Another deadline day in the Legislature and the death penalty bill is dead. [TNI]
Nevada says TitleMax used refinanced loans to skirt state law. [RJ]
In a CCSD school board meeting with questions of open meeting law violations, the Board approved a contract extension for Superintendent Jara. [TNI]
As some of you already discussed, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled 2019 bills generating tens of millions in tax revenue were unconstitutional. [TNI]
Nevada to get delayed funding for crime victims. [RJ]
People are all smiles as Nevada and several casinos follow the new CDC guideline that people who are fully vaccinated for Covid-19 no longer need to wear masks for most things. [News3LV]
I made $20 an hour my first law clerk summer job. Made $15 an hour as a file clerk the summer before law school in 2004.
Guest
Anonymous
May 14, 2021 6:18 pm
So if you choose to not get vaccinated, you must wear a mask. For what? If you are vaccinated, then you aren't concerned about getting the virus, otherwise there was no point in getting vaccinated. That leaves those that have not been vaccinated free to bear the burden of possible infection, especially when the vaccine is available for everyone that wants it.
I don't see any good reason to require masks among the non-vaccinated, and don't see how it could be effectively enforced anyway short of a mark on the forehead indicating such. Either all masked, or all unmasked, let's stop with the nonsensical nuances.
That's not how science works. There are still groups of people who cannot be vaccinated…children and people who have medical concerns such that their doctors have recommended they not be vaccinated yet or ever. If you want to be a nut job anti-vaxxer then you need to wear a mask. Better yet, keep your weird ass home and stay TF away from the rest of us.
And yes, it's going to be difficult to enforce because assholes like you who think they know more than public health officials because you saw a chiropractor talking about in on Fox and Friends.
11:41–Don't blame 11:18. The pandemic has ben politicized since it started.
Let's stop using "science" as an excuse, on either side, to justify decisions that are almost totally politically, and often emotionally, based.
Of all the people who quote "science" as an explanation for their positions, almost none of them have actually done a deeper dive or actually read any of the articles or studies on these matters.
So lets leave "science" out of matters which are largely motivated by politics, emotions and a personal belief system.
Let's keep it simple. If you are a democrat, it is probable your democratic talking heads have convinced you to be vaccinated(which, in the interest of full disclosure is my belief as well–get vaccinated). If you are a republican, your republican talking heads have probably convinced you not to become vaccinated.
Works the same with climate change. Very few people have actually read much in the way of the actual studies on the matter(which do tend to be dense and largely unreadable, but I digress), but everyone still has strong opinions.
If you are a democrat you tend to believe in climate change. If you are a republican, you either believe it is a hoax, or simply don't believe it, or at least don't believe it is nearly the crises that many suggest it is.
And sometimes religion becomes involved, and again, the old standby "science" becomes the excuse. Take a look at the abortion issue:
The majority of democrats–it's a woman's choice.
The majority of republicans–it is the taking of a life.
And then both sides treat us to the "science" of when life does or doesn't begin, rather than simply admitting it's a very personal, emotional, and often religious, belief, and that no one will ever change their position based on the opposing sides "science."
12:32, science and politics have always made strange bed fellows.
Science appears to become very malleable once introduced into a political discussion.
Sometimes people on these news programs are debating over the exact same scientific/medical study, but their interpretation of what the study means, and what the study concludes, becomes very predictable once we are informed of the political affiliation of each of the debaters.
I believe in getting vaccinated because vaccines have saved millions if not billions of lives on this planet. I believe in getting vaccinated because my little sister was born with a disease that almost killed her. A few years later they approved a vaccine and now it's almost unheard of children being born with that disease in this country.
I believe in climate change because I took meteorology in college and I read and I pay attention to the science. While I may not necessarily read the actual studies, I have read interviews with the scientists who did those studies, I've watched documentaries with those same scientists, etc.
I believe abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor, not Mother Pence.
But thanks for attributing my decisions and beliefs to my politics. Dick.
Hey, 11:41, you do realize you have little Trump's in your body now, right? He singlehandedly made it possible to truncate a normal 7 year "vaccine" development cycle to make this possible. You are a Trumpian now.
To 11:41: It is not just “nut job anti-vaxxer”s who have not been vaccinated. Do you realize that the vaccines have not been tested under FDA protocols,, have not been approved by the FDA and are only EXPERIMENTAL? I don’t blame anyone for wanting to wait until the FDA testing has been completed! And you are an ass for condemning those who do not wish to be test subjects for these unapproved vaccines.
1:11 that's just a sexist and dick response, as to you last two, how can it be experimental when over 100 million people have been vaccinated in this country and it has roughly a .7% adverse reaction rate? I get not taking the J&J vaccine for religious reasons, but there are alternatives. I also get not taking it because you just don't want to, ignorance is bliss. But to attack the science is ludicrous, the rollout has been far more extensive than any FDA trial and the results prove that the vaccines are viable medicine. If you choose not to take it OR to take it, that's your choice but don't spread misinformation that's just lazy and dangerous.
I'm curious as to why so many non-denominational Christian churches are advising their members to reject the vaccine. Was there a similar movement when the polio vaccine was introduced? What has changed in our culture? It's so medieval.
