"Discrimination" as you call it is legal, unless is it due to race, national origin, religion, gender, disability, etc, i.e., a "suspect class." I love this silly idea that any type of different treatment is "discrimination."
Not being hired because you tested as a difficult, no social skill borderline Asperger's personality isn't discrimination under any law I have heard of, any more than if you came off that way in an interview. Life is full of hard knocks, and you simply can't sue your way out of every one of them.
What next, a girl doesn't date you because you aren't handsome or rich enough and you sue her? Under what cause of action? The Lakers won't sign be because I am short and can't jump and I am in my 40's? Discrimination. NASA won't make me an astronaut because I don't have an advanced science degree or any pilot experience? Discrimination!
George Will makes this point in his recent column, although as a lawyer I think he blames the wrong culprits (lawyers).
It's called a contract people. Are finally at the point where there is just no such thing as freedom of contract, and therefor contracts no longer mean anything? There is no duty on "the little guy" to actually download and save his own records, after choosing a paperless billing?
So again we are calling for the nanny state, that which is so vilified when it tries to do the things government was founded for - protect me and my shit from bad guys, foreign and domestic - to intervene in private contracts because we don't happen to like one of the contractors? So it's a horrible slippery slope to force a rapist to turn over his e-mail account, to drain a mosquito of blood to catch a car thief, or to use technology to catch a terrist outside of the country. That's going to lead to all of our civil liberties being trampled.
But go ahead nanny state, go right on in and arbitrarily intervene in private contracts. Because we here at Slashdot are libertarians for us, and statists for the other guy.
The California legislature has decided what is best for Californians. But that does not equal a free market. People do not always choose what other people feel they "need." That's the nanny state, not the free market, whether it's TVs, lightbulbs, or cheeseburgers.
Left to their own devices (no pun intended) in the free market, Cal-eee-for-nee-yawns would likely choose more power sources, and an improved grid. And while the preposterously bloated $140B CA budget is not covering basic services, how about some more freeways to reduce gridlock? Some of us in California feel that the answer to limited public services is to create more to meet demand, not reduce demand!
Not all of us are greenies that want to revert to a pre-industrial society. Some of us want progress, not regress. Put a label on the TV that it saves energy and let people choose to buy it if they want. That's a free market. Mandating is not.
Build a better lightbulb that uses less power - and that doesn't release mercury into my house when it breaks - and I'll buy it if it saves me money. That's the free market.
Obama had the most liberal voting record in the US Senate according to just about every metric, and got an "F" rating from the NRA. And you, as a gun owner, actually thought he might be on your side? I can see gun grabbers thinking he is great, but there is this search tool known as "Google."
Regardless of the misuse of legal terms in the profession - which is extensive and it makes me laugh even more (e.g., "jury of his peers," etc) - his audience here is composed of non-lawyers. One should be clear and accurate when using legal terms with non-lawyers, or it leads to confusion. Most lawyers took a class in law school called "remedies," and will know the difference. Non-lawyers will be confused by someone misusing the term.
So when speaking to non-lawyers or teaching, one should distinguish between a COA and a remedy. They are simply two different things and there are plenty of other words to be used in place of "remedy" in this context (e.g., "action," "suit," etc). And BTW, since breach of contract, not a tort, might be a possible COA in such a matter, "tort" might be confusing as well.
Considering many here have long, passionate semantic debates about "what is an OS?", I think demanding accuracy here is reasonable.
And BTW, I went out of my way not to sound pedantic, even making references to Lionel Hutz. You, on the other hand, sound like you are competing in a pedant contest with William F Buckley and Dick Cavett, not discouraging pedantry.
the actual problem with that phrase? Google returns "about 11,800" hits for it. Since you use the word "arse" you presumably use British English, so maybe it's an American expression with which you are not familiar.
I am an American law-talking guy.
Every lawsuit in America needs to include both of the following: 1) a cause of action (in this case, a tort and/or breach of contract) and 2) a remedy sought from the court (damages, injunction, etc) should that COA be proven in court.
So to call a tort a "remedy" is legally inaccurate, and lawyers don't really talk that way; although, it in lay terms, I guess one could use "remedy" in that fashion. But GGP was trying to sound like Joe Lawyer, so I had to say something. Call me law Nazi guy, but if I missed a single character in some Linux coding example here, guys would be on my ass like flies on shit.
