All Hank, all the time.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Comments?

At a few dozen other sites across the country, day laborers have set minimums, usually $8 or $10. But only at this corner in Agoura Hills, a well-to-do town 40 miles northwest of Los Angeles, experts say, have they been bold enough to insist on $15, nearly three times the federal minimum wage. Some laborers who are particularly skilled at plumbing or hanging drywall get $18 or more.

NYT article, which requires registration or whatever.

It's a free market, and the day laborer market gives employers a whole lot of power. If the laborers on one corner are banding together, find another corner -- or hire someone with a contracting license.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Nice dodge. You propose that, rather than bomb runways and fuel tanks, Israel should simply threaten to shoot down civilian and commercial airliners. (And then, presumably, if Iran or Syria decides to test the threat by sending a jetliner, purportedly loaded with food for the citizens in Lebanon and piloted by two willing martyrs .... Israel should shoot it down?)

I ask if you really think that making such a threat -- to kill civilians by the hundreds who fly on airplanes -- would be more palatable to world opinion, or to you personally.

And you respond that they didn't need to bomb the airport twice.

I'm sorry -- I didn't think it was a dodge. I didn't invent this notion of closing the airport, although I'm not certain where I've heard about it being done. I'm basically suggesting that if the IDF was concerned about the movement of Hezbollah arms or hostages through the airport, there were more restrained -- to use your word -- ways of accomplishing this. Assuming that simply telling planes not to take off or land is not practical for whatever reason, cratering the runway is more restrained than cratering the runway and destroying the fuel facilities. The former seems to me less likely to kill people and cheaper to fix (some bulldozers, some graders, some asphalt and you're back in business). OTOH, at least they didn't destroy the main terminal. OTOH again, destroying the power plant in Gaza was a little like destroying the main airport terminal -- not restrained.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Since it's you, where do you come out on the no tax w/h etc.? I guess they are probably legitimately independent contractors, and the total amounts paid are under the amounts for which it would be necessary to file a 1099, so maybe that's not an issue. But I wonder a bit about the ind. cont. issue because they are using the hiring person's materials, and are probably acting under their direction in some if not many cases.

Do you think a day laborer could install a faucet for me? I can't get the, uh, bolts (?) to loosen. I did figure out how to turn off the water, though.

While I couldn't, as an officer of the court, subject to the rules of Cricular 230, blah blah blah, advise a client to not pay taxes, I tend to look at the underground economy with a pretty jaundiced eye.

The day laborer market tends to be populated mostly by members of the permanent underclass and illegals. These are people who for the most part are not going to obtain much if anything in the way of social services. They also as a group tend to live pretty much at a subsistence level.

In a more perfect world, they would have income and employment taxes withheld and they would receive a regular paycheck and benefits. But since they don't have that regular paycheck, then it doesn't bother me much that they aren't taxpayers.

I'm pretty sure you could get a day laborer to fix your faucet. Just drive on down to that corner early one morning, and be prepared to pay for at least a half-day's work.

Oh, and make sure your valuables are tucked away, just in case. It's not socially progressive to make negative assumptions, but it's just plain stupid to lose an expensive watch because it walked out the door in some dude's pcket.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm sorry -- I didn't think it was a dodge. I didn't invent this notion of closing the airport, although I'm not certain where I've heard about it being done. I'm basically suggesting that if the IDF was concerned about the movement of Hezbollah arms or hostages through the airport, there were more restrained -- to use your word -- ways of accomplishing this.

And, again -- do you think threatening to blow up civilian airliners is "restrained"?

This may explain your apparent sympathy for Hezbollah and Hamas.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And, again -- do you think threatening to blow up civilian airliners is "restrained"?

This may explain your apparent sympathy for Hezbollah and Hamas.

In a world where everyone understands that the threat itself is sufficient, yes. Because everyone is on the same page and no one is going to blow up any civilian airliners. If we don't live in that world, then I can understand why the IDF might prefer to crater the runway, and that's fine.

If it sounds like I've changed my position a bit, it's because I didn't read the thing in the NYT article about the IDF wanting to keep Hezbollah from flying the soldiers to Iran until after my first few posts. That makes sense. If the IDF were worried about Iran flying arms into Lebanon, it could blow up the planes on the ground after they landed instead of shooting them down if they don't fly away. If the concern is not -- as Hank initially suggested -- with arms coming in from Iran, but with a small plane zipping in and out, or just out, then it sounds like more destructive measures are appropriate.

