I assume they're not looking for pilots, given the desire that people have engineering or other science degrees. But I don't actually know... do most NASA pilots have those degrees? I know that back in the days of "The Right Stuff" you more or less had to be a superman, but recent news items suggest they have relaxed their expectations.
Basic business or accounting classes will teach you that accountants are only liable if they are cooking the books on their own volition, rather than on the instruction of their superiors. This is why many accountants keep a separate and private ledger - that way if something like this hits the fan they have a record of, "This is what it should have been, but when I told so-and-so, they told me to do it this other way."
And in that situation, the CPA is actually fine; it's the corporate execs who decide to fudge it or 'ignore problems' who are in trouble. That is what happened with Enron - the accountants knew the problems, but were instructed to obfuscate it. I suspect, given that the accountants were alternately 'fired' or 'resigning' that some accountant hit a legal wall, wouldn't go any further, was fired, and the rest knew that was the straw that broke the camels back and took off. Given the severe risk an accountant carries by being a CPA, and their significantly lessened protection (compared to an exec), I doubt many would actually put their neck out that far for a company unless they were already somehow complicit.
I'm just going to note that Trent seems to have made several headlines for himself by telling his slave-owners to f**k off. This in and of itself is probably a good move for him - and, ironically, for them. While they get "bad" publicity, none of their bottom line is going to change. The people stealing music are going to be the same people. The people buying the CDs are going to be the same, too. The only difference in this scenario is that Trent is more likely to get people at his concerts.
Of course Tolkien has his flaws, but they in no way outstrip his talents. I would far sooner level the complaint that his characters are not, in fact, really characters so much as archetypes (but even this is reflects the genre he was really writing for; epics in the classical sense) than that his writing was ponderous. (I actually have no problem with heavy writing; it has great value.) Far too many authors fall into the 'impossibly ponderous' category; Nathaniel Hawthorne leaps to mind, Cervantes as mentioned before, Conrad and even the late Jordan. And to top it off, I think that in Tolkien's case, he had good cause to write as he did; I don't think the style of writing in any way reflects poorly on him as an author. Rather, it shows his sensitivity not only to the appropriate style for what he wished to accomplish, but also his own talents.
It is, in fact, the very definition of literature when each time you go back to a story, you find something new and awe-inspiring about it. Tolkien had that, I think, and I suspect that by and large the people who fail to recognize that are, themselves, limited or otherwise crippled in their understanding and knowledge of the world.
I've read thousands and thousands of books in my life, and there have only been a handful of times that I couldn't finish a book that I really wanted to finish.
A book a day for three years will get you a thousand. Thousands and thousands you say? So... a book a day for, what, twelve years? Fifteen? What do you do for a living? Are you independently wealthy? Because, frankly, I find it unlikely that you've read that many books in twelve years. Four books a week, perhaps, seems more reasonable. That's 200 a year, or a thousand every decade, and a lean four thousand in forty years.
What is my point? That regardless of the numbers, or whatever reading prowess you have, you're puffing yourself up for the sake of an argument - giving yourself an authority (I've read thousands and thousands of books! I know!) that, even if it's deserved, is beside the point. You've never read writing that felt like wading through molasses like Tolkien? Ever read Cervantes? "A Brief History of England"? Any organic chemistry book? Or any of the thousands of published authors who, in fact, are worse writers than Tolkien? If you have the authority you claim, you'd never put Tolkien at the bottom. And the authority is a stretch, so I am forced to come to the conclusion that you don't actually have a useful observation on the issue.
My respects to the late departed; I feel genuinely bad that, for years, I've panned the guy. I never liked his books. I read the first one, found it incredibly bad, and tried to no avail to get through the second. I think his work is overly derivative and trite, lacking much subtlety of characterization. I think, in fact, it reflects quite well the lack of real socialization of most people who were attracted to it - but that is my (humble) opinion.
