The difference between Madison's federalists and Jefferson's anti-federalists. I believe in a weak federal government under the theory that there is less accountability at the federal level which makes abuse easier and more widespread.
do you seriously believe that anyone will buy into "they should provide resources only but all decisions should be made by the local leaders."?
Do I believe they will buy into this? No. Just a beautiful dream.
The problem isn't political appointments, inept federal chiefs or any political leanings or biases. The problem is the the federal government has no business in being in charge of domestic response. Response to a local emergency or disaster is, and must remain the domain of the local authorities who can be held accountable for their preparation and performance - or lack thereof.
FEMA can do nothing but react to an event and throw more debt at the problem. Unfortunately this leads to problems down the road - not only does it push the federal government closer to insolvency - but it leads to all kinds of expectations on the part of locals who develop the "we'll just sit back and wait for the calvary" mentality. Not only this, but you end up with gross inequity in the response: federal dollars to New Orleans for Katrina are already about 5 times the aid sent to Florida for four hurricanes combined. FEMA has given out some $600,000,000 in "emergency cash disbursements" so far, with many people upset that only the first 10,000 or so were given $2,000 cash cards. New Hampshire recently saw a few hundred people flooded out and it wouldn't shock me in the slightest if some of them file lawsuit under the equal protection clause asking for $2,000 cash cards, FEMA-paid apartments around the country and the like.
Local emergencies should be handled by city, the county, the state and then the federal. In that order. And the federal should not be allowed to call any of the shots: they should provide resources only but all decisions should be made by the local leaders.
Have they decided if there is a non-c value for the speed of gravity? I've seen papers concluding yes and I've seen them concluding no.
If gravity has no "speed" then the advisories against instantaneous communication are violated as a change in the relative position of mass A to mass B would instantly be signaled even across the galaxies.
If gravity does have a speed then wouldn't this "dark matter" be explained as all of the extra grativational "signals" making their way through the universe?
answer me another question, why is pornography equated with those other three?
Because the issue has nothing to do with what does or does not cause emotional damage, if any is caused at all. The question is one of who has the right to control that to which a child is exposed: the parents or some guy screening 10-somes in rape and bondage flicks in the back of the local video store. What my opinions are on whether or not such material is appropriate, harmful or even worthy of merit is irrelevant. You decide for yourself and you decide for your kids. Make it. Sell it. Distribute it. Charge admission. You don't need my support, my approval, my condonation, my endorsement or anything else. But before you share your joyous creations with the 12 year kid next door you had better be darn sure his parents approve, not of the work itself but for the exposure to a minor.
That is why I support this bill. Not because it makes any kind of statement about the material itself but because I believe that the parents should retain exclusive right to control the stuff that reaches their kids.
And yes, this should apply to violent movies as well. Not because I am either for or against such films (I personally don't like slasher flicks, but I don't care who sees them - I don't care for haunted houses or roller coasters either, but my tastes and wishes have no relevance or impact on you) but because I believe that mom and dad have the right and obligation to a) know what their kid is seeing and b) make a decision one way or the other. Yes, I know that some parents hate this bill because they don't want to have to make a choice, but tough - if they don't want to act like parents and make decisions then let's send them back in time with some birth control.
I didn't know it was the Government's or shopkeepers job to enforce parental decisions. Wake the hell up and get involved with your kids people! Don't expect the Government to do it for you. My parents didn't.
p.
Answer one question, please: should there be laws prohibiting the sale of pornography, tobacco, alcohol and firearms to minors?
Face it: you have a hair up your ass about video games, and you'll scream and squeal about them until you're blue in the face rather than listen to any real evidence.
You see, here's the thing... I don't care about the video games. I say make any video game you want and sell it, but don't sell hardcore porn to kids. Yeah, the issue is over violent games, but the concept is the same: if parents don't get all out of shape about the stack of Playboys under the bed then so be it, but your local clerk at 7-11 doesn't have to sell them to a 13 year old.
The AMA says that what kids watch influences what they do... do you have any evidence to indicate that it doesn't? Any at all? Even a single study? Metastudy? ANYTHING?
It is not parents who will be punished here, it is retailers.
The only way that retailers will "be punished" will be if parents don't want their kids to have these games and stop buying them. If this is your fear then you are, actually, in favor of kids buying things their parents do not want them to buy.
When video games were invented, the rate of violent crime started to down.
Which violent crimes went down? Drive-by shootings increased. School shootings have increased. Incidents of kids shooting at cars on the highway have increased. Incidents of kids who kill three cops in the police station then state "Life is like a video game." have increased.
The problem I have with those who argue against bills such as these is they have pretty much one argument: "nuh uh".
I am Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, U.S. Army, (Retired). My expertise in the area of human aggression and violence includes service as a West Point psychology professor, a professor of military science, the author of a Pulitzer nominated book and numerous peer reviewed encyclopedia entries on this topic.
It is my professional opinion, and it is the opinion of major experts in this area (such as the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the American Academy of Mental Health, and the Surgeon General), based on extensive research, that violent video games are harmful to children. Legislation to rate these games, and enforcement of the ratings in order to keep the violent games out of the hands of children, is essential to the safety and security of the population of New York. The games that permit a child to hold and aim a gun, and fire it at humans, are particularly harmful, since these devices teach shooting skills. They are firearms training devices at best, and murder simulators at worst.
The counter? You're flamebait, d00d!
