No, Republicans were not for it. Republican politicians were. These were many of the same people who passed the Patriot Act. The Republican rank and file have opposed this law as an excessive intrusion into people's personal choices since it was first introduced.
There is nothing wrong with hiring, and retaining, only the "A" players. The problem is that most companies and managers do a poor job of defining who the "A" players are. I will use sports teams as an example. Some ports teams make the mistake of attempting to stock their team with as many players as they can manage who are potential starters. The problem is that many highly talented players only do well when they get sufficient playing time, while other players, who would do poorly if they got a lot of playing time, do very well when they are put in for spot situations. Those "second tier" players are sometime better in certain situations than the guys who excel in every situation. In addition, many "A" players only excel when they are the "star", they are not very good at doing the routine, boring, work that is needed to keep things going.
Actually, if you track the phrase back, you discover that "begs the question" as a phrase the way it is traditionally used results from a mistranslation of the Latin term (petitio principii). A translation which would more accurately reflect the meaning of the term would be "assuming the premise".
Except of course for the fact that the words themselves (not the traditional way they are used to describe a logical fallacy), actually do mean a form "raises the question". People complain all the time about English phrases that do not mean what they appear to mean. In this case, people complain when people use a phrase to mean what it appears to mean. The traditional meaning of the phrase "begs the question" makes no logical sense when one looks at the actual meaning of the individual words.
Sorry, I misunderstood the thread your reply was in. I will say that everything I have read suggests that those in any position of power in Europe come from a limited, selective group of people. In order to rise to power, you need to have gone to the right school(s). The selection criteria varies slightly from European country to European country, but the only countries in Europe where the levers of power (including running the Unions) are not firmly controlled by those from a clearly recognizable "aristocracy" are some of the former "East Block" countries.
Over my lifetime a similar thing has happened in the U.S..
My understanding, supported by a small amount of research, is that laws regulating unions are national, not EU. This means, if I am understanding what I read correctly, that labor unions are different from country to country (a German labor union does not represent any workers in France and vice versa). There is just enough vagueness in what I read and the sources which formed my pre-existing understanding of European labor law that I may be mistaken on that, but it seems to be consistent with the information contained in this article.
Unless I am greatly mistaken, there is no customs between members of the European Union. My understanding is that shipping between the members of the European Union is, at most, only slightly more cumbersome than shipping between two different states within the U.S..
Plus there is this huge Anti Union movement going on now a days. Not sure why exactly i guess most people like to be door mats or something.
Yeah, it is much better to be a door mat for both the Union bosses AND the corporate bosses than to just be a door mat for corporate bosses (assuming that one does not have the skills and wherewithal to get out from under the bosses, which, of course the politicians are working tirelessly to make ever harder).
If the strike becomes a problem, Amazon will continue to sell in Germany. They just won't EMPLOY anyone in Germany. If that happens they will ship to Germany from distribution centers based elsewhere.
No, I am saying that in the U.S., the definition of "right" in politics is reducing government power over private citizens. The definition of "left" is wishing to increase government power over private citizens. Therefore anyone who increases government power is on the left.
Well, considering that a significant factor in the increased income inequality under our current President is a result of laws passed during his first two years, when Congress was controlled by people who also favor wealth redistribution. It is worth noting that 1/2 of Congress is STILL controlled by the Democratic Party which openly espouses wealth redistribution (while being composed of some of the richest people in the country and whose think tanks and political action committees receive the bulk of corporate political contributions).
I forgot to mention, you would rather vote for someone who promises to enslave you than someone who promises to free you because you think the person who is promising to free you is lying. If the person promising to free you wins and was lying you are, at the worst, no worse off than if the person who promised to enslave you wins. On the other hand, there is always a chance that the person who promised to free you will, this time, prove to be a person of their word. There is little chance that the person promising to enslave you will not do so, since their own interests are served by doing so.
Of course, the flip side of that is that the increased regulations of every kind of business that are implemented alongside of those "safety nets" make it harder to start a business. You are correct that employer based health insurance (not actually health care itself, but merely the way that it is paid for) make it more difficult to start your own business. Of course, the solution to that is NOT the government taking control of health care and being the only source of a way to pay for health care. Rather the solution is to eliminate the tax preferences given for employer provided health insurance.