I don't begrudge that you enjoyed the book. Nor your friends. But not everyone thought it was wonderful. I genuinely feel bad that I've ripped into Jordan as an author, especially after Martin - who is, by contrast, in my (humble) opinion an excellent fantasy author - gave him such a sweet remembrance. Nevertheless, simply because some set of people enjoyed the books do not make them good. In my observation, they failed to be enjoyable. In many others, this seems to be true, too. In yet others, it seems false. So, no, they're not universally enjoyable - even if they are enjoyable to some.
If you assume that much of our 'intelligent' brain comes from the adaptation needed to survive in the wilderness without the speed, strength and teeth of other animals, it stands to reason that our compassion had an evolutionary purpose as well; and I would point that at the idea that teamwork is as important to the human survival talent as anything else. A mixture of 'emotions' is needed for a social structure, and the more complex the structure the more complex the emotions needed.
If we follow that line of reasoning there is no supposition to believe that the first smarter-than-human AI need to have emotions at all; it's existing in a new niche, not really in competition with anyone else. It's possible it may want to protect humans, as they are effectively the source of it's food, but I don't see how it would need to feel compassion, especially for us.
Now, it may be that eventually a society of computers will arise, using teamwork and even bigger brains to outdo the mammoth and 'dangerous' computers that exist within the ecosystem at that point. But suggesting that they feel compassion for us is sort of like suggesting we feel compassion for the first mammals. And I hesitate to posit what sort of ecosystem that would even be, much less our place in it.
In short; don't underestimate the division between our 'lizard brain' and our 'monkey brain'; I suspect that emotion and intellect can be, but need not be connected.
There also exists the possibility that Christ and Mohommad and Buddha all actually believed what they said. Ironically, one does not have to be a con man to propagate a lie. And, if our electoral politics are at all in evidence, we actually have a fond place in our hearts for liars and con men.
The car was blocked from leaving, but resultant to the man choosing to be in it. The family being there is legally unrelated. I'm sure you can think of cases wherein a car is prevented from moving forward because someone is in the way that have nothing to do with attempting to detain that specific car. Legally, I doubt they'll be held liable for that.
Note that you may be talking about battery; if I punch you, that is battery. If I threaten you harm, that is assault. Generally, these go hand in hand; someone comes at you with fists raised and then proceeds to beat you, that is assault and battery. But if they just cock their fist, it's just assault. In this case, though, the store manager and attendant are neither one reported as having threatened the safety of the man.
In the case of the ironic statement, there is as much cause to say the man inflicted it upon his family as the store employees, though. Really, I'm not seeing the cause for the family's case.
Note, too, that I'm not arguing that the employees nor the police officer were not in error. They clearly were. But is it a tortious offense? Not really. They can sue, but they shouldn't expect much.
To run with, but perhaps not to fly. Likely the arrest can get sealed or expunged. The embarrassment may be recognized, and some damages assessed for any miscellaneous costs (including no doubt court costs), but the bottom-line sum to him is likely to be small or nonexistent.
The family were, in fact, detained, though not by the police. According to the father (who was driving the car), one store employee was standing in front of the car, preventing it from moving forward, while another stood between the open door and the frame, preventing it from moving backward. I ain't passed the bar neither, but that sounds like they were detained against their will.
The family was not, actually, detained. According to the article 'Joe' only attempted to prevent the particular man from 'leaving the parking lot'. There was no indication the store employees were attempting to prevent the family from leaving; if the man in question had not been in the car, there would not have been an issue, save their personal choice.
Likewise, the man was not assaulted, because he had no expectation of harm coming to him.
On top of that, TFA reports they were emotionally shaken to the point of tears.
Contrary to popular opinion, there has to be substantive or lasting impact for 'emotional damage' to suffice - simply because a dollar amount has to be assigned. The man's own words say, "I regret putting them through a little scare". It's hard to claim that is a substantive damage.
I think it would be considerably easier, actually. He was assaulted, physically detained, verbally abused, and the store employees tried to take his property from him. And they're the ones who unlawfully detained the family.
