According to the Constitution, treaties, along with the Constitution and laws created under the Constitution, "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." So while treaties are not internationally binding, treaties that the US are signatories to essentially become US law.
Very good point. However, the Constitution is referring to treaties in a domestic context. In other words, if the US were to sign a treaty enumerating women's rights, the US would be bound to do so within it's borders, unless an individual state passes a law stating otherwise. You only selected enough of the paragraph to prove your point.
"shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In other words, your justification for 'international' law can be overruled by any state in The Union. The reason? Well, the president can sign treaties without consent of congress, so in the US treaties do not have a strong footing. Do you really want Bush to be able to dictacte LAW to us? I didn't think so.
The treaty powers are also secondary to the Constitution, so the president can't sign a treaty if it in any way can't pass Constitutional muster.
And those that shamelessly ass-lick everything that the US does (Britain, for one) no matter how inconsiderate it is to international laws makes it something to think about.
Ok, class. One more time. There is no such thing as international law. There are international treaties, such as the UN charter...but a law a treaty does not make.
To have a law assumes that there is some governmental body to enforce that law. The UN is not a government entity. It is a forum for discussing various issues in an international setting, yet no country has surrendered it's sovreignty to the UN (although I feel that many would like to).
I don't hate the UN, I just think people should look at it for what it really is.
That's fucking stupid. Government assistance programs are optional. So these people may have some illogical stigma against receiving a helping hand, but no one's going to force money down their throats.
Hmm...no...it's not. They don't believe in these programs at all! They don't believe the masses should sit with their collective hands held out while the members of the working class are working themselves so hard to try to make it from day to day. Government assistance programs are optional on the receiving end, but the IRS certainly does not regard them as optional.
Many people who would call themselves poor are not really poor. If you have a cell phone and two cars, you're not poor.
If people will wake up and realize that voting for Bush without understanding the issues is killing our country, then perhapse they will change... but until then bush can look forward to having all the bible thumpers under his belt, and abusing his power more and more. Ah well, personally, I think you should have to have a slashdot account to vote this year.
It seems as though the parent poster is a little biased against Christians, but that seems to be just fine with today's rules of political correctness.
The reason many poor people support Bush is not because they are Christians, it is because they don't want handouts from the Dems. I know...I grew up poor and I understand the pride of poor families.
Many Christians don't support Bush because of his religious beliefs, they support him because they have similar points of view on various issues.
They agree with him on abortion because they believe (on ethical grounds) that abortion is murder. Many non-christians also share this belief.
They agree with him on stem cell research because they feel that using human empryos for science is unethical.
These are two hot-button issues with many conservatives today, but that's not the issue.
I am a Christian and a card-carrying member of the libertarian party. I disagree with Bush on many issues including going to Iraq, the PATRIOT act, etc. I think that you Christian-bashers should seriously consider thinking of some more derogatory terms for us...the bible-thumper thing is really starting to get old.
Over half the population is female. Do you honestly believe that in the history of that institution, Dr. Hockfield is really the first and only qualified woman to emerge? If not, then please conjecture as to why her 15 predecessors were all male
No, but for every one female qualified for that position, there are probably 100 males.
Yeah, well as much fun as it is to be "politically incorrect" or whatever, men don't need promoting because they are doing just fine. Women still get the short end of the stick in this country. They earn less money than men for the same job positions, and get treated like sex objects. People expect them to be pretty and dumb.
The status quo is unacceptable, and idealistic views (such as claiming that promoting women is sexist) aren't doing anything to help.
There is no problem with promoting women, but singling out women and promoting them for being women is just as bad as NOT promoting them for being women. Why can't people understand that it doesn't matter if you're 'helping' people or being 'sensitive' to women's needs or fighting for the 'common good'. What matters is that by promoting someone because of some demographic trait means that someone who would have otherwise been promoted will now not be simply because they were the wrong gender/ethnicity/whatever.
Don't you think a person's individual accomplishments should mean more than their genetic structure? And please, allow me to pre-empt the argument: There are NEVER, EVER two people who are equally qualified for a position. Gender/ethnicity/sexual preference/cause du jour should never factor in. Yes, unfortunately it does play a factor far too often by bigots, but I dare say that people who support racial/gender quotas are no more admirable.
I wonder how many slashdotters are reading this thinking that I'm a racist, sexist homophobe for asserting that race, gender or sexual preference should never be considered when applying for a position. What a strange world we are becoming.
This has little to do with political correctness, and a lot to do with challenging prejudiced cultural beliefs
You mean prejudiced cultural beliefs like the one that all white men are privileged and therefore everyone else deserves more chances than them (more points on college admission formulas, for example) to succeed?
I don't think it counts as prejudice if it is the result of an honest study. Of course, studying issues such as this properly is exceedingly hard.
Any study can be done with bias and almost no study can represent the 'big picture'.