The question I have is, if the only people who benefit from times when the political philosophy of reducing government power are those already on top, why does income inequality increase when the President favors income redistribution (such as currently) and decrease when the President favors empowering people to take control of their own lives by reducing federal regulations (such as when Ronald Reagan was President)?
So, what you are saying is that politicians claim to be on the "right" and then once they get into power, they operate from the "left's" perspective that increasing government power is in their own interest? And your answer to this problem is to vote for politicians who openly ADVOCATE for increasing government control over your life?
Take for example the relatively new in vogue maneuver of 'redistricting' and 'gerrymandering',...
Considering that the term "gerrymander" was coined in 1812, I am not sure how you conclude that it is relatively new. I remember reading in the 1980s about a Congressional District that snaked its way across a state. The district was 1 or 2 miles wide and about 100 miles long. This practice has been going on for basically as long as the United States has been around.
The key difference between the U.S. and other countries in this regard is that in most countries your choice is between a "left" and "right" that both favor increased government power over the economy. In the U.S. the "right" actually proposes reducing government power and, to the extent it actually does so, thus opens greater opportunities for those who are not yet wealthy. As government power increases and it regulates ever more minutely the opportunities for those who do not have wealth and/or political connections are diminished.
They are pointing to a ruling that said a black man had rights that did not go away just because he was a slave. They are saying that if a black man had those rights, so should a chimpanzee.
How is being on the same side as the slave owners a change in the position of the Democratic Party? The Democratic Party has ALWAYS been on the side of those who wish to keep minorities "in their place."
The basis for their case is saying that African-Americans are no better than chimpanzees and since African-Americans have rights, chimpanzees should as well. Oh, they dress it up differently and try to make it sound like that is not what they are claiming, but that is what the case law they cited amounts to.
Then the government should be within their legal right to possess the utility poles through eminent domain, or reassess the right-of-way that allows ATT to operate over public and privately (non-ATT) held land.
Which government would that be? And I am interested that you support the government "fix" the discrepancy between moral and legal rights. Do you support a similar position on abortion? And if so, whose morals?
Of course, that overlooks the fact that you seem to be asserting that AT&T is violating some moral right that Google possesses to connect to their utility poles. Just because AT&T does not assert a moral right to block Google does not mean that Google has a moral right to that access. Further, if my reading of the situation is correct, AT&T is saying that they have no choice under the laws, regulations, and contract AT&T is party to, but to refuse Google access to the poles unless Google submits themselves to the regulations that cover a telephone company or cable provider.
Since I am not familiar with all of the complex laws and regulations governing telephone companies and cable providers, I have no way to know if it would be right, or wise, to force AT&T to allow Google to connect to their utility poles. I will say this, getting the government out of a market is never in the interest of established monopolies (if the government truly gets out of the market and it isn't really a smokescreen for more onerous regulations at another chokepoint in the same market).
The potential issue is that Google does not want to fall under the regulations which they would need to comply with if they were considered a "telecom or cable provider" under federal law. The problem is that that area of law is so encumbered with privileges and regulations for companies so designated that I do not know if it is a good idea to allow Google to skirt the issue. On the other hand, if the contracts and laws are so written that the City of Austin can force AT&T to allow Google to connect under the same kind of conditions as a "telecom and cable provider" (as defined by federal law) without making Google adhere to those regulations that seems like a good solution. Of course AT&T will fight it and the wording of some existing law, regulation, or contract may make it so that the City of Austin cannot legally do so.
No, AT&T is not claiming some ethical and moral right to block a competitor. They are claiming a legal right to do so. They do not spell it out, but it seems to me that they are, also, claiming a legal obligation to do so (although that impression may be a misreading of the reporters interpretation of their statement).
The link you shared stated that the bulk of exported coal was metallurgical coal, which suggests that it was not used for electricity generation. So, your claim that "almost 100%" is used for electrical generation is false.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Republicans were not for it. Republican politicians were. These were many of the same people who passed the Patriot Act. The Republican rank and file have opposed this law as an excessive intrusion into people's personal choices since it was first introduced.
