@Ellen North When asked about where the WMDs were located in Iraq he said something like "areas North, South, East, West of Titrick. Yup, enemies and weapons everywhere.

#7

We have always been at war with Eastasia. Also Westasia, Northasia and Southasia, and rather a lot of ourselves as well. So much simpler than The Psychopaths That Be realizing that they're billionaires well past retirement age and should simply take the money and run, leaving the rest of us to start patching up what we can of the damage they've done, while there's anything still left to salvage. But they can't even leave us the wreckage...

@Big Al
with the Warren Commission report. At 13 years old, I knew then and there to never trust what I'm told as truth.
That Commission create far, far more suspicion then they ever could possibly imagined, in tens of millions of people, worldwide. To be assumed that stupid set the stage for what followed, the civil rights movement, anti-war protests, and the womens liberation movement.
I hope and believe the Millennials are having that "we are not that stupid" moment and rebel en mass.
Rage against the Machine, Big Al
Thanks for the support.

#8 "Reach out, to your children and granchildren. And your nephews and nieces. Coach them. Help them. Educate them."

Throughout history, humans have used the "wise elder" approach because naturally we gain experience and knowledge as we age. I don't know about you, but I didn't know shit when I was in my twenties compared to what I know now. I didn't have nearly the grasp on the truth, the way things work and what possible solutions are out there back then as I do now. Now, maybe there are those who did, like Meteor Blades on Daily Kos, who evidently already knew it all and was the most fantastic activist on the planet when he was young, but then turned into an establishment gatekeeper. But for most of us, it took years and years to come to the knowledge and awareness point we're at now.
The millenials simply don't have the knowledge or experience.
To not put that to use in LEADING a revolution would be a shame. I referred to an essay I drafted a few days ago about the Baby Boomer generation. In it I lambasted the boomers for letting the world get to the way it was, but also for wanting to quit because they're too fucking old. I don't think that's the way it should be.
A lot of older folks are relying on Bernie Sanders, a 76 year old man. Hell, I'm a spring chicken compared to him.

@wendy davis

I'm so sorry about your legs, makes everything a major pain in the ass, so to speak, when those can't get you around well, doesn't it?

Let's hope the various billionaires/corporate interests involved in all this kill each other off in their various Battles of the Billionaires for Personal Global Supremacy - or pass away from their generally advanced old age - before they take the rest of us with them... not much time remaining...

I'm afraid that in too-many cases, corporate interests will engage in as many abuses as they can either get away with, or consider worth-while, despite the odd wrist-slap, since - like The Right Politicians - they are, so very oddly and illegally, claimed to be somehow considered 'above the law' and, by imposed 'law', corporations are permitted only to consider maximized profits, despite the appalling harm and destruction resulting, (as do too many politicians).

But who has any 'right' to grant anyone/anything else a 'right' to sicken/harm/defraud/control/kill/destroy their fellow-citizens or other people/their country/countries/the environment, even the entire global life-support system, to sacrifice the existence and future of life itself to suit their own personal desires?

From 2011:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2068494/Facebook-Employer...

Employers already snoop on Facebook accounts during job applications - but could they DEMAND passwords as well?

Application form asked for Facebook passwords
Job was for clerical position with American police
Would allow employer access to private messages
Even 'private' albums would be open for inspection

By Rob Waugh
Updated: 10:22 EST, 1 December 2011

Could employers demand your Facebook password as part of a job application?

One American was shocked to find a section in an application form that demanded not only his user names - but also passwords that would give his employers full access to his account, including private messages to other people.

Employers using Google - or 'people search' engines such as 123People - has become a standard part of job applications, and employers also check Facebook.

But asking for passwords that allow access to private communications is a worrying new precedent. ...

... A recent survey by Telstra revealed that 20 per cent of bosses also check employees' Facebook accounts while at the company.

One picture, purportedly of a job application for a clerical position with the police in North Carolina, shows a demand for passwords for 'accounts such as Facebook, Myspace, etc'. ...

...After a recent scandal about Australian bosses rejecting applicants because of Facebook posts, Mark Bowles, Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief economist said, 'We're starting to see a trend towards people setting up two Facebook accounts so they can still have an account to share photos with friends and when it comes to befriending workmates and bosses they have a separate account, which they can keep a bit more sterile.'