With the runway cratered, do you think it was a good idea for Israel to return to destroy the fuel facilities? Do you think it should now destroy the terminal? The control tower? The road to the airport?

efc

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Since it's you, where do you come out on the no tax w/h etc.? I guess they are probably legitimately independent contractors, and the total amounts paid are under the amounts for which it would be necessary to file a 1099, so maybe that's not an issue. But I wonder a bit about the ind. cont. issue because they are using the hiring person's materials, and are probably acting under their direction in some if not many cases.

Do you think a day laborer could install a faucet for me? I can't get the, uh, bolts (?) to loosen. I did figure out how to turn off the water, though.

1) Don't day laborers use your tools typically?

2) Take it to the handyman board. Which bolts? The ones holding the faucet to the sink? Or the ones connecting the feed tubes to the water supply? Either way, get some WD-40. Moisten thoroughly (put a towel underneath to catch trips). Let sit for 10-15 minutes; then try again. If that doesn't work, find a strong man to blow, and get some free labor.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Me too. Although if the folks in South Africa can get along reasonably well today, there's a bit of hope for Israel and the Palestinians, no?

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a Mideast version of Nelson Mandela available. Rabin might have made it work, but he ain't around anymore (and who killed him?), and the Palestinian leadership is even less likely to have such a person in their ranks.

The difference with South Africa is that no one had any sympathy for the Whites in that country. The entire world was forcing them to capitulate. In addition, the Whites were a total minority everywhere and pretty much had to capitulate.

It would have been only similar if the whites in South Africa had expelled the blacks from a certain area of the country and encouraged white people from all over the world to emigrate to that part of the country but didn't let the blacks back in. Therefore, the area that the whites controlled would have a massive majority of white people. In addition, they would have had to let the blacks in that part of the country that was controlled by the whites have full voting rights and liberties (but of course they would only be twenty percent of the population). Then the black people who had been expelled kept attacking the white country (using suicide bombers, killing innocent people and hijacking planes around the world) so the White county had to occupty parts of South Africa left to the blacks for their own self defense. Then the black people that had been forced out and lived in the occupied zones would have to constanly be attacking the white part and blowing up civilian planes and innocent people around the world. Of course it would also be helpful if two billion people in the world subscribed to a holy book that said that South Africa belonged to the whites. It would also be helpful if the whites that were in South Africa had been opressed everywhere else in the world and had experienced some sort of holocaust.

If that were the situation in South Africa I don't think the whites would have capitulated. And I think that the there would be some world sympathy for the whites and that a thousand Nelson Mandellas would not be able to help the situation.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
The difference with South Africa is that no one had any sympathy for the Whites in that country. The entire world was forcing them to capitulate. In addition, the Whites were a total minority everywhere and pretty much had to capitulate.

The Reagan Admin, Jesse Helms, and many others had a great deal of sympathy for the staunchly anti-Communist apartheid regime. And for its proxy armies and allies in Mozambique, Angola, Namibia, and Zaire, among other places.

It would have been only similar if the whites in South Africa had expelled the blacks from a certain area of the country and encouraged white people from all over the world to emigrate to that part of the country but didn't let the blacks back in.

Other than the "encourage white people from all over the world" part, they did just this. Blacks were expelled and excluded from cities, suburbs, and prime farmland. That's why the "homelands" and the massive slums of Soweto were developed.

Therefore, the area that the whites controlled would have a massive majority of white people. In addition, they would have had to let the blacks in that part of the country that was controlled by the whites have full voting rights and liberties (but of course they would only be twenty percent of the population). Then the black people who had been expelled kept attacking the white country (using suicide bombers, killing innocent people and hijacking planes around the world) so the White county had to occupty parts of South Africa left to the blacks for their own self defense. Then the black people that had been forced out and lived in the occupied zones would have to constanly be attacking the white part and blowing up civilian planes and innocent people around the world. Of course it would also be helpful if two billion people in the world subscribed to a holy book that said that South Africa belonged to the whites.

The "holy book" distinction is very much on point.

But you seem to forget that the ANC (and the PAC) did a whole lot that would have gotten them branded 'terrorist organizations' today -- and, if I remember correctly, got them called that, or something similar, back in the day. Remember the furor over "necklacing"? And the ANC blew up, or tried to blow up, any number of police stations, restaurants that security forces frequented, oil-from-coal plants, etc.


Again, the "holy book" issue, on the one hand, and the world sympathy for the Jewish people on the other, seem to me to be the essential issues.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Comments?

At a few dozen other sites across the country, day laborers have set minimums, usually $8 or $10. But only at this corner in Agoura Hills, a well-to-do town 40 miles northwest of Los Angeles, experts say, have they been bold enough to insist on $15, nearly three times the federal minimum wage. Some laborers who are particularly skilled at plumbing or hanging drywall get $18 or more.

