As in, "Understand this, dickhead... murder your wife in cold blood and we will start chopping shit off until you're dead."
This isn't about emotions or rationality - it is about deterrence. In fact, what you're trying to sell here, smells a lot like feel-goodism, and not anything close to tried and true reality.
If you want rationality as you define it, then I suggest you start pushing for Maori justice.
Huh?
You know, there are many, many atrocities committed in this world. The Bush Administration is responsible for the needless deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and this was due to open malice and intentional circumvention of the law, and lying to congress and the US people. Hans is responsible for the death of one person, and it would appear to me to be a "crime of passion".
If you feel so incensed as to "chopping s*it off until you're dead" for just one murder, how do you feel about Bush and Cheney, whom are responsible for the needless deaths of many of our kids over resource disputes? Do you feel the same, if not greater anger? Why not?
This is not about "feel-goodism", whatever that's supposed to mean. There is no excuse for what Hans did. There is also no excuse for that poor 16-year-old boy, a Canadian citizen, who has spent at least a year in Guantumano(sp) Bay, being tortured by your nice friendly good ole' US of A.
If you have any understanding about "crimes of passion", you know deterrence is a joke. In general, doing nasty things to people for doing nasty things has never worked as "deterrence", even back in the days they would chop off your hand for stealing a loaf of bread.
Oh, but maybe it'll work today when it has failed for centuries. Hmmm. Maybe I'm just being too rational. Or maybe I lack Faith. Or maybe I am missing the boat entirely. Help me out here.
But in my estimation, responding to clulessness with clulessness never got anyone anywhere. If we don't bother trying to understand, we might as well fully resort to the practices of our progenitors -- and eye for an eye, go forth with the pitchforks, let's have some more witchhunt trials. Or perhaps some Inquisitions. Hell, let's just chop up and slaughter everyone that does not measure up.
Or perhaps we should finally begin to see a thing for what a thing really is.
As far as Maori justice systems, it seems good in principle and I would be all for it, but I think it too will suffer from some of the same problems the current injustice system has unless one addresses the entire process of the determination of guilt or innocence, which is quite the joke right now.
You can always start your own businesses that would fair better and eventually beat the competition. Or you can form unions. Or you can relocate to where there are better prospects.
Yep. I am self-employed so I don't have to deal with it, but it is not for everyone. Especially those who have families or who have medical conditions and cannot get individual health insurance. Or people who lack experience or are in debt and need a steady paycheck, and so on.
Believe me I used to be like you guys saying that if people don't like it then why don't they just leave, but over time I have realized that is an over-simplification.
And so what would your solution be? To wish on a star? Pennies from Heaven? Or perhaps Mommy Government should bail them out?
Speaking of my own experiences, I've been all over the map. And when I was down, there was none of this "pennies from heaven" falling my way. I could either whine about it and make excuses, or take action.
Will be easy for many? Of course not. But then, what alternatives do they have? I mean, real alternatives?
All I am saying is that you and your employer should sit down and agree to terms before work begins. If being "on call" is a part of the terms and you agree to it, then I see no call for a lawsuit.
If, on the other hand, that stipulation was added without your agreement after your employment began, then you do have grounds for a lawsuit.
But if you agreed to those work conditions and then after the fact you have a dispute, I really don't see the grounds for a lawsuit. Either work out the differences or get another job. It's that simple.
I'd like to see less government involvement in the workplace, and just let the employee and employer agree on work conditions and rules and expectations.
Really? Why should government involvement which allowes employers to band together to form a corporation be OK, but not government involvement to limit the power given to them by the government?
If you removed government involvement, it should cut both ways, not just to screw over the employee. That means an end to limited liability and an end of having a separate legal entity.
Is this what you mean?
Yes, and more.
Personal Responsibility is the mantra I will always toot. It goes for the big corporate exec as well as the "lowly" employee that the corporation heavily depends on for success.
Of course, those in government are loathe to the concept of personal responsibility, and wish to create more of the same to keep themselves insulated from it.
Lots of lawsuits over this issue will change the work relationship between employee and employer -- to disadvantage the employee, I think.
The work relationship between employer and employee is always at a distinct disadvantage to the employee. Individuals suing over unpaid time won't change that on any measurable scale, one way or the other.