This type of demand was made illegal in various US States over the following few years - but if the Supreme Court declares that workers have no rights and that employers effectively own them during the period of their employment, will those making employees pee in a cup, apparently simply to exert power over anyone vulnerable whom they can humiliate, draw the line anywhere short of Russia-gate level? If you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about? You have no rights, this is a security issue! I am your employer!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/10/facebook-passwo...

Will employers still ask for Facebook passwords in 2014?
Jonathan Dame, USA TODAY College Published 12:32 p.m. ET Jan. 5, 2014 | Updated 2:03 a.m. ET Jan. 10, 2014
Oregon joined 11 other states in banning such practices this week, when a law passed last May went into effect.

Imagine you're a motivated college senior interviewing for your dream job. Your resume is plump, your answers are impressive and your interviewer seems engaged.

Then you're asked to hand over your Facebook username and password.

Oregon joined 11 other states in banning such practices this week, when a law passed last May went into effect.

But without federal legislation, employers — as well as colleges and universities — are continuing to pry into the personal lives of their employees and students through the sparsely legislated realm of the Internet. ...

...Social media monitoring is more widespread than people understand, Shear says. But since most affected by it would rather stay quiet than miss out on employment or educational opportunities, privacy advocates struggle to sustain the attention needed to impart change.

"If we don't stand up and say, 'this is not how we want our society to be' … then it is going to continue and get worse," he says.

Jonathan Dame is a senior at Boston College.

https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/risk-management/Pages/M...

Monitoring Employees: How Far Can You Go?

By Michael Abcarian Jan 27, 2015

As shifting privacy lines allow employers to reach further and further into employee conduct, it’s increasingly important that you know the legal limits. Many employees will question the legality of increased employer monitoring of offsite conduct, especially when employees are off-duty.

Such monitoring may include the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking and video surveillance. It could include reprimanding employees for things like speeding tickets. These practices are usually within an employer’s legal rights, but managers need to be aware of what is and is not permissible from a legal perspective. ...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-companies-have-a-right-to-track-employee...

By Aimee Picchi MoneyWatch May 14, 2015, 10:02 AM
​Do companies have a right to watch employees 24/7?

Some employers may be making it impossible to get away from the job.

That's what one California worker is alleging in a lawsuit, claiming that her former employer, a money transfer service called Intermex, installed an app that ran constantly on her company-issued iPhone and tracked her 24/7. After voicing her objections and disabling the app, she claims she was fired from the company, according to the lawsuit, which was obtained by Ars Technica.

The lawsuit highlights how corporations are increasingly using technology to track and monitor employees, which is raising concerns about worker privacy. Given that employees often work at home in the evenings or weekends -- checking email or finishing projects -- the line between work and home life can easily become blurred. ...

... The boundaries between the workplace and individual privacy are "being lost for a lot of Americans, and it's devastating to those of us who believe in individual rights," Glick added. She noted that a company has "no legitimate interest in knowing where your employee is off the clock, even during lunch."

Meanwhile, tracking employees is itself an emerging business, with more than 20 companies now selling software tools for analyzing and monitoring employee behavior, according to Bloomberg News. ...

... Many software products that track employees are designed to catch hackers and corporate spies. Technology has made such behavior easier, given that an employee can email confidential information to rivals simply by pressing "send."

Some software programs used to monitor workers search their computers for sensitive words that could signal an employee is in financial distress, and more likely to present a risk, such as references to "medical bills" or "late rent," according to Bloomberg. Another company called Securonix uses algorithms to create profiles of normal behavior for each employee, such as when he or she logs in and out, which then alerts bosses when behavior deviates from the norm. ...

This following regards behaviour within the workplace, but with workers declared to have no rights I can see this type of intensive surveillance potentially being abused in being applied to workers off-duty, (as it already is by some, even while there is still legal recourse,) either by people at the company hired to surveil employees or by employers:

http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/the-latest-on-workplace-monitori...

The Latest on Workplace Monitoring and Surveillance

From e-mail monitoring and Website blocking to phone tapping and GPS tracking, employers increasingly combine technology with policy to manage productivity and minimize litigation, security, and other risks. More than one fourth of employers have fired workers for misusing e-mail and nearly one third have fired employees for misusing the Internet, according to the “2007 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey” from American Management Association (AMA) and The ePolicy Institute. ...

