Comments for Harvard Law and Policy Review

Comment on Occupy, Qualified Immunity, and Cell Phone Cameras by hvczyyacfjk

hvczyyacfjk — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:36:49 +0000

Comment on Anonymous attacks Internet child porn by mbjewcrqcfs

mbjewcrqcfs — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:14:32 +0000

Comment on SB 1867: when the war comes home by Timberwolf

Timberwolf — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:22:08 +0000

The “Patriot Act” was, indeed, initiated during the administration of George W. Busch. However, it was expanded under the administration of Barack Obama. Obama said that anyone using a cell phone had “no expectation of privacy”. Therefore, U.S. intelligence agencies should be able to “listen in” on conversations without first obtaining a warrant. It was expanded further than that but you get the gist of it.

Comment on Anonymous attacks Internet child porn by Jeniffer

Jeniffer — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:56:01 +0000

Yeah, I would say its a fake. It’s just not sroieus enough. Why would someone that could possible shut RIM’s servers down globally, say amateur fanboi stuff like that?

Comment on Oklahoma’s Innovation in Stopping Judicial Review by Bill Raftery

Bill Raftery — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:00:29 +0000

FYI, it is not just Oklahoma. Oklahoma becomes third state this year to consider stripping its state Supreme Court of power of judicial review

Comment on Occupy, Qualified Immunity, and Cell Phone Cameras by Zyzy

Zyzy — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:45:58 +0000

Hi KC!You are so azmiang! Thank you for your stamina and will power. Still plugging away at new interests to support our cause.We’re praying that new resources will open up as you near the end. I regret not being able to be at finish line. Love you Ps 23. MA

Comment on Volume 5-2 by Lurraine

Lurraine — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:34:42 +0000

You’ve got to be kidding me-it’s so transpranelty clear now!

Comment on Federal employment stagnant over 30 years by Danny

Danny — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:51:29 +0000

The occupational breakdown would have been interesting. This report has more information: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7874/03-15-Federal_Personnel.pdf. Apparently the percentage of federal workers who had a graduate or professional degree vastly increased from 1980 to 2005, which may correspond to a shift towards positions that are more skilled and less likely to be unionized.

Agreed that the exclusion of postal workers doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

Comment on Federal employment stagnant over 30 years by Yevgeny

Yevgeny — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:02:42 +0000

One thing the report didn’t provide is a breakdown of workers 30 years ago into occupational categories. I wonder how much of the reduction in union density is that traditionally unionized jobs in gov’t are disappearing.

The postal workers aren’t counted in the employment figures in the report on the (increasingly tenuous) assumption that the post office is self sufficient. Tying them in would probably make the ratio of high school educated workers closer to the general population, but make the disparity in payments look even bigger.

Comment on Federal employment stagnant over 30 years by Danny

Danny — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:48:50 +0000

Union density among federal employees seems to have decreased a lot since 1980. The CBO report puts it at 21%, compared to low to mid 30s a few decades ago. That trend will be likely be exacerbated by upcoming layoffs of postal workers, who are on average much more likely to be unionized than other federal workers.