If every bike shop integrated Bike Index registration at the point of sale, that would make it easy for victims of bike theft to accurately report a stolen bike, and for bike purchasers to verify that they aren't buying stolen goods.
Yeah, because the serial numbers and mandatory registrations have done so well to stop automotive theft.
I fear, we'll surrender yet another bit of privacy without tangible gain...
That's the price of going to war every time there is an election looming.
Whatever your allegations of special timings (and you don't cite anything to demonstrate the correlation), the actual cost of a flare-up is not that high. What is truly expensive is maintaining readiness for such a flare-up at any moment year after year...
Have you seen Israel on the map? You can't — not without looking hard — it is so small. To assert, that the troubles are due to "land grab" is to show ignorance or dishonesty...
People kind of resent it if you do that and tend to attack you to take the land back.
Nice theory, but contradicted by facts: there was no "conquering" until 1967, but the hatred was just the same, if not worse.
They'll stop that after a few dozen years if you stop taking land, usually, if we may believe history.
They'll also stop if you kill them, you know... And not just "usually", but always. How about that? Or, less bloodily, how about the rest of the world stops treating descendants of Arab refugees as refugees in their own right (only the first generation is considered refugees in all other cases)? That, too, should do wonders in a generation or two — there are no Germans today shooting rockets at Russia over their (grand)parents being kicked out from Königsberg as a result of their country losing an unjust war.
Maybe that's a practice Israel should consider
Or, maybe, Israel — and the rest of the "civilized" world — should just consider ending the economic help to the barbarians surrounding Israel? As things currently stand, Gaza has a higher standard of living, than Egypt. Perhaps, when their government (be it Hamas or whoever) has to concentrate on the actual governing — schools, sewers, roads, electricity — instead of relying on foreigners (including, inhumanely, Israelis themselves), they'll be forced to bury their murderous hatchets?
..you mean to say that directly it doesn't affect the motivation of people to stay in a country with instability all around?
The two Israelis I personally know, who immigrated to the US, are quite patriotic and eager to defend their country. Both served in the military and one actually participated in live shooting. They were sad to move, but the opportunities offered to them were too enticing (both were scientist-engineers married to lovely scientist ladies)...
while occupying parts of your neighbors...
Please... Israel was not "occupying" anyone between 1948 and 1967 — but the neighbors' hatred was the same or worse.
The only thing socialism threatens you with now is better healthcare, and welfare (at a price, admittedly).
"Better"? As in Cuba? Where is this idea, that government can do something (be it manufacturing of goods, provision of services, or even charitable help to the unlucky) better than competing private entities coming from, when there is no evidence of such success anywhere in history?
Where are the welfare success stories? All I see are crime-infested neighborhoods populated by people born there to parents born there — a perpetuated misery.
What, just what, makes you think, government-provided healthcare (and that is, where we are going as Obamacare-2.0 will be urgently needed, when the current version falls on its face in the mud) will fair better?
Socialism =/= Big government.
Right, Socialism does not equal Big Government. It is worse — big government not merely charging big taxes, but doing things with them, that no government should be doing at all.
Right, because Europe doesn't have any prestigious academic institutions doing prize winning research.
Prestigious — maybe. Higher-paying — no. Europeans live a little richer than Israelis, because they — as you rightly point out — don't have to spend so much on defense. But only the US, thanks to its still strong Capitalism, can afford both — top military and scientific research.
We could do with some real socialism here, instead of the crony-capitalist half-measures we get from our system of compromises.
Though I join your disdain for half-measures of crony-capitalism, having personally lived half of my life under "real Socialism" (also known as Communism-lite), I will fight against its setting here with teeth, nails, knives, and guns. And I will start with the morons yipping about how USSR was not "real" Socialism...
Now, take this threat of violence against your precious person and dial 911 to make a complaint...
A Slashdotter who calls the Likud - Yisrael Beitenu coalition government "socialist".
I didn't call a particular party "Socialist", you dimwit. I said, the entire country — whoever is currently at the helm — has a lot more Socialism in it, than is good for anybody. Their taxes — and "social" programs are very high. There is no private ownership of land (except for deeds predating the country itself). Labor unions are massive and enjoy legal protections not found in the US.