Not at all -- if you are seen as a valuable asset to the employer, then the employee has the upper hand. If, on the other hand, the employer's perception of you is "I can get anyone to do that", then you as the employee ARE at the disadvantage.
It's all about perception and attitude. Whether it a consumer shopping for a bargain or an employer looking for a employee, or an employee looking to enhance her career, everyone wants to get more than what he pays for. The more you can give that perception that you are worth more than what you are being paid, the more power and leverage you'll have.
Or you can spend you life whining about why no one gave you any breaks. The choice is yours.
Too many in the US have this "gimmie something" attitude, not the attitude of "how I can be a better worker", or "how I can enhance my value to the company".
You must have to have a pretty empty life for those things to be the most important issues in it.
Not at all, and they are not the most important issues. But it's clear that if you do make yourself more valuable, you can boost your salary and your worth to other prospective employers.
Basically, if you want more, then give more. I have worked in low-end jobs as well as the high-end hi-tech jobs I currently do. In every case, I always gave more and I was rewarded for it.
So, the choice is yours. Whine and act as the world owes you a living, or act and make yourself valuable and indispensable, and use that as a powerful tool for career management.
As to you "do we live to work or work to live" question:
Yes, you should have some "me time", but at the same, you should also be doing what I call "career management". Your current job should be seen as a "stepping stone", something that will get you to the next level. And the goal you set for yourself should be something that you are ultimately happy with and that is also achievable.
Many, many years ago, I worked as a "bus boy", but I didn't stay there. Bus boys don't make much money, work long hours, and are considered at the "low end of the spectrum".
But it gave me some money in pocket as a teenager, and that led to other things, such as positioning myself in a place to land my first computer job, and thus my real career began.
So, if you don't like what you're doing, do a little career management and move on. It's all about choices.
But so many are told that they "have no choice", and thus don't keep their eyes open to see possible opportunities that eventually float their way. And so they stay "trapped", and the "no choice" choice they made for themselves becomes self-fulfilling.
Then you have a bunch of condescending "bleeding-heart liberals" who will come along and say "what a shame" and create government "solutions" that only makes choices even more difficult for those who need them.
This downwardly-spiraling cycle has to stop somewhere. Sad thing is, it will stop one way or another. Either individuals begin to make responsible choices, or the choice will be made for them.
Have you ever been through a bitter divorce? You have no idea.
It's easy to slam Hans for offing his wife, and I am by no means trying to excuse that. But at the same time, does that mean we should ignore the incredible levels of stress, the way the court system is stacked against men, and the fact that Nina betrayed his trust?
-------------------
Sorry, but I refuse to have compassion for murderers.
This is the same argument people used when Susan Smith killed her two kids and Andrea Yates drowned all 5 of her kids.
It's bullshit then and it's bullshit now.
I am not asking for compassion, but understanding. It is all too easy to say "he's bad", but then we never understand what led up to what he did.
And if we ignore such basic understanding, we learn nothing. And such tragedies will continue to happen.
I thought slash-dotters would be the last ones to choose emotions over rationality, but alas, still only human...
It's not really that simple. It might work in the case of a few bad companies, but what if all companies adopt the same work conditions? That is the thing about pure capitalism, that companies can become too greedy at the expense of human beings, so there needs to be a balance of regulations that protect the factors that are not purely financial (human health, environmental, safety, non-discrimination, etc). This happened a lot in the industrial revolution before labor laws and still happens in other parts of the world, which imported goods are so cheap.
(I am not an economist nor am I a historian, so someone who is either can probably set me straight on the details)
You can always start your own businesses that would fair better and eventually beat the competition. Or you can form unions. Or you can relocate to where there are better prospects.
I agree with you, except where it applies to worker safety. People will work quite hard for money, and even put their life in danger, if it's the only job they can find. Sure you could say they are stupid for doing it, but then you've probably never been in a situation where the choice was food or descend into an unsafe mine shaft. Set up whatever crazy work hours and pay rate you want. But as soon as the actual health and well being of the employee comes into concern, the government should have some say as to what's going on. From a legal point of view, you could be quite negligent for paying somebody for risking their own life.
Government didn't really help such workers -- unions did. Not that I like unions, at least the unions of today, but they did serve their purpose back when it mattered.