There is nothing wrong with hiring, and retaining, only the "A" players. The problem is that most companies and managers do a poor job of defining who the "A" players are. I will use sports teams as an example. Some ports teams make the mistake of attempting to stock their team with as many players as they can manage who are potential starters. The problem is that many highly talented players only do well when they get sufficient playing time, while other players, who would do poorly if they got a lot of playing time, do very well when they are put in for spot situations. Those "second tier" players are sometime better in certain situations than the guys who excel in every situation. In addition, many "A" players only excel when they are the "star", they are not very good at doing the routine, boring, work that is needed to keep things going.
Actually, if you track the phrase back, you discover that "begs the question" as a phrase the way it is traditionally used results from a mistranslation of the Latin term (petitio principii). A translation which would more accurately reflect the meaning of the term would be "assuming the premise".
Except of course for the fact that the words themselves (not the traditional way they are used to describe a logical fallacy), actually do mean a form "raises the question". People complain all the time about English phrases that do not mean what they appear to mean. In this case, people complain when people use a phrase to mean what it appears to mean. The traditional meaning of the phrase "begs the question" makes no logical sense when one looks at the actual meaning of the individual words.
Sorry, I misunderstood the thread your reply was in. I will say that everything I have read suggests that those in any position of power in Europe come from a limited, selective group of people. In order to rise to power, you need to have gone to the right school(s). The selection criteria varies slightly from European country to European country, but the only countries in Europe where the levers of power (including running the Unions) are not firmly controlled by those from a clearly recognizable "aristocracy" are some of the former "East Block" countries.
Over my lifetime a similar thing has happened in the U.S..
My understanding, supported by a small amount of research, is that laws regulating unions are national, not EU. This means, if I am understanding what I read correctly, that labor unions are different from country to country (a German labor union does not represent any workers in France and vice versa). There is just enough vagueness in what I read and the sources which formed my pre-existing understanding of European labor law that I may be mistaken on that, but it seems to be consistent with the information contained in this article.
Unless I am greatly mistaken, there is no customs between members of the European Union. My understanding is that shipping between the members of the European Union is, at most, only slightly more cumbersome than shipping between two different states within the U.S..
Plus there is this huge Anti Union movement going on now a days. Not sure why exactly i guess most people like to be door mats or something.
Yeah, it is much better to be a door mat for both the Union bosses AND the corporate bosses than to just be a door mat for corporate bosses (assuming that one does not have the skills and wherewithal to get out from under the bosses, which, of course the politicians are working tirelessly to make ever harder).
If the strike becomes a problem, Amazon will continue to sell in Germany. They just won't EMPLOY anyone in Germany. If that happens they will ship to Germany from distribution centers based elsewhere.
Your point?
No, I am saying that in the U.S., the definition of "right" in politics is reducing government power over private citizens. The definition of "left" is wishing to increase government power over private citizens. Therefore anyone who increases government power is on the left.
Well, considering that a significant factor in the increased income inequality under our current President is a result of laws passed during his first two years, when Congress was controlled by people who also favor wealth redistribution. It is worth noting that 1/2 of Congress is STILL controlled by the Democratic Party which openly espouses wealth redistribution (while being composed of some of the richest people in the country and whose think tanks and political action committees receive the bulk of corporate political contributions).
I forgot to mention, you would rather vote for someone who promises to enslave you than someone who promises to free you because you think the person who is promising to free you is lying. If the person promising to free you wins and was lying you are, at the worst, no worse off than if the person who promised to enslave you wins. On the other hand, there is always a chance that the person who promised to free you will, this time, prove to be a person of their word. There is little chance that the person promising to enslave you will not do so, since their own interests are served by doing so.
As opposed to Democrats who proceed to make Christian values illegal?
