Except that the #1 dictionary definition of elite is: "a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities"
"superior" implies better breeding, education, or something. It does NOT imply more poweruful.
Merriam Webster defines elite as: 1 the choice part 2 the best of a class 3 the socially superior part of society 4 a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence
The insiders of the TPA are NOT the choice part, nor the best in the class, nor socially superior. They are just a bunch of douchbags who have finagled undue influence in policy. That's definition 1 - 3.
So, are they 4? NO! Because while they do "exercise much power or influence", they do not do so by virtue of position of education. They do so by courting legislators, and being more focused/involved than the average citizen.
I'd be kinda on board with our congresspeople negotiating a deal behind closed doors in secret. So long as they presented their work with adequate time to review it.
These people are our elected representatives, and we [an informed electorate would] have the power to kick them out.
But what really ticks me off is the long list of special interests who WERE allowed to see the sausage being made. And who in fact supplied text, opinion, and objectives to the USTR. These businesses, for example the MPAA, should have no greater access than you or I.
The fact that the @#$# TPP WASN'T a secret to these special interests, but WAS a secret to the citizens, that REALLY pisses me off.
Fudge! Don't put this on elites. I'm a elite. This is not about highly educated or rich people. You can shit on us some other time, when we're to blame.
The TPP is not an elitist move. It's a douchebag move.
The TPP is from some powerful industries in the USA, with strong lobbies, and the ear of DC. They are not "elites". The RIAA, MPAA, the drug lobbies are not elite. They are self-interested powerful lobbies.
Other than your word choice of "elitist", I agree with you.
Because, this is one of those "Facts are facts" type of discussions. My facts are the same as your facts. "Free Trade" has a specific meaning, and the TPP is a force away from that, not towards it.
The TPP is not about Free Trade. It restricts trade. It restricts business. It supports entrenched major businesses. New entrants trying to compete, from anywhere in the world, have FEWER options and MORE restrictions because of the TPP. That is not freer, that is less free.
Since intellectual property expansion is such a big part of the TPP, and IP laws are specifically about limiting the ability of businesses to do things, than is, by definition, against free trade. Back to the same point, the TPP is anti-free trade. There just can't be any intelligent debate on this fact.
Now, we can have different opinions on whether the deal is good or not. We can argue if helping a few powerful American industries internationally truly benefits the average American. There can be all sorts of opinions on the actual effects of the TPP.
But there cannot be any intelligent debate on whether it is a "Free Trade" deal, or a deal that is against freedom of trade.
"the fact that the lion's share of the country remains on sluggish, last-generation speeds thanks to limited to no real competition. "
Not really. MOST of the country remains sluggish because they are an economically unattractive target for incumbent or new ISPs. That is the underlying reasons why there is no competition for their business.
Now, where the population is dense, speeds are also sluggish because of a lack of competition, which in that case is because of protectionist, anti-competitive business processes and regulations.
The story of US broadband is really two very different stories: one rural and the other urban.
Similarly, while Starbucks is on every corner in towns, there are no adequate choices for coffee in Chloride City, California https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chloride+City,+CA+92328 ...but I think we should chalk the cause up to lack of population density and addressable market, not the resulting lack of competition.
I'm getting increasingly frustrated by the concept of "standing". It seems as though the sole purpose of the concept is to help the government avoid justice by keeping secret things secret.
The method is for the gov't to not reveal that the plaintiff actually does have standing, because that's classified information, and as such, the plaintiff cannot sue in a way that establishes their standing.
Basically, I could sue saying "You spied on me, and I intend to prove it in court." and they would respond with "Prove it first, or we don't go to court."
Just as "parlay", a pox on the pirate that first invented "standing"!
Re: Hayward police are corrupt, should all be fired
Sadly, standard fare. Known baddies are just left alone, like in your story. I've got two:
1) Cops show up at 3AM at my place in Mountain View, ask me if I've authorized somebody to use my credit card at a hotel. No. Well, a guy with a sheet of paper, and all my details on it with CC number was just caught climbing into a school window. Nope, not my friend. He goes to jail on the B&E. My credit card company confirms $9,000 worth of fake charges on the card. I ask, do you want to catch the crook? He's in jail right now, I have his police report #. Nope. Thanks, we'll just write it off (and charge it back to the merchants and our customers in the form of fees).
2) My father in law has his motorcycle stolen in Berkeley. He files police report and insurance claim. A week later, he sees the bike parked in front of a house. He parks and calls the cops "I'm looking at my stolen motorbike, you guys gotta come down here and catch the guy." They say nope, they're too busy.
What? Too busy hassling protesters, issuing speeding tickets, and hassling low-income blacks? Seems there is precious little interest in catching actual bad guys. I just don't understand it.
Meanwhile, I get nervous around police - will they give me a ticket for some trivial thing? A rolling stop? If you're poor or black, it's surely much worse.
I'm usually on board with the 1st amendment editorial position here, but not in this case.
If he had posted an article titled: "How to use bitcoin to avoid gov't snooping", I'd agree that his speech is protected. ISIS may use that information, but he'd have plenty of plausible deniablity, like a gun maker, that the tool is not to blame for its use.
But he specifically linked his instructions to ISIS, making it tactical for a specific purpose. He overtly indicated funding for ISIS as the objective of his lesson.
Intent matters, and he made his intent clear, and a matter of record.
I have no idea what the appropriate sentence is, but it's somewhere between nothing and whatever they give you for treason. If he's not a US citizen, then deportation.
You know, the same punishment we gave to Reagan and Oliver North for funding the Contras.
I suggest we extrapolate on Senator Johnson's strategy, and make a form of "security tunnel" that passengers pass through.
The tunnel would start with a body scanner, then a metal detector, then Jared Fogle would pat you down, then the fun "victory tunnel" from my kid's soccer team would cheer you up for the final section, disgraced University of Oklahoma fraternity SAE would give you ritualized spankings while yelling racist or other slurs at you!
I can't PROVE to you that this would catch more terrorists, but I FEEL like we'd be safer. Should we implement my plan? I’m not saying we shouldn’t, at a minimum we should try my plan. Why not go through the security tunnel? You’ve just gotta use common sense.”
"Taxi companies own (or lease) their vehicles; they don't make their drivers provide them."
No. They do something even worse. They own them, and control the medallions which are priced out of reach of the drivers. Then they RENT the taxi cabs to the drivers in 12 hour chunks for about $100 to $110 per day.
Don't forget that (if they were not prohibited) taxi drivers could just use their own car, or rent a car from Alamo for less, or lease a car for way less.
The drivers are economically forced to work 12 hour shifts, in order to earn back enough fares to pay off the high fixed cost of that cab rental. Any cabbie who works just 6 hours will earn just enough to pay the cab rental fee, and keep NOTHING!
So, your claim of "they don't make their drivers provide [cars]" should have been phrased as "they force their drivers to rent cars their cars at inflated rates."