Government is almost never the answer, for it will "do something 'for you'", but it'll be based on politics and sound-bites, rather than careful thought and analysis. Then when it falls apart, Government uses that as an excuse to grow its own size.
As far as there "being the only job available", yes there are places in this country where that seems to be true. But there are always choices to make, and sometimes those choices are hard. You don't have to remain in an area with no job prospects -- you can move to where the jobs are. You don't, by the same token, have to start a family when you don't have the financial means, and so forth.
It all boils down to personal responsibility. And if a person can't be responsible for himself or his family, there is little the government -- or any other entity, for that matter -- can really do that would be effective.
I'd like to see less government involvement in the workplace, and just let the employee and employer agree on work conditions and rules and expectations.
Don't like the policies? Go get another job. It's that easy, really.
I'd like to see one of those stony heart libertarians get really fucked-up in the arse to the hilt by one of those wall-to-wall lawyered mega croporations and lose everything down to the last fermion of his soul.
Then we'll see if he's still against "government involvement" in life...
Been there, done that. And you know what? Government was not around to help. Either I did it by the seat of my pants or face being out in the streets.
From what I've seen of these "dreamy bleeding heart Liberals" they imagine all sorts of things government can do, but when you look at the *actual record*, it comes up way short.
I am a pragmatist, a realist. Liberals -- really Socialists -- want all of these government-funded (and therefore tax-funded) programs to help the less able. But they never consider whether or not the overall systems of welfare are sustainable or not. So millions grow dependent on a system that's always tethering on the edge of collapse.
And what happens to the millions that are left in the cold, who did not otherwise learn to be independent and self-reliant? Oh well...
So now where is your bleeding heart whilst the blood run in the streets?
Too many in the US have this "gimmie something" attitude, not the attitude of "how I can be a better worker", or "how I can enhance my value to the company".
Lots of lawsuits over this issue will change the work relationship between employee and employer -- to disadvantage the employee, I think. If you have the type of job you need to be on-call for, you obviously have much more value to your employer than a burger-flipper, and the worker should be looking to enhance that, not to sue for after-hours work.
And if you don't like how you're being treated, just quit already. If you are not happy, seek out an arrangement that'll make you happy.
Whining to "mommy government" will only make matters worse, not better.
I'd like to see less government involvement in the workplace, and just let the employee and employer agree on work conditions and rules and expectations.
Don't like the policies? Go get another job. It's that easy, really.
Someone actually modded UP a post saying don't be hard on a man who murdered his wife... because of a bitter divorce?
THIS got modded up?
Did anyone, like, notice this madness?
Have you ever been through a bitter divorce? You have no idea.
It's easy to slam Hans for offing his wife, and I am by no means trying to excuse that. But at the same time, does that mean we should ignore the incredible levels of stress, the way the court system is stacked against men, and the fact that Nina betrayed his trust?
There is no excuse for what Hans apparently did. But that does not mean we shouldn't try to understand what lead him to those actions. He is doing his time. What more do you want? Damage is done. All we can do is try to understand it.
Actually, if Hans had kept his mouth shut and let his lawyer do all the talking, he would've gotten off anyway. There was no solid evidence that Nina was dead.
Oh well, this is sad on so many fronts, and now the "justice" system will feel more empowered to convict on flimsy evidence, which will result in more harm to innocents.
But the "justice" system is not about justice at all. That's the lie we're all fed, but if you look at what truly goes on, it's horrific at best.
How many innocent people wind up convicted of a crime they did not commit? This is a double injustice, because not only do you destroy the life of an innocent person, but there still remains a guilty person free, smug in the fact he skated the system, and is free to hurt more innocent people.
It's a fine mess, and it's not going to be cleaned up overnight -- if at all.
...We don't have the will in this country to do what's necessary to get these fucking animals out of society. And I'm talking just straight, humane prison time here not Extreme Justice. What we need to do is decriminalize drugs, but make any crime committed while under the influence of drugs a much more severe penalty. Then spend the resources keeping the real scum behind bars.
The true test of human dignity and intelligence is not responding like an animal yourself to animalistic acts.
Yes, our Injustice System is a plain mess on many fronts. And so is Law Overenforcement, whom I fear far more than any supposed criminal -- they can shoot you and get away with it, not even see any jail time.
