Not necessarily due to discrimination - you can have a more disadvantaged group with no discrimination implied or applied.
I used neutral colors on purpose - Purple people could just as well be handicapped, single mothers, people with AIDS... or any racial/cultural minority of your choosing. Take your pick.
Funny that you say that it's not necessarily due to discrimination, and then go on to list a bunch of groups that are/have been discriminated against.
Sure there are good options. Problem is, they cost a lot. And not just money-wise.
--snip--
Oh and... More than anything else, it would cost in time. I'm talking centuries.
Yeah, you pretty much just explained why there are no good options. Things like education are important, but are often undermined by those who don't want education to be a priority. Either they have the ability to educate their kids themselves, or they have the money to pay for private education. For those that have neither, they get screwed when public education gets screwed. That throws a wrench in the works of getting those purples to civilize-up and become self-sufficient, which, in turn, perpetuates the filthy Purples mentality.
Essentially you're saying that if everyone did the right thing and started showing some empathy for their fellow humans, everything would be sorted out in time. Sorry to inform you that that is highly unlikely to happen, because many people don't give a shit about others. They are concerned with their own interests and if others have to suffer, that's not their problem. Social Darwinism is the mentality of a very large minority of the country, and apathy is the mentality of another significant minority. I think that those that actually want things to be better are severely outnumbered. We don't even seem to be moving in the right direction at this point.
So out of a queue like BGP, PGB, GPB, GBP - Blue and Green people groups will get $300 each, while Purple people will get $400. Those last two Green and Blue get zip.
And that's when you have equal number of Blue, Green and Purple people in the queue.
The idea behind that is that those Purple people are getting shafted in a lot of other places due to discrimination, so there are more of them in need of charity. Discrimination is ugly business. It's hard to prove, it's hard to prevent, and it's hard to counter-act without more discrimination. I don't like the fact that we have affirmative action or other types of "reverse discrimination", but when you've had the kinds of clear discrimination problems that we've had in the US in the past, and that we still have today, there aren't really any good options that will rectify the problem.
It is a very lame excuse. Either wait a minute for your eyes to adjust to the dark, or just use the light from the screen to find your seat. And she had already been warned. She's just a moron.
But if you listen to people breathlessly ascribe all these ridiculous qualities to Obama, to this day, it's clear there is also some kind of doltish ego gratification going on. It makes people feel really good about themselves to tell everyone else how post racial they are by ascribing all these wonderful traits to Obama.
Who, exactly, are you listening to? Where do you find these people? I suppose you could find equally ignorant folks supporting just about anyone. There are absolute morons on all sides, supporting the side for reasons that they are generally incapable of articulating, or that just don't make any sense.
It makes people feel really good about themselves to tell everyone else how post racial they are by ascribing all these wonderful traits to Obama. They also enjoy attributing any kind of attack on him as "racism", because, well, other people are racist, not them by golly! Nevermind the fact that Dubya got the same treatment from his enemies, Clinton sure took a lot of shit from Republicans, etc...
While I don't doubt that some people might attribute attacks on him to racism, the "they" that you're referring to are still a rather small fringe of the far left. Most people look at the arguments, and a lot of us, especially those of us that don't support either party, have problems with things that he's done since taking office. Talking about the "left" as a monolithic block is just as retarded as talking about the "right" that way. If we attributed the craziest actions of the right to every republican or right-leaning independent, it would be stupid. Just as it is the other way around.
I kind of like the description of the political spectrum as being like a circle, with the moderates at the bottom and the crazies at the top. If you go too far to the left or right, you end up in crazy land.
I said it was a "reasonable argument" for why they weren't hosting it. It's not a reasonable argument to justify only distributing the emails in a paper copy.
No, you said their statement was reasonable, but that statement only said it was impractical to release the electronic documents, not host them. It's not remotely impractical to release the electronic documents. People with far fewer resources manage to share much larger amounts of data every day. It's trivial to accomplish in any number of ways if they had any inclination to do so.
the unbelievable extent of which the press and many in media in general go to such extremes to get one person. They have spent more energy examining a failed candidate for Vice President than any other politician in history that I can recall. Reading across various blogs and so many hate filled people are nearly orgasmic over this release of documents.
What is it that gives people the feeling that there are no limits in character assassination? Where is the in depth research in the guy that got elected? You can't jack shit about him without being declared a racist yet you can attack a woman with impunity.
Seriously dude, get some perspective. More energy on her than any other? I'd love to hear your evidence for that. There's been tons of research into Obama. They just didn't find much of anything interesting to report, so the right mostly just makes things up (secret Muslim, friend to terrorists, not a US citizen, hates white people, radical socialist, etc.). Meanwhile he's been the most right-leaning Democrat any Republican could ever hope for. Their claims are ridiculous, but they scream about how he's trying to destroy America because it's what gets their base all fired up.
