""May God exterminate Hamas!" screamed the woman in crystal-clear understanding that the terrorist band's reckless, inhuman actions had brought death to her child."
"All the world knows that Israel would give up the fight in the event Hamas stopped firing and agreed to verifiably disarm." Unfortunately, not "all," as evidenced by some of the comments here.
Let's review: According to International Law and the Geneva Conventions: It is illegal to hide ammunition and weapons among civilians. It is illegal to fire weapons from a civilian area/building. It is illegal to fight wearing civilian clothing (in this case you can immediately be executed if captured and have NO Prisoner of War status).
The responsibility for these civilian deaths lies COMPLETELY with Hamas.
Also, let's not forget that Hamas is intentionally targeting civilians.
I guess by your logic, WWII was the US's fault since we "escalated" by dropping the atomic bombs.
And Hamas definately has the ability to inflict 100:1 casualties. Strap a bomb on one "martyr" and send him into a crowded shopping mall. Unfortunately for you and Hamas, Israel has done a pretty good job recently of stopping those nutjobs before they can do any damage.
Until people like you start to recognize Hamas for what it is, and to accept Israel's right to exist and to defend itself, not much is going to change over there.
Whether or not that is true, in effect it does indeed eliminate the secret ballot.
Without the secret ballot it is really impossible to determine what the employees really want.
There is zero intimidation with a secret ballot. There is plenty without it.
The "alternative" here is Vinny standing over you, kindly "asking" you to sign the card, while his Two Goons casually twirl their baseball bats, occasionally casting a lazy glance at your kneecaps.
The proposed law would eliminate the secret ballot for union formation. Instead, employees would "freely" sign a "yes union" card, which is handed out by a union organizer. It is not secret, and is therefore naturally open to intimidation of the employee by the union organizer, or even by other employees.
The existing law does what you say. It affords them the opportunity to bargain collectively, without a union being forced on them.
However, you can't bargain collectively until more than half the workers WANT to do so.
Hence the secret ballot election under current law.
Once 50%+1 workers decide they want to organize, they have decided that they do indeed want to bargain collectively. So they form a union.
The proposed law (supported by Obama, btw) is bad because it eliminates the secret ballot and would, in effect, force a union on people. -john
Out of curiosity, how many of the people supporting this bill would have objections to management walking around a company asking employees to sign a "no" card?
You know, if you guys are so sure that all employees really want unions, explain how eliminating the secret ballot is a good thing?
The big problem with that bill is that it essentially creates a union if 50%+1 people sign a "yes to the union" card. Currently, it just means that there then has to be a vote, again by secret ballot.
How many people are really going to NOT sign that card when Vinny, surrounded by his two goons, "asks" them to sign it. After all, that's a nice car you have there. It'd be a real shame if something happened to it. And what a beautiful wife and lovely kids.
This thread should not be about the validity or need for unions. It should be about how employees should have the right to -freely- choose if they want to unionize.
And that means a vote by secret ballot. Not this new proposed method.
Because the handful of cases of actual voter fraud are a molehill next to the mountain of voter disenfranchisement. Getting enough people to show up with 'Mickey Mouse' registration cards to swing an election is an enormous task. Whereas disenfranchisement robs thousands of voters of their Constitutional rights, and the Republicans already used it to steal a presidential election.
Say it with me...
GORE LOST FLORIDA!!!
sheesh. at least come up with a rational, legitimate argument.
By your logic, any discussion of ANYone's executive or foreign policy experience is irrelevant.
Russia taking back Alaska? Hmmm. Maybe THAT'S the upcoming foreign policy crisis that Biden warned us about if Obama becomes President! Come on, the Russians would be incredibly stupid to invade Alaska if Palin were in charge.
She would kick their asses.
Obama would sit back and probably give them part of Canada, too, just to appease them.
So, if bin Laden quits now, then shows up in New York in 2031, we just give him a big hug?
Close: Obama kicked off his political career at Ayers' house. And they didn't just serve on a board together. They have associated with each other and shared ideas for years.
