Someone should tell Daschle to take a pill, He's gonna blow a gasket. First of all Bush was talking about the homeland security bill which IS having the shit politicized and pork barreled to death. The Democrats own Zell Miller even admitted as much and essentially said he was sickend by it. I will find you the exact quote. Funny he accuses Bush of politicizing it when A) He started spewing at the mouth before he realized it was the wrong topic instead of Iraq like he thought and B) The same guy who was whining about not being included in the process and now that he is is complaining about politics getting into it.
Gephardt said a number of House Democrats would prefer to delay the Iraq vote until after the elections. But he noted that it was Democrats who in August asked the president to present an Iraq resolution to Congress. "He's done that and I'm glad he did that," Gephardt said. "So we're trying to respond to that."
Reps. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., were circulating a letter urging a postponement of the Iraq vote until after the Nov. 5 elections.
"It is not in the best interests of our nation, nor is it in the best interests of either party, for us to challenge each other's patriotism or our devotion to duty," during the run-up to the elections, they wrote.
Yea, we wouldn't want to know where you stand or how you voted on an issue before an election, no no can't have that. I guess then we can delay votes on medicare, social security, etc. etc. til then, heck why don't you all just go home now until after the elections. That way you won't have to take a stand or actually do the job we sent you to do. These people need to get a clue and take a stand one way or another. To me that is cowardice, you are against taking action fine, then say so and vote that way it's your job, so do it!
BTW Gephardt and Daschle are now saying that because of those remarks (which were taken out of context in the first place and totall unrelated) may now delay the vote as it was suppposed to next week. What? Poor little Tommy Daschle got his feelings hurt so he can't vote ? Oh yea, I forgot the Pres. is politicizing it. Earth to Tommy, the remarks were taken out of context about a different matter. I'm beginning to think though that Bush's remarks were right on the mark.
ROBERTS: So why is -- and I asked you this before, why no hue and cry to roll back the current tax cut?
TERRY MCAULIFFE, Chairman, DNC: I think the main political reason is the president of the United States said, "Over my dead body." He made that statement when this was discussed months ago. So why do the Democrats want to get into the debate when the president said he would veto it over his dead body?
As soon as the elections are over,Democrats, Republicans, let's all come together, sit down at the table, not this photo-op thing they had down in Waco, Texas.
ROBERTS: But let's not do it before the election, right?
(LAUGHTER)
MCAULIFFE: I don't think we'll be able to do it with the political environment the way it is, John, I don't think we can do that. But after, let's all get together. Prescription drugs, let's get the economy moving again.
I've never been so disgusted by politicians in my life. Mainly the Democrats, SOME but not all the ones who want to wait so they can get re-elected make my stomach turn. If you oppose action in Iraq, fine I have no problem if you feel that way but at least say so. We are talking about a matter of national security. Partisan politics are one thing. I can see S.S, education and other issues, that's how it works but there are some things that are just plain wrong to screw around with, and security and or going to war is the most serious and important vote of ones political career. What kind of message are we sending to the U.N and other nations with these games ? How can we expect them to be unified or come out with a resolution when we can't in our own house ? I am serious when I say that this to me is the most disgusting display of political bullshit I have ever witnessed.
The people participating pay for it old chap - a tax they willingly imposed on themselves. The State or the companies are too damn scroogish to participate. I just returned from Germany - where this has existed since time immemorial. My own employer supports it in Europe - but not here in the US. And these companies who do support it still make obscene profits.
Way to go California - the rest of the Neanderthals in the US need to be taught by your example.
And look at the shambles their economy is in.My own employer supports it in Europe - but not here in the US. And these companies who do support it still make obscene profits. Your employer supports it Europe where he has to and uses the US to cut his costs.
I just returned from Germany - where this has existed since time immemorial. My own employer supports it in Europe - but not here in the US. And these companies who do support it still make obscene profits.
Yes and there economy is in shambles. As a small business owner who employs 5 people it would be a hardship. I would have to make cuts elsewhere ie: not hiring new people or cutting costs ie: benefits. You can't be pro-jobs and anti business. For all thier faults and bad ones there are also honest people who own business' that are trying to make ends meet. It's easy to demonize big companies, even harder for some people to come up with solutions on their own. When these same companies that are forced to do so lay off people don't complain.
BTW What effect do you think it will have on companies either leaving California or not locating there ?
That's the first thing I thought of. If I owned a business there, I'd pack my bags.
