Congress shall make no law limiting the freedom of speech, or of the press..... Frothy Santorum can say whatever he wants, but he is not above the Supreme Law of the land.
I don't think porn should be banned outright, but to call it "speech" is ridiculous. To call it "the press" is even moreso. It's a form of entertainment, not a forum to communicate or argue ideas. You might as well declare prostitution as "free speech". We should allow porn to some degree because freedom means the right to screw up and do stupid things (again, to an extent). But to compare a porn pic to a newspaper column or editorial is silly.
If someone can't accept that, then so be it. Go about your life elsewhere. But don't demand that churches abandon their teachings and laws to make you feel comfortable. That's not the way it works.
Keep your views out of other peoples bedrooms then. You quit forcing your beliefs down others throats, and then complain if someone implies you should taste your own medicine?
Get over yourself.
Who is going into anyone's bedrooms? Do what ever you like there. This isn't about bedrooms. This is about courtrooms.
Your bible does not say homosexuality is a sin. It just says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I interpret that to be an endorsement of anal sex or cunnilingus..
The real problem is that the word "marriage" has a religious meaning.
While marriage has deep religious traditions, the whole reason we're having this fight is because of its legal implications, not the religious ones. The central problem, however, is what we say marriage is for. And it's not for "happiness", and it's not for "love". It is, in it's legal sense, a legal framework for encouraging the nuclear family and encouraging procreation by ensuring that children get their father's name, inheritance, and property rights. It also protects mothers in case the father dies.
That's the problem. You don't want gay couples to have all the rights associated with marriage that married people have, like residency rights, visitation rights, and all the various tax benefits, such as estate tax, etc.
So yeah, pretty much by opposing gay marriage, you are acting to make life worse for gay people just because they are gay. Own it.
There are plenty of other ways to address those other issues. Redefining marriage outside of its actual purpose is simply outright stupidity though.
they have the right to marry what ever woman they want
So you're pro lesbian but anti male/male union? Odd, but not unprecedented.
No, he's pro-normal. He's pro-common sense.The purpose of marriage isn't "love", it's a structure for making babies and carrying on families within a frame of legitimacy that bestows a family name, inheritance rights, etc (as opposed to just making babies by bonking every women that moves and then moving on). Men and Men can't make babies. Women and Women can't make babies either. If two guys say they're happy by shacking up, have at it. But we're not going to turn the world upside down and redefine an institution that has specifically existed for a reason since the dawn of civilization itself... with all of the legal and financial implications that entails... just because someone says it's their "right to be happy". They'll just have to find happiness some other way.
That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church? Afterall, Christ did lunch with sinners, and preached love and compassion. It's become clear to me that many christians (but not all) are not interested in saving souls, but only about their social club that lets them feel superior to people who are not Them - the other, the different, the outsider. It used to be the jews and gypsies until it became unpopular to ostracise them - now it's the gays and muslims.
That is simply not true. Most churches are open to anyone, and saving souls is task Numero Uno. That doesn't mean that they have to accept conduct, though, which is clearly condemned in the Bible. The idea is to be saved. Part of being saved is "changing your ways", as the Bible teaches. What some people are demanding, however, is that the churches should change for them, accepting things that the Bible teaches against. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Christ taught that salvation was a free gift to anyone that wanted it, but you had to accept it on his terms, not yours.
If someone can't accept that, then so be it. Go about your life elsewhere. But don't demand that churches abandon their teachings and laws to make you feel comfortable. That's not the way it works.
killing the mandating part may lead stuff out side health care being challenged in the courts. Like maybe like SOME to ALL taxes, homeowners and auto insurance.
City water and sewer fees (why can't I do it on my own and not be forced to pay)
workers comp, unemployment.
and other stuff
No, this is a pretty empty argument. Congress clearly has taxing power, and that power is itself limited clearly in the Constitution (in short... Congress just can't lay taxes for anything they please). Nowhere in the Constitution, however, is there the power for Congress to make you buy goods or services from third parties. To glean this power from the commerce clause would be to make the commerce clause supreme over the rest of the Constitution as a whole . What's funny is that If Congress had simply passed a new tax to pay for universal coverage, they'd have been fully in their authority to do so (provided they taxed related services, like your Blue Cross plan). But that's not what this bill did. It assessed a penalty for non-particiapation, regardless of the choice of individuals.