That Likud is currently a dominant force, is a good sign, that maybe, just maybe, the healing has begun over there — much as Obama's ongoing successes with electorate (no other successes, sadly), are a grim sign of our progressive sickness. Whereas Israel stopped encouraging kibutzes decades ago, I would not be surprised, Michelle Obama's next "program" will be about collective farms...
If the current trends — of Israel improving and us deteriorating — continue, I said, in 10-20 years the pay gap lamented in TFA may disappear. And not only because Israel will be able to offer more...
Nothing to do with the social/political situation in the middle east?
Only indirectly — having to spend so much time, money, and effort on national defense is hard economically for a tiny country. Despite all the help from the US, it is still a heavy burden on the economy.
When we get as much Socialism here, as Israel has, we will not be able to offer as big salaries either... Maybe, another 10-20 years? One more Obama and we are done.
Even private corporations that outsource key components of their business frequently have problems.
Absolutely — in fact, you read carefully, I acknowledge just that in my post. However, those, who have such troubles too often get eclipsed by competitors. Government, however, has no competition — more or less by definition.
So, instead of switching the service-provider with the same ease Verizon can be changed for AT&T, we are forced to foot the bill for the repairs and upgrades to something, that has not worked right since inception.
So what the heck makes you think that outsourcing should be the default for governments?
Nothing, really — I never said such a thing... My point is, the government should only be allowed to do the things, which can not be done by non-government entities (like courts and military). Just as you should not be running Seti@Home inside your kernel, you should not be managing private citizens' healthcare inside federal government, for example. And, note, I said "can not" — a so-called "market failure" to do, what somebody thinks is worth doing (like, most recently, the "municipal WiFi"), is not a justification for making the government do it instead. No, sir.
No, the idea that government should outsource everything doesn't make any sense.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Little did Madison know about "personal income tax" and, because that just was not bad enough, "universal health care".
To enforce these fine programs, the government needs to know an awful lot about the citizenry... Not just incomes and wealth (the IRS), but also health- and credit-history (Obamacare) of all subjects will soon be at the fingertips of the Executive government...
It needs to verify you are who you say you are, that you are eligible under the law for various subsidies, that you are covered by the regs. For this I believe it has to dip into social security and IRS databases.
Oh, I was not disputing your statement — I was just pointing out the privacy implications of this new program imposed on us by the same people, who are usually quick to denounce any threats to privacy.
Not too long ago, a President got into serious legal troubles over having access to FBI files on some of his opposition. What Obamacare is busy creating, is direct access for the Executive to full and complete profile on not just some people, terrorist-suspects (however vague that declaration may be) or oppostion, but on anyone.
Unseating an incumbent has always been an uphill battle (hence the term-limit on Presidency), but, armed with this sort of access to information on all citizenry (both voters and challengers), an incumbent become unassailable...
It was built by private contractors in a competitive bidding process.
Clearly, the bidding process was flawed. Or the specifications put in. Or the vetting of the bidders. Whatever it is, the government, once again, has done a poor job.
Sure, private enterprises have problems with contractors too on occasion — but, if they do it too much, they go out of business, because a smarter competitor wins...
And you want to turn the police over to private contractors?
Though this is off-topic, yes, this is, what I'd do. The police-services company would still be hired by the government (usually — the town's) — for a multi-year contract. If they don't perform — crime too high or citizenry too upset over some methods, they get fired and replaced by a competitor. This is not much different from the current practice of employing individual officers — just cheaper and would allow better-run police departments to expand beyond a single town bringing their better methods with them.
a national transaction application that has to dip into numerous other federal data sources
This statement alone is scarier, than whatever was leaked by Mr. Snowden. Surprisingly, the President's cheerleaders — normally so suspect of government's invasions into our privacy — ignore this implication.
has a mission criticality above and beyond facebook.
Gravity of the mission, whatever it is, has little to do with the cost of implementation. First step on the Moon was a gravely important mission, but it was easy for Neil Armstrong to do it...
very few of us would actually enjoy working for the federal government and conducting our business the way any federal contractor
Yet another argument for letting the government do as little as at all possible — rather than explode its size as the Administration is doing.
Everything the government does, it does poorly. This is not a partisan statement — this is a sad fact, which everyone agrees with even if they may attempt to hide the agreement, because they don't like the implications.
Some things can only be done by the government — like the court-system and other law-enforcement (although the actual police could be contractors, they ought to report to and be paid by the government), the military...