People lament all the time, if there were only a choice, if only we didn't have to vote for X or Y. Yet we get a group out there and candidates; and no I would never vote for her either; and all that seems to happen here is vilification to the nth degree.
and you wonder why we are stuck with the D and R on our ballots. Your being told to go ballistic and forgo any sense of human decency and your enjoying it. Keep up the goosestep.
She invites every bit of it. She takes actions to avoid accountability, like using outside email addresses. She goes public in every way she can figure out how to with all sorts of attacks on anything that isn't ultra-right-wing-conservative. She has few original thoughts, and no good ones, but manages to regurgitate talking points and say things that are either moronic or simply outright lies. I don't see any problem with vilifying that.
The problem is that she probably represents ~25% of America's idiots. The rest of them voted in Obama, a junior senator and community organizer, because it made them feel good about themselves. We really are doomed.
To be fair, a lot of people voted for him because the alternative scared the shit of them. Better someone who is at least sane, than a guy crazy or irresponsible enough to pick Palin as a running mate, and old enough to possibly die in office, leaving her in charge.
If Palin were the idiot that everyone makes her out to be, then why does everyone get their panties in such a bind every time she says anything about anything? You ignore the morons in Hollywood and at work when they do really stupid things (upskirt photos, getting hauled into court yet again for drunk driving, etc), but you freak out when the former Governor of Alaska says something questionable.
Because there are a lot of other idiots out there that listen to her. She spouts off about death panels and people fucking believe it! Never mind that she's lying through her teeth. She has real effects on all of us. Nobody gives a shit if some actress wasn't wearing underwear. That isn't going to cause me or my family emotional or financial harm. Her bullshit does!
And before anyone jumps in and throws out, "but they requested Obama's birth certificate," you should remember that Hillary Clinton actually raised that, and not any paper or Republican.
That's some seriously disingenuous bullshit. You expect anyone to believe a word you say after you throw out some weasely crap like that? This is exactly the kind of shit we don't want our politicians doing. Just because they didn't raise the issue first, doesn't mean they didn't request it vastly more often and more vocally than anyone else and you know damn well that that's true.
I don't really know of any other countries whose politicians I'd expect anything better than this from, nor do I know any other state that might act differently in the face of such a request. After all, the request was quite a targeted witch hunt by the Democrats while Palin was still in office.
Witch hunt? Seems like there was plenty of reason to believe that Palin was doing some shady stuff, and that none of it was being documented by state systems as it should be. Using outside email accounts to conduct state business deprives the constituents of the ability to effectively hold their elected officials accountable. Anyone with a shred of respect for the rights of citizens to hold their representatives accountable should be supporting the release of these emails, and trying to ensure that their representatives conform to the same standards.
Sounds like the fine in that case was for him dumping the pennies on their counter, and creating a mess. Had he just left a big jar of pennies, there likely would have been no problem for him.
My point was that the people that really have the combination of skills and knowledge that we ideally want to see in our cops have better options. Other jobs where they can get paid more and face a lot less stress and danger. Of course a handful may decide to become cops anyway - and we should be grateful for that - but not surprised that most of those people choose something else, and the ranks get filled with people that we dont really want wearing badges.
I don't think that attorneys working for the government start at that kind of salary.
My point was that the people that really have the combination of skills and knowledge that we ideally want to see in our cops have better options. Other jobs where they can get paid more and face a lot less stress and danger. Of course a handful may decide to become cops anyway - and we should be grateful for that - but not surprised that most of those people choose something else, and the ranks get filled with people that we dont really want wearing badges.
We hear the same about teachers too, but then you've got guys like governor Walker in Wisconsin that claim that they make too much money, while simultaneously claiming that he has to pay his staff very high salaries in order to attract the best people. Seems like we need leaders in government that aren't going to play games with this stuff before we'll be able to figure out how to get good people into these jobs.
There's always evidence. But hey, don't let me stop you. If you prefer to end up beat to a pulp or dead, you go right ahead. We'll have the enjoyment of reading about you in the news, and you might even get a Darwin Award out of it!
The only evidence they'll take over the word of a cop is hard evidence, meaning some sort of recording. Otherwise the cop can make up just about whatever he wants and he'll get off and you'll probably end up a felon.
Which would be fine and dandy if the cops were "in power" but, seeing as they're just a tool of the state, you're aiming at the wrong target. You're trying to bite the finger that keeps poking you in the eye, instead of punching the fucker in the head.
