Did you say Dissent? As in: a sentiment or philosophy of non-agreement or opposition to an idea (eg. a government's policies) or an entity (eg. an individual or political party which supports such policies)? Over criticism of a local Dunkin Donuts?
Now, I happened to know people, who were dissenting with Soviet Russia (yes, that one) by signing their names on letters to foreign governments, the UN, and NGOs exposing USSR's abuses of human rights, for example. They faced not just potential monetary loss for defamation, but incarceration (in extremely hostile camps), forced "medical" treatments, beatings, and death. It never even occurred to them to try to be anonymous...
Are you sure, the term "Dissent" is appropriate here?
If they've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?
Yes, as a matter of fact, if they speak ill of me, they better be able to back it up and repeat it in my face. There is a good reason, an accused has the right to face their accuser in a US court.
So you have an illegal that lives on 40% of his income.
Uhm, $1000 per week means just over $4000 per month. Of that he was sending a $600 back to his family. That's 15%, not 60%. And not "most" of his income. The rest of your rant is thus irrelevant.
The article was talking about a Miami construction market — perhaps, the rates in Texas were lower. It may also be (in fact, it is likely), that he was working legally (or else he would've, likely, shied away from a reporter). Not sure.
That's still $7,200 a year, plus whatever he spends in mexico while visiting family and buying them gifts there.
Yes, but it is still far from "most" of what he is earning...
almost all construction and restaurant jobs are held by illegal immigrants, who send most of the money home to Mexico
Most? Really? I don't think so... An immigrant construction worker I read about recently (in Economist, I think), was making $1000 per week, sending $600 per month to his wife and children back home. Hardly "most".
(Because of the economic downturn, according to the article, the guy's last transfer was only $100.)
Would you be able to substantiate your statement? Thanks...
There are many people who are foreign exchange students, VISA workers, and others who are able to use AT&T service with no SSN.
At least one of the SIM-cards used by Mumbai terrorists was purchased in the US (New Jersey)...
No, I'm not saying, it should be necessary to submit everything to a cell-phone provider — that's how things are in less free countries like India or Australia. But it is still interesting...
Finally after 25 minutes of phonecalls and I don't know how far up the chain they had to go, they ran into someone that knew the law. "she's right, we cannot demand her SSN as a condition for getting the card." (you cannot simply say "well it's your right not to give out your SSN but if you don't, we won't give you this card") She was issued an alternate unique identification number.
This is very interesting... I once responded with a "Yes" to a bank's (Capital One) offer of a credit card for my business (not even me). Well, they wanted my SSN anyway. I refused and they rejected my "pre-approved" application. I filed a complaint (on the bank-provided form), and, eventually, the government told me, the bank is within their right to deny the application. It wouldn't even have bothered me that much, if it was for the fact, that I was, supposedly, "pre-approved"...
Your story, if true, would place it in a different light. But it may also be, that the store has run a credit-check on your grandma during all those phone-calls, was able to identify her by other parameters (name, address), and was satisfied with her credit-record...
Because I'd be a bit unnerved, if, for example, I was legally-obligated to provide rental housing, for example, without a credit check. It is a lot harder for a landlord to terminate an agreement with tenant, than it is for a bank to cancel a credit-card...
Do you believe in imaginary property or something? Information wants to be free, you know... New York County Lawyer will be helping your University (or whoever else gets a hold of your code) to dodge any and all legal challenges you may pursue — you wouldn't even know, who they are, because the University will bravely refuse your subpoenas against John (and Jane) Does.
In case with Stalin, a case could be made for genocide.
Stalin remains a rather controversial figure — due to the atrocities — which is why, I didn't list him.
To History, his [Hitler's -mi] only mortal sin was loosing.
Napoleon lost too, but remains quite a hero. Viciousness of the rule is certainly a factor — although not above occasional mass-murder (such as in Jaffa), Napoleon was quite decent as far as rulers go, and not too obviously a war-criminal.
In other words, you are being too harsh on Clio — she is more selective than you are giving her credit for.
I criticise the Israeli army for shooting journalists in the West Bank, it doesn't mean that I support Palestinian suicide bombers
These two are not related.
So I don't like Guantanamo... but we didn't ask the Indian navy to shoot up some pirate ships either and leave them all for dead.
These two are directly related, as explained in my article. There are only three things, that can be done to losers of a battle:
Let them go (this is done to qualified Prisoners of War after the war ends).
Detain them until a trial of some sort.
Kill them or let them die.
Talking about (alleged) terrorists and (alleged) pirates, the first one is a no due to the gravity of the allegation. The second is what the evil AmeriKKKa is doing (and will continue to do — welcome to the real world, Obama-fans). So, the third option was deemed the easiest by the India's Navy...
And it would've worked perfectly well, if that particular ship have not turned-out to be a Thai vessel, full of innocents...
It may surprise you to know that the Indian government doesn't know what I think about the issue and wouldn't give a flying fuck if they did.