If I were to give in to my animal side, as you apparently do, I would do what an animal does. But no one wins in that scenario.
And so when even the emotions run hot and high, logic, intelligence and reason MUST win in the end, or we are no better than our simian cousins.
I sued the pants off of Allison Beal, Clarence Beal, Andrew Bizier, and the restaurant that got involved with a very vicious false allegation they made against me. I also had a front-page news article appear in the local paper about it. I "won" in the end -- but the cost was great, so great I might be inclined to follow my animal side.
But I am led by rationality and logic, not the lower, primal parts of my brain caught in an evolutionary past that is no longer relevant to today's world.
So, yes, there are really sick people out there. You do well to not become one of them.
Oh fuck off. Let's even forget his wife and assume she was a horrible person (I don't know this and am just saying it for argument). As someone else said - look what this lowlife piece of shit did to his kids. No father. No mother. Trauma for the rest of their lives.
I hope he is brutalized in prison. Brutalized and savaged.
It is a tragedy what his kids had to endure. I am NOT belittling that at all.
But to tell me to, in your words, "fuck off", just because you disagree with me...!
I think it's a real test of courage to endure the crap many have to endure in a divorce and NOT do something rash.
From what I've heard of Nina, she was no saint. Does it merit her murder? Of course not. Do I excuse Hans? Not at all.
But if you are incapable of understanding the human trauma and emotions in this case, then you, sir, are rather shallow.
And see, I don't have to resort to any expletives to insult you back!
Something tells me that if the vast majority of people involved in bitter divorces thought they could get away with murder, the occurrence would be a *lot* higher.
I've watched lots of people go through bitter divorces, and in every case I've seen both sides break every law they could get away with in dealing with their ex during the divorce process. Perjury to obtain restraining orders (to use to obtain custody of children, not 'cause there was actual abuse or threats of abuse), vandalism, theft, harassment...
And not only does the system allow this farce, but also encourages it. the government just loves it when we are at each other's throats.
The problem with some divorces is that the woman flexes her unfair advantages she has in court, and tries to ream the poor guy all she can. This is basically the story of my own divorce.
It's quite crazy and it's a wonder I've managed to maintain my sanity through the entire affair.
So, while not agreeing with what Hans DID, I do think I understand WHY. One guy can control his rage; another guy breaks down and gives in.
Perhaps if guys had a fair shake in this so-called "blind justice" system, things would be different.
And where are all the feminists out there screaming about the unfair advantages they have in court? Oh no. They are loving every bit of it. So much for "equality". What a joke.
Oh yeah, I forgot -- some get to be more "equal" than others...
Despite everything, I am not buying that assumption that everyone's capable of murder.
If that were true, with all the crap that's been done to me over the years... well, suffice it to say that I am incapable of murder.
Besides, death would be too good for some people. Why put THEM out of THEIR misery? Why not do something far worse -- allow them to live? See all of the advantages:
You don't get your hands all bloodied up, having to clean up the mess, etc.
You don't go to jail or get a bad reputation.
You can sit quietly by and watch the misery that is their life.
You can go on and become wildly successful and make'em hate you even more!
And finally, you can watch them find some way to take themselves out, and you can spit on their graves.
See, I like my plan much better. Death is NOT a gift I would want to give to my enemies!
I am a peace loving dude, yet I am no longer a pacifist. I will not ever initiate aggression, but I will defend myself -- and my family.
Indeed, if anyone takes any deliberate action that threatens to endanger my family members, well...
Personally, I've been kicked in the teeth so many times in my life I can't take it anymore. I mean, how many times must I endure false allegations, frivolous calls to 911, cops treating me like I am a dangerous criminal, etc., when I've done absolutely nothing wrong?
Sorry. Everyone has their limits. Hence, I am no longer a pacifist.
I will never initiate aggression, but you better be sure I will finish it.
People should learn to:
Mind their own business.
Stay out of mine.
Educate themselves on the fact that just because a person is not like them does not automatically mean said person is evil.
Don't call the police unless you actually *see* the person doing something wrong, not because you *think* they "don't look right".
You know, I thought this human species was capable of such simple levels of logic and sensibility. But I have been proven wrong time and again, over and over, and I am just tired of the same.
