Please understand, I'm not saying it is a good idea for a president to go out and provoke a war. All I'm saying is that as "Commander and Chief" he has the ability to order the military to do just that. Congress can object, but unless the president chooses to consult them it will be AFTER the fact. The "War Powers resolution" (Or Act if you prefer) which is largely viewed as unconstitutional, attempted to codify this by requiring the president to report and obtain congressional consent within certain time frames. Even that law gives the president immediate authority to order military action, which could cause a war. Congress can always refuse to fund the military activity the President orders, but this would likely be after the fact and the war may already be on.
I don't see an easy way to *fix* this issue in a way that protects the security of the nation in situations where seconds count. The president is given huge latitude and authority to unilaterally order the military to action for a reason and I don't see any way to preserve our security without this. Is this risky? Only if you cannot trust the holder of the office.
As much as I don't like the policy of the current president, he IS the properly elected holder of the office and as such, he is within his power to attack Syria if he feels it is necessary. Congress (And the people) can debate the reasons, but unless he chooses to ask BEFORE the fact, this debate in Congress will likely be after the military has already started breaking things and killing people in Syria.
Bit-coin boils down to a set of digitally signed documents getting passed around. To pay somebody, you sign the coin over to them and this gets recorded using your key and attached to the coin. It is simply NOT untraceable, by design it is not untraceable because the whole history of a coin is encoded in its history blocks. All you need is a copy of a coin and you can easily trace the wallets it has passed though since the coin was created.
The ONLY advantage Bit-Coin has is that it doesn't have to pass though a bank when doing transfers between individuals. I can send $10,000 worth of Bit-Coin to you in another country and nobody will report the transaction. It is also not necessary recorded which wallet belongs to who, but tracing a coin IN and OUT of a wallet is *always* possible. So if I can attach a wallet to you, I can examine all Bit-Coins and trace every transaction you made. The data exists in the coins themselves.
How folks got this "Bit Coin is untraceable" idea is beyond me. Of course it is, or the whole scheme used to pass them around wouldn't work. All you need to do is set up a mining operation and you will be sifting though many coins and have access to their data blocks. The whole point is that EVERYBODY can see which wallet *owns* what coin so everybody can verify that they got handed a valid coin from the current owner and the up to date data blocks that go with it.
Yep, the president CAN drag us into a conflict using the military, the CIA and other parts of his administration. It has happened multiple times in history.
I'm not saying how this is done is a GOOD idea, or that the law might not be subject to review, but this is the current state of the "War Powers resolution" and the constitution as practiced today.
Typically, Presidents have obtained the consent of congress before engaging in sustained military action. This has not been universal as some presidents have engaged the military in conflicts lasting years without congress approval. So what a president *should* do legally and what he *can* actually do are vastly different. Can they engage the military and drag us into world war III? They sure can, but they can and will be held in account AFTER the fact if they act outside of their legal bounds.
Personally, I don't see a viable way to really change this. We give our presidents *wide* leeway and trust that they will act within the best interests of the country and within the bounds of the constitution out of necessity. He/She needs to be able to react quickly without being hindered by congress because in the real world, sometimes seconds can make all the difference. If a president steps beyond the bounds, we deal with that after the fact. Can they drag us into a war? You bet. It is part of the responsibility of the office and why we should be very careful when we vote for president.
Hmmmm... So *who* was in the oval office when the wheels came off in each of these cases?
To be fair, how on earth would you go about rebuilding a country in the middle east? Old conflicts die hard and for the most part have nothing to do with the USA. Which is why I would advocate staying out of this mess, as well as most messes in the middle east. There is nobody to free in Syria because there is nobody really in charge, and unless we intend to go in and totally dismantle the country there is nothing the USA will gain, and a whole lot to loose.
No clear goal = Don't do anything.. At least in my book..
You have read the constitution right? The President IS the commander of the military and if he decides to order a strike, it's his option. I would generally advise a president to get the consent of congress, but it is not required. He cannot declare war, but he controls the military and can do what he sees fit (mostly) with it.
