There is. However the definition of "nuisance" gets rather complicated and can depend upon state and local ordinances. For example, weekly loud and raucous parties in a residential area could be considered a nuisance because neighbors can have an expectation of "peace and quiet" most of the time. The occasional noisy party excluded. And sometimes a permit is required. Someone constantly invading your personal property or "space" by climbing over fences, using binoculars to peer in someone's windows etc. can also be considered a nuisance. It just depends on the circumstances, frequency of occurrence, the degree of intrusiveness, etc.
I can't conclude politicians even care. Their caring goes as far as saying what they feel they have to say to get re-elected... period. And they know from the get-go that individuals looking up voting records means nothing when it come to taking the most votes. Because 99.999% of voters have their head up their ass on any given day especially on election day.
For the most part i'd agree except with assertion about the effects of ACA and catastrophic coverage. One thing those under 40 don't seem to grasp is that the negative effects of lifestyle choices more often than not don't begin to show up until mid-life and after. And for any one individual there is no way of predicting your health future based upon lifestyle. I had an uncle, was in the army, ran 10 miles every other day, ate well but died from a heart attack at age 28. Who knew? There are countless other examples in which lifestyle could not be directly correlated to long-term health. I have a brother in law that smokes at least a pack a day, in his late 60s and still going strong. It is a fallacious argument to operate on the basis of a correlation of lifestyle with health. A mistake way too many under 40 make. Which is part of the purpose of the requirement behind the ACA. Like all insurance plans, the costs are spread out among all insured. After all, YOU never know when you will need a particular treatment or chemical therapy. It is merely naïve and arrogance to presume just because you may be (say) 30 years old that you are in good health. Not all illnesses are immediately obvious.
A cursory search on the web one can easily conclude that suicides are most often very solitary events. Most are done by hanging, poisoning or shooting oneself and rarely done in the presence of others. So, suicide rarely jeopardizes someone else's safety. I had an uncle in law that blew his brains out. At home by himself. To coworkers hung themselves, one jumped from an eleven story building when no one else was home or around. Other people I personally know of or are familiar with have committed or attempted suicide and every one of the instances took place while they were alone. So... I don't buy the argument that suicide is a public safety issue. But of course I'm a staunch advocate of personal choice including the natural right to take one's own life if they so choose regardless or whether or not others might conclude their mental faculties are temporarily diminished. People who kill themselves most often have contemplated the act and reasons for some time.
The prohibition against suicide is a 1700 year old religious doctrine that largely evolved out of Christianity. Both the old and new testaments had nothing to say about the subject. It wasn't until the fourth century the Christian church declared suicide a sin. And that was due to the fact that followers were killing themselves to get to heaven quicker and there was no existing prohibition against it at the time. Of course that was not a practice benefiting the church because dead people don't support the church.
Due to church doctrine changes since then and church influence on our existing secular laws, suicide is now frowned upon and illegal. That was not always the case. I can appreciate the idea that suicides can indirectly effect family and friends emotionally and possibly financially (unless there is a nice insurance payoff) but as far as I'm concerned no other person has the right to decide how and when another person decides to cash their ticket in and permanently reunite with the natural elements around them. Each person's existence is unique and it is not up to anyone else to make such decisions for any other right minded person, one fully capable of making decisions for themselves. And the idea that contemplating suicide makes someone legally incompetent denies the fact that some people sincerely believe death is better than their torturous existence. The decision to seek assistance or not is entirely a personal choice for no one else to dictate.
Absurd. Private insurance industry can do the exact same thing, deny coverage because of lifestyle. In fact private industry has an even greater incentive to do so... profit margins. Government services are not operated on the basis of quarterly profits and are pay as you go systems. So I very much doubt your assertion carries much weight all things considered.
