Logging companies aren't the ones destroying habitat. That's mostly from farming and ranching, and suburban growth.
Brazil just elected a president who wants to privatize even more of the Amazon, so expect the rate of deforestation there to increase from its current rate of six square miles per day.
The drone in this case could have been a consumer-level device carrying an IED. There's no indication that it was a multi-million dollar Reaper or similar 'first-world' aircraft.
My real position is that the government should not exist
That's not a real position, it's a fantasy. The only way you're going to get rid of government will be to get rid of humans.
Everywhere that humans interact, they conflict, and they are going to come up with some mechanism for resolving that conflict. Sometimes that mechanism will look more like what we might call a gang (see: parts of Mexico), but it's still a form of government.
Indeed, FREEDOM in the real world is complicated. Often the question can be boiled down to "Should I be free to restrict the freedom of others?" The answer: sometimes, yes. And sometimes, no.
The right-to-work laws (btw, that name is a masterful bit of propaganda) are a pretty good example of that complicated balance. Note that 'duty of fair representation' requirements mean that there isn't much incentive for non-union workers to seek out another union; they can just use an agreement struck by the original union. So there really isn't a 'marketplace' for unions in most workplaces.
In the past, the strength of unions has caused some problems (as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely), but at the moment, many workers are not doing well in the US. Some of that is due to the weakness of unions and anti-union laws, and some of that is due to the disparate economic conditions in other countries. To repeat: it's complicated.
But my original comment was aimed more at roman_mir, for whom it's simple: all government is bad. Except, of course, in this case, where somehow it's good. Or something. There's a reason all of his comments start at 0.
A right-to-work law prohibits unions from negoptiating contracts that require workers at a given workplace to join that union. Basically, they are a government restriction on the union's FREEDOM to enter a contract.
Basically, by being in favor of right-to-work laws, you're saying that you are in favor of government interference into people's contracts. So it looks like you're now officially a "I want more big government" kind of guy. Good to know!
We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account -- the "interactive space" where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President's tweets -- are properly analyzed under the "public forum" doctrines.
It's not about viewing his posts - it's the ability to reply, and join in the cesspool that follows each of his tweets, that's emphasized in the judgement.
It's quite clear in the text of the NLRA that it applies, and it's quite clear in the text of the arbitration act ("except âoeupon such grounds as exist at law") that is secondary to other laws.
Gorsuch just hand-waves that away with vague 'structure of the NLRB' contortions.
To put it mildly, it's a pathetic bit of judicial reasoning.
An opinion piece from the WSJ isn't exactly a useful citation. It's paywalled - do they ever get around to comparing the US to other countries or do they just whine about the term 'mass incarceration'?
It's not difficult to find articles and studies that contradict the whole 'incarceration reduced crime' theory. This one includes this bit:
Fortunately, there is a real-time experiment underway. For many reasons, including straitened budgets and a desire to diminish prison populations, many states have started to cut back on imprisonment. What happened? Interestingly, and encouragingly, crime did not explode. In fact, it dropped. In the last decade, 14 states saw declines in both incarceration and crime. New York reduced imprisonment by 26 percent, while seeing a 28 percent reduction in crime. Imprisonment and crime both decreased by more than 15 percent in California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Texas.
1.4 trillion in 10 years doesn't seem like that much given that Obama added 4 trillion in only 8 years.
Apples and oranges... $1.5 trillion is the *additional increase* in the debt over the next ten years. Deficits were already projected to grow by $10 trillion over the next decade, now the projection is $11.5 trillion.
Accordingly, EPA must point to something in either the Clean Air Act or the APA that gives it authority to stay the methane rule, and as we explain below, the only provision it cites â" CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) â" confers no such authority.
Like you said, there's a process, and the court didn't think that the EPA was following it.
but rather a long list of things the cops shouldn't be allowed to use in court.
Like
- bad arson science (see the Willingham case)
- unsupported bite-mark evidence (see the Krone case)
- stating that fingerprints are absolutely unique (see the Mayfield case).
What's wrong with requiring techniques used to court to be supported by evidence that they work?
Slashdot Mirror
The family settled with Uber a couple of weeks after the crash - a civil suit is unlikely:
https://www.azcentral.com/stor...
Logging companies aren't the ones destroying habitat. That's mostly from farming and ranching, and suburban growth.
Brazil just elected a president who wants to privatize even more of the Amazon, so expect the rate of deforestation there to increase from its current rate of six square miles per day.
From an amicus brief from some linguists that agrees with the down-modded post:
As a sig I've seen around here notes, there is no -1 disagree moderation option.