Bingo !
And then people will complain when they move out of state or out of the country. Then again it's easier to blame a company than it is to actually do something.
why not ask the attorney general what he thinks. jethro? whaddya think? does it apply to california employers or california employees?
How would I know? I haven't seen the bill. The details don't really matter to me since I don't have anything to do with California. However, I would assume it affects only those businesses that are operating in California and only to the extent that they have employees in that state. I don't think Calfornia would have any jurisdicition over anything more than that.
you might actually be surprised, jethro. california is very much a state which leans more towards the employee. for instance, it not only applies the us constitutional 4th amendment rights to itself as an employer, it also applies them to private sector employers. when it comes to assignment agreements for inventions, mine is very much in favor of me. cali law actually mandates that employers provide copies of the relevant sections of california labor code to employees about this as well.
you might actually be surprised, jethro. california is very much a state which leans more towards the employee. No that doesn't surprise me at all.for instance, it not only applies the us constitutional 4th amendment rights to itself as an employer, it also applies them to private sector employers. I am not sure what you mean by this statement. Maybe you could explain what you mean.when it comes to assignment agreements for inventions, mine is very much in favor of me. Again I don't know what you are getting at.
in a nutshell, the government can't conduct a warrantless search, neither can a private sector employer.
as for invention assignment, it used to be that an employer could take any idea, patent, etc., that i "create", from the day i start employment until the day i die, regardless of whether it was conceived on company time or not. in most states anyway, this isn't so much the case anymore, and cali just leads the pack in favoring the employee in such agreements.
Are you saying that if you invent say.....the perfect widget which was your job to develop new widgets and you do so in the company lab on company time that you, and not the company should have the rights to patent or make the product's rights exclusive to you ?
absolutely not, rob. the details vary from state to state, but usually, employers can claim anything you do on company time, plus anything you do on your own time that's related to company business. which is perfectly reasonable. on the other hand i qas quite surprised to read in my agreement that i could actually retain all rights to my own inventions even if done on company time, provided that they didn't meet the related to company business criteria and b) my involvement in such an invention didn't keep me from doing my job, or keep others from doing theirs.
in a nutshell, the government can't conduct a warrantless search, neither can a private sector employer. I am not sure how a private sector employer would get a warrant or why they would need one. Sounds to me that it is government pushing itself in to private matters where it doesn't belong.
as for invention assignment, it used to be that an employer could take any idea, patent, etc., that i "create", from the day i start employment until the day i die, regardless of whether it was conceived on company time or not. in most states anyway, this isn't so much the case anymore, and cali just leads the pack in favoring the employee in such agreements. Couldn't the employment contract set the parameters for what is and is not company property? Again it sounds to me like more government interference in private matters.
of course the contract can set the parameters for what is and what is not company property. within the scope of the law. and considering that corporations exist solely at the leisure of the state, no, its not government interference in private matters.
There are a lot of options between war and appeasement, action and inaction when dealing with hostile or irresponsible nations.
Yet the Bush administration is acting as if the situation in Iraq is an imminent emergency for the security of the United States akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
In October 1962, a U.S. spy plane discovered Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles off the coast of the United States. President Kennedy imposed a naval quarantine around Cuba to prevent arrival of more Soviet offensive weapons on the island and demanded that the Soviets remove their offensive weapons from Cuba. The upshot is that the Soviets backed down, removing Soviet missiles and personnel if the United States would guarantee not to invade Cuba.
Iraq, while it clearly is a danger to stability in the Middle East, is not an immediate threat to the United States. The threat of nuclear missiles pointed at the American heartland only 90 miles off our coast is a lot different than the threat posed by a nation 8,400 miles away that has no fissile material to create a nuclear weapon and no delivery capability to launch biological and chemical weapons beyond 90 miles. Enforcement of "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq since 1992 keep Iraq in check and provide intelligence on Iraqi capabilities. There is no "smoking gun" there.
While Bush administration officials continue to speculate, no credible evidence has been presented of connections toal-Qaeda or the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
In short, no convincing case has been made for unprovoked, pre-emptive attack against Iraq. A good case, however, has been made for returning weapons inspectors and finishing the job of disarming Iraq as United Nations resolutions in the armistice agreement ending the 1991 Gulf War require.
Iraq agreed to the "destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision," of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 90 miles, all missile capabilities, including launchers -- and international inspections to ensure compliance.
Support tough and aggressive inspections.