So, what does your metaphorical punch in the head equate to in real life? You have no hard evidence. You might have a couple of people willing to testify in your favor, but that won't be enough to win over the cop's word. You are apparently unwilling to exercise your right to protect yourself by recording what is happening in a public place. So, what is your solution? I don't see you offering anything but silly metaphors.
You said that you don't have to worry about this kind of stuff because you generally don't break the law, etc. I'm merely pointing out that that is not a protection at all when cops are willing to assault you even when you're not breaking any law or doing anything even remotely threatening.
I have a very simple approach to these things: don't piss off the guys with the guns, and deal with any problems through the legal system, afterwards.
Right. Deal with the legal system afterwards, with no evidence to back up your story because you're too concerned with enabling such abuse by "not pissing them off". Unless people are willing to hold those in power accountable, we're all just powerless peasants to them.
The same goes for a burglary call. When they arrive, they don't know if it's the burglars turned kidnappers, or the victim. Or, when they come in to make sure there's no intruders, they find something illegal, you're in trouble. And yes, if you let the police come in to look around, anything in plain sight is fair game. A bong and scale on the coffee table turn a simple call to check out the house into a drug bust. And if there's a quantity in the house, you can be pretty sure that there are a few small arms laying around to defend the stash. And the difference between shooting a cop and hauling ass, or losing a substantial stash, lots of people will chose the wrong choice. Well, I guess if they lose their stash, their upstream dealer may not be very entertained either.
Look, nobody is saying that the job is easy. But then nobody forced any of them to become cops either. If I am incapable of doing my job within the law, then I'd get fired and/or arrested. I don't see why it should be any different for them. They are entrusted with rights and powers over and above what any regular citizen has. With those come the responsibilities to use them well in accordance with their mission, and not for their own personal gain or satisfaction.
The cops in this case quite obviously were abusing their power by assaulting people who were doing nothing more than recording the actions of their government. Such recording is exactly the kind of thing we need in a democratic society to keep us informed and to allow for changes to be made when necessary. If they are allowed to destroy evidence or otherwise prevent it from coming to light, then we are denied the information that we need. We are stuck taking people's word for it, and I don't think any of us can really trust our government that much, and I don't believe that we were ever intended to.
The people filming the cops were breaking no laws. Didn't help them. Their only offense was the fact that they had evidence that might incriminate a cop. Seems like it's the cops that broke the law and assaulted people who were doing no wrong, in an attempt to cover their own mistakes.
Maybe it doesn't rise to that level. It would certainly rise to the level of pissing me off enough to give him the very Yelp review he apparently fears so much. Guess that will have to be enough. Maybe a BBB complaint as well, since we're obviously not very concerned about playing nice. Gotta get the message across somehow.
If I take time off from work to go to my dentist appointment, and only after I get there they present me with this bullshit to sign in order to receive treatment, I'd consider that duress as well. Maybe they should tell me up front before I make the appointment that they want to muzzle me.
The fact that they lie about the purpose of the form speaks volumes. Well, maybe that's too harsh. It's possible they just haven't spent the two seconds of thought necessary to realize that the reasons given by the company that sold them the form are completely bogus. Preventing non-patients from posting fraudulent reviews? Seriously?
UK situation seems to be significantly different than the US situation then. I don't know anyone that makes that much more as a contractor, and the articles I've read in business mags and sites all claim that businesses can save money by employing contractors wherever possible.
Do you have any evidence showing that all contractors make less than fully employed equivalent employees? I'd be surprised if that was the case with more skilled IT folks.
No, but that's not what I'm claiming either. I'm sure there are some folks with specialized skills that get brought in for a specific project for a limited amount of time. I bet they make great money too. But I also don't believe that those folks make up more than a rather small percentage of contract workers in the US.
Contractors don't necessarily cost the company less. I worked as an on-site contract employee at a local government site. The county director wanted to pull a few of the contractors in to work as government employees (we were working on the 911 system conversion). When I compared my pay and benefits from being a contractor to what the government offered, I was better staying where I was employed. Add the overhead of the company i worked for and I'm sure the cost for me as a contractor was significantly better than a direct employee.
It seems to be pretty much common knowledge that contractors are generally cheaper than full-time employees. I've read several estimates of the costs, but most put the savings at around 20-30% over a full-time employee. This, of course, isn't for people with rare skills or knowledge. I know quite a few people that work as contract employees on annually-renewed contracts. I definitely wouldn't want to be in that position.
The only time I've worked as a contract employee, it was with the explicit promise of a permanent position if I performed well in my position after the first year. I know a few others doing contract work now, and some are in the same situation that I was. They are working towards a permanent position. They aren't there to fill a temporary need. They're there as contractors so that they can be easily canned after six months if the company doesn't like them. The company still needs someone in that role though, and they do say that they want to hire someone on permanently.
