That might be true if they were publicly owned; they're not. They're owned by their members. While it may be a form of socialism, it is not state socialism. The latter is what most people against "socialism" actually object to. Language is frequently used too ambiguously and requires a bit of context to determine how to differentiate two different concepts when they share a common descriptor.
Just because something is non-profit does not mean it's anathema to someone who is fiscally conservative.
The conglomeration under British rule is similar to that of colonial India. That doesn't make Pakistanis come from India or vice versa, even though the area was considered one colony. The same is true of Palestine and Transjordan during British rule. They were considered two distinct areas that happened to be administered by one foreign entity. That little part on the map you linked sub-labeled "Palestine" is exactly where I said it was previously: the area now known as Israel. With little substantive change, the same is true during the Ottoman and Byzantine periods. In fact, the name for that geographical region stretches all the way back to the 5th century BC, and was used pretty much without regard to which power administered it at any given time. Whether they existed as a sovereign state is completely and utterly irrelevant. The existence, or lack thereof, of a "state" does not change the fact that there is a body of people indigenous to the area, with historical and cultural ties. They call themselves, currently, Palestinian. They are recognized by pretty much everyone else in the world as "Palestinian." Nobody disputes they came from the geographical area in question. So what, exactly, is the basis of the claim that there is no Palestinian homeland there? It seems like a semantic trip with no rational basis in reality.
Many, many peoples have been subsumed by other powers while still retaining their cultural and ethnic identity. All of them can rightfully claim that the area they live is their homeland, and frequently are pushing (sometimes successfully, such as the Balkans) for the right to self-determination that has been denied them for the entirety of the modern era. The only thing that seems to be in dispute is a single word; a name. If we ignore the name, any pretext for argument goes away. The facts of the people, their cultural and ethnic identity, and their lands of origin are completely beyond doubt, and that's all that matters to back up the point I was making.
The most recent state of Palestine occupied almost the exact geographical area that is currently called Israel. There are hundreds of thousands of people with direct ties to the area, who are not Israeli citizens. Those are the Palestinian people. Any further back than that, and it's too much of a mess to try and sort out in any sort of consistent manner.
It can be likened pretty directly to the situation in Tibet. The only difference is in which countries recognize the displaced people as having historical roots there (either location) and the right to self-determination.
I don't think you understand what "partisan" means, even though you defined it in your first paragraph.
Not because there's any sense in those broad political views aligning with such peculiarities, but because their party allegiances require it.
First you say the system is not partisan enough, and then you say the system is broken because politicians vote by allegiance to party i.e. are partisans. I understand what you were getting at, but it has nothing to do with increasing or decreasing partisan politics. Partisan politics are still destructive when more segments of a diverse population are represented. As I said before, if anything, it would cause less to be done as the increase in different unwaivering political ideals would mean less likelihood of a majority vote succeeding on any issue.
People who fled from (or were expelled by) Israel during the war didn't magically become Jordanian or Egyptian.
Just because Jordan annexed the West Bank prior to the Six-Day War also doesn't make the inhabitants there Jordanian, any more than the current situation makes them Israeli.
There really is no rational argument that there is no such thing as a Palestinian homeland, as it necessarily implies there are no Arabs in existence who originally lived in what is now the nation of Israel. There's no Kurdish state either, but there most certainly are Kurdish people. If Turkey pushed the southern Kurds into Iraq, would that suddenly make them Iraqi if they wanted to return and push for the right of self-determination?
I can't even begin to comprehend how fundamentally broken and ineffectual such a government would be. If you think partisan politics is bad in the US, imagine how much worse it would be with such a diverse heterogeneous mixture of representatives. They would never get anything done, or if they did it would be as a result of the major homogeneous blocks within it, i.e. Indians and Chinese.
In the current state of US politics, that's exactly what would happen.
The fix is a lot larger than "cut government."
That's also why meaningful fixes (and I do mean actually fixing things, not just changing to a different broken implementation) within the nation, as it is currently constituted, won't happen. There is no "fixing" the problems given their magnitude, because there will never be enough outsiders elected who are willing to make the necessary sacrifices. Radical reconstruction is painful, and there aren't enough people willing to give up their sacred cows. There only remains the questions of where the peak is, how long the decline takes, how quickly things break down, and whether the establishment in power at the breaking point leaves without bloodshed.