But everything else — and I do mean everything: manufacturing, services, charities — ought to be privately-run by competing entities. Because switching from Coca-Cola to Pepsi (or Poland Spring) is much easier, than recalling an elected official.
For me the only deciding factor would've been, which option is more expensive. Given the fact, that enforcing the closures of places like WW2 memorial or Mount Rushmore costs a lot more, than simply letting them be, the current Administration is doing exactly the opposite of what I would've done.
That it is also the first Administration to do so — most of the places in question continued to operate during all previous shutdowns — the conclusion is clear: Obama et al. are deliberately making the shutdown more painful, than it needs to be.
Given that it is Obama's responsibility, as the head of the Executive branch, to make the government operate as good as it can under any circumstances (regardless of who is "at fault"), the term "dereliction of duty" comes immediately to mind. And stays there...
If, as Illiberals outside and inside/. are explaining, the government must not only declare various facilities — like monuments and parks — closed, but actively enforce the closures of not just the federal facilities themselves, but also of anything remotely connected (such as private motels and other concessions located on Federal land), why should any facility, that is required to be actively supervised by Federal employees remain open?
And I don't mean just the power plants — no meat should be sold, because Department of Agriculture can't inspect it, for example...
Do I want it to happen? No... But, for me to accept the infamous closures of parks and memorials (which always remained open during all previous shutdowns) as anything other than capricious, it must happen.
And yet, we distinguish Senators from Congressmen. You are hairsplitting and know it. Worse, the distinction you are attempting to make is without difference... You blamed Republicans for not passing the budget. That was completely and demonstrably false — for pass it they did... Whether it is valid to refer to Senate and Congress as different entities has no bearing on this simple fact.
The Republicans in the House refused to allow it to be voted upon.
What's the point? The clear majority of the House would not let the Senate's amendments in. They can keep voting on it until the audience is blue in the face — and still would not fund the President's pet project...
The president has *never* "rejected" the bill. It's never made it to him.
Do you really believe, the President is not closely coordinating with the Democratic majority in Senate? No, you don't. So, you aren't really being sincere here, which leads me to inquire, why do you believe, others need to waste time reading your posts?
When you get all the basic facts completely and demonstrably wrong, how can we take your opinion
"Completely and demonstrably"? Please:-) And, BTW, who are these wise "we" you are talking about? Neah, don't bother, I can sense a newbie trying out "cool" debating tricks... Keep at it, you aren't doing too badly.
It's the Republican Representatives that refuse to bring the budget bills to a vote.
Nonsense. Congress — where Republicans hold a majority — passed the budget bill weeks ago. Senate and President simply don't like it and would rather have the show-down, than accept the will of the people. Yes, the will of the people — not just the RethugliKKKans in Congress, but the clear majority of citizenry want to be rid of the program, that the Republican-passed bill would not fund...
And I've seen nothing that indicates it was Obama that shut down everything.
What exactly to shut-down and how to enforce it is up to the Administration. The memorials, for example, were never closed — not during any of the shut-downs we already had. That the President made sure, such places are closed — despite it costing more to enforce the closures, than to simply leave them running — is clear evidence of viciousness.
Such selective enforcement of its own rules by the Administration is yet another evidence, it is deliberately trying to make things as painful as possible for the ordinary citizens — in the hope, that would put pressure on the opposition...
So US is not that much different from most communists regimes back in the day - you could live and work there as long as you did not tease establishment all too much in which case they would brand you criminal and make your professional life going into sewer and other such things.
When I moved from the USSR into Massachusetts some time ago, discussing the evil of the Soviet Union I'd usually encounter an Illiberal, who'd nod thoughtfully and state, that, yes, they also had "similar" problem in this country... Asked to clarify, such people would always bring up Joe McCarthy.
It was only years later, that I learned, that Joe McCarthy's efforts made a whopping of, at the most, several dozen people lose their jobs. Temporarily. And yet, all of these sophisticated folks considered him "similar" to the organizations, that caused not dozens, but millions of people to not become unemployed, but to die... And not for attempts to subvert their country towards the most murderous school of thought known to humanity, but for being of the wrong creed (such as descendants of nobility), or even to simply fulfill the quarterly quota of arrests and convictions...