Most of the others that I've talked to are just on a sort of continuously re-upping contract. They just have to hope that the company signs them for another year each time. They otherwise function just as any other employee. They get somewhat higher pay, but certainly not enough to cover the kinds of benefits that they would get as an employee. I don't see that they really get a benefit from working on contract. They'd much rather be actual employees, but this is what they were able to find when they needed work. The job market hasn't exactly gotten a lot better, so the companies can keep playing the contract game.
That's occurred to me, yes, but that doesn't explain any of Obama's actions. Keeping the wars going in the mid-east isn't helping anyone but the corporations, and it's only creating more enemies for us there.
Only if you ignore the likely outcomes of an immediate rapid pull-out of our forces there. Winding them down is the best option, and that's what's being done.
We've propped up corrupt dictators before countless times, and it's never resulted in a strong, democratic nation to be friends with. How many times are we going to keep doing the same thing, thinking it'll be different this time?
We tend to always go for the easy solution to keeping the resources flowing. Then we just act shocked when those dictators abuse their people. It's the American Way(TM)!
Keeping people imprisoned for a decade without trial is against the Constitution, and AFAIC is an impeachable offense. It's even worse when it was one of your campaign promises.
Yes, well he tried to get them brought into the country to be tried in our courts. Unfortunately he found out that we're not actually the home of the brave. We're scared shitless to have dangerous people in our prisons. Those were apparently built to house harmless drug offenders that are the bread and butter of the prison industry.
Keeping the Drug War going hasn't helped anyone, except again the corporations (such as the prison-industrial complex), and of course the violent cartels in Mexico who "are just businessmen" according to his buddies in the Mexican government.
According to whose buddies? Who is saying that they "are just businessmen". I think this calls for a [citation needed].
and NSA whistleblowers (something Bush never did, though he made some threats) is icing on the cake. Obama is a total fraud. He's just a corporatist sociopath like the rest of them, and his promises of "change" were all lies. Now we just have to wait a year and a half to see if the Democratic voters are smart enough to realize this and vote for someone else, or if they buy all his lame excuses.
First of all, Obama doesn't make the laws. Yes, he has to sign or veto them, but given the way the laws are put together, that's often a no-win situation for him. He's broken quite a few campaign promises, but he's delivered on a lot more.
I'd like to find better candidates to vote for, but Congress and the Supreme Court seem to be very determined to make sure that nobody worth voting for can make it onto the ballot in the general election. They're doing an excellent job of that, too. If only they could do so well in areas that might actually help us.
But as you're paid considerably more than an employee, if you have any sense you keep most of that extra as a buffer of cash to tide you over any periods when you don't have work.
You're paid more because they don't have to provide you with any benefits like health care and such. They do this because you ultimately cost them less than an actual employee would, because those benefits are expensive. So you really aren't getting any extra cash. You're getting less extra cash than it would cost for those benefits that you now have to get for yourself. So you end up with the same risk of losing your job if the start-up folds, and you get less money/benefits than an actual employee would. What am I missing here?
--Working as a contractor, especially for a startup, is always a risk Um...balderdash. Working for a contractor is NOT a risk. I've worked as an employee and contractor and as a contractor, I know I'm always the first to go. I also know I get paid contractors rates. There is a premium paid for no having to pay for education, medical, insurance, overtime, etc. If you want a piece of success...be willing to take on some of the risks. Waiting UNTIL the revenue stream comes in....not exactly fair.
That makes no sense to me. The entire reason they pay you more is because it's still a lot less than they'd have to spend to provide you with those benefits. You still take a risk working for a startup because they can and do fold at any time with little or no notice, leaving you without a job, and no way to continue paying for things like health insurance that you have to provide for yourself. I don't see it as much of a difference than being an employee, aside from the fact that you cost the company less.
You're suggesting that if you take no risk, make no investment and get contracting rates you should then also be able to reap the rewards of the people who took the risk, provided the investment and paid you those contractor rates. That is absurd! 'Yeah if it succeeds i want some of the profit, but if it fails i don't want any of the debt'
Working as a contractor, especially for a startup, is always a risk. You could be out of a job at any moment if things don't go well. Seeing as this guy is apparently one of the main people ensuring that things go well, getting a cut of that success doesn't seem like too much to ask. If he is over-inflating his actual importance, then he will probably be unsuccessful in getting that cut. If he isn't, then I think they'd be more than willing to give him a cut in order to retain him. If you don't ask, you can't expect them to just hand it to you, even if they think you probably deserve it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily due to discrimination - you can have a more disadvantaged group with no discrimination implied or applied. I used neutral colors on purpose - Purple people could just as well be handicapped, single mothers, people with AIDS... or any racial/cultural minority of your choosing. Take your pick.