The falling rate of violent crime to which you refer includes random street muggings, assault and battery, whuppin' drunks in a bar... actions which are violent but not intended to or likely to belethal. There may be fewer people getting beaten in a dark alley, but I'll take 5,000 of those to a single Columbine. And the violent crime index is suspect anyway: Atlanta demonstrated that cities aren't above falsifying reports in order to look better.
I'm not opposed because I'm anti-family, im opposed because I'm anti-censorship
Is the government prohibiting the games/movies/music?
its up to the perents to decide!
Didn't you just say that you are opposed to censorship? This bill allows parents to decide what games they want in their homes. If mom and dad say ok, then that's the end of the debate. If mom says no and dad says yes, that's the end of the debate. How is the government involved?
not up to the government!
Isn't the whole point of this bill to put the decision in the hands of the parents?
the perents need to pay attention to what there kids play.
By undermining the concept that the parents are responsible for their children and what comes into their homes.
And parents need a law to control what comes into their home?
When merchants will sell anything to anybody, yes, they do. The government can't do anything about parents who give sips of wine to their kids at dinner but it can certainly prevent merchants from selling merlot to a nine year old. This law lets parents do what the parents want with their kid and seeks to ensure that the decision remains with them.
How are the kids going to buy it unless the parents give them money?
Um... maybe the kid has a job? A paper route? Mows lawns and shovels snow and is paid in cash? Perhaps the kid tutors other kids on the side? Maybe sells hacking services to a foreign government? You were kidding when you suggested that the only source of money for a 15 year old is his parents, right?
My parents managed to have control without needing the state to enforce it for them.
What was the equivalent of GTA:SA that your parents needed to worry about being brought into the home?
This bill has nothing to do with parental control
This bill has everything to do with parental control... please reconsider: a law that says that shopkeepers aren't allowed to sell things to minors that their parents don't want them to have certainly doesn't do much for anybody else...
are we still assuming that violent video games lead to violent behaviour in real-life?
They do. And smoking causes cancer. The problem is that the pathogen does not result in the negative consequence 100% of the time.
On the one side we have people who say that violence in video games never sparks spillover. On the other side we have people who claim that it always does. Both people could generously be described as ignorant and both positions are substantiated via anecdote only. Both are also clearly, unquestionably and undeniably wrong.
A closer look must be taken at the people who oppose this bill: what, exactly, do they oppose?
People who oppose this bill are anti-family - this has nothing to do with the sale of these types of games but with the right of parents to control what comes into their homes. If a parent sees nothing wrong with the game they can buy it, end of discussion. People who oppose this bill are the types who gripe when movie theaters card for an R rated movie.
This bill has nothing to do with the games but seeks to reinforce the concept of parental control. Period. Granted, there are a few whackos on both sides who support/oppose the bill for the wrong reason this bill is entirely reasonable and non-intrusive.
Discussing the imminent implosion of Delphi - union members are being asked to sacrifice 2/3 of their salaries or Delphi will most assuredly go bankrupt,
[UAW President Ron Gettelfinger] likely wouldn't acknowledge, however, that his union demanded "more, more, more" -- and often got it -- when its biggest employers increasingly could not afford it; that labor contracts that pay laid-off people to sit at home or bar plant closings are increasingly indefensible; that being the undisputed "gold standard" for industrial workers has long since priced UAW members out of a competitive market, enabling others to undercut the union almost at will.
Nor would a long procession of auto execs, many of them now reclining in the retired comfort of million-dollar homes far from gritty Detroit, admit that they succumbed to short-term expedience too often. Wooed by the "cooperative" union-management spirit of the '80s and '90s, they mistook labor peace for smart business decision-making and ceded control of vast portions of their companies to union leaders whose goals were antithetical to theirs.
Where were the leaders during this period? It was clear to anybody with an ounce of intelligence and reason that the deals being cut with the UAW were simply inappropriate - the people who drove this company into the ground should be held personally responsible for their errors, having been clearly incapable of running a business. Furthermore, the members of the board that appointed these people should be forever banned from holding any position of trust within any public corporation - private companies can, of course, hire anybody they want, but these people simply can't be trusted to have any say over anybody else's money. This is a prime example of the economic blight where people with no talent or ability can amass wealth and power beyond the dreams of regular people: a meritocracy this obviously ain't.
But this is fairly typical: unions ask for and management gives unreasonable packages on a regular basis. Eventually every single case will be marked by a significant correction and the unionized workers will usually end up the worse for wear. Consider the NHL action - all that fuss and the players ended up getting less than what had been initially offered. True, in some cases the unions might win, but it will always come back to bite them.
I am 100% in favor of unions on issues of workplace safety or reasonable hours and overtime. But demanding (and receiving)... 95% of salary and full benefits when laid off in the case of the UAW?... simply isn't a reasonable and prudent business decision. Yes, the top execs are greedy and often rather on the slow side. Even I could do a better job than many (though certainly not all) of them. But even though I may be accused of anti-people and a worshipper of the allmighty dollar the current situation at Delphi tends to show that I am in the right.
If I own a software company, and you want to work for me, saying that I can't dictate the relationships of that which I own - without coercing anyone - is not capitalism.
This is not what I am saying - you may dictate the relationships of that which you own, but when the relationship is terminated you should have no say over what you do not own. You may keep your patents. You may keep your copyrights. You may enforce protection of both when infringements are discovered. But you should not have any power over somebody not in your employ.
Labor unions. That they have driven businesses into failure is not a bad thing. Businesses failing is not a bad thing in general. Their lost sales are given to more competitive companies who do a better job.
