It doesn't "chill" me. I want the Blue states to regulate themselves into a corner and push business and development elsewhere.
Unless they have dark skin, right?
Luckily enough for you, the rest of the country is full of people just the opposite -- intelligent and thoughtful enough to realize that the ties between the states is important. Middle America and the Deep South could be a dust-bowl, cash-cropped wasteland right now if everyone felt like you do. Thank god the douchebags tend to be outnumbered!
They're going to enforce it in a manner that is reprehensible to anyone who enjoys the freedoms this country provides.
Color of skin definitely should be mentioned because it definitely is relevant. Most people would detest having to carry around forms of ID all the time, especially if they could be forced to provide it on a police officer's whim, which is what this law allows. A lot of people in Arizona approve of this because they are white and "obviously not" an illegal immigrant, so they know they will never have to provide identification, and will never be harassed by police over the legality of their presence in the country. There's an implicit understanding that this law will not affect white people in a negative manner, as Arizona's finest will use it only to harass those who appear to be behaving like Mexicans. Lost in this is that there are plenty of Mexican looking Americans who are perfectly legal, lost is that the police, once granted powers like this, will use it to their advantage, even if it means harassing a white teenager who they think is causing trouble, and lost in it is the idea that the law must be equally applicable to everyone.
There is most definitely a racist undertone to this law, and it effectively provides for the treatment of non-whites in Arizona as second-class citizens with fewer rights. Whoever thinks it is a good idea can go fuck themselves, and I will say that to anyone who does, because they need to realize how their tacit approval of such behavior by the government is harmful to everybody, not just the immigrants they bemoan.
You see the ER was packed with illegal immigrants who did not have insurance and were using it as a clinic to treat the flu, common colds, strep throat... stuff you take to a regular Dr. So the facilities tax payers have contributed to so its there in the event of an emergency is over-run. A nurse came outside after a half hour and walked us around to a side door where they finally treated my sons foot.
This little passage shows just how easily it is to abuse a law like this, and how quickly it will happen. How do you know these people were in the country illegally? Did you ask them all? Did you check their papers? How do you even know what's wrong with them? If you can so quickly diagnose them all with the common cold, then perhaps you should get a job working at that hospital, because you're a fucking genius with some kind of magical powers. If it's really that easy, then they wouldn't be clogging up the ER, since the people staffed there would be able to treat them just as quickly as you did.
You are putting yourself above other people in this country and using legality of immigration or color of skin as a justification. Thank god not everyone is like you, and the country's system of government gives everyone equal protections under the law.
You "sincerely hope" that the law will be abused. What a joke! I sincerely hope that you go fuck yourself and stop thinking you are more deserving than everyone else.
Unfortunately, the lower ranks of law enforcement will probably find a way to abuse it. I hope not though, I sincerely hope that its put to good use and impacts legal citizens and legal immigrants as little as possible.
This is the problem with the law. Everyone gets caught up talking about illegal immigrants, but that's not the issue -- if there were a way to deal with illegal immigration without it affecting actual citizens quite so much, it would be done, and that would be that.
When you're entrusting police officers with powers that you "sincerely hope" will not be abused, you are throwing away the protections of citizenship and removing the burdens we have placed upon government to ensure that we have those protections.
This law won't "probably" be abused, it WILL be abused, and it will not only target illegal immigrants. If this law actually comes into effect, then every single person in the state should be carrying every kind of identification they have with them at all times, especially if they are of latino or hispanic heritage. You can be a perfectly legit US citizen and get pulled over for speeding and have to deal with the police hassling you because they don't like you. You may think it unlikely, but "sincere hope" isn't enough to ordain the rule of law. You may be white as can be, but if a cop dislikes you, sees your name McPatrick after pulling you over for a minor traffic violation, he could walk his way down the line of questioning to "so you just moved here from Ireland illegaly, eh son?"
The reason illegal immigration is so hard to deal with is because the USA guarantees protections of its citizens. You can deal with illegal immigration easily, but to do so means giving up those protections!
