Previous 11 - 20 Next
Can you quote the constitutional clause that defines this "RIGHT"? The right to not be misjudged by one's boss stands right next to the right to affordable housing - i.e. invented rights of the Nanny-State
"the right to appeal the decision" of promotion/termination etc. The employment relationship is a mutually beneficial voluntary agreement. The small-government conservative principle is to vote with your feet. The big-government leftist principle is to get the nanny government to step-in and make everything nice. So which of our enumerated constitutional rights is our "RIGHT" to appeal our Boss's evaluation of us? My point is that because of the players involved (Adams good. Academia bad) we have thrown conservative principle under the bus and all these supposed conservatives on this forum want government to step-in and make employment relationships nice.
Do you want a judge and jury determining whether YOU deserve a raise, or whether YOU MUST give a raise to your employee? If you, in your disingenuousness, answer yes, then have you ever worked in a group environment, like say a company/corporation? Obviously not, because otherwise it would be obvious to you that we would need vast armies of lawyers and judges while citizens would have to sit on juries twice a month to handle all the compensation litigation going on.
In response to:

For Academic Elites Evidence is Irrelevant

Zerubbabel Wrote: 10 hours ago (11:04 AM)
This is not to defend state supported academia with all it's tax-payer provided privileges and ludicrous convention of "tenure" - but Professor Adam's critic is absolutely correct when he voices the CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE that "to have a jury of the general population and a federal judge determine whether or not a (insert any job title) is eligible for promotion is ludicrous." But Professor Adams is one of our favorites so lets just ignore the essence of the critic's argument and beat-up on his secondary issues. Do you want a judge and jury determining whether you deserve a raise, or whether you must give a raise to your employee?
To pen an essay on nationalism and secesionism and nary mention our own Civil War nor our grand land-grab of this continent demonstrates clearly that Pat has no balls. "It is not the interest of the many (of peoples), as is often claimed, but above all the interest of certain royal dynasties and also of certain classes in commerce and society that drives to nationalism." Nietzsche Empire is nothing but successful nationalism.
In response to:

Krauthammer Against The Tyrants

Zerubbabel Wrote: Apr 20, 2014 10:53 AM
CO2, and other greenhouse gases, absorbs with a very steep peak in the IR. While the sun heats the earth with a very wide spectrum of light, the earth only looses heat at night (on it's dark side) and ONLY in the IR wavelength. In optics it is called a "black body source." The mechanism is reality and is the only thing that keeps the earth from having vast temperature swings as the moon does.
In response to:

Why Are The Poor, Poor?

Zerubbabel Wrote: Apr 19, 2014 11:18 AM
Absolutely and totally moronic answer to the question "Why are poor people poor?" In a multitude of different statistics Goodman shows that it is the socialist nanny-state which causes the poor to be poor ... and yet 2000 years before the invention of the nanny-state Jesus told us that the poor will always be with us. I suggest trying to see humanity apart from current Left/Right political conflicts. Try seeing humanity in the continuation of the vast sweep of history.
In response to:

Krauthammer Against The Tyrants

Zerubbabel Wrote: Apr 17, 2014 12:05 PM
In creating the argument of environmentalist's propaganda vs conservative's objective truth there is a 600lb gorilla. No where and never in the conservation argument is there ever the concession that the greenhouse mechanism is real. Everybody ignores that crucial point. The debate proper is how much of the atmospheric CO2 is our responsibility and what is the relationship between CO2 and climate. And in conclusion of the debate - do these ratios allow me to continue my high level of consumption? ... or must I conserve to have a clear conscience? I'm afraid that this debate - from both sides - begins with the conclusions.
In response to:

And They Call It ... Success!

Zerubbabel Wrote: Apr 17, 2014 11:36 AM
Mr Greenburg, this happy-face facade that you so eloquently describe is not limited to the White-House, or even Democrats, or even politics. It pervades all of our institutions, even corporations. Wherever there is a temporary steward controlling other peoples money he/she will continually paint the happy-face of how great and trustworthy a steward he/she is. The only exception to this, the only time the steward can show a sad face, or hint at the reality of any situation, is when they first take office and blame the departed steward. This exception does come with a time limitation though.
In response to:

Earth Daze

Zerubbabel Wrote: Apr 16, 2014 8:37 PM
"poverty... is the real threat to the people of the world." Economic alarmism to divert attention away from environmental alarmism. After all, we have to have some kind of alarmism to avoid the undesireable image of corporate indifference.
In response to:

Here's the Real Issue

Zerubbabel Wrote: Dec 18, 2013 8:42 AM
Mr Greenburg, the "real-issue" distinction you make is no distinction at all. The CEO and the politico are both temporary stewards of other people's money - and they both prioritize the getting while the getting is good. Sebelius will soon be gone as will Obama - and even Bezos will eventually pull the rip-cord on his golden parachute. Ironic, isn't it, That you uphold the superiority of meritocracy in the private sector while advocating for the merit of a public sector politico (Christie) - demonstrating the mechanism of meritocracy in the public sector as well as the private.
Previous 11 - 20 Next