12:32 here. Please chill out and listen to posters who indicate that you are taking things too personal and getting a little abusive(e.g. ending all your posts by calling another poster "Dick".)
My post was not about you. You are obviously an exception, as you appear well-informed and have done your research.
But I still stand by my point–that most people are not too informed on the science of an issue but instead use the argument of "science" to justify a position they have that is largely created by political affiliation, personal beliefs, and sometimes religion.
12:49 amplified the same point, and you also referred to them as a "dick" as well
And digging into the content of your posts, you seem to agree with the points I and 12:49 make–as you, for just one example, attacked an ant-vaccinator for using bullshit "science" to justify what you believed to be an ignorant decision fueled by emotion and being enslaved to a specific political leader–but certainly not justified by any accurate scientific or medical data.
So, if you read a bit more clearly, you will realize we are essentially quite in agreement on these points. So please don't call me a "Dick" anymore, and have a great day.
2:35–don't waste time with diplomacy, and don't waste too much time responding to people like 11:41 until they learn to make a point without being so vicious and abusive.
I actually think 11:41, when concentrating on content of an issue rather than on how to dehumanize anyone who might have an even slight disagreement with the points being made, sounds pretty intelligent and informed,and I happen to agree with the points being made.
But I don't want people like 11:41 on my side, as I like to enjoy respectful exchanges of ideas, rather than vituperative and hyperbolic name-calling.
I learned much from people I have had discussions with(and even disagreements with) over thee years. But I would never have learned any of that if I started out by roaring that the other person is a complete moron.
Hey Ben, 1:11 here. My comment was snarky, not sexist, as I do not know the sex of the person whom my comment was directed to. Anyone can over-emotionalize an issue, and that clearly includes you. Male body part.
These vaccines were rushed to market without adequate testing and the companies promoting them demanded and got immunity from any liability if they screw up.
What's not to like?
Also, shouldn't we demand to have a population of unvaccinated individuals to act and continue to act as a control group?
Science has evolved. Control groups are reactionary remnants of a dark age. So much so, the pharmaceutical companies have eliminated their control groups for the miracle Trump vaccines. That's right. No control groups. Gone. Modern science.
But isn't it fun for 5:46 and the rest of the facebook epidemiologist crowd to talk about control groups and testing and immunity from liability? The NCVIA was signed into law by Saint Reagan, but it sounds so much cooler when the right wing nutters say big pharma demanded immunity for the COVID19 vaccines. (sigh) Stupid people everywhere.
Couple days late. But checking Nadig's stats, the VAERS from CDC indicate 3,289,407 adverse events. Assuming 100,000,000 vaccines, thats a 3.289% adverse and that's only REPORTED AE's. How many are UNreported and how many are attributed to something else? We may never know.
So here is my $0.02.
Fuck you and your shot. Its 99.95% recoverable for my demographic. I'm good, thanks. Keep your shot.
As far as that article about TitleMax, what are exactly the causes that have created a plethora of payday enders this millennium?
There have always been, and always will be, lots of people struggling financially from paycheck to paycheck and in need of short term cash, yet I have lived here since the 80's and I don't think there was much in the way of these payday lenders until after we entered the new century.
Could a major cause be that most major banking chains, in the 90's, stopped offering(or at least greatly reducing the availability of) short-term signature, non-collateral loans to people?
The banks were simply getting screwed on those matters constantly, and the level of default was very high. Reason was these were usually not people who simply encountered an unexpected expense. They were people whose income is simply never enough to meet their monthly expenses. And the banks, although willing of course to place liens of homes with equity, had no real interest in the unseemly concept of holding car titles as collateral to secure the loan, nor did they create the concept of having signed authorization to garnish bank accounts as soon as non-payment occurred–but those are two things the payday lenders thought of quite quickly.
So, I'm just guessing. So, what do you all think the main causes are? And it's not "increase in poverty" as that has always been with us. I simply don't recall seeing these places back in the 80's and 90's, although they were presumably here to some degree. But now they are on every corner.
11:42 and 11:48 both answer 11:39's inquiry quite well and quite succinctly.
11:42 hits on the financial and legal dynamic that caused the intense increase in those pay day lenders.
11:48 hits on the behavioral/sociological explanation.
Most pay day loans are not taken out to address some sudden and unexpected expense. Most of them are taken out for the purpose of starting to address payments on the pay day loans the borrower is already dealing with, all with extortionate interest rates.
If people were more willing to accept the reality of their financial situation instead of spending money they don't have to buy stuff they can't afford to impress people they don't know, the payday loan industry would shrivel and die. Instead, the industry thrives because people will not accept that they cannot really afford $6 coffee and an iPhone 12.
1:21, you hit the nail on the head. As 11:48 said, "no stigma." And the TV shows make it seem completely acceptable socially to consume frivolously. I personally prefer frugality.
Yes…that's it. Coffee and iPhones are breaking the bank. Just ignore the poverty wages that haven't kept up with inflation. Ignore the CEO compensation gap. Ignore the uncontrolled rents and housing market. Ugh.
I don't disagree with your basic premise that people are financially irresponsible, but blaming it on coffees and iPhones is just dumb. Do better.
