Friday, 30 March 2012, WASHINGTON, D.C. - Yes indeed folks another tiresome reminder NO READING FREE UNLIMITED NEW YORK TIMES DIGITAL CONTENT SIMPLY BY SETTING READERS' FREE FIREFOX BROWSERS TO "PUBLIC BROWSING" as America staggers through another week of the George "little shrub" Bush "Mission Accomplished" legacy struggling to find our way out of the deadly swamp fog mire crackhead Bush left behind tap-dancing his way back to the Bush compound asylum kind of like after leading your troops in the Civil War into the "Battle of the Swamp" (okay readers can research the correct historical name) and then yourself heading home to nap before catching the LATE LATE AFTERNOON MOVIE today starring Raquel Welch as a submarine crew member shrunk down to be injected into a human body and fix something that is broken.
The fact for the day may be worth more to our faithful readers not "in the know" than the cost of readers' entire lifetime subscription to the Ninth Amendment which includes the eternity after "dropping the body" although originial hard copy backorders of which there are none are available only under special circumstances with a note from the doctor or a note and and appropriate picture from one of the young women who run around in short skirts giving out doctors' office lunches and free drug samples teaching doctors how to practice medicine with the drug comapanies' latest patented concoctions with made-up names that have yet to be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. That is one long sentence. Do not do that.
The Ninth Amendment must apologize to any remaining faithful readers who are still with us for our not getting to that most important above cited fact for the day. The editorial board apparently mistakenly allowed our interns (recently let go from the FOX-TV copy writing staff) to produce the draft final of this post. The Foxterns seem at a total loss when told they cannot just make things up that quality news of integrity must bear some at least tenuos relationship to reality or at least the appearance thereof as it is all an illusion anyway on a sub-atomic level. Okay that is it the Ninth Amendment editorial staff is sending them off on public transit to get us another keg of Diet Mountain Dew direct from the bottling plant at the far edge of the industrial part of the city where the train will not even go and the streets are paved with medical waste.
The fact for the day already! (Sorry just using the Motley Fool Tom Gardner teaser "investment" newsletter device where you ARE KEPT UP FROM GETTING TO BED WITH YOUR PARTNER OR DOG OR BOTH AS THE CASE MAY BE SCREAMING AT YOU FROM THE BEDROOM OR MAYBE ABOUT TO SNEAK UP AND CLOBBER YOU ON THE HEAD AS THEY UNPLUG YOUR COMPUTER BUT YOU STILL NEVER GET THE "INFORMATION" THE FOOL BROTHER PROMISED ONLY AN UNEASY FEELING THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO BUY SOMETHING WITHIN FIVE MINUTES OR FOREVER BE LEFT OUT OF THE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TOM CHOSE TO SHARE WITH YOU FOR BUT A MERE FRACTION OF THE COST FOR YOU! Try reading the "Daily Reckoning" contrarion business newsletter if Fool Tom starts to get on your nerves.
Again the fact for the day is that a growing number of prospective employers throughout the United States now more routinely require of candidates the disclosure of the candidate's social media user name(s), "handle" or whatever along with all passwords for Facebook and the rest of that CIA front so that prospective employers may examine the candidates' public profile. This practice so far as we know is not illegal anywhere in the United States BUT WE DO NOT OFFER NOR PORTEND TO OFFER ANY LEGAL ADVICE WHATSOEVER SO IF YOU WANT IT GOOD LUCK TRY TO GET AN EMPLOYMENT LAWYER AND/OR QUALIFIED LICENSED LEGAL PROFESSIONAL TO ANSWER THE PHONE TO ANSWER YOUR LEGAL QUESTIONS OR TAKE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN IN A BAD ACCIDENT THAT CAN BE PINNED ON A RICH PERSON OR ENTITY. THIS IS AN EXPRESS DISCLAIMER THAT THE NINTH AMENDMENT. HEREIN AND NOWHERE ELSE EITHER CLAIMS TO OR DOES OFFER ANY LEGAL ADVICE WHATSOEVER.
The hidden fact for the day is that San Francisco local state senator Leland Yee has introduced California SB 1349 to protect social media profiles from employers (just like one need not inform prospective employers they have anthrax if the candidate does not know it and feels kind of okay). Senator Yee's bill would prohibit California employers from demanding user names and passwords from applicants or current employees. The bill further would ban universities from demanding such information.
The solution for the day since this is only potential law protecting readers only protecting readers in California which the Ninth Amendment suggests considering in all circumstances anyway is filling social media sites with fictional or misremembered information rendering their databases valueless.Always play the "disinformation game". In the case at hand create a site devoted exclusively to one's love and admiration for the employer, identify it as one's social media site, disable any other sites while at the interview so as to be truthful, then as as soon as getting out the door when the interview is over simply restore one's other sites as they were (YES WE BELIEVE THIS CAN BE DONE BUT CHECK FIRST, PLEASE, BECAUSE WE REALLY DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE IF THIS CAN BE DONE WITHOUT GOING TO THE SOCIAL MEDIA SITE HEADQUARTERS OR THE CIA AND ASKING THAT IT PLEASE BE RESTORED FROM THEIR COMPREHENSIVE FILES.)
