well, i’d love to know literally any actual details of this “cyberstalking, physically intimidating and harassing Chinese citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens and families of dissidents”, but i guess the purview of a lot of journalism is just press releases now and not actually investigating the contents of those press releases
I’ve found that usually is the case especially with “articles” like this on TV News channel sites, but I can’t find where any papers have picked up the story. They may still be following up on it, but I would expect if the Houston Chronicle winds up picking the story up they will have more details.
then, again: it’d be nice to provide literally any details of that–this article basically presupposes this to be occurring without providing any details at all
In one case, according to Wray, the CCP “sent an emissary to visit the target’s family here in the United States.” This emissary warned the target that he or she “had two options: return to China promptly, or commit suicide.”
In December 2021, a ‘Private Investigator’ working for the CCP has been advised to also consider physically attacking the Victim. In a voice message intercepted by the police, it was said:
You can start thinking now, aside from violence, what other plans are there? Huh? But in the end, violence would be fine too. Huh? Beat him [chuckles], beat him until he cannot run for election. Heh, that’s the-the last resort. You-you think about it. Car accident, [he] will be completely wrecked [chuckles], right? Don’t know, eh, whatever ways from all different angles.
this is such a false equivalence it might as well be a nonsequitur–this isn’t “demonstrating basic inferential science that has been known about for over 100 years”, it amounts to an accusation of violating the sovereignty of another country and yes, that should be seriously scrutinized and demonstrated (especially given the tensions between the US and China, and the long tail of anti-Asian sentiment caused by COVID)
So what would you say is the appropriate course of action? For the FBI to out the identities and statements of people who report Chinese state harassment in the US? To keep the information entirely a secret otherwise?
Like, the FBI warning people that there’s a danger without totally tipping their hand seems like a reasonable move to make if they have such evidence. They don’t need to present it in order to do that.
Likewise, while it would certainly make a better story and a better read if it provided some additional background information, that’s not what this piece is. It’s literally just reporting the announcement.
Honestly, I’m not sure where your opposition to it is outside of simply reacting to criticism of the Chinese government. Which, honestly, is a little shady.
I mean, it’s not an investigative piece. It’s literally just ‘hey, the FBI made an announcement’. Presumably because most people aren’t checking on FBI announcements, and it’s probably something people should know about. Relaying the announcement as a public service doesn’t preclude also being able to do investigative journalism.
This certainly isn’t the first time I’ve seen something like this, not even on beehaw. Seems like it’s worth it to provide an FBI warning to people who might be vulnerable; both so they can be aware and so they can know who to reach out to if they have an issue.
The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice. The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.
So…
Why, if you think the code that applies to all other federal judges is good, did you not simply adopt it?
So the problem is that people think the justices consider them not bound by ethics rules because they don’t have a formal code, not the behaviors of certain justices that have come to light in recent years, got it.
To me, it feels like this is just written confirmation that they functionally have no code of ethics. They’ve been dodging the question for months, so I guess this is progress?
I mean, aren’t they just saying they have to promise bribes aren’t impacting their decisions while confirming they can definitely use official resources for unofficial reasons?
Brenda Ray, who has lived in the Fremont area for 40 years, said she noted the change in the city’s population and voted for the ordinance back in 2010. She said she doesn’t “have a problem” with the Central American arrivals “if they are legal and they come in to speak American English.”
She wishes the rule, known as Ordinance 5165, “accomplished more,” but still supports it.
“It’s something that we have in our toolbox,” she said. “If we have a big problem we can fall back on it.”
In short, “I saw a lot of brown people move in, and I didn’t like it. I wish we were able to me more cruel to them, but there’s hope for that in the future.” What an absolute ghoul.
So, for more than 12 hours, with carbon monoxide alarms going off repeatedly, the only option not taken under advisement was checking to see if they were working?
Or, possibly, this isn’t the first ”false” alarm they’ve ignored, just the one that lasted long enough that they disabled the alarms and someone finally died from exposure. This might have been a small leak that grew into a large leak.
If you read the article, they had just installed a new water heater and did the ventilation wrong. There were also a few instances through the course of the day where the detectors were triggered and handled. There was a lot of negligence from the vendor that installed the ventilation and especially the maintenance that did not consider the recent work that had been done and assumed that all the detectors were suddenly faulty at the same time.