If congress disagrees that his actions are in the best interests of the US, they can just impeach him. And if the people don't like what he did, they can petition congress to impeach and/or elect somebody else the next time around.
So seeing pictures of 100s of dead children being gassed by a chemical attack doesn't do anything for you?
Not to be cold hearted, I'm sad that somebody decided to do this, but I don't see a positive upside for the US here. For what purpose would we get involved? Meeting out punishment?
If we only go after those responsible and can stay out of a wider conflict, bombs away! But there is HUGE risks being taken and I don't think we will *ever* be in a position to prevent folks killing each other in the middle east.
Chemical weapons WHERE used by Iraq in the past. They used them in actions related to their ongoing war with Iran and killed a number of civilians. So Iraq DID have chemical weapons, at least at some point in the past.
Of course, this happened decades before GWB invaded them the last time.
IF w do, then we have to choose sides in Syria. Problem is, neither side winning would be a good thing for the US. In some ways, I would prefer we just keep our ore out of this cesspool. There is no upside for US.
As usual, there are NO easy answers in the middle east.
I suspect that we will bomb some "Aspirin factory" in the dead of night, kill some janitors and security guards and claim we took out some chemical weapon's factory. Think Clinton and Carter and the mess they both found themselves in because it's generally the same foreign policy mistakes that are being made this time around.
I though text-exempt status also meant you didn't have to file all that paperwork once you had it. Lot of good it does to have tax-exempt status for a non-profit that makes no money, anyway.
First off... Non-Profit does not mean they don't make money, only that any money and assets they acquire do not belong to someone or a for profit entity. Non-Profits can and do make money, sell things and services at a profit, pay employees and all the same things other businesses do, but they cannot acquire cash and assets which end up owned by an individual or other for profit entity.
Second, the filing requirements for tax returns are not that involved for a 501c3. For most non-profits it amounts to filing out a form similar to a 1040Ez. The IRS generally wants to know where your money came from so they can cross reference donors deductions with receipts, at least in the general sense. I don't believe that a non-profit has to report who is giving to it, just how much they received. I also don't think that they would be required to pay taxes, only file the report.
The real problem here is that the organization that can't be bothered to file the yearly reports is likely going to be a problem for someone wanting to give money and take the tax deduction. If the organization doesn't supply a receipt a donor will be limited to $250 and if they cannot supply the IRS with the yearly return, I'm sure they won't be bothered to send out receipts either.
Seems that this organization doesn't really care about the money side of things. This is a shame, because the accounting is NOT that hard and the risks of not having proper controls in place is pretty big.
When the Government says: "You are not allowed to travel from here to there no matter how" is when you draw the line. The method of conveyance makes no difference.
You can travel from New York City to Atlanta any number of ways. If the government says "you may not travel from New York to Atlanta" they are restricting movement. If they say "you may not fly commercial from New York to Atlanta" they have not restricted movement, only the method of conveyance. In this case, unless your name is on the "No Fly" list they just have an additional set of rules for you to follow. If you follow the rules, they may inadvertently delay you, but they will not prevent you from flying anyplace you want. If you choose to break the rules, then figure on getting arrested (Which will restrict your freedoms, but that's legally allowed when you get yourself arrested.)
Call me when they start making folks produce "papers" to cross state lines. Then, they will be restricting your movement. AS of now, the TSA isn't violating your right to move as you please by making you produce ID, search you and your baggage, or choosing to detain and question you should something show up in the search.
I'm not advocating that the TSA continue to exist. I'm simply giving you the current situation.
You are still free to move around using any means you can afford and the TSA cannot reasonably stop you. They CAN, however, search your person and baggage when you use specific modes of transportation "for safety and security reasons". While it could be argued this is a violation of the 4th amendment, This is not violating your freedom to move.
Like I said.. Are we ready to admit that the TSA simply cannot provide security for us, even on airplanes, and accept the responsibility for our own safety? OR Do we want to continue with the TSA's illusion of safety?