Also, in contract law there is the notion of unconscionability, specifically that where one party to the contract is grossly more powerful than the other, the court can make decisions in favour of the less powerful party that would otherwise run afoul of contract law. True bargaining only occurs between equals, and the law has long recognized that.
There are actually two elements of unconscionability: Procedural and substantive. Procedural means that the process was unfair in some way; in this case, that the end user had no reasonable alternative but to sign a contract of adhesion. O rly? There aren't 100's of free Web hosts out there besides AOL? Not to mention the cheap-ass Web hosts out there. I have a great one with a free domain name for $7/month with phenomenal service that has backups in a different state! So I doubt there is procedural unconscionability.
As for substantive, were there grossly unfair - not just unfair, but so unfair as to "shock the conscience of the court" - or surprise terms in the contract? Or were AOL's TOS in line with what most free Web hosts offer? Substantive unconscionability is a very high burden to meet, and the vast majority of contracts of adhesion are upheld for this reason. Almost certainly this substantive element would fail as well.
It's this principle that is the source of the renter's protection laws that you despise so much.
No, the principle is that there are more renters than apartment owners, and therefore politicians pander to the tyranny of the majority (and those who feel sorry for them) while trampling on the property rights of the minority. Votes over principle. Just please don't call it "renters' rights." There are no such rights, only cynical politicians willing to rob from Peter to pay Paul; and the politician who does that will always have the support of Paul.
And lastly, if the cut-off of service wasn't mentioned at all in the TOS, the customers may have a remedy in tort for damages. The TOS would have to explicitly waive liability on cessation of service to exclude recovery in tort.
Dude, first off, stop trying to sound like a lawyer - it's like when a white guy tries to speak urban lingo - he just sounds lame. "A remedy in tort" - LOL.
Secondly, obviously the biggest ISP in the world has an indemnity clause in its TOS. More importantly, AOL is based in Virginia - a UCITA state - and its choice of forum and law clauses dictate all disputes are to be litigated there under VA law. So even without an indemnity clause, it's unlikely end users would win a lot of court cases in VA.
IAALBNYLATINLA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer And This Is Not Legal Advice). And I have taught business law for ten years, so I am not totally talking out of my arse.
If something has been advertised for free, the payment is still there, it's just zero.
In this case, the users are not squatters, they have been offered a service, and have accepted the service. Whether the payment is $0.00 or $0.01 shouldn't fundamentally change the basic rights
So I guess if something happens to my data when running Linux I should have legal recourse against the developers and companies like Red Hat? Or do we only go after companies you don't like?
Nice job, parent poster, dispelling the entitlement mentality of the article submitter. I keep hearing all of these supposed libertarian-minded/.'ers, who turn like Sinatra after two Martinis as soon as the other guy wants to exercise his own rights.
Anyone wonder why property investors avoid certain parts of the East Cost US like the plague? It's because they have those laws there that can keep a squatter in a place for 9 months WHILE THEY DON'T PAY A DIME TO THE LANDLORD. Meanwhile, the landlord is paying a mortgage, property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.
The People's Republic of Santa Monica is the same way. The renters' rights group there is the single-most powerful political organization in the city. So powerful, that even unrelated political groups (unions, you name it) have to align with the SMRR in Faustian bargains to get anything passed (you're either with us, or against us, as Bush says). Think about owning a building in that city! There are rent control laws, so why invest in your property? So the apartments are all dilapidated and ugly But go 5 miles east to Westwood, and the buildings are new and beautiful and have underground parking and nice workout rooms. And no rent control.
Funny how people here are afraid of the government actually doing what it is supposed to do, the whole reason we formed the social compact: Protect me and my shit from other people and other countries. Can't eavesdrop on terrorists outside the country or get DNA from a mosquito or demand a convicted rapist's e-mail account. But tell me what I can do with my own goddamn property? Sure! Redistribute wealth? Awesome!
It's not libertarian if you only want the government to stay out of your life.
As I used to have in my sig: Slashdot, libertarian for me, statist for the other guy.
All being born in America means to me is that it was more likely this family escalated this incident, rather than remaining calm and going through the indignities we all have to face sooner or later with air travel. I love the US and defend it from the usual haters here, but let's face it; "But I'm an American, you can't do this" is a cliche. Part of it is the freedom we enjoy (yes, relatively, we do, despite the constant barrage of YRO scare stories here). Another part is arrogance and ignorance caused by a lack of travel by the average American. And I do see a change in America in the last decade from "question authority" to "challenge it at every turn." Americans increasingly do not like authority, and I include myself in this.
