By the very nature of a union, it must be public in order to gain members and perform actions like strikes
Wow. You are either incredibly naive and ignorant of history (which includes time periods like earlier this morning), or you are a very, very bad union shill that should explore other work before they start the decade-long process of trying to fire you, if they can, or simply wack you, because that involves fewer hearings.
Unions are famous for being run be people who conduct back-room political deals. Negotiations over things like pay and contract terms are held behind closed doors. Turf agreements between two overlapping unions involve lots of hidden negotiations and payoffs (consider, for example, how the Long Shoremen and the Teamsters decide at which mark on the concrete at the dock each of their guys must stop what they're doing and hand the task over to someone else). Entities like that wheel and deal out of view of their members and the public all the time. Agreements between unions (just like the agreements alluded to between Apple and Google) are made to benefit the two parties who agree on mutual behavior. Big Labor is every bit as careful to maximize their power, revenue, influence, and the pay made by their managers as any other large entity with a profit motive.
Ever worked a trade show in a place like Chicago or Las Vegas? No? You have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about.
exactly WHEN did it become against the law to be offensive
Over the public airwaves? It's been that way for decades, actually. Publicly accessible broadcast-type stuff is different than some poster you put up in your mom's basement.
Spoken like a true adolescent who has never created anything and who has an attention span shaped by nothing but video games. Why do you care? If you don't like what someone creates, ignore it. In your world, someone who invests years creating something should lose any right to it the moment they're done creating it. How many huge multi-year creative projects do you think will be pursued if the first leech who wants has more claim to it than the person who creates it? Just another passive, witless consumer who wants people to make stuff for him, and feels entitled because he's breathing. Grow up.
Yes! We need a revolt so that we can make writers, musicians, film makers, programmers, photographers, painters and the like - finally - into the slaves we've always wanted them to be. Stupid artists, they must understand that whiney adolescents who want free entertainment have the moral high ground, and that the artists themselves should have no influence over or claim to their own efforts. Bow down, artists - your 12-year-old masters demand that you create stuff for them!
It serves to embarrass the supporters of these laws
How? People who don't think it's right for a millionaire in New Zealand to keep getting richer by ripping off other people's work aren't going to be embarassed by the fact that a bunch of script kiddies are having a tantrum. To the contrary, people who want to convince others that artists shouldn't have control of their own works should themselves be embarassed that their supporters are willing to engage in mob violence in a childish attempt to seem serious. How can you not be embarassed?
You know perfectly well that if you and your group decide to go to the trouble to organize and pay for the support needed to hold a huge public event, that you would also get the benefit of law enforcement preventing people from blocking access to your event, from shouting down your invited speakers, and from trashing your facilities. Everyone gets the same protections to assemble and stage events. The idiots who want to disrupt such events realize that they don't have the coherence or public interest to assemble in a way that rises to the same level of organization/logistics, and instead just squat in public parks for weeks and bang drums. And guess what? They only get asked to move when the rats and trash get out of hand. And here you are complaining about how people you hate arrange a one hour parade.
unmatched efficiency
And they've efficiently done... what? Further convinced everyone else that, indeed, all they know is destruction, rather that productivity. That they support an ongoing criminal business built around ripping off others' work, and they're all about extortion tactics to show how Grown Up they are. Please.
Choosing not to do business with a bus operation is perfectly legal, ethical, and smart PR. Doing the crap that Anonymous does is illegal, unethical, and a bunch of dim-witted adolescent BS that will only make things worse. Which is just what they want. They're 12 year old griefers.
Your ability to operate on profoundly contradictory premises, to belittle people who live under actual fascism, and your spectacularly transparent whining in the interests of getting artists to work for you for free is quite something. Direct democracy? Getting rid of patents? Praising millionaire rip-off artists as heros, while loathing people who actually create things? Yeah, you're a piece of work. Please just go away. Preferrably back to grade school where you left off.
It's not self defense, it's defense. Against a militant attacker and his organization engaged in an ongoing war-like campaign, and doing so out of reach of law enforcement tactics like putting your church-bombing-guy under seige in his doube-wide.
