-
- Sat 25 May 4:13 PMPresumed Guilty: The Reception of the BPS Teacher Evaluation System
0
by mark-bail - Fri 24 May 5:15 PMHappy Memorial Day!
0
by mike_cote - Fri 24 May 12:59 PMGomez calls Markey "pond scum," doubles down on Swift-boating, assault weapons, Markey-is-ineffective attacks
15
by fenway49 - Fri 24 May 10:25 AMEmerson College poll has Markey up 12 (45-33)
4
by fenway49 - Fri 24 May 8:30 AMSheriff Koutoujian will run for Congress if Markey wins Senate race
5
by oceandreams - Thu 23 May 11:46 PMAnd now a message from bulls##t mountain
1
by kbusch - Thu 23 May 3:30 PMState Senate Votes Are Online
2
by pauldcraney - Thu 23 May 1:24 PMThousands falling through the cracks in the DDS system
5
by dave-from-hvad - Thu 23 May 10:42 AMLynch joins rest of N.E. delegation in voting against pro-Keystone XL bill
8
by fenway49 - Thu 23 May 10:08 AMGomez Refuses to Release his 2005 Tax Returns
9
by johnk
- Sat 25 May 4:13 PMPresumed Guilty: The Reception of the BPS Teacher Evaluation System
petr
40-ish blend of the sacred and the profane un-easily co-existing in a drastically more compromised shell mourning the absence of my favorite muppet, Grover, from the latest movie... sniff.
Person #1779: 43 Posts
Recommended: 290 times
Yeah, good luck with THAT... (1 Reply)
…If you’re tired of “that perspective” you’ve come to the wrong place, friend.
A man who would take such a stance and such a ‘shady deal’ is not getting my vote to be a United States Senator. SImple as that.
Perhaps there ARE a million other reasons not to like him, but this one seems particularly telling as it deals with facades and fronts, shelters and dodges and tells us that Gomez is comfortable saying one thing to one entity, Cohasett, and an entirely different thing to another entity, the Federales…
divestment is one thing, investment quite another... (0 Replies)
… almost by definition =-)
While “investing” in fossil fuels often carries with it less risk of loss of principle, and increased chance of returns and dividends, and thus makes it a good “investment”, when seen from a purely mercenary point of view, it really isn’t “investment” in the sense I think you mean: buying stock in Exxon is buying stock in the churn of drill, refine, burn, gasp and, you’re not really making anything better. In addition, there is unlikely to be any sort of multiplier. You might help Exxon pump crude out of the ground faster. You might fund another, bigger, tanker that’ll (hopefully safely) get the crude to the refinery). But you’re not investing in much progress. If anything, you’re working against the present state of things where most modes of conveyance, cars, boats, airplanes and trains are in a race to become more fuel efficient. The actual process of turning crude into petrol isn’t all that different from the cracking processes first invented in the 1890′s and refined in the 1920′s. It’s an industry in stasis and unlikely to change. The only thing that will change is the amount of crude available. I had hopes when British Petroleum tried to change it’s name to “Beyond Petroleum” but they suffer, distinctly, from the same issue described here: the lure of easy cash returns rather than real progress.
But specifically investing in renewables is specifically investing in progress: things will need to be built, problems solved, infrastructures built and maintained, and energy delivered. As such, it’s a real investment and, bonus, likely to have a more potent multiplier and a much longer shelf life. Personally, and for those reasons, I’d like to see that 1.3b spent chasing progress, perhaps even eventually being chased by it, rather than simply chasing more bucks in an ever diminishing spiral of diminishing returns. But I don’t think of it as ‘divestment’ in fossil fuels but ‘investment’ in progress.