Funny that you say that it's not necessarily due to discrimination, and then go on to list a bunch of groups that are/have been discriminated against.
Sure there are good options. Problem is, they cost a lot. And not just money-wise.
--snip--
Oh and... More than anything else, it would cost in time. I'm talking centuries.
Yeah, you pretty much just explained why there are no good options. Things like education are important, but are often undermined by those who don't want education to be a priority. Either they have the ability to educate their kids themselves, or they have the money to pay for private education. For those that have neither, they get screwed when public education gets screwed. That throws a wrench in the works of getting those purples to civilize-up and become self-sufficient, which, in turn, perpetuates the filthy Purples mentality.
Essentially you're saying that if everyone did the right thing and started showing some empathy for their fellow humans, everything would be sorted out in time. Sorry to inform you that that is highly unlikely to happen, because many people don't give a shit about others. They are concerned with their own interests and if others have to suffer, that's not their problem. Social Darwinism is the mentality of a very large minority of the country, and apathy is the mentality of another significant minority. I think that those that actually want things to be better are severely outnumbered. We don't even seem to be moving in the right direction at this point.
So out of a queue like BGP, PGB, GPB, GBP - Blue and Green people groups will get $300 each, while Purple people will get $400. Those last two Green and Blue get zip. And that's when you have equal number of Blue, Green and Purple people in the queue.
The idea behind that is that those Purple people are getting shafted in a lot of other places due to discrimination, so there are more of them in need of charity. Discrimination is ugly business. It's hard to prove, it's hard to prevent, and it's hard to counter-act without more discrimination. I don't like the fact that we have affirmative action or other types of "reverse discrimination", but when you've had the kinds of clear discrimination problems that we've had in the US in the past, and that we still have today, there aren't really any good options that will rectify the problem.
It is a very lame excuse. Either wait a minute for your eyes to adjust to the dark, or just use the light from the screen to find your seat. And she had already been warned. She's just a moron.
But if you listen to people breathlessly ascribe all these ridiculous qualities to Obama, to this day, it's clear there is also some kind of doltish ego gratification going on. It makes people feel really good about themselves to tell everyone else how post racial they are by ascribing all these wonderful traits to Obama.
Who, exactly, are you listening to? Where do you find these people? I suppose you could find equally ignorant folks supporting just about anyone. There are absolute morons on all sides, supporting the side for reasons that they are generally incapable of articulating, or that just don't make any sense.
It makes people feel really good about themselves to tell everyone else how post racial they are by ascribing all these wonderful traits to Obama. They also enjoy attributing any kind of attack on him as "racism", because, well, other people are racist, not them by golly! Nevermind the fact that Dubya got the same treatment from his enemies, Clinton sure took a lot of shit from Republicans, etc...
While I don't doubt that some people might attribute attacks on him to racism, the "they" that you're referring to are still a rather small fringe of the far left. Most people look at the arguments, and a lot of us, especially those of us that don't support either party, have problems with things that he's done since taking office. Talking about the "left" as a monolithic block is just as retarded as talking about the "right" that way. If we attributed the craziest actions of the right to every republican or right-leaning independent, it would be stupid. Just as it is the other way around.
I kind of like the description of the political spectrum as being like a circle, with the moderates at the bottom and the crazies at the top. If you go too far to the left or right, you end up in crazy land.
I said it was a "reasonable argument" for why they weren't hosting it. It's not a reasonable argument to justify only distributing the emails in a paper copy.
No, you said their statement was reasonable, but that statement only said it was impractical to release the electronic documents, not host them. It's not remotely impractical to release the electronic documents. People with far fewer resources manage to share much larger amounts of data every day. It's trivial to accomplish in any number of ways if they had any inclination to do so.
the unbelievable extent of which the press and many in media in general go to such extremes to get one person. They have spent more energy examining a failed candidate for Vice President than any other politician in history that I can recall. Reading across various blogs and so many hate filled people are nearly orgasmic over this release of documents.
What is it that gives people the feeling that there are no limits in character assassination? Where is the in depth research in the guy that got elected? You can't jack shit about him without being declared a racist yet you can attack a woman with impunity.
Seriously dude, get some perspective. More energy on her than any other? I'd love to hear your evidence for that. There's been tons of research into Obama. They just didn't find much of anything interesting to report, so the right mostly just makes things up (secret Muslim, friend to terrorists, not a US citizen, hates white people, radical socialist, etc.). Meanwhile he's been the most right-leaning Democrat any Republican could ever hope for. Their claims are ridiculous, but they scream about how he's trying to destroy America because it's what gets their base all fired up.