The Golden Rule is Never Give A Sucker An Even Break. Payday loan companies work to fulfill the rule. Where's the problem? History is about the exploiters and exploited. Can't have one without the other. Have you heard of Wall Street? Same shit, different means. At least the Payday companies reward us with funny commercials and gimmicky merch.
2:29–My heart and altruism would agree with you, but my head says 1:21 is right.
Don't take the coffee or iPhone too literally as illustrative examples.
Instead, please actually talk to people who have worked in those places. They will tell you that the average borrower is almost never some hard-working person who encountered some unexpected expense and is simply trying to purchase and provide basic necessities for their family.
Instead it is clearly someone living well beyond their means and spending a great deal of money on optional expenses–things that you and I obviously knew not to purchase when we were struggling law students or young attorneys starting out and saddled with huge student loans, etc.
Also, a lot of these borrowers have serious gambling issues.
Admittedly, like the one poster indicates, even if there is a person who truly intended to take out just one loan and then would sincerely tighten their belt and act responsibly from now on, they invariably wind up taking out additional loans just to pay the unbelievably high interest on the first loan(and then subsequent loans) still outstanding. So, yes, caught in a vicious cycle.
And yes, I'm afraid 1:21, although seeming somewhat callous and dismissive as to the phraseology used, is absolutely right. Again, ask anyone who has ever worked at one of these places, and yes many borrowers have done just that–rather than obtaining affordable, reliable transportation, they buy a car way too rich for their blood, to impress people who don't even like them.
The problem isn't limited to the poor. Attorneys fall under the same scheme by another means. Cash out re-fis to pay off credit card and other debt only to not learn their lesson, and end up broke anyway, is one example. I know too many attorneys who are drowning in debt and supporting their lifestyle with debt. They're no different than the payday loan folks, IMO.
John Oliver did a great piece, still available on youtube, concerning predatory lending, specifically: pay day loans. Toward the end it also included a real funny bit about pay day loans by comedian Sara Silverman.
Also, although most of you have no doubt seen it, but for those who have not, he did a great, really witty pieces about "Electing Judges" that should be checked out.
Guest
Anonymous
May 14, 2021 6:43 pm
Anyone offended, possibly deeply offended, that Wolfson's Democratic DA's in the legislature won't advance a death penalty repeal that a majority of Democrats support? I am a Dem sure, just wanted to say, I did not vote for Nicole last time due to her prior shady moves and I definitely will never do so after this. Would rather see a R get the senate seat for a single term then move on to anyone else with an ounce of integrity.
I was stuck in Villani's murder calendar this morning and he led off with that case. Got to say it was one of those WTF is he doing moments BUT, listening to defense counsel's listing of the timeline for the killing of the death penalty repeal bill really reinforced my disappointment with both Nicole and Melanie as Democrats. I've always joked that they are really moderate Republicans, but killing a bill that passed quite easily in the Assembly proved the point. I like them both, but they are DA's first and Democrats second. I think it is going to be harder for that office to justify their legislative actions going forward, but WTF do I know. Just doesn't seem to pass the smell test.
You both have shown your obvious political lack of experience. Sisolak all but said he would veto it after the Assembly passed it, because not everyone is as enthusiastic about defending convicted murderers as some. That bill was dead the minute Sisolak read a prepared statement against the Assembly bill right after it passed. He went at it full frontal. Democrats do not send bills to get vetoed by their own party and put members on the line to vote for something that could be controversial. But go on with the DA hate/conflicts, and ignore that the PDs support voted for and also have a conflict.
What’s the PD’s conflict? They don’t have the ability to seek the death penalty. Is the conflict simply that they would choose not to have to defend against the taking of a life? All I said was that there is the appearance that they took a position based on continued employment that is in contrast to party ideals. That is the inherent conflict. As to being a political neophyte, Sisolak saying he would veto it isn’t necessarily enough to not let it make the floor for debate, they killed it before there was even a chance. So while I appreciate your condescension, I’m going to agree to disagree with you.
The PD's conflict is that if they vote against it, they could find derision in their office/and might be controlled by fealty to their employer–the same argument people make against the DA's. Its literally the same issue, control of employers/appearance of conflict. That's Nevada in a nutshell, though, we celebrate conflict of interest, i.e. we love our citizen legislature that is always on someone else's payroll. But then again, I don't pretend to know what anyone's motivation in voting for/against bills, so I'm not accusing the PD's of an actual conflict like you feel so comfortable doing you sign your name to this blog. But if you want to accuse two people of not being able to say no to their employer, and having a conflict, you do you. I think thats in bad taste personally. Maybe the DAs are DAs because they don't have an issue with being tough on crime, and the PDs are PDs because they have an opposite approach. Its not necessarily a conflict that they vote the way their employer would vote: its an actual conflict, as opposed to appearance of such, if their employer is directly controlling them and they are bowing to that. And not every member of a political party has to agree 100 percent with party positions, so that they are diverging from the mean, is not dispositive. Most dems are not DAs, and most republicans are not PDs. If their motivation is that they don't like convicted murders, rather than being told by their employer, then thats fine that they disagree with the party.
