John Oliver's Last Week Tonight

Now I wonder why it is called a "Bavarian" fire drill.

You know, I always thought that the abortion laws are stricter in Germany than the US, because you have to decide earlier, and you are actually forced to have a "this are your option talk" for it be legal. But then, there are strict rules for what counts as a talk like this and what doesn't (the catholic church tried to do the whole "guilt the mothers" thing, too, but experienced a huge backlash for it, so I think they don't do it anymore - because as everything in Germany, this is strictly regulated, you need a certificate from the government so that the talk counts, and it has to be done by an independent organisation (usually either a non-profit organisation or the church, though notably, the catholic churches don't offer the slip you need to actually get an abortion, unless you go to the catholic non-profit organisation donum vitae), not by the people who offer abortion, so that there are no financial interests involved.

Anyway, a talk like this HAS to involve information about the possible emotional impact of BOTH abortion and parenthood, information about financial help you can get (which is actually a lot in German), about the abortion itself (risks aso), and about the juristic aspect (since technically abortion is still illegal, it just doesn't get punished if you do it either early enough or because of medical indications).

So, from the outset, it sounds like the German model is much stricter - shorter time to decide, being actually forced to look at the option to even get one - but at least the mothers aren't left alone and able to make an informed decision.

edited 13th Apr '18 10:41:03 PM by Swanpride

American politics involves a lot of "dog whistle" politics which exist basically to draw groups like, well, dogs to them while doing absolutely nothing about them.

Abortion, homosexuality, immigrants, crime in America, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and quite a few others are often defined on the ability to look like you're doing something while ignoring any other issue that might actively effect American life.

Like...say, poverty, pollution, medical bills, and so on.

And yet we still put Doctors on trial for advertising the option. So no real moral high ground here.

A lot of abortion politics also comes down to culture, the UK technically requires a doctor to sign of that the pregnancy posses a risk to the health of the mother for an abortion to happen, but the culture he is such a having an unwanted child is considered to be a risk to the health fo the mother, as such it’s de facto a choice.

On top of that birth control culture matters a lot, especialy access to the morning after pill/plan B, if people have proper access to contraceptives they can avoided unwanted pregnancies in general, they can do it even better if they have better sex education.

Oh, I wouldn't claim that our system is perfect. I am just kind of surprised because I felt that it was so much stricter than the one in the US, and now, with the new information, I came to the conclusion that it might be made easier over here nevertheless. When I was a teen, I had a close friend in this situation, so I saw at least second hand how it was....I even was there to fetch her when she left after it. I think it would have been much harder on her if she had been in the US, because her family wasn't well off at all.

Yeah, we really need to get a grip on those huge companies.

But can we really call our country free if we don't let corporations do whatever they want? Why do you hate America?

And all that invisible hand of the market crap.

I honestly don't get why it is so complicated to make a law that companies have to pay tax in the countries in which they actually earn the money in question. Neither for the US, nor for the EU.

Because you have to define what’s a reasonable cost for something.

From a legal perspective the company didn’t make any money in the country where it pays no tax, it lost money. Now the reason it lost money is because it bought loads of stuff for super high prices from a company in another country, the fact that the second company is owned by the same people as the first doesn’t factor into it.

Let’s make it real simple, I work for a bar, we make money and thus pay taxes (I think), but if we bought all our alcohol for super high prices we wouldn’t make any money, so we’d pay no taxes. Our supplier would make loads of money, but that’s on them, not us.

It’s that, but the ‘supplier’ is based in a tax haven, is owned by the exact same people and isn’t charging standard market prices (often they’re leasing the main company back its own products).

You’d have to either ID shell companies (an endless task), define what is a reasonable price for things like IP usage, or play along and treat companies that we know are successful as if they aren’t (so refuse to give them permits to expand their business).

It’s complicated stuff, Starbucks UK got caught buying this coffee beans from Starbucks Luxembourg, thus meaning that Starbucks UK made no money and paid no taxes, and that’s an easy case to deal with when compared to some.

There’s also the problem of who is in charge, sure we could legislate this stuff away, but a lot of people in government don’t want to, nobody wants to get rid of their own tax havens as long as other ones exist, tax haven countries have influence and power of their own (the EU commission president is from Luxembourg after all, there’s no way he’d sign of on the EU cracking down on tax avoidance) and politicians with ties to the businesses that are dodging taxes are plentiful.

Yeah, I know, this was the main reason why he wasn't the preferred candidate in Germany.

Thing is those tax avoidance have a way bigger impact than just cheating people off their tax money, it also results in those big companies having an easier time to underbid local businesses who do pay their taxes as they should, forcing them out of business. This sh.. destroys jobs and important infrastructure.

I think it's best not to attribute to ignorance what is done by malice.

These companies don't pay taxes in the countries they make their fortune because they are extreme masters of Loophole Abuse and lobbying.

If the law is changed, they'd look for another way to shave off millions for themselves.

They will ever look for possibilities, but we shouldn't make it legal for them to do so.

Yes, which means a lot of regulation.

A LOT.

Not sure what to think of the bashing of second-degree cousins being married to each other.

Felt a bit excessive, to be honest.

edited 7th May '18 8:06:31 AM by DrunkenNordmann

It's playing on the stereotype for humor. Nothing more to see here.

Well, considering that the claim was not "yeah, well, we love each other, and while we are related to each other, it is not too close to count as inbreeding" but "yeah, we somehow had no idea that we had family ties", I'll let it slide. If the person who did it himself is pretty much ashamed of it, he doesn't deserve mercy.

The segment beforehand was better imho, though.

The problem is anyone who knows anything about Rudy would know he is a deeply crazy and bizarre individual.

John didn't touch the tip of the iceberg.

Yeah, this was kinda weak. The cousin-bashing was kinda petty, and the image he crafted was of a slightly confused grumpy old man. My grandpa is one of those, and I can't hate my own grandpa.

I'm not sure if the point came across, then. Giuliani got an undeserved reputation as some kind of awesome statesman after 9/11, when his major contribution was simply being the guy in charge when a disaster happened. Other than that, his career has been one of political showmanship and very little substance. He may even have his eyes on the White House, and he would be a disaster as President.

edited 8th May '18 4:30:13 AM by Fighteer

Pretty much...and while I am sure that 9/11 required some leadership, it's not like what you have to do during an event like this is pretty straight-forward. One could even argue that he didn't do as well as he should have, considering how many first responders and people who just went to help were working in poisoned conditions without knowing it and now having to struggle with the long term effects.

I'm kind of annoyed with John because that's all low hanging fruit versus the fact Rudy waged a campaign against poor people to turn Manhattan into a gentrified theme park for the rich.

I admit, I never really looked into this...but I have been to New York in the late 1980s, and that was frankly a terrifying experience. Now it is actually a fun place to visit, so I keep thinking that they did something right there. But I have never really looked in how they have managed to make New York attractive again.

They kicked out the poor people and sold the property to rich people as well as made it so homeless people didn't accost the tourists by arresting them.

edited 8th May '18 9:19:42 AM by CharlesPhipps

Yep, that's pretty standard gentrification. It turns something that should be great—making a neighborhood safer and more beautiful—into another way of screwing over the poor and the minorities to make money. The sad thing is that according to the Broken Windows Theory, you don't actually have to get rid of criminals to get rid of crime. A basic beautification project will do a better job than hiring more cops.