Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Lindsay Lohan scarf incident and Censorship: the Final Chapter. I hope.





tv22 wrote:

"She wasn't racially profiled. She was asked to remove her scarf so her identity could be verified. Tough to live in the modern world where we actually can see each other's faces."

to which I replied



"Sigh. One can still see a woman's face when she wears a head scarf. You're thinking of a veil. A scarf, at most, keeps one from seeing a woman's hair. But how interesting that in the "modern" world, women must be forced to reveal that whether they wish to do so or not, this little issue of consent being bypassed for the sake of "freedom."

How far shall we take this modernity? Perhaps women could be forced to take their tops off in public, for surely we'd be able to verify their identities with even greater certainty, then. Maybe we could force them to strip naked altogether, before (as men) we showed how truly progressive we had become by clubbing them over the head and dragging them back to our caves for further "examination."

Do you even hear yourself?"



This comment was (what else) "detected as spam" a few times (that would be Disqus' fault) but when the most recent copy of it was censored, it was marked as having been removed, not as having been detected as spam, implying that somebody at Entertainment Weekly was at fault, this time. I reposted the comment, once more, and had something to say before departing



"Note to mods: Please read comments BEFORE you remove them. I've had to repost the above comment several times just to get it to stick. The first few times would have seem to have been the fault of Disqus, but this last time it looks like something done by somebody at EW.com, somebody who doesn't understand what sarcasm is.

This is not Wikipedia. When I have to fight to protect my content, that's not something I signed on for. That's not how comments on sites are generally expected to work. When I find that I have to get into such a fight just because I've spoken against cultural intolerance, that's unacceptable and it gets exhausting. One should be able to post something ONCE and have it stay. One shouldn't have to get into a test of wills just to speak about anything at all, least of all to express opposition to bigotry.

I wrote to EW about this problem last night, and this is the response I get? Really? Their staff gets in on the censorship? Classy. Until I get a more positive response, I'm going to conclude that EW and Disqus are more trouble than they're worth and urge people to avoid both. Who needs this?"






Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Lindsay Lohan: I was 'racially profiled' at the airport for wearing a headscarf 5: The censorship continues





Kelly wrote

"This girl is so desperate for attention she will do and say anything to stay relevant."

to which I responded:

"That's how you see it? After over 15 years worth of Muslim bashing in America following the 911 terrorist incident, with all of that Islamophobia that only seems to be getting crazier with time, you think that Ms, Lohan would study Islam for the sake of staying 'relevant'?

The new president of the United States has gone to court to fight to be able to keep legal permanent residents of the United States from being able to simply return home, so great was his hatred for those who follow the religion in which this actress has expressed an interest. Do you imagine that her studies will make her more popular in America, help her get cast? She aligns herself with a hated minority, one whose true role in America can be seen just by looking in the direction of Guantanamo Bay where, with the approval of the general public, our government has made a mockery of the concept of due process by holding prisoners without charge for over a decade. Human rights would seem to be sacred to Americans, unless the humans beings believe that Mohammed was a prophet.

She has chosen a difficult path for herself, out of conscience. She should find that choice greeted with respect, not scorn - and you're hearing this from a Jew. We shouldn't have to share somebody's beliefs in order to respect them or her, should we?"



Horrible, wasn't that? Somebody at Disqus must have though so, for this, too, was blocked from public view as spam. I think we now know what Disqus thinks of Muslims.



http://ew.com/news/2017/02/21/lindsay-lohan-racially-profiled-theadscarf/





Lindsay Lohan 4: Reporting the Problem





I just emailed the following comment to the technical and administrative contact listed for EW.com at Network Solutions, and submitted it as a comment on the article from which many comments (the ones in which I rebutted the Muslim bashing) had vanished, so one way or another, they should end up seeing this.



"I posted this perfectly legitimate comment

http://books-and-skin.blogspot.com/2017/02/lindsay-lohan-i-was-racially-profiled.html
to this article a few hours ago. It was instantly hidden (and then removed) by Disqus' faulty spam filter. I reported the problem to the company, only to get trolled and censored some more by a pair of seemingly teenaged moderators in the official help group. Ever since then, more of my comments have started vanishing in a manner that suggested human intervention. Somebody didn't like seeing that bug reported, and it's getting even with me.