That was when I lost most of the respect for America's "Liberalism" and turned firmly towards the Right...
That said, it should be slander to post the records with the implication they mean someone is guilty of something.
To a lot of people (employers among them), having been arrested is the same (or, at best, almost the same) as having been convicted. To me, an immigrant, this was a rather unexpected (in addition to unpleasant) revelation...
Thus, even if there is an explicit statement under your picture, that you were only arrested and spent a mere 45 minutes in jail, while the bond-officer was roused to take the $40 fee for your release — and never convicted at the end — you may still prefer to get your mug removed from such a site.
But, indeed, public records should be just that — public. If FBI can see, who was ever arrested, ordinary citizens should be able to as well... Maybe, as these sites proliferate wider and deeper, Americans finally learn the difference between being accused and convicted and it stops being a big deal...
Yes, the great anonymous park ranger whose quote has been running the rounds in the Conservative blogosphere.
If indeed, he did receive the orders close to what is being quoted, he has very good reasons to worry about his continuing career or even employment, if he is ever deanonymized. Thus, despite his anonymity, it is quite believable. And there is other corroborating (if not outright confirming) evidence too...
This is all a ruse by Ted Cruz destabilize the country enough that when the next 2 election cycles come around, Republicans can scream 'incompetence' and take over the Senate and Presidency." -- Anonymous Congressman
For one, Congressmen have little to fear except their constituency. They are also a lot fewer in number than rangers, so they aren't hard to identify anyway. Lastly, yes, it is, of course, "created" by Republicans — in order to defeat Obamacare — and thus stabilize the country.
To summarize, some anonymous statements are believable, and some less so. Witness the occasional high-moderated Anonymous Coward post on this very site.
I was referring to the universal service mandate that required Bell/AT&T to provide service even where it wasn't profitable.
Yep, I know... And in order to pay for those unprofitable hook-ups, AT&T charged the others extra — because it had the monopoly power to do so. Thus it had no incentive to make services cheaper — no one could legally unseat it. Once again, America is lucky, the same thoughts were not applied to automobiles a few decades earlier — I doubt strongly, the Ford T's prices would've dropped three-fold in 7 years if they were.
Before you say something like "too bad, they should move", I'll remind you that if they move, nobody will be growing food anymore.
You just don't get, how the markets work, do you? As some of them moved, food prices would've gone up, the incomes of the remaining farmers would've risen and they'd gradually become able to afford the phone service.
Better yet, some enterprising soul — without the shackled of AT&T's government-provided monopoly — would've figured out, how to make radio-based telephones. All the technology was already there — and widely used even before World War II. They didn't have to be portable radiophones (like cellphones today), no. But there was no need to install and maintain an actual copper wire either.
One approach would be to make the tailored education universal like they did for phone service.
If we do that, it will forever remain costly and costlier — like the rest of public schools (four-fold increase in per-pupil annual costs since 1962!), health-care, or college education (where government-backed loans remove any incentive to lower costs), rather than ever cheaper (and better) like the aforementioned waterclosets, cars, or cellphones.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because the serial numbers and mandatory registrations have done so well to stop automotive theft.
I fear, we'll surrender yet another bit of privacy without tangible gain...
Whatever your allegations of special timings (and you don't cite anything to demonstrate the correlation), the actual cost of a flare-up is not that high. What is truly expensive is maintaining readiness for such a flare-up at any moment year after year...
Have you seen Israel on the map? You can't — not without looking hard — it is so small. To assert, that the troubles are due to "land grab" is to show ignorance or dishonesty...
Nice theory, but contradicted by facts: there was no "conquering" until 1967, but the hatred was just the same, if not worse.
They'll also stop if you kill them, you know... And not just "usually", but always. How about that? Or, less bloodily, how about the rest of the world stops treating descendants of Arab refugees as refugees in their own right (only the first generation is considered refugees in all other cases)? That, too, should do wonders in a generation or two — there are no Germans today shooting rockets at Russia over their (grand)parents being kicked out from Königsberg as a result of their country losing an unjust war.
Or, maybe, Israel — and the rest of the "civilized" world — should just consider ending the economic help to the barbarians surrounding Israel? As things currently stand, Gaza has a higher standard of living, than Egypt. Perhaps, when their government (be it Hamas or whoever) has to concentrate on the actual governing — schools, sewers, roads, electricity — instead of relying on foreigners (including, inhumanely, Israelis themselves), they'll be forced to bury their murderous hatchets?