Right now, closed shops are usually the result of state law, as are open shops. What I mean is that it should be up to the employer whether they wish to enter into an agreement with a union to become a closed shop, rather than being forced to be either closed or open as a result simply of existing as an employer in a given state.
There is no middle ground, but not because it's not possible. There's none because there is no state legislature willing to do the right thing and allow workers or employers to choose whatever manner of collective arrangement they wish to seek. There are very strict rules in both types of environment that govern what you can and can't do regarding unionization. The one thing they all (I'm not aware of any exceptions, but I'm also not an expert on the broad range of national union laws) fail to allow is the option to do either. It's all-or-nothing, and in no way does it have to be "one or the other," at least not within the context of a state.
If you mean it's either one or the other in the context of a specific employer, then yes, you're right. It was not my intent to make an argument to the contrary. I'm not sure why it might appear I was, but people may read what I wrote in a context different than what I intended. If I was unclear, I apologize.
i386 wasn't reverse engineered by AMD, if that's what you meant. AMD had the complete specs, since that was required to fulfill their manufacturing contract with Intel.
If you reduce the size of government to near zero but retain all the functions on a contractual basis, you haven't actually reduced the size of government.
That said, the government could easily mandate a maximum profit margin for contractors and/or require that executive compensation exceed no more than a certain percentage of the average non-executive compensation.
This would not be inconsistent with a classically conservative (not to be confused with "dumb hick" conservative) view of government, since they are simply contractual specifications. That is, so long as it is a legitimate government function, anyway. You'd probably get more argument on what constitutes the latter, depending on who you're talking to.
I also tend to agree that the focus should be on quality first. What we have now is a lot of quantity that is simultaneously of low quality, where one is confused for the other.
As someone who lives on about half what you make yearly, my tolerance for people who complain about not being to make ends meet decreases with each passing year. It is not difficult to live quite comfortably on very little income, but it requires making informed choices about your lifestyle and watching what you spend.
Most people I know who have money issues have absolutely no clue where much of their money goes. Little things, on their own, have little impact. People don't stop to think about them because they are so minor. However, when added up they constitute a very large percentage of the income of that person.
I'm not in agreement with shutting them down entirely, because there is a place for a very small minority of those that exist.
The fix is to prohibit tax dollars from being used to patronize them. If you want to operate a private, for-profit university you operate strictly in the private marketplace. No subsidies.
Or, as you stated, make them assume the risks of accepting students with public aid. I'd say a good number is 100% though.
Replace "unions" with "businesses," and both the GP and your comment hold the exact same merit read one way as they do read the other*. Unions are no more or less evil than businesses. That is to say, there are evil people inside many unions/businesses working for their own enrichment, and there are many workers/investors under them who are relatively blameless. There are also many unions/businesses that have provided extraordinary benefits to society in general. They both have flaws, and it is those flaws that should be addressed rather than scrapping anything wholesale. The benefits of each do not, in any way, excuse or legitimize their flaws. The flaws should be treated aggressively, and given no excuse for continuing, even while their other actions may be praised at the same time.
*That is not to say the GP's comment has the same merit when compared to your comment, but is directed more at the people who would take the same sort of stance as the GP when speaking of private industry.
I don't know about in Australia, but unions in 28 US states have membership dues which are mandatory for employment. The result is that 50%+1 workers can force the other 50%-1 workers to pay for political lobbying which is the direct opposite of what the latter actually support.
Both sides are wrong. Unions should not be able to prevent a person's employment simply because that person will not join them. Employers should not be forced to hire union members or require that non-union members join a union simply because 50%+1 employees decide to unionize. Employers should also not be prevented by state laws from adopting contracts with unions that specify they will only hire union members (or require membership from non-members upon hiring).
In short, at least in the US, no matter which state you're in the rules are fucked up. Some abuse unions, some are run by unions who abuse those who won't join. Nobody is willing to accept any middle ground, such as *gasp* allowing both employers and employees the option of entering into contractual agreements or not, at their discretion. No employer should be able to prevent unions, nor should unions have legal unilateral control over whether employees join them as a requirement of employment. "Free rider" arguments are bullshit. Unions bargain for themselves. If it benefits a non-union member, that's not an argument for forcing that non-union member to pay dues to the union.
