|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 16 2015 16:54 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 16:40 Souma wrote:Republicans in Congress are doing a 180 on net neutrality as the Federal Communications Commission prepares to issue new rules within weeks. For years, GOP lawmakers have adamantly opposed any rules requiring Internet service providers to treat all Web traffic equally, calling them unnecessary and an example of Washington overreach. But now that the FCC is moving toward issuing a tough net neutrality order that would subject broadband to utility-style regulation — an approach endorsed by President Barack Obama — top Republicans in both chambers are making plans to legislate their own rules to ensure the agency doesn’t go too far. “Times have changed,” Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House telecom subcommittee, said when asked about the evolving GOP position on net neutrality. “The administration has latched onto this [utility-style regulation], and the FCC’s independence is nominal at best.” According to Walden, the Republican bill — which “is ready” and will be released in the coming days — “gives the protections that the president and FCC say they want, and does it in a legally sustainable way.” Walden and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) announced late Wednesday that they plan to hold double-header hearings on net neutrality next week, and Thune laid out set of principles that will guide them as they craft the legislation. The language Republicans are using to talk about their proposed bill illustrates just how far the GOP has come on the issue. The principles embrace and even bolster ideas that were once controversial in Republican circles, like banning “paid prioritization,” the practice of charging content companies for an online fast lane. Thune’s principles also include bans on blocking or throttling Web traffic and extending net neutrality protections to wireless networks, an idea put forward by Obama and congressional Democrats. At the same time, the GOP measure would tie the FCC’s hands, prohibiting it from reclassifying broadband as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act, or using other sections of the law to create new rules. Still, the fact that Republicans are even talking about legislating net neutrality marks a stark departure from their past position. Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/republicans-congress-net-neutrality-fcc-114296.html?hp=c2_3Well I'll be... wow. apparently someone important explained to them how things work with the interwebz. and bought them a dictionary where the word freedom is highlighted. good news if they actually evolved from their stupid position to something reasonable.
Looks like simple pragmatism to me. Oppose new rules, but if there are going to be rules, make sure you're the one writing them...
|
On January 16 2015 17:07 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 16:54 Doublemint wrote:On January 16 2015 16:40 Souma wrote:Republicans in Congress are doing a 180 on net neutrality as the Federal Communications Commission prepares to issue new rules within weeks. For years, GOP lawmakers have adamantly opposed any rules requiring Internet service providers to treat all Web traffic equally, calling them unnecessary and an example of Washington overreach. But now that the FCC is moving toward issuing a tough net neutrality order that would subject broadband to utility-style regulation — an approach endorsed by President Barack Obama — top Republicans in both chambers are making plans to legislate their own rules to ensure the agency doesn’t go too far. “Times have changed,” Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House telecom subcommittee, said when asked about the evolving GOP position on net neutrality. “The administration has latched onto this [utility-style regulation], and the FCC’s independence is nominal at best.” According to Walden, the Republican bill — which “is ready” and will be released in the coming days — “gives the protections that the president and FCC say they want, and does it in a legally sustainable way.” Walden and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) announced late Wednesday that they plan to hold double-header hearings on net neutrality next week, and Thune laid out set of principles that will guide them as they craft the legislation. The language Republicans are using to talk about their proposed bill illustrates just how far the GOP has come on the issue. The principles embrace and even bolster ideas that were once controversial in Republican circles, like banning “paid prioritization,” the practice of charging content companies for an online fast lane. Thune’s principles also include bans on blocking or throttling Web traffic and extending net neutrality protections to wireless networks, an idea put forward by Obama and congressional Democrats. At the same time, the GOP measure would tie the FCC’s hands, prohibiting it from reclassifying broadband as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act, or using other sections of the law to create new rules. Still, the fact that Republicans are even talking about legislating net neutrality marks a stark departure from their past position. Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/republicans-congress-net-neutrality-fcc-114296.html?hp=c2_3Well I'll be... wow. apparently someone important explained to them how things work with the interwebz. and bought them a dictionary where the word freedom is highlighted. good news if they actually evolved from their stupid position to something reasonable. Looks like simple pragmatism to me. Oppose new rules, but if there are going to be rules, make sure you're the one writing them...