A reasonable person, when learning that a neighbor (or "some guy in the neighborhood" blew up the Pentagon and bombed a police station, would end all associations with that person. If for no other reason than personal safety. Obama is the son of a 60s hippie radical, who worshiped people like Ayers. Obama's continuing association with Ayers is disgusting.
You appear to be under the odd impression that a fascist state would come from the political Right.
Any fascist policies are much more likely to come from the Left.
First of all, don't forget the historical roots of the modern American Left: Communism, Fascism, Progressivism. It basically started in the early 20th century with Mussolini and Stalin. Progressives in the US even loved Hitler at one point.
You are more likely to see: We are not going to limit free speech, only dangerous, hateful speech. That's why we need gov't supervision over talk radio and internet blogs. (ie: the "Fairness" doctrine.)
Micelle Obama: "Barack is going to make you work harder." Again, sounds like fascism.
You can even see the idolization of Obama as disturbingly Hitleresque. See the youtube video above.Or Pelosi saying that god has chosen to send us Obama at this time. He will transcent politics. Bring us all together. The dawning of a new age.
Personally, I'm fed up with all this "racist" bullshit that's surrounded his nomination. Sure, nominating a black Presidential candidate is historic. Are we suddenly supposed to stop asking questions about whether this man is experienced enough or capable enough to assume the leadership of the United States of America? We are, after all, engaged in two major wars.
And yes, bi-racial community organizer guy becomes presidential candidate, that's a good story. It's like a Hollywood script, or a fairy tale where the little boy raised on a farm suddenly discovers he's really a prince. Yeah, it's a cute story, and I hate to see a good story spoiled, but our economy is facing the biggest crisis since the crash of 1929. I want somebody smart and experienced ready to take over next January.
But Obama simply isn't qualified. His performance during his numerous interviews revealed that he had virtually no understanding of American foreign policy. Anyone who regularly reads a serious news magazine like The Economist or a major newspaper like the New York Times or Washington Post would be familiar with the questions on foreign policy- Is Iran a "grave threat" or not, is he really going to invade the soverign nation of Pakistan- but Obama didn't seem to have ever thought about either before, offering different answers depending on what day it is. Obama argued, in all seriousness, that a sight-seeing trip to Europe somehow gave him some sort of experience. That's like arguing that you're ready to engage in negotiations with Putin because you saw Rocky Balboa fight Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV".
After the listening to Obama--you can watch all of his multiple stances on many issues on YouTube--only way you can argue that Obama can be taken seriously is to lower the bar. The only way you can argue that he is qualified is to argue that as an African-American, he can't be expected to have the same understanding of foreign policy as a white man. Now that is racist.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/01/06/2009-01-06_from_her_lips_to_gods_ear_the_fury_of_a_.html?page=0
""May God exterminate Hamas!" screamed the woman in crystal-clear understanding that the terrorist band's reckless, inhuman actions had brought death to her child."
"All the world knows that Israel would give up the fight in the event Hamas stopped firing and agreed to verifiably disarm." Unfortunately, not "all," as evidenced by some of the comments here.
Yes!
Joss is back!!
Way to go browncoats!!.....wait...damn....
"responsibility"?
Let's review:
According to International Law and the Geneva Conventions: It is illegal to hide ammunition and weapons among civilians. It is illegal to fire weapons from a civilian area/building. It is illegal to fight wearing civilian clothing (in this case you can immediately be executed if captured and have NO Prisoner of War status).
The responsibility for these civilian deaths lies COMPLETELY with Hamas.
Also, let's not forget that Hamas is intentionally targeting civilians.
I guess by your logic, WWII was the US's fault since we "escalated" by dropping the atomic bombs.
And Hamas definately has the ability to inflict 100:1 casualties. Strap a bomb on one "martyr" and send him into a crowded shopping mall. Unfortunately for you and Hamas, Israel has done a pretty good job recently of stopping those nutjobs before they can do any damage.
Until people like you start to recognize Hamas for what it is, and to accept Israel's right to exist and to defend itself, not much is going to change over there.
Whether or not that is true, in effect it does indeed eliminate the secret ballot.
Without the secret ballot it is really impossible to determine what the employees really want.