From the sound of it, they already pay their employees at the top of the industry scale, not just in Australia, but worldwide. I could be wrong though, I'm neither Australian nor an airline industry worker.
I've gotten responses (some that even addressed the issue I wrote about) from the offices of politicians representing all the districts and states I've lived in since I turned 18 with the exception of one, and that's Cathy McMorris Rodgers. I'm not a fan of politicians of most stripes, but this particular letter was actually about an issue that most people I've talked to (and, given what most politicians proclaim, they should too), and that's removing jury compensation from the list of income* that is taxable.
*I use the term loosely, since calling it income implies the time you spend legally compelled to serve must be considered to have a value very close to zero.
Well, to be fair, they're incompetent enough that they may have accidentally thwarted a terrorist threat but had absolutely no idea they had done so. I mean, it could have happened...
Dogs for explosives, firearms with rubber bullets for pilots. Most of them have military training anyway, and they are already entrusted with the safety of thousands of people a year and millions worth of hardware so the "responsibility" part of determining use-of-force is probably a lot higher than most people in actual law enforcement.
Aside from that, not much is necessary to actually prevent a hijacking or a plane from being downed from the inside.
It's relatively common in rural areas to be able to buy fuel for use off-road without paying road taxes on it. Diesel is by far the most common, simply because it is used in the highest quantity off-road in rural areas (farming equipment being the #1 use), but you can usually purchase other untaxed fuels as well.
If you have line of sight and enough clear space to not obstruct the Fresnel zone, 2.4GHz works like a charm. WISPs use it all the time with consumer-grade hardware.
I had a 7 mile link for a couple years in order to access the internet, using a high-gain directional antenna and a WRT54G router.
Slashdot Mirror
That might be true if they were publicly owned; they're not. They're owned by their members. While it may be a form of socialism, it is not state socialism. The latter is what most people against "socialism" actually object to. Language is frequently used too ambiguously and requires a bit of context to determine how to differentiate two different concepts when they share a common descriptor.
Just because something is non-profit does not mean it's anathema to someone who is fiscally conservative.
The conglomeration under British rule is similar to that of colonial India. That doesn't make Pakistanis come from India or vice versa, even though the area was considered one colony. The same is true of Palestine and Transjordan during British rule. They were considered two distinct areas that happened to be administered by one foreign entity. That little part on the map you linked sub-labeled "Palestine" is exactly where I said it was previously: the area now known as Israel. With little substantive change, the same is true during the Ottoman and Byzantine periods. In fact, the name for that geographical region stretches all the way back to the 5th century BC, and was used pretty much without regard to which power administered it at any given time. Whether they existed as a sovereign state is completely and utterly irrelevant. The existence, or lack thereof, of a "state" does not change the fact that there is a body of people indigenous to the area, with historical and cultural ties. They call themselves, currently, Palestinian. They are recognized by pretty much everyone else in the world as "Palestinian." Nobody disputes they came from the geographical area in question. So what, exactly, is the basis of the claim that there is no Palestinian homeland there? It seems like a semantic trip with no rational basis in reality.
Many, many peoples have been subsumed by other powers while still retaining their cultural and ethnic identity. All of them can rightfully claim that the area they live is their homeland, and frequently are pushing (sometimes successfully, such as the Balkans) for the right to self-determination that has been denied them for the entirety of the modern era. The only thing that seems to be in dispute is a single word; a name. If we ignore the name, any pretext for argument goes away. The facts of the people, their cultural and ethnic identity, and their lands of origin are completely beyond doubt, and that's all that matters to back up the point I was making.
The most recent state of Palestine occupied almost the exact geographical area that is currently called Israel. There are hundreds of thousands of people with direct ties to the area, who are not Israeli citizens. Those are the Palestinian people. Any further back than that, and it's too much of a mess to try and sort out in any sort of consistent manner.
It can be likened pretty directly to the situation in Tibet. The only difference is in which countries recognize the displaced people as having historical roots there (either location) and the right to self-determination.
It would have to be conducted in Spanish. Only then would it be unexpected.
