snowgirl writes "In the past decade, I have noted a push toward the integration of women into the specific field of web-related technology, the aim of which is gender parity, a 50/50 percentage split between men and women in the industry. Today, I want to tell you that this push needs to stop immediately. While conducted with the best of intentions, it is damaging to technology, to the economy of our industry and most certainly to women themselves. Most of all, this push is potentially damaging to the very future of gender and technology because it attempts to correct a widely recognized imbalance without examining how the imbalance got to be there in the first place." Link to Original Source
If someone is willing to wallow in the mud, calling names, and making fun of someone just because they're different, well... you just can't be friends with that kind of person. What are they saying about you behind your back? What are they going to say about you if you rub them the wrong way?
Better to just cut ties, and walk on by. Bullies will never be good friends, and if you stand up to them, you're just going to get in a yelling match, until you're both hoarse.
It reminds me of the feminists who go beyond equality and turn into man-hating bigots themselves. Trying to solving a problem by becoming the problem is not going to fix anything at all.
I'm using OpenBSD, and as a result, my webbrowser options are somewhat limited. I love XFCE, so I'm using that, so naturally, I chose to use Midori to do my webbrowsing.
Does anyone have any clues as to what slashdot is supposed to be doing with all this CPU time?
âZ"[T]he truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They're so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don't see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what's everyone's fuss all about? That's the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want." --David Gaider
I want more people like BillDog to have the perspective, and voice of the right. People like RailGunner take the rhetoric up to 11, and it drowns out all the sanity of their arguments.
At least BillDog is willing to sit down discuss things rationally, understand your point of view... and then dismiss you as evil. (Kidding, slightly... ok, I'm joshing with a bit of fact, and a bit of fiction.)
I agree that we've pretty much both said a good amount for our piece each. I appreciate the civil discourse, and the insight you offer me into your frame of mind. I wouldn't call it alien, and I understand the desires and hopes that you wish to accomplish, just have different weights on what matters.:)
It's amazing how some people are so quick to talk about rationing and "death panels" that will kill people after the Government takes over healthcare, yet they fail to recognize the death panels that are already operating.
A woman operating under Medicaid--the insurance granted to people who are too poor to provide for their own healthcare--was dealing with liver failure and needed a transplant. After being forced to convert to a private healthcare plan as part of an overhaul that seems to be a large part of the anti-socialist agenda of taking every public service and turning it into a for-profit private industry, Alisa Wilson was continuously denied the transplant that was medically necessary to save her life.
About a week and a half ago, attorneys working on Wilsonâ(TM)s behalf said the insurance obstacles had been worked out. By then, however, her health was too shaky to risk going under the knife.
âoeIf they did it months ago, my daughter would be alive now,â her father said.
Would this poor woman still be alive today if we had a universal healthcare system? This isn't something that can truly be answered, because there are a hojillion factors that go into who gets a transplant and who does not. However, we could at least be sure that this woman's care would have been provided on a per-need basis, rather than a profit basis.
Life and Death choices are made all the time by doctors, and insurance providers. It's absolutely ridiculous to pretend like "death panels" will spontaneously pop into existence under universal healthcare... they already exist, and they're being run by profit mongering corporatists right now.
EVERY party in the United States has some socialist policies.
This is an undeniable fact.
Labeling the Democrats as "Socialist" however does a number of things: a) it steps on the toes of the Socialist Party of the United States, and all the other socialist parties. But that's a third party, so who cares. b) the socialist parties all agree that the Democrats aren't socialist enough. c) the people who openly call themselves socialists don't consider Democrats socialists. d) nobody but the people on the right seem to think that Democrats are socialists.
So, defining Democrats as socialists just muddies the waters and makes an already overloaded term even more overloaded, and makes it impossible to keep shit straight.
"But I can quote some obscure French guy who says socialism is blah, which I can shoehorn into applying to blah."
God damn it, you're fucking playing semantics games. The people who proudly wear the term "Socialist" don't think Democrats are socialist enough to be "Socialist". How more clearly can I put this? Ideas and plans, and programs, all of these can be socialist, or at least a part of socialism, and the whole god damn United States is already chock full of socialist programs, many of which the right openly support as well.
The United States is already partly a socialist country. We practice some socialism here. This is again, undeniable fact. Are Democrats pushing us towards more socialism rather than less? Well, yeah, they are. But to those of us standing squarely in the "fucking dissolve all corporations and hand over the reigns to the workers" Socialists are still going to bitch and moan every god damn time you call the Democrats socialists, because either you're making a statement that applies to every god damn politician in the country, or you're equating them to us... and we think they're nearly as bat-shit crazy right-wing as you are.
So, let's stop arguing about people being socialist or not, because the term applies as well to Republicans as to Democrats. Let's label people Socialists when they're part of a Socialist party, and we can get to discussing PROGRAMS and governmental actions that are either socialist or not.
Beyond all of which, WHY WOULD THE RIGHT FUCKING CARE if the Democrats are socialists or not? I only care that people call them socialists, because they're not a fucking Socialist party. You know what? Republicans are also democrats! Because you know, they advocate a form of democratic government. And Democrats are republicans, because you know, they advocate for a republican form of government.