Oh, it certainly does not give a grain of basmati over what you think. But it is no less certain, that they are well-aware of the world's opinion of Guantanamo. People like yourself hate the prison with passion, and, except the minority like myself, fail to acknowledge the absence of a viable alternative.
Now that Obama is almost President, expect to see justifications for the prison's continuing existence from the same papers and TV-stations, that helped him pound on Bush and McCain on the issue. Poor fishermen should be safer.
WOW! Something that my tax dollars pay for that MIGHT actually benefit me? Neat-o.
You are, certainly, correct, that public roads are enough of a disaster, that you may not benefit from them. But what makes you think, the free WiFi will be any better?
At least, with the roads, the excuse for government's involvement is that there can't really be competing private roads for the same destinations, and thus free market (which requires competition) can't be used to build and maintain them efficiently.
What "pro-union legislation" are you referring to?
I'm talking about legislation, that recognizes unions as something special, something beyond, what simple freedom of association gives people.
For example, if the majority of workers in a particular workplace decide to unionize, the immediately obtain certain legal rights.
In a better world, these groups would be treated to "RICO" trust-busting and anti-racketeering laws, because trusts is what they are. Sellers of labor should have no more rights to unionize, than sellers of bread or auto-tires. A mega-union such as UAW has certainly reached a point, where it should be forcibly broken up by trust-busters.
Do you have a reliable source for your insinuation that unions have somehow caused American corporations to have a high tax rate?
I never made that claim. The unions are (unfairly) crippling the corporations, that was my point. They are crippling the economies of the regions too by preventing viable alternatives from coming into existence, because competing with the unionized auto-factory wage is nearly impossible, but that's a different topic.
Actually, that's the first time I've heard the term, so that may be a good question.
Then you haven't been paying attention. 33700 web-page hits returned by Google for the term "Bushitler", plus 618000 images comparing the President to Fuhrer. Godwin's Law has been officially suspended since 2001, and remains so to this day, although now that Obama is closing in on the office, indignant intelligentsia may start calling for the law to be restored. Having, at best, looked the other way, as the previous president was compared to Hitler, you are now expecting me to follow the best scholarly practices examining the next one — and most of what his supporters stand for? No way. He certainly quacks like a duck...
Let's examine one of your Hitler quotes, "We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class." That would obviously fall under Socialism, because the government is supplying the distribution of goods necessary to maintain the healthy middle class. That would not fall under fascism
So, Hitler's own proclamations make him not quite Fascist, as far as your definition is concerned. Awesome. May I suggest, something is wrong with the definition, perhaps? Let's not split hairs, though. The point was and remains thus: Fascism and Socialism are not at all opposites.
Slashdot Mirror
Until they realize, that they can sell only one copy this way...
I read the article in the Economist — one discussing Miami's recent construction boom and the current bust. That's where the figures are from...
Did you say Dissent? As in: a sentiment or philosophy of non-agreement or opposition to an idea (eg. a government's policies) or an entity (eg. an individual or political party which supports such policies)? Over criticism of a local Dunkin Donuts?
Now, I happened to know people, who were dissenting with Soviet Russia (yes, that one) by signing their names on letters to foreign governments, the UN, and NGOs exposing USSR's abuses of human rights, for example. They faced not just potential monetary loss for defamation, but incarceration (in extremely hostile camps), forced "medical" treatments, beatings, and death. It never even occurred to them to try to be anonymous...
Are you sure, the term "Dissent" is appropriate here?
Yes, as a matter of fact, if they speak ill of me, they better be able to back it up and repeat it in my face. There is a good reason, an accused has the right to face their accuser in a US court.
Uhm, $1000 per week means just over $4000 per month. Of that he was sending a $600 back to his family. That's 15%, not 60%. And not "most" of his income. The rest of your rant is thus irrelevant.
I'm quite certain, it was in one of the recent Economists, but I'm too lazy to search for it.
The article was talking about a Miami construction market — perhaps, the rates in Texas were lower. It may also be (in fact, it is likely), that he was working legally (or else he would've, likely, shied away from a reporter). Not sure.
Yes, but it is still far from "most" of what he is earning...
Most? Really? I don't think so... An immigrant construction worker I read about recently (in Economist, I think), was making $1000 per week, sending $600 per month to his wife and children back home. Hardly "most".
(Because of the economic downturn, according to the article, the guy's last transfer was only $100.)
Would you be able to substantiate your statement? Thanks...
It is called "defaulting". A similar thing happens, when you win, say, a traffic ticket, because the cop fails to show up at court.
Without the threat of losing for not showing up, why would anyone show up?
At least one of the SIM-cards used by Mumbai terrorists was purchased in the US (New Jersey)...
No, I'm not saying, it should be necessary to submit everything to a cell-phone provider — that's how things are in less free countries like India or Australia. But it is still interesting...
This is very interesting... I once responded with a "Yes" to a bank's (Capital One) offer of a credit card for my business (not even me). Well, they wanted my SSN anyway. I refused and they rejected my "pre-approved" application. I filed a complaint (on the bank-provided form), and, eventually, the government told me, the bank is within their right to deny the application. It wouldn't even have bothered me that much, if it was for the fact, that I was, supposedly, "pre-approved"...
