That false equivalence. Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have.
You mean wars like Vietnam and deregulation like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or the repeal of Glass–Steagall? Oh wait, those happened under Democratic administrations.....
And they invade your bedroom, too.
And Democrats invade my wallet, gun cabinet, phone records, radio stations, etc.
Democrats are not at all equivalent, even if they do also waste your money - but not nearly the vast, crippling magnitude of Republicans.
Careful, your bias is showing.
You Republicans have wallowed in false equivalencies for so long
"You Republicans"? That's interesting, I start out by pointing out that both parties suck and you leap to the conclusion that I'm a Republican. From my vantage point you have more in common with partisan Republicans than you probably realize.
No, you're just wasting our time with the usual false equivalence between Democrats and Republicans
What false equivalence? Democrats can't stay out of your wallet and Republicans can't stay out of your bedroom. I fail to see how accepting governmental intrusion into one part of my life offsets the removal of government intrusion from another.
Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy [google.com] for years.
The Republican Party is America's Taliban [google.com].
That's real cute, linking to Google searches like that. Did you know that Barack Obama kicks puppies? It's true.
The real beef with the gun registry up here was that what was supposed to be a $10 million program ($20 million bucks tops, honest!) ended up being a billion dollar boondoggle. Throwing a billion dollars down the drain tends to get everyone's panties in a twist, and for good reason.
I'd like to know how you can make it cost a billion dollars to build a database, which is essentially what the gun registry is. I happen to think gun registries are a dumb idea for other reasons but I'm not inclined to tell you that the American model would be the best for you. As I said, different histories and cultures to consider.
On an unrelated note, I've looked into getting a Canadian firearms license so I can bring my firearms with me to Alaska when I drive up there. I was amazed to find that the process isn't all that complicated, even for guns that Canada considers to be "restricted", i.e: normal handguns. It's mainly a matter of filling out the right paperwork and paying the fees. It's pretty sad that I can get a Canadian firearms license but there are several US States that refuse to give me one.
The rural/urban split also plays out in individual provinces, where you have "the regions" (aka the boonies) complaining about the cities
We have the same thing here. New York State is dominated by New York City to the point that Upstate NY has little to no voice in Albany, even though we are 42% of the population. It used to be that the Upper Houses of State Legislatures were allocated based on land area in the same manner as the United States Senate. In the 60s there was a SCOTUS ruling that tossed that out, under the "one man, one vote" theory. SCOTUS never bothered to explain why it's acceptable for the US Senate to operate against this theory but not for the NYS Senate to do the same. That ruling was little more than an urban power grab and I would love to see it overturned with a Constitutional Amendment. Not likely to happen but I can still dream.
They should be treated the same as foreign nationals.
Foreign nationals have the same 1st amendment rights that I have. You can come to the United States as a Canadian and exercise all the same rights that I can. Maybe you need a better comparison?
The people are free to express their opinions individually or through political parties. Corporations aren't people.
Except that a political party is also a corporation, at least in the United States. C'mon, you are complaining about the "legal fiction" of corporations while simultaneously allowing an exemption for another legal fiction that describes an assembly of like minded people. You really believe that the GOP has free speech rights but the ACLU doesn't? How can you reconcile that?
The people still have the right to assemble. What they don't have the right to do is form a corporation to advance, in their name, a specific agenda.
SCOTUS disagrees with you, though I would still be interested in hearing why you think people shouldn't have the right to assemble into groups that further their desired political cause. 4,000,000 individual Americans may not have the time, money or inclination to travel to Washington DC to lobby on behalf of their 2nd amendment rights. That's why they join an organization like the NRA. Ditto for the Sierra Club. Ditto for the ACLU. I'm sorry but I just don't see how you can make a convincing argument that such organization is bad for our Democratic process.
Carry your thought to the extreme - why can't citizens, under the US constitution, form a NATION to lobby for their interests? That's certainly freedom of assembly. "Don't like your current state and federal government - join JeebusLand! We're a new country inside the U S of A. Exercise your freedom of association and freedom of expression today - secede NOW!"
The right of revolution would allow them to do exactly that, provided they can back it up with enough firepower. That's how the United States formed after all.
Somehow, it's okay to violate both freedoms when it comes to secession - and yet the US was founded on secession, and as was pointed out at the time - "Either we all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately" - because it was illegal even then.