It was a neologism associated with the eugenics movement (“created specifically for” appears to be editorializing on your part), more than 100 years ago. The word has LONG since lost any connection with that meaning, with the sole exception of virtue signaling like yours.
My only concern with that, which is likely shared by others, was addressed beautifully in the last paragraph of the article:
The second common objection is “Impartiality! We don’t want the government’s dirty money tainting the news!” Okay. Time to get over that. It is possible to insulate journalists from public money at least as well as they were insulated from the private money of advertisers. If your position is that public money will irrevocably taint journalism but the biggest companies in America buying ads will not, I submit that you have not thought about this issue very deeply. Furthermore, there are already existing examples of states funding journalism, evidence that the nature of this problem is dawning, at least in progressive states.
That is a very good point to which I have no counter-argument. In fact, if we look at BBC as an example, they’re publicly funded and maintain high credibility and a high degree of press freedom.
TL;DR: Public funding definitely won’t make the situation worse, and there is evidence that it would improve things. I say give it shot.
That is a very good point to which I have no counter-argument. In fact, if we look at BBC as an example, they’re publicly funded and maintain high credibility and a high degree of press freedom.
while i haven’t looked into it particularly, i’m also sure there are ways to de facto public-fund media while still creating separation from the state if you’re really worried about that. like, there probably isn’t just the single way to publicly fund media and you have to either accept that model or not publicly fund media, right?
while i haven’t looked into it particularly, i’m also sure there are ways to de facto public-fund media while still creating separation from the state if you’re really worried about that.
It’s not so much that I’m worried about it personally; it’s just more of a general concern for public trust given our current divisions. I just figure that, regardless of the party in power, half the country is going to call it a propaganda arm at any given time. OTOH, we already have that division with private journalism, so I guess nothing would really change much?
I think you’re right on the money (pun intended) that it would have to be a de-facto funding with clear separation from the state. This is where I feel BBC does well, at least with world news.
like, there probably isn’t just the single way to publicly fund media and you have to either accept that model or not publicly fund media, right?
Oh, I’m sure there are multiple feasible ways to do it - I just don’t know what/which, specifically, would be necessary or best. The funding part is a bit out of my wheelhouse as that’s not something we really covered in the journalism electives I took all those years ago. lol
I think that the fear of government censorship or bias in publicly-funded media can also be allayed by taking funding decisions for it away from legislative bodies, and allowing citizens to directly vote on funding, so that it’s not about appealing to whoever the current administration is.
and allowing citizens to directly vote on funding, so that it’s not about appealing to whoever the current administration is.
my worry with this is that it’s not obvious there’s public alignment with the kind of journalism that’s needed and the kind of journalism that’s wanted, and further that this directly incentivizes attempting ideological capture of the media (which is part of what’s gotten us here).
But then we’re back to insisting on some amount of government influence in the media. “People won’t vote to fund the correct, ‘necessary’ media, so we need the government to decide what the necessary media to fund is.”
Ultimately, trusting in democracy means you have to trust people to choose what’s best for themselves (with protections against those choices hurting others). Sure, people might not agree that a certain type of media is valuable, and that’s fine.
Who, if not the media consumers, do you think should determine what kind of journalism is “needed”?
Ultimately, trusting in democracy means you have to trust people to choose what’s best for themselves (with protections against those choices hurting others).
well then i think the disconnect here is pretty simple: i absolutely don’t, and i think the past few years have borne this out repeatedly. i think it’s trivial to mislead people into voting against their best interests and that the public voting in a way that harms them has been a repeatedly-occurring, inarguable problem in most existing democratic states throughout their history. so i have no issue with this.
Misinformation does not discredit democracy, it discredits the state apparatus that either allows- or conducts- the misinformation. Educational failure is also a huge part of our current problem with misinformation, and it’s the active, malicious deconstruction of our education system by political and corporate interests that is to blame for that, making voters less informed about history and science, less capable of applying rigorous critical thinking skills to information they encounter, etc, that is exacerbating our current problem of easily misled voters.
so i have no issue with this.
So then I would again ask, who do you think should determine what kind of journalism is ‘needed’?
Misinformation does not discredit democracy, it discredits the state apparatus that either allows- or conducts- the misinformation.
we don’t agree on this for a variety of reasons, so i just reject the premise here and what follows from it.