As for the vote, Dems are going to have a tough time next year regardless (the party in power's first midterm after presidential year always is), which is why you don't make people take a tough vote for a bill that will be vetoed. Sisolak is obviously afraid of COVID fall out and doesn't want to add fuel to the fire, not wanting to pick a side (its sure to piss off someone no matter what he does, a big losing issue either way). As for the senate killing it without a vote, and not sending it to Sisolak (which I'm sure Sisolak instructed them to do, as opposed to Wolfson), Its elementary that you don't put people on record in politics unless you're going to successfully change the law. Its all downside, and no result.
3:23, Mr. Nadig, you are right to be offended by 2:59's tone, and perhaps that will remind you, when you blog, to tone down the personal insults toward those who might not be in a complete agreement with you.
But that being said, 2:59 repulsed me in their first sentence when they started to make their point by insulting the political acumen of you and another poster. Great mature, cerebral and sophisticate manner of persuasion–start off by telling people they know nothing about the topic being discussed.
And you hit the nail on the head when you indicated that these Assistant District Attorneys, who may privately hold moderate to liberal views, are going to subvert those views in favor of their perceived duties as D.As to support the death penalty.
You did not point that out so much as an ethical/legal conflict, but more as a general, personal conflict as to professionally taking positions that one may nit personally believe. But this distinction was lost on 2:59.
And fortunately, you jumped on it right away when 2:59 used the inverse, and faulty, logic that if the D.A.'s have a conflict, then the P.D.'s office by definition must likewise have a conflict. False, as they are not the ones advocating policy and policy changes, but only responded to or resisted what is being advocated, and there is a huge difference that obviously escapes 2:59.
Also, again, the conflict you raised was really only one of personal belief vs. professional obligation(as opposed to a clear ethical conflict), and obviously they do conflict concerning these democrat D.A.s, but as to these P.D.s I would wager that the law of averages are that their personal beliefs are consistent with the professional arguments they are advancing–they do not believe in the death penalty, nor does the institution they work for.
A little odd that 2:59 misses that basic point as they let us know that they are a political guru who understands all the intricacies and psychology of politics.
I must say that I have grown to admire your candor, as well as your level-headed and analytical approach to topics, wherein you cut through all the distracting material to the core of what is really occurring.
What I admire a great deal less is when you tell posters to "f**k off" and "eat dick", even when they are being highly respectful to you and your points, but merely diverge slightly on some matters.
I certainly don't want to sound condescending, as you correctly mention 2:59 is being, but it can't hurt to think about what I said.
In fact, not to sound grandiose or arrogant, but if you actually do intend you run for judge again in the future, I just gave you some advice that will easily be the best advice you would ever receive–even from the best of the paid consultants, many of whom never bother to monitor what their various candidates are posting on blogs or social media.
In fact, I really hope you are a judge in the future. But please forgive me on this, but even the smartest people do really dumb things, and the vile insults you have levelled on this very public blog are really, really dumb. Sorry. But it's true.
And before you get too upset with me, you damn well know I speak the truth. You're obviously far too intelligent not to know it.
But to give credit where it's due, you are in fact obviously too smart to maintain such insulting approach, as you resisted using it on 2:59, and you were fairly respectful.
Even though, truth be told, 2:59 kind of deserved the more colorful approach you took in past postings(I know that sounds hypocritical of me)
5:40. Very long post to make an isolated valid point.
But that point is obviously true, but I don't think it's any longer a concern as you yourself point out that he no longer uses such descriptive language toward other posters.
And I think you have a second good point now that I think on it. I think he would do a fine job on the bench.
But I'm often wrong, and that reminds me of another point. Some who I think will be disastrous as a judge, really pleasantly surprise me, while others who I expect will do quite well as a judge turn out to be a disappointment.
Could be that the attributes that make good attorneys, vs,. the attributes that make good judges, are, to a significant degree, not the same.
Guest
Anonymous
May 14, 2021 6:43 pm
How are businesses going to determine who is vaxxed and who isn't? The honor system?
My husband likes Allf. I am not happy with her treatment of a friend of mine who is in front of her, so I am pulling my financial support from her "candidates."
I had one exposure to Padda years ago as an extern in a judicial settlement conference. Seemed nice enough, Alf is a bit odd, but I have gotten the correct decisions out of her thus far.
Allf is bad. I was co-defense counsel on the case, and she was advising the other defense counsel without all the parties present during a hearing. Her JEA is rude, and I was not served minute orders when others were. Nancy Allf also issued orders that were constitutionally valid in the same case. Our firm premps her
What is the going rate for summer law clerks? Hourly vs. salary? 1L/2L/3L?
Have hired MANY 1L's in the $11-13 range. Do not overpay.
$11-13?! Jeez.. There are high school dropouts starting at $15/hour flipping patties at McDonalds.
$11–13??? That's incredibly low.
C'mon man – I made $15 an hour in 2007 as a 2L
That's absurdly low. Twenty years ago, I made $15 a hour as a law clerk in a southern state.
I was paid $20/hour in 2012 after my 2L year.
I'm with 12:19! See you at the country club, baby!
I made $20 an hour my first law clerk summer job. Made $15 an hour as a file clerk the summer before law school in 2004.
So if you choose to not get vaccinated, you must wear a mask. For what? If you are vaccinated, then you aren't concerned about getting the virus, otherwise there was no point in getting vaccinated. That leaves those that have not been vaccinated free to bear the burden of possible infection, especially when the vaccine is available for everyone that wants it.
