You aren't the reason for this law. The condition of the immigration system that you expound upon is the reason for this law, in fact.
In addition, my understanding of the Arizona law is that it requires an officer to determine your immigration status if you are stopped for another crime, and if they have a reasonable suspicion you are not here legally. Your letter stating that your status is "under stay authorized by the AG" may not suffice as a visa, but it sounds like it would meet the requirements of this law.
Further, the failure in the government system is no reason to not enforce the law. The National Firearms Act of 1934 allows a process by which a citizen may pay a tax to purchase or manufacture a machinegun. That process has been unfunded since 1986 - but not repealed. In essence, there is a 34 year backlog of applications to pay that tax and receive the necessary documentation. By your logic, I should be able to purchase a new M4, apply for my tax stamp, and take it to the range. After all - the government's failing is the reason that I cannot comply with the law.
What a lot of people are missing about this is that the Hispanics citizens in the state of Arizona largely support this law. Arizona is about 60% Caucasian, and about 30% Hispanic [source]. Rasmussen shows that this law has about a 70% approval rate within the state [source]. That means that is *every* Caucasian person in the state was in favor of this law (which is obviously not true), then more than one in three Hispanic citizen would also favor the law.
In reality, a strong majority of Hispanic citizens in Arizona support this legislation. That's because your skin color doesn't have to be one color to feel the negative effects of illegal aliens in the workforce. In fact, one could argue that the influx of illegals, who are almost entirely Hispanic, has created an expectation that Hispanics are willing to work for less money, thereby hurting the Hispanic citizens of Arizona disproportionately.
Note also that there is a fairly high level of concern over the rights of US citizens -- that's because, contrary to popular belief, the right is composed of lots of libertarians, and libertarian thinking is a part of the Republican party base. That means that effectively, the voters are indeed concerned about negative effects of this law, but feel they will be outweighed by the positive results. If it is abused, those same voters are likely to swing to the other side, and repeal the law.
Could you provide reference on Q-Ships causing the Germans to fire more often on civilians? It seems to me that a Q-Ship wouldn't work unless German submarines were *already* firing on shipping traffic.
Having an interest in terminal ballistics, I'd like to see some citation for that. While there may be some difference between 5.56 NATO and, say, 7.62 NATO in terms of lethality, I would be willing to bet that the primary contributing factor is shot placement.
We use small calibers because it allows the soldier to carry more ammunition into battle.
I'm not old enough to have vote for the last three:) I voted first for GWB in 2004, because Kerry was my option and I was in a swing state. In 2008, I voted for McCain, though it was tough to do that. GWB was a corporatist, Obama is a socialist. McCain was just Obama Lite. I'm a libertarian in most respects, so it was definately the lesser of evils. Badnarik is a bit of a kook though, and Barr is a Libertarian but not a libertarian.
I *did* vote for Paul in the primaries though in '08 - not because I thought he would win and would be a good president, but to hope to make the GOP realize that there are a lot of us small-government types out here. Doesn't work when your vote isn't counted though. I personally know more people who voted for Paul in the primaries in my county than were reported. Strange.
Yes, but to get to the level of management needed to push this kind of company-wide change, you must have Operations experience. Getting that experience tends to set your mind thinking into certain patterns.
This industry is on the verge of being revolutionized, and is just ripe for it. There are countless things we do "because that's the way we've always done it".
That's funny - I'm the "keyboard guy" at work. I have a small cabinet dedicated to them in my cube, and whenever someone gets a new PC, the first thing they do is come get one of the older-style keyboards that they prefer. IT wants to take the "old" ones, which are far better than the new pieces of shit they ship these days.
I use a personal Model M, with my name engraved in BIG letters on the back and a 2-line LED display hacked onto the upper right. Even so, those fuckers in IT have tried to take it twice now to give me a "new" one.
I agree with this. While I'm not technically a developer at the moment (I build complex Crystal Reports, and as much as SAP would disagree, Crystal isn't a real programming language), I hate working at my desk some days.