Your story, if true, would place it in a different light. But it may also be, that the store has run a credit-check on your grandma during all those phone-calls, was able to identify her by other parameters (name, address), and was satisfied with her credit-record...
Because I'd be a bit unnerved, if, for example, I was legally-obligated to provide rental housing, for example, without a credit check. It is a lot harder for a landlord to terminate an agreement with tenant, than it is for a bank to cancel a credit-card...
Maybe, reality has an anti-vaccine bias? No, can't be... It is too busy being liberal-biased, is not it?
After reading this I felt a hard-on, but then realized, it was my labia moistening... Oh, wait...
Did the lady being defended by valiant students and faculty actually infringe on RIAA's intellectual property?
Thought again... And again... Nothing... What predation are you talking about? Microsoft's is well known:
What has Google done to justify being called equally predatory?
Do you believe in imaginary property or something? Information wants to be free, you know... New York County Lawyer will be helping your University (or whoever else gets a hold of your code) to dodge any and all legal challenges you may pursue — you wouldn't even know, who they are, because the University will bravely refuse your subpoenas against John (and Jane) Does.
How did you come up with that figure of 1 in 1,000,000,000?
Clio is the Muse of History. She cares about more than loosing...
Stalin remains a rather controversial figure — due to the atrocities — which is why, I didn't list him.
Napoleon lost too, but remains quite a hero. Viciousness of the rule is certainly a factor — although not above occasional mass-murder (such as in Jaffa), Napoleon was quite decent as far as rulers go, and not too obviously a war-criminal.
In other words, you are being too harsh on Clio — she is more selective than you are giving her credit for.
These two are not related.
These two are directly related, as explained in my article. There are only three things, that can be done to losers of a battle:
Talking about (alleged) terrorists and (alleged) pirates, the first one is a no due to the gravity of the allegation. The second is what the evil AmeriKKKa is doing (and will continue to do — welcome to the real world, Obama-fans). So, the third option was deemed the easiest by the India's Navy...
And it would've worked perfectly well, if that particular ship have not turned-out to be a Thai vessel, full of innocents...
Oh, it certainly does not give a grain of basmati over what you think. But it is no less certain, that they are well-aware of the world's opinion of Guantanamo. People like yourself hate the prison with passion, and, except the minority like myself, fail to acknowledge the absence of a viable alternative.
Now that Obama is almost President, expect to see justifications for the prison's continuing existence from the same papers and TV-stations, that helped him pound on Bush and McCain on the issue. Poor fishermen should be safer.
You are, certainly, correct, that public roads are enough of a disaster, that you may not benefit from them. But what makes you think, the free WiFi will be any better?
At least, with the roads, the excuse for government's involvement is that there can't really be competing private roads for the same destinations, and thus free market (which requires competition) can't be used to build and maintain them efficiently.
There is no such justification for WiFi.
Bonuses are a red herring. Simply too small to matter.
I agree, actually. They should fail. The debate is about lessons to draw: whom to blame now, and what not to do later.
Already looked into and discussed.
What's the rate for years of living in the USSR? 3:1?
I'm talking about legislation, that recognizes unions as something special, something beyond, what simple freedom of association gives people.
For example, if the majority of workers in a particular workplace decide to unionize, the immediately obtain certain legal rights.
In a better world, these groups would be treated to "RICO" trust-busting and anti-racketeering laws, because trusts is what they are. Sellers of labor should have no more rights to unionize, than sellers of bread or auto-tires. A mega-union such as UAW has certainly reached a point, where it should be forcibly broken up by trust-busters.
I never made that claim. The unions are (unfairly) crippling the corporations, that was my point. They are crippling the economies of the regions too by preventing viable alternatives from coming into existence, because competing with the unionized auto-factory wage is nearly impossible, but that's a different topic.
Then you haven't been paying attention. 33700 web-page hits returned by Google for the term "Bushitler", plus 618000 images comparing the President to Fuhrer. Godwin's Law has been officially suspended since 2001, and remains so to this day, although now that Obama is closing in on the office, indignant intelligentsia may start calling for the law to be restored. Having, at best, looked the other way, as the previous president was compared to Hitler, you are now expecting me to follow the best scholarly practices examining the next one — and most of what his supporters stand for? No way. He certainly quacks like a duck...
So, Hitler's own proclamations make him not quite Fascist, as far as your definition is concerned. Awesome. May I suggest, something is wrong with the definition, perhaps? Let's not split hairs, though. The point was and remains thus: Fascism and Socialism are not at all opposites.
If you want to play with political affiliations, try to guess, whose quote this is.
No, he was not. And I didn't imply, that he was... I'm glad, though, you found no other things in my posting to object to. Thanks.
I strongly suspect, that my own life experience has already provided me with far more clues for Left-bashing, than you'll ever have...