How about we respect the fact that the plane is the property of the airline and let them set policy accordingly. I mean holy crap on a cracker Batman, civility will break down because someone is talking (at most likely) conversational volume on a cell phone on a long flight that already has cranky and cramped adults, babies and drunks.
One thing that
States rights is not about allowing oppression, but allowing the people of a state to organize a government fitting their culture. Our current system does not allow this. Rather, it forces each state to adhere to what the federal judiciary and Congress believe should be a one-size-fits-all vision of America. Anyone who has looked at a "red/blue map" of America knows that we are dividied country, now more than ever in our history, and we need to devolve decision making down to the community level as much as possible. Most of our bad federal policies these days come from forcing all important decision making as high up the government food chain as possible rather than letting communities decide. So now you have a culture war between Chicago and the rural South and Midwest over gun rights because the federal government is inextricably involved that the two views cannot coexist within their communities.
As America becomes more diverse, poorer and the federal government more strained we will face a choice. Either we can devolve decision making to communities to take pressure off of the central government or face the inevitable acrimony as large minorities decide to break away because they are tired of having their visions consistently crushed by a small majority.
The further down decision making is pushed, the easier it is for political rights to be upheld. It's easier for a minority (political, racial or otherwise) to rebel or relocate when most decisions are made at the local level than the federal level. The further down you go, the smaller the political authority you are challenging. It's easier to challenge a mayor and sheriff than a governor; it's easier to rise up against a governor than the President with the backing of the US Army. It's much harder to justify federal involvement in an armed conflict between a revolting minority in one city when the federal government is not being challenged.
If you are budgeted 40 hours a week for six months, you can only work 40 hours/week for six months as a government contractor, salaried or not. Those are literally the only hours you can legally bill to the customer. That means that if you do 80 hours a week with only 40 paid, the business has literally taken away your ability to make a salary for those remaining 3 months unless they have new coverage. It is worse than normal salaried over time.
CGI was selected in part because they were one of only a handful of companies that got on the task order from DHHS that covered this and many other big CMS contracts. This system is designed to make it extremely difficult to just start a business and put out a bid. The justifications for it are very flimsy and center around things like making sure that some fly-by-night company doesn't get the contract/screening out junk bids. Poblem is, they don't actually work. In many cases, they just let the "primes" that win the slots act as funnels for the actual work done by subcontracts which just adds to the cost of the contract.
Another thing, if the reddit thread on this was correct, CMS needs to do what the DoD increasingly does with overtime which is to scrutinize or reject invoices with more than 80 hours per two weeks per employee unless the overtime was either authorized or can be explained in reasonable terms. Overworked government contractors don't get rich; their employers do at the expense of the employee and government. One thing often left unappreciated by the general public is that unpaid overtime is literally stealing employment from the employee because a salaried employee is only authorized to bill so many hours to a contract during a period of performance.
Put the territory under some sort of corporate or government control and let the employees in charge of the territory use deadly force to stop the poachers. Works quite well in Africa where their game reserve rangers can put a
Or Kucinich. Only a radical like Paul or Kucinich would have the ideology and the stones to order the FBI to dismantle the DEA's special operations division and treat every employee of the same as a probable criminal conspirator who conspired to systematically perjure themselves to win cases in federal court. You won't get this from a "mainstream guy" because moderates are moderates almost invariably because they either stand for nothing or have the intestinal fortitude of a freshly butchered lamb. One of the best articles I've ever read on moderates and why moderates have such a pernicious history in American politics is "The Paranoid Center" by Reason.
If the threat was as real as they say it is, the CIA's clandestine service would be the largest it's ever been since the agency was founded and Bush/Obama would have told them to take the kid gloves off in dealing with Al Qaeda. By that I mean the CIA (or MI6 here) would have been given carte blanche to go abroad and use the full playbook of nasty espionage tactics. You'd think a "Mossad times ten" had suddenly hit the major terrorist networks.
They succeeded because the governor accepted a system that doesn't do it all, but gets right what it does. That is totally bass ackwards from how government normally does it in the US. It's pretty normal for 1.0 to be just about everything and the kitchen sink, not a modest product that's well-tested and positioned for rapid iteration through point releases to address bugs the full user base finds and new features.
Goodlatte is a very mixed bag. Very pro strong encryption when that was highly controversial for politicians back in the 1990s. However, he also played a key role in giving us the DMCA and wrote the NET Act (No Electronic Theft Act) which made mass file sharing for no profit even between friends a felony. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out because he's like a compromise between the Republican leadership and the Tea Party. He may in fact be the only Republican who can force a majority of both sides in the party to hear reason.
You can't negotiate a price when you need an ambulance or emergency care.
Simply applying price-gouging laws to the medical profession and outlawing price shifting (ie you cannot legally recoup a poor man's emergency care by adding 20% of it to my bill in ways like a $50 aspirin) would stop most of what you claim the free market cannot fix. It should be so obvious as to be cliche, but since you seem to be a leftist moron, I'll spell it out for you... Free market != laissez faire capitalism. There is a place for price gouging laws to prevent, for example, a hospital from taking an antivenom that costs $400 to make and charging over $30k to administer it.
Oracle has been losing mindshare in the government market for years. They cost too damn much and people are starting to realize that PostgreSQL, MySQL and MS SQL Server really do the exact same damn thing as Oracle for 95% of the meaningful use cases out there. Add on to that that a highly qualified system administrator can learn how to become a decent administrator of any of those with a little ramp up time and of course Oracle is scared of open source (and Microsoft but that's a different story).
Is to let federal project managers directly hire their own contractor teams and have them report to the government. Federal managers need more latitude in how they spend money with their evaluation criteria being primarily on how effective the team's delivery actually was. If responsibility and authority were both in their hands, and federal managers could be fired based on how poorly their teams executed an initiative you'd suddenly find a lot more federal contract teams working together smoothly.
The federal government doesn't have the culture to actually create and run something like this and just stamping your feet while insisting it much change won't change it. The civil service system itself militates against what you want because it makes it hard for the government to actually hire the right people, fire the wrong people and reward people based on performance. There is nothing intrinsic to government work that says this cannot happen, but our system as it actually exists all but ensures that you'll not have the ability to build this sort of team. Add on top of that even if you did, you'd need looser rules of procurement to let these employees take risks, try new things, etc. You know like when someone on staff says "hey let's buy 500 small servers instead of 50 REALLY expensive blades" and the experiment gets caught up in procurement kabuki until the whole purchase order is, well, OBE...
The powerful can absorb the costs more. If you have $20m in cash and inflation reduces your currency's value by 50% that is a negligible loss for you in terms of being able to live comfortably. However, someone who had only $20k in cash savings has been effectively crippled because the loss to their savings has a much nearer term effect on their quality of life. That is to say, a millionaire can get by on inflated millions in savings and be fine until they die if they live a middle class life style, but a middle class person may have just much of their ability to survive unemployment wiped out or reduced from a year down to 3 or six months.