There are times when I am so sick of the four walls of my cube I cannot focus on a task. When those days hit, I usually get a couple coworkers together and take over a small conference room. If it is a nice day, I may take my laptop and sit outside the building on the grass and work from there. I get some strange looks, but it's quite productive, and I avoid burning myself out so easily.
If I had free reign to design the office, there would be a small conference room divided into 6 mini-cubes --- one for each person on the team. I'd take the main area where our cubes are now and turn it into a lounge. A couple of overstuffed chairs, maybe a beanbag or two, several coffee tables or end tables scattered about. Then I'd take the coffee station that is currently located in a crowded hallway and put it off to one side of this main room - give people a place to congregate and bounce ideas back and forth as they occur, instead of having to walk over to the other person's work area, interrupting your own workflow in the process.
Then again, seeing how our office area is an alcove off of the executive conference area, I don't think it would go over well. It *would* be productive, though. Trucking companies aren't known for their fresh and new approach to... well, anything really.
No, I agree - but a tech that allows an omnipresent state to know your travel patterns and be able to pinpoint your location to a few miles at any given time is not conducive to Liberty.
That's okay though - you see, I have a link to my ecommerce site in my sig, and from this little exchange, I've gained 15 hits and 4 sales. In short, I made $40 arguing with him.
As a capitalist (and a bit of a villian), I find great humor in using socialists/collectivists to indirectly profit.
That's just the thing though - I am working in a field that is somewhat related to IT because of my own perseverance - not because "society" gifted it to me. I started work as a cashier at a drugstore. I've worked on farms, in processing facilities, as a plumber and electrician, and as a day laborer. I've done jobs that I'm sure you would consider "cruel" - I've worked 18 hour days for months on end to save the money I needed to buy a decent computer, then worked my ass off at night to learn a marketable skill.
If the tech industry had not existed, I'd have shined extra shoes, cleaned extra outhouses, broken extra horses - whatever it took.
Our present industrialized state was built by men doing what I am doing now - working, building, producing. Without productive, rational people, you wouldn't have the luxury of sitting back and railing against the abuse of animals, or the ills of society - you would be too concerned trying to find something to eat tonight.
I recognize that empathy is part of what makes us human. I would never cause an animal to suffer unnecessarily - but it seems that my definition of necessary is slightly different that yours.
It is necessary that they must do so that we may eat.
As for being grateful that i live in 2010 -- why should I be? It could be worse, surely - but it could also be unknowably better. What will life be like for someone born in 2584? These circumstances are outside my control - I seek to do the best I can within the reaches of my own ability.
So, you insult me, and the argument is over? Gotchya.
Oh, and the part where you bluntly state that you'd like to "lock me up" is great too. I offered you a reasoned argument, backed with personal experience in the subject offered, and your response is that I should be imprisoned.
For what it's worth, we're the pinnacle species on the planet because we are adaptable. We use our intelligence to overcome our weaknesses, not because of empathy. Most animals are capable of empathy, few are capable of abstract thought. Only one is capable of vicarious learning and abstract language.
The fact that some choose to argue does not overshadow the truth. Employment is voluntary. There are no laws requiring you to have a job at all - when that changes, employment will be slavery.
I don't see that happening, but then again, 5 years ago I'd have never thought my government would have ordered me to purchase a product from a private company.
I see a bunch of environmentalist drivel. I've experience what I speak of, so I'm not going to learn anything there, and it isn't entertaining to me.
im sure animals would disagree. and it is odd that you are so sure that a cow is not smart enough to have preference, while various researches showed that even fish were much more aware and sentient than the millenias old bullshit advocated.
Cows are dumb. Incredibly dumb. As in, will walk over a cliff while grazing dumb. That said, they have emotion, just like any other animal. They can feel pain, of course. A well-adjusted human will be compassionate with animals - but compassion doesn't extend so far as to stop eating meat. It is wrong to slit a cow's throat and let it bleed to death in pain, but it is not wrong to use a piston gun or similar device in a humane manner. Abuses do occur, but they are a reflection on the individuals, not on the concept of raising animals for meat.
yea, and who decided that it was right and natural that we should raise them, slaughter them, and eat them ?
we did.
ironically, we are not employing the same kind of survivalist, strong eat weak barbarism in our own society, where we tend the weak, cure the sick, and not execute the mentally ill or castrinate them.