For example, the parent poster did not mention anything about productivity. Is it possible that the people working for women chiefs in the paper industry were generally happier because they weren't being pushed as hard and weren't being as productive? Yes, it's possible. I'm not saying that this is a trait of female management, I'm just simply pointing out that studies that focus on specifics generally are done without regard for the 'big picture'.
Generally technology field has been boys club and most women around are usually surnamed.jpg. Women at workplace usually balance the atmosphere towards more positive. In paper industry, some studies have shown that departments lead by female chiefs, run more efficiently and have less disputes among workers.
I don't understand how we can look at gender in the workplace as being a positive thing (as in your example) but not also use it with the negative. For example, you would never hear someone say, "In X industry, some studies have shown that departments lead by female chiefs, run less efficiently and have more disputes among workers".
I guess it simply follows the tried and true rules of political correctness in the US: As long as you're basing your opinions of prejudice against white males, you're not really discriminating.
And yes, that's exactly what the above opinion does. It basically says that women chiefs/department heads/whatever create a better work environment than men -- prejudice.
In fact, if it were not the case, the State would have neglected it's very basic duty, namely to insure the common good
This may be the purpose of other nations, but it isn't the purpose of the US. The Constitution of the US preserves individual rights and makes no mention of the common good. The only thing close is in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Hey, I bet this could easily be adapted to show the images reflected in the curved visors of the Apollo Astronauts to prove once and for all that it was all faked!
Not everyone can move up to better paying jobs. That is a pipe dream fed to many Americans by propoganda. If everyone left the low wage jobs, who would be there to perform those services?
Hmm...
I guess I'm just 'lucky' then? Hmm...you'll have to explain to me then why the hell I cried myself to sleep in college because I didn't think I was going to ever finish. Or why I lived off of peanut butter sandwiches for 4 years. Luck has nothing to do with it.
I've already stated the programs that allow people to move up. Here in Georgia, we have the Hope grant that will give VIRTUALLY ANY GEORGIA RESIDENT money to go to college or a vocational school to learn a trade. Barring some mental disorder, anyone should be able to take advantage of one of these programs. All you have to do is turn off the television and GO DO IT.
It's not propoganda. It's the truth. No offense to your father, but with the military (yes, even the Reserves) he should be getting the GI Bill ($40,000 for college or vocational training).
If he has cable television, he could cancel it and it would save him $40 bucks a month...
There's a nice insurance policy there.
Again, no offense to your father, but his health insurance is NOT his employer's responsibility, it's his. Employer paid health insurance is a BENEFIT, it's not a RIGHT.
Bullshit. They live in a first-world country, the woman didn't *ASK* for her husband to be killed, society should have taken care of her.
No one *ASKS* for their house to burn down. Should the the government (or as you put it, society) be responsible for helping a family if their burns to the ground? (answer: NO)
Should the government pay for your auto insurance? Why shouldn't they have to pay for the car. Hell, why am I even working? The government should give ma a nice comfortable life even if I just decide to sit on my lazy ass all day long.
Bullshit. They live in a first-world country, the woman didn't *ASK* for her husband to be killed, society should have taken care of her.
they're at fault, NOT THE REPUBLICANS.
Spoken like a true republican. "It's not *our* fault people who are poor can't provide for themselves."
You're right. No one (who isn't a murderer) asks for their spouse to be killed. I'm saying that in all likelyhood, they could afford a life insurance policy. I have a couple of policies. One is a $100,000 policy that costs us $15/month. I got the policy when I was 19. I still have it at 27 and the premium hasn't changed a bit.
Are you telling me that 'poor' people can't afford $15 a month? The assumption made by the parent poster was that the family was doing well financially until the husband died. If they were doing well financially before he died, they should have been doing well afterword.
It's not the taxpayers' responsibility to take care of people. The purpose of government is to set up a system where we can take care of ourselves. This is why we have insurance reguations and insurance commisioners. They are there to ensure that we are able to buy insurance for ourselves.
When will socialists understand that surrendering money to the government is surrendering power to them...power that is used to buy votes with income redistribution programs. Power to wage wars that the socialists disgree with. Come 'on folks.
Robin Hood has no place in government. Government is about law and order, not benevolance. If you're feeling so generous toward that poor woman and her children, YOU give them some money. Don't force me to do so with the IRS's gun stuck to my head. It's a simple concept called freedom. Freedom to me means freedom from government.
It always makes me laugh a little when socialists start railing fiscal conservatives (and no, I can't STAND Bush) for being 'uncaring' or something similar. The fact is that I was born dir poor in a house in rural Georgia. My brothers and I spent our childhood helping my mother take care of my father who developed a mental disability after we were born. We were dirt poor.
When I got older, I made the decision that I wasn't going to be poor anymore. I went to college with $200 in my pocket that I had saved working at a local fast-food restaurant and worked my way through college. I finished with the BSCS in 3.5 years. I now have a decent job and make a comfortable living.