Better way to govern, imo.
|
On January 16 2015 16:54 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 16:40 Souma wrote:Republicans in Congress are doing a 180 on net neutrality as the Federal Communications Commission prepares to issue new rules within weeks. For years, GOP lawmakers have adamantly opposed any rules requiring Internet service providers to treat all Web traffic equally, calling them unnecessary and an example of Washington overreach. But now that the FCC is moving toward issuing a tough net neutrality order that would subject broadband to utility-style regulation — an approach endorsed by President Barack Obama — top Republicans in both chambers are making plans to legislate their own rules to ensure the agency doesn’t go too far. “Times have changed,” Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House telecom subcommittee, said when asked about the evolving GOP position on net neutrality. “The administration has latched onto this [utility-style regulation], and the FCC’s independence is nominal at best.” According to Walden, the Republican bill — which “is ready” and will be released in the coming days — “gives the protections that the president and FCC say they want, and does it in a legally sustainable way.” Walden and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) announced late Wednesday that they plan to hold double-header hearings on net neutrality next week, and Thune laid out set of principles that will guide them as they craft the legislation. The language Republicans are using to talk about their proposed bill illustrates just how far the GOP has come on the issue. The principles embrace and even bolster ideas that were once controversial in Republican circles, like banning “paid prioritization,” the practice of charging content companies for an online fast lane. Thune’s principles also include bans on blocking or throttling Web traffic and extending net neutrality protections to wireless networks, an idea put forward by Obama and congressional Democrats. At the same time, the GOP measure would tie the FCC’s hands, prohibiting it from reclassifying broadband as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act, or using other sections of the law to create new rules. Still, the fact that Republicans are even talking about legislating net neutrality marks a stark departure from their past position. Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/republicans-congress-net-neutrality-fcc-114296.html?hp=c2_3Well I'll be... wow. apparently someone important explained to them how things work with the interwebz. and bought them a dictionary where the word freedom is highlighted. good news if they actually evolved from their stupid position to something reasonable.
Also from the article:
Still, it’s unclear whether the lawmakers are putting forward “a legitimate effort to at long last listen to their constituents, or just a cynical cable-backed ploy to stall the FCC,” Wood said.
Forgive my cynicism but I expect it's more likely the latter.
Either way this newish plugin is going to be convenient when reading articles about upcoming proposals.
http://allaregreen.us/
With US politics swimming in so much corporate money that it's pretty much an oligarchy, it can be hard to keep track of which particular set of lobbyists is trying to milk more cash out of health care, fossil fuels, and other very important issues from one week to the next.
But thanks to 16-year-old Nick Rubin, keeping track of just how much politicians have sold out has become a lot easier. He created Greenhouse, a new browser plug-in that operates under the motto "Some are red. Some are blue. All are green." The plugin aims "to shine light on a social and industrial disease of today: the undue influence of money in our Congress." It sounds like a bit of a lofty aim for an app, but it's actually pretty simple and effective—it provides a breakdown of a politician’s campaign contributions when that politician's name comes up in an article. It is currently available for Chrome, Firefox, and Safari and is completely free. As you can imagine, reading about how your member of Congress voted in a recent health bill becomes all the more enlightening if you know how much money the health industry showered him in at the last election.