It's questionable whose opinion is remarkably naïve. Doctors have been abdicating their responsibility for patient care for financial reasons over the past thirty years. And even more so over the past five to ten in their rush to be absorbed into giant healthcare systems who exercise corporate power over their practices. Ergo, patient care is subjugated to the corporate bottom line. Now... doctors and the AMA could've sought other solutions utilizing not only their financial but also their professional expertise influence. After all, no one else is legally permitted to practice medicine in every state except licensed medical professionals. Thus, if they wanted to, they could dictate conditions in the medical/insurance economy. But they haven't. Why? Money, just like the insurance agents/companies. So who's worse, the people who are in business to make money or the ones who took the Hippocratic Oath to serve? Seems clear doesn't it?
The AMA may have lobbied for non- disclosure but that's not the same as not having access to that information. In the state I reside in a person can do a Department of State (state licensing agency) search for disciplined doctors or lawyers. One just needs to know where to look.
No, he's right. Consider this... all doctors by virtue of their advanced education and training, believe their opinions on personal health matters are far superior to that of their patients, even though the subject matter is someone else's body/life. Ergo, all doctors are firmly of the opinion every patient should follow their advice. Additionally, if patients are not willing to follow all of that doctor's advice then they don't want that person as a patient. Now... some of a doctor's advice may be unrealistic for a given situation or person. Doctor's are only concerned with results not a patients financial or personal situation, thus some advice may be problematic. Now... in the electronic monitoring being done, information sharing, etc. it is not unrealistic for doctors in the future to refuse service based upon a person's choices producing networks of people doctors will see and won't see creating a system of those who are served and willingly not served. To hell with the Hippocratic Oath. I've actually heard doctors voice the opinion "if patients don't care, neither do I." So I know that medical opinion is out there and even growing. If doctors were to have the capacity to monitor patients electronically by searching data about economic decisions they make that they might not ordinarily have access to (like eating at KFC everyday, drinking a case of beer in less than a week, smoking two packs of cigarettes everyday, etc.), it's not a huge leap to see doctors assuming the position "that person doesn't care about their health so why should I."
Goes to show how easy it is to twist the wires of justice into a shockingly abhorrent vehicle of torture. The good id the bad, the bad is the good. 1984 Truespeak. And the average citizen is too stupid to even realize it. Or if they do, they just dont care anymore. Which has the same end result.
What's bad about regional conflict? So long as it stays regional. Let people kill each other if they support warmongering schisms or governments. It assists in keeping the worlds population in check. Just think of what the world population would be today without WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. We'd probably be looking at a global population of at least 10 billion today (counting intervening epidemics, natural disasters, etc.) if it weren't for war. Until the day Earth's populations are united in a Star Trekian utopia of science and rational decision making, there will be wars. So why try to interfere with the inevitable? Atomic holocaust? Not really as likely as all the war mongrels would like everyone to believe. Even jihadists, are intelligent enough to realize that if they really want to establish an Islamic caliphate somewhere, there has to be a planet to do that on. And considering the Islamists aren't that great at developing interplanetary or even proposing interstellar drives, I seriously doubt they'd be will to destroy the planet in a hydrogen holocaust. They're power seekers just like the U.S. war mongers. Even they understand there has to be someone to rule over.
I'm not sure anyone is suggesting an all- or-nothing approach. But there does seem to be a tinge of an unproven assumption here. That being, the loss of certain freedom(s) will in fact translate into better national health overall. Hypothetically the deteriorating environment could adversely impact overall health so as there is no net gain. Were polluting the oceans, freshwater streams and lakes with sanitization, synthetic chemicals, fertilizer runoff, plastics and other waste, from fracking, pipeline leaks, oil spills from railroad wrecks, fly ash spills, etc. Who's to say that in the long run overall national health would be better with certain food restrictions?
So you really think that private insurance companies don't impose healthcare cost containment strategies? In fact, generally speaking, Medicare coverage are more "inclusive" of services than most private insurance plans with lower copays and deductibles. And... when one thinks about it, that makes sense. Government is not a "for profit" entity that makes the availability of services contingent upon quarterly profits. In fact, a GAO report of a few years ago showed that the administrative costs of Medicare were one-half those of private industry. And where does that extra profit go? Not toward services but to stockholders. In other words, private healthcare is only in business to make profit, not to provide services. Government programs are geared toward providing services without any profit motive. I know for example that the local private healthcare companies have monthly cost containment meetings with cost containment personnel to assess profits and how performance can be compensated for in the reduction of personnel or services. Period. Now... with your assertion of services provided being restricted by the government, how does that compare with private service restrictions based purely upon profit margins? Private companies impose more restrictions more frequently overall than Medicare (a government program).