The two Israelis I personally know, who immigrated to the US, are quite patriotic and eager to defend their country. Both served in the military and one actually participated in live shooting. They were sad to move, but the opportunities offered to them were too enticing (both were scientist-engineers married to lovely scientist ladies)...
Please... Israel was not "occupying" anyone between 1948 and 1967 — but the neighbors' hatred was the same or worse.
"Better"? As in Cuba? Where is this idea, that government can do something (be it manufacturing of goods, provision of services, or even charitable help to the unlucky) better than competing private entities coming from, when there is no evidence of such success anywhere in history?
Where are the welfare success stories? All I see are crime-infested neighborhoods populated by people born there to parents born there — a perpetuated misery.
Education, perhaps? Per-pupil costs of public schools quadrupled since 1962 (inflation-adjusted) — has anyone noticed improvement in quality? No — mere 30% of today's 8th-graders nation-wide are proficient in reading! And that nation-wide average is not helped, but dragged-down by those mighty pillars of Socialism like Chicago (21%) or Detroit (7%).
Maybe, the good old Postal Service? The program, that is, despite government-enforced monopoly on cheap ("First Class") letters, is usually in the red and in need of bailout every few years?
What, just what, makes you think, government-provided healthcare (and that is, where we are going as Obamacare-2.0 will be urgently needed, when the current version falls on its face in the mud) will fair better?
Right, Socialism does not equal Big Government. It is worse — big government not merely charging big taxes, but doing things with them, that no government should be doing at all.
Prestigious — maybe. Higher-paying — no. Europeans live a little richer than Israelis, because they — as you rightly point out — don't have to spend so much on defense. But only the US, thanks to its still strong Capitalism, can afford both — top military and scientific research.
Though I join your disdain for half-measures of crony-capitalism, having personally lived half of my life under "real Socialism" (also known as Communism-lite), I will fight against its setting here with teeth, nails, knives, and guns. And I will start with the morons yipping about how USSR was not "real" Socialism...
Now, take this threat of violence against your precious person and dial 911 to make a complaint...
I didn't call a particular party "Socialist", you dimwit. I said, the entire country — whoever is currently at the helm — has a lot more Socialism in it, than is good for anybody. Their taxes — and "social" programs are very high. There is no private ownership of land (except for deeds predating the country itself). Labor unions are massive and enjoy legal protections not found in the US.
That Likud is currently a dominant force, is a good sign, that maybe, just maybe, the healing has begun over there — much as Obama's ongoing successes with electorate (no other successes, sadly), are a grim sign of our progressive sickness. Whereas Israel stopped encouraging kibutzes decades ago, I would not be surprised, Michelle Obama's next "program" will be about collective farms...
If the current trends — of Israel improving and us deteriorating — continue, I said, in 10-20 years the pay gap lamented in TFA may disappear. And not only because Israel will be able to offer more...
Only indirectly — having to spend so much time, money, and effort on national defense is hard economically for a tiny country. Despite all the help from the US, it is still a heavy burden on the economy.
When we get as much Socialism here, as Israel has, we will not be able to offer as big salaries either... Maybe, another 10-20 years? One more Obama and we are done.
Absolutely — in fact, you read carefully, I acknowledge just that in my post. However, those, who have such troubles too often get eclipsed by competitors. Government, however, has no competition — more or less by definition.
So, instead of switching the service-provider with the same ease Verizon can be changed for AT&T, we are forced to foot the bill for the repairs and upgrades to something, that has not worked right since inception.
Nothing, really — I never said such a thing... My point is, the government should only be allowed to do the things, which can not be done by non-government entities (like courts and military). Just as you should not be running Seti@Home inside your kernel, you should not be managing private citizens' healthcare inside federal government, for example. And, note, I said "can not" — a so-called "market failure" to do, what somebody thinks is worth doing (like, most recently, the "municipal WiFi"), is not a justification for making the government do it instead. No, sir.
Luckily for all present, this was not my idea...
Little did Madison know about "personal income tax" and, because that just was not bad enough, "universal health care".