Source
|
On January 16 2015 17:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 16:54 Doublemint wrote:On January 16 2015 16:40 Souma wrote:Republicans in Congress are doing a 180 on net neutrality as the Federal Communications Commission prepares to issue new rules within weeks. For years, GOP lawmakers have adamantly opposed any rules requiring Internet service providers to treat all Web traffic equally, calling them unnecessary and an example of Washington overreach. But now that the FCC is moving toward issuing a tough net neutrality order that would subject broadband to utility-style regulation — an approach endorsed by President Barack Obama — top Republicans in both chambers are making plans to legislate their own rules to ensure the agency doesn’t go too far. “Times have changed,” Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House telecom subcommittee, said when asked about the evolving GOP position on net neutrality. “The administration has latched onto this [utility-style regulation], and the FCC’s independence is nominal at best.” According to Walden, the Republican bill — which “is ready” and will be released in the coming days — “gives the protections that the president and FCC say they want, and does it in a legally sustainable way.” Walden and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) announced late Wednesday that they plan to hold double-header hearings on net neutrality next week, and Thune laid out set of principles that will guide them as they craft the legislation. The language Republicans are using to talk about their proposed bill illustrates just how far the GOP has come on the issue. The principles embrace and even bolster ideas that were once controversial in Republican circles, like banning “paid prioritization,” the practice of charging content companies for an online fast lane. Thune’s principles also include bans on blocking or throttling Web traffic and extending net neutrality protections to wireless networks, an idea put forward by Obama and congressional Democrats. At the same time, the GOP measure would tie the FCC’s hands, prohibiting it from reclassifying broadband as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act, or using other sections of the law to create new rules. Still, the fact that Republicans are even talking about legislating net neutrality marks a stark departure from their past position. Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/republicans-congress-net-neutrality-fcc-114296.html?hp=c2_3Well I'll be... wow. apparently someone important explained to them how things work with the interwebz. and bought them a dictionary where the word freedom is highlighted. good news if they actually evolved from their stupid position to something reasonable. Also from the article: Show nested quote +Still, it’s unclear whether the lawmakers are putting forward “a legitimate effort to at long last listen to their constituents, or just a cynical cable-backed ploy to stall the FCC,” Wood said. Forgive my cynicism but I expect it's more likely the latter.
well if the outcome is desirable, I am totally fine not having to go through the FCC led by Tom Wheeler, formerly a lobbyist for the cable companies.
in those times, you have to be happy anything productive gets done. if it's even a solution remotely led by common sense and fact based...
//edit: I am not totally aware what would be the drawbacks and cons of such a legislation (reps are not sold either on that one apparently), just happy they recognized the silliness of their previous position.
|
On January 16 2015 17:52 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 17:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2015 16:54 Doublemint wrote:On January 16 2015 16:40 Souma wrote:Republicans in Congress are doing a 180 on net neutrality as the Federal Communications Commission prepares to issue new rules within weeks. For years, GOP lawmakers have adamantly opposed any rules requiring Internet service providers to treat all Web traffic equally, calling them unnecessary and an example of Washington overreach. But now that the FCC is moving toward issuing a tough net neutrality order that would subject broadband to utility-style regulation — an approach endorsed by President Barack Obama — top Republicans in both chambers are making plans to legislate their own rules to ensure the agency doesn’t go too far. “Times have changed,” Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House telecom subcommittee, said when asked about the evolving GOP position on net neutrality. “The administration has latched onto this [utility-style regulation], and the FCC’s independence is nominal at best.” According to Walden, the Republican bill — which “is ready” and will be released in the coming days — “gives the protections that the president and FCC say they want, and does it in a legally sustainable way.” Walden and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) announced late Wednesday that they plan to hold double-header hearings on net neutrality next week, and Thune laid out set of principles that will guide them as they craft the legislation. The language Republicans are using to talk about their proposed bill illustrates just how far the GOP has come on the issue. The principles embrace and even bolster ideas that were once controversial in Republican circles, like banning “paid prioritization,” the practice of charging content companies for an online fast lane. Thune’s principles also include bans on blocking or throttling Web traffic and extending net neutrality protections to wireless networks, an idea put forward by Obama and congressional Democrats. At the same time, the GOP measure would tie the FCC’s hands, prohibiting it from reclassifying broadband as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act, or using other sections of the law to create new rules. Still, the fact that Republicans are even talking about legislating net neutrality marks a stark departure from their past position. Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/republicans-congress-net-neutrality-fcc-114296.html?hp=c2_3Well I'll be... wow. apparently someone important explained to them how things work with the interwebz. and bought them a dictionary where the word freedom is highlighted. good news if they actually evolved from their stupid position to something reasonable. Also from the article: Still, it’s unclear whether the lawmakers are putting forward “a legitimate effort to at long last listen to their constituents, or just a cynical cable-backed ploy to stall the FCC,” Wood said. Forgive my cynicism but I expect it's more likely the latter. well if the outcome is desirable, I am totally fine not having to go through the FCC led by Tom Wheeler, formerly a lobbyist for the cable companies. in those times, you have to be happy anything productive gets done. if it's even a solution remotely led by common sense and fact based... //edit: I am not totally aware what would be the drawbacks and cons of such a legislation (reps are not sold either on that one apparently), just happy they recognized the silliness of their previous position.