It's a transliteration. There are a half-dozen "correct" spellings. If you're going to be a pedant, at least bother to make sure you're correct.
I don't think you understand what "partisan" means, even though you defined it in your first paragraph.
Not because there's any sense in those broad political views aligning with such peculiarities, but because their party allegiances require it.
First you say the system is not partisan enough, and then you say the system is broken because politicians vote by allegiance to party i.e. are partisans. I understand what you were getting at, but it has nothing to do with increasing or decreasing partisan politics. Partisan politics are still destructive when more segments of a diverse population are represented. As I said before, if anything, it would cause less to be done as the increase in different unwaivering political ideals would mean less likelihood of a majority vote succeeding on any issue.
People who fled from (or were expelled by) Israel during the war didn't magically become Jordanian or Egyptian.
Just because Jordan annexed the West Bank prior to the Six-Day War also doesn't make the inhabitants there Jordanian, any more than the current situation makes them Israeli.
There really is no rational argument that there is no such thing as a Palestinian homeland, as it necessarily implies there are no Arabs in existence who originally lived in what is now the nation of Israel. There's no Kurdish state either, but there most certainly are Kurdish people. If Turkey pushed the southern Kurds into Iraq, would that suddenly make them Iraqi if they wanted to return and push for the right of self-determination?
I can't even begin to comprehend how fundamentally broken and ineffectual such a government would be. If you think partisan politics is bad in the US, imagine how much worse it would be with such a diverse heterogeneous mixture of representatives. They would never get anything done, or if they did it would be as a result of the major homogeneous blocks within it, i.e. Indians and Chinese.
In the current state of US politics, that's exactly what would happen.
The fix is a lot larger than "cut government."
That's also why meaningful fixes (and I do mean actually fixing things, not just changing to a different broken implementation) within the nation, as it is currently constituted, won't happen. There is no "fixing" the problems given their magnitude, because there will never be enough outsiders elected who are willing to make the necessary sacrifices. Radical reconstruction is painful, and there aren't enough people willing to give up their sacred cows. There only remains the questions of where the peak is, how long the decline takes, how quickly things break down, and whether the establishment in power at the breaking point leaves without bloodshed.
Anything else is just window dressing.
Right now, closed shops are usually the result of state law, as are open shops. What I mean is that it should be up to the employer whether they wish to enter into an agreement with a union to become a closed shop, rather than being forced to be either closed or open as a result simply of existing as an employer in a given state.
There is no middle ground, but not because it's not possible. There's none because there is no state legislature willing to do the right thing and allow workers or employers to choose whatever manner of collective arrangement they wish to seek. There are very strict rules in both types of environment that govern what you can and can't do regarding unionization. The one thing they all (I'm not aware of any exceptions, but I'm also not an expert on the broad range of national union laws) fail to allow is the option to do either. It's all-or-nothing, and in no way does it have to be "one or the other," at least not within the context of a state.
If you mean it's either one or the other in the context of a specific employer, then yes, you're right. It was not my intent to make an argument to the contrary. I'm not sure why it might appear I was, but people may read what I wrote in a context different than what I intended. If I was unclear, I apologize.
i386 wasn't reverse engineered by AMD, if that's what you meant. AMD had the complete specs, since that was required to fulfill their manufacturing contract with Intel.
If you reduce the size of government to near zero but retain all the functions on a contractual basis, you haven't actually reduced the size of government.
That said, the government could easily mandate a maximum profit margin for contractors and/or require that executive compensation exceed no more than a certain percentage of the average non-executive compensation.
This would not be inconsistent with a classically conservative (not to be confused with "dumb hick" conservative) view of government, since they are simply contractual specifications. That is, so long as it is a legitimate government function, anyway. You'd probably get more argument on what constitutes the latter, depending on who you're talking to.
I also tend to agree that the focus should be on quality first. What we have now is a lot of quantity that is simultaneously of low quality, where one is confused for the other.
Money management FTW.
As someone who lives on about half what you make yearly, my tolerance for people who complain about not being to make ends meet decreases with each passing year. It is not difficult to live quite comfortably on very little income, but it requires making informed choices about your lifestyle and watching what you spend.