And the homeowners/auto insurance argument really doesn't fly either. The government can't penalize you for not buying a house or a car by hitting you with a fine for refusing to buy. "Obamacare" did precisely that with medical insurance. It was effectively a tax on being alive. You don't have to buy a car.
The United States uses both. The federal system uses Common Law, as do most of the states
Actually, it's debatable whether SCOTUS is a common law court. Everything in the federal court system below SCOTUS is certainly common law, with the wide lattitude and power that those judges have. But SCOTUS is somewhat different. Scalia argues that the court is not really common law in practice, as when a case comes before the US high court, the only standard is "does this contradict our written Constitution?". If it does, even if it has a basis in common law, then the justices are supposed to toss it. SCOTUS judges are more or less supposed to be umpires, calling "balls and strikes" on legislation (unless the issue is one of the few original jurisdiction issues that SCOTUS has). So SCOTUS, it could be argued, is itself a kind of hybrid court, drawing on common law traditions, but ultimately ruling in a civil law manner. At least that's the way it's supposed to work. Roe v. Wade, for instance, was very much a common law kind of ruling, as the majority literally found the right to abortion within another right to privacy that itself isn't explicity written in the Constitution. This is one of the arguments that the "living constitution" advocates make... judges should be able to make law from the bench to "suit the times". But this was clearly not the intent of the founders, as they made a mechanism to change the constitution... the amendment process... and intentionally made it so that it was hard to change the Constitution. Why do so if you wanted judges to change it on their own authority?
An activist judge is one that makes a ruling which creates a precedent which conflicts with prior rulings regarding the same laws at the same or higher level within the judiciary. In other words, one who rewrites well-established precedents.
Sometimes activism is a good thing; the older precedent may well be flawed. However, it is not something to be undertaken lightly. It creates uncertainty and undermines the accumulated legitimacy of the court, as the conflict implies that at least one of the rulings—and any others based on it—was in error.
I wouldn't call that an activist judge as long as the judge is well and truly ruling according to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. I would say that activist judges are those that rule deliberately in spite of the wording of the Constitution. Finding a new new right not mentioned in the Constitution is a good example of this. I wholeheartedly agree that overturning precedent should never be taken lightly, but no matter how many years a precedent has, if it's in opposition to the Constitution, send it to the fire where it belongs. There are times when it's necessary to ignore Stare Decisis if the issue was settled in such a way that violates the Constitution. Remember, Dred Scott was precedent at one time too.
What I predict is that the SCOTUS will ignore the fact that the question before them is "is mandating that people buy a product constitutional?" and void the entire act
Huh? You do realize that SCOTUS isn't just ruling on the mandate, but on several issues concerning the whole legislation, right? While the mandate is being considered on it's own, they reason they might toss the whole act is because of something called "severability". In English, Congress wrote the bill explicitly so that it's not severable, i.e. if you void one part you have to void the whole thing. The bills authors did this for a reason; they gambled that if the bill was written this way, future Congresses wouldn't have the balls to repeal it. It apparently never, ever occurred to them that the act could wind up at SCOTUS, and if the mandate was overturned, it would logically follow that the whole bill would be. SCOTUS is voting on whether the severability language in the bill is indeed binding. Even people that support the mandate think it is. Thus, if the mandate goes, the whole bill goes. But that's up to SCOTUS. As for the Constitutional argument, did you read or listen to any of the oral arguments? Constitutionality is the question on the mandate issue.
despite the fact that several parts of it have already gone into effect without the mandate and those parts are doing just fine and would continue to do fine with or without the mandate.
That's simply not true. Very little of the bill has gone into effect, and the meat of it depends on the mandate to produce the necessary funds via forced participation in the program. If people don't have to participate, poof, the whole funding mechanism falls apart like a house of cards. In short, no mandate, no money.
Stupid activists. It's almost like this guy thinks he's also free to do what he chooses. How dare he leave based on his principles!
OK, fine. If he's really principled, he can go straight home and unplug his Internet (ahem, "ARPAnet") connection.
While he's at it, since he seems to disapprove of anything with military involvement or as a result of military research, he needs to shut his computer down for good, as computing as we know it came from military research in mechanical computing for the Army. Oh, and anything with an integrated circuit (also a result of military research... by Wehrmacht and RAF scientists, to boot) needs to go too.
Maker Faire should just post the following reply to him: "Well.... bye".
That's just factually incorrect. No liberal I have ever met wants that. We want the smallest effective government possible.