I would argue that it's not illegal, though it's a moot point as the side that wins gets to decide what is and is not illegal.
So yes, I'm quite comfy with the idea of banning all corporate political activity, including lobbying. It tends to drown out the voices of the ordinary citizens.
Even if I accepted your "drown out" argument, which I don't, there's no guarantee of equal volume under our system of government. Some people will yell louder than others. That's the nature of a representative republic. You can't fix that by taking away my right to assemble with like minded people.
I think the problem with lawyers is the same problem with MBAs -- we have too many of them. We need to make it profitable for our best and brightest to go into other professions. When other professions have the same earnings potential as lawyers and CEOs we'll see less people entering business programs and law school.
Some states (New York) require background checks of all sales at a gun show, even those between private parties.
Such legislation is stupid, because there's nothing stopping me from exchanging my phone number with a potential seller and buying the item off him days later at a different location. It's not illegal to do this either -- it is illegal to make a "parking lot" purchase to skip the background check but there's no law that says you can't follow up with the person days after the show has ended.
All the focus on gun shows is just feel good government at it's best. Criminals don't obtain a significant number of weapons from gun shows. They obtain them from people who steal them from honest citizens. Seeing as how burglary is already illegal, no law you can pass is going to stop this....
And since we're not competing with big campaign donors for the politicians' ear, we get heard more. Just a thought.
I don't think the experiences of a country with 34,000,000 people scale to a country with 300,000,000 people. There are places in the United States you can go where you will have direct contact with your representatives. They all tend to be smaller and/or lower population states (Vermont and New Hampshire being classic examples).
Canada also seems to have some of the same political problems that the United States does. Your urbanized provinces attempt to dominate the rural ones, breeding resentment. The long gun registry comes to mind as a policy pushed by the urban provinces over rural opposition. The same sort of thing happens in the United States, but it's somewhat mitigated by the fact that the United States Senate isn't slanted by population in the same manner as your Upper House.
I love your country and manage to visit it at least once or twice a year (it's easy when you live in New York State) but please don't assume that all the solutions that work for you would also work for us. Different cultures, different sets of challenges, different population and resource bases, different history, etc, etc.
Corporations aren't people. They don't have the rights of people, as simple as that.
Corporations are nothing more than associations of people. What you are claiming makes no sense. Are you telling me that the CO of my local VFW has no free speech rights when he's standing behind the podium with the VFW logo on it? The podium was bought and paid for with "corporate" money....
A law banning all corporate political contributions, whether in money or in kind, is needed.
That law already exists. Corporations can't contribute money or coordinate their activities with a campaign. Unless I've misread you, you don't think that goes far enough and would prefer to actively muzzle the corporation so it can't make any statements at all during the political process. That's simply not compatible with free speech.
This doesn't abridge the individuals' freedom of speech - they are still free - as individuals, to say what they want. They simply wouldn't be free to form a corporation to say it in their place.
As I said earlier, the 1st amendment also includes the right to assemble. One of the ways that people assemble with those who are like minded is through corporations. You would have us put a muzzle on groups of people working towards a common goal while claiming that this doesn't impair free speech. I can't go along with that. Sorry....
(3) creates a public record that serves as a deterrent
Maybe the victim of harassment doesn't want his or her name in the public record for future employers to see? In the United States, the names of crime victims usually become public knowledge.
That's the way it works here. Boss sexually harasses you, you document it, quit, and file the complaint. It's investigated, and if it's found to be valid, the parties either negotiate a settlement via the mediator, or the regulator sues on your behalf.
That's what my friend did. She went through the EEOC (equal opportunity employment commission). She still had a lawyer to help her navigate the process though. She still reserved the right to sue if she didn't receive a favorable settlement. As it turned out that wasn't necessary.
A private-practice lawyer isn't going to recommend using a publicly-available recourse that takes bread out of his own mouth.
Painting with a broad brush. My friend's lawyer did exactly that. He recommended that they go through the EEOC first, because even if they didn't accept a settlement at that level it would look bad if they tried to sue without attempting mediation first. As it turns out they received a fair settlement offer and it wasn't necessary to go to the next level. A good lawyer presents all the options to his or her client. Ultimately it's the client that decides what to do.
