you totally f*cking should have know, assuming your head wasn’t 10 feet up your arse.
But what does it say about a business where – to take your theory McTx – a small group of employees in business unit subdivision X can take down the entire enterprise? Where are the internal controls? The lawyers? The compliance personnel? The environmental engineers?
I’m going to make up the phrase “negligent incompetence” for the people running the show if all this was able to happen without them knowing about it. At some point, saying you didn’t know what was happening isn’t a defense if you totally f*cking should have know, assuming your head wasn’t 10 feet up your arse.
But what does it say about a business where – to take your theory McTx – a small group of employees in business unit subdivision X can take down the entire enterprise? Where are the internal controls? The lawyers? The compliance personnel? The environmental engineers?
I’m going to make up the phrase “negligent incompetence” for the people running the show if all this was able to happen without them knowing about it. At some point, saying you didn’t know what was happening isn’t a defense if you totally f*cking should have know, assuming your head wasn’t 10 feet up your arse.
Do the top brass engineers at VW/Audi drive their own product?
If they do and were in the dark, I can feel some sympathy for their feeling of foolishness and betrayal at this point.
“Wait till I get hold of Jurgen in Emission Control, that Dummkopf!”
If they do and were aware of this scandal from the getgo, I’m trying to imagine their snickering to themselves when they went for their annual emissions test stickers, and more, the long compliance meetings their people sat through with state regulatory folks while trying to maintain eye contact and not bursting into laughter.
If they were oblivious and don’t own and drive the product, there will be another set of questions. In due time, my pretties.
If they were in the know and don’t own or drive the product, I guess in Europe anyway, regulators need to look into Mercedes-Benz practices, since the VW/Audi folks obviously must have upgraded and wouldn’t have settled for any less in the finagling area.
Also, Hillary Clinton has more ‘splaining to do.
If the mid-level engineers perpetrated this on their own and the folks who determine their salaries and bonuses didn’t know about it, what was the motivation for pulling this off in the first place?
Was it just a cavalier practical joke, a joshing dare between puckish engineers, who as we know, lead double-loves as hilarious pranksters, when they aren’t grimly measuring the square corners on their bedclothes every morning.
“I told you, Gerhardt, we should have let the higher-ups know about this, so we could have at least been awarded stock options for our cleverness. But, nnnoooooo, you thought it would be funnier if we kept it to ourselves. Now look at the fine Durcheinander you’ve gotten us into!”
Do the top brass engineers at VW/Audi drive their own product?
If they do and were in the dark, I can feel some sympathy for their feeling of foolishness and betrayal at this point.
“Wait till I get hold of Jurgen in Emission Control, that Dummkopf!”
If they do and were aware of this scandal from the getgo, I’m trying to imagine their snickering to themselves when they went for their annual emissions test stickers, and more, the long compliance meetings their people sat through with state regulatory folks while trying to maintain eye contact and not bursting into laughter.
If they were oblivious and don’t own and drive the product, there will be another set of questions. In due time, my pretties.
If they were in the know and don’t own or drive the product, I guess in Europe anyway, regulators need to look into Mercedes-Benz practices, since the VW/Audi folks obviously must have upgraded and wouldn’t have settled for any less in the finagling area.
Also, Hillary Clinton has more ‘splaining to do.
If the mid-level engineers perpetrated this on their own and the folks who determine their salaries and bonuses didn’t know about it, what was the motivation for pulling this off in the first place?
Was it just a cavalier practical joke, a joshing dare between puckish engineers, who as we know, lead double-loves as hilarious pranksters, when they aren’t grimly measuring the square corners on their bedclothes every morning.
“I told you, Gerhardt, we should have let the higher-ups know about this, so we could have at least been awarded stock options for our cleverness. But, nnnoooooo, you thought it would be funnier if we kept it to ourselves. Now look at the fine Durcheinander you’ve gotten us into!”
Do the top brass engineers at VW/Audi drive their own product?
If they do and were in the dark, I can feel some sympathy for their feeling of foolishness and betrayal at this point.
“Wait till I get hold of Jurgen in Emission Control, that Dummkopf!”
If they do and were aware of this scandal from the getgo, I’m trying to imagine their snickering to themselves when they went for their annual emissions test stickers, and more, the long compliance meetings their people sat through with state regulatory folks while trying to maintain eye contact and not bursting into laughter.
If they were oblivious and don’t own and drive the product, there will be another set of questions. In due time, my pretties.
If they were in the know and don’t own or drive the product, I guess in Europe anyway, regulators need to look into Mercedes-Benz practices, since the VW/Audi folks obviously must have upgraded and wouldn’t have settled for any less in the finagling area.
Also, Hillary Clinton has more ‘splaining to do.
If the mid-level engineers perpetrated this on their own and the folks who determine their salaries and bonuses didn’t know about it, what was the motivation for pulling this off in the first place?
Was it just a cavalier practical joke, a joshing dare between puckish engineers, who as we know, lead double-loves as hilarious pranksters, when they aren’t grimly measuring the square corners on their bedclothes every morning.
“I told you, Gerhardt, we should have let the higher-ups know about this, so we could have at least been awarded stock options for our cleverness. But, nnnoooooo, you thought it would be funnier if we kept it to ourselves. Now look at the fine Durcheinander you’ve gotten us into!”
a smoking comes across the highway
a smoking comes across the highway
a smoking comes across the highway
The first people we kill are not the lawyers, it’s the MBAs.
and next, the author(s) of Perl.
The first people we kill are not the lawyers, it’s the MBAs.
and next, the author(s) of Perl.
The first people we kill are not the lawyers, it’s the MBAs.
and next, the author(s) of Perl.
Yes it could be a small group, but it is hard for me to believe that there isn’t any criminal conduct here. And the U.S. has an extradition treaty with Germany.
It almost certainly is criminal–the big unknown is how widespread. I’m betting up to $10 that it’s relatively contained.
But what does it say about a business where – to take your theory McTx – a small group of employees in business unit subdivision X can take down the entire enterprise? Where are the internal controls? The lawyers? The compliance personnel? The environmental engineers?
Depending on what’s at issue, one person is enough (for an IT related crime). You can trace money, which is mostly what internal control is, but it would be a passing strange company that had outside auditors check every aspect of company operations for intentionally hidden criminal conduct.
I know it must be satisfying to think mush-brained liberals like wj (I kid, wj!) are bloodthirsty for big corporations to the point that they don’t care about collateral damage when one can be taken down, but that’s not how it is. If anything he, and I assume others – certainly me – are pissed precisely because of all the other people who will be hurt by this.
Then, logically, you’d want to know what actually happened and have the punishment fit the crime, rather than rush to judgement and kill them all because God will know His own.
So, I’m wondering if that exists, and if so what the bar is for going after natural human persons, rather than hitting the corp with fines.
This is a huge memory stretch, but I vaguely recall that the Model Penal Code provides for prosecuting individuals who commit crimes in a corporate capacity (although the general rule is that criminal conduct is outside the course of employment), and I suspect there are applicable statutes that impose criminal liability on the person who signs, or who requires someone to sign, off on a certification much like the certification when you borrow money that triggers federal law if you lie on your loan app (wholesale amnesty there). I’m assuming VW has to certify that its engines discharge no greater than X particulate. The signor or whoever allowed that person to sign with knowledge of the deception is probably reading up on the 5th Amendment right now. Or the German equivalent.
I’m going to make up the phrase “negligent incompetence” for the people running the show if all this was able to happen without them knowing about it. At some point, saying you didn’t know what was happening isn’t a defense if you totally f*cking should have know, assuming your head wasn’t 10 feet up your arse.
Yeah, I’m guessing that you really don’t want a law like this because it would apply to a lot of people whose are no more omniscient than you are. It might even apply to you someday.
I represented a doctor who employed a nurse whose duty it was to prepare some paperwork related to a state audit for ambulatory surgical centers. Under the impression that the state auditors were due the next day and having completely failed to get her work done, she returned to the office after hours and lit the office suite on fire. Three people were killed. Her demeanor post fire would not have excited any suspicion whatsoever. The doc was clueless and took a huge financial hit, plus he got sued.
Your rule would require people to find what other people want to hide and to hold them liable for not finding it. Bad law. Bad.
Yes it could be a small group, but it is hard for me to believe that there isn’t any criminal conduct here. And the U.S. has an extradition treaty with Germany.
It almost certainly is criminal–the big unknown is how widespread. I’m betting up to $10 that it’s relatively contained.
But what does it say about a business where – to take your theory McTx – a small group of employees in business unit subdivision X can take down the entire enterprise? Where are the internal controls? The lawyers? The compliance personnel? The environmental engineers?
Depending on what’s at issue, one person is enough (for an IT related crime). You can trace money, which is mostly what internal control is, but it would be a passing strange company that had outside auditors check every aspect of company operations for intentionally hidden criminal conduct.
I know it must be satisfying to think mush-brained liberals like wj (I kid, wj!) are bloodthirsty for big corporations to the point that they don’t care about collateral damage when one can be taken down, but that’s not how it is. If anything he, and I assume others – certainly me – are pissed precisely because of all the other people who will be hurt by this.
Then, logically, you’d want to know what actually happened and have the punishment fit the crime, rather than rush to judgement and kill them all because God will know His own.
So, I’m wondering if that exists, and if so what the bar is for going after natural human persons, rather than hitting the corp with fines.
This is a huge memory stretch, but I vaguely recall that the Model Penal Code provides for prosecuting individuals who commit crimes in a corporate capacity (although the general rule is that criminal conduct is outside the course of employment), and I suspect there are applicable statutes that impose criminal liability on the person who signs, or who requires someone to sign, off on a certification much like the certification when you borrow money that triggers federal law if you lie on your loan app (wholesale amnesty there). I’m assuming VW has to certify that its engines discharge no greater than X particulate. The signor or whoever allowed that person to sign with knowledge of the deception is probably reading up on the 5th Amendment right now. Or the German equivalent.
I’m going to make up the phrase “negligent incompetence” for the people running the show if all this was able to happen without them knowing about it. At some point, saying you didn’t know what was happening isn’t a defense if you totally f*cking should have know, assuming your head wasn’t 10 feet up your arse.
Yeah, I’m guessing that you really don’t want a law like this because it would apply to a lot of people whose are no more omniscient than you are. It might even apply to you someday.
I represented a doctor who employed a nurse whose duty it was to prepare some paperwork related to a state audit for ambulatory surgical centers. Under the impression that the state auditors were due the next day and having completely failed to get her work done, she returned to the office after hours and lit the office suite on fire. Three people were killed. Her demeanor post fire would not have excited any suspicion whatsoever. The doc was clueless and took a huge financial hit, plus he got sued.
Your rule would require people to find what other people want to hide and to hold them liable for not finding it. Bad law. Bad.
Yes it could be a small group, but it is hard for me to believe that there isn’t any criminal conduct here. And the U.S. has an extradition treaty with Germany.
It almost certainly is criminal–the big unknown is how widespread. I’m betting up to $10 that it’s relatively contained.
But what does it say about a business where – to take your theory McTx – a small group of employees in business unit subdivision X can take down the entire enterprise? Where are the internal controls? The lawyers? The compliance personnel? The environmental engineers?
Depending on what’s at issue, one person is enough (for an IT related crime). You can trace money, which is mostly what internal control is, but it would be a passing strange company that had outside auditors check every aspect of company operations for intentionally hidden criminal conduct.
I know it must be satisfying to think mush-brained liberals like wj (I kid, wj!) are bloodthirsty for big corporations to the point that they don’t care about collateral damage when one can be taken down, but that’s not how it is. If anything he, and I assume others – certainly me – are pissed precisely because of all the other people who will be hurt by this.
Then, logically, you’d want to know what actually happened and have the punishment fit the crime, rather than rush to judgement and kill them all because God will know His own.
So, I’m wondering if that exists, and if so what the bar is for going after natural human persons, rather than hitting the corp with fines.
This is a huge memory stretch, but I vaguely recall that the Model Penal Code provides for prosecuting individuals who commit crimes in a corporate capacity (although the general rule is that criminal conduct is outside the course of employment), and I suspect there are applicable statutes that impose criminal liability on the person who signs, or who requires someone to sign, off on a certification much like the certification when you borrow money that triggers federal law if you lie on your loan app (wholesale amnesty there). I’m assuming VW has to certify that its engines discharge no greater than X particulate. The signor or whoever allowed that person to sign with knowledge of the deception is probably reading up on the 5th Amendment right now. Or the German equivalent.
I’m going to make up the phrase “negligent incompetence” for the people running the show if all this was able to happen without them knowing about it. At some point, saying you didn’t know what was happening isn’t a defense if you totally f*cking should have know, assuming your head wasn’t 10 feet up your arse.
Yeah, I’m guessing that you really don’t want a law like this because it would apply to a lot of people whose are no more omniscient than you are. It might even apply to you someday.
I represented a doctor who employed a nurse whose duty it was to prepare some paperwork related to a state audit for ambulatory surgical centers. Under the impression that the state auditors were due the next day and having completely failed to get her work done, she returned to the office after hours and lit the office suite on fire. Three people were killed. Her demeanor post fire would not have excited any suspicion whatsoever. The doc was clueless and took a huge financial hit, plus he got sued.
Your rule would require people to find what other people want to hide and to hold them liable for not finding it. Bad law. Bad.
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight? For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong?
No. though the owners are in the same position as any other defrauded consumer. What that’s worth I don’t know. As for the employees who may well lose their jobs if VW sales get hit hard, well, it would be possible, though not easy, to distribute some of the fines collected from the company to these workers. Ten billion in fines, ten thousand workers, equals $1 million per.
I don’t expect that to happen, and it doesn’t need to be $1 million, but it’s worth thinking about. Is it unreasonable to say that VW workers who lose their jobs because of management malfeasance are entitled to some damages?
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight? For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong?
No. though the owners are in the same position as any other defrauded consumer. What that’s worth I don’t know. As for the employees who may well lose their jobs if VW sales get hit hard, well, it would be possible, though not easy, to distribute some of the fines collected from the company to these workers. Ten billion in fines, ten thousand workers, equals $1 million per.
I don’t expect that to happen, and it doesn’t need to be $1 million, but it’s worth thinking about. Is it unreasonable to say that VW workers who lose their jobs because of management malfeasance are entitled to some damages?
Are you happy for the VW owners who’s products have artificially depreciated overnight? For the 1000’s of employees and their families who did nothing wrong?
No. though the owners are in the same position as any other defrauded consumer. What that’s worth I don’t know. As for the employees who may well lose their jobs if VW sales get hit hard, well, it would be possible, though not easy, to distribute some of the fines collected from the company to these workers. Ten billion in fines, ten thousand workers, equals $1 million per.
I don’t expect that to happen, and it doesn’t need to be $1 million, but it’s worth thinking about. Is it unreasonable to say that VW workers who lose their jobs because of management malfeasance are entitled to some damages?
Then, logically, you’d want to know what actually happened and have the punishment fit the crime, rather than rush to judgement and kill them all because God will know His own.
If you’re determined to read what people write in the stupidest possible way, you would respond like this. The problem is that no one is suggesting no investigation take place or that due process not be followed. We’re discussing the potential legal consequences given what it appears, at this point, happened. No one here actually has the power to pass binding legal judgement on anyone.
Yeah, I’m guessing that you don’t really want a law like this…
A law like what? It’s not a matter of omniscience to have the responsibility to have some level of knowledge of what’s going on at a company it’s your job to run. It’s total baloney to think one IT guy did this. But, again, built into this discussion is some amount of speculation. I don’t claim to know what happened, but it certainly doesn’t look good at this point.
You will admit there is some point at which you can’t reasonably claim not to know. Isn’t that what plausible deniability, or the lack thereof, is about? Are you suggesting that management can be completely clueless about and have no knowledge whatsoever of what people are doing on behalf of the company they run? I don’t think you are. I only ask because, were I to assume that was your position, it would be as silly as your suggestion that I think management can be expected to be omniscient.
Then, logically, you’d want to know what actually happened and have the punishment fit the crime, rather than rush to judgement and kill them all because God will know His own.
If you’re determined to read what people write in the stupidest possible way, you would respond like this. The problem is that no one is suggesting no investigation take place or that due process not be followed. We’re discussing the potential legal consequences given what it appears, at this point, happened. No one here actually has the power to pass binding legal judgement on anyone.
Yeah, I’m guessing that you don’t really want a law like this…
A law like what? It’s not a matter of omniscience to have the responsibility to have some level of knowledge of what’s going on at a company it’s your job to run. It’s total baloney to think one IT guy did this. But, again, built into this discussion is some amount of speculation. I don’t claim to know what happened, but it certainly doesn’t look good at this point.
You will admit there is some point at which you can’t reasonably claim not to know. Isn’t that what plausible deniability, or the lack thereof, is about? Are you suggesting that management can be completely clueless about and have no knowledge whatsoever of what people are doing on behalf of the company they run? I don’t think you are. I only ask because, were I to assume that was your position, it would be as silly as your suggestion that I think management can be expected to be omniscient.
Then, logically, you’d want to know what actually happened and have the punishment fit the crime, rather than rush to judgement and kill them all because God will know His own.
If you’re determined to read what people write in the stupidest possible way, you would respond like this. The problem is that no one is suggesting no investigation take place or that due process not be followed. We’re discussing the potential legal consequences given what it appears, at this point, happened. No one here actually has the power to pass binding legal judgement on anyone.
Yeah, I’m guessing that you don’t really want a law like this…
A law like what? It’s not a matter of omniscience to have the responsibility to have some level of knowledge of what’s going on at a company it’s your job to run. It’s total baloney to think one IT guy did this. But, again, built into this discussion is some amount of speculation. I don’t claim to know what happened, but it certainly doesn’t look good at this point.
You will admit there is some point at which you can’t reasonably claim not to know. Isn’t that what plausible deniability, or the lack thereof, is about? Are you suggesting that management can be completely clueless about and have no knowledge whatsoever of what people are doing on behalf of the company they run? I don’t think you are. I only ask because, were I to assume that was your position, it would be as silly as your suggestion that I think management can be expected to be omniscient.
And I had to logon to my wife’s laptop to comment. My iPad, since being updated it seems, doesn’t allow me to comment. The post and preview buttons are grayed out and do nothing as of late. I even loaded Chrome to see if using another browser would fix it, to no avail. It appears to be an iOS problem.
And I had to logon to my wife’s laptop to comment. My iPad, since being updated it seems, doesn’t allow me to comment. The post and preview buttons are grayed out and do nothing as of late. I even loaded Chrome to see if using another browser would fix it, to no avail. It appears to be an iOS problem.
And I had to logon to my wife’s laptop to comment. My iPad, since being updated it seems, doesn’t allow me to comment. The post and preview buttons are grayed out and do nothing as of late. I even loaded Chrome to see if using another browser would fix it, to no avail. It appears to be an iOS problem.
Not that there’s evidence near so damning in this case, but who knows prior to proper investigation:
Mother Jones: You Can’t Go to Prison for Destroying the Economy, But Bad Peanut Butter Is Another Story
Not that there’s evidence near so damning in this case, but who knows prior to proper investigation:
Mother Jones: You Can’t Go to Prison for Destroying the Economy, But Bad Peanut Butter Is Another Story
Not that there’s evidence near so damning in this case, but who knows prior to proper investigation:
Mother Jones: You Can’t Go to Prison for Destroying the Economy, But Bad Peanut Butter Is Another Story
It seems to me that, based on what I’ve read and assuming it’s true, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft has committed a crime through its agents and should be duly punished, which would include the maximum Clean Air Act $18 billion civil fine, plus any fines for criminal conspiracy, followed by having its US corporate charter and license to do business revoked (and whatever the German equivalent is).
As I noted above, this has to go pretty far up the corporate org chart if VW, when the EPA got wind of what it was doing, lied to the EPA about fixes for a year. From an article I linked above “The Clean Air Act contains criminal provisions which apply to tampering with monitor devices, as well as making false statements to the EPA.”
It seems to me that, based on what I’ve read and assuming it’s true, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft has committed a crime through its agents and should be duly punished, which would include the maximum Clean Air Act $18 billion civil fine, plus any fines for criminal conspiracy, followed by having its US corporate charter and license to do business revoked (and whatever the German equivalent is).
As I noted above, this has to go pretty far up the corporate org chart if VW, when the EPA got wind of what it was doing, lied to the EPA about fixes for a year. From an article I linked above “The Clean Air Act contains criminal provisions which apply to tampering with monitor devices, as well as making false statements to the EPA.”
It seems to me that, based on what I’ve read and assuming it’s true, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft has committed a crime through its agents and should be duly punished, which would include the maximum Clean Air Act $18 billion civil fine, plus any fines for criminal conspiracy, followed by having its US corporate charter and license to do business revoked (and whatever the German equivalent is).
As I noted above, this has to go pretty far up the corporate org chart if VW, when the EPA got wind of what it was doing, lied to the EPA about fixes for a year. From an article I linked above “The Clean Air Act contains criminal provisions which apply to tampering with monitor devices, as well as making false statements to the EPA.”
Here’s a student law review note on revoking corporate charters, FWIW.
Here’s a student law review note on revoking corporate charters, FWIW.
Here’s a student law review note on revoking corporate charters, FWIW.
The experience with large civil fines for Exxon Valdiz, and of criminal convections for Enron, makes me wonder how realistic it is to expect severe penalties on VW or on high-level VW executives.
Low level minion scapegoats, perhaps.
The experience with large civil fines for Exxon Valdiz, and of criminal convections for Enron, makes me wonder how realistic it is to expect severe penalties on VW or on high-level VW executives.
Low level minion scapegoats, perhaps.
The experience with large civil fines for Exxon Valdiz, and of criminal convections for Enron, makes me wonder how realistic it is to expect severe penalties on VW or on high-level VW executives.
Low level minion scapegoats, perhaps.
wrt cleek: Larry Wall delenda est!
wrt cleek: Larry Wall delenda est!
wrt cleek: Larry Wall delenda est!
I’ve been able to fix the problem of the post and preview buttons been grayed out by adding a leading space to the comment’s text.
I’ve been able to fix the problem of the post and preview buttons been grayed out by adding a leading space to the comment’s text.
I’ve been able to fix the problem of the post and preview buttons been grayed out by adding a leading space to the comment’s text.
Is it unreasonable to say that VW workers who lose their jobs because of management malfeasance are entitled to some damages?
How would we distinguish, and would we really want to distinguish, between those who lose their jobs when their company goes under as a result of management acting illegally, and those who lose their job in another company as a result of management merely acting incompetently?
Both are out of work — even though they personally may have done nothing wrong. But nobody, that I have heard, is arguing that anyone whose company goes under should be entitled to compensation. (And if the restaurant where you work goes under, as most do, who pays that compensation? Or do only employees of large corporations get protected?)
Is it unreasonable to say that VW workers who lose their jobs because of management malfeasance are entitled to some damages?
How would we distinguish, and would we really want to distinguish, between those who lose their jobs when their company goes under as a result of management acting illegally, and those who lose their job in another company as a result of management merely acting incompetently?
Both are out of work — even though they personally may have done nothing wrong. But nobody, that I have heard, is arguing that anyone whose company goes under should be entitled to compensation. (And if the restaurant where you work goes under, as most do, who pays that compensation? Or do only employees of large corporations get protected?)
Is it unreasonable to say that VW workers who lose their jobs because of management malfeasance are entitled to some damages?
How would we distinguish, and would we really want to distinguish, between those who lose their jobs when their company goes under as a result of management acting illegally, and those who lose their job in another company as a result of management merely acting incompetently?
Both are out of work — even though they personally may have done nothing wrong. But nobody, that I have heard, is arguing that anyone whose company goes under should be entitled to compensation. (And if the restaurant where you work goes under, as most do, who pays that compensation? Or do only employees of large corporations get protected?)
it is highly unlikely the fiddling was a senior management decision
It seems highly likely to me.
The gaming of emissions testing has been a matter of public debate for years now; things like whole fleet fuel economy are directly regulated, and how to meet those regulations a matter for board level strategic decisions.
The CEO is an engineer (so much so he worked on the gearbox of one of their cars during last year’s Le Mans. Ignorance of this on his part would likely have to be deliberate.
it is highly unlikely the fiddling was a senior management decision
It seems highly likely to me.
The gaming of emissions testing has been a matter of public debate for years now; things like whole fleet fuel economy are directly regulated, and how to meet those regulations a matter for board level strategic decisions.
The CEO is an engineer (so much so he worked on the gearbox of one of their cars during last year’s Le Mans. Ignorance of this on his part would likely have to be deliberate.
it is highly unlikely the fiddling was a senior management decision
It seems highly likely to me.
The gaming of emissions testing has been a matter of public debate for years now; things like whole fleet fuel economy are directly regulated, and how to meet those regulations a matter for board level strategic decisions.
The CEO is an engineer (so much so he worked on the gearbox of one of their cars during last year’s Le Mans. Ignorance of this on his part would likely have to be deliberate.
And to confirm my above surmise…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p033863f
Martin Leach, former president of Ford Europe and managing director of Mazda, describing how this wasn’t just some rogue engineer:
“Something like this would have had to have come to my attention…”
And to confirm my above surmise…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p033863f
Martin Leach, former president of Ford Europe and managing director of Mazda, describing how this wasn’t just some rogue engineer:
“Something like this would have had to have come to my attention…”
And to confirm my above surmise…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p033863f
Martin Leach, former president of Ford Europe and managing director of Mazda, describing how this wasn’t just some rogue engineer:
“Something like this would have had to have come to my attention…”
Here’s a fun fact I didn’t know:
“(corporate) Bribes were tax-deductible in Germany until 1997…”
Here’s a fun fact I didn’t know:
“(corporate) Bribes were tax-deductible in Germany until 1997…”
Here’s a fun fact I didn’t know:
“(corporate) Bribes were tax-deductible in Germany until 1997…”
To address the headline question:
“Do they not teach ethics in B-School?”
Of course! Rule #1: don’t get caught.
To address the headline question:
“Do they not teach ethics in B-School?”
Of course! Rule #1: don’t get caught.
To address the headline question:
“Do they not teach ethics in B-School?”
Of course! Rule #1: don’t get caught.
Snarki – or the headline here.
traders at Citi, JPMorgan, Barclays, UBS and RBS referred to themselves as ‘The Cartel’ in chatrooms where they used coded language to set benchmark rates. One Barclays fx trader, desperate to join the invitation-only group, was given a one month ‘trial’ and told “mess this up and sleep with one eye open at night”.
Snarki – or the headline here.
traders at Citi, JPMorgan, Barclays, UBS and RBS referred to themselves as ‘The Cartel’ in chatrooms where they used coded language to set benchmark rates. One Barclays fx trader, desperate to join the invitation-only group, was given a one month ‘trial’ and told “mess this up and sleep with one eye open at night”.
Snarki – or the headline here.
traders at Citi, JPMorgan, Barclays, UBS and RBS referred to themselves as ‘The Cartel’ in chatrooms where they used coded language to set benchmark rates. One Barclays fx trader, desperate to join the invitation-only group, was given a one month ‘trial’ and told “mess this up and sleep with one eye open at night”.
cheap, legal, fast, efficient.
pick two.
cheap, legal, fast, efficient.
pick two.
cheap, legal, fast, efficient.
pick two.
Nigel, I know. And the change was not undisputed. Our high court has produced some outwardly strange cases and that was one of them. It seems that no legislator had entertained the idea that a briber would try to deduct bribes as such from his tax as business expenses and so no law forbidding it existed. And when somone finally did, the case had to go through the courts up to the highest which decided that the violation of morality (Sittenwidrigkeit) of/by a payment could not have by itself an influence on tax deductability absent an explicit law according to the principle of equality. And any law could not violate that principle either, so the case for lawmakers was a difficult one (a related thing is the taxation of gains of prostitutes while prostitution is/was illegal, same principle in reverse). In short, it was not originally a decision by a corrupt court or a law by corrupt lawmakers but a legal conundrum that could not easily be solved without the risk of a higher principle. And don’t forget: in order to deduct the bribes from one’s taxes one had to declare them explicitly opening oneslef to criminal investigation. Plus there was a difference between in-country bribes (illegal) and bribes abroad (not per se illegal according to in-country law). So a corporation could for example bribe some official in a 3rd world country and deduct that as corporate expenses since this fell not under German jurisdiction but under that of the country where the bribe took place. Companies have argued successfully for a long time that in some countries bribes were more or less mandatory and staying clean would in essence mean stopping all operations there. It took some major scandals and the general shift in international judicial procedures to in the end have the law changed (without the high court stepping in).
Nigel, I know. And the change was not undisputed. Our high court has produced some outwardly strange cases and that was one of them. It seems that no legislator had entertained the idea that a briber would try to deduct bribes as such from his tax as business expenses and so no law forbidding it existed. And when somone finally did, the case had to go through the courts up to the highest which decided that the violation of morality (Sittenwidrigkeit) of/by a payment could not have by itself an influence on tax deductability absent an explicit law according to the principle of equality. And any law could not violate that principle either, so the case for lawmakers was a difficult one (a related thing is the taxation of gains of prostitutes while prostitution is/was illegal, same principle in reverse). In short, it was not originally a decision by a corrupt court or a law by corrupt lawmakers but a legal conundrum that could not easily be solved without the risk of a higher principle. And don’t forget: in order to deduct the bribes from one’s taxes one had to declare them explicitly opening oneslef to criminal investigation. Plus there was a difference between in-country bribes (illegal) and bribes abroad (not per se illegal according to in-country law). So a corporation could for example bribe some official in a 3rd world country and deduct that as corporate expenses since this fell not under German jurisdiction but under that of the country where the bribe took place. Companies have argued successfully for a long time that in some countries bribes were more or less mandatory and staying clean would in essence mean stopping all operations there. It took some major scandals and the general shift in international judicial procedures to in the end have the law changed (without the high court stepping in).
Nigel, I know. And the change was not undisputed. Our high court has produced some outwardly strange cases and that was one of them. It seems that no legislator had entertained the idea that a briber would try to deduct bribes as such from his tax as business expenses and so no law forbidding it existed. And when somone finally did, the case had to go through the courts up to the highest which decided that the violation of morality (Sittenwidrigkeit) of/by a payment could not have by itself an influence on tax deductability absent an explicit law according to the principle of equality. And any law could not violate that principle either, so the case for lawmakers was a difficult one (a related thing is the taxation of gains of prostitutes while prostitution is/was illegal, same principle in reverse). In short, it was not originally a decision by a corrupt court or a law by corrupt lawmakers but a legal conundrum that could not easily be solved without the risk of a higher principle. And don’t forget: in order to deduct the bribes from one’s taxes one had to declare them explicitly opening oneslef to criminal investigation. Plus there was a difference between in-country bribes (illegal) and bribes abroad (not per se illegal according to in-country law). So a corporation could for example bribe some official in a 3rd world country and deduct that as corporate expenses since this fell not under German jurisdiction but under that of the country where the bribe took place. Companies have argued successfully for a long time that in some countries bribes were more or less mandatory and staying clean would in essence mean stopping all operations there. It took some major scandals and the general shift in international judicial procedures to in the end have the law changed (without the high court stepping in).
In breaking news: the CEO of Volkswagen has resigned. His statement said:
“I am shocked by the events of the past few days. Above all, I am stunned that misconduct on such a scale was possible in the Volkswagen Group.”
Which seems to say that he is at least claiming to have been unaware. Pity he didn’t say something about who in the executive suite was aware.
In breaking news: the CEO of Volkswagen has resigned. His statement said:
“I am shocked by the events of the past few days. Above all, I am stunned that misconduct on such a scale was possible in the Volkswagen Group.”
Which seems to say that he is at least claiming to have been unaware. Pity he didn’t say something about who in the executive suite was aware.
In breaking news: the CEO of Volkswagen has resigned. His statement said:
“I am shocked by the events of the past few days. Above all, I am stunned that misconduct on such a scale was possible in the Volkswagen Group.”
Which seems to say that he is at least claiming to have been unaware. Pity he didn’t say something about who in the executive suite was aware.
One hopes those practices are history – but they’re pretty recent history.
Given the Greece/Germany interactions, this one is particularly pungent…
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/complicit-in-corruption-how-german-companies-bribed-their-way-to-greek-deals-a-693973.html
One hopes those practices are history – but they’re pretty recent history.
Given the Greece/Germany interactions, this one is particularly pungent…
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/complicit-in-corruption-how-german-companies-bribed-their-way-to-greek-deals-a-693973.html
One hopes those practices are history – but they’re pretty recent history.
Given the Greece/Germany interactions, this one is particularly pungent…
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/complicit-in-corruption-how-german-companies-bribed-their-way-to-greek-deals-a-693973.html
…Not that I can claimant special virtue on behalf of the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8500535.stm
…Not that I can claimant special virtue on behalf of the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8500535.stm
…Not that I can claimant special virtue on behalf of the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8500535.stm
Bribery of “public servants” has been legal in America for a long time and is now solidly entrenched by Citizens United.
Other countries have to go to the trouble of doing these things under the table, baksheesh-wise, looking the other way, unlike the U.S., which exceptionally enables bribery by the “rule” (henh ha hah) of lawhawhaw.
Does anyone not think that VW’s antics in emission decontrol were merely a stopgap measure as they and other industrial actors awaited the demise of the EPA, and the Product Safety Commission, and the Dept of Labor, and the Labor Relations Board, and OSHA, and EEO, and State Environmental Standards and Agencies altogether once the bribery of the filthy GOP had full kicked in and enabled them to take control of all three branches of government and every state government.
Is our MBA candidates learning?
Most certainly they are.
Bribery of “public servants” has been legal in America for a long time and is now solidly entrenched by Citizens United.
Other countries have to go to the trouble of doing these things under the table, baksheesh-wise, looking the other way, unlike the U.S., which exceptionally enables bribery by the “rule” (henh ha hah) of lawhawhaw.
Does anyone not think that VW’s antics in emission decontrol were merely a stopgap measure as they and other industrial actors awaited the demise of the EPA, and the Product Safety Commission, and the Dept of Labor, and the Labor Relations Board, and OSHA, and EEO, and State Environmental Standards and Agencies altogether once the bribery of the filthy GOP had full kicked in and enabled them to take control of all three branches of government and every state government.
Is our MBA candidates learning?
Most certainly they are.
Bribery of “public servants” has been legal in America for a long time and is now solidly entrenched by Citizens United.
Other countries have to go to the trouble of doing these things under the table, baksheesh-wise, looking the other way, unlike the U.S., which exceptionally enables bribery by the “rule” (henh ha hah) of lawhawhaw.
Does anyone not think that VW’s antics in emission decontrol were merely a stopgap measure as they and other industrial actors awaited the demise of the EPA, and the Product Safety Commission, and the Dept of Labor, and the Labor Relations Board, and OSHA, and EEO, and State Environmental Standards and Agencies altogether once the bribery of the filthy GOP had full kicked in and enabled them to take control of all three branches of government and every state government.
Is our MBA candidates learning?
Most certainly they are.
Count, I’m shocked… just shocked that you could confuse bribery with free speech.
You cynic, you.
Count, I’m shocked… just shocked that you could confuse bribery with free speech.
You cynic, you.
Count, I’m shocked… just shocked that you could confuse bribery with free speech.
You cynic, you.
No MBA for him, but it’s obvious that top shelf business schools include rigorous religious and ethics instruction in their curriculum at the undergraduate level as well:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/donald-trump-once-again-shows-hes-probably-never-cracked-open-bible-his-life
I can certify and represent to you that this is true, ovah heah. What, you think I’m funny? Funny, how? No, you said I’m funny, so funny how? Tell me how you think I’m funny. Hanh?
“It is easier for a needle to pass through a camel
Than for a poor man to enter a woman of means.”
Deutelobotomy IV, Verse 7 an’ don’t get me started on, whatchamacalit, the Paasalms, annat.
Actually, the first two lines from Poet Mark Strand’s “Some Last Words.”
No MBA for him, but it’s obvious that top shelf business schools include rigorous religious and ethics instruction in their curriculum at the undergraduate level as well:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/donald-trump-once-again-shows-hes-probably-never-cracked-open-bible-his-life
I can certify and represent to you that this is true, ovah heah. What, you think I’m funny? Funny, how? No, you said I’m funny, so funny how? Tell me how you think I’m funny. Hanh?
“It is easier for a needle to pass through a camel
Than for a poor man to enter a woman of means.”
Deutelobotomy IV, Verse 7 an’ don’t get me started on, whatchamacalit, the Paasalms, annat.
Actually, the first two lines from Poet Mark Strand’s “Some Last Words.”
No MBA for him, but it’s obvious that top shelf business schools include rigorous religious and ethics instruction in their curriculum at the undergraduate level as well:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/donald-trump-once-again-shows-hes-probably-never-cracked-open-bible-his-life
I can certify and represent to you that this is true, ovah heah. What, you think I’m funny? Funny, how? No, you said I’m funny, so funny how? Tell me how you think I’m funny. Hanh?
“It is easier for a needle to pass through a camel
Than for a poor man to enter a woman of means.”
Deutelobotomy IV, Verse 7 an’ don’t get me started on, whatchamacalit, the Paasalms, annat.
Actually, the first two lines from Poet Mark Strand’s “Some Last Words.”
Count, I’m shocked… just shocked that you could confuse bribery with free speech.
You cynic, you.
Perhaps all he’s saying is that apparently they don’t teach ethics in law school either. At least, in the couple elite Ivy League law schools which are, on the evidence, almost the sole source for Supreme Court Justices.
Count, I’m shocked… just shocked that you could confuse bribery with free speech.
You cynic, you.
Perhaps all he’s saying is that apparently they don’t teach ethics in law school either. At least, in the couple elite Ivy League law schools which are, on the evidence, almost the sole source for Supreme Court Justices.
Count, I’m shocked… just shocked that you could confuse bribery with free speech.
You cynic, you.
Perhaps all he’s saying is that apparently they don’t teach ethics in law school either. At least, in the couple elite Ivy League law schools which are, on the evidence, almost the sole source for Supreme Court Justices.
I’m pretty sure that the neither the courts nor the public support waving jail time for convicted criminals because “think of how my family and friends will suffer with me not around”.
So why should we go easy on VW because of shareholders and workers?
The shareholders, well — that’s part of the risk, isn’t it? Nobody said stock was risk-free, and even then they have options (a lawsuit of their own). Owners of VWs, of course, have the option of lawsuits as well (for fraud, for instance).
The workers…well, businesses fall every year from mismanagement. Why would THIS be any different?
By all accounts, VW was horribly managed. They’ve exposed themselves to billions in EPA fines, lost 20 billion in stock value, and are open to shareholder and class action lawsuits.
Sucks to work for VW, but it sucks to work for any business that goes under.
It’s strange to plead for charity for poor, poor VW.
I’m pretty sure that the neither the courts nor the public support waving jail time for convicted criminals because “think of how my family and friends will suffer with me not around”.
So why should we go easy on VW because of shareholders and workers?
The shareholders, well — that’s part of the risk, isn’t it? Nobody said stock was risk-free, and even then they have options (a lawsuit of their own). Owners of VWs, of course, have the option of lawsuits as well (for fraud, for instance).
The workers…well, businesses fall every year from mismanagement. Why would THIS be any different?
By all accounts, VW was horribly managed. They’ve exposed themselves to billions in EPA fines, lost 20 billion in stock value, and are open to shareholder and class action lawsuits.
Sucks to work for VW, but it sucks to work for any business that goes under.
It’s strange to plead for charity for poor, poor VW.
I’m pretty sure that the neither the courts nor the public support waving jail time for convicted criminals because “think of how my family and friends will suffer with me not around”.
So why should we go easy on VW because of shareholders and workers?
The shareholders, well — that’s part of the risk, isn’t it? Nobody said stock was risk-free, and even then they have options (a lawsuit of their own). Owners of VWs, of course, have the option of lawsuits as well (for fraud, for instance).
The workers…well, businesses fall every year from mismanagement. Why would THIS be any different?
By all accounts, VW was horribly managed. They’ve exposed themselves to billions in EPA fines, lost 20 billion in stock value, and are open to shareholder and class action lawsuits.
Sucks to work for VW, but it sucks to work for any business that goes under.
It’s strange to plead for charity for poor, poor VW.
…are open to shareholder and class action lawsuits.
Given that Porsche owns around 50%, and Saxony another 20%, it’s likely a pretty small class.
…are open to shareholder and class action lawsuits.
Given that Porsche owns around 50%, and Saxony another 20%, it’s likely a pretty small class.
…are open to shareholder and class action lawsuits.
Given that Porsche owns around 50%, and Saxony another 20%, it’s likely a pretty small class.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for I am fully hedged.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for I am fully hedged.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for I am fully hedged.
it is highly unlikely the fiddling was a senior management decision
It seems highly likely to me.
A marker of the left is presumption that the private sector is bad, and to impute the worst as widely as possible, even knowing the investigation has yet to occur–we saw this with Michael Brown and the Hands Up, Don’t Shoot libel. The corollary marker is to presume the opposite when the party involved is one of the family.
Based on the logic on display here, Barack Obama had direct personal knowledge and approved Hillary Clinton’s private email server. He also knew of the donations to the Clinton Foundation during her tenure (those were actually knowable facts) and did not object.
When you have to assume/imagine evidence to get a conviction, it’s probably a pretty good sign you are witch hunting and not getting even within shouting distance of due process.
This isn’t the only context in which progressives bypass the presumption of innocence at the speed of light.
it is highly unlikely the fiddling was a senior management decision
It seems highly likely to me.
A marker of the left is presumption that the private sector is bad, and to impute the worst as widely as possible, even knowing the investigation has yet to occur–we saw this with Michael Brown and the Hands Up, Don’t Shoot libel. The corollary marker is to presume the opposite when the party involved is one of the family.
Based on the logic on display here, Barack Obama had direct personal knowledge and approved Hillary Clinton’s private email server. He also knew of the donations to the Clinton Foundation during her tenure (those were actually knowable facts) and did not object.
When you have to assume/imagine evidence to get a conviction, it’s probably a pretty good sign you are witch hunting and not getting even within shouting distance of due process.
This isn’t the only context in which progressives bypass the presumption of innocence at the speed of light.
it is highly unlikely the fiddling was a senior management decision
It seems highly likely to me.
A marker of the left is presumption that the private sector is bad, and to impute the worst as widely as possible, even knowing the investigation has yet to occur–we saw this with Michael Brown and the Hands Up, Don’t Shoot libel. The corollary marker is to presume the opposite when the party involved is one of the family.
Based on the logic on display here, Barack Obama had direct personal knowledge and approved Hillary Clinton’s private email server. He also knew of the donations to the Clinton Foundation during her tenure (those were actually knowable facts) and did not object.
When you have to assume/imagine evidence to get a conviction, it’s probably a pretty good sign you are witch hunting and not getting even within shouting distance of due process.
This isn’t the only context in which progressives bypass the presumption of innocence at the speed of light.
Massive layoffs at Firm X due to hedgie and/or private equity firm buying out (with other people’s money) and ‘slimming down’ the firm in the name of *efficiency* and *shareholder value*: the way of our Lord, Blessed Capitalism.
Massive layoffs at Firm X due to the shuttering/handcuffing of a firm engaging in systemic fraud to evade environmental rules which affect the health and lives of millions: a sin against God and Nature by Socialist Evildoers.
Compare. Contrast.
Massive layoffs at Firm X due to hedgie and/or private equity firm buying out (with other people’s money) and ‘slimming down’ the firm in the name of *efficiency* and *shareholder value*: the way of our Lord, Blessed Capitalism.
Massive layoffs at Firm X due to the shuttering/handcuffing of a firm engaging in systemic fraud to evade environmental rules which affect the health and lives of millions: a sin against God and Nature by Socialist Evildoers.
Compare. Contrast.
Massive layoffs at Firm X due to hedgie and/or private equity firm buying out (with other people’s money) and ‘slimming down’ the firm in the name of *efficiency* and *shareholder value*: the way of our Lord, Blessed Capitalism.
Massive layoffs at Firm X due to the shuttering/handcuffing of a firm engaging in systemic fraud to evade environmental rules which affect the health and lives of millions: a sin against God and Nature by Socialist Evildoers.
Compare. Contrast.
There is rather a difference between having a piece of engineering installed in a vehicle which is specifically designed to make that vehicle cheat the pollution tests, and keeping track of what e-mail server a single staffer is using.
The former is significant enough that, as someone noted above, it would likely be a board decision to do it. Certainly someone pretty high up in management had to sign off on the far from trivial work (and expense!) to design and implement the sensors and computer code to make it work.
The latter should probably get flagged by the IT staff — assuming anyone had even realized that there ought to be a policy on the specific subject. And, since no expense (except to Clinton) was involved, probably no upper management signoff required. In most e-mail usage, nobody (outside the IT staff) pays much attention to what your e-mail address is. You make a one-time entry in your Contacts file, and then just type the name henceforth.
Not that the way things were handled with Clinton’s e-mail was right, because it wasn’t. But as for who in the chain of command might reasonable be expected to sign off on it, not really the same.
There is rather a difference between having a piece of engineering installed in a vehicle which is specifically designed to make that vehicle cheat the pollution tests, and keeping track of what e-mail server a single staffer is using.
The former is significant enough that, as someone noted above, it would likely be a board decision to do it. Certainly someone pretty high up in management had to sign off on the far from trivial work (and expense!) to design and implement the sensors and computer code to make it work.