One thing working for the legal office of a major city defending police lawsuits taught me is that there are often two sides: That which the media reports, invariably the plaintiff attorney's version (a role I have played as well), versus the rest of the facts that come out once the dust has settled. Often, the potential defendant does not comment to the media for liability reasons, letting the plaintiff side dominate the news cycle.
If the airline in fact acted as the article portrays, F them. But let's hear all the facts before we call this a vast racially-based evil act by the airline. My experience tells me that sometimes that can take years and a civil trial that ends with a defense verdict before all the facts come to light. And I say this as someone who has sat in a conference room with people literally screaming to tell their side to the media, only to be muzzled by counsel in anticipation of litigation.
Now once again mod me troll for a well-reasoned, informative post that dares dissent from the racist airline meme du jour.
Here, it's misused just like the "troll" or "flamebait" moderation - that is, anything that disagrees with the user's worldview, politics, interpretation of the Constitution, etc.
I will be able to give my GF an extra round of pleasure, with time to spare.
OK, just kidding - I am a/.'er and obviously don't have a GF. But if I did, I am confident in my abilities that I could, in fact, perform my duties in the allotted one second.
I assume by "executive authority," you mean "the authority to keep everything classified forever"?
No, just that the Executive decides what is done within its own, co-equal branch of government.
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
Yes, and how the hell does that clause grant Congress a check over another branch? That's a new one. Provide means it has a duty itself to do something, not tell another branch to do something.
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
Nice try, that's rules of government (as in, "the governing of") of the military, not the Executive, you dumb bunny. You conveniently left that part out.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Any constitutional expert will tell you that the N&P clause does not grant power over the other branches. It is meant to carry out the defined powers in Article I. No expert I've read has ever called this a check on the executive (it isn't).
There simply isn't any FOIA power vested in the government of the United States under the Constitution, so Congress has no business making such a law under the N&P clause.
And where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive cedes power to Congress by a mere passage of a law (FOIA)? I thought the actual Executive was in charge of that branch.
For all of you constitutional purists, I'd ask where in Article I Congress has the right to limit executive authority, whether it's FOIA, FISA, the War Powers Act, "congressional oversight," etc. I am looking but can't find in the Constitution where Congress can do this without ratifying a new Amendment.
Oh, and we are still waiting for that big Clinton records dump into his library that we've been promised. I guess we'll have to wait until Hillary is elected president in 2016 - wait, re-elected in 2020 - before they dump everything.
Heritage engages in the usual sophistry of adding up all labor, health care and pension costs for current and retired employees and divides it by the number of active workers to reach the $70 an hour figure.
Uh, no, as I put in bold in my previous post, it does not include retirees. You obviously didn't read my last post or the article (or you are being purposely dishonest), as Heritage has a big, bold heading about this:
Excludes Legacy Costs
The hourly benefit figures the Detroit automakers report covers the cost of current and future benefits earned by actively working employees. It does not include the cost of paying health benefits and pensions to current retirees.
So you're the one "engaging in sophistry." The whole point of my original post (that you called flamebait because you disagreed with it) was that UAW was FUDing this with BS statistics. This is one of them - this number does not include legacy costs.
Rick Wagoner has presided over a $70 billion loss for GM and not only still has his job, but has a private jet fleet and continues to make $16 million a year.
Well, now we are arguing in circles. Wagoner "presided" over that loss largely because of labor costs. So long as UAW bleeds GM, nobody could make them profitable. But yes, any CEO that has that kind of balance sheet should not be making that kind of money if I were a stockholder - or a taxpayer being asked to bail his company out.
But it's nice of the right wing to make it crystal clear just how much they hate the middle class and love extravagant CEO compensation, even if the CEO in question is grotesquely incompetent.
So GM's CEO makes a lot of money and this somehow implicates the right wing? How is that exactly? Nice logic. Republicans are the ones against the bailout. It's the Dems who apparently think the status quo is OK, just sent GM taxpayer money, and they will magically become profitable making green cars that nobody wants.
And some of the highest-paid CEOs in the country are Democrats. How do you think Wall Street got that huge bailout?
BTW, that factcheck.org ought to fact check itself, since it always leans left.