So then I would again ask, who do you think should determine what kind of journalism is ‘needed’?
i’m pretty content to trust journalism as a collective institution to produce the sort of necessary journalism for a healthy civic society—it’s been doing just that for a long time even in the absence of the readership to financially support it. (things like ProPublica would not exist if journalism was incapable of doing this from within)
so i just reject the premise here and what follows from it
…okay? I’m happy to discuss this within the parameters of a different political paradigm if you prefer, I just normally discuss things within the paradigms they currently operate under.
ProPublica would not exist if journalism was incapable of doing this from within
ProPublica exists precisely because of the public directly deciding which media organizations should receive funding; they’re a donor-funded non-profit. They would not exist if the public did not agree- and vote with their wallets, as it were- to fund them. Journalism as a collective institution does not sustain itself.
journalism as a collective institution to produce the sort of necessary journalism for a healthy civic society
So just to be clear, are you advocating for news media to not be publicly-funded, or are you advocating that all news be publicly-funded?
Because if it’s anything else, someone is making the call as to who receives funding and who doesn’t, and journalism as a collective institution is not actually a decision-making body.
ProPublica exists precisely because of the public directly deciding which media organizations should receive funding; they’re a donor-funded non-profit.
ProPublica exists in large part off of grant money, large philanthropic donors who believe in its journalism and very generous backing from the Sandler Foundation (which i believe gives it on the order of $10m a year). it does not really exist because of the kindness of individual small donors that you’re using as shorthand for the “public”, and if (as you suggested up thread) the public at-large was asked to fund ProPublica at the scale it currently operates, it would almost assuredly be non-viable.
So just to be clear, are you advocating for news media to not be publicly-funded, or are you advocating that all news be publicly-funded?
i think it’s perfectly fine for all news to be publicly funded, yeah
i think it’s perfectly fine for all news to be publicly funded, yeah
So anyone could create a news organization, and publish anything they want, and receive public money for it? That seems like it would massively increase the amount of misinformation being thrown at voters, making them even less informed?
Personally, I don’t like governments, so in my ideal world there would not be “public” funding in the way we define that now, it would be up to communities how to allocate their resources (and how to make those decisions), and which industries are important. But obviously I understand that situation is purely aspirational. In our current system, I prefer direct democracy over leaving decisions to a political class that is bought and paid for.
So anyone could create a news organization, and publish anything they want, and receive public money for it? That seems like it would massively increase the amount of misinformation being thrown at voters, making them even less informed?
this seems like an unfounded logical leap from the premise of government involvement, when the far more likely answer is this would become less likely due to the ability to directly regulate news media. you could probably make the public funding contingent on meeting certain editorial or transparency criteria to curb what you’re describing, for example–this is, to a degree, the model of the Dutch public broadcasting system.
I don’t think it’s government involvement that causes that, I think it’s the absence of some kind of mechanism to discriminate between news entities. The only question then, when avoiding that, is whether it’s ultimately the government doing the choosing, or the public.
it’s not obvious there’s public alignment with the kind of journalism that’s needed and the kind of journalism that’s wanted
The journalism that’s “needed”… for what goals? Which becomes a question of “wanted by whom?”.
You might want to shape society into a certain way, and you might have compelling reasons for it… but it’s still an attempt at imposing your social model over others.
Democracy is intended to be a way to avoid that kind of singlehanded impositions, a way for “informed citizens” to vote on what benefits them most, even against what “a single wise man” (like a benevolent dictator) might want.
Consensus would be an even better form of government… but if you know people, then you’ll know how hard it is for a large enough group to reach consensus, or even for two people, or even for one.
(Consensus used to be how Poland was ruled at one time, called “liberum veto”, where any noble could veto any proposal. It did not go well. Nowadays we have a similar thing going on, where someone like Hungary can veto what everyone else has already agreed to, like the incorporation of Sweden into NATO)
Keep in mind though, that democracy relies on two key concepts:
Informed citizens
One vote per person
There is not even a real democracy in the world right now:
Citizens need to be informed… while they rarely are, instead being lead by propaganda and misinformation.
Representative democracy, where representation is chosen once in a blue moon, bundled into a few options, with no choice for a single person to disagree on a single point of a vote… is not democracy.
