MightyPen

Cool. I think we're agreed, then, that some costs are passed onto the consumer, and some are not. Our only disagreement is about proportions. Why, the correct one, of course. ;)

I think the key difference is that, in the mind of most of the public, all sex work is automatically a kind of degradation and violence inflicted upon an unwilling or just desperate provider. With drinking or smoking (or smoking), to whatever extent that there is harm, it's pretty much one person harming themselves. People have an easier time dispensing with prohibition when it's a matter of one person and their own bottle/cigarette/whatever. But when you have view of sex work I described above, then the argument that defeated prohibition doesn't work. It's not someone and their bottle, it's someone and their victim. Who would want to accommodate THAT? And you know, I *totally* understand and sympathize with people who think that way. They're working with the only (dubious) information that they have. Who wouldn't feel as they do, if you believed the same thing? The only solution is to provide the public with more positive models of sex work and sex workers. Once people can wrap their heads around the idea that perfectly healthy women can choose such work, and that those women are their neighbours and colleagues and (gasp) even daughters, then the reflexive recoil will subside. And of course, there aren't just female sex workers. (Incidentally, who else has seen the one-season TV show "Terriers"? I just re-watched it a couple of weeks ago, and one episode features a great, funny, respectful, and sympathetic part for a trans streetwalker. EVERYONE should watch Terriers.) At the same time, of course, we DO need to be vigilant about providing supportive services so that nobody can be pressed into sex work or feel like it's their only option. But it doesn't take special sex-work rules to accomplish that; just good social services, period.

Right... and note that wages aren't the only costs that can be cut. We'll have to see how things play out, but it's lazy thinking to declare that "all costs are passed onto the consumer". How many times have you seen a complacent, well-established business that's become used to a certain profit level get displaced by a younger, more aggressive competitor willing to take less profit? (Or that is simply more innovative, adopts new technology, and outperforms the ossified veteran?) 'Cause I've also worked most of my life in the private sector, and I've seen that a lot... provided competition hasn't been somehow suppressed. The business environment is fluid, and will adapt to conditions while staying within consumer price tolerance -- and not by ignoring its boundaries. Totally agree. I guarantee that rocky days are ahead for Trudeau and his government. And they have their work cut out for them no matter what, simply delivering on their promises. We'll know in a few months how solid their plan is going forward, but I've heard some pointed and determined talk from the Liberals already that I find promising. Additional Comments: You may have missed the part about Germany already having done this. I agree (and already said as much) that we can't just start writing cheques for everyone's tuition without making other changes to the system. But to outright dismiss the idea strikes me as a bit of a kneejerk, and ignores the reality that it's already being done with success. Posted, incidentally, as a guy who also put himself through quite a few years of university entirely on his own; nothing from family, nothing from the public. And man, some of those tuition-paying jobs *sucked*. But just because I had to do it, doesn't mean I'm determined to inflict the same experience on every successive generation if there's a smart way to avoid it.

Under last week's conditions, sure. But change the conditions, and the balance changes too. I think I've explained why the consumer won't necessarily bear the cost directly, provided there's healthy competition pressuring businesses to do otherwise. I agree completely. In particular, the test of the government won't only be on its ability to execute its stated plans; it will be its ability to deal with surprises, and the domestic and world stages are full of them.

I agree! Good revenue stream there. Not necessarily. Where there's healthy competition, a business that just mindlessly marks up its prices to cover any conceivable cost just invites undercutting by a competitor willing to settle for lower profits. Invisible hand of the market... Depends. Let's see how things go in Germany, which has done exactly this. Mind you, university there is a much more focused, rigorous, and comparatively spartan undertaking. Much less flash, fewer amenities, lots of dull classrooms and libraries without the big gymnasiums and student lounges. There are other changes required to the system besides just writing cheques for tuition. We can eliminate the financial barrier for entering post-secondary schools to make access universal, but keep up a stiff requirement for performance in order for students to continue at the public's expense. Then we as a society reap the rewards of making sure that all of our citizens who are capable of it receive the best education we can provide them.