... Computer monitoring takes many forms:
—45% of employers tracking content, keystrokes, and time spent at the keyboard
—43% store and review computer files
—12% monitor the blogosphere to see what is being written about the company
—10% monitor social networking sites

Of the 43% of companies that monitor e-mail, 73% use technology tools to automatically monitor e-mail and 40% assign an individual to manually read and review e-mail.

“Concern over litigation and the role electronic evidence plays in lawsuits and regulatory investigations has spurred more employers to monitor online activity. Data security and employee productivity concerns also motivate employers to monitor Web and e-mail use and content,” said Nancy Flynn, executive director of The ePolicy Institute and author of The ePolicy Handbook, 2nd Edition (AMACOM, 2008), E-Mail Rules (AMACOM 2003), Instant Messaging Rules (AMACOM 2004), Blog Rules (AMACOM 2006), and other books related to workplace computer use.

“Workers’ e-mails and other electronically stored information create written business records that are the electronic equivalent of DNA evidence,” said Flynn, noting that 24% of employers have had e-mail subpoenaed by courts and regulators and another 15% have battled workplace lawsuits triggered by employee e-mail, according to 2006 AMA/ ePolicy research. “To help control the risk of litigation, security breaches and other electronic disasters, employers should take advantage of monitoring and blocking technology to battle people problems—including the accidental and intentional misuse of computer systems and other electronic resources,” Flynn said. ...

It would appear that a number of these companies are already concerned with various of their abuses/illegalities - against which laws still exist - being revealed by employees, which doesn't inspire much trust in their ethics...

http://ncjolt.org/employee-supervision-off-the-clock-the-use-of-mobile-a...

Employee Supervision Off The Clock: The Use of Mobile Apps with GPS Functioning to Monitor Employee’s Whereabouts On and Off The Clock

Caline Hou, 18 May 2015

... A few courts, though not the Supreme Court, have weighed in on the legality of employers tracking their employees’ locations through GPS. The landmark Supreme Court case remarking on the constitutionality of GPS tracking by state actors is United States v. Jones. In Jones, the United States Supreme Court held that when police place a GPS tracking device on an individual’s car, this constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, and is unconstitutional without a valid search warrant or other exigent circumstance. However, the Jones ruling may not directly apply in the context of employers tracking employees if the employers are private companies. Rather, the Jones ruling only applies in the context of state actors. ...

... As GPS technology advances, it will become increasingly easier for individuals to track third parties. This technology could be easily subject to abuse.

Without proper state intervention, employees of private companies, such as Myrna Arias, could continue to suffer severe invasions of privacy.

From 2010:
https://www.alternet.org/story/149338/wage_theft_is_rampant_in_america_-...

Wage Theft Is Rampant in America -- Is Your Boss Ripping You off?
U.S. employers are stealing millions of dollars from their own employees -- often right out in the open, unchallenged.
By Dick Meister / AlterNet
December 27, 2010, 9:00 PM GMT

There are lots of thieves in this country, as in any country. But no thieves anywhere are more blatant than the U.S. employers who steal millions of dollars from their own employees -- often right out in the open, unchallenged. It's called "wage theft," and it happens everywhere.

The cheating bosses don't take the money directly from their employees. No, nothing as obvious as that. The employers practice their thievery by underpaying workers, sometimes by paying them less than the legal minimum wage. Or they fail to pay employees extra for overtime work, or even force them to work for nothing before or after their regular work shifts or at other times. Some employers make illegal deductions from employee wages. And some withhold the final paycheck due employees who quit.

Such employer cheating is rampant in restaurant, retail and construction businesses, where undocumented workers make up much of the workforce. The undocumented are so vulnerable, given their illegal status, that they're particularly easy pickings for unscrupulous bosses.

The full extent of employer cheating is not known. But one study shows that in New York City alone, workers are cheated out of more than $18 million a week. ...

They have no legal protections for unscrupulous employers to worry about, and so abuses are blatant, because what are those deemed to have no rights going to do about it?

http://www.epi.org/press/proposed-rule-would-protect-employers-who-steal...

News from EPI Proposed rule would protect employers who steal workers’ hard-earned tips

Statement • By Heidi Shierholz • December 4, 2017

Today the Trump administration took their first major step towards allowing employers to legally take tips earned by the workers they employ. The Department of Labor released a proposed rule rescinding portions of its tip regulations, including current restrictions on “tip pooling”—which would mean that, for example, restaurants would be able to pool the tips servers receive and share them with untipped employees such as cooks and dishwashers. But, crucially, the rule doesn’t actually require that employers distribute pooled tips to workers. Under the administration’s proposed rule, as long as the tipped workers earn minimum wage, the employer can legally pocket those tips.