Having some people’s votes be worth more than other’s, even if it is for whatever “positive action” reasons (ethnicity, residence, having voted for a more voted option, etc.)… is not democracy.
There is a lot of work to be done, on all fronts, to get a society “better for itself”… but imposing a single point of view, no matter how well intended, is not the way.
For the moment, neither public nor privately funded journalism is the answer… the best answer is to have both, while working on ways to enable citizens to get better informed on the consequences of their votes and how they will impact them.
One such way, could be for people to have a trustable personal assistant capable of comparing their personal wishes and needs, to the various options available. This is where open source AIs on a smartphone might come in handy.
You might want to shape society into a certain way, and you might have compelling reasons for it… but it’s still an attempt at imposing your social model over others.
everybody wants to do this whether they admit to it or not (or whether they even think that’s the case or not). “you want to impose your social model over others” is simply not a meaningful way of assessing the world–by necessity and definition, the world must operate under someone’s social model, and obviously if i didn’t believe my social model was the best for the world i wouldn’t advocate for it to begin with. in my case, i don’t even have the luxury of moving to live under the system i want–i did not consent to living in a capitalist social model because i think capitalism is an exploitative economic system that is destroying the world, but there is literally no existing country in the world (besides maybe Cuba, which is under immense economic pressure at all times to liberalize its economic system and be like Vietnam or China) i would consider to be outside of that model.
by necessity and definition, the world must operate under someone’s social model
I disagree. The world could operate under a model shaped by the continuous contributions of everyone, without anyone necessarily imposing or convincing others to adopt their particular model. A model that could evolve as people independently decide what’s best for them in relation to everything.
As for capitalism… some countries have “being a welfare state” encoded in their constitution, above being capitalist. It may not be a full departure from capitalism (which doesn’t seem like what people want anyway), but some countries have implemented it to a decent degree.
The world could operate under a model shaped by the continuous contributions of everyone, without anyone necessarily imposing or convincing others to adopt their particular model.
what you’ve proposed here is not dissimilar to Stirnerite egoism and the issue with that is: Stirnerite egoism is exceedingly idealistic (to the point where almost nobody but Stirner has ever believed in it), so your proposal seems likewise troubled. arguably it’s not even possible–i would contend for example that you’re still just describing an ideology you want to impose on everyone else, and you have fallen into the trap of assuming it escapes the thinking you’re critiquing.
Close, but no. From the Wikipedia article, it seems like Stirner identified correctly that all actions stem from “egoism”, as in the internal motivations of anyone to act in some way… but failed to identify that this “egoism” can include acting following some laws, morals, or even altruistic actions, that an individual can perceive as beneficial for themselves.
There is no trap here, a society built on consensus, is whatever the individuals freely identify as positive for them. The biggest issue, is how to provide people with enough information so they can decide by themselves whether (for example) paying 5% more taxes in order to build some thousand miles of railroads, is something positive for their goals, or not.
The problem right now, is most people blindly defer making those decisions to others, on pure faith into whatever some corporation, party, or leader, influenced by whomever, decides to tell them… and once deferred (casting their votes), they’re out of the decision making process for years at a time.
There is no trap here, a society built on consensus, is whatever the individuals freely identify as positive for them. The biggest issue, is how to provide people with enough information so they can decide by themselves whether (for example) paying 5% more taxes in order to build some thousand miles of railroads, is something positive for their goals, or not.
this is what i mean by you falling into the trap of assuming what you’re proposing is distinct from anyone else imposing their ideology or social model on people. consensus necessarily begins and ends with people agreeing to a shared set of prescriptions on how society works, which is imposing both ideology and a social model through and through–it doesn’t stop being that because it’s agreed to or because you can hypothetically opt out of it. the Zapatistas operate under essentially this exact form of governance (and with the ability to opt out at any time) and if you described that as not an imposition of either social model or ideology that would be silly both to them and to any observer because the Zapatistas have very clear prescriptions of both.
Kind of annoyed they didn’t include what the alleged fire code violations were (or state outright that the police would not provide that information), because if they are for code violations that actually make the place dangerous that adds nuance.
But I would bet in the absence of the police talking about specifics, the violations amount to ‘letting someone sleep in the wrong zone’ and other violations that are far less dangerous than being unhoused in winter.