Your posts suggest that you don't have much respect for the legal profession. I have to say that I couldn't disagree with you more. I've never had to sue in civil court but I did wind up charged with felony offenses once upon a time. To make a long story short I was young and stupid and got caught up in the midst of a pissing contest between people that I thought were my friends. My lawyer saved my ass and navigated me through one of the most difficult undertakings of my life.
There are a lot of bad apples in the legal profession but I know you are open minded enough to acknowledge that they aren't representative of the entire profession.
Using a design that was bad even by the standards of the day. Not really a valid comparison.
A large enough it would put enough stress on the keel of the ship
A large enough hit will sink anything. I've only maintained that they are harder to kill than most people think, not that they are impossible to kill. Mission kills (can't operate aircraft) are more likely in any event.
The British are building SVTOL carriers, similar to their current Invincible class, you are of course referring to the forthcoming Queen-Elizabeth class. These are a lot smaller then current Nimitz class fleet carriers (QE class - 65,000 tonnes, Nimitz - 100,000 tonnes)
Regardless, they are much more capable ships than their predecessors. The British have the most recent experience with sea-air battles and opted to build something closer to what the US Navy fields rather than the glorified ASW carriers they used to have.
France and the US are the only ones actually building fleet carriers and the French one is significantly smaller then the Gerald R Ford class (75,000 tonnes vs 100,000 tonnes).
The French don't have the same global commitments that the United States does, do they?
In the end only the US fielded battleships (Iowa class) and they were only used as oversized missile cruisers (as in they did the exact same job as missile cruisers of the time).
They were also used as artillery platforms. They could deliver explosives on target cheaper than any other platform we had, including aircraft. Besides, in the end, the US was the only country that retained much of a Navy. The British gave up their power projection capability and nearly got beaten by a third world country. The Russians had a sizable Navy but built it with a different goal (sea denial) in mind than Western Powers (sea control). The French have always maintained some blue water capability, though what they do with it is beyond me. My only memory of a French Aircraft Carrier was the one that played red shirt in a Tom Clancy novel;)
My prediction is the submarine carrier will make a comeback as a drone carrier as they don't need to be larger then existing US/Russian boomers. Plus with drones, recovery can become an optional extra.
Interesting idea, though a submarine with drones would be useless in the sea control mission. It might make an interesting strike platform but we already have submarine launched single use drones for that. They are called cruise missiles or (god help us) SLBMs.
Compared to the efficiency of an F35 equipped carrier, an FA18 equipped carrier is enormously expensive whilst providing no significant advantages.
Let's talk about that when the F-35 has been in squadron service for a few years and we know how well it works. I hope the mission availability rate is better than the other 5th generation fighters that have entered service....
One other thing, sorry to reply twice, but do yourself a favor and read the transcripts and ruling from the Citizens United case.
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. The Government contends that Austin permits it to ban corporate expenditures for almost all forms of communication stemming from a corporation. If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books. The Government responds “that the FEC has never applied this statute to a book,” and if it did, “there would be quite [a] good as-applied challenge.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 65 (Sept. 9, 2009). This troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability in civic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.
The press doesn't have unlimited freedom. You can't go around committing crimes and then say "I'm a member of the press so it' okay for ME to rob a bank because otherwise that would be a law restricting the freedom of the press."
C'mon, that's a straw man. I know you can better than that.
They do not enjoy special "freedom of speech" - what they enjoy is "freedom to publish"
Are you seriously claiming that there's a difference? Besides, the case that overturned the campaign finance laws was about publishing. Citizens United wanted to publish a movie about Hillary Clinton. The FEC told them that they could not do this. A organization that was formed for the purpose of engaging in the political process was forbidden to do so. I honestly don't understand how you can claim with a straight face that such a prohibition isn't a restriction on the 1st amendment. I can say whatever I want as an individual but if I organize with like minded people we are to be muzzled? The 1st amendment also includes the right to assemble.....
Saying that the NY Times editors endorse a candidate is not news - it belongs in the entertainment or op-ed pages.
What's the difference if they put it on the op-ed pages? It's still a for-profit corporation endorsing a political candidate, something that you clearly abhor.
Otherwise, it becomes too easy to justify bending the rules, then outright criminal behaviour - "If I quit, then my kids might go hungry, so I had no choice, I had to continue to help Madoff."