The new Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes opens up a gigantic Pandora's Box. If U.S. policy is to strike first, what keeps India from adopting a similar policy toward Pakistan, or China toward Taiwan? Any country can say, "So-and-so is a threat to us, so we'll pre-emptively attack." As soon as one nation claims the right to take pre-emptive action, other countries naturally will follow suit. Henry Kissinger, national security adviser under President Nixon and secretary of state under President Ford, states the obvious in saying "it is not in the American national interest to establish pre-emption as a universal principle available to every nation."
William Galston, domestic policy adviser under President Clinton, writing in American Prospect, makes it clear just how radical a policy shift this is: "A global strategy based on the new Bush doctrine of pre-emption means the end of the system of international institutions, law and norms that we have worked to build for more than half a century."
There are also practical problems if we pre-emptively attack Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. Occupation could be years or decades. And as former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke notes, "A successor might be almost as bad, or bad in a different way. Chaos could follow. The material for weapons of mass destruction could fall into the wrong hands. We do not want to see Iraq become a safe haven for other forms of terrorists, as happened in Afghanistan after the United States turned its back on the country in 1989."
Patience and firmness, including tough and aggressive weapons inspections as a first step, will neutralize Iraq better than a rush to pre-emptive attack. This is not the Cuban Missile Crisis.
and government interference in private matters is a bad thing, right?
It is when the issues aren't that important such as the terms of employment contracts. When it comes to killing and the unfettered right to kill it is important. There is a right to life after all, at least for those that have already been born.
jethro, you're so two-faced and full of shit its coming out your ears. it'd be perfectly ok in your eyes for an employer to make an employee one step above a slave, wouldn't it?
Two faced? Not at all. As Lincoln said "I have been accused of being two-faced. If that were true would I be wearing this one?"
But no it wouldn't make anyone a slave. People can negotiate for their working conditions and terms of employment. If you don't have the power to influence your contract then try to form a union.
it'd be perfectly ok in your eyes for an employer to make an employee one step above a slave, wouldn't it?
What is "one step above a slave"? Either one person owns another person (slavery), or they don't. One step above a slave is a person with free will and the right to exercise it (i.e., leave the employer).
DFLers like to see themselves as the party of political decency and lofty moral standards. But after the 2002 campaign, they will have a tough time claiming the high ground.
In the past week, we have seen Janet Robert, the DFL congressional candidate in the 6th District, unleash a vicious and misleading attack ad against Republican incumbent Mark Kennedy. Robert unfairly attempted to link Kennedy to the corporate scandals that have dominated the headlines this year.
Meanwhile, Bob Decheine, the campaign manager and top aide to U.S. Rep. Bill Luther, finally admitted he helped prepare the petitions that put a phony "no-new-taxes'' candidate on the November ballot — in hopes of draining votes from John Kline, Luther's GOP challenger in the 2nd District.
And through it all, the DFL Party continued to channel millions of dollars in unregulated "soft money'' into TV ads for U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone. Much of this money, which Wellstone has labeled as "obscene,'' is coming through national party committees from the very special interest groups Wellstone loves to attack.
Wellstone may emerge from the 2002 campaign as the largest beneficiary of soft money contributions in the entire nation. No wonder he declined Republican challenger Norm Coleman's offer earlier this year to voluntarily ban soft money from their campaign.
Unfair attack ads, dirty tricks, record amounts of soft money — it's enough to make you lose faith in the electoral process, provided you had any to begin with.
This is not to say that the Republicans are white knights in the political process. They have more than their share of so-called "independent expenditure'' groups with funny-sounding names that stretch the truth and make unfair campaign charges.
But the Robert attack is disturbing because she is smearing the professional reputation of not only Kennedy, but also that of the Minnesota corporation for which he worked — Department 56.
Her ad charges that as a top executive of Department 56, Kennedy "used tricky accounting to hide massive losses'' suffered when the firm installed a new computer system. "Shareholders say they got cheated while Kennedy got rich. They even sued.''
Some shareholders did indeed file a lawsuit, but Kennedy's name was dropped from the action and the suit ultimately was dismissed, with U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum writing that the company "regularly, seasonably and clearly informed the investing public'' about its problems.
For his part, Kennedy says Department 56 won a lawsuit against its consultant on the troubled computer project. And he insists: "I never got rich on Department 56 stock. I never sold a single share of Department 56 stock. I never exercised a single stock option.''