apparently DFW did not read as far as Theda Skopcol... (0 Replies)
… else he would have written a post about how we almost descended into partisan rancor and thank $DEITY for the responsible adults in charge who put a stop to this and isn’t our political system wonderful for putting adults in charge… yada yada yada…
The IRS has already spoken... (0 Replies)
Since you didn’t reply to this argument earlier, I’ll repost it here:
From the IRS in 2005:
“Abuse of Charitable Organizations and Deductions. The IRS has observed an increase in the use of tax-exempt organizations to improperly shield income or assets from taxation. This can occur, for example, when a taxpayer moves assets or income to a tax-exempt supporting organization or donor-advised fund but maintains control over the assets or income, thereby obtaining a tax deduction without transferring a commensurate benefit to charity. A “contribution” of a historic facade easement to a tax-exempt conservation organization is another example. In many cases, local historic preservation laws already prohibit alteration of the home’s facade, making the contributed easement superfluous. Even if the facade could be altered, the deduction claimed for the easement contribution may far exceed the easement’s impact on the value of the property.”
It’s pretty darn clear cut. And dried. And cut and dried again. The only way it could be more clear cut and drier is if they actually used Gabriel Gomez picture as a cautionary note.
wait... what...? (1 Reply)
First, thus…
..and, after, thus…
Um… if you are unlikely to find an appraiser to accurately determine the change in value, per your first argument, then Gomez himself is even less likely to put a legitimate valuation to his deduction. Maybe it’s $5? Maybe it’s $281,000? Maybe it’s $4,000,000,000,000,000.00? Who knows? If an appraiser can’t put a value on it, why can Gomez?
No you don't... (1 Reply)
… since no such people exist. Oh, yeah, they are ‘sincere’ to the extent that they find it, on the surface valid, but what do they do with it? Do they advocate for less defense spending? (on the theory that you are not limiting anything if you allow unlimited firepower…) Do they advocate for better education? (on the theory that the government that gives away free education is giving away the last vestiges of true control. ) Do they advocate for greater religious freedom? (on the theory that greater an individual is connected to his own religion, the looser, more free, the connection to the state)
What do they do with it, Christopher? They advocate for less healthcare. That’s what. They advocate for less medicare. They advocate for less welfare and less ‘wealth re-distribution’ even though the original distribution of wealth is grossly out of balance. They advocate for less religious freedom and they advocate for less public education. The theory of ‘limited government’ is a hollow shell conveniently sized to hang a hat…
The difference, Christopher, between you and I is that you take people at their word. That’s an essentially honest position that assumes honesty in others. Not a bad way to live. In some ways I envy you.
I’m less honest, I guess, or more prone to see dishonesty, and so I take what people tell me and I compare it to their actions. I see “he’s for us” and I look at what he does and I see he’s not for ALL of “us”… just some of “us”. I see a pointed counterpoint in the use of “he” when “he” is running against a “not he”. If I assumed honesty in Scott Brown, I guess I would just accept that “he’s for us” at face value. I don’t assume honesty.
As to the second amendment and the return of tyranny: consider the history. Between 1820 and 1861 the struggle over slavery’s expansion became bitter and exposed deep deep divides that culminated in the Civil War. Slavery, you’ll note, wasn’t even mentioned in the constitution… yet it was the cause (and don’t let anybody tell you different) of some of the bloodiest battles in this nations history. Men fought and died to abolish slavery and other men fought and died to oppose the abolition of slavery.
Yet who fought and died to oppose the creation of a standing army?
That which WAS mentioned, and explicitly so, in the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, and implicitly, as you allude, the fear of a standing army, garnered not so much as a sneeze when we dropped it like a poxed chicken. It wasn’t about the return of tyranny. It was about keeping slaves in line. And when there were no more slaves to keep in line, there was no more reason to oppose a standing army, (or, conversely, advocate for militias). Some even took to creating extra-judicial militias of their own to terrorize the population of former slaves (the Ku Klux Klan being the most prominent…)
Great sturm und drang regarding slavery, over DECADES culminating in the civil war with terroristic remnants afterwards. Yet when we moved from militias to a standing army… nothing. What does that tell you? What can we infer from the difference between what was said or written and what actually happened…?
The problem, Christopher, is that you... (1 Reply)
… think that ‘limited government’ exists by itself: that it is an thing free from taint and apart and away from the movement which spawned it. It is not. It, too, is a facade constructed to present one face and hide the other.