Obligatory:
https://xkcd.com/2030/
The drone in this case could have been a consumer-level device carrying an IED. There's no indication that it was a multi-million dollar Reaper or similar 'first-world' aircraft.
My real position is that the government should not exist
That's not a real position, it's a fantasy. The only way you're going to get rid of government will be to get rid of humans.
Everywhere that humans interact, they conflict, and they are going to come up with some mechanism for resolving that conflict. Sometimes that mechanism will look more like what we might call a gang (see: parts of Mexico), but it's still a form of government.
Indeed, FREEDOM in the real world is complicated. Often the question can be boiled down to "Should I be free to restrict the freedom of others?" The answer: sometimes, yes. And sometimes, no.
The right-to-work laws (btw, that name is a masterful bit of propaganda) are a pretty good example of that complicated balance. Note that 'duty of fair representation' requirements mean that there isn't much incentive for non-union workers to seek out another union; they can just use an agreement struck by the original union. So there really isn't a 'marketplace' for unions in most workplaces.
In the past, the strength of unions has caused some problems (as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely), but at the moment, many workers are not doing well in the US. Some of that is due to the weakness of unions and anti-union laws, and some of that is due to the disparate economic conditions in other countries. To repeat: it's complicated.
But my original comment was aimed more at roman_mir, for whom it's simple: all government is bad. Except, of course, in this case, where somehow it's good. Or something. There's a reason all of his comments start at 0.
A right-to-work law prohibits unions from negoptiating contracts that require workers at a given workplace to join that union. Basically, they are a government restriction on the union's FREEDOM to enter a contract.
Basically, by being in favor of right-to-work laws, you're saying that you are in favor of government interference into people's contracts. So it looks like you're now officially a "I want more big government" kind of guy. Good to know!
Critical part:
It's not about viewing his posts - it's the ability to reply, and join in the cesspool that follows each of his tweets, that's emphasized in the judgement.
It's quite clear in the text of the NLRA that it applies, and it's quite clear in the text of the arbitration act ("except âoeupon such grounds as exist at law") that is secondary to other laws.
Gorsuch just hand-waves that away with vague 'structure of the NLRB' contortions.
To put it mildly, it's a pathetic bit of judicial reasoning.
An opinion piece from the WSJ isn't exactly a useful citation. It's paywalled - do they ever get around to comparing the US to other countries or do they just whine about the term 'mass incarceration'?
It's not difficult to find articles and studies that contradict the whole 'incarceration reduced crime' theory. This one includes this bit:
Ahh - welcome, anonymous whimpering apologist!
If, as you claim, waterboarding has no effect, then why do it? (one answer, btw, is simple sadism).
If secrets don't last very long, then why waterboard someone 83 times? (one answer, btw, is simple sadism).
How is this an improvement over the double-sided grills that cook both sides at the same time?
Example: http://www.garland-group.com/P...
and I take responsibility for my actions
Says the anonymous coward.
You are arguing against a point / strawman that I did not make.
The pro-ban researcher explicitly says the key was banning high capacity magazines
Which was part of the assault weapons ban.
and found to have zero effect
Studies listed here found an effect from the assault weapons ban:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
This Brady Center study found an effect:
https://www.bradycampaign.org/...
1.4 trillion in 10 years doesn't seem like that much given that Obama added 4 trillion in only 8 years.
Apples and oranges ... $1.5 trillion is the *additional increase* in the debt over the next ten years. Deficits were already projected to grow by $10 trillion over the next decade, now the projection is $11.5 trillion.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Mold-A-Rama!
Still available in some zoos:
http://mold-a-rama.com/index.p...
not to mention all his Swift Boat claims that were refuted
Friend, there's a reason that slandering someone with fake allegations is called swiftboating - all of the 'refuting' turned out to be BS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From the post:
Landau began his career playing a sadistic henchman in Alfred Hitchcock's North by Northwest
And from IMDB: .
At age 19, [Romero] worked briefly as a page-boy on the set of North by Northwest
From the decision:
Like you said, there's a process, and the court didn't think that the EPA was following it.
, ... and there's a lag between them.
That is, sometimes and for some people, measured in decades.
Kushner didn't disclose the meeting on his security clearance form.
That's not normal. It's also illegal.
Like
- bad arson science (see the Willingham case)
- unsupported bite-mark evidence (see the Krone case)
- stating that fingerprints are absolutely unique (see the Mayfield case).
What's wrong with requiring techniques used to court to be supported by evidence that they work?