ignore the misleading stuff of 20 bucks an hour, that's at its maximum for a single mother with 2 children. wellfare can provide the equivalent of that.
"looking only at the welfare, food stamp and Medicaid programs that, they said, nearly all poor people would be eligible for. Cato found that the value of just those benefits was equivalent to being paid $17,347 a year, or $8.34 an hour."
which apparently is like 66 cents less than full time minimum wage. which begs the question, why get a job when they're paying you for existing?
he could have been confirmed easily, for a "liberal seat". they would have rejected him in a straight up and down... because the optic would have been bad, of them rejecting a qualified judge... but it would have been worse, putting a moderate in scalia's seat.
so mcconnell said, 'we're not playing your fucking game, we're not even going to consider it. come again after you win the election.'
i don't care if you're left or right or middle, the president doesn't does not and should not have the power to unilaterally ignore laws. vis a vis obama's daca and dreamer's stance, i'm on the right...ish. i'd consider myself a liberal, but the left pulled the hell to the left and now i'm left center-right. regardless... if the president has the authority to unilaterally ignore the enforcement of entire laws passed by congress... it's not good. the legislature of our country does not pass suggestions. if you want to rewrite immigration laws. pass a fucking law. if you can't pass a fucking law because you don't have the votes, convince people and win a fucking election.
i support gorsuch, i want our government to run within the bounds of their constitutional powers. i think they've worked pretty well and don't want them to be simply 'suggestions.' judicial activism is bad, executive overreach is bad. power should lie with the people, and the people's house is the closest we can get to that... not a single person, and not 9 unelected life-time appointments. the men and women who have to go back to THE PEOPLE every two years and make the case that they're not fucking up, and sometimes those fuckers in the senate.
stole from whom? up or down vote, garland would have lost, i can almost guarantee it. biden suggested, before he left the senate that the appropriate course of action for supreme court nominees after the election season commenced was to wait until after the election to confirm. democratic obstruction of bush nominees initially started the fillibustering of judicial nominees in the circuit courts, which the republicans turned around and used on the democrats during obama's term. after which the democrats got fed up with the obstruction and killed the fillibuster for lower court confirmations. yet during that period kagan and sotomayor were confirmed without a hitch.
was it legal to neglect to hear garland? yes. was it right, as right as any of the political maneuvering in washington.
mcconnell gambled, and everybody thought he was a fool because if hillary won, it would have been someone politically left of garland for that seat. but he won his bet.
constitutionally, it was well within mcconnell's powers to refuse to hear garland. it's been done before, about 150 years ago.
it was the democrats that killed the fillibuster. don't forget that, the only reason it didn't cover supreme court nominations was because none of the supreme court nominations were fillibustered.
you forgot the syrians calling him abu ivanka al-amriki. because that's something that i think is getting lost in this mess. the people on the ground don't enjoy getting gassed. and the US has been all posture no action for half a decade.
impartiality is impartiality. if they're banning people or punishing people in an obvious way or a perceived way, how exactly does one lose the verified status if its only implication is that you are who you say you are, then their claim of impartiality is on its face invalid.
at that point, one could make the argument that any speech on their platform is tacitly endorsed because it is not removed.
hell, if they were kicking off republicans disproportionately say, i think you could make a case that it is an in-kind donation to the democratic party. they are and have been selectively enforcing their stated rules.
their defense boils down to, in my mind, we can't monitor all of our users, and providing the platform for people to engage is a net societal good. now, if i see that they are monitoring and silencing some users and not others, then that falls apart. next time someone organizes a protest that gets violent, could the aggrieved party not sue twitter for complicity? because if they are selectively enforcing their policy, wouldn't it make sense to selectively enforce it against violent elements?
safe harbor protections are an earned privilege of neutrality.
should i tolerate islamic sexism? if i criticize it will i be called an islamophobe? should i question the 80 cents on a dollar? would i be called sexist if i do? should i ask questions about the statistics of black on black violence? will i be called racist if i do? should i make a distinction between how i feel of legal immigration and illegal immigration? will i be called xenophobe if i do?
they are controlling the 'acceptable' narrative of life in the united states, because asking questions of that narrative will get you physically assaulted.