Then why do they constantly push for new social program? New subsidies? Are these not the same people that keep telling us that medical care is a "right"? That housing is a "right"? That higher education is a "right"? That transportation is a "right"? Rights have to be guaranteed, and thus paid for. You could completely eliminate the military, but if you try to guarantee all of these "rights", then it's going to cost more money. And until you can pay for things in Rainbow Dollars, that means more taxes. More spending. And more growth in the sheer size of government.
Which is why the fiscal conservatives should join the democratic party, and make an effort to get more fiscally conservative social liberals winning elections. It's the only path to sanity.
"Fiscally Conservative Liberal" is like saying "my favorite unicorn". Liberals... or more accurately, leftists... don't believe in restraining growth of government. Their ultimate goal is to expand it to the point that it does everything for us.
As long as services cost money, there isn't going to be fiscally conservative liberalism.
You (and the GP) missed the point by a mile. This isn't about funding, it's about accepting (and having trust in) the output of scientific research and the conlusions drawn up by them.
More specifically, conservatives distrust scientists because of the technocrat angle. A lot of the attitude is rebellion against the idea of rule by the "cult of the expert". And while this rebellion has really gotten steam in the past few decades, it's been building longer than that. Everyone is aware of Eisenhower's famous warning against the military industrial complex, but people have forgotten that later, in the same speech, he also warned about about the dangers of technocratic rule by the scientific-technological elite. And rule by the administrative state has indeed grown tremendously as Congress dumps their responsibilities onto an ever growing legion of alphabet agencies that rule our lives, agencies that we have no say over, with officers we don't elect. Conservatives think science is increasingly politicized because scientists have indeed become more politicized.
... King George III probably said that those rebellious colonists in America would never amount to anything, either. Freedom rules.
Rules? Uh, no. Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Oracle... still way bigger. Saying that open source or free software as a business model "rules" is like comparing Switzerland to the US or China. Yes, it's great that it's a very free country and has been independent for many centuries... but it doesn't "rule" anything.
Know what else permeates most of Red Hat culture? Reality. They realized years ago that making it easy for people to get your product for free isn't going to make you much money. Thus, no binaries for non-paying customers. You've gotta be willing to compile everything from source yourself. We're making a big deal about a "billion dollar open source company" here, when Red Hat doesn't operate like an "open source" company. They're making money precisely because they operate as close to a proprietary company as possible without violating the GPL. Giving your product away, ready made, is folly if you actually want to make big money (unless you can make money by advertising, a'la Google and Facebook... but operating systems don't work that way).
How many other billion dollar open source companies are there?
$1000 server in the sky vs $1,000,000 cruise missile
Cruise missile wins.
US Taxpayer loses.
Why would you need to shoot it down? It has to land sometime. Simply seize it for illegal operations.
This is all academic, because this silly scheme isn't going to happen anyway. It's a desperate bolt from the galaxy move on the part of the Pirate Bay. Their time is about up, and they know it.
If by "bring back", you mean force companies to limit the hours of workers that want overtime, and forcing companies to hire more workers (and the attendant tax and insurance cost increases that would bring), then hell no.
From the article: "Yes, this flies in the face of everything modern management thinks it knows about work"
So, yeah, by all means, let's ignore them and do what someone on AlterNet says instead. Business will be booming, then.
Palestine is the name of the formerly-sovereign state of Israel, given by the Romans after their conquest. So the Jews invaded their own country?
And the whole point the Romans were trying to accomplish in punishing the Jews for revolting was an attempt at literally making their country disappear, as if a Jewish country never existed. "Israel? Judea? No such places. Ceasar welcomes you to Palestine". And a lot of people are still trying to help them accomplish that today.
The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.>
That's a load of BS. They sought to acquire nukes so they could threaten their neighbors. The Norks in particular are running a kind of twisted extortion scheme: "Hey America, give us money and food or we nuke the South". And it works apparently, because we give in every time. Iran took notice and started their own program. When evil is rewarded, evil increases. We shouldn't be invading them, but at the same time, we shouldn't take a foolish attitude of "If we ignore them they'll just go away". They won't.
Slashdot Mirror
Congress shall make no law limiting the freedom of speech, or of the press..... Frothy Santorum can say whatever he wants, but he is not above the Supreme Law of the land.