Jay Neel, Robert's campaign manager, said last week he stands behind the ad. "We can document every line of it.'' As for the "millions" Kennedy allegedly raked in at the stockholders' expense, Neel said the ad is referring to the $1.2 million in salary Kennedy earned as the company's chief financial officer between 1998 and 2000 — not any stock market windfall.
Robert's ad is her second attempt to tie Kennedy to national corporate scandals. Earlier in the campaign, Robert put out a press release referring to Kennedy as the congressman from Arthur Andersen, the once-respected national accounting firm whose reputation was blackened by its involvement in the Enron scandal.
Robert neglected to mention that Kennedy, a CPA, had last worked for Arthur Andersen in 1981, two decades before the Enron scandal.
In seeking to carve up Kennedy, Robert has done a whole lot more to define herself — and the definition isn't very flattering.
Bob Decheine is not likely to be nominated for any ethics awards, either. It took the Luther campaign manager more than two months to admit that he was involved in preparing the petitions that put phony "no new taxes'' candidate Sam Garst on the ballot.
Things just keep getting worse for Dems. Say goodbye to Toricelli, bye bye, Danny. And then we have Harkin in Iowa involved in a scandal. The Dems can't decide what to do on Iraq or homeland security and we have McDermott and Bonior going to Bagdhad to kiss Sadam's ass. Keep it up democrats! You're doing a good job. (of getting Republicans elected :)
exactly, thx. as i've stated earlier, 20 years ago, exercising free will to leave an employer in any sort of tech field meant a career change, because the previous employer took all of your intellectual property in perpetuity. makes it hard to work for someone new if you have to sign a similar agreement there, doesn't it?
You forgot the record fines by the FEC for those that were involved in the 1996 campaign fund raising. At least those that they could find. Many of these "corporations have folded and others were dummy operations, with no assets, set up as conduits for money from China, Venezuela, Canada and other countries" according to reports.
And there's that too :) Seems to never end. Must be part of that vast right wing conspiracy that's out to get those dems. We just keep making them take illegal campagin money and turning up scandals.
What I want to know is where these morons Bonior & McDermott get the chutzpah of going over to Bagdahd to do Sadamms P.R work for him ? I have now renamed them Boner & McDipshit.
Some excerpts from a George Will commentary yesterday in the Star Trib. on Boner & McDipshit. These are only a few of their idiotic and outrageous statements.
Bonior, until recently second-ranking in the House Democratic leadership, said sources no less reliable than Saddam's minions told them that inspectors will have an ``unrestricted ability to go where they want.'' McDermott said: ``I think you have to take the Iraqis on their value--at their face value.'' And: ``I think the president would mislead the American people.''
Yes Mr. Boner I amn sure we can trust Sadamn more that your own president you lying sack of shit.
And then there's McDipshit.
McDermott sided with Saddam in opposing what McDermott calls the ``coercive stuff''--inspections backed by force, which are the only kind that have even a remote chance of being productive. Parroting Saddam's line to perfection, he said ``Iraq did not drive the inspectors out, we''--actually, the U.N.--``took them out. So they should be given a chance.'' His implication is that America, not Iraq, foiled inspections.
Gore and many other Democrats who supported the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, with which the Clinton administration endorsed regime change, are now engaged in moral infantilism--willing the end but refusing to will any realistic means to that end.
Conservative isolationism--America is too good for the world--is long dead. Liberal isolationism--the world is too good for America--is flourishing.
Politics aside, is there anyone other than Dennis who could or would defend their actions or statements ? Anyone ?
20 years ago, exercising free will to leave an employer in any sort of tech field meant a career change, because the previous employer took all of your intellectual property in perpetuity. The fact that you can have a "career change" means you have free will.
makes it hard to work for someone new if you have to sign a similar agreement there, doesn't it Then don't sign it. Maybe you can work for yourself. Maybe you can get a union together.
let us know when you've taken the blinders off and have had a reality check jethro. with every bit of tripe you spew you make yourself look more and more like an idiot.
let us know when you've taken the blinders off and have had a reality check jethro. with every bit of tripe you spew you make yourself look more and more like an idiot.
An attack without any basis other than you don't like what I wrote. Life isn't easy never has been. Governments role shouldn't be to make the lives easier of competent people. You appear more of an idiot than I based on your response.