The company is terminally unprofessional and completely out of control. As a commenter on this site, I would ask that Entertainment Weekly please terminate its relationship with Disqus. In this incident, they've shown that they are neither competent nor trustworthy. By forcing visitors to use their service to post to your site, you're giving those visitors a good reason to not post at all.


Who wants to put up with this?"





Lindsay Lohan: I was 'racially profiled' at the airport for wearing a headscarf III : Not censored yet, but why risk it?





The comment below is still up, but who knows for how long?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Such utter nonsense you write. Both my maternal grandmother and mother wore such scarves for all of their lives, though they lived in America and certainly would have been free to do otherwise.

I am so tired of watching an Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism being pushed as a fight for freedom. If Jewish and Muslim women want to wear such scarves, what makes that any of your or Ms. Beaudway's business? Has the thought ever occurred to some of you that perhaps the rest of us don't imitate your ways because we prefer our own?

Those scarves can be a beautiful form of self-expression.

http://ew.com/news/2017/02/21/lindsay-lohan-racially-profiled-theadscarf/#comment-3167924017





Lindsay Lohan: I was 'racially profiled' at the airport for wearing a headscarf II: The censorship continues





Another remark which has been "detected as spam" by Disqus' spam filter:

"I have serious issues with the hijab, burkah and other forms of religious dress, particularly those that are significantly different for women than men."

Why is that? Seriously, that sounds a little puritanical. Think about what you're saying: that all clothing must be unisex. That men and women have to avoid doing anything that signals the fact that they are different, in their dress. Almost like you want to blur out the distinctions between the genders.

How far do you want to take that? When I and my last girlfriend went out to dinner, was she oppressed in some way because she was wearing a dress and I was wearing a suit? Having no desire to oppress my beloved, I must ask how I might make this evil right. Would it have helped if I had worn a dress? Please, forgive me for my lack of Western insight and enlightenment, but I fear I would not have the legs to pull off that look, at all. Or perhaps my poor girlfriend should have been called on to wear a suit, as if the heat were not getting to her enough, as it was?

As you assert your imagined right to tell other women how to dress, how do you get past the real inherent sexism in such a line of argument, if this is what you are saying? If men and women look different (as G-d and nature have decreed that they shall) and we do not try to hide that difference in some way, that means that women are oppressed? How? How are they any more oppressed by this than the men? Implicit in such a line of argument is the assumption that that which is male is superior to that which is female. Otherwise, how can one argue that to emphasize a woman's femininity is to diminish her? How does one get past the self-hate implicit in the very argument?

Perhaps you should spend less time examining the attitudes of these poor, ignorant people whose civilizations predate your own by thousands of years, in some cases, and spend a little more examining your own.

http://ew.com/news/2017/02/21/lindsay-lohan-racially-profiled-theadscarf/#comment-3167439663





Community Growth: Censorship is bad, so I'm creating a competing channel (on "Discuss Disqus")





I created it just a little while ago, after watching a pair of mods on this channel childishly abuse their power. The new channel can be found here:

https://disqus.com/home/channel/discussdisquswithoutcensorship/

The new channel can be thought of as being what this channel would be, if high school students weren't being given administrative power. I introduce the group in this post

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-discussdisquswithoutcensorship/why_this_channel_exists/

which I 've had the foresight to mirror elsewhere

http://books-and-skin.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-this-channel-exists-on-discuss.html

but we can compact the prose down at lot, just by saying

1. I won't be getting involved unless I absolutely have to, because the channel is there so people can do what they can't do here - speak freely.

2. The mods who abused their power here, aren't welcome there. Neither are their defenders - the power mad mods don't get to be there by proxy, either.

3. I'll expect people to use their common sense.

4. Enter at your own risk, because I'm not your daddy. Unless you're female and cute, and on a particular dating site, but we needn't get into that.