The goddamn president of the country can barely present enough proof to satisfy millions of people, many of whom serve in the military or on police forces -- how do you expect a legal US citizen of Mexican descent to do so? This law will not fix the problems you have just complained about, and it will provide legal protections to cops who get self-righteous enough to feel like harassing just about anyone they choose. It's a travesty, and even lending it a scent of legitimacy, let alone speaking out in favor of it, does more harm to this country than any amount of "fighting for and killing" for it could ever achieve. Get off your high horse and stop pretending that it's not so bad since it probably won't affect you. It WILL affect US citizens, and you are just throwing them to the wind with your support of the legislation, no matter how tepid it may be.
It's a travesty that so many people can seemingly support even the concept of this legislation, let alone an actual state government actually coming so close to putting it into effect. Anyone who supports this law, including you, should be ashamed of themselves.
A broken link and a link to a planted news story for politics (a diesel submarine sneaking up on a carrier group?)
Your last link is commented "Chinese subs turn back US fleet". Yes, if by "subs", you mean "Chicom bureaucrats". They were going to dock and refuel in Hong Kong for Thanksgiving, and were refused entry as part of the ongoing "we can push you around too you know" temper tantrums thrown by the Chinese government.
My original post was referring to ash in the air, not slowly destroying in the air. Most of the evidence and speculation points to increased wear and tear but no mortal danger -- if that is the case, then Bronson is correct, the airlines should definitely decide whether to bear those costs or not.
Not necessarily. They might suffer damage but still be operable, and only require more maintenance. Or they might suffer damage and have to be replaced after landing.
Basically, the jet's internals are hot enough to melt rock back into glass... So after a couple of passes through ash clouds, you have a thin layer of glass covering all the internal turbine blades. Which completely destroys the engine, and is extremely hard to repair without completely replacing the blades.
So, basically, what I've been told is that, yes, flying a jet through a volcanic ash cloud is a good recipe for completely destroying the engines, such that they need to be rebuilt, within two or three passes through the ash. It sounds plausible, and I've not yet heard anyone who actually does aircraft maintenance or anything like that suggest that it's harmless.
I think that's missing the point, though. If the engines are slowly destroyed by ash in the air, the danger posed is a financial one to the airline companies, not a mortal one to the passengers. If that is the case, then he is absolutely right -- the companies should be allowed to take that risk and have to repair their hardware, since they are the ones bearing the cost. That way they could still attempt a profit -- they might make enough on the flights and good reputation to repair their planes. Grounded planes do nothing but burn money.
Generally, it's the stupid loud-mouth extroverted bosses who come up with these stupid seating plans, and think it's wonderful for productivity, yet they themselves have their own walled offices. Can you say "hypocrite"?
Oh I see, I was confused because you said there was a tower (only the twin towers were generally referred to as towers, and only because of the cutesy nickname) that collapsed with "no damage" (there was a blazing inferno inside and the building was completely destroyed).
After clearing that up I completely understand which building you were referring to. Thanks.
There is a right to drive a car. Have fun driving one without getting approval beforehand (aka "licensed"), especially if you plan on running red lights. If you get internet in jail you can come back and post a snarky reply.
Really, the who notion of voting is severely flawed from a mathematical point of view. One extra vote makes all the difference between whether or not a bill is implemented. What is the intrinsic importance of making it 2/3rds? Why not 3/4ths? 1/2? 5/8ths? What is the significance of 2/3? Seems arbitrary.
2/3 isn't all that arbitrary, it's when the yea votes are twice as many as the nay votes. 1/2 would be a split vote, and you wouldn't have made a decision.
Think of it in a situation when you have a smaller group of people deciding. 2/3 is the smallest margin of victory for any group of people (besides a unanimous 2 out of 2). 3/4 is similar, but more complex and more demanding. 3/5 works and is often used. Simple majorities are often used as well, being 50% + 1 extra vote (two-thirds and three-fourths actually are simple majorities when there are only three or four people).