Can you imagine them debating it on the floor? It would be like 12 year old kids discussing the math of string theory. Few if any of the representatives have a clue what they will be legislating. Most of them would be better off just letting whoever wrote it debate it.
Although I like the idea of competent representatives discussing and legislating the idea a lot more than un-elected board members making arbitrary decisions. I have actually watched them talk about things from the 21st century and they aren't much better than your average (great-)grandparent.
I expect the word doodad to be used a lot, especially on TV during unprepared remarks.
|
On January 16 2015 18:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 17:52 Doublemint wrote:On January 16 2015 17:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2015 16:54 Doublemint wrote:On January 16 2015 16:40 Souma wrote:Republicans in Congress are doing a 180 on net neutrality as the Federal Communications Commission prepares to issue new rules within weeks. For years, GOP lawmakers have adamantly opposed any rules requiring Internet service providers to treat all Web traffic equally, calling them unnecessary and an example of Washington overreach. But now that the FCC is moving toward issuing a tough net neutrality order that would subject broadband to utility-style regulation — an approach endorsed by President Barack Obama — top Republicans in both chambers are making plans to legislate their own rules to ensure the agency doesn’t go too far. “Times have changed,” Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House telecom subcommittee, said when asked about the evolving GOP position on net neutrality. “The administration has latched onto this [utility-style regulation], and the FCC’s independence is nominal at best.” According to Walden, the Republican bill — which “is ready” and will be released in the coming days — “gives the protections that the president and FCC say they want, and does it in a legally sustainable way.” Walden and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) announced late Wednesday that they plan to hold double-header hearings on net neutrality next week, and Thune laid out set of principles that will guide them as they craft the legislation. The language Republicans are using to talk about their proposed bill illustrates just how far the GOP has come on the issue. The principles embrace and even bolster ideas that were once controversial in Republican circles, like banning “paid prioritization,” the practice of charging content companies for an online fast lane. Thune’s principles also include bans on blocking or throttling Web traffic and extending net neutrality protections to wireless networks, an idea put forward by Obama and congressional Democrats. At the same time, the GOP measure would tie the FCC’s hands, prohibiting it from reclassifying broadband as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act, or using other sections of the law to create new rules. Still, the fact that Republicans are even talking about legislating net neutrality marks a stark departure from their past position. Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/republicans-congress-net-neutrality-fcc-114296.html?hp=c2_3Well I'll be... wow. apparently someone important explained to them how things work with the interwebz. and bought them a dictionary where the word freedom is highlighted. good news if they actually evolved from their stupid position to something reasonable. Also from the article: Still, it’s unclear whether the lawmakers are putting forward “a legitimate effort to at long last listen to their constituents, or just a cynical cable-backed ploy to stall the FCC,” Wood said. Forgive my cynicism but I expect it's more likely the latter. well if the outcome is desirable, I am totally fine not having to go through the FCC led by Tom Wheeler, formerly a lobbyist for the cable companies. in those times, you have to be happy anything productive gets done. if it's even a solution remotely led by common sense and fact based... //edit: I am not totally aware what would be the drawbacks and cons of such a legislation (reps are not sold either on that one apparently), just happy they recognized the silliness of their previous position. Can you imagine them debating it on the floor? It would be like 12 year old kids discussing the math of string theory. Few if any of the representatives have a clue what they will be legislating. Most of them would be better off just letting whoever wrote it debate it. Although I like the idea of competent representatives discussing and legislating the idea a lot more than un-elected board members making arbitrary decisions. I have actually watched them talk about things from the 21st century and they aren't much better than your average (great-)grandparent. I expect the word doodad to be used a lot, especially on TV during unprepared remarks.
well, nobody said democracy would be an easy endeavor. or human beings perfect. you gotta work with the cards you are dealt with.
and patience is a virtue. 
|
What year was the Constitution written?
Who was president during World War I?
If you couldn't answer one or both of the above, you might not be able to pass a civics test given to candidates for U.S. citizenship. Or (starting in 2017) graduate from high school in Arizona.
On Thursday, Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill making a high school diploma in the state contingent upon students passing the same test given to candidates for U.S. citizenship. The class of 2017 will be the first to have the new requirement.
According to The Arizona Republic:
"The bill sailed through the Arizona Legislature's committees Thursday morning, was approved by both houses Thursday afternoon and was signed by Ducey Thursday evening.