The latter should probably get flagged by the IT staff — assuming anyone had even realized that there ought to be a policy on the specific subject. And, since no expense (except to Clinton) was involved, probably no upper management signoff required. In most e-mail usage, nobody (outside the IT staff) pays much attention to what your e-mail address is. You make a one-time entry in your Contacts file, and then just type the name henceforth.
Not that the way things were handled with Clinton’s e-mail was right, because it wasn’t. But as for who in the chain of command might reasonable be expected to sign off on it, not really the same.
There is rather a difference between having a piece of engineering installed in a vehicle which is specifically designed to make that vehicle cheat the pollution tests, and keeping track of what e-mail server a single staffer is using.
The former is significant enough that, as someone noted above, it would likely be a board decision to do it. Certainly someone pretty high up in management had to sign off on the far from trivial work (and expense!) to design and implement the sensors and computer code to make it work.
The latter should probably get flagged by the IT staff — assuming anyone had even realized that there ought to be a policy on the specific subject. And, since no expense (except to Clinton) was involved, probably no upper management signoff required. In most e-mail usage, nobody (outside the IT staff) pays much attention to what your e-mail address is. You make a one-time entry in your Contacts file, and then just type the name henceforth.
Not that the way things were handled with Clinton’s e-mail was right, because it wasn’t. But as for who in the chain of command might reasonable be expected to sign off on it, not really the same.
Really, McKT.
You can do better than that.
I was giving a realistic assessment of the probabilities – with which the
former president of Ford Europe and managing director of Mazda, as cited above, seems to concur.
presumption that the private sector is bad…
Bollocks. I don’t presume any such thing.
Bottom line is that VW, prima facie, are guilty of fraud – and there is very good evidence indeed of the link between NO2 exposure and excess mortality.
It is fairly improbable that the “engineers’ engineer”, who until this afternoon was CEO of VW, was entirely ignorant of this.
You could argue, quite rightly, that I shouldn’t sit on any jury which has to decide on the matter, but if you deny that the facts are pretty damning, then you are blinded by your own prejudices.
Really, McKT.
You can do better than that.
I was giving a realistic assessment of the probabilities – with which the
former president of Ford Europe and managing director of Mazda, as cited above, seems to concur.
presumption that the private sector is bad…
Bollocks. I don’t presume any such thing.
Bottom line is that VW, prima facie, are guilty of fraud – and there is very good evidence indeed of the link between NO2 exposure and excess mortality.
It is fairly improbable that the “engineers’ engineer”, who until this afternoon was CEO of VW, was entirely ignorant of this.
You could argue, quite rightly, that I shouldn’t sit on any jury which has to decide on the matter, but if you deny that the facts are pretty damning, then you are blinded by your own prejudices.
Really, McKT.
You can do better than that.
I was giving a realistic assessment of the probabilities – with which the
former president of Ford Europe and managing director of Mazda, as cited above, seems to concur.
presumption that the private sector is bad…
Bollocks. I don’t presume any such thing.
Bottom line is that VW, prima facie, are guilty of fraud – and there is very good evidence indeed of the link between NO2 exposure and excess mortality.
It is fairly improbable that the “engineers’ engineer”, who until this afternoon was CEO of VW, was entirely ignorant of this.
You could argue, quite rightly, that I shouldn’t sit on any jury which has to decide on the matter, but if you deny that the facts are pretty damning, then you are blinded by your own prejudices.
Slart’s and the Ford CEO’s liberal bona fides can only be “alleged” on this thread, I’m thinking.
Hey, these are the cheap seats. There is no due process required.
If money can be speech, then speech can be speech too and I’d say that’s all we have on this thread.
If a news article was being written instead, the word “alleged” would be a frequent adjective.
If this was a Court of Law, we would observe the legal proprieties and presumptions of innocence and maybe sneak in a leading question or two and a leering look at the jury, at worst.
If I was Jason Chaffetz or Trey Gowdy in the House of Reprehensibles, on the alleged other alleged hand, I would be fitting Hillary for a noose in my leaks to the press while positioning her over a trapdoor and I’d be requesting that Obama stand right next to her for the final group photograph, evidence be damned.
If due process exonerates VW the corporation or its personnel, that’s what the record will show.
And then I’m sure rotten cabbages will be thrown by me and others, to no avail.
So what.
OJ was guilty of double homicide.
So sue me.
Slart’s and the Ford CEO’s liberal bona fides can only be “alleged” on this thread, I’m thinking.
Hey, these are the cheap seats. There is no due process required.
If money can be speech, then speech can be speech too and I’d say that’s all we have on this thread.
If a news article was being written instead, the word “alleged” would be a frequent adjective.
If this was a Court of Law, we would observe the legal proprieties and presumptions of innocence and maybe sneak in a leading question or two and a leering look at the jury, at worst.
If I was Jason Chaffetz or Trey Gowdy in the House of Reprehensibles, on the alleged other alleged hand, I would be fitting Hillary for a noose in my leaks to the press while positioning her over a trapdoor and I’d be requesting that Obama stand right next to her for the final group photograph, evidence be damned.
If due process exonerates VW the corporation or its personnel, that’s what the record will show.
And then I’m sure rotten cabbages will be thrown by me and others, to no avail.
So what.
OJ was guilty of double homicide.
So sue me.
Slart’s and the Ford CEO’s liberal bona fides can only be “alleged” on this thread, I’m thinking.
Hey, these are the cheap seats. There is no due process required.
If money can be speech, then speech can be speech too and I’d say that’s all we have on this thread.
If a news article was being written instead, the word “alleged” would be a frequent adjective.
If this was a Court of Law, we would observe the legal proprieties and presumptions of innocence and maybe sneak in a leading question or two and a leering look at the jury, at worst.
If I was Jason Chaffetz or Trey Gowdy in the House of Reprehensibles, on the alleged other alleged hand, I would be fitting Hillary for a noose in my leaks to the press while positioning her over a trapdoor and I’d be requesting that Obama stand right next to her for the final group photograph, evidence be damned.
If due process exonerates VW the corporation or its personnel, that’s what the record will show.
And then I’m sure rotten cabbages will be thrown by me and others, to no avail.
So what.
OJ was guilty of double homicide.
So sue me.
A marker of the left is presumption that the private sector is bad
Meh.
I have no idea how far up the chain, down the chain, or in any direction on the chain responsibility for the VW thing falls.
That said, Nigel presented fairly specific reasons for why he thought responsibility might go to the top.
Perhaps you could address those, instead of talking about “markers of the left”.
A marker of the left is presumption that the private sector is bad
Meh.
I have no idea how far up the chain, down the chain, or in any direction on the chain responsibility for the VW thing falls.
That said, Nigel presented fairly specific reasons for why he thought responsibility might go to the top.
Perhaps you could address those, instead of talking about “markers of the left”.
A marker of the left is presumption that the private sector is bad
Meh.
I have no idea how far up the chain, down the chain, or in any direction on the chain responsibility for the VW thing falls.
That said, Nigel presented fairly specific reasons for why he thought responsibility might go to the top.
Perhaps you could address those, instead of talking about “markers of the left”.
How would we distinguish, and would we really want to distinguish, between those who lose their jobs when their company goes under as a result of management acting illegally, and those who lose their job in another company as a result of management merely acting incompetently?
I think the way to distinguish lies in the words illegally and incompetently
Do we want to? Well, I don’t know. But I do know that in the case of illegal acts we often have available a means of actually collecting the money from the company – fines.
How would we distinguish, and would we really want to distinguish, between those who lose their jobs when their company goes under as a result of management acting illegally, and those who lose their job in another company as a result of management merely acting incompetently?
I think the way to distinguish lies in the words illegally and incompetently
Do we want to? Well, I don’t know. But I do know that in the case of illegal acts we often have available a means of actually collecting the money from the company – fines.
How would we distinguish, and would we really want to distinguish, between those who lose their jobs when their company goes under as a result of management acting illegally, and those who lose their job in another company as a result of management merely acting incompetently?
I think the way to distinguish lies in the words illegally and incompetently
Do we want to? Well, I don’t know. But I do know that in the case of illegal acts we often have available a means of actually collecting the money from the company – fines.
Nigel,
The class action suits would be by the owner of VW cars that were fiddled with. They were effectively defrauded, and suffered considerable loss of value — and that’s assuming there is a recall that can fix the car without loss of performance. Resale value has plummeted, any fix might alter performance, and of course they were outright lied to about whether the car met US emissions standards.
Shareholders can file for other reasons (and being owned by other corporations might indeed).
And of course there’s potential criminal liability.
Nigel,
The class action suits would be by the owner of VW cars that were fiddled with. They were effectively defrauded, and suffered considerable loss of value — and that’s assuming there is a recall that can fix the car without loss of performance. Resale value has plummeted, any fix might alter performance, and of course they were outright lied to about whether the car met US emissions standards.
Shareholders can file for other reasons (and being owned by other corporations might indeed).
And of course there’s potential criminal liability.
Nigel,
The class action suits would be by the owner of VW cars that were fiddled with. They were effectively defrauded, and suffered considerable loss of value — and that’s assuming there is a recall that can fix the car without loss of performance. Resale value has plummeted, any fix might alter performance, and of course they were outright lied to about whether the car met US emissions standards.
Shareholders can file for other reasons (and being owned by other corporations might indeed).
And of course there’s potential criminal liability.
Winterkorn resigns. Winterkorn is the CEO of VW.
Winterkorn resigns. Winterkorn is the CEO of VW.
Winterkorn resigns. Winterkorn is the CEO of VW.
McK,
I agree that we should wait for some evidence before accusing the top management at VW of criminal conduct, though I don’t think it’s unfair to say that perhaps they weren’t as on top of things as they should have been. This is basic product design, not a peripheral matter.
And here is something else that bothers me. Let’s say that VW engineers had in fact produced a remarkable low-emission, high-performance, high-efficiency engine. One better than what these diesels purported to be. As a result, in this imaginary world, VW sales take off, profits soar, and so on. Do you doubt that the CEO would be hailed as a genius manager, worthy of some giant paycheck, etc., whether he had anything to do with the marvelous design at all?
That strikes me as a one-way street.
McK,
I agree that we should wait for some evidence before accusing the top management at VW of criminal conduct, though I don’t think it’s unfair to say that perhaps they weren’t as on top of things as they should have been. This is basic product design, not a peripheral matter.
And here is something else that bothers me. Let’s say that VW engineers had in fact produced a remarkable low-emission, high-performance, high-efficiency engine. One better than what these diesels purported to be. As a result, in this imaginary world, VW sales take off, profits soar, and so on. Do you doubt that the CEO would be hailed as a genius manager, worthy of some giant paycheck, etc., whether he had anything to do with the marvelous design at all?
That strikes me as a one-way street.
McK,
I agree that we should wait for some evidence before accusing the top management at VW of criminal conduct, though I don’t think it’s unfair to say that perhaps they weren’t as on top of things as they should have been. This is basic product design, not a peripheral matter.
And here is something else that bothers me. Let’s say that VW engineers had in fact produced a remarkable low-emission, high-performance, high-efficiency engine. One better than what these diesels purported to be. As a result, in this imaginary world, VW sales take off, profits soar, and so on. Do you doubt that the CEO would be hailed as a genius manager, worthy of some giant paycheck, etc., whether he had anything to do with the marvelous design at all?
That strikes me as a one-way street.
You can do better than that.
I was giving a realistic assessment of the probabilities – with which the
former president of Ford Europe and managing director of Mazda, as cited above, seems to concur.
Yes, he’s likely guilty because a competitor says so.
That’s evidence?
If a former US Pres were to say, “I was president and I would have known X and therefore the current president probably knew X”, that would make it *likely* that was the case?
Anyone who takes the time to read what I’ve said can see, rather plainly, that I believe something criminal happened. I believe this because VW has admitted it. If it was a charge by our gov’t or the German gov’t, I would wait to hear the evidence.
It isn’t a question of what, it is a question of who and how far. It could go to the top. Sure, that could happen. Or, it could be a relatively narrow group of executives and senior management in a relatively autonomous unit or division. We don’t f’ing know.
For those who think nuance sometimes has a role to play, knoweldge from a civil and criminal liability comes in a variety of shapes and forms.
Actual knowledge = self explanatory
Imputed or presumed knowledge = for policy reasons, a given person in a given position is presumed to know certain things. It’s a very narrow category.
Constructive knowledge = what a person of ordinary care knows or reasonably should know based on information reasonably available to that person.
This is an actual vs constructive knowledge situation. Actual = jail time; constructive = civil fine, corporately and possible termination of careers depending on the size and color of the warning flags.
What goes without criticism here is the rush to throw the entire company under the bus and the belief that it had to be known at the top.
Yes, a marker of progressives is a complete bypass of the presumption of innocence outside the family.
Yet, when Ms. Lerner takes the 5th, that’s much ado about nothing, a tempest in a teapot, the pot calling the kettle black, a partisan distraction, blah, blah, blah.
You can do better than that.
I was giving a realistic assessment of the probabilities – with which the
former president of Ford Europe and managing director of Mazda, as cited above, seems to concur.
Yes, he’s likely guilty because a competitor says so.
That’s evidence?
If a former US Pres were to say, “I was president and I would have known X and therefore the current president probably knew X”, that would make it *likely* that was the case?
Anyone who takes the time to read what I’ve said can see, rather plainly, that I believe something criminal happened. I believe this because VW has admitted it. If it was a charge by our gov’t or the German gov’t, I would wait to hear the evidence.
It isn’t a question of what, it is a question of who and how far. It could go to the top. Sure, that could happen. Or, it could be a relatively narrow group of executives and senior management in a relatively autonomous unit or division. We don’t f’ing know.
For those who think nuance sometimes has a role to play, knoweldge from a civil and criminal liability comes in a variety of shapes and forms.
Actual knowledge = self explanatory
Imputed or presumed knowledge = for policy reasons, a given person in a given position is presumed to know certain things. It’s a very narrow category.
Constructive knowledge = what a person of ordinary care knows or reasonably should know based on information reasonably available to that person.
This is an actual vs constructive knowledge situation. Actual = jail time; constructive = civil fine, corporately and possible termination of careers depending on the size and color of the warning flags.
What goes without criticism here is the rush to throw the entire company under the bus and the belief that it had to be known at the top.
Yes, a marker of progressives is a complete bypass of the presumption of innocence outside the family.
Yet, when Ms. Lerner takes the 5th, that’s much ado about nothing, a tempest in a teapot, the pot calling the kettle black, a partisan distraction, blah, blah, blah.
You can do better than that.
I was giving a realistic assessment of the probabilities – with which the
former president of Ford Europe and managing director of Mazda, as cited above, seems to concur.
Yes, he’s likely guilty because a competitor says so.
That’s evidence?
If a former US Pres were to say, “I was president and I would have known X and therefore the current president probably knew X”, that would make it *likely* that was the case?
Anyone who takes the time to read what I’ve said can see, rather plainly, that I believe something criminal happened. I believe this because VW has admitted it. If it was a charge by our gov’t or the German gov’t, I would wait to hear the evidence.
It isn’t a question of what, it is a question of who and how far. It could go to the top. Sure, that could happen. Or, it could be a relatively narrow group of executives and senior management in a relatively autonomous unit or division. We don’t f’ing know.
For those who think nuance sometimes has a role to play, knoweldge from a civil and criminal liability comes in a variety of shapes and forms.
Actual knowledge = self explanatory
Imputed or presumed knowledge = for policy reasons, a given person in a given position is presumed to know certain things. It’s a very narrow category.
Constructive knowledge = what a person of ordinary care knows or reasonably should know based on information reasonably available to that person.
This is an actual vs constructive knowledge situation. Actual = jail time; constructive = civil fine, corporately and possible termination of careers depending on the size and color of the warning flags.
What goes without criticism here is the rush to throw the entire company under the bus and the belief that it had to be known at the top.
Yes, a marker of progressives is a complete bypass of the presumption of innocence outside the family.
Yet, when Ms. Lerner takes the 5th, that’s much ado about nothing, a tempest in a teapot, the pot calling the kettle black, a partisan distraction, blah, blah, blah.
I think the way to distinguish lies in the words illegally and incompetently
So, how high up the management chain do we require either one, before we cut in damages to employees? Because it is at least possible for the failure to be somewhat low level and still bring down the company.
To reprise the restaurant example, it the busboy repeatedly bangs into the customers, they will rate the place low, tell their friends not to go there, etc. The manager/owner might well know to keep an eye on what the cooks do (and that the food is not poisonous), and probably on how the wait staff treats the customers. But who watches the busboy (beyond making sure that the tables do get cleared)? NB: banging into the customers is, technically, battery (right, McK?) — and so, illegal behavior.
OK, it’s a trivial example. And maybe a stretch. But it does illustrate the principle.
I think the way to distinguish lies in the words illegally and incompetently
So, how high up the management chain do we require either one, before we cut in damages to employees? Because it is at least possible for the failure to be somewhat low level and still bring down the company.
To reprise the restaurant example, it the busboy repeatedly bangs into the customers, they will rate the place low, tell their friends not to go there, etc. The manager/owner might well know to keep an eye on what the cooks do (and that the food is not poisonous), and probably on how the wait staff treats the customers. But who watches the busboy (beyond making sure that the tables do get cleared)? NB: banging into the customers is, technically, battery (right, McK?) — and so, illegal behavior.
OK, it’s a trivial example. And maybe a stretch. But it does illustrate the principle.
I think the way to distinguish lies in the words illegally and incompetently
So, how high up the management chain do we require either one, before we cut in damages to employees? Because it is at least possible for the failure to be somewhat low level and still bring down the company.
To reprise the restaurant example, it the busboy repeatedly bangs into the customers, they will rate the place low, tell their friends not to go there, etc. The manager/owner might well know to keep an eye on what the cooks do (and that the food is not poisonous), and probably on how the wait staff treats the customers. But who watches the busboy (beyond making sure that the tables do get cleared)? NB: banging into the customers is, technically, battery (right, McK?) — and so, illegal behavior.
OK, it’s a trivial example. And maybe a stretch. But it does illustrate the principle.
Yes, a marker of progressives is a complete bypass of the presumption of innocence outside the family.
wtf is wrong with you?
Yes, a marker of progressives is a complete bypass of the presumption of innocence outside the family.
wtf is wrong with you?
Yes, a marker of progressives is a complete bypass of the presumption of innocence outside the family.
wtf is wrong with you?
The resignation statement:
I am shocked by the events of the past few days. Above all, I am stunned that misconduct on such a scale was possible in the Volkswagen Group.
As CEO I accept responsibility for the irregularities that have been found in diesel engines and have therefore requested the Supervisory Board to agree on terminating my function as CEO of the Volkswagen Group. I am doing this in the interests of the company even though I am not aware of any wrong doing on my part.
Volkswagen needs a fresh start – also in terms of personnel. I am clearing the way for this fresh start with my resignation.
I have always been driven by my desire to serve this company, especially our customers and employees. Volkswagen has been, is and will always be my life.
The process of clarification and transparency must continue. This is the only way to win back trust. I am convinced that the Volkswagen Group and its team will overcome this grave crisis..
Shocked, I tell you !
In a spirit of clarification and transparency, the board have declared that “certain illicit action happened…”
The Germans clearly rival us Brits in masterful understatement.
Meanwhile, German prosecutors (those well known leftists) have launched a criminal enquiry…
The resignation statement:
I am shocked by the events of the past few days. Above all, I am stunned that misconduct on such a scale was possible in the Volkswagen Group.
As CEO I accept responsibility for the irregularities that have been found in diesel engines and have therefore requested the Supervisory Board to agree on terminating my function as CEO of the Volkswagen Group. I am doing this in the interests of the company even though I am not aware of any wrong doing on my part.
Volkswagen needs a fresh start – also in terms of personnel. I am clearing the way for this fresh start with my resignation.
I have always been driven by my desire to serve this company, especially our customers and employees. Volkswagen has been, is and will always be my life.
The process of clarification and transparency must continue. This is the only way to win back trust. I am convinced that the Volkswagen Group and its team will overcome this grave crisis..
Shocked, I tell you !
In a spirit of clarification and transparency, the board have declared that “certain illicit action happened…”
The Germans clearly rival us Brits in masterful understatement.
Meanwhile, German prosecutors (those well known leftists) have launched a criminal enquiry…
The resignation statement:
I am shocked by the events of the past few days. Above all, I am stunned that misconduct on such a scale was possible in the Volkswagen Group.
As CEO I accept responsibility for the irregularities that have been found in diesel engines and have therefore requested the Supervisory Board to agree on terminating my function as CEO of the Volkswagen Group. I am doing this in the interests of the company even though I am not aware of any wrong doing on my part.
Volkswagen needs a fresh start – also in terms of personnel. I am clearing the way for this fresh start with my resignation.
I have always been driven by my desire to serve this company, especially our customers and employees. Volkswagen has been, is and will always be my life.
The process of clarification and transparency must continue. This is the only way to win back trust. I am convinced that the Volkswagen Group and its team will overcome this grave crisis..
Shocked, I tell you !
In a spirit of clarification and transparency, the board have declared that “certain illicit action happened…”
The Germans clearly rival us Brits in masterful understatement.
Meanwhile, German prosecutors (those well known leftists) have launched a criminal enquiry…
It could go to the top. Sure, that could happen. Or, it could be a relatively narrow group of executives and senior management in a relatively autonomous unit or division. We don’t f’ing know.
Quite right, we don’t know. But we are talking here about something that involves substantial initial (design and engineering) expense. Plus on-going manufacturing expense. Which, at least in any big company I have worked for, means that it involves budgets. Budgets have to get signed off on — and the bigger the item, the higher it has to get approval.
And that’s before we reach the question of: We want to market this diesel car. Which means that we have to meet air-quality standards. The engineers’ initial report says it won’t work. So do we spend the money to work around the requirement?
That’s not just a budget decision, that’s a policy decision. Which means we’re talking EVP level at minimum.
We don’t know, in the “beyond a reasonable doubt” sense. But a “reasonable man” would think it enormously likely.
It could go to the top. Sure, that could happen. Or, it could be a relatively narrow group of executives and senior management in a relatively autonomous unit or division. We don’t f’ing know.
Quite right, we don’t know. But we are talking here about something that involves substantial initial (design and engineering) expense. Plus on-going manufacturing expense. Which, at least in any big company I have worked for, means that it involves budgets. Budgets have to get signed off on — and the bigger the item, the higher it has to get approval.
And that’s before we reach the question of: We want to market this diesel car. Which means that we have to meet air-quality standards. The engineers’ initial report says it won’t work. So do we spend the money to work around the requirement?
That’s not just a budget decision, that’s a policy decision. Which means we’re talking EVP level at minimum.
We don’t know, in the “beyond a reasonable doubt” sense. But a “reasonable man” would think it enormously likely.
It could go to the top. Sure, that could happen. Or, it could be a relatively narrow group of executives and senior management in a relatively autonomous unit or division. We don’t f’ing know.
Quite right, we don’t know. But we are talking here about something that involves substantial initial (design and engineering) expense. Plus on-going manufacturing expense. Which, at least in any big company I have worked for, means that it involves budgets. Budgets have to get signed off on — and the bigger the item, the higher it has to get approval.
And that’s before we reach the question of: We want to market this diesel car. Which means that we have to meet air-quality standards. The engineers’ initial report says it won’t work. So do we spend the money to work around the requirement?
That’s not just a budget decision, that’s a policy decision. Which means we’re talking EVP level at minimum.
We don’t know, in the “beyond a reasonable doubt” sense. But a “reasonable man” would think it enormously likely.
I’m mostly just sad to find that the TDI diesels aren’t what they were cracked up to be.
They seemed to be a nice option for people who wanted a nice car that got really good mileage, but who didn’t want (for whatever reason) to go with a hybrid or fully electric car.
It’s a shame.
For the record, as far as I can tell there is nothing like unanimity among folks on “the left” here at ObWi regarding whether there is C-level responsibility for the fraud. I don’t think there is any conclusion to be drawn from the comments here about what “the left” thinks about “the private sector”.
Everyone commenting here appears to agree that, in the VW case, there was fraud, and that it likely extends to criminal behavior.
Beyond that, it appears that opinions vary, and are not aligned in any notable way with political persuasion.
The relevance of Ms Lerner escapes me.
I’m mostly just sad to find that the TDI diesels aren’t what they were cracked up to be.
They seemed to be a nice option for people who wanted a nice car that got really good mileage, but who didn’t want (for whatever reason) to go with a hybrid or fully electric car.
It’s a shame.
For the record, as far as I can tell there is nothing like unanimity among folks on “the left” here at ObWi regarding whether there is C-level responsibility for the fraud. I don’t think there is any conclusion to be drawn from the comments here about what “the left” thinks about “the private sector”.
Everyone commenting here appears to agree that, in the VW case, there was fraud, and that it likely extends to criminal behavior.
Beyond that, it appears that opinions vary, and are not aligned in any notable way with political persuasion.
The relevance of Ms Lerner escapes me.
I’m mostly just sad to find that the TDI diesels aren’t what they were cracked up to be.
They seemed to be a nice option for people who wanted a nice car that got really good mileage, but who didn’t want (for whatever reason) to go with a hybrid or fully electric car.
It’s a shame.
For the record, as far as I can tell there is nothing like unanimity among folks on “the left” here at ObWi regarding whether there is C-level responsibility for the fraud. I don’t think there is any conclusion to be drawn from the comments here about what “the left” thinks about “the private sector”.
Everyone commenting here appears to agree that, in the VW case, there was fraud, and that it likely extends to criminal behavior.
Beyond that, it appears that opinions vary, and are not aligned in any notable way with political persuasion.
The relevance of Ms Lerner escapes me.
The initial statement, wj’s, set McKinney off. It regarded the fact that wj was glad VW was potentially facing significant losses over this. Why? Because he didn’t want companies to think they could get away with this kind of thing with nothing but a slap on the wrist. Yes, it will hurt customers who did nothing wrong. Yes, it will hurt employees who did nothing wrong. That’s not what anyone is happy about. No one is suggesting that anyone face criminal charges who doesn’t deserve criminal charges. Speculating about who might deserve criminal charges of a fncking blog does nothing to bypass due process. If the friggin’ CEO didn’t know about it and it was somehow hidden from him well enough that it would be unreasonable to expect him to find out, fine. He resigns and that’s that. Okay?
The initial statement, wj’s, set McKinney off. It regarded the fact that wj was glad VW was potentially facing significant losses over this. Why? Because he didn’t want companies to think they could get away with this kind of thing with nothing but a slap on the wrist. Yes, it will hurt customers who did nothing wrong. Yes, it will hurt employees who did nothing wrong. That’s not what anyone is happy about. No one is suggesting that anyone face criminal charges who doesn’t deserve criminal charges. Speculating about who might deserve criminal charges of a fncking blog does nothing to bypass due process. If the friggin’ CEO didn’t know about it and it was somehow hidden from him well enough that it would be unreasonable to expect him to find out, fine. He resigns and that’s that. Okay?
The initial statement, wj’s, set McKinney off. It regarded the fact that wj was glad VW was potentially facing significant losses over this. Why? Because he didn’t want companies to think they could get away with this kind of thing with nothing but a slap on the wrist. Yes, it will hurt customers who did nothing wrong. Yes, it will hurt employees who did nothing wrong. That’s not what anyone is happy about. No one is suggesting that anyone face criminal charges who doesn’t deserve criminal charges. Speculating about who might deserve criminal charges of a fncking blog does nothing to bypass due process. If the friggin’ CEO didn’t know about it and it was somehow hidden from him well enough that it would be unreasonable to expect him to find out, fine. He resigns and that’s that. Okay?
So, how high up the management chain do we require either one, before we cut in damages to employees?
wj,
How high do we go before we asses fines?
I think I wasn’t clear. Given that we are going to collect substantial fines, what should be done with the money? That’s my question.
So, how high up the management chain do we require either one, before we cut in damages to employees?
wj,
How high do we go before we asses fines?
I think I wasn’t clear. Given that we are going to collect substantial fines, what should be done with the money? That’s my question.
So, how high up the management chain do we require either one, before we cut in damages to employees?
wj,
How high do we go before we asses fines?
I think I wasn’t clear. Given that we are going to collect substantial fines, what should be done with the money? That’s my question.
wj is on the left now?
wj is on the left now?
wj is on the left now?
He resigns and that’s that. Okay?
Sure, it’s OK that that’s that (did I really write that???) — for him. The problem comes if it works out that his resignation is the sum total of punishment for any employee.
He resigns and that’s that. Okay?
Sure, it’s OK that that’s that (did I really write that???) — for him. The problem comes if it works out that his resignation is the sum total of punishment for any employee.
He resigns and that’s that. Okay?
Sure, it’s OK that that’s that (did I really write that???) — for him. The problem comes if it works out that his resignation is the sum total of punishment for any employee.
what should be done with the money?
there’s always tax cuts for millionaires.
but, i’d put it into renewable energy.
what should be done with the money?
there’s always tax cuts for millionaires.
but, i’d put it into renewable energy.
what should be done with the money?
there’s always tax cuts for millionaires.
but, i’d put it into renewable energy.
If we are going to collect substantial fines, why should we do anything different than we do with any other fine? As long as we aren’t in a situation where we are funding most of the government by collecting fines, I don’t see why we don’t just pay down the debt a little.
wj is on the left now?
If you get far enough to the right, I suppose that would be true. But, to channel Yogi, I’m not far enough to the right to think I’m on the left. 😉
If we are going to collect substantial fines, why should we do anything different than we do with any other fine? As long as we aren’t in a situation where we are funding most of the government by collecting fines, I don’t see why we don’t just pay down the debt a little.
wj is on the left now?
If you get far enough to the right, I suppose that would be true. But, to channel Yogi, I’m not far enough to the right to think I’m on the left. 😉
If we are going to collect substantial fines, why should we do anything different than we do with any other fine? As long as we aren’t in a situation where we are funding most of the government by collecting fines, I don’t see why we don’t just pay down the debt a little.
wj is on the left now?
If you get far enough to the right, I suppose that would be true. But, to channel Yogi, I’m not far enough to the right to think I’m on the left. 😉
A marker of the left is presumption that the private sector is bad
A marker of the right is the assumption that the private sector not just can, but will outperform any public-sector endeavor engaged in a given task.
I can make sweeping, mind-reading generalizations, too.
and to impute the worst as widely as possible, even knowing the investigation has yet to occur–we saw this with Michael Brown and the Hands Up, Don’t Shoot libel. The corollary marker is to presume the opposite when the party involved is one of the family.
[…]
This isn’t the only context in which progressives bypass the presumption of innocence at the speed of light.
Oh please, McKTx. This isn’t a left-right thing, it’s an American thing. Look at Benghazi. Hell, look at the example of Clinton that you yourself invoked: that an investigation vindicated suspicions on the right doesn’t change the fact that the right was gleefully engaging in the exact pre-judgement you lament here as a marked sin of the left.
The right’s also not all that keen on due process and presumption of innocence within their blind spots, either. So long as it’s about “terrorism” or “security”, those concepts can bugger right off. And “the Right” certainly isn’t hesitant to start talking about sentencing before suspects of crimes that offend their sensibilities set foot in court, either.
This is not meant as a tu quoque, BTW. I agree these are noxious practices. However, they’re American practices, and trying to portray them as “markers” of left-wing thought rather than the common cultural toxins that they are is also a noxious practice.
A marker of the left is presumption that the private sector is bad
A marker of the right is the assumption that the private sector not just can, but will outperform any public-sector endeavor engaged in a given task.
I can make sweeping, mind-reading generalizations, too.
and to impute the worst as widely as possible, even knowing the investigation has yet to occur–we saw this with Michael Brown and the Hands Up, Don’t Shoot libel. The corollary marker is to presume the opposite when the party involved is one of the family.
[…]
This isn’t the only context in which progressives bypass the presumption of innocence at the speed of light.
Oh please, McKTx. This isn’t a left-right thing, it’s an American thing. Look at Benghazi. Hell, look at the example of Clinton that you yourself invoked: that an investigation vindicated suspicions on the right doesn’t change the fact that the right was gleefully engaging in the exact pre-judgement you lament here as a marked sin of the left.
The right’s also not all that keen on due process and presumption of innocence within their blind spots, either. So long as it’s about “terrorism” or “security”, those concepts can bugger right off. And “the Right” certainly isn’t hesitant to start talking about sentencing before suspects of crimes that offend their sensibilities set foot in court, either.
This is not meant as a tu quoque, BTW. I agree these are noxious practices. However, they’re American practices, and trying to portray them as “markers” of left-wing thought rather than the common cultural toxins that they are is also a noxious practice.
A marker of the left is presumption that the private sector is bad
A marker of the right is the assumption that the private sector not just can, but will outperform any public-sector endeavor engaged in a given task.
I can make sweeping, mind-reading generalizations, too.
and to impute the worst as widely as possible, even knowing the investigation has yet to occur–we saw this with Michael Brown and the Hands Up, Don’t Shoot libel. The corollary marker is to presume the opposite when the party involved is one of the family.
[…]
This isn’t the only context in which progressives bypass the presumption of innocence at the speed of light.
Oh please, McKTx. This isn’t a left-right thing, it’s an American thing. Look at Benghazi. Hell, look at the example of Clinton that you yourself invoked: that an investigation vindicated suspicions on the right doesn’t change the fact that the right was gleefully engaging in the exact pre-judgement you lament here as a marked sin of the left.
The right’s also not all that keen on due process and presumption of innocence within their blind spots, either. So long as it’s about “terrorism” or “security”, those concepts can bugger right off. And “the Right” certainly isn’t hesitant to start talking about sentencing before suspects of crimes that offend their sensibilities set foot in court, either.
This is not meant as a tu quoque, BTW. I agree these are noxious practices. However, they’re American practices, and trying to portray them as “markers” of left-wing thought rather than the common cultural toxins that they are is also a noxious practice.
wj is a mush-brained liberal, says me.
wj is a mush-brained liberal, says me.
wj is a mush-brained liberal, says me.
I was going to show him the secret handshake, but now I’m not sure if I should….
I was going to show him the secret handshake, but now I’m not sure if I should….
I was going to show him the secret handshake, but now I’m not sure if I should….
This isn’t the only context in which progressives bypass the presumption of innocence at the speed of light.
“bypass the presumption of innocence”
is a fancy way of saying “prejudge”.
but of course you would never prejudge anyone, would ya? you’d never make an assumption about an individual or group based on broad caricatures, would ya?
’cause you’re above all that.
This isn’t the only context in which progressives bypass the presumption of innocence at the speed of light.
“bypass the presumption of innocence”
is a fancy way of saying “prejudge”.
but of course you would never prejudge anyone, would ya? you’d never make an assumption about an individual or group based on broad caricatures, would ya?
’cause you’re above all that.
This isn’t the only context in which progressives bypass the presumption of innocence at the speed of light.
“bypass the presumption of innocence”
is a fancy way of saying “prejudge”.
but of course you would never prejudge anyone, would ya? you’d never make an assumption about an individual or group based on broad caricatures, would ya?
’cause you’re above all that.
The problem comes if it works out that his resignation is the sum total of punishment for any employee.
That doesn’t seem likely. Even McKinney thinks something criminal happened, so something’s going to happen beyond a CEO resignation.
I hope they all go to jail forever!!! Yay!!!
The problem comes if it works out that his resignation is the sum total of punishment for any employee.
That doesn’t seem likely. Even McKinney thinks something criminal happened, so something’s going to happen beyond a CEO resignation.
I hope they all go to jail forever!!! Yay!!!
The problem comes if it works out that his resignation is the sum total of punishment for any employee.
That doesn’t seem likely. Even McKinney thinks something criminal happened, so something’s going to happen beyond a CEO resignation.
I hope they all go to jail forever!!! Yay!!!
Do I have to do the secret handshake left handed? Or is it enough to be left handed? Just wondering….
Actually I’m marginally left handed. But close enough to ambidexterous (is this why I’m mostly a moderate?) that I do most things right handed in this right-hand oriented world we live in.
Do I have to do the secret handshake left handed? Or is it enough to be left handed? Just wondering….
Actually I’m marginally left handed. But close enough to ambidexterous (is this why I’m mostly a moderate?) that I do most things right handed in this right-hand oriented world we live in.
Do I have to do the secret handshake left handed? Or is it enough to be left handed? Just wondering….
Actually I’m marginally left handed. But close enough to ambidexterous (is this why I’m mostly a moderate?) that I do most things right handed in this right-hand oriented world we live in.
and i hope they have to spend their jail time forced to work in the oncology ward of any convenient hospital. yay!
cause i’m a lefty.
and i hope they have to spend their jail time forced to work in the oncology ward of any convenient hospital. yay!
cause i’m a lefty.
and i hope they have to spend their jail time forced to work in the oncology ward of any convenient hospital. yay!
cause i’m a lefty.
Here is a NYTimes article on the long history of the auto industry cheating on regulations, environmental and safety, to the chagrin (I would guess, don’t know) of substantial numbers of dead people.
An excerpt:
In the United States, automakers’ lobbying has ensured that the statute giving powers to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration “has no specific criminal penalty for selling defective or noncompliant vehicles,” says Joan Claybrook, a former administrator of the agency and a longtime advocate of auto safety.
Freedum.
Here is a NYTimes article on the long history of the auto industry cheating on regulations, environmental and safety, to the chagrin (I would guess, don’t know) of substantial numbers of dead people.
An excerpt:
In the United States, automakers’ lobbying has ensured that the statute giving powers to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration “has no specific criminal penalty for selling defective or noncompliant vehicles,” says Joan Claybrook, a former administrator of the agency and a longtime advocate of auto safety.
Freedum.
Here is a NYTimes article on the long history of the auto industry cheating on regulations, environmental and safety, to the chagrin (I would guess, don’t know) of substantial numbers of dead people.
An excerpt:
In the United States, automakers’ lobbying has ensured that the statute giving powers to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration “has no specific criminal penalty for selling defective or noncompliant vehicles,” says Joan Claybrook, a former administrator of the agency and a longtime advocate of auto safety.
Freedum.
So on the criminal side in those cases anyway, the presumption of innocence is eternal.
If the Constitution was truly a Christian document, all of us would be presumed guilty from the getgo unless we bought off the unelected Judge of Judges.
So on the criminal side in those cases anyway, the presumption of innocence is eternal.
If the Constitution was truly a Christian document, all of us would be presumed guilty from the getgo unless we bought off the unelected Judge of Judges.
So on the criminal side in those cases anyway, the presumption of innocence is eternal.
If the Constitution was truly a Christian document, all of us would be presumed guilty from the getgo unless we bought off the unelected Judge of Judges.
Taking both the Trumpinator and the Dalai Lama together, Carly Fiorina can’t be President or the Dalai Lama’s successor.
Talk about presumptions of attractiveness.
Is this what Jeb Bush means by the retardation brought about multiculturalism?
Or is it only when different cultures disagree that he has a problem?
Taking both the Trumpinator and the Dalai Lama together, Carly Fiorina can’t be President or the Dalai Lama’s successor.
Talk about presumptions of attractiveness.
Is this what Jeb Bush means by the retardation brought about multiculturalism?
Or is it only when different cultures disagree that he has a problem?
Taking both the Trumpinator and the Dalai Lama together, Carly Fiorina can’t be President or the Dalai Lama’s successor.
Talk about presumptions of attractiveness.
Is this what Jeb Bush means by the retardation brought about multiculturalism?
Or is it only when different cultures disagree that he has a problem?
A marker of the right is the assumption that the private sector not just can, but will outperform any public-sector endeavor engaged in a given task.
*Depending on the specific issue*, conservatives lean this way and for good reason.
[Oh please, McKTx. This isn’t a left-right thing, it’s an American thing. Look at Benghazi. Hell, look at the example of Clinton that you yourself invoked: that an investigation vindicated suspicions on the right doesn’t change the fact that the right was gleefully engaging in the exact pre-judgement you lament here as a marked sin of the left.
There is something to this, although in the particular case of Lois Lerner, I think the initial thinking was “Does it stop here or was the White House in on it?”. I concede that partisan’s, both left and right, give their opposite parts’ due process the short shrift.
But we aren’t talking about politician vs politician. I used Lerner because, by the logic of many here, we can and should impute whatever she did to being within Obama’s awareness.
This case involves private citizens, some number of who are definitely in trouble (we don’t know who yet, which is my point), and the rest of whom are innocent and tarred by association. Tarring by association is intellectually lazy, and fundamentally unfair. Here, a part of the mob’s cry is for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors, far beyond payment of fines. Sorry, that’s bullshit.
“bypass the presumption of innocence”
is a fancy way of saying “prejudge”.
but of course you would never prejudge anyone, would ya? you’d never make an assumption about an individual or group based on broad caricatures, would ya?
’cause you’re above all that.
To respond to the last part, first, yes, I am pretty good at not prejudging. I still do it occasionally. Sometimes I’m right; frequently I’m not.
It happens to be my livelihood of responding to allegations–often quite colorful and inventive allegations–through the tedious mess of sorting through the evidence and getting at what happened–or what people think happened. Often times, the outcome that we really don’t know.
But, Cleek, I’m not prejudging progressives: I’m observing progressive behavior and judging what I’m seeing. Big difference there.
Prejudging is exactly what’s going here. And, it’s not the first time. Trayvonn Martin’s advocates here, in the early days, bought entirely into his story. The contorting as inconvenient facts unfolded was kind of funny.
Progressives did the same thing with Michael Brown and like the Duke lacrosse team, turned out to be 100% wrong. Progressives did back in the day with Jamie Leigh Jones. I read all of the blogosphere stuff I could find on that, before, during and after the trial because it was relevant to what I might encounter in jury selection. Jesus, it was unbelievable. Until I went through that, I had no idea how ideology could drive perception.
So, what I’m seeing here, from a fair number of commenters and without any dissent, is pretty much part and parcel of what I’ve seen before.
Progressives and lefties often call on conservatives to look within. I’ve been called out here plenty of times to answer for other conservatives–which I don’t mind doing.
What seems to get people’s panties knotted up is when the table is turned.
Yes, progressives prejudge. A lot.
Here is a NYTimes article on the long history of the auto industry cheating on regulations, environmental and safety, to the chagrin (I would guess, don’t know) of substantial numbers of dead people.
That is a NTTimes article that could stand a lot of unpacking. What does an airbag recall have to do with lying about emissions or anything else? Airbags are complex pieces of equipment and human error being what it is, it is inevitable that there will be a manufacturing or design flaw that needs to be remedied. Any rational person would want a recall and would thank the company for doing so.
You might call this prejudging or you might call it drawing reasonable inferences: I would bet the authors of that article are progressives who routinely write unkind things about the private sector, and particularly the auto industry. It doesn’t make them wrong on any particular point but it makes them biased. And if they create an inaccurate and unfair picture, it makes them liars. Big ones, given that they write for the Times.
That article, to make its point on emissions, cited two examples from the 70’s and then asserted without evidence that there were many more (if there were, then why pick two ancient examples?). I see this kind of chickenshit knitting of disparate facts and gross exaggerations if not outright lies all the time in my law practice by either young, immature lawyers or lawyers who haven’t figured out that bullshit doesn’t go very far most of the time.
Apparently, if the “news” reporting fits your narrative, you buy in without question.
Cars are safer today than ever before. In large part due to product liability litigation (the NTSB doesn’t insulate manufacturers from that). Airbags are a huge life saver. Getting pissy with airbag manufacturers, as the article did, is just stupid. Would we be better off if they went out of business? Do people believe someone else could just start up a new airbag company? And get it right first time and every time, even as car bodies and models and components change annually?
But, no need to ask those questions, because Big Auto is bad and everyone knows it, end of story.
Nodding to NV, I read an article the other day in the National Review about the new Labor guy in the UK. It was one accusation/allegation after another. My thought was: this would be pretty damning if there was evidence to back this up, and if there were evidence, surely the author would cite it. Conclusion: chickenshit hit piece and nothing else.
A marker of the right is the assumption that the private sector not just can, but will outperform any public-sector endeavor engaged in a given task.
*Depending on the specific issue*, conservatives lean this way and for good reason.
[Oh please, McKTx. This isn’t a left-right thing, it’s an American thing. Look at Benghazi. Hell, look at the example of Clinton that you yourself invoked: that an investigation vindicated suspicions on the right doesn’t change the fact that the right was gleefully engaging in the exact pre-judgement you lament here as a marked sin of the left.
There is something to this, although in the particular case of Lois Lerner, I think the initial thinking was “Does it stop here or was the White House in on it?”. I concede that partisan’s, both left and right, give their opposite parts’ due process the short shrift.
But we aren’t talking about politician vs politician. I used Lerner because, by the logic of many here, we can and should impute whatever she did to being within Obama’s awareness.
This case involves private citizens, some number of who are definitely in trouble (we don’t know who yet, which is my point), and the rest of whom are innocent and tarred by association. Tarring by association is intellectually lazy, and fundamentally unfair. Here, a part of the mob’s cry is for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors, far beyond payment of fines. Sorry, that’s bullshit.
“bypass the presumption of innocence”
is a fancy way of saying “prejudge”.
but of course you would never prejudge anyone, would ya? you’d never make an assumption about an individual or group based on broad caricatures, would ya?
’cause you’re above all that.
To respond to the last part, first, yes, I am pretty good at not prejudging. I still do it occasionally. Sometimes I’m right; frequently I’m not.
