Trade negotiations are the responsibility of the administration, which is firmly controlled by the Democrats. And this Democratic administration, in particular, has been quite secretive in many ways.
Get out of that stupid partisan mindset that the Democrats are the good guys.
And I have a problem with people who are privileged...claiming they weren't and getting upset when called on their privilege.
You're not calling people on their actual privilege because you have no way of knowing what their privileges and obstacles were; all you have is your prejudices about race, gender, and socio-economic status.
Face it, the actual reason people get upset with you is much simpler: you're a racist, as you keep demonstrating.
What the US Marshalls are doing is illegal. As head of the executive branch, the president not only has the power to tell them to stop, he has the obligation to do so.
We relaxed a LOT of those restrictions after 9/11 and a we're reaping the corruption those laws used to prevent.
I think it was foolish to relax those restrictions. But the justification for those relaxations was that the executive branch, that is, the part of the government the president is responsible for, was going to use these new powers responsibly and was going to guard against their abuse. As it turns out, Obama has either been asleep on the job or actively misusing those expanded powers, arguably even worse than Bush. I'd also point out that those powers were generally expanded in a bipartisan way.
What makes real fascism so scary is that the people behind it are true believers that they are doing the right thing.
You mean like when Obama justifies ignoring Congress or modifying existing law because he truly believes it's the right thing to do? Yes, you're right, that's scary.
Universities still hire plenty of full time faculty and absolute numbers have not decreased. Universities just hire a lot more non-permanent faculty as well.
"Adjunct professors" are supposed to have a full time job outside the university and teach on the side. Many professionals get adjunct professorships because they like the teaching, and the $20k are just a token of appreciation.
If you choose to make a temporary side-job your primary of income, why is that the university's fault? Do you want universities to make having another job a requirement for becoming an "adjunct professor"?
Why would the federal government penalize itself? The DoJ presumably wants this to happen, as does the president; if he didn't, he could stop tomorrow.
Once a skilled trade provided a good shot at a decent middle-class livelihood. Something has happened to devalue these skills.
Nothing has happened in the real world. Many blue collar jobs, sales jobs, small businesses, and service jobs still pay very well, like they always have. And as an added bonus, you end up not having any debt and not losing 5-10 years of your working life and savings in college/grad school.
Despite all the jokes about degreed barristas working for the minimum wage, the absence of a degree is now the best way to ensure a lifetime of poorly paid jobs.
Quite the opposite: while some degrees can get you a good salary (law, medicine, engineering), many other academic degrees are "a good way of ensuring a lifetime of poorly paid jobs."
I have completed one quarter and got good reviews from the students, so am now starting my second quarter. I view it as something useful to do in retirement.
Of course, people like you are the reason salaries for full time faculty are low in the first place: a lot of people like to teach and they are willing to do it for little money and with few benefits.
[Academic year] salaries for full-time faculty averaged $73,207. By rank, the average was $98,974 for professors, $69,911 for associate professors, $58,662 for assistant professors, $42,609 for instructors, and $48,289 for lecturers. Faculty in 4-year institutions earn higher salaries, on average, than do those in 2-year schools. In 2006–07, faculty salaries averaged $84,249 in private independent institutions, $71,362 in public institutions, and $66,118 in religiously affiliated private colleges and universities
By comparison, median personal income is $32000, so those are actually clearly all middle class or above (yes, even taking into account median vs average); keep in mind that the above academic salaries are for 9 months, not 12 months, of work.
Furthermore, faculty salaries have slightly increased over time in constant dollars; they certainly haven't decreased, so teaching college is no less of a middle class job now than it was 10 or 20 years ago.
[Race] is one strong factor [for unearned advantages], you can also throw income in there
In what possible way is income an "unearned advantage"?
It's one strong factor, you can also throw income in there. But would you want to be an ethnic minority in America? Would you willingly give up white privilege?
Not only "would I", I did choose to be an ethnic minority in America. And I never had a problem with the fact that most people around me, regardless of race or ethnicity, had a lot more privileges and opportunities than I had. What I do have a problem with is that people like you take a look at me and start making assumptions about my supposedly unearned privilege.
I'm racist to point out that racism still exists and that we should do something about it?
Oh, you got that right. And what you should do is stop being a racist.
In what way is it a "constitutional issue"? The federal government clearly has the power to send men to their death, and that was arguably its most significant power when the US was founded. In what way is it a desirable feature of democracy that you can sit safely at home and vote to force me to get shipped off at gunpoint to a remote battlefield for your financial gain?
So the disabled, those suffering from illness, the elderly and those who can't pass the military fitness test should not be allowed to participate in democracy.
They certainly shouldn't be able to force others to go to war for them and get killed for them by majority vote.
Well, "it's resesarch" is just such a wonderful justification. The people at Nuremberg also used that in their defense, although for some reason it didn't go over so well. And as an excuse, it is so versatile. Let's apply it to some of your pet peeves: inequality? global warming? GMOs? "It's just research" and "lots will be learned" if we don't do what you advocate.