An attack without any basis other than you don't like what I wrote.
damn straight its an attack. you really shouldn't be complaining about it either. you're the king of attacks around this place based on someone saying something youdon't like. i've lost count of the number of times i've read you call people around a certain other thread butchers and baby killers. why? because you don't like their opinion. i'm real sure that everyone you've called a baby killer has killed a baby. but then i guess i really shouldn't expect anything more from you should i?
i've read you call people around a certain other thread butchers and baby killers. why? No because they support the dismemberment of unborn children (butchery) and the killing of those children. That is my BASIS for the attack.I'm real sure that everyone you've called a baby killer has killed a baby. They adovate the killing of babies. There really isn't much difference. I mean under our law a person that hires a killer is as guilty as those that actually do the killing.
The difference my dear ares is that if you support abortion and adovacte its legality you should accept the fact that you will be attacked for that view. Even the proabortionists say they find abortion abhorent. I personally don't believe they really believe that it is but that is at least what they say.
It is done all the time. You should know that but it wouldn't surprise me if you did not. There are plenty of cases that have come to that conclusion. Most state statutes, maybe all, have the same penalty for those that hire the killer as they do for those that actually do the killing.
They adovate the killing of babies. There really isn't much difference. I mean under our law a person that hires a killer is as guilty as those that actually do the killing.
actually, as someone who is pro choice, there is a difference between me advocating the choice and hiring someone to bump someone off. a very big differnce. and if you were the lawyer you've claimed to be, you'd actually know that.
However, smoking may be self-financing, perhaps even a net financial gain to government. Cigarettes are the most heavily taxed consumer product, and one in three smokers dies prematurely, before collecting pensions and medical and nursing-home entitlements they would have received had they lived longer.
more on Judge Estrada
Someone should tell Daschle to take a pill, He's gonna blow a gasket. First of all Bush was talking about the homeland security bill which IS having the shit politicized and pork barreled to death. The Democrats own Zell Miller even admitted as much and essentially said he was sickend by it. I will find you the exact quote. Funny he accuses Bush of politicizing it when A) He started spewing at the mouth before he realized it was the wrong topic instead of Iraq like he thought and B) The same guy who was whining about not being included in the process and now that he is is complaining about politics getting into it.
Speaking of politicizing it.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/4151043.htm
Yea, we wouldn't want to know where you stand or how you voted on an issue before an election, no no can't have that. I guess then we can delay votes on medicare, social security, etc. etc. til then, heck why don't you all just go home now until after the elections. That way you won't have to take a stand or actually do the job we sent you to do. These people need to get a clue and take a stand one way or another. To me that is cowardice, you are against taking action fine, then say so and vote that way it's your job, so do it!
BTW Gephardt and Daschle are now saying that because of those remarks (which were taken out of context in the first place and totall unrelated) may now delay the vote as it was suppposed to next week. What? Poor little Tommy Daschle got his feelings hurt so he can't vote ? Oh yea, I forgot the Pres. is politicizing it. Earth to Tommy, the remarks were taken out of context about a different matter. I'm beginning to think though that Bush's remarks were right on the mark.
Yea, we wouldn't want to know where you stand or how you voted on an issue before an election, no no can't have that.
Face the Nation 9-1-02
ROBERTS: So why is -- and I asked you this before, why no hue and cry to roll back the current tax cut?
TERRY MCAULIFFE, Chairman, DNC: I think the main political reason is the president of the United States said, "Over my dead body." He made that statement when this was discussed months ago. So why do the Democrats want to get into the debate when the president said he would veto it over his dead body?
As soon as the elections are over,Democrats, Republicans, let's all come together, sit down at the table, not this photo-op thing they had down in Waco, Texas.
ROBERTS: But let's not do it before the election, right?
(LAUGHTER)
MCAULIFFE: I don't think we'll be able to do it with the political environment the way it is, John, I don't think we can do that. But after, let's all get together. Prescription drugs, let's get the economy moving again.
I've never been so disgusted by politicians in my life. Mainly the Democrats, SOME but not all the ones who want to wait so they can get re-elected make my stomach turn. If you oppose action in Iraq, fine I have no problem if you feel that way but at least say so. We are talking about a matter of national security. Partisan politics are one thing. I can see S.S, education and other issues, that's how it works but there are some things that are just plain wrong to screw around with, and security and or going to war is the most serious and important vote of ones political career. What kind of message are we sending to the U.N and other nations with these games ? How can we expect them to be unified or come out with a resolution when we can't in our own house ? I am serious when I say that this to me is the most disgusting display of political bullshit I have ever witnessed.
