The oligarchs in America work together on plenty of issues, this just isn't one of them.
The oligarchs in America work together on plenty of issues, this just isn't one of them.
No one who believes their lies would ever vote D or I for such a trifling issue.
What about the stories in which at least one of the same companies who signed this letter got caught colluding to suppress wages and reduce employee mobility in Silicon Valley, by refusing to hire employees away from other top companies?
Pumping more and more and more money into education is flooding the market, not meeting a need. It's just another step in the quest to manipulate their labor supply until they can get top dollar talent for bargain basement prices.
I'm not saying judges are or should be untouchables. Not at all. Uncover and post every academic, financial, and personal acquiantance or interaction they've had since pre-school. That's useful and necessary oversight. But you do **NOT** post how to physically find them, interfere with their identity, or directly communicate with them outside of the courthouse. That's completely undermining the judiciary system. If a judge can't throw the book at someone for fear of their own life and safety, everything can fall apart.
A judge should be documented and attacked (figuratively) in the press, in the commons, and in the courtroom. But absolutely not after they remove their robes, not unless *they* do something to undermine your safety or their professional capacity *outside* the courtroom.
And I know some of you are saying "The judges are part of this shit, the militarizing of the police force, the war on drugs, etc. They have no right to privacy, who says they even deserve a right to safety for their complicity in this shit that kills and imprisons hundreds of thousands of US citizens?" Well who do you think has the power to directly *stop* those things? Without bloodshed? Yeah, the legislature can slowly change the laws until maybe police aren't carrying assault rifles regularly and aren't breaching your house without even knocking on the door...or the judiciary could become much more hostile to approving those warrants *today*. The public opinion is very obviously turning against total criminalization of narcotics and hallucinogens, against mass incarceration and crushing legal fines, against civil forfeiture and no knock raids. A judge can see this: they're generally very smart people. Make it clear that you respect them and expect them to uphold the will of the populace. Convince a judge that no knock warrants or the war on drugs are unconstitutional and they might do everything within their power and discretion to block those things. They have *huge* discretion, too. They say "I don't think you've met the measure of this code or the 'test' for getting this type of warrant." and that's the largest possible roadblock most police forces can encounter in pulling off something sinister. Just raiding shit with no warrants still isn't that easy, and it's not something any cop can just keep doing, no matter how good the Blue Wall is in a given town.
So make your choice. Either make the judiciary fear for their lives and give them serious pause about whether to jump deep into bed with military police forces, or treat them as allies who you will protect and honor. Make them feel safe and important *yourself*, while being firmly clear you want all this bullshit to stop, and maybe they won't want to support military policing or drug warrants so much anymore. Either make them afraid, or appeal to their pride an dignity. Which one do you think has a greater upside potential here?
How you get your profit makes a big difference in what net accomplishments your money can achieve. If your earning provides great support to systems that keep poor countries unstable or work against universal improvements for humanity, but then you wish to spend your profits on humanist goals, then what was the point? I'd rather you'd just become a janitor instead of digging holes in human society and then desperately filling them back in, hoping you might create mountains in the process.
What? Where are you getting this nonsense? The IRS does not expect you to keep records for your *entire life*. That's absolute moronic drivel. In fact, the IRS doesn't require you to do *anything*; it's congress that writes the tax code. Not just a different entity, a completely different branch of government. The IRS isn't some extra-legal entity that makes up their own rules to inflict on citizens and delights in making them difficult.
Anyway, you're required to keep records until the audit window for tax returns dependent on those records expires, no longer. Rarely will an individual have to keep any record of any kind longer than 7 years after the last filing year that record affected; the vast majority of records can be destroyed after no more than 4 years, and almost all people can fit the documents they're required to keep longer than 7 years in a single manilla folder (if they have any at all).
Are you just one of those people who think the IRS are evil because of your strict constructionist views, or something? Maybe you live in a compound in Idaho? Because this whole "IRS is evil and seeks out ways to fuck and/or control the average taxpayer in service of XYZ political force" notion is just so fucking far from the truth I seriously wonder what kind of willful ignorance or bizarre lies someone must experience to believe it.
Right now DNA often comes in near the end of an investigation; you have to select people to test based on traditional detective work, and then you must legally acquire their DNA to match with your sample. If suspects don't want to give you DNA simply because you asked nicely, you have to be fairly sure of their guilt - and able to convince a judge of why you're sure - before you can get their DNA involuntarily. If this test became effective, the sample you got at the beginning would show you who among the likely suspects to test against, and probably lower the bar for getting legal clearance to take their DNA.