That's the second straw man. I'm talking about someone who was put in the position of losing her livelihood due to sexual harassment and you make a comparison to engaging in fraud.
Better that they learn that principles are worth standing up for, and taking risks for, and that it's possible to stand up for your rights
Suing the SOB who took your livelihood away isn't standing up for your rights?
The first amendment applies to people. Companies are not people. Newspapers should stick to reporting, not endorsing.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, in your world view the "press" only has these protections if it's one guy operating out of his basement under his own name without a corporate filing?
No, it doesn't put food on the table, but that's the way life is sometimes.
You don't have kids, do you? You'll find it isn't nearly as easy to take these sorts of principled stands when others go hungry as a result of them.
We are talking about civil actions here, not criminal ones. How would RIAA go about tying your MAC address back to you, even if you weren't smart enough to spoof it? Are they going to file discovery motions on every single house within range of the AP that was used? Heck, for that matter, how would law enforcement do it? No Judge would issue a warrant for "every computer within a 150 meter radius of this location", not for something as mundane as file sharing.
BTW, you can get a lot further than 150 meters with the right antenna setup. I've seen associations made at ranges exceeding two kilometers, under less than ideal conditions.
You do realize that they can track it down to the boarders AP and will know with reasonable accuracy (within 100 meters or so) where the downloader must live, right?
High-gain antennas increase that range number quite a bit. I've personally connected to APs with a high-gain antenna on one side of the connection from more than a mile away. Others have done it from further out.
unless you catch wind of what is going on and remove all traces of spoofing from your machine.
I can put away a large pizza by myself in a couple of hours. Not something to be proud of, but there it is.
The damnable part is that I used to weigh more. Clocked in at ~255 pounds once upon a time. Now I'm ~220. My Doctor is still yelling at me though. Tells me I should weigh 185 according to the charts. Not sure that's something I'll ever achieve but it would feel nice to be at or below 200.
Wow, you've compared a law against poisoning your customers to a law that prohibits giving them a free toy. Kind of hard to take you seriously after that.
The charges of racism are really starting to grate on me. What's racist about charging people for crimes committed? Would you think it racist if we had millions of illegal immigrants from Canada or Western Europe and tried to track them down?
Make it the same rule for everyone. No corporate endorsements. Period.
And you don't see a first amendment issue being raised by prohibiting the press from taking part in the political process?
Many jurisdictions have sexual harassment in the workplace laws. If she lives in one of those, file a complaint. If she doesn't, then maybe it would be time to start agitating for such laws.
Having your boss arrested doesn't put food in your stomach or a roof over your head.
Or she could have gone the cheaper route - record the harassment, give a copy to police as evidence for a charge of attempted sexual assault, post it on youtube and make money going on the talk show circuit.
Are you joking or serious? The talk shows don't interview everybody who has been propositioned at work nor would my friend relish claiming her 15 minutes of fame.
Yeah, I have that problem too. Don't do moderation well. If it's something I like and it's available I'm going to consume it. Consequently I have to keep bad foods out of my house. At least then it's harder to make bad choices.
First of all, kids absolutely do want fast food for the toy. At least mine do.
No doubt. But the toys are only updated once a week or so, right? Eating fast food once or even twice a week is not going to make you a fat ass. One must conclude that youthful obesity is being driven by other factors than happy meal toys.
Secondly, a lot of cities have very, very few choices for healthy food. Take a drive around Detroit's inner city some time and look for decent, affordable food. As of about a year ago, there were no grocery supermarkets in Detroit.
False. If you buy a gun from a PRIVATE SELLER you MIGHT not have to go through a background check. That's the case in most states -- if I sell you a gun as a private individual no background checks are required.
Gun dealers who are conducting business at gun shows are held to the same standards they would be if they were conducting business out of their own shop. No background check requirement is waived in this instance. You fill out the same paperwork you would if you were buying it in their shop.
Slashdot Mirror
That false equivalence. Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have.
You mean wars like Vietnam and deregulation like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or the repeal of Glass–Steagall? Oh wait, those happened under Democratic administrations.....
And they invade your bedroom, too.
And Democrats invade my wallet, gun cabinet, phone records, radio stations, etc.