True. In many cases the more competitive companies are overseas and the local industries survive mainly on protectionist policies that unfairly penalize the consumer.
However, the gov'ment has leveled the playing field in unions favor - particularly government unions - in terms of making it easier for them to be recognized, etc.
I'm not convinced that government unions should be allowed.
Now, what exact part of that isn't clear and what am I missing? Or do you conceed that you are a capitalist with exceptions?
I don't think anybody is a pure anything without exceptions: I myself have only one absolute belief on which I am intractable. On everything else I am willing to reconfigure and reallign my beliefs as I see a viewpoint that I like better. On this subject, I see nothing wrong with trying to make as much profit as one can - if that's your gig, have at it. But I think that non-compete agreements should not be binding. Or, if you -really- insist that you deprive a person of their livelihood then pay them for it: I would not object to you paying a decent salary to somebody in exchange for them not working for the competition. But I do not accept as fair the notion of "you can't work for me and you can't work for anybody else... sit and starve for two years until the NCA runs out".
Personally I think that extra million should go to the people actually doing the work but that's just me.
Wait a minute, that's my contribution to the Union. I "produced" $500 million. Members don't work for free and neither do I. My point was overpaid management makes the exact same arguement to justify their wages.
I think it is a stupid argument for the executives as well. I'm an equal opportunity knocker.
You will find public schools in areas where parents are involved and generally wealthy enough to make the time to attend to their children are quite good. Teachers are in unions at those schools too! Wow!
I've known many products of these "quite good" districts. Most of them have never heard of Adam Smith, have no idea how Jefferson or Hamilton shaped the nation, can't balance a checkbook, or distinguish between a noun and a verb. They can, however, wax long on how diversity is important for everybody except for white males, recite from memory every slang term for three dozen sexual positions and chant some mantra about how big corporations are destroying an ecosystem they have no recollection of having actually seen but they know it is up in the greenhouse layer somewhere. Yeah... that's educated.
Unions deprive me of a more diversified national economy.
How exactly? When in the history of the world was there was a union for an industry that didn't exist?
I don't understand your second line there, but a diversified economy is one with a healthy mix of productive citizens some designing, some building, some moving, some transporting, some repairing, some serving, and others doing something else. This nation has surrendered most of our steel industry and large segments of our manufacturing base. We are mostly a service economy these days as most manufacturing jobs are now located in non-union countries, and our service opportunities are quickly moving off-shore as well. Medical transcription and billing, banking, radiology, tech support, architecture, product design... all are more cheaply done elsewhere. (Personally I'm waiting for them to offshore executives... pretty much anybody at the VP level or above could be replaced by somebody in Bombay or Beijing for a fraction of the price...)
Their biggest issue is they don't have the income to support the pension promises they made. Now,they made lots of profits many years ago and magically, most of it didn't end up in the pension pool like it was supposed to. Hmmm, where did it go? Who diverted it? Why? I'll leave that one for you to research.
Those pensions were fully funded until the company stopped making as much money and the unions demanded that the companies avoid making things more efficient. If the companies had been allowed to streamline the pensions could have continued to be fully funded. If the unions had accepted 401(k) plans instead of pensions the problem would not exist.
They are demanding that I spend my tax dollars to cover the unsustainable pensions
Really? Demanding? Ummm. No.
What would you consider the federal pension guaranty fund? Who do you think pays for that?
Now hold on... a moment ago you were *supporting* non-compete agreements.
Not I... I am strongly opposed to non-compete agreements. If a company doesn't respect the talents and contributions of an individual then they should run the risk of said individual jumping ship and going to the competition. I don't quite follow your train of thought... the quoted text was regarding pensions to which I am also opposed because they force companies (and governments) into financial holes from which there is no graceful exit.
It's always about "personal responsibility" when the employee is getting screwed, but why isn't it ever seen the other way around?
I'm all for responsibility for the corporations: I say let them sink or swim on their own merits. I oppose handouts, subsidies and protectionist tariffs. I wouldn't mind seeing government contracts require a maximum salary ratio of 40:1 (a number I picked up in some economics class as being the ideal pay disparity between the highest and lowest salaries in a company) but certainly think that any non-government business relationship should have no such restrictions.
Maybe the EMPLOYERS should show some "personal responsibility" in the well-being of their own bussiness, and pay their employees enough and treat them well-enough so that they don't run off to work for a competitor.
This is exactly why I oppose non-competes. I think the employee should be allowed to graze in the greener grass on the other side of the fence on a whim if he so desires.
Why is it that an employee who budgets badly is "irresponsible", but the corporation who employs him is always "a victim of a downturn in the economy" when it goes to borrow a few billion of our tax money to stay in bussiness?
Borrowing (and paying back at market interest rates) isn't that big of an issue with me. Grants and handouts, on the other hand... a certain airline recently declared b/k twice and required massive inflows of public funds and massive public contributions to maintain the excessive pension plan for which the unions negotiated not with me (who is now paying for it) but with executives who knew that they faced no personal consequences for signing such a silly contract. The unions negotiated impossible terms for their members, I say let the union members recover their losses from the negotiations team and leave me out of it.
Face it, you have a double standard. Mainly, because you worship those who have capital, and privately disdain those who work for a living as somehow being lesser people... and it shows in your arguments.