Not to mention you clearly have no clue how DNA testing really works; if it's important you can and will be able to match a decent sample to one and only one person. There are commonplace genetic tests that can produce 1 in 10 trillion profiles of a person's or sample's DNA to match against. The fact that this DNA processing produced a rough sketch matching X number of people is irrelevant when you'll be able to narrow that group to very few or one with the most basic detective work.
Sex is your biological status: what organs and hormone levels do you have, and how have they developed? Sounds straight-forward, at least at first.
Gender might be defined as a social role and group identity you take on which is influenced most significantly in most people by their sex. So most people pick from one of the two massively dominant genders, wind up pretty content about it, and have organs matching everyone else in their camp.
But what if you have testes and breasts? And hormone levels pretty much in between the standard man and the standard woman? You might end up legally forced to adopt an 'official' sex based on your chromosome data or what went on your birth certificate, perhaps, but does that help you pick a gender? Does that actually reflect your sex? Probably not. Do you identify more with another sex? What about another gender? If you want to change over, how much will you do and what changes are possible?
The organs you have, the hormone levels you have, and how you feel about them all affect what sex you become and what gender you select. People who aren't comfortable being a traditional man or woman and sleeping with the opposite are simply trying to work out all the permutations and nomenclature now that they're somewhat more free to do so.
If a given person is polite about it and doesn't expect you to memorize a bunch of fluid terms to use for them or coddle their sexuality more than you would anyone else, just let it be and don't worry about the variety of possibilities. They'll work themselves out and they aren't likely to affect you. If they're a dick or an irrational activist about it, and there's plenty of those also, just ignore them and/or fight to keep them from defining your life any more than you're allowed to define theirs.
You can look into the definitions in any Women's or Gender Studies website; or you can ignore it for now and simply be a decent human being to the people you meet, ignoring their chosen combination unless they step on your own rights.
Under quantitative, apparently his blood work improved quite a bit. Yeah, your blood work tends to improve when you eat a simple vegan diet, and that's all soylent contains. Vegan ingredients with a 2 oz mix of fish and vegetable oil per day.
I guess it's nice to have a supremely convenient and very healthy diet that makes you feel better, but he's laying it on pretty fucking thick. Not to mention you could create a diet of the same health benefits with maybe 15 raw ingredients. You could just put the shit in a blender if you wanted...
Wow. Who'd have seen that coming.
Yes, it's that bad in Canada. You guys in the US actually have it fairly good.
Well that's some heavy relativism. To have it better than the worst market in the first world isn't to "have it fairly good".
We both have total shit for cell phone carriers and internet providers. Your service is worse, but you also have plenty of more important things much, much better than America. I'm sorry, but we really don't pity you.
Except the NSA has something like 30,000 people. It's hardly as though every one of them are involved in monitoring US civilian communications. Maybe, just maybe, some of them are demoralized because they have not a damn thing to do with anything in the news, yet they're being treated like demons.
They're not the KKK, they're not the Westboro Baptist Church. The agency has redeeming qualities, and being a security organization there are probably *thousands* of them who know nothing more about these surveillance programs than we know. I'd be upset, too, if people were asking me to answer for something I knew absolutely nothing about simply because a huge division of my company two floors down were assholes.
Stop lumping them all together as one giant boogeyman. Look for the people responsible rather than naming the entire agency an inscrutible, invisible hand with nefarious intentions.
For one thing, drug resistant infection is quite common, and becoming more so every month. I have no idea what led you to believe antibiotic resistance isn't a serious problem. Cite me a respected public health organization that isn't seriously concerned; I doubt you can even find me one that isn't outright shitting their pants.
And all your pro-market babble toward the end of that giant paragraph is pure sociopathy. "Moreover, undiscovered antibiotics are probably better left undiscovered until we learn our lesson about wasting them on livestock." Fuck planning for the future, right? We can totally outpace organisms that replicate in hours or days once we put the mighty human free-market after it, right?
It's OK if a few hundred million people die agonizing deaths; in the long run you're perfectly confident that the market value of new antibioitics will rise faster than the body count. The rest of us are not confident, and not willing to risk our very lives depending the companies that for the last 20 years have focused on six-figure cancer treatments. lifestyle drugs, and whining for tax breaks.
But I guess it's easier to denigrate every federal employee as a rich, do-nothing "busybody" who drives home to their "mansion" after "throwing the poor under the bus" than it is to see an obvious solution where the poor are healthier and more comfortable for less money than we're already putting out, and everyone breathes less soot.