Democrats are not at all equivalent, even if they do also waste your money - but not nearly the vast, crippling magnitude of Republicans.
Careful, your bias is showing.
You Republicans have wallowed in false equivalencies for so long
"You Republicans"? That's interesting, I start out by pointing out that both parties suck and you leap to the conclusion that I'm a Republican. From my vantage point you have more in common with partisan Republicans than you probably realize.
No, you're just wasting our time with the usual false equivalence between Democrats and Republicans
What false equivalence? Democrats can't stay out of your wallet and Republicans can't stay out of your bedroom. I fail to see how accepting governmental intrusion into one part of my life offsets the removal of government intrusion from another.
Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy [google.com] for years.
The Republican Party is America's Taliban [google.com].
That's real cute, linking to Google searches like that. Did you know that Barack Obama kicks puppies? It's true.
I still have my ICQ account (seven-digit UIN starting with 1, woo)
*yawn*, I have a six digit one starting with '2' I don't think it has received a valid non-spam message in three years ago.
The real beef with the gun registry up here was that what was supposed to be a $10 million program ($20 million bucks tops, honest!) ended up being a billion dollar boondoggle. Throwing a billion dollars down the drain tends to get everyone's panties in a twist, and for good reason.
I'd like to know how you can make it cost a billion dollars to build a database, which is essentially what the gun registry is. I happen to think gun registries are a dumb idea for other reasons but I'm not inclined to tell you that the American model would be the best for you. As I said, different histories and cultures to consider.
On an unrelated note, I've looked into getting a Canadian firearms license so I can bring my firearms with me to Alaska when I drive up there. I was amazed to find that the process isn't all that complicated, even for guns that Canada considers to be "restricted", i.e: normal handguns. It's mainly a matter of filling out the right paperwork and paying the fees. It's pretty sad that I can get a Canadian firearms license but there are several US States that refuse to give me one.
The rural/urban split also plays out in individual provinces, where you have "the regions" (aka the boonies) complaining about the cities
We have the same thing here. New York State is dominated by New York City to the point that Upstate NY has little to no voice in Albany, even though we are 42% of the population. It used to be that the Upper Houses of State Legislatures were allocated based on land area in the same manner as the United States Senate. In the 60s there was a SCOTUS ruling that tossed that out, under the "one man, one vote" theory. SCOTUS never bothered to explain why it's acceptable for the US Senate to operate against this theory but not for the NYS Senate to do the same. That ruling was little more than an urban power grab and I would love to see it overturned with a Constitutional Amendment. Not likely to happen but I can still dream.
They should be treated the same as foreign nationals.
Foreign nationals have the same 1st amendment rights that I have. You can come to the United States as a Canadian and exercise all the same rights that I can. Maybe you need a better comparison?
The people are free to express their opinions individually or through political parties. Corporations aren't people.
Except that a political party is also a corporation, at least in the United States. C'mon, you are complaining about the "legal fiction" of corporations while simultaneously allowing an exemption for another legal fiction that describes an assembly of like minded people. You really believe that the GOP has free speech rights but the ACLU doesn't? How can you reconcile that?
The people still have the right to assemble. What they don't have the right to do is form a corporation to advance, in their name, a specific agenda.
SCOTUS disagrees with you, though I would still be interested in hearing why you think people shouldn't have the right to assemble into groups that further their desired political cause. 4,000,000 individual Americans may not have the time, money or inclination to travel to Washington DC to lobby on behalf of their 2nd amendment rights. That's why they join an organization like the NRA. Ditto for the Sierra Club. Ditto for the ACLU. I'm sorry but I just don't see how you can make a convincing argument that such organization is bad for our Democratic process.
Carry your thought to the extreme - why can't citizens, under the US constitution, form a NATION to lobby for their interests? That's certainly freedom of assembly. "Don't like your current state and federal government - join JeebusLand! We're a new country inside the U S of A. Exercise your freedom of association and freedom of expression today - secede NOW!"
The right of revolution would allow them to do exactly that, provided they can back it up with enough firepower. That's how the United States formed after all.
Somehow, it's okay to violate both freedoms when it comes to secession - and yet the US was founded on secession, and as was pointed out at the time - "Either we all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately" - because it was illegal even then.