Why does the Supreme Court have 9 justices? Why do sports playoff series go 5 or 7 games? Why does gravity pull things down? It's only arbitrary if you completely ignore the reasoning behind it. If you can come up with a way for a group of people to make decisions without having arbitrary two-thirds or simple majority votes, go ahead and try it!
Ummmm, it's pretty obvious how he knows it -- he said it was free of backdoors the last time he checked! After a thorough review of every version of every Opera browser source code, line by line, he can say affirmatively that there are no backdoors.
oh who are we kidding, everyone knows he's never checked. He just trusts the download implicitly.
Also, Japanese are strongly traditional and have a cultural appreciation for things like newspapers. They like to share, for one; they can clip articles; and a paper is viewed as more economical and frugal (doesn't require electricity).
Isn't that the equivalent of linking? I don't get it.
What are you talking about? Iran is specifically mentioned as an exception to the list in the new nuclear policy, whether or not a violation has occurred.
You and Ahmadinejad are the only ones who seem to believe that no violation has occurred.
Under Article IV, the United States is obligated to assist Iran in building their power stations and medical facilities.
That's where the dispute is. A group of UN member nations have made claims that Iran is enriching uranium for use in weapons. Iran has said that it is solely for medical use and for power generation. The UN brokered a deal where the uranium would be sent to a declared nuclear state -- I believe it is France -- and the uranium would be enriched and then turned into fuel rods so that it had no potential use in weapons. Iran has agreed and then backed down from this deal, and now completely refuses.
How is that not a violation? They are enriching uranium towards use in weapons, refuse the "required" help from declared nuclear states, and are fucking with the inspections process in an attempt to get away with it.
Clearly, if the United States were in compliance with the NNPT, we would know for an absolute certainty what Iran was and was not doing with their nuclear facilities.
Iran is the reason for the United states being "non-compliant", since they refuse any kind of access or assistance. In other words, the United States is perfectly compliant, it is Iran that is fucking with the treaty.
I have no doubt that the North's military is not a match for the USA + ROK, but that isn't really the question. Seoul is right next to the DMZ and could easily be shelled, as could all of the USA's military positions. The North isn't likely to break through for long, if at all, but what happens if they might? How many lives lost is acceptable?
When you're talking about losing Seoul temporarily along with tens of thousands of US soldiers, you don't want to be playing what-ifs later on, especially if you could stop the flow of DPRK soldiers almost instantly with nuclear weapons.
It's almost absurd the number of crazy scenarios the US military takes into account, especially when you're looking at some of the Cold War contingencies. You want to nuke half of Europe? Really? It sounds crazy, but when you're playing for keeps, you don't want for something to happen only to be like "we should have thought of that" later on.
Not to mention the threat of China giving assistance to the North. It's not likely at all now, but the only reason the North even exists is because of China feeling threatened by a US-led UN military force roaring towards its border in the 50s. What do you do if they decide to test out some of their new toys when the Kim family decides to go crazy? If you're in charge, you don't want to lose ~150,000 troops, endanger the lives of ~60 million civilians, and embolden a military looking towards Taiwan or India or Japan by losing a disastrous war.
How likely that is to happen is close to 0%, but it's not 0%, and so it is taken into account.
No, it's just that with a press corps that overwhelmingly identifies with the Democratic party, the excesses of Republicans are more likely to be investigated and reported on.
Read it again. You imply that with a more Republican identifying press corps, that there would be Democratic presidents as having ignored or violated wiretapping laws.
North Korea withdrew from the NPT, and Iran has been found to be in non-compliance. They both are valid targets. I would agree with saying Iran is 'becoming' a valid target since it is currently in dispute as to what exactly is going on, but all signs point to a genuine nuclear weapons program or the pretense of having one.
North Korea also already has a few neighbors that would strongly object. North Korea also has a southern neighbor which would strongly object to Seoul being turned into a parking lot with trucks full of soldiers waving juche propaganda leaflets.
If North Korean troops start pouring through the DMZ, the US military is going to consider all of its contingency plans to keep its ~150,000+ soldiers from being killed or captured, and there is a 100% chance one of those contingency plans includes using nuclear weapons. In all likelihood it is one of the reasons why it hasn't happened yet.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't "chill" me. I want the Blue states to regulate themselves into a corner and push business and development elsewhere.