Wrong audience for this argument - I am a strong proponent of "social darwinism". I don't want to be paying to heal anyone other than my own family, and I think warning labels have done much to harm our society. Sorry, but if you're dumb enough to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, no amount of engraving on the barrel will change your mind - and further, if it *does* change your mind, you're just going to live on to do increasingly stupid things.
i am not partaking in it. what irritates me is that survivalist bullshitters coming up with the same bullshit like this everytime, ie 'dont do it if you dont like it', without realizing the possibility that the person in front of them may already be not doing it.
furthermore, brutality wouldnt change its nature if i was the biggest carnivore that has ever came to pass on the face of this planet. if it is brutal, it is brutal. so spare us the bullshit of using that 'if you join in then you cant criticize' bullshit. if people did that, we wouldnt have gotten out of caves and out into space.
It never occurred to me that you would be partaking in it now. In fact, based on your post, I assumed you were not. I was merely stating that this is the limit of what you can accomplish to change things - to stop partaking an try to convince others to think like you.
any big megacorporation you know its name is a slave holder.
slavery is still here, it just changed its storefront, and the slaveholder is no longer obliged to feed you.
Show me an example. Employment is not slavery.
Finally, exactly what do you mean "survivalist"? I might qualify for that, depending on the definition, but I don't see how it is relevant here.
My family actually raises a good portion of the meat I eat - and it isn't in a 2 m^2 cage. I understand the concept, I just don't understand the drama that surrounds factory farms.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't the reason for this law. The condition of the immigration system that you expound upon is the reason for this law, in fact.
In addition, my understanding of the Arizona law is that it requires an officer to determine your immigration status if you are stopped for another crime, and if they have a reasonable suspicion you are not here legally. Your letter stating that your status is "under stay authorized by the AG" may not suffice as a visa, but it sounds like it would meet the requirements of this law.
Further, the failure in the government system is no reason to not enforce the law. The National Firearms Act of 1934 allows a process by which a citizen may pay a tax to purchase or manufacture a machinegun. That process has been unfunded since 1986 - but not repealed. In essence, there is a 34 year backlog of applications to pay that tax and receive the necessary documentation. By your logic, I should be able to purchase a new M4, apply for my tax stamp, and take it to the range. After all - the government's failing is the reason that I cannot comply with the law.
What a lot of people are missing about this is that the Hispanics citizens in the state of Arizona largely support this law. Arizona is about 60% Caucasian, and about 30% Hispanic [source]. Rasmussen shows that this law has about a 70% approval rate within the state [source]. That means that is *every* Caucasian person in the state was in favor of this law (which is obviously not true), then more than one in three Hispanic citizen would also favor the law.
In reality, a strong majority of Hispanic citizens in Arizona support this legislation. That's because your skin color doesn't have to be one color to feel the negative effects of illegal aliens in the workforce. In fact, one could argue that the influx of illegals, who are almost entirely Hispanic, has created an expectation that Hispanics are willing to work for less money, thereby hurting the Hispanic citizens of Arizona disproportionately.
Note also that there is a fairly high level of concern over the rights of US citizens -- that's because, contrary to popular belief, the right is composed of lots of libertarians, and libertarian thinking is a part of the Republican party base. That means that effectively, the voters are indeed concerned about negative effects of this law, but feel they will be outweighed by the positive results. If it is abused, those same voters are likely to swing to the other side, and repeal the law.
You can be held only 72 hours without being charged with a crime.
Could you provide reference on Q-Ships causing the Germans to fire more often on civilians? It seems to me that a Q-Ship wouldn't work unless German submarines were *already* firing on shipping traffic.
Having an interest in terminal ballistics, I'd like to see some citation for that. While there may be some difference between 5.56 NATO and, say, 7.62 NATO in terms of lethality, I would be willing to bet that the primary contributing factor is shot placement.