I don't see any good reason to require masks among the non-vaccinated, and don't see how it could be effectively enforced anyway short of a mark on the forehead indicating such. Either all masked, or all unmasked, let's stop with the nonsensical nuances.
That's not how science works. There are still groups of people who cannot be vaccinated…children and people who have medical concerns such that their doctors have recommended they not be vaccinated yet or ever. If you want to be a nut job anti-vaxxer then you need to wear a mask. Better yet, keep your weird ass home and stay TF away from the rest of us.
And yes, it's going to be difficult to enforce because assholes like you who think they know more than public health officials because you saw a chiropractor talking about in on Fox and Friends.
Thanks for politicizing a global pandemic. Dick.
11:41–Don't blame 11:18. The pandemic has ben politicized since it started.
Let's stop using "science" as an excuse, on either side, to justify decisions that are almost totally politically, and often emotionally, based.
Of all the people who quote "science" as an explanation for their positions, almost none of them have actually done a deeper dive or actually read any of the articles or studies on these matters.
So lets leave "science" out of matters which are largely motivated by politics, emotions and a personal belief system.
Let's keep it simple. If you are a democrat, it is probable your democratic talking heads have convinced you to be vaccinated(which, in the interest of full disclosure is my belief as well–get vaccinated). If you are a republican, your republican talking heads have probably convinced you not to become vaccinated.
Works the same with climate change. Very few people have actually read much in the way of the actual studies on the matter(which do tend to be dense and largely unreadable, but I digress), but everyone still has strong opinions.
If you are a democrat you tend to believe in climate change. If you are a republican, you either believe it is a hoax, or simply don't believe it, or at least don't believe it is nearly the crises that many suggest it is.
And sometimes religion becomes involved, and again, the old standby "science" becomes the excuse. Take a look at the abortion issue:
The majority of democrats–it's a woman's choice.
The majority of republicans–it is the taking of a life.
And then both sides treat us to the "science" of when life does or doesn't begin, rather than simply admitting it's a very personal, emotional, and often religious, belief, and that no one will ever change their position based on the opposing sides "science."
12:32, science and politics have always made strange bed fellows.
Science appears to become very malleable once introduced into a political discussion.
Sometimes people on these news programs are debating over the exact same scientific/medical study, but their interpretation of what the study means, and what the study concludes, becomes very predictable once we are informed of the political affiliation of each of the debaters.
11:41 here –
I believe in getting vaccinated because vaccines have saved millions if not billions of lives on this planet. I believe in getting vaccinated because my little sister was born with a disease that almost killed her. A few years later they approved a vaccine and now it's almost unheard of children being born with that disease in this country.
I believe in climate change because I took meteorology in college and I read and I pay attention to the science. While I may not necessarily read the actual studies, I have read interviews with the scientists who did those studies, I've watched documentaries with those same scientists, etc.
I believe abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor, not Mother Pence.
But thanks for attributing my decisions and beliefs to my politics. Dick.
I believe that you have emotionalized your position to the point of being hysterical.
Hey, 11:41, you do realize you have little Trump's in your body now, right? He singlehandedly made it possible to truncate a normal 7 year "vaccine" development cycle to make this possible. You are a Trumpian now.
To 11:41: It is not just “nut job anti-vaxxer”s who have not been vaccinated. Do you realize that the vaccines have not been tested under FDA protocols,, have not been approved by the FDA and are only EXPERIMENTAL? I don’t blame anyone for wanting to wait until the FDA testing has been completed! And you are an ass for condemning those who do not wish to be test subjects for these unapproved vaccines.
Ok I'm hysterical now (yawn)
1:59 people like you are the problem. Get vaccinated so we can end this pandemic.
1:11 that's just a sexist and dick response, as to you last two, how can it be experimental when over 100 million people have been vaccinated in this country and it has roughly a .7% adverse reaction rate? I get not taking the J&J vaccine for religious reasons, but there are alternatives. I also get not taking it because you just don't want to, ignorance is bliss. But to attack the science is ludicrous, the rollout has been far more extensive than any FDA trial and the results prove that the vaccines are viable medicine. If you choose not to take it OR to take it, that's your choice but don't spread misinformation that's just lazy and dangerous.
I'm curious as to why so many non-denominational Christian churches are advising their members to reject the vaccine. Was there a similar movement when the polio vaccine was introduced? What has changed in our culture? It's so medieval.
Hey 11:41 and 1:03.
12:32 here. Please chill out and listen to posters who indicate that you are taking things too personal and getting a little abusive(e.g. ending all your posts by calling another poster "Dick".)
My post was not about you. You are obviously an exception, as you appear well-informed and have done your research.
But I still stand by my point–that most people are not too informed on the science of an issue but instead use the argument of "science" to justify a position they have that is largely created by political affiliation, personal beliefs, and sometimes religion.
12:49 amplified the same point, and you also referred to them as a "dick" as well
And digging into the content of your posts, you seem to agree with the points I and 12:49 make–as you, for just one example, attacked an ant-vaccinator for using bullshit "science" to justify what you believed to be an ignorant decision fueled by emotion and being enslaved to a specific political leader–but certainly not justified by any accurate scientific or medical data.