People lament all the time, if there were only a choice, if only we didn't have to vote for X or Y. Yet we get a group out there and candidates; and no I would never vote for her either; and all that seems to happen here is vilification to the nth degree.
and you wonder why we are stuck with the D and R on our ballots. Your being told to go ballistic and forgo any sense of human decency and your enjoying it. Keep up the goosestep.
She invites every bit of it. She takes actions to avoid accountability, like using outside email addresses. She goes public in every way she can figure out how to with all sorts of attacks on anything that isn't ultra-right-wing-conservative. She has few original thoughts, and no good ones, but manages to regurgitate talking points and say things that are either moronic or simply outright lies. I don't see any problem with vilifying that.
The problem is that she probably represents ~25% of America's idiots. The rest of them voted in Obama, a junior senator and community organizer, because it made them feel good about themselves. We really are doomed.
To be fair, a lot of people voted for him because the alternative scared the shit of them. Better someone who is at least sane, than a guy crazy or irresponsible enough to pick Palin as a running mate, and old enough to possibly die in office, leaving her in charge.
If Palin were the idiot that everyone makes her out to be, then why does everyone get their panties in such a bind every time she says anything about anything? You ignore the morons in Hollywood and at work when they do really stupid things (upskirt photos, getting hauled into court yet again for drunk driving, etc), but you freak out when the former Governor of Alaska says something questionable.
Because there are a lot of other idiots out there that listen to her. She spouts off about death panels and people fucking believe it! Never mind that she's lying through her teeth. She has real effects on all of us. Nobody gives a shit if some actress wasn't wearing underwear. That isn't going to cause me or my family emotional or financial harm. Her bullshit does!
And before anyone jumps in and throws out, "but they requested Obama's birth certificate," you should remember that Hillary Clinton actually raised that, and not any paper or Republican.
That's some seriously disingenuous bullshit. You expect anyone to believe a word you say after you throw out some weasely crap like that? This is exactly the kind of shit we don't want our politicians doing. Just because they didn't raise the issue first, doesn't mean they didn't request it vastly more often and more vocally than anyone else and you know damn well that that's true.
I don't really know of any other countries whose politicians I'd expect anything better than this from, nor do I know any other state that might act differently in the face of such a request. After all, the request was quite a targeted witch hunt by the Democrats while Palin was still in office.
Witch hunt? Seems like there was plenty of reason to believe that Palin was doing some shady stuff, and that none of it was being documented by state systems as it should be. Using outside email accounts to conduct state business deprives the constituents of the ability to effectively hold their elected officials accountable. Anyone with a shred of respect for the rights of citizens to hold their representatives accountable should be supporting the release of these emails, and trying to ensure that their representatives conform to the same standards.
Sounds like the fine in that case was for him dumping the pennies on their counter, and creating a mess. Had he just left a big jar of pennies, there likely would have been no problem for him.
Bah... the first quote was supposed to be the third paragraph of your post.
My point was that the people that really have the combination of skills and knowledge that we ideally want to see in our cops have better options. Other jobs where they can get paid more and face a lot less stress and danger. Of course a handful may decide to become cops anyway - and we should be grateful for that - but not surprised that most of those people choose something else, and the ranks get filled with people that we dont really want wearing badges.
I don't think that attorneys working for the government start at that kind of salary.
My point was that the people that really have the combination of skills and knowledge that we ideally want to see in our cops have better options. Other jobs where they can get paid more and face a lot less stress and danger. Of course a handful may decide to become cops anyway - and we should be grateful for that - but not surprised that most of those people choose something else, and the ranks get filled with people that we dont really want wearing badges.
We hear the same about teachers too, but then you've got guys like governor Walker in Wisconsin that claim that they make too much money, while simultaneously claiming that he has to pay his staff very high salaries in order to attract the best people. Seems like we need leaders in government that aren't going to play games with this stuff before we'll be able to figure out how to get good people into these jobs.
There's always evidence. But hey, don't let me stop you. If you prefer to end up beat to a pulp or dead, you go right ahead. We'll have the enjoyment of reading about you in the news, and you might even get a Darwin Award out of it!
The only evidence they'll take over the word of a cop is hard evidence, meaning some sort of recording. Otherwise the cop can make up just about whatever he wants and he'll get off and you'll probably end up a felon.
Which would be fine and dandy if the cops were "in power" but, seeing as they're just a tool of the state, you're aiming at the wrong target. You're trying to bite the finger that keeps poking you in the eye, instead of punching the fucker in the head.