Who's saying you can't fly? I'm just saying that IF you choose to fly commercial then you are subject to TSA's rules. If you don't like the rules, you can walk, take a bike, drive, take a train, or even fly (Just not on a commercial aircraft). It's the same as when you drive, you are subject to traffic laws. If you don't like traffic laws, you can choose not to drive.
Sometimes you got to do what you got to do, but if you have to drop your price to $20/hour to stay in work, something is wrong or you live in a place with a really low cost of living.
Don't sell yourself short. Unless you are really an idiot (and it doesn't seem so to me) you need to start expecting better and asking your employer for more. They obviously know that the market is well above what they pay because they have a large turnover rate, yet they persist in not paying more because YOU obviously are willing to accept it. It's time you step out and at least ask them for more. You should be making $30+/hour with benefits in just about *any* location in the US, and much more than that in most locations. If they are not willing to step up, you need to step out of your comfort zone and start looking for other work.
Think about it. If the market rate is $40 and they are paying you $20 the question you need to ask yourself is "Why?" Is it that they CAN'T or that they WON'T?
If they simply *can't* pay the going rate and stay in business, your future is severely limited. The business isn't viable without you so it cannot be very solid in the first place. Unless you OWN part of the business, why are you taking the risk of it failing while accepting less than the market rate? If they simply cannot pay you more and stay in business, there is no upside for you to stay. If the business fails (which is likely) where does that leave you? Unless there *clearly* is growth potential in the business, use your experience to get a better job.
If they WON'T pay you market rates, even though they can, I've got to ask why you'd want to work for them. They don't feel the need to treat you fairly and step up to pay you market rate for your skills. I personally do not wish to work for anybody who doesn't value me and treats me fairly. I'd recommend you find another job if this is the case.
I hate to break this to you.. But the place you describe is DOOMED!
They are now subject to "manage to quarter" and have forgotten the long term view. Sometimes doing the right thing for the long term means added costs now. They are apparently only concerned about today and if they continue with this the long term viability of the company is not good.
Might be time to start looking elsewhere for that paycheck.
You mean just let the flying public arm themselves? Or are you suggesting that the airline be responsible for security?
Either way, I'm OK with giving the TSA the boot. The issue though is that folks are going to have to accept that nobody is now responsible to stop the bad guys from doing bad things on airplanes. With the TSA, we at least have the illusion that somebody is responsible for security.
So do you think the flying public is *ready* to admit the truth and just do away with the TSA?
If you don't like this kind of thing happening, then I suggest you not fly. Take a bus or drive perhaps?
Where I don't condone how the TSA handled the situation after the machine indicated explosive residue, that they detained and questioned him is NOT an issue. What do we EXPECT TSA to do? They cannot do anything that might be construed as profiling some protected class and have zero investigative authority. So we get cavity searches of wheelchair bound granny and full body pat downs of children and other stupid things. What else can they do but have hard and fast process that their agents MUST follow, no deviations allowed. This is all that happened in this case.
The TSA is tame compared to what happens in some countries. Go Fly El Al and call me about being mistreated. If you have explosive traces on your person or baggage, "well now sir, please step this way" will be just the beginning of your experience. And when you get done, they WON'T be saying "sorry" for anything. Not to mention they background check EVERYBODY before boarding the plane.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear World,
Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated
John
P.S. Unless of course the effects of all these drugs and alcohol are what is greatly exaggerated.
Maybe I just THINK I'm dead...
Why the hell would anyone trust a tweet over a cryptographically signed message?
Better ask the NSA that one... Oh wait, you did...
Please understand, I'm not saying it is a good idea for a president to go out and provoke a war. All I'm saying is that as "Commander and Chief" he has the ability to order the military to do just that. Congress can object, but unless the president chooses to consult them it will be AFTER the fact. The "War Powers resolution" (Or Act if you prefer) which is largely viewed as unconstitutional, attempted to codify this by requiring the president to report and obtain congressional consent within certain time frames. Even that law gives the president immediate authority to order military action, which could cause a war. Congress can always refuse to fund the military activity the President orders, but this would likely be after the fact and the war may already be on.