These party terms are so fucking overloaded that they can't be used anymore. And what fucking politician in the United States is not a die hard democrat, republican and socialist? Of course, only some of them are Democrats, Republicans or Socialists. So, we confine our discussion to those party names, not to the generic ideas, because seriously... pudge? You're a fucking democrat, too.
From Captain Splendid, I was made aware that pudge made a response to my most recent journal entry, funny thing, even though the journal entry was posted yesterday, it already seems to be archived, meaning no one can post any new comments to it. Funny how someone with admin rights of a blog can fuck with the rules for his own purposes...
Anyways, in this newest JE, he presents an alternative definition to socialism from the one that I had presented, which was then used to craft the valid statement (under that definition): "Obama is a socialist."
First of all, get this straight, I don't think "socialist" is an epithet, so playing semantic games just to throw a label on someone, is kind of retarded. This is similar to Marxist Hacker 42 in his most recent journal labeling "tax cuts" as a "liberal" idea, and then using this to throw the label of "liberal" onto Reagan. I responded in his particular JE about how retarded this is, as every single politician in the US currently could thusly be cast as "liberal", thus negating any use of the term.
So, let's take a look at the definition of "socialism" that pudge provides from Bastait:
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole -- with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism.
So, let's look here. Every single politician of the United States since its inception has vouched for one or another of these ideas. So thus, under the definition afforded by pudge, George Washington was a socialist. George W. Bush is a socialist. EVERYONE is a god-damned socialist.
So, thus, this raises the question... what use does this term hold? I mean, at least "human being" doesn't describe every animal on the planet. "Animal" excludes plants from life forms, and even "life forms" excludes inanimate objects from the universe of discourse. But when your universe of discourse is "politics", and your term applies to EVERY SINGLE ENTITY within that set... why not just label it the universal term: "politics"?
But no... we'd rather find a term that applies to every single entity in the universe of discourse, thus we can apply it to anyone we dislike... like say... an personally unpopular president. Bonus points, when the term is widely regarded as a epithet, because of a fear-mongering witch-hunt driving crackpot.
So, congratulations pudge! You've managed to construct a definition of "socialism" broadly enough that you can include Obama as a socialist... too bad you've made the hole so big that Bush II is now a socialist. (Remember all that work he did trying to fix public schools?)
Rather, let's actually take a look at what Bastait was likely trying to drive at here: Programs and ideas are socialist, sure, of course. But being for just a single socialist idea doesn't make you a socialist, otherwise the term loses all meaning. Nothing good comes of using a term that can be so broadly applied that it applies to anything and everything relevant to the discussion. So, we need a better definition of "socialist" rather than just "Is for at least one idea that is a part of socialism".
So, let's go back to the list, and look at them in detail: * tariffs: nearly every politician supports this. In particular, the Constitution puts exclusive rights to tariffs with the Federal Government. The Founding Fathers were socialists? * protection: broad category... does military defense apply? I presume protectionism: I'm against it. But conservatives are for * benefits: broad category, what doesn't apply? I presume work benefits: I may be in a minority here, who thinks it's a good thing that jobs provide healthcare, vacation time, and sick leave. I know, I've got those CRAZY socialist ideas... * subsidies: sometimes good, sometimes bad. Even conservatives have subsidies that they're behind * encouragements: again, another super broad term. What doesn't apply? Aren't there encouragements for marriage? Focus on the Family and National Organization for Marriage are socialist organizations!? * progressive taxation: yes, I hold the super crazy idea that people with more money should be paying more taxes. There is a minimum amount of money required to live, and for anyone living around or near that amount of money, every dollar matters more. You think Bill Gates would notice a $1,000 extra tax burden? Do you think Jane Doe working as single mom at a minimum wage job would notice? * public schools: Show me a politician in the US who thinks we should ditch public schools entirely (and all public funds to education), and I will show you an unelectable politician. * guaranteed jobs: maybe I'm crazy to think that if someone wants to work, that they should be able to have a job. I also don't think that the employer should hold as much power over employees as they do. Leaving a job means being without support until one finds a new job. So, you can't just quit a job that is harmful to you. And being forced to stay in a current job that is harmful, while looking for a new job, and until said new job has been found, is intolerably cruel. If one could be guaranteed a position at another company, or ANYWHERE that would support them after they leave a harmful job... well, then I think the world would be a better place, because employees would actually jump ship from a harmful job, and put the company out of business... the invisible hand of self interest cannot work for employees as long as there is not a surplus of jobs in their field. * guaranteed profits: entirely against them. One needs a way to weed out bad companies. * minimum wages: I may be crazy, but I think that people deserve a living wage. See above comments about guaranteed jobs. If I'm working for only 50 cents an hour, then my employer is abusing me. "So just leave!" says the free marketeer... yet, then I'm making 0 cents an hour. Awesome, you just killed my entire income. * right to relief: Burton's Legal Thesaurus seems to point me to "cause of action". So... anyone in favor of being able to go to courts to receive fair compensation for injury and harm should be labeled a socialist? "Your Honor, the defendant asked me to borrow $1,000. I loaned him the money under the understanding that he would return that value, with interest of $100, in two years time. Here is the signed and notarized contract." The judge: "Excuse me plaintiff, but it seems you're a SOCIALIST... case dismissed." * a right to the tools of labor: I'm sure the author had something specific in mind here, but I seriously have no clue what he's going on about... * free credit: Perhaps he means credit without interest? Or credit granted to people who don't deserve it? I find the idea a poor one. I would not expect anyone to grant me a credit line (except the federal government for a student loan, because they cannot be discharged in bankruptcy without some serious hardship.) Anyone who does would have to realize that they're throwing away money... so, I suppose if they want to be idiots enough to hand me free money, I won't complain... * and so on, and so on: finishing up the broad categories of socialism with the indeterminate phrase of "there's a ton more here, than I care to list, but since the above list covers everyone already, why the hell do I think it necessary to make the list seem longer?" *shrug*
So, this entire list is bogus in the first place. The author is just throwing every conceivable thing that he disagrees with and labeling it "socialism". What a wonderful word... taxes are now "legal plunder" so they are socialism. Even taxing people to pay for the common defense of the states is now socialism... YAY! Sure there are things that are not socialism: criminal offenses of the law, punishing criminals, the common defense of the states ITSELF... but how are you going to pay for any of this? That's right... through LEGAL PLUNDER. A government cannot do anything at all without LEGAL PLUNDER... that is, unless it's using ILLEGAL plunder, but then who would hold them accountable? You with your AR-15 rifle and about 5 magazines of ammo, against tanks and smart bombs, and worse? HAHAHAHhahahahaha... "second amendment resolutions" for the lose.