The real question is ofcourse if you would allow an other country to send drones into american soil to kill americans that they think are a threat
No, the real question is would the US deliberately allow a group of people responsible for many terrorism deaths, and responsible for a recent attempt to kill hundreds of people in and below an approaching commercial aircraft, to continue to operate, recruit, train, and murder they way around (for example) the hills of Appalachia? No. Such a person/group would be apprehended, and not put into wet paper bag of a prison (a la typical Yemeni lock-up). If the murdering had been done in, say, France, there would have been quick extradition. Completely out of the question in the case of al-Awlaki, and he knew that. That's exactly why he was where he was, operating the way he was, and sending other guys with bombs in their pants to kill hundreds of people while he went on to set up the next guy to do the same.
The way the law works is that the police attempt to capture the suspect and bring them in for trial. If during the capture attempt the suspect takes an aggressive act like shooting at the police the police are allowed to return fire in self defense. You don't send the SWAT team in as an execution squad.
But you sure as hell use them, lethally if necessary, when the bad guy deliberately creates a scenario that makes a normal arrest impossible. The police will use lethal force to defend other people (not just themselves), and that's completely appropriate. And that brings us back to al-Awlaki, who was also in the process of aiding in more killings, and who also deliberately set himself up in a situation that made standard law enforcement a non-option.
So you don't care about the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, or plain human rights
Why lie? I don't understand why you think that helps you to make a point.
So, do you think that the SWAT team who kills a US citizen who has been killing lots of people and is about to kill more, is violating the constitution?
without prior notice
Oh, please. Al-Awlaki couldn't have had more notice that he was on the take-him-dead-or-alive list. He did everything possible to get in that position, and then went as far away as possible from anywhere that might have reciprocity with the countries he helped to attack. Prior notice? He was where he was, with who he was with, because he was on the most wanted list.
Collateral damage be damned
I see. You'd rather attempt to arrest a guy like that by sending an entire division and its supporting infrastructure into a place like the desert in Yemen, because there's a lot less chance of damage that way, right? You know perfectly well that taking out a couple of vehicles full of killers using the tools we now have (like drones) hugely reduces collateral damage. If we didn't care about that, we'd just carpet bomb the entire zip code. But of course you know that, and you're just trolling for the sake of it.
well, now that we have drones doing the killing for us, it is becoming less terrible
Except for the people that the drones are used to stop from their urge to carry on with and expand a medieval-minded theocratic war against modernity, complete with deliberately slaughtered women and childred to show how serious they are. Why risk the lives of troops on the ground when you're putting rabid crazies out of everyone's collective misery?
I thought our Great Messiah (Obama) was going to bring peace around the world? What happened?
I don't like him. But you can't have peace on earth without shutting down people who consider peace to be against their religious doctrine, and who do things like burn school teachers alive for teaching kids to be literate and peaceful. And the only way to stop them - at their own insistence - is through the use of violence. And why send in and risk troops when you can use a drone, and be far more surgical about it?
There is no way this can be considered self-defense. Defense by definition is stopping an aggressor.
So, when a SWAT team shoots someone who has already killed people, has said he's going to kill more people, and shows every sign of preparing to do just that, that's self defense (of the inevitable victims), or not?
How is that different than using lethal force to stop al-Awlaki, who was involved in numerous deaths (and the attempt to kill hundreds in Detroit), swore he's keep doing it, and was haning out with people training, financing, and arming along those lines? He and the guys he was in the middle of the desert (trying to stay out of the way of law enforcement) on the move with were killers, promised to do more of it, were actively engaged in recruiting, financing, and arming and coaching other killers go out and do it. And they expressly pointed out domestic US targets as some of their objectives.
There was absolutely no reason to cost more lives by sending boots on the ground into the desert where he was (deliberately, to avoid just that) running Kill Americans University. Perfect use of a drone strike, and absolutely a defensive act.
Just out of curiosity, what's your point? I mean, I get that you don't like him and everything. But how does it help your credibility to actually lie? You want to point out your distaste for someone else's world view through deceit? What are you, twelve?
But the real question is, does California have what it takes to correct its massive apostrophe abuse problem? Or is that one inflicted on them by the Feds?
Get a grip. When one group assembles to hold an event, that doesn't mean that another group's rights are being abridged when they are prevented from disrupting it. Public spaces that have been assigned, under a public permitting process, to that group's event (for which they are usually charged for provisioning, policing, and cleaning up) are NOT, during that event, free for some other group to take over. Just like you wouldn't want your own event to be shut down by some else who has decided they're willing to be louder than you and obnoxious enough to wreck it for you.