Unless they have dark skin, right?
Luckily enough for you, the rest of the country is full of people just the opposite -- intelligent and thoughtful enough to realize that the ties between the states is important. Middle America and the Deep South could be a dust-bowl, cash-cropped wasteland right now if everyone felt like you do. Thank god the douchebags tend to be outnumbered!
Government doesn't make anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_dam
I never knew people burned horses to power automobiles.
Thanks. Good luck with sane border control in the future, because this certainly isn't it.
They're going to enforce it in a manner that is reprehensible to anyone who enjoys the freedoms this country provides.
Color of skin definitely should be mentioned because it definitely is relevant. Most people would detest having to carry around forms of ID all the time, especially if they could be forced to provide it on a police officer's whim, which is what this law allows. A lot of people in Arizona approve of this because they are white and "obviously not" an illegal immigrant, so they know they will never have to provide identification, and will never be harassed by police over the legality of their presence in the country. There's an implicit understanding that this law will not affect white people in a negative manner, as Arizona's finest will use it only to harass those who appear to be behaving like Mexicans. Lost in this is that there are plenty of Mexican looking Americans who are perfectly legal, lost is that the police, once granted powers like this, will use it to their advantage, even if it means harassing a white teenager who they think is causing trouble, and lost in it is the idea that the law must be equally applicable to everyone.
There is most definitely a racist undertone to this law, and it effectively provides for the treatment of non-whites in Arizona as second-class citizens with fewer rights. Whoever thinks it is a good idea can go fuck themselves, and I will say that to anyone who does, because they need to realize how their tacit approval of such behavior by the government is harmful to everybody, not just the immigrants they bemoan.
I left something out of my original reply.
You see the ER was packed with illegal immigrants who did not have insurance and were using it as a clinic to treat the flu, common colds, strep throat... stuff you take to a regular Dr. So the facilities tax payers have contributed to so its there in the event of an emergency is over-run. A nurse came outside after a half hour and walked us around to a side door where they finally treated my sons foot.
This little passage shows just how easily it is to abuse a law like this, and how quickly it will happen. How do you know these people were in the country illegally? Did you ask them all? Did you check their papers? How do you even know what's wrong with them? If you can so quickly diagnose them all with the common cold, then perhaps you should get a job working at that hospital, because you're a fucking genius with some kind of magical powers. If it's really that easy, then they wouldn't be clogging up the ER, since the people staffed there would be able to treat them just as quickly as you did.
You are putting yourself above other people in this country and using legality of immigration or color of skin as a justification. Thank god not everyone is like you, and the country's system of government gives everyone equal protections under the law.
You "sincerely hope" that the law will be abused. What a joke! I sincerely hope that you go fuck yourself and stop thinking you are more deserving than everyone else.
Unfortunately, the lower ranks of law enforcement will probably find a way to abuse it. I hope not though, I sincerely hope that its put to good use and impacts legal citizens and legal immigrants as little as possible.
This is the problem with the law. Everyone gets caught up talking about illegal immigrants, but that's not the issue -- if there were a way to deal with illegal immigration without it affecting actual citizens quite so much, it would be done, and that would be that.
When you're entrusting police officers with powers that you "sincerely hope" will not be abused, you are throwing away the protections of citizenship and removing the burdens we have placed upon government to ensure that we have those protections.
This law won't "probably" be abused, it WILL be abused, and it will not only target illegal immigrants. If this law actually comes into effect, then every single person in the state should be carrying every kind of identification they have with them at all times, especially if they are of latino or hispanic heritage. You can be a perfectly legit US citizen and get pulled over for speeding and have to deal with the police hassling you because they don't like you. You may think it unlikely, but "sincere hope" isn't enough to ordain the rule of law. You may be white as can be, but if a cop dislikes you, sees your name McPatrick after pulling you over for a minor traffic violation, he could walk his way down the line of questioning to "so you just moved here from Ireland illegaly, eh son?"