I would argue that it's not illegal, though it's a moot point as the side that wins gets to decide what is and is not illegal.
So yes, I'm quite comfy with the idea of banning all corporate political activity, including lobbying. It tends to drown out the voices of the ordinary citizens.
Even if I accepted your "drown out" argument, which I don't, there's no guarantee of equal volume under our system of government. Some people will yell louder than others. That's the nature of a representative republic. You can't fix that by taking away my right to assemble with like minded people.
I think the problem with lawyers is the same problem with MBAs -- we have too many of them. We need to make it profitable for our best and brightest to go into other professions. When other professions have the same earnings potential as lawyers and CEOs we'll see less people entering business programs and law school.
Some states (New York) require background checks of all sales at a gun show, even those between private parties.
Such legislation is stupid, because there's nothing stopping me from exchanging my phone number with a potential seller and buying the item off him days later at a different location. It's not illegal to do this either -- it is illegal to make a "parking lot" purchase to skip the background check but there's no law that says you can't follow up with the person days after the show has ended.
All the focus on gun shows is just feel good government at it's best. Criminals don't obtain a significant number of weapons from gun shows. They obtain them from people who steal them from honest citizens. Seeing as how burglary is already illegal, no law you can pass is going to stop this....
One other thing, hit submit too early....
And since we're not competing with big campaign donors for the politicians' ear, we get heard more. Just a thought.
I don't think the experiences of a country with 34,000,000 people scale to a country with 300,000,000 people. There are places in the United States you can go where you will have direct contact with your representatives. They all tend to be smaller and/or lower population states (Vermont and New Hampshire being classic examples).
Canada also seems to have some of the same political problems that the United States does. Your urbanized provinces attempt to dominate the rural ones, breeding resentment. The long gun registry comes to mind as a policy pushed by the urban provinces over rural opposition. The same sort of thing happens in the United States, but it's somewhat mitigated by the fact that the United States Senate isn't slanted by population in the same manner as your Upper House.
I love your country and manage to visit it at least once or twice a year (it's easy when you live in New York State) but please don't assume that all the solutions that work for you would also work for us. Different cultures, different sets of challenges, different population and resource bases, different history, etc, etc.
Corporations aren't people. They don't have the rights of people, as simple as that.
Corporations are nothing more than associations of people. What you are claiming makes no sense. Are you telling me that the CO of my local VFW has no free speech rights when he's standing behind the podium with the VFW logo on it? The podium was bought and paid for with "corporate" money....
A law banning all corporate political contributions, whether in money or in kind, is needed.
That law already exists. Corporations can't contribute money or coordinate their activities with a campaign. Unless I've misread you, you don't think that goes far enough and would prefer to actively muzzle the corporation so it can't make any statements at all during the political process. That's simply not compatible with free speech.
This doesn't abridge the individuals' freedom of speech - they are still free - as individuals, to say what they want. They simply wouldn't be free to form a corporation to say it in their place.
As I said earlier, the 1st amendment also includes the right to assemble. One of the ways that people assemble with those who are like minded is through corporations. You would have us put a muzzle on groups of people working towards a common goal while claiming that this doesn't impair free speech. I can't go along with that. Sorry....
(3) creates a public record that serves as a deterrent
Maybe the victim of harassment doesn't want his or her name in the public record for future employers to see? In the United States, the names of crime victims usually become public knowledge.
That's the way it works here. Boss sexually harasses you, you document it, quit, and file the complaint. It's investigated, and if it's found to be valid, the parties either negotiate a settlement via the mediator, or the regulator sues on your behalf.
That's what my friend did. She went through the EEOC (equal opportunity employment commission). She still had a lawyer to help her navigate the process though. She still reserved the right to sue if she didn't receive a favorable settlement. As it turned out that wasn't necessary.
A private-practice lawyer isn't going to recommend using a publicly-available recourse that takes bread out of his own mouth.
Painting with a broad brush. My friend's lawyer did exactly that. He recommended that they go through the EEOC first, because even if they didn't accept a settlement at that level it would look bad if they tried to sue without attempting mediation first. As it turns out they received a fair settlement offer and it wasn't necessary to go to the next level. A good lawyer presents all the options to his or her client. Ultimately it's the client that decides what to do.