California's Governor Gray Davis has gotten himself some front-page headlines, not only in California but across the country, by signing into law the first mandated provision for paid leave from work (at half pay) for people who say that they have family problems to deal with.
I guess since everyone has problems everyone will be taking off work. What a deal! Now if we can just figure out how to pay for it.
What a crock. EVERYONE has issues at home, it's called life.
Once again, no personal responsibility.
Poor me, poor me.
My life sucks so my company should pay me.
What a bunch of foo foo nonsense.
::slams head on desk::
jethro bodine 9/27/02 8:46am- Now if we can just figure out how to pay for it.
The people participating pay for it old chap - a tax they willingly imposed on themselves. The State or the companies are too damn scroogish to participate. I just returned from Germany - where this has existed since time immemorial. My own employer supports it in Europe - but not here in the US. And these companies who do support it still make obscene profits.
Way to go California - the rest of the Neanderthals in the US need to be taught by your example.
Why should your company have to pay for your personal problems?
And look at the shambles their economy is in.My own employer supports it in Europe - but not here in the US. And these companies who do support it still make obscene profits. Your employer supports it Europe where he has to and uses the US to cut his costs.
Naradar,
Yes and there economy is in shambles. As a small business owner who employs 5 people it would be a hardship. I would have to make cuts elsewhere ie: not hiring new people or cutting costs ie: benefits.
You can't be pro-jobs and anti business. For all thier faults and bad ones there are also honest people who own business' that are trying to make ends meet. It's easy to demonize big companies, even harder for some people to come up with solutions on their own. When these same companies that are forced to do so lay off people don't complain.
BTW What effect do you think it will have on companies either leaving California or not locating there ?
What effect do you think it will have on companies either leaving California
That's the first thing I thought of. If I owned a business there, I'd pack my bags.
Bingo !
And then people will complain when they move out of state or out of the country. Then again it's easier to blame a company than it is to actually do something.
wooohoooo!!! my company's headquarters is in cali and thus falls under this law! half-paid vacation without taking vacation time here i come
</sarcasm>. sheesh.
Good point though.
I wonder, is that for empolyees of California companies? Or just California residents?
why not ask the attorney general what he thinks. jethro? whaddya think? does it apply to california employers or california employees?
why not ask the attorney general what he thinks. jethro? whaddya think? does it apply to california employers or california employees?
How would I know? I haven't seen the bill. The details don't really matter to me since I don't have anything to do with California. However, I would assume it affects only those businesses that are operating in California and only to the extent that they have employees in that state. I don't think Calfornia would have any jurisdicition over anything more than that.
you might actually be surprised, jethro. california is very much a state which leans more towards the employee. for instance, it not only applies the us constitutional 4th amendment rights to itself as an employer, it also applies them to private sector employers. when it comes to assignment agreements for inventions, mine is very much in favor of me. cali law actually mandates that employers provide copies of the relevant sections of california labor code to employees about this as well.
you might actually be surprised, jethro. california is very much a state which leans more towards the employee. No that doesn't surprise me at all.for instance, it not only applies the us constitutional 4th amendment rights to itself as an employer, it also applies them to private sector employers. I am not sure what you mean by this statement. Maybe you could explain what you mean.when it comes to assignment agreements for inventions, mine is very much in favor of me. Again I don't know what you are getting at.
in a nutshell, the government can't conduct a warrantless search, neither can a private sector employer.
as for invention assignment, it used to be that an employer could take any idea, patent, etc., that i "create", from the day i start employment until the day i die, regardless of whether it was conceived on company time or not. in most states anyway, this isn't so much the case anymore, and cali just leads the pack in favoring the employee in such agreements.
Ares,
Are you saying that if you invent say.....the perfect widget which was your job to develop new widgets and you do so in the company lab on company time that you, and not the company should have the rights to patent or make the product's rights exclusive to you ?
absolutely not, rob. the details vary from state to state, but usually, employers can claim anything you do on company time, plus anything you do on your own time that's related to company business. which is perfectly reasonable. on the other hand i qas quite surprised to read in my agreement that i could actually retain all rights to my own inventions even if done on company time, provided that they didn't meet the related to company business criteria and b) my involvement in such an invention didn't keep me from doing my job, or keep others from doing theirs.
in a nutshell, the government can't conduct a warrantless search, neither can a private sector employer. I am not sure how a private sector employer would get a warrant or why they would need one. Sounds to me that it is government pushing itself in to private matters where it doesn't belong.
as for invention assignment, it used to be that an employer could take any idea, patent, etc., that i "create", from the day i start employment until the day i die, regardless of whether it was conceived on company time or not. in most states anyway, this isn't so much the case anymore, and cali just leads the pack in favoring the employee in such agreements. Couldn't the employment contract set the parameters for what is and is not company property? Again it sounds to me like more government interference in private matters.