So, if you read a bit more clearly, you will realize we are essentially quite in agreement on these points. So please don't call me a "Dick" anymore, and have a great day.
2:35–don't waste time with diplomacy, and don't waste too much time responding to people like 11:41 until they learn to make a point without being so vicious and abusive.
I actually think 11:41, when concentrating on content of an issue rather than on how to dehumanize anyone who might have an even slight disagreement with the points being made, sounds pretty intelligent and informed,and I happen to agree with the points being made.
But I don't want people like 11:41 on my side, as I like to enjoy respectful exchanges of ideas, rather than vituperative and hyperbolic name-calling.
I learned much from people I have had discussions with(and even disagreements with) over thee years. But I would never have learned any of that if I started out by roaring that the other person is a complete moron.
11:41 may just not be having a great day.
2:14–Ben Nadig, now that you are back posting, please solve the mystery.
Why did a poster call you Merle Haggard?(clearly, one of the greats of Country Music).
Hey Ben, 1:11 here. My comment was snarky, not sexist, as I do not know the sex of the person whom my comment was directed to. Anyone can over-emotionalize an issue, and that clearly includes you. Male body part.
Wouldn’t it be better to ask the OP? I have my ideas (“Just some good ‘ol boys.”), but I don’t know the exact reason.
Oh Richard.
Hey! Mr. Nadig, I posted at 2:46, and you have since posted twice without addressing the question of the millennium.
Why were you referred to as Merle Haggard?
Inquiring minds want to know.
See response at 2:50.
3:24–Do you play the guitar at all? Do you enjoy Country music?
Those could be explanations.
Also, Merle Haggard was one of country music's non-conformist "bad boys" back in the late 60's and the 70's.
These vaccines were rushed to market without adequate testing and the companies promoting them demanded and got immunity from any liability if they screw up.
What's not to like?
Also, shouldn't we demand to have a population of unvaccinated individuals to act and continue to act as a control group?
Science has evolved. Control groups are reactionary remnants of a dark age. So much so, the pharmaceutical companies have eliminated their control groups for the miracle Trump vaccines. That's right. No control groups. Gone. Modern science.
But isn't it fun for 5:46 and the rest of the facebook epidemiologist crowd to talk about control groups and testing and immunity from liability? The NCVIA was signed into law by Saint Reagan, but it sounds so much cooler when the right wing nutters say big pharma demanded immunity for the COVID19 vaccines. (sigh) Stupid people everywhere.
Couple days late. But checking Nadig's stats, the VAERS from CDC indicate 3,289,407 adverse events. Assuming 100,000,000 vaccines, thats a 3.289% adverse and that's only REPORTED AE's. How many are UNreported and how many are attributed to something else? We may never know.
So here is my $0.02.
Fuck you and your shot. Its 99.95% recoverable for my demographic. I'm good, thanks. Keep your shot.
I stand with 12:39!
As far as that article about TitleMax, what are exactly the causes that have created a plethora of payday enders this millennium?
There have always been, and always will be, lots of people struggling financially from paycheck to paycheck and in need of short term cash, yet I have lived here since the 80's and I don't think there was much in the way of these payday lenders until after we entered the new century.
Could a major cause be that most major banking chains, in the 90's, stopped offering(or at least greatly reducing the availability of) short-term signature, non-collateral loans to people?
The banks were simply getting screwed on those matters constantly, and the level of default was very high. Reason was these were usually not people who simply encountered an unexpected expense. They were people whose income is simply never enough to meet their monthly expenses. And the banks, although willing of course to place liens of homes with equity, had no real interest in the unseemly concept of holding car titles as collateral to secure the loan, nor did they create the concept of having signed authorization to garnish bank accounts as soon as non-payment occurred–but those are two things the payday lenders thought of quite quickly.
So, I'm just guessing. So, what do you all think the main causes are? And it's not "increase in poverty" as that has always been with us. I simply don't recall seeing these places back in the 80's and 90's, although they were presumably here to some degree. But now they are on every corner.
De-regulation
No stigma.
11:42 and 11:48 both answer 11:39's inquiry quite well and quite succinctly.
11:42 hits on the financial and legal dynamic that caused the intense increase in those pay day lenders.
11:48 hits on the behavioral/sociological explanation.
Most pay day loans are not taken out to address some sudden and unexpected expense. Most of them are taken out for the purpose of starting to address payments on the pay day loans the borrower is already dealing with, all with extortionate interest rates.
The very definition of "vicious cycle."
If people were more willing to accept the reality of their financial situation instead of spending money they don't have to buy stuff they can't afford to impress people they don't know, the payday loan industry would shrivel and die. Instead, the industry thrives because people will not accept that they cannot really afford $6 coffee and an iPhone 12.
1:21, you hit the nail on the head. As 11:48 said, "no stigma." And the TV shows make it seem completely acceptable socially to consume frivolously. I personally prefer frugality.
Yes…that's it. Coffee and iPhones are breaking the bank. Just ignore the poverty wages that haven't kept up with inflation. Ignore the CEO compensation gap. Ignore the uncontrolled rents and housing market. Ugh.
I don't disagree with your basic premise that people are financially irresponsible, but blaming it on coffees and iPhones is just dumb. Do better.