I'm going to make up a list of things that I'm against, and I'm going to label it... "bullshit". Everything that I disagree with is now "bullshit", and anyone who is for even one of those ideas is now an "asshole". Congratulations pudge, you're ab asshole... oh, and Captain Splendid, I love you man, and I think you're great, but you disagree with me on at least one topic, so you're an asshole as well. HOLY CRAP, my own mom is an asshole!!! This world is going to hell in a handbasket, because everyone disagrees with me about at least one thing, I mean, because everyone but me is an asshole. I must be the ONLY sane person left in the world, wtf?!?!?!!?
Sarcasm aside... defining things so broadly it refers effectively to everyone and then using it to apply it to a single person you're against belies the point that you're referring to EVERYONE anymore. Hey, pudge! You're a real human being... And you breathe oxygen. And I really can't believe that you eat food. It's just disgraceful.
A socialist purports social policies that directly attack the exploitation of the haves against the have nots. The Rich should have higher taxes, they have a higher moral obligation to provide to the social good, because they've benefited more from the social good. Employers should not have the power in a corporation, the EMPLOYEES should have all the power.
There will come a time, where running a corporation through any other means than a democratically elected republican management will be viewed in the same way that we view dictatorships... HARSHLY.
Obama does not stand for this idea, and is FOR THAT REASON not a socialist. It's a moderate, a centrist. That he's proposing support systems to protect HUMAN DIGNITY against tarnish is not a sign of socialism. Republicans agree that slavery is a tarnish against Human Dignity. That one must be paid for their work, and that humans cannot be owned.
It is a common exercise in Ethics classes to consider the situation of a starving child stealing a loaf of bread in order to stave off starvation. Is the child justified? Ethics finds this to be a grey area. How has our society decided to resolve this situation? If you are unable to afford food, then we will grant you public money to purchase food, so that you do not have to steal that food, even though it could be argued as justified under the legal doctrine of necessity.
Go on, I dare you. Argue the side that claims that people do not deserve by Human Dignity to be fed (not on filet mignon, but just fed). That they do not deserve by Human Dignity to have housing, safety, protection from fire, prevention of life-threatening medical conditions. All of these policies are implemented openly and "happily" all but unanimously by Americans.
Now, I want you to load of up a picture of the most pity-worthy starving child in Africa. I want you to ask yourself: "What does this person deserve to have, just because they are human?" Food? Somewhere to be protected from the elements? If they're coughing and sick, don't they deserve to be seen by a doctor? Who could argue against the natural human social behavior of empathy to provide for those in need?
Now, when you talk about denying healthcare to someone, just because they can't afford it... I want you to ask yourself... Who the fuck are you to deny humanity from another human being? What's next, stealing candy from a baby, because it didn't pay for it?
WTF is finding anything important in life so freaking hard. I really hate that so much of my life has been handed to me on a silver platter, because I have no real sense of applying effort. Sometimes I have had such great luck, but luck is sporadic, and I'm in a giant dry spell right now.
I'm crazy intelligent, and I have had this independently recognized through various awards, but no one cares about how intelligent you are, because they only care about work experience. And right now, there's this wonderful question of "why haven't you worked in two years?" And it's like; honestly, I could answer that, but your HR department would pop an aneurysm over the answer.
I've managed to dig myself into a pretty crappy hole (more accurately, this hole kind of dug itself, I didn't really lift a finger at it) and I really don't know how to get out of it right now.
Have a "boyfriend" who is kind of an enabler of my laziness hasn't really helped either... I honestly think the guy would let me get away with murder...
A lot of arguments are made throughout much of the complaint about violations of various rights, however towards the end of the complaint is actually, what I perceive as being the most significant piece:
Count Six, "Federal Preemption & Unauthorized or Supervised Federal Immigration Conduct" allegation 58:
58. Defendants' actions against Plaintiff constitute a violation of 8 U.S.C. 1357, Subsection 287(g)(1) and (5) as the City of Tucson has no authorization or agreement with the United States to perform any immigration inquires of any persons present in the United States.