Don't tell me the sad stories about being poor. I've already lived them. I understand them more than you will ever know. Poverty is a state of mind. And yes, it is a state that is easily achieved at the hands of great despair...yet it is possible to overcome it when you make the mental leap of deciding that you are no longer going to be poor.
In other countries, for one reason or another, people are resigned to living in poverty. In the US, we have more programs than one can shake a stick at that will get people out of poverty. I used federal students loans which I will finish paying off later this year. This is the type of assistance I agree with...not giving man a fish, but teaching him to fish.
Ok, how about the woman with two kids whose husband was killed in a car accident? is that a lifestyle choice? that's my neighbor. the little pittance she got from his life insurance paid for the funeral and paid off the car and three months' mortgage. had to sell her house and get a second job. moved to where i am (a shitty area, I'm only here to use the maximum of my money for schooling) and is on TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) and food stamps, and when the TANF runs out, she'll have to try to get AFDC (aid to families with dependent children), which is not as easy as people believe.
people down on their luck aren't always "whores". In fact, if you'll consult the 2000 census, you'll see that the majority of welfare recipients are, contrary to what the Republican liars tell you, white rural families, not inner-city black single mothers who "can't keep their legs together".
Damn you unfeeling bastards and your unfair stereotypes.
Sad story. It really is. The only completely innocent people here are the childen. Sorry, but the family should have had life insurance. If it wasn't enough, they should have moved to a smaller house when he was alive in order to afford good life insurance. It's amazing how much money you can save by doing small things every month. If they had cell phones and inadequate insurance coverage, they're at fault, NOT THE REPUBLICANS.
I'm not rich, but if I died today our house would be paid for and my wife could make it on her own. I've made sure of it. We don't yet have children, but getting life insurance EARLY in life helps keeps premiums down as one gets older. Taking care of a family in the event of an untimely death is the responsibility of every parent. If you can't adequately prepare, don't have children. Life insurance coverage should be on par with being able to afford diapers in the decision-making process.
This is a new variant on the "strangest place you've ever had sex" question. I guess with us nerds, reading Slashdot and having sex are somewhat interchangeable.
You make good points. However, it is important to note that the US legal system is based on Case Law (rulings and findings from similar cases). It is not appropriate for Judges/legal counsel to be using decisions from other countries in providing the legal basis for a case or decision.
The US legal system is quite unique in the world. Europe has turned into a collection of Social Democracies. The US has a Constitution built on individual, not social rights and responsibilities . Clearly these two are at odds and provide the very framework of our respective legal systems. Any case not questioning the framework could probably be supported by domestic cases. The US is fast approaching 300 million people, whatever it is, it's most likely been covered here before.
It can't be used as formal precedent, but international law and court decisions can, and often are, cited as supporting arguments in a court's decision.
Which is rather sad. In spite of the nice feeling of togetherness such logic makes, it is inherently wrong. The purpose of any court is to determine the application of a particular law to a particular situation or in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, to test the legality of a law under the U.S. Constitution. Foreign rulings on similar cases should have no bearing.
I remember a while back there was a stink in the US about the Supremes referencing the laws in another country. Rather sad, honestly. They should simply look at weather or not a law violates the configuration of government and individual (not societal) rights enumerated by the Constitution, which is something they seem to be failing to do as of late.
I'm not claiming that a country should be so arrogant as to never study the laws or rulings in another country, but that should be reserved for students and lawmakers, not judges.
Actually, I remember reading where in the UK there are vans that drive around with specialized equipment detecting TV's to ensure that anyone with a television is paying their TV tax.
You've gotta love government. Is there anything the government won't tax?
I understand that television in the UK is run differently than here in the states, but Japan taxing 802.11x? I understand taxes when the government actually has a legitimate reason taxing a product or service (i.e. the taxes on gasoline pay for roads). But, the government of Japan had nothing to do with the creation of WLAN technologies. They only gave their nod to the bit of the spectrum used.
But if every aggressive idiot who drives a black BMW (at least that is what the aggressive idiots drive in the UK, it may be different in the US) gets their hands on an aircraft instead,
You know, it sounds to me that your problem isn't so much with airplanes as it is class warfare. You seem to take great pride in using the government to limit the activities of others. The fact is, there is no virtually no danger to people on the ground from light aircraft and there is almost not risk to airliners. You need to get a bloody clue, friend.
BTW most of Europe, Australia and a number of other countries regard the FAA as very lax, their standards are not nearly as high as elsewhere in terms of aircraft design for example, it is the fact that most manufacturers do need to sell their aircraft worldwide that keeps standards up. And yes, before you ask, I have been directly involved in getting aircraft systems certified, I do know whose regulations and procedures were the toughest, and whose were simply designed to keep the lawyers busy.
BTW: You do KNOW that there is a large number of UK pilots (and from other countries) that come to the US for flight training because it has the most free (read: liberty) airspace system in the world, don't you? We don't tax the hell out of it which helps to keep it affordable for more people.