Enjoy. Or not. Either way, I'll probably never know.


https://disqus.com/home/channel/discussdisqus/discussion/channel-discussdisqus/community_growth_censorship_is_bad_so_im_creating_a_competing_channel/


A comment was posted by "Elizabeth":

"Channel promotion is here: https://disqus.com/home/channe...
DD is for publisher and Reveal issues."

to which I tried to reply

"
I'll be happy to post something there, to, but I think you're missing the point. I'm saying that the moderators on this channel have been abusing their power and on that basis, am urging the members to jump ship.

What I'm announcing isn't just a new channel. It's a vote of no confidence. The mods on this channel are not fit to wield the authority they've been given."
 
but they had already locked the discussion. LOL.


-------------


I reposted this to channel chat, with slight modification, adding this comment:

"By the way - I thought I should mention that somebody at Disqus is now deleting more comments on that same article, in which I argue against a particularly anti-Muslim form of cultural intolerance. As the Islamophobia in this action can easily be seen, I'm going to be in touch with CAIR, and recommend that they initiate a class action suit against Disqus.

I'm sure there's some bit of boilerplate in the TOS that lets the company do what it just did, but when it is doing what it is doing in order to promote hatred against a protected group, I'm fairly sure that this is going to violate federal civil rights law. Their TOS doesn't override that.

I am disgusted by what I just witnessed and I should be."




Haro wrote:

"'childishly abuse their power'
Ah whatever, good luck with the channel!"


\to which I responded


"There is no 'whatever' about it. This has become a real problem. This is a comment they deleted from a problem report I filed, mentioning that the installation directions for BlogSpot.com no longer worked:

'I have great difficulty believing that Google is going to discontinue Blogger, one of the major blogging platforms.'


I posted this in response to a claim that Blogger was about to be discontinued. Under no sane standard was this an offensive remark, yet it got censored, all the same. A moderator censored something, just to prove she could. That's childish and that's a problem."


As of now (8:1l pm), neither comment has been approved. I don't know if they will be. What I do know is that I've burned away a precious day, trying to post a few reasonable remarks and dealing with people's childishness. I'm serious about contacting CAIR. What I'm not sure I'm serious about, any more, is the channel on Disqus.

If the company is going to be this bad, maybe I should just log out and never log back in. Today's performance was inexcusable. After behavior this outrageous, somebody has to be fired. 






Why this channel exists on Discuss Disqus | Without Censorship




Something I just posted to my new channel on Disqus:

I started this channel after reporting a misfire of Disqus' filter, and found myself being censored by an obvious adolescent calling himself "Lord Bokeh" and his equally mature sidekick "CaliCheeseSucks." I had dealt with CaliCheese once before, watching her censor and lock a previous discussion (in which I replied to somebody who tried to argue that doxxing wasn't wrong) on the basis that she didn't want to see arguments happening.

That's not how this group is going to work. As long as you make some effort to stay on topic, don't post something that really is spam (commercial advertising), don't break any laws or violate Disqus' rules, I don't care what you do in here. I'm not going to get involved. If you become a moderator on this channel, I'll expect you to take the same, nearly hands off approach. We do not get involved, just because somebody's feelings get hurt or because somebody speaks ill of the one true company, hallowed be Its name. People are here to speak freely (at least, until the company or law gets involved), and we're here to let them do that.

This channel is not the center of my life or my online activity (which isn't the center of my life, either), so if you want to mention and link to your own competing channel for discussing Disqus, as long as it isn't piece of garbage this channel was created as an alternative to. that's fine. Do you have a forum or blog on another site where you discuss Disqus? Feel free to mention it.

I didn't start this channel because I love running fora. In fact, I hate doing so, but I perceived a need. If another channel starts up, and the traffic drifts from here to there, as long as the discussions stay uncensored there, too, that's fine. My feelings will not be hurt. That will just mean that I have more time to spend on the things I do like to do, while something I feel needs to be done, does get done. Asking me if I'm bothered by that would, I think, be like asking a homeowner if he minded having his lawn moved. For free. What can one say to that other than "go ahead"? Unless one has a flower bed over which you know the kid is going to mow, but I digress.

You'll hardly know I'm here, almost all of the time. In fact, I'll hardly know after a while, because I won't be. I plan to give this channel away, just as soon as I have a good person to give it to. Do not report a discussion to me unless you have an unshakably good reason to do so (violation of the law or terms of service), because I don't want to hear about it. Yes, it can hurt to try - I'll ban people who ignore what I just said and send me silly complaints. Enter at your own risk and deal with the discussions you encounter like an adult.