I don't think porn should be banned outright, but to call it "speech" is ridiculous. To call it "the press" is even moreso. It's a form of entertainment, not a forum to communicate or argue ideas. You might as well declare prostitution as "free speech". We should allow porn to some degree because freedom means the right to screw up and do stupid things (again, to an extent). But to compare a porn pic to a newspaper column or editorial is silly.
If someone can't accept that, then so be it. Go about your life elsewhere. But don't demand that churches abandon their teachings and laws to make you feel comfortable. That's not the way it works.
Keep your views out of other peoples bedrooms then. You quit forcing your beliefs down others throats, and then complain if someone implies you should taste your own medicine?
Get over yourself.
Who is going into anyone's bedrooms? Do what ever you like there. This isn't about bedrooms. This is about courtrooms.
Your bible does not say homosexuality is a sin. It just says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I interpret that to be an endorsement of anal sex or cunnilingus. .
You missed your calling as a trial lawyer.
The real problem is that the word "marriage" has a religious meaning.
While marriage has deep religious traditions, the whole reason we're having this fight is because of its legal implications, not the religious ones. The central problem, however, is what we say marriage is for. And it's not for "happiness", and it's not for "love". It is, in it's legal sense, a legal framework for encouraging the nuclear family and encouraging procreation by ensuring that children get their father's name, inheritance, and property rights. It also protects mothers in case the father dies.
That's the problem. You don't want gay couples to have all the rights associated with marriage that married people have, like residency rights, visitation rights, and all the various tax benefits, such as estate tax, etc.
So yeah, pretty much by opposing gay marriage, you are acting to make life worse for gay people just because they are gay. Own it.
There are plenty of other ways to address those other issues. Redefining marriage outside of its actual purpose is simply outright stupidity though.
And if marriage was about love, you might have a point. But it isn't, and you don't.
they have the right to marry what ever woman they want
So you're pro lesbian but anti male/male union? Odd, but not unprecedented.
No, he's pro-normal. He's pro-common sense.The purpose of marriage isn't "love", it's a structure for making babies and carrying on families within a frame of legitimacy that bestows a family name, inheritance rights, etc (as opposed to just making babies by bonking every women that moves and then moving on). Men and Men can't make babies. Women and Women can't make babies either. If two guys say they're happy by shacking up, have at it. But we're not going to turn the world upside down and redefine an institution that has specifically existed for a reason since the dawn of civilization itself... with all of the legal and financial implications that entails... just because someone says it's their "right to be happy". They'll just have to find happiness some other way.
This.
That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church? Afterall, Christ did lunch with sinners, and preached love and compassion. It's become clear to me that many christians (but not all) are not interested in saving souls, but only about their social club that lets them feel superior to people who are not Them - the other, the different, the outsider. It used to be the jews and gypsies until it became unpopular to ostracise them - now it's the gays and muslims.
That is simply not true. Most churches are open to anyone, and saving souls is task Numero Uno. That doesn't mean that they have to accept conduct, though, which is clearly condemned in the Bible. The idea is to be saved. Part of being saved is "changing your ways", as the Bible teaches. What some people are demanding, however, is that the churches should change for them, accepting things that the Bible teaches against. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Christ taught that salvation was a free gift to anyone that wanted it, but you had to accept it on his terms, not yours.
If someone can't accept that, then so be it. Go about your life elsewhere. But don't demand that churches abandon their teachings and laws to make you feel comfortable. That's not the way it works.
killing the mandating part may lead stuff out side health care being challenged in the courts. Like maybe like SOME to ALL taxes, homeowners and auto insurance.
City water and sewer fees (why can't I do it on my own and not be forced to pay)
workers comp, unemployment.
and other stuff
No, this is a pretty empty argument. Congress clearly has taxing power, and that power is itself limited clearly in the Constitution (in short... Congress just can't lay taxes for anything they please). Nowhere in the Constitution, however, is there the power for Congress to make you buy goods or services from third parties. To glean this power from the commerce clause would be to make the commerce clause supreme over the rest of the Constitution as a whole . What's funny is that If Congress had simply passed a new tax to pay for universal coverage, they'd have been fully in their authority to do so (provided they taxed related services, like your Blue Cross plan). But that's not what this bill did. It assessed a penalty for non-particiapation, regardless of the choice of individuals.
And the homeowners/auto insurance argument really doesn't fly either. The government can't penalize you for not buying a house or a car by hitting you with a fine for refusing to buy. "Obamacare" did precisely that with medical insurance. It was effectively a tax on being alive. You don't have to buy a car.