"The American Civics Act will require students to pass 60 of the 100 questions on the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization civics test. They can first take the test in eighth grade, and can retake it until they pass."
The Associated Press reports the test is "being pushed nationally by the Scottsdale-based Joe Foss Institute, which wants all 50 states to adopt it by 2017."
Source
|
I'll be mildly amused if the end result is that the majority of people who are graduating high school in Arizona are immigrant students, and the majority of people who are failing are natural born citizens..
|
On January 17 2015 01:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +What year was the Constitution written?
Who was president during World War I?
If you couldn't answer one or both of the above, you might not be able to pass a civics test given to candidates for U.S. citizenship. Or (starting in 2017) graduate from high school in Arizona.
On Thursday, Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill making a high school diploma in the state contingent upon students passing the same test given to candidates for U.S. citizenship. The class of 2017 will be the first to have the new requirement.
According to The Arizona Republic:
"The bill sailed through the Arizona Legislature's committees Thursday morning, was approved by both houses Thursday afternoon and was signed by Ducey Thursday evening.
"The American Civics Act will require students to pass 60 of the 100 questions on the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization civics test. They can first take the test in eighth grade, and can retake it until they pass."
The Associated Press reports the test is "being pushed nationally by the Scottsdale-based Joe Foss Institute, which wants all 50 states to adopt it by 2017." Source If you can't answer one of both of the above, things are okay because you only need a D- to pass, and it's actually 100 questions and not two!
If Arizona wants to do that, have a ball as far as I'm concerned.
|
On January 17 2015 01:32 JinDesu wrote:
I'll be mildly amused if the end result is that the majority of people who are graduating high school in Arizona are immigrant students, and the majority of people who are failing are natural born citizens..
What would be the problem with that?
"Natural born citizenship" is phenomenally stupid. It makes citizenship practically meaningless. So what if they were born here, that's not an accomplishment. Citizenship should have to be earned by everyone, not just immigrants.
|
Given that people aren't born with the knowledge required for the test, I see no reason results would follow any other trends besides the ones already present.
Edit: the main thing that confuses me is that this seems redundant. You are supposed to learn this stuff in other classes like history. Why have another test?
|
On January 17 2015 04:43 Introvert wrote:
Given that people aren't born with the knowledge required for the test, I see no reason results would follow any other trends besides the ones already present.
Edit: the main thing that confuses me is that this seems redundant. You are supposed to learn this stuff in other classes like history. Why have another test?
Depends on the history class/location/etc I suppose. I don't think the majority of the people I knew in high school cared about these questions beyond specifically the history class, and if they were put to the test they might not graduate if it hinged on getting 60/100.
I think redundant is not the correct word, since it puts a lot of onus students to pass this specific test.
That being said, since it is "contingent upon students passing the same test given to candidates for U.S. citizenship", students who have to be aware of the U.S. citizenship test because of their immigrant status could have an advantage.
On January 17 2015 01:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 01:32 JinDesu wrote:
I'll be mildly amused if the end result is that the majority of people who are graduating high school in Arizona are immigrant students, and the majority of people who are failing are natural born citizens.. What would be the problem with that? "Natural born citizenship" is phenomenally stupid. It makes citizenship practically meaningless. So what if they were born here, that's not an accomplishment. Citizenship should have to be earned by everyone, not just immigrants.
I don't have a problem with it. I'd just be amused because Arizona is typically a anti-illegal immigrant state, but has a reputation for viewing all immigrants the same way.
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Eric Holder is curbing the federal government's role in a civil asset forfeiture program involving local and state law enforcement agencies.
Holder says federal agencies will no longer take possession of assets seized by local law enforcement, unless the property includes firearms or and other materials that concern public safety.
The Justice Department has long allowed local law enforcement agencies to turn over seized assets to the federal government and then share in the proceeds.
The program was developed at a time when most states didn't have their own asset forfeiture laws and didn't have legal authority to forfeit seized assets.
Source
|
On January 17 2015 01:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 01:32 JinDesu wrote:
I'll be mildly amused if the end result is that the majority of people who are graduating high school in Arizona are immigrant students, and the majority of people who are failing are natural born citizens.. What would be the problem with that? "Natural born citizenship" is phenomenally stupid. It makes citizenship practically meaningless. So what if they were born here, that's not an accomplishment. Citizenship should have to be earned by everyone, not just immigrants.