That is all. With any luck, I'll never be heard from on this channel again, but since when did anybody ever have good luck on the Internet?


Comment of mine that I posted immediately after this post:

I trust we understand that neither Lord Bokeh nor CaliCheeseSucks are welcome on this channel, nor are any of their apologists. Having engaged in censorship, themselves, they forfeited their own right to speak freely, as far as I'm concerned.

Anybody who thinks that this is a philosophically inconsistent position is invited to go look up the notion of "the social contract" and then reflect on the fact that I'm not a Christian. Having been struck on one cheek, I need not offer these little brats the other.

In no way am I encouraging any sort of harassment of these two. I'd just like to see them and their power playing become irrelevant, as the channels they moderate are shunned, in favor of channels (and sites) where people can speak more freely.





https://disqus.com/home/channel/discussdisquswithoutcensorship/discussion/channel-discussdisquswithoutcensorship/why_this_channel_exists/



Bug Reports & Feedback: Disqus installation didn't work on Blogger / Discuss Disqus





My Report:

"I followed the instructions to install Disqus on a blog which I just set up on Blogger (blogspot.com). When I got to the point at which I was supposed to find this line

<b:widget id='HTML1' locked='false' title='Disqus' type='HTML'>

I ran into an immediate problem: the line in question did not exist. Your installation directions did not work. This might be because a few years ago, the team at Google redid their system in a way that hides much of the HTML for one's blog because, neener, neener, they could and wanted to show the users who was boss.

You guys are just going to need to re-work the installation directions or accept that people aren't going to be using Disqus on new Blogger blogs. Please get on this. Thank you."



A comment of mine in the discussion that followed:

"Cue the crickets, I guess. (laughs, sadly) Blogger is the second most popular blogging platform on the planet. I'm not sure who the first is. Tumblr? Here we have a report that the install directions are completely failing for blogs on that service, because of a change in coding that happened a few years ago, meaning that it has been failing for all of that time. One would think that this would be a priority, but listen to the silence from the company. It isn't.

I was going to ask if Disqus even wanted to stay in business, when I asked myself (just now) how the company was even managing to make money. Take a look at our comment pages - no ads, which seems like plain, pure foolishness, because one needn't even have a staff to get advertising revenue off of a page. Even if one has no other options, one could install AdSense and get 50% of the ad revenue, which is better than nothing and so easy to get that individual bloggers have been known to make money this way, but Disqus doesn't even do that. Yet they're paying people to be on their staff, so where was the money coming from for that?

I found this reply from Daniel Ha, identified as a co-founder of Disqus.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-Disqus-make-money


Quoting Mr. Ha:

"Disqus makes money through a premium service called Disqus VIP, targeted exclusively at very large networks (sites include CNN, The Telegraph, IGN, Fox).

We plan to continue with premium services and extending it to different sizes of websites in the very near future."


Get the picture? As free users, we're not seen as being customers in any sense, because Disqus doesn't want to bother to try to make money off of traffic. Disqus was pretending to serve us, only to get us to install their product on our sites in order to give them free advertising, in order to attract the attention of the people running those "very large networks." Now that they have that attention, Disqus couldn't care less about the experience the suckers who installed their product as free users are going to have.

How lovely, but not really atypical, I suppose. The attitude that content creation is not real work seems to be common throughout the Internet. Perhaps by showing that it doesn't give a damn about the individual blogger, Disqus helps to do him a favor (however unintentionally) by discouraging him from blogging in the first place. If the people to whom we'd have to entrust our data have no respect for us or what we do, how safe would our content be on any of these services, anyway?

Maybe we should just see the Internet as a promising sounding idea that was killed by corporate greed, arrogance and stupidity, and move on. Talking to people who are far better established as bloggers than I am, I hear that even successful blogs will get maybe seven hits per day for a while, and then have to move because some crank flagged them and the support staff didn't want to deal with any drama. If, on the other hand, I take something I wrote to the open mike at the Green Mill on Sunday, I can get at least a hundred people in the audience (even in mid-winter), with no censorship of any sort taking place.