i think his point was. if you adopt the role of mediating who is and who isn't deserving of a checkmark, dependent in part of your approval of their ideological position and not purely as a verification, per removal of check-marks putatively for behavior as a punitive measure, then you necessarily also adopt the responsibility of failing to moderate certain individuals.
as someone else pointed out. if twitter wants to moderate its user's behavior so be it, but in doing so they jeopardize or sacrifice any claim they have to safe harbor as telecomms.
you can't moderate your users and then claim to be a simple impartial facilitator of communication.
government and society certainly have a duty to the disabled in Mr. Harmon's case, and it's admirable that he is doing something productive and valuable with his time. but that's also government and society, what exactly are we paying them for if they're foisting that responsibility onto each institution or private entity that comes in contact with mr. harmon and people like him?
the two questions i have are, what is the most fiscally responsible solution, and who pays for it?
give him interpreter services sure, government can contribute to that and you can argue they should. make every good and service in the united states that that person could potentially come in contact to, 'disability-proof' for all known disabilities? that is a waste of money and labor and fiscally irresponsible but that is the intent of the law.
the ADA makes exception for financially burdensom actions. that a entity has more than enough means to cover an action and won't be forced to close... does not make the action more cost-effective or more wise. even the law has provision in the case where accommodation with its provisions would be ruinous to the enterprise, because it's better for society to have a non-compliant business and product than to have no product at all.
nope that was it, and i wasn't trying to be facetious, i was not aware of the braille machine, though one wonders who pays for that 1300 dollar device...
the analogy in this case would be that berkeley should be responsible for purchasing the machine for the deaf and blind person. because, you know, why not? if they're responsible for transcribing the audio, why aren't they also held liable for rendering the transcription into braille?
at some point you really must draw the line. my view of the scope of this law is that if there is a single person classified as disabled who cannot access this content free of charge to themselves, berkeley is doing something contravening the ADA and can be held liable for it.
a blind and deaf quadripalegic then, if they so chose could sue berkeley to have this information made accessible in their preferred transfer medium.
this course we are taking will certainly result in equality, we will all be equally poor and ignorant.
... yes, and at that point they've effectively argued that to release content in one medium, one must necessarily release content in all mediums. do the blind and deaf perchance require braille as well and a mail delivery of a transcription of a purely audio base.
i'd be hardpressed to justify hiring a signlanguage translator for every lecture that they're releasing for free.
it seems more likely that each disabled student is assigned a dude that follows them around to translate for them. or you know, they book someone for only the lectures with hearing disabled peoples.
no, the problem was rendered moot when Berkeley decided it was more fiscally responsible to take down their videos rather than spend a couple million captioning them all. do not blame this new group for finding a way to salvage some sanity from this situation.
interesting, what would be the downstream consequences of that?
transportation expense, delivery expense. your goods don't magically arrive on the shelves after all.
would that bump up the cost of manufacture in america? slow down the yadda yadda? what would that do to manufacturing incentives for companies based in the US, would it incentivize relocating manufacturing overseas even more than it is currently? when not only the cost of labor is significantly cheaper, but the energy as well?
tourism is a 1.5 trillion dollar industry apparently.
Slashdot Mirror
meh, cheap little pushback to assad and russia. isolationist is isolationist, it doesn't mean abandoning our commitments altogether.
we've got our eye on russia and syria, don't try to pull a fast one and we'll be fine. and that goes double for you north korea and china.
the american in office is a shoot first ask questions never kind of guy, so watch your step.
i'm willing to pay for a 59 cruise missile message to the non-friendly actors that the tone has officially changed in washington.
oh, and you get to send a message against the gassing of children. so, win win.
rhode island rates for 2015.
http://www.politifact.com/rhod...
ignore the misleading stuff of 20 bucks an hour, that's at its maximum for a single mother with 2 children. wellfare can provide the equivalent of that.