I could be totally wrong - and I welcome anyone whose taken a crim pro or civ pro class to correct me - but I suspect that he'd have a hard time substantiating any of those claims as having caused him harm. It is very likely that he could sue for damages for any expenses incurred, including time at work lost or incarceration fees. It is very likely that he could sue to have his arrest record expunged of this offense. It is even possible for him to bring a tort saying that it is unlawful for the store to check (his) receipts. But I don't think he'll get much in the way of damages, certainly not the seven figures someone cited.
It is true that under any contract you sign you cannot give up your basic rights. For instance, you can never sign a contract that removes the liability of the other party for negligence; if they're negligent, even if you signed a contract saying that they're not liable for any harm to you under the contract, they still are. On the other hand, in most situations, the 'rights' that are extended to you are done so out of an attempt to protect you from the government. Typically speaking your recourse when your rights are violated is concessions in the court process; evidence thrown out, cases overturned, etc. However, if someone else violates your rights without committing a crime - or more importantly causing you damage of some sort - your civil suit against them is worthless, because you've suffered no material harm. Even if they do technically commit a crime - say, kidnapping - you might not actually be able to sue them because, again, you can't assess any damage.
You can bet corporate lawyers bank on this sort of thing; they're not going to sign into policy anything illegal, nor anything that is likely to result in damages. But they don't have much to prevent them from violating your rights.
The store causes people whose receipts they inspect no material harm, upon which damages are decided, either in the inspection or the detaining them if they refuse. Without that there can't be a civil suit that will pass muster. It's not right, per se, that this is the case, but the corporations know that they don't lose anything by demanding the inspection, and most people simply don't care. On the other hand, I bet it does a lot to curtail shoplifting, because your average shoplifter is skittish and not well informed.
It is not, in fact, likely that the entire family can sue, given that only Mr. Righi's rights were actually violated. The police can search your stuff without cause in pursuit of an investigation of someone else. This is not a 'legal' search, but your only recourse is to have the results of the search thrown out of any case where they are brought against you - they aren't going to be thrown out of someone else's case and you don't have the recourse of a civil action. Likewise, because the family was never the focus of the investigation, and they were never materially detained except through their own cooperation, they don't have a case.
Also, while his rights were violated by the police, and he may have an action there due to the nature of the police being a governmental body, the civil suit against the corporation is tougher, because he has to show that he suffered a material harm. The fact that he was arrested may actually help him here, if he can win that case.
I saw more than a few people who seemed quite divorced from reality.
It may be moot to argue this, but those people are reality. I don't mean that they define the paradigm that reality operates upon, but that they exist within the world, and comprise a significant part of it. It is impossible to dismiss them out of hand by saying, "Oh, they're divorced from reality." To do so divorces yourself from the reality that they do exist, and they do have influence. Unfortunately, it is the case that even if someone is totally ca-ca, they are an independent agency whose potency is not in the least affected by your decision that they've got it all wrong.
Ah! You illustrate my point exactly. David himself; arguably a right bastard. Yet Jesus, of the House of David, is considered to be a paragon of virtue for most of the world.
So, tell me AC, should we judge the current Dalai Lama by the standards of his forbears?
So, having decided that you do not like religious people, the question still stands; how much have you studied religion? Do you know anything about the eightfold path? What the difference between Mecca and Medina is? What a pharasee is, versus a zealot? Who really got the Protestant revolution rolling?
Because however you feel about the people who choose to practice religion today, and devote more of their life to it than to other pursuits, religion as a cultural force is incredibly powerful and far reaching in our history. More to the point it fueled a great deal of our modern philosophy - including most secular and scientific philosophy that is considered to be the greatest enlightened thinking of our day. Few people question the cultural role of the Dalai Lamas in the past because the philosophical ideas that Buddhism has spread are so powerful; and ultimately, the culture is changing in the face of the twenty first century. Similarly, no one cares that the House of David probably was not exactly the beneficent dictator we'd like to think. Life is incredibly hard in poor countries. Harder still in poor countries without technology. Even harder in poor countries without democracy.
If you don't believe in the righteousness of the Dalai Lama's cause, then don't stand for it. That is fair. But doing so on the basis of his forerunner's cultural environment is sort of like saying the Constitution isn't worth fighting for because it was written by slave owners. There has to be a recognition that society is a living thing, changes, and despite the fact that we all came from feces-flinging monkeys, we've still got a case.