The Taliban, as the entity that it now is, was not the Mujahideen to whom we handed Stinger missles (and more) in the proxy fight against Soviet expansion. Regardless, nothing about enemy-of-my-enemy convenience creates the toxic medieval jihaddism that is currently in play. Which you know, and are carefully avoiding because it somehow makes you think that you'll convince people that the US was in favor of beheading school teachers. Get a grip, and skip the condescending tone, which is fooling nobody.
Hey! Great way to avoid the salient point: that telling people who kill educators because they are educators that education will make their lives better isn't going to solve the underlying problem. Preventing them from killing educators will make a difference, mostly for the generation that finally gets an education. But since those anti-educators are willing - in pursuit of preventing evilness like literacy - to use heavy weapons provided to them by backers in other countries, it takes other people, with weapons, to stop them. Because they are willing to blow up school busses with IEDs rather than see those kids learn to read and write, it takes mercilessly hunting them down and killing them to save lives.
That we supported people in the same region as they fought back totalitarian communists has absolutely nothing to do with what makes militant jihaddist wack jobs, today, drag a teacher by her hair out into what used to be the village soccer field (before they started shooting people for playing soccer, flying kites, having the wrong length beard, etc) and blowing her brains out. I know you'd prefer to stay in the 1980's and argue with ghosts, but it's really not relevent.
Yeah, except you're not actually saying anything, other than that you don't like it that people with whom you disagree win elections. You won't mention what minorities you are talking about, because that would mean having your point immediately rebutted by reality.
terrorism do not occur when... free education to walk into their future
Oh, please. You do understand that groups like the Taliban actually kill teachers and burn down schools because they are providing free education, right? Groups like that want medieval mysogony and backwards theocracy as a way of life. They are actively fighting to prevent the things you say prevent terrorism. Offering a free education to someone who thinks that educators should be burned alive doesn't solve the problem. Because those people are willing to (and regularly use) lethal force specifically to stop that sort of civilizing activity, it's lethal force that must be used against them. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
By the very nature of a union, it must be public in order to gain members and perform actions like strikes
Wow. You are either incredibly naive and ignorant of history (which includes time periods like earlier this morning), or you are a very, very bad union shill that should explore other work before they start the decade-long process of trying to fire you, if they can, or simply wack you, because that involves fewer hearings.
Unions are famous for being run be people who conduct back-room political deals. Negotiations over things like pay and contract terms are held behind closed doors. Turf agreements between two overlapping unions involve lots of hidden negotiations and payoffs (consider, for example, how the Long Shoremen and the Teamsters decide at which mark on the concrete at the dock each of their guys must stop what they're doing and hand the task over to someone else). Entities like that wheel and deal out of view of their members and the public all the time. Agreements between unions (just like the agreements alluded to between Apple and Google) are made to benefit the two parties who agree on mutual behavior. Big Labor is every bit as careful to maximize their power, revenue, influence, and the pay made by their managers as any other large entity with a profit motive.
Ever worked a trade show in a place like Chicago or Las Vegas? No? You have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about.
exactly WHEN did it become against the law to be offensive
Over the public airwaves? It's been that way for decades, actually. Publicly accessible broadcast-type stuff is different than some poster you put up in your mom's basement.
Spoken like a true adolescent who has never created anything and who has an attention span shaped by nothing but video games. Why do you care? If you don't like what someone creates, ignore it. In your world, someone who invests years creating something should lose any right to it the moment they're done creating it. How many huge multi-year creative projects do you think will be pursued if the first leech who wants has more claim to it than the person who creates it? Just another passive, witless consumer who wants people to make stuff for him, and feels entitled because he's breathing. Grow up.
Yes! We need a revolt so that we can make writers, musicians, film makers, programmers, photographers, painters and the like - finally - into the slaves we've always wanted them to be. Stupid artists, they must understand that whiney adolescents who want free entertainment have the moral high ground, and that the artists themselves should have no influence over or claim to their own efforts. Bow down, artists - your 12-year-old masters demand that you create stuff for them!