There will be higher taxes for some, and some planned deficits too. I'm happy to pay more tax, if I know it will go toward building a better nation and helping those less fortunate than I have been. In fact, unlike a certain other nation to our south, the Canada I know is built on the very premise of looking out for each other, and not just keeping all we possibly can for ourselves.

I think Fear the Walking Dead is finally picking up some steam, and getting interesting. It's definitely a show to record before watching though -- that thing is THICK with commercials! Re. the light in the house outside the gates, I interpreted it this way: - at the beginning of the episode, the son is sitting on the roof and sees a reflected-sunlight signal from the distant house indicating that there are survivors still living outside the compound. - the kid tells his dad and shows him the recording. The dad at first says "naaah" but later tells the top military guy about it. The military guy says "naaah, there's nobody out there." We all suspect he's lying. - at the very end of the episode, late that night/early the next morning, the dad is sitting on the rooftop and looking in the direction of the house his son was talking about. He sees flashes of light: but it's not a signal, it's gunfire. The soldiers used what the dad told them to go find the survivors who were signalling, and then killed them all. Between that and what the mom character told Daniel the barber-dad about what she saw when she slipped outside the fence, it's clear that the military is just mercilessly killing anyone and everyone they find outside the gates. We can expect a similar attitude when we see how the hospital operates next week: they don't plan to save anyone who might be sick, but might study them to get better at killing "the infected". Daniel's wife is doomed.

Along the same lines, I was reading yesterday about Stewart Parnell, the peanut company executive who was just sentenced to 28 years in jail. In 2008 he knowingly shipped peanut products contaminated with salmonella that proceeded to kill at least nine people and sicken hundreds, and resulted in the largest food recall in U.S. history. Reading the Wikipedia article about the investigation into the tainted food and the plant at which it was produced ("A... former employee told CBS News that he saw a rat dry-roasting in a peanut area"), I found this little gem: "After the company was identified as the source of the outbreak, Parnell pressed federal regulators to allow him to continue using peanuts from the tainted plant. He wrote that company executives "desperately at least need to turn the raw peanuts on our floor into money."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_Corporation_of_America It's like someone breathed life into a cartoon capitalist villain.

I know. Sex without consent is rape, period. Nothing else about one's life changes that. There's SO MUCH that's repugnant going on here... the author's breezy dismissal of sex workers as full human beings in the forefront. Smug... judgmental... narrow-minded... prudish. I can't really find the term or combination of terms to capture how ugly I find the article. What also sickens me is the way that something like this... written by a woman no less... can go to reinforce such prejudice in the general community. I guess that's what prompted me to post it: OH MY GOD there are actually people who think like this, AND who would put it down on paper to show others, AND they likely find like-minded readers who nod approvingly, AND she might sway people who haven't stopped to think about this before to her point of view. Arrgh. So much anger.

I always expect to die tomorrow. If I knew I had a month, I wouldn't worry about travel or objects; more about relationships. There are some favourite restaurants I'd visit, and a few SPs I'd schedule some time with so I could have a few last special experiences. But mostly I'd spend a lot of time with the friends and family who have played meaningful parts in my life. Then... off to the oblivion that's always been waiting there, just around the corner.

There can never be enough Conservative bashing. On the other hand, conservative-bashing is just tedious. C'mon, was that not just the most perfect metaphor for the Harper government? HARPER: "Don't worry, we're the experts! Glad you called us in. Now just shoo, off you go to that other room. There's nothing to see here. I'll just use my superior worldview to take care of the nation's problems!" VIDEO: Harper casually pisses in the nation's coffee cup.