It happens to be my livelihood of responding to allegations–often quite colorful and inventive allegations–through the tedious mess of sorting through the evidence and getting at what happened–or what people think happened. Often times, the outcome that we really don’t know.
But, Cleek, I’m not prejudging progressives: I’m observing progressive behavior and judging what I’m seeing. Big difference there.
Prejudging is exactly what’s going here. And, it’s not the first time. Trayvonn Martin’s advocates here, in the early days, bought entirely into his story. The contorting as inconvenient facts unfolded was kind of funny.
Progressives did the same thing with Michael Brown and like the Duke lacrosse team, turned out to be 100% wrong. Progressives did back in the day with Jamie Leigh Jones. I read all of the blogosphere stuff I could find on that, before, during and after the trial because it was relevant to what I might encounter in jury selection. Jesus, it was unbelievable. Until I went through that, I had no idea how ideology could drive perception.
So, what I’m seeing here, from a fair number of commenters and without any dissent, is pretty much part and parcel of what I’ve seen before.
Progressives and lefties often call on conservatives to look within. I’ve been called out here plenty of times to answer for other conservatives–which I don’t mind doing.
What seems to get people’s panties knotted up is when the table is turned.
Yes, progressives prejudge. A lot.
Here is a NYTimes article on the long history of the auto industry cheating on regulations, environmental and safety, to the chagrin (I would guess, don’t know) of substantial numbers of dead people.
That is a NTTimes article that could stand a lot of unpacking. What does an airbag recall have to do with lying about emissions or anything else? Airbags are complex pieces of equipment and human error being what it is, it is inevitable that there will be a manufacturing or design flaw that needs to be remedied. Any rational person would want a recall and would thank the company for doing so.
You might call this prejudging or you might call it drawing reasonable inferences: I would bet the authors of that article are progressives who routinely write unkind things about the private sector, and particularly the auto industry. It doesn’t make them wrong on any particular point but it makes them biased. And if they create an inaccurate and unfair picture, it makes them liars. Big ones, given that they write for the Times.
That article, to make its point on emissions, cited two examples from the 70’s and then asserted without evidence that there were many more (if there were, then why pick two ancient examples?). I see this kind of chickenshit knitting of disparate facts and gross exaggerations if not outright lies all the time in my law practice by either young, immature lawyers or lawyers who haven’t figured out that bullshit doesn’t go very far most of the time.
Apparently, if the “news” reporting fits your narrative, you buy in without question.
Cars are safer today than ever before. In large part due to product liability litigation (the NTSB doesn’t insulate manufacturers from that). Airbags are a huge life saver. Getting pissy with airbag manufacturers, as the article did, is just stupid. Would we be better off if they went out of business? Do people believe someone else could just start up a new airbag company? And get it right first time and every time, even as car bodies and models and components change annually?
But, no need to ask those questions, because Big Auto is bad and everyone knows it, end of story.
Nodding to NV, I read an article the other day in the National Review about the new Labor guy in the UK. It was one accusation/allegation after another. My thought was: this would be pretty damning if there was evidence to back this up, and if there were evidence, surely the author would cite it. Conclusion: chickenshit hit piece and nothing else.
A marker of the right is the assumption that the private sector not just can, but will outperform any public-sector endeavor engaged in a given task.
*Depending on the specific issue*, conservatives lean this way and for good reason.
[Oh please, McKTx. This isn’t a left-right thing, it’s an American thing. Look at Benghazi. Hell, look at the example of Clinton that you yourself invoked: that an investigation vindicated suspicions on the right doesn’t change the fact that the right was gleefully engaging in the exact pre-judgement you lament here as a marked sin of the left.
There is something to this, although in the particular case of Lois Lerner, I think the initial thinking was “Does it stop here or was the White House in on it?”. I concede that partisan’s, both left and right, give their opposite parts’ due process the short shrift.
But we aren’t talking about politician vs politician. I used Lerner because, by the logic of many here, we can and should impute whatever she did to being within Obama’s awareness.
This case involves private citizens, some number of who are definitely in trouble (we don’t know who yet, which is my point), and the rest of whom are innocent and tarred by association. Tarring by association is intellectually lazy, and fundamentally unfair. Here, a part of the mob’s cry is for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors, far beyond payment of fines. Sorry, that’s bullshit.
“bypass the presumption of innocence”
is a fancy way of saying “prejudge”.
but of course you would never prejudge anyone, would ya? you’d never make an assumption about an individual or group based on broad caricatures, would ya?
’cause you’re above all that.
To respond to the last part, first, yes, I am pretty good at not prejudging. I still do it occasionally. Sometimes I’m right; frequently I’m not.
It happens to be my livelihood of responding to allegations–often quite colorful and inventive allegations–through the tedious mess of sorting through the evidence and getting at what happened–or what people think happened. Often times, the outcome that we really don’t know.
But, Cleek, I’m not prejudging progressives: I’m observing progressive behavior and judging what I’m seeing. Big difference there.
Prejudging is exactly what’s going here. And, it’s not the first time. Trayvonn Martin’s advocates here, in the early days, bought entirely into his story. The contorting as inconvenient facts unfolded was kind of funny.
Progressives did the same thing with Michael Brown and like the Duke lacrosse team, turned out to be 100% wrong. Progressives did back in the day with Jamie Leigh Jones. I read all of the blogosphere stuff I could find on that, before, during and after the trial because it was relevant to what I might encounter in jury selection. Jesus, it was unbelievable. Until I went through that, I had no idea how ideology could drive perception.
So, what I’m seeing here, from a fair number of commenters and without any dissent, is pretty much part and parcel of what I’ve seen before.
Progressives and lefties often call on conservatives to look within. I’ve been called out here plenty of times to answer for other conservatives–which I don’t mind doing.
What seems to get people’s panties knotted up is when the table is turned.
Yes, progressives prejudge. A lot.
Here is a NYTimes article on the long history of the auto industry cheating on regulations, environmental and safety, to the chagrin (I would guess, don’t know) of substantial numbers of dead people.
That is a NTTimes article that could stand a lot of unpacking. What does an airbag recall have to do with lying about emissions or anything else? Airbags are complex pieces of equipment and human error being what it is, it is inevitable that there will be a manufacturing or design flaw that needs to be remedied. Any rational person would want a recall and would thank the company for doing so.
You might call this prejudging or you might call it drawing reasonable inferences: I would bet the authors of that article are progressives who routinely write unkind things about the private sector, and particularly the auto industry. It doesn’t make them wrong on any particular point but it makes them biased. And if they create an inaccurate and unfair picture, it makes them liars. Big ones, given that they write for the Times.
That article, to make its point on emissions, cited two examples from the 70’s and then asserted without evidence that there were many more (if there were, then why pick two ancient examples?). I see this kind of chickenshit knitting of disparate facts and gross exaggerations if not outright lies all the time in my law practice by either young, immature lawyers or lawyers who haven’t figured out that bullshit doesn’t go very far most of the time.
Apparently, if the “news” reporting fits your narrative, you buy in without question.
Cars are safer today than ever before. In large part due to product liability litigation (the NTSB doesn’t insulate manufacturers from that). Airbags are a huge life saver. Getting pissy with airbag manufacturers, as the article did, is just stupid. Would we be better off if they went out of business? Do people believe someone else could just start up a new airbag company? And get it right first time and every time, even as car bodies and models and components change annually?
But, no need to ask those questions, because Big Auto is bad and everyone knows it, end of story.
Nodding to NV, I read an article the other day in the National Review about the new Labor guy in the UK. It was one accusation/allegation after another. My thought was: this would be pretty damning if there was evidence to back this up, and if there were evidence, surely the author would cite it. Conclusion: chickenshit hit piece and nothing else.
But, Cleek, I’m not prejudging progressives: I’m observing progressive behavior and judging what I’m seeing. Big difference there.
you’re observing the shadows of puppets acting out a play in your imagination, then claiming the puppets must be real people.
But, Cleek, I’m not prejudging progressives: I’m observing progressive behavior and judging what I’m seeing. Big difference there.
you’re observing the shadows of puppets acting out a play in your imagination, then claiming the puppets must be real people.
But, Cleek, I’m not prejudging progressives: I’m observing progressive behavior and judging what I’m seeing. Big difference there.
you’re observing the shadows of puppets acting out a play in your imagination, then claiming the puppets must be real people.
you’re observing the shadows of puppets acting out a play in your imagination, then claiming the puppets must be real people.
Ok, you got me. No one here is prejudging anything, and progressives never do that anyway. Thanks. Duly noted.
you’re observing the shadows of puppets acting out a play in your imagination, then claiming the puppets must be real people.
Ok, you got me. No one here is prejudging anything, and progressives never do that anyway. Thanks. Duly noted.
you’re observing the shadows of puppets acting out a play in your imagination, then claiming the puppets must be real people.
Ok, you got me. No one here is prejudging anything, and progressives never do that anyway. Thanks. Duly noted.
If corps are people, let them get sent to “jail”
Non-profit status for the same period as a prison sentence, no one in Management quits before the sentence is over unless they want to face personal prosecution, and all the profits go to remediation. Salaries for management are frozen, salaries for workers increase by COLA each year like clockwork, union contracts are negotiated by the DOJ to maximize profits AND keep the union working.
If companies are people, lets treat them like people.
If corps are people, let them get sent to “jail”
Non-profit status for the same period as a prison sentence, no one in Management quits before the sentence is over unless they want to face personal prosecution, and all the profits go to remediation. Salaries for management are frozen, salaries for workers increase by COLA each year like clockwork, union contracts are negotiated by the DOJ to maximize profits AND keep the union working.
If companies are people, lets treat them like people.
If corps are people, let them get sent to “jail”
Non-profit status for the same period as a prison sentence, no one in Management quits before the sentence is over unless they want to face personal prosecution, and all the profits go to remediation. Salaries for management are frozen, salaries for workers increase by COLA each year like clockwork, union contracts are negotiated by the DOJ to maximize profits AND keep the union working.
If companies are people, lets treat them like people.
Here, a part of the mob’s cry is for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors, far beyond payment of fines. Sorry, that’s bullshit.
Who is crying for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors? Far beyond payment of fines, maybe, but who wants to punish people beyond the bad actors?
Yes, people might lose their jobs, value in their cars (probably have already), and value in their stock holdings (definitely have already) as the result of VW going down, if that’s what happens. But no one is crying for those people to be punished.
It’s too bad that what might be justice for VW would affect all these other people, and, if anything, byomtov’s suggestion to divvy out the fines to people who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, demonstrates no desire to punish those people.
What do you think should happen, McKinney, if it’s found out that this was a widely-known act of fraud at the highest levels at VW? And, even if it wasn’t that widely known and was perpetrated by a relatively small number of employees, what do you think should happen in terms of fines at the corporate level? Should VW as a corporation be given some nominal fine out of mercy for those people who might otherwise suffer some amount of damage even though they had nothing to do with it?
What do you think anyone is calling for here? What are you calling for here? Is it just a matter of disagreement over the likelihood that knowledge of the emissions fraud was widespread rather than narrowly focused at VW?
Here, a part of the mob’s cry is for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors, far beyond payment of fines. Sorry, that’s bullshit.
Who is crying for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors? Far beyond payment of fines, maybe, but who wants to punish people beyond the bad actors?
Yes, people might lose their jobs, value in their cars (probably have already), and value in their stock holdings (definitely have already) as the result of VW going down, if that’s what happens. But no one is crying for those people to be punished.
It’s too bad that what might be justice for VW would affect all these other people, and, if anything, byomtov’s suggestion to divvy out the fines to people who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, demonstrates no desire to punish those people.
What do you think should happen, McKinney, if it’s found out that this was a widely-known act of fraud at the highest levels at VW? And, even if it wasn’t that widely known and was perpetrated by a relatively small number of employees, what do you think should happen in terms of fines at the corporate level? Should VW as a corporation be given some nominal fine out of mercy for those people who might otherwise suffer some amount of damage even though they had nothing to do with it?
What do you think anyone is calling for here? What are you calling for here? Is it just a matter of disagreement over the likelihood that knowledge of the emissions fraud was widespread rather than narrowly focused at VW?
Here, a part of the mob’s cry is for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors, far beyond payment of fines. Sorry, that’s bullshit.
Who is crying for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors? Far beyond payment of fines, maybe, but who wants to punish people beyond the bad actors?
Yes, people might lose their jobs, value in their cars (probably have already), and value in their stock holdings (definitely have already) as the result of VW going down, if that’s what happens. But no one is crying for those people to be punished.
It’s too bad that what might be justice for VW would affect all these other people, and, if anything, byomtov’s suggestion to divvy out the fines to people who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, demonstrates no desire to punish those people.
What do you think should happen, McKinney, if it’s found out that this was a widely-known act of fraud at the highest levels at VW? And, even if it wasn’t that widely known and was perpetrated by a relatively small number of employees, what do you think should happen in terms of fines at the corporate level? Should VW as a corporation be given some nominal fine out of mercy for those people who might otherwise suffer some amount of damage even though they had nothing to do with it?
What do you think anyone is calling for here? What are you calling for here? Is it just a matter of disagreement over the likelihood that knowledge of the emissions fraud was widespread rather than narrowly focused at VW?
wj,
As long as we aren’t in a situation where we are funding most of the government by collecting fines, I don’t see why we don’t just pay down the debt a little.
Of course the Treasury could just pocket the money. That’s what will happen, I’m sure.
My suggestion was just based on the observation that if you lose your livelihood because BP is (select adjective of choice) you do have a shot at getting some compensation. But if it’s because VW management is (same adjective) it seems not to be on anyone’s radar.
That looks a little odd to me.
wj,
As long as we aren’t in a situation where we are funding most of the government by collecting fines, I don’t see why we don’t just pay down the debt a little.
Of course the Treasury could just pocket the money. That’s what will happen, I’m sure.
My suggestion was just based on the observation that if you lose your livelihood because BP is (select adjective of choice) you do have a shot at getting some compensation. But if it’s because VW management is (same adjective) it seems not to be on anyone’s radar.
That looks a little odd to me.
wj,
As long as we aren’t in a situation where we are funding most of the government by collecting fines, I don’t see why we don’t just pay down the debt a little.
Of course the Treasury could just pocket the money. That’s what will happen, I’m sure.
My suggestion was just based on the observation that if you lose your livelihood because BP is (select adjective of choice) you do have a shot at getting some compensation. But if it’s because VW management is (same adjective) it seems not to be on anyone’s radar.
That looks a little odd to me.
…and progressives never do that anyway.
Who said that? Someone may have pointed out that it’s not something specific or particular to progressives. Keep that straw flying, McKinney.
Generalized rants about “progressives this!” and “the left that!” are very persuasive.
…and progressives never do that anyway.
Who said that? Someone may have pointed out that it’s not something specific or particular to progressives. Keep that straw flying, McKinney.
Generalized rants about “progressives this!” and “the left that!” are very persuasive.
…and progressives never do that anyway.
Who said that? Someone may have pointed out that it’s not something specific or particular to progressives. Keep that straw flying, McKinney.
Generalized rants about “progressives this!” and “the left that!” are very persuasive.
Jado: Salaries for management are frozen
And this is supposed to be a disincentive to executives making hundreds of thousands or millions per year? Now if you cut them to, say, a maximum of 10 times the median wage of their employees, that might get their attention.
Jado: Salaries for management are frozen
And this is supposed to be a disincentive to executives making hundreds of thousands or millions per year? Now if you cut them to, say, a maximum of 10 times the median wage of their employees, that might get their attention.
Jado: Salaries for management are frozen
And this is supposed to be a disincentive to executives making hundreds of thousands or millions per year? Now if you cut them to, say, a maximum of 10 times the median wage of their employees, that might get their attention.
“A marker of the right is the assumption that the private sector not just can, but will outperform any public-sector endeavor engaged in a given task.”
*Depending on the specific issue*, conservatives lean this way and for good reason.
OMG, McKTx, are you being intentionally obtuse, or are the ideological blinders really too thick to see the glaring problem with what you said here?
“A marker of the left is presumption that the private sector is bad”
*Depending on the specific corporation*, leftists lean this way, and for good reason.
Which is to say, adding qualifiers de-generalize generalizations. Amazing! Now stop and think for a moment: by all appearances you didn’t agree with my generalization, but when you added qualifiers, suddenly you did. Could it be possible that the same dynamic might apply to your own broad-brush mindreading of everyone to your left? Could it perhaps be the case that bad faith is required to demand qualifiers IOT accurately generalize about the right, but not about the left?
I concede that partisan’s, both left and right, give their opposite parts’ due process the short shrift.
But we aren’t talking about politician vs politician. I used Lerner because, by the logic of many here, we can and should impute whatever she did to being within Obama’s awareness.
This case involves private citizens, some number of who are definitely in trouble (we don’t know who yet, which is my point), and the rest of whom are innocent and tarred by association. Tarring by association is intellectually lazy, and fundamentally unfair. Here, a part of the mob’s cry is for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors, far beyond payment of fines. Sorry, that’s bullshit.
…so where do you have anything outside of an unstated “gut feeling” that this is a “leftist activity” as you’ve stipulated repeatedly? Right-wing private citizens do this bullsh|t in reference to other private citizens all the time. Accused terrorist? Send ’em to GITMO even if they’re American, or hell, we should just kill ’em. Accused pedophile? OMG, I can’t wait for them to be found guilty and raped and killed in prison, lol! Prominent figure accused of rape or sexual harassment? Slut changed her mind or is trying to blackmail him, duh. Want something more specific? Then yes, let’s consider Michael Brown: the right-wing noise machine certainly did not wait for an investigation before determining his behavior to be criminal and meriting whatever response Officer Wilson visited on him. Trayvon Martin? We KNOW he stalked and assaulted Zimmerman, and it doesn’t matter that there can never be evidence one way or the other. Etc cetera, ad naseum. Again, you’re pointing to these cases as vindication for the left being prejudicial, but you very pointedly fail to mention that the right was doing the exact same damned thing in the other direction in every damned one of those cases. They a priori knew the facts of the matter, and they sure as hell didn’t wait for any investigation to possibly contradict what they knew, nor did they hesitate before they breathlessly and loudly repeatedly every new bit of “information” they were shovel-fed by partisans and scandal-mongers.
Again, I don’t object to your complaint against presumption of guilt, or even against speculation as to appropriate remedies. There’s merit in those complaints. The part of what you’re saying that is bullsh|t is the part where you piously denounce such behavior as a leftist behavior. That’s the part that I’m objecting to. And I disagree with cleek – I’d not say you’re being prejudicial. I’d say you’re being willfully blind. You’re unable or unwilling to notice your ideological allies engaging in the same behavior you find so damning, and so tellingly leftist. And that’s a huge problem, but I’d not say it’s prejudicial. It’s bigoted, but your problem is more about selectively refusing to judge than to judge in advance of facts. Well, it’s also mindreading since you attribute generalizations to anyone you deem to fall within a certain very broad category. But that’s another matter.
What seems to get people’s panties knotted up is when the table is turned.
Lawyer, heal thyself.
Yes, progressives prejudge. A lot.
Conservatives prejudge. A lot. Americans prejudge. A lot. Westerners prejudge. A lot. Humans prejudge. A lot. Stop aloofly repeating invocations about how this is a identifiably left-wing characteristic unless you have more to back up that incredible assertion beyond a bland, substanceless reassurance that it’s “part and parcel of what [you]’ve seen before”. Yes, progressives are human, and have blind spots, and accept things that fit into familiar narratives. They don’t do it because they’re left of center. They do it because they’re normal human beings. And frankly it’s disgusting to seem how earnestly you seem to want to argue otherwise.
“A marker of the right is the assumption that the private sector not just can, but will outperform any public-sector endeavor engaged in a given task.”
*Depending on the specific issue*, conservatives lean this way and for good reason.
OMG, McKTx, are you being intentionally obtuse, or are the ideological blinders really too thick to see the glaring problem with what you said here?
“A marker of the left is presumption that the private sector is bad”
*Depending on the specific corporation*, leftists lean this way, and for good reason.
Which is to say, adding qualifiers de-generalize generalizations. Amazing! Now stop and think for a moment: by all appearances you didn’t agree with my generalization, but when you added qualifiers, suddenly you did. Could it be possible that the same dynamic might apply to your own broad-brush mindreading of everyone to your left? Could it perhaps be the case that bad faith is required to demand qualifiers IOT accurately generalize about the right, but not about the left?
I concede that partisan’s, both left and right, give their opposite parts’ due process the short shrift.
But we aren’t talking about politician vs politician. I used Lerner because, by the logic of many here, we can and should impute whatever she did to being within Obama’s awareness.
This case involves private citizens, some number of who are definitely in trouble (we don’t know who yet, which is my point), and the rest of whom are innocent and tarred by association. Tarring by association is intellectually lazy, and fundamentally unfair. Here, a part of the mob’s cry is for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors, far beyond payment of fines. Sorry, that’s bullshit.
…so where do you have anything outside of an unstated “gut feeling” that this is a “leftist activity” as you’ve stipulated repeatedly? Right-wing private citizens do this bullsh|t in reference to other private citizens all the time. Accused terrorist? Send ’em to GITMO even if they’re American, or hell, we should just kill ’em. Accused pedophile? OMG, I can’t wait for them to be found guilty and raped and killed in prison, lol! Prominent figure accused of rape or sexual harassment? Slut changed her mind or is trying to blackmail him, duh. Want something more specific? Then yes, let’s consider Michael Brown: the right-wing noise machine certainly did not wait for an investigation before determining his behavior to be criminal and meriting whatever response Officer Wilson visited on him. Trayvon Martin? We KNOW he stalked and assaulted Zimmerman, and it doesn’t matter that there can never be evidence one way or the other. Etc cetera, ad naseum. Again, you’re pointing to these cases as vindication for the left being prejudicial, but you very pointedly fail to mention that the right was doing the exact same damned thing in the other direction in every damned one of those cases. They a priori knew the facts of the matter, and they sure as hell didn’t wait for any investigation to possibly contradict what they knew, nor did they hesitate before they breathlessly and loudly repeatedly every new bit of “information” they were shovel-fed by partisans and scandal-mongers.
Again, I don’t object to your complaint against presumption of guilt, or even against speculation as to appropriate remedies. There’s merit in those complaints. The part of what you’re saying that is bullsh|t is the part where you piously denounce such behavior as a leftist behavior. That’s the part that I’m objecting to. And I disagree with cleek – I’d not say you’re being prejudicial. I’d say you’re being willfully blind. You’re unable or unwilling to notice your ideological allies engaging in the same behavior you find so damning, and so tellingly leftist. And that’s a huge problem, but I’d not say it’s prejudicial. It’s bigoted, but your problem is more about selectively refusing to judge than to judge in advance of facts. Well, it’s also mindreading since you attribute generalizations to anyone you deem to fall within a certain very broad category. But that’s another matter.
What seems to get people’s panties knotted up is when the table is turned.
Lawyer, heal thyself.
Yes, progressives prejudge. A lot.
Conservatives prejudge. A lot. Americans prejudge. A lot. Westerners prejudge. A lot. Humans prejudge. A lot. Stop aloofly repeating invocations about how this is a identifiably left-wing characteristic unless you have more to back up that incredible assertion beyond a bland, substanceless reassurance that it’s “part and parcel of what [you]’ve seen before”. Yes, progressives are human, and have blind spots, and accept things that fit into familiar narratives. They don’t do it because they’re left of center. They do it because they’re normal human beings. And frankly it’s disgusting to seem how earnestly you seem to want to argue otherwise.
“A marker of the right is the assumption that the private sector not just can, but will outperform any public-sector endeavor engaged in a given task.”
*Depending on the specific issue*, conservatives lean this way and for good reason.
OMG, McKTx, are you being intentionally obtuse, or are the ideological blinders really too thick to see the glaring problem with what you said here?
“A marker of the left is presumption that the private sector is bad”
*Depending on the specific corporation*, leftists lean this way, and for good reason.
Which is to say, adding qualifiers de-generalize generalizations. Amazing! Now stop and think for a moment: by all appearances you didn’t agree with my generalization, but when you added qualifiers, suddenly you did. Could it be possible that the same dynamic might apply to your own broad-brush mindreading of everyone to your left? Could it perhaps be the case that bad faith is required to demand qualifiers IOT accurately generalize about the right, but not about the left?
I concede that partisan’s, both left and right, give their opposite parts’ due process the short shrift.
But we aren’t talking about politician vs politician. I used Lerner because, by the logic of many here, we can and should impute whatever she did to being within Obama’s awareness.
This case involves private citizens, some number of who are definitely in trouble (we don’t know who yet, which is my point), and the rest of whom are innocent and tarred by association. Tarring by association is intellectually lazy, and fundamentally unfair. Here, a part of the mob’s cry is for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors, far beyond payment of fines. Sorry, that’s bullshit.
…so where do you have anything outside of an unstated “gut feeling” that this is a “leftist activity” as you’ve stipulated repeatedly? Right-wing private citizens do this bullsh|t in reference to other private citizens all the time. Accused terrorist? Send ’em to GITMO even if they’re American, or hell, we should just kill ’em. Accused pedophile? OMG, I can’t wait for them to be found guilty and raped and killed in prison, lol! Prominent figure accused of rape or sexual harassment? Slut changed her mind or is trying to blackmail him, duh. Want something more specific? Then yes, let’s consider Michael Brown: the right-wing noise machine certainly did not wait for an investigation before determining his behavior to be criminal and meriting whatever response Officer Wilson visited on him. Trayvon Martin? We KNOW he stalked and assaulted Zimmerman, and it doesn’t matter that there can never be evidence one way or the other. Etc cetera, ad naseum. Again, you’re pointing to these cases as vindication for the left being prejudicial, but you very pointedly fail to mention that the right was doing the exact same damned thing in the other direction in every damned one of those cases. They a priori knew the facts of the matter, and they sure as hell didn’t wait for any investigation to possibly contradict what they knew, nor did they hesitate before they breathlessly and loudly repeatedly every new bit of “information” they were shovel-fed by partisans and scandal-mongers.
Again, I don’t object to your complaint against presumption of guilt, or even against speculation as to appropriate remedies. There’s merit in those complaints. The part of what you’re saying that is bullsh|t is the part where you piously denounce such behavior as a leftist behavior. That’s the part that I’m objecting to. And I disagree with cleek – I’d not say you’re being prejudicial. I’d say you’re being willfully blind. You’re unable or unwilling to notice your ideological allies engaging in the same behavior you find so damning, and so tellingly leftist. And that’s a huge problem, but I’d not say it’s prejudicial. It’s bigoted, but your problem is more about selectively refusing to judge than to judge in advance of facts. Well, it’s also mindreading since you attribute generalizations to anyone you deem to fall within a certain very broad category. But that’s another matter.
What seems to get people’s panties knotted up is when the table is turned.
Lawyer, heal thyself.
Yes, progressives prejudge. A lot.
Conservatives prejudge. A lot. Americans prejudge. A lot. Westerners prejudge. A lot. Humans prejudge. A lot. Stop aloofly repeating invocations about how this is a identifiably left-wing characteristic unless you have more to back up that incredible assertion beyond a bland, substanceless reassurance that it’s “part and parcel of what [you]’ve seen before”. Yes, progressives are human, and have blind spots, and accept things that fit into familiar narratives. They don’t do it because they’re left of center. They do it because they’re normal human beings. And frankly it’s disgusting to seem how earnestly you seem to want to argue otherwise.
Here, a part of the mob’s cry is for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors, far beyond payment of fines.
I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
wj sees value in sticking it to VW, even thought that might harm people other than the folks who actually did the alleged crime.
He makes a reasonable case for that. He’s also NOT A LIBERAL OR A PROGRESSIVE. wj identifies himself here as a conservative.
The person who was interested in punishment other than fines was me. I’m interested in that because people who work for corps not infrequently do harmful things, and are not held personally liable because they did whatever they did in the name of the corp.
And then, the corp gets fined, and that’s as far as it goes.
It strikes me that corps have learned in many cases to simply factor the fine into the cost of doing business and then go on about their business.
In general, my belief is that the privileges extended to corporations in general, and for-profit corps specifically, need to be trimmed back, and that they need to be accountable to folks above and beyond just their owners.
In the US, that makes me a lefty, and significantly so.
I’m fine with that.
A variety of points of view have been expressed on this thread. There is no mob. Nobody is calling for anything other than the most basic forms of accountability for what appears to be a deliberate attempt at fraud, and one which was called to the attention of VW something like a year ago.
How this case is, remotely, analogous to Michael Brown’s shooting, or to Lerner’s adventures with the IRS, escapes me. How it is remotely analogous to Trayvon Martin’s shooting beyond escapes me.
It appears to bug you when you think people rush to judgement through ideological bias. I can understand that, but if you’re going to claim that’s what is going on, you really need to show it from the facts.
Those facts don’t exist on this topic, as far as I can tell.
Here, a part of the mob’s cry is for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors, far beyond payment of fines.
I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
wj sees value in sticking it to VW, even thought that might harm people other than the folks who actually did the alleged crime.
He makes a reasonable case for that. He’s also NOT A LIBERAL OR A PROGRESSIVE. wj identifies himself here as a conservative.
The person who was interested in punishment other than fines was me. I’m interested in that because people who work for corps not infrequently do harmful things, and are not held personally liable because they did whatever they did in the name of the corp.
And then, the corp gets fined, and that’s as far as it goes.
It strikes me that corps have learned in many cases to simply factor the fine into the cost of doing business and then go on about their business.
In general, my belief is that the privileges extended to corporations in general, and for-profit corps specifically, need to be trimmed back, and that they need to be accountable to folks above and beyond just their owners.
In the US, that makes me a lefty, and significantly so.
I’m fine with that.
A variety of points of view have been expressed on this thread. There is no mob. Nobody is calling for anything other than the most basic forms of accountability for what appears to be a deliberate attempt at fraud, and one which was called to the attention of VW something like a year ago.
How this case is, remotely, analogous to Michael Brown’s shooting, or to Lerner’s adventures with the IRS, escapes me. How it is remotely analogous to Trayvon Martin’s shooting beyond escapes me.
It appears to bug you when you think people rush to judgement through ideological bias. I can understand that, but if you’re going to claim that’s what is going on, you really need to show it from the facts.
Those facts don’t exist on this topic, as far as I can tell.
Here, a part of the mob’s cry is for widespread punishment, far beyond the bad actors, far beyond payment of fines.
I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
wj sees value in sticking it to VW, even thought that might harm people other than the folks who actually did the alleged crime.
He makes a reasonable case for that. He’s also NOT A LIBERAL OR A PROGRESSIVE. wj identifies himself here as a conservative.
The person who was interested in punishment other than fines was me. I’m interested in that because people who work for corps not infrequently do harmful things, and are not held personally liable because they did whatever they did in the name of the corp.
And then, the corp gets fined, and that’s as far as it goes.
It strikes me that corps have learned in many cases to simply factor the fine into the cost of doing business and then go on about their business.
In general, my belief is that the privileges extended to corporations in general, and for-profit corps specifically, need to be trimmed back, and that they need to be accountable to folks above and beyond just their owners.
In the US, that makes me a lefty, and significantly so.
I’m fine with that.
A variety of points of view have been expressed on this thread. There is no mob. Nobody is calling for anything other than the most basic forms of accountability for what appears to be a deliberate attempt at fraud, and one which was called to the attention of VW something like a year ago.
How this case is, remotely, analogous to Michael Brown’s shooting, or to Lerner’s adventures with the IRS, escapes me. How it is remotely analogous to Trayvon Martin’s shooting beyond escapes me.
It appears to bug you when you think people rush to judgement through ideological bias. I can understand that, but if you’re going to claim that’s what is going on, you really need to show it from the facts.
Those facts don’t exist on this topic, as far as I can tell.
For the most part, the comments here speak for themselves. I’m not going back over every one to identify where people have gone overboard.
What do you think should happen, McKinney, if it’s found out that this was a widely-known act of fraud at the highest levels at VW?
If that happens–and it could, I’m not ruling anything out, at all–then whatever criminal and civil penalties there are should be imposed. Your question implies company-wide malfeasance–let’s say that’s something beyond left’ish stereotyping–then there should be company-wide punishment, and those who are innocent of the fraud are victims but there isn’t much to be done.
And, even if it wasn’t that widely known and was perpetrated by a relatively small number of employees, what do you think should happen in terms of fines at the corporate level?
Fines, like any punishment, should fit the crime. A critical fact to me would be whether VW outed itself voluntarily, whether it outed itself well after finding out but just before the authorities were about to act. Or, whatever the context, I would want to know it. If VW was cooperating fully or if it was withholding information to protect others.
A lot goes into the equation. And none of us know diddly about what any of that is.
Should VW as a corporation be given some nominal fine out of mercy for those people who might otherwise suffer some amount of damage even though they had nothing to do with it?
The smartass in me says, fuck no, don’t worry about the innocent, kick the shit out of the bad guys and don’t look back.
Is this Enron II? I doubt it.
Parenthetically, a lot of Enron employees who had no clue AND who had their entire 401K in Enron stock took it in the neck. That was too bad. Inevitable, but a human tragedy that a lot of us here in Houston saw play out every day for several years as people tried to put their lives back together.
So, my inclination would be to assess the total picture, hammer the bad folks, fine commensurate with the harm done and the extent to which, internally, the bad guys could have and should have been found out. Turning a blind eye would earn a very size-able kick in the ass and possibly some jail time. If the malfeasance was below the radar screen, the fine would be much lighter.
For the most part, the comments here speak for themselves. I’m not going back over every one to identify where people have gone overboard.
What do you think should happen, McKinney, if it’s found out that this was a widely-known act of fraud at the highest levels at VW?
If that happens–and it could, I’m not ruling anything out, at all–then whatever criminal and civil penalties there are should be imposed. Your question implies company-wide malfeasance–let’s say that’s something beyond left’ish stereotyping–then there should be company-wide punishment, and those who are innocent of the fraud are victims but there isn’t much to be done.
And, even if it wasn’t that widely known and was perpetrated by a relatively small number of employees, what do you think should happen in terms of fines at the corporate level?
Fines, like any punishment, should fit the crime. A critical fact to me would be whether VW outed itself voluntarily, whether it outed itself well after finding out but just before the authorities were about to act. Or, whatever the context, I would want to know it. If VW was cooperating fully or if it was withholding information to protect others.
A lot goes into the equation. And none of us know diddly about what any of that is.
Should VW as a corporation be given some nominal fine out of mercy for those people who might otherwise suffer some amount of damage even though they had nothing to do with it?
The smartass in me says, fuck no, don’t worry about the innocent, kick the shit out of the bad guys and don’t look back.
Is this Enron II? I doubt it.
Parenthetically, a lot of Enron employees who had no clue AND who had their entire 401K in Enron stock took it in the neck. That was too bad. Inevitable, but a human tragedy that a lot of us here in Houston saw play out every day for several years as people tried to put their lives back together.
So, my inclination would be to assess the total picture, hammer the bad folks, fine commensurate with the harm done and the extent to which, internally, the bad guys could have and should have been found out. Turning a blind eye would earn a very size-able kick in the ass and possibly some jail time. If the malfeasance was below the radar screen, the fine would be much lighter.
For the most part, the comments here speak for themselves. I’m not going back over every one to identify where people have gone overboard.
What do you think should happen, McKinney, if it’s found out that this was a widely-known act of fraud at the highest levels at VW?
If that happens–and it could, I’m not ruling anything out, at all–then whatever criminal and civil penalties there are should be imposed. Your question implies company-wide malfeasance–let’s say that’s something beyond left’ish stereotyping–then there should be company-wide punishment, and those who are innocent of the fraud are victims but there isn’t much to be done.
And, even if it wasn’t that widely known and was perpetrated by a relatively small number of employees, what do you think should happen in terms of fines at the corporate level?
Fines, like any punishment, should fit the crime. A critical fact to me would be whether VW outed itself voluntarily, whether it outed itself well after finding out but just before the authorities were about to act. Or, whatever the context, I would want to know it. If VW was cooperating fully or if it was withholding information to protect others.
A lot goes into the equation. And none of us know diddly about what any of that is.
Should VW as a corporation be given some nominal fine out of mercy for those people who might otherwise suffer some amount of damage even though they had nothing to do with it?
The smartass in me says, fuck no, don’t worry about the innocent, kick the shit out of the bad guys and don’t look back.
Is this Enron II? I doubt it.
Parenthetically, a lot of Enron employees who had no clue AND who had their entire 401K in Enron stock took it in the neck. That was too bad. Inevitable, but a human tragedy that a lot of us here in Houston saw play out every day for several years as people tried to put their lives back together.
So, my inclination would be to assess the total picture, hammer the bad folks, fine commensurate with the harm done and the extent to which, internally, the bad guys could have and should have been found out. Turning a blind eye would earn a very size-able kick in the ass and possibly some jail time. If the malfeasance was below the radar screen, the fine would be much lighter.
For the most part, the comments here speak for themselves. I’m not going back over every one to identify where people have gone overboard.
Whatever.
my inclination would be to assess the total picture, hammer the bad folks, fine commensurate with the harm done and the extent to which, internally, the bad guys could have and should have been found out
This sounds fine to me.
Part of the reason I would prefer to see bad actors held personally responsible, rather than just hit the corp with big fines, is that big fines come out of the pockets of a lot of people who had nothing to do with it.
For the most part, the comments here speak for themselves. I’m not going back over every one to identify where people have gone overboard.
Whatever.
my inclination would be to assess the total picture, hammer the bad folks, fine commensurate with the harm done and the extent to which, internally, the bad guys could have and should have been found out
This sounds fine to me.
Part of the reason I would prefer to see bad actors held personally responsible, rather than just hit the corp with big fines, is that big fines come out of the pockets of a lot of people who had nothing to do with it.
For the most part, the comments here speak for themselves. I’m not going back over every one to identify where people have gone overboard.
Whatever.
my inclination would be to assess the total picture, hammer the bad folks, fine commensurate with the harm done and the extent to which, internally, the bad guys could have and should have been found out
This sounds fine to me.
Part of the reason I would prefer to see bad actors held personally responsible, rather than just hit the corp with big fines, is that big fines come out of the pockets of a lot of people who had nothing to do with it.
To the extent that corporations demand they have the same rights as people, then they should have the similar responsibilities under civil and criminal law. In that regard, the punishment should also fit the crime.
I realize this is taking it to the level of the abstract general case, but those who routinely invoke punishment leniency for corporate malfeasance on these grounds….
“the bad behavior was not authorized”
“the bad behavior was done by underlings acting on their own, and in secret”
“punishing the corporation severely will do harm to innocent employees and stockholders”
…are asking for a different standard to be applied to these “persons” as opposed to real “persons” facing civil or criminal charges.
Therefore it strikes me that if we circumscribe corporate “speech”, to take just one example, we are merely applying a different standard to these different “persons” in a similar manner.
To the extent that corporations demand they have the same rights as people, then they should have the similar responsibilities under civil and criminal law. In that regard, the punishment should also fit the crime.
I realize this is taking it to the level of the abstract general case, but those who routinely invoke punishment leniency for corporate malfeasance on these grounds….
“the bad behavior was not authorized”
“the bad behavior was done by underlings acting on their own, and in secret”
“punishing the corporation severely will do harm to innocent employees and stockholders”
…are asking for a different standard to be applied to these “persons” as opposed to real “persons” facing civil or criminal charges.
Therefore it strikes me that if we circumscribe corporate “speech”, to take just one example, we are merely applying a different standard to these different “persons” in a similar manner.
To the extent that corporations demand they have the same rights as people, then they should have the similar responsibilities under civil and criminal law. In that regard, the punishment should also fit the crime.
I realize this is taking it to the level of the abstract general case, but those who routinely invoke punishment leniency for corporate malfeasance on these grounds….
“the bad behavior was not authorized”
“the bad behavior was done by underlings acting on their own, and in secret”
“punishing the corporation severely will do harm to innocent employees and stockholders”
…are asking for a different standard to be applied to these “persons” as opposed to real “persons” facing civil or criminal charges.
Therefore it strikes me that if we circumscribe corporate “speech”, to take just one example, we are merely applying a different standard to these different “persons” in a similar manner.
I concede that as a blog commentator I often prejudge according to my prejudices.
That a jury would cite my nonsense as support for any judgement is almost, not quite, but almost as shocking as Ben Carson’s explanation of science’s Big Bang Theory as originating from the Devil, among his other views, launching him into second place and vying for first place in a contest for who might be the next President of the most powerful country on Earth.
But perhaps in preparation for each OBWI thread, we should be instructed as juries are before a trial to not prejudge or reach premature conclusions regarding the subject at hand, and to avoid news account of the subject and to not discuss evidence or other matters with the neighbors or each other.
Sequestration may be in order in particularly sensitive cases.
If we were making a movie of this thread, we would cast Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Warden, Marty Balsam, Jack Klugman and company as ourselves, by my count, 24 Angry Men.
Hey, who let the German and the Brit on the jury?
“Airbags are a huge life saver. Getting pissy with airbag manufacturers, as the article did, is just stupid. Would we be better off if they went out of business?”
Yes, they are, and no, we would not.
Auto manufacturers thought differently early on and for a decade or two, thus making the creation of the airbag manufacturing industry, not to mention seat belts, a government mandate and thus a assault on the Constitution and my precious bodily fluids, whether or not they are splattered all over the dashboard and the hood of the car.
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/airbags-have-saved-tens-thousands-americans%E2%80%A6-and-industry-obstruction-cost-three-times-many
Unfortunately, one of our jurors who as a result of issuing a gag order upon himself some time ago, cannot be here with us today to prejudge in his own words that “air” and “bag”, not to mention the word “emissions” and certainly not “control”, do not appear in the Constitution and thus any government mandates heretofore forced upon the party of the second part by the party of the first part are grievous besmirchments of our freedom, unless an airbag were to be used as a weapon in a school or theater, well, then Bob’s your ipso fatso Second Amendment.
I concede that as a blog commentator I often prejudge according to my prejudices.
That a jury would cite my nonsense as support for any judgement is almost, not quite, but almost as shocking as Ben Carson’s explanation of science’s Big Bang Theory as originating from the Devil, among his other views, launching him into second place and vying for first place in a contest for who might be the next President of the most powerful country on Earth.
But perhaps in preparation for each OBWI thread, we should be instructed as juries are before a trial to not prejudge or reach premature conclusions regarding the subject at hand, and to avoid news account of the subject and to not discuss evidence or other matters with the neighbors or each other.
Sequestration may be in order in particularly sensitive cases.
If we were making a movie of this thread, we would cast Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Warden, Marty Balsam, Jack Klugman and company as ourselves, by my count, 24 Angry Men.
Hey, who let the German and the Brit on the jury?
“Airbags are a huge life saver. Getting pissy with airbag manufacturers, as the article did, is just stupid. Would we be better off if they went out of business?”
Yes, they are, and no, we would not.
Auto manufacturers thought differently early on and for a decade or two, thus making the creation of the airbag manufacturing industry, not to mention seat belts, a government mandate and thus a assault on the Constitution and my precious bodily fluids, whether or not they are splattered all over the dashboard and the hood of the car.
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/airbags-have-saved-tens-thousands-americans%E2%80%A6-and-industry-obstruction-cost-three-times-many
Unfortunately, one of our jurors who as a result of issuing a gag order upon himself some time ago, cannot be here with us today to prejudge in his own words that “air” and “bag”, not to mention the word “emissions” and certainly not “control”, do not appear in the Constitution and thus any government mandates heretofore forced upon the party of the second part by the party of the first part are grievous besmirchments of our freedom, unless an airbag were to be used as a weapon in a school or theater, well, then Bob’s your ipso fatso Second Amendment.
I concede that as a blog commentator I often prejudge according to my prejudices.
That a jury would cite my nonsense as support for any judgement is almost, not quite, but almost as shocking as Ben Carson’s explanation of science’s Big Bang Theory as originating from the Devil, among his other views, launching him into second place and vying for first place in a contest for who might be the next President of the most powerful country on Earth.
But perhaps in preparation for each OBWI thread, we should be instructed as juries are before a trial to not prejudge or reach premature conclusions regarding the subject at hand, and to avoid news account of the subject and to not discuss evidence or other matters with the neighbors or each other.
Sequestration may be in order in particularly sensitive cases.
If we were making a movie of this thread, we would cast Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Warden, Marty Balsam, Jack Klugman and company as ourselves, by my count, 24 Angry Men.
Hey, who let the German and the Brit on the jury?
“Airbags are a huge life saver. Getting pissy with airbag manufacturers, as the article did, is just stupid. Would we be better off if they went out of business?”
Yes, they are, and no, we would not.
Auto manufacturers thought differently early on and for a decade or two, thus making the creation of the airbag manufacturing industry, not to mention seat belts, a government mandate and thus a assault on the Constitution and my precious bodily fluids, whether or not they are splattered all over the dashboard and the hood of the car.
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/airbags-have-saved-tens-thousands-americans%E2%80%A6-and-industry-obstruction-cost-three-times-many
Unfortunately, one of our jurors who as a result of issuing a gag order upon himself some time ago, cannot be here with us today to prejudge in his own words that “air” and “bag”, not to mention the word “emissions” and certainly not “control”, do not appear in the Constitution and thus any government mandates heretofore forced upon the party of the second part by the party of the first part are grievous besmirchments of our freedom, unless an airbag were to be used as a weapon in a school or theater, well, then Bob’s your ipso fatso Second Amendment.