Your posts suggest that you don't have much respect for the legal profession. I have to say that I couldn't disagree with you more. I've never had to sue in civil court but I did wind up charged with felony offenses once upon a time. To make a long story short I was young and stupid and got caught up in the midst of a pissing contest between people that I thought were my friends. My lawyer saved my ass and navigated me through one of the most difficult undertakings of my life.
There are a lot of bad apples in the legal profession but I know you are open minded enough to acknowledge that they aren't representative of the entire profession.
As did the titanic.
Using a design that was bad even by the standards of the day. Not really a valid comparison.
A large enough it would put enough stress on the keel of the ship
A large enough hit will sink anything. I've only maintained that they are harder to kill than most people think, not that they are impossible to kill. Mission kills (can't operate aircraft) are more likely in any event.
The British are building SVTOL carriers, similar to their current Invincible class, you are of course referring to the forthcoming Queen-Elizabeth class. These are a lot smaller then current Nimitz class fleet carriers (QE class - 65,000 tonnes, Nimitz - 100,000 tonnes)
Regardless, they are much more capable ships than their predecessors. The British have the most recent experience with sea-air battles and opted to build something closer to what the US Navy fields rather than the glorified ASW carriers they used to have.
France and the US are the only ones actually building fleet carriers and the French one is significantly smaller then the Gerald R Ford class (75,000 tonnes vs 100,000 tonnes).
The French don't have the same global commitments that the United States does, do they?
In the end only the US fielded battleships (Iowa class) and they were only used as oversized missile cruisers (as in they did the exact same job as missile cruisers of the time).
They were also used as artillery platforms. They could deliver explosives on target cheaper than any other platform we had, including aircraft. Besides, in the end, the US was the only country that retained much of a Navy. The British gave up their power projection capability and nearly got beaten by a third world country. The Russians had a sizable Navy but built it with a different goal (sea denial) in mind than Western Powers (sea control). The French have always maintained some blue water capability, though what they do with it is beyond me. My only memory of a French Aircraft Carrier was the one that played red shirt in a Tom Clancy novel ;)
My prediction is the submarine carrier will make a comeback as a drone carrier as they don't need to be larger then existing US/Russian boomers. Plus with drones, recovery can become an optional extra.
Interesting idea, though a submarine with drones would be useless in the sea control mission. It might make an interesting strike platform but we already have submarine launched single use drones for that. They are called cruise missiles or (god help us) SLBMs.
Compared to the efficiency of an F35 equipped carrier, an FA18 equipped carrier is enormously expensive whilst providing no significant advantages.
Let's talk about that when the F-35 has been in squadron service for a few years and we know how well it works. I hope the mission availability rate is better than the other 5th generation fighters that have entered service....
One other thing, sorry to reply twice, but do yourself a favor and read the transcripts and ruling from the Citizens United case.
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. The Government contends that Austin permits it to ban corporate expenditures for almost all forms of communication stemming from a corporation. If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books. The Government responds “that the FEC has never applied this statute to a book,” and if it did, “there would be quite [a] good as-applied challenge.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 65 (Sept. 9, 2009). This troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability in civic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.
The press doesn't have unlimited freedom. You can't go around committing crimes and then say "I'm a member of the press so it' okay for ME to rob a bank because otherwise that would be a law restricting the freedom of the press."
C'mon, that's a straw man. I know you can better than that.
They do not enjoy special "freedom of speech" - what they enjoy is "freedom to publish"
Are you seriously claiming that there's a difference? Besides, the case that overturned the campaign finance laws was about publishing. Citizens United wanted to publish a movie about Hillary Clinton. The FEC told them that they could not do this. A organization that was formed for the purpose of engaging in the political process was forbidden to do so. I honestly don't understand how you can claim with a straight face that such a prohibition isn't a restriction on the 1st amendment. I can say whatever I want as an individual but if I organize with like minded people we are to be muzzled? The 1st amendment also includes the right to assemble.....
Saying that the NY Times editors endorse a candidate is not news - it belongs in the entertainment or op-ed pages.
What's the difference if they put it on the op-ed pages? It's still a for-profit corporation endorsing a political candidate, something that you clearly abhor.
Otherwise, it becomes too easy to justify bending the rules, then outright criminal behaviour - "If I quit, then my kids might go hungry, so I had no choice, I had to continue to help Madoff."
