Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    51766
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    301

Everything posted by Brisketexan

  1. 100%. "Jews are evil, untrustworthy, and should not be allowed to hold any government position in America." = totally fine. "Maybe the state of Israel shouldn't engage in complete ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the Levant." = ANTISEMITISM!
  2. So, I am processing my father's estate. Have to do an inventory of the estate, which includes valuation of a home in Houston, and one in Austin. Does anyone have a good, reliable residential appraiser to recommend in both places? Much appreciated.
  3. I mean, if you have a rape fantasy, does it GET any hotter than "any rebroadcast without the express written consent of Major League Baseball?" Asking for a friend. Named Missing In Action.
  4. Let me translate the bolded: "have a situation where management consistently operates in good-faith, and doesn't use its disparate bargaining power to its outsized advantage." Dude. Seriously. "Just count on everyone not to be dicks" isn't a great strategy in....any context.
  5. And to tie this back to "shipping people to a foreign gulag with no due process".....why is it bad? 1) It's bad because it violates our current laws. Thus, deploy enforcement mechanisms, and stop it and punish the wrongdoers. 2) It's bad because it hurts people, some of whom turn out to be innocent, and any decent human should care about innocent people being hurt. 3) It's bad because it erodes due process and the rule of law for all, leading to chaos, and "Rule of whatever the dictatory wants or says." 4) It's bad because if the regime can grab and deport one person to a foreign gulag with no due process or formal judicial process, then it can grab ANY person and do that. And that includes YOU, and ME. So, all the motivations/incentives are in play here. Oppose this policy because you are a genuinely decent altruistic person. Oppose it because you are a selfish person (I don't want that to happen to me or mine). Oppose it because you have a belief in the Rule of Law that may be motivated by selfishness, selflessness, or a combo of both. All the reasons align. The only reason the other way is that you think that YOU, and your interests/desires, benefit from this particular departure from the Rule of Law. But in the end....see point 4. You're wrong about thinking that this will be good for you in the long run. Suck up to a lawless regime, and it works great....until it doesn't.....
  6. Yeah, saw that. Still, there's a range. We had a friend living in Singapore for a while, and she lived in a pretty small cube (nice cube....but still small). Rents in both places (central city) are pretty similar.
  7. Housing ain't cheap. Find someplace that is on a decent transport line (tube or bus) that gets you to work with a relatively low amount of hassle. E.G., my daughter lives in Hackney - the Mildmay line from Hackney Central to Camden Road will get you there in 25 minutes. You single? If so, you've got lots of options for where to live. But truly, look at bus and tube routes, and then pick your place based on that. Depending on budget, there are plenty of small flats, or if you're up for a co-living deal (private room and en suite, shared kitchen and common area), there are a lot of those that are plenty nice. And honestly, once you get out of classic "central London," the rest of London living isn't as expensive as people often think (my daughter bitches about it, but that's because she's young and poor working her first job -- everything's "expensive" when you are making entry-level money).
  8. And to address this separately, it matches with my last point above. Good-faith has a HUGE enforcement mechanism. That mechanism is "if I follow the rules, and avoid hurting others, then I contribute to a system and order where others will follow the rules, and avoid hurting me." What we often think of as altruism can and often does serve a selfish purpose. It's the "today you, tomorrow me" ethos. As a lawyer, I see it plainly. When opposing counsel asks if I will agree to an extension for him to respond to my discovery requests, I almost always quickly agree. Sure, because "don't be a dick for no reason" is part of our rules. But also, I act that way because I want other lawyers to treat me the same; when I call and ask for an extension, I want them to say "sure, Brisket, you got it." I use the term "gentlemen's agreement" for a reason. Ordered society has rules -- some of them are unwritten, apply in certain classes, etc. "There are some things a gentleman simply doesn't do." In the end, that's all any set of rules is: a mutual agreement, that brings mutual benefit. One person/side opting out of those rules may bring a temporary advantage to that side....but it won't last. If you decide that stealing needs to be the new order of the day, then you're ahead of the curve, and will probably be able to steal some good shit. But once your way of thinking prevails....then you best sleep with one eye open, because someone is now coming to steal all YOUR shit, including the shit you stole from someone else. These aren't deep thoughts. They're baseline principles of moral philosophy. And we have a whole segment of society thinking that they've figured out a loophole or some shit. They haven't. They're just breaking everything, and all of us - including them - are going to feel the consequences.
  9. The irony of me posting a TLDR, but here it is: a functioning society has its selfishness and its empathy in some sort of healthy balance. When selfishness overwhelms empathy, here we are. The irony is that empathy - things like not stealing someone else's stuff - actually serves selfish ends. Because it builds a society where I don't steal your stuff....and you don't steal MY stuff.
  10. That is a shitty piece, because of verb tense. There's no "are learning." It's "have learned." The template is out there, it has been since early in his first term. He runs one basic play. And defensive coordinator worth a shit long ago figured out how to counter it. He runs it three times, the defense stands firm, h gets a half yard, declares that he scored a touchdown, and walks off the field raising his fist in triumph. Repeat ad infinitum.