Actually, it's debatable whether SCOTUS is a common law court. Everything in the federal court system below SCOTUS is certainly common law, with the wide lattitude and power that those judges have. But SCOTUS is somewhat different. Scalia argues that the court is not really common law in practice, as when a case comes before the US high court, the only standard is "does this contradict our written Constitution?". If it does, even if it has a basis in common law, then the justices are supposed to toss it. SCOTUS judges are more or less supposed to be umpires, calling "balls and strikes" on legislation (unless the issue is one of the few original jurisdiction issues that SCOTUS has). So SCOTUS, it could be argued, is itself a kind of hybrid court, drawing on common law traditions, but ultimately ruling in a civil law manner. At least that's the way it's supposed to work. Roe v. Wade, for instance, was very much a common law kind of ruling, as the majority literally found the right to abortion within another right to privacy that itself isn't explicity written in the Constitution. This is one of the arguments that the "living constitution" advocates make... judges should be able to make law from the bench to "suit the times". But this was clearly not the intent of the founders, as they made a mechanism to change the constitution... the amendment process... and intentionally made it so that it was hard to change the Constitution. Why do so if you wanted judges to change it on their own authority?
An activist judge is one that makes a ruling which creates a precedent which conflicts with prior rulings regarding the same laws at the same or higher level within the judiciary. In other words, one who rewrites well-established precedents.
Sometimes activism is a good thing; the older precedent may well be flawed. However, it is not something to be undertaken lightly. It creates uncertainty and undermines the accumulated legitimacy of the court, as the conflict implies that at least one of the rulings—and any others based on it—was in error.
I wouldn't call that an activist judge as long as the judge is well and truly ruling according to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. I would say that activist judges are those that rule deliberately in spite of the wording of the Constitution. Finding a new new right not mentioned in the Constitution is a good example of this. I wholeheartedly agree that overturning precedent should never be taken lightly, but no matter how many years a precedent has, if it's in opposition to the Constitution, send it to the fire where it belongs. There are times when it's necessary to ignore Stare Decisis if the issue was settled in such a way that violates the Constitution. Remember, Dred Scott was precedent at one time too.
What I predict is that the SCOTUS will ignore the fact that the question before them is "is mandating that people buy a product constitutional?" and void the entire act
Huh? You do realize that SCOTUS isn't just ruling on the mandate, but on several issues concerning the whole legislation, right? While the mandate is being considered on it's own, they reason they might toss the whole act is because of something called "severability". In English, Congress wrote the bill explicitly so that it's not severable, i.e. if you void one part you have to void the whole thing. The bills authors did this for a reason; they gambled that if the bill was written this way, future Congresses wouldn't have the balls to repeal it. It apparently never, ever occurred to them that the act could wind up at SCOTUS, and if the mandate was overturned, it would logically follow that the whole bill would be. SCOTUS is voting on whether the severability language in the bill is indeed binding. Even people that support the mandate think it is. Thus, if the mandate goes, the whole bill goes. But that's up to SCOTUS. As for the Constitutional argument, did you read or listen to any of the oral arguments? Constitutionality is the question on the mandate issue.
despite the fact that several parts of it have already gone into effect without the mandate and those parts are doing just fine and would continue to do fine with or without the mandate.
That's simply not true. Very little of the bill has gone into effect, and the meat of it depends on the mandate to produce the necessary funds via forced participation in the program. If people don't have to participate, poof, the whole funding mechanism falls apart like a house of cards. In short, no mandate, no money.
Stupid activists. It's almost like this guy thinks he's also free to do what he chooses. How dare he leave based on his principles!
OK, fine. If he's really principled, he can go straight home and unplug his Internet (ahem, "ARPAnet") connection.
While he's at it, since he seems to disapprove of anything with military involvement or as a result of military research, he needs to shut his computer down for good, as computing as we know it came from military research in mechanical computing for the Army. Oh, and anything with an integrated circuit (also a result of military research... by Wehrmacht and RAF scientists, to boot) needs to go too.
Maker Faire should just post the following reply to him: "Well.... bye".
I am curious of what they think about Fox news ?
Probably big fans.
Actually, they hate Fox, and are big MSNBC fans. The same piece in the Washington Post also said that they were bummed when Keith Olbermann was fired.
That's just factually incorrect. No liberal I have ever met wants that. We want the smallest effective government possible.