I know a lot of fat asses that aren't lazy and/or poor. But they still drive up healthcare costs. I also know many people thin as a rail that have incurred huge healthcare costs due to smoking, reckless driving (especially those under the age 40), using illicit drugs, skydiving, off-road ATVing, unsafe business practices, race car driving, handling illegal fireworks, operating a vehicle at excessive speeds, ad infinitum. That's a pretty biased view of "fat people". It ignores genetic predispositions toward being overweight. It ignores how mental states of mind can contribute to obesity which again is often genetic. It ignores the fact that people have different "tastes" for the enjoyment of food. It assumes everyone has the same capacity for self-control and making "rational" choices. In other words, your assertion seems based upon a certain view of "perfection" in which people always make "wise" decisions. Such irony that these days money has become so scarce that so many people grant it such momentous importance that they would be willing to curtail someone else's freedoms so long as their own freedoms are not effected. We live in a hypocritical and narcissistic world anymore.
Although it is true to some extent that individual actions can and often so effect others, that had ALWAYS been the case. What was proposed is a very, very slippery slope when individual freedoms are concerned. It's perhaps comparable to tyranny or totalitarianism to propose institutionalizing and proscribing individual acts. The very basic social contract on personal liberties has been an accepted trade-off in the regulation of behavior. In other words it has always been an accepted practice to allow a broad spectrum of behavior so long as it does not "directly" harm someone else. For example, paying taxes. I object to my tax dollars being utilized for misguided military conflicts. But the courts don't consider than a direct "harm" to me. Or take for example the fact that my auto insurance rates are indirectly effected by irresponsible and reckless drivers who constantly ignore speed limits and rules of the road. They also jeopardize my personal safety. However, I personally don't have the (legal) authority to intervene. Or how about people who like to or are addicted to smoking? The medical costs incurred for their care is born by policy holders. But I don't have the (legal) authority to take their cigarettes from them. Where does one draw the line without nearly or completely eliminating freedom of choice? The fact of the matter is that we have and we continue to be effected by other's choices, and unless you want someone telling you you're no longer free to ride a motorcycle (which is more dangerous than a car), or you can no longer eat red meat, or go skydiving, or own a firearm, or engage in any other kind of "risky" behavior, you might as well "buck up" and "put up" with other people's choices if you want to retain any semblance of personal liberty. Blumberg was (and is) out of his mind to even propose such a thing. He's merely a egotistical self important megalomaniac who thinks he exists on a "higher plane" than his less wealthy countrymen (or women) and he can impose his ideas of "what's best" (for him, for example disarming everyone in the country, except the rich and powerful) on everyone else. I spit in in his face and on his (someday) worm infested corpse. His arrogance is revolting.
That begs the question; IF... law enforcement already has the "evidence" then why do they need the drive decrypted? Saying that you know something (in your mind) is completely different than turning over "hard (empirical) evidence". The fourth amendment put the burden of proof upon the government. People can say or admit to all kinds of "facts". But they have the right to recant previous statements or refuse cooperation in an investigation in order to exercise their right against self incrimination thereby returning the burden of proof to the government.
Sounds like my workplace. Perception directed productivity. The more you stared at a computer the more productive you were. When in reality the work environment was so dehumanizing and intimidating the people working there didn't even see themselves as human when on the job. How can one act humanely when one doesn't even see themselves as members of the race?