Reality has a well known liberal bias. Deal with it.
Thank you so much for being openly hypocritical. Most liberals pretend not to be, but there it is, right out in the open. So right-wing think tanks are illegitimate to cite, left-wings ones are okay.
Typical lib, "we are right, so it's OK when we break the rules." So fucking typical.
You can't just dismiss the source without addressing what the link says. That's an ad hominem attack. If Rush Limbaugh says it's December, just because you hate Rush doesn't make it April.
And I was responding to a left-wing advocacy group in great-grandparent's post. Or is that OK, since you are a lefty? BTW, that factcheck.org ought to fact check itself, since it always leans left. And nice bibliography at the end - they actually cite UAW!
As if it matters if auto workers make $73/hour in wages or they cost $73/hour, same difference for GM. Of course, how much an employee costs per hour is in no way the full metric of labor costs, if you look at the laundry list of ludicrous UAW rules, how hard it is to lay off or fire employees, how they can take early retirement at 95% pay, the ridiculous labor pools where "laid off" employees still get paid to stand around, not to mention health care. Toyota and Honda do none of this.
The sad thing is I knew some bozo like yourself would come in and slam the link merely because Heritage is a conservative-leaning group. My response: So? Address and disprove their claims, or STFU.
No ad hominem attacks here, this is a thinking Website, not a feeling one. You can't call names, shriek, and run away.
But Steve himself couldn't make Apple profitable if it lost money on every ipod, as GM and Ford do on every car.
But more to your point, you are right about the ipod, but is its success really due to innovation? Is the ipod really better than other MP3 players? Or is it just great marketing by the best company in America who found a market and ran with it?
Isn't a Segway a much more innovative product? So yes, you need innovation, but the coolest gadget in the world won't sell if people don't want it (see also: Mac Cube, MacTV 1.0, Newton, cool gadgets that never took off). And even if you can, you have to make a profit on each one to stay in business - or get a government bailout.
But it's a terrible strategy for producing something that is better than a wheel.
I was in a hurry and rushed my post. Innovation is great, so long as it serves a need or want. But good luck raising venture capital for a "great idea" that has no market (and I paraphrase Guy Kawasaki here). Does that make more sense?
Yes, companies, to some degree, tell people what they want through good marketing (e.g., ipod). But it still has to be a good product and people ultimately still have to want it. If customers walk into an Apple store and they all have to listen to a communal music player (analogue to mass transit), I don't think even Steve Jobs could sell it, no matter how much reality distortion spells he casts.
NOT to bail out these banks and Financial services industries. Do not reward failure, on Wall Street or in Detroit. This is why we have bankruptcy courts.
The second paragraph is flame-bait. No links? Foreign car manufacturers even in the US are subsidized far more than US counterparts. That's not FUD, it's a simple fact. Inside the US, they are subsidized.
Nonsense, and expressing my opinion about whether I want my tax dollars spent on private companies' folly is not "flamebait." Have you read the moderation guidelines?
So a state kicks in $50 or $100 million incentive build a plant 10 or 15 years ago and that's a relevant subsidy? That's why Toyota and Honda kick GM's asses in a multi-billion dollar industry 2008? Do you have any idea how little money that is in the US car market?
You're going to have to do better than that weak link, brother. Look at UAW's ridiculous demands (that the stupid Big 3 admittedly gave in to). Why do you think GM wanted to buyout all 74,000 of its workers(and why can't it just lay them off like other companies)? What does that tell you about their labor costs?
From my link:
UAW spokespeople have roundly condemned the estimate of labor costs in excess of $70 per current worker hour. They assert these figures include the cost of current retiree pension and health benefits. They have done so, however, without marshalling evidence to support their case.
The Detroit automakers explain in their SEC filings that their benefit expenses are for current workers, not former employees. This is because they follow generally accepted accounting principles in preparing these estimates. If the figures did include current retiree benefits, the average hourly amount would be much higher than they actually report.
Slashdot Mirror
"Discrimination" as you call it is legal, unless is it due to race, national origin, religion, gender, disability, etc, i.e., a "suspect class." I love this silly idea that any type of different treatment is "discrimination."
Not being hired because you tested as a difficult, no social skill borderline Asperger's personality isn't discrimination under any law I have heard of, any more than if you came off that way in an interview. Life is full of hard knocks, and you simply can't sue your way out of every one of them.