All I've ever wanted to do was help people and create new, cool, stuff. Whether it's new software, poetry, or something that would end aging, wipe out illness, or other wonderful stuff that would help many.
For my efforts I get treated like a criminal, accused of the most inane stuff, and even my own (now ex) wife physically attacked me from time to time despite the fact I've done nothing but good for her over the 15 or so years of our marriage.
Well, enough of my rant, but people do have their limits. If I truly wanted to be "evil", it would be very serious.
But if people continue to treat me as though I am their "worse nightmare", perhaps I should show them what true nightmares are made of!!!!
But then that would take away from all the good I still desire to do for this sorry species, so I guess I won't give them what they keep asking for.
Slashdot Mirror
How about the murderer get some understanding?
As in, "Understand this, dickhead... murder your wife in cold blood and we will start chopping shit off until you're dead."
This isn't about emotions or rationality - it is about deterrence. In fact, what you're trying to sell here, smells a lot like feel-goodism, and not anything close to tried and true reality.
If you want rationality as you define it, then I suggest you start pushing for Maori justice.
Huh?
You know, there are many, many atrocities committed in this world. The Bush Administration is responsible for the needless deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and this was due to open malice and intentional circumvention of the law, and lying to congress and the US people. Hans is responsible for the death of one person, and it would appear to me to be a "crime of passion".
If you feel so incensed as to "chopping s*it off until you're dead" for just one murder, how do you feel about Bush and Cheney, whom are responsible for the needless deaths of many of our kids over resource disputes? Do you feel the same, if not greater anger? Why not?
This is not about "feel-goodism", whatever that's supposed to mean. There is no excuse for what Hans did. There is also no excuse for that poor 16-year-old boy, a Canadian citizen, who has spent at least a year in Guantumano(sp) Bay, being tortured by your nice friendly good ole' US of A.
If you have any understanding about "crimes of passion", you know deterrence is a joke. In general, doing nasty things to people for doing nasty things has never worked as "deterrence", even back in the days they would chop off your hand for stealing a loaf of bread.
Oh, but maybe it'll work today when it has failed for centuries. Hmmm. Maybe I'm just being too rational. Or maybe I lack Faith. Or maybe I am missing the boat entirely. Help me out here.
But in my estimation, responding to clulessness with clulessness never got anyone anywhere. If we don't bother trying to understand, we might as well fully resort to the practices of our progenitors -- and eye for an eye, go forth with the pitchforks, let's have some more witchhunt trials. Or perhaps some Inquisitions. Hell, let's just chop up and slaughter everyone that does not measure up.
Or perhaps we should finally begin to see a thing for what a thing really is.
As far as Maori justice systems, it seems good in principle and I would be all for it, but I think it too will suffer from some of the same problems the current injustice system has unless one addresses the entire process of the determination of guilt or innocence, which is quite the joke right now.
You can always start your own businesses that would fair better and eventually beat the competition. Or you can form unions. Or you can relocate to where there are better prospects.
Yep. I am self-employed so I don't have to deal with it, but it is not for everyone. Especially those who have families or who have medical conditions and cannot get individual health insurance. Or people who lack experience or are in debt and need a steady paycheck, and so on. Believe me I used to be like you guys saying that if people don't like it then why don't they just leave, but over time I have realized that is an over-simplification.
And so what would your solution be? To wish on a star? Pennies from Heaven? Or perhaps Mommy Government should bail them out?
Speaking of my own experiences, I've been all over the map. And when I was down, there was none of this "pennies from heaven" falling my way. I could either whine about it and make excuses, or take action.
Will be easy for many? Of course not. But then, what alternatives do they have? I mean, real alternatives?
Or you can spend your life whining about why no one gave you any breaks. The choice is yours.
There. Better now?
If, on the other hand, that stipulation was added without your agreement after your employment began, then you do have grounds for a lawsuit.
But if you agreed to those work conditions and then after the fact you have a dispute, I really don't see the grounds for a lawsuit. Either work out the differences or get another job. It's that simple.
I'd like to see less government involvement in the workplace, and just let the employee and employer agree on work conditions and rules and expectations.
Really? Why should government involvement which allowes employers to band together to form a corporation be OK, but not government involvement to limit the power given to them by the government?
If you removed government involvement, it should cut both ways, not just to screw over the employee. That means an end to limited liability and an end of having a separate legal entity.