I'd have to disagree with your assertions in large part. There is very little if any court rulings or National Labor Relations law that stipulates an employee can say or so what they want in the workplace. As an "employee" you are being compensated for your time and your activities are largely directed by your employer, legal agreements and personnel policies. For example your employer informs you a report is due in two hours. You know from experience that said timeframe is unrealistic so you complain, even tell the boss to "go fuck themselves". You're immediately fired for insubordination. The courts will not support you specifically because there is an implied agreement when you took the job that you would so as instructed. An employer without such control over its workforce could not conduct business or engage in commerce. There would be chaos in the work environment. As an employee your time is bought and paid for. Sure you can say and do what you want but you wont have that job very long. Any equipment that is owned by the employer including computers, the physical building, phones, paper, copying machines, desks, etc. are the property of the employer and that employer can dictate how and when that equipment is to be used. In other words, free speech rights are largely subsumed by employers rights to direct the workforce. If you don't like the limits on your free speech rights you're free to quit. In other words, when you take a job, you are voluntarily and in large part giving up your "constitutional" rights in exchange for financial compensation. It's a trade you can accept or reject.
Interesting perspective. How about cameras in the lavatories? Where I work, someone has been using the floor to deposit their excrement rather than flushing it down the lou. Go figure. The person(s) responsible has become known as the "mad shitter" and management is at their wits end trying to catch the fucker.
That's exactly why politicians spend so much time raising campaign funds. If... issues were more important, money wouldn't be such a preoccupation for those in elected office. They spend a substantial amount of time at home and while in session shaking hands, patting backs, kissing babies, etc. which is all geared toward garnering favors and contributions. Money rules in America and to deny that is to ignore reality.
Term limits may solve that problem. If you're only in Congress for 4 or 8 years at the most, depending on whether you're a representative or a senator, then 1. There'd be so many people jockeying for private sector positions afterward the market would be flooded with them. 2. The relatively short terms would not qualify any one person as a political "expert" and would not have sufficient time to establish close relationships with private industry. It also wouldn't hurt to have 100% publicly funded campaigns also, in which everyone started out with equal amount of funding and let the individual's ideas influence the public's vote as opposed to who can buy the most airtime.
Slashdot Mirror
There is. However the definition of "nuisance" gets rather complicated and can depend upon state and local ordinances. For example, weekly loud and raucous parties in a residential area could be considered a nuisance because neighbors can have an expectation of "peace and quiet" most of the time. The occasional noisy party excluded. And sometimes a permit is required. Someone constantly invading your personal property or "space" by climbing over fences, using binoculars to peer in someone's windows etc. can also be considered a nuisance. It just depends on the circumstances, frequency of occurrence, the degree of intrusiveness, etc.
I can't conclude politicians even care. Their caring goes as far as saying what they feel they have to say to get re-elected... period. And they know from the get-go that individuals looking up voting records means nothing when it come to taking the most votes. Because 99.999% of voters have their head up their ass on any given day especially on election day.
For the most part i'd agree except with assertion about the effects of ACA and catastrophic coverage. One thing those under 40 don't seem to grasp is that the negative effects of lifestyle choices more often than not don't begin to show up until mid-life and after. And for any one individual there is no way of predicting your health future based upon lifestyle. I had an uncle, was in the army, ran 10 miles every other day, ate well but died from a heart attack at age 28. Who knew? There are countless other examples in which lifestyle could not be directly correlated to long-term health. I have a brother in law that smokes at least a pack a day, in his late 60s and still going strong. It is a fallacious argument to operate on the basis of a correlation of lifestyle with health. A mistake way too many under 40 make. Which is part of the purpose of the requirement behind the ACA. Like all insurance plans, the costs are spread out among all insured. After all, YOU never know when you will need a particular treatment or chemical therapy. It is merely naïve and arrogance to presume just because you may be (say) 30 years old that you are in good health. Not all illnesses are immediately obvious.