One can no more divorce the notion of ‘limited government’ from the racist and sexist side of the right than one can claim that the second amendment, itself, wasn’t implemented to protect white slaveholders who were vastly outnumbered by their chattel slaves. The notion of ‘limited government’ and keeping Blacks in their place, are inextricably bound.
Now the thing that makes it plausible is the notion that it could be separate, apart and wholly unengaged with a fey ideology and, most importantly, be something other than just a facade. That, to date, has not happened. Not even in liberal progressive Massachusetts where Scott Brown whistled for the hairiest dogs and, briefly, succeeded, have we seen anything approaching the idea of ‘limited government’ solely and completely for the sake of ‘limited government’: for no other reason than it might be a good idea and able to stand on it’s own.
If it was a good idea, and could stand on it’s own, you’d have seen liberals embracing it long ere now and making something useful out of it.
in the context of... (0 Replies)
… an ordinary election, no politician would be so simpleminded as to use a pronoun, which appears nowhere on a ballot, in a slogan that references groups and/or relationships without having some idea of the conclusions too which the people wil come: the risk of ambiguity is too great without knowing, exactly, how it will be taken.
However, in the context of an election where Scott Brown (“he”) is running against Elizabeth Warren (not a “he”) and in which “he” accused her of being an insufficiently white Cherokee, that is to say, not one of “us”, the slogan can be seen, clearly and straightforwardly as rank sexism and bold racism.
Again, the slim facade, “he’ and ‘us’, is used to present the racism and the sexism while trying to have, at the same time, some facade of normalcy: the same way that Gabriel Gomez wants the profit from federal tax deductions while living in a town that says he can’t do that: one face towards one and another face towards another… It’s the Republican way.
non sequitur... (0 Replies)
Markey, presumably, voted for the federal tax that allows deductions on charitable donations. Gomez used this, entirely legitimate, law in contravention of local ordinances to his profit.
Gomez, it appears, slid between the interstices of the federal law and the local ordinance: to wit the LOCAL ordinance prohibited changes to the facade on his house nullifying the value of an easement which he (Gomez) later valued, for federal tax purposes, at $281,000.
If Markey voted for an entirely legitimate law… and Cohasset enacted entirely legitimate ordinances… which Gomez treated like a loophole… why is Markey to blame, in any way shape or form???
hooey (1 Reply)
The law, in its majesty, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, from donating restriction easements to tax exempt historical trusts… I’m sure the law also restricts the poor, as well as the rich, from making their own estimates of the value of that easement.
Darn. And I was just about to donate the easement on the apartment building, that I don’t own, for a cool 281,000… Drat! Missed it by that much.
What part of ... (0 Replies)
… don’t you get??
From the IRS in 2005:
“Abuse of Charitable Organizations and Deductions. The IRS has observed an increase in the use of tax-exempt organizations to improperly shield income or assets from taxation. This can occur, for example, when a taxpayer moves assets or income to a tax-exempt supporting organization or donor-advised fund but maintains control over the assets or income, thereby obtaining a tax deduction without transferring a commensurate benefit to charity. A “contribution” of a historic facade easement to a tax-exempt conservation organization is another example. In many cases, local historic preservation laws already prohibit alteration of the home’s facade, making the contributed easement superfluous. Even if the facade could be altered, the deduction claimed for the easement contribution may far exceed the easement’s impact on the value of the property.”
It’s pretty darn clear cut. The only way it could be more clear cut is if they actually used Gabriel Gomez picture as a cautionary note.
that's not what the link says... (0 Replies)
The link says the IRS withheld refunds on the assumption of fraud… very little investigation, it seems, was done at all…
do the math... (0 Replies)
THEY are measuring between FEB TWO_THOUSAND_AND_ELEVEN and NOW. They SAY that between FEB 2011 and NOW there is little change and, indeed, that is a true statement.
YOU are measuring between FEB TWO_THOUSAND_AND_NINE and NOW. YOU SAY that, over a longer period, much more has changed and that may be true… but that is not what THEY are saying.