And what we know for sure is that, often, they will do just that. Recent research suggests that the total wages stolen from workers due to minimum wage violations exceeds $15 billion each year, and workers in restaurants and bars are much more likely to suffer minimum wage violations than workers in other industries. With that much illegal wage theft currently taking place, it seems obvious that when employers can legally pocket the tips earned by their employees, many will do so.

It is worth noting how deeply unusual it is that there are no actual estimates in the proposal of the amount of money that would be shifted from workers to employers as a result of the rule, even though data that researchers use all the time are available to produce them. The requirements that agencies must follow during the rulemaking process are very clear, and among them is that agencies must assess all quantifiable costs and benefits “to the fullest extent that these can be usefully estimated.” When there is uncertainty about a quantifiable cost or benefit, agencies typically do something like provide a range—they don’t forgo providing an estimate altogether. It is obvious why the department left out the required estimate: this rule is bad for workers, and any estimate would have made that crystal clear. ...

This following appears to be somewhat slanted toward the employers, (in example: COLA creates an inflationary spiral = but, but, The People are supposed to suffer to keep inflation low!!! the economy doesn't involve The People and country except as exploitable resources, for Petes sake!!!) but makes the points below - regarding the fall of unions in the US and the loss of rights/protections for workers falling with them.

(Note: am absorbing life-giving caffeine while prying my eyelids open and have not read the entire lengthy paper giving an overview of the history within the period stated, just looking for points regarding the stripping of worker rights and the lengths gone to to do so for extra profits for those already having most.)

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/history_of_labor_unions.html

The Rise and Fall of Labor Unions In The U.S.
From the 1830s until 2012 (but mostly the 1930s-1980s)
by G. William Domhoff

...Whatever the NLRA's shortcomings and long-term failures, it changed the American power structure for the next 50 years. In telling this story, the document shows that corporate moderates had more of a role in creating the legislation than is usually understood, even though they fiercely opposed its final form. Then the document goes on to explain how and why the act was all but dead by 1978 due to an all-out and unrelenting battle against it by the entire corporate community from the day it was passed, and then finally killed in the 1980s. The account ends in 2012 through a quick overview of a failed legislative issue initiative in 2009 and information on the declining figures on "union density" (the percentage of wage and salary workers in unions). By then the figure was as low as it was in 1916.

But why do workers want unions in the first place, and why do business owners resist them so mightily? Workers originally want unions primarily for defensive purposes -- to protect against what they see as arbitrary decisions, such as sudden wage cuts, lay-offs, or firings. They also want a way to force management to change what they see as dangerous working conditions or overly long hours. More generally, they want more certainty, which eventually means a contract that lasts for a specified period of time. In the United States, as we will see, the early trade unionists also wanted the same kind of rights at work that they already had as independent citizens. And if unions grow strong, then, well, they try to go on the offensive, by asking for higher wages.

Business owners, on the other hand, don't like unions for a variety of reasons. If they are going to compete successfully in an economy that can go boom or bust, then they need a great deal of flexibility in cutting wages, hiring and firing, and adding extra hours of work or trimming back work hours when need be. In fact, wages and salaries are a very big part of their overall costs, maybe as much as 80% in many industries in the past, and still above 50% in most industries today, although there is variation. And even when business is good, small wage cuts, or holding the line on wages, can lead to higher profits. More generally, business owners are used to being in charge, and they don't want to be hassled by people they have come to think of as mere employees, not as breadwinners for their families or citizens of the same city and country. ...

... the government usually doesn't side with the workers if the workers don't have some political power through their involvement in a political party. ...

...Posted February 2013

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws

Food libel laws, also known as food disparagement laws and informally as veggie libel laws, are laws passed in thirteen U.S. states that make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel. These thirteen states are Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas.[citation needed][1] Many of the food-disparagement laws establish a lower standard for civil liability and allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees for plaintiffs alone, regardless of the case's outcome.[2]

These laws vary significantly from state to state, but food libel laws typically allow a food manufacturer or processor to sue a person or group who makes disparaging comments about their food products. In some states these laws also establish different standards of proof than are used in traditional American libel lawsuits, including the practice of placing the burden of proof on the party being sued.[2]

Notable cases

In 1998, television talk-show host Oprah Winfrey and one of her guests, Howard Lyman, were involved in a lawsuit, commonly referred to as the Amarillo Texas beef trial, surrounding the Texas version of a food libel law known as the False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act of 1995, for a 1996 episode of her show in which the two made disparaging comments about beef in relation to mad cow disease. Although they were not the first people to be sued using this type of legal action, this case created a media sensation.

