Maybe he's trying to make the relatively minor, commonplace (for Louisiana. And Illinois.) corrupt practice of crony favoritism seem unimportant by comparison to the direct abuse of citizens under color of law.
Though illegal search and theft of private property has been somewhat devalued as a shocking violation of the oath to "serve and protect" recently. Was the failure to administer a beatdown just professional courtesy or something?
Did you check the Official TechDirt Pledge everyone has to sign in blood before coming onto the site?
Or the finalized, official platform of the TechDirt Party?
Or the policies of the FTC telecommunications department Masnick runs.
If you still can't find the official explanation of what "we" all want, brush off the dust and try looking under that gigantic, cobwebbed pile of unused brain cells. Which, for most of us, are kept in the cranium, but your search might be quicker if you just started at the anus.
But all meaningless to a pandering scum politician like Cuomo. Not only is the list a tragic joke, but the ongoing expansion of "restricted activities" and locations ("not within 1,000 yards of school/candy store/daycare/cute puppy, etc") for people on said flawed list calls into question the entire philosophy of incarceration-as-punishment.
We HAVE punishments in the books for these crimes. When the punishments have been meted out...the State's done. They don't get to add punishments, inconveniences or petty humiliations to the sentence.
If Cuomo really cared about da chirrens, he'd have these bad people castrated or murdered, or both. AND shunned! Honestly, it seems the patience The State has for the inconveniences presented it by laws and the justice system seems to be growing shorter and shorter. I won't be surprised by the introduction of a "We Can Do Anything We Want Because Pedophiles and Terrorists Act"
(though I'm pretty sure anyone who points this out is automatically considered a pedophile apologist, amirite?)
(Maintaining the perfect void of Step 2 inevitably requires all Congresscritters to delegate any actual legislating or decisionmaking to the executive branch and/or lobbyists retained by well-heeled industries. Then the only exceptions are hysterical legislative overreactions to media-driven moral panics and tit-for-tat patronage deals.)
Possibly, but this seems, like a lot of cases, to be companies' representatives responding to a clear "Heah's how we-all do bidness roun' heah." message. An employee, in such an environment, pressured by a boss who plainly states he doesn't care about "how they-all do bidness down theah" but wants results and a corrupt potential customer, will usually go along to get along.
We hypocritically prosecute businessmen for doing business in ways that are accepted overseas but don't seem to be bothered when it involves gov't procurement procedures, military contract bidding or "please just shovel the money into these dumptrucks" union demands.
It just seems sleazier when the scale is smaller and somehow more acceptable when the bid/contract/procurement specs are hundreds of pages.
I'd say presenting EU-free governance for Britain as "nothing", as you have done here, is more than a little disingenuous. Does Britain suddenly have no way to govern itself? Has Brexit left the UK with nothing in the way of governance?
I'm going to have to pull out my dusty old copy of Wikipedia Brittanica here, but I'm pretty sure Britain governed itself prior to EU membership, and should be able to scuffle along after.
As for immigration, there seem to be mutually exclusive realities. It is as if you have two friends at work who are next door neighbors. Neighbor A says: "We invited some black couples over for dinner and my neighbors were quite upset. Never knew they were so racist!" Neighbor B says: "My neighbor says he's throwing a party, but it appears to be a permanent open house! When I complained about things stolen from my property, people camping in my yard and his "guests" trying to ogle my wife and daughter when they shower, he accused us of being 'inhospitable' and 'racist' and said there was nothing we could do about it!"
Not sure 'reality' is getting a clear presentation in either story there. But there's obviously a large number of citizens who felt "Shut up, hater." was an inadequate response to their concerns. The Brexit vote shouldn't have been a surprise, even to those who were certain Lindsey Lohan's support would help them carry the day. Maybe she should have supported before the vote.
When did TD switch over to the top-down corporatist side? Is it the result of blindly following some narrative-"These same people are wrong on A, B and C, so I must oppose position D which they support"?? Or the knee-jerk obeisance to the "Our strength is in our diversity" mantra and it's unspoken clause "...in every circumstance, without exception and any questioning this is racist"
I've always been very suspicious when someone presents a position to me that, it is claimed, is correct beyond criticism, analysis or thought. Doesn't seem to bother you, I guess.
Likewise, to present this dispute as if only the Brexit side used wild hyperbole and unquestioning hatred of "the other" must mean you approve of the knee jerk, sky-is-falling,"maybe we really don't like democracy" post-vote hysteria coming from the Remain camp.
Wow. I've always respected TechDirt, but this is just head-shakingly sad...
