Jump to content


Photo

The Rot


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#41 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,257 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 1857 PM

It takes twelve years of school before a kid is ready to spend another four to get s basic STEM degree. Drilling or tracking only a couple before oil flows. Meanwhile, someone has to pick lettuce and write code. The problems is that what should be a temporary solution is better for politicians and employers than the permanent one.

You're not starting with a toddler and saying he's going to be an engineer and waiting 18 years. It's about getting High School students with aptitude to go into engineering which is a 4 year degree. If you need them with a masters, sure, add another 2 or so....

There are students at technical universities right now as freshmen who could go towards an engineering degree, so that can even be 3 years or so.


  • 0

#42 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts

Posted 02 August 2019 - 2030 PM

Schumer Calls for Amending First Amendment to Limit Political Speech

 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D.-N.Y., has determined there is too much political speech in the United States coming from sources he cannot tolerate. So, he stood in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, along with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D.-Ill., to announce he is backing Democratic New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall's proposal to amend the First Amendment.
The First Amendment — as it now stands — includes 10 unambiguous words about freedom of speech.
"Congress," it says, "shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
Schumer and Udall do not like this sweeping restraint on government power. There are speakers whose speech they want to abridge. The Bill of Rights — as correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court — stands in their way. So, they are seeking to change it.
Specifically, in 2010, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission that Americans enjoy the freedom of speech not only when they act as individuals but also when they form corporations.
In other words, a movie-making company has the same right to free speech as its owners individually do.
The same can be said for a book publishing company — or a company that manufactures lawnmowers or fishing rods.
In the United States, they all enjoy a freedom of speech that Congress "shall make no law" that abridges it.
For Schumer, this principle, which the court upheld in Citizens United, is gravely wrong.
"Few decisions in the 200 and some odd years of this republic have threatened our democracy like Citizens United," Schumer said on Tuesday.
CARTOONS | GARY VARVEL
VIEW CARTOON
"If I get to be majority leader with the help of my colleagues here and all of you, Citizens United will go. It must," he said.
"Overturning Citizens United," Schumer said, "is probably more important than any other single thing we could do to preserve this great and grand democracy."
It was not Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito or even John Roberts who wrote the court's opinion in Citizens United. It was Anthony Kennedy.
"The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations," Kennedy wrote.
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech," he said.
The court also concluded it was ridiculous for the government — as federal campaign-finance law then did — to try to distinguish between a "media" corporation and other types of corporations in order to exempt "media" corporations from restrictions the government sought to impose on the freedom of speech of non-media corporations.
"The exemption applies to media corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news," said the court. "So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue."
"This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment," said the court.
"The purpose and effect of this law," the court said, "is to prevent corporations, including small and nonprofit corporations, from presenting both facts and opinions to the public."
"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," Kennedy wrote. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."And that is precisely what Schumer and Udall seek to stop.
Their Democracy for All Amendment, as they call it, deploys 106 words to amend the 10 words in the First Amendment that protect freedom of speech.
The final 22 words of their proposed amendment assure corporations that own news outlets that Schumer and Udall are not coming for them. They say: "Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press."
There is no similar language to clarify that the amendment does not give Congress or the states the power to abridge "freedom of speech" for entities other than the "press" — because that is precisely the amendment's purpose.
The first section of the Udall-Schumer amendment, for example, gives Congress and the states the power to "set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections."
In plain English: The government can limit how much you speak about an election.
The second section specifically gives Congress and the states the power to "distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections."
More precisely, it would give Chuck Schumer and his incumbent congressional colleagues the power to enact a law prohibiting corporations from saying such things as "This member of Congress has too little respect for the Constitution to serve faithfully under it."

 

 

  • 0

#43 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,652 posts

Posted 03 August 2019 - 1132 AM

He wants to put himself out of his job?


  • 0

#44 Murph

Murph

    Hierophant Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,141 posts

Posted 03 August 2019 - 1358 PM

Of course the Democrats can't have free speech it prevents the Communists from taking over. The Democrats are never about Free speech it's only about totalitarian control.
  • 0

#45 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,499 posts

Posted 21 September 2019 - 0544 AM

According to a news report, the internal investigation of the Bremen affair has found "gross disregard of regulations" in 165 out of 18,315 positive asylum decisions made by the local BAMF office since the year 2000. That's a lot less than the initially suspected ca. 1,200, though there may be more not-so-gross irregularities. At any rate, the issue has largely vanished from public interest as various actors have found other balls to chase.

 

The former head of the Bremen BAMF office and two lawyers have now been officially charged with a total 121 counts of corruption, forgery, immigration offenses etc., including by ignoring the decisions of courts and other BAMF offices. Prosecutors seem to think that the official acted out of personal admiration for one of the lawyers.

 

Another seven BAMF staff, including a superior from the Nuremburg HQ, and another Bremen lawyer are still being investigated.


  • 0

#46 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,378 posts

Posted 21 September 2019 - 1047 AM

"Personal admiration"? Is that some sort of German euphemism?
  • 0

#47 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,499 posts

Posted 21 September 2019 - 1230 PM

I suspect it is. All reports about this bit refer to a "Spiegel" piece based upon the actual bill of indictment, which they seem to have gotten a look at. It states her having "felt a deep sympathy bordering on reverence" for the guy. If you go back to early reports about the whole thing, you'll find reference variously to a possible relationship between the two, and her having cared deeply about the fate of Yazidis which appear to have constituted most of his clients (maybe because he's one of them; his name is given as Irfan C.).
  • 0

#48 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,378 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 0553 AM

https://www.bbc.co.u...gazine-22470691
  • 0

#49 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,514 posts

Posted 25 September 2019 - 1730 PM


  • 0

#50 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,713 posts

Posted 25 October 2019 - 1125 AM

Betsy DeVos found in contempt of court

https://www.washingt...ntempt-of-court


  • 0