Live, Late-Breaking, Investigative (Now with Super-Doppler) New News Thread

[diesel_powered]

Charlie Rose saves Macbook Air, sacrifices face.

[jebreject]

that's not a thought balloon, it's a speech balloon. jesus fuck.

[Good Intentions]

The BBC have this infuriating habit of occassionally tripping themselves so up with showing both sides of the story when there only is one side. They were in danger of doing so again on the Tibet issue:

Activists say dozens of people have been killed by security forces after protests, but Chinese officials say 13 people were killed by mobs during riots by Dalai Lama supporters.

Foreign journalists have not been allowed into Lhasa and the flow of information is tightly controlled, making it difficult to verify either of these claims.

However, in their long tradition of allowing the reader to make up his own mind, they, without much fanfare, put up pictures of a man killed by gunfire during the Tibetan uprisings (warning - while not very gruesome, the picture is exactly what I described it as being).

[G.C.R]

A group of middle aged Chinese immigrants living in Atlanta took down a murderer in slapstick action movie-fashion.

It might be because its late and I'm tired and a bit drunk, but this is making me cry a little. The surveillance footage of the dude just walking away from the little girl was all over the TV here a while ago, and it was actually super disturbing. That is a damn cool story, really.

[Little Sixes Little Nines]

I saw that unfold on the news all these weeks, gotta say i'm glad it's all over.

[FreddyKnuckles]

one of those renewed faith in humanity moments, that a bunch of dudes would do that because its simply the right  thing and then, despite their own poverty, get part of the money sent to a disabled friend and the rest sent to the little girl.

[FreddyKnuckles]

anyone else find the dc gun case absolutely fascinating? 

[slow west vultures]

the onion editorial cartoons haven't been as funny of late, but i thought this one deserved notice on this thread

[elpollodiablo]

I love how the Statue of Liberty is always crying regardless of what's going on in the cartoon.

Freddy, what're your thoughts w/r/t the guns laws in DC?

[slow west vultures]

in all their "Our Dumb Century" cartoons, she's usually being forcibly violated by some villanous cartoon stereotype from another country. 

[FreddyKnuckles]

I love how the Statue of Liberty is always crying regardless of what's going on in the cartoon.

Freddy, what're your thoughts w/r/t the guns laws in DC?

I could really go either way on it.  I don't really have much invested in it emotionally to tell you the truth.  CSPAN aired the entirety of the audio recording while displaying stock images of the people talking and it was pretty fascinating. 

Constitutionally, I think it could go either way.  From what I heard last night, it seems like the court is pretty much gonna come down unequivocally and just say YEP the 2nd amendment should be construed as giving every individual the right to keep and bear arms.  Then the next question is a little trickier since Constitutional rights are subject to reasonable regulations.  The Supreme court is also somewhat reticent to strike down local legislation.  What it will come down to, in my view, is whether the justices deem the handgun ban a 'reasonable regulation'.  It could really go either way.  Some of DC's arguments were fairly convincing, but I'd say Heller's side was equally strong if not much more articulate.

[Andrew_TSKS]

yeah, that whole "reasonable regulation" thing really is the crux of the matter. i'm very interested to see the verdict.

[C of heartbreak]

Pragmatically, a total handgun ban in DC doesn't make much sense, because it's just as easy bring in a gun from Maryland or Virginia. I mean it will cut down on accidental handgun deaths but not do too much for crime, which it hasn't, and which seems to be the issue here.

It'll be interesting to see whether the court lays down hard and fast guidelines for gun restrictions or whether they leave it open for further interpretation. Seeing as they're making a pretty big deal out of it, I'm guessing their decision will be closer to the former.

[FreddyKnuckles]

I really thought the question of whether the 2nd amendment really issues a right for every citizen to keep and bear arms would be a bigger deal but they just kinda brushed by it.


I think, if they hold that DC's ban is unconstitutional, they'll probably make it clear that absolute bans--or regulations that have the effect complete bans--are unconstitutional.  I don't really think they'll take it a lot further than that.  The absolute furthest I think they'd take it is to say that you can't make it illegal for a person with no criminal, mental health, or domestic violence background to own a gun

[DCDave]

Hooray for conservative justices legislating from the bench.  Heller v. DC might be more of an abortion than Bush v. Gore.

[Andrew_TSKS]

Pragmatically, a total handgun ban in DC doesn't make much sense, because it's just as easy bring in a gun from Maryland or Virginia. I mean it will cut down on accidental handgun deaths but not do too much for crime, which it hasn't, and which seems to be the issue here.

i agree that it doesn't make sense, but i don't see how the idea that this has or has not affected crime can possibly be the issue. the constitutionality of a law has nothing to do with whether it does or doesn't work.