Hm, well, let's take a look at these laws shall we? 8 U.S.C. 1357:
(g) Performance of immigration officer functions by State officers and employees (1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State and local law. (2) An agreement under this subsection shall require that an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State performing a function under the agreement shall have knowledge of, and adhere to, Federal law relating to the function, and shall contain a written certification that the officers or employees performing the function under the agreement have received adequate training regarding the enforcement of relevant Federal immigration laws. (3) In performing a function under this subsection, an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the Attorney General. (4) In performing a function under this subsection, an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State may use Federal property or facilities, as provided in a written agreement between the Attorney General and the State or subdivision. (5) With respect to each officer or employee of a State or political subdivision who is authorized to perform a function under this subsection, the specific powers and duties that may be, or are required to be, exercised or performed by the individual, the duration of the authority of the individual, and the position of the agency of the Attorney General who is required to supervise and direct the individual, shall be set forth in a written agreement between the Attorney General and the State or political subdivision. (6) The Attorney General may not accept a service under this subsection if the service will be used to displace any Federal employee. (7) Except as provided in paragraph (8), an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State performing functions under this subsection shall not be treated as a Federal employee for any purpose other than for purposes of chapter 81 of title 5 (relating to compensation for injury) and sections 2671 through 2680 of title 28 (relating to tort claims). (8) An officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State acting under color of authority under this subsection, or any agreement entered into under this subsection, shall be considered to be acting under color of Federal authority for purposes of determining the liability, and immunity from suit, of the officer or employee in a civil action brought under Federal or State law. (9) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require any State or political subdivision of a State to enter into an agreement with the Attorney General under this subsection. (10) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement under this subsection in order for any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State-- (A) to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States; or (B) otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.
What a love piece of law this is... it's like it sets out the legal way that a state or local officer or employee may enforce the immigration laws of the United States. And it requires written federal consent.
I believe that I have stated before that my primary issue with this bill was that Arizona lacks the legal authority to enforce US Immigration Laws, and this pretty much explicitly states how they could get that authority. Yet, rather than follow legal channels, they've decided to just hop the border and do what they want to do.
Any one find some irony in this? That the people calling out for the Federal government to enforce the law... are calling for their state and local governments to break the law themselves? What happened to the importance of "Rule of Law" and "Do it right, or don't do it at all!"
Note: (10)(A) allows the officers to communicate with the Federal Attorney General if they find out someone is illegal, but by federal statutory law they do not have the authority to question someone's immigration status themselves.
If the AZ law held only that Police had to take due responsibility to validate the immigration status of individuals in custody before release (one of the provisions that it does provide) then things would be ok. You have already collected their information, and so you just run it by the AG, and they come back perhaps with a "nope, he's not documented, please detain him until we can take custody". VIOLA, IT'S FUCKING LEGAL.
The whole thing boils down to this. Even if Arizona had specific written authorization for every employee and officer of their state and local governments, each of those individuals would require them to have "knowledge of, and adhere to, Federal law relating to the function" and have written certification, that they have "received adequate training regarding the enforcement of relevant Federal immigration laws." and even then they would be "subject to the direction and supervision of the Attorney General."
While people are purporting that the AZ law mirrors US immigration law, the fact is that it attempts to establish a unilateral cooperation that requires bilateral agreement, and fails to establish the proper authority and supervision of state and local employees.
That's all I have to say about this... you can argue until you're blue in the face, but the law is the fucking law. Yes, it is absolute fact that the immigrants need to have their paperwork on them. Yes, it is absolute fact that immigrants can be questioned by lawfully authorized representatives of the Federal government. But No, it is absolute fact that SB 1070 does not establish the proper authority.
So, I just noticed that I had a relationship change. I expected it to be that pudge asshat foing me... which I wouldn't blame him, I foed him myself. But instead, to my surprise, it was Bill Dog, friending me. Now, I don't mean to be ungrateful, or upset in any way... but as I remember, Bill Dog is a strong conservative, while I'm a rabid liberal... and not just this watered down liberalist crap that passes for liberal here in the USA, but a full on democratic socialist.
So, I put an invitation to Bill Dog: if you wouldn't mind, would you be willing to explain why you made the choice to friend me?
Actually, let's do this as an open question. Anyone who is willing to explain why they friend/foed me, I invite your honest and open comments. I promise, I'll keep my mouth shut, and take my medicine as it is. After all, your justification is your honest opinion.:)
Looking at various laws, one can easily misinterpret them, or come to a false conclusion. It's pretty much the reason why you need to consult with a lawyer about this stuff.
I'm referencing here http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/FunFacts/ItsTheLaw.html and while some of the laws seem silly or retarded, they can sometimes simply be because of differing jurisdictions.
1. While it seems like he snidely side-stepped the law, he really didn't. "O'Neal's Baloon" does not have the same obvious alcoholic association of "Saloon". I would have suggested changing it to something that still indicates alcohol will be served there... your name is the first thing people see about the location.
2. A wine is sold within 22 states, less than a majority, yet a singling out of two states? Retarded... This wine is apparently now able to be sold in all areas where otherwise permitted, but we we will assume that this article was before then. Likely, the wine was blocked in some states due to having a vulgar name.