I don't see an easy way to *fix* this issue in a way that protects the security of the nation in situations where seconds count. The president is given huge latitude and authority to unilaterally order the military to action for a reason and I don't see any way to preserve our security without this. Is this risky? Only if you cannot trust the holder of the office.
As much as I don't like the policy of the current president, he IS the properly elected holder of the office and as such, he is within his power to attack Syria if he feels it is necessary. Congress (And the people) can debate the reasons, but unless he chooses to ask BEFORE the fact, this debate in Congress will likely be after the military has already started breaking things and killing people in Syria.
Bit-coin boils down to a set of digitally signed documents getting passed around. To pay somebody, you sign the coin over to them and this gets recorded using your key and attached to the coin. It is simply NOT untraceable, by design it is not untraceable because the whole history of a coin is encoded in its history blocks. All you need is a copy of a coin and you can easily trace the wallets it has passed though since the coin was created.
The ONLY advantage Bit-Coin has is that it doesn't have to pass though a bank when doing transfers between individuals. I can send $10,000 worth of Bit-Coin to you in another country and nobody will report the transaction. It is also not necessary recorded which wallet belongs to who, but tracing a coin IN and OUT of a wallet is *always* possible. So if I can attach a wallet to you, I can examine all Bit-Coins and trace every transaction you made. The data exists in the coins themselves.
How folks got this "Bit Coin is untraceable" idea is beyond me. Of course it is, or the whole scheme used to pass them around wouldn't work. All you need to do is set up a mining operation and you will be sifting though many coins and have access to their data blocks. The whole point is that EVERYBODY can see which wallet *owns* what coin so everybody can verify that they got handed a valid coin from the current owner and the up to date data blocks that go with it.
Yep, the president CAN drag us into a conflict using the military, the CIA and other parts of his administration. It has happened multiple times in history.
I'm not saying how this is done is a GOOD idea, or that the law might not be subject to review, but this is the current state of the "War Powers resolution" and the constitution as practiced today.
Typically, Presidents have obtained the consent of congress before engaging in sustained military action. This has not been universal as some presidents have engaged the military in conflicts lasting years without congress approval. So what a president *should* do legally and what he *can* actually do are vastly different. Can they engage the military and drag us into world war III? They sure can, but they can and will be held in account AFTER the fact if they act outside of their legal bounds.
Personally, I don't see a viable way to really change this. We give our presidents *wide* leeway and trust that they will act within the best interests of the country and within the bounds of the constitution out of necessity. He/She needs to be able to react quickly without being hindered by congress because in the real world, sometimes seconds can make all the difference. If a president steps beyond the bounds, we deal with that after the fact. Can they drag us into a war? You bet. It is part of the responsibility of the office and why we should be very careful when we vote for president.
OK.. I will rephrase...
There is no *real* and *lasting* answer in the middle east that can be imposed by the USA.
Hmmmm... So *who* was in the oval office when the wheels came off in each of these cases?
To be fair, how on earth would you go about rebuilding a country in the middle east? Old conflicts die hard and for the most part have nothing to do with the USA. Which is why I would advocate staying out of this mess, as well as most messes in the middle east. There is nobody to free in Syria because there is nobody really in charge, and unless we intend to go in and totally dismantle the country there is nothing the USA will gain, and a whole lot to loose.
No clear goal = Don't do anything.. At least in my book..
I'm certainly NOT an Obama supporter but...
You have read the constitution right? The President IS the commander of the military and if he decides to order a strike, it's his option. I would generally advise a president to get the consent of congress, but it is not required. He cannot declare war, but he controls the military and can do what he sees fit (mostly) with it.
If congress disagrees that his actions are in the best interests of the US, they can just impeach him. And if the people don't like what he did, they can petition congress to impeach and/or elect somebody else the next time around.
I don't see a reason to intervene.
So seeing pictures of 100s of dead children being gassed by a chemical attack doesn't do anything for you?