I don't see this anywhere as a regulation that applies to the IRS. Each individual agency can set their rules in addition to data retention policy
No, agencies cannot do that. All federal agencies are bound by FOIA and transparency requirements. Even if it was voluntary, Obama promised transparency and record keeping during his campaing.
To pretend that Obama had anything to do with this without any proof is partisanship on your part. It's the same thing as the VA scandal: The VA has been screwed up for decades. Suddenly it's all Obama's fault that someone uncovered how screwed up there were?
Of course, he has everything to do with it: managing these agencies is his primary job. That's what the president does. That's why these agencies are headed by political appointees. I held Bush responsible for the screwups of his appointees as well.
Saying that Obama is a lousy president and a liar isn't partisan, because I said the same thing about Bush. I haven't decided yet which of the two presidents has been more incompetent; it's a close call.
Seeing as IT is fantastically important to today's economy, and half of the population just isn't interested in taking part in it, it seems like an issue that should be researched. This is one way to do that.
They aren't "researching", they are recruiting and trying to change the statistics.
You can act all put upon and oppressed
I don't feel oppressed. I just think it's profoundly stupid to try to mess with people's free career choices.
Which part of "creationism is of course utter nonsense" did you fail to understand? The question is not whether evolution is true (it clearly is), the question is whether government should have an expansive right to determine what is scientifically true.
If government dictates were the arbiters of truth, you'd be speaking German today, "SomeoneFromBelgium". Of course, you seem to have adopted that mindset anyway.
I retain all the records that I am required by law (including the IRS) to retain, otherwise I'd get thrown in jail. I think the same rules should apply to government officials. For some reason, you seem to think that government officials should be allowed to flaunt their own laws and regulations.
We're not talking about whether to abide by a social contract, but which social contract to abide by; and the social contract you envision is morally wrong and totalitarian.
As an IRS official, she was obligated to record all E-mails related to tax decisions; whether there was a pending investigation or scandal is irrelevant. Government officials are required to transfer any relevant E-mails to permanent record keeping systems; what the server E-mail retention policy is is irrelevant. Here is an explanation for the EPA (but the same rules apply to all agencies):
Furthermore, Obama make a campaign pledge of openness and transparency that he clearly has grossly violated (of course, it's only one of many things he has lied about).
To pretend that what happened here is OK is blind and stupid partisanship on your part.
However, as a society, some stuff needs to be taught to all citizens like math and language skills. Why would the parents have anything to say about that?
Because parents have the right to decide what their children should and shouldn't learn. Because while sometimes government gets things right, it frequently gets things wrong.
As for drugs, well. Take drugs if you want, but then you should have to pay 100% of the externalities it causes.
Except, of course, that I don't get that option because the government takes it away from me. I must pay for socialized medicine (both in the US and the UK), and I do get penalized if I take drugs.
See, ultimately, you are a totalitarian through and through, but because you don't like the label, you lie about it and tell me that I have choices that I don't actually have.
Given that the IRS actually apologized for the targeting of Tea Party groups, yes.
The law is what it was, not what you or I might wish. The IRS has to enforce the law, and that means the IRS is in the business of figuring out who's over the non-profit line and who isn't
And it is a scandal if they abuse their power for the political interest of the administration.
Slashdot Mirror
Trade negotiations are the responsibility of the administration, which is firmly controlled by the Democrats. And this Democratic administration, in particular, has been quite secretive in many ways.
Get out of that stupid partisan mindset that the Democrats are the good guys.
You're not calling people on their actual privilege because you have no way of knowing what their privileges and obstacles were; all you have is your prejudices about race, gender, and socio-economic status.
Face it, the actual reason people get upset with you is much simpler: you're a racist, as you keep demonstrating.
What the US Marshalls are doing is illegal. As head of the executive branch, the president not only has the power to tell them to stop, he has the obligation to do so.
I think it was foolish to relax those restrictions. But the justification for those relaxations was that the executive branch, that is, the part of the government the president is responsible for, was going to use these new powers responsibly and was going to guard against their abuse. As it turns out, Obama has either been asleep on the job or actively misusing those expanded powers, arguably even worse than Bush. I'd also point out that those powers were generally expanded in a bipartisan way.
You mean like when Obama justifies ignoring Congress or modifying existing law because he truly believes it's the right thing to do? Yes, you're right, that's scary.
Universities still hire plenty of full time faculty and absolute numbers have not decreased. Universities just hire a lot more non-permanent faculty as well.
"Adjunct professors" are supposed to have a full time job outside the university and teach on the side. Many professionals get adjunct professorships because they like the teaching, and the $20k are just a token of appreciation.
If you choose to make a temporary side-job your primary of income, why is that the university's fault? Do you want universities to make having another job a requirement for becoming an "adjunct professor"?
Why would the federal government penalize itself? The DoJ presumably wants this to happen, as does the president; if he didn't, he could stop tomorrow.
Nothing has happened in the real world. Many blue collar jobs, sales jobs, small businesses, and service jobs still pay very well, like they always have. And as an added bonus, you end up not having any debt and not losing 5-10 years of your working life and savings in college/grad school.
