3 ms·

As a New York resident, the state embarrasses me regularly in terms of the amount of personal liberty the politicians are willing to trample. Between Senator Sc

by bko 11y ago

As a New York resident, the state embarrasses me regularly in terms of the amount of personal liberty the politicians are willing to trample. Between Senator Schumer, Attorney General Schneiderman and New York Mayor DeBlasio, I honestly don't know who is the worst. Schumer's ban requests include powdered caffeine [0], certain flavors of e-cigarettes [1] to Bitcoin [2]. Schniederman strikes me as someone more interested in extorting companies. His most recent subpoena Exxon for not speaking out about climate change to their investors (??) is his most recent campaign [3]. I'm guessing he wants to buy more iPads for the police department [4] DeBlasio has an axe to grind against Uber [5] and costumed characters in Time Square [6] . What a joke that this qualifies as progress. Sorry, rant over. [0] http://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/following-several-tragic-deaths-schumer-calls-on-the-fda-to-ban-powdered-caffeine_one-teaspoon-of-concentrated-powdered-caffeine-is-equivalent-to-25-cups-of-coffee-and-is-highly-dangerous-for-teens--young-adults- http://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/follow... [1] http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Schumer-Calls-for-FDA-Ban-on-Candy-Flavor-E-Cigarettes-301376931.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Schumer-Calls-for-FDA-B... [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/02/26/senator-calls-for-bitcoin-ban-in-letter-to-financial-regulators/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/02/26/senator... [3] http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-10/schneiderman-s-dangerous-crusade-against-exxon-mobil http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-10/schneiderma... [4] http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2015/05/01/french-bank-settlement-to-fund-nyc-criminal-justice-initiatives/ http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2015/05/01/french-bank-settl... [5] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/nyregion/de-blasio-administration-dropping-plan-for-uber-cap-for-now.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/nyregion/de-blasio-adminis... [6] http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/570-15/mayor-de-blasio-city-task-force-curb-topless-individuals-costumed-characters-times http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/570-15/mayor-de...

tn13 11y ago
And I am surprised that NY people vote for these kind of scums again and again.
Spooky23 11y ago
Why should normal bookies be prosecuted and jailed when a big corporate entity flaunts their lawbreaking? Doing something on the internet shouldn't be carte Blanche for breaking any law deemed inconvenient.
- bko 11y ago
  If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. Also, big corporate entity doesn't use violence.
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    I guess I've heard it all now... A moral crusade to allow sports betting.
    - bko 11y ago
      Well millions of Americans are made criminals by these types of laws. Estimated $10 billion a year are bet on Super Bowl and another $12 billion on NCAA tournament. But who cares, let's turn a blind eye to that. By driving it underground, the participants can't rely on rule of law to enforce contracts and it is instead is enforced by violence. But who cares about that? Just as long as you can make a snide remark about an activity that may not affect you.
    - clocksld 11y ago
      Because if you don't care about a certain topic, nobody should care about it, right? I hope you aren't being serious. It's also ironic that you deride a moral argument for sports betting, considering that the only legitimate argument AGAINST sports betting (and gambling in general) is the moral one.
      - Spooky23 11y ago
        Not at all. But don't pretend that playing a fantasy football pool is some sort of act of civil disobedience. It's just another impulsive act that happens to be illegal. There are many arguments against sports betting. It corrupts the sport and is fundamentally exploitive of those who lack the ability to control their impulses. As I said before, it's illegal in New York, and the owners of these sites should be prosecuted criminally, just as any other pool organizer who attracted police attention would. We're all supposed to be equal under the law.
warfangle 11y ago
Because the alternative to DeBlasio on the Democratic ticket was Christine Quinne, Bill Thomson, John Liu and others. Bill Thomson spent the time between the 09 and 13 election working for an investment firm, and given the attitude towards politicians owned by banks, failed to gain the nomination. Christine Quinne worked with Bloomberg to overturn 2-year term limits on elected officials, and ran a secret slush fund while she was on the city council. Anthony Weiner, well. Was Anthony Weiner. Randy Credico ran a very lackluster campaign. While John Liu had a solid platform, his campaign became embroiled in financial scandal. On the other side of the aisle, we had John Catsimatidis and Joe Lhota (George MacDonald ran a campaign as well, but was barely known). Catsimatidis unabashedly supported the wildly unpopular stop & frisk tactics, which were (and still are) wildly unpopular. Lhota was in favor of charter schools instead of fixing our crumbling public schools (DeBlasio's plans for public schools end up actually working, unlike charter schools); his mixture of fiscal conservativeness and socially liberal policies like choice & equal rights turned off the Republican vote - he only garnered a little more than 20% of the vote. So it was between DeBlasio and Lhota. DeBlasio spoke to his base and Democrats actually liked him. Lhota alienated his base and Republicans hated him (and so did Democrats). We get crap politicians because crap candidates run. Just like every fucking where else. Why do we get crap candidates? Because money. --- Yeah, the e-cig stuff is stupid. Yeah, the campaign against topless panhandlers in times square is pretty stupid. The campaign against uber makes sense, if you're not a proponent of neo-feudalism. Schneiderman's v. Exxon stuff is actually kind of interesting. It's not that he's alleging that they failed to disclose climate change to their investors - you're mincing words, and it's pretty fucking obvious. They failed to inform their investors of studies that could pose change to their future profits. Shaky, sure, but not entirely insane. He's not anti-business, he's anti business that's fucking us over. Keep in mind that Exxon (formerly Standard Oil) was responsible for one of the largest oil spills on US soil - right here in Brooklyn.
- bko 11y ago
  Do you really believe that it's about Exxon's investors? I imagine the proceeds from whatever settlement would go to those affected, according to your description, the shareholders who's future profit's will be hurt from withholding their studies? You can sue for oil spills. You can put in a gas tax. But what's Schniderman is doing is a shake-down, led by populism. I get it, no one likes Exxon (me included) and my opinions may not be popular. But these lawsuits are a new form of hidden tax paid by shareholders, not some mythical corporate entity. He even went after an English bank (Barclays) for something to do with their dark pool. It doesn't go to those harmed by the actions. You can read about where the money goes. It goes to government agencies, and yes, iPads for the police. It's fine if politicians think there are worthy programs they want to fund, but this isn't rule of law. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/where-does-jpmorgans-13-billion-go/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/where-does-jpmorgans-...