Is this what you mean?
Yes, and more.
Personal Responsibility is the mantra I will always toot. It goes for the big corporate exec as well as the "lowly" employee that the corporation heavily depends on for success.
Of course, those in government are loathe to the concept of personal responsibility, and wish to create more of the same to keep themselves insulated from it.
Funny, that.
Lots of lawsuits over this issue will change the work relationship between employee and employer -- to disadvantage the employee, I think.
The work relationship between employer and employee is always at a distinct disadvantage to the employee. Individuals suing over unpaid time won't change that on any measurable scale, one way or the other.
Not at all -- if you are seen as a valuable asset to the employer, then the employee has the upper hand. If, on the other hand, the employer's perception of you is "I can get anyone to do that", then you as the employee ARE at the disadvantage.
It's all about perception and attitude. Whether it a consumer shopping for a bargain or an employer looking for a employee, or an employee looking to enhance her career, everyone wants to get more than what he pays for. The more you can give that perception that you are worth more than what you are being paid, the more power and leverage you'll have.
Or you can spend you life whining about why no one gave you any breaks. The choice is yours.
Too many in the US have this "gimmie something" attitude, not the attitude of "how I can be a better worker", or "how I can enhance my value to the company".
You must have to have a pretty empty life for those things to be the most important issues in it.
Not at all, and they are not the most important issues. But it's clear that if you do make yourself more valuable, you can boost your salary and your worth to other prospective employers.
Basically, if you want more, then give more. I have worked in low-end jobs as well as the high-end hi-tech jobs I currently do. In every case, I always gave more and I was rewarded for it.
So, the choice is yours. Whine and act as the world owes you a living, or act and make yourself valuable and indispensable, and use that as a powerful tool for career management.
Yes, you should have some "me time", but at the same, you should also be doing what I call "career management". Your current job should be seen as a "stepping stone", something that will get you to the next level. And the goal you set for yourself should be something that you are ultimately happy with and that is also achievable.
Many, many years ago, I worked as a "bus boy", but I didn't stay there. Bus boys don't make much money, work long hours, and are considered at the "low end of the spectrum".
But it gave me some money in pocket as a teenager, and that led to other things, such as positioning myself in a place to land my first computer job, and thus my real career began.
So, if you don't like what you're doing, do a little career management and move on. It's all about choices.
But so many are told that they "have no choice", and thus don't keep their eyes open to see possible opportunities that eventually float their way. And so they stay "trapped", and the "no choice" choice they made for themselves becomes self-fulfilling.
Then you have a bunch of condescending "bleeding-heart liberals" who will come along and say "what a shame" and create government "solutions" that only makes choices even more difficult for those who need them.
This downwardly-spiraling cycle has to stop somewhere. Sad thing is, it will stop one way or another. Either individuals begin to make responsible choices, or the choice will be made for them.
Have you ever been through a bitter divorce? You have no idea.
It's easy to slam Hans for offing his wife, and I am by no means trying to excuse that. But at the same time, does that mean we should ignore the incredible levels of stress, the way the court system is stacked against men, and the fact that Nina betrayed his trust? -------------------
Sorry, but I refuse to have compassion for murderers.
This is the same argument people used when Susan Smith killed her two kids and Andrea Yates drowned all 5 of her kids.
It's bullshit then and it's bullshit now.
I am not asking for compassion, but understanding. It is all too easy to say "he's bad", but then we never understand what led up to what he did.
And if we ignore such basic understanding, we learn nothing. And such tragedies will continue to happen.
I thought slash-dotters would be the last ones to choose emotions over rationality, but alas, still only human...
It's not really that simple. It might work in the case of a few bad companies, but what if all companies adopt the same work conditions? That is the thing about pure capitalism, that companies can become too greedy at the expense of human beings, so there needs to be a balance of regulations that protect the factors that are not purely financial (human health, environmental, safety, non-discrimination, etc). This happened a lot in the industrial revolution before labor laws and still happens in other parts of the world, which imported goods are so cheap. (I am not an economist nor am I a historian, so someone who is either can probably set me straight on the details)
You can always start your own businesses that would fair better and eventually beat the competition. Or you can form unions. Or you can relocate to where there are better prospects.