And the red herring of purse-clutching alarm over "surge pricing" (otherwise known as'supply and demand') is misplaced, since it serves most effectively as the organic component of the software. Imagine: people freely choosing when and where to work, 'magically' and promptly responding to riders' needs!
But fuck that. Why suffer the indignities of freedom and choice when we can have city council grifters and union bosses decide these things for us? Why should we listen to satisfied customers and drivers, or take into account public safety when there's an incumbent, entrenched business doing a lousy job to be shaken down?
Although I suppose I really shouldn't say that, since you've taken a page from the proggy playbook and carefully made sure your post was completely fact-free.
Does that evil "surge pricing" ever, EVER rise to even HALF the nice, steady ripoff pricing of the cabs??
Yeah, I really love to participate (as the victi...err...'customer') in transactions where the person serving me is incentivized to rip me off in any way he can. That's just swell. Great alternative.
*ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE WARNING* Also, subtract from your apologia for the downtrodden cabbies the middle eastern gentleman who glared at my un-burka'd, tipsy friend for the entire duration of what she swears was her LAST cab ride ever. Bit of a microaggression there, eh wot? She's lucky he didn't blow up at her over the absence of a gratuity. so to speak.
So make it 899 carefully vetted, professional "service providers" on the cabbie side.
^ THIS. Many times over, this. Q: Why is this happening? A: Lawyers wanna get paid.
The explanation here of "simple, first-level self-interest" satisfies both Occam's and Hanlon's Razors and has considerable explanatory and predictive power.The layer of legalistic complexities found in such filings is just for show. The more counterintuitive the case, the more byzantine the filigree of legalese it will be coated with.
(This explanation suffices in many other circumstances with much more subtle cause/effect linkages.)
Haaahah!! Yeah, copyright apologists frequently resort to that last refuge of a scoundrel: The Rules. Rules to be obeyed, because, "whatever slippery piratey arguments pirates make, they are the law."
It makes the shills really uncomfortable to have to face the reality that the law is not a permanent monolith. Their voices get really high when someone suggests that copyright, especially as now constituted/distorted, is clearly NOT a law of nature.
On the fine day when changes to copyright that benefit both artists and consumers are implemented (now, how does anybody lose in that situation?), I'm sure the people employed as "copyright advocates" will just graciously accept the "Whatever you think, that's the law." argument. Right??
Fake news is fake. Untrue. Non-facts and non-events reported as actual facts and actual events. People need to put some effort towards determining the truth, rather than just jumping to believe or dismiss reports (as in a Snopes contributor writing an automatically skeptical article dismissing the Emory U Trump Chalk Hysteria.)
Whereas claims of harassment often have a subjective element. By their assessment of what constitutes abusive, violent or "damaging" speech some people demonstrate such a rare delicacy and finely-honed moral sensibility that I (or others) have to insist they need to own their own emotional reactions. This subjectivity can also be weaponized for internet arguments and utilized in bad faith ("Only a white male cis shitlord would deliberately cause pain to member of an abused, excluded disenfranchised group! You nust want all Xs to die!")
FB may have their responses a little backwards. Then again their response prioritization may reflect the degree or likelihood of legal responsibility (and the potential cost thereof)
Yes, we'll lead the world in labor-saving technology for the citizen surveillance and national oppression industries!!
We're number 1!!! We're number 1!!! We're...wait...won't this lead to massive unemployment among the "jackbooted thug", "enhanced coercive interrogation expert" and "truncheon-wielding pedestrian guide" demographics??
Hmmm...with a minimum of retraining, we can expect to see some strict adherence to mall littering regulations, eh? And a serious upgrade in the enforcement competence of theater ushers. The Invisible Hand resolves such problems, only now it'll grab you by the throat and ask if you've expressed any anti-government sentiments recently.
Amen. This is why I always oppose granting the government more powers, or greater regulatory scope: it just gives them more shit to sell off. (then when the FCC does good, it throws my whole model off!)
Then again, this is also why, much as I hate so-called 'progressives' (not sorry, they hated me first), the Republican party presents a wholly unacceptable alternative.
The parties, along with a gutless, cooperative press, allow the plutocratic class to filter "acceptable" candidates. In some countries, ones we routinely mock, the military acts as such a filter. I don't see our situation as much better.
Therefore Trump. And, to a certain extent, Bernie. Because people who want to improve the country, people who just want to preserve what's good about the country, people who just don't want to get screwed over any more...all feel totally betrayed by the parties. And the parties, aided by the press, respond to these expressions of outrage and betrayal with "wedge issues" and "culture war".