Ares,
Ah, O.K Got it, thanks, I'm a little slow today.
:: slams head on desk
</jt>::
of course the contract can set the parameters for what is and what is not company property. within the scope of the law. and considering that corporations exist solely at the leisure of the state, no, its not government interference in private matters.
CHOOSE TOUGH INSPECTIONS OVER PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACK
There are a lot of options between war and appeasement, action and inaction when dealing with hostile or irresponsible nations.
Yet the Bush administration is acting as if the situation in Iraq is an imminent emergency for the security of the United States akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
In October 1962, a U.S. spy plane discovered Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles off the coast of the United States. President Kennedy imposed a naval quarantine around Cuba to prevent arrival of more Soviet offensive weapons on the island and demanded that the Soviets remove their offensive weapons from Cuba. The upshot is that the Soviets backed down, removing Soviet missiles and personnel if the United States would guarantee not to invade Cuba.
Iraq, while it clearly is a danger to stability in the Middle East, is not an immediate threat to the United States. The threat of nuclear missiles pointed at the American heartland only 90 miles off our coast is a lot different than the threat posed by a nation 8,400 miles away that has no fissile material to create a nuclear weapon and no delivery capability to launch biological and chemical weapons beyond 90 miles. Enforcement of "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq since 1992 keep Iraq in check and provide intelligence on Iraqi capabilities. There is no "smoking gun" there.
While Bush administration officials continue to speculate, no credible evidence has been presented of connections toal-Qaeda or the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
In short, no convincing case has been made for unprovoked, pre-emptive attack against Iraq. A good case, however, has been made for returning weapons inspectors and finishing the job of disarming Iraq as United Nations resolutions in the armistice agreement ending the 1991 Gulf War require.
Iraq agreed to the "destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision," of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 90 miles, all missile capabilities, including launchers -- and international inspections to ensure compliance.
Support tough and aggressive inspections.
The new Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes opens up a gigantic Pandora's Box. If U.S. policy is to strike first, what keeps India from adopting a similar policy toward Pakistan, or China toward Taiwan? Any country can say, "So-and-so is a threat to us, so we'll pre-emptively attack." As soon as one nation claims the right to take pre-emptive action, other countries naturally will follow suit. Henry Kissinger, national security adviser under President Nixon and secretary of state under President Ford, states the obvious in saying "it is not in the American national interest to establish pre-emption as a universal principle available to every nation."
William Galston, domestic policy adviser under President Clinton, writing in American Prospect, makes it clear just how radical a policy shift this is: "A global strategy based on the new Bush doctrine of pre-emption means the end of the system of international institutions, law and norms that we have worked to build for more than half a century."
There are also practical problems if we pre-emptively attack Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. Occupation could be years or decades. And as former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke notes, "A successor might be almost as bad, or bad in a different way. Chaos could follow. The material for weapons of mass destruction could fall into the wrong hands. We do not want to see Iraq become a safe haven for other forms of terrorists, as happened in Afghanistan after the United States turned its back on the country in 1989."
Patience and firmness, including tough and aggressive weapons inspections as a first step, will neutralize Iraq better than a rush to pre-emptive attack. This is not the Cuban Missile Crisis.
--Duluth News Tribune editorial
It is, to some degree, interference with private matters.
and government interference in private matters is a bad thing, right?
and government interference in private matters is a bad thing, right?
It is when the issues aren't that important such as the terms of employment contracts. When it comes to killing and the unfettered right to kill it is important. There is a right to life after all, at least for those that have already been born.
jethro, you're so two-faced and full of shit its coming out your ears. it'd be perfectly ok in your eyes for an employer to make an employee one step above a slave, wouldn't it?
Two faced? Not at all. As Lincoln said "I have been accused of being two-faced. If that were true would I be wearing this one?"
But no it wouldn't make anyone a slave. People can negotiate for their working conditions and terms of employment. If you don't have the power to influence your contract then try to form a union.