Please connect the dots... I utterly fail to understand how you conclude this. I am not rich and put in 70 hours a week to maintain an OK standard of living. I certainly work for a living and think that people who hold the most capital - Bill Gates, for example, or Martha Stewart, or various Tyco and Enron executives - are people who do not deserve my admiration or praise. I think people who work for a living are far more admirable than the Paris Hiltons of the world... so how do you reach your conclusions?
If I as a representative get another $500 million out of an organization for it's workers, it is the equivalent of a CEO who increases the value of a corporation. If I ask for $1 million of that,(0.2%) there's $499 million to distribute to the workers. No, it's not overpaying.
Personally I think that extra million should go to the people actually doing the work but that's just me.
That unions in general are in decline in the U.S. has as much to do with the way the declining unions are operate as the capitalists failure to adjust to the changing markets and failure to stay ahead of new competitors. (A general example would be GM/Ford)
Don't forget the steel industry... or the poor state of public schools largely caused by the AFT.
Controlling the supply of resources to increase profits is used by anyone who can do it successfully every day. The evil labor empire is going to deprive you of low wages, no medical care and unfunded pensions! Oh no! Send in the military!!! But it's okay when Microsoft, the Music distribution industry, AMA, etc. do it?
Now who is being rash? Unions do not deprive corporations of low wages: India and China do that. Unions deprive me of a more diversified national economy.
Unfunded pensions? I don't believe in pensions and think they should be abolished in favor of 401(k) contributions. Make it 10:1 matching from the corporation for all I care - but if you look at the collapse of the airlines, the collapse of Delphi, the junk status of GM and Ford you will consistently see that pensions are always one of the biggest issues. Once a person stops working for a company (or the government!) they should stop getting money from them. It is a question of individual responsibility to save up enough for retirement, even if that means holding off on that second home, buying fewer new cars and taking fewer cruises during the working years. These pensions are why so many cities and states have to cut services and raise taxes - they have to divert public funds to people who are no longer providing any benefit to the community at the expense of the community.
Yes, everybody tries to restrict supply to artificially increase prices - a certain diamond family has perfected this system and turned otherwise mere curious bits of smushed coal into something of value. And if they can do it on their own that is all fine and good and great, but they can't. They are demanding that I spend my tax dollars to cover the unsustainable pensions - if they can get by with what people are willing to spend on the services they provide then so be it. But if the unions demand and receive more than the company can provide then leave me out of it.
I don't state unions are evil anywhere. I don't believe that unions are evil. I do believe that unions have a place, but that they - like everything else - overstep their bounds and do things that they shouldn't.
(I can't help but notice that you don't mention AFSCME... that is one union that should not exist - public employees should never be allowed to unionize.)
2. The wealthiest individuals remain just that. It protects the rich from the poor.
At the end of the year who ends up with the larger salaries... the union chiefs or the people they "represent"?
Now, I accept you have an opinion that is different than mine, but your reliance on dogmatic beliefs is obvious.
As is your steadfast and unquestionable support of unions. I have no issues with collective bargaining - that is part of the free market. No union strength is anti-competitive. Too much union strength is anti-competitive. The balance, like pretty much everything else lies somewhere in the middle.
You know nothing about the economics of the airline industry:
And this assessment is based on.... ? For example, I think pilots are grossly overpaid because there is a tremendous glut of perfectly qualified pilots who can't break into the business while the union fights tooth and nail to protect the jobs of pilots who push back after having pushed down a few too many drinks.
You're not a capitalist. Non-competes are part of the compensation package an employee agrees to. Bathroom break limits, healthcare benefits, etc. You are coercing the employee with your law by preventing them from being able to sign one.
In other words a company should have the right to force their employees to work in hazardous conditions without protection? Government does have legitimate interest in establishing safe and humane working conditions. I can still be pro-capitalism and be against requiring miners to work in mines without shoring timbers or receptionists to be forced to breathe bromine or lead fumes all day long.
Banning non-competes is far from raising minimum wage requirements: people will still get paid according to market rates, even if EA would prefer that market rate to be lower. What you are promoting is that the employer should be considered to have 100% of the capital and the employee to have 0%. This is entirely unfair, anti-competitive and leads to lower wages all around (except for the executives).
Unions, on the other hand, overstep their bounds. Airlines are going bankrupt mainly because they can't afford to pay the contracts the unions demanded and received. The NHL lost a season because the unions wanted more than what the owners were willing to pay. Ford and GM are in serious trouble becuase they can't afford to pay the union workers everything that was promised. Big steel unionized pensions were bailed out by the taxpayers who had to pay above-market costs for steel. And thanks to SEIU and AFSCME you have government workers who are rude, incompetent, lazy but with guaranteed job security to the point where the city/county/state must either raise taxes or cut services to keep the unioneers employed. (I have repeatedly heard stories about elected officials who were told flat out by the employees that they (the employees) would be there long after the electees were out of office so they had better get used to it).
Want to fix the problem? Ban non-compete agreements for all non-executive positions. Problem fixed overnight - EA would have to retain their employees and be nice to them or see them quickly rush over to somebody else. Non-competes are one of the most anti-competitive, anti-worker, pro-business schemes in the modern workforce and should be eliminated.
Disclaimer: I am pro-capitalist, pro-profit and all for the right of a company to maximize their bottom line. I don't care if corporation X makes a trillion dollars a day and pays their executives $50,000/hour while paying the workers who actually do everything $5/day so long as there is no coersion involved in retaining said workers. The free market applies to the workforce just as much as it does to WalMart - but non-competes inflict a horrible skew to favor the employers and are patently unfair.