The concern about "stifling scientists" isn't about limits on political speech, which is what I think you're referring to by "code of conduct". It's about the current government's policy forbidding scientists to talk about their research and its conclusions without prior, central approval. These scientific conclusions are the fruit of public research money, and belong to all Canadians. Most of the time, they should also be available to the global scientific community to obtain maximum benefit for the research investment. But that's always more difficult, and often impossible, under the current government and its obsession with information control. Yes... services like, say, doing scientific research. Shame we aren't allowed to learn about what they're finding unless some Harper Government PR hack in Ottawa decides it's okay. The current government is a cancer on the nation. Not because it's conservative -- there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But because this particular government is neurotic and totalitarian about the control of public information. It's really go to go, if just for that. For reference, the tip of the iceberg: Steve Campana, Canadian biologist, 'disgusted' with government muzzling

Yeah, this is it. There's no reason to think there's anything after we die. I think it's safe to say that after we die, we go to the very same place we were before we were born: oblivion. And you remember how stimulating that was.

I don't disagree with what you've said. But I do want to clarify one thing. I don't think any of the AM users "deserved" to be outed by the hacker(s), no matter why they signed up to the AM website. My only point has been that, by signing up identifiably on the site for whatever reason, they became directly responsible for the situation that led to their misfortune today. Not deserving; just responsible. (Barring those whose information was used without their knowledge, whatever proportion that represents.) And that's equally true of the idly curious, as it is of the determined affair-seekers.

They had their role. But I think the primary responsibility lies with the people who put themselves at risk. Who's more responsible for protecting a man's children: some company's CTO, or the man himself? And here I completely agree. I don't condemn people who signed up at Ashley Madison, nor married people who see SPs. We all know that there can be compelling reasons, human reasons, understandable reasons for seeking companionship outside some marriages. And if someone weighs the risks and chooses to go ahead anyway, I have no issue; who am I to claim I can better comprehend their choice? But what I do condemn is people who get caught, and then try to escape responsibility for their choice by claiming "but it's not my fault!". It is their fault. They're the ones that put their marriage, and the people who rely on it, at risk; and now that bill has come due. If they really didn't stop to think about that possibility before putting everything at risk... well, they really, really should have. This is why I have little patience for the threads we sometimes see here that ask "hey, does seeing an SP really count as cheating?" We can acknowledge that there can be legitimate reasons for that choice, and that the risk is lower than a civilian affair -- but the risk is there just the same. Downplaying how one's partner might perceive it ("But it's just a transaction! But I felt no emotional connection!") just tries to evade the gravity of the decision they're really making.

That's good advice.

Sure, but those consequences aren't the hacker's fault. They're the cheater's fault. I understand that the hacker pulled the trigger; but it's the cheaters themselves that kept loading that gun up with ammunition. If being caught meant the destruction of their marriages, their careers, and/or their children's wellbeing... then Ashley Madison's clients bear the responsibility for putting those things on the line in the first place. Your list of terrible outcomes is as much an indictment of the clients' foolish choice to gamble with their own lives/marriages/children, as it is a condemnation of the hacker.

No. Even if you make a billion bucks today, it's not worth it if in the process you bake the planet so that your grand-kids are gasping out their living on a poisoned, burnt cinder. Lots of people knew getting at the oil the oil sands was an environmental horror-show all along. But greed made it seem like a good idea to the Conservatives and their oil-industry buddies. And now, they've done it all for nearly nothing.

It was wrong, and unlawful. For that reason I would support prosecution of the hackers. But it was also, always, an obvious risk for Ashley Madison's users. For anyone who has chosen to betray their partner's trust, "but I didn't think anyone would find out" isn't much of a defense for their choice once it's brought to light. And yet... while I understand that "divorce!" is public society's reflexive response to infidelity, let's hope some of the couples involved here stop, think, and choose a "let's talk about why" route first. I just a moment ago saw on CNN that one of the hyper-religious Duggars was on the site. Maybe it's healthy for everyone that such high-profile hypocrisy has been exposed. What the leak did prompt me to think about, though, back when it first happened, was: what I would do if CERB/LYLA was similarly hacked and its participants identified? I realize that we register with only e-mail addresses here, and few of those would identify the person behind them. But my conclusion was: although I wouldn't particularly want everyone I know to see everything (sometimes quite personal) I've written here, there's nothing I'm ashamed of and I'd manage just fine.