That's the second straw man. I'm talking about someone who was put in the position of losing her livelihood due to sexual harassment and you make a comparison to engaging in fraud.
Better that they learn that principles are worth standing up for, and taking risks for, and that it's possible to stand up for your rights
Suing the SOB who took your livelihood away isn't standing up for your rights?
The first amendment applies to people. Companies are not people. Newspapers should stick to reporting, not endorsing.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, in your world view the "press" only has these protections if it's one guy operating out of his basement under his own name without a corporate filing?
No, it doesn't put food on the table, but that's the way life is sometimes.
You don't have kids, do you? You'll find it isn't nearly as easy to take these sorts of principled stands when others go hungry as a result of them.
We are talking about civil actions here, not criminal ones. How would RIAA go about tying your MAC address back to you, even if you weren't smart enough to spoof it? Are they going to file discovery motions on every single house within range of the AP that was used? Heck, for that matter, how would law enforcement do it? No Judge would issue a warrant for "every computer within a 150 meter radius of this location", not for something as mundane as file sharing.
BTW, you can get a lot further than 150 meters with the right antenna setup. I've seen associations made at ranges exceeding two kilometers, under less than ideal conditions.
You do realize that they can track it down to the boarders AP and will know with reasonable accuracy (within 100 meters or so) where the downloader must live, right?
High-gain antennas increase that range number quite a bit. I've personally connected to APs with a high-gain antenna on one side of the connection from more than a mile away. Others have done it from further out.
unless you catch wind of what is going on and remove all traces of spoofing from your machine.
Or use encryption.....
I can put away a large pizza by myself in a couple of hours. Not something to be proud of, but there it is.
The damnable part is that I used to weigh more. Clocked in at ~255 pounds once upon a time. Now I'm ~220. My Doctor is still yelling at me though. Tells me I should weigh 185 according to the charts. Not sure that's something I'll ever achieve but it would feel nice to be at or below 200.
Wow, you've compared a law against poisoning your customers to a law that prohibits giving them a free toy. Kind of hard to take you seriously after that.
The charges of racism are really starting to grate on me. What's racist about charging people for crimes committed? Would you think it racist if we had millions of illegal immigrants from Canada or Western Europe and tried to track them down?
Make it the same rule for everyone. No corporate endorsements. Period.
And you don't see a first amendment issue being raised by prohibiting the press from taking part in the political process?
Many jurisdictions have sexual harassment in the workplace laws. If she lives in one of those, file a complaint. If she doesn't, then maybe it would be time to start agitating for such laws.
Having your boss arrested doesn't put food in your stomach or a roof over your head.
Or she could have gone the cheaper route - record the harassment, give a copy to police as evidence for a charge of attempted sexual assault, post it on youtube and make money going on the talk show circuit.
Are you joking or serious? The talk shows don't interview everybody who has been propositioned at work nor would my friend relish claiming her 15 minutes of fame.
Yeah, I have that problem too. Don't do moderation well. If it's something I like and it's available I'm going to consume it. Consequently I have to keep bad foods out of my house. At least then it's harder to make bad choices.
With ISP cooperation you can narrow an IP down to a physical address. At that point, you're screwed.
Speak for yourself. I do all my bittorrenting from open wireless networks ;)
How about they provide actual food instead of "food like products"?
If they did that someone else would start selling their product. Or do you advocate outlawing fast food altogether?
First of all, kids absolutely do want fast food for the toy. At least mine do.
No doubt. But the toys are only updated once a week or so, right? Eating fast food once or even twice a week is not going to make you a fat ass. One must conclude that youthful obesity is being driven by other factors than happy meal toys.
Secondly, a lot of cities have very, very few choices for healthy food. Take a drive around Detroit's inner city some time and look for decent, affordable food. As of about a year ago, there were no grocery supermarkets in Detroit.
So don't live in Detroit. Problem solved.
False. If you buy a gun from a PRIVATE SELLER you MIGHT not have to go through a background check. That's the case in most states -- if I sell you a gun as a private individual no background checks are required.
Gun dealers who are conducting business at gun shows are held to the same standards they would be if they were conducting business out of their own shop. No background check requirement is waived in this instance. You fill out the same paperwork you would if you were buying it in their shop.