We use small calibers because it allows the soldier to carry more ammunition into battle.
Who is this bad guy, with multiple asses?
But was it the best way?
I'm not old enough to have vote for the last three :) I voted first for GWB in 2004, because Kerry was my option and I was in a swing state. In 2008, I voted for McCain, though it was tough to do that. GWB was a corporatist, Obama is a socialist. McCain was just Obama Lite. I'm a libertarian in most respects, so it was definately the lesser of evils. Badnarik is a bit of a kook though, and Barr is a Libertarian but not a libertarian.
I *did* vote for Paul in the primaries though in '08 - not because I thought he would win and would be a good president, but to hope to make the GOP realize that there are a lot of us small-government types out here. Doesn't work when your vote isn't counted though. I personally know more people who voted for Paul in the primaries in my county than were reported. Strange.
Did you renew for 10 years by chance because it took so long for their admin panel to load, you didn't want to have to do it again any time soon?
Yes, but to get to the level of management needed to push this kind of company-wide change, you must have Operations experience. Getting that experience tends to set your mind thinking into certain patterns.
This industry is on the verge of being revolutionized, and is just ripe for it. There are countless things we do "because that's the way we've always done it".
I work a technical job, but still consider myself a redneck.
That's funny - I'm the "keyboard guy" at work. I have a small cabinet dedicated to them in my cube, and whenever someone gets a new PC, the first thing they do is come get one of the older-style keyboards that they prefer. IT wants to take the "old" ones, which are far better than the new pieces of shit they ship these days.
I use a personal Model M, with my name engraved in BIG letters on the back and a 2-line LED display hacked onto the upper right. Even so, those fuckers in IT have tried to take it twice now to give me a "new" one.
I agree with this. While I'm not technically a developer at the moment (I build complex Crystal Reports, and as much as SAP would disagree, Crystal isn't a real programming language), I hate working at my desk some days.
There are times when I am so sick of the four walls of my cube I cannot focus on a task. When those days hit, I usually get a couple coworkers together and take over a small conference room. If it is a nice day, I may take my laptop and sit outside the building on the grass and work from there. I get some strange looks, but it's quite productive, and I avoid burning myself out so easily.
If I had free reign to design the office, there would be a small conference room divided into 6 mini-cubes --- one for each person on the team. I'd take the main area where our cubes are now and turn it into a lounge. A couple of overstuffed chairs, maybe a beanbag or two, several coffee tables or end tables scattered about. Then I'd take the coffee station that is currently located in a crowded hallway and put it off to one side of this main room - give people a place to congregate and bounce ideas back and forth as they occur, instead of having to walk over to the other person's work area, interrupting your own workflow in the process.
Then again, seeing how our office area is an alcove off of the executive conference area, I don't think it would go over well. It *would* be productive, though. Trucking companies aren't known for their fresh and new approach to... well, anything really.
No, I agree - but a tech that allows an omnipresent state to know your travel patterns and be able to pinpoint your location to a few miles at any given time is not conducive to Liberty.
In modern American English, to murder is to unlawfully kill.
Republican != Christian
With the exception of colonization, which is (in my estimation) 50 years of dedicated research away, you're right.
As a libertarian, this scares the hell out of me.
As a process improvement professional, this sounds like a damned cool thing to have access to!
It didn't even occur to me :)
That's okay though - you see, I have a link to my ecommerce site in my sig, and from this little exchange, I've gained 15 hits and 4 sales. In short, I made $40 arguing with him.
As a capitalist (and a bit of a villian), I find great humor in using socialists/collectivists to indirectly profit.
That's just the thing though - I am working in a field that is somewhat related to IT because of my own perseverance - not because "society" gifted it to me. I started work as a cashier at a drugstore. I've worked on farms, in processing facilities, as a plumber and electrician, and as a day laborer. I've done jobs that I'm sure you would consider "cruel" - I've worked 18 hour days for months on end to save the money I needed to buy a decent computer, then worked my ass off at night to learn a marketable skill.
If the tech industry had not existed, I'd have shined extra shoes, cleaned extra outhouses, broken extra horses - whatever it took.