Which sounds like a better deal?"


An uncomfortably good question, I'm afraid.





Bug Reports & Feedback: False spam detection / flagging (Discuss Disqus)





I just posted a comment to a discussion on the Entertainment Weekly site, and was amazed to find that I was being told that it had been "detected as spam." I've reposted it in this blog post

http://books-and-skin.blogspot...

where anybody with a fair and open mind can come and see that, under no sane definition of the word "spam" does this qualify as such. I find that your system was set to block me when I posted a rebuttal to an attack on an aspect of Middle Eastern culture. Should I take that as a sign of Islamophobia or anti-Semitism, or does the spam filter need to see a lot of work, which Disqus might or might not be willing to do?




----------

I posted the report above, and immediately followed with this comment

"AND your system removed the comment from the page. Good thing I saved it, I guess, if you're now automating the destruction of user contributions. Had I waited to cut and paste that comment, I wouldn't have been able to get into the editor at all.
Note to everybody else: time to put down your guesses. How long will we have to wait before Disqus bothers to reply? I think we should agree that if over a week passes, that anybody who said "never" wins, because that's close enough. Who is going to check this post next month?

No wagering. Let's not give Disqus an excuse to censor this discussion, too. Automated Islamophobia - that's special. I've witnessed Islamophobia, before, of course (having been in the US during this century), but building it into the software? I've never seen anybody do that before. Maybe they could call their program "auto-bigot."

Think about it. Entertainment Weekly doesn't even get the choice of whether or not to let an argument against a bit of anti-Muslim cultural intolerance stay on their site, because Disqus has taken it upon itself to snatch that argument out of their grasp."

only to be told

" Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Discuss Disqus. "

leaving me to wonder if my report of censorship by Disqus would, itself , be censored by Disqus. Stay tuned or just go to the page and see for yourself.

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-discussdisqus/bug_reports_feedback_false_spam_detection_flagging/



Addendum: I soon got to hear from a moderator calling himself "Lord Bokeh", leading to the following discussion. Yes, this really happened:




Me: "Wow. I'm getting a lot of blog posts out of you guys, today. I reposted the last comment you blocked from public view here

http://books-and-skin.blogspot...

so it will be seen whether you approve it or not."



Lord Bokeh: "The reason why it was blocked is you hit on a restricted word 'snat*h'"



Me: "Seriously? So if I wrote "I snat*hed the item off the table", that would be forbidden because that's such a dirty thing to say?

I notice my clearly inoffensive comment has been deleted instead being approved on what really looks like a trumped up excuse. I'll try reposting it with that incredibly common verb munged, as my doubts as to the sanity of the management of this company deepen."



Lord Bokeh: "It's the word not the meaning. Yes I deleted your pending comment as I don't approve swear words or otherwise. Also you'll need to make contact Entertainment Weekly to have those site pending comments approved as Disqus doesn't provide site level moderation. As your account seems new, you'll need to post more often to show the filter you're not spam."



Me: "It's not a swear word, you nitwit. Go read a dictionary."





Right after I said I'd repost the comment, I did with the forbidden verb "snatch" softened to protect delicate eyes from a word third graders have been reading in their schoolbooks for generations, adding this note to the bottom of my reposted comment.




"-------------------

For those wondering, I just "softened" the commonly used verb above, one that means "quickly seize (something) in a rude or eager way" because according to "Lord Bokeh" (who apparently deleted the original copy of my comment) this word is restricted.

When one of my brothers would just grab something away from me when we were little, who knew that this was a sexual act? I was angry then, but I had no idea of just how wrong that was. Thank for you setting me straight, Disqus! And for giving the powers of a moderator to somebody who will probably turn out to be 14 years old, because what could possibly go wrong? :)"




Words fail me. As I write this, at 3:56 pm I see that there is another reply. Maybe I'll bother saying something in reply to it or about it, but I wonder if I need to. Could this be more blatantly ignorant and stupid. I have errands to run and coffee to drink so, really, later (or maybe not at all).