Most people I know who have money issues have absolutely no clue where much of their money goes. Little things, on their own, have little impact. People don't stop to think about them because they are so minor. However, when added up they constitute a very large percentage of the income of that person.
I'm not in agreement with shutting them down entirely, because there is a place for a very small minority of those that exist.
The fix is to prohibit tax dollars from being used to patronize them. If you want to operate a private, for-profit university you operate strictly in the private marketplace. No subsidies.
Or, as you stated, make them assume the risks of accepting students with public aid. I'd say a good number is 100% though.
Replace "unions" with "businesses," and both the GP and your comment hold the exact same merit read one way as they do read the other*. Unions are no more or less evil than businesses. That is to say, there are evil people inside many unions/businesses working for their own enrichment, and there are many workers/investors under them who are relatively blameless. There are also many unions/businesses that have provided extraordinary benefits to society in general. They both have flaws, and it is those flaws that should be addressed rather than scrapping anything wholesale. The benefits of each do not, in any way, excuse or legitimize their flaws. The flaws should be treated aggressively, and given no excuse for continuing, even while their other actions may be praised at the same time.
*That is not to say the GP's comment has the same merit when compared to your comment, but is directed more at the people who would take the same sort of stance as the GP when speaking of private industry.
^ Very much this.
I don't know about in Australia, but unions in 28 US states have membership dues which are mandatory for employment. The result is that 50%+1 workers can force the other 50%-1 workers to pay for political lobbying which is the direct opposite of what the latter actually support.
Both sides are wrong. Unions should not be able to prevent a person's employment simply because that person will not join them. Employers should not be forced to hire union members or require that non-union members join a union simply because 50%+1 employees decide to unionize. Employers should also not be prevented by state laws from adopting contracts with unions that specify they will only hire union members (or require membership from non-members upon hiring).
In short, at least in the US, no matter which state you're in the rules are fucked up. Some abuse unions, some are run by unions who abuse those who won't join. Nobody is willing to accept any middle ground, such as *gasp* allowing both employers and employees the option of entering into contractual agreements or not, at their discretion. No employer should be able to prevent unions, nor should unions have legal unilateral control over whether employees join them as a requirement of employment. "Free rider" arguments are bullshit. Unions bargain for themselves. If it benefits a non-union member, that's not an argument for forcing that non-union member to pay dues to the union.
They usually dump raw data that is incredibly hard to fabricate. Whether there are subtle changes within that data is another matter entirely.
And that is the fault of the 99% who continue to elect those who have proven they are beholden to special interests.
From the sound of it, they already pay their employees at the top of the industry scale, not just in Australia, but worldwide. I could be wrong though, I'm neither Australian nor an airline industry worker.
Bleh. There's an important word missing in the above, but it should be pretty clear what it is and where it goes. :)
I've gotten responses (some that even addressed the issue I wrote about) from the offices of politicians representing all the districts and states I've lived in since I turned 18 with the exception of one, and that's Cathy McMorris Rodgers. I'm not a fan of politicians of most stripes, but this particular letter was actually about an issue that most people I've talked to (and, given what most politicians proclaim, they should too), and that's removing jury compensation from the list of income* that is taxable.
*I use the term loosely, since calling it income implies the time you spend legally compelled to serve must be considered to have a value very close to zero.
Well, to be fair, they're incompetent enough that they may have accidentally thwarted a terrorist threat but had absolutely no idea they had done so. I mean, it could have happened...
Dogs for explosives, firearms with rubber bullets for pilots. Most of them have military training anyway, and they are already entrusted with the safety of thousands of people a year and millions worth of hardware so the "responsibility" part of determining use-of-force is probably a lot higher than most people in actual law enforcement.
Aside from that, not much is necessary to actually prevent a hijacking or a plane from being downed from the inside.
It's relatively common in rural areas to be able to buy fuel for use off-road without paying road taxes on it. Diesel is by far the most common, simply because it is used in the highest quantity off-road in rural areas (farming equipment being the #1 use), but you can usually purchase other untaxed fuels as well.
If you have line of sight and enough clear space to not obstruct the Fresnel zone, 2.4GHz works like a charm. WISPs use it all the time with consumer-grade hardware.
I had a 7 mile link for a couple years in order to access the internet, using a high-gain directional antenna and a WRT54G router.