Most airpline pilots in the entire world get their training in the US.
As much as the term may be overused by politicians, freedom is something that we really cherish here. Why not make the sky's free? You've provided no evidence that there is any inherent danger in allowing private pilots (or LSA pilots) to fly their airplanes.
The airspace system has worked quite well and continues to work quite well here. We have more airports here than any other place in the world. Check out this map of all of the airports in the country. It may suprise you.
Oh yeah, you seem to make the assumption that a more restrictive regulations on private aircraft implies better safety. I say more restrictive policies do nothing but provide government employees jobs.
Actually, your comment is completely ridiculous. You're right, there was a collision between an airliner and a private airplane. Who's fault was it? The fault was placed on the airline pilot, not the private pilot.
As I recall, it was near an airport. The tower told the airliner to look for the traffic. The airliner responded that they had visual separation with the private plane. The private plane continued on it's given course and the airliner struck the private aircraft. The pilots of the airliner were responsible because they were supposed to be maintaining 'visual separation'.
Your post also demonstrates your complete lack of awareness of how the Federal Airspace System works. As a pilot, I can tell you that mid-airs between LSA (light-sport-aircraft) and airliners will most likely never happen. Airliners cruise at 18,000/ft and above and LSA aircraft will be lucky to cruise at 8,000/ft. Any aircraft entering class B or C airspace (the airspace around busy airports) will be under RADAR survelliance and will be seen as soon as they breach the airspace. There are generally three or four controllers watching airspace around busy airports. They usually get one small section of airspace to monitor so they know what every plane in their airspace is doing.
LSA aircraft will not be using large airports. They will be using smaller community airports.
Get a grip man, and don't complain about things you DON'T understand because it tends to just create FUD (and therefore difficulty) for those of us that enjoy flying.
I do about 600 tax returns a year, and I only do a single return for someone making over $50k/year. A person making $100k/year is very rare and certainly not middle class. Someone making that much money can easily afford a nice house. The average person can't afford any type of house.
Where do you live? My parents just bought a brand new house making $25,000 a year total. There's always a way.
Also, what in the heck do these "middle class" people do in your world to make those huge amounts of money? I have a PhD in EE, and I'm making about $25k/year at SED. I work three months a year for a CPA doing tax returns for extra money. Even the CPA's I work for don't make nearly as much as what you're calling average.
Hmm..maybe that's because people who are less intelligent are less likely to do their own tax returns? No one making less than $50k needs to hire a CPA for a tax return. I would guess that people that make more than that are more likely to take care of their finances a little better.
Well, I write software and my wife is a government employee (she has a master's degree, I have a BSCS). Together we make well over 100,000/yr. The original poster was talking about 'families' making over 100k, and that's not that uncommon.
If you're telling the truth and you have a PhD in EE and are making $25k/yr, that no one's fault but your own. You can still easily make $60,000/yr+ in Atlanta (where I live) writing software.
Generally I try to ignore such ignorant class-warfare provoking comments, but since you're touching on a subject which means a lot to me and spouting off comments on things you apparantly have no clue about.....here we go.
First of all, you make the assumption that only rich people are interested in the Sport Pilot certificate or LSA (light sport aircraft). On the contrary, this initiative gives *more* people the ability to own and fly their own aircraft. LSA will range from $40 to $60 grand for a brand-spanking new aircraft. No, they're not cheap, but they're cheaper than a lot of new "Luxury SUVs". Plus, considering the fact that aircraft loans can be obtained for a longer period of time (5-20+ years) and that aircraft have traditionally been appreciating in price, this is something that is doable for any middle-class individual who WANTS to make it happen.
If you hang around any General Aviation airport you will see that the overwhelming majority of vehicles there are NOT hummers or other expensive cars, but they are generally very modest 5 to 10 year old vehicles.
So no, it's not for rich people -- it's for average people.
Now, as for your claim that it is dangerous for the 'rest of us', you're pretty much way off base here. Can you name the last time an unsuspecting person on the ground was killed by a falling airplane? Well, I can. It was the crash into a Queens neighborhood by American Airlines Flight 587. Was it caused by 'rich' private pilots? No. It was caused by an airliner carrying 'average people'.
As for me, I'm currently building an RV-7A homebuilt airplane in my garage. Is it cheap? No. Is it cheaper than buying a new (or used) Cessna? Yes. Am I rich? No way.
Is it safe? Absolutely.
So why not just buy an LSA? Well, the RV-7A has much wider performance envelope than LSA rules allow and is a whole lot more fun (aerobatic).
Don't hate people because they are successful and want to live out their dream of owning (in my case building) and flying their own airplane.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the Constitution, treaties, along with the Constitution and laws created under the Constitution, "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." So while treaties are not internationally binding, treaties that the US are signatories to essentially become US law.