There is zero intimidation with a secret ballot. There is plenty without it.
The "alternative" here is Vinny standing over you, kindly "asking" you to sign the card, while his Two Goons casually twirl their baseball bats, occasionally casting a lazy glance at your kneecaps.
-john
Uhhh...from TFA:
"The bill would allow workers to organize by signing a petition, instead of through a secret ballot."
I think you're missing the point here.
The proposed law would eliminate the secret ballot for union formation. Instead, employees would "freely" sign a "yes union" card, which is handed out by a union organizer. It is not secret, and is therefore naturally open to intimidation of the employee by the union organizer, or even by other employees.
The existing law does what you say. It affords them the opportunity to bargain collectively, without a union being forced on them.
However, you can't bargain collectively until more than half the workers WANT to do so.
Hence the secret ballot election under current law.
Once 50%+1 workers decide they want to organize, they have decided that they do indeed want to bargain collectively. So they form a union.
The proposed law (supported by Obama, btw) is bad because it eliminates the secret ballot and would, in effect, force a union on people.
-john
I agree with you 100%!!
Now, let those affected vote by secret ballot.
Out of curiosity, how many of the people supporting this bill would have objections to management walking around a company asking employees to sign a "no" card?
Because it amounts to the same thing.
You'll end up with 98% for and 98% against.
You know, if you guys are so sure that all employees really want unions, explain how eliminating the secret ballot is a good thing?
The big problem with that bill is that it essentially creates a union if 50%+1 people sign a "yes to the union" card. Currently, it just means that there then has to be a vote, again by secret ballot.
How many people are really going to NOT sign that card when Vinny, surrounded by his two goons, "asks" them to sign it. After all, that's a nice car you have there. It'd be a real shame if something happened to it. And what a beautiful wife and lovely kids.
This thread should not be about the validity or need for unions. It should be about how employees should have the right to -freely- choose if they want to unionize.
And that means a vote by secret ballot. Not this new proposed method.
-john
12 years?
well he certainly wouldn't act to defend them...
Because the handful of cases of actual voter fraud are a molehill next to the mountain of voter disenfranchisement. Getting enough people to show up with 'Mickey Mouse' registration cards to swing an election is an enormous task. Whereas disenfranchisement robs thousands of voters of their Constitutional rights, and the Republicans already used it to steal a presidential election.
Say it with me...
GORE LOST FLORIDA!!!
sheesh. at least come up with a rational, legitimate argument.
By your logic, any discussion of ANYone's executive or foreign policy experience is irrelevant.
Russia taking back Alaska? Hmmm. Maybe THAT'S the upcoming foreign policy crisis that Biden warned us about if Obama becomes President! Come on, the Russians would be incredibly stupid to invade Alaska if Palin were in charge.
She would kick their asses.
Obama would sit back and probably give them part of Canada, too, just to appease them.
I'll bet it knows there are four letters in jobs, too!!
How come Clinton had "plenty" of executive and foreign policy experience, as governor of a pretty small state?
And what's wrong with seceding? We have some towns seriously thinking about seceding from Cook county here in Illinois. More power to them.
And does anybody -really- want Biden as President? Seriously. Obama--a smoker, don't forget--could keel over any day from that.
Imagine that....bringing up moral equivalency of Israel and Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. (And yes, that is exactly what you're doing.
Regarding, Ayers, read this:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html
So, if bin Laden quits now, then shows up in New York in 2031, we just give him a big hug?
Close: Obama kicked off his political career at Ayers' house. And they didn't just serve on a board together. They have associated with each other and shared ideas for years.
A reasonable person, when learning that a neighbor (or "some guy in the neighborhood" blew up the Pentagon and bombed a police station, would end all associations with that person. If for no other reason than personal safety. Obama is the son of a 60s hippie radical, who worshiped people like Ayers. Obama's continuing association with Ayers is disgusting.
oh come on.
This is slashdot, I don't need to justify any of my comments. (Tho I could.)
more independent organization picks up the story - AP, Reuters, BBC, etc.
"[M]ore independent"?!? You have GOT to be kidding me.