3. A perfectly reasonable regulation, considering that you can advertise targeting children, and other stuff.
4. There are numerous federal laws that apply to US citizens while abroad. For instance, one cannot engage in under-age prostitution while abroad, even though foreign laws might allow it. Why do we not see a problem with this, but that preventing foreign exchange students to adhere to American alcohol laws?
5. This is an example of a truly stupid law. The idea that a company cannot indicate where their product can be purchased is reasonably retarded. However, there is no reference that I can look up easily to verify the validity of this.
6. This law would only be enforcible locally. Either one would have to travel to the local area, or they would have to seek extradition. That anyone would actually be charged with this, unless it was extensively or maliciously broken, is unlikely. There is simply no reference that I can look up easily to verify the validity of this.
7. There is no reference that I can look up easily to verify the validity of this. However it is not unreasonable, and was likely abused. For example, I just claim to be a reviewer of alcoholic beverages, and anyone who sends me 10 bottles for free gets a stellar review.
8. This law was misread. There is specifically indicated the ability to refute the charges by proving that the container is empty. Considering it is in the garbage, then this is reasonable to assume. If the parents didn't dump out the alcohol before placing it in the trash, then it's "alcohol abuse" lol. Or, irresponsible parenting, by making the alcohol available to a child.
9. This law was misread. Iowa state law provides that anyone attempting to destroy any liquid in front of a police officer is proof that it was intended for unlawful purposes. This is a perfectly normal law designed to preserve evidence. Requiring police to obtain the liquid that has been destroyed and prove that it was alcoholic and intended for unlawful purpose places a burden on the law system such as to make it unenforceable. Here's a hint... if a police officer is coming up to do, don't destroy evidence right in front of him.
10. Running a tab without a bona fide credit card is illegal. Not an unreasonable law... oh, and this specifically is permitted in private clubs, hotels to registered guests, or "retail sales by the managing entity of a convention center, civic center, or events center."
11. This law is referenced as "General Statutes of Connecticut (Title 3, sec. 30-36)", it is however Title 30. It's not unreasonable to require someone a permit to make mixtures of alcohol even if for pharmaceuticals. They likely must pay a larger fee anyways just to be able to fill prescriptions. This $400/year permit also allows them to sell alcohol for off-premises consumption.
12. This is kind of an arbitrary law, but not unreasonable.
13. They're likely not even allowed to have the alcoholic beverage anyways... this law as stated is not unreasonable.
14. Selling to someone with a false or altered license can get you convicted of sale to a minor. Ok, so what happened, is that the police hired someone who was a legal age, but looked very young. That person went to get alcohol with a fake ID. The person selling saw the fake ID, and still sold the alcohol. As a result, the police arrested him and charged him with sale to a minor. Owner gets off the hook by proving that the "minor" was not actually a minor. Legislature then passes law to make sure that sale without a valid license is an illegal sale period.
15. It is not unreasonable to require that a business, once closed not engage in its business. A good example would be, a bunch of friends are drinking at a bar, and are friends with the owner. The bar closes, the public cannot be served with alcohol anymore, but the friends stay and continue to consume alcohol. They need not really pay at that time, or under the table.
16. Public intoxication is a state's right issue, and so it is legislated differently in different states. Once you start looking into laws, you start learning that states really have a lot of discretion to do almost anything that they want.
17. It's often illegal to intentionally cut off even a single part of your child's flesh without a medical license in a real medical procedure, or religious activity. Referenced as: "New Jersy [sic] Alcohol Beverage Control Law (Title 33)" This is actually "New Jersey Permanent Statutes (Title 33)" The best I can find more specific than "the entire Title" is "33:1-12a", but this only applies to wine tastings which require a plenary license. If anyone can find a more specific statute, then I'd be happy to hear.
18. There are specific distinctions in American law between on-premise consumption and off-premises consumption. It would not surprise me if most states prohibit this.
19. This law seems entirely retarded, and the only reference is to "dumblaws.com"... looking there, I can find the law "referenced" but no reference to the actual law itself. If one can find any case law that specifically states this, I'm going to chalk this up as "this list was compiled by a retard".
20. I'm not willing to look up this reference. However, this law is not unreasonable. If you are selling liquor as your primary business, then do so. One also cannot sell cold beer. Think about this. Person walks in to buy a beer, and it is already cold. What is the reason to have them be cold? So one can drink them immediately.
21. Law is referenced to "dumblaws" with no further reference.
22. Law is referenced to "dumblaws" with no further reference. Although I have been told that Washington state law requires an establishment to sell or provide food as long as it is providing alcohol. The reason for this is to allow someone to "work off a buzz" if they must.
23. Law is referenced to "dumblaws" with no further reference.
24. Texas law provides that alcohol can only be sold during certain hours every day of the week. This has since been removed, probably because they realized that the statement "anytime on Monday" does not mean midnight before 8 a.m.
25. I'm not going to spend the time to review this one. But considering such an obvious contradiction is highly unlikely, I don't think it is true.
26. Law is referenced to "dumblaws", however the entry is no longer available. Likely because it was false.
27. This law is simply referenced to "Florida Statutes"... I'm not going to go track down this law, especially considering the track record of the stuff before. To me, if you're listing "stupid laws", and your reference is anything but the actual statutes, or case law, then you're useless.