Very good point. However, the Constitution is referring to treaties in a domestic context. In other words, if the US were to sign a treaty enumerating women's rights, the US would be bound to do so within it's borders, unless an individual state passes a law stating otherwise. You only selected enough of the paragraph to prove your point.
"shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In other words, your justification for 'international' law can be overruled by any state in The Union. The reason? Well, the president can sign treaties without consent of congress, so in the US treaties do not have a strong footing. Do you really want Bush to be able to dictacte LAW to us? I didn't think so.
The treaty powers are also secondary to the Constitution, so the president can't sign a treaty if it in any way can't pass Constitutional muster.
And those that shamelessly ass-lick everything that the US does (Britain, for one) no matter how inconsiderate it is to international laws makes it something to think about.
Ok, class. One more time. There is no such thing as international law. There are international treaties, such as the UN charter...but a law a treaty does not make.
To have a law assumes that there is some governmental body to enforce that law. The UN is not a government entity. It is a forum for discussing various issues in an international setting, yet no country has surrendered it's sovreignty to the UN (although I feel that many would like to).
I don't hate the UN, I just think people should look at it for what it really is.
That's fucking stupid. Government assistance programs are optional. So these people may have some illogical stigma against receiving a helping hand, but no one's going to force money down their throats.
Hmm...no...it's not. They don't believe in these programs at all! They don't believe the masses should sit with their collective hands held out while the members of the working class are working themselves so hard to try to make it from day to day. Government assistance programs are optional on the receiving end, but the IRS certainly does not regard them as optional.
Many people who would call themselves poor are not really poor. If you have a cell phone and two cars, you're not poor.
If people will wake up and realize that voting for Bush without understanding the issues is killing our country, then perhapse they will change... but until then bush can look forward to having all the bible thumpers under his belt, and abusing his power more and more. Ah well, personally, I think you should have to have a slashdot account to vote this year.
It seems as though the parent poster is a little biased against Christians, but that seems to be just fine with today's rules of political correctness.
The reason many poor people support Bush is not because they are Christians, it is because they don't want handouts from the Dems. I know...I grew up poor and I understand the pride of poor families.
Many Christians don't support Bush because of his religious beliefs, they support him because they have similar points of view on various issues.
They agree with him on abortion because they believe (on ethical grounds) that abortion is murder. Many non-christians also share this belief.
They agree with him on stem cell research because they feel that using human empryos for science is unethical.
These are two hot-button issues with many conservatives today, but that's not the issue.
I am a Christian and a card-carrying member of the libertarian party. I disagree with Bush on many issues including going to Iraq, the PATRIOT act, etc. I think that you Christian-bashers should seriously consider thinking of some more derogatory terms for us...the bible-thumper thing is really starting to get old.
The aforementioned term springs from the same mindset from which the term "World Series" is applied to a US-only baseball league.
Watch out, the Canadians are gonna getcha! It's a North America-only league (Expos, Blue Jays are Canadian).
Over half the population is female. Do you honestly believe that in the history of that institution, Dr. Hockfield is really
the first and only qualified woman to emerge? If not, then please conjecture as to why her 15 predecessors were all male
No, but for every one female qualified for that position, there are probably 100 males.
Yeah, well as much fun as it is to be "politically incorrect" or whatever, men don't need promoting because they are doing just fine. Women still get the short end of the stick in this country. They earn less money than men for the same job positions, and get treated like sex objects. People expect them to be pretty and dumb.
The status quo is unacceptable, and idealistic views (such as claiming that promoting women is sexist) aren't doing anything to help.
There is no problem with promoting women, but singling out women and promoting them for being women is just as bad as NOT promoting them for being women. Why can't people understand that it doesn't matter if you're 'helping' people or being 'sensitive' to women's needs or fighting for the 'common good'. What matters is that by promoting someone because of some demographic trait means that someone who would have otherwise been promoted will now not be simply because they were the wrong gender/ethnicity/whatever.
Don't you think a person's individual accomplishments should mean more than their genetic structure? And please, allow me to pre-empt the argument: There are NEVER, EVER two people who are equally qualified for a position. Gender/ethnicity/sexual preference/cause du jour should never factor in. Yes, unfortunately it does play a factor far too often by bigots, but I dare say that people who support racial/gender quotas are no more admirable.
I wonder how many slashdotters are reading this thinking that I'm a racist, sexist homophobe for asserting that race, gender or sexual preference should never be considered when applying for a position. What a strange world we are becoming.
This has little to do with political correctness, and a lot to do with challenging prejudiced cultural beliefs
You mean prejudiced cultural beliefs like the one that all white men are privileged and therefore everyone else deserves more chances than them (more points on college admission formulas, for example) to succeed?
I don't think it counts as prejudice if it is the result of an honest study. Of course, studying issues such as this properly is exceedingly hard.
Any study can be done with bias and almost no study can represent the 'big picture'.
