201–210 of 246 posts
People,
We didn't choose to be bureaucrats
No that's what our mighty Ja made us
We treat people like swine and make them stand in line
Even if nobody paid us
They say the world looks down on the bureaucrats
They say we're anal, compulsive and weird
But when push comes to shove you gotta do what you love
Even if it's not a good idea
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This highlights a problem which isn't unique to Australia. For example, if a potential employer (or whoever) asks you if you've ever been arrested and your record has been expunged or you've been pardoned, you are expected to lie and say "no". That is how the system works. It sucks, but learning how to deal with these sorts of things is part of the price one has to pay when they have a run-in with the law. I'm not su…
I'm wondering, isn't asking for your criminal history during job interviews the same as discriminating based on age or race? I mean, even if you were convicted, you've paid the price by doing your time and after that you should have equal opportunities at a job like anyone else, right? Maybe I'm just too idealistic but I never understood why we hardly give these people a second chance. And then people wonder why reci…
The exception is a small number of specific traits on which one is NOT permitted to discriminate. Race is one. You MAY discriminate on the basis of age, as long as you're giving a bad deal to a young person... it is illegal to discriminate negatively against someone for being old. There are a few other protected classes (pregnancy, etc), and some states add extra protections above-and-beyond the federal law (in some states it's illegal to fire people for being gay... but in others that is perfectly legal).
The one place it gets a bit odd is when they claim that your criteria for discrimination is just a "cover" or has the "same effect" as discriminating on the basis of a protected class. For instance, refusing to hire people because they live in a certain neighborhood is legal, but in court they would try to show that the neighborhood was predominately non-whites and so you were REALLY discriminating on the basis of race.
The good news is that ALMOST ALL employers go well above and beyond what the law requires. Both to protect themselves from ambiguous cases AND because they are basically decent human beings, they go out of their way not to discriminate on anything other than basic ability to perform the job. But even so, some areas like criminal background get considered.
Ah, procedure. I'm particularly fond of situations like this where the procedure is, for the normal person, a once-in-a-lifetime event. But the flunky on the other side of the desk does it every day. And they think you are yet another stupid person who doesn't understand the simple procedure, and they have nothing but contempt for those who don't understand the procedure as deeply as they do (especially which parts o…
> It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery. That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once had a CHP officer tell me in so many words that if I hadn't admitted to speeding, he would have written me a ticket. Stonewalling isn't necessarily the best strategy, particularly if you both know you were in violation.
This is quite likely to depend on the colour of your skin...
If I wasn't white, I think its highly possible things would have turned out differently.
Every encounter I've had with police so far (a few traffic stops, being caught dumpster diving, being in a few parks in Boston after midnight), I've found it just to be better to be nice. I've walked away from every situation so far with zero tickets, arrests, handcuffings, etc...
So, the error wasn't amended and the form wasn't signed. Now you have to put up with the law. If the agent said they didn't care about the error, surely the correct course of action would be to correct it and sign it. Am I missing something?
This is all provable.
A guy I know was in a similar situation when trying to enter Australia. 20+ years ago, when he was 18, he was arrested for the afternoon because of a student protest. So now on the visa forms, when entering Australia on vacation, he was asked if he had ever been arrested. He checked yes. The border control people in Australia denied him entry, and put him on the next plane back home. When he told the border guy the f…
This highlights a problem which isn't unique to Australia. For example, if a potential employer (or whoever) asks you if you've ever been arrested and your record has been expunged or you've been pardoned, you are expected to lie and say "no". That is how the system works. It sucks, but learning how to deal with these sorts of things is part of the price one has to pay when they have a run-in with the law. I'm not su…
Getting the payment denomination wrong is an actual falsity. Though it would have been easy to make a note when signing.
Ah, procedure. I'm particularly fond of situations like this where the procedure is, for the normal person, a once-in-a-lifetime event. But the flunky on the other side of the desk does it every day. And they think you are yet another stupid person who doesn't understand the simple procedure, and they have nothing but contempt for those who don't understand the procedure as deeply as they do (especially which parts o…
It's not just a USA thing. You get this in the UK too. In general though, in these situations you can have too choices - you can be right, or you can get the outcome you want. Sometimes, happily, the two co-incide. Sometimes they don't, but you just have to put on your big boy pants, smile and suck it up. As a slight aside, I think this is why Project Management is so valuable as training for life. My aim as a PM is…
I think it's pretty much everywhere. Petty people get a little power (maybe as cops, or customs, or tsa or whatever) and they like using it. Most of those people are fine and try to do the right thing. But there are a few (I think of them as tragic) for whom that is all they really have in life- so they are bullies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think his lawful possession of the boat starts until that form was properly signed. Moral possession, sure.
Then whose boat was it, lawfully? You raise an interesting point, by the way. America is partly founded on the idea that laws do not create rights, but instead recognize natural rights. If this story is accurate and the DHS agent did not recognize his natural rights, that is an offense. But if the law did not recognize his natural rights, that is an even greater offense.
But I would put forth the point that it's possible for an item to not be formally owned by anyone. Control is a kind of ownership, but it's not necessarily lawful ownership, otherwise a thief would lawfully own your car once he's driven off in it.
Perhaps it might be that he lawfully owns it, but can't lawfully control it until he gets the customs sign-off? But if he lawfully owned it while it's impounded, would that not mean he would have to pay licensing/registration for it while it sat there?
It does raise some interesting ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just think there's another way to look at this situation. Have you seen The Incredibles? The scene towards the beginning when Mr. Incredible helps the little old lady cheat the insurance system? I think most bureaucrats want to be that person. They want to give the good guy a break; they want to cut people who try hard a little bit of slack. It means more work for them, since they need to spend their own time to ma…
Being nice to a beaurocrat is stupid. Appear to be nice or even charming is one thing but always be willing to throw them under the bus once you are done with them. And never make excuses for them online in a hackers forum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blah, blah, blah. The problem isn't some vague platitude about how there is "too much government". This wasn't caused by Social Security or other defined benefit programs (which make up most of "government"), or by the Veterans Administration, or by the Postal Service, or by FDA. It was caused by one specific agency, created by W, which should never have been created, is duplicative by its very nature, and which has…
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with conservation and responsible fishing or hunting. That has nothing whatsoever to do with me not being able to fish without a license. I should be able to fish any time I want without having to have a license as a prerequisite. Now, we can debate ideas on how to prevent over-fishing and over-hunting. And that's OK. I am all for that. I won't put forth any proposals here because it…
If you get in a situation where nobody can buy food, nobody is going to be enforcing the no-fishing law. It's a general rule. Courts exist for a reason.
If someone is going to lie about the fish they take then they didn't need to bother buying a license in the first place.
How is removing the ability to punish bad actors is going to improve anything?