28. Difference legislative authorities come to different choices. If you intend to just point out how varied the laws are around the US, then this is as good as any.
29. Law is referenced to "dumblaws" with no further reference. Although it's entirely possible that animal abuse statutes state that it is illegal to do this. Recall, alcohol is a poison, and humans just have a particular tolerance for it.
30. Note above. It is illegal, because someone did it.
31. Law prohibiting open containers in public apply to nearly the entire United States. Whether in a bucket or not.
32. San Salvador is in another country, specifically El Salvador. The US has some of the most lax drunk driving laws in the world. Do not be surprised.
33. Barring of alcohol while watching exotic dancers is not uncommon in the United States. I know of it being illegal specifically in Washington State and Nevada.
34. This is referenced to "uselessknowledge.com". It is not particularly surprising that someone would pass a discriminatory law like this in the 1940s.
35... 35... oh thank god, I'm done. Those last ones were WORTHLESS...
I'd like to see a "stupid law" webpage that actually requires real verification of the laws before it posts them...
In these times of political conflict, it is most interesting to look back, and witness that, relevant to us today, yet written long ago, the Bible does not stand alone, but also the words of many other people. Though not divine, they may yet be imbued with knowledge and wisdom that remains relevant today. We, as human beings, have struggled and seem doomed to struggle without end for Unity, Justice, and Freedom for our fellow human beings. It fills me with hope though, to realize that we are not beset on all sides only by men who seek the selfish goals of greed and individualism, but we are also surrounded by men who seek the more noble goals to lift up others, and increase the quality of their lives, regardless of their individual worth. I write this as a prologue to a speech, which could stand powerfully in its own right, and without introduction. This speech is from Charlie Chaplin, performed in The Great Dictator. Although written in 1940, it stands as an incredible piece that cries out for unconditional love, and care of all men. Our actions here affect all who are left once we pass from this world, and all people regardless of creed or belief realize the only noble goal in life is to make life free and beautiful for all men...
So, I leave you with this speech, and beckon you towards the goal of making this world a better place for everyone by providing the fundamentals of human dignity... if you are Christian, then because the Kingdom of God lies not within one man, or a group of men, but in all men... and if you're Atheist, because reason dictates that in any moral system, each person cannot be viewed as anything other than equivalent in worth to any other person.
And now, words once already spoken, yet still well worth repeating:
"I'm sorry, but I don't want to be an emperor. That's not my business. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible - Jew, Gentile - black man - white.
We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other's happiness - not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this world there's room for everyone and the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone.
The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls - has barricaded the world with hate - has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in man - cries for universal brotherhood - for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world - millions of despairing men, women, and little children - victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me, I say: 'Do not despair.' The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.
Soldiers! Don't give yourselves to brutes - men who despise you and enslave you - who regiment your lives - tell you what to do - what to think and what to feel! Who drill you - diet you - treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don't hate, only the unloved hate - the unloved and the unnatural!
Soldiers! Don't fight for slavery! Fight for liberty! In the seventeenth chapter of St Luke, it is written the kingdom of God is within man not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people, have the power - the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful - to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy - let us use that power - let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world - a decent world that will give men a chance to work - that will give youth a future and old age a security.
By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfil that promise. They never will! Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people. Now let us fight to fulfil that promise! Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason - a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness. Soldiers, in the name of democracy, let us unite!"
Thank you, and if you so believe, may God bless your life, and if you do not so believe, then simply, may your life be blessed
I was watching "Fringe", the episode "Unearthed". A character in the series spoke some Russian, and I set off to understand exactly what she said. They told us that she says, "my little star", and I caught enough that she said, "govorit" at the end of a sentence. (I'm transliterating here. It's pronounced different because the "go" syllable is unstressed, and thus degrades to an open round vowel between/o/ and/a/, which we perceive as/a/. For English speakers the best writing of it would be "gavorit".)
Well, searching online, I eventually found a script, and I transliterated their transliteration back into Cyrillic... and it broke... of course right? So, it took me a while to play around with things until I finally got it all correct. In Cyrillic characters it is:
Transliterated is: Moya zvezdochka. Chto so mnoy? Pochemu ya nye magu govorit? A closer English pronuncation: ma-YA zvezDOCHka. shto sa-MNOY? po-CHEH-mu ya nye magu gah-VOR-it? As presented by the script: maya zvezdochka shto samnoy? Pochimu ya ne magu govorit?
The best English translation that I can offer: "My little star. What is wrong with me? Why can't I talk?"
I'm posting this here, so maybe someone else looking for the same text will find it faster, and if they're less resourceful about language translation than I am, they might be able to actually find an answer at all.
So, I'm watching the Colbert Report, and he mentions that Conservapedia has started a project to Retranslate the Bible using only proper Conservative buzz words. While investigating this, I came across the article for Feminist Bible. In which, they complain that feminist ideas have permeated a number of newer Bible translations. And, well, yeah, Today's New International Version certainly has imposed some Gender-Neutral dialog and terminology.
