Where do you see racism in his post? All I see is an accurate analysis of the racism that was shown by people in the past.
Isn't the lesson to use the best people regardless of gender? In which case, why should she go instead of someone more qualified?
It only works as an alibi if you can force them to admit that they know where your phone was and that it was at home.
The question isn't whether they are able to, it's whether they actually will.
And there won't be one until people start using something else.
People pay taxes on their salaries.
It isn't a return rate, it's cause and effect. They got 814,000 people to sign up to have them send 3 messages for each person, one to each congressman representing them.
I don't know about that, Michael Dreyer probably feels like a winner.
The suggestion was desks that converted between states easily. Around here the best I get is a desk that's not quite tall enough to stand at comfortably and a chair that's too tall to sit in comfortably. Taken together, it's roughly equally comfortable standing or sitting.
Why would you want to work somewhere else when you can get paid for just sitting around? If you're worried about the company going out of business, there's not much difference between looking for a new job now and looking for one later.
Not necessarily, they could have been allowed to make it easy to feed them false information.
As long as they don't feel the need to respond that is. Unless that sort of approach becomes common it's almost trivial to figure out who's talking to whom.
Unless you mount it on a hat or helmet the camera should be looking at the wall anyway.
Officers are generally expected and in some cases even instructed to let some people off with a warning for minor violations.
In cases A and B the recording would support the officer's story. Case C is a reasonable explanation for why it stopped working, but not for why it started working again. In all cases the recording that would have happened should be assumed to be detrimental to the officer.