Not to be cold hearted, I'm sad that somebody decided to do this, but I don't see a positive upside for the US here. For what purpose would we get involved? Meeting out punishment?
If we only go after those responsible and can stay out of a wider conflict, bombs away! But there is HUGE risks being taken and I don't think we will *ever* be in a position to prevent folks killing each other in the middle east.
Are we going to be greeted as liberators this time? If so, we might want to not bother.
Clearly the answer to your question is simple... NO. This is the middle east, we are not going to be well received no matter what we do.
Buzzzzzz Wrong...
Chemical weapons WHERE used by Iraq in the past. They used them in actions related to their ongoing war with Iran and killed a number of civilians. So Iraq DID have chemical weapons, at least at some point in the past.
Of course, this happened decades before GWB invaded them the last time.
What was that pace prize for again?
Seems it was awarded BEFORE peace broke out. OOPS... I'm guessing they will be reconsidering their mistake for a long time on that one.
IF w do, then we have to choose sides in Syria. Problem is, neither side winning would be a good thing for the US. In some ways, I would prefer we just keep our ore out of this cesspool. There is no upside for US.
As usual, there are NO easy answers in the middle east.
I suspect that we will bomb some "Aspirin factory" in the dead of night, kill some janitors and security guards and claim we took out some chemical weapon's factory. Think Clinton and Carter and the mess they both found themselves in because it's generally the same foreign policy mistakes that are being made this time around.
I though text-exempt status also meant you didn't have to file all that paperwork once you had it. Lot of good it does to have tax-exempt status for a non-profit that makes no money, anyway.
First off... Non-Profit does not mean they don't make money, only that any money and assets they acquire do not belong to someone or a for profit entity. Non-Profits can and do make money, sell things and services at a profit, pay employees and all the same things other businesses do, but they cannot acquire cash and assets which end up owned by an individual or other for profit entity.
Second, the filing requirements for tax returns are not that involved for a 501c3. For most non-profits it amounts to filing out a form similar to a 1040Ez. The IRS generally wants to know where your money came from so they can cross reference donors deductions with receipts, at least in the general sense. I don't believe that a non-profit has to report who is giving to it, just how much they received. I also don't think that they would be required to pay taxes, only file the report.
The real problem here is that the organization that can't be bothered to file the yearly reports is likely going to be a problem for someone wanting to give money and take the tax deduction. If the organization doesn't supply a receipt a donor will be limited to $250 and if they cannot supply the IRS with the yearly return, I'm sure they won't be bothered to send out receipts either.
Seems that this organization doesn't really care about the money side of things. This is a shame, because the accounting is NOT that hard and the risks of not having proper controls in place is pretty big.
When the Government says: "You are not allowed to travel from here to there no matter how" is when you draw the line. The method of conveyance makes no difference.
You can travel from New York City to Atlanta any number of ways. If the government says "you may not travel from New York to Atlanta" they are restricting movement. If they say "you may not fly commercial from New York to Atlanta" they have not restricted movement, only the method of conveyance. In this case, unless your name is on the "No Fly" list they just have an additional set of rules for you to follow. If you follow the rules, they may inadvertently delay you, but they will not prevent you from flying anyplace you want. If you choose to break the rules, then figure on getting arrested (Which will restrict your freedoms, but that's legally allowed when you get yourself arrested.)
Call me when they start making folks produce "papers" to cross state lines. Then, they will be restricting your movement. AS of now, the TSA isn't violating your right to move as you please by making you produce ID, search you and your baggage, or choosing to detain and question you should something show up in the search.
I'm not advocating that the TSA continue to exist. I'm simply giving you the current situation.
You are still free to move around using any means you can afford and the TSA cannot reasonably stop you. They CAN, however, search your person and baggage when you use specific modes of transportation "for safety and security reasons". While it could be argued this is a violation of the 4th amendment, This is not violating your freedom to move.
Um.. All That is the TSA's job too.