[C of heartbreak]

Pragmatically, a total handgun ban in DC doesn't make much sense, because it's just as easy bring in a gun from Maryland or Virginia. I mean it will cut down on accidental handgun deaths but not do too much for crime, which it hasn't, and which seems to be the issue here.

i agree that it doesn't make sense, but i don't see how the idea that this has or has not affected crime can possibly be the issue. the constitutionality of a law has nothing to do with whether it does or doesn't work.

True, but a lot of the testimony, particularly on the pro-gun ban side, has to do with the DC gun ban being necessary due to DC's high crime rate. I can't say whether it will be taken into the decision--it depends on how specific/broad the ruling is.

[dieblucasdie]

Has anyone read the oral arguments?  DCers need guns to fight off grizzlies!  Also, Scalia just gets more and more insane, doesn't he?

[FreddyKnuckles]

moveon.org is in Lafayette park tonight.  What happens if a dem makes the white house? staythesame.org?

[jebreject]

it's a shame that the conservative response to moveon.org, dealwithit.org never really got the attention it deserved

[jebreject]

suckourshriveledwhitecocks.org

[FreddyKnuckles]

I thought the front page of the express today was Jaba wockeez from Randy Jackson's America's Best Dance Crew on mtv but apparently it was an obviously effective protest in the middle of the night when no one is downtown anyway.

[Andrew_TSKS]

moveon.org is in Lafayette park tonight.  What happens if a dem makes the white house? staythesame.org?

hopefully they stay on the dem's asses the same way they stayed on the gop's asses. hopefully.

[YojimboMonkey]

Wow.  Seriously.  Fuck Walmart

[Good Intentions]

There's an ongoing case here in NZ along the same lines. A guy who works for a company, AFFCO, was having a break in the carpark when he got injured during a gang-related shooting on the premises. It so happens that AFFCO had signed a contract with the NZ healthcare system (the government-ran Accident Compensation Corporation, ACC, being the relevant party) that they will bear the first NZ$1 million of any healthcare costs for any injury to one of its employees during work hours (explicitly including breaks) for any reason anywhere on its property, in order to waive a great deal of their ACC levies (tax for the upkeep of this part of the healthcare system - in NZ if you are temporarily rendered medically unable to work ACC covers all your medical costs and pays you 75% of your lost income during your illness, and the levies pay for that). AFFCO has saved millions out of this deal. And they are still dragging this out, claiming that a gang shooting is not a work-related accident, which is irrelevant. They have no legal leg to stand on, so they started a smear campaign against the victim, claiming that he was smoking weed during his break (untrue, and irrelevant), was a gang member (untrue, and irrelevant) and that it's ridiculous that they should carry the costs of a gang-shooting (no, the contract you signed explicitly states that you pay the first million of any costs for any reason), and all the people who complain about the nanny-state leapt on to this with sickening speed.

ACC demands payment from AFFCO
Dec 17, 2007 12:09 PM

The Accident Compensation Corporation has withdrawn from mediation with AFFCO over a $1 million debt owed to the corporation.

It is now demanding that the meat company pay the costs owing, following an accident at a Wairoa meat plant in 2003.

According to ACC, in 2000 AFFCO entered an agreement with them that stated they would be responsible for any injury that occurred on their premises, whether or not they were at fault. In return Affco paid reduced ACC levies.

The agreement also allowed for certain high cost claims to be handed back to ACC, with AFFCO being liable to pay the first $1 million.

"When a serious injury occurred at their Wairoa plant in 2003 AFFCO initially managed the claim themselves but it became clear, because of its seriousness, that it was one that should go back to ACC, as allowed for in the agreement," said Dr Keith McLea, General Manager Levy and Scheme Management, ACC.

"ACC is clear that this is a work injury under the legislation and AFFCO is liable for costs up to their $1 million dollar cap. Similar cases have previously cost up to $10 million across their lifetimes," said McLea.

In a bid to resolve the issue ACC entered into a mediation process with AFFCO, however, McLea says: "It became clear that a mutually satisfactory outcome was unlikely."

As a result, ACC has sent AFFCO a letter demanding payment of the claim costs owing.

ACC says legal action will follow if the money is not forthcoming.

"This issue is bigger than just AFFCO. If AFFCO does not meet the costs of the claim (up to the agreed maximum) then all other employers will pay for this claim as it will be funded out of the employers account. That would not be a fair outcome," said McLea.

ACC demands payment from AFFCO.

This being NZ, the victim is having his bills and most of his wage paid by the ACC, whether it recoups what AFFCO owes them or not.