Ugh. I'm still here. There wasn't much to see. Just "Lord Bokeh" wrote "Try again, deleting." as if to gloat, to which I responded "Doesn't matter. I just posted the whole discussion to my blog post. I knew better than to trust you."

Nothing like dealing with an adolescent who is having fun abusing power he should never have been given. "Lord Bokeh" (I'm trying to keep a straight face as I type that name) tried to change the subject, writing




"Sadly it's not about me. The spam filter was set up to combat real spam. But over time it's been abused by serial flagging which puts users comments into pending or spam. But the filter continues forward to better understand each and every user that comes to Disqus. False positives do happen and happen to those who just recently join. Upvoting and posting consist non spam like posts, such as not posting repeated comments and or including the same link over and over as these are the marks of a spammer. When you get a chance flip through the green tag for spam, you'll see you're not alone."




to which I tried to reply




"'Sadly it's not about me.'

He says, after gloating about the fact that he just censored a perfectly reasonable comment that was about him. How old are you? 14? 15?

Who calls himself "Lord Bokeh"?

"But the filter continues forward to better understand each and every user that comes to Disqus."

How is that going to happen when the immediate response to a problem report is to harass and censor the use on flimsy grounds, and then try to pretend that there is no problem with Disqus' spam filter?

NO problem gets solved when people refuse to acknowledge its existence.




but was unable to enter the last part of that, because another mod abused her power and locked the discussion, with the problem still unsolved. Professionalism at its best. LOL. I'm not sure that these people are Disqus employees, but since this is where we are encouraged to go to "discuss Disqus", for the company to deny responsibility for the actions of these mods would be disingenuous.





Lindsay Lohan: I was 'racially profiled' at the airport for wearing a headscarf / Entertainment Weekly





"I have serious issues with the hijab, burkah and other forms of religious dress, particularly those that are significantly different for women than men."

Why is that? Seriously, that sounds a little puritanical. Think about what you're saying: that all clothing must be unisex. That men and women have to avoid doing anything that signals the fact that they are different, in their dress. Almost like you want to blur out the distinctions between the genders.

How far do you want to take that? When I and my last girlfriend went out to dinner, was she oppressed in some way because she was wearing a dress and I was wearing a suit? Having no desire to oppress my beloved, I must ask how I might make this evil right. Would it have helped if I had worn a dress? Please, forgive me for my lack of Western insight and enlightenment, but I fear I would not have the legs to pull off that look, at all. Or perhaps my poor girlfriend should have been called on to wear a suit, as if the heat were not getting to her enough, as it was?

As you assert your imagined right to tell other women how to dress, how do you get past the real inherent sexism in such a line of argument, if this is what you are saying? If men and women look different (as G-d and nature have decreed that they shall) and we do not try to hide that difference in some way, that means that women are oppressed? How? How are they any more oppressed by this than the men? Implicit in such a line of argument is the assumption that that which is male is superior to that which is female. Otherwise, how can one argue that to emphasize a woman's femininity is to diminish her? How does one get past the self-hate implicit in the very argument?

Perhaps you should spend less time examining the attitudes of these poor, ignorant people whose civilizations predate your own by thousands of years, in some cases, and spend a little more examining your own.


http://ew.com/news/2017/02/21/lindsay-lohan-racially-profiled-theadscarf/





Sunday, February 19, 2017

Bill Murray opening Caddyshack bar near Chicago / Post on Entertainment Weekly (My Comment)





I want to like it, but I sense that it's going to end up looking tacky and sad. Also, speaking as somebody who lives in Chicago, I wonder if Rosemont is a good location for a bar.

In terms of profitability, maybe, because O'Hare is so close and the tourists will be passing by, but there is a cost that can end up being passed along to the community. At 2 or 3 am, when the bar closes, how are the drunks going to get home? If the bar is in Chicago or Evanston, there's an obvious answer: hop the El, maybe taking a CTA bus to connect. The El runs all night, so the drinker is set. One might look at the map, see an El stop in Rosemont and think "problem solved", but careful - the map doesn't always tell the whole story.