So you can’t criticize them for making a statement that occurred only in your head.
blech (0 Replies)
No. No. No again. You. Don’t. Get. It. It is NOT a law that says “if you decide in one way, and not the other, you are breaking the law.” No. No. and again, no. It is a law that says “You do not have the emotional, physical, mental and moral acumen to make the decision.” The law does not say you can make the decision and suffer the consequences. The law says you cannot make the decision. because you don’t have the full rights of citizenship and adulthood.
The 20 -30% who are “making the decision” are NOT MAKING ANY DECISION but are being coerced. It may feel like they are making a decision. They are not. It may look and act like a real decision. it is not. Legally, it is not. Emotionally, physically and mentally it is not. Legally, and also according to the rationale behind the legality, they are being coerced. There is no circumstances, legally or otherwise for a person WHO CANNOT CONSENT, to say they consented. It is an impossibility. They were coerced. Again, since they are not adults the coercion is not the same, in scope, range, manner and application as that which would coerce an adult. The standards are different. That you dismiss 20-30% of children being coerced as merely them making decision, well, I find that troubling.
I have never once argued that either pregnancy or plan B adminstration is either better or worse. I make no such arguments. My arguments go deeper and they question the core of the issue: pregnancy and plan B for a 15 year old girl in Massachusets are both outcomes of rape. There is no circumstances in which a 15 year old girl who is either pregnant or in need of plan B WAS NOT RAPED.
Let me be completely and totally clear: I would rather that 15 year old girls not be raped. I would also rather that 15 year old boys not be rapists. I think that ‘Plan B” though tidier for you and your conscience is no less a burden for that 15 year old girl WHO WAS RAPED than a pregnancy. You can think it cleaner and more… I don’t know… absolving, or something… but there is no indication that such is the case and dealing with the physical consequences of a rape doesn’t begin to deal with possible emotional and mental issues that will arise.
No, no and again no. (1 Reply)
No. Even if a parent says “go ahead and get yourself laid all you want,” it’s still rape if the child is under the age of consent. There’s no difference to split here: The parent can’t waive the law any more than the child can. The parent can’t give the child permission to rob a bank or sell drugs. Parenthood doesn’t work that way. Some states require parental consent, and/or notification, for abortion services but no state that I know of waives the age of consent for sexual activity: that’s shade to close to prostitution I should think.
You all CONTINUE to treat this as a possible decision that the child can make if only the stars align or puberty happens or parents consent or… I don’t know what… but it’s not that way at all. The child can’t make the decision. The boy can’t do it. The girl can’t do it. They can’t make the decision and there is nobody who can make the decision for them. The law defines them as incapable of making the decision, or, conversely, the law defines adults in terms of the ability to safely and forthrightly make decisions that have physical, social, mental, emotional and moral ramifications. I happen to think that it is a good law.
The implications are clear: if they CANNOT make the decisions, yet still the act is accomplished, then they HAVE NOT made a decision but, rather, are at the mercy of somebody else: the decision was made from them or, more likely, at the point of their, or some other adolescents, lack of impulse control. This is not a basis to say they made a decision. You would, it seems, treat it like a clear decision. It is never clear. The law defines it as impossible to be clear. Everything about all my experiences, both as a parent and one time adolescent myself, with three brothers, tells me that there is great wisdom in this definition.
... (0 Replies)
My position is not the rigid, and blanket, denial you’ve insinuated here. No where have I said that we should not allow adequate and appropriate medical care to anybody, be they victim of rape or no. I sentence no one. My position is the one that recognizes the difficulties in the situation and I make no pretense to solutions save the clear truth that ease of access, while certainly the tidiest solution, remains inadequate.
missing the point again... (2 Replies)
I never said anything remotely resembling the above statement. Never. Never have. Never will. Not the argument. You are carrying baggage from an entirely separate argument unto this one.