Our present industrialized state was built by men doing what I am doing now - working, building, producing. Without productive, rational people, you wouldn't have the luxury of sitting back and railing against the abuse of animals, or the ills of society - you would be too concerned trying to find something to eat tonight.
I recognize that empathy is part of what makes us human. I would never cause an animal to suffer unnecessarily - but it seems that my definition of necessary is slightly different that yours.
It is necessary that they must do so that we may eat.
As for being grateful that i live in 2010 -- why should I be? It could be worse, surely - but it could also be unknowably better. What will life be like for someone born in 2584? These circumstances are outside my control - I seek to do the best I can within the reaches of my own ability.
Why that seems to upset you so much is beyond me.
So, you insult me, and the argument is over? Gotchya.
Oh, and the part where you bluntly state that you'd like to "lock me up" is great too. I offered you a reasoned argument, backed with personal experience in the subject offered, and your response is that I should be imprisoned.
For what it's worth, we're the pinnacle species on the planet because we are adaptable. We use our intelligence to overcome our weaknesses, not because of empathy. Most animals are capable of empathy, few are capable of abstract thought. Only one is capable of vicarious learning and abstract language.
The fact that some choose to argue does not overshadow the truth. Employment is voluntary. There are no laws requiring you to have a job at all - when that changes, employment will be slavery.
I don't see that happening, but then again, 5 years ago I'd have never thought my government would have ordered me to purchase a product from a private company.
http://www.google.com/search?q=livestock+industry+brutality&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
I see a bunch of environmentalist drivel. I've experience what I speak of, so I'm not going to learn anything there, and it isn't entertaining to me.
im sure animals would disagree. and it is odd that you are so sure that a cow is not smart enough to have preference, while various researches showed that even fish were much more aware and sentient than the millenias old bullshit advocated.
Cows are dumb. Incredibly dumb. As in, will walk over a cliff while grazing dumb. That said, they have emotion, just like any other animal. They can feel pain, of course. A well-adjusted human will be compassionate with animals - but compassion doesn't extend so far as to stop eating meat. It is wrong to slit a cow's throat and let it bleed to death in pain, but it is not wrong to use a piston gun or similar device in a humane manner. Abuses do occur, but they are a reflection on the individuals, not on the concept of raising animals for meat.
yea, and who decided that it was right and natural that we should raise them, slaughter them, and eat them ?
we did.
ironically, we are not employing the same kind of survivalist, strong eat weak barbarism in our own society, where we tend the weak, cure the sick, and not execute the mentally ill or castrinate them.
Wrong audience for this argument - I am a strong proponent of "social darwinism". I don't want to be paying to heal anyone other than my own family, and I think warning labels have done much to harm our society. Sorry, but if you're dumb enough to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, no amount of engraving on the barrel will change your mind - and further, if it *does* change your mind, you're just going to live on to do increasingly stupid things.
i am not partaking in it. what irritates me is that survivalist bullshitters coming up with the same bullshit like this everytime, ie 'dont do it if you dont like it', without realizing the possibility that the person in front of them may already be not doing it.
furthermore, brutality wouldnt change its nature if i was the biggest carnivore that has ever came to pass on the face of this planet. if it is brutal, it is brutal. so spare us the bullshit of using that 'if you join in then you cant criticize' bullshit. if people did that, we wouldnt have gotten out of caves and out into space.
It never occurred to me that you would be partaking in it now. In fact, based on your post, I assumed you were not. I was merely stating that this is the limit of what you can accomplish to change things - to stop partaking an try to convince others to think like you.
any big megacorporation you know its name is a slave holder.
slavery is still here, it just changed its storefront, and the slaveholder is no longer obliged to feed you.
Show me an example. Employment is not slavery.
Finally, exactly what do you mean "survivalist"? I might qualify for that, depending on the definition, but I don't see how it is relevant here.
My family actually raises a good portion of the meat I eat - and it isn't in a 2 m^2 cage. I understand the concept, I just don't understand the drama that surrounds factory farms.
:)