You mean an "independent", unbiased headline like this: Analysis: Palin's words carry racial tinge. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93KD6Q00&show_article=1
So...bringing up Obama's close relationship with unrepentant terrorist Ayers is now racist?!? You have got to be kidding me.
I'm only surprised that you didn't mention CNN as another "independent" news organization.
-john
How DARE you ask someone to provide ID?! Or to certify that they're a US citizen?!?
Stop intimidating people! You and your right-wing repupliKKKan friends are just trying to bring back the Jim Crow laws!!
Funny how often "Hope" & "Change" seem to involve stealing, lying, and trampling all over democracy, law, equality, justice and the Constitution...
Where's Jim Johnson?
Hmm.....
You also forget that groups like ACORN essentially used Jessie Jackson like tactics to threaten banks to make bad loans.
And democrats blocked regulation reforms.
Do work for the Obama campaign?
Or do you just worship him?
If something similar happened in America,
You appear to be under the odd impression that a fascist state would come from the political Right.
Any fascist policies are much more likely to come from the Left.
First of all, don't forget the historical roots of the modern American Left: Communism, Fascism, Progressivism. It basically started in the early 20th century with Mussolini and Stalin. Progressives in the US even loved Hitler at one point.
You are more likely to see: We are not going to limit free speech, only dangerous, hateful speech. That's why we need gov't supervision over talk radio and internet blogs. (ie: the "Fairness" doctrine.)
Look at the Obama youth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy09UpI60F8
Brownshirts all over again.
Micelle Obama: "Barack is going to make you work harder." Again, sounds like fascism.
You can even see the idolization of Obama as disturbingly Hitleresque. See the youtube video above.Or Pelosi saying that god has chosen to send us Obama at this time. He will transcent politics. Bring us all together. The dawning of a new age.
Scary.
-john
OK, granted, Bush deserves a lot of blame for that rotten bill, but let's not forget Pelosi & Reid both wanted that thing passed as well.
Unfortunately, both of them still have some time left in govt.
Don't you dare try and lay this whole thing at the feet of Bush.
-john
oh just wait. :)
a bit late, but see my reply to the flyingsquid.
Personally, I'm fed up with all this "racist" bullshit that's surrounded his nomination. Sure, nominating a black Presidential candidate is historic. Are we suddenly supposed to stop asking questions about whether this man is experienced enough or capable enough to assume the leadership of the United States of America? We are, after all, engaged in two major wars.
And yes, bi-racial community organizer guy becomes presidential candidate, that's a good story. It's like a Hollywood script, or a fairy tale where the little boy raised on a farm suddenly discovers he's really a prince. Yeah, it's a cute story, and I hate to see a good story spoiled, but our economy is facing the biggest crisis since the crash of 1929. I want somebody smart and experienced ready to take over next January.
But Obama simply isn't qualified. His performance during his numerous interviews revealed that he had virtually no understanding of American foreign policy. Anyone who regularly reads a serious news magazine like The Economist or a major newspaper like the New York Times or Washington Post would be familiar with the questions on foreign policy- Is Iran a "grave threat" or not, is he really going to invade the soverign nation of Pakistan- but Obama didn't seem to have ever thought about either before, offering different answers depending on what day it is. Obama argued, in all seriousness, that a sight-seeing trip to Europe somehow gave him some sort of experience. That's like arguing that you're ready to engage in negotiations with Putin because you saw Rocky Balboa fight Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV".
After the listening to Obama--you can watch all of his multiple stances on many issues on YouTube--only way you can argue that Obama can be taken seriously is to lower the bar. The only way you can argue that he is qualified is to argue that as an African-American, he can't be expected to have the same understanding of foreign policy as a white man. Now that is racist.
Better?
-john
OMG!
I forgot about the Global Warming(tm) hysteria!
"Republicans cause Global Warming(tm) and hate polar bears!"
Well, maybe not.....but that's besides the point.
He is correct, after all.
Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, FDR, US Progressives...all share a common idea base.
Common up thru the national socialism vs international socialism schism anyways.
But, yes, the modern Democrat party has foundations in the old Progressive party