To enforce these fine programs, the government needs to know an awful lot about the citizenry... Not just incomes and wealth (the IRS), but also health- and credit-history (Obamacare) of all subjects will soon be at the fingertips of the Executive government...
Oh, I was not disputing your statement — I was just pointing out the privacy implications of this new program imposed on us by the same people, who are usually quick to denounce any threats to privacy.
Not too long ago, a President got into serious legal troubles over having access to FBI files on some of his opposition. What Obamacare is busy creating, is direct access for the Executive to full and complete profile on not just some people, terrorist-suspects (however vague that declaration may be) or oppostion, but on anyone.
Unseating an incumbent has always been an uphill battle (hence the term-limit on Presidency), but, armed with this sort of access to information on all citizenry (both voters and challengers), an incumbent become unassailable...
Clearly, the bidding process was flawed. Or the specifications put in. Or the vetting of the bidders. Whatever it is, the government, once again, has done a poor job.
Sure, private enterprises have problems with contractors too on occasion — but, if they do it too much, they go out of business, because a smarter competitor wins...
Though this is off-topic, yes, this is, what I'd do. The police-services company would still be hired by the government (usually — the town's) — for a multi-year contract. If they don't perform — crime too high or citizenry too upset over some methods, they get fired and replaced by a competitor. This is not much different from the current practice of employing individual officers — just cheaper and would allow better-run police departments to expand beyond a single town bringing their better methods with them.
This statement alone is scarier, than whatever was leaked by Mr. Snowden. Surprisingly, the President's cheerleaders — normally so suspect of government's invasions into our privacy — ignore this implication.
Gravity of the mission, whatever it is, has little to do with the cost of implementation. First step on the Moon was a gravely important mission, but it was easy for Neil Armstrong to do it...
Yet another argument for letting the government do as little as at all possible — rather than explode its size as the Administration is doing.
Everything the government does, it does poorly. This is not a partisan statement — this is a sad fact, which everyone agrees with even if they may attempt to hide the agreement, because they don't like the implications.
Some things can only be done by the government — like the court-system and other law-enforcement (although the actual police could be contractors, they ought to report to and be paid by the government), the military...
But everything else — and I do mean everything: manufacturing, services, charities — ought to be privately-run by competing entities. Because switching from Coca-Cola to Pepsi (or Poland Spring) is much easier, than recalling an elected official.
For me the only deciding factor would've been, which option is more expensive. Given the fact, that enforcing the closures of places like WW2 memorial or Mount Rushmore costs a lot more, than simply letting them be, the current Administration is doing exactly the opposite of what I would've done.
That it is also the first Administration to do so — most of the places in question continued to operate during all previous shutdowns — the conclusion is clear: Obama et al. are deliberately making the shutdown more painful, than it needs to be.
Given that it is Obama's responsibility, as the head of the Executive branch, to make the government operate as good as it can under any circumstances (regardless of who is "at fault"), the term "dereliction of duty" comes immediately to mind. And stays there...
If, as Illiberals outside and inside /. are explaining, the government must not only declare various facilities — like monuments and parks — closed, but actively enforce the closures of not just the federal facilities themselves, but also of anything remotely connected (such as private motels and other concessions located on Federal land), why should any facility, that is required to be actively supervised by Federal employees remain open?
And I don't mean just the power plants — no meat should be sold, because Department of Agriculture can't inspect it, for example...
Do I want it to happen? No... But, for me to accept the infamous closures of parks and memorials (which always remained open during all previous shutdowns) as anything other than capricious, it must happen.
And yet, we distinguish Senators from Congressmen. You are hairsplitting and know it. Worse, the distinction you are attempting to make is without difference... You blamed Republicans for not passing the budget. That was completely and demonstrably false — for pass it they did... Whether it is valid to refer to Senate and Congress as different entities has no bearing on this simple fact.
What's the point? The clear majority of the House would not let the Senate's amendments in. They can keep voting on it until the audience is blue in the face — and still would not fund the President's pet project...
Do you really believe, the President is not closely coordinating with the Democratic majority in Senate? No, you don't. So, you aren't really being sincere here, which leads me to inquire, why do you believe, others need to waste time reading your posts?
"Completely and demonstrably"? Please :-) And, BTW, who are these wise "we" you are talking about? Neah, don't bother, I can sense a newbie trying out "cool" debating tricks... Keep at it, you aren't doing too badly.