Here's the problem though, they start talking about James 2:15-16, talking about how English translations make an "ungrammatical" (their words, not mine... I'm a linguist, if it sounds right it's grammatical, it may not be "proper", but it's still grammatical) rendering of a phrase in order to make it sounds more Gender-Neutral. Sure, I totally bet that the TNIV translation has done this, and guess what? It does use the plural personal pronoun to refer to an antecedent of "brother or sister". So, I'm like, "ok, I'll give you that."
But then in the footnotes, I note that they claim that this grammatical error is even in the KJV version, and in most English versions in fact. Ok, now things smell fishy, because KJV translation was done WELL BEFORE any liberal 1984-paranoid feminists could have gotten their hands on it for Gender-Neutral language. So... what's going on here?
I know of a site called BibleServer.com, which is an awesome webpage, because they provide multiple different translations, all easy to access. Ok, first up, the NIV translation. Nope, NIV uses the "grammatical" non-specifically-gendered personal pronoun "him". But, sure enough, KJV does as well. Well, this is really weird, right? Because as I noted before, KJV was well before any potential feminist influence. Well, ok, well, what about trying a different language?
German doesn't normally use their plural pronoun for non-specified or mixed gender, as they have a very DEFINED gender system. In fact, girls are given the pronoun "it", as well as "Omachen" (grandma with a dimunitive). This is because grammatical gender REQUIRES it to be used... it's not anti-feminine, it's not misogynistic, it's just the way the language works. Yet in the Luther 1984 translation, something weird is going on here... they use the 3rd-person singular subjunctive of "haben" => "haette", but they then refer to the singular antecedent with a plural pronoun. What's going on here?
So, let's look up a Spanish translation, "Version La Biblia de Dia". Spanish is a good choice for this, because they only have masculine and feminine, and even if there were a feminist rally, and there were 100 women, and one man in the crowd, the speaker would grammatically and naturally refer to the crowd as "hombres" (men). In Spanish, all non-specific singular pronouns are male, but any and all MIXED gender PLURAL pronouns are male. So, what happens here? Well, here the plural conjugation of "tener" is used: "tienen", and a plural pronoun is used to refer to this "singular" antecedent again. ("les") Ok, now I'm thoroughly confused...
Ok, wait, I know... let's stop all this work, and start walking back in the documents. Let's start with LATIN... good ol' Latin, when I want to know what misogynistic anti-feminists said about a Bible verse, I go to LATIN. Well, here they use the plural conjugation "sunt", and use a plural referent to the a "singular" antecedent again. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?!?!
Ok, that's it... what language was the Epistle of James originally written in? Uh... Greek. Ok, let's go to the ancient greek. James 2, English and Ancient Greek side-by-side. Alright, here we go, we can go looking though this and.... brother... sister... plural conjugation... plural pronoun...
Ok, so, the reason why KJV and "most English translations" have this plural usage here is because the original freaking GREEK had this "grammatical error", not because of an error of the translators.
And Conservapedia rips on NIV all the time for being liberal biased and all, but they're the only people who, BECAUSE of a liberal attitude to update the language, altered the original meaning of the text in order to conform to proper English grammar of the time.
Ok, seriously, these are the same people who are vouching that the KJV meanings have skewed, and that "logos" should be translated with "truth" rather than "word" anymore, etc. And they're talking about how the original meaning is being lost by the modern liberal jerkwads... yet... some of the liberal jerkwads are actually ensuring that the language conforms to modern day grammar, rather than just blithely repeating the same grammatical errors made in the original Greek.
It reminds me of an amusing quote I once read, but cannot find again, so I shall paraphrase: "How fortuitous it was that God learned Greek to write the New Testament... it's however unfortunate that he had not learned the grammar better."
God can't properly agree a pronoun with a singular complex antecedent... isn't this book supposed to be infallible?
This is a response to a video on Youtube done by a "tooltime9901", who in response to "jezuzfreek777", presents an interesting prompt. What are the "ten commandments" that an atheist should hold. This is so interesting because it comes to the fundamental philosophy of law and morality. Knowing that morality is fairly relative, and that morality cannot be viewed without context of the situation. Thus, there are justifications to killing another human. There are justifications for what would otherwise be considered theft.
Take these as examples. It is well accepted that self-defense is a legitimate justification for causing the death of someone else. Provided that said self-defense was given in a proportioned response. Thus, if someone simply attempts to assault you, you are only justified insofar as assault against that person. However, if an attacker is presenting a force which a reasonable person would find to be equivalent to lethal force, then one is justified in causing that individuals death.
Next, the justification of theft. It is well accepted that aquisition of ones own property is justified, even if the aquisition of that property would otherwise be considered theft. Thus, reaquiring ones own property is justified if someone has your property without your permission. Here is what is interesting though, you are not justified to use force or threat of force to reobtain your own propery. The use of force to obtain property is only permissible when force is being immediately or imminently used against you to obtain property from onesself.