NYT article, which requires registration or whatever.

It is expensive to live in Calilfornia and these guys have skills. They are forming small unions, more power to them. For the tax issues, why would they pay taxes to a government that doesn't recognize their right to work here or live here? If the government creates a black market through its laws it can't expect to get taxes from it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The Reagan Admin, Jesse Helms, and many others had a great deal of sympathy for the staunchly anti-Communist apartheid regime. And for its proxy armies and allies in Mozambique, Angola, Namibia, and Zaire, among other places.

Yes but the United States has not boycotted Israel (like the US did South Africa) and we did not subsidize South Africa with billions of dollars every year.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Other than the "encourage white people from all over the world" part, they did just this. Blacks were expelled and excluded from cities, suburbs, and prime farmland. That's why the "homelands" and the massive slums of Soweto were developed.

But the emmigration part is the key. In no significant swath of territory in South Africa were the whites in the majority. With Jewish Immigration, the Jews were able so create massive superior numbers in Israel.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The "holy book" distinction is very much on point.

But you seem to forget that the ANC (and the PAC) did a whole lot that would have gotten them branded 'terrorist organizations' today -- and, if I remember correctly, got them called that, or something similar, back in the day. Remember the furor over "necklacing"? And the ANC blew up, or tried to blow up, any number of police stations, restaurants that security forces frequented, oil-from-coal plants, etc.

Yes - but they didn't go after US civilian airliners.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Again, the "holy book" issue, on the one hand, and the world sympathy for the Jewish people on the other, seem to me to be the essential issues.

so if your final point is that if a Palestinian Nelson Mandella came along that the Jews might be willing to let the palestinians from Israel proper come back into Israel and let the occupied territories go free?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
so if your final point is that if a Palestinian Nelson Mandella came along that the Jews might be willing to let the palestinians from Israel proper come back into Israel and let the occupied territories go free?

No -- I was noting the thing you said that was actually correct and on point. It would take a new Prophet, not a Mandela, because of the religious nature of the dispute.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No -- I was noting the thing you said that was actually correct and on point. It would take a new Prophet, not a Mandela, because of the religious nature of the dispute.

I would buy that. But I am not going to hold my breath waiting. I will just wallow in my denial.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In a world where everyone understands that the threat itself is sufficient, yes. Because everyone is on the same page and no one is going to blow up any civilian airliners. If we don't live in that world, then I can understand why the IDF might prefer to crater the runway, and that's fine.

I don't think the threat itself is enough. And I don't think it's a threat that Israel can make.

If it sounds like I've changed my position a bit, it's because I didn't read the thing in the NYT article about the IDF wanting to keep Hezbollah from flying the soldiers to Iran until after my first few posts. That makes sense. If the IDF were worried about Iran flying arms into Lebanon, it could blow up the planes on the ground after they landed instead of shooting them down if they don't fly away. If the concern is not -- as Hank initially suggested -- with arms coming in from Iran, but with a small plane zipping in and out, or just out, then it sounds like more destructive measures are appropriate.

With the runway cratered, do you think it was a good idea for Israel to return to destroy the fuel facilities? Do you think it should now destroy the terminal? The control tower? The road to the airport?

efc

I think that Israel should do what is necessary to shut down the airport. Cratering a runway is probably not sufficient. Runways can be fixed, and a runway designed for jetliners can be used by a small plane even if damaged, I suspect. I think that's why Israel keeps hitting it.

[Spanky]

This was predictable. Like I have said a thousand times, they always underestimate the deficit in bad economic times and overestimate it in good economic times. The best way to raise goverment revenue is through growing the economy. Now if congress could start cutting some fat (and the president grew some cajones and started vetoing appropriation bills) we might get a balanced budget.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/disp..._id=E1_STVJTRP

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I don't think the threat itself is enough. And I don't think it's a threat that Israel can make.

I think that Israel should do what is necessary to shut down the airport. Cratering a runway is probably not sufficient. Runways can be fixed, and a runway designed for jetliners can be used by a small plane even if damaged, I suspect. I think that's why Israel keeps hitting it.

I have to go with Sidd on this. It is just not realistic to expect Israel to shoot down a civilian airliner. Israel would never do it (because of the bad press at home and around the world, and the propaganda coup it would be for the Palestineans) and they know it. The second Israel declared a boycott the other side would start sending in planes full of women and children. And there is no way to know which planes are carrying civilians and which ones are carrying arms for Hamas (I know everyone likes to think intelligence agencies have crystal balls, especially when it comes to WMDs, but in reality they don't).

The best way to disable an airport is to take out the runway and that is exactly what they are doing. Of course is ain't that hard to fix so you have to do it again and again.