Nonsense. Congress — where Republicans hold a majority — passed the budget bill weeks ago. Senate and President simply don't like it and would rather have the show-down, than accept the will of the people. Yes, the will of the people — not just the RethugliKKKans in Congress, but the clear majority of citizenry want to be rid of the program, that the Republican-passed bill would not fund...
What exactly to shut-down and how to enforce it is up to the Administration. The memorials, for example, were never closed — not during any of the shut-downs we already had. That the President made sure, such places are closed — despite it costing more to enforce the closures, than to simply leave them running — is clear evidence of viciousness.
But, wait, some can still get to enter the National Mall — and even hold a rally... Must be nice to be on the President's good side... And though ordinary federal employees are warned, working would be a "federal offense", the Administration is Ok with federal officers picking up trash left by the rally.
Such selective enforcement of its own rules by the Administration is yet another evidence, it is deliberately trying to make things as painful as possible for the ordinary citizens — in the hope, that would put pressure on the opposition...
Funny, you'd call me a Collectivist, when Individualism is exactly why I came to this country.
When I moved from the USSR into Massachusetts some time ago, discussing the evil of the Soviet Union I'd usually encounter an Illiberal, who'd nod thoughtfully and state, that, yes, they also had "similar" problem in this country... Asked to clarify, such people would always bring up Joe McCarthy.
It was only years later, that I learned, that Joe McCarthy's efforts made a whopping of, at the most, several dozen people lose their jobs. Temporarily. And yet, all of these sophisticated folks considered him "similar" to the organizations, that caused not dozens, but millions of people to not become unemployed, but to die... And not for attempts to subvert their country towards the most murderous school of thought known to humanity, but for being of the wrong creed (such as descendants of nobility), or even to simply fulfill the quarterly quota of arrests and convictions...
That was when I lost most of the respect for America's "Liberalism" and turned firmly towards the Right...
Is it slander, if it is perfectly true? Unpleasant, yes, but "slander"?
To a lot of people (employers among them), having been arrested is the same (or, at best, almost the same) as having been convicted. To me, an immigrant, this was a rather unexpected (in addition to unpleasant) revelation...
Thus, even if there is an explicit statement under your picture, that you were only arrested and spent a mere 45 minutes in jail, while the bond-officer was roused to take the $40 fee for your release — and never convicted at the end — you may still prefer to get your mug removed from such a site.
But, indeed, public records should be just that — public. If FBI can see, who was ever arrested, ordinary citizens should be able to as well... Maybe, as these sites proliferate wider and deeper, Americans finally learn the difference between being accused and convicted and it stops being a big deal...
If indeed, he did receive the orders close to what is being quoted, he has very good reasons to worry about his continuing career or even employment, if he is ever deanonymized. Thus, despite his anonymity, it is quite believable. And there is other corroborating (if not outright confirming) evidence too...
For one, Congressmen have little to fear except their constituency. They are also a lot fewer in number than rangers, so they aren't hard to identify anyway. Lastly, yes, it is, of course, "created" by Republicans — in order to defeat Obamacare — and thus stabilize the country.
To summarize, some anonymous statements are believable, and some less so. Witness the occasional high-moderated Anonymous Coward post on this very site.
Yep, I know... And in order to pay for those unprofitable hook-ups, AT&T charged the others extra — because it had the monopoly power to do so. Thus it had no incentive to make services cheaper — no one could legally unseat it. Once again, America is lucky, the same thoughts were not applied to automobiles a few decades earlier — I doubt strongly, the Ford T's prices would've dropped three-fold in 7 years if they were.
You just don't get, how the markets work, do you? As some of them moved, food prices would've gone up, the incomes of the remaining farmers would've risen and they'd gradually become able to afford the phone service.
Better yet, some enterprising soul — without the shackled of AT&T's government-provided monopoly — would've figured out, how to make radio-based telephones. All the technology was already there — and widely used even before World War II. They didn't have to be portable radiophones (like cellphones today), no. But there was no need to install and maintain an actual copper wire either.
If we do that, it will forever remain costly and costlier — like the rest of public schools (four-fold increase in per-pupil annual costs since 1962!), health-care, or college education (where government-backed loans remove any incentive to lower costs), rather than ever cheaper (and better) like the aforementioned waterclosets, cars, or cellphones.