Then why do they constantly push for new social program? New subsidies? Are these not the same people that keep telling us that medical care is a "right"? That housing is a "right"? That higher education is a "right"? That transportation is a "right"? Rights have to be guaranteed, and thus paid for. You could completely eliminate the military, but if you try to guarantee all of these "rights", then it's going to cost more money. And until you can pay for things in Rainbow Dollars, that means more taxes. More spending. And more growth in the sheer size of government.
Which is why the fiscal conservatives should join the democratic party, and make an effort to get more fiscally conservative social liberals winning elections. It's the only path to sanity.
"Fiscally Conservative Liberal" is like saying "my favorite unicorn". Liberals... or more accurately, leftists... don't believe in restraining growth of government. Their ultimate goal is to expand it to the point that it does everything for us.
As long as services cost money, there isn't going to be fiscally conservative liberalism.
You (and the GP) missed the point by a mile. This isn't about funding, it's about accepting (and having trust in) the output of scientific research and the conlusions drawn up by them.
More specifically, conservatives distrust scientists because of the technocrat angle. A lot of the attitude is rebellion against the idea of rule by the "cult of the expert". And while this rebellion has really gotten steam in the past few decades, it's been building longer than that. Everyone is aware of Eisenhower's famous warning against the military industrial complex, but people have forgotten that later, in the same speech, he also warned about about the dangers of technocratic rule by the scientific-technological elite. And rule by the administrative state has indeed grown tremendously as Congress dumps their responsibilities onto an ever growing legion of alphabet agencies that rule our lives, agencies that we have no say over, with officers we don't elect. Conservatives think science is increasingly politicized because scientists have indeed become more politicized.
... King George III probably said that those rebellious colonists in America would never amount to anything, either. Freedom rules.
Rules? Uh, no. Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Oracle... still way bigger. Saying that open source or free software as a business model "rules" is like comparing Switzerland to the US or China. Yes, it's great that it's a very free country and has been independent for many centuries... but it doesn't "rule" anything.
That quote permeates most of Red Hat Culture.
Know what else permeates most of Red Hat culture? Reality. They realized years ago that making it easy for people to get your product for free isn't going to make you much money. Thus, no binaries for non-paying customers. You've gotta be willing to compile everything from source yourself. We're making a big deal about a "billion dollar open source company" here, when Red Hat doesn't operate like an "open source" company. They're making money precisely because they operate as close to a proprietary company as possible without violating the GPL. Giving your product away, ready made, is folly if you actually want to make big money (unless you can make money by advertising, a'la Google and Facebook... but operating systems don't work that way).
How many other billion dollar open source companies are there?
$1000 server in the sky vs $1,000,000 cruise missile
Cruise missile wins.
US Taxpayer loses.
Why would you need to shoot it down? It has to land sometime. Simply seize it for illegal operations.
This is all academic, because this silly scheme isn't going to happen anyway. It's a desperate bolt from the galaxy move on the part of the Pirate Bay. Their time is about up, and they know it.
Whistleblowers and muckrakers shouldn't be a part of the government.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that rot.
You're assuming that he's a reformer. I think he's an attention whore. If I'm right, politics is the perfect profession for him.
If by "bring back", you mean force companies to limit the hours of workers that want overtime, and forcing companies to hire more workers (and the attendant tax and insurance cost increases that would bring), then hell no.
From the article: "Yes, this flies in the face of everything modern management thinks it knows about work"
So, yeah, by all means, let's ignore them and do what someone on AlterNet says instead. Business will be booming, then.
Palestine is the name of the formerly-sovereign state of Israel, given by the Romans after their conquest. So the Jews invaded their own country?
And the whole point the Romans were trying to accomplish in punishing the Jews for revolting was an attempt at literally making their country disappear, as if a Jewish country never existed. "Israel? Judea? No such places. Ceasar welcomes you to Palestine". And a lot of people are still trying to help them accomplish that today.
The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.>
That's a load of BS. They sought to acquire nukes so they could threaten their neighbors. The Norks in particular are running a kind of twisted extortion scheme: "Hey America, give us money and food or we nuke the South". And it works apparently, because we give in every time. Iran took notice and started their own program. When evil is rewarded, evil increases. We shouldn't be invading them, but at the same time, we shouldn't take a foolish attitude of "If we ignore them they'll just go away". They won't.
113 percent? Where did they count the votes? Chicago?