The thought for the day is that obviously should the employment relationship not work out after the interview one may exercise one's First Amendment rights by trashing the employer on billboards or the internet so long as it is expressed as "opinion" and does not in any other way constitute defamation or any other unlawful act of which there are now quite a few but this again is NOT LEGAL ADVICE AS IT MUST BE SOUGHT FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED QUALIFIED LICENSED ATTORNEY OR EQUIVALENT AS THE NINTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PORTEND TO OFFER READERS ANY LEGAL WORDS, ADVICE OR INFORMATION WHATSOEVER.
What follows finally is the Ninth Amendment comment submitted yesterday in response to a New York Times editorial on the new, improved "Cruel" Republican budget (is anyone surprised?) drafted by Wisconsin Representative Ryan "trimming" $3.3 trillion dollars from extraneous social programs such as feeding the poor which so far as we know was not published in the digital edition of the Times verbatim or otherwise probably either because the Ninth Amendment forgot to press the "submit" (we do not like to submit) button, the Times already had stopped taking comments, or as we told the Foxterns they could only write it if they did not claim to be the Ninth Amendment editorial board, not to be too mean, or write things about physical appearance and for goodness sake avoid analogies to Nazis as that is totally inappropriate given the horrific gravity of the Holocaust as recently reiterated by the New York Times editor who explained why the percentage of Times readers' comments not published had increased about fivefold of late.
Comment Submitted to Times and Not Published So Far As the Ninth Amendment Knows
A "cruel" budget from Wisconsin Rep. Ryan just because it trims $3.3 trillion from ancillary programs for the poor like feeding them? The editorial board of the Ninth Amendment at www.waronnothing.blogspot.com being of an alleged Constitutional bent even ups the Times one and says how about "cruel and unusual"? If the Supreme Court still has left that one in the greatest governance document ever drafted perhaps it may consider applying it to someone other than the likes of Dr. Josef Goebbels.
Mitt Romney says something like he is "not very concerned about the very poor"? Nor we know about the kids' dog strapped to the roof of the family car from whom's diet one could always doubtless trim a couple billion dollars of dog food with hardly a peep.
No doubt just a slip of the tongue from a devout champion of whatever is expediant who slogged practically his own way through college and two simultaneous Harvard graduate schools without work alas nothing but sales of stock Daddy gave him to get his wife (wives? how many are they allowed to have these days?) and himself to that great grade B science fiction sphere in the sky or whatever it is.
Meanwhile Mr. Romney quickly turns face again from what he thought to be (when told) might be importune remarks about the "very poor". Heck, being such a warm and compassionate man he no doubt did not first realize this budget too has another big tax break for the rich and the ultra-rich. They too need to eat.
Copyright 2012 Big M and Little L
The fact for the day may be worth more to our faithful readers not "in the know" than the cost of readers' entire lifetime subscription to the Ninth Amendment which includes the eternity after "dropping the body" although originial hard copy backorders of which there are none are available only under special circumstances with a note from the doctor or a note and and appropriate picture from one of the young women who run around in short skirts giving out doctors' office lunches and free drug samples teaching doctors how to practice medicine with the drug comapanies' latest patented concoctions with made-up names that have yet to be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. That is one long sentence. Do not do that.
The Ninth Amendment must apologize to any remaining faithful readers who are still with us for our not getting to that most important above cited fact for the day. The editorial board apparently mistakenly allowed our interns (recently let go from the FOX-TV copy writing staff) to produce the draft final of this post. The Foxterns seem at a total loss when told they cannot just make things up that quality news of integrity must bear some at least tenuos relationship to reality or at least the appearance thereof as it is all an illusion anyway on a sub-atomic level. Okay that is it the Ninth Amendment editorial staff is sending them off on public transit to get us another keg of Diet Mountain Dew direct from the bottling plant at the far edge of the industrial part of the city where the train will not even go and the streets are paved with medical waste.
The fact for the day already! (Sorry just using the Motley Fool Tom Gardner teaser "investment" newsletter device where you ARE KEPT UP FROM GETTING TO BED WITH YOUR PARTNER OR DOG OR BOTH AS THE CASE MAY BE SCREAMING AT YOU FROM THE BEDROOM OR MAYBE ABOUT TO SNEAK UP AND CLOBBER YOU ON THE HEAD AS THEY UNPLUG YOUR COMPUTER BUT YOU STILL NEVER GET THE "INFORMATION" THE FOOL BROTHER PROMISED ONLY AN UNEASY FEELING THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO BUY SOMETHING WITHIN FIVE MINUTES OR FOREVER BE LEFT OUT OF THE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TOM CHOSE TO SHARE WITH YOU FOR BUT A MERE FRACTION OF THE COST FOR YOU! Try reading the "Daily Reckoning" contrarion business newsletter if Fool Tom starts to get on your nerves.