Time to influence those who can influence
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This kind of thing has to stop, but won't stop until people start to care. Pressure needs to be put on the artists, and this development gives arm to something that might actually work:
Metallica certainly doesn't care if RIAA goes after a kid, but Amy Grant and Jewel might. If everybody sent emails to the various artists who might take offense at their RIAA trying to have a guardian appointed for a 14 year old for downloading music (essentially the RIAA is trying to have the mother declared unfit and is trying to make this as painful for her as possible for daring to stand up to them) they might raise a stinking stink stinky enough to make RIAA reconsider.
I belive the music industry executives to be complete and total morons. When will they realize that people will not continue to buy your product when you're overcharging?
People are buying the CDs. In droves. Even though they are being overcharged. If you put it out, it will be bought. Look at all of the kids who buy $250 basketball shoes just because some drug using rapist endorses them on the TV - if Kobe Bryant started pitching condoms the youth would rush to jump on the safe sex bandwagon. Fame really IS that compelling.
If Paris Hilton started listening to Milli Vanilli, was photographed with a William Shatner CD and was overheard commenting on how wonderful her latest copy of "One of the Simpsons Does Karaoke" was all three would sell like hotcakes even if priced at $29.95 - or higher.
People buy these CDs at these prices. Fact of life. Even with all of the law suits and the lawsuits they are still making a profit. They have no real incentive to change and therefore will not.
Now, if you wanted to see things change overnight then tweak the law to hold officers and employees of a corporation personally responsible for actions of the corporation. When a RIAA lawyer files a lawsuit and it is thrown out for lack of evidence then hold that specific lawyer personally accountable and force that specific lawyer to pay monetary damages to the wrongfully accused. When an executive inks a contract with a spyware company to break into people's PCs to check for illegally downloaded material, hold that specific executive liable in both civil and criminal court.
And above all, tell the FBI to start going after terrorists instead of people who download Ashley Simpson: Yodel Out Loud.
This is all very well, nice, good, pie in the sky and all, but until there is reliable and affordable broadband access to the majority of home users this sort of thing will mainly attract golf buddies of Sun executives, bleeding edge geekazoid shops and a handful of massive corporations (Ford, for example, would probably like this sort of thing... MUCH easier to keep confidential documents in house when hosted on their very own suite appliance).
Broadband access needs to become a public utility and treated as such: it isn't quite here but the foot is definitely in the door - broadband should be treated as gas, electricity, water and sewage service - universal, cheap and provided under the "we get it to your door, what you use it for is none of our business" provision model. No more of this "well, you can have this but only if you also buy this service, and you don't need this port or that port, and you can't water your neighbor's lawn and you have to make sure that no photos from your outdoor lights ever provide any illumination for the neighbor" insanity.
Ten years ago the various states, counties and municipalities had an opportunity to ensure almost universal broadband access: at that time if they had required any and all new subdivisions to install fiber to the sub's entry then 95% of today's population would be within 1 mile of fiber service and we would be a LOT further along than we are now. The problem is that elected and appointed officials have no vision beyond the next election.
Now such a plan would be considerably more expensive to implement (though I say it is still a good idea... some of these $400k subs going up around me could certainly afford it) and a window of opportunity has been closed. We can go to BPL at the expense of emergency communications (amateur radio was still invaluable during the recent hurricane activity) or add a requirement to provide wireless broadband to every cellular tower but this presents other problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the army being used to rebuild private enterprise?
The difference between Madison's federalists and Jefferson's anti-federalists. I believe in a weak federal government under the theory that there is less accountability at the federal level which makes abuse easier and more widespread.
Do I believe they will buy into this? No. Just a beautiful dream.
FEMA can do nothing but react to an event and throw more debt at the problem. Unfortunately this leads to problems down the road - not only does it push the federal government closer to insolvency - but it leads to all kinds of expectations on the part of locals who develop the "we'll just sit back and wait for the calvary" mentality. Not only this, but you end up with gross inequity in the response: federal dollars to New Orleans for Katrina are already about 5 times the aid sent to Florida for four hurricanes combined. FEMA has given out some $600,000,000 in "emergency cash disbursements" so far, with many people upset that only the first 10,000 or so were given $2,000 cash cards. New Hampshire recently saw a few hundred people flooded out and it wouldn't shock me in the slightest if some of them file lawsuit under the equal protection clause asking for $2,000 cash cards, FEMA-paid apartments around the country and the like.
Local emergencies should be handled by city, the county, the state and then the federal. In that order. And the federal should not be allowed to call any of the shots: they should provide resources only but all decisions should be made by the local leaders.
If gravity has no "speed" then the advisories against instantaneous communication are violated as a change in the relative position of mass A to mass B would instantly be signaled even across the galaxies.
If gravity does have a speed then wouldn't this "dark matter" be explained as all of the extra grativational "signals" making their way through the universe?
No, but irrelevant.
Because the issue has nothing to do with what does or does not cause emotional damage, if any is caused at all. The question is one of who has the right to control that to which a child is exposed: the parents or some guy screening 10-somes in rape and bondage flicks in the back of the local video store. What my opinions are on whether or not such material is appropriate, harmful or even worthy of merit is irrelevant. You decide for yourself and you decide for your kids. Make it. Sell it. Distribute it. Charge admission. You don't need my support, my approval, my condonation, my endorsement or anything else. But before you share your joyous creations with the 12 year kid next door you had better be darn sure his parents approve, not of the work itself but for the exposure to a minor.