It serves to embarrass the supporters of these laws
How? People who don't think it's right for a millionaire in New Zealand to keep getting richer by ripping off other people's work aren't going to be embarassed by the fact that a bunch of script kiddies are having a tantrum. To the contrary, people who want to convince others that artists shouldn't have control of their own works should themselves be embarassed that their supporters are willing to engage in mob violence in a childish attempt to seem serious. How can you not be embarassed?
censorship
Be specific.
free speech zones'
You know perfectly well that if you and your group decide to go to the trouble to organize and pay for the support needed to hold a huge public event, that you would also get the benefit of law enforcement preventing people from blocking access to your event, from shouting down your invited speakers, and from trashing your facilities. Everyone gets the same protections to assemble and stage events. The idiots who want to disrupt such events realize that they don't have the coherence or public interest to assemble in a way that rises to the same level of organization/logistics, and instead just squat in public parks for weeks and bang drums. And guess what? They only get asked to move when the rats and trash get out of hand. And here you are complaining about how people you hate arrange a one hour parade.
unmatched efficiency
And they've efficiently done ... what? Further convinced everyone else that, indeed, all they know is destruction, rather that productivity. That they support an ongoing criminal business built around ripping off others' work, and they're all about extortion tactics to show how Grown Up they are. Please.
Was Rosa a terrorist?
Choosing not to do business with a bus operation is perfectly legal, ethical, and smart PR. Doing the crap that Anonymous does is illegal, unethical, and a bunch of dim-witted adolescent BS that will only make things worse. Which is just what they want. They're 12 year old griefers.
Your ability to operate on profoundly contradictory premises, to belittle people who live under actual fascism, and your spectacularly transparent whining in the interests of getting artists to work for you for free is quite something. Direct democracy? Getting rid of patents? Praising millionaire rip-off artists as heros, while loathing people who actually create things? Yeah, you're a piece of work. Please just go away. Preferrably back to grade school where you left off.
What better way to encourage him to create new works?
No. What better way to encourage more people to create new works, perform them, publish them, and the like. You know, just like it was intended to do.
Even more proof that adjudicating ideas to specific people
Ideas are not compositions, sentences, performances, paintings, accompanying music, etc. Which you know, but wish everyone else would ignore.
Sure, if you're willing to operate on mixed (and false premises), you can engage in moral relativism and bitch about all sorts of things.
It's not self defense, it's defense. Against a militant attacker and his organization engaged in an ongoing war-like campaign, and doing so out of reach of law enforcement tactics like putting your church-bombing-guy under seige in his doube-wide.
The real question is ofcourse if you would allow an other country to send drones into american soil to kill americans that they think are a threat
No, the real question is would the US deliberately allow a group of people responsible for many terrorism deaths, and responsible for a recent attempt to kill hundreds of people in and below an approaching commercial aircraft, to continue to operate, recruit, train, and murder they way around (for example) the hills of Appalachia? No. Such a person/group would be apprehended, and not put into wet paper bag of a prison (a la typical Yemeni lock-up). If the murdering had been done in, say, France, there would have been quick extradition. Completely out of the question in the case of al-Awlaki, and he knew that. That's exactly why he was where he was, operating the way he was, and sending other guys with bombs in their pants to kill hundreds of people while he went on to set up the next guy to do the same.
The way the law works is that the police attempt to capture the suspect and bring them in for trial. If during the capture attempt the suspect takes an aggressive act like shooting at the police the police are allowed to return fire in self defense. You don't send the SWAT team in as an execution squad.
But you sure as hell use them, lethally if necessary, when the bad guy deliberately creates a scenario that makes a normal arrest impossible. The police will use lethal force to defend other people (not just themselves), and that's completely appropriate. And that brings us back to al-Awlaki, who was also in the process of aiding in more killings, and who also deliberately set himself up in a situation that made standard law enforcement a non-option.
So you don't care about the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, or plain human rights
Why lie? I don't understand why you think that helps you to make a point.
So, do you think that the SWAT team who kills a US citizen who has been killing lots of people and is about to kill more, is violating the constitution?
without prior notice
Oh, please. Al-Awlaki couldn't have had more notice that he was on the take-him-dead-or-alive list. He did everything possible to get in that position, and then went as far away as possible from anywhere that might have reciprocity with the countries he helped to attack. Prior notice? He was where he was, with who he was with, because he was on the most wanted list.
Collateral damage be damned
I see. You'd rather attempt to arrest a guy like that by sending an entire division and its supporting infrastructure into a place like the desert in Yemen, because there's a lot less chance of damage that way, right? You know perfectly well that taking out a couple of vehicles full of killers using the tools we now have (like drones) hugely reduces collateral damage. If we didn't care about that, we'd just carpet bomb the entire zip code. But of course you know that, and you're just trolling for the sake of it.
well, now that we have drones doing the killing for us, it is becoming less terrible
Except for the people that the drones are used to stop from their urge to carry on with and expand a medieval-minded theocratic war against modernity, complete with deliberately slaughtered women and childred to show how serious they are. Why risk the lives of troops on the ground when you're putting rabid crazies out of everyone's collective misery?