The reason illegal immigration is so hard to deal with is because the USA guarantees protections of its citizens. You can deal with illegal immigration easily, but to do so means giving up those protections!
The goddamn president of the country can barely present enough proof to satisfy millions of people, many of whom serve in the military or on police forces -- how do you expect a legal US citizen of Mexican descent to do so? This law will not fix the problems you have just complained about, and it will provide legal protections to cops who get self-righteous enough to feel like harassing just about anyone they choose. It's a travesty, and even lending it a scent of legitimacy, let alone speaking out in favor of it, does more harm to this country than any amount of "fighting for and killing" for it could ever achieve. Get off your high horse and stop pretending that it's not so bad since it probably won't affect you. It WILL affect US citizens, and you are just throwing them to the wind with your support of the legislation, no matter how tepid it may be.
It's a travesty that so many people can seemingly support even the concept of this legislation, let alone an actual state government actually coming so close to putting it into effect. Anyone who supports this law, including you, should be ashamed of themselves.
Ask yourself this: would the disparities in pricing still exist if all contracts were payed in gold?
Of course it would. Is gold in Kentucky worth the same to you as gold that is in Zimbabwe?
How about milk that is in Kentucky versus milk that is in Zimbabwe?
An AK47 in New York City compared to an AK47 in Afghanistan?
A broken link and a link to a planted news story for politics (a diesel submarine sneaking up on a carrier group?)
Your last link is commented "Chinese subs turn back US fleet". Yes, if by "subs", you mean "Chicom bureaucrats". They were going to dock and refuel in Hong Kong for Thanksgiving, and were refused entry as part of the ongoing "we can push you around too you know" temper tantrums thrown by the Chinese government.
yeah, those aircraft carriers are death traps.
My original post was referring to ash in the air, not slowly destroying in the air. Most of the evidence and speculation points to increased wear and tear but no mortal danger -- if that is the case, then Bronson is correct, the airlines should definitely decide whether to bear those costs or not.
Not necessarily. They might suffer damage but still be operable, and only require more maintenance. Or they might suffer damage and have to be replaced after landing.
That's the whole point. Nobody really knows.
Basically, the jet's internals are hot enough to melt rock back into glass... So after a couple of passes through ash clouds, you have a thin layer of glass covering all the internal turbine blades. Which completely destroys the engine, and is extremely hard to repair without completely replacing the blades.
So, basically, what I've been told is that, yes, flying a jet through a volcanic ash cloud is a good recipe for completely destroying the engines, such that they need to be rebuilt, within two or three passes through the ash. It sounds plausible, and I've not yet heard anyone who actually does aircraft maintenance or anything like that suggest that it's harmless.
I think that's missing the point, though. If the engines are slowly destroyed by ash in the air, the danger posed is a financial one to the airline companies, not a mortal one to the passengers. If that is the case, then he is absolutely right -- the companies should be allowed to take that risk and have to repair their hardware, since they are the ones bearing the cost. That way they could still attempt a profit -- they might make enough on the flights and good reputation to repair their planes. Grounded planes do nothing but burn money.
The problem is determining what is the case.
not if other people are in the room
Oh I see, I was confused because you said there was a tower (only the twin towers were generally referred to as towers, and only because of the cutesy nickname) that collapsed with "no damage" (there was a blazing inferno inside and the building was completely destroyed).
After clearing that up I completely understand which building you were referring to. Thanks.
There is a right to drive a car. Have fun driving one without getting approval beforehand (aka "licensed"), especially if you plan on running red lights. If you get internet in jail you can come back and post a snarky reply.
There were three twin towers???? how come the third one isn't on any of the TV footage?
2/3 isn't all that arbitrary, it's when the yea votes are twice as many as the nay votes. 1/2 would be a split vote, and you wouldn't have made a decision.
Think of it in a situation when you have a smaller group of people deciding. 2/3 is the smallest margin of victory for any group of people (besides a unanimous 2 out of 2). 3/4 is similar, but more complex and more demanding. 3/5 works and is often used. Simple majorities are often used as well, being 50% + 1 extra vote (two-thirds and three-fourths actually are simple majorities when there are only three or four people).