A cursory search on the web one can easily conclude that suicides are most often very solitary events. Most are done by hanging, poisoning or shooting oneself and rarely done in the presence of others. So, suicide rarely jeopardizes someone else's safety. I had an uncle in law that blew his brains out. At home by himself. To coworkers hung themselves, one jumped from an eleven story building when no one else was home or around. Other people I personally know of or are familiar with have committed or attempted suicide and every one of the instances took place while they were alone. So... I don't buy the argument that suicide is a public safety issue. But of course I'm a staunch advocate of personal choice including the natural right to take one's own life if they so choose regardless or whether or not others might conclude their mental faculties are temporarily diminished. People who kill themselves most often have contemplated the act and reasons for some time. The prohibition against suicide is a 1700 year old religious doctrine that largely evolved out of Christianity. Both the old and new testaments had nothing to say about the subject. It wasn't until the fourth century the Christian church declared suicide a sin. And that was due to the fact that followers were killing themselves to get to heaven quicker and there was no existing prohibition against it at the time. Of course that was not a practice benefiting the church because dead people don't support the church. Due to church doctrine changes since then and church influence on our existing secular laws, suicide is now frowned upon and illegal. That was not always the case. I can appreciate the idea that suicides can indirectly effect family and friends emotionally and possibly financially (unless there is a nice insurance payoff) but as far as I'm concerned no other person has the right to decide how and when another person decides to cash their ticket in and permanently reunite with the natural elements around them. Each person's existence is unique and it is not up to anyone else to make such decisions for any other right minded person, one fully capable of making decisions for themselves. And the idea that contemplating suicide makes someone legally incompetent denies the fact that some people sincerely believe death is better than their torturous existence. The decision to seek assistance or not is entirely a personal choice for no one else to dictate.
Absurd. Private insurance industry can do the exact same thing, deny coverage because of lifestyle. In fact private industry has an even greater incentive to do so... profit margins. Government services are not operated on the basis of quarterly profits and are pay as you go systems. So I very much doubt your assertion carries much weight all things considered.
Or refuse to sell you the cigarettes.
It's questionable whose opinion is remarkably naïve. Doctors have been abdicating their responsibility for patient care for financial reasons over the past thirty years. And even more so over the past five to ten in their rush to be absorbed into giant healthcare systems who exercise corporate power over their practices. Ergo, patient care is subjugated to the corporate bottom line. Now... doctors and the AMA could've sought other solutions utilizing not only their financial but also their professional expertise influence. After all, no one else is legally permitted to practice medicine in every state except licensed medical professionals. Thus, if they wanted to, they could dictate conditions in the medical/insurance economy. But they haven't. Why? Money, just like the insurance agents/companies. So who's worse, the people who are in business to make money or the ones who took the Hippocratic Oath to serve? Seems clear doesn't it?
The AMA may have lobbied for non- disclosure but that's not the same as not having access to that information. In the state I reside in a person can do a Department of State (state licensing agency) search for disciplined doctors or lawyers. One just needs to know where to look.
No, he's right. Consider this... all doctors by virtue of their advanced education and training, believe their opinions on personal health matters are far superior to that of their patients, even though the subject matter is someone else's body/life. Ergo, all doctors are firmly of the opinion every patient should follow their advice. Additionally, if patients are not willing to follow all of that doctor's advice then they don't want that person as a patient. Now... some of a doctor's advice may be unrealistic for a given situation or person. Doctor's are only concerned with results not a patients financial or personal situation, thus some advice may be problematic. Now... in the electronic monitoring being done, information sharing, etc. it is not unrealistic for doctors in the future to refuse service based upon a person's choices producing networks of people doctors will see and won't see creating a system of those who are served and willingly not served. To hell with the Hippocratic Oath. I've actually heard doctors voice the opinion "if patients don't care, neither do I." So I know that medical opinion is out there and even growing. If doctors were to have the capacity to monitor patients electronically by searching data about economic decisions they make that they might not ordinarily have access to (like eating at KFC everyday, drinking a case of beer in less than a week, smoking two packs of cigarettes everyday, etc.), it's not a huge leap to see doctors assuming the position "that person doesn't care about their health so why should I."
Goes to show how easy it is to twist the wires of justice into a shockingly abhorrent vehicle of torture. The good id the bad, the bad is the good. 1984 Truespeak. And the average citizen is too stupid to even realize it. Or if they do, they just dont care anymore. Which has the same end result.