The U.S. has a great number of problems; at this time I think talking about solutions is beside the point. What the point is (was?), is that one must absolutely recognize the problems you have, and come from an explicit assumption that your problems are no less than another's.
Your approach suggests inaction, or action in the form of forcing change on others. Muslims are the problem. Their regimes are the problem. Well, if you want to complain about someone's despotic leadership, make sure your own government does not oppress first.
Our society isn't superior, our problems simply have a different scope and focus than theirs. Thankfully, we've solved women's rights issues, but religion still guides the majority of what we do and accept, and people with money and resources and influence push around those without. The details of the implementations are different, but the abstract conflicts are basically the same. Only on a material level can you claim we're doing better; but a wealthier nation does not a more virtuous nation make. We may use different methodologies to choose our leaders, but if they're corrupt, outside the reach of the law and predominately of one religion, one cultural background, one class - well, how is that any 'better'? Simply because they're 'Christian'? Doubtful
I think the U.S. is on to something; democracy and the distribution of power between governmental branches. But our implementation sucks - or at least could use vast improvement. Simply because I recognize this does not mean I hate my country. In fact, I would go so far as to say you must hate your country. After all, you seem to suggest that thinking other countries inferior is a prerequisite for loving America. Yet such arrogance is not something that I see as a core value to be thrust upon all American citizens; the best of us have been humble people. And if that is true, that the best of us are humble, and you cannot stand that - well, you must not like the best of us very much.
Wasn't it Jesus who put forth (and no doubt cribbed from others) the idea that you should love your neighbor? Well, perhaps I can suggest a solution after all; you find it within yourself to love thy neighbor, to "judge righteously man and his brother, and the alien that is with him". While you work on that, baby Jesus and I will be over here.
First of all, what kind of person pulls out the, "If you hate your own country so much, you're free to leave." line? Give me a break. Running and hiding from the nature of things is the number one reason anyone is in this mess to begin with - and yet it's first solution you suggest!
I don't hate my country, pure and simple. I don't hate the people in it, or the many good things about it. But neither do I hate everyone else in the world and their countries because of the less-than-good things about them. That sort of double standard is what gets you into situations where people want to blow you up.
You can tell me that it's about 'spin' when the top 10% of the people don't hold 90% of the wealth. It is being spun, and you're buying into the worldview that lets you decide it's not actually your responsibility in the least. What a cowardly way to be.
I do hope you realize that, historically, teaching is not a valued profession. Women became teachers first because it was considered something 'they could handle'. Little emphasis is placed on making the craft of teaching a challenging one, and our culture suffers for it at every level; at the lower levels we find we're failing to teach students anything because the teachers simply aren't expected to be good at anything, even teaching. At the higher levels we expect the 'teachers' (professors) to know their stuff, but have no expectation that they'll be good at teaching it to other people.
Somewhat off-topic, but my sixth grade teacher returned an essay to me once, circling the word 'minute' and marking me down a grade because that word is a unit of time, whereas I had tried to use it to describe something small. Small like his teaching ability.
Re:Lets Talk About Oppression
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: 1
I call shenanigans. You know why Saddam was able to keep the country pacified? Because even though he was entirely oppressing and killing one group (the Kurds), he kept his own group (Sunni) in power over the majority Shi'a. But that latter group was alright with it because he kept the infrastructure intact. There was power, and plumbing, and jobs and food. You want to know why Iraq is having so many problems now? Because we spent the money fixing the oil economy and not putting basic services in place. Of course those people are going to radicalize; they have nothing else to do.
Re:The Necessity Of Oversight
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: 1
I totally agree; pre-emptive curtailing of rights is never a good policy. I don't care what you're afraid of happening. Yes, you will suffer a little more in the short term, but in the long term it's a far, far better policy and actually builds the sort of secure society you want when people realize terrorism doesn't do them any good. "The are two pains; the pain of discipline, and the pain of regret."
