Politics 2017 part 4

[ShadySands]

Yeah, they should have kept the pipeline crossing near Bismark

 

Stupid complainers

[Gfted1]

Aye. Also apparently the island of Hawaii.

[213374U]

 

I dunno man, isnt rought 84.7% of our country on "sacred land" of some sort? We cant even build a goddamn pipe.

The need to write a bigger check. That solves all land problems.

 

It very well might. Problem is the costs are going to be passed off to those who can't pass them off to anyone else, i.e. you. So bye-bye cheap gas.

 

You might have everything you need right next door, but if the cost of developing critical resource X is greater than what it costs to buy it from whoever or going there yourself and taking it off the dead hands of the locals, it just won't be done, because market forces forbid it. Hell, 1980's USSR had (some of?) the largest oil and gas reserves in the world, but due to free-falling oil market prices, outdated technology and development difficulties, the strongly resource export-oriented Soviet economy crashed. And they didn't have to deal with protesters and environmentalists, just plain old competition.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

Except Wikileaks doesn't make " governments " transparent

 

 

They typically only  target the USA, where are all the leaks around Russia or China and these are much more intolerant and dictatorial governments than the USA

 

So its not about keeping governments in check, Wikileaks is a personal campaign to undermine the USA  and the West

 

This is ironically such a Russian response through and through.

 

Whenever someone in Russia exposes government corruption the typical response from pro-Putin camp is, "But in America/Europe/etc. they do this too. You're are targeting us. You're doing this to undermine our country. You're an American agent (just like Wikileaks is being labeled a Russian front) etc, etc..."

 

I'd like to point out that Wikileaks doesn't 'target' anyone. They publish leaks. If there had been a bunch of those from North Korea or China they would gladly have published those, but there aren't maybe because 'westerners' ,whatever that means, care more about government transparency and corruption. In other words it's a symptom of giving a **** about these things.

 

 

One of the other difficulties with getting stuff on China or DPRK is that you need to have someone who can verify the information- so you need to have someone who is both technically knowledgeable of whatever has been leaked but can also speak Korean or Mandarin fluently. That's not a trivial task as compared to english language info, and given that many would love for WL to publish something demonstrably incorrect to cripple their credibility.

 

 

It's more than that. Turkey is a member of NATO. An independent Kurdistan on their western border is a threat to them because the majority of the population in the eastern regions are ethnic Kurds. They are concerned, with some legitimacy, that and independent Kurd nation annexes part of Turkey at some point.

 

Turkey actually supports Kurdish independence, in Iraq, because they own the Iraqi Kurdish leader Barzani wholesale. Barzani sells them cheap oil on the sly, and Turkey helps him embezzle vast sums from it which ought to go to the central government. He's also Sunni, hates minorities (remember the Yezidis? His pet militia disarmed them, abandoned them to ISIS and genocide, and has now been outright attacking them recently for having the temerity to not want his Peshmerga running their security any more), allows Turkey access and basing plus Erdogan is a committed neo-Ottomanist, an independent Kurdistan can later be invaded if the PUK or PKK gets control there via the- permanently delayed- elections.

 

The facetious explanation of who wants an independent Kurdistan is that all four of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran want it- they just want it exclusively in the three other countries.

[Agiel]

Maybe just me, but I find it more than a little curious that Wikileaks rushed to the defence of Mike Flynn, who given an attitude towards Iran that can adequately be described as Ahab-esque and his lobbying on behalf of Turkey is hardly the paragon of an ideal WL has (or rather, claims to have).

[Zoraptor]

WL twitter outright trolls most of the time. The information from WL itself is accurate/ real, its twitter is all over the place.

 

The defence of Flynn can easily be explained by their loathing of the US intelligence establishment- which is fair enough, they're clearly mutual enemies- and them clearly leaking the info that got Flynn fired. The real irony being, of course, that WL didn't like that leak, albeit there's a big difference between an external group leaking information that can influence a country's politics (and the withholding of which would also tacitly influence it) and that country's intelligence community doing so.

 

If there's anything that came direct from the Russians I'd expect the latest 'leak' to be it. Some of the stuff about the CIA looking at false flags is convenient and can easily be seen as some pre-emptive deflection, plus some of the tools discussed have been available for six months so someone has had that info at least that long and it didn't go direct to WL.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hey, they stole my idea: https://newrepublic.com/article/140948/bluexit-blue-states-exit-trump-red-america

 

I guess now that the shoe is on the other foot.

[Barothmuk]

Bill in Congress will allow employers to demand genetic test results from workers

 

A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information.

 

Giving employers such power is now prohibited by legislation including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a “workplace wellness” program.

 

The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.

[Azdeus]

Bill in Congress will allow employers to demand genetic test results from workers

 

A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information.

 

Giving employers such power is now prohibited by legislation including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a “workplace wellness” program.

 

The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.

 

 

Holy ****, that is one of the most vile ****ing invasions of privacy I've read yet...

