Chu and his gang are disingenuous scumbags. I think that Mike, as well as many others who have been studiously dissecting this guy's inane, incoherent proclamations, are incorrect to simply assume he's an idiot. Chu understands what he is proposing; he just figures that his tribe would be well-placed to game any new system. His critics blame stupidity for what should properly be attributed to malice.
The PEN signatories to that protest should be ashamed of themselves. Stripping away all political and social context of "selected" Hebdo cartoons, they made reckless accusations of racism based on their own ignorance of the French language.
I hate it when people smugly conflate the "right to free speech" and the concept that free speech is an incredibly important human value that's worth defending.
These are two different things. Yes, the first is only concerned with government action. The latter ideal is more broad, and exercising it requires some personal integrity, not simply passing the buck.
I’m going to grant many of your vague assertions as if they were true. Your position is not that the INS should lay off the Chinese kid’s grieving parents, but that INS should instead work harder to make everybody else’s lives miserable with red tape? This faith in a strong daddy-government must bring comfort.
It's much more of a grey area then you make it sound. The drivers are tied to Uber's service in order to obtain customers. Uber retains control of compensation, vehicle standards and can lay off drivers at will.
In other words, they are freelancers, like me and lots of other folks.
These guys can't just go and be an independent taxi driver at any time.
Blame the well-connected taxi cartel and their corrupt pet politicians for that, not people trying to create an alternative. Artificially shrinking the labor force isn't gonna solve anything.
So passengers can currently hack into the onboard controls of the aircraft, and your theory is that "research is actively being pursued"? This is a catastrophic security defect which exists in the moment, not some theoretical curiosity suitable for a 4-year study.
A simpler and more logical explanation is that whoever's job it was to keep aircraft communications secure is embarrassed at the public knowledge of their incompetence, and quite pleased to deflect blame toward the good samaritan who revealed it.
Just because you might be able to get away with calling someone a "pedophile" (when they're possibly an ephebophile); because you can label a 17-year-old a "child" (instead of just stating the simple facts that he/she is underage and the target of statutory rape); even though you have no fear of legal prosecution for jazzing it up to something more inflammatory... Why would you? Why use words that aren't accurate?
Don't get me wrong. I get it. This cop was and is a total scumbag. And yet, somehow, Mike's fine, passionate article was able to get that reality across without the writer making up lies, fudging facts or creatively reinventing common terms. Officer Beavers did enough horrible shit that there's no reason to stack the deck with extra crimes. I often see people stretching their case using misleading language, and then scoffing / laughing it off when called on their misrepresentations. It taints our cause (if our cause is justice, fairness and police accountability, instead of some junior Nancy Grace desire to jail everybody).
This casual disrespect for the terms you employ makes you sound irrational. It's the rhetoric equivalent of ALL CAPS or screaming at passersby. And like all rhetorical shortcuts, its use eventually spreads throughout the population and becomes modern English.
Getting back to the OP: I don't care what happens to the cop and his unnamed buddies - they deserve to fall hard instead of being rewarded with a blind eye or golden parachute. I do care about language. It’s about the next teenager prosecuted for sexting, forced onto a lifelong sex offender list... all because your words have ceased to mean what they pretend to mean.
I have no doubt that most of the people who repeat that quote haven't got a clue where it came from. But Ferenstein's dumb thesis ("it's pretty clearly about money") is based on a complete twisting of the historical context to support a literal-minded gotcha piece. Benjamin Franklin was advancing a narrower point with regard to freedom, true. That doesn't make the wider principle invalid. And it's not.
Since both articles are all about Walter's real life claims, you are either missing the point entirely, or you have a vested interest in one of his business ventures. I don't know how often or how many different ways it needs to be repeated: No one cares about the show's realism or lack thereof. Really.
You (and all-caps guy, upthread) are on the wrong track, arguing with the straw ghosts of your imagination.