The Golden Rule is Never Give A Sucker An Even Break. Payday loan companies work to fulfill the rule. Where's the problem? History is about the exploiters and exploited. Can't have one without the other. Have you heard of Wall Street? Same shit, different means. At least the Payday companies reward us with funny commercials and gimmicky merch.
2:29–My heart and altruism would agree with you, but my head says 1:21 is right.
Don't take the coffee or iPhone too literally as illustrative examples.
Instead, please actually talk to people who have worked in those places. They will tell you that the average borrower is almost never some hard-working person who encountered some unexpected expense and is simply trying to purchase and provide basic necessities for their family.
Instead it is clearly someone living well beyond their means and spending a great deal of money on optional expenses–things that you and I obviously knew not to purchase when we were struggling law students or young attorneys starting out and saddled with huge student loans, etc.
Also, a lot of these borrowers have serious gambling issues.
Admittedly, like the one poster indicates, even if there is a person who truly intended to take out just one loan and then would sincerely tighten their belt and act responsibly from now on, they invariably wind up taking out additional loans just to pay the unbelievably high interest on the first loan(and then subsequent loans) still outstanding. So, yes, caught in a vicious cycle.
And yes, I'm afraid 1:21, although seeming somewhat callous and dismissive as to the phraseology used, is absolutely right. Again, ask anyone who has ever worked at one of these places, and yes many borrowers have done just that–rather than obtaining affordable, reliable transportation, they buy a car way too rich for their blood, to impress people who don't even like them.
I agree with 1:21 and I think 2:29 is an idiot. There's an easy way to not be broke: Don't buy shit you can't afford.
The problem isn't limited to the poor. Attorneys fall under the same scheme by another means. Cash out re-fis to pay off credit card and other debt only to not learn their lesson, and end up broke anyway, is one example. I know too many attorneys who are drowning in debt and supporting their lifestyle with debt. They're no different than the payday loan folks, IMO.
John Oliver did a great piece, still available on youtube, concerning predatory lending, specifically: pay day loans. Toward the end it also included a real funny bit about pay day loans by comedian Sara Silverman.
Also, although most of you have no doubt seen it, but for those who have not, he did a great, really witty pieces about "Electing Judges" that should be checked out.
Anyone offended, possibly deeply offended, that Wolfson's Democratic DA's in the legislature won't advance a death penalty repeal that a majority of Democrats support? I am a Dem sure, just wanted to say, I did not vote for Nicole last time due to her prior shady moves and I definitely will never do so after this. Would rather see a R get the senate seat for a single term then move on to anyone else with an ounce of integrity.
I was stuck in Villani's murder calendar this morning and he led off with that case. Got to say it was one of those WTF is he doing moments BUT, listening to defense counsel's listing of the timeline for the killing of the death penalty repeal bill really reinforced my disappointment with both Nicole and Melanie as Democrats. I've always joked that they are really moderate Republicans, but killing a bill that passed quite easily in the Assembly proved the point. I like them both, but they are DA's first and Democrats second. I think it is going to be harder for that office to justify their legislative actions going forward, but WTF do I know. Just doesn't seem to pass the smell test.
You both have shown your obvious political lack of experience. Sisolak all but said he would veto it after the Assembly passed it, because not everyone is as enthusiastic about defending convicted murderers as some. That bill was dead the minute Sisolak read a prepared statement against the Assembly bill right after it passed. He went at it full frontal. Democrats do not send bills to get vetoed by their own party and put members on the line to vote for something that could be controversial. But go on with the DA hate/conflicts, and ignore that the PDs support voted for and also have a conflict.
What’s the PD’s conflict? They don’t have the ability to seek the death penalty. Is the conflict simply that they would choose not to have to defend against the taking of a life? All I said was that there is the appearance that they took a position based on continued employment that is in contrast to party ideals. That is the inherent conflict. As to being a political neophyte, Sisolak saying he would veto it isn’t necessarily enough to not let it make the floor for debate, they killed it before there was even a chance. So while I appreciate your condescension, I’m going to agree to disagree with you.
The PD's conflict is that if they vote against it, they could find derision in their office/and might be controlled by fealty to their employer–the same argument people make against the DA's. Its literally the same issue, control of employers/appearance of conflict. That's Nevada in a nutshell, though, we celebrate conflict of interest, i.e. we love our citizen legislature that is always on someone else's payroll. But then again, I don't pretend to know what anyone's motivation in voting for/against bills, so I'm not accusing the PD's of an actual conflict like you feel so comfortable doing you sign your name to this blog. But if you want to accuse two people of not being able to say no to their employer, and having a conflict, you do you. I think thats in bad taste personally. Maybe the DAs are DAs because they don't have an issue with being tough on crime, and the PDs are PDs because they have an opposite approach. Its not necessarily a conflict that they vote the way their employer would vote: its an actual conflict, as opposed to appearance of such, if their employer is directly controlling them and they are bowing to that. And not every member of a political party has to agree 100 percent with party positions, so that they are diverging from the mean, is not dispositive. Most dems are not DAs, and most republicans are not PDs. If their motivation is that they don't like convicted murders, rather than being told by their employer, then thats fine that they disagree with the party.