Like I said.. Are we ready to admit that the TSA simply cannot provide security for us, even on airplanes, and accept the responsibility for our own safety? OR Do we want to continue with the TSA's illusion of safety?
Who's saying you can't fly? I'm just saying that IF you choose to fly commercial then you are subject to TSA's rules. If you don't like the rules, you can walk, take a bike, drive, take a train, or even fly (Just not on a commercial aircraft). It's the same as when you drive, you are subject to traffic laws. If you don't like traffic laws, you can choose not to drive.
How's that prevent your free movement?
r $20/hr. ... I'm cheap."
Why YES! You ARE cheep, TOO cheap>
Sometimes you got to do what you got to do, but if you have to drop your price to $20/hour to stay in work, something is wrong or you live in a place with a really low cost of living.
Don't sell yourself short. Unless you are really an idiot (and it doesn't seem so to me) you need to start expecting better and asking your employer for more. They obviously know that the market is well above what they pay because they have a large turnover rate, yet they persist in not paying more because YOU obviously are willing to accept it. It's time you step out and at least ask them for more. You should be making $30+/hour with benefits in just about *any* location in the US, and much more than that in most locations. If they are not willing to step up, you need to step out of your comfort zone and start looking for other work.
Think about it. If the market rate is $40 and they are paying you $20 the question you need to ask yourself is "Why?" Is it that they CAN'T or that they WON'T?
If they simply *can't* pay the going rate and stay in business, your future is severely limited. The business isn't viable without you so it cannot be very solid in the first place. Unless you OWN part of the business, why are you taking the risk of it failing while accepting less than the market rate? If they simply cannot pay you more and stay in business, there is no upside for you to stay. If the business fails (which is likely) where does that leave you? Unless there *clearly* is growth potential in the business, use your experience to get a better job.
If they WON'T pay you market rates, even though they can, I've got to ask why you'd want to work for them. They don't feel the need to treat you fairly and step up to pay you market rate for your skills. I personally do not wish to work for anybody who doesn't value me and treats me fairly. I'd recommend you find another job if this is the case.
I hate to break this to you.. But the place you describe is DOOMED!
They are now subject to "manage to quarter" and have forgotten the long term view. Sometimes doing the right thing for the long term means added costs now. They are apparently only concerned about today and if they continue with this the long term viability of the company is not good.
Might be time to start looking elsewhere for that paycheck.
You will go far grasshopper.... I'm 10 years ahead of you and I can see you have the right idea...
You mean just let the flying public arm themselves? Or are you suggesting that the airline be responsible for security?
Either way, I'm OK with giving the TSA the boot. The issue though is that folks are going to have to accept that nobody is now responsible to stop the bad guys from doing bad things on airplanes. With the TSA, we at least have the illusion that somebody is responsible for security.
So do you think the flying public is *ready* to admit the truth and just do away with the TSA?
Know misspelled words their so I-Spell will knot catch thee problem.. What Eu halve is eh grammar is shew.
Yes, but it provides a distraction for the public from the collapsing economy and rampant domestic NSA surveillance.
[Cheek = Insert Tongue]
WHAT?
NSA is watching me? Oh the Horror!
[/Cheek = Insert Tongue]
I think you have a point...
If you don't like this kind of thing happening, then I suggest you not fly. Take a bus or drive perhaps?
Where I don't condone how the TSA handled the situation after the machine indicated explosive residue, that they detained and questioned him is NOT an issue. What do we EXPECT TSA to do? They cannot do anything that might be construed as profiling some protected class and have zero investigative authority. So we get cavity searches of wheelchair bound granny and full body pat downs of children and other stupid things. What else can they do but have hard and fast process that their agents MUST follow, no deviations allowed. This is all that happened in this case.
The TSA is tame compared to what happens in some countries. Go Fly El Al and call me about being mistreated. If you have explosive traces on your person or baggage, "well now sir, please step this way" will be just the beginning of your experience. And when you get done, they WON'T be saying "sorry" for anything. Not to mention they background check EVERYBODY before boarding the plane.