Of course, the flip side of that is that the increased regulations of every kind of business that are implemented alongside of those "safety nets" make it harder to start a business. You are correct that employer based health insurance (not actually health care itself, but merely the way that it is paid for) make it more difficult to start your own business. Of course, the solution to that is NOT the government taking control of health care and being the only source of a way to pay for health care. Rather the solution is to eliminate the tax preferences given for employer provided health insurance.
The question I have is, if the only people who benefit from times when the political philosophy of reducing government power are those already on top, why does income inequality increase when the President favors income redistribution (such as currently) and decrease when the President favors empowering people to take control of their own lives by reducing federal regulations (such as when Ronald Reagan was President)?
So, what you are saying is that politicians claim to be on the "right" and then once they get into power, they operate from the "left's" perspective that increasing government power is in their own interest? And your answer to this problem is to vote for politicians who openly ADVOCATE for increasing government control over your life?
Take for example the relatively new in vogue maneuver of 'redistricting' and 'gerrymandering',...
Considering that the term "gerrymander" was coined in 1812, I am not sure how you conclude that it is relatively new. I remember reading in the 1980s about a Congressional District that snaked its way across a state. The district was 1 or 2 miles wide and about 100 miles long. This practice has been going on for basically as long as the United States has been around.
The key difference between the U.S. and other countries in this regard is that in most countries your choice is between a "left" and "right" that both favor increased government power over the economy. In the U.S. the "right" actually proposes reducing government power and, to the extent it actually does so, thus opens greater opportunities for those who are not yet wealthy. As government power increases and it regulates ever more minutely the opportunities for those who do not have wealth and/or political connections are diminished.
They are pointing to a ruling that said a black man had rights that did not go away just because he was a slave. They are saying that if a black man had those rights, so should a chimpanzee.
How is being on the same side as the slave owners a change in the position of the Democratic Party? The Democratic Party has ALWAYS been on the side of those who wish to keep minorities "in their place."
The basis for their case is saying that African-Americans are no better than chimpanzees and since African-Americans have rights, chimpanzees should as well. Oh, they dress it up differently and try to make it sound like that is not what they are claiming, but that is what the case law they cited amounts to.
Then the government should be within their legal right to possess the utility poles through eminent domain, or reassess the right-of-way that allows ATT to operate over public and privately (non-ATT) held land.
Which government would that be? And I am interested that you support the government "fix" the discrepancy between moral and legal rights. Do you support a similar position on abortion? And if so, whose morals?
Of course, that overlooks the fact that you seem to be asserting that AT&T is violating some moral right that Google possesses to connect to their utility poles. Just because AT&T does not assert a moral right to block Google does not mean that Google has a moral right to that access. Further, if my reading of the situation is correct, AT&T is saying that they have no choice under the laws, regulations, and contract AT&T is party to, but to refuse Google access to the poles unless Google submits themselves to the regulations that cover a telephone company or cable provider.
Since I am not familiar with all of the complex laws and regulations governing telephone companies and cable providers, I have no way to know if it would be right, or wise, to force AT&T to allow Google to connect to their utility poles. I will say this, getting the government out of a market is never in the interest of established monopolies (if the government truly gets out of the market and it isn't really a smokescreen for more onerous regulations at another chokepoint in the same market).
The potential issue is that Google does not want to fall under the regulations which they would need to comply with if they were considered a "telecom or cable provider" under federal law. The problem is that that area of law is so encumbered with privileges and regulations for companies so designated that I do not know if it is a good idea to allow Google to skirt the issue. On the other hand, if the contracts and laws are so written that the City of Austin can force AT&T to allow Google to connect under the same kind of conditions as a "telecom and cable provider" (as defined by federal law) without making Google adhere to those regulations that seems like a good solution. Of course AT&T will fight it and the wording of some existing law, regulation, or contract may make it so that the City of Austin cannot legally do so.
No, AT&T is not claiming some ethical and moral right to block a competitor. They are claiming a legal right to do so. They do not spell it out, but it seems to me that they are, also, claiming a legal obligation to do so (although that impression may be a misreading of the reporters interpretation of their statement).
The link you shared stated that the bulk of exported coal was metallurgical coal, which suggests that it was not used for electricity generation. So, your claim that "almost 100%" is used for electrical generation is false.