That is why I support this bill. Not because it makes any kind of statement about the material itself but because I believe that the parents should retain exclusive right to control the stuff that reaches their kids.
And yes, this should apply to violent movies as well. Not because I am either for or against such films (I personally don't like slasher flicks, but I don't care who sees them - I don't care for haunted houses or roller coasters either, but my tastes and wishes have no relevance or impact on you) but because I believe that mom and dad have the right and obligation to a) know what their kid is seeing and b) make a decision one way or the other. Yes, I know that some parents hate this bill because they don't want to have to make a choice, but tough - if they don't want to act like parents and make decisions then let's send them back in time with some birth control.
A Lt Col in the US armed forces has declared that these violent video games train people to kill. Nobody has presented anything to refute this.
You see, here's the thing... I don't care about the video games. I say make any video game you want and sell it, but don't sell hardcore porn to kids. Yeah, the issue is over violent games, but the concept is the same: if parents don't get all out of shape about the stack of Playboys under the bed then so be it, but your local clerk at 7-11 doesn't have to sell them to a 13 year old.
The AMA says that what kids watch influences what they do... do you have any evidence to indicate that it doesn't? Any at all? Even a single study? Metastudy? ANYTHING?
The only way that retailers will "be punished" will be if parents don't want their kids to have these games and stop buying them. If this is your fear then you are, actually, in favor of kids buying things their parents do not want them to buy.
Which violent crimes went down? Drive-by shootings increased. School shootings have increased. Incidents of kids shooting at cars on the highway have increased. Incidents of kids who kill three cops in the police station then state "Life is like a video game." have increased.
The problem I have with those who argue against bills such as these is they have pretty much one argument: "nuh uh".
The counter? You're flamebait, d00d!
The falling rate of violent crime to which you refer includes random street muggings, assault and battery, whuppin' drunks in a bar... actions which are violent but not intended to or likely to belethal. There may be fewer people getting beaten in a dark alley, but I'll take 5,000 of those to a single Columbine. And the violent crime index is suspect anyway: Atlanta demonstrated that cities aren't above falsifying reports in order to look better.
Is the government prohibiting the games/movies/music?
Didn't you just say that you are opposed to censorship? This bill allows parents to decide what games they want in their homes. If mom and dad say ok, then that's the end of the debate. If mom says no and dad says yes, that's the end of the debate. How is the government involved?
Isn't the whole point of this bill to put the decision in the hands of the parents?
That is what this bill is trying to accomplish.
By undermining the concept that the parents are responsible for their children and what comes into their homes.
When merchants will sell anything to anybody, yes, they do. The government can't do anything about parents who give sips of wine to their kids at dinner but it can certainly prevent merchants from selling merlot to a nine year old. This law lets parents do what the parents want with their kid and seeks to ensure that the decision remains with them.
Um... maybe the kid has a job? A paper route? Mows lawns and shovels snow and is paid in cash? Perhaps the kid tutors other kids on the side? Maybe sells hacking services to a foreign government? You were kidding when you suggested that the only source of money for a 15 year old is his parents, right?
What was the equivalent of GTA:SA that your parents needed to worry about being brought into the home?
This bill has everything to do with parental control... please reconsider: a law that says that shopkeepers aren't allowed to sell things to minors that their parents don't want them to have certainly doesn't do much for anybody else...
They do. And smoking causes cancer. The problem is that the pathogen does not result in the negative consequence 100% of the time.
On the one side we have people who say that violence in video games never sparks spillover. On the other side we have people who claim that it always does. Both people could generously be described as ignorant and both positions are substantiated via anecdote only. Both are also clearly, unquestionably and undeniably wrong.
A closer look must be taken at the people who oppose this bill: what, exactly, do they oppose?
People who oppose this bill are anti-family - this has nothing to do with the sale of these types of games but with the right of parents to control what comes into their homes. If a parent sees nothing wrong with the game they can buy it, end of discussion. People who oppose this bill are the types who gripe when movie theaters card for an R rated movie.
This bill has nothing to do with the games but seeks to reinforce the concept of parental control. Period. Granted, there are a few whackos on both sides who support/oppose the bill for the wrong reason this bill is entirely reasonable and non-intrusive.
Discussing the imminent implosion of Delphi - union members are being asked to sacrifice 2/3 of their salaries or Delphi will most assuredly go bankrupt,
Where were the leaders during this period? It was clear to anybody with an ounce of intelligence and reason that the deals being cut with the UAW were simply inappropriate - the people who drove this company into the ground should be held personally responsible for their errors, having been clearly incapable of running a business. Furthermore, the members of the board that appointed these people should be forever banned from holding any position of trust within any public corporation - private companies can, of course, hire anybody they want, but these people simply can't be trusted to have any say over anybody else's money. This is a prime example of the economic blight where people with no talent or ability can amass wealth and power beyond the dreams of regular people: a meritocracy this obviously ain't.
But this is fairly typical: unions ask for and management gives unreasonable packages on a regular basis. Eventually every single case will be marked by a significant correction and the unionized workers will usually end up the worse for wear. Consider the NHL action - all that fuss and the players ended up getting less than what had been initially offered. True, in some cases the unions might win, but it will always come back to bite them.
I am 100% in favor of unions on issues of workplace safety or reasonable hours and overtime. But demanding (and receiving) ... 95% of salary and full benefits when laid off in the case of the UAW? ... simply isn't a reasonable and prudent business decision. Yes, the top execs are greedy and often rather on the slow side. Even I could do a better job than many (though certainly not all) of them. But even though I may be accused of anti-people and a worshipper of the allmighty dollar the current situation at Delphi tends to show that I am in the right.