"looking only at the welfare, food stamp and Medicaid programs that, they said, nearly all poor people would be eligible for. Cato found that the value of just those benefits was equivalent to being paid $17,347 a year, or $8.34 an hour."
which apparently is like 66 cents less than full time minimum wage. which begs the question, why get a job when they're paying you for existing?
the welfare state is your answer.
wasn't trump's tax rate 25 percent or like 60 million one year?
and bernie sander's tax rate was like 14 percent.
he could have been confirmed easily, for a "liberal seat". they would have rejected him in a straight up and down... because the optic would have been bad, of them rejecting a qualified judge... but it would have been worse, putting a moderate in scalia's seat.
so mcconnell said, 'we're not playing your fucking game, we're not even going to consider it. come again after you win the election.'
you throw around 'constitutional duty' like that means something. please clarify what you think the relevant passage actually means.
https://aclj.org/supreme-court...
i'd think you'd be a little more worried about executive discretion
http://www.economist.com/blogs...
i don't care if you're left or right or middle, the president doesn't does not and should not have the power to unilaterally ignore laws. vis a vis obama's daca and dreamer's stance, i'm on the right...ish. i'd consider myself a liberal, but the left pulled the hell to the left and now i'm left center-right. regardless... if the president has the authority to unilaterally ignore the enforcement of entire laws passed by congress... it's not good. the legislature of our country does not pass suggestions. if you want to rewrite immigration laws. pass a fucking law. if you can't pass a fucking law because you don't have the votes, convince people and win a fucking election.
i support gorsuch, i want our government to run within the bounds of their constitutional powers. i think they've worked pretty well and don't want them to be simply 'suggestions.' judicial activism is bad, executive overreach is bad. power should lie with the people, and the people's house is the closest we can get to that... not a single person, and not 9 unelected life-time appointments. the men and women who have to go back to THE PEOPLE every two years and make the case that they're not fucking up, and sometimes those fuckers in the senate.
the only thing enforcing the fillibuster was tradition. which both parties supported. then the democrats killed it in 2013.
stole from whom? up or down vote, garland would have lost, i can almost guarantee it. biden suggested, before he left the senate that the appropriate course of action for supreme court nominees after the election season commenced was to wait until after the election to confirm. democratic obstruction of bush nominees initially started the fillibustering of judicial nominees in the circuit courts, which the republicans turned around and used on the democrats during obama's term. after which the democrats got fed up with the obstruction and killed the fillibuster for lower court confirmations. yet during that period kagan and sotomayor were confirmed without a hitch.
was it legal to neglect to hear garland? yes. was it right, as right as any of the political maneuvering in washington.
mcconnell gambled, and everybody thought he was a fool because if hillary won, it would have been someone politically left of garland for that seat. but he won his bet.
constitutionally, it was well within mcconnell's powers to refuse to hear garland. it's been done before, about 150 years ago.
it was the democrats that killed the fillibuster. don't forget that, the only reason it didn't cover supreme court nominations was because none of the supreme court nominations were fillibustered.
you forgot the syrians calling him abu ivanka al-amriki. because that's something that i think is getting lost in this mess. the people on the ground don't enjoy getting gassed. and the US has been all posture no action for half a decade.
... i think you either didn't read or misinterpreted the last sentence.
impartiality is impartiality. if they're banning people or punishing people in an obvious way or a perceived way, how exactly does one lose the verified status if its only implication is that you are who you say you are, then their claim of impartiality is on its face invalid.
at that point, one could make the argument that any speech on their platform is tacitly endorsed because it is not removed.
hell, if they were kicking off republicans disproportionately say, i think you could make a case that it is an in-kind donation to the democratic party. they are and have been selectively enforcing their stated rules.
their defense boils down to, in my mind, we can't monitor all of our users, and providing the platform for people to engage is a net societal good. now, if i see that they are monitoring and silencing some users and not others, then that falls apart. next time someone organizes a protest that gets violent, could the aggrieved party not sue twitter for complicity? because if they are selectively enforcing their policy, wouldn't it make sense to selectively enforce it against violent elements?
safe harbor protections are an earned privilege of neutrality.
it's the ctrl left.
should i tolerate islamic sexism? if i criticize it will i be called an islamophobe? should i question the 80 cents on a dollar? would i be called sexist if i do? should i ask questions about the statistics of black on black violence? will i be called racist if i do? should i make a distinction between how i feel of legal immigration and illegal immigration? will i be called xenophobe if i do?