  11. I know this is funny, and ironic, and all that stuff....but it's also spot-on. Because in the end, that's all any laws, rules, etc. are. Because at their foundation, they rely on one thing: good-faith. The strength of the Rules of Professional Conduct is not really the enforcement mechanisms behind them. The strength of the Rules is 1) the expectation that most all lawyers will follow them, and 2) the good-faith belief in those rules and the effort attorneys make to actually follow them. As a result, 99% or some similar percentage of lawyers act within those rules. And we don't do so because we fear losing our license (I mean, we don't want to lose our license, for sure). We follow the Rules because they are good, and when we all follow them, they make our profession, the justice system, and our society better. Our laws are no different. I expect that most of y'all generally follow the law (let's leave out traffic laws and laws against smoking dope with your mistress and such). Is the reason that you don't murder or steal because you are afraid of the enforcement mechanism of prison, or is it because you have a moral compass of some sort? That is, you don't steal because you believe that stealing is wrong, or you at least believe that we have a better society when we all operate under a common code that stealing is wrong. That's good faith. That's a reflection of the fact that ALL rules are, at their foundation, simply a "gentlemen's agreement." Their strength is not in their enforcement mechanism (yes, having such a mechanism emphasizes that the rules are a real thing). Because once it gets to enforcement, the rule has failed. And importantly, if enough people (and the critical mass isn't a majority...it's much, much smaller....think 3%) decide that the rules aren't for them, and they are just going to disregard them, then the whole fucking system breaks down. A society can't have an enforcement mechanism sufficient to handle more than 1-2% of people opting out of the law or rules. This is back to what I've been warning about on this board, in my life, at Bar presentations, etc. for a decade now: the Rule of Law is just an agreement. And if enough people opt out of that agreement, then it is dissolved. Enforcement won't and can't fix it. The fix is....don't opt out of the Rule of Law. That goes for society. It goes for the legal profession. It goes for everyone and everything. So, Bozo can lament that lawyers don't do enough to enforce against bad lawyers. In doing so, he sounds like a good "tough on crime" Republican, saying that we just need more prisons. No. The only thing that will really have any effect is....we need fewer bad lawyers. We need fewer people who are good with committing crimes. Sure, enforcement is a thing, it should exist, it should be used, and it can surely be reformed, made more robust, etc. in any number of contexts. But the reason that we're seeing members of the legal profession behaving badly and against the Republic is because . . . a critical mass of society has chosen to do and support the same. We had a gentlemen's agreement to operate under objective rules. A particular segment of society, our political class, our legal profession, etc., have chosen to opt out of that agreement. They have simply decided that they are no longer going to follow it. Once that happens....it's over. No amount of rule-based enforcement will make a shit. Because opting out of the Rule of Law is necessarily opting into Rule of the Boot and Gun. Once that's done, then the only curative mechanism is opposing Boots and Guns. It's a stupid, self-destructive path to follow. But, it's the path that a critical mass has chosen, so that path is our destiny. You can try to pretend the old order still exists, matters, and can solve things. But you're just pretending.
  12. Linda Cardellini…who is an all-timer. And Susan Sarandon…who is a hall-of-famer. Saw it last night, liked it. I love food and family stuff, though.
  13. That’s fucking sick. They’re called “little people,” asshole.
  14. ^^^ This. And for those of us wondering how we could serve the needs of the constitution and republic (non lawyers), that might end up being the way, if it comes to that. Especially any of y’all with military experience and a willingness to use it. The executive can co-opt people to be its militia. The judiciary can do the same, and legally. And yes, it may involve an armed confrontation with rogue US govt officials. That’s absolutely on the table nowadays.
  15. Top comment: Flint_Petal • 12h ago I bet she filmed this for her Only Pans
  16. Because....and this is super, super important to understand in Texas, 2025....NONE of those things are the goal of state leadership. Killing all public education. That is the singular goal of our state leadership. A future generation of malleable drones and slaves is the dream, and they are very close to achieving it.
  17. MIA, seen below, about to "fix the cable"....
  18. Pete Rose: by all accounts, an epic asshole, treated other people like shit, broke one of the foundational rules of integrity of the game, almost certainly committed statutory rape.....shit, a list of accomplishments like that makes him a shoo-in for the MAGA Medal of Honor.
  19. If you think that the MAGA GQP is the greatest threat the Republic has faced since the Civil War (and you'd be right about that), what is your most-likely-to-succeed path at derailing it? 1) Contribute your time and money to the Democratic party, counting on it to get its shit together and mount an effective opposition? 2) Join the Republican party, hoping and working to establish/build a counter-movement within the party to overtake the MAGA movement? At this point, I'm thinking the smart money is on option 2). I mean, neither will work, but 2) has a much higher chance (think 5% chance vs. 1% chance).
  20. He is the poster child for "'good' is the sum of all the bad things that didn't happen." He creates a situation in which near-infinite bad things could happen. Then, he backs away from the situation that he created, points out that most (but not all) of the bad things that COULD have happened DIDN'T happen....and says "see, what a gripping victory I have delivered!"
  21. Cons: will cost the state billions, cost each individual ratepayer hundreds, and increase the chance of outages. Pros: will make some campaign contributors, including a couple of very specific O&G types, lots of money. Yeah....everyone here knows that SAILS through, either this session or the next.
  22. Brought to you by the folks who will soon turn all educational institutions into The Donald Trump Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too.
  23. And it's devastating that they are 100% right about how dumb their voters are.
  24. NO DEI! MERIT-BASED HIRES ONLY!!!! Jesus. We live in the fucking upside-down.
  25. This. To defeat Nazis the first time, we sent fucking boatloads of weapons to this guy: I'm fine aligning with less-than-ideal-and-pure allies to defeat Nazis this second time.
×
×
  • Create New...