by bko 11y ago

tn13 11y ago

And I am surprised that NY people vote for these kind of scums again and again.

Spooky23 11y ago

Why should normal bookies be prosecuted and jailed when a big corporate entity flaunts their lawbreaking? Doing something on the internet shouldn't be carte Blanche for breaking any law deemed inconvenient.

bko 11y ago
If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. Also, big corporate entity doesn't use violence.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  I guess I've heard it all now... A moral crusade to allow sports betting.
  - bko 11y ago
    Well millions of Americans are made criminals by these types of laws. Estimated $10 billion a year are bet on Super Bowl and another $12 billion on NCAA tournament. But who cares, let's turn a blind eye to that. By driving it underground, the participants can't rely on rule of law to enforce contracts and it is instead is enforced by violence. But who cares about that? Just as long as you can make a snide remark about an activity that may not affect you.
  - clocksld 11y ago
    Because if you don't care about a certain topic, nobody should care about it, right? I hope you aren't being serious. It's also ironic that you deride a moral argument for sports betting, considering that the only legitimate argument AGAINST sports betting (and gambling in general) is the moral one.
    - Spooky23 11y ago
      Not at all. But don't pretend that playing a fantasy football pool is some sort of act of civil disobedience. It's just another impulsive act that happens to be illegal. There are many arguments against sports betting. It corrupts the sport and is fundamentally exploitive of those who lack the ability to control their impulses. As I said before, it's illegal in New York, and the owners of these sites should be prosecuted criminally, just as any other pool organizer who attracted police attention would. We're all supposed to be equal under the law.

warfangle 11y ago

Because the alternative to DeBlasio on the Democratic ticket was Christine Quinne, Bill Thomson, John Liu and others. Bill Thomson spent the time between the 09 and 13 election working for an investment firm, and given the attitude towards politicians owned by banks, failed to gain the nomination. Christine Quinne worked with Bloomberg to overturn 2-year term limits on elected officials, and ran a secret slush fund while she was on the city council. Anthony Weiner, well. Was Anthony Weiner. Randy Credico ran a very lackluster campaign. While John Liu had a solid platform, his campaign became embroiled in financial scandal. On the other side of the aisle, we had John Catsimatidis and Joe Lhota (George MacDonald ran a campaign as well, but was barely known). Catsimatidis unabashedly supported the wildly unpopular stop & frisk tactics, which were (and still are) wildly unpopular. Lhota was in favor of charter schools instead of fixing our crumbling public schools (DeBlasio's plans for public schools end up actually working, unlike charter schools); his mixture of fiscal conservativeness and socially liberal policies like choice & equal rights turned off the Republican vote - he only garnered a little more than 20% of the vote. So it was between DeBlasio and Lhota. DeBlasio spoke to his base and Democrats actually liked him. Lhota alienated his base and Republicans hated him (and so did Democrats). We get crap politicians because crap candidates run. Just like every fucking where else. Why do we get crap candidates? Because money. --- Yeah, the e-cig stuff is stupid. Yeah, the campaign against topless panhandlers in times square is pretty stupid. The campaign against uber makes sense, if you're not a proponent of neo-feudalism. Schneiderman's v. Exxon stuff is actually kind of interesting. It's not that he's alleging that they failed to disclose climate change to their investors - you're mincing words, and it's pretty fucking obvious. They failed to inform their investors of studies that could pose change to their future profits. Shaky, sure, but not entirely insane. He's not anti-business, he's anti business that's fucking us over. Keep in mind that Exxon (formerly Standard Oil) was responsible for one of the largest oil spills on US soil - right here in Brooklyn.

bko 11y ago
Do you really believe that it's about Exxon's investors? I imagine the proceeds from whatever settlement would go to those affected, according to your description, the shareholders who's future profit's will be hurt from withholding their studies? You can sue for oil spills. You can put in a gas tax. But what's Schniderman is doing is a shake-down, led by populism. I get it, no one likes Exxon (me included) and my opinions may not be popular. But these lawsuits are a new form of hidden tax paid by shareholders, not some mythical corporate entity. He even went after an English bank (Barclays) for something to do with their dark pool. It doesn't go to those harmed by the actions. You can read about where the money goes. It goes to government agencies, and yes, iPads for the police. It's fine if politicians think there are worthy programs they want to fund, but this isn't rule of law. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/where-does-jpmorgans-13-billion-go/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/where-does-jpmorgans-...