they are controlling the 'acceptable' narrative of life in the united states, because asking questions of that narrative will get you physically assaulted.
i think his point was. if you adopt the role of mediating who is and who isn't deserving of a checkmark, dependent in part of your approval of their ideological position and not purely as a verification, per removal of check-marks putatively for behavior as a punitive measure, then you necessarily also adopt the responsibility of failing to moderate certain individuals.
as someone else pointed out. if twitter wants to moderate its user's behavior so be it, but in doing so they jeopardize or sacrifice any claim they have to safe harbor as telecomms.
you can't moderate your users and then claim to be a simple impartial facilitator of communication.
government and society certainly have a duty to the disabled in Mr. Harmon's case, and it's admirable that he is doing something productive and valuable with his time. but that's also government and society, what exactly are we paying them for if they're foisting that responsibility onto each institution or private entity that comes in contact with mr. harmon and people like him?
the two questions i have are, what is the most fiscally responsible solution, and who pays for it?
give him interpreter services sure, government can contribute to that and you can argue they should. make every good and service in the united states that that person could potentially come in contact to, 'disability-proof' for all known disabilities? that is a waste of money and labor and fiscally irresponsible but that is the intent of the law.
the ADA makes exception for financially burdensom actions. that a entity has more than enough means to cover an action and won't be forced to close... does not make the action more cost-effective or more wise. even the law has provision in the case where accommodation with its provisions would be ruinous to the enterprise, because it's better for society to have a non-compliant business and product than to have no product at all.
i agree. that would be the MOST sane solution. but apparently we just need to settle for what we've got going.
i'd be worried if he actually got convicted of anything. is it really that far from assault with a deadly weapon, to negligent homicide?
at which point a new margin will form.
nope that was it, and i wasn't trying to be facetious, i was not aware of the braille machine, though one wonders who pays for that 1300 dollar device...
the analogy in this case would be that berkeley should be responsible for purchasing the machine for the deaf and blind person. because, you know, why not? if they're responsible for transcribing the audio, why aren't they also held liable for rendering the transcription into braille?
at some point you really must draw the line. my view of the scope of this law is that if there is a single person classified as disabled who cannot access this content free of charge to themselves, berkeley is doing something contravening the ADA and can be held liable for it.
a blind and deaf quadripalegic then, if they so chose could sue berkeley to have this information made accessible in their preferred transfer medium.
this course we are taking will certainly result in equality, we will all be equally poor and ignorant.
no, because they don't care about solutions, they want the issue.
... yes, and at that point they've effectively argued that to release content in one medium, one must necessarily release content in all mediums. do the blind and deaf perchance require braille as well and a mail delivery of a transcription of a purely audio base.
i'd be hardpressed to justify hiring a signlanguage translator for every lecture that they're releasing for free.
it seems more likely that each disabled student is assigned a dude that follows them around to translate for them. or you know, they book someone for only the lectures with hearing disabled peoples.
no, the problem was rendered moot when Berkeley decided it was more fiscally responsible to take down their videos rather than spend a couple million captioning them all. do not blame this new group for finding a way to salvage some sanity from this situation.
hrm... could they release purely audio recordings of lectures? not quite as good, but still serviceable.
unless.... could they demand closed captioning on audio recordings too? that would be hilarious.
i think berkeley should release audio recordings in the future and see what happens.
you know it's gone off the rails when making an end-run around the ADA is the right thing to do.
domestic tourism, which involves often-times involves a crap-ton of driving an represents a good 1 percent of our gdp i think.
interesting, what would be the downstream consequences of that?
transportation expense, delivery expense. your goods don't magically arrive on the shelves after all.
would that bump up the cost of manufacture in america? slow down the yadda yadda? what would that do to manufacturing incentives for companies based in the US, would it incentivize relocating manufacturing overseas even more than it is currently? when not only the cost of labor is significantly cheaper, but the energy as well?
tourism is a 1.5 trillion dollar industry apparently.
https://www.statista.com/topic...
1 trillion in direct spending, of that 800 billion was by domestic travelers. transportation cost increases would hit that thing like a bag of bricks.
i'd be all for that, except for the pesky environmental regulation of course.