Slashdot Mirror
I assume they're not looking for pilots, given the desire that people have engineering or other science degrees. But I don't actually know... do most NASA pilots have those degrees? I know that back in the days of "The Right Stuff" you more or less had to be a superman, but recent news items suggest they have relaxed their expectations.
Basic business or accounting classes will teach you that accountants are only liable if they are cooking the books on their own volition, rather than on the instruction of their superiors. This is why many accountants keep a separate and private ledger - that way if something like this hits the fan they have a record of, "This is what it should have been, but when I told so-and-so, they told me to do it this other way."
And in that situation, the CPA is actually fine; it's the corporate execs who decide to fudge it or 'ignore problems' who are in trouble. That is what happened with Enron - the accountants knew the problems, but were instructed to obfuscate it. I suspect, given that the accountants were alternately 'fired' or 'resigning' that some accountant hit a legal wall, wouldn't go any further, was fired, and the rest knew that was the straw that broke the camels back and took off. Given the severe risk an accountant carries by being a CPA, and their significantly lessened protection (compared to an exec), I doubt many would actually put their neck out that far for a company unless they were already somehow complicit.
I'm just going to note that Trent seems to have made several headlines for himself by telling his slave-owners to f**k off. This in and of itself is probably a good move for him - and, ironically, for them. While they get "bad" publicity, none of their bottom line is going to change. The people stealing music are going to be the same people. The people buying the CDs are going to be the same, too. The only difference in this scenario is that Trent is more likely to get people at his concerts.
Of course Tolkien has his flaws, but they in no way outstrip his talents. I would far sooner level the complaint that his characters are not, in fact, really characters so much as archetypes (but even this is reflects the genre he was really writing for; epics in the classical sense) than that his writing was ponderous. (I actually have no problem with heavy writing; it has great value.) Far too many authors fall into the 'impossibly ponderous' category; Nathaniel Hawthorne leaps to mind, Cervantes as mentioned before, Conrad and even the late Jordan. And to top it off, I think that in Tolkien's case, he had good cause to write as he did; I don't think the style of writing in any way reflects poorly on him as an author. Rather, it shows his sensitivity not only to the appropriate style for what he wished to accomplish, but also his own talents.
It is, in fact, the very definition of literature when each time you go back to a story, you find something new and awe-inspiring about it. Tolkien had that, I think, and I suspect that by and large the people who fail to recognize that are, themselves, limited or otherwise crippled in their understanding and knowledge of the world.
I've read thousands and thousands of books in my life, and there have only been a handful of times that I couldn't finish a book that I really wanted to finish.
A book a day for three years will get you a thousand. Thousands and thousands you say? So... a book a day for, what, twelve years? Fifteen? What do you do for a living? Are you independently wealthy? Because, frankly, I find it unlikely that you've read that many books in twelve years. Four books a week, perhaps, seems more reasonable. That's 200 a year, or a thousand every decade, and a lean four thousand in forty years.
What is my point? That regardless of the numbers, or whatever reading prowess you have, you're puffing yourself up for the sake of an argument - giving yourself an authority (I've read thousands and thousands of books! I know!) that, even if it's deserved, is beside the point. You've never read writing that felt like wading through molasses like Tolkien? Ever read Cervantes? "A Brief History of England"? Any organic chemistry book? Or any of the thousands of published authors who, in fact, are worse writers than Tolkien? If you have the authority you claim, you'd never put Tolkien at the bottom. And the authority is a stretch, so I am forced to come to the conclusion that you don't actually have a useful observation on the issue.
I know I'm not alone in finding his writing unbearable.
Nor are you in the majority.
My respects to the late departed; I feel genuinely bad that, for years, I've panned the guy. I never liked his books. I read the first one, found it incredibly bad, and tried to no avail to get through the second. I think his work is overly derivative and trite, lacking much subtlety of characterization. I think, in fact, it reflects quite well the lack of real socialization of most people who were attracted to it - but that is my (humble) opinion.