This is not what I am saying - you may dictate the relationships of that which you own, but when the relationship is terminated you should have no say over what you do not own. You may keep your patents. You may keep your copyrights. You may enforce protection of both when infringements are discovered. But you should not have any power over somebody not in your employ.
True. In many cases the more competitive companies are overseas and the local industries survive mainly on protectionist policies that unfairly penalize the consumer.
I'm not convinced that government unions should be allowed.
I don't think anybody is a pure anything without exceptions: I myself have only one absolute belief on which I am intractable. On everything else I am willing to reconfigure and reallign my beliefs as I see a viewpoint that I like better. On this subject, I see nothing wrong with trying to make as much profit as one can - if that's your gig, have at it. But I think that non-compete agreements should not be binding. Or, if you -really- insist that you deprive a person of their livelihood then pay them for it: I would not object to you paying a decent salary to somebody in exchange for them not working for the competition. But I do not accept as fair the notion of "you can't work for me and you can't work for anybody else... sit and starve for two years until the NCA runs out".
I think it is a stupid argument for the executives as well. I'm an equal opportunity knocker.
I've known many products of these "quite good" districts. Most of them have never heard of Adam Smith, have no idea how Jefferson or Hamilton shaped the nation, can't balance a checkbook, or distinguish between a noun and a verb. They can, however, wax long on how diversity is important for everybody except for white males, recite from memory every slang term for three dozen sexual positions and chant some mantra about how big corporations are destroying an ecosystem they have no recollection of having actually seen but they know it is up in the greenhouse layer somewhere. Yeah... that's educated.
I don't understand your second line there, but a diversified economy is one with a healthy mix of productive citizens some designing, some building, some moving, some transporting, some repairing, some serving, and others doing something else. This nation has surrendered most of our steel industry and large segments of our manufacturing base. We are mostly a service economy these days as most manufacturing jobs are now located in non-union countries, and our service opportunities are quickly moving off-shore as well. Medical transcription and billing, banking, radiology, tech support, architecture, product design... all are more cheaply done elsewhere. (Personally I'm waiting for them to offshore executives... pretty much anybody at the VP level or above could be replaced by somebody in Bombay or Beijing for a fraction of the price...)
Those pensions were fully funded until the company stopped making as much money and the unions demanded that the companies avoid making things more efficient. If the companies had been allowed to streamline the pensions could have continued to be fully funded. If the unions had accepted 401(k) plans instead of pensions the problem would not exist.
What would you consider the federal pension guaranty fund? Who do you think pays for that?
Not I... I am strongly opposed to non-compete agreements. If a company doesn't respect the talents and contributions of an individual then they should run the risk of said individual jumping ship and going to the competition. I don't quite follow your train of thought... the quoted text was regarding pensions to which I am also opposed because they force companies (and governments) into financial holes from which there is no graceful exit.
I'm all for responsibility for the corporations: I say let them sink or swim on their own merits. I oppose handouts, subsidies and protectionist tariffs. I wouldn't mind seeing government contracts require a maximum salary ratio of 40:1 (a number I picked up in some economics class as being the ideal pay disparity between the highest and lowest salaries in a company) but certainly think that any non-government business relationship should have no such restrictions.
This is exactly why I oppose non-competes. I think the employee should be allowed to graze in the greener grass on the other side of the fence on a whim if he so desires.
Borrowing (and paying back at market interest rates) isn't that big of an issue with me. Grants and handouts, on the other hand... a certain airline recently declared b/k twice and required massive inflows of public funds and massive public contributions to maintain the excessive pension plan for which the unions negotiated not with me (who is now paying for it) but with executives who knew that they faced no personal consequences for signing such a silly contract. The unions negotiated impossible terms for their members, I say let the union members recover their losses from the negotiations team and leave me out of it.
Please connect the dots... I utterly fail to understand how you conclude this. I am not rich and put in 70 hours a week to maintain an OK standard of living. I certainly work for a living and think that people who hold the most capital - Bill Gates, for example, or Martha Stewart, or various Tyco and Enron executives - are people who do not deserve my admiration or praise. I think people who work for a living are far more admirable than the Paris Hiltons of the world... so how do you reach your conclusions?
Personally I think that extra million should go to the people actually doing the work but that's just me.
Don't forget the steel industry... or the poor state of public schools largely caused by the AFT.
Now who is being rash? Unions do not deprive corporations of low wages: India and China do that. Unions deprive me of a more diversified national economy.
Unfunded pensions? I don't believe in pensions and think they should be abolished in favor of 401(k) contributions. Make it 10:1 matching from the corporation for all I care - but if you look at the collapse of the airlines, the collapse of Delphi, the junk status of GM and Ford you will consistently see that pensions are always one of the biggest issues. Once a person stops working for a company (or the government!) they should stop getting money from them. It is a question of individual responsibility to save up enough for retirement, even if that means holding off on that second home, buying fewer new cars and taking fewer cruises during the working years. These pensions are why so many cities and states have to cut services and raise taxes - they have to divert public funds to people who are no longer providing any benefit to the community at the expense of the community.
Yes, everybody tries to restrict supply to artificially increase prices - a certain diamond family has perfected this system and turned otherwise mere curious bits of smushed coal into something of value. And if they can do it on their own that is all fine and good and great, but they can't. They are demanding that I spend my tax dollars to cover the unsustainable pensions - if they can get by with what people are willing to spend on the services they provide then so be it. But if the unions demand and receive more than the company can provide then leave me out of it.