Statutory rape is a crime. It is a crime because our society has deemed young, impulsive, impressionable and still developing girls and boys as UNABLE to make the decision. The boy cannot ask and the girl cannot answer. They are LEGALLY barred from making the decision because WE do not trust them to make the decision in an informed, sober-minded and SAFE manner. We do not trust young men to refrain from predatory behavior and we do not trust young women to be able to defend themselves, whilst alone, against those predators. And the IMPLICATIONS of LEGALLY banning that SPECIFIC decision is that we LEGALLY cannot then allow decisions that follow from the breach of that ban. It can’t, and ought not to be done.
You’re position is that, well, some teens can handle it. BFD. I say the corner case does not define the general case and, further, I would rather err on the side of caution. At some point between the onset of puberty (which is not, itself, a point in time but a spectrum) and legal majority, and this point differs for every child and every circumstance, maturity emerges and we begin to trust them to make these decisions. Some get there early. Others never get there. But legally, nobody gets there prior to the age of consent. It’s a simple as that.
You continually act as if it is all OK, except under the same circumstances in which it is not OK for an adult… But you are missing the point: statutory rape is a law because we say, deliberately and clearly, that children aren’t able to make that decision. THEY ARE NOT ADULTS. AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE SAME FREEDOMS AND LIBERTIES ADULTS HAVE. Thus, you cannot hold them to the same standard and you cannot use the same points of reference. It DOES NOT MATTER a whit whether the child was drunk. It does not matter if she was “pressured”. At that age we simply SAY SHE WAS PRESSURED. We ASSUME coercion and we have set that assumption into law. If you want to think of it as the child (boy or girl) is ALWAYS in a state akin to being legally drunk, if that makes if easier for you, or, put another way, always in a state of impressionable impulsivity akin to that found under the influence, fine, but the point remains: we say children cannot make the decision AND therefore they cannot make the decisions that derive from the decision also. I’m very sorry if you don’t like that, or feel somehow upset by that, but there it is.
You are ‘protecting’ them after the fact. So, in affect, you are threatening them. The damage, if any, is done well before you would step in and hand them a pharmaceautical cure. You can clean up the loose bits and salve your conscience and say, “well, at least she won’t have to deal with long term consequences’, (without proof you may say this…) but you don’t know. What you want, from what you say here, is that everything is made all tidy and the 15 year old boy can go back to being a 15year old boy and the 15 year old girl can… what? Move on with her life?
Hey. Back off. (1 Reply)
Prior to the age of consent a girl can SAY she wants to have sex… she can beg, plead and swear up and down on a stack of bibles three ways from Sunday that she is ready and willing.
It’s still rape.
A boy can can do likewise and take her ‘willingness’ for consent. She can affirm to the entire world that she’s doing what she wants of her own free will.
It’s still rape.
And it will continue to be rape so long as there continues to be questions surrounding impulse control, decision making and emotional and psychic maturity of children. So what if some teens develop faster? You don’t like the blanket prohibition because it’s unfair to that tiny subset of teens who are ready? Tough. The opposite is worse: it’s not simply unfair to those who aren’t ready, it’s often tragic.
you don't need.. (1 Reply)
… to tell that to me. Tell that to Gomez.
**blink** **blink** (1 Reply)
You mean…. **blink**… there was something before there was… the google!?!?!
All seriousness aside, this graph is the winner:
I think if Gomez had said “the Internet as we know it” and you’d have no kick about his knowledge of history, but you’d still be right on about his strange view about lengthy careers. Gomez himself appears, despite being only 47 years old, to have had three careers: Navy pilot, Navy Seal, Investment banker. It’s great that he was a navy pilot, but according to his rules against length of service he shouldn’t have been made a pilot if the EC-2 he flew wasn’t designed before he was commissioned…. by that… logic… all military pilots should probably still be flying P-51 Mustangs and/or DC-3s since anybody who started their career before the F-16 was even a glimmer in some engineers eye couldn’t possibly be able to deal with it.
Somebody should ask him if, since he started his investment banking career in 1997 or so, if he feels obligated to deal with (and legislate over) collateral debt obligations and other such instruments that didn’t exist, or weren’t widely used, prior to his entree into the field.