What's bad about regional conflict? So long as it stays regional. Let people kill each other if they support warmongering schisms or governments. It assists in keeping the worlds population in check. Just think of what the world population would be today without WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. We'd probably be looking at a global population of at least 10 billion today (counting intervening epidemics, natural disasters, etc.) if it weren't for war. Until the day Earth's populations are united in a Star Trekian utopia of science and rational decision making, there will be wars. So why try to interfere with the inevitable? Atomic holocaust? Not really as likely as all the war mongrels would like everyone to believe. Even jihadists, are intelligent enough to realize that if they really want to establish an Islamic caliphate somewhere, there has to be a planet to do that on. And considering the Islamists aren't that great at developing interplanetary or even proposing interstellar drives, I seriously doubt they'd be will to destroy the planet in a hydrogen holocaust. They're power seekers just like the U.S. war mongers. Even they understand there has to be someone to rule over.
No balls in America. The land of the free is no longer applicable and the home of the brave is a joke.
It might trump Trump, but not all.
Yeh, like Beuw Bergdaul who was home schooled and never learned how to spell.
Wish I could mod this up.
I'm not sure anyone is suggesting an all- or-nothing approach. But there does seem to be a tinge of an unproven assumption here. That being, the loss of certain freedom(s) will in fact translate into better national health overall. Hypothetically the deteriorating environment could adversely impact overall health so as there is no net gain. Were polluting the oceans, freshwater streams and lakes with sanitization, synthetic chemicals, fertilizer runoff, plastics and other waste, from fracking, pipeline leaks, oil spills from railroad wrecks, fly ash spills, etc. Who's to say that in the long run overall national health would be better with certain food restrictions?
So you really think that private insurance companies don't impose healthcare cost containment strategies? In fact, generally speaking, Medicare coverage are more "inclusive" of services than most private insurance plans with lower copays and deductibles. And... when one thinks about it, that makes sense. Government is not a "for profit" entity that makes the availability of services contingent upon quarterly profits. In fact, a GAO report of a few years ago showed that the administrative costs of Medicare were one-half those of private industry. And where does that extra profit go? Not toward services but to stockholders. In other words, private healthcare is only in business to make profit, not to provide services. Government programs are geared toward providing services without any profit motive. I know for example that the local private healthcare companies have monthly cost containment meetings with cost containment personnel to assess profits and how performance can be compensated for in the reduction of personnel or services. Period. Now... with your assertion of services provided being restricted by the government, how does that compare with private service restrictions based purely upon profit margins? Private companies impose more restrictions more frequently overall than Medicare (a government program).
I know a lot of fat asses that aren't lazy and/or poor. But they still drive up healthcare costs. I also know many people thin as a rail that have incurred huge healthcare costs due to smoking, reckless driving (especially those under the age 40), using illicit drugs, skydiving, off-road ATVing, unsafe business practices, race car driving, handling illegal fireworks, operating a vehicle at excessive speeds, ad infinitum. That's a pretty biased view of "fat people". It ignores genetic predispositions toward being overweight. It ignores how mental states of mind can contribute to obesity which again is often genetic. It ignores the fact that people have different "tastes" for the enjoyment of food. It assumes everyone has the same capacity for self-control and making "rational" choices. In other words, your assertion seems based upon a certain view of "perfection" in which people always make "wise" decisions. Such irony that these days money has become so scarce that so many people grant it such momentous importance that they would be willing to curtail someone else's freedoms so long as their own freedoms are not effected. We live in a hypocritical and narcissistic world anymore.