[Gfted1]

Whats to be gained by an employer having this information? Weve already been "graced" with UHC, which cannot discriminate or deny anyone for any reason, and everyone is forced by law to carry, so an employer would have no reason to know any possible medical risk factors you may carry. Its not their problem to pay for. Probably a good program for astronauts and future colonists though. Personally, I would LOVE to be genetically tested to see whats going on up in here.

[Azdeus]

Whats to be gained by an employer having this information? Weve already been "graced" with UHC, which cannot discriminate or deny anyone for any reason, and everyone is forced by law to carry, so an employer would have no reason to know any possible medical risk factors you may carry. Its not their problem to pay for. Probably a good program for astronauts and future colonists though. Personally, I would LOVE to be genetically tested to see whats going on up in here.

 

Why would they take the risk of promoting/hiring someone that has high risks of cancer/genetic disease or other such things that could be a problem to him in the workplace?

[Gfted1]

Why would they take the risk of promoting/hiring someone that has high risks of cancer/genetic disease or other such things that could be a problem to him in the workplace?

Because it doesn't bring any additional costs to the company. I'm not saying its a good program, and it violates the hell out of privacy, I'm just trying to figure out what the "company" gains with this information? Usually the gain would a reduction in insurance premiums or something like that but that's not a concern for them anymore since everyone is mandated to carry health insurance now.

 

EDIT: I supposed lost time and productivity would be cost sinks.

[Azdeus]

But they'd stand to lose the time and money they invested in training the person, thus making him less likely to get jobs and promotions. It lessens the persons chances of having a good life, just because of chances.

 

If nothing else, the company gains more control over it's workforce.

[Malcador]

Just another way for them to discriminate against people in hiring I would say.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Malcador

[ShadySands]

Sounds like they saw Gattaca or something similiar and decided that was a future they could believe in

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Bill in Congress will allow employers to demand genetic test results from workers

A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information.Giving employers such power is now prohibited by legislation including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a “workplace wellness” program.The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.

 

Freedom is a beautiful thing.

[HoonDing]

Have fun working at Abstergo Industries.

[Meshugger]

Well, i owned a tobacco factory i would sure as hell hire someone with zero percentage to get cancer as my spokesperson. Why do you hate my freedom to hire most competent smoker?

[Namutree]

 

Whats to be gained by an employer having this information? Weve already been "graced" with UHC, which cannot discriminate or deny anyone for any reason, and everyone is forced by law to carry, so an employer would have no reason to know any possible medical risk factors you may carry. Its not their problem to pay for. Probably a good program for astronauts and future colonists though. Personally, I would LOVE to be genetically tested to see whats going on up in here.

 

Why would they take the risk of promoting/hiring someone that has high risks of cancer/genetic disease or other such things that could be a problem to him in the workplace?

 

Because their qualifications may still warrant hiring them.

[213374U]

I'm just trying to figure out what the "company" gains with this information?

Which one? The piece suggests the bill has been influenced by the wellness industry who, unlike employers, get unrestricted access to your test results, name and all. They also sell the data to third parties, which then profile you for targeted advertising. The most direct benefit to your employer is the ability to penalize you financially if for whatever reason you opt out. Indirect benefits would include less risk in hiring and promoting people with genetic predisposition to disease (for example, depression) which may lead to decreased productivity. Win-win for all involved... except you.

 

I'm sure you have nothing to fear about genetic profiles being handed en masse to government agencies in "terrorism" or "national security risk" scenarios.

Edited March 12, 2017 by 213374U

[Namutree]

 

I'm just trying to figure out what the "company" gains with this information?

Which one? The piece suggests the bill has been influenced by the wellness industry who, unlike employers, get unrestricted access to your test results, name and all. They also sell the data to third parties, which then profile you for targeted advertising. The most direct benefit to your employer is the ability to penalize you financially if for whatever reason you opt out. Indirect benefits would include less risk in hiring and promoting people with genetic predisposition to disease (for example, depression) which may lead to decreased productivity. Win-win for all involved... except you.

 

Unless of course I have excellent genes in which case this is just weeding out competition.

[213374U]

Make Natural Selection Great Again!

[Namutree]

Make Natural Selection Great Again!

Forget nazis and their ideological fumbling; let the market decide what the REAL master race is.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Namutree

[ShadySands]

I think we all know what color the invisible hand is

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Why would they take the risk of promoting/hiring someone that has high risks of cancer/genetic disease or other such things that could be a problem to him in the workplace?

Because it doesn't bring any additional costs to the company. I'm not saying its a good program, and it violates the hell out of privacy, I'm just trying to figure out what the "company" gains with this information? Usually the gain would a reduction in insurance premiums or something like that but that's not a concern for them anymore since everyone is mandated to carry health insurance now.

 

EDIT: I supposed lost time and productivity would be cost sinks.

 

Usually a company's insurance premiums are tied to the amount the insurance company pays out in claims, especially if the company is self insured. So it has a tremendous impact on their costs.