So, what does your metaphorical punch in the head equate to in real life? You have no hard evidence. You might have a couple of people willing to testify in your favor, but that won't be enough to win over the cop's word. You are apparently unwilling to exercise your right to protect yourself by recording what is happening in a public place. So, what is your solution? I don't see you offering anything but silly metaphors.
You said that you don't have to worry about this kind of stuff because you generally don't break the law, etc. I'm merely pointing out that that is not a protection at all when cops are willing to assault you even when you're not breaking any law or doing anything even remotely threatening.
I have a very simple approach to these things: don't piss off the guys with the guns, and deal with any problems through the legal system, afterwards.
Right. Deal with the legal system afterwards, with no evidence to back up your story because you're too concerned with enabling such abuse by "not pissing them off". Unless people are willing to hold those in power accountable, we're all just powerless peasants to them.
The same goes for a burglary call. When they arrive, they don't know if it's the burglars turned kidnappers, or the victim. Or, when they come in to make sure there's no intruders, they find something illegal, you're in trouble. And yes, if you let the police come in to look around, anything in plain sight is fair game. A bong and scale on the coffee table turn a simple call to check out the house into a drug bust. And if there's a quantity in the house, you can be pretty sure that there are a few small arms laying around to defend the stash. And the difference between shooting a cop and hauling ass, or losing a substantial stash, lots of people will chose the wrong choice. Well, I guess if they lose their stash, their upstream dealer may not be very entertained either.
Look, nobody is saying that the job is easy. But then nobody forced any of them to become cops either. If I am incapable of doing my job within the law, then I'd get fired and/or arrested. I don't see why it should be any different for them. They are entrusted with rights and powers over and above what any regular citizen has. With those come the responsibilities to use them well in accordance with their mission, and not for their own personal gain or satisfaction.
The cops in this case quite obviously were abusing their power by assaulting people who were doing nothing more than recording the actions of their government. Such recording is exactly the kind of thing we need in a democratic society to keep us informed and to allow for changes to be made when necessary. If they are allowed to destroy evidence or otherwise prevent it from coming to light, then we are denied the information that we need. We are stuck taking people's word for it, and I don't think any of us can really trust our government that much, and I don't believe that we were ever intended to.
1. I generally try not to break the law.
The people filming the cops were breaking no laws. Didn't help them. Their only offense was the fact that they had evidence that might incriminate a cop. Seems like it's the cops that broke the law and assaulted people who were doing no wrong, in an attempt to cover their own mistakes.
Maybe it doesn't rise to that level. It would certainly rise to the level of pissing me off enough to give him the very Yelp review he apparently fears so much. Guess that will have to be enough. Maybe a BBB complaint as well, since we're obviously not very concerned about playing nice. Gotta get the message across somehow.
If I take time off from work to go to my dentist appointment, and only after I get there they present me with this bullshit to sign in order to receive treatment, I'd consider that duress as well. Maybe they should tell me up front before I make the appointment that they want to muzzle me.
The fact that they lie about the purpose of the form speaks volumes. Well, maybe that's too harsh. It's possible they just haven't spent the two seconds of thought necessary to realize that the reasons given by the company that sold them the form are completely bogus. Preventing non-patients from posting fraudulent reviews? Seriously?
UK situation seems to be significantly different than the US situation then. I don't know anyone that makes that much more as a contractor, and the articles I've read in business mags and sites all claim that businesses can save money by employing contractors wherever possible.
Do you have any evidence showing that all contractors make less than fully employed equivalent employees? I'd be surprised if that was the case with more skilled IT folks.
No, but that's not what I'm claiming either. I'm sure there are some folks with specialized skills that get brought in for a specific project for a limited amount of time. I bet they make great money too. But I also don't believe that those folks make up more than a rather small percentage of contract workers in the US.
Contractors don't necessarily cost the company less. I worked as an on-site contract employee at a local government site. The county director wanted to pull a few of the contractors in to work as government employees (we were working on the 911 system conversion). When I compared my pay and benefits from being a contractor to what the government offered, I was better staying where I was employed. Add the overhead of the company i worked for and I'm sure the cost for me as a contractor was significantly better than a direct employee.
It seems to be pretty much common knowledge that contractors are generally cheaper than full-time employees. I've read several estimates of the costs, but most put the savings at around 20-30% over a full-time employee. This, of course, isn't for people with rare skills or knowledge. I know quite a few people that work as contract employees on annually-renewed contracts. I definitely wouldn't want to be in that position.
The only time I've worked as a contract employee, it was with the explicit promise of a permanent position if I performed well in my position after the first year. I know a few others doing contract work now, and some are in the same situation that I was. They are working towards a permanent position. They aren't there to fill a temporary need. They're there as contractors so that they can be easily canned after six months if the company doesn't like them. The company still needs someone in that role though, and they do say that they want to hire someone on permanently.