I’ve heard stories about people receiving citations for letting homeless people sleep in their garage on nights with dangerous negative temperatures in Chicago. And while I get that we have laws for a reason to prevent certain situations from occuring that may be dangerous, it seems like if your choice is definitely die from -15F overnight or risk maybe the chance that if the garage catches fire, it wasn’t made to the same fire safety standards as a house… Just seems like a no brainer to me. Usually judges are supposed to read emergency situations like this and throw the charges out, but it sounds like they won’t even negotiate with this guy :/
Usually, when stuff like that is left out it means that the cops were using it as a pretext law (i.e., it lets them “say-so” without having to provide evidence).
the timing of serving the charges would also seem to strongly imply this is an Authority thing more than an “upholding the law” thing–there’s no way these people didn’t think optically about how it’d look to do this on New Years Day, or around that time of year generally
I am not surprised in the slightest. New vehicles, especially in the US, are way too fucking big. I drive a Miata, which is small, but not diminutive, and there are SUVs on the market who’s hood is above THE TOP OF MY FUCKING ROOF, above the roof of my fully functioning car that takes care of 90% of my driving needs. Absolutely nobody needs a car that big, it’s dangerous and wasteful. I hate the trends of modern cars. I also have a 2001 CR-V for when I need to haul shit and I firmly believe that 99% of people don’t need anything any larger than that.
Big cars are dangerous for pedestrian, dangerous for cyclists, dangerous to other drivers, are wasteful, and are just a dumb status symbol. It’s infuriating!
So, the car I was talking about in my story (where the hood is above my roof) is a Jeep Wagoneer and it’s just insane!
With how big cars have gotten, I just don’t feel safe on the road half the time. Tanks like that block line of sight both from me to lanes of traffic if I’m trying to turn and from traffic to me, so I have to be extra careful at nearly every intersection in my car. Nobody needs a car that big and it’s a constant source of annoyance for me.
I’m glad he got off on the first two charges, but his lawyer argues that the third charge, “shooting into an occupied dwelling” shouldn’t be applicable since it was deemed self defence. The judge will be hearing arguments for this next month.^[newsio.com/…/alan-colie-man-who-shot-youtube-pran…]
Also, dude’s now spent 6 months in jail, only to be found not guilty of at least 2/3rds of the charges. Is there any compensation he’ll get for those missing months of his life? He’s already been punished, and yet he’s still presumed innocent.
his lawyer argues that the third charge, “use of firearm for aggravated malicious wounding” shouldn’t be applicable
It says he’s been found “not guilty” of that one. The charge he’s been found guilty of is “malicious discharge of a firearm within an occupied dwelling”, which… well, he did.
It’s like the laws against shooting bottles in your suburban home backyard: without the right precautions, those bullets can travel a long way, and what goes up ultimately comes down. There have been cases of stray bullets hitting someone totally unsuspecting a block or a few away.
My understanding is that the reason why it’s odd is because they found him not guilty on the other two charges on the grounds of self-defense. If I understand correctly, “self-defense” justifies discharging a firearm, regardless of who, what, when, where, why or how. If the jury rules self-defense in one instance, it should logically be applied to all charges related to that instance. Soooo… why were only two charges “self-defense”?
“self-defense” justifies discharging a firearm, regardless of who, what, when, where, why or how.
This is the problem with American mentality…
No, “self-defense” does not give you a free pass, it only gives you the right to defend yourself against a single specific threat, and only that threat [in more civilized countries, it also requires “with the minimum amount of force necessary”].
You don’t get to mow the crowd with an assault rifle set on full auto, or to nuke the whole mall with all bystanders in it, just because of “self-defense” against a single guy.
Soooo… why were only two charges “self-defense”?
Because they were specified as “aggravated”, which is kind of like saying “without reason”. Self-defense was the reason there, so he wasn’t found guilty of the aggravated charges.
The “non-aggravated” one though, needs more justifying than just “I was afraid”… and I think it should stick, because he should have known better than to start shooting in a mall.