As for the vote, Dems are going to have a tough time next year regardless (the party in power's first midterm after presidential year always is), which is why you don't make people take a tough vote for a bill that will be vetoed. Sisolak is obviously afraid of COVID fall out and doesn't want to add fuel to the fire, not wanting to pick a side (its sure to piss off someone no matter what he does, a big losing issue either way). As for the senate killing it without a vote, and not sending it to Sisolak (which I'm sure Sisolak instructed them to do, as opposed to Wolfson), Its elementary that you don't put people on record in politics unless you're going to successfully change the law. Its all downside, and no result.
3:23, Mr. Nadig, you are right to be offended by 2:59's tone, and perhaps that will remind you, when you blog, to tone down the personal insults toward those who might not be in a complete agreement with you.
But that being said, 2:59 repulsed me in their first sentence when they started to make their point by insulting the political acumen of you and another poster. Great mature, cerebral and sophisticate manner of persuasion–start off by telling people they know nothing about the topic being discussed.
And you hit the nail on the head when you indicated that these Assistant District Attorneys, who may privately hold moderate to liberal views, are going to subvert those views in favor of their perceived duties as D.As to support the death penalty.
You did not point that out so much as an ethical/legal conflict, but more as a general, personal conflict as to professionally taking positions that one may nit personally believe. But this distinction was lost on 2:59.
And fortunately, you jumped on it right away when 2:59 used the inverse, and faulty, logic that if the D.A.'s have a conflict, then the P.D.'s office by definition must likewise have a conflict. False, as they are not the ones advocating policy and policy changes, but only responded to or resisted what is being advocated, and there is a huge difference that obviously escapes 2:59.
Also, again, the conflict you raised was really only one of personal belief vs. professional obligation(as opposed to a clear ethical conflict), and obviously they do conflict concerning these democrat D.A.s, but as to these P.D.s I would wager that the law of averages are that their personal beliefs are consistent with the professional arguments they are advancing–they do not believe in the death penalty, nor does the institution they work for.
A little odd that 2:59 misses that basic point as they let us know that they are a political guru who understands all the intricacies and psychology of politics.
I must say that I have grown to admire your candor, as well as your level-headed and analytical approach to topics, wherein you cut through all the distracting material to the core of what is really occurring.
What I admire a great deal less is when you tell posters to "f**k off" and "eat dick", even when they are being highly respectful to you and your points, but merely diverge slightly on some matters.
I certainly don't want to sound condescending, as you correctly mention 2:59 is being, but it can't hurt to think about what I said.
In fact, not to sound grandiose or arrogant, but if you actually do intend you run for judge again in the future, I just gave you some advice that will easily be the best advice you would ever receive–even from the best of the paid consultants, many of whom never bother to monitor what their various candidates are posting on blogs or social media.
In fact, I really hope you are a judge in the future. But please forgive me on this, but even the smartest people do really dumb things, and the vile insults you have levelled on this very public blog are really, really dumb. Sorry. But it's true.
And before you get too upset with me, you damn well know I speak the truth. You're obviously far too intelligent not to know it.
But to give credit where it's due, you are in fact obviously too smart to maintain such insulting approach, as you resisted using it on 2:59, and you were fairly respectful.
Even though, truth be told, 2:59 kind of deserved the more colorful approach you took in past postings(I know that sounds hypocritical of me)
5:40. Very long post to make an isolated valid point.
But that point is obviously true, but I don't think it's any longer a concern as you yourself point out that he no longer uses such descriptive language toward other posters.
And I think you have a second good point now that I think on it. I think he would do a fine job on the bench.
But I'm often wrong, and that reminds me of another point. Some who I think will be disastrous as a judge, really pleasantly surprise me, while others who I expect will do quite well as a judge turn out to be a disappointment.
Could be that the attributes that make good attorneys, vs,. the attributes that make good judges, are, to a significant degree, not the same.
How are businesses going to determine who is vaxxed and who isn't? The honor system?
Ask them who won the election
12:57 for the win.
I have an unmasked unvaxed oc who is nuts, and who gaslights even on phone calls. Who is this unmasked avenger of justice?
When the NSB refers an attorney to the Bar does it send a letter or is it in the form of an Order?
Presume you mean NSC. They do an Order and then send it with a cover letter to the Bar Counsel.
Thoughts on Paul Padda Law?
Hea4d nothing bad about them. What about Judge Allf? Just wondering if I should recuse? I have concerns about her socialism.
Padda is nice. Peremptory challenge the second one
No on Nancy Allf.
My husband likes Allf. I am not happy with her treatment of a friend of mine who is in front of her, so I am pulling my financial support from her "candidates."
@10:57, What are some examples of "bad" that you have heard about them?
I had one exposure to Padda years ago as an extern in a judicial settlement conference. Seemed nice enough, Alf is a bit odd, but I have gotten the correct decisions out of her thus far.
Allf is bad. I was co-defense counsel on the case, and she was advising the other defense counsel without all the parties present during a hearing. Her JEA is rude, and I was not served minute orders when others were. Nancy Allf also issued orders that were constitutionally valid in the same case. Our firm premps her
Invalid
Question her on a ruling, and see how glad you are with Nancy Allf. She even has helpers.
Why did Ruth Cohen sue Padda??
Natural immunity gained after exposure to sars cov 2:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19