For example, the parent poster did not mention anything about productivity. Is it possible that the people working for women chiefs in the paper industry were generally happier because they weren't being pushed as hard and weren't being as productive? Yes, it's possible. I'm not saying that this is a trait of female management, I'm just simply pointing out that studies that focus on specifics generally are done without regard for the 'big picture'.
Generally technology field has been boys club and most women around are usually surnamed
Women at workplace usually balance the atmosphere towards more positive.
In paper industry, some studies have shown that departments lead by female chiefs, run more efficiently and have less disputes among workers.
I don't understand how we can look at gender in the workplace as being a positive thing (as in your example) but not also use it with the negative. For example, you would never hear someone say, "In X industry, some studies have shown that departments lead by female chiefs, run less efficiently and have more disputes among workers".
I guess it simply follows the tried and true rules of political correctness in the US: As long as you're basing your opinions of prejudice against white males, you're not really discriminating.
And yes, that's exactly what the above opinion does. It basically says that women chiefs/department heads/whatever create a better work environment than men -- prejudice.
In fact, if it were not the case, the State would have neglected it's very basic duty, namely to insure the common good
This may be the purpose of other nations, but it isn't the purpose of the US. The Constitution of the US preserves individual rights and makes no mention of the common good. The only thing close is in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Hey, I bet this could easily be adapted to show the images reflected in the curved visors of the Apollo Astronauts to prove once and for all that it was all faked!
[Tin Foil Hat Wearers: it's a joke]
Not everyone can move up to better paying jobs. That is a pipe dream fed to many Americans by propoganda. If everyone left the low wage jobs, who would be there to perform those services?
Hmm...
I guess I'm just 'lucky' then? Hmm...you'll have to explain to me then why the hell I cried myself to sleep in college because I didn't think I was going to ever finish. Or why I lived off of peanut butter sandwiches for 4 years. Luck has nothing to do with it.
I've already stated the programs that allow people to move up. Here in Georgia, we have the Hope grant that will give VIRTUALLY ANY GEORGIA RESIDENT money to go to college or a vocational school to learn a trade. Barring some mental disorder, anyone should be able to take advantage of one of these programs. All you have to do is turn off the television and GO DO IT.
It's not propoganda. It's the truth. No offense to your father, but with the military (yes, even the Reserves) he should be getting the GI Bill ($40,000 for college or vocational training).
If he has cable television, he could cancel it and it would save him $40 bucks a month...
There's a nice insurance policy there.
Again, no offense to your father, but his health insurance is NOT his employer's responsibility, it's his. Employer paid health insurance is a BENEFIT, it's not a RIGHT.
Bullshit. They live in a first-world country, the woman didn't *ASK* for her husband to be killed, society should have taken care of her.
No one *ASKS* for their house to burn down. Should the the government (or as you put it, society) be responsible for helping a family if their burns to the ground? (answer: NO)
Should the government pay for your auto insurance? Why shouldn't they have to pay for the car. Hell, why am I even working? The government should give ma a nice comfortable life even if I just decide to sit on my lazy ass all day long.
Previously, iPod would only play digitally protected songs that carry restrictions and were purchased from Apple's own iTunes music store.
The ignorance of the media never ceases to amaze me.
the family should have had life insurance.
Bullshit. They live in a first-world country, the woman didn't *ASK* for her husband to be killed, society should have taken care of her.
they're at fault, NOT THE REPUBLICANS.
Spoken like a true republican. "It's not *our* fault people who are poor can't provide for themselves."
You're right. No one (who isn't a murderer) asks for their spouse to be killed. I'm saying that in all likelyhood, they could afford a life insurance policy. I have a couple of policies. One is a $100,000 policy that costs us $15/month. I got the policy when I was 19. I still have it at 27 and the premium hasn't changed a bit.
Are you telling me that 'poor' people can't afford $15 a month? The assumption made by the parent poster was that the family was doing well financially until the husband died. If they were doing well financially before he died, they should have been doing well afterword.
It's not the taxpayers' responsibility to take care of people. The purpose of government is to set up a system where we can take care of ourselves. This is why we have insurance reguations and insurance commisioners. They are there to ensure that we are able to buy insurance for ourselves.
When will socialists understand that surrendering money to the government is surrendering power to them...power that is used to buy votes with income redistribution programs. Power to wage wars that the socialists disgree with. Come 'on folks.
Robin Hood has no place in government. Government is about law and order, not benevolance. If you're feeling so generous toward that poor woman and her children, YOU give them some money. Don't force me to do so with the IRS's gun stuck to my head. It's a simple concept called freedom. Freedom to me means freedom from government.
It always makes me laugh a little when socialists start railing fiscal conservatives (and no, I can't STAND Bush) for being 'uncaring' or something similar. The fact is that I was born dir poor in a house in rural Georgia. My brothers and I spent our childhood helping my mother take care of my father who developed a mental disability after we were born. We were dirt poor.