That’s the logic that’s being used in the defense but it’s not necessarily true. If I were to engage a legitimate threat with a firearm but do so in a reckless manner, I would be justified in the shooting but not justified in the reckless Manor in which I discharge the weapon. That’s why carrying a firearm is such a responsibility and liability. In addition to having to determine what is and what is not a deadly threat you also have to know your surroundings and what is past your target. Generally, a bit more leeway is given once the shooting is justified, but in acquittal on criminal charges doesn’t justify the shooting. You acquittal on the other two charges just means there’s insufficient evidence to prove the crime. Having insufficient evidence to prove one crime does not mean that another cannot be proven. For those of you not in America who are trying to follow along, just don’t. It’s not worth the the headache.
The crime is proven. He admitted to shooting Cook. The crime occurred and that is accepted legal fact. The acquittal was a result of a plea of self-defence.
It absolutely does not justify that. You are not suddenly immune from the damage you cause because you were defending yourself. If you don’t pay attention to what’s down range and put a bullet through a kid’s head, your negligence caused a death and you will absolutely be charged with manslaughter at the very least. Most people don’t realize how loud firearms really are. Discharging a firearm inside an enclosed space without hearing protection can permanently damage hearing, so he could have easily permanently injured a lot of bystanders.
malicious discharge of a firearm within an occupied dwelling
The “aggravated” charges seem to have been decided as “not guilty”; the remaining one is not aggravated, just simple trying to shoot someone when there are innocent people nearby in range of the shots.
I bet the lawyers are going to dissect the meaning of “malicious”, but as I see it, he did intend to shoot someone; he didn’t fire a warning shot into a flower pot, the gun didn’t discharge accidentally. I’d say that qualifies as “malicious”.
I agree we'll need to know how malicious is defined so it can be applied to this situation. He didn't get to choose the time and place it took place. He didn't go to the mall looking for trouble, it found him.
I'm also not fully sure how many shots were fired. The few articles I read before didn't mention it, but assuming it was 1 and done. It hit the intended target to neutralize the perceived threat, using a caliber that most likely wouldn't fully penetrate. I would say a he didn't act with neglect for other's lives that were not a part of the situation. If he wildly fired his gun and somehow managed to hit the guy, then yeah I could easily see how that could be malicious/neglectful.
What the hell kind of 9mm ammo you using that would barely penetrate? There are so many types of deforming rounds made for 9mm because it’s actually really good at penetrating humans, walls, cars, you name it. If this idiot loaded FMJs, a single round would easily go through multiple people before stopping.
Correction: may over-penetrate, given the actual center-mass shot, and even then, given this individual seems to have ensured a safe shot e.g. knowing what is beyond your target, there’s absolutely no reason to assume such risk.
This, even side from jumping to alarmism regarding projectile without a reference to the actual projectile used. It seems you’re just fearmongering.
given the actual center-mass shot, and even then, given this individual seems to have ensured a safe shot e.g. knowing what is beyond your target, there’s absolutely no reason to assume such risk.
Except for the parts where the guy shot almost backwards, with barely any aiming, at an angle, nowhere close to center-mass, and with a bunch of food stands with workers on one side, plus an unknown number of clients on the other.
The video which demonstrated a single rounded placed into the assailant low-center (backwards? barely any aiming? Way to take the mask off), completely clear of those stands and “unknown clients”?
Did you watch it? The extent to which you’re misrepresenting what happened makes a person wonder. I sincerely hope it’s just you were just too preoccupied with confirmation bias to see the objective truth of the situation in the video.
Seeing how you’re arguing in bad faith, this is where we shall part ways.
Discussions must be easier when you can simply accuse another of your own failings, with no support for such an accusation, and just peace out when called out on it.
It was a single shot, almost at point-blank, but kind of backwards and without proper aiming. It’s kind of how they tell you not to use a gun. It isn’t obvious from that video whether he had a clear shot; there were at least 2 other people around, who arguably could’ve been considered part of the threat, but also any number of workers at the food stands, and an unknown number of clients, who could’ve ended up being shot had he missed.
I’d say there was “some” neglect on his part… but how much, and how does it translate to the law, is hard to say without more data (and IANAL anyway).
…and corporations will respond by acting like petulant children, escalating their bad faith, up to and including declaring open war on their employees.
The punishment for union-busting should be nationalization - nothing less will get it through the CEO’s thick skulls.
There’s no talking to these people or applying logic to them. They want to be racist, they enjoy being hateful, but they won’t admit that in those words. More and more though they are saying the quiet part out loud.
U.S. News
Top