Quite the opposite: while some degrees can get you a good salary (law, medicine, engineering), many other academic degrees are "a good way of ensuring a lifetime of poorly paid jobs."
Of course, people like you are the reason salaries for full time faculty are low in the first place: a lot of people like to teach and they are willing to do it for little money and with few benefits.
Source: Department of Labor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
By comparison, median personal income is $32000, so those are actually clearly all middle class or above (yes, even taking into account median vs average); keep in mind that the above academic salaries are for 9 months, not 12 months, of work.
Furthermore, faculty salaries have slightly increased over time in constant dollars; they certainly haven't decreased, so teaching college is no less of a middle class job now than it was 10 or 20 years ago.
http://www.nea.org/home/34399....
And for every faculty opening, there are usually dozens of applications, so there is an oversupply of people willing to do this job.
Finally, if you want to earn more money, do something more demanding than teaching French literature, like tax preparation or accounting.
No, you were in fact very vague.
In what possible way is income an "unearned advantage"?
Not only "would I", I did choose to be an ethnic minority in America. And I never had a problem with the fact that most people around me, regardless of race or ethnicity, had a lot more privileges and opportunities than I had. What I do have a problem with is that people like you take a look at me and start making assumptions about my supposedly unearned privilege.
Oh, you got that right. And what you should do is stop being a racist.
I see. So where do you draw the line then? Which other violations of individual liberties should also be constitutionally banned?
Would it be OK for the elderly, non-working population to impose a 50% income tax on everybody under 50 and vote themselves lavish benefits?
In what way is it a "constitutional issue"? The federal government clearly has the power to send men to their death, and that was arguably its most significant power when the US was founded. In what way is it a desirable feature of democracy that you can sit safely at home and vote to force me to get shipped off at gunpoint to a remote battlefield for your financial gain?
So when men choose not to go into teaching, it's the men's fault.
When women choose not to go into IT, it's still the men's fault.
OK, thanks for clearing that up.
They certainly shouldn't be able to force others to go to war for them and get killed for them by majority vote.
And you determine that people have "unearned advantages" based on their skin color???
You're a racist, pure and simple.
Well, "it's resesarch" is just such a wonderful justification. The people at Nuremberg also used that in their defense, although for some reason it didn't go over so well. And as an excuse, it is so versatile. Let's apply it to some of your pet peeves: inequality? global warming? GMOs? "It's just research" and "lots will be learned" if we don't do what you advocate.
Where did you get that bizarre idea? Whether you are male or female should be utterly irrelevant to recruitment or hiring decisions in high tech.
No, agencies cannot do that. All federal agencies are bound by FOIA and transparency requirements. Even if it was voluntary, Obama promised transparency and record keeping during his campaing.
Of course, he has everything to do with it: managing these agencies is his primary job. That's what the president does. That's why these agencies are headed by political appointees. I held Bush responsible for the screwups of his appointees as well.
Saying that Obama is a lousy president and a liar isn't partisan, because I said the same thing about Bush. I haven't decided yet which of the two presidents has been more incompetent; it's a close call.
They aren't "researching", they are recruiting and trying to change the statistics.
I don't feel oppressed. I just think it's profoundly stupid to try to mess with people's free career choices.
Which part of "creationism is of course utter nonsense" did you fail to understand? The question is not whether evolution is true (it clearly is), the question is whether government should have an expansive right to determine what is scientifically true.
If government dictates were the arbiters of truth, you'd be speaking German today, "SomeoneFromBelgium". Of course, you seem to have adopted that mindset anyway.
I retain all the records that I am required by law (including the IRS) to retain, otherwise I'd get thrown in jail. I think the same rules should apply to government officials. For some reason, you seem to think that government officials should be allowed to flaunt their own laws and regulations.
We're not talking about whether to abide by a social contract, but which social contract to abide by; and the social contract you envision is morally wrong and totalitarian.
Well, if we can create gridlock so that neither Congress nor the president can do too much harm, I'm happy.
As an IRS official, she was obligated to record all E-mails related to tax decisions; whether there was a pending investigation or scandal is irrelevant. Government officials are required to transfer any relevant E-mails to permanent record keeping systems; what the server E-mail retention policy is is irrelevant. Here is an explanation for the EPA (but the same rules apply to all agencies):
http://www.epa.gov/records/faq...
Furthermore, Obama make a campaign pledge of openness and transparency that he clearly has grossly violated (of course, it's only one of many things he has lied about).
To pretend that what happened here is OK is blind and stupid partisanship on your part.
Because parents have the right to decide what their children should and shouldn't learn. Because while sometimes government gets things right, it frequently gets things wrong.
Except, of course, that I don't get that option because the government takes it away from me. I must pay for socialized medicine (both in the US and the UK), and I do get penalized if I take drugs.
See, ultimately, you are a totalitarian through and through, but because you don't like the label, you lie about it and tell me that I have choices that I don't actually have.
Given that the IRS actually apologized for the targeting of Tea Party groups, yes.
And it is a scandal if they abuse their power for the political interest of the administration.