When I got older, I made the decision that I wasn't going to be poor anymore. I went to college with $200 in my pocket that I had saved working at a local fast-food restaurant and worked my way through college. I finished with the BSCS in 3.5 years. I now have a decent job and make a comfortable living.
Don't tell me the sad stories about being poor. I've already lived them. I understand them more than you will ever know. Poverty is a state of mind. And yes, it is a state that is easily achieved at the hands of great despair...yet it is possible to overcome it when you make the mental leap of deciding that you are no longer going to be poor.
In other countries, for one reason or another, people are resigned to living in poverty. In the US, we have more programs than one can shake a stick at that will get people out of poverty. I used federal students loans which I will finish paying off later this year. This is the type of assistance I agree with...not giving man a fish, but teaching him to fish.
Ok, how about the woman with two kids whose husband was killed in a car accident? is that a lifestyle choice? that's my neighbor. the little pittance she got from his life insurance paid for the funeral and paid off the car and three months' mortgage. had to sell her house and get a second job. moved to where i am (a shitty area, I'm only here to use the maximum of my money for schooling) and is on TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) and food stamps, and when the TANF runs out, she'll have to try to get AFDC (aid to families with dependent children), which is not as easy as people believe.
people down on their luck aren't always "whores". In fact, if you'll consult the 2000 census, you'll see that the majority of welfare recipients are, contrary to what the Republican liars tell you, white rural families, not inner-city black single mothers who "can't keep their legs together".
Damn you unfeeling bastards and your unfair stereotypes.
Sad story. It really is. The only completely innocent people here are the childen. Sorry, but the family should have had life insurance. If it wasn't enough, they should have moved to a smaller house when he was alive in order to afford good life insurance. It's amazing how much money you can save by doing small things every month. If they had cell phones and inadequate insurance coverage, they're at fault, NOT THE REPUBLICANS.
I'm not rich, but if I died today our house would be paid for and my wife could make it on her own. I've made sure of it. We don't yet have children, but getting life insurance EARLY in life helps keeps premiums down as one gets older. Taking care of a family in the event of an untimely death is the responsibility of every parent. If you can't adequately prepare, don't have children. Life insurance coverage should be on par with being able to afford diapers in the decision-making process.
Let's be responsible, folks.
Indeed.
This is a new variant on the "strangest place you've ever had sex" question. I guess with us nerds, reading Slashdot and having sex are somewhat interchangeable.
You make good points. However, it is important to note that the US legal system is based on Case Law (rulings and findings from similar cases). It is not appropriate for Judges/legal counsel to be using decisions from other countries in providing the legal basis for a case or decision.
The US legal system is quite unique in the world. Europe has turned into a collection of Social Democracies. The US has a Constitution built on individual, not social rights and responsibilities . Clearly these two are at odds and provide the very framework of our respective legal systems. Any case not questioning the framework could probably be supported by domestic cases. The US is fast approaching 300 million people, whatever it is, it's most likely been covered here before.
It can't be used as formal precedent, but international law and court decisions can, and often are, cited as supporting arguments in a court's decision.
Which is rather sad. In spite of the nice feeling of togetherness such logic makes, it is inherently wrong. The purpose of any court is to determine the application of a particular law to a particular situation or in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, to test the legality of a law under the U.S. Constitution. Foreign rulings on similar cases should have no bearing.
I remember a while back there was a stink in the US about the Supremes referencing the laws in another country. Rather sad, honestly. They should simply look at weather or not a law violates the configuration of government and individual (not societal) rights enumerated by the Constitution, which is something they seem to be failing to do as of late.
I'm not claiming that a country should be so arrogant as to never study the laws or rulings in another country, but that should be reserved for students and lawmakers, not judges.
Actually, I remember reading where in the UK there are vans that drive around with specialized equipment detecting TV's to ensure that anyone with a television is paying their TV tax.
You've gotta love government. Is there anything the government won't tax?
I understand that television in the UK is run differently than here in the states, but Japan taxing 802.11x? I understand taxes when the government actually has a legitimate reason taxing a product or service (i.e. the taxes on gasoline pay for roads). But, the government of Japan had nothing to do with the creation of WLAN technologies. They only gave their nod to the bit of the spectrum used.
But if every aggressive idiot who drives a black BMW (at least that is what the aggressive idiots drive in the UK, it may be different in the US) gets their hands on an aircraft instead,
You know, it sounds to me that your problem isn't so much with airplanes as it is class warfare. You seem to take great pride in using the government to limit the activities of others. The fact is, there is no virtually no danger to people on the ground from light aircraft and there is almost not risk to airliners. You need to get a bloody clue, friend.
BTW most of Europe, Australia and a number of other countries regard the FAA as very lax, their standards are not nearly as high as elsewhere in terms of aircraft design for example, it is the fact that most manufacturers do need to sell their aircraft worldwide that keeps standards up. And yes, before you ask, I have been directly involved in getting aircraft systems certified, I do know whose regulations and procedures were the toughest, and whose were simply designed to keep the lawyers busy.