Although it is true to some extent that individual actions can and often so effect others, that had ALWAYS been the case. What was proposed is a very, very slippery slope when individual freedoms are concerned. It's perhaps comparable to tyranny or totalitarianism to propose institutionalizing and proscribing individual acts. The very basic social contract on personal liberties has been an accepted trade-off in the regulation of behavior. In other words it has always been an accepted practice to allow a broad spectrum of behavior so long as it does not "directly" harm someone else. For example, paying taxes. I object to my tax dollars being utilized for misguided military conflicts. But the courts don't consider than a direct "harm" to me. Or take for example the fact that my auto insurance rates are indirectly effected by irresponsible and reckless drivers who constantly ignore speed limits and rules of the road. They also jeopardize my personal safety. However, I personally don't have the (legal) authority to intervene. Or how about people who like to or are addicted to smoking? The medical costs incurred for their care is born by policy holders. But I don't have the (legal) authority to take their cigarettes from them. Where does one draw the line without nearly or completely eliminating freedom of choice? The fact of the matter is that we have and we continue to be effected by other's choices, and unless you want someone telling you you're no longer free to ride a motorcycle (which is more dangerous than a car), or you can no longer eat red meat, or go skydiving, or own a firearm, or engage in any other kind of "risky" behavior, you might as well "buck up" and "put up" with other people's choices if you want to retain any semblance of personal liberty. Blumberg was (and is) out of his mind to even propose such a thing. He's merely a egotistical self important megalomaniac who thinks he exists on a "higher plane" than his less wealthy countrymen (or women) and he can impose his ideas of "what's best" (for him, for example disarming everyone in the country, except the rich and powerful) on everyone else. I spit in in his face and on his (someday) worm infested corpse. His arrogance is revolting.
That begs the question; IF... law enforcement already has the "evidence" then why do they need the drive decrypted? Saying that you know something (in your mind) is completely different than turning over "hard (empirical) evidence". The fourth amendment put the burden of proof upon the government. People can say or admit to all kinds of "facts". But they have the right to recant previous statements or refuse cooperation in an investigation in order to exercise their right against self incrimination thereby returning the burden of proof to the government.
Sounds like my workplace. Perception directed productivity. The more you stared at a computer the more productive you were. When in reality the work environment was so dehumanizing and intimidating the people working there didn't even see themselves as human when on the job. How can one act humanely when one doesn't even see themselves as members of the race?
I'd have to disagree with your assertions in large part. There is very little if any court rulings or National Labor Relations law that stipulates an employee can say or so what they want in the workplace. As an "employee" you are being compensated for your time and your activities are largely directed by your employer, legal agreements and personnel policies. For example your employer informs you a report is due in two hours. You know from experience that said timeframe is unrealistic so you complain, even tell the boss to "go fuck themselves". You're immediately fired for insubordination. The courts will not support you specifically because there is an implied agreement when you took the job that you would so as instructed. An employer without such control over its workforce could not conduct business or engage in commerce. There would be chaos in the work environment. As an employee your time is bought and paid for. Sure you can say and do what you want but you wont have that job very long. Any equipment that is owned by the employer including computers, the physical building, phones, paper, copying machines, desks, etc. are the property of the employer and that employer can dictate how and when that equipment is to be used. In other words, free speech rights are largely subsumed by employers rights to direct the workforce. If you don't like the limits on your free speech rights you're free to quit. In other words, when you take a job, you are voluntarily and in large part giving up your "constitutional" rights in exchange for financial compensation. It's a trade you can accept or reject.
Interesting perspective. How about cameras in the lavatories? Where I work, someone has been using the floor to deposit their excrement rather than flushing it down the lou. Go figure. The person(s) responsible has become known as the "mad shitter" and management is at their wits end trying to catch the fucker.
That's exactly why politicians spend so much time raising campaign funds. If... issues were more important, money wouldn't be such a preoccupation for those in elected office. They spend a substantial amount of time at home and while in session shaking hands, patting backs, kissing babies, etc. which is all geared toward garnering favors and contributions. Money rules in America and to deny that is to ignore reality.
Term limits may solve that problem. If you're only in Congress for 4 or 8 years at the most, depending on whether you're a representative or a senator, then 1. There'd be so many people jockeying for private sector positions afterward the market would be flooded with them. 2. The relatively short terms would not qualify any one person as a political "expert" and would not have sufficient time to establish close relationships with private industry. It also wouldn't hurt to have 100% publicly funded campaigns also, in which everyone started out with equal amount of funding and let the individual's ideas influence the public's vote as opposed to who can buy the most airtime.