What is "one step above a slave"? Either one person owns another person (slavery), or they don't. One step above a slave is a person with free will and the right to exercise it (i.e., leave the employer).
'02 campaign already marred by dirty tricks
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/editorial/4166164.htm
Things just keep getting worse for Dems. Say goodbye to Toricelli, bye bye, Danny. And then we have Harkin in Iowa involved in a scandal. The Dems can't decide what to do on Iraq or homeland security and we have McDermott and Bonior going to Bagdhad to kiss Sadam's ass. Keep it up democrats! You're doing a good job. (of getting Republicans elected :)
Just because you're not a slave doesn't mean you have free will.
exactly, thx. as i've stated earlier, 20 years ago, exercising free will to leave an employer in any sort of tech field meant a career change, because the previous employer took all of your intellectual property in perpetuity. makes it hard to work for someone new if you have to sign a similar agreement there, doesn't it?
L2F,
You forgot the record fines by the FEC for those that were involved in the 1996 campaign fund raising. At least those that they could find. Many of these "corporations have folded and others were dummy operations, with no assets, set up as conduits for money from China, Venezuela, Canada and other countries" according to reports.
Dan Zachary 9/30/02 9:37pm
And there's that too :) Seems to never end. Must be part of that vast right wing conspiracy that's out to get those dems. We just keep making them take illegal campagin money and turning up scandals.
What I want to know is where these morons Bonior & McDermott get the chutzpah of going over to Bagdahd to do Sadamms P.R work for him ?
I have now renamed them Boner & McDipshit.
Some excerpts from a George Will commentary yesterday in the Star Trib. on Boner & McDipshit. These are only a few of their idiotic and outrageous statements.
Yes Mr. Boner I amn sure we can trust Sadamn more that your own president you lying sack of shit.
And then there's McDipshit.
Politics aside, is there anyone other than Dennis who could or would defend their actions or statements ? Anyone ?
20 years ago, exercising free will to leave an employer in any sort of tech field meant a career change, because the previous employer took all of your intellectual property in perpetuity. The fact that you can have a "career change" means you have free will.
makes it hard to work for someone new if you have to sign a similar agreement there, doesn't it Then don't sign it. Maybe you can work for yourself. Maybe you can get a union together.
let us know when you've taken the blinders off and have had a reality check jethro. with every bit of tripe you spew you make yourself look more and more like an idiot.
JOE !!!!! :)
let us know when you've taken the blinders off and have had a reality check jethro. with every bit of tripe you spew you make yourself look more and more like an idiot.
An attack without any basis other than you don't like what I wrote. Life isn't easy never has been. Governments role shouldn't be to make the lives easier of competent people. You appear more of an idiot than I based on your response.
An attack without any basis other than you don't like what I wrote.
damn straight its an attack. you really shouldn't be complaining about it either. you're the king of attacks around this place based on someone saying something youdon't like. i've lost count of the number of times i've read you call people around a certain other thread butchers and baby killers. why? because you don't like their opinion. i'm real sure that everyone you've called a baby killer has killed a baby. but then i guess i really shouldn't expect anything more from you should i?
You ignored the part that stated an attack WITHOUT ANY BASIS.If you have a basis for an attack go right ahead.
i've read you call people around a certain other thread butchers and baby killers. why? No because they support the dismemberment of unborn children (butchery) and the killing of those children. That is my BASIS for the attack.I'm real sure that everyone you've called a baby killer has killed a baby. They adovate the killing of babies. There really isn't much difference. I mean under our law a person that hires a killer is as guilty as those that actually do the killing.
The difference my dear ares is that if you support abortion and adovacte its legality you should accept the fact that you will be attacked for that view. Even the proabortionists say they find abortion abhorent. I personally don't believe they really believe that it is but that is at least what they say.
Put it to a jury, and see what they say, jethro.
Put it to a jury, and see what they say, jethro
It is done all the time. You should know that but it wouldn't surprise me if you did not. There are plenty of cases that have come to that conclusion. Most state statutes, maybe all, have the same penalty for those that hire the killer as they do for those that actually do the killing.
They adovate the killing of babies. There really isn't much difference. I mean under our law a person that hires a killer is as guilty as those that actually do the killing.
actually, as someone who is pro choice, there is a difference between me advocating the choice and hiring someone to bump someone off. a very big differnce. and if you were the lawyer you've claimed to be, you'd actually know that.