BTW: You do KNOW that there is a large number of UK pilots (and from other countries) that come to the US for flight training because it has the most free (read: liberty) airspace system in the world, don't you? We don't tax the hell out of it which helps to keep it affordable for more people.
Most airpline pilots in the entire world get their training in the US.
As much as the term may be overused by politicians, freedom is something that we really cherish here. Why not make the sky's free? You've provided no evidence that there is any inherent danger in allowing private pilots (or LSA pilots) to fly their airplanes.
The airspace system has worked quite well and continues to work quite well here. We have more airports here than any other place in the world. Check out this map of all of the airports in the country. It may suprise you.
Oh yeah, you seem to make the assumption that a more restrictive regulations on private aircraft implies better safety. I say more restrictive policies do nothing but provide government employees jobs.
Actually, your comment is completely ridiculous. You're right, there was a collision between an airliner and a private airplane. Who's fault was it? The fault was placed on the airline pilot, not the private pilot.
As I recall, it was near an airport. The tower told the airliner to look for the traffic. The airliner responded that they had visual separation with the private plane. The private plane continued on it's given course and the airliner struck the private aircraft. The pilots of the airliner were responsible because they were supposed to be maintaining 'visual separation'.
Your post also demonstrates your complete lack of awareness of how the Federal Airspace System works. As a pilot, I can tell you that mid-airs between LSA (light-sport-aircraft) and airliners will most likely never happen. Airliners cruise at 18,000/ft and above and LSA aircraft will be lucky to cruise at 8,000/ft. Any aircraft entering class B or C airspace (the airspace around busy airports) will be under RADAR survelliance and will be seen as soon as they breach the airspace. There are generally three or four controllers watching airspace around busy airports. They usually get one small section of airspace to monitor so they know what every plane in their airspace is doing.
LSA aircraft will not be using large airports. They will be using smaller community airports.
Get a grip man, and don't complain about things you DON'T understand because it tends to just create FUD (and therefore difficulty) for those of us that enjoy flying.
I do about 600 tax returns a year, and I only do a single return for someone making over $50k/year. A person making $100k/year is very rare and certainly not middle class. Someone making that much money can easily afford a nice house. The average person can't afford any type of house.
Where do you live? My parents just bought a brand new house making $25,000 a year total. There's always a way.
Also, what in the heck do these "middle class" people do in your world to make those huge amounts of money? I have a PhD in EE, and I'm making about $25k/year at SED. I work three months a year for a CPA doing tax returns for extra money. Even the CPA's I work for don't make nearly as much as what you're calling average.
Hmm..maybe that's because people who are less intelligent are less likely to do their own tax returns? No one making less than $50k needs to hire a CPA for a tax return. I would guess that people that make more than that are more likely to take care of their finances a little better.
Well, I write software and my wife is a government employee (she has a master's degree, I have a BSCS). Together we make well over 100,000/yr. The original poster was talking about 'families' making over 100k, and that's not that uncommon.
If you're telling the truth and you have a PhD in EE and are making $25k/yr, that no one's fault but your own. You can still easily make $60,000/yr+ in Atlanta (where I live) writing software.
Generally I try to ignore such ignorant class-warfare provoking comments, but since you're touching on a subject which means a lot to me and spouting off comments on things you apparantly have no clue about.....here we go.
First of all, you make the assumption that only rich people are interested in the Sport Pilot certificate or LSA (light sport aircraft). On the contrary, this initiative gives *more* people the ability to own and fly their own aircraft. LSA will range from $40 to $60 grand for a brand-spanking new aircraft. No, they're not cheap, but they're cheaper than a lot of new "Luxury SUVs". Plus, considering the fact that aircraft loans can be obtained for a longer period of time (5-20+ years) and that aircraft have traditionally been appreciating in price, this is something that is doable for any middle-class individual who WANTS to make it happen.
If you hang around any General Aviation airport you will see that the overwhelming majority of vehicles there are NOT hummers or other expensive cars, but they are generally very modest 5 to 10 year old vehicles.
So no, it's not for rich people -- it's for average people.
Now, as for your claim that it is dangerous for the 'rest of us', you're pretty much way off base here. Can you name the last time an unsuspecting person on the ground was killed by a falling airplane? Well, I can. It was the crash into a Queens neighborhood by American Airlines Flight 587. Was it caused by 'rich' private pilots? No. It was caused by an airliner carrying 'average people'.
As for me, I'm currently building an RV-7A homebuilt airplane in my garage. Is it cheap? No. Is it cheaper than buying a new (or used) Cessna? Yes. Am I rich? No way.
Is it safe? Absolutely.
So why not just buy an LSA? Well, the RV-7A has much wider performance envelope than LSA rules allow and is a whole lot more fun (aerobatic).
Don't hate people because they are successful and want to live out their dream of owning (in my case building) and flying their own airplane.