“If that happens–and it could, I’m not ruling anything out, at all–then whatever criminal and civil penalties there are should be imposed. Your question implies company-wide malfeasance–let’s say that’s something beyond left’ish stereotyping–then there should be company-wide punishment, and those who are innocent of the fraud are victims but there isn’t much to be done.”
“So, my inclination would be to assess the total picture, hammer the bad folks, fine commensurate with the harm done and the extent to which, internally, the bad guys could have and should have been found out. Turning a blind eye would earn a very size-able kick in the ass and possibly some jail time. If the malfeasance was below the radar screen, the fine would be much lighter.”
Well then, juror #12, I doubt you’ll find much disagreement from anyone about that. All of us could have been home with the wives and kids weeks ago if you had only put it that way in the first place.
Are there any donuts left?
“If that happens–and it could, I’m not ruling anything out, at all–then whatever criminal and civil penalties there are should be imposed. Your question implies company-wide malfeasance–let’s say that’s something beyond left’ish stereotyping–then there should be company-wide punishment, and those who are innocent of the fraud are victims but there isn’t much to be done.”
“So, my inclination would be to assess the total picture, hammer the bad folks, fine commensurate with the harm done and the extent to which, internally, the bad guys could have and should have been found out. Turning a blind eye would earn a very size-able kick in the ass and possibly some jail time. If the malfeasance was below the radar screen, the fine would be much lighter.”
Well then, juror #12, I doubt you’ll find much disagreement from anyone about that. All of us could have been home with the wives and kids weeks ago if you had only put it that way in the first place.
Are there any donuts left?
“If that happens–and it could, I’m not ruling anything out, at all–then whatever criminal and civil penalties there are should be imposed. Your question implies company-wide malfeasance–let’s say that’s something beyond left’ish stereotyping–then there should be company-wide punishment, and those who are innocent of the fraud are victims but there isn’t much to be done.”
“So, my inclination would be to assess the total picture, hammer the bad folks, fine commensurate with the harm done and the extent to which, internally, the bad guys could have and should have been found out. Turning a blind eye would earn a very size-able kick in the ass and possibly some jail time. If the malfeasance was below the radar screen, the fine would be much lighter.”
Well then, juror #12, I doubt you’ll find much disagreement from anyone about that. All of us could have been home with the wives and kids weeks ago if you had only put it that way in the first place.
Are there any donuts left?
Part of the reason I would prefer to see bad actors held personally responsible, rather than just hit the corp with big fines, is that big fines come out of the pockets of a lot of people who had nothing to do with it.
Understandable. But consider when we “punish” bad actors when it comes to wars, it is routine to have some, or even a lot of “collective punishment” inflicted on the innocent. It is also routinely written off as “collateral damage”.
Just chewing my cud here…..
Part of the reason I would prefer to see bad actors held personally responsible, rather than just hit the corp with big fines, is that big fines come out of the pockets of a lot of people who had nothing to do with it.
Understandable. But consider when we “punish” bad actors when it comes to wars, it is routine to have some, or even a lot of “collective punishment” inflicted on the innocent. It is also routinely written off as “collateral damage”.
Just chewing my cud here…..
Part of the reason I would prefer to see bad actors held personally responsible, rather than just hit the corp with big fines, is that big fines come out of the pockets of a lot of people who had nothing to do with it.
Understandable. But consider when we “punish” bad actors when it comes to wars, it is routine to have some, or even a lot of “collective punishment” inflicted on the innocent. It is also routinely written off as “collateral damage”.
Just chewing my cud here…..
my inclination would be to assess the total picture, hammer the bad folks, fine commensurate with the harm done and the extent to which, internally, the bad guys could have and should have been found out
OK, we’ve got McKinney and Russell (and me!) on the same page about what ought to happen. That’s as close to concensus as we are likely to get. Congratulations to all.
my inclination would be to assess the total picture, hammer the bad folks, fine commensurate with the harm done and the extent to which, internally, the bad guys could have and should have been found out
OK, we’ve got McKinney and Russell (and me!) on the same page about what ought to happen. That’s as close to concensus as we are likely to get. Congratulations to all.
my inclination would be to assess the total picture, hammer the bad folks, fine commensurate with the harm done and the extent to which, internally, the bad guys could have and should have been found out
OK, we’ve got McKinney and Russell (and me!) on the same page about what ought to happen. That’s as close to concensus as we are likely to get. Congratulations to all.
A critical fact to me would be whether VW outed itself voluntarily
it didn’t.
the deception was discovered by a three-person study at West Virginia University, well over a year ago.
VW pushed back.
eventually EPA and California’s Air Resources Board duplicated the results.
VW knew the jig was up a year and a half ago. they kept on a-sellin.
A critical fact to me would be whether VW outed itself voluntarily
it didn’t.
the deception was discovered by a three-person study at West Virginia University, well over a year ago.
VW pushed back.
eventually EPA and California’s Air Resources Board duplicated the results.
VW knew the jig was up a year and a half ago. they kept on a-sellin.
A critical fact to me would be whether VW outed itself voluntarily
it didn’t.
the deception was discovered by a three-person study at West Virginia University, well over a year ago.
VW pushed back.
eventually EPA and California’s Air Resources Board duplicated the results.
VW knew the jig was up a year and a half ago. they kept on a-sellin.
Serious questions:
Say I drive a Diesel VW or Audi and I’m due for an emissions inspection this week in my State.
Can this software gimmick be turned off to render true readings?
Where? At the dealers? How does anyone prove it was turned off, of it can be without major retrofitting/reprogramming?
If it can be turned off, how do the State Emission Control people control their prejudgements, given VW’s sullied reputation for honesty, and take my and the dealer’s word that the software code indeed has been made inoperable?
Can they just say we’re not testing this car? Turn in your registration.
If it can;t be turned off, how does the Emissions Control Testing Facility prove, beyond a shadow of a carcinogen, that my particular, individual car is inflicted with this software, and thereby retract my vehicle registration and take my car off the road?
And permutations thereof.
Serious questions:
Say I drive a Diesel VW or Audi and I’m due for an emissions inspection this week in my State.
Can this software gimmick be turned off to render true readings?
Where? At the dealers? How does anyone prove it was turned off, of it can be without major retrofitting/reprogramming?
If it can be turned off, how do the State Emission Control people control their prejudgements, given VW’s sullied reputation for honesty, and take my and the dealer’s word that the software code indeed has been made inoperable?
Can they just say we’re not testing this car? Turn in your registration.
If it can;t be turned off, how does the Emissions Control Testing Facility prove, beyond a shadow of a carcinogen, that my particular, individual car is inflicted with this software, and thereby retract my vehicle registration and take my car off the road?
And permutations thereof.
Serious questions:
Say I drive a Diesel VW or Audi and I’m due for an emissions inspection this week in my State.
Can this software gimmick be turned off to render true readings?
Where? At the dealers? How does anyone prove it was turned off, of it can be without major retrofitting/reprogramming?
If it can be turned off, how do the State Emission Control people control their prejudgements, given VW’s sullied reputation for honesty, and take my and the dealer’s word that the software code indeed has been made inoperable?
Can they just say we’re not testing this car? Turn in your registration.
If it can;t be turned off, how does the Emissions Control Testing Facility prove, beyond a shadow of a carcinogen, that my particular, individual car is inflicted with this software, and thereby retract my vehicle registration and take my car off the road?
And permutations thereof.
grist for the mill
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/ousted-vw-ceo-32-million-pension/
grist for the mill
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/ousted-vw-ceo-32-million-pension/
grist for the mill
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/ousted-vw-ceo-32-million-pension/
I’m only for employees losing their jobs, for any reason, if each of them have $32 million pensions.
Otherwise, they should keep their jobs because if can’t find steady or any work after a period of time, and need to rely on the kindness of strange taxpayers to keep body and soul together, they are likely to be prejudged as suspects of some kind and maybe even mentioned in political campaigns as such and trod upon and hectored by guys electronically rolling down the windows of their Diesel Audis at intersection street corners and told to “Get a Job!” and then left coughing in a big cloud of exhaust fumes.
Now, the one guy at VW/Audi who thought this scheme up and snuck in at night and convinced the manufacturing line workers and the product testing guys at the end of the line to overlook his miracle software fix written in “Hey, Who’s Gonna Know” code, shouldn’t be fired either.
For him, we do a lateral job transfer, as the sole emissions tester at the end of the line. One guy starts the car up and this guy, the software genius, wraps his lips around the end of the tailpipe and inhales at various predetermined RPMs and depending on what color he turns, the car is either released for market or submitted for fine-tuning.
That way, he doesn’t have to become unemployed and resort to, say, becoming a public school teacher or some other, similar second-rate job that destroys our children and society.
I’m only for employees losing their jobs, for any reason, if each of them have $32 million pensions.
Otherwise, they should keep their jobs because if can’t find steady or any work after a period of time, and need to rely on the kindness of strange taxpayers to keep body and soul together, they are likely to be prejudged as suspects of some kind and maybe even mentioned in political campaigns as such and trod upon and hectored by guys electronically rolling down the windows of their Diesel Audis at intersection street corners and told to “Get a Job!” and then left coughing in a big cloud of exhaust fumes.
Now, the one guy at VW/Audi who thought this scheme up and snuck in at night and convinced the manufacturing line workers and the product testing guys at the end of the line to overlook his miracle software fix written in “Hey, Who’s Gonna Know” code, shouldn’t be fired either.
For him, we do a lateral job transfer, as the sole emissions tester at the end of the line. One guy starts the car up and this guy, the software genius, wraps his lips around the end of the tailpipe and inhales at various predetermined RPMs and depending on what color he turns, the car is either released for market or submitted for fine-tuning.
That way, he doesn’t have to become unemployed and resort to, say, becoming a public school teacher or some other, similar second-rate job that destroys our children and society.
I’m only for employees losing their jobs, for any reason, if each of them have $32 million pensions.
Otherwise, they should keep their jobs because if can’t find steady or any work after a period of time, and need to rely on the kindness of strange taxpayers to keep body and soul together, they are likely to be prejudged as suspects of some kind and maybe even mentioned in political campaigns as such and trod upon and hectored by guys electronically rolling down the windows of their Diesel Audis at intersection street corners and told to “Get a Job!” and then left coughing in a big cloud of exhaust fumes.
Now, the one guy at VW/Audi who thought this scheme up and snuck in at night and convinced the manufacturing line workers and the product testing guys at the end of the line to overlook his miracle software fix written in “Hey, Who’s Gonna Know” code, shouldn’t be fired either.
For him, we do a lateral job transfer, as the sole emissions tester at the end of the line. One guy starts the car up and this guy, the software genius, wraps his lips around the end of the tailpipe and inhales at various predetermined RPMs and depending on what color he turns, the car is either released for market or submitted for fine-tuning.
That way, he doesn’t have to become unemployed and resort to, say, becoming a public school teacher or some other, similar second-rate job that destroys our children and society.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/it-might-be-time-rethink-how-we-do-emissions-testing
In Colorado, there has been talk of implementing this idea.
Trouble is, for one thing, the emissions testing was contracted out to a private company.
They, and their employees, natch, are against this change because jobs would be lost, and do and will lobby against any such change, though I suppose they could be in line for the contract for the new regime.
I’m thinking, against the grain inside the box, that if the state had kept the emissions testing responsibilities to itself and its own state employees, then the state could just reassign the employees at the emissions testing centers to other jobs in the State personnel apparatus, thus removing “increased unemployment” as a reason for lobbying against the improved regime.
There are probably other variables involved too.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/it-might-be-time-rethink-how-we-do-emissions-testing
In Colorado, there has been talk of implementing this idea.
Trouble is, for one thing, the emissions testing was contracted out to a private company.
They, and their employees, natch, are against this change because jobs would be lost, and do and will lobby against any such change, though I suppose they could be in line for the contract for the new regime.
I’m thinking, against the grain inside the box, that if the state had kept the emissions testing responsibilities to itself and its own state employees, then the state could just reassign the employees at the emissions testing centers to other jobs in the State personnel apparatus, thus removing “increased unemployment” as a reason for lobbying against the improved regime.
There are probably other variables involved too.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/it-might-be-time-rethink-how-we-do-emissions-testing
In Colorado, there has been talk of implementing this idea.
Trouble is, for one thing, the emissions testing was contracted out to a private company.
They, and their employees, natch, are against this change because jobs would be lost, and do and will lobby against any such change, though I suppose they could be in line for the contract for the new regime.
I’m thinking, against the grain inside the box, that if the state had kept the emissions testing responsibilities to itself and its own state employees, then the state could just reassign the employees at the emissions testing centers to other jobs in the State personnel apparatus, thus removing “increased unemployment” as a reason for lobbying against the improved regime.
There are probably other variables involved too.
I agree that VW/Audi should be given the benefit of a higher degree of proof than, say, ACORN was, or Planned Parenthood is, even among chickensh*t left-ish types:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/stabbing-yourself-in-back.html
I also don’t think we amateurs should stoop to the high professional standards of broadcast journalism and ask apropos of nothing, if VW/Audi execs, or our fellow posters here, believe in ISIS, as a way of jump starting a conversation:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/qotd-arsalan-iftikhar.html
I agree that VW/Audi should be given the benefit of a higher degree of proof than, say, ACORN was, or Planned Parenthood is, even among chickensh*t left-ish types:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/stabbing-yourself-in-back.html
I also don’t think we amateurs should stoop to the high professional standards of broadcast journalism and ask apropos of nothing, if VW/Audi execs, or our fellow posters here, believe in ISIS, as a way of jump starting a conversation:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/qotd-arsalan-iftikhar.html
I agree that VW/Audi should be given the benefit of a higher degree of proof than, say, ACORN was, or Planned Parenthood is, even among chickensh*t left-ish types:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/stabbing-yourself-in-back.html
I also don’t think we amateurs should stoop to the high professional standards of broadcast journalism and ask apropos of nothing, if VW/Audi execs, or our fellow posters here, believe in ISIS, as a way of jump starting a conversation:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/qotd-arsalan-iftikhar.html
Politically correct means never having to say Donald Trump is a sorry excuse for a human being, but still, highly representative of the Republican base:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-politically-correct-crap
Being Christian means acting like an armed, foul-mouthed, sadistic gasbag:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/erick-erickson-obama-muslim-comment
And this guy still has his guns, and is selling his motorcycle so he can buy more?
Until what has to happen?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/jon-ritzheimer-debbie-stabenow-threat
Dear readers, I try to behave like a crazy, malformed motherf*cker, but I just don’t have the method acting chops to keep up.
I’m going back to juggling.
Politically correct means never having to say Donald Trump is a sorry excuse for a human being, but still, highly representative of the Republican base:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-politically-correct-crap
Being Christian means acting like an armed, foul-mouthed, sadistic gasbag:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/erick-erickson-obama-muslim-comment
And this guy still has his guns, and is selling his motorcycle so he can buy more?
Until what has to happen?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/jon-ritzheimer-debbie-stabenow-threat
Dear readers, I try to behave like a crazy, malformed motherf*cker, but I just don’t have the method acting chops to keep up.
I’m going back to juggling.
Politically correct means never having to say Donald Trump is a sorry excuse for a human being, but still, highly representative of the Republican base:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-politically-correct-crap
Being Christian means acting like an armed, foul-mouthed, sadistic gasbag:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/erick-erickson-obama-muslim-comment
And this guy still has his guns, and is selling his motorcycle so he can buy more?
Until what has to happen?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/jon-ritzheimer-debbie-stabenow-threat
Dear readers, I try to behave like a crazy, malformed motherf*cker, but I just don’t have the method acting chops to keep up.
I’m going back to juggling.
McTx: That article, to make its point on emissions, cited two examples from the 70’s and then asserted without evidence that there were many more (if there were, then why pick two ancient examples?). I see this kind of chickenshit knitting of disparate facts and gross exaggerations if not outright lies all the time in my law practice by either young, immature lawyers or lawyers who haven’t figured out that bullshit doesn’t go very far most of the time.
You didn’t read the entire article, obviously. And, of course it cites two examples from the 1970s because one of the main points of the article was to show how long this has been going on! Jesus.
McTx: That article, to make its point on emissions, cited two examples from the 70’s and then asserted without evidence that there were many more (if there were, then why pick two ancient examples?). I see this kind of chickenshit knitting of disparate facts and gross exaggerations if not outright lies all the time in my law practice by either young, immature lawyers or lawyers who haven’t figured out that bullshit doesn’t go very far most of the time.
You didn’t read the entire article, obviously. And, of course it cites two examples from the 1970s because one of the main points of the article was to show how long this has been going on! Jesus.
McTx: That article, to make its point on emissions, cited two examples from the 70’s and then asserted without evidence that there were many more (if there were, then why pick two ancient examples?). I see this kind of chickenshit knitting of disparate facts and gross exaggerations if not outright lies all the time in my law practice by either young, immature lawyers or lawyers who haven’t figured out that bullshit doesn’t go very far most of the time.
You didn’t read the entire article, obviously. And, of course it cites two examples from the 1970s because one of the main points of the article was to show how long this has been going on! Jesus.
McTx, way back upthread: When you have to assume/imagine evidence to get a conviction, it’s probably a pretty good sign you are witch hunting and not getting even within shouting distance of due process.
I have two words for McKinney: Carly Fiorina.
(For those who missed it, McKinney cited Carly as his preferred GOP contender a few posts back. To be fair, I think that was before her “heart beating, legs kicking” aria in the 2nd debate.)
I have it on good authority that McKinney is a fine fellow in real life. So it’s a bit sad to watch his on-line persona devolve toward the Bellmorian. Note the words “to get a conviction”, for instance. Assumption or invention?
–TP
McTx, way back upthread: When you have to assume/imagine evidence to get a conviction, it’s probably a pretty good sign you are witch hunting and not getting even within shouting distance of due process.
I have two words for McKinney: Carly Fiorina.
(For those who missed it, McKinney cited Carly as his preferred GOP contender a few posts back. To be fair, I think that was before her “heart beating, legs kicking” aria in the 2nd debate.)
I have it on good authority that McKinney is a fine fellow in real life. So it’s a bit sad to watch his on-line persona devolve toward the Bellmorian. Note the words “to get a conviction”, for instance. Assumption or invention?
–TP
McTx, way back upthread: When you have to assume/imagine evidence to get a conviction, it’s probably a pretty good sign you are witch hunting and not getting even within shouting distance of due process.
I have two words for McKinney: Carly Fiorina.
(For those who missed it, McKinney cited Carly as his preferred GOP contender a few posts back. To be fair, I think that was before her “heart beating, legs kicking” aria in the 2nd debate.)
I have it on good authority that McKinney is a fine fellow in real life. So it’s a bit sad to watch his on-line persona devolve toward the Bellmorian. Note the words “to get a conviction”, for instance. Assumption or invention?
–TP
Note the words “to get a conviction”, for instance. Assumption or invention?
Ah, yes.
McKinney – it’s a blog discussion, not a court filing. Assuming facts not in evidence, jumping to unprovable conclusions and sweeping generalizations are pretty much required to have a the former. If you want to frame the discussion in terms of what will hold up in court, and civil procedure, and the rules of evidence, and how the legal system does/should work (presumption of innocence, etc.), you can, but that’s not the frame we’re using and you’ll get frustrated.
As, you know, you have.
Note the words “to get a conviction”, for instance. Assumption or invention?
Ah, yes.
McKinney – it’s a blog discussion, not a court filing. Assuming facts not in evidence, jumping to unprovable conclusions and sweeping generalizations are pretty much required to have a the former. If you want to frame the discussion in terms of what will hold up in court, and civil procedure, and the rules of evidence, and how the legal system does/should work (presumption of innocence, etc.), you can, but that’s not the frame we’re using and you’ll get frustrated.
As, you know, you have.
Note the words “to get a conviction”, for instance. Assumption or invention?
Ah, yes.
McKinney – it’s a blog discussion, not a court filing. Assuming facts not in evidence, jumping to unprovable conclusions and sweeping generalizations are pretty much required to have a the former. If you want to frame the discussion in terms of what will hold up in court, and civil procedure, and the rules of evidence, and how the legal system does/should work (presumption of innocence, etc.), you can, but that’s not the frame we’re using and you’ll get frustrated.
As, you know, you have.
I mean, I started it. “Based on what’s been reported in the press, things look pretty bad for VW, and based on that I think X should happen to VW and the bad actors.”
But I’m just a schmuck on a blog. If I was in a place of responsibility and authority, then I’m not going to hand out punishment or absolution after 5 days and a few press reports, or even admissions from the accused! And yet you come tromping in here and start slinging accusations about how the left is ready to dispense with due process because of [insert issue here]. And hell in the present case you even agree that something criminal has gone on.
Anyway, I am well aware that from a distance things can look a lot worse, or better, than they look from up close to those who know the details. You cite a case from personal experience, to which we can add OJ, or the officers in the Rodney King case, or the McDonalds hot coffee spill, or paint scratches on a porsche (or was it a BMW), or Bernhard Goetz, silicone breast implants, etc.
Also, I don’t think Trayvon Martin got a chance to tell his story.
I mean, I started it. “Based on what’s been reported in the press, things look pretty bad for VW, and based on that I think X should happen to VW and the bad actors.”
But I’m just a schmuck on a blog. If I was in a place of responsibility and authority, then I’m not going to hand out punishment or absolution after 5 days and a few press reports, or even admissions from the accused! And yet you come tromping in here and start slinging accusations about how the left is ready to dispense with due process because of [insert issue here]. And hell in the present case you even agree that something criminal has gone on.
Anyway, I am well aware that from a distance things can look a lot worse, or better, than they look from up close to those who know the details. You cite a case from personal experience, to which we can add OJ, or the officers in the Rodney King case, or the McDonalds hot coffee spill, or paint scratches on a porsche (or was it a BMW), or Bernhard Goetz, silicone breast implants, etc.
Also, I don’t think Trayvon Martin got a chance to tell his story.
I mean, I started it. “Based on what’s been reported in the press, things look pretty bad for VW, and based on that I think X should happen to VW and the bad actors.”
But I’m just a schmuck on a blog. If I was in a place of responsibility and authority, then I’m not going to hand out punishment or absolution after 5 days and a few press reports, or even admissions from the accused! And yet you come tromping in here and start slinging accusations about how the left is ready to dispense with due process because of [insert issue here]. And hell in the present case you even agree that something criminal has gone on.
Anyway, I am well aware that from a distance things can look a lot worse, or better, than they look from up close to those who know the details. You cite a case from personal experience, to which we can add OJ, or the officers in the Rodney King case, or the McDonalds hot coffee spill, or paint scratches on a porsche (or was it a BMW), or Bernhard Goetz, silicone breast implants, etc.
Also, I don’t think Trayvon Martin got a chance to tell his story.
To the degree that VW’s fraud allow them to displace with diesel vehicles the gasoline vehicles people might have otherwise bought, there’s less CO2 in the air…
To the degree that VW’s fraud allow them to displace with diesel vehicles the gasoline vehicles people might have otherwise bought, there’s less CO2 in the air…
To the degree that VW’s fraud allow them to displace with diesel vehicles the gasoline vehicles people might have otherwise bought, there’s less CO2 in the air…
To the degree that VW’s fraud allow them to displace with diesel vehicles the gasoline vehicles people might have otherwise bought, there’s less CO2 in the air…
Really?
Methinks there are some other variables in play.
To the degree that VW’s fraud allow them to displace with diesel vehicles the gasoline vehicles people might have otherwise bought, there’s less CO2 in the air…
Really?
Methinks there are some other variables in play.
To the degree that VW’s fraud allow them to displace with diesel vehicles the gasoline vehicles people might have otherwise bought, there’s less CO2 in the air…
Really?
Methinks there are some other variables in play.
Other variables not mention in the article are that diesel has a 30% higher energy density than gasoline and diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.
Other variables not mention in the article are that diesel has a 30% higher energy density than gasoline and diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.
Other variables not mention in the article are that diesel has a 30% higher energy density than gasoline and diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.
So why the fraud?
So why the fraud?
So why the fraud?
“To the degree that VW’s fraud allow them to displace with diesel vehicles the gasoline vehicles people might have otherwise bought, there’s less CO2 in the air…”
keep on looking for that silver lining, bro
“To the degree that VW’s fraud allow them to displace with diesel vehicles the gasoline vehicles people might have otherwise bought, there’s less CO2 in the air…”
keep on looking for that silver lining, bro
“To the degree that VW’s fraud allow them to displace with diesel vehicles the gasoline vehicles people might have otherwise bought, there’s less CO2 in the air…”
keep on looking for that silver lining, bro
…not mention in the article are that diesel has a 30% higher energy density than gasoline and diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.
And also not to mention that VW’s direct competitors in the US market typically include petrol hybrids.
It’s notable that VW are really the only manufacturer in their particular sector of the US mass market who are trying to compete with diesels.
It’s also notable that the car, in the tests which sparked off this whole furore, which met emissions standards in real world driving conditions was a 3.5 litre BMW diesel – which is not exactly frugal in its fuel consumption.
The reason they cheated seems to be that’s it’s actually quite difficult to get a diesel both to be very energy efficient and to meet the tougher US emissions regulations.
It’s also notable that all of this was brought to VW’s notice back in 2014, and they tried to convince the regulators that they’d sorted the problem, in order to get approval for their 2016 models.
So when their ex CEO said yesterday this came as a “shock”, he was, to be generous, stretching the truth.
…not mention in the article are that diesel has a 30% higher energy density than gasoline and diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.
And also not to mention that VW’s direct competitors in the US market typically include petrol hybrids.
It’s notable that VW are really the only manufacturer in their particular sector of the US mass market who are trying to compete with diesels.
It’s also notable that the car, in the tests which sparked off this whole furore, which met emissions standards in real world driving conditions was a 3.5 litre BMW diesel – which is not exactly frugal in its fuel consumption.
The reason they cheated seems to be that’s it’s actually quite difficult to get a diesel both to be very energy efficient and to meet the tougher US emissions regulations.
It’s also notable that all of this was brought to VW’s notice back in 2014, and they tried to convince the regulators that they’d sorted the problem, in order to get approval for their 2016 models.
So when their ex CEO said yesterday this came as a “shock”, he was, to be generous, stretching the truth.
…not mention in the article are that diesel has a 30% higher energy density than gasoline and diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.
And also not to mention that VW’s direct competitors in the US market typically include petrol hybrids.
It’s notable that VW are really the only manufacturer in their particular sector of the US mass market who are trying to compete with diesels.
It’s also notable that the car, in the tests which sparked off this whole furore, which met emissions standards in real world driving conditions was a 3.5 litre BMW diesel – which is not exactly frugal in its fuel consumption.
The reason they cheated seems to be that’s it’s actually quite difficult to get a diesel both to be very energy efficient and to meet the tougher US emissions regulations.
It’s also notable that all of this was brought to VW’s notice back in 2014, and they tried to convince the regulators that they’d sorted the problem, in order to get approval for their 2016 models.
So when their ex CEO said yesterday this came as a “shock”, he was, to be generous, stretching the truth.
Also interesting is that the fallout looks as though it’s going to be a little different in Europe.
Owing to our (currently) somewhat more lax emissions regulations, it looks as though VW (and others) have tended to game the official fuel economy figures more than the emissions figures.
Also interesting is that the fallout looks as though it’s going to be a little different in Europe.
Owing to our (currently) somewhat more lax emissions regulations, it looks as though VW (and others) have tended to game the official fuel economy figures more than the emissions figures.
Also interesting is that the fallout looks as though it’s going to be a little different in Europe.
Owing to our (currently) somewhat more lax emissions regulations, it looks as though VW (and others) have tended to game the official fuel economy figures more than the emissions figures.
No silver lining for me since I don’t consider current levels and moderate increases of CO2 levels to be a problem.
No silver lining for me since I don’t consider current levels and moderate increases of CO2 levels to be a problem.
No silver lining for me since I don’t consider current levels and moderate increases of CO2 levels to be a problem.
So why bring it up, other than to make a rhetorical point which was.. pointless ?
So why bring it up, other than to make a rhetorical point which was.. pointless ?
So why bring it up, other than to make a rhetorical point which was.. pointless ?
Apparently, the reason other (more expensive and larger) diesel vehicles meet the US standards is that they have the urea additive tanks to feed the catalytic converter in the exhaust, and VW doesn’t.
The fix is not going to be cheap:
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/vw-owners-arent-going-like-fixes-diesels/
Apparently, the reason other (more expensive and larger) diesel vehicles meet the US standards is that they have the urea additive tanks to feed the catalytic converter in the exhaust, and VW doesn’t.
The fix is not going to be cheap:
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/vw-owners-arent-going-like-fixes-diesels/
Apparently, the reason other (more expensive and larger) diesel vehicles meet the US standards is that they have the urea additive tanks to feed the catalytic converter in the exhaust, and VW doesn’t.
The fix is not going to be cheap:
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/vw-owners-arent-going-like-fixes-diesels/
Somewhat related side note: a year or two ago, rented a diesel car in Europe for a week (not a VW, I wish I could recall the brand/model) for some very familiar driving.
I expected, based on past experience, that the tank would show 3/4 after 1-2 days. But it stubbornly said “F”.
At that point, I wondered “is the gauge broken?” And then, “how do I know it was full when I got the car?”. A quick stop to fill up told me: the gauge is okay!
What typically required >3/4 of a tank of gasoline over the course of the trip, used <1/4 of a tank of diesel for this particular model car (I rented another of the same type a few months later, got the same result). And the other cars were not gas hogs, either!
Plenty of 'pep', no obvious clouds of black smoke. The one 'different' behavior was how the engine would automatically shut off/start up when idling at a stop, but that was rare enough to not be much of a factor in mileage.
Somewhat related side note: a year or two ago, rented a diesel car in Europe for a week (not a VW, I wish I could recall the brand/model) for some very familiar driving.
I expected, based on past experience, that the tank would show 3/4 after 1-2 days. But it stubbornly said “F”.
At that point, I wondered “is the gauge broken?” And then, “how do I know it was full when I got the car?”. A quick stop to fill up told me: the gauge is okay!
What typically required >3/4 of a tank of gasoline over the course of the trip, used <1/4 of a tank of diesel for this particular model car (I rented another of the same type a few months later, got the same result). And the other cars were not gas hogs, either!
Plenty of 'pep', no obvious clouds of black smoke. The one 'different' behavior was how the engine would automatically shut off/start up when idling at a stop, but that was rare enough to not be much of a factor in mileage.
Somewhat related side note: a year or two ago, rented a diesel car in Europe for a week (not a VW, I wish I could recall the brand/model) for some very familiar driving.
I expected, based on past experience, that the tank would show 3/4 after 1-2 days. But it stubbornly said “F”.
At that point, I wondered “is the gauge broken?” And then, “how do I know it was full when I got the car?”. A quick stop to fill up told me: the gauge is okay!
What typically required >3/4 of a tank of gasoline over the course of the trip, used <1/4 of a tank of diesel for this particular model car (I rented another of the same type a few months later, got the same result). And the other cars were not gas hogs, either!
Plenty of 'pep', no obvious clouds of black smoke. The one 'different' behavior was how the engine would automatically shut off/start up when idling at a stop, but that was rare enough to not be much of a factor in mileage.
FWIW, just heard on BBC radio:Volkswagen say that the names of the people responsible will be released tomorrow
(BTW, it’s not necessary to go too far back to see that McKT is actually a good guy, you only have to read his thoughtful advice to NV when NV was wondering about his next step schoolwise and law-wise, despite the fact that these two have clashed furiously in the past, and continue to do so.)
FWIW, just heard on BBC radio:Volkswagen say that the names of the people responsible will be released tomorrow
(BTW, it’s not necessary to go too far back to see that McKT is actually a good guy, you only have to read his thoughtful advice to NV when NV was wondering about his next step schoolwise and law-wise, despite the fact that these two have clashed furiously in the past, and continue to do so.)
FWIW, just heard on BBC radio:Volkswagen say that the names of the people responsible will be released tomorrow
(BTW, it’s not necessary to go too far back to see that McKT is actually a good guy, you only have to read his thoughtful advice to NV when NV was wondering about his next step schoolwise and law-wise, despite the fact that these two have clashed furiously in the past, and continue to do so.)
My brakes only work when there is a police cruiser in sight.
My brakes only work when there is a police cruiser in sight.
My brakes only work when there is a police cruiser in sight.
I have two words for McKinney: Carly Fiorina.
Kinda, sorta. The tapes are replete with discussions of how to harvest organs from aborted children. There is specific reference to keeping the fetus alive for some harvesting purposes. I’ve seen a still of a fully formed child, post-abortion, in a dish with its legs and arms drawn up as babies do, not lying limp as if the child were dead. I do not know where the still came from.
So, does PP harvest organs from living, aborted children? It seems that is the case.
Is there video of a surviving child post-abortion. I have not seen that and if it exists, there should be links everywhere which I have yet to find although I haven’t looked that hard.
This is to respond to TP, not to hijack the thread.
But I’m just a schmuck on a blog. If I was in a place of responsibility and authority, then I’m not going to hand out punishment or absolution after 5 days and a few press reports, or even admissions from the accused!
Well, actually, you are in a bit of a place of responsibility. My references to the Jamie Leigh Jones case may get a little tireseome after a while. Fine. The fact is, the blogosphere was relentlessly demanding Charles Bortz’ (and KBR’s) head. That meme found its way into the MSM. It was taken as a given that Bortz raped Jones. As good luck would have it, the impact on the jury was minimal, but what was not minimal was the number of people who came up to my wife and asked her why her husband would defend a rapist.
The Jones case was somewhat different because I knew what the evidence was and I was 99% certain I would win. It was not a close case–which shows you just how f’d up the leftish, particularly the lefty feminists can be–and all I needed was a reasonable rational jury.
But, in other, closer cases, having public opinion decide the outcome is the polar opposite of fair. ObWi may not be the leading voice on the left, but it is a voice.
So, you may think it’s just a private conversation among friends, but in fact it’s the meme on the left which can and does impact how justice is delivered down the road.
GNC–thanks, I am actually a nice person, usually. I’m being nice here, too. Just forceful, emphatic, pointed, etc. Which is my style when dealing with matters I think are important. Emphatic, pointed writing here, when it goes the other way, it’s good writing. When it cuts against the conventional wisdom, sometimes, not so much.
Back to TP: for the first time in my life, yesterday, I commented on a conservative blog post (which will go nameless) to raise the absence of a link validating CF’s statement in toto. The pushback was not dissimilar from a lot of the pushback here.
Final comment: based on additional research and comments above, it appears–heavy emphasis on *appears*–that VW’s finding of the light was two steps ahead of a posse that’s been on the road for more than a year. Having walking a corporate client or two through the poop, this is not promising. First, it’s stupid the break the law, no matter how stupid or arbitrary you might think the law is, unless, as in civil disobedience, you’re willing to pay the price. Second, if your internal investigation is worth a crap, you know pretty early on whether you are in it or not. If the answer is “yes, I screwed the pooch”, then you have basically two options: confession, remediation and hope for the best or deny, delay and hope for the best. The latter often works, so stupid, venal people often employ it (I could name a certain inevitable presidential nominee). But it is fundamentally based on lying and deception, so when it fails, no sympathy and no leniency.
I have two words for McKinney: Carly Fiorina.
Kinda, sorta. The tapes are replete with discussions of how to harvest organs from aborted children. There is specific reference to keeping the fetus alive for some harvesting purposes. I’ve seen a still of a fully formed child, post-abortion, in a dish with its legs and arms drawn up as babies do, not lying limp as if the child were dead. I do not know where the still came from.
So, does PP harvest organs from living, aborted children? It seems that is the case.
Is there video of a surviving child post-abortion. I have not seen that and if it exists, there should be links everywhere which I have yet to find although I haven’t looked that hard.
This is to respond to TP, not to hijack the thread.
But I’m just a schmuck on a blog. If I was in a place of responsibility and authority, then I’m not going to hand out punishment or absolution after 5 days and a few press reports, or even admissions from the accused!
Well, actually, you are in a bit of a place of responsibility. My references to the Jamie Leigh Jones case may get a little tireseome after a while. Fine. The fact is, the blogosphere was relentlessly demanding Charles Bortz’ (and KBR’s) head. That meme found its way into the MSM. It was taken as a given that Bortz raped Jones. As good luck would have it, the impact on the jury was minimal, but what was not minimal was the number of people who came up to my wife and asked her why her husband would defend a rapist.
The Jones case was somewhat different because I knew what the evidence was and I was 99% certain I would win. It was not a close case–which shows you just how f’d up the leftish, particularly the lefty feminists can be–and all I needed was a reasonable rational jury.
But, in other, closer cases, having public opinion decide the outcome is the polar opposite of fair. ObWi may not be the leading voice on the left, but it is a voice.
So, you may think it’s just a private conversation among friends, but in fact it’s the meme on the left which can and does impact how justice is delivered down the road.
GNC–thanks, I am actually a nice person, usually. I’m being nice here, too. Just forceful, emphatic, pointed, etc. Which is my style when dealing with matters I think are important. Emphatic, pointed writing here, when it goes the other way, it’s good writing. When it cuts against the conventional wisdom, sometimes, not so much.
Back to TP: for the first time in my life, yesterday, I commented on a conservative blog post (which will go nameless) to raise the absence of a link validating CF’s statement in toto. The pushback was not dissimilar from a lot of the pushback here.
Final comment: based on additional research and comments above, it appears–heavy emphasis on *appears*–that VW’s finding of the light was two steps ahead of a posse that’s been on the road for more than a year. Having walking a corporate client or two through the poop, this is not promising. First, it’s stupid the break the law, no matter how stupid or arbitrary you might think the law is, unless, as in civil disobedience, you’re willing to pay the price. Second, if your internal investigation is worth a crap, you know pretty early on whether you are in it or not. If the answer is “yes, I screwed the pooch”, then you have basically two options: confession, remediation and hope for the best or deny, delay and hope for the best. The latter often works, so stupid, venal people often employ it (I could name a certain inevitable presidential nominee). But it is fundamentally based on lying and deception, so when it fails, no sympathy and no leniency.
I have two words for McKinney: Carly Fiorina.
Kinda, sorta. The tapes are replete with discussions of how to harvest organs from aborted children. There is specific reference to keeping the fetus alive for some harvesting purposes. I’ve seen a still of a fully formed child, post-abortion, in a dish with its legs and arms drawn up as babies do, not lying limp as if the child were dead. I do not know where the still came from.
So, does PP harvest organs from living, aborted children? It seems that is the case.
Is there video of a surviving child post-abortion. I have not seen that and if it exists, there should be links everywhere which I have yet to find although I haven’t looked that hard.
This is to respond to TP, not to hijack the thread.
But I’m just a schmuck on a blog. If I was in a place of responsibility and authority, then I’m not going to hand out punishment or absolution after 5 days and a few press reports, or even admissions from the accused!
Well, actually, you are in a bit of a place of responsibility. My references to the Jamie Leigh Jones case may get a little tireseome after a while. Fine. The fact is, the blogosphere was relentlessly demanding Charles Bortz’ (and KBR’s) head. That meme found its way into the MSM. It was taken as a given that Bortz raped Jones. As good luck would have it, the impact on the jury was minimal, but what was not minimal was the number of people who came up to my wife and asked her why her husband would defend a rapist.
The Jones case was somewhat different because I knew what the evidence was and I was 99% certain I would win. It was not a close case–which shows you just how f’d up the leftish, particularly the lefty feminists can be–and all I needed was a reasonable rational jury.
But, in other, closer cases, having public opinion decide the outcome is the polar opposite of fair. ObWi may not be the leading voice on the left, but it is a voice.
So, you may think it’s just a private conversation among friends, but in fact it’s the meme on the left which can and does impact how justice is delivered down the road.
GNC–thanks, I am actually a nice person, usually. I’m being nice here, too. Just forceful, emphatic, pointed, etc. Which is my style when dealing with matters I think are important. Emphatic, pointed writing here, when it goes the other way, it’s good writing. When it cuts against the conventional wisdom, sometimes, not so much.
Back to TP: for the first time in my life, yesterday, I commented on a conservative blog post (which will go nameless) to raise the absence of a link validating CF’s statement in toto. The pushback was not dissimilar from a lot of the pushback here.
Final comment: based on additional research and comments above, it appears–heavy emphasis on *appears*–that VW’s finding of the light was two steps ahead of a posse that’s been on the road for more than a year. Having walking a corporate client or two through the poop, this is not promising. First, it’s stupid the break the law, no matter how stupid or arbitrary you might think the law is, unless, as in civil disobedience, you’re willing to pay the price. Second, if your internal investigation is worth a crap, you know pretty early on whether you are in it or not. If the answer is “yes, I screwed the pooch”, then you have basically two options: confession, remediation and hope for the best or deny, delay and hope for the best. The latter often works, so stupid, venal people often employ it (I could name a certain inevitable presidential nominee). But it is fundamentally based on lying and deception, so when it fails, no sympathy and no leniency.
Snarki, don’t forget that typical European cars tend to be a good deal lighter than US cars and thus per se have a lower fuel consumption on average.
Snarki, don’t forget that typical European cars tend to be a good deal lighter than US cars and thus per se have a lower fuel consumption on average.
Snarki, don’t forget that typical European cars tend to be a good deal lighter than US cars and thus per se have a lower fuel consumption on average.
I wrote a character witness comment that keeps getting snarfed up somewhere along the lines of ……
“I am actually a nice person, usually. I’m being nice here, too.”
…. but replaced the “I” with “He”.
Despite his hump, halting gait, and shifty, plotting eyes, MCKT’s resemblance to Richard III is mere coincidence.
True, he once tried to upend me in a vat of wine, but it was only one glass at a time.
I wrote a character witness comment that keeps getting snarfed up somewhere along the lines of ……
“I am actually a nice person, usually. I’m being nice here, too.”
…. but replaced the “I” with “He”.
Despite his hump, halting gait, and shifty, plotting eyes, MCKT’s resemblance to Richard III is mere coincidence.
True, he once tried to upend me in a vat of wine, but it was only one glass at a time.
I wrote a character witness comment that keeps getting snarfed up somewhere along the lines of ……
“I am actually a nice person, usually. I’m being nice here, too.”
…. but replaced the “I” with “He”.
Despite his hump, halting gait, and shifty, plotting eyes, MCKT’s resemblance to Richard III is mere coincidence.
True, he once tried to upend me in a vat of wine, but it was only one glass at a time.
The Jones case was somewhat different because I knew what the evidence was and I was 99% certain I would win. It was not a close case–which shows you just how f’d up the leftish, particularly the lefty feminists can be–and all I needed was a reasonable rational jury.
However it is also true that, in a lot of other rape cases, the argument has been made that the fault was all on the side of the woman. Those cases seem to be less common today than they once were — at least they get less visibility. But that doesn’t mean that pre-judging doesn’t happen in both directions.
The pushback [from your post on a conservative blog] was not dissimilar from a lot of the pushback here.
Which is to say, you can get pushback from true-believers on both sides. I’m sure Russell (like the other liberals here) has memories of when his positions have gotten some.
The Jones case was somewhat different because I knew what the evidence was and I was 99% certain I would win. It was not a close case–which shows you just how f’d up the leftish, particularly the lefty feminists can be–and all I needed was a reasonable rational jury.
However it is also true that, in a lot of other rape cases, the argument has been made that the fault was all on the side of the woman. Those cases seem to be less common today than they once were — at least they get less visibility. But that doesn’t mean that pre-judging doesn’t happen in both directions.
The pushback [from your post on a conservative blog] was not dissimilar from a lot of the pushback here.
Which is to say, you can get pushback from true-believers on both sides. I’m sure Russell (like the other liberals here) has memories of when his positions have gotten some.
The Jones case was somewhat different because I knew what the evidence was and I was 99% certain I would win. It was not a close case–which shows you just how f’d up the leftish, particularly the lefty feminists can be–and all I needed was a reasonable rational jury.
However it is also true that, in a lot of other rape cases, the argument has been made that the fault was all on the side of the woman. Those cases seem to be less common today than they once were — at least they get less visibility. But that doesn’t mean that pre-judging doesn’t happen in both directions.
The pushback [from your post on a conservative blog] was not dissimilar from a lot of the pushback here.
Which is to say, you can get pushback from true-believers on both sides. I’m sure Russell (like the other liberals here) has memories of when his positions have gotten some.
However it is also true that, in a lot of other rape cases, the argument has been made that the fault was all on the side of the woman. Those cases seem to be less common today than they once were — at least they get less visibility. But that doesn’t mean that pre-judging doesn’t happen in both directions.
Sure, that is done and it’s stupid dangerous not to mention morally wrong to question the word of an assault victim unless you’ve got pretty damn good evidence of your position. I’ve done maybe 50, probably slightly more, cases in which the core harm was sexual predation of some kind. The Jones case was the only case I’ve done where I contested the fact of assault.
Again, this is a response to Count, not a hijack attempt: sometime back, we had some lively discussions of what constitutes sexual assault, some arguing for a pretty relaxed standard for assault. The cases I’ve dealt with didn’t present much in the way of gray area, and I’m not in favor of leveling assault charges where the outward manifestation is consent even if subjectively the complainant feels coerced in some fashion.
However it is also true that, in a lot of other rape cases, the argument has been made that the fault was all on the side of the woman. Those cases seem to be less common today than they once were — at least they get less visibility. But that doesn’t mean that pre-judging doesn’t happen in both directions.
Sure, that is done and it’s stupid dangerous not to mention morally wrong to question the word of an assault victim unless you’ve got pretty damn good evidence of your position. I’ve done maybe 50, probably slightly more, cases in which the core harm was sexual predation of some kind. The Jones case was the only case I’ve done where I contested the fact of assault.