I don't begrudge that you enjoyed the book. Nor your friends. But not everyone thought it was wonderful. I genuinely feel bad that I've ripped into Jordan as an author, especially after Martin - who is, by contrast, in my (humble) opinion an excellent fantasy author - gave him such a sweet remembrance. Nevertheless, simply because some set of people enjoyed the books do not make them good. In my observation, they failed to be enjoyable. In many others, this seems to be true, too. In yet others, it seems false. So, no, they're not universally enjoyable - even if they are enjoyable to some.
... is not necessarily linked to intelligence.
If you assume that much of our 'intelligent' brain comes from the adaptation needed to survive in the wilderness without the speed, strength and teeth of other animals, it stands to reason that our compassion had an evolutionary purpose as well; and I would point that at the idea that teamwork is as important to the human survival talent as anything else. A mixture of 'emotions' is needed for a social structure, and the more complex the structure the more complex the emotions needed.
If we follow that line of reasoning there is no supposition to believe that the first smarter-than-human AI need to have emotions at all; it's existing in a new niche, not really in competition with anyone else. It's possible it may want to protect humans, as they are effectively the source of it's food, but I don't see how it would need to feel compassion, especially for us.
Now, it may be that eventually a society of computers will arise, using teamwork and even bigger brains to outdo the mammoth and 'dangerous' computers that exist within the ecosystem at that point. But suggesting that they feel compassion for us is sort of like suggesting we feel compassion for the first mammals. And I hesitate to posit what sort of ecosystem that would even be, much less our place in it.
In short; don't underestimate the division between our 'lizard brain' and our 'monkey brain'; I suspect that emotion and intellect can be, but need not be connected.
There also exists the possibility that Christ and Mohommad and Buddha all actually believed what they said. Ironically, one does not have to be a con man to propagate a lie. And, if our electoral politics are at all in evidence, we actually have a fond place in our hearts for liars and con men.
The car was blocked from leaving, but resultant to the man choosing to be in it. The family being there is legally unrelated. I'm sure you can think of cases wherein a car is prevented from moving forward because someone is in the way that have nothing to do with attempting to detain that specific car. Legally, I doubt they'll be held liable for that.
Note that you may be talking about battery; if I punch you, that is battery. If I threaten you harm, that is assault. Generally, these go hand in hand; someone comes at you with fists raised and then proceeds to beat you, that is assault and battery. But if they just cock their fist, it's just assault. In this case, though, the store manager and attendant are neither one reported as having threatened the safety of the man.
In the case of the ironic statement, there is as much cause to say the man inflicted it upon his family as the store employees, though. Really, I'm not seeing the cause for the family's case.
Note, too, that I'm not arguing that the employees nor the police officer were not in error. They clearly were. But is it a tortious offense? Not really. They can sue, but they shouldn't expect much.
Yeah, we'll never sail around the world, either.
To run with, but perhaps not to fly. Likely the arrest can get sealed or expunged. The embarrassment may be recognized, and some damages assessed for any miscellaneous costs (including no doubt court costs), but the bottom-line sum to him is likely to be small or nonexistent.
The family were, in fact, detained, though not by the police. According to the father (who was driving the car), one store employee was standing in front of the car, preventing it from moving forward, while another stood between the open door and the frame, preventing it from moving backward. I ain't passed the bar neither, but that sounds like they were detained against their will.
The family was not, actually, detained. According to the article 'Joe' only attempted to prevent the particular man from 'leaving the parking lot'. There was no indication the store employees were attempting to prevent the family from leaving; if the man in question had not been in the car, there would not have been an issue, save their personal choice.
Likewise, the man was not assaulted, because he had no expectation of harm coming to him.
On top of that, TFA reports they were emotionally shaken to the point of tears.
Contrary to popular opinion, there has to be substantive or lasting impact for 'emotional damage' to suffice - simply because a dollar amount has to be assigned. The man's own words say, "I regret putting them through a little scare". It's hard to claim that is a substantive damage.
I think it would be considerably easier, actually. He was assaulted, physically detained, verbally abused, and the store employees tried to take his property from him. And they're the ones who unlawfully detained the family.