So, we present here the point that we cannot justify a commandment-like proscription against killing another, or obtaining property in the posession of another. While proscriptions of murder and theft themselves are valid, one is then presented with the problem of defining murder and theft such that it accounts for, and allows justifications. This presents a further moral problem in that in defining murder, one can present the definition of "causing without reasonable and fair justification the death of another human being", because then one is presented with the problem of defining what a human being is. One would normally assume this to be an easy task, but recall that often a superior group of people will attempt to justify their actions by denouncing the humanity of another group. Whites denounced Blacks as humans, and thus the justification of slavery of that group, while slavery of whites was generally admonished. As well, the Nazis of Nazi Germany justified the wholesale slaughter of jews and the disabled as those categories of homo sapiens and being insufficient to warrant the protections afforded those of "human beings"
Thus, we are left with the necessity that the only commandment-like proscriptions and perscriptions afforded to us need be necessarily vague, and rather than covering specific details are presented as widely interpreted statements that present the foundation for a legal or moral system to be built upon more exactly. And thus, I can present from that notion the following six commandments, which I feel are reasonable, justifiable and rational. I use the speech of the time of King James in order to present an allegory and allusion to the commandments as they are considered by our modern age.
1. Thou shalt keep the trust of your word. 2. Thou shalt not do harm to others. 3. Thou shalt not endanger others. 4. Thou shalt honor thine obligations. 5. Thou shalt not act with intention to violate a proscription of law. 6. Thou shalt not act with knowledge, or willful ignorance to violate a requirement of law.
These six commandments actually establish the devisions of law within the common law system, and such commandments actually have equivalent notions in the civil law system.
The first commandment, I present as such, because of the importance of the issue. I see perjury and fraud as the fundamentally anti-thesis of reason, which is what a society must fundamentally be based upon. If the system cannot rely upon the word of an individual, then the system itself cannot operate. Thus, since the system must assume that parties are telling the truth, it is a fundamental requirement that this truth be told. This should not be considered to proscribe all lies, as not all lies are damaging to a moral system, however when presenting justification and context to a situation before an impartial party then the necessity of the trust in the words of the parties is paramount. And we should presume that any court, natural or not, would be impartial.
The second commandment presents a fundamental truth. We should not do harm to others. This is presented in commonlaw under the idea of intentional torts, and the third commandment presents a foundation for the idea of negligent torts. In both cases, if someone becomes harmed, either through the acts or the failure to act of another, then that person deserves the right to have their harm redressed.
The fourth commandment seems similar to the first, in that it would seem to require someone to be honest, and this is true, however it is more specific than that. The first commandment establishes the requirement that one be true in their word if there is a trust of that person's word, but it says nothing about when a trust of that person's word is fundmantally necessary. While the first commandment applies obviously where an impartial court is involved, it applies non-trivially to the announcment of obligations to others. This is the American idea of crossing ones fingers while annoucing an obligation, and thus that a trust was never intended in the announcement of that obligation. This commandment however provides that one must always place the trust of ones word in the announcement of an obligation. In the common law system, this commandment thus provides the foundation for contract law.
The fifth, and sixth commandments establish the foundation for criminal law in the common law system. These are specifically different from commandments two and three, in that it establishes that there is a legal doctrine for a society, and individuals are under an obligation (fourth commandment) to obey this "social contract". Thus the legal system should establish two types of criminal law, and while the common law system views both of these types of criminal law as identical, there exists the legal context that one may use a justification that one was unknowing of a specific law in some cases. This commandment thus places that requirement as apparent and opaque, as opposed to the current system that is vague on the issue.
The fifth commandment sets out that there are certain acts that are defined by a legal system to be impermissible. The legal system should define these in such a matter that the acts cause an effect, which the legal system finds intolerable, and thus knowledge of the fact that the action is proscribed is waived by all as being necessary. Only the intent of the action need be defined. The person intended to perform the act, and thus must be punished.
The sixth commandment takes a different tact. It states that the legal system should deem that certain actions must be performed by all within its jurisdiction. Thus, the idea that one must register and obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a public street. This requirement, done by the state however, states that it is in the best interest of all to require this, but that failure to perform the requirement does not imply by necessity that a violation of the commandment occured, because there are two parts to this commandment first, the individual must know about the requirement, as no one should be held to perform a requirement without being aware that such a requirement exists. However, this is provided that the individual not be willingly ignorant of the requirement. Thus, a person charged with violating a requirement to obtain a license to drive would not be a violation if the person did not know, and had no reason to know that such a license were necessary.
So, I've probably rambled enough, but this is what I think would be the best foundation for a system of commandments.
Of course... I make a few comments in an essay that attempts to say that the social embarrassment of an individual accused of sexual assault is "vastly greater" than the social embarrassment of the victim being identified.
I objected to this because I have been the victim of sexual assault. Oddly enough, when I comment about that, it's marked as a troll or flamebait.
Not like I should be surprised with how machismo and male-dominated the geek world is. I hope the people modding me down realize that they're being just as sexist as the author, and that they're damaging the credibility of men among women.
This is one of the big reasons why I've wanted to get out of the geek world in my work life. I don't want to deal with this chauvinistic bullshit in the workplace , where I spent 8 hours of my day... at least. Not to mention, there's the expectation that I will spend 60-80 hours a week at work. The whole IT industry is so sexist it disgusts me.
Honestly, I can't believe how stupid SOME men are. Not all of them, I've met quite a few really nice cool caring and understanding guys... however... jesus christ... modding down a girl as a troll because she objects to being told that the social embarrassment of her accused sexual assaulter outweighs her suffering?
Meh, I'm done... I'm just really sick and tired of how sexist men are... it's so frustrating.