Again, this is a response to Count, not a hijack attempt: sometime back, we had some lively discussions of what constitutes sexual assault, some arguing for a pretty relaxed standard for assault. The cases I’ve dealt with didn’t present much in the way of gray area, and I’m not in favor of leveling assault charges where the outward manifestation is consent even if subjectively the complainant feels coerced in some fashion.
However it is also true that, in a lot of other rape cases, the argument has been made that the fault was all on the side of the woman. Those cases seem to be less common today than they once were — at least they get less visibility. But that doesn’t mean that pre-judging doesn’t happen in both directions.
Sure, that is done and it’s stupid dangerous not to mention morally wrong to question the word of an assault victim unless you’ve got pretty damn good evidence of your position. I’ve done maybe 50, probably slightly more, cases in which the core harm was sexual predation of some kind. The Jones case was the only case I’ve done where I contested the fact of assault.
Again, this is a response to Count, not a hijack attempt: sometime back, we had some lively discussions of what constitutes sexual assault, some arguing for a pretty relaxed standard for assault. The cases I’ve dealt with didn’t present much in the way of gray area, and I’m not in favor of leveling assault charges where the outward manifestation is consent even if subjectively the complainant feels coerced in some fashion.
Sorry, I was responding to WJ, not Count. My bad.
Sorry, I was responding to WJ, not Count. My bad.
Sorry, I was responding to WJ, not Count. My bad.
Hartmut, I’m well aware of Euro vs US car differences…the driving I was referring to is a trip that I have done many, many times with a variety of Euro cars; which is why the difference in fuel consumption was such a surprise.
Although “gas milage so good you suspect the fuel gauge is broken” might be considered to be a design flaw…
Hartmut, I’m well aware of Euro vs US car differences…the driving I was referring to is a trip that I have done many, many times with a variety of Euro cars; which is why the difference in fuel consumption was such a surprise.
Although “gas milage so good you suspect the fuel gauge is broken” might be considered to be a design flaw…
Hartmut, I’m well aware of Euro vs US car differences…the driving I was referring to is a trip that I have done many, many times with a variety of Euro cars; which is why the difference in fuel consumption was such a surprise.
Although “gas milage so good you suspect the fuel gauge is broken” might be considered to be a design flaw…
True, he once tried to upend me in a vat of wine, but it was only one glass at a time.
I plead ‘consent’.
True, he once tried to upend me in a vat of wine, but it was only one glass at a time.
I plead ‘consent’.
True, he once tried to upend me in a vat of wine, but it was only one glass at a time.
I plead ‘consent’.
Although “gas milage so good you suspect the fuel gauge is broken” might be considered to be a design flaw
maybe it had one of those trick gauges that hovers near the top of the range for a lot longer than it should before plummeting towards E with astonishing velocity.
i’ve had a couple of those.
Although “gas milage so good you suspect the fuel gauge is broken” might be considered to be a design flaw
maybe it had one of those trick gauges that hovers near the top of the range for a lot longer than it should before plummeting towards E with astonishing velocity.
i’ve had a couple of those.
Although “gas milage so good you suspect the fuel gauge is broken” might be considered to be a design flaw
maybe it had one of those trick gauges that hovers near the top of the range for a lot longer than it should before plummeting towards E with astonishing velocity.
i’ve had a couple of those.
VW’s latest small TDI engine, the EA288, which went into 2015 model year Golfs, Jettas, Passats, and Beetles (and Audi A3s, presumably), employs an urea emissions system like those used to clean larger diesel engines — and that engine, too, appears to have also benefited from the ECU cheat. Cars fitted with that engine have been included in the EPA’s notice (http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/violations.htm#affected) and CARB’s letter notes that VW admitted “that these vehicles [including those fitted with the latest engine] were designed and manufactured with a defeat device to bypass, defeat or rend inoperative elements of the vehicles’ emission control system.”
Good collection of resources here: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=448336
Good grief that’s complicated (VW’s emissions tech): http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150921-vw2l.html
VW’s latest small TDI engine, the EA288, which went into 2015 model year Golfs, Jettas, Passats, and Beetles (and Audi A3s, presumably), employs an urea emissions system like those used to clean larger diesel engines — and that engine, too, appears to have also benefited from the ECU cheat. Cars fitted with that engine have been included in the EPA’s notice (http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/violations.htm#affected) and CARB’s letter notes that VW admitted “that these vehicles [including those fitted with the latest engine] were designed and manufactured with a defeat device to bypass, defeat or rend inoperative elements of the vehicles’ emission control system.”
Good collection of resources here: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=448336
Good grief that’s complicated (VW’s emissions tech): http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150921-vw2l.html
VW’s latest small TDI engine, the EA288, which went into 2015 model year Golfs, Jettas, Passats, and Beetles (and Audi A3s, presumably), employs an urea emissions system like those used to clean larger diesel engines — and that engine, too, appears to have also benefited from the ECU cheat. Cars fitted with that engine have been included in the EPA’s notice (http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/violations.htm#affected) and CARB’s letter notes that VW admitted “that these vehicles [including those fitted with the latest engine] were designed and manufactured with a defeat device to bypass, defeat or rend inoperative elements of the vehicles’ emission control system.”
Good collection of resources here: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=448336
Good grief that’s complicated (VW’s emissions tech): http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150921-vw2l.html
It’s True Believers who are the problem. The real point is that, excluding the far extremes of left and right, most people (and certainly as far as I can tell everyone on ObWi) are decent types, who aren’t too far apart when it really comes down to it, as wj noted upthread:
OK, we’ve got McKinney and Russell (and me!) on the same page about what ought to happen. That’s as close to concensus as we are likely to get. Congratulations to all.
It’s fun and endlessly interesting to hash out the differences between all our individual ideologies, to the extent we even have ideologies, and IRL I have several friends who are right-wing, and several who are leftish, or even Corbynistas (no proper dyed-in-the-wool Marxists anymore, I don’t think), and we do just that.
But what’s scary to me about what happens in the US is to see the way that reasonable Republicans (and maybe even some Democrats) have moved to the right over the years, without realising how they’ve been affected by the terms of the discourse being shifted rightward by TeaPartyites et al. As far as I can tell, this doesn’t seem to have happened to McKT, and he is at least trying to engage with what he appears to see as a bunch of lefties, but I would like to know if he or anybody else can give an example of any way in which the “liberal left” have taken up or tolerate loony left attitudes, in the same way the “reasonable right” now seem happy to hear right wing candidates, for example, cast doubt on evolution, global warming etc without standing up and saying this is the slippery slope to science-denying, theocratic lunacy.
It’s True Believers who are the problem. The real point is that, excluding the far extremes of left and right, most people (and certainly as far as I can tell everyone on ObWi) are decent types, who aren’t too far apart when it really comes down to it, as wj noted upthread:
OK, we’ve got McKinney and Russell (and me!) on the same page about what ought to happen. That’s as close to concensus as we are likely to get. Congratulations to all.
It’s fun and endlessly interesting to hash out the differences between all our individual ideologies, to the extent we even have ideologies, and IRL I have several friends who are right-wing, and several who are leftish, or even Corbynistas (no proper dyed-in-the-wool Marxists anymore, I don’t think), and we do just that.
But what’s scary to me about what happens in the US is to see the way that reasonable Republicans (and maybe even some Democrats) have moved to the right over the years, without realising how they’ve been affected by the terms of the discourse being shifted rightward by TeaPartyites et al. As far as I can tell, this doesn’t seem to have happened to McKT, and he is at least trying to engage with what he appears to see as a bunch of lefties, but I would like to know if he or anybody else can give an example of any way in which the “liberal left” have taken up or tolerate loony left attitudes, in the same way the “reasonable right” now seem happy to hear right wing candidates, for example, cast doubt on evolution, global warming etc without standing up and saying this is the slippery slope to science-denying, theocratic lunacy.
It’s True Believers who are the problem. The real point is that, excluding the far extremes of left and right, most people (and certainly as far as I can tell everyone on ObWi) are decent types, who aren’t too far apart when it really comes down to it, as wj noted upthread:
OK, we’ve got McKinney and Russell (and me!) on the same page about what ought to happen. That’s as close to concensus as we are likely to get. Congratulations to all.
It’s fun and endlessly interesting to hash out the differences between all our individual ideologies, to the extent we even have ideologies, and IRL I have several friends who are right-wing, and several who are leftish, or even Corbynistas (no proper dyed-in-the-wool Marxists anymore, I don’t think), and we do just that.
But what’s scary to me about what happens in the US is to see the way that reasonable Republicans (and maybe even some Democrats) have moved to the right over the years, without realising how they’ve been affected by the terms of the discourse being shifted rightward by TeaPartyites et al. As far as I can tell, this doesn’t seem to have happened to McKT, and he is at least trying to engage with what he appears to see as a bunch of lefties, but I would like to know if he or anybody else can give an example of any way in which the “liberal left” have taken up or tolerate loony left attitudes, in the same way the “reasonable right” now seem happy to hear right wing candidates, for example, cast doubt on evolution, global warming etc without standing up and saying this is the slippery slope to science-denying, theocratic lunacy.
My references to the Jamie Leigh Jones case may get a little tireseome after a while.
I have no problem saying my gut reaction in the Jones case was that Bortz was guilty. Also, I found the claim that KBR had held her against her will to be credible.
And, I have no problem saying that, once the facts were publicly available, I recognized that my gut reaction was wrong.
People are prone to making snap judgements, based on any of 10,000 factors, including temperament, personal history, political and other acculturation, and what mood they’re in that day.
Not a left thing, not a right thing. Just at thing.
Assuming that someone holds a particular point of view just because they seem to be of one political persuasion or another *is an example of such a snap judgement*.
If you want to be persuasive, address the particular argument that someone makes.
If you just want to b*tch about lefties, carry one.
You probably can’t have both.
My references to the Jamie Leigh Jones case may get a little tireseome after a while.
I have no problem saying my gut reaction in the Jones case was that Bortz was guilty. Also, I found the claim that KBR had held her against her will to be credible.
And, I have no problem saying that, once the facts were publicly available, I recognized that my gut reaction was wrong.
People are prone to making snap judgements, based on any of 10,000 factors, including temperament, personal history, political and other acculturation, and what mood they’re in that day.
Not a left thing, not a right thing. Just at thing.
Assuming that someone holds a particular point of view just because they seem to be of one political persuasion or another *is an example of such a snap judgement*.
If you want to be persuasive, address the particular argument that someone makes.
If you just want to b*tch about lefties, carry one.
You probably can’t have both.
My references to the Jamie Leigh Jones case may get a little tireseome after a while.
I have no problem saying my gut reaction in the Jones case was that Bortz was guilty. Also, I found the claim that KBR had held her against her will to be credible.
And, I have no problem saying that, once the facts were publicly available, I recognized that my gut reaction was wrong.
People are prone to making snap judgements, based on any of 10,000 factors, including temperament, personal history, political and other acculturation, and what mood they’re in that day.
Not a left thing, not a right thing. Just at thing.
Assuming that someone holds a particular point of view just because they seem to be of one political persuasion or another *is an example of such a snap judgement*.
If you want to be persuasive, address the particular argument that someone makes.
If you just want to b*tch about lefties, carry one.
You probably can’t have both.
“carry on”, not “carry one”.
🙁
carrying lefties – not convenient.
“carry on”, not “carry one”.
🙁
carrying lefties – not convenient.
“carry on”, not “carry one”.
🙁
carrying lefties – not convenient.
truly, you can never know how bad lefties really are until you’ve carried one.
truly, you can never know how bad lefties really are until you’ve carried one.
truly, you can never know how bad lefties really are until you’ve carried one.
VW’s latest small TDI engine, the EA288, which went into 2015 model year Golfs, Jettas, Passats, and Beetles (and Audi A3s, presumably), employs an urea emissions system like those used to clean larger diesel engines…
Reading your (very interesting) link, it seems that the new engine design is modular, and can use the urea (SCR) system, but doesn’t necessarily do so.
Balancing the system throughout the engine load/temperature range looks very complicated indeed.
VW’s latest small TDI engine, the EA288, which went into 2015 model year Golfs, Jettas, Passats, and Beetles (and Audi A3s, presumably), employs an urea emissions system like those used to clean larger diesel engines…
Reading your (very interesting) link, it seems that the new engine design is modular, and can use the urea (SCR) system, but doesn’t necessarily do so.
Balancing the system throughout the engine load/temperature range looks very complicated indeed.
VW’s latest small TDI engine, the EA288, which went into 2015 model year Golfs, Jettas, Passats, and Beetles (and Audi A3s, presumably), employs an urea emissions system like those used to clean larger diesel engines…
Reading your (very interesting) link, it seems that the new engine design is modular, and can use the urea (SCR) system, but doesn’t necessarily do so.
Balancing the system throughout the engine load/temperature range looks very complicated indeed.
If you just want to b*tch about lefties, carry one.
I prefer that formulation.
Imposes a reasonable hurdle.
If you just want to b*tch about lefties, carry one.
I prefer that formulation.
Imposes a reasonable hurdle.
If you just want to b*tch about lefties, carry one.
I prefer that formulation.
Imposes a reasonable hurdle.
“maybe it had one of those trick gauges that hovers near the top of the range for a lot longer than it should before plummeting towards E with astonishing velocity.”
I suspected the same, until I filled it up. Then it was “WTF? 2.5 liters? is that ALL it used?”
“maybe it had one of those trick gauges that hovers near the top of the range for a lot longer than it should before plummeting towards E with astonishing velocity.”
I suspected the same, until I filled it up. Then it was “WTF? 2.5 liters? is that ALL it used?”
“maybe it had one of those trick gauges that hovers near the top of the range for a lot longer than it should before plummeting towards E with astonishing velocity.”
I suspected the same, until I filled it up. Then it was “WTF? 2.5 liters? is that ALL it used?”
CARB’s letter to VW (http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/in_use_compliance_letter.htm) is clear that they tested GEN 1 (EA189 engine without SCR), GEN 2 (EA189 engine with SCR), which both failed, but not clear if they tested GEN 3 (EA288 with SCR). They’d have mentioned it if they had. Anyway, VW then admitted that GENS 1, 2, and 3 all made use of the ECU cheat, which is not permitted.
I haven’t been able to learn whether or not the EA288 has been tested or not, so it’s possible that that engine, minus the cheat, may comply with the regulations (once the defeat device is removed).
After the past week, if the EA288 emits anything other than rainbows and bourbon, it’s probably a lost cause.
CARB’s letter to VW (http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/in_use_compliance_letter.htm) is clear that they tested GEN 1 (EA189 engine without SCR), GEN 2 (EA189 engine with SCR), which both failed, but not clear if they tested GEN 3 (EA288 with SCR). They’d have mentioned it if they had. Anyway, VW then admitted that GENS 1, 2, and 3 all made use of the ECU cheat, which is not permitted.
I haven’t been able to learn whether or not the EA288 has been tested or not, so it’s possible that that engine, minus the cheat, may comply with the regulations (once the defeat device is removed).
After the past week, if the EA288 emits anything other than rainbows and bourbon, it’s probably a lost cause.
CARB’s letter to VW (http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/in_use_compliance_letter.htm) is clear that they tested GEN 1 (EA189 engine without SCR), GEN 2 (EA189 engine with SCR), which both failed, but not clear if they tested GEN 3 (EA288 with SCR). They’d have mentioned it if they had. Anyway, VW then admitted that GENS 1, 2, and 3 all made use of the ECU cheat, which is not permitted.
I haven’t been able to learn whether or not the EA288 has been tested or not, so it’s possible that that engine, minus the cheat, may comply with the regulations (once the defeat device is removed).
After the past week, if the EA288 emits anything other than rainbows and bourbon, it’s probably a lost cause.
Well, actually, you are in a bit of a place of responsibility. My references to the Jamie Leigh Jones case may get a little tireseome after a while. Fine. The fact is, the blogosphere was relentlessly demanding Charles Bortz’ (and KBR’s) head. That meme found its way into the MSM. It was taken as a given that Bortz raped Jones.
You can keep reference the Jones case all you want, I actually like it quite a bit as an example of just what you’re saying here, along with the McDonalds hot-coffee case. But what you’re saying is that private individuals need to refrain from expressing opinions on matters of public concern, or at least opinions that are open for anyone to read (e.g., on a blog, twitter), until there’s been an exhaustive investigations of the facts by a neutral tribunal (or a guilty plea or whatever). When has that ever been the case?
but what was not minimal was the number of people who came up to my wife and asked her why her husband would defend a rapist.
And those people are scum, for multiple reasons. But bashing defense attorneys and (sadly) their families is hardly some kind of recent development with the advent of the internet. And most certainly is not the sole province of the left, as has been pointed out multiple times upthread.
Well, actually, you are in a bit of a place of responsibility. My references to the Jamie Leigh Jones case may get a little tireseome after a while. Fine. The fact is, the blogosphere was relentlessly demanding Charles Bortz’ (and KBR’s) head. That meme found its way into the MSM. It was taken as a given that Bortz raped Jones.
You can keep reference the Jones case all you want, I actually like it quite a bit as an example of just what you’re saying here, along with the McDonalds hot-coffee case. But what you’re saying is that private individuals need to refrain from expressing opinions on matters of public concern, or at least opinions that are open for anyone to read (e.g., on a blog, twitter), until there’s been an exhaustive investigations of the facts by a neutral tribunal (or a guilty plea or whatever). When has that ever been the case?
but what was not minimal was the number of people who came up to my wife and asked her why her husband would defend a rapist.
And those people are scum, for multiple reasons. But bashing defense attorneys and (sadly) their families is hardly some kind of recent development with the advent of the internet. And most certainly is not the sole province of the left, as has been pointed out multiple times upthread.
Well, actually, you are in a bit of a place of responsibility. My references to the Jamie Leigh Jones case may get a little tireseome after a while. Fine. The fact is, the blogosphere was relentlessly demanding Charles Bortz’ (and KBR’s) head. That meme found its way into the MSM. It was taken as a given that Bortz raped Jones.
You can keep reference the Jones case all you want, I actually like it quite a bit as an example of just what you’re saying here, along with the McDonalds hot-coffee case. But what you’re saying is that private individuals need to refrain from expressing opinions on matters of public concern, or at least opinions that are open for anyone to read (e.g., on a blog, twitter), until there’s been an exhaustive investigations of the facts by a neutral tribunal (or a guilty plea or whatever). When has that ever been the case?
but what was not minimal was the number of people who came up to my wife and asked her why her husband would defend a rapist.
And those people are scum, for multiple reasons. But bashing defense attorneys and (sadly) their families is hardly some kind of recent development with the advent of the internet. And most certainly is not the sole province of the left, as has been pointed out multiple times upthread.
Volkswagen has apparently been deliberately and flagrantly cheating on its nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions for years. How the car giant thought it could get away with this scam boggles the mind. There is no way to describe its actions other than stupid, arrogant, and probably criminal.
But here’s the thing: The whole episode should call as much attention to the Environmental Protection Agency’s unrealistic, even crazy, car emissions standards — the toughest in the world — as VW’s flouting of them. Indeed, VW’s scam might be a harbinger of things to come if the EPA itself is not curbed.
[…]
Volkwagen’s unethical emissions scam is partly the government’s fault
Volkswagen has apparently been deliberately and flagrantly cheating on its nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions for years. How the car giant thought it could get away with this scam boggles the mind. There is no way to describe its actions other than stupid, arrogant, and probably criminal.
But here’s the thing: The whole episode should call as much attention to the Environmental Protection Agency’s unrealistic, even crazy, car emissions standards — the toughest in the world — as VW’s flouting of them. Indeed, VW’s scam might be a harbinger of things to come if the EPA itself is not curbed.
[…]
Volkwagen’s unethical emissions scam is partly the government’s fault
Volkswagen has apparently been deliberately and flagrantly cheating on its nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions for years. How the car giant thought it could get away with this scam boggles the mind. There is no way to describe its actions other than stupid, arrogant, and probably criminal.
But here’s the thing: The whole episode should call as much attention to the Environmental Protection Agency’s unrealistic, even crazy, car emissions standards — the toughest in the world — as VW’s flouting of them. Indeed, VW’s scam might be a harbinger of things to come if the EPA itself is not curbed.
[…]
Volkwagen’s unethical emissions scam is partly the government’s fault
but I would like to know if he or anybody else can give an example of any way in which the “liberal left” have taken up or tolerate loony left attitudes, in the same way the “reasonable right” now seem happy to hear right wing candidates, for example, cast doubt on evolution, global warming etc without standing up and saying this is the slippery slope to science-denying, theocratic lunacy.
Off the top of my head, I think a lot of the campus left wing stuff (speech codes, safe places, yes means yes) is pretty scary and the adult left is pretty much mute.
I think the left’s perception of how conservatives see evolution (a separate thread), global warming/climate change and the church/state split is skewed.
I know plenty of conservatives who agree that evolution is a purely natural process unaffected by any external, guiding hand and others, me for example, who look at the evidence of, for example, human evolution, and conclude that some kind of external assist or boost was needed to evolve the most complex animal on the planet over a period of–depending how you count these things–200,000 years from a population that was so small it can hardly be detected and is mostly inferred (which runs counter to the theory of natural selection which requires a large population from which the occasional favorable mutation is passed on and becomes a dominant gene because it enhances survival).
Most folks I talk to who “know” humans evolved from earlier hominids are quite convinced that our immediate ancestor was neanderthal. In fact, the scientifi consensus, if there is one, seems to be that neanderthal and modern humans split from an unknown (erectus? ergaster? heidelbergensis?) common ancestor 450,000 to 700,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans pop up 200,000 years ago, they say, using the same tool kit as erectus, ergaster and all the rest, an Achulean hand ax. Neanderthal evolves in Europe, modern humans in Africa, and either they interbreed during their brief common cohabitation (Max Plank) or they were incapable of interbreeding (NY Museum of Natural History). Oddly, the interbreeding phase, if it occurred, was about the same time and same place (Europe) anatomically modern man underwent the first identifiable sea change in their tool kit, social organization etc, about 40,000 years ago, give or take (so what the hell happened during that other 160,000 years?).
200,000 is really fast evolving from a really, really small population that we believe was the smartest, best adapted animal on the planet yet the population remained vanishingly small for 160,000 years.
To some on the left, even raising these questions makes me a religious fundamentalist.
The few people I know who believe in the Garden of Eden and that the earth is 6000 or whatever years old, well, that’s a very small minority.
RE global warming: I was told to call it climate change. The sea has been rising since the last ice age ended. The planet is getting warmer overall with periods of cooling. Humans cover the planet like lice. It would be passing strange if humans were not contributing to the warming process. Where we part company is the solution, and there are those who sound rather alarming alarms, many of which have not come true and therefore, there is skepticism as to subparts of what some climate scientists predict will happen and when and to what extent.
I know a number of people who think that there ought to be prayer in school. My response–and they never get my point–is that I agree, we ought to have prayer in school and that prayer should be from the Book of Common Prayer and nowhere else.
When I say, if we can’t my prayer, and I don’t want your prayer, the fair thing is no prayer, the response is usually an awkward silence (not awkward for me).
Which is why I like our constitution. The courts push back on this stuff, just like they push back on limits on speech.
but I would like to know if he or anybody else can give an example of any way in which the “liberal left” have taken up or tolerate loony left attitudes, in the same way the “reasonable right” now seem happy to hear right wing candidates, for example, cast doubt on evolution, global warming etc without standing up and saying this is the slippery slope to science-denying, theocratic lunacy.
Off the top of my head, I think a lot of the campus left wing stuff (speech codes, safe places, yes means yes) is pretty scary and the adult left is pretty much mute.
I think the left’s perception of how conservatives see evolution (a separate thread), global warming/climate change and the church/state split is skewed.
I know plenty of conservatives who agree that evolution is a purely natural process unaffected by any external, guiding hand and others, me for example, who look at the evidence of, for example, human evolution, and conclude that some kind of external assist or boost was needed to evolve the most complex animal on the planet over a period of–depending how you count these things–200,000 years from a population that was so small it can hardly be detected and is mostly inferred (which runs counter to the theory of natural selection which requires a large population from which the occasional favorable mutation is passed on and becomes a dominant gene because it enhances survival).
Most folks I talk to who “know” humans evolved from earlier hominids are quite convinced that our immediate ancestor was neanderthal. In fact, the scientifi consensus, if there is one, seems to be that neanderthal and modern humans split from an unknown (erectus? ergaster? heidelbergensis?) common ancestor 450,000 to 700,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans pop up 200,000 years ago, they say, using the same tool kit as erectus, ergaster and all the rest, an Achulean hand ax. Neanderthal evolves in Europe, modern humans in Africa, and either they interbreed during their brief common cohabitation (Max Plank) or they were incapable of interbreeding (NY Museum of Natural History). Oddly, the interbreeding phase, if it occurred, was about the same time and same place (Europe) anatomically modern man underwent the first identifiable sea change in their tool kit, social organization etc, about 40,000 years ago, give or take (so what the hell happened during that other 160,000 years?).
200,000 is really fast evolving from a really, really small population that we believe was the smartest, best adapted animal on the planet yet the population remained vanishingly small for 160,000 years.
To some on the left, even raising these questions makes me a religious fundamentalist.
The few people I know who believe in the Garden of Eden and that the earth is 6000 or whatever years old, well, that’s a very small minority.
RE global warming: I was told to call it climate change. The sea has been rising since the last ice age ended. The planet is getting warmer overall with periods of cooling. Humans cover the planet like lice. It would be passing strange if humans were not contributing to the warming process. Where we part company is the solution, and there are those who sound rather alarming alarms, many of which have not come true and therefore, there is skepticism as to subparts of what some climate scientists predict will happen and when and to what extent.
I know a number of people who think that there ought to be prayer in school. My response–and they never get my point–is that I agree, we ought to have prayer in school and that prayer should be from the Book of Common Prayer and nowhere else.
When I say, if we can’t my prayer, and I don’t want your prayer, the fair thing is no prayer, the response is usually an awkward silence (not awkward for me).
Which is why I like our constitution. The courts push back on this stuff, just like they push back on limits on speech.
but I would like to know if he or anybody else can give an example of any way in which the “liberal left” have taken up or tolerate loony left attitudes, in the same way the “reasonable right” now seem happy to hear right wing candidates, for example, cast doubt on evolution, global warming etc without standing up and saying this is the slippery slope to science-denying, theocratic lunacy.
Off the top of my head, I think a lot of the campus left wing stuff (speech codes, safe places, yes means yes) is pretty scary and the adult left is pretty much mute.
I think the left’s perception of how conservatives see evolution (a separate thread), global warming/climate change and the church/state split is skewed.
I know plenty of conservatives who agree that evolution is a purely natural process unaffected by any external, guiding hand and others, me for example, who look at the evidence of, for example, human evolution, and conclude that some kind of external assist or boost was needed to evolve the most complex animal on the planet over a period of–depending how you count these things–200,000 years from a population that was so small it can hardly be detected and is mostly inferred (which runs counter to the theory of natural selection which requires a large population from which the occasional favorable mutation is passed on and becomes a dominant gene because it enhances survival).
Most folks I talk to who “know” humans evolved from earlier hominids are quite convinced that our immediate ancestor was neanderthal. In fact, the scientifi consensus, if there is one, seems to be that neanderthal and modern humans split from an unknown (erectus? ergaster? heidelbergensis?) common ancestor 450,000 to 700,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans pop up 200,000 years ago, they say, using the same tool kit as erectus, ergaster and all the rest, an Achulean hand ax. Neanderthal evolves in Europe, modern humans in Africa, and either they interbreed during their brief common cohabitation (Max Plank) or they were incapable of interbreeding (NY Museum of Natural History). Oddly, the interbreeding phase, if it occurred, was about the same time and same place (Europe) anatomically modern man underwent the first identifiable sea change in their tool kit, social organization etc, about 40,000 years ago, give or take (so what the hell happened during that other 160,000 years?).
200,000 is really fast evolving from a really, really small population that we believe was the smartest, best adapted animal on the planet yet the population remained vanishingly small for 160,000 years.
To some on the left, even raising these questions makes me a religious fundamentalist.
The few people I know who believe in the Garden of Eden and that the earth is 6000 or whatever years old, well, that’s a very small minority.
RE global warming: I was told to call it climate change. The sea has been rising since the last ice age ended. The planet is getting warmer overall with periods of cooling. Humans cover the planet like lice. It would be passing strange if humans were not contributing to the warming process. Where we part company is the solution, and there are those who sound rather alarming alarms, many of which have not come true and therefore, there is skepticism as to subparts of what some climate scientists predict will happen and when and to what extent.
I know a number of people who think that there ought to be prayer in school. My response–and they never get my point–is that I agree, we ought to have prayer in school and that prayer should be from the Book of Common Prayer and nowhere else.
When I say, if we can’t my prayer, and I don’t want your prayer, the fair thing is no prayer, the response is usually an awkward silence (not awkward for me).
Which is why I like our constitution. The courts push back on this stuff, just like they push back on limits on speech.
And most certainly is not the sole province of the left
see also: the right’s eternal white-hot hatred of the ACLU.
And most certainly is not the sole province of the left
see also: the right’s eternal white-hot hatred of the ACLU.
And most certainly is not the sole province of the left
see also: the right’s eternal white-hot hatred of the ACLU.
But what you’re saying is that private individuals need to refrain from expressing opinions on matters of public concern, or at least opinions that are open for anyone to read (e.g., on a blog, twitter), until there’s been an exhaustive investigations of the facts by a neutral tribunal (or a guilty plea or whatever). When has that ever been the case?
I’m pretty sure that’s not what I’m saying. I’m pretty sure that what I’m saying is consistent for the 10 plus years I’ve been hanging out here: wait for the investigation, wait for the evidence, then decide.
Everybody likes to get hot and bothered about stuff that makes them itch. We’ve seen too many busts and no one seems to have learned any lessons. That said, it now appears that VW–as a company–had a chance to do the right thing and went the other way. I’m comfortable saying that if that’s what the evidence bears out, it needs its ass hammered. As for individuals within the company, care needs to be taken that the innocent are not swept up with the guilty.
But what you’re saying is that private individuals need to refrain from expressing opinions on matters of public concern, or at least opinions that are open for anyone to read (e.g., on a blog, twitter), until there’s been an exhaustive investigations of the facts by a neutral tribunal (or a guilty plea or whatever). When has that ever been the case?
I’m pretty sure that’s not what I’m saying. I’m pretty sure that what I’m saying is consistent for the 10 plus years I’ve been hanging out here: wait for the investigation, wait for the evidence, then decide.
Everybody likes to get hot and bothered about stuff that makes them itch. We’ve seen too many busts and no one seems to have learned any lessons. That said, it now appears that VW–as a company–had a chance to do the right thing and went the other way. I’m comfortable saying that if that’s what the evidence bears out, it needs its ass hammered. As for individuals within the company, care needs to be taken that the innocent are not swept up with the guilty.
But what you’re saying is that private individuals need to refrain from expressing opinions on matters of public concern, or at least opinions that are open for anyone to read (e.g., on a blog, twitter), until there’s been an exhaustive investigations of the facts by a neutral tribunal (or a guilty plea or whatever). When has that ever been the case?
I’m pretty sure that’s not what I’m saying. I’m pretty sure that what I’m saying is consistent for the 10 plus years I’ve been hanging out here: wait for the investigation, wait for the evidence, then decide.
Everybody likes to get hot and bothered about stuff that makes them itch. We’ve seen too many busts and no one seems to have learned any lessons. That said, it now appears that VW–as a company–had a chance to do the right thing and went the other way. I’m comfortable saying that if that’s what the evidence bears out, it needs its ass hammered. As for individuals within the company, care needs to be taken that the innocent are not swept up with the guilty.
everybody’s a climatologist. except actual climatologists: they’re frauds. same for evolutionary biologists.
but don’t call it science-denying !
everybody’s a climatologist. except actual climatologists: they’re frauds. same for evolutionary biologists.
but don’t call it science-denying !
everybody’s a climatologist. except actual climatologists: they’re frauds. same for evolutionary biologists.
but don’t call it science-denying !
There is a difference between getting some details wrong (Neanderthal man as our ancestor) and making one’s denial of evolution a central part of one’s election campaign. And see presidential (primary) candidates squirm and weasel* on camera when asked about it (most recently Scott Walker in Britain). To be a known or even just suspected ‘evolutionist’ can be lethal in the modern GOP.
*my apology for using a noun as a verb but those guys deserve no better.
There is a difference between getting some details wrong (Neanderthal man as our ancestor) and making one’s denial of evolution a central part of one’s election campaign. And see presidential (primary) candidates squirm and weasel* on camera when asked about it (most recently Scott Walker in Britain). To be a known or even just suspected ‘evolutionist’ can be lethal in the modern GOP.
*my apology for using a noun as a verb but those guys deserve no better.
There is a difference between getting some details wrong (Neanderthal man as our ancestor) and making one’s denial of evolution a central part of one’s election campaign. And see presidential (primary) candidates squirm and weasel* on camera when asked about it (most recently Scott Walker in Britain). To be a known or even just suspected ‘evolutionist’ can be lethal in the modern GOP.
*my apology for using a noun as a verb but those guys deserve no better.
‘weasel’ is a perfectly acceptable verb!
‘weasel’ is a perfectly acceptable verb!
‘weasel’ is a perfectly acceptable verb!
same for evolutionary biologists.
… my own dear father, middle-of-the-road lover of lemurs, for example: he just cannot accept that the ancestors of lemurs got to Madagascar from Africa by riding driftwood (or natural rafts of whatever composition). and this throws all of evolution into doubt for him.
doctrinaire intolerant code-enforcing lefty that i am, i’ve decided that we should just not talk about evolution any more.
same for evolutionary biologists.
… my own dear father, middle-of-the-road lover of lemurs, for example: he just cannot accept that the ancestors of lemurs got to Madagascar from Africa by riding driftwood (or natural rafts of whatever composition). and this throws all of evolution into doubt for him.
doctrinaire intolerant code-enforcing lefty that i am, i’ve decided that we should just not talk about evolution any more.
same for evolutionary biologists.
… my own dear father, middle-of-the-road lover of lemurs, for example: he just cannot accept that the ancestors of lemurs got to Madagascar from Africa by riding driftwood (or natural rafts of whatever composition). and this throws all of evolution into doubt for him.
doctrinaire intolerant code-enforcing lefty that i am, i’ve decided that we should just not talk about evolution any more.
“Volkwagen’s unethical emissions scam is partly the government’s fault”
From the article:
“The problem for car makers is that they can’t simultaneously satisfy such regulatory edicts and consumer demand.”
That was precisely the automakers’ pleading for 20 years regarding seat belts and airbags.
and …..
“Congress will no doubt hold hearings to look into VW’s shenanigans. Fine. VW deserves it — if for no other reason than it scammed customers and taxpayers, and obtained an unfair advantage over competitors. But if Congress really wants to address the root of the problem, it should curb EPA’s regulatory authority.
That would be a cause worthy of shutting down the government.”
Yes, shutting down the national parks, the Defense Department, and halting food stamps as a result of VW’s pleading that the government made them do it sounds suspiciously like accused liberals taking everyone at VW, including the janitors and the piano player, out back to be shot.
Further, the practice of shutting down the government every single f*cking year over one’s pet kink may in fact prove the direct lineage of at least some humans to the Neanderthals.
Have you (anyone) ever tried to carry a Neanderthal? Best to lift with your legs and then drop them from a high place.
I’ve suggested instituting an Olympic event involving throwing the above mentioned Neanderthals, but the head of the little people’s union, Scott Walker, objected that he’d be completely out of a job, although he conceded that it was a sufficiently politically incorrect notion to base a political campaign on.
“Volkwagen’s unethical emissions scam is partly the government’s fault”
From the article:
“The problem for car makers is that they can’t simultaneously satisfy such regulatory edicts and consumer demand.”
That was precisely the automakers’ pleading for 20 years regarding seat belts and airbags.
and …..
“Congress will no doubt hold hearings to look into VW’s shenanigans. Fine. VW deserves it — if for no other reason than it scammed customers and taxpayers, and obtained an unfair advantage over competitors. But if Congress really wants to address the root of the problem, it should curb EPA’s regulatory authority.
That would be a cause worthy of shutting down the government.”
Yes, shutting down the national parks, the Defense Department, and halting food stamps as a result of VW’s pleading that the government made them do it sounds suspiciously like accused liberals taking everyone at VW, including the janitors and the piano player, out back to be shot.
Further, the practice of shutting down the government every single f*cking year over one’s pet kink may in fact prove the direct lineage of at least some humans to the Neanderthals.
Have you (anyone) ever tried to carry a Neanderthal? Best to lift with your legs and then drop them from a high place.
I’ve suggested instituting an Olympic event involving throwing the above mentioned Neanderthals, but the head of the little people’s union, Scott Walker, objected that he’d be completely out of a job, although he conceded that it was a sufficiently politically incorrect notion to base a political campaign on.
“Volkwagen’s unethical emissions scam is partly the government’s fault”
From the article:
“The problem for car makers is that they can’t simultaneously satisfy such regulatory edicts and consumer demand.”
That was precisely the automakers’ pleading for 20 years regarding seat belts and airbags.
and …..
“Congress will no doubt hold hearings to look into VW’s shenanigans. Fine. VW deserves it — if for no other reason than it scammed customers and taxpayers, and obtained an unfair advantage over competitors. But if Congress really wants to address the root of the problem, it should curb EPA’s regulatory authority.
That would be a cause worthy of shutting down the government.”
Yes, shutting down the national parks, the Defense Department, and halting food stamps as a result of VW’s pleading that the government made them do it sounds suspiciously like accused liberals taking everyone at VW, including the janitors and the piano player, out back to be shot.
Further, the practice of shutting down the government every single f*cking year over one’s pet kink may in fact prove the direct lineage of at least some humans to the Neanderthals.
Have you (anyone) ever tried to carry a Neanderthal? Best to lift with your legs and then drop them from a high place.
I’ve suggested instituting an Olympic event involving throwing the above mentioned Neanderthals, but the head of the little people’s union, Scott Walker, objected that he’d be completely out of a job, although he conceded that it was a sufficiently politically incorrect notion to base a political campaign on.
Off the top of my head, I think a lot of the campus left wing stuff (speech codes, safe places, yes means yes) is pretty scary and the adult left is pretty much mute.
I’m generally mute on campus dramas, for the same reason I’m generally mute on the big issues of the day in middle schools.
They’re hothouse environments. The things that are important there are largely particular to those communities and the people who participate in them.
To some on the left,
“Some on the left” would like to see everyone adopt a vegan diet and only wear shoes made from hemp.
I can introduce you to some of those folks, if you’re interested.
Is that going to have any effect whatsoever on what you eat for lunch today, or wear on your feet?
“Some on the left” here is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Nobody really cares if someone believes in evolution or not. People do care if their kids are not going to be taught about evolution in their science classroom. Or, if they *are* going to be taught theistic creationism in their science classroom, *because that isn’t science*.
Other than maybe Al Gore and my minister, there aren’t that many people who think NYC is going to be underwater in our lifetimes, or our great-great-great-grandkids lifetimes. A lot of people, including apparently you, *do* think that humans contribute to changes in climate, and would like to do any of the 87,298 things we could do to mitigate that.
The reason that’s a left-right thing, at all, has bugger all to do with the science, and lots to do with right-wing animosity toward increasing the scope or reach of the public sphere.
So I see it as a conservative problem, rather than the other way around.
Anybody who wants to pray or read the Bible in school can do so. People do it every day. What folks object to is *being required* to do so.
Again, there’s nothing left or right about it. If anything, no required prayer or religious practice in public schools really should be a rallying cry of the libertarians among us.
Off the top of my head, I think a lot of the campus left wing stuff (speech codes, safe places, yes means yes) is pretty scary and the adult left is pretty much mute.
I’m generally mute on campus dramas, for the same reason I’m generally mute on the big issues of the day in middle schools.
They’re hothouse environments. The things that are important there are largely particular to those communities and the people who participate in them.
To some on the left,
“Some on the left” would like to see everyone adopt a vegan diet and only wear shoes made from hemp.
I can introduce you to some of those folks, if you’re interested.
Is that going to have any effect whatsoever on what you eat for lunch today, or wear on your feet?
“Some on the left” here is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Nobody really cares if someone believes in evolution or not. People do care if their kids are not going to be taught about evolution in their science classroom. Or, if they *are* going to be taught theistic creationism in their science classroom, *because that isn’t science*.
Other than maybe Al Gore and my minister, there aren’t that many people who think NYC is going to be underwater in our lifetimes, or our great-great-great-grandkids lifetimes. A lot of people, including apparently you, *do* think that humans contribute to changes in climate, and would like to do any of the 87,298 things we could do to mitigate that.
The reason that’s a left-right thing, at all, has bugger all to do with the science, and lots to do with right-wing animosity toward increasing the scope or reach of the public sphere.
So I see it as a conservative problem, rather than the other way around.
Anybody who wants to pray or read the Bible in school can do so. People do it every day. What folks object to is *being required* to do so.
Again, there’s nothing left or right about it. If anything, no required prayer or religious practice in public schools really should be a rallying cry of the libertarians among us.
Off the top of my head, I think a lot of the campus left wing stuff (speech codes, safe places, yes means yes) is pretty scary and the adult left is pretty much mute.
I’m generally mute on campus dramas, for the same reason I’m generally mute on the big issues of the day in middle schools.
They’re hothouse environments. The things that are important there are largely particular to those communities and the people who participate in them.
To some on the left,
“Some on the left” would like to see everyone adopt a vegan diet and only wear shoes made from hemp.
I can introduce you to some of those folks, if you’re interested.
Is that going to have any effect whatsoever on what you eat for lunch today, or wear on your feet?
“Some on the left” here is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Nobody really cares if someone believes in evolution or not. People do care if their kids are not going to be taught about evolution in their science classroom. Or, if they *are* going to be taught theistic creationism in their science classroom, *because that isn’t science*.
Other than maybe Al Gore and my minister, there aren’t that many people who think NYC is going to be underwater in our lifetimes, or our great-great-great-grandkids lifetimes. A lot of people, including apparently you, *do* think that humans contribute to changes in climate, and would like to do any of the 87,298 things we could do to mitigate that.
The reason that’s a left-right thing, at all, has bugger all to do with the science, and lots to do with right-wing animosity toward increasing the scope or reach of the public sphere.
So I see it as a conservative problem, rather than the other way around.
Anybody who wants to pray or read the Bible in school can do so. People do it every day. What folks object to is *being required* to do so.
Again, there’s nothing left or right about it. If anything, no required prayer or religious practice in public schools really should be a rallying cry of the libertarians among us.
There is a difference between getting some details wrong (Neanderthal man as our ancestor)
The National Geographic Genome Project tells me that I am, genetically, somewhere around 5% Neanderthal.
Which, I guess, is a little bit high. Which, in turn, perhaps explains a few things, but I digress.
A little Denisovan sprinkled in there, too.
As a lefty, I feel obliged to embrace and celebrate the diversity of my hominid forebears.
There is a difference between getting some details wrong (Neanderthal man as our ancestor)
The National Geographic Genome Project tells me that I am, genetically, somewhere around 5% Neanderthal.
Which, I guess, is a little bit high. Which, in turn, perhaps explains a few things, but I digress.
A little Denisovan sprinkled in there, too.
As a lefty, I feel obliged to embrace and celebrate the diversity of my hominid forebears.
There is a difference between getting some details wrong (Neanderthal man as our ancestor)
The National Geographic Genome Project tells me that I am, genetically, somewhere around 5% Neanderthal.
Which, I guess, is a little bit high. Which, in turn, perhaps explains a few things, but I digress.
A little Denisovan sprinkled in there, too.
As a lefty, I feel obliged to embrace and celebrate the diversity of my hominid forebears.
The problem for car makers is that they can’t simultaneously satisfy such regulatory edicts and consumer demand
Life’s a b*tch, ain’t it?
The problem for car makers is that they can’t simultaneously satisfy such regulatory edicts and consumer demand
Life’s a b*tch, ain’t it?
The problem for car makers is that they can’t simultaneously satisfy such regulatory edicts and consumer demand
Life’s a b*tch, ain’t it?
To some on the left, even raising these questions makes me a religious fundamentalist.
I don’t think you’re a religious fundamentalist, McKinney, and I thought I had specifically excepted you from the kind of “reasonable right” I was talking about, partly because you did stand up and e.g. condemn Cruz, with reasons relating to his attitudes to abortion, after the first debate. Maybe I wasn’t clear. (Separate thread on evolution, although FWIW I believe recent DNA analysis proves most humans with the exception of sub-Saharans DO have some Neanderthal DNA).
Regarding your examples of left-loony orthodoxy supinely unchallenged by the liberal left, I can certainly see that some of it is inherently problematic, but on the other hand it is not as problematic as the stuff it is attempting to address, some of which stuff has decades or centuries of widely accepted bigotry, misogyny etc propping it up. And it seems to me that everyone, on every side is discussing it, including the problems. All of this is undoubtedly a work in progress, and while you might call this special pleading I don’t think the same (work in progress) can be said for some of the supine acceptance of e.g. science-denial, or rhetoric on immigration, we see on the right.
To some on the left, even raising these questions makes me a religious fundamentalist.