I've said this for a long time. My proposed test is a multiple choice, with quotes from the Declaration of Independence, I have a Dream, Constitution on one side, Capital, and Mien Kampf and the like on the other. Fail to correctly ID which ones are US-ideals and you don't get citizenship.
:-P
|
Capital, Mein Kampf and the like.
Good read, it certainly made my evening.
|
FRESNO, Calif. — When Jose Dolores began picking grapes at Gerawan Farming in California’s San Joaquin Valley in 1990, the company was paying a little over the state minimum wage of $4.25 an hour. “We just weren’t making enough, and everything cost a lot. That’s why people wanted the union,” he recalls.
Dolores was one of over 1,000 workers at Gerawan that year, when its workers voted for the United Farm Workers union to represent them. But they didn’t get any further. Mike Gerawan, one of the company’s owners, repeatedly challenged the validity of the union vote. The one time he met with the UFW he said, “I don’t want the union, and I don’t need the union.”
That effectively ended bargaining on a contract, which union reps believe would have provided better working conditions and more protection for the laborers. Another owner, Dan Gerawan, declined to comment, but a statement sent by the company publicist, Erin Shaw, blamed the union for the stalled efforts: “The UFW abandoned Gerawan employees without ever negotiating a collective bargaining agreement.” Over the years, with no contract, Gerawan Farms grew to become one of the nation’s largest growers, with more than 5,000 workers.
It was only in 2012, after a new state law on mandatory mediation was implemented, that the UFW was able to go back to Gerawan to demand a renewal of the talks. While the company did meet with the union, it also attempted to have the UFW removed as the representative of the workers. Even more importantly, it is challenging the constitutionality of the law in state court.
Losing this fight could have devastating consequences for the UFW and, indirectly, for farmworker unions in other states, since it would make it much more difficult for workers to get growers to agree on a contract. No real union can survive indefinitely without being able to win contracts and thus being able to gain members and make substantial changes in wages and conditions. Federal law has never covered farmworkers, and outside of California, no state has a law giving farmworkers a legal process for recognition and bargaining. Those few union agreements that exist outside the state have been the product of yearslong campaigns and boycotts. As a result, only a tiny percentage of the nation’s farmworkers have union contracts, and wages and conditions in farm labor are worse than in almost any other occupation. California, however, has been able to use state legislation to address grower intransigence. If it works, the example may spread, which is why other growers are watching this case closely.
Source
|
On January 17 2015 01:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 01:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:What year was the Constitution written?
Who was president during World War I?
If you couldn't answer one or both of the above, you might not be able to pass a civics test given to candidates for U.S. citizenship. Or (starting in 2017) graduate from high school in Arizona.
On Thursday, Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill making a high school diploma in the state contingent upon students passing the same test given to candidates for U.S. citizenship. The class of 2017 will be the first to have the new requirement.
According to The Arizona Republic:
"The bill sailed through the Arizona Legislature's committees Thursday morning, was approved by both houses Thursday afternoon and was signed by Ducey Thursday evening.
"The American Civics Act will require students to pass 60 of the 100 questions on the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization civics test. They can first take the test in eighth grade, and can retake it until they pass."
The Associated Press reports the test is "being pushed nationally by the Scottsdale-based Joe Foss Institute, which wants all 50 states to adopt it by 2017." Source If you can't answer one of both of the above, things are okay because you only need a D- to pass, and it's actually 100 questions and not two! If Arizona wants to do that, have a ball as far as I'm concerned.
"Lowered expectaaayaations." D- isn't passing in English or math, not sure why it should be for civics?
|
U.S. Supreme Court going to rule on gay marriage this year.
|
Shits been ripe for a while IMO, but good nonetheless.
|
On January 17 2015 06:42 farvacola wrote:
Shits been ripe for a while IMO, but good nonetheless.
first appellate case to deny gay marriage rights in November, Supreme Court took it up shortly after. other appellate cases affirm gay marriage, they refuse to take it up. you have one guess as to how the Supreme Court is preparing to rule, and if its not pro-marriage, i have some snake oil to sell you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