I could be totally wrong - and I welcome anyone whose taken a crim pro or civ pro class to correct me - but I suspect that he'd have a hard time substantiating any of those claims as having caused him harm. It is very likely that he could sue for damages for any expenses incurred, including time at work lost or incarceration fees. It is very likely that he could sue to have his arrest record expunged of this offense. It is even possible for him to bring a tort saying that it is unlawful for the store to check (his) receipts. But I don't think he'll get much in the way of damages, certainly not the seven figures someone cited.
It is true that under any contract you sign you cannot give up your basic rights. For instance, you can never sign a contract that removes the liability of the other party for negligence; if they're negligent, even if you signed a contract saying that they're not liable for any harm to you under the contract, they still are. On the other hand, in most situations, the 'rights' that are extended to you are done so out of an attempt to protect you from the government. Typically speaking your recourse when your rights are violated is concessions in the court process; evidence thrown out, cases overturned, etc. However, if someone else violates your rights without committing a crime - or more importantly causing you damage of some sort - your civil suit against them is worthless, because you've suffered no material harm. Even if they do technically commit a crime - say, kidnapping - you might not actually be able to sue them because, again, you can't assess any damage.
You can bet corporate lawyers bank on this sort of thing; they're not going to sign into policy anything illegal, nor anything that is likely to result in damages. But they don't have much to prevent them from violating your rights.
The store causes people whose receipts they inspect no material harm, upon which damages are decided, either in the inspection or the detaining them if they refuse. Without that there can't be a civil suit that will pass muster. It's not right, per se, that this is the case, but the corporations know that they don't lose anything by demanding the inspection, and most people simply don't care. On the other hand, I bet it does a lot to curtail shoplifting, because your average shoplifter is skittish and not well informed.
It is not, in fact, likely that the entire family can sue, given that only Mr. Righi's rights were actually violated. The police can search your stuff without cause in pursuit of an investigation of someone else. This is not a 'legal' search, but your only recourse is to have the results of the search thrown out of any case where they are brought against you - they aren't going to be thrown out of someone else's case and you don't have the recourse of a civil action. Likewise, because the family was never the focus of the investigation, and they were never materially detained except through their own cooperation, they don't have a case. Also, while his rights were violated by the police, and he may have an action there due to the nature of the police being a governmental body, the civil suit against the corporation is tougher, because he has to show that he suffered a material harm. The fact that he was arrested may actually help him here, if he can win that case.
I saw more than a few people who seemed quite divorced from reality.
It may be moot to argue this, but those people are reality. I don't mean that they define the paradigm that reality operates upon, but that they exist within the world, and comprise a significant part of it. It is impossible to dismiss them out of hand by saying, "Oh, they're divorced from reality." To do so divorces yourself from the reality that they do exist, and they do have influence. Unfortunately, it is the case that even if someone is totally ca-ca, they are an independent agency whose potency is not in the least affected by your decision that they've got it all wrong.
Ah! You illustrate my point exactly. David himself; arguably a right bastard. Yet Jesus, of the House of David, is considered to be a paragon of virtue for most of the world.
So, tell me AC, should we judge the current Dalai Lama by the standards of his forbears?
So, having decided that you do not like religious people, the question still stands; how much have you studied religion? Do you know anything about the eightfold path? What the difference between Mecca and Medina is? What a pharasee is, versus a zealot? Who really got the Protestant revolution rolling?
Because however you feel about the people who choose to practice religion today, and devote more of their life to it than to other pursuits, religion as a cultural force is incredibly powerful and far reaching in our history. More to the point it fueled a great deal of our modern philosophy - including most secular and scientific philosophy that is considered to be the greatest enlightened thinking of our day. Few people question the cultural role of the Dalai Lamas in the past because the philosophical ideas that Buddhism has spread are so powerful; and ultimately, the culture is changing in the face of the twenty first century. Similarly, no one cares that the House of David probably was not exactly the beneficent dictator we'd like to think. Life is incredibly hard in poor countries. Harder still in poor countries without technology. Even harder in poor countries without democracy.