Most of the others that I've talked to are just on a sort of continuously re-upping contract. They just have to hope that the company signs them for another year each time. They otherwise function just as any other employee. They get somewhat higher pay, but certainly not enough to cover the kinds of benefits that they would get as an employee. I don't see that they really get a benefit from working on contract. They'd much rather be actual employees, but this is what they were able to find when they needed work. The job market hasn't exactly gotten a lot better, so the companies can keep playing the contract game.
That's occurred to me, yes, but that doesn't explain any of Obama's actions. Keeping the wars going in the mid-east isn't helping anyone but the corporations, and it's only creating more enemies for us there.
Only if you ignore the likely outcomes of an immediate rapid pull-out of our forces there. Winding them down is the best option, and that's what's being done.
We've propped up corrupt dictators before countless times, and it's never resulted in a strong, democratic nation to be friends with. How many times are we going to keep doing the same thing, thinking it'll be different this time?
We tend to always go for the easy solution to keeping the resources flowing. Then we just act shocked when those dictators abuse their people. It's the American Way(TM)!
Keeping people imprisoned for a decade without trial is against the Constitution, and AFAIC is an impeachable offense. It's even worse when it was one of your campaign promises.
Yes, well he tried to get them brought into the country to be tried in our courts. Unfortunately he found out that we're not actually the home of the brave. We're scared shitless to have dangerous people in our prisons. Those were apparently built to house harmless drug offenders that are the bread and butter of the prison industry.
Keeping the Drug War going hasn't helped anyone, except again the corporations (such as the prison-industrial complex), and of course the violent cartels in Mexico who "are just businessmen" according to his buddies in the Mexican government.
According to whose buddies? Who is saying that they "are just businessmen". I think this calls for a [citation needed].
Zealously prosecuting things like the DOMA
Wait, what? Zealously? Are you serious?
and NSA whistleblowers (something Bush never did, though he made some threats) is icing on the cake. Obama is a total fraud. He's just a corporatist sociopath like the rest of them, and his promises of "change" were all lies. Now we just have to wait a year and a half to see if the Democratic voters are smart enough to realize this and vote for someone else, or if they buy all his lame excuses.
First of all, Obama doesn't make the laws. Yes, he has to sign or veto them, but given the way the laws are put together, that's often a no-win situation for him. He's broken quite a few campaign promises, but he's delivered on a lot more.
I'd like to find better candidates to vote for, but Congress and the Supreme Court seem to be very determined to make sure that nobody worth voting for can make it onto the ballot in the general election. They're doing an excellent job of that, too. If only they could do so well in areas that might actually help us.
But as you're paid considerably more than an employee, if you have any sense you keep most of that extra as a buffer of cash to tide you over any periods when you don't have work.
You're paid more because they don't have to provide you with any benefits like health care and such. They do this because you ultimately cost them less than an actual employee would, because those benefits are expensive. So you really aren't getting any extra cash. You're getting less extra cash than it would cost for those benefits that you now have to get for yourself. So you end up with the same risk of losing your job if the start-up folds, and you get less money/benefits than an actual employee would. What am I missing here?
--Working as a contractor, especially for a startup, is always a risk Um...balderdash. Working for a contractor is NOT a risk. I've worked as an employee and contractor and as a contractor, I know I'm always the first to go. I also know I get paid contractors rates. There is a premium paid for no having to pay for education, medical, insurance, overtime, etc. If you want a piece of success...be willing to take on some of the risks. Waiting UNTIL the revenue stream comes in....not exactly fair.
That makes no sense to me. The entire reason they pay you more is because it's still a lot less than they'd have to spend to provide you with those benefits. You still take a risk working for a startup because they can and do fold at any time with little or no notice, leaving you without a job, and no way to continue paying for things like health insurance that you have to provide for yourself. I don't see it as much of a difference than being an employee, aside from the fact that you cost the company less.
You're suggesting that if you take no risk, make no investment and get contracting rates you should then also be able to reap the rewards of the people who took the risk, provided the investment and paid you those contractor rates. That is absurd! 'Yeah if it succeeds i want some of the profit, but if it fails i don't want any of the debt'
Working as a contractor, especially for a startup, is always a risk. You could be out of a job at any moment if things don't go well. Seeing as this guy is apparently one of the main people ensuring that things go well, getting a cut of that success doesn't seem like too much to ask. If he is over-inflating his actual importance, then he will probably be unsuccessful in getting that cut. If he isn't, then I think they'd be more than willing to give him a cut in order to retain him. If you don't ask, you can't expect them to just hand it to you, even if they think you probably deserve it.