I think that's an opportunity to discuss what constitutes "just cause", the nature of the employment contracts people choose to sign, and our obligation in a society to be mindful of what others find deeply offensive. The problem isn't that people are made aware of obnoxious behaviour in the first place. It's probably no surprise that I can find that deeply troubling, yet have no trouble with people paying socially for being exposed as hateful or obnoxious. Maybe these two things aren't as closely related as you think... or maybe, there are many, many shades of position between the two extremes you cite. I think this perhaps hinges on whether one perceives a certain action as a "faux pas" versus "obnoxious and hateful". If someone shouts to a television camera, for example, "the Jews are the cause of all the world's problems and those ovens were a pretty good idea," do you think that's just a cute little faux pas that should be kept anonymous and hidden from view? Or is it perhaps something that people associated with that person should be aware their friend/family/employee/employer is capable of? In essence you have in your mind a set of behaviours that you think are trivial, but others (shockingly!) think are alarmingly, red-flag obnoxious and deserving of scorn. I'm not sure which behaviours you have in mind because you haven't been specific. But near as I can tell, if you're looking for why some people react so strongly and with such outrage to something you think is no big deal, the answer is: "to some people it's a really, really big deal."

I think it might be helpful if you refer to some specific examples you think are unfair, because your reference to "internet shaming" can be interpreted very broadly. As a result, different people may think you're talking about different things. I'm still perfectly fine with someone's obnoxious public behaviour being captured and shared. It's a natural hazard of living in an age where everyone's carrying a camera, all the time. If real-world consequences are warranted (i.e. you clearly violate your profession's ethical standards and suffer an appropriate consequence)... well, hey. I'm sure there are cases where the consequences are irrational and unwarranted; I'd have to evaluate that case by case. But I thought, for example, that Shawn Simoes losing his job at Hydro One was awesome and delicious justice, and a reminder that we live in an era where guys can't just walk around being obnoxious dicks and expect to get away with it when their job demands otherwise.

I don't have a problem with people who yell at service workers or tell ugly "jokes" having their behaviour publicized. They did something stupid in a public place; what's the problem if that behaviour gets shared and others get to see what they're capable of? The consequences that might ensue with family, colleagues, or their employer/clients is a matter between the offender and those other parties. But I don't think "but I never thought the people who matter to me would know I did X" is much of a defense or the basis for outrage. People need to own their actions; the only sure defense is, well, not to yell at wait staff or say repugnant shit.

Maybe Jack Burton said it best, speaking from the cab of the Pork Chop Express:

This has always been, hands-down my favourite ever theory name. SO much fun to say out loud at any opportunity. :)

The only answer, of course, is "we don't know." There's no reason to imagine we're the only life that's arisen in the universe, or even just our galaxy. The buildings blocks are everywhere, and there's nothing unique about our sun or our planet. So, are there other civilizations in the universe? I just about guarantee it. But are there any in our galaxy? Hard to say. The Fermi paradox is all about "given all the time and space that's been available, there should be lots of alien civilizations around us; but we should also be hearing from them, and we're not." The spans of distance, and of time, between the stars are so huge that it wouldn't surprise me if that meant no two civilizations capable of communication would ever overlap. Maybe we're the only extant civilization in our galaxy; there could have been others before but they've since died out, and others will arise but only after we're extinct. Little blossoms of civilization, popping up all over the galaxy... but never two at the same time. It's a good argument to eventually set up automated beacons somewhere like Pluto, designed to keep broadcasting out into space in every direction for a billion years. Maybe that way, long from now, someone will come and lay a few flowers at our civilization's tomb.