In a normal U.S. libel suit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is deliberately and knowingly spreading false information. Under the Texas food disparagement law under which Winfrey and Lyman were sued, the plaintiffs — in this case, beef feedlot operator Paul Engler and the company Cactus Feeders — had to convince the jury that Lyman's statements on Winfrey's show were not "based on reasonable and reliable scientific inquiry, facts, or data."[3] As a basis for the damages sought in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs noted that cattle futures dropped 10 percent the day after the episode, and that beef prices fell from 62 cents to 55 cents per pound.[4] Engler's attorneys argued that the rancher lost $6.7 million, and the plaintiffs sought to recoup total losses of more than $12 million.[5]

The jury in the case found that the statements by Winfrey and Lyman did not constitute libel against the cattlemen.[6] However, Winfrey no longer speaks publicly on the issue, going so far as to decline to make videotapes of the original interview available to enquiring journalists.[7]
McLibel case

A long-running legal case in Britain is an example of the application of food libel principles to existing law. McDonald's Restaurants versus Morris & Steel (also known as the "McLibel case") was an English lawsuit filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris (often referred to as "The McLibel Two") over a pamphlet critical of the company. The original case lasted ten years, making it the longest-running court action in English history.[8] A feature-length documentary film, McLibel, was created about the case by filmmaker Franny Armstrong.

Although McDonald's won two hearings of the case in English court, the partial nature of the victory, the David-vs-Goliath nature of the case, and the drawn-out litigation embarrassed the company. McDonald's announced that it did not plan to collect the £40,000[9] that it was awarded by the courts. Since then, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the trial violated Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) because the defendants had been refused legal aid and had only been represented by volunteer lawyers, and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the Convention on Human Rights, again because the defendants had been refused legal aid, and awarded a judgment of £57,000 against the UK government.[10] (McDonald's itself was not a defendant in this appeal.) On February 15, 2005, the pair's 20-year battle with McDonald's came to an end with this judgment. ...

https://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/9/undercover_activist_details_secret...

Undercover Activist Details Secret Filming of Animal Abuse & Why “Ag-Gag” Laws May Force Him to Stop
StoryApril 09, 2013

An animal rights investigator details how he has spent over a decade secretly filming animal abuse and why that work is now imperiled by a wave of laws sweeping the country. Speaking on the condition we conceal his identity, “Pete” has secretly captured animal abuse on farms and slaughterhouses after applying to work at the location. He has released video footage to law enforcement and activist groups such as Mercy for Animals, helping spark national outcry and charges against the abusers. His investigations and footage have led to at least 15 criminal cases and have been used in several documentaries. But now Pete’s work is under threat. A dozen or so state legislatures have introduced bills that target people who covertly expose farm animal abuse. Nicknamed “ag-gag” laws, they would make it illegal to covertly videotape livestock farms or apply for a job at one without disclosing affiliations with animal rights groups. They also require activists to hand over undercover videos within 24 hours, preventing them from amassing a trove of material and publicizing their findings on their own. [includes rush transcript] ...

When psychopathic billionaires and corporations are creating the laws, the laws will be psychopathic in protecting abusers against those they abuse, to protect their most destructive profiteering at all cost to their victims.

#9
"Employers of every kind will be entitled to persecute and prosecute workers for accessing a web site, for signing a petition or letter, for attending a meeting or taking part in conversations about collective uplift. Those activities will be by definition outside the law. ..." the rest i can easily believe, but i hadn't checked in w/ Labor Notes for a coon's age.

yes, we're so often back to the 'What then, shall be done' point, aren't we. me, i'm lame south of the lame in two legs' (mancos), so i dunno what i can do outside of this homestead. but i've always supposed that if there's ever a successful revolution, first the global slaves wake up, and say Enough! but i feel so much less sure that it's n its way (as per the Maya) than i did a few years ago. tragically, i'll add.

@wendy davis makes more sense than right side up.

#10

and yep, plenty of good info and stats, to boot.