What next, a girl doesn't date you because you aren't handsome or rich enough and you sue her? Under what cause of action? The Lakers won't sign be because I am short and can't jump and I am in my 40's? Discrimination. NASA won't make me an astronaut because I don't have an advanced science degree or any pilot experience? Discrimination!
George Will makes this point in his recent column, although as a lawyer I think he blames the wrong culprits (lawyers).
What kind of beer it was.
Didn't we just have this discussion?
It's called a contract people. Are finally at the point where there is just no such thing as freedom of contract, and therefor contracts no longer mean anything? There is no duty on "the little guy" to actually download and save his own records, after choosing a paperless billing? So again we are calling for the nanny state, that which is so vilified when it tries to do the things government was founded for - protect me and my shit from bad guys, foreign and domestic - to intervene in private contracts because we don't happen to like one of the contractors? So it's a horrible slippery slope to force a rapist to turn over his e-mail account, to drain a mosquito of blood to catch a car thief, or to use technology to catch a terrist outside of the country. That's going to lead to all of our civil liberties being trampled.
But go ahead nanny state, go right on in and arbitrarily intervene in private contracts. Because we here at Slashdot are libertarians for us, and statists for the other guy.
The California legislature has decided what is best for Californians. But that does not equal a free market. People do not always choose what other people feel they "need." That's the nanny state, not the free market, whether it's TVs, lightbulbs, or cheeseburgers.
Left to their own devices (no pun intended) in the free market, Cal-eee-for-nee-yawns would likely choose more power sources, and an improved grid. And while the preposterously bloated $140B CA budget is not covering basic services, how about some more freeways to reduce gridlock? Some of us in California feel that the answer to limited public services is to create more to meet demand, not reduce demand!
Not all of us are greenies that want to revert to a pre-industrial society. Some of us want progress, not regress. Put a label on the TV that it saves energy and let people choose to buy it if they want. That's a free market. Mandating is not.
Build a better lightbulb that uses less power - and that doesn't release mercury into my house when it breaks - and I'll buy it if it saves me money. That's the free market.
Obama had the most liberal voting record in the US Senate according to just about every metric, and got an "F" rating from the NRA. And you, as a gun owner, actually thought he might be on your side? I can see gun grabbers thinking he is great, but there is this search tool known as "Google."
Would take care of his buddies at Coca-Cola if he were to become president?
This "Bush was an oil guy, so he looks out for oil guys" meme is so mindless. These oil people were Bush's competitors for crissakes!
Oh, and Cheney:
1) Have job that pays millions
2) Give it up to earn $200K as VP, be vilified as Darth Vader
3) Profit???
Regardless of the misuse of legal terms in the profession - which is extensive and it makes me laugh even more (e.g., "jury of his peers," etc) - his audience here is composed of non-lawyers. One should be clear and accurate when using legal terms with non-lawyers, or it leads to confusion. Most lawyers took a class in law school called "remedies," and will know the difference. Non-lawyers will be confused by someone misusing the term.
So when speaking to non-lawyers or teaching, one should distinguish between a COA and a remedy. They are simply two different things and there are plenty of other words to be used in place of "remedy" in this context (e.g., "action," "suit," etc). And BTW, since breach of contract, not a tort, might be a possible COA in such a matter, "tort" might be confusing as well.
Considering many here have long, passionate semantic debates about "what is an OS?", I think demanding accuracy here is reasonable.
And BTW, I went out of my way not to sound pedantic, even making references to Lionel Hutz. You, on the other hand, sound like you are competing in a pedant contest with William F Buckley and Dick Cavett, not discouraging pedantry.
Or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. I think the definition of private needs some clarification, because Amtrak seems to run more on taxpayer money than diesel.
Just another GSE eating taxpayer cash and providing bad service.
Nice.
the actual problem with that phrase? Google returns "about 11,800" hits for it. Since you use the word "arse" you presumably use British English, so maybe it's an American expression with which you are not familiar.
I am an American law-talking guy.
Every lawsuit in America needs to include both of the following: 1) a cause of action (in this case, a tort and/or breach of contract) and 2) a remedy sought from the court (damages, injunction, etc) should that COA be proven in court.
So to call a tort a "remedy" is legally inaccurate, and lawyers don't really talk that way; although, it in lay terms, I guess one could use "remedy" in that fashion. But GGP was trying to sound like Joe Lawyer, so I had to say something. Call me law Nazi guy, but if I missed a single character in some Linux coding example here, guys would be on my ass like flies on shit.