Not all suburbs were laid out with pedestrians in mind. The area around O'Hare is infamously, dangerously unwalkable, built to nothing resembling a human scale. Sidewalks are frequently absent, because planners just assumed that everybody would be in a car, and huge, cloverleaf intersections offer those on foot plenty of opportunities to be run down, because the only priority was getting as many cars in and out of what was once the world's busiest airport, as possible.

Weighing their options, people are likely to think "let's drive" and while we've all heard of designated drivers, hardly anybody wants to be the one sober person in a crowd fill of drunks. We end up with more drunk drivers on the roads, making darkened cloverleaf intersections and roads without sidewalks even more dangerous for pedestrians, pushing even more people into driving, even before the number of pedestrian deaths starts to rise very high. Anybody who has ever just barely been missed being hit knows what an impression the experience makes. The roads will get more dangerous still, as the problem feeds on itself.

I wonder if this permit should have been improved. Yes, there are PACE buses, but the last time I checked, those stopped running, early. There are taxis, but who wants to spend $20, just to get to the station where one will pick up a vomit encrusted El car? People could do that, but they won't, so somebody who is going to be on the road for the most legitimate of reasons (commuting home from a late shift at work) is going to end up being killed by one of these drunk drivers, who is going to end up plowing into his car. Or ... any number of things. Think "drunk person behind the wheel, what could possibly go wrong" - and very likely it will, and very often, it will end up harming an innocent bystander.

This is a harsh externality - the victims end up paying for the businessman's decision to cash in on the airport (and convention center) crowd at the cost of life and limb, literally, doing so non-consensually and without any sort of compensation. In theory, bars can be sued for serving excessively drunk patrons who later get into accidents, but in practice, we can see how little of a deterrent that is as we watch people stagger out of drinking establishments. How does the victim collect from the bar in the case of a hit and run, or if the drinkers say that they can't remember where they were? Which they very well might not, because barhoppers (as the name would suggest) often will hop from bar to bar, and Rosemont already has a surprising density of those.

This is great for the tax base of a small suburb (4206 people), with a well-developed road system (put in place because of the nearby airport) that helps the drunks escape its tiny territory very quickly, which I suppose is why Rosemont keeps approving these applications, but is it so good for the surrounding area? A surrounding area which, by the way, won't get much of a say in the matter because Rosemont is a home rule unit, giving it lots and lots of autonomy, and which isn't likely to be able to reason with Rosemont's government, which does seem to be given to a certain "go love yourself" attitude. We are talking about the town that tried to nullify a country tax .

http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/opinions/appellatecourt/1999/1stdistrict/March/HTML/1982847.htm

Bill Murray is a star and he deserves his fame. I'm totally a fan and I'm sure other people are, too, but when he puts his wealth and fame behind an ill-considered decision to become part of a growing and potentially dangerous problem, that choice shouldn't be celebrated just because he has a theme in mind for the ill-considered decision. The night watchman who ends up being killed by a drunk driver at 27 and leaving behind a really young widow and a few tiny children might be somebody we don't know, maybe even somebody a lot of us don't want to know, but he's just as much a human being as a beloved celebrity, and his life counts, too. So let's use our brains and see that this is not a cute item. This is a continuation of a horror story that America doesn't seem to have the sense to bring to a close. Drunk driving claims thousands of lives every year.

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/by_the_numbers/drunk_driving/index.html


We don't need to increase those numbers. When greed, thoughtlessness and the desire for a really neat theme bar so completely trump concern for public safety that the latter isn't even really being discussed, that's a problem, and it needs to be solved.


Time to put down your bets. :) How long before one of the following happens?


1. We see somebody deal with the above arguments by saying "tl;dr" and then setting up a strawman?


2. A libertarian complains that I'm arguing in favor of socialism, which he effectively defines to be any system under which he can't do just anything he wants. Because as we all know, that's what Stalin was infamous for - his brutal insistence on urban planning.


3. Somebody looks at the statistics, says that a lot of people who were killed by drunk drivers were their passengers, and concludes from this that death by drunk driver is consensual and not a cause for public concern.


4. Flaming from people who seem to be drunk, and totally love the people in #1, #2 and #3.


5. A representative from the village of Rosemont tries to snow us into believing that there is no problem.


6. I get dogpiled by a group of crazed Bill Murray fans.