I don’t think you’re a religious fundamentalist, McKinney, and I thought I had specifically excepted you from the kind of “reasonable right” I was talking about, partly because you did stand up and e.g. condemn Cruz, with reasons relating to his attitudes to abortion, after the first debate. Maybe I wasn’t clear. (Separate thread on evolution, although FWIW I believe recent DNA analysis proves most humans with the exception of sub-Saharans DO have some Neanderthal DNA).
Regarding your examples of left-loony orthodoxy supinely unchallenged by the liberal left, I can certainly see that some of it is inherently problematic, but on the other hand it is not as problematic as the stuff it is attempting to address, some of which stuff has decades or centuries of widely accepted bigotry, misogyny etc propping it up. And it seems to me that everyone, on every side is discussing it, including the problems. All of this is undoubtedly a work in progress, and while you might call this special pleading I don’t think the same (work in progress) can be said for some of the supine acceptance of e.g. science-denial, or rhetoric on immigration, we see on the right.
To some on the left, even raising these questions makes me a religious fundamentalist.
I don’t think you’re a religious fundamentalist, McKinney, and I thought I had specifically excepted you from the kind of “reasonable right” I was talking about, partly because you did stand up and e.g. condemn Cruz, with reasons relating to his attitudes to abortion, after the first debate. Maybe I wasn’t clear. (Separate thread on evolution, although FWIW I believe recent DNA analysis proves most humans with the exception of sub-Saharans DO have some Neanderthal DNA).
Regarding your examples of left-loony orthodoxy supinely unchallenged by the liberal left, I can certainly see that some of it is inherently problematic, but on the other hand it is not as problematic as the stuff it is attempting to address, some of which stuff has decades or centuries of widely accepted bigotry, misogyny etc propping it up. And it seems to me that everyone, on every side is discussing it, including the problems. All of this is undoubtedly a work in progress, and while you might call this special pleading I don’t think the same (work in progress) can be said for some of the supine acceptance of e.g. science-denial, or rhetoric on immigration, we see on the right.
“200,000 is really fast evolving from a really, really small population that we believe was the smartest, best adapted animal on the planet yet the population remained vanishingly small for 160,000 years.
To some on the left, even raising these questions makes me a religious fundamentalist.”
As soon as they show up here carrying Richard Dawkins, you can have it out with them.
In the meantime, I’m interested in hearing about the nature of the “external assist or boost” you speak of. As in a sort of Arther C. Clarke intervention or a spiritual guiding hand reaching into and directing human history.
To which I say, we seem due for another one of those given the givens.
Could it be, I don’t know, you sound much more versed in this stuff than I am, but could it be that there was a very fast (in evolutionary time) development of the modern brain and a quick blossoming of advanced language skills which advanced social development and sparked rapid population growth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence
“200,000 is really fast evolving from a really, really small population that we believe was the smartest, best adapted animal on the planet yet the population remained vanishingly small for 160,000 years.
To some on the left, even raising these questions makes me a religious fundamentalist.”
As soon as they show up here carrying Richard Dawkins, you can have it out with them.
In the meantime, I’m interested in hearing about the nature of the “external assist or boost” you speak of. As in a sort of Arther C. Clarke intervention or a spiritual guiding hand reaching into and directing human history.
To which I say, we seem due for another one of those given the givens.
Could it be, I don’t know, you sound much more versed in this stuff than I am, but could it be that there was a very fast (in evolutionary time) development of the modern brain and a quick blossoming of advanced language skills which advanced social development and sparked rapid population growth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence
“200,000 is really fast evolving from a really, really small population that we believe was the smartest, best adapted animal on the planet yet the population remained vanishingly small for 160,000 years.
To some on the left, even raising these questions makes me a religious fundamentalist.”
As soon as they show up here carrying Richard Dawkins, you can have it out with them.
In the meantime, I’m interested in hearing about the nature of the “external assist or boost” you speak of. As in a sort of Arther C. Clarke intervention or a spiritual guiding hand reaching into and directing human history.
To which I say, we seem due for another one of those given the givens.
Could it be, I don’t know, you sound much more versed in this stuff than I am, but could it be that there was a very fast (in evolutionary time) development of the modern brain and a quick blossoming of advanced language skills which advanced social development and sparked rapid population growth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence
WRS.
But to add to WRS, you think the “adult left” has been silent on this? You’re not listening, or at least not in the right places. A large chunk of my undergrad cohort are professors at this point, and merely by staying in touch on FB I’ve remained keenly aware that this is not an area where those parties most directly affected are mute. Or even the general public, so long as “the general public” is not limited to “American mainstream media producers and their go-to sources” (which, yes, are hardly “left” and in some cases only technically “adult”). Also, I’ll thank you not to blame all that crap on “the campus left wing”, as the slimy, corrupt “college-is-a-business-and-students-are-customers-first-and-foremost/brand-protection-at-any-cost” administrator class – which is hardly left-wing – are both directly and indirectly responsible for an awful lot of what I see getting sloppily lumped into “those damned liberals ruining our universities”. Not all, of course, but an awful lot.
WRS.
But to add to WRS, you think the “adult left” has been silent on this? You’re not listening, or at least not in the right places. A large chunk of my undergrad cohort are professors at this point, and merely by staying in touch on FB I’ve remained keenly aware that this is not an area where those parties most directly affected are mute. Or even the general public, so long as “the general public” is not limited to “American mainstream media producers and their go-to sources” (which, yes, are hardly “left” and in some cases only technically “adult”). Also, I’ll thank you not to blame all that crap on “the campus left wing”, as the slimy, corrupt “college-is-a-business-and-students-are-customers-first-and-foremost/brand-protection-at-any-cost” administrator class – which is hardly left-wing – are both directly and indirectly responsible for an awful lot of what I see getting sloppily lumped into “those damned liberals ruining our universities”. Not all, of course, but an awful lot.
WRS.
But to add to WRS, you think the “adult left” has been silent on this? You’re not listening, or at least not in the right places. A large chunk of my undergrad cohort are professors at this point, and merely by staying in touch on FB I’ve remained keenly aware that this is not an area where those parties most directly affected are mute. Or even the general public, so long as “the general public” is not limited to “American mainstream media producers and their go-to sources” (which, yes, are hardly “left” and in some cases only technically “adult”). Also, I’ll thank you not to blame all that crap on “the campus left wing”, as the slimy, corrupt “college-is-a-business-and-students-are-customers-first-and-foremost/brand-protection-at-any-cost” administrator class – which is hardly left-wing – are both directly and indirectly responsible for an awful lot of what I see getting sloppily lumped into “those damned liberals ruining our universities”. Not all, of course, but an awful lot.
I suspect the my one and only DWAI some years back was a conspiracy cooked up by my bartender and the government and had nought to do with me.
Not to mention Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
And a lot of good Mothers In Favor of Drunk Driving did me.
Where are they when you need them?
I suspect the my one and only DWAI some years back was a conspiracy cooked up by my bartender and the government and had nought to do with me.
Not to mention Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
And a lot of good Mothers In Favor of Drunk Driving did me.
Where are they when you need them?
I suspect the my one and only DWAI some years back was a conspiracy cooked up by my bartender and the government and had nought to do with me.
Not to mention Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
And a lot of good Mothers In Favor of Drunk Driving did me.
Where are they when you need them?
The National Geographic Genome Project tells me that I am, genetically, somewhere around 5% Neanderthal.
So you took the DNA test, russell? Do you know if you can upload raw DNA data from another company to the genome project to participate? Are the test results exclusively about deep ancestry?
The National Geographic Genome Project tells me that I am, genetically, somewhere around 5% Neanderthal.
So you took the DNA test, russell? Do you know if you can upload raw DNA data from another company to the genome project to participate? Are the test results exclusively about deep ancestry?
The National Geographic Genome Project tells me that I am, genetically, somewhere around 5% Neanderthal.
So you took the DNA test, russell? Do you know if you can upload raw DNA data from another company to the genome project to participate? Are the test results exclusively about deep ancestry?
Russell, I’d have guessed only 4%.
And that only because of all the racket you make from banging on taut animal skins.
As John Lennon asked Ringo once, after some odd syncopation: “What izat …. jazzzz?
Russell, I’d have guessed only 4%.
And that only because of all the racket you make from banging on taut animal skins.
As John Lennon asked Ringo once, after some odd syncopation: “What izat …. jazzzz?
Russell, I’d have guessed only 4%.
And that only because of all the racket you make from banging on taut animal skins.
As John Lennon asked Ringo once, after some odd syncopation: “What izat …. jazzzz?
…me for example, who look at the evidence of, for example, human evolution, and conclude that some kind of external assist or boost was needed…
I’d probably have less of an issue with this if you hadn’t used the word “conclude.” If you said that it suggested to you that there may have been some kind of external assist or boost involved, I’d be (more) okay with it. Maybe that’s really what you meant, anyway?
…me for example, who look at the evidence of, for example, human evolution, and conclude that some kind of external assist or boost was needed…
I’d probably have less of an issue with this if you hadn’t used the word “conclude.” If you said that it suggested to you that there may have been some kind of external assist or boost involved, I’d be (more) okay with it. Maybe that’s really what you meant, anyway?
…me for example, who look at the evidence of, for example, human evolution, and conclude that some kind of external assist or boost was needed…
I’d probably have less of an issue with this if you hadn’t used the word “conclude.” If you said that it suggested to you that there may have been some kind of external assist or boost involved, I’d be (more) okay with it. Maybe that’s really what you meant, anyway?
Maybe there’s a sort of cosmic Federal Reserve that periodically and mysteriously enters human history and pulls out all the stops.
I’d like more transparency.
Maybe there’s a sort of cosmic Federal Reserve that periodically and mysteriously enters human history and pulls out all the stops.
I’d like more transparency.
Maybe there’s a sort of cosmic Federal Reserve that periodically and mysteriously enters human history and pulls out all the stops.
I’d like more transparency.
Neanderthal versus Spiritual Intervention:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/shoe-pope-capitol-open-mic
Neanderthal versus Spiritual Intervention:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/shoe-pope-capitol-open-mic
Neanderthal versus Spiritual Intervention:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/shoe-pope-capitol-open-mic
Maybe our forerunners received an herbal assist as they shook off the Neanderthal and became fully human, not that it took for everyone:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/28/lamb-and-lynx-of-prussian-blue-turn-backs-on-neo-nazi-roots-thanks-to-marijuana-pictures_n_1633199.html
Bouncing from a link at Balloon Juice.
Maybe our forerunners received an herbal assist as they shook off the Neanderthal and became fully human, not that it took for everyone:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/28/lamb-and-lynx-of-prussian-blue-turn-backs-on-neo-nazi-roots-thanks-to-marijuana-pictures_n_1633199.html
Bouncing from a link at Balloon Juice.
Maybe our forerunners received an herbal assist as they shook off the Neanderthal and became fully human, not that it took for everyone:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/28/lamb-and-lynx-of-prussian-blue-turn-backs-on-neo-nazi-roots-thanks-to-marijuana-pictures_n_1633199.html
Bouncing from a link at Balloon Juice.
what should be done with the money?
How about designing & purchasing emission test equipment that is not subject to the same flaws.
Fund more independent tests of ALL cars, trucks, etc, to ensure they were not cheating too.
And for consumers who bought the fraudulently sold cars, or other consumers with high emission vehicles – new electric cars! (or something like that)
Use the money to remedy the problems caused by the crime.
what should be done with the money?
How about designing & purchasing emission test equipment that is not subject to the same flaws.
Fund more independent tests of ALL cars, trucks, etc, to ensure they were not cheating too.
And for consumers who bought the fraudulently sold cars, or other consumers with high emission vehicles – new electric cars! (or something like that)
Use the money to remedy the problems caused by the crime.
what should be done with the money?
How about designing & purchasing emission test equipment that is not subject to the same flaws.
Fund more independent tests of ALL cars, trucks, etc, to ensure they were not cheating too.
And for consumers who bought the fraudulently sold cars, or other consumers with high emission vehicles – new electric cars! (or something like that)
Use the money to remedy the problems caused by the crime.
while you might call this special pleading I don’t think the same (work in progress) can be said for some of the supine acceptance of e.g. science-denial, or rhetoric on immigration
If no one on this blog, tv, on the floor of Congress or in my earshot ever said “the science is settled” then I would entertain the description of supine acceptance for science deniers. However, of the two sides you have applied supine acceptance to the wrong one.
Immigration is both too nuanced for either “side” to be right and too diverse in its impacts across the country for most people to have a discussion about it. I can assure you that the folks in the Spanish speaking counties in south Texas and southern New Mexico and Arizona have a completely different perspective than the folks in Massachusetts.
while you might call this special pleading I don’t think the same (work in progress) can be said for some of the supine acceptance of e.g. science-denial, or rhetoric on immigration
If no one on this blog, tv, on the floor of Congress or in my earshot ever said “the science is settled” then I would entertain the description of supine acceptance for science deniers. However, of the two sides you have applied supine acceptance to the wrong one.
Immigration is both too nuanced for either “side” to be right and too diverse in its impacts across the country for most people to have a discussion about it. I can assure you that the folks in the Spanish speaking counties in south Texas and southern New Mexico and Arizona have a completely different perspective than the folks in Massachusetts.
while you might call this special pleading I don’t think the same (work in progress) can be said for some of the supine acceptance of e.g. science-denial, or rhetoric on immigration
If no one on this blog, tv, on the floor of Congress or in my earshot ever said “the science is settled” then I would entertain the description of supine acceptance for science deniers. However, of the two sides you have applied supine acceptance to the wrong one.
Immigration is both too nuanced for either “side” to be right and too diverse in its impacts across the country for most people to have a discussion about it. I can assure you that the folks in the Spanish speaking counties in south Texas and southern New Mexico and Arizona have a completely different perspective than the folks in Massachusetts.
So you took the DNA test, russell?
Yes, my wife gave me the kit for my birthday last year.
The kit is basically a cheek swab. AFAIK there isn’t a way to upload DNA from other sources.
The focus is mostly on deep history, which they track from mutations in mitochondrial DNA (for both genders) and Y-chromosome DNA (for men only). The mutations are known (somehow) to have occurred at certain points in human evolution.
Basically, the presence or absence of the mutations puts you on one or another path in an evolutionary tree system. That in turn is related to geography, so your DNA legacy is used as a proxy for saying your ancestors are “from” a particular place.
Everybody’s from Africa originally, then it diverges.
Sub-Saharan Africans are the only folks with no Neanderthal or Denisovan. Neanderthals are more associated with Europe, Denisovans with Asia, but both show up pretty much in most modern humans whose backgrounds aren’t exclusively African.
So you took the DNA test, russell?
Yes, my wife gave me the kit for my birthday last year.
The kit is basically a cheek swab. AFAIK there isn’t a way to upload DNA from other sources.
The focus is mostly on deep history, which they track from mutations in mitochondrial DNA (for both genders) and Y-chromosome DNA (for men only). The mutations are known (somehow) to have occurred at certain points in human evolution.
Basically, the presence or absence of the mutations puts you on one or another path in an evolutionary tree system. That in turn is related to geography, so your DNA legacy is used as a proxy for saying your ancestors are “from” a particular place.
Everybody’s from Africa originally, then it diverges.
Sub-Saharan Africans are the only folks with no Neanderthal or Denisovan. Neanderthals are more associated with Europe, Denisovans with Asia, but both show up pretty much in most modern humans whose backgrounds aren’t exclusively African.
So you took the DNA test, russell?
Yes, my wife gave me the kit for my birthday last year.
The kit is basically a cheek swab. AFAIK there isn’t a way to upload DNA from other sources.
The focus is mostly on deep history, which they track from mutations in mitochondrial DNA (for both genders) and Y-chromosome DNA (for men only). The mutations are known (somehow) to have occurred at certain points in human evolution.
Basically, the presence or absence of the mutations puts you on one or another path in an evolutionary tree system. That in turn is related to geography, so your DNA legacy is used as a proxy for saying your ancestors are “from” a particular place.
Everybody’s from Africa originally, then it diverges.
Sub-Saharan Africans are the only folks with no Neanderthal or Denisovan. Neanderthals are more associated with Europe, Denisovans with Asia, but both show up pretty much in most modern humans whose backgrounds aren’t exclusively African.
And those genetic features show up because Neanderthals and Denisovians differed from most of our ancestors about as much as current races differ from each other. Obviously they weren’t different species, since they could interbreed — that being (Dr S correct me if I’m wrong) the criteria for being a seperate species.
What looks to have happened is that people moved out of sub-Saharan Africa. New races arose. More people moved out of Africa, interbred with some of the other races, and moved on — ending up, in turn, as different races (even though the amount of interbreeding seems, from the DNA comparisons, to have been rather limited.
And those genetic features show up because Neanderthals and Denisovians differed from most of our ancestors about as much as current races differ from each other. Obviously they weren’t different species, since they could interbreed — that being (Dr S correct me if I’m wrong) the criteria for being a seperate species.
What looks to have happened is that people moved out of sub-Saharan Africa. New races arose. More people moved out of Africa, interbred with some of the other races, and moved on — ending up, in turn, as different races (even though the amount of interbreeding seems, from the DNA comparisons, to have been rather limited.
And those genetic features show up because Neanderthals and Denisovians differed from most of our ancestors about as much as current races differ from each other. Obviously they weren’t different species, since they could interbreed — that being (Dr S correct me if I’m wrong) the criteria for being a seperate species.
What looks to have happened is that people moved out of sub-Saharan Africa. New races arose. More people moved out of Africa, interbred with some of the other races, and moved on — ending up, in turn, as different races (even though the amount of interbreeding seems, from the DNA comparisons, to have been rather limited.
“Some on the left” would like to see everyone adopt a vegan diet and only wear shoes made from hemp.
I actually meant this as a limitation, as opposed to ‘most on the left’ or ‘many on the left’. There are rigid secularists, across lines but more on the left, who will not countenance dissent of any kind. That is a limited group and to whom I was referring. I do see where it could look like a rhetorical device but that was not the intent.
(Separate thread on evolution, although FWIW I believe recent DNA analysis proves most humans with the exception of sub-Saharans DO have some Neanderthal DNA).
Yes, from the Max Plank Institute. It appears there was interbreeding for what seems to have been maybe a 5-10K year period of overlap when both inhabited Europe and parts of the mid-East.
The received wisdom before Plank was the polar opposite–but it begs several questions, which are difficult to address in this medium, since the common ancestor had to have been in Africa, and other seemingly parallel species are popping up every year or so w/o evidence of interbreeding.
but on the other hand it is not as problematic as the stuff it is attempting to address, some of which stuff has decades or centuries of widely accepted bigotry, misogyny etc propping it up
There is a lot of mis-perception, going both ways no doubt, as to what the other side thinks. I know some but very few bigots. I know hundreds of conservatives. Where a lefty sees a substrata of racism in a particular conservative,that conservative sees a race-obsessed, quota advocate. Strip away the rhetoric and there is a lot more common ground that you would expect.
In the meantime, I’m interested in hearing about the nature of the “external assist or boost” you speak of. As in a sort of Arther C. Clarke intervention or a spiritual guiding hand reaching into and directing human history.
To which I say, we seem due for another one of those given the givens.
Could happen sooner than you think.
I’d probably have less of an issue with this if you hadn’t used the word “conclude.” If you said that it suggested to you that there may have been some kind of external assist or boost involved, I’d be (more) okay with it. Maybe that’s really what you meant, anyway?
I meant ‘conclude’, but my conclusions are personal to me and based on other evidence as well. I’d infer that the universe is more likely the result of design than happenstance based on the physical evidence as we know it, if I’d never been to church or what have you. I don’t argue this point to or with anyone–it’s my personal take on things. It isn’t science but it looks at what science tells us. And, it’s fairly complicated and not amenable to explication in a blog comment.
“Some on the left” would like to see everyone adopt a vegan diet and only wear shoes made from hemp.
I actually meant this as a limitation, as opposed to ‘most on the left’ or ‘many on the left’. There are rigid secularists, across lines but more on the left, who will not countenance dissent of any kind. That is a limited group and to whom I was referring. I do see where it could look like a rhetorical device but that was not the intent.
(Separate thread on evolution, although FWIW I believe recent DNA analysis proves most humans with the exception of sub-Saharans DO have some Neanderthal DNA).
Yes, from the Max Plank Institute. It appears there was interbreeding for what seems to have been maybe a 5-10K year period of overlap when both inhabited Europe and parts of the mid-East.
The received wisdom before Plank was the polar opposite–but it begs several questions, which are difficult to address in this medium, since the common ancestor had to have been in Africa, and other seemingly parallel species are popping up every year or so w/o evidence of interbreeding.
but on the other hand it is not as problematic as the stuff it is attempting to address, some of which stuff has decades or centuries of widely accepted bigotry, misogyny etc propping it up
There is a lot of mis-perception, going both ways no doubt, as to what the other side thinks. I know some but very few bigots. I know hundreds of conservatives. Where a lefty sees a substrata of racism in a particular conservative,that conservative sees a race-obsessed, quota advocate. Strip away the rhetoric and there is a lot more common ground that you would expect.
In the meantime, I’m interested in hearing about the nature of the “external assist or boost” you speak of. As in a sort of Arther C. Clarke intervention or a spiritual guiding hand reaching into and directing human history.
To which I say, we seem due for another one of those given the givens.
Could happen sooner than you think.
I’d probably have less of an issue with this if you hadn’t used the word “conclude.” If you said that it suggested to you that there may have been some kind of external assist or boost involved, I’d be (more) okay with it. Maybe that’s really what you meant, anyway?
I meant ‘conclude’, but my conclusions are personal to me and based on other evidence as well. I’d infer that the universe is more likely the result of design than happenstance based on the physical evidence as we know it, if I’d never been to church or what have you. I don’t argue this point to or with anyone–it’s my personal take on things. It isn’t science but it looks at what science tells us. And, it’s fairly complicated and not amenable to explication in a blog comment.
“Some on the left” would like to see everyone adopt a vegan diet and only wear shoes made from hemp.
I actually meant this as a limitation, as opposed to ‘most on the left’ or ‘many on the left’. There are rigid secularists, across lines but more on the left, who will not countenance dissent of any kind. That is a limited group and to whom I was referring. I do see where it could look like a rhetorical device but that was not the intent.
(Separate thread on evolution, although FWIW I believe recent DNA analysis proves most humans with the exception of sub-Saharans DO have some Neanderthal DNA).
Yes, from the Max Plank Institute. It appears there was interbreeding for what seems to have been maybe a 5-10K year period of overlap when both inhabited Europe and parts of the mid-East.
The received wisdom before Plank was the polar opposite–but it begs several questions, which are difficult to address in this medium, since the common ancestor had to have been in Africa, and other seemingly parallel species are popping up every year or so w/o evidence of interbreeding.
but on the other hand it is not as problematic as the stuff it is attempting to address, some of which stuff has decades or centuries of widely accepted bigotry, misogyny etc propping it up
There is a lot of mis-perception, going both ways no doubt, as to what the other side thinks. I know some but very few bigots. I know hundreds of conservatives. Where a lefty sees a substrata of racism in a particular conservative,that conservative sees a race-obsessed, quota advocate. Strip away the rhetoric and there is a lot more common ground that you would expect.
In the meantime, I’m interested in hearing about the nature of the “external assist or boost” you speak of. As in a sort of Arther C. Clarke intervention or a spiritual guiding hand reaching into and directing human history.
To which I say, we seem due for another one of those given the givens.
Could happen sooner than you think.
I’d probably have less of an issue with this if you hadn’t used the word “conclude.” If you said that it suggested to you that there may have been some kind of external assist or boost involved, I’d be (more) okay with it. Maybe that’s really what you meant, anyway?
I meant ‘conclude’, but my conclusions are personal to me and based on other evidence as well. I’d infer that the universe is more likely the result of design than happenstance based on the physical evidence as we know it, if I’d never been to church or what have you. I don’t argue this point to or with anyone–it’s my personal take on things. It isn’t science but it looks at what science tells us. And, it’s fairly complicated and not amenable to explication in a blog comment.
My personal take, FWIW, on all of the evolution / hand of god / different species or same species / what have you, along with all of the other controversies where a 100% bulletproof answer is available, is basically this:
I don’t know.
You can include the climate change question in that, and who knows how many other questions.
I don’t know. Above my pay grade.
As it turns out, for some of these issues, I feel that it behooves me to have a point of view, in spite of my lack of definitive knowledge.
A lot of life is like that, as it turns out.
So, I try to find out as much as I can, and I make my best guess. From what I gather, that’s what most other folks are doing, too, even quite a number of the experts, so I feel pretty comfortable with that as an MO.
If nothing else, it’s all I got, so it will have to do.
The upshot of all of that is that if you present me with information that is more persuasive than whatever it is my current point of view is based on, chances are pretty good that I’ll change my mind. At least, I’ll consider what you have to say.
If your argument begins with a claim that what I think is nothing more than a function of my political stance, or that I’m in some kind of a “mob” looking to unfairly impose my will on anybody else, I’m not interested. Full stop.
On most things, I think what I think, not because I know one way or the other, but because it more or less looks one way or the other, given what I do know.
If you want to change my mind, you need to show me something I don’t know.
My personal take, FWIW, on all of the evolution / hand of god / different species or same species / what have you, along with all of the other controversies where a 100% bulletproof answer is available, is basically this:
I don’t know.
You can include the climate change question in that, and who knows how many other questions.
I don’t know. Above my pay grade.
As it turns out, for some of these issues, I feel that it behooves me to have a point of view, in spite of my lack of definitive knowledge.
A lot of life is like that, as it turns out.
So, I try to find out as much as I can, and I make my best guess. From what I gather, that’s what most other folks are doing, too, even quite a number of the experts, so I feel pretty comfortable with that as an MO.
If nothing else, it’s all I got, so it will have to do.
The upshot of all of that is that if you present me with information that is more persuasive than whatever it is my current point of view is based on, chances are pretty good that I’ll change my mind. At least, I’ll consider what you have to say.
If your argument begins with a claim that what I think is nothing more than a function of my political stance, or that I’m in some kind of a “mob” looking to unfairly impose my will on anybody else, I’m not interested. Full stop.
On most things, I think what I think, not because I know one way or the other, but because it more or less looks one way or the other, given what I do know.
If you want to change my mind, you need to show me something I don’t know.
My personal take, FWIW, on all of the evolution / hand of god / different species or same species / what have you, along with all of the other controversies where a 100% bulletproof answer is available, is basically this:
I don’t know.
You can include the climate change question in that, and who knows how many other questions.
I don’t know. Above my pay grade.
As it turns out, for some of these issues, I feel that it behooves me to have a point of view, in spite of my lack of definitive knowledge.
A lot of life is like that, as it turns out.
So, I try to find out as much as I can, and I make my best guess. From what I gather, that’s what most other folks are doing, too, even quite a number of the experts, so I feel pretty comfortable with that as an MO.
If nothing else, it’s all I got, so it will have to do.
The upshot of all of that is that if you present me with information that is more persuasive than whatever it is my current point of view is based on, chances are pretty good that I’ll change my mind. At least, I’ll consider what you have to say.
If your argument begins with a claim that what I think is nothing more than a function of my political stance, or that I’m in some kind of a “mob” looking to unfairly impose my will on anybody else, I’m not interested. Full stop.
On most things, I think what I think, not because I know one way or the other, but because it more or less looks one way or the other, given what I do know.
If you want to change my mind, you need to show me something I don’t know.
It’s only got more energy density in terms of Joules per liter. If you examine it in terms of Joules per kilogram, it’s less than gasoline.
Which is important. Diesel is denser than gasoline. Which, in general terms, means there are more carbon atoms per liter.
Diesel fuel CO2 per gallon combusted: 22.2 lbs
Gasoline CO2 per gallon combusted: 19.4 lbs
That’s direct from the EPA.
Diesel fuel masses about 11.6% more per unit volume than does gasoline, and it turns out emits 14.4% more CO2 per unit volume. Diesel, it turns out, has only about 10.5% more energy per unit volume than does gasoline, so in effect what you have is a fuel that is LESS efficient in terms of CO2 emitted per Joule of energy.
I might have done something wrong, math-wise, here, but the numbers I am looking at say that diesel is environmentally less friendly than gas, in terms of CO2 per unit energy from combustion.
There are a lot of factors that might skew this the other way. If diesel engines turned out to be more efficient than gasoline engines (remember: the numbers above are theoretical), that could easily turn the balance in the other direction, but then we’d be looking at e.g. CO2 mass per kWHr, or the like.
It’s only got more energy density in terms of Joules per liter. If you examine it in terms of Joules per kilogram, it’s less than gasoline.
Which is important. Diesel is denser than gasoline. Which, in general terms, means there are more carbon atoms per liter.
Diesel fuel CO2 per gallon combusted: 22.2 lbs
Gasoline CO2 per gallon combusted: 19.4 lbs
That’s direct from the EPA.
Diesel fuel masses about 11.6% more per unit volume than does gasoline, and it turns out emits 14.4% more CO2 per unit volume. Diesel, it turns out, has only about 10.5% more energy per unit volume than does gasoline, so in effect what you have is a fuel that is LESS efficient in terms of CO2 emitted per Joule of energy.
I might have done something wrong, math-wise, here, but the numbers I am looking at say that diesel is environmentally less friendly than gas, in terms of CO2 per unit energy from combustion.
There are a lot of factors that might skew this the other way. If diesel engines turned out to be more efficient than gasoline engines (remember: the numbers above are theoretical), that could easily turn the balance in the other direction, but then we’d be looking at e.g. CO2 mass per kWHr, or the like.
It’s only got more energy density in terms of Joules per liter. If you examine it in terms of Joules per kilogram, it’s less than gasoline.
Which is important. Diesel is denser than gasoline. Which, in general terms, means there are more carbon atoms per liter.
Diesel fuel CO2 per gallon combusted: 22.2 lbs
Gasoline CO2 per gallon combusted: 19.4 lbs
That’s direct from the EPA.
Diesel fuel masses about 11.6% more per unit volume than does gasoline, and it turns out emits 14.4% more CO2 per unit volume. Diesel, it turns out, has only about 10.5% more energy per unit volume than does gasoline, so in effect what you have is a fuel that is LESS efficient in terms of CO2 emitted per Joule of energy.
I might have done something wrong, math-wise, here, but the numbers I am looking at say that diesel is environmentally less friendly than gas, in terms of CO2 per unit energy from combustion.
There are a lot of factors that might skew this the other way. If diesel engines turned out to be more efficient than gasoline engines (remember: the numbers above are theoretical), that could easily turn the balance in the other direction, but then we’d be looking at e.g. CO2 mass per kWHr, or the like.
The focus is mostly on deep history, which they track from mutations in mitochondrial DNA (for both genders) and Y-chromosome DNA (for men only). The mutations are known (somehow) to have occurred at certain points in human evolution.
Sub-Saharan Africans are the only folks with no Neanderthal or Denisovan. Neanderthals are more associated with Europe, Denisovans with Asia, but both show up pretty much in most modern humans whose backgrounds aren’t exclusively African.
I’m agnostic on Denisovans. The entire body of knowledge is based on a single tooth and a single finger bone found in one location. Yet, the tooth had sufficient DNA to perform a full genome. Very fortunate–few remains that old have DNA of that quality. And, no known tool kit.
Another matter that gives me pause is the inference scientists draw from mitochondrial DNA evidence to the effect that every living human today descends from a single female ancestor who lived roughly 200,000 years ago. I’m still trying to wrap my arms around the implications, one being that however many other women there were 200,000 ago, unless their offspring bred with an offspring of Female Prime, their entire lines died out. And, to reiterate an earlier point: this is just too small of a population for such a complex animal as us to have evolved from.
And those genetic features show up because Neanderthals and Denisovians differed from most of our ancestors about as much as current races differ from each other.
Again, there are a lot of unanswered questions. IIRC, the scientific consensus is that neanderthal did not speak, at least not in the type of symbolic language homo sapiens uses. The archeological record holds scant evidence of symbolic representation left by neanderthal, and what little there is is subject to differential interpretations. The neanderthal tool kit was primitive, very primitive, compared to contemporary homo sapiens. The neanderthal tool kit is much closer to erectus’ hand ax than sapien’s dart points and bone awls. Finally, the physical differences between sapiens and neanderthal are significant.
The record for Denisovians is very scant and limited to a single cave in Siberia. The fact of interbreeding is a new contention. Non-geneticists have to accept the work of geneticists without being able to do more than raise general questions. They may be right, but this is all very recent. I’m not aware of parallel studies duplicating these results.
The Wiki piece on Denisovians claims that Denisovans make up 3-5% of Melanesians and original Australians. The evidence for that seems scant as well, when you dig into the authorities they cite.
The very recent find in S Africa is being touted as yet a fourth (actually fifth) possibly contemporaneous relative of h sapiens. That is very fast work–particularly since they haven’t been able to date any of the remains as of two weeks ago. There seems to be very little pushback within the scientific community on assertions made or conclusions drawn by just one or two scientists. We see what is reported in the popular press. It seems as if consensus develops overnight. Maybe so, but that is unusual.
The focus is mostly on deep history, which they track from mutations in mitochondrial DNA (for both genders) and Y-chromosome DNA (for men only). The mutations are known (somehow) to have occurred at certain points in human evolution.
Sub-Saharan Africans are the only folks with no Neanderthal or Denisovan. Neanderthals are more associated with Europe, Denisovans with Asia, but both show up pretty much in most modern humans whose backgrounds aren’t exclusively African.
I’m agnostic on Denisovans. The entire body of knowledge is based on a single tooth and a single finger bone found in one location. Yet, the tooth had sufficient DNA to perform a full genome. Very fortunate–few remains that old have DNA of that quality. And, no known tool kit.
Another matter that gives me pause is the inference scientists draw from mitochondrial DNA evidence to the effect that every living human today descends from a single female ancestor who lived roughly 200,000 years ago. I’m still trying to wrap my arms around the implications, one being that however many other women there were 200,000 ago, unless their offspring bred with an offspring of Female Prime, their entire lines died out. And, to reiterate an earlier point: this is just too small of a population for such a complex animal as us to have evolved from.
And those genetic features show up because Neanderthals and Denisovians differed from most of our ancestors about as much as current races differ from each other.
Again, there are a lot of unanswered questions. IIRC, the scientific consensus is that neanderthal did not speak, at least not in the type of symbolic language homo sapiens uses. The archeological record holds scant evidence of symbolic representation left by neanderthal, and what little there is is subject to differential interpretations. The neanderthal tool kit was primitive, very primitive, compared to contemporary homo sapiens. The neanderthal tool kit is much closer to erectus’ hand ax than sapien’s dart points and bone awls. Finally, the physical differences between sapiens and neanderthal are significant.
The record for Denisovians is very scant and limited to a single cave in Siberia. The fact of interbreeding is a new contention. Non-geneticists have to accept the work of geneticists without being able to do more than raise general questions. They may be right, but this is all very recent. I’m not aware of parallel studies duplicating these results.
The Wiki piece on Denisovians claims that Denisovans make up 3-5% of Melanesians and original Australians. The evidence for that seems scant as well, when you dig into the authorities they cite.
The very recent find in S Africa is being touted as yet a fourth (actually fifth) possibly contemporaneous relative of h sapiens. That is very fast work–particularly since they haven’t been able to date any of the remains as of two weeks ago. There seems to be very little pushback within the scientific community on assertions made or conclusions drawn by just one or two scientists. We see what is reported in the popular press. It seems as if consensus develops overnight. Maybe so, but that is unusual.
The focus is mostly on deep history, which they track from mutations in mitochondrial DNA (for both genders) and Y-chromosome DNA (for men only). The mutations are known (somehow) to have occurred at certain points in human evolution.
Sub-Saharan Africans are the only folks with no Neanderthal or Denisovan. Neanderthals are more associated with Europe, Denisovans with Asia, but both show up pretty much in most modern humans whose backgrounds aren’t exclusively African.
I’m agnostic on Denisovans. The entire body of knowledge is based on a single tooth and a single finger bone found in one location. Yet, the tooth had sufficient DNA to perform a full genome. Very fortunate–few remains that old have DNA of that quality. And, no known tool kit.
Another matter that gives me pause is the inference scientists draw from mitochondrial DNA evidence to the effect that every living human today descends from a single female ancestor who lived roughly 200,000 years ago. I’m still trying to wrap my arms around the implications, one being that however many other women there were 200,000 ago, unless their offspring bred with an offspring of Female Prime, their entire lines died out. And, to reiterate an earlier point: this is just too small of a population for such a complex animal as us to have evolved from.
And those genetic features show up because Neanderthals and Denisovians differed from most of our ancestors about as much as current races differ from each other.
Again, there are a lot of unanswered questions. IIRC, the scientific consensus is that neanderthal did not speak, at least not in the type of symbolic language homo sapiens uses. The archeological record holds scant evidence of symbolic representation left by neanderthal, and what little there is is subject to differential interpretations. The neanderthal tool kit was primitive, very primitive, compared to contemporary homo sapiens. The neanderthal tool kit is much closer to erectus’ hand ax than sapien’s dart points and bone awls. Finally, the physical differences between sapiens and neanderthal are significant.
The record for Denisovians is very scant and limited to a single cave in Siberia. The fact of interbreeding is a new contention. Non-geneticists have to accept the work of geneticists without being able to do more than raise general questions. They may be right, but this is all very recent. I’m not aware of parallel studies duplicating these results.
The Wiki piece on Denisovians claims that Denisovans make up 3-5% of Melanesians and original Australians. The evidence for that seems scant as well, when you dig into the authorities they cite.
The very recent find in S Africa is being touted as yet a fourth (actually fifth) possibly contemporaneous relative of h sapiens. That is very fast work–particularly since they haven’t been able to date any of the remains as of two weeks ago. There seems to be very little pushback within the scientific community on assertions made or conclusions drawn by just one or two scientists. We see what is reported in the popular press. It seems as if consensus develops overnight. Maybe so, but that is unusual.
the numbers I am looking at say that diesel is environmentally less friendly than gas, in terms of CO2 per unit energy from combustion.
Which does make one wonder about the folks selling diesel as a greener alternative. Until you realize that a substantial portion of retail advertising consists of carefully selecting, and then presenting, facts in order to convince people of something of dubious veracity.
the numbers I am looking at say that diesel is environmentally less friendly than gas, in terms of CO2 per unit energy from combustion.
Which does make one wonder about the folks selling diesel as a greener alternative. Until you realize that a substantial portion of retail advertising consists of carefully selecting, and then presenting, facts in order to convince people of something of dubious veracity.
the numbers I am looking at say that diesel is environmentally less friendly than gas, in terms of CO2 per unit energy from combustion.
Which does make one wonder about the folks selling diesel as a greener alternative. Until you realize that a substantial portion of retail advertising consists of carefully selecting, and then presenting, facts in order to convince people of something of dubious veracity.
I’m agnostic on Denisovans.
I think everybody’s just trying to figure it all out.
Things often get discussed as if they are today’s new and improved gospel truth, but my impression is that if you scratch one tiny bit below the surface, most folks concede that we’re dealing at the level of conjecture.
We know there was a tooth and a finger bone in a cave, they appear to be pretty old, and in some ways they are like other teeth or finger bones but in others they aren’t.
The rest is commentary.
I’m agnostic on Denisovans.
I think everybody’s just trying to figure it all out.
Things often get discussed as if they are today’s new and improved gospel truth, but my impression is that if you scratch one tiny bit below the surface, most folks concede that we’re dealing at the level of conjecture.
We know there was a tooth and a finger bone in a cave, they appear to be pretty old, and in some ways they are like other teeth or finger bones but in others they aren’t.
The rest is commentary.
I’m agnostic on Denisovans.
I think everybody’s just trying to figure it all out.
Things often get discussed as if they are today’s new and improved gospel truth, but my impression is that if you scratch one tiny bit below the surface, most folks concede that we’re dealing at the level of conjecture.
We know there was a tooth and a finger bone in a cave, they appear to be pretty old, and in some ways they are like other teeth or finger bones but in others they aren’t.
The rest is commentary.
We know there was a tooth and a finger bone in a cave, they appear to be pretty old, and in some ways they are like other teeth or finger bones but in others they aren’t.
The rest is commentary.
The entire Denisovian story rests on that tooth and that finger bone. That is a lot of lifting.
We know there was a tooth and a finger bone in a cave, they appear to be pretty old, and in some ways they are like other teeth or finger bones but in others they aren’t.
The rest is commentary.
The entire Denisovian story rests on that tooth and that finger bone. That is a lot of lifting.
We know there was a tooth and a finger bone in a cave, they appear to be pretty old, and in some ways they are like other teeth or finger bones but in others they aren’t.
The rest is commentary.
The entire Denisovian story rests on that tooth and that finger bone. That is a lot of lifting.
There are a lot of factors that might skew this the other way.
I was curious, a while back, about diesel for passenger cars, because they seemed to offer an option other than hybrid or electric for folks who wanted better mileage.
Because hybrid and electric cars have issues of their own, of various kinds.
I think the VW TDIs typically get 45 or more MPG, in normal daily driver use, which is pretty good.
I don’t know how much of that is due to the difference in density of the fuel, and how much is due to the relative inherent efficiency of diesel vs gas.
Diesel motors also seem to last longer, which is a plus.
But it could simply be that it’s a dirtier fuel, in ways that can’t really be addressed conveniently, or without compromising other desirable things (such as performance).
All of which would be a shame, but it is what it is.
I do know some folks who have converted passenger diesels to run on deep-frier waste oil. One’s a current-day VW beetle, one’s an old MB W123 chassis 300 turbo-diesel.
I have no information at all on whether that option is better or worse as regards emissions.
There are a lot of factors that might skew this the other way.
I was curious, a while back, about diesel for passenger cars, because they seemed to offer an option other than hybrid or electric for folks who wanted better mileage.
Because hybrid and electric cars have issues of their own, of various kinds.
I think the VW TDIs typically get 45 or more MPG, in normal daily driver use, which is pretty good.
I don’t know how much of that is due to the difference in density of the fuel, and how much is due to the relative inherent efficiency of diesel vs gas.
Diesel motors also seem to last longer, which is a plus.
But it could simply be that it’s a dirtier fuel, in ways that can’t really be addressed conveniently, or without compromising other desirable things (such as performance).
All of which would be a shame, but it is what it is.
I do know some folks who have converted passenger diesels to run on deep-frier waste oil. One’s a current-day VW beetle, one’s an old MB W123 chassis 300 turbo-diesel.
I have no information at all on whether that option is better or worse as regards emissions.
There are a lot of factors that might skew this the other way.
I was curious, a while back, about diesel for passenger cars, because they seemed to offer an option other than hybrid or electric for folks who wanted better mileage.
Because hybrid and electric cars have issues of their own, of various kinds.
I think the VW TDIs typically get 45 or more MPG, in normal daily driver use, which is pretty good.
I don’t know how much of that is due to the difference in density of the fuel, and how much is due to the relative inherent efficiency of diesel vs gas.
Diesel motors also seem to last longer, which is a plus.
But it could simply be that it’s a dirtier fuel, in ways that can’t really be addressed conveniently, or without compromising other desirable things (such as performance).
All of which would be a shame, but it is what it is.
I do know some folks who have converted passenger diesels to run on deep-frier waste oil. One’s a current-day VW beetle, one’s an old MB W123 chassis 300 turbo-diesel.
I have no information at all on whether that option is better or worse as regards emissions.
Diesel first made large inroads into the passenger car market because you could buy a VW diesel that got 57 mpg on the highway in a time when gas prices were on the rise.
You could have, for instance, done something similar with a gasoline engined vehicle. The Rabbit weighed only 1700lb, approximately, and the diesel engine that went into it only delivered 48hp. That’s a recipe for a vehicle that doesn’t eat a lot of fuel. The gas engine of equivalent size made 60hp and probably got worse gas mileage than the diesel.
To get better gas mileage, make the car smaller, and make the engine a lot smaller/less powerful. It’s not going to be fast, but as long as it’s fast enough…
Now, a turbodiesel can give you decent (read: normal) pickup combined with good mileage, so lots of manufacturers opted to go with that.
Diesel first made large inroads into the passenger car market because you could buy a VW diesel that got 57 mpg on the highway in a time when gas prices were on the rise.
You could have, for instance, done something similar with a gasoline engined vehicle. The Rabbit weighed only 1700lb, approximately, and the diesel engine that went into it only delivered 48hp. That’s a recipe for a vehicle that doesn’t eat a lot of fuel. The gas engine of equivalent size made 60hp and probably got worse gas mileage than the diesel.
To get better gas mileage, make the car smaller, and make the engine a lot smaller/less powerful. It’s not going to be fast, but as long as it’s fast enough…
Now, a turbodiesel can give you decent (read: normal) pickup combined with good mileage, so lots of manufacturers opted to go with that.
Diesel first made large inroads into the passenger car market because you could buy a VW diesel that got 57 mpg on the highway in a time when gas prices were on the rise.
You could have, for instance, done something similar with a gasoline engined vehicle. The Rabbit weighed only 1700lb, approximately, and the diesel engine that went into it only delivered 48hp. That’s a recipe for a vehicle that doesn’t eat a lot of fuel. The gas engine of equivalent size made 60hp and probably got worse gas mileage than the diesel.
To get better gas mileage, make the car smaller, and make the engine a lot smaller/less powerful. It’s not going to be fast, but as long as it’s fast enough…
Now, a turbodiesel can give you decent (read: normal) pickup combined with good mileage, so lots of manufacturers opted to go with that.