If you don't believe in the righteousness of the Dalai Lama's cause, then don't stand for it. That is fair. But doing so on the basis of his forerunner's cultural environment is sort of like saying the Constitution isn't worth fighting for because it was written by slave owners. There has to be a recognition that society is a living thing, changes, and despite the fact that we all came from feces-flinging monkeys, we've still got a case.
"He who is without fault is all fault."
The U.S. has a great number of problems; at this time I think talking about solutions is beside the point. What the point is (was?), is that one must absolutely recognize the problems you have, and come from an explicit assumption that your problems are no less than another's.
Your approach suggests inaction, or action in the form of forcing change on others. Muslims are the problem. Their regimes are the problem. Well, if you want to complain about someone's despotic leadership, make sure your own government does not oppress first.
Our society isn't superior, our problems simply have a different scope and focus than theirs. Thankfully, we've solved women's rights issues, but religion still guides the majority of what we do and accept, and people with money and resources and influence push around those without. The details of the implementations are different, but the abstract conflicts are basically the same. Only on a material level can you claim we're doing better; but a wealthier nation does not a more virtuous nation make. We may use different methodologies to choose our leaders, but if they're corrupt, outside the reach of the law and predominately of one religion, one cultural background, one class - well, how is that any 'better'? Simply because they're 'Christian'? Doubtful
I think the U.S. is on to something; democracy and the distribution of power between governmental branches. But our implementation sucks - or at least could use vast improvement. Simply because I recognize this does not mean I hate my country. In fact, I would go so far as to say you must hate your country. After all, you seem to suggest that thinking other countries inferior is a prerequisite for loving America. Yet such arrogance is not something that I see as a core value to be thrust upon all American citizens; the best of us have been humble people. And if that is true, that the best of us are humble, and you cannot stand that - well, you must not like the best of us very much.
Wasn't it Jesus who put forth (and no doubt cribbed from others) the idea that you should love your neighbor? Well, perhaps I can suggest a solution after all; you find it within yourself to love thy neighbor, to "judge righteously man and his brother, and the alien that is with him". While you work on that, baby Jesus and I will be over here.
First of all, what kind of person pulls out the, "If you hate your own country so much, you're free to leave." line? Give me a break. Running and hiding from the nature of things is the number one reason anyone is in this mess to begin with - and yet it's first solution you suggest!
I don't hate my country, pure and simple. I don't hate the people in it, or the many good things about it. But neither do I hate everyone else in the world and their countries because of the less-than-good things about them. That sort of double standard is what gets you into situations where people want to blow you up.
You can tell me that it's about 'spin' when the top 10% of the people don't hold 90% of the wealth. It is being spun, and you're buying into the worldview that lets you decide it's not actually your responsibility in the least. What a cowardly way to be.
I do hope you realize that, historically, teaching is not a valued profession. Women became teachers first because it was considered something 'they could handle'. Little emphasis is placed on making the craft of teaching a challenging one, and our culture suffers for it at every level; at the lower levels we find we're failing to teach students anything because the teachers simply aren't expected to be good at anything, even teaching. At the higher levels we expect the 'teachers' (professors) to know their stuff, but have no expectation that they'll be good at teaching it to other people.
Somewhat off-topic, but my sixth grade teacher returned an essay to me once, circling the word 'minute' and marking me down a grade because that word is a unit of time, whereas I had tried to use it to describe something small. Small like his teaching ability.
I call shenanigans. You know why Saddam was able to keep the country pacified? Because even though he was entirely oppressing and killing one group (the Kurds), he kept his own group (Sunni) in power over the majority Shi'a. But that latter group was alright with it because he kept the infrastructure intact. There was power, and plumbing, and jobs and food. You want to know why Iraq is having so many problems now? Because we spent the money fixing the oil economy and not putting basic services in place. Of course those people are going to radicalize; they have nothing else to do.
I totally agree; pre-emptive curtailing of rights is never a good policy. I don't care what you're afraid of happening. Yes, you will suffer a little more in the short term, but in the long term it's a far, far better policy and actually builds the sort of secure society you want when people realize terrorism doesn't do them any good. "The are two pains; the pain of discipline, and the pain of regret."