Also, in contract law there is the notion of unconscionability, specifically that where one party to the contract is grossly more powerful than the other, the court can make decisions in favour of the less powerful party that would otherwise run afoul of contract law. True bargaining only occurs between equals, and the law has long recognized that.
There are actually two elements of unconscionability: Procedural and substantive. Procedural means that the process was unfair in some way; in this case, that the end user had no reasonable alternative but to sign a contract of adhesion. O rly? There aren't 100's of free Web hosts out there besides AOL? Not to mention the cheap-ass Web hosts out there. I have a great one with a free domain name for $7/month with phenomenal service that has backups in a different state! So I doubt there is procedural unconscionability.
As for substantive, were there grossly unfair - not just unfair, but so unfair as to "shock the conscience of the court" - or surprise terms in the contract? Or were AOL's TOS in line with what most free Web hosts offer? Substantive unconscionability is a very high burden to meet, and the vast majority of contracts of adhesion are upheld for this reason. Almost certainly this substantive element would fail as well.
It's this principle that is the source of the renter's protection laws that you despise so much.
No, the principle is that there are more renters than apartment owners, and therefore politicians pander to the tyranny of the majority (and those who feel sorry for them) while trampling on the property rights of the minority. Votes over principle. Just please don't call it "renters' rights." There are no such rights, only cynical politicians willing to rob from Peter to pay Paul; and the politician who does that will always have the support of Paul.
And lastly, if the cut-off of service wasn't mentioned at all in the TOS, the customers may have a remedy in tort for damages. The TOS would have to explicitly waive liability on cessation of service to exclude recovery in tort.
Dude, first off, stop trying to sound like a lawyer - it's like when a white guy tries to speak urban lingo - he just sounds lame. "A remedy in tort" - LOL.
Secondly, obviously the biggest ISP in the world has an indemnity clause in its TOS. More importantly, AOL is based in Virginia - a UCITA state - and its choice of forum and law clauses dictate all disputes are to be litigated there under VA law. So even without an indemnity clause, it's unlikely end users would win a lot of court cases in VA.
IAALBNYLATINLA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer And This Is Not Legal Advice). And I have taught business law for ten years, so I am not totally talking out of my arse.
If something has been advertised for free, the payment is still there, it's just zero. In this case, the users are not squatters, they have been offered a service, and have accepted the service. Whether the payment is $0.00 or $0.01 shouldn't fundamentally change the basic rights
So I guess if something happens to my data when running Linux I should have legal recourse against the developers and companies like Red Hat? Or do we only go after companies you don't like?
Nice job, parent poster, dispelling the entitlement mentality of the article submitter. I keep hearing all of these supposed libertarian-minded /.'ers, who turn like Sinatra after two Martinis as soon as the other guy wants to exercise his own rights.
Anyone wonder why property investors avoid certain parts of the East Cost US like the plague? It's because they have those laws there that can keep a squatter in a place for 9 months WHILE THEY DON'T PAY A DIME TO THE LANDLORD. Meanwhile, the landlord is paying a mortgage, property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.
The People's Republic of Santa Monica is the same way. The renters' rights group there is the single-most powerful political organization in the city. So powerful, that even unrelated political groups (unions, you name it) have to align with the SMRR in Faustian bargains to get anything passed (you're either with us, or against us, as Bush says). Think about owning a building in that city! There are rent control laws, so why invest in your property? So the apartments are all dilapidated and ugly But go 5 miles east to Westwood, and the buildings are new and beautiful and have underground parking and nice workout rooms. And no rent control.
Funny how people here are afraid of the government actually doing what it is supposed to do, the whole reason we formed the social compact: Protect me and my shit from other people and other countries. Can't eavesdrop on terrorists outside the country or get DNA from a mosquito or demand a convicted rapist's e-mail account. But tell me what I can do with my own goddamn property? Sure! Redistribute wealth? Awesome!
It's not libertarian if you only want the government to stay out of your life. As I used to have in my sig: Slashdot, libertarian for me, statist for the other guy.