Another matter that gives me pause is the inference scientists draw from mitochondrial DNA evidence to the effect that every living human today descends from a single female ancestor who lived roughly 200,000 years ago.
She would be the most recent common ancestor to all humans strictly through their matrilineal lines. Considering how many positions your family tree would have going back 200,000 years (on the order of 10,000 generations – so (2^10)^4, ball park), would many orders of magnitude more than people living at the time to fill them. That Eve would probably show up in many, many, many of the slots in your family tree (pedigree, really) – your 10,000th great grandmother over here (and a bunch of other places), your 10,001st great grandmother over there (and a bunch of other places), and so on and so forth. In all likelihood, you and everyone else is descended from the majority of the “women” (and “men”) who lived long enough to reproduce at that time. And they’re all showing up all over the place in your pedigree as a matter of mathematical necessity. Eve just happens to be the one where everyone’s strictly maternal lines eventually converge.
Another matter that gives me pause is the inference scientists draw from mitochondrial DNA evidence to the effect that every living human today descends from a single female ancestor who lived roughly 200,000 years ago.
She would be the most recent common ancestor to all humans strictly through their matrilineal lines. Considering how many positions your family tree would have going back 200,000 years (on the order of 10,000 generations – so (2^10)^4, ball park), would many orders of magnitude more than people living at the time to fill them. That Eve would probably show up in many, many, many of the slots in your family tree (pedigree, really) – your 10,000th great grandmother over here (and a bunch of other places), your 10,001st great grandmother over there (and a bunch of other places), and so on and so forth. In all likelihood, you and everyone else is descended from the majority of the “women” (and “men”) who lived long enough to reproduce at that time. And they’re all showing up all over the place in your pedigree as a matter of mathematical necessity. Eve just happens to be the one where everyone’s strictly maternal lines eventually converge.
Another matter that gives me pause is the inference scientists draw from mitochondrial DNA evidence to the effect that every living human today descends from a single female ancestor who lived roughly 200,000 years ago.
She would be the most recent common ancestor to all humans strictly through their matrilineal lines. Considering how many positions your family tree would have going back 200,000 years (on the order of 10,000 generations – so (2^10)^4, ball park), would many orders of magnitude more than people living at the time to fill them. That Eve would probably show up in many, many, many of the slots in your family tree (pedigree, really) – your 10,000th great grandmother over here (and a bunch of other places), your 10,001st great grandmother over there (and a bunch of other places), and so on and so forth. In all likelihood, you and everyone else is descended from the majority of the “women” (and “men”) who lived long enough to reproduce at that time. And they’re all showing up all over the place in your pedigree as a matter of mathematical necessity. Eve just happens to be the one where everyone’s strictly maternal lines eventually converge.
one being that however many other women there were 200,000 ago, unless their offspring bred with an offspring of Female Prime, their entire lines died out. And, to reiterate an earlier point: this is just too small of a population for such a complex animal as us to have evolved from.
no, it’s really not that far-fetched at all.
just think about what it means to make a new species.
a new species doesn’t come about when a large number of unrelated individuals within a larger population of ‘normal’ individuals can suddenly only interbreed with each other and then choose to do just that.
what happens is that, somehow, a group of individuals are isolated from and are prevented from interbreeding with their parent species; and over time that group collectively diverge enough that they couldn’t interbreed with their parent species even if they were to meet. and this isolation and divergence happens best when that group is small. so for humans, or close relatives, think: a family, clan, village. some group that got chased away or moved away or otherwise separated itself from the rest.
so, at some point, a group of our last non-human ancestors were cut off from the rest of their species and ended up interbreeding and diverging into modern humans. and what we call “Mitochondrial Eve” was one of that group. she might have been human, she might have been the last non-human ancestor, or some blend of the two. but she belonged to a group from which humans eventually sprang.
indeed, one single child somewhere was the first to have all the genes that we now call modern human. his or her parents had parts of that collection (mom had A-M, dad had O-Z), but it wasn’t until they got together that the first A-Z human was born. maybe there were siblings. maybe other couples had similar sub-sets that also combined to make a modern human. but one kid was first.
that’s just how speciation works.
one being that however many other women there were 200,000 ago, unless their offspring bred with an offspring of Female Prime, their entire lines died out. And, to reiterate an earlier point: this is just too small of a population for such a complex animal as us to have evolved from.
no, it’s really not that far-fetched at all.
just think about what it means to make a new species.
a new species doesn’t come about when a large number of unrelated individuals within a larger population of ‘normal’ individuals can suddenly only interbreed with each other and then choose to do just that.
what happens is that, somehow, a group of individuals are isolated from and are prevented from interbreeding with their parent species; and over time that group collectively diverge enough that they couldn’t interbreed with their parent species even if they were to meet. and this isolation and divergence happens best when that group is small. so for humans, or close relatives, think: a family, clan, village. some group that got chased away or moved away or otherwise separated itself from the rest.
so, at some point, a group of our last non-human ancestors were cut off from the rest of their species and ended up interbreeding and diverging into modern humans. and what we call “Mitochondrial Eve” was one of that group. she might have been human, she might have been the last non-human ancestor, or some blend of the two. but she belonged to a group from which humans eventually sprang.
indeed, one single child somewhere was the first to have all the genes that we now call modern human. his or her parents had parts of that collection (mom had A-M, dad had O-Z), but it wasn’t until they got together that the first A-Z human was born. maybe there were siblings. maybe other couples had similar sub-sets that also combined to make a modern human. but one kid was first.
that’s just how speciation works.
one being that however many other women there were 200,000 ago, unless their offspring bred with an offspring of Female Prime, their entire lines died out. And, to reiterate an earlier point: this is just too small of a population for such a complex animal as us to have evolved from.
no, it’s really not that far-fetched at all.
just think about what it means to make a new species.
a new species doesn’t come about when a large number of unrelated individuals within a larger population of ‘normal’ individuals can suddenly only interbreed with each other and then choose to do just that.
what happens is that, somehow, a group of individuals are isolated from and are prevented from interbreeding with their parent species; and over time that group collectively diverge enough that they couldn’t interbreed with their parent species even if they were to meet. and this isolation and divergence happens best when that group is small. so for humans, or close relatives, think: a family, clan, village. some group that got chased away or moved away or otherwise separated itself from the rest.
so, at some point, a group of our last non-human ancestors were cut off from the rest of their species and ended up interbreeding and diverging into modern humans. and what we call “Mitochondrial Eve” was one of that group. she might have been human, she might have been the last non-human ancestor, or some blend of the two. but she belonged to a group from which humans eventually sprang.
indeed, one single child somewhere was the first to have all the genes that we now call modern human. his or her parents had parts of that collection (mom had A-M, dad had O-Z), but it wasn’t until they got together that the first A-Z human was born. maybe there were siblings. maybe other couples had similar sub-sets that also combined to make a modern human. but one kid was first.
that’s just how speciation works.
let me strike this:
and what we call “Mitochondrial Eve” was one of that group. she might have been human, she might have been the last non-human ancestor, or some blend of the two. but she belonged to a group from which humans eventually sprang.mEve didn’t have to be present at the dawn of modern humanity. humanity could’ve been around by the time she was alive. mEve was simply a member of some group of human or non-human ancestors who went through a genetic bottleneck.
let me strike this:
and what we call “Mitochondrial Eve” was one of that group. she might have been human, she might have been the last non-human ancestor, or some blend of the two. but she belonged to a group from which humans eventually sprang.mEve didn’t have to be present at the dawn of modern humanity. humanity could’ve been around by the time she was alive. mEve was simply a member of some group of human or non-human ancestors who went through a genetic bottleneck.
let me strike this:
and what we call “Mitochondrial Eve” was one of that group. she might have been human, she might have been the last non-human ancestor, or some blend of the two. but she belonged to a group from which humans eventually sprang.mEve didn’t have to be present at the dawn of modern humanity. humanity could’ve been around by the time she was alive. mEve was simply a member of some group of human or non-human ancestors who went through a genetic bottleneck.
IIRC, the scientific consensus is that neanderthal did not speak, at least not in the type of symbolic language homo sapiens uses.
Of course, it is worth remembering that the scientific concensus was that non-human primates did not use tools. Until someone spent some time observing chimps and discovered that they do. Not only use tools, but use tools to make other tools.
Science attempts to correct its mistakes and move on. It doesn’t (at least nobody who actually knows anything about science) claim to have everything right. In this case, it is true that humans use tools to an enormously greater extent than any other species. But that’s not quite the same as saying that nobody else uses them at all.
IIRC, the scientific consensus is that neanderthal did not speak, at least not in the type of symbolic language homo sapiens uses.
Of course, it is worth remembering that the scientific concensus was that non-human primates did not use tools. Until someone spent some time observing chimps and discovered that they do. Not only use tools, but use tools to make other tools.
Science attempts to correct its mistakes and move on. It doesn’t (at least nobody who actually knows anything about science) claim to have everything right. In this case, it is true that humans use tools to an enormously greater extent than any other species. But that’s not quite the same as saying that nobody else uses them at all.
IIRC, the scientific consensus is that neanderthal did not speak, at least not in the type of symbolic language homo sapiens uses.
Of course, it is worth remembering that the scientific concensus was that non-human primates did not use tools. Until someone spent some time observing chimps and discovered that they do. Not only use tools, but use tools to make other tools.
Science attempts to correct its mistakes and move on. It doesn’t (at least nobody who actually knows anything about science) claim to have everything right. In this case, it is true that humans use tools to an enormously greater extent than any other species. But that’s not quite the same as saying that nobody else uses them at all.
I don’t know if this helps, but consider that population estimates for year 0 are between 150M and 300M. Consider that we’re talking roughly 100 generations (~2000 years) ago.
Consider that every 10 generations you go back in your pedigree, the number of positions is roughly 1000 raised to the power of the number of 10-generation jumps back you’ve made (2^10=1024, so it’s a computer-science “k”).
So we’re talking about roughly 1000^10 slots (100 generations is 10 10-generation jumps) for all of your 98th-great grandparents. Order of magnitude for the number of people alive (again, 150M to 300M) is less than 1000^3.
So you would have more than 1000^7 (a 1 with 21 zeros after it) as many pedigree slots as living humans to fill them. And not all of those living humans even reproduced. Of the ones that did, not all of their offspring reproduced. And so on.
The idea that there would be a mitochondrial Eve 200,000 years ago doesn’t seem at all odd to me when you consider the pedigree-versus-population math for just 2000 years ago.
I don’t know if this helps, but consider that population estimates for year 0 are between 150M and 300M. Consider that we’re talking roughly 100 generations (~2000 years) ago.
Consider that every 10 generations you go back in your pedigree, the number of positions is roughly 1000 raised to the power of the number of 10-generation jumps back you’ve made (2^10=1024, so it’s a computer-science “k”).
So we’re talking about roughly 1000^10 slots (100 generations is 10 10-generation jumps) for all of your 98th-great grandparents. Order of magnitude for the number of people alive (again, 150M to 300M) is less than 1000^3.
So you would have more than 1000^7 (a 1 with 21 zeros after it) as many pedigree slots as living humans to fill them. And not all of those living humans even reproduced. Of the ones that did, not all of their offspring reproduced. And so on.
The idea that there would be a mitochondrial Eve 200,000 years ago doesn’t seem at all odd to me when you consider the pedigree-versus-population math for just 2000 years ago.
I don’t know if this helps, but consider that population estimates for year 0 are between 150M and 300M. Consider that we’re talking roughly 100 generations (~2000 years) ago.
Consider that every 10 generations you go back in your pedigree, the number of positions is roughly 1000 raised to the power of the number of 10-generation jumps back you’ve made (2^10=1024, so it’s a computer-science “k”).
So we’re talking about roughly 1000^10 slots (100 generations is 10 10-generation jumps) for all of your 98th-great grandparents. Order of magnitude for the number of people alive (again, 150M to 300M) is less than 1000^3.
So you would have more than 1000^7 (a 1 with 21 zeros after it) as many pedigree slots as living humans to fill them. And not all of those living humans even reproduced. Of the ones that did, not all of their offspring reproduced. And so on.
The idea that there would be a mitochondrial Eve 200,000 years ago doesn’t seem at all odd to me when you consider the pedigree-versus-population math for just 2000 years ago.
McKT giving examples of loony left stuff unquestioningly accepted by the liberal left:
Me, accepting these things have problematic aspects:
McKT, responding:
While I completely agree with McKT’s second comment, above, I don’t think it relates at all to my actual comment. I wasn’t talking about general perceptions of bigotry on the other (whichever) side, I was talking about the kind of bigotry and misogyny over many years which has necessitated the perhaps over-correction that is anti-racist, anti-sexist, yes-means-yes-and-no-means-no discourse on campuses. The bigotry and misogyny I am talking about is the slut-shaming which is still all-too-prevalent “she was wearing such a short skirt, she was asking for it, it’s the racist ridicule masquerading as good-natured teasing “why is drawing a watermelon patch on the White House lawn prejudiced?” etc etc.
Just to clarify.
McKT giving examples of loony left stuff unquestioningly accepted by the liberal left:
Me, accepting these things have problematic aspects:
McKT, responding:
While I completely agree with McKT’s second comment, above, I don’t think it relates at all to my actual comment. I wasn’t talking about general perceptions of bigotry on the other (whichever) side, I was talking about the kind of bigotry and misogyny over many years which has necessitated the perhaps over-correction that is anti-racist, anti-sexist, yes-means-yes-and-no-means-no discourse on campuses. The bigotry and misogyny I am talking about is the slut-shaming which is still all-too-prevalent “she was wearing such a short skirt, she was asking for it, it’s the racist ridicule masquerading as good-natured teasing “why is drawing a watermelon patch on the White House lawn prejudiced?” etc etc.
Just to clarify.
McKT giving examples of loony left stuff unquestioningly accepted by the liberal left:
Me, accepting these things have problematic aspects:
McKT, responding:
While I completely agree with McKT’s second comment, above, I don’t think it relates at all to my actual comment. I wasn’t talking about general perceptions of bigotry on the other (whichever) side, I was talking about the kind of bigotry and misogyny over many years which has necessitated the perhaps over-correction that is anti-racist, anti-sexist, yes-means-yes-and-no-means-no discourse on campuses. The bigotry and misogyny I am talking about is the slut-shaming which is still all-too-prevalent “she was wearing such a short skirt, she was asking for it, it’s the racist ridicule masquerading as good-natured teasing “why is drawing a watermelon patch on the White House lawn prejudiced?” etc etc.
Just to clarify.
Thank you for the number crunching. That is way outside my modest skill set. I do appreciate the time and effort.
Thank you for the number crunching. That is way outside my modest skill set. I do appreciate the time and effort.
Thank you for the number crunching. That is way outside my modest skill set. I do appreciate the time and effort.
How could evolution have “happened” so “fast”, you ask. I am no expert, so I only offer this.
Several theories, but magic does not seem to be a requisite.
How could evolution have “happened” so “fast”, you ask. I am no expert, so I only offer this.
Several theories, but magic does not seem to be a requisite.
How could evolution have “happened” so “fast”, you ask. I am no expert, so I only offer this.
Several theories, but magic does not seem to be a requisite.
Speaking of number-crunching, this:
is wrong. The ball-park number of pedigree slots should be (2^10)^(10^3). BIG difference.
Speaking of number-crunching, this:
is wrong. The ball-park number of pedigree slots should be (2^10)^(10^3). BIG difference.
Speaking of number-crunching, this:
is wrong. The ball-park number of pedigree slots should be (2^10)^(10^3). BIG difference.
Several theories, but magic does not seem to be a requisite.
It never is. But, they are theories. Moreover, theories that try to explain–with minimal, indirect evidence–how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps despite a relatively very small population. Magic is a two way street.
Several theories, but magic does not seem to be a requisite.
It never is. But, they are theories. Moreover, theories that try to explain–with minimal, indirect evidence–how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps despite a relatively very small population. Magic is a two way street.
Several theories, but magic does not seem to be a requisite.
It never is. But, they are theories. Moreover, theories that try to explain–with minimal, indirect evidence–how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps despite a relatively very small population. Magic is a two way street.
Notation oddity? I’d have written that 2^(10^4), which represents a 10,000 doublings.
HSH’s version is even more mystifying to me. But that could be just my 10-second glance’s worth of understanding.
(2^10)^4 is roughly a trillion. 2^(10^4) is a lot bigger number. Ten to the roughly 6931 power, which is just ridiculously large.
Notation oddity? I’d have written that 2^(10^4), which represents a 10,000 doublings.
HSH’s version is even more mystifying to me. But that could be just my 10-second glance’s worth of understanding.
(2^10)^4 is roughly a trillion. 2^(10^4) is a lot bigger number. Ten to the roughly 6931 power, which is just ridiculously large.
Notation oddity? I’d have written that 2^(10^4), which represents a 10,000 doublings.
HSH’s version is even more mystifying to me. But that could be just my 10-second glance’s worth of understanding.
(2^10)^4 is roughly a trillion. 2^(10^4) is a lot bigger number. Ten to the roughly 6931 power, which is just ridiculously large.
Yeah. It would be more straightforward to write it 2^(10^4). I only use a base of 2^10 because I go back 10 generations to generate a “K” and go from there. But going back 200,000 years is roughly 10,000 generations, so you could just say 2^10000.
Even if you just look 2000 years back, you can do 2^100 on a calculator, take the log of that, and you get 30.something or other. So 2^100 is roughly 10^30 (or 1000^10).
I just like the 10-generation jumps to get rough powers of 1000.
Yeah. It would be more straightforward to write it 2^(10^4). I only use a base of 2^10 because I go back 10 generations to generate a “K” and go from there. But going back 200,000 years is roughly 10,000 generations, so you could just say 2^10000.
Even if you just look 2000 years back, you can do 2^100 on a calculator, take the log of that, and you get 30.something or other. So 2^100 is roughly 10^30 (or 1000^10).
I just like the 10-generation jumps to get rough powers of 1000.
Yeah. It would be more straightforward to write it 2^(10^4). I only use a base of 2^10 because I go back 10 generations to generate a “K” and go from there. But going back 200,000 years is roughly 10,000 generations, so you could just say 2^10000.
Even if you just look 2000 years back, you can do 2^100 on a calculator, take the log of that, and you get 30.something or other. So 2^100 is roughly 10^30 (or 1000^10).
I just like the 10-generation jumps to get rough powers of 1000.
Oh, and if you go back roughly 500 years, you get to the point where your number of pedigree slots is about equal to the entire population of the planet.
Oh, and if you go back roughly 500 years, you get to the point where your number of pedigree slots is about equal to the entire population of the planet.
Oh, and if you go back roughly 500 years, you get to the point where your number of pedigree slots is about equal to the entire population of the planet.
Oh. You’re right. 1024 raised to the 1000 power is the same as 2 raised to the 10,000 power.
Long day. Been wrestling with non-mathematical crapola today, namely why I can’t rsync files from my server.
I could do it in a straightforward way if I knew what the name of the machine was, but all I know is the name of the NT share. Which doesn’t help me much.
Oh. You’re right. 1024 raised to the 1000 power is the same as 2 raised to the 10,000 power.
Long day. Been wrestling with non-mathematical crapola today, namely why I can’t rsync files from my server.
I could do it in a straightforward way if I knew what the name of the machine was, but all I know is the name of the NT share. Which doesn’t help me much.
Oh. You’re right. 1024 raised to the 1000 power is the same as 2 raised to the 10,000 power.
Long day. Been wrestling with non-mathematical crapola today, namely why I can’t rsync files from my server.
I could do it in a straightforward way if I knew what the name of the machine was, but all I know is the name of the NT share. Which doesn’t help me much.
-how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps despite a relatively very small population.
many of the differences between us and our closest relatives, chimps, are in degrees, not in kind. which suggests that the common ancestor between chimps and humans probably had most of the traits that chimps and humans have in common: tool using, tool making, complex societies, the ability to count, to use language, to cooperate to achieve tasks, a theory of mind, purposeful problem solving, etc..
and the things that do separate us from chimps are exactly the kinds of things that make us so great at dominating our environment. so, once the last little bits fell into place, it was game on.
so, no quantum leap. no magic. just a lot of potential, primed and ready for that last little spark.
-how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps despite a relatively very small population.
many of the differences between us and our closest relatives, chimps, are in degrees, not in kind. which suggests that the common ancestor between chimps and humans probably had most of the traits that chimps and humans have in common: tool using, tool making, complex societies, the ability to count, to use language, to cooperate to achieve tasks, a theory of mind, purposeful problem solving, etc..
and the things that do separate us from chimps are exactly the kinds of things that make us so great at dominating our environment. so, once the last little bits fell into place, it was game on.
so, no quantum leap. no magic. just a lot of potential, primed and ready for that last little spark.
-how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps despite a relatively very small population.
many of the differences between us and our closest relatives, chimps, are in degrees, not in kind. which suggests that the common ancestor between chimps and humans probably had most of the traits that chimps and humans have in common: tool using, tool making, complex societies, the ability to count, to use language, to cooperate to achieve tasks, a theory of mind, purposeful problem solving, etc..
and the things that do separate us from chimps are exactly the kinds of things that make us so great at dominating our environment. so, once the last little bits fell into place, it was game on.
so, no quantum leap. no magic. just a lot of potential, primed and ready for that last little spark.
which suggests that the common ancestor between chimps and humans probably had most of the traits that chimps and humans have in common: tool using, tool making, complex societies, the ability to count, to use language, to cooperate to achieve tasks, a theory of mind, purposeful problem solving, etc..
I read this twice. Current thinking is that chimps and humans split 5 million or so years ago. Tool using/making first came about maybe 2 million years ago and is not associated with chimps or their ancestors. I’m not even sure there is a meaningful fossil record of the chimpanzee lineage.
which suggests that the common ancestor between chimps and humans probably had most of the traits that chimps and humans have in common: tool using, tool making, complex societies, the ability to count, to use language, to cooperate to achieve tasks, a theory of mind, purposeful problem solving, etc..
I read this twice. Current thinking is that chimps and humans split 5 million or so years ago. Tool using/making first came about maybe 2 million years ago and is not associated with chimps or their ancestors. I’m not even sure there is a meaningful fossil record of the chimpanzee lineage.
which suggests that the common ancestor between chimps and humans probably had most of the traits that chimps and humans have in common: tool using, tool making, complex societies, the ability to count, to use language, to cooperate to achieve tasks, a theory of mind, purposeful problem solving, etc..
I read this twice. Current thinking is that chimps and humans split 5 million or so years ago. Tool using/making first came about maybe 2 million years ago and is not associated with chimps or their ancestors. I’m not even sure there is a meaningful fossil record of the chimpanzee lineage.
McKinney,
Perhaps I misspoke. It should have been “hypotheses”, not “theories”. And to the degree that they can be tested using current DNA techniques, these speculations can be “verified” with a great deal of accuracy.
But then you are an attorney, not a statistician.
And what cleek said. You are not a biologist either! 😉
McKinney,
Perhaps I misspoke. It should have been “hypotheses”, not “theories”. And to the degree that they can be tested using current DNA techniques, these speculations can be “verified” with a great deal of accuracy.
But then you are an attorney, not a statistician.
And what cleek said. You are not a biologist either! 😉
McKinney,
Perhaps I misspoke. It should have been “hypotheses”, not “theories”. And to the degree that they can be tested using current DNA techniques, these speculations can be “verified” with a great deal of accuracy.
But then you are an attorney, not a statistician.
And what cleek said. You are not a biologist either! 😉
There’s some evidence that only in this last interglacial period was the climate accommodating enough in the right places to give the development of agriculture a chance.
There’s some evidence that only in this last interglacial period was the climate accommodating enough in the right places to give the development of agriculture a chance.
There’s some evidence that only in this last interglacial period was the climate accommodating enough in the right places to give the development of agriculture a chance.
Oh, and if you go back roughly 500 years, you get to the point where your number of pedigree slots is about equal to the entire population of the planet.
You might want to note, in all these calculations, you are assuming that ALL of the ancestors in any given generation are seperate and distinct individuals. But the fact is, in most of the world for most of history, there is a significant amount of in-breeding. A lot of places discourage siblings and first cousins from mating, but even a little more distant than that was generally fine. Which abruptly reduces the number of different ancestors from there on back.
In fact, the past few decades is the only time ever that it is even possible that someone might well have multiple ancestors who had a mate from half way around the world. And even today (outside the US) it is extremely rare for someone to mate outside their immediate area.
Oh, and if you go back roughly 500 years, you get to the point where your number of pedigree slots is about equal to the entire population of the planet.
You might want to note, in all these calculations, you are assuming that ALL of the ancestors in any given generation are seperate and distinct individuals. But the fact is, in most of the world for most of history, there is a significant amount of in-breeding. A lot of places discourage siblings and first cousins from mating, but even a little more distant than that was generally fine. Which abruptly reduces the number of different ancestors from there on back.
In fact, the past few decades is the only time ever that it is even possible that someone might well have multiple ancestors who had a mate from half way around the world. And even today (outside the US) it is extremely rare for someone to mate outside their immediate area.
Oh, and if you go back roughly 500 years, you get to the point where your number of pedigree slots is about equal to the entire population of the planet.
You might want to note, in all these calculations, you are assuming that ALL of the ancestors in any given generation are seperate and distinct individuals. But the fact is, in most of the world for most of history, there is a significant amount of in-breeding. A lot of places discourage siblings and first cousins from mating, but even a little more distant than that was generally fine. Which abruptly reduces the number of different ancestors from there on back.
In fact, the past few decades is the only time ever that it is even possible that someone might well have multiple ancestors who had a mate from half way around the world. And even today (outside the US) it is extremely rare for someone to mate outside their immediate area.
wj: You might want to note, in all these calculations, you are assuming that ALL of the ancestors in any given generation are seperate and distinct individuals.
It’s not easy to tease out of all the math, but I don’t think hsh is assuming that at all. In his first (?) comment on the subject he says:
That Eve would probably show up in many, many, many of the slots in your family tree (pedigree, really) – your 10,000th great grandmother over here (and a bunch of other places), your 10,001st great grandmother over there (and a bunch of other places), and so on and so forth.
That is another way of saying there would have been a lot of “interbreeding.”
More if I can get out from under some work stuff; this is an interesting topic and discussion.
wj: You might want to note, in all these calculations, you are assuming that ALL of the ancestors in any given generation are seperate and distinct individuals.
It’s not easy to tease out of all the math, but I don’t think hsh is assuming that at all. In his first (?) comment on the subject he says:
That Eve would probably show up in many, many, many of the slots in your family tree (pedigree, really) – your 10,000th great grandmother over here (and a bunch of other places), your 10,001st great grandmother over there (and a bunch of other places), and so on and so forth.
That is another way of saying there would have been a lot of “interbreeding.”
More if I can get out from under some work stuff; this is an interesting topic and discussion.
wj: You might want to note, in all these calculations, you are assuming that ALL of the ancestors in any given generation are seperate and distinct individuals.
It’s not easy to tease out of all the math, but I don’t think hsh is assuming that at all. In his first (?) comment on the subject he says:
That Eve would probably show up in many, many, many of the slots in your family tree (pedigree, really) – your 10,000th great grandmother over here (and a bunch of other places), your 10,001st great grandmother over there (and a bunch of other places), and so on and so forth.
That is another way of saying there would have been a lot of “interbreeding.”
More if I can get out from under some work stuff; this is an interesting topic and discussion.
Clarifying my comment a bit — some of hsh’s straight math does sound like he’s making the assumption you suggest, but his original point about Eve showing up in many places in the tree suggests that his math is knowingly idealized and he doesn’t want to make the disclaimer every other sentence. 🙂
(And of course, hsh can speak for himself…..)
Clarifying my comment a bit — some of hsh’s straight math does sound like he’s making the assumption you suggest, but his original point about Eve showing up in many places in the tree suggests that his math is knowingly idealized and he doesn’t want to make the disclaimer every other sentence. 🙂
(And of course, hsh can speak for himself…..)
Clarifying my comment a bit — some of hsh’s straight math does sound like he’s making the assumption you suggest, but his original point about Eve showing up in many places in the tree suggests that his math is knowingly idealized and he doesn’t want to make the disclaimer every other sentence. 🙂
(And of course, hsh can speak for himself…..)
The fact is that everyone has two parents. Even if you are the product of full-sibling incest, each of your parents still has two parents. And even though those parents are the same two people, your pedigree will still have four places for grandparents. Yes, your maternal grandfather and your paternal grandfather will be the same person, but he will still be filling two roles. Same for your one human grandmother, who would be both your maternal and paternal grandmother.
My underlying point was to demonstrate how your pedigree slots (and I used that term rather than ancestors, knowing they wouldn’t be filled uniquely – I could also have used “ancestral roles”) would far exceed the number of humans on the earth very quickly as you looked back through the generations.
That, in turn, was to demonstrate that mitochondrial Eve was but one of anyone’s female ancestors in any of the generations in which she filled multiple ancestral roles, aside from the one in which she was everyone’s most recent common, purely matrilineal ancestor. She and most of the humans alive when she was alive would be all over the place on anyone’s pedigree, each filling multiple roles in any given generation and showing up over a number of generations.
The fact is that everyone has two parents. Even if you are the product of full-sibling incest, each of your parents still has two parents. And even though those parents are the same two people, your pedigree will still have four places for grandparents. Yes, your maternal grandfather and your paternal grandfather will be the same person, but he will still be filling two roles. Same for your one human grandmother, who would be both your maternal and paternal grandmother.
My underlying point was to demonstrate how your pedigree slots (and I used that term rather than ancestors, knowing they wouldn’t be filled uniquely – I could also have used “ancestral roles”) would far exceed the number of humans on the earth very quickly as you looked back through the generations.
That, in turn, was to demonstrate that mitochondrial Eve was but one of anyone’s female ancestors in any of the generations in which she filled multiple ancestral roles, aside from the one in which she was everyone’s most recent common, purely matrilineal ancestor. She and most of the humans alive when she was alive would be all over the place on anyone’s pedigree, each filling multiple roles in any given generation and showing up over a number of generations.
The fact is that everyone has two parents. Even if you are the product of full-sibling incest, each of your parents still has two parents. And even though those parents are the same two people, your pedigree will still have four places for grandparents. Yes, your maternal grandfather and your paternal grandfather will be the same person, but he will still be filling two roles. Same for your one human grandmother, who would be both your maternal and paternal grandmother.
My underlying point was to demonstrate how your pedigree slots (and I used that term rather than ancestors, knowing they wouldn’t be filled uniquely – I could also have used “ancestral roles”) would far exceed the number of humans on the earth very quickly as you looked back through the generations.
That, in turn, was to demonstrate that mitochondrial Eve was but one of anyone’s female ancestors in any of the generations in which she filled multiple ancestral roles, aside from the one in which she was everyone’s most recent common, purely matrilineal ancestor. She and most of the humans alive when she was alive would be all over the place on anyone’s pedigree, each filling multiple roles in any given generation and showing up over a number of generations.
“Current thinking is that chimps and humans split 5 million or so years ago.”
Someone tell Cheeta:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-548332/Tarzans-favourite-kick-Cheeta-turns-76-wont-retire—pens-autobiography.html
Maybe not:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-hood/cheeta-is-alive-and-well-_b_1176815.html
Walker Percy had much to say about the chimp/language thing. He wasn’t glowing.
Speaking of knuckle dragging, there’s a cartoon in this week’s New Yorker showing a President Trump (pictured from the back, like Steinbrenner in Seinfeld, the marmoset that sits in for his hair is the giveaway that it’s His Massiveness) sits with his military advisors at a long table in the White House situation room and his hands are extended and splayed in an “it’s very simple” mannerism, and he’s issuing his decision: “Look, just nuke them and build something terrific.”
Which is funny, until you think how appealing that notion is to a rather large contingent of chimpanzees who reportedly split with humans 79 million years ago but still retain voting rights and walk around with automatic tool sets.
Apropos of nothing except giggles, there’s another cartoon depicting Dorothy and the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow, and the Tin Man is saying: “A heart would be great, sure, but what I’d really like is a working human penis.”
Which may explain why human population growth came first and the first secretions of the empathy gland came much later and seem to be still held up in transit.
And lest you think I’m completely off topic, a third cartoon shows an astronomy observatory aiming its lenses at the heavens, which have parted and the hand of Almighty but Paparazzi-Proof God reaches through a cloud and blocks the view by placing the tip of His index finger up against the aperture.
“Current thinking is that chimps and humans split 5 million or so years ago.”
Someone tell Cheeta:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-548332/Tarzans-favourite-kick-Cheeta-turns-76-wont-retire—pens-autobiography.html
Maybe not:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-hood/cheeta-is-alive-and-well-_b_1176815.html
Walker Percy had much to say about the chimp/language thing. He wasn’t glowing.
Speaking of knuckle dragging, there’s a cartoon in this week’s New Yorker showing a President Trump (pictured from the back, like Steinbrenner in Seinfeld, the marmoset that sits in for his hair is the giveaway that it’s His Massiveness) sits with his military advisors at a long table in the White House situation room and his hands are extended and splayed in an “it’s very simple” mannerism, and he’s issuing his decision: “Look, just nuke them and build something terrific.”
Which is funny, until you think how appealing that notion is to a rather large contingent of chimpanzees who reportedly split with humans 79 million years ago but still retain voting rights and walk around with automatic tool sets.
Apropos of nothing except giggles, there’s another cartoon depicting Dorothy and the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow, and the Tin Man is saying: “A heart would be great, sure, but what I’d really like is a working human penis.”
Which may explain why human population growth came first and the first secretions of the empathy gland came much later and seem to be still held up in transit.
And lest you think I’m completely off topic, a third cartoon shows an astronomy observatory aiming its lenses at the heavens, which have parted and the hand of Almighty but Paparazzi-Proof God reaches through a cloud and blocks the view by placing the tip of His index finger up against the aperture.
“Current thinking is that chimps and humans split 5 million or so years ago.”
Someone tell Cheeta:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-548332/Tarzans-favourite-kick-Cheeta-turns-76-wont-retire—pens-autobiography.html
Maybe not:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-hood/cheeta-is-alive-and-well-_b_1176815.html
Walker Percy had much to say about the chimp/language thing. He wasn’t glowing.
Speaking of knuckle dragging, there’s a cartoon in this week’s New Yorker showing a President Trump (pictured from the back, like Steinbrenner in Seinfeld, the marmoset that sits in for his hair is the giveaway that it’s His Massiveness) sits with his military advisors at a long table in the White House situation room and his hands are extended and splayed in an “it’s very simple” mannerism, and he’s issuing his decision: “Look, just nuke them and build something terrific.”
Which is funny, until you think how appealing that notion is to a rather large contingent of chimpanzees who reportedly split with humans 79 million years ago but still retain voting rights and walk around with automatic tool sets.
Apropos of nothing except giggles, there’s another cartoon depicting Dorothy and the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow, and the Tin Man is saying: “A heart would be great, sure, but what I’d really like is a working human penis.”
Which may explain why human population growth came first and the first secretions of the empathy gland came much later and seem to be still held up in transit.
And lest you think I’m completely off topic, a third cartoon shows an astronomy observatory aiming its lenses at the heavens, which have parted and the hand of Almighty but Paparazzi-Proof God reaches through a cloud and blocks the view by placing the tip of His index finger up against the aperture.
What I should add is that it’s entirely possible that all humans living today share a much more recent common ancestor than mitochondrial Eve. It’s just that mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to child unaltered but for very occasional mutations. The DNA never gets mixed with the father’s DNA in the next generation through crossing over, and it’s completely separate from the nuclear DNA in chromosomes.
There is also a Y-chromosomal Adam who is estimated to have lived 200k to 300k years ago. The pattern of inheritance is largely the same, but only males receive Y-chromosomes. Not that it matters much, since men’s mitochondrial DNA is basically a dead end.
What I should add is that it’s entirely possible that all humans living today share a much more recent common ancestor than mitochondrial Eve. It’s just that mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to child unaltered but for very occasional mutations. The DNA never gets mixed with the father’s DNA in the next generation through crossing over, and it’s completely separate from the nuclear DNA in chromosomes.
There is also a Y-chromosomal Adam who is estimated to have lived 200k to 300k years ago. The pattern of inheritance is largely the same, but only males receive Y-chromosomes. Not that it matters much, since men’s mitochondrial DNA is basically a dead end.
What I should add is that it’s entirely possible that all humans living today share a much more recent common ancestor than mitochondrial Eve. It’s just that mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to child unaltered but for very occasional mutations. The DNA never gets mixed with the father’s DNA in the next generation through crossing over, and it’s completely separate from the nuclear DNA in chromosomes.
There is also a Y-chromosomal Adam who is estimated to have lived 200k to 300k years ago. The pattern of inheritance is largely the same, but only males receive Y-chromosomes. Not that it matters much, since men’s mitochondrial DNA is basically a dead end.
All of which is to say that those two ancestors can be identified as filling a very specific ancestral role. It doesn’t mean they’re the most recent ancestor common to all living humans. It’s just that the more recent ones’ DNA is all mixed up and possibly lost entirely.
All of which is to say that those two ancestors can be identified as filling a very specific ancestral role. It doesn’t mean they’re the most recent ancestor common to all living humans. It’s just that the more recent ones’ DNA is all mixed up and possibly lost entirely.
All of which is to say that those two ancestors can be identified as filling a very specific ancestral role. It doesn’t mean they’re the most recent ancestor common to all living humans. It’s just that the more recent ones’ DNA is all mixed up and possibly lost entirely.
I beg your pardon, and furthermore, I resemble that remark:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pennsylvania-white-nationalist
The lawmaker (the what?) then presented rearwards to the assembled panel members and promptly ate his talking points.
Are we sure about this chimp/human parting of the ways?
I beg your pardon, and furthermore, I resemble that remark:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pennsylvania-white-nationalist
The lawmaker (the what?) then presented rearwards to the assembled panel members and promptly ate his talking points.
Are we sure about this chimp/human parting of the ways?
I beg your pardon, and furthermore, I resemble that remark:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pennsylvania-white-nationalist
The lawmaker (the what?) then presented rearwards to the assembled panel members and promptly ate his talking points.
Are we sure about this chimp/human parting of the ways?
Hey, listen, God and me, we’re very tight. See this piece of property right here, God got me in early and on the ground floor. He knew ahead of everyone they were going to put an ocean in right over there, which boosted my property values. As a realtor, the Creator is huge, just massive. His commissions are a little steep, but hey, he also supplies cheap imported labor to keep the landscaping on this golf course in tiptop shape. Look at dose greens, will ya! Little guys in sombreros out here day and night manicuring the things with tweezers and nail clippers. I don’t when they find the time for the raping and the crime waves, dese people.
Every time I come here, one of my assistants gets down on his hands and knees and gives thanks to the Lord, and while he’s down there, I sit on his back and look around and say to myself, “Jesus f*cking Christ in turquoise pants with a matching shirt on a golf cart, I am a frigging genius!”
Thank you very much for having me here, Values Voters. Hey, Values, that’s a good one. You know the value of THIS place? Nevermind, you can’t count that high! But, it’s chump change compared to my net worth.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I drove into the trees and need to go retrieve my balls that Fiorina supposedly cut off the other day. Ha ha. God is my caddy and is intervening with the lie of the ball by kicking it back on to the fairway, so I should be up and in with a birdie, God willing.
Where’s that goddamed drinks caddy?
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/24/trump-speak-values-voter-summit-hate-weekend.html
Hey, listen, God and me, we’re very tight. See this piece of property right here, God got me in early and on the ground floor. He knew ahead of everyone they were going to put an ocean in right over there, which boosted my property values. As a realtor, the Creator is huge, just massive. His commissions are a little steep, but hey, he also supplies cheap imported labor to keep the landscaping on this golf course in tiptop shape. Look at dose greens, will ya! Little guys in sombreros out here day and night manicuring the things with tweezers and nail clippers. I don’t when they find the time for the raping and the crime waves, dese people.
Every time I come here, one of my assistants gets down on his hands and knees and gives thanks to the Lord, and while he’s down there, I sit on his back and look around and say to myself, “Jesus f*cking Christ in turquoise pants with a matching shirt on a golf cart, I am a frigging genius!”
Thank you very much for having me here, Values Voters. Hey, Values, that’s a good one. You know the value of THIS place? Nevermind, you can’t count that high! But, it’s chump change compared to my net worth.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I drove into the trees and need to go retrieve my balls that Fiorina supposedly cut off the other day. Ha ha. God is my caddy and is intervening with the lie of the ball by kicking it back on to the fairway, so I should be up and in with a birdie, God willing.
Where’s that goddamed drinks caddy?
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/24/trump-speak-values-voter-summit-hate-weekend.html
Hey, listen, God and me, we’re very tight. See this piece of property right here, God got me in early and on the ground floor. He knew ahead of everyone they were going to put an ocean in right over there, which boosted my property values. As a realtor, the Creator is huge, just massive. His commissions are a little steep, but hey, he also supplies cheap imported labor to keep the landscaping on this golf course in tiptop shape. Look at dose greens, will ya! Little guys in sombreros out here day and night manicuring the things with tweezers and nail clippers. I don’t when they find the time for the raping and the crime waves, dese people.
Every time I come here, one of my assistants gets down on his hands and knees and gives thanks to the Lord, and while he’s down there, I sit on his back and look around and say to myself, “Jesus f*cking Christ in turquoise pants with a matching shirt on a golf cart, I am a frigging genius!”
Thank you very much for having me here, Values Voters. Hey, Values, that’s a good one. You know the value of THIS place? Nevermind, you can’t count that high! But, it’s chump change compared to my net worth.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I drove into the trees and need to go retrieve my balls that Fiorina supposedly cut off the other day. Ha ha. God is my caddy and is intervening with the lie of the ball by kicking it back on to the fairway, so I should be up and in with a birdie, God willing.
Where’s that goddamed drinks caddy?
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/24/trump-speak-values-voter-summit-hate-weekend.html
McTx: So, does PP harvest organs from living, aborted children? It seems that is the case.
Also McTX: Everybody likes to get hot and bothered about stuff that makes them itch. We’ve seen too many busts and no one seems to have learned any lessons.
McKinney, who admonishes us libruls to wait until all the facts are in, apparently thinks all the facts are in on Planned Parenthood. And apparently also thinks that PP is a monolith and VW isn’t.
Also apparently, he agrees that he gets hot and bothered about things that make him itch, and allows that he hasn’t learned any lessons. Which is to his credit.
–TP
McTx: So, does PP harvest organs from living, aborted children? It seems that is the case.
Also McTX: Everybody likes to get hot and bothered about stuff that makes them itch. We’ve seen too many busts and no one seems to have learned any lessons.
McKinney, who admonishes us libruls to wait until all the facts are in, apparently thinks all the facts are in on Planned Parenthood. And apparently also thinks that PP is a monolith and VW isn’t.
Also apparently, he agrees that he gets hot and bothered about things that make him itch, and allows that he hasn’t learned any lessons. Which is to his credit.
–TP
McTx: So, does PP harvest organs from living, aborted children? It seems that is the case.
Also McTX: Everybody likes to get hot and bothered about stuff that makes them itch. We’ve seen too many busts and no one seems to have learned any lessons.
McKinney, who admonishes us libruls to wait until all the facts are in, apparently thinks all the facts are in on Planned Parenthood. And apparently also thinks that PP is a monolith and VW isn’t.
Also apparently, he agrees that he gets hot and bothered about things that make him itch, and allows that he hasn’t learned any lessons. Which is to his credit.
–TP
Current thinking is that chimps and humans split 5 million or so years ago. Tool using/making first came about maybe 2 million years ago and is not associated with chimps or their ancestors.
chimps have been known to make and use tools since the 60s. that was one of Jane Goodall’s first big discoveries.
and we have direct evidence of tool use by something that’s more than 3M years old. this article assumes it was “Lucy’s” species wot did the deed.
it’s certainly possible that tool use evolved separately in chimps and our early non-human ancestors, after they diverged. but that seems far less likely than it simply being a trait we all share.
Current thinking is that chimps and humans split 5 million or so years ago. Tool using/making first came about maybe 2 million years ago and is not associated with chimps or their ancestors.
chimps have been known to make and use tools since the 60s. that was one of Jane Goodall’s first big discoveries.
and we have direct evidence of tool use by something that’s more than 3M years old. this article assumes it was “Lucy’s” species wot did the deed.
it’s certainly possible that tool use evolved separately in chimps and our early non-human ancestors, after they diverged. but that seems far less likely than it simply being a trait we all share.
Current thinking is that chimps and humans split 5 million or so years ago. Tool using/making first came about maybe 2 million years ago and is not associated with chimps or their ancestors.
chimps have been known to make and use tools since the 60s. that was one of Jane Goodall’s first big discoveries.
and we have direct evidence of tool use by something that’s more than 3M years old. this article assumes it was “Lucy’s” species wot did the deed.
it’s certainly possible that tool use evolved separately in chimps and our early non-human ancestors, after they diverged. but that seems far less likely than it simply being a trait we all share.
the list of animals that use tools is pretty long. I believe it includes some insects.
tool making is a behavior we share with both chimps and crows.
the list of animals that use tools is pretty long. I believe it includes some insects.
tool making is a behavior we share with both chimps and crows.
the list of animals that use tools is pretty long. I believe it includes some insects.
tool making is a behavior we share with both chimps and crows.
crows are pretty amazing critters, IMO.
crows are pretty amazing critters, IMO.
crows are pretty amazing critters, IMO.
it’s certainly possible that tool use evolved separately in chimps and our early non-human ancestors, after they diverged.