I agree with you, except where it applies to worker safety. People will work quite hard for money, and even put their life in danger, if it's the only job they can find. Sure you could say they are stupid for doing it, but then you've probably never been in a situation where the choice was food or descend into an unsafe mine shaft. Set up whatever crazy work hours and pay rate you want. But as soon as the actual health and well being of the employee comes into concern, the government should have some say as to what's going on. From a legal point of view, you could be quite negligent for paying somebody for risking their own life.
Government didn't really help such workers -- unions did. Not that I like unions, at least the unions of today, but they did serve their purpose back when it mattered.
Government is almost never the answer, for it will "do something 'for you'", but it'll be based on politics and sound-bites, rather than careful thought and analysis. Then when it falls apart, Government uses that as an excuse to grow its own size.
As far as there "being the only job available", yes there are places in this country where that seems to be true. But there are always choices to make, and sometimes those choices are hard. You don't have to remain in an area with no job prospects -- you can move to where the jobs are. You don't, by the same token, have to start a family when you don't have the financial means, and so forth.
It all boils down to personal responsibility. And if a person can't be responsible for himself or his family, there is little the government -- or any other entity, for that matter -- can really do that would be effective.
That's reality.
I'd like to see one of those stony heart libertarians get really fucked-up in the arse to the hilt by one of those wall-to-wall lawyered mega croporations and lose everything down to the last fermion of his soul.
Then we'll see if he's still against "government involvement" in life...
Been there, done that. And you know what? Government was not around to help. Either I did it by the seat of my pants or face being out in the streets.
From what I've seen of these "dreamy bleeding heart Liberals" they imagine all sorts of things government can do, but when you look at the *actual record*, it comes up way short.
I am a pragmatist, a realist. Liberals -- really Socialists -- want all of these government-funded (and therefore tax-funded) programs to help the less able. But they never consider whether or not the overall systems of welfare are sustainable or not. So millions grow dependent on a system that's always tethering on the edge of collapse.
And what happens to the millions that are left in the cold, who did not otherwise learn to be independent and self-reliant? Oh well...
So now where is your bleeding heart whilst the blood run in the streets?
Lots of lawsuits over this issue will change the work relationship between employee and employer -- to disadvantage the employee, I think. If you have the type of job you need to be on-call for, you obviously have much more value to your employer than a burger-flipper, and the worker should be looking to enhance that, not to sue for after-hours work.
And if you don't like how you're being treated, just quit already. If you are not happy, seek out an arrangement that'll make you happy.
Whining to "mommy government" will only make matters worse, not better.
Don't like the policies? Go get another job. It's that easy, really.
Someone actually modded UP a post saying don't be hard on a man who murdered his wife... because of a bitter divorce?
THIS got modded up?
Did anyone, like, notice this madness?
Have you ever been through a bitter divorce? You have no idea.
It's easy to slam Hans for offing his wife, and I am by no means trying to excuse that. But at the same time, does that mean we should ignore the incredible levels of stress, the way the court system is stacked against men, and the fact that Nina betrayed his trust?
There is no excuse for what Hans apparently did. But that does not mean we shouldn't try to understand what lead him to those actions. He is doing his time. What more do you want? Damage is done. All we can do is try to understand it.
But they still have to actually ID the body to make sure it's Nina's. So we'll see.
But honestly, I can't support the man anymore. Hans really and royally screwed himself and that's all there is to it.
Oh well, this is sad on so many fronts, and now the "justice" system will feel more empowered to convict on flimsy evidence, which will result in more harm to innocents.
What the hell did you expect? It's New Jersey
Well Put.
How many innocent people wind up convicted of a crime they did not commit? This is a double injustice, because not only do you destroy the life of an innocent person, but there still remains a guilty person free, smug in the fact he skated the system, and is free to hurt more innocent people.
It's a fine mess, and it's not going to be cleaned up overnight -- if at all.
...We don't have the will in this country to do what's necessary to get these fucking animals out of society. And I'm talking just straight, humane prison time here not Extreme Justice. What we need to do is decriminalize drugs, but make any crime committed while under the influence of drugs a much more severe penalty. Then spend the resources keeping the real scum behind bars.
The true test of human dignity and intelligence is not responding like an animal yourself to animalistic acts.