All being born in America means to me is that it was more likely this family escalated this incident, rather than remaining calm and going through the indignities we all have to face sooner or later with air travel. I love the US and defend it from the usual haters here, but let's face it; "But I'm an American, you can't do this" is a cliche. Part of it is the freedom we enjoy (yes, relatively, we do, despite the constant barrage of YRO scare stories here). Another part is arrogance and ignorance caused by a lack of travel by the average American. And I do see a change in America in the last decade from "question authority" to "challenge it at every turn." Americans increasingly do not like authority, and I include myself in this.
One thing working for the legal office of a major city defending police lawsuits taught me is that there are often two sides: That which the media reports, invariably the plaintiff attorney's version (a role I have played as well), versus the rest of the facts that come out once the dust has settled. Often, the potential defendant does not comment to the media for liability reasons, letting the plaintiff side dominate the news cycle.
If the airline in fact acted as the article portrays, F them. But let's hear all the facts before we call this a vast racially-based evil act by the airline. My experience tells me that sometimes that can take years and a civil trial that ends with a defense verdict before all the facts come to light. And I say this as someone who has sat in a conference room with people literally screaming to tell their side to the media, only to be muzzled by counsel in anticipation of litigation.
Now once again mod me troll for a well-reasoned, informative post that dares dissent from the racist airline meme du jour.
Clearly the most misused word on /. There's even a Wiki entry on its chronic misuse.
Here, it's misused just like the "troll" or "flamebait" moderation - that is, anything that disagrees with the user's worldview, politics, interpretation of the Constitution, etc.
That, and no emergency transporter protocol.
Did Dale Earnhardt die in vain?
I will be able to give my GF an extra round of pleasure, with time to spare.
/.'er and obviously don't have a GF. But if I did, I am confident in my abilities that I could, in fact, perform my duties in the allotted one second.
OK, just kidding - I am a
I assume by "executive authority," you mean "the authority to keep everything classified forever"?
No, just that the Executive decides what is done within its own, co-equal branch of government.
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
Yes, and how the hell does that clause grant Congress a check over another branch? That's a new one. Provide means it has a duty itself to do something, not tell another branch to do something.
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
Nice try, that's rules of government (as in, "the governing of") of the military, not the Executive, you dumb bunny. You conveniently left that part out.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Any constitutional expert will tell you that the N&P clause does not grant power over the other branches. It is meant to carry out the defined powers in Article I. No expert I've read has ever called this a check on the executive (it isn't).
There simply isn't any FOIA power vested in the government of the United States under the Constitution, so Congress has no business making such a law under the N&P clause.
But nice try reinventing the Constitution.
Than go driving with Ted Kennedy.
And where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive cedes power to Congress by a mere passage of a law (FOIA)? I thought the actual Executive was in charge of that branch.
For all of you constitutional purists, I'd ask where in Article I Congress has the right to limit executive authority, whether it's FOIA, FISA, the War Powers Act, "congressional oversight," etc. I am looking but can't find in the Constitution where Congress can do this without ratifying a new Amendment.
Oh, and we are still waiting for that big Clinton records dump into his library that we've been promised. I guess we'll have to wait until Hillary is elected president in 2016 - wait, re-elected in 2020 - before they dump everything.
Heritage engages in the usual sophistry of adding up all labor, health care and pension costs for current and retired employees and divides it by the number of active workers to reach the $70 an hour figure.
Uh, no, as I put in bold in my previous post, it does not include retirees. You obviously didn't read my last post or the article (or you are being purposely dishonest), as Heritage has a big, bold heading about this:
Excludes Legacy Costs
The hourly benefit figures the Detroit automakers report covers the cost of current and future benefits earned by actively working employees. It does not include the cost of paying health benefits and pensions to current retirees.
So you're the one "engaging in sophistry." The whole point of my original post (that you called flamebait because you disagreed with it) was that UAW was FUDing this with BS statistics. This is one of them - this number does not include legacy costs.
Rick Wagoner has presided over a $70 billion loss for GM and not only still has his job, but has a private jet fleet and continues to make $16 million a year.
Well, now we are arguing in circles. Wagoner "presided" over that loss largely because of labor costs. So long as UAW bleeds GM, nobody could make them profitable. But yes, any CEO that has that kind of balance sheet should not be making that kind of money if I were a stockholder - or a taxpayer being asked to bail his company out.
But it's nice of the right wing to make it crystal clear just how much they hate the middle class and love extravagant CEO compensation, even if the CEO in question is grotesquely incompetent.
