commented on The Morning News: Backlash to Seattle Soda Tax, Oregon Senator Speaks Against Neil Gorsuch for 15 Hours
The Consent Decree is nice and all, but we really wouldn't need it at all if we had consistent leadership by the city council, mayor, and police chief. The police work for the taxpayers. If they don't operate ethically for the benefit of taxpayers, then our elected officials should change their policies and require the police chief to enforce them. I'm glad the Justice Department stepped in, but it really shouldn't require the intervention of the federal government if our local government was doing its job right in the first place.
commented on Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz for President?
@6 is exactly right.
Even if Drumph wasn't a racist, misogynist, totalitarian narcissist, he'd still be a bad president.
Companies are run for the purpose of making money for their shareholders. Government is for the purpose of upholding citizen's rights and providing government services to benefit all of us equally. The president is answerable to all citizens, not a handful of shareholders. A president does not have total power, but must work with congress to pass anything. No profit motive involved.
Shultz may be more of a lefty than Drumph, but he's still got the wrong skill set for the job. Oprah and Hanks may be perfectly likable stars, but they have zero experience in government either. Schwarzenegger found that out the hard way when he won the governorship in CA.
commented on Holy Shit, What Just Happened at the Oscars?
I'm with @1. It looks like Beatty was given the wrong envelope. The fuckup lies with whoever set them up with the envelope, not Beatty or Dunaway.
I was a little surprised about the politics. I was expecting at least one good passionate full-throated condemnation of Hair Furor. There were a fair number of polite jabs, but almost everyone seemed to be pulling their punches. Even the speech read for Farhadi seemed a bit tame. Overall, Trump got off lightly.
Kimmel was okay, but not great. I've enjoyed the ongoing fake-feud with Matt Damon for years, and was glad to see they pulled it into the Oscar show.
Finally, Yay for Moonlight!! I was pleasantly surprised. I thought La La Land had it locked for best picture. Glad to see I guessed wrong.
commented on Why Moonlight Needs to Win Big at the Oscars on Sunday
I agree with you about La La Land, blip@3.
Sadly, I predict it will win. Why? Not because it's all that great, but because it is about Hollywood. Most everyone actually voting for Oscars is immersed in Hollywood. They'll be voting for their own vision of what they think Hollywood is about. Same reason Birdman won a couple years ago. Hollywood navel gazing.
commented on Mayor Calls Kshama Sawant's Suggestion that Seattle Police Block ICE "Irresponsible and Dangerous"
The mayor is right.
It is good to tell SPD not to ask people about their citizenship, not to arrest people solely based on citizenship, not to assist or be coopted by ICE, not to harass protesters. It's a good thing to provide legal advice and assistance to undocumented immigrants.
But telling SPD to actively block ICE is nuts. Are city cops supposed to attempt to arrest federal agents for doing their job? I find Cheeto Mussolini repugnant and I despise ICE raids, but they aren't doing anything illegal as far as I know. On what legal basis does Sawant expect SPD to "block" ICE? What does she even mean by that?
commented on UPDATED: State Supreme Court Says Florist Who Refused to Serve Gay Couple Violated Anti-Discrimination Law
@2 & 5, It is a matter of proof.
This case is pretty simple, because the florist openly stated she wouldn't do their flowers because they're gay, and that she routinely did flowers for straight weddings. She openly provided all the proof needed for the couple to easily win their case.
But what if she had said "sorry, I'm already totally booked that weekend; can't do it," and never mentioned their sexual orientation? Well, that just makes the case harder to prove. In most discrimination cases by small businesses like this, it is very difficult to prove a single case. Often, the proof comes over time, if you can show a pattern where they always say yes to one group of people and almost always say no to a protected class of people. So a small florist like this could probably get away with it a few times by claiming to be too busy or whatever, as it would be almost impossible to prove discrimination. But if they do it often enough, and an attorney is able to get a group of rejected clients together and establish a pattern of discrimination, then they can still prevail in a case even if the business is cagey about their reasons for turning down minority clients.
Furthermore, it is even possible to prove a case where the business isn't even doing it intentionally. People can be blind and oblivious to their own bigotry sometimes. A business may be treating a minority group differently without even necessarily being aware of it. The attorney general doesn't have to prove intent. They only have to prove that a pattern of discrimination occurs, even if unintentional.