Yes, our Injustice System is a plain mess on many fronts. And so is Law Overenforcement, whom I fear far more than any supposed criminal -- they can shoot you and get away with it, not even see any jail time.
If I were to give in to my animal side, as you apparently do, I would do what an animal does. But no one wins in that scenario.
And so when even the emotions run hot and high, logic, intelligence and reason MUST win in the end, or we are no better than our simian cousins.
I sued the pants off of Allison Beal, Clarence Beal, Andrew Bizier, and the restaurant that got involved with a very vicious false allegation they made against me. I also had a front-page news article appear in the local paper about it. I "won" in the end -- but the cost was great, so great I might be inclined to follow my animal side.
But I am led by rationality and logic, not the lower, primal parts of my brain caught in an evolutionary past that is no longer relevant to today's world.
So, yes, there are really sick people out there. You do well to not become one of them.
Oh fuck off. Let's even forget his wife and assume she was a horrible person (I don't know this and am just saying it for argument). As someone else said - look what this lowlife piece of shit did to his kids. No father. No mother. Trauma for the rest of their lives.
I hope he is brutalized in prison. Brutalized and savaged.
It is a tragedy what his kids had to endure. I am NOT belittling that at all.
But to tell me to, in your words, "fuck off", just because you disagree with me...!
I think it's a real test of courage to endure the crap many have to endure in a divorce and NOT do something rash.
From what I've heard of Nina, she was no saint. Does it merit her murder? Of course not. Do I excuse Hans? Not at all.
But if you are incapable of understanding the human trauma and emotions in this case, then you, sir, are rather shallow.
And see, I don't have to resort to any expletives to insult you back!
Something tells me that if the vast majority of people involved in bitter divorces thought they could get away with murder, the occurrence would be a *lot* higher.
I've watched lots of people go through bitter divorces, and in every case I've seen both sides break every law they could get away with in dealing with their ex during the divorce process. Perjury to obtain restraining orders (to use to obtain custody of children, not 'cause there was actual abuse or threats of abuse), vandalism, theft, harassment...
And not only does the system allow this farce, but also encourages it. the government just loves it when we are at each other's throats.
It's quite crazy and it's a wonder I've managed to maintain my sanity through the entire affair.
So, while not agreeing with what Hans DID, I do think I understand WHY. One guy can control his rage; another guy breaks down and gives in.
Perhaps if guys had a fair shake in this so-called "blind justice" system, things would be different.
And where are all the feminists out there screaming about the unfair advantages they have in court? Oh no. They are loving every bit of it. So much for "equality". What a joke.
Oh yeah, I forgot -- some get to be more "equal" than others...
If that were true, with all the crap that's been done to me over the years... well, suffice it to say that I am incapable of murder.
Besides, death would be too good for some people. Why put THEM out of THEIR misery? Why not do something far worse -- allow them to live? See all of the advantages:
See, I like my plan much better. Death is NOT a gift I would want to give to my enemies!
Indeed, if anyone takes any deliberate action that threatens to endanger my family members, well...
Personally, I've been kicked in the teeth so many times in my life I can't take it anymore. I mean, how many times must I endure false allegations, frivolous calls to 911, cops treating me like I am a dangerous criminal, etc., when I've done absolutely nothing wrong?
Sorry. Everyone has their limits. Hence, I am no longer a pacifist.
I will never initiate aggression, but you better be sure I will finish it.
People should learn to:
You know, I thought this human species was capable of such simple levels of logic and sensibility. But I have been proven wrong time and again, over and over, and I am just tired of the same.
All I've ever wanted to do was help people and create new, cool, stuff. Whether it's new software, poetry, or something that would end aging, wipe out illness, or other wonderful stuff that would help many.
For my efforts I get treated like a criminal, accused of the most inane stuff, and even my own (now ex) wife physically attacked me from time to time despite the fact I've done nothing but good for her over the 15 or so years of our marriage.
Well, enough of my rant, but people do have their limits. If I truly wanted to be "evil", it would be very serious.
But if people continue to treat me as though I am their "worse nightmare", perhaps I should show them what true nightmares are made of!!!!
But then that would take away from all the good I still desire to do for this sorry species, so I guess I won't give them what they keep asking for.
So, maybe I am still a pacifist at heart.