Do sex toys count?
it’s certainly possible that tool use evolved separately in chimps and our early non-human ancestors, after they diverged.
Do sex toys count?
it’s certainly possible that tool use evolved separately in chimps and our early non-human ancestors, after they diverged.
Do sex toys count?
IMO the crows are just waiting for us to kill ourselves off, so they can have all of our shiny stuff.
Their odds are not bad.
IMO the crows are just waiting for us to kill ourselves off, so they can have all of our shiny stuff.
Their odds are not bad.
IMO the crows are just waiting for us to kill ourselves off, so they can have all of our shiny stuff.
Their odds are not bad.
Story I heard about crows, perhaps as believable as a PP sting video.
Crows harassing a squirrel out of a tree, until it scampers across the yard…until the homeowners dog chases, catches, kills it.
At which point, the crows dive-bomb the dog to drive it away, then proceed to eat the dead squirrel.
“Tool use” doesn’t have to be all sticks and stones.
Story I heard about crows, perhaps as believable as a PP sting video.
Crows harassing a squirrel out of a tree, until it scampers across the yard…until the homeowners dog chases, catches, kills it.
At which point, the crows dive-bomb the dog to drive it away, then proceed to eat the dead squirrel.
“Tool use” doesn’t have to be all sticks and stones.
Story I heard about crows, perhaps as believable as a PP sting video.
Crows harassing a squirrel out of a tree, until it scampers across the yard…until the homeowners dog chases, catches, kills it.
At which point, the crows dive-bomb the dog to drive it away, then proceed to eat the dead squirrel.
“Tool use” doesn’t have to be all sticks and stones.
Since there’s no open thread, and this one has pretty much gone off the rails topic-wise, I’ll mention that I work in Camden, NJ. My commute is basically that of someone who works in Philadelphia, minus going over the bridge and anything thereafter.
You’re probably all aware that Pope Francis is going to be in Philly all weekend, and it’s been anticipatory Ghostbusters-style mass-hysteria around here for a while now.
I was wondering what my commute would be like this morning. Would early arrivers have traffic snarled?
I drove to work like it was a Sunday morning. The roads were empty. Downtown Camden was empty. All the parking lots around my work are empty. I’m looking out the window at the Ben Franklin Bridge, and there’s lots and lots of space between the few cars crossing it.
It’s creepy.
Since there’s no open thread, and this one has pretty much gone off the rails topic-wise, I’ll mention that I work in Camden, NJ. My commute is basically that of someone who works in Philadelphia, minus going over the bridge and anything thereafter.
You’re probably all aware that Pope Francis is going to be in Philly all weekend, and it’s been anticipatory Ghostbusters-style mass-hysteria around here for a while now.
I was wondering what my commute would be like this morning. Would early arrivers have traffic snarled?
I drove to work like it was a Sunday morning. The roads were empty. Downtown Camden was empty. All the parking lots around my work are empty. I’m looking out the window at the Ben Franklin Bridge, and there’s lots and lots of space between the few cars crossing it.
It’s creepy.
Since there’s no open thread, and this one has pretty much gone off the rails topic-wise, I’ll mention that I work in Camden, NJ. My commute is basically that of someone who works in Philadelphia, minus going over the bridge and anything thereafter.
You’re probably all aware that Pope Francis is going to be in Philly all weekend, and it’s been anticipatory Ghostbusters-style mass-hysteria around here for a while now.
I was wondering what my commute would be like this morning. Would early arrivers have traffic snarled?
I drove to work like it was a Sunday morning. The roads were empty. Downtown Camden was empty. All the parking lots around my work are empty. I’m looking out the window at the Ben Franklin Bridge, and there’s lots and lots of space between the few cars crossing it.
It’s creepy.
Maybe it’s just everybody with that commute into Philadelphia deciding that it would be unbelievably horrible, and therefore opting out. Vacation day, “sick” day, telecommuting, etc. — whatever it takes to avoid it.
Maybe it’s just everybody with that commute into Philadelphia deciding that it would be unbelievably horrible, and therefore opting out. Vacation day, “sick” day, telecommuting, etc. — whatever it takes to avoid it.
Maybe it’s just everybody with that commute into Philadelphia deciding that it would be unbelievably horrible, and therefore opting out. Vacation day, “sick” day, telecommuting, etc. — whatever it takes to avoid it.
To quote Yogi Berra, “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”
To quote Yogi Berra, “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”
To quote Yogi Berra, “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”
Crow tool use indeed:
http://www.nateklein.net/images/thefarside/resized/crow-tools-700×450.jpg
Crow tool use indeed:
http://www.nateklein.net/images/thefarside/resized/crow-tools-700×450.jpg
Crow tool use indeed:
http://www.nateklein.net/images/thefarside/resized/crow-tools-700×450.jpg
Boehner is quitting.
/sad_trombone
sadly, his replacement is likely to be one of the insane “conservative” know-nothings who think they can blackmail their way to Utopia. and that’s going to fnck the country up pretty good – for a while. but eventually, like, say, Nov 2016, the country is going to figure out that there’s no point in electing people who think governing means constant brinkmanship.
Boehner is quitting.
/sad_trombone
sadly, his replacement is likely to be one of the insane “conservative” know-nothings who think they can blackmail their way to Utopia. and that’s going to fnck the country up pretty good – for a while. but eventually, like, say, Nov 2016, the country is going to figure out that there’s no point in electing people who think governing means constant brinkmanship.
Boehner is quitting.
/sad_trombone
sadly, his replacement is likely to be one of the insane “conservative” know-nothings who think they can blackmail their way to Utopia. and that’s going to fnck the country up pretty good – for a while. but eventually, like, say, Nov 2016, the country is going to figure out that there’s no point in electing people who think governing means constant brinkmanship.
“but eventually, like, say, Nov 2016, the country is going to figure out that there’s no point in electing people who think governing means constant brinkmanship.”
Oh, an optimist.
The chimps, with the crows providing air cover,
are now in charge.
“but eventually, like, say, Nov 2016, the country is going to figure out that there’s no point in electing people who think governing means constant brinkmanship.”
Oh, an optimist.
The chimps, with the crows providing air cover,
are now in charge.
“but eventually, like, say, Nov 2016, the country is going to figure out that there’s no point in electing people who think governing means constant brinkmanship.”
Oh, an optimist.
The chimps, with the crows providing air cover,
are now in charge.
The Crowapians…
The Crowapians…
The Crowapians…
It never is. But, they are theories. Moreover, theories that try to explain–with minimal, indirect evidence–how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps despite a relatively very small population.
Never been to the Galapagos, eh McKinney?
It never is. But, they are theories. Moreover, theories that try to explain–with minimal, indirect evidence–how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps despite a relatively very small population.
Never been to the Galapagos, eh McKinney?
It never is. But, they are theories. Moreover, theories that try to explain–with minimal, indirect evidence–how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps despite a relatively very small population.
Never been to the Galapagos, eh McKinney?
how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps despite a relatively very small population.
I wonder what role control of fire and cooked food played.
Depending on who’s counting, those technologies were introduced 250K years ago, or maybe much earlier for control of fire, specifically.
how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps despite a relatively very small population.
I wonder what role control of fire and cooked food played.
Depending on who’s counting, those technologies were introduced 250K years ago, or maybe much earlier for control of fire, specifically.
how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps despite a relatively very small population.
I wonder what role control of fire and cooked food played.
Depending on who’s counting, those technologies were introduced 250K years ago, or maybe much earlier for control of fire, specifically.
There was a near one for one exchange between digestive track mass and brain mass.
There was a near one for one exchange between digestive track mass and brain mass.
There was a near one for one exchange between digestive track mass and brain mass.
how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps
there’s no fixed rate of evolution. it can happen slowly or it can happen quickly.
the environment plays a big role (climate, food, etc.). other species get a say in your survival.
but most importantly, random chance always wins.
it’s probably safe to assume that there are uncountably many species that would have avoided extinction if one more individual would’ve lived long enough to reproduce one more time.
how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps
there’s no fixed rate of evolution. it can happen slowly or it can happen quickly.
the environment plays a big role (climate, food, etc.). other species get a say in your survival.
but most importantly, random chance always wins.
it’s probably safe to assume that there are uncountably many species that would have avoided extinction if one more individual would’ve lived long enough to reproduce one more time.
how we went from 10’s of thousands of years of glacial evolution to quantum leaps
there’s no fixed rate of evolution. it can happen slowly or it can happen quickly.
the environment plays a big role (climate, food, etc.). other species get a say in your survival.
but most importantly, random chance always wins.
it’s probably safe to assume that there are uncountably many species that would have avoided extinction if one more individual would’ve lived long enough to reproduce one more time.
sadly, his replacement is likely to be one of the insane “conservative” know-nothings who think they can blackmail their way to Utopia
If they sell out of the money popcorn futures somewhere, buy them.
sadly, his replacement is likely to be one of the insane “conservative” know-nothings who think they can blackmail their way to Utopia
If they sell out of the money popcorn futures somewhere, buy them.
sadly, his replacement is likely to be one of the insane “conservative” know-nothings who think they can blackmail their way to Utopia
If they sell out of the money popcorn futures somewhere, buy them.
“there’s no fixed rate of evolution. it can happen slowly or it can happen quickly.”
Indeed Russell, according to Stephen Jay Gould:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
“there’s no fixed rate of evolution. it can happen slowly or it can happen quickly.”
Indeed Russell, according to Stephen Jay Gould:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
“there’s no fixed rate of evolution. it can happen slowly or it can happen quickly.”
Indeed Russell, according to Stephen Jay Gould:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Russell (or anybody) might enjoy this essay[PDF] by Peter Medawar. In it, Medawar develops an extended analogy between “the jukebox and the gramophone” on the one hand, and Darwinian versus Lamarckian evolution on the other. His point is that cultural evolution is Lamarckian: acquired traits are heritable, though not genetically. Let Darwinian processes produce a big enough brain, and you get from stone axes to ICBMs right quick.
It’s an old piece, dating from 1959, but it remains one of my favorite reads ever.
–TP
Russell (or anybody) might enjoy this essay[PDF] by Peter Medawar. In it, Medawar develops an extended analogy between “the jukebox and the gramophone” on the one hand, and Darwinian versus Lamarckian evolution on the other. His point is that cultural evolution is Lamarckian: acquired traits are heritable, though not genetically. Let Darwinian processes produce a big enough brain, and you get from stone axes to ICBMs right quick.
It’s an old piece, dating from 1959, but it remains one of my favorite reads ever.
–TP
Russell (or anybody) might enjoy this essay[PDF] by Peter Medawar. In it, Medawar develops an extended analogy between “the jukebox and the gramophone” on the one hand, and Darwinian versus Lamarckian evolution on the other. His point is that cultural evolution is Lamarckian: acquired traits are heritable, though not genetically. Let Darwinian processes produce a big enough brain, and you get from stone axes to ICBMs right quick.
It’s an old piece, dating from 1959, but it remains one of my favorite reads ever.
–TP
it’s probably safe to assume that there are uncountably many species that would have avoided extinction if one more individual would’ve lived long enough to reproduce one more time.
If my memory serves me right, our current record in saving a species (iirc some relative of the dove) from extinction is one where only one pregnant female was left.
it’s probably safe to assume that there are uncountably many species that would have avoided extinction if one more individual would’ve lived long enough to reproduce one more time.
If my memory serves me right, our current record in saving a species (iirc some relative of the dove) from extinction is one where only one pregnant female was left.
it’s probably safe to assume that there are uncountably many species that would have avoided extinction if one more individual would’ve lived long enough to reproduce one more time.
If my memory serves me right, our current record in saving a species (iirc some relative of the dove) from extinction is one where only one pregnant female was left.
despite a … small population…
Actually, it’s not despite; a small population can be a contributory factor to rapid evolution.
I think McT is confusing the rate of accumulation of mutations with the rate of evolution.
Evolution is a truly simple idea, but its ramifications are extremely complicated, often subtle, and frequently counterintuitive.
despite a … small population…
Actually, it’s not despite; a small population can be a contributory factor to rapid evolution.
I think McT is confusing the rate of accumulation of mutations with the rate of evolution.
Evolution is a truly simple idea, but its ramifications are extremely complicated, often subtle, and frequently counterintuitive.
despite a … small population…
Actually, it’s not despite; a small population can be a contributory factor to rapid evolution.
I think McT is confusing the rate of accumulation of mutations with the rate of evolution.
Evolution is a truly simple idea, but its ramifications are extremely complicated, often subtle, and frequently counterintuitive.
TED collaborates with animator Andrew Park to illustrate Denis Dutton’s provocative theory on beauty — that art, music and other beautiful things, far from being simply “in the eye of the beholder,” are a core part of human nature with deep evolutionary origins.
A Darwinian Theory of Beauty
TED collaborates with animator Andrew Park to illustrate Denis Dutton’s provocative theory on beauty — that art, music and other beautiful things, far from being simply “in the eye of the beholder,” are a core part of human nature with deep evolutionary origins.
A Darwinian Theory of Beauty
TED collaborates with animator Andrew Park to illustrate Denis Dutton’s provocative theory on beauty — that art, music and other beautiful things, far from being simply “in the eye of the beholder,” are a core part of human nature with deep evolutionary origins.
A Darwinian Theory of Beauty
How did a very small population of hominids evolve such a clever tool set without anyone else in the community knowing or approving:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/vw-tries-blame-engine-emissions-fraud-low-level-engineers-and-technicians
What, no carrots, no incentives, no reproductive imperatives from the surrounding hominids?
A lark. Not even a Studebaker. A VW. An Audi.
Most peculiar.
How did a very small population of hominids evolve such a clever tool set without anyone else in the community knowing or approving:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/vw-tries-blame-engine-emissions-fraud-low-level-engineers-and-technicians
What, no carrots, no incentives, no reproductive imperatives from the surrounding hominids?
A lark. Not even a Studebaker. A VW. An Audi.
Most peculiar.
How did a very small population of hominids evolve such a clever tool set without anyone else in the community knowing or approving:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/vw-tries-blame-engine-emissions-fraud-low-level-engineers-and-technicians
What, no carrots, no incentives, no reproductive imperatives from the surrounding hominids?
A lark. Not even a Studebaker. A VW. An Audi.
Most peculiar.
If as you wish VW goes bankrupt it leaves millions of VW owners in the lurch from that “fix” the issue. They would have problems with getting maintenance under their warranties, and a lack of repair sites and parts.
I have owned my first not VW, a Ford, since 1968, and I am not impressed with the Ford or its post purchase service. There is nothing wrong with it but it is costing a fortune to maintain, gets 10 miles to the gallon less than the TDI, which carried me for over 140,000 miles. Even at that age it still was getting, in town around 37-38 mpg.
Not to mention the lose of many jobs in the US and abroad. Also too do you really think other car manufacturers aren’t doing the same thing?
If as you wish VW goes bankrupt it leaves millions of VW owners in the lurch from that “fix” the issue. They would have problems with getting maintenance under their warranties, and a lack of repair sites and parts.
I have owned my first not VW, a Ford, since 1968, and I am not impressed with the Ford or its post purchase service. There is nothing wrong with it but it is costing a fortune to maintain, gets 10 miles to the gallon less than the TDI, which carried me for over 140,000 miles. Even at that age it still was getting, in town around 37-38 mpg.
Not to mention the lose of many jobs in the US and abroad. Also too do you really think other car manufacturers aren’t doing the same thing?
If as you wish VW goes bankrupt it leaves millions of VW owners in the lurch from that “fix” the issue. They would have problems with getting maintenance under their warranties, and a lack of repair sites and parts.
I have owned my first not VW, a Ford, since 1968, and I am not impressed with the Ford or its post purchase service. There is nothing wrong with it but it is costing a fortune to maintain, gets 10 miles to the gallon less than the TDI, which carried me for over 140,000 miles. Even at that age it still was getting, in town around 37-38 mpg.
Not to mention the lose of many jobs in the US and abroad. Also too do you really think other car manufacturers aren’t doing the same thing?
Speaking only for myself, I don’t wish bankruptcy upon VW or any company or individual.
But when and if I do, I’ll post the memo here.
Speaking only for myself, I don’t wish bankruptcy upon VW or any company or individual.
But when and if I do, I’ll post the memo here.
Speaking only for myself, I don’t wish bankruptcy upon VW or any company or individual.
But when and if I do, I’ll post the memo here.
What the Count said.
What the Count said.
What the Count said.
I doubt that anybody here wishes bankruptcy on VW.
On the other hand, one can wish that the pain of whatever punishment they get is sufficient to get their attention. I.e. not just a slap on the wrist which can be written off out of a quarter or two of profits. Something that will make sure that VW, and every other auto maker, will want to make d*mn sure that they never, ever, go there in the future.
I doubt that anybody here wishes bankruptcy on VW.
On the other hand, one can wish that the pain of whatever punishment they get is sufficient to get their attention. I.e. not just a slap on the wrist which can be written off out of a quarter or two of profits. Something that will make sure that VW, and every other auto maker, will want to make d*mn sure that they never, ever, go there in the future.
I doubt that anybody here wishes bankruptcy on VW.
On the other hand, one can wish that the pain of whatever punishment they get is sufficient to get their attention. I.e. not just a slap on the wrist which can be written off out of a quarter or two of profits. Something that will make sure that VW, and every other auto maker, will want to make d*mn sure that they never, ever, go there in the future.
Oops:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-staff-supplier-warned-emissions-133819063.html
In the event of a bankruptcy threat, however, I am in favor of a bailout by the German government.
For the suffering employees, consumers, and suppliers, actual people, who are innocent of any wrongdoing, and I suppose bondholders too, though probably pennies on the Euro.
I mean, if a corporation that was founded on slave labor and was considered worth nothing as late as 1948 by Henry Ford II, who’s Ford Motor was offered it for free and turned it down, can be rejuvenated, partially by infusions of government capital via orders from the U.S. military after WWII and such, certainly the SECOND largest automaker behind Toyota (AND, as of 2005*, the 52nd largest entity, including countries, in the world) can be lent some government help after being ruined a second time (well, nearly a third time) by management who of their own volition caused its ruination, apparently secretly.
To address Margaret Barton’s last point about maybe other car makers engaging in this practice as well, the fragile world economy cannot handle some of its largest entities going under and the ripple effects of such a thing happening.
Now that I’m considering the scope of this and the sheer size of the actor, I’m getting very nervous and am glad I’m not running a Central Bank right now.
*
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/07/corporations-among-largest-global-economic-enterprises/
Oops:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-staff-supplier-warned-emissions-133819063.html
In the event of a bankruptcy threat, however, I am in favor of a bailout by the German government.
For the suffering employees, consumers, and suppliers, actual people, who are innocent of any wrongdoing, and I suppose bondholders too, though probably pennies on the Euro.
I mean, if a corporation that was founded on slave labor and was considered worth nothing as late as 1948 by Henry Ford II, who’s Ford Motor was offered it for free and turned it down, can be rejuvenated, partially by infusions of government capital via orders from the U.S. military after WWII and such, certainly the SECOND largest automaker behind Toyota (AND, as of 2005*, the 52nd largest entity, including countries, in the world) can be lent some government help after being ruined a second time (well, nearly a third time) by management who of their own volition caused its ruination, apparently secretly.
To address Margaret Barton’s last point about maybe other car makers engaging in this practice as well, the fragile world economy cannot handle some of its largest entities going under and the ripple effects of such a thing happening.
Now that I’m considering the scope of this and the sheer size of the actor, I’m getting very nervous and am glad I’m not running a Central Bank right now.
*
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/07/corporations-among-largest-global-economic-enterprises/
Oops:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-staff-supplier-warned-emissions-133819063.html
In the event of a bankruptcy threat, however, I am in favor of a bailout by the German government.
For the suffering employees, consumers, and suppliers, actual people, who are innocent of any wrongdoing, and I suppose bondholders too, though probably pennies on the Euro.
I mean, if a corporation that was founded on slave labor and was considered worth nothing as late as 1948 by Henry Ford II, who’s Ford Motor was offered it for free and turned it down, can be rejuvenated, partially by infusions of government capital via orders from the U.S. military after WWII and such, certainly the SECOND largest automaker behind Toyota (AND, as of 2005*, the 52nd largest entity, including countries, in the world) can be lent some government help after being ruined a second time (well, nearly a third time) by management who of their own volition caused its ruination, apparently secretly.
To address Margaret Barton’s last point about maybe other car makers engaging in this practice as well, the fragile world economy cannot handle some of its largest entities going under and the ripple effects of such a thing happening.
Now that I’m considering the scope of this and the sheer size of the actor, I’m getting very nervous and am glad I’m not running a Central Bank right now.
*
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/07/corporations-among-largest-global-economic-enterprises/
VW of currently the 13th largest company bu revenue in the world.
VW of currently the 13th largest company bu revenue in the world.
VW of currently the 13th largest company bu revenue in the world.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/25/volkswagen-appoints-matthias-muller-chief-executive-porsche-vw
The toxic fumes are overtaking analysts at Swiss bank UBS.
“Analysts at UBS warned that if the crisis worsened it could signal the eventual end of the combustion engine. Julie Hudson at UBS said: “Should transport emissions become too difficult to regulate because of the difficulty of amassing accurate data, we think this might go way beyond the diesel engine, to accelerate the demise of the combustion engine.”
And to think, mere days ago, loose talk from a few nattering nabobs at Obsidian Wings were the biggest threat to VW’s existence.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/25/volkswagen-appoints-matthias-muller-chief-executive-porsche-vw
The toxic fumes are overtaking analysts at Swiss bank UBS.
“Analysts at UBS warned that if the crisis worsened it could signal the eventual end of the combustion engine. Julie Hudson at UBS said: “Should transport emissions become too difficult to regulate because of the difficulty of amassing accurate data, we think this might go way beyond the diesel engine, to accelerate the demise of the combustion engine.”
And to think, mere days ago, loose talk from a few nattering nabobs at Obsidian Wings were the biggest threat to VW’s existence.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/25/volkswagen-appoints-matthias-muller-chief-executive-porsche-vw
The toxic fumes are overtaking analysts at Swiss bank UBS.
“Analysts at UBS warned that if the crisis worsened it could signal the eventual end of the combustion engine. Julie Hudson at UBS said: “Should transport emissions become too difficult to regulate because of the difficulty of amassing accurate data, we think this might go way beyond the diesel engine, to accelerate the demise of the combustion engine.”
And to think, mere days ago, loose talk from a few nattering nabobs at Obsidian Wings were the biggest threat to VW’s existence.
Rewrite of my 6:30 pm:
“VW is currently the 13th largest company by revenue in the world.”
I’m afraid my proofreading failures may lead to the eventual end of the written word.
So keep this on the down-low.
Rewrite of my 6:30 pm:
“VW is currently the 13th largest company by revenue in the world.”
I’m afraid my proofreading failures may lead to the eventual end of the written word.
So keep this on the down-low.
Rewrite of my 6:30 pm:
“VW is currently the 13th largest company by revenue in the world.”
I’m afraid my proofreading failures may lead to the eventual end of the written word.
So keep this on the down-low.
Don’t where to put this, but it is a business/evolution thread:
http://fortune.com/2015/09/26/carly-fiorina-steven-rattner/?xid=yahoo_fortune
Don’t where to put this, but it is a business/evolution thread:
http://fortune.com/2015/09/26/carly-fiorina-steven-rattner/?xid=yahoo_fortune
Don’t where to put this, but it is a business/evolution thread:
http://fortune.com/2015/09/26/carly-fiorina-steven-rattner/?xid=yahoo_fortune
On a revenue basis, VW is three times larger than North Korea. Imagine what we would do to North Korea if we found out they had engaged in a deliberate subterfuge that caused thousands of unnecessary deaths of US citizens. Innocent North Koreans be damnned.
On a revenue basis, VW is three times larger than North Korea. Imagine what we would do to North Korea if we found out they had engaged in a deliberate subterfuge that caused thousands of unnecessary deaths of US citizens. Innocent North Koreans be damnned.
On a revenue basis, VW is three times larger than North Korea. Imagine what we would do to North Korea if we found out they had engaged in a deliberate subterfuge that caused thousands of unnecessary deaths of US citizens. Innocent North Koreans be damnned.
margaret, if you are looking for someone to be angry with about all of this, perhaps you should consider VW.
margaret, if you are looking for someone to be angry with about all of this, perhaps you should consider VW.
margaret, if you are looking for someone to be angry with about all of this, perhaps you should consider VW.
too do you really think other car manufacturers aren’t doing the same thing?
Actually, probably not.
While it’s clear that other manufacturers are gaming emissions/fuel economy tests (most obviously in Europe), VW appears (around 2007/8) to have taken a specific decision not to fit the urea exhaust injection system to its smaller diesel cars in order to meet the US emissions regulations, but rather to install the cheat code to beat the US test.
The software was developed and provided by Bosch, who apparently advised VW, in terms, not to use it in this manner.
The VW US strategy seemed to co-incide with the appointment of Winkelhorn as CEO (and he brought with him two new heads of R&D, allegedly less squeamish about the cheat code use).
It’s quite possible, even likely, that Bosch supplied this software to other companies, but thus far there’s no evidence that anyone else used it in this manner in the US.
All sorts of shenanigans have been going on in Europe, but it’s not at all clear how much any of the rise to the level of fraud, as up until now there has been a great deal of collusion between regulators and car companies.
I’d be very happy now were I a large shareholder in Tesla.
too do you really think other car manufacturers aren’t doing the same thing?
Actually, probably not.
While it’s clear that other manufacturers are gaming emissions/fuel economy tests (most obviously in Europe), VW appears (around 2007/8) to have taken a specific decision not to fit the urea exhaust injection system to its smaller diesel cars in order to meet the US emissions regulations, but rather to install the cheat code to beat the US test.
The software was developed and provided by Bosch, who apparently advised VW, in terms, not to use it in this manner.
The VW US strategy seemed to co-incide with the appointment of Winkelhorn as CEO (and he brought with him two new heads of R&D, allegedly less squeamish about the cheat code use).
It’s quite possible, even likely, that Bosch supplied this software to other companies, but thus far there’s no evidence that anyone else used it in this manner in the US.
All sorts of shenanigans have been going on in Europe, but it’s not at all clear how much any of the rise to the level of fraud, as up until now there has been a great deal of collusion between regulators and car companies.
I’d be very happy now were I a large shareholder in Tesla.
too do you really think other car manufacturers aren’t doing the same thing?
Actually, probably not.
While it’s clear that other manufacturers are gaming emissions/fuel economy tests (most obviously in Europe), VW appears (around 2007/8) to have taken a specific decision not to fit the urea exhaust injection system to its smaller diesel cars in order to meet the US emissions regulations, but rather to install the cheat code to beat the US test.
The software was developed and provided by Bosch, who apparently advised VW, in terms, not to use it in this manner.
The VW US strategy seemed to co-incide with the appointment of Winkelhorn as CEO (and he brought with him two new heads of R&D, allegedly less squeamish about the cheat code use).
It’s quite possible, even likely, that Bosch supplied this software to other companies, but thus far there’s no evidence that anyone else used it in this manner in the US.
All sorts of shenanigans have been going on in Europe, but it’s not at all clear how much any of the rise to the level of fraud, as up until now there has been a great deal of collusion between regulators and car companies.
I’d be very happy now were I a large shareholder in Tesla.
Also of note was Bosch publicising, just as all this blew up, its acquisition of a US battery developer.
They appear to have seen the writing on the wall.
Also of note was Bosch publicising, just as all this blew up, its acquisition of a US battery developer.
They appear to have seen the writing on the wall.
Also of note was Bosch publicising, just as all this blew up, its acquisition of a US battery developer.
They appear to have seen the writing on the wall.
And German prosecutors have just announced an investigation directed at Winterkorn.
(Apologies to him for mangling his name a couple of posts back…)
And German prosecutors have just announced an investigation directed at Winterkorn.
(Apologies to him for mangling his name a couple of posts back…)
And German prosecutors have just announced an investigation directed at Winterkorn.
(Apologies to him for mangling his name a couple of posts back…)
Some detail, via this link, on cheating (not necessarily illegal) in Europe:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/press/some-mercedes-bmw-and-peugeot-models-consuming-around-50-more-fuel-official-results-new-study
Some detail, via this link, on cheating (not necessarily illegal) in Europe:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/press/some-mercedes-bmw-and-peugeot-models-consuming-around-50-more-fuel-official-results-new-study
Some detail, via this link, on cheating (not necessarily illegal) in Europe:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/press/some-mercedes-bmw-and-peugeot-models-consuming-around-50-more-fuel-official-results-new-study
And to think, mere days ago, loose talk from a few nattering nabobs at Obsidian Wings were the biggest threat to VW’s existence.
I was the straw Count, the straw.
And to think, mere days ago, loose talk from a few nattering nabobs at Obsidian Wings were the biggest threat to VW’s existence.
I was the straw Count, the straw.
And to think, mere days ago, loose talk from a few nattering nabobs at Obsidian Wings were the biggest threat to VW’s existence.
I was the straw Count, the straw.
Bronze this one.
Bronze this one.
Bronze this one.
Anyone else notice that the guy who pulled the trigger on VW is German?
No, his name is German. I’d bet he’s even of German ancestry.
I sense an Abbott and Costello skit, reinvigorated.
Anyone else notice that the guy who pulled the trigger on VW is German?
No, his name is German. I’d bet he’s even of German ancestry.
I sense an Abbott and Costello skit, reinvigorated.
Anyone else notice that the guy who pulled the trigger on VW is German?
No, his name is German. I’d bet he’s even of German ancestry.
I sense an Abbott and Costello skit, reinvigorated.
Granted, it’s The Grauniad:
Meet John German: the man who exposed Volkswagen’s emissions scandal
Granted, it’s The Grauniad:
Meet John German: the man who exposed Volkswagen’s emissions scandal
Granted, it’s The Grauniad:
Meet John German: the man who exposed Volkswagen’s emissions scandal
I wish I had kept a list of the names of people involved in scandals over the years.
They so many times fit the scandal so perfectly that one does begin to suspect the work of an outside agency in human events, and I don;t mean Monty Python.
Especially sex scandals.
Roger Goodnutting said today he has no recollection of the 41 women who have come forward to allege his sexual peccadilloes.
Dick Johnson denied that the Twitter pics in question were photographs of his genitals, the last time he looked.
Fraudy MckLitefingers said she had no idea who was responsible for the recent rash of pick pocketing and check kiting schemes in the village of MissingMoneyPenny-on-Crumpet in the South of England.
I wish I had kept a list of the names of people involved in scandals over the years.
They so many times fit the scandal so perfectly that one does begin to suspect the work of an outside agency in human events, and I don;t mean Monty Python.
Especially sex scandals.
Roger Goodnutting said today he has no recollection of the 41 women who have come forward to allege his sexual peccadilloes.
Dick Johnson denied that the Twitter pics in question were photographs of his genitals, the last time he looked.
Fraudy MckLitefingers said she had no idea who was responsible for the recent rash of pick pocketing and check kiting schemes in the village of MissingMoneyPenny-on-Crumpet in the South of England.
I wish I had kept a list of the names of people involved in scandals over the years.
They so many times fit the scandal so perfectly that one does begin to suspect the work of an outside agency in human events, and I don;t mean Monty Python.
Especially sex scandals.
Roger Goodnutting said today he has no recollection of the 41 women who have come forward to allege his sexual peccadilloes.
Dick Johnson denied that the Twitter pics in question were photographs of his genitals, the last time he looked.
Fraudy MckLitefingers said she had no idea who was responsible for the recent rash of pick pocketing and check kiting schemes in the village of MissingMoneyPenny-on-Crumpet in the South of England.
They teach jacksh&t in business school:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=petrobras&insttype=&freq=2&show=&time=12
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=UK%3AGLEN&insttype=Stock
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=VLKAY&insttype=Stock
I haven’t done the math yet but all three companies’ worldwide account for huge revenue and much, much more in market value.
All three could be gone by this time next year.
That’s just three multinational corporations.
No “ripple” effects.
Tsunami financial effects.
If all three companies were 400 pound fat people (which they aren’t — fat in the head maybe — but not people) jumping from the high dive into a moderate-sized swimming pool, the real people in the pool, the bleachers, the shower rooms and 10 blocks in every direction would perish from drowning.
Huge Trump is a pipsqueak compared to the real wealth being destroyed.
They teach jacksh&t in business school:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=petrobras&insttype=&freq=2&show=&time=12
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=UK%3AGLEN&insttype=Stock
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=VLKAY&insttype=Stock
I haven’t done the math yet but all three companies’ worldwide account for huge revenue and much, much more in market value.
All three could be gone by this time next year.
That’s just three multinational corporations.
No “ripple” effects.
Tsunami financial effects.
If all three companies were 400 pound fat people (which they aren’t — fat in the head maybe — but not people) jumping from the high dive into a moderate-sized swimming pool, the real people in the pool, the bleachers, the shower rooms and 10 blocks in every direction would perish from drowning.
Huge Trump is a pipsqueak compared to the real wealth being destroyed.
They teach jacksh&t in business school:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=petrobras&insttype=&freq=2&show=&time=12
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=UK%3AGLEN&insttype=Stock
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=VLKAY&insttype=Stock
I haven’t done the math yet but all three companies’ worldwide account for huge revenue and much, much more in market value.
All three could be gone by this time next year.
That’s just three multinational corporations.
No “ripple” effects.
Tsunami financial effects.
If all three companies were 400 pound fat people (which they aren’t — fat in the head maybe — but not people) jumping from the high dive into a moderate-sized swimming pool, the real people in the pool, the bleachers, the shower rooms and 10 blocks in every direction would perish from drowning.
Huge Trump is a pipsqueak compared to the real wealth being destroyed.
the real wealth being destroyed…
Not so much destroyed, as redistributed.
Those who have to buy commodities like steel and oil are doing rather well.
Of course there is a certain amount of value destruction inherent in any large market ‘correction’, but that, for better or worse, is how capitalism works.
It’s a crap system, but the alternatives, well…
(And it’s worth pointing out that the boom and bust of the commodities market was largely a result of that happening in a nominally ‘planned’ economy, viz China.)
On the bright side, if the internal combustion engine debacle worsens, it will likely speed the introduction of the electric car.
the real wealth being destroyed…
Not so much destroyed, as redistributed.
Those who have to buy commodities like steel and oil are doing rather well.
Of course there is a certain amount of value destruction inherent in any large market ‘correction’, but that, for better or worse, is how capitalism works.
It’s a crap system, but the alternatives, well…
(And it’s worth pointing out that the boom and bust of the commodities market was largely a result of that happening in a nominally ‘planned’ economy, viz China.)
On the bright side, if the internal combustion engine debacle worsens, it will likely speed the introduction of the electric car.
the real wealth being destroyed…
Not so much destroyed, as redistributed.
Those who have to buy commodities like steel and oil are doing rather well.
Of course there is a certain amount of value destruction inherent in any large market ‘correction’, but that, for better or worse, is how capitalism works.
It’s a crap system, but the alternatives, well…
(And it’s worth pointing out that the boom and bust of the commodities market was largely a result of that happening in a nominally ‘planned’ economy, viz China.)
On the bright side, if the internal combustion engine debacle worsens, it will likely speed the introduction of the electric car.
There is something to all of those points.
I’m not arguing about how capitalism works relative to other arrangement, I’m arguing that much of the world is looking at deflation with a debt overhang and it is dangerous.
Commodity deflation in developing countries, which depend to a large degree on commodity extraction, causes economic distress that will only exacerbate migration and immigration trends.
Given its size, I’m not sure China’s inevitable boom and bust cycles would be any different under an unplanned economy.
The best-laid plans go awry. Not having a plan doesn’t seem a good fallback position, but, yes, “nominally planned”.
Yes on the bright side. Getting there could be very dull or very exciting, and probably both for the losers.
There is something to all of those points.
I’m not arguing about how capitalism works relative to other arrangement, I’m arguing that much of the world is looking at deflation with a debt overhang and it is dangerous.
Commodity deflation in developing countries, which depend to a large degree on commodity extraction, causes economic distress that will only exacerbate migration and immigration trends.
Given its size, I’m not sure China’s inevitable boom and bust cycles would be any different under an unplanned economy.
The best-laid plans go awry. Not having a plan doesn’t seem a good fallback position, but, yes, “nominally planned”.
Yes on the bright side. Getting there could be very dull or very exciting, and probably both for the losers.
There is something to all of those points.
I’m not arguing about how capitalism works relative to other arrangement, I’m arguing that much of the world is looking at deflation with a debt overhang and it is dangerous.
Commodity deflation in developing countries, which depend to a large degree on commodity extraction, causes economic distress that will only exacerbate migration and immigration trends.
Given its size, I’m not sure China’s inevitable boom and bust cycles would be any different under an unplanned economy.
The best-laid plans go awry. Not having a plan doesn’t seem a good fallback position, but, yes, “nominally planned”.
Yes on the bright side. Getting there could be very dull or very exciting, and probably both for the losers.
True, lots of bad stuff could/will happen… just saying there are two sides to most coins.
I’m actually an optimist, since I believe that (relatively) cheap,distributed renewable energy is coming soon, and is going to transform the developing world.
There’s even a school of thought that wealth inequalities are set to reverse:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11882915/Deflation-supercyle-is-over-as-world-runs-out-of-workers.html
True, lots of bad stuff could/will happen… just saying there are two sides to most coins.
I’m actually an optimist, since I believe that (relatively) cheap,distributed renewable energy is coming soon, and is going to transform the developing world.
There’s even a school of thought that wealth inequalities are set to reverse:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11882915/Deflation-supercyle-is-over-as-world-runs-out-of-workers.html
True, lots of bad stuff could/will happen… just saying there are two sides to most coins.
I’m actually an optimist, since I believe that (relatively) cheap,distributed renewable energy is coming soon, and is going to transform the developing world.
There’s even a school of thought that wealth inequalities are set to reverse:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11882915/Deflation-supercyle-is-over-as-world-runs-out-of-workers.html
The answer to the question posed above: Do all my children lie, cheat, and steal?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-just-latest-long-history-175946526.html
The answer to the question posed above: Do all my children lie, cheat, and steal?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-just-latest-long-history-175946526.html
The answer to the question posed above: Do all my children lie, cheat, and steal?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-just-latest-long-history-175946526.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denying-party-on-earth.html?wpsrc=nymag#
What you do is you get the clever VW engineers who did the deed to calibrate the temperature gauges to the “HOAX” setting, when Republicans are checking them, and we’re good to go.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denying-party-on-earth.html?wpsrc=nymag#
What you do is you get the clever VW engineers who did the deed to calibrate the temperature gauges to the “HOAX” setting, when Republicans are checking them, and we’re good to go.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denying-party-on-earth.html?wpsrc=nymag#
What you do is you get the clever VW engineers who did the deed to calibrate the temperature gauges to the “HOAX” setting, when Republicans are checking them, and we’re good to go.
Of course they cheat and steal.
The less reported, but perhaps more important, fact is the effectiveness of environmental regulations despite the cheating:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/upshot/how-many-deaths-did-volkswagens-deception-cause-in-us.html
Since the standards went into effect from 2004 to 2009, he said, emissions of nitrogen oxides have been 90 percent lower…
Of course they cheat and steal.
The less reported, but perhaps more important, fact is the effectiveness of environmental regulations despite the cheating:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/upshot/how-many-deaths-did-volkswagens-deception-cause-in-us.html
Since the standards went into effect from 2004 to 2009, he said, emissions of nitrogen oxides have been 90 percent lower…
Of course they cheat and steal.
The less reported, but perhaps more important, fact is the effectiveness of environmental regulations despite the cheating:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/upshot/how-many-deaths-did-volkswagens-deception-cause-in-us.html
Since the standards went into effect from 2004 to 2009, he said, emissions of nitrogen oxides have been 90 percent lower…
Meanwhile, VW confirm criminal behaviour:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34397426
Meanwhile, VW confirm criminal behaviour:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34397426
Meanwhile, VW confirm criminal behaviour:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34397426
Nigel’s September 29, 2015, 04:39 PM link was interesting, as were the comments, many of which were dismissive of the ideas in the article. I can’t say that Professor Goodhart is right, but citing current high unemployment isn’t really a good argument against predictions about the future, particularly when those predictions are presented as a “complete reversal” of the current situation.
We have a glut of labor now, but we’ll have shortage of it in the future, favoring workers over capital (so the theory goes). “But we have a glut of labor now!” doesn’t counter that very well, I don’t think.
Nigel’s September 29, 2015, 04:39 PM link was interesting, as were the comments, many of which were dismissive of the ideas in the article. I can’t say that Professor Goodhart is right, but citing current high unemployment isn’t really a good argument against predictions about the future, particularly when those predictions are presented as a “complete reversal” of the current situation.
We have a glut of labor now, but we’ll have shortage of it in the future, favoring workers over capital (so the theory goes). “But we have a glut of labor now!” doesn’t counter that very well, I don’t think.
Nigel’s September 29, 2015, 04:39 PM link was interesting, as were the comments, many of which were dismissive of the ideas in the article. I can’t say that Professor Goodhart is right, but citing current high unemployment isn’t really a good argument against predictions about the future, particularly when those predictions are presented as a “complete reversal” of the current situation.
We have a glut of labor now, but we’ll have shortage of it in the future, favoring workers over capital (so the theory goes). “But we have a glut of labor now!” doesn’t counter that very well, I don’t think.
I have no idea if Goodhart will be proved right, but he’s certainly correct that the rear view mirror provides inadequate driving directions.
interesting, as were the comments…
I’ve found it a sensible policy no longer to read the comments below any Telegraph article.
It can lead to a loss of faith in humanity.
I have no idea if Goodhart will be proved right, but he’s certainly correct that the rear view mirror provides inadequate driving directions.
interesting, as were the comments…
I’ve found it a sensible policy no longer to read the comments below any Telegraph article.
It can lead to a loss of faith in humanity.
I have no idea if Goodhart will be proved right, but he’s certainly correct that the rear view mirror provides inadequate driving directions.
interesting, as were the comments…
I’ve found it a sensible policy no longer to read the comments below any Telegraph article.
It can lead to a loss of faith in humanity.
Along with meeting John German, is it a good idea to have a guy named Olaf Lies (Nigel’s article) pointing fingers?
😉
Looks bad in print, probably not so bad when pronounced aloud.
Along with meeting John German, is it a good idea to have a guy named Olaf Lies (Nigel’s article) pointing fingers?
😉
Looks bad in print, probably not so bad when pronounced aloud.
Along with meeting John German, is it a good idea to have a guy named Olaf Lies (Nigel’s article) pointing fingers?
😉
Looks bad in print, probably not so bad when pronounced aloud.
I’ve found it a sensible policy no longer to read the comments below any Telegraph article.
Compared to the people who comment on, say, yahoo!, they sound scholarly. But that’s not really saying much.
I’ve found it a sensible policy no longer to read the comments below any Telegraph article.
Compared to the people who comment on, say, yahoo!, they sound scholarly. But that’s not really saying much.
I’ve found it a sensible policy no longer to read the comments below any Telegraph article.
Compared to the people who comment on, say, yahoo!, they sound scholarly. But that’s not really saying much.
Is our B-school students learning:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/why_business_schools_promote_e.php
Yes, if our reptilian brain stems are the target organ.
As a culture, we are full of sh*t.
Is our B-school students learning:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/why_business_schools_promote_e.php
Yes, if our reptilian brain stems are the target organ.
As a culture, we are full of sh*t.
Is our B-school students learning:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/why_business_schools_promote_e.php
Yes, if our reptilian brain stems are the target organ.
As a culture, we are full of sh*t.
Oh my:
German prosecutors raided Volkswagen’s headquarters and other offices on Thursday as part of their investigation into the carmaker’s rigging of diesel emissions tests.
…
Later on Thursday, the company’s top U.S. executive will tell a panel of U.S. lawmakers he knew the carmaker might be breaking U.S. emissions rules as long as 18 months before it admitted cheating diesel tests to regulators.
Oh my:
German prosecutors raided Volkswagen’s headquarters and other offices on Thursday as part of their investigation into the carmaker’s rigging of diesel emissions tests.
…
Later on Thursday, the company’s top U.S. executive will tell a panel of U.S. lawmakers he knew the carmaker might be breaking U.S. emissions rules as long as 18 months before it admitted cheating diesel tests to regulators.
Oh my:
German prosecutors raided Volkswagen’s headquarters and other offices on Thursday as part of their investigation into the carmaker’s rigging of diesel emissions tests.
…
Later on Thursday, the company’s top U.S. executive will tell a panel of U.S. lawmakers he knew the carmaker might be breaking U.S. emissions rules as long as 18 months before it admitted cheating diesel tests to regulators.
Inevitably, investigators are now looking into VW’s acclaimed stellar car safety tests and ratings.
Inevitably, investigators are now looking into VW’s acclaimed stellar car safety tests and ratings.
Inevitably, investigators are now looking into VW’s acclaimed stellar car safety tests and ratings.
Link:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volkswagen-could-another-problem-hands-131040113.html
Link:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volkswagen-could-another-problem-hands-131040113.html
Link:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volkswagen-could-another-problem-hands-131040113.html
And the search for the scapegoat and ritual covering of the @sses begins….
And the search for the scapegoat and ritual covering of the @sses begins….
And the search for the scapegoat and ritual covering of the @sses begins….