(I can't help but notice that you don't mention AFSCME... that is one union that should not exist - public employees should never be allowed to unionize.)
At the end of the year who ends up with the larger salaries... the union chiefs or the people they "represent"?
As is your steadfast and unquestionable support of unions. I have no issues with collective bargaining - that is part of the free market. No union strength is anti-competitive. Too much union strength is anti-competitive. The balance, like pretty much everything else lies somewhere in the middle.
And this assessment is based on.... ? For example, I think pilots are grossly overpaid because there is a tremendous glut of perfectly qualified pilots who can't break into the business while the union fights tooth and nail to protect the jobs of pilots who push back after having pushed down a few too many drinks.
In other words a company should have the right to force their employees to work in hazardous conditions without protection? Government does have legitimate interest in establishing safe and humane working conditions. I can still be pro-capitalism and be against requiring miners to work in mines without shoring timbers or receptionists to be forced to breathe bromine or lead fumes all day long.
Banning non-competes is far from raising minimum wage requirements: people will still get paid according to market rates, even if EA would prefer that market rate to be lower. What you are promoting is that the employer should be considered to have 100% of the capital and the employee to have 0%. This is entirely unfair, anti-competitive and leads to lower wages all around (except for the executives).
Unions, on the other hand, overstep their bounds. Airlines are going bankrupt mainly because they can't afford to pay the contracts the unions demanded and received. The NHL lost a season because the unions wanted more than what the owners were willing to pay. Ford and GM are in serious trouble becuase they can't afford to pay the union workers everything that was promised. Big steel unionized pensions were bailed out by the taxpayers who had to pay above-market costs for steel. And thanks to SEIU and AFSCME you have government workers who are rude, incompetent, lazy but with guaranteed job security to the point where the city/county/state must either raise taxes or cut services to keep the unioneers employed. (I have repeatedly heard stories about elected officials who were told flat out by the employees that they (the employees) would be there long after the electees were out of office so they had better get used to it).
Disclaimer: I am pro-capitalist, pro-profit and all for the right of a company to maximize their bottom line. I don't care if corporation X makes a trillion dollars a day and pays their executives $50,000/hour while paying the workers who actually do everything $5/day so long as there is no coersion involved in retaining said workers. The free market applies to the workforce just as much as it does to WalMart - but non-competes inflict a horrible skew to favor the employers and are patently unfair.
Metallica certainly doesn't care if RIAA goes after a kid, but Amy Grant and Jewel might. If everybody sent emails to the various artists who might take offense at their RIAA trying to have a guardian appointed for a 14 year old for downloading music (essentially the RIAA is trying to have the mother declared unfit and is trying to make this as painful for her as possible for daring to stand up to them) they might raise a stinking stink stinky enough to make RIAA reconsider.
Some artists who might actually care:
Reba
Jewel
Amy Grant
LeAnn Rimes
Tricia Yearwood
Microsoft is going to release Weird Al's Amish Paradise?
People are buying the CDs. In droves. Even though they are being overcharged. If you put it out, it will be bought. Look at all of the kids who buy $250 basketball shoes just because some drug using rapist endorses them on the TV - if Kobe Bryant started pitching condoms the youth would rush to jump on the safe sex bandwagon. Fame really IS that compelling.
If Paris Hilton started listening to Milli Vanilli, was photographed with a William Shatner CD and was overheard commenting on how wonderful her latest copy of "One of the Simpsons Does Karaoke" was all three would sell like hotcakes even if priced at $29.95 - or higher.
People buy these CDs at these prices. Fact of life. Even with all of the law suits and the lawsuits they are still making a profit. They have no real incentive to change and therefore will not.
Now, if you wanted to see things change overnight then tweak the law to hold officers and employees of a corporation personally responsible for actions of the corporation. When a RIAA lawyer files a lawsuit and it is thrown out for lack of evidence then hold that specific lawyer personally accountable and force that specific lawyer to pay monetary damages to the wrongfully accused. When an executive inks a contract with a spyware company to break into people's PCs to check for illegally downloaded material, hold that specific executive liable in both civil and criminal court.
And above all, tell the FBI to start going after terrorists instead of people who download Ashley Simpson: Yodel Out Loud.
Broadband access needs to become a public utility and treated as such: it isn't quite here but the foot is definitely in the door - broadband should be treated as gas, electricity, water and sewage service - universal, cheap and provided under the "we get it to your door, what you use it for is none of our business" provision model. No more of this "well, you can have this but only if you also buy this service, and you don't need this port or that port, and you can't water your neighbor's lawn and you have to make sure that no photos from your outdoor lights ever provide any illumination for the neighbor" insanity.
Ten years ago the various states, counties and municipalities had an opportunity to ensure almost universal broadband access: at that time if they had required any and all new subdivisions to install fiber to the sub's entry then 95% of today's population would be within 1 mile of fiber service and we would be a LOT further along than we are now. The problem is that elected and appointed officials have no vision beyond the next election.
Now such a plan would be considerably more expensive to implement (though I say it is still a good idea... some of these $400k subs going up around me could certainly afford it) and a window of opportunity has been closed. We can go to BPL at the expense of emergency communications (amateur radio was still invaluable during the recent hurricane activity) or add a requirement to provide wireless broadband to every cellular tower but this presents other problems.