Why does the Supreme Court have 9 justices? Why do sports playoff series go 5 or 7 games? Why does gravity pull things down? It's only arbitrary if you completely ignore the reasoning behind it. If you can come up with a way for a group of people to make decisions without having arbitrary two-thirds or simple majority votes, go ahead and try it!
It really did work! I was under the impression that every country was ruled by people of some kind, even if few in number.
What exactly is running all these countries? Aliens? Lions? Something that passes the turing test?
Ummmm, it's pretty obvious how he knows it -- he said it was free of backdoors the last time he checked! After a thorough review of every version of every Opera browser source code, line by line, he can say affirmatively that there are no backdoors.
oh who are we kidding, everyone knows he's never checked. He just trusts the download implicitly.
Isn't that the equivalent of linking? I don't get it.
What are you talking about? Iran is specifically mentioned as an exception to the list in the new nuclear policy, whether or not a violation has occurred.
You and Ahmadinejad are the only ones who seem to believe that no violation has occurred.
That's where the dispute is. A group of UN member nations have made claims that Iran is enriching uranium for use in weapons. Iran has said that it is solely for medical use and for power generation. The UN brokered a deal where the uranium would be sent to a declared nuclear state -- I believe it is France -- and the uranium would be enriched and then turned into fuel rods so that it had no potential use in weapons. Iran has agreed and then backed down from this deal, and now completely refuses.
How is that not a violation? They are enriching uranium towards use in weapons, refuse the "required" help from declared nuclear states, and are fucking with the inspections process in an attempt to get away with it.
Iran is the reason for the United states being "non-compliant", since they refuse any kind of access or assistance. In other words, the United States is perfectly compliant, it is Iran that is fucking with the treaty.
It is, of course, a very military definition of save. We are talking about nuclear weapons.
I have no doubt that the North's military is not a match for the USA + ROK, but that isn't really the question. Seoul is right next to the DMZ and could easily be shelled, as could all of the USA's military positions. The North isn't likely to break through for long, if at all, but what happens if they might? How many lives lost is acceptable?
When you're talking about losing Seoul temporarily along with tens of thousands of US soldiers, you don't want to be playing what-ifs later on, especially if you could stop the flow of DPRK soldiers almost instantly with nuclear weapons.
It's almost absurd the number of crazy scenarios the US military takes into account, especially when you're looking at some of the Cold War contingencies. You want to nuke half of Europe? Really? It sounds crazy, but when you're playing for keeps, you don't want for something to happen only to be like "we should have thought of that" later on.
Not to mention the threat of China giving assistance to the North. It's not likely at all now, but the only reason the North even exists is because of China feeling threatened by a US-led UN military force roaring towards its border in the 50s. What do you do if they decide to test out some of their new toys when the Kim family decides to go crazy? If you're in charge, you don't want to lose ~150,000 troops, endanger the lives of ~60 million civilians, and embolden a military looking towards Taiwan or India or Japan by losing a disastrous war.
How likely that is to happen is close to 0%, but it's not 0%, and so it is taken into account.
Read it again. You imply that with a more Republican identifying press corps, that there would be Democratic presidents as having ignored or violated wiretapping laws.
Logic doesn't have a political affiliation.
North Korea withdrew from the NPT, and Iran has been found to be in non-compliance. They both are valid targets. I would agree with saying Iran is 'becoming' a valid target since it is currently in dispute as to what exactly is going on, but all signs point to a genuine nuclear weapons program or the pretense of having one.
North Korea also already has a few neighbors that would strongly object. North Korea also has a southern neighbor which would strongly object to Seoul being turned into a parking lot with trucks full of soldiers waving juche propaganda leaflets.
If North Korean troops start pouring through the DMZ, the US military is going to consider all of its contingency plans to keep its ~150,000+ soldiers from being killed or captured, and there is a 100% chance one of those contingency plans includes using nuclear weapons. In all likelihood it is one of the reasons why it hasn't happened yet.