So GM's CEO makes a lot of money and this somehow implicates the right wing? How is that exactly? Nice logic. Republicans are the ones against the bailout. It's the Dems who apparently think the status quo is OK, just sent GM taxpayer money, and they will magically become profitable making green cars that nobody wants.
And some of the highest-paid CEOs in the country are Democrats. How do you think Wall Street got that huge bailout?
BTW, that factcheck.org ought to fact check itself, since it always leans left.
Reality has a well known liberal bias. Deal with it.
Thank you so much for being openly hypocritical. Most liberals pretend not to be, but there it is, right out in the open. So right-wing think tanks are illegitimate to cite, left-wings ones are okay.
Typical lib, "we are right, so it's OK when we break the rules." So fucking typical.
You can't just dismiss the source without addressing what the link says. That's an ad hominem attack. If Rush Limbaugh says it's December, just because you hate Rush doesn't make it April. And I was responding to a left-wing advocacy group in great-grandparent's post. Or is that OK, since you are a lefty? BTW, that factcheck.org ought to fact check itself, since it always leans left. And nice bibliography at the end - they actually cite UAW!
As if it matters if auto workers make $73/hour in wages or they cost $73/hour, same difference for GM. Of course, how much an employee costs per hour is in no way the full metric of labor costs, if you look at the laundry list of ludicrous UAW rules, how hard it is to lay off or fire employees, how they can take early retirement at 95% pay, the ridiculous labor pools where "laid off" employees still get paid to stand around, not to mention health care. Toyota and Honda do none of this.
The sad thing is I knew some bozo like yourself would come in and slam the link merely because Heritage is a conservative-leaning group. My response: So? Address and disprove their claims, or STFU.
No ad hominem attacks here, this is a thinking Website, not a feeling one. You can't call names, shriek, and run away.
As an Apple stockholder.
But Steve himself couldn't make Apple profitable if it lost money on every ipod, as GM and Ford do on every car.
But more to your point, you are right about the ipod, but is its success really due to innovation? Is the ipod really better than other MP3 players? Or is it just great marketing by the best company in America who found a market and ran with it?
Isn't a Segway a much more innovative product? So yes, you need innovation, but the coolest gadget in the world won't sell if people don't want it (see also: Mac Cube, MacTV 1.0, Newton, cool gadgets that never took off). And even if you can, you have to make a profit on each one to stay in business - or get a government bailout.
But it's a terrible strategy for producing something that is better than a wheel.
I was in a hurry and rushed my post. Innovation is great, so long as it serves a need or want. But good luck raising venture capital for a "great idea" that has no market (and I paraphrase Guy Kawasaki here). Does that make more sense?
Yes, companies, to some degree, tell people what they want through good marketing (e.g., ipod). But it still has to be a good product and people ultimately still have to want it. If customers walk into an Apple store and they all have to listen to a communal music player (analogue to mass transit), I don't think even Steve Jobs could sell it, no matter how much reality distortion spells he casts.
NOT to bail out these banks and Financial services industries. Do not reward failure, on Wall Street or in Detroit. This is why we have bankruptcy courts.
The second paragraph is flame-bait. No links? Foreign car manufacturers even in the US are subsidized far more than US counterparts. That's not FUD, it's a simple fact. Inside the US, they are subsidized.
Nonsense, and expressing my opinion about whether I want my tax dollars spent on private companies' folly is not "flamebait." Have you read the moderation guidelines?
So a state kicks in $50 or $100 million incentive build a plant 10 or 15 years ago and that's a relevant subsidy? That's why Toyota and Honda kick GM's asses in a multi-billion dollar industry 2008? Do you have any idea how little money that is in the US car market?
You're going to have to do better than that weak link, brother. Look at UAW's ridiculous demands (that the stupid Big 3 admittedly gave in to). Why do you think GM wanted to buyout all 74,000 of its workers(and why can't it just lay them off like other companies)? What does that tell you about their labor costs? From my link:
UAW spokespeople have roundly condemned the estimate of labor costs in excess of $70 per current worker hour. They assert these figures include the cost of current retiree pension and health benefits. They have done so, however, without marshalling evidence to support their case.
The Detroit automakers explain in their SEC filings that their benefit expenses are for current workers, not former employees. This is because they follow generally accepted accounting principles in preparing these estimates. If the figures did include current retiree benefits, the average hourly amount would be much higher than they actually report.