I thought our Great Messiah (Obama) was going to bring peace around the world? What happened?
I don't like him. But you can't have peace on earth without shutting down people who consider peace to be against their religious doctrine, and who do things like burn school teachers alive for teaching kids to be literate and peaceful. And the only way to stop them - at their own insistence - is through the use of violence. And why send in and risk troops when you can use a drone, and be far more surgical about it?
There is no way this can be considered self-defense. Defense by definition is stopping an aggressor.
So, when a SWAT team shoots someone who has already killed people, has said he's going to kill more people, and shows every sign of preparing to do just that, that's self defense (of the inevitable victims), or not?
How is that different than using lethal force to stop al-Awlaki, who was involved in numerous deaths (and the attempt to kill hundreds in Detroit), swore he's keep doing it, and was haning out with people training, financing, and arming along those lines? He and the guys he was in the middle of the desert (trying to stay out of the way of law enforcement) on the move with were killers, promised to do more of it, were actively engaged in recruiting, financing, and arming and coaching other killers go out and do it. And they expressly pointed out domestic US targets as some of their objectives.
There was absolutely no reason to cost more lives by sending boots on the ground into the desert where he was (deliberately, to avoid just that) running Kill Americans University. Perfect use of a drone strike, and absolutely a defensive act.
Just out of curiosity, what's your point? I mean, I get that you don't like him and everything. But how does it help your credibility to actually lie? You want to point out your distaste for someone else's world view through deceit? What are you, twelve?
But the real question is, does California have what it takes to correct its massive apostrophe abuse problem? Or is that one inflicted on them by the Feds?
Get a grip. When one group assembles to hold an event, that doesn't mean that another group's rights are being abridged when they are prevented from disrupting it. Public spaces that have been assigned, under a public permitting process, to that group's event (for which they are usually charged for provisioning, policing, and cleaning up) are NOT, during that event, free for some other group to take over. Just like you wouldn't want your own event to be shut down by some else who has decided they're willing to be louder than you and obnoxious enough to wreck it for you.
The Taliban, as the entity that it now is, was not the Mujahideen to whom we handed Stinger missles (and more) in the proxy fight against Soviet expansion. Regardless, nothing about enemy-of-my-enemy convenience creates the toxic medieval jihaddism that is currently in play. Which you know, and are carefully avoiding because it somehow makes you think that you'll convince people that the US was in favor of beheading school teachers. Get a grip, and skip the condescending tone, which is fooling nobody.
Hey! Great way to avoid the salient point: that telling people who kill educators because they are educators that education will make their lives better isn't going to solve the underlying problem. Preventing them from killing educators will make a difference, mostly for the generation that finally gets an education. But since those anti-educators are willing - in pursuit of preventing evilness like literacy - to use heavy weapons provided to them by backers in other countries, it takes other people, with weapons, to stop them. Because they are willing to blow up school busses with IEDs rather than see those kids learn to read and write, it takes mercilessly hunting them down and killing them to save lives.
That we supported people in the same region as they fought back totalitarian communists has absolutely nothing to do with what makes militant jihaddist wack jobs, today, drag a teacher by her hair out into what used to be the village soccer field (before they started shooting people for playing soccer, flying kites, having the wrong length beard, etc) and blowing her brains out. I know you'd prefer to stay in the 1980's and argue with ghosts, but it's really not relevent.
Yeah, except you're not actually saying anything, other than that you don't like it that people with whom you disagree win elections. You won't mention what minorities you are talking about, because that would mean having your point immediately rebutted by reality.
terrorism do not occur when ... free education to walk into their future
Oh, please. You do understand that groups like the Taliban actually kill teachers and burn down schools because they are providing free education, right? Groups like that want medieval mysogony and backwards theocracy as a way of life. They are actively fighting to prevent the things you say prevent terrorism. Offering a free education to someone who thinks that educators should be burned alive doesn't solve the problem. Because those people are willing to (and regularly use) lethal force specifically to stop that sort of civilizing activity, it's lethal force that must be used against them. Period.