Again the fact for the day is that a growing number of prospective employers throughout the United States now more routinely require of candidates the disclosure of the candidate's social media user name(s), "handle" or whatever along with all passwords for Facebook and the rest of that CIA front so that prospective employers may examine the candidates' public profile. This practice so far as we know is not illegal anywhere in the United States BUT WE DO NOT OFFER NOR PORTEND TO OFFER ANY LEGAL ADVICE WHATSOEVER SO IF YOU WANT IT GOOD LUCK TRY TO GET AN EMPLOYMENT LAWYER AND/OR QUALIFIED LICENSED LEGAL PROFESSIONAL TO ANSWER THE PHONE TO ANSWER YOUR LEGAL QUESTIONS OR TAKE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN IN A BAD ACCIDENT THAT CAN BE PINNED ON A RICH PERSON OR ENTITY. THIS IS AN EXPRESS DISCLAIMER THAT THE NINTH AMENDMENT. HEREIN AND NOWHERE ELSE EITHER CLAIMS TO OR DOES OFFER ANY LEGAL ADVICE WHATSOEVER.
The hidden fact for the day is that San Francisco local state senator Leland Yee has introduced California SB 1349 to protect social media profiles from employers (just like one need not inform prospective employers they have anthrax if the candidate does not know it and feels kind of okay). Senator Yee's bill would prohibit California employers from demanding user names and passwords from applicants or current employees. The bill further would ban universities from demanding such information.
The solution for the day since this is only potential law protecting readers only protecting readers in California which the Ninth Amendment suggests considering in all circumstances anyway is filling social media sites with fictional or misremembered information rendering their databases valueless.Always play the "disinformation game". In the case at hand create a site devoted exclusively to one's love and admiration for the employer, identify it as one's social media site, disable any other sites while at the interview so as to be truthful, then as as soon as getting out the door when the interview is over simply restore one's other sites as they were (YES WE BELIEVE THIS CAN BE DONE BUT CHECK FIRST, PLEASE, BECAUSE WE REALLY DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE IF THIS CAN BE DONE WITHOUT GOING TO THE SOCIAL MEDIA SITE HEADQUARTERS OR THE CIA AND ASKING THAT IT PLEASE BE RESTORED FROM THEIR COMPREHENSIVE FILES.)
The thought for the day is that obviously should the employment relationship not work out after the interview one may exercise one's First Amendment rights by trashing the employer on billboards or the internet so long as it is expressed as "opinion" and does not in any other way constitute defamation or any other unlawful act of which there are now quite a few but this again is NOT LEGAL ADVICE AS IT MUST BE SOUGHT FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED QUALIFIED LICENSED ATTORNEY OR EQUIVALENT AS THE NINTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PORTEND TO OFFER READERS ANY LEGAL WORDS, ADVICE OR INFORMATION WHATSOEVER.
What follows finally is the Ninth Amendment comment submitted yesterday in response to a New York Times editorial on the new, improved "Cruel" Republican budget (is anyone surprised?) drafted by Wisconsin Representative Ryan "trimming" $3.3 trillion dollars from extraneous social programs such as feeding the poor which so far as we know was not published in the digital edition of the Times verbatim or otherwise probably either because the Ninth Amendment forgot to press the "submit" (we do not like to submit) button, the Times already had stopped taking comments, or as we told the Foxterns they could only write it if they did not claim to be the Ninth Amendment editorial board, not to be too mean, or write things about physical appearance and for goodness sake avoid analogies to Nazis as that is totally inappropriate given the horrific gravity of the Holocaust as recently reiterated by the New York Times editor who explained why the percentage of Times readers' comments not published had increased about fivefold of late.
Comment Submitted to Times and Not Published So Far As the Ninth Amendment Knows
A "cruel" budget from Wisconsin Rep. Ryan just because it trims $3.3 trillion from ancillary programs for the poor like feeding them? The editorial board of the Ninth Amendment at www.waronnothing.blogspot.com being of an alleged Constitutional bent even ups the Times one and says how about "cruel and unusual"? If the Supreme Court still has left that one in the greatest governance document ever drafted perhaps it may consider applying it to someone other than the likes of Dr. Josef Goebbels.
Mitt Romney says something like he is "not very concerned about the very poor"? Nor we know about the kids' dog strapped to the roof of the family car from whom's diet one could always doubtless trim a couple billion dollars of dog food with hardly a peep.
No doubt just a slip of the tongue from a devout champion of whatever is expediant who slogged practically his own way through college and two simultaneous Harvard graduate schools without work alas nothing but sales of stock Daddy gave him to get his wife (wives? how many are they allowed to have these days?) and himself to that great grade B science fiction sphere in the sky or whatever it is.
Meanwhile Mr. Romney quickly turns face again from what he thought to be (when told) might be importune remarks about the "very poor". Heck, being such a warm and compassionate man he no doubt did not first realize this budget too has another big tax break for the rich and the ultra-rich. They too need to eat.
Copyright 2012 Big M and Little L
No comments:
Post a Comment