Never in the civilised world have so many been locked up for so little
This is the main reason that, sadly, I sometimes think about leaving the U.S. As near as I can figure it, EVERYONE here, no matter how clean they think they are, is potentially a felon waiting for some jury to decide to find them guilty of some nonsense charge. Far too many things are illegal -- so many that the everage citizen isn't even aware of 60% of them -- and we now hand out prison terms like candy on Halloween.
|
I can understand the why of the stance. I do not like the potential outcomes. I would rather have a person fly to the us to have a baby that is a citizen then have a citizen worried if their child is in fact a citizen. Too many what ifs.Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
Gotta love how these "constitutional conservatives" spout off about liberals destroying and/or subverting the constitution...then want to change it to suit their needs/wants.
While I think it is far too late to put that particular genie back in it's bottle, I can almost see the point of wanting to refine what 14 means, but not repeal it. I've heard some scholars argue about the beginning of Section 1, which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."
Some folks aruge that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" might negate the automatic citizenship of someone born in the states to a non-citizen. The thought being that a non-citizen is still legally under the jurisdiction of her country of origin, therefor that home country jurisdiction would take precedence. That I might agree with.
I do not agree with outright appeal.
I'm assuming you meant repeal, and I don't think anyone is suggesting the repeal of the 14th amendment.
I seriously doubt the jurisdiction argument in light of precedent, so that basically leaves an amendment to modify the 14th amendment. I'm very concerned about amending the constitution in any way that expands government power or impacts individual liberty.
What if I said I felt it needs a total rewrite?
Never in the civilised world have so many been locked up for so littleThis is the main reason that, sadly, I sometimes think about leaving the U.S. As near as I can figure it, EVERYONE here, no matter how clean they think they are, is potentially a felon waiting for some jury to decide to find them guilty of some nonsense charge. Far too many things are illegal -- so many that the everage citizen isn't even aware of 60% of them -- and we now hand out prison terms like candy on Halloween.
+1
What if I said I felt it needs a total rewrite?I can understand the why of the stance. I do not like the potential outcomes. I would rather have a person fly to the us to have a baby that is a citizen then have a citizen worried if their child is in fact a citizen. Too many what ifs.Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
Gotta love how these "constitutional conservatives" spout off about liberals destroying and/or subverting the constitution...then want to change it to suit their needs/wants.
While I think it is far too late to put that particular genie back in it's bottle, I can almost see the point of wanting to refine what 14 means, but not repeal it. I've heard some scholars argue about the beginning of Section 1, which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."
Some folks aruge that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" might negate the automatic citizenship of someone born in the states to a non-citizen. The thought being that a non-citizen is still legally under the jurisdiction of her country of origin, therefor that home country jurisdiction would take precedence. That I might agree with.
I do not agree with outright appeal.
I'm assuming you meant repeal, and I don't think anyone is suggesting the repeal of the 14th amendment.
I seriously doubt the jurisdiction argument in light of precedent, so that basically leaves an amendment to modify the 14th amendment. I'm very concerned about amending the constitution in any way that expands government power or impacts individual liberty.
I would be extremely concerned about the impact of such an action on the legal doctrine of incorporation. I don't think it would work today if the constitution in no way restricted the states ability to restrict fundamental human rights.
[Thanks to Steven Purcell for posting these in the news thread where I swiped them.] :)
|
Penal reform in South Carolina
Prisons full, coffers empty
Southern Republicans think it’s time to slow down the growth of locking up[Thanks to Steven Purcell for posting these in the news thread where I swiped them.] :)
That sh!t is both infuriating and scary as hell... How hard is it to get Canadian citizenship?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
That sh!t is both infuriating and scary as hell... How hard is it to get Canadian citizenship?Penal reform in South Carolina
Prisons full, coffers empty
Southern Republicans think it’s time to slow down the growth of locking up[Thanks to Steven Purcell for posting these in the news thread where I swiped them.] :)
Really? I would have thought you'd be in favor of penal reform for nonviolent offenders. In fact, it's something I can see having broad bipartisan support. What problems do you see here?
I think he's referring to the incarceration rates.
|
|
I think he's referring to the incarceration rates.
Indeed I am.
Really? I would have thought you'd be in favor of penal reform for nonviolent offenders. In fact, it's something I can see having broad bipartisan support. What problems do you see here?
That would be GREAT, but i think you're overestimating the support it would receive. Nothing kills a campaign faster than being painted as "soft on crime." You tell voters that you're in favor of lessening sentences for drug crimes and you might as well withdraw from the race then and there.
|
|
Blanchard man sentenced in bank heist attempt that led to ex-wife's death
Bass sentenced Lewis to five years for the attempted robbery, 15 years for shooting with intent to kill and life in prison with all but the first two years suspended for the murder.
*emphasis mine
So this guy was convicted of first degree murder (among other things). His sentence for that first degree murder? TWO, that's right 2, years. Now he didn't actually kill her, she died while they were committing the robbery, but the law doesn't care in that situation. The fact that some people think it's ok to have people serving 1/10th the sentence that people receive for (mandatory minimum) drug charges is ridiculous.
Blanchard man sentenced in bank heist attempt that led to ex-wife's death
Bass sentenced Lewis to five years for the attempted robbery, 15 years for shooting with intent to kill and life in prison with all but the first two years suspended for the murder.*emphasis mine
So this guy was convicted of first degree murder (among other things). His sentence for that first degree murder? TWO, that's right 2, years. Now he didn't actually kill her, she died while they were committing the robbery, but the law doesn't care in that situation. The fact that some people think it's ok to have people serving 1/10th the sentence that people receive for (mandatory minimum) drug charges is ridiculous.
Considering that he's already doing 20 years adding only 2 more on does not seem like its an unreasonable option for the judge.
In fact what bothers me with this story is that he is serving any time for first degree murder since he did not commit murder. He and his wife planned and attempted to commit armed robbery. A security guard shot and killed his wife during the robbery attempt.
She was a willing participant. How is it that he murdered her?
|
|
Blanchard man sentenced in bank heist attempt that led to ex-wife's death
Bass sentenced Lewis to five years for the attempted robbery, 15 years for shooting with intent to kill and life in prison with all but the first two years suspended for the murder.*emphasis mine
So this guy was convicted of first degree murder (among other things). His sentence for that first degree murder? TWO, that's right 2, years. Now he didn't actually kill her, she died while they were committing the robbery, but the law doesn't care in that situation. The fact that some people think it's ok to have people serving 1/10th the sentence that people receive for (mandatory minimum) drug charges is ridiculous.
Considering that he's already doing 20 years adding only 2 more on does not seem like its an unreasonable option for the judge.
In fact what bothers me with this story is that he is serving any time for first degree murder since he did not commit murder. He and his wife planned and attempted to commit armed robbery. A security guard shot and killed his wife during the robbery attempt.
She was a willing participant. How is it that he murdered her?
If you commit an armed/violent felony during which anybody dies, you are responsible for their death. This would include accomplices, old ladies having heart attacks, etc. I don't necessarily have a problem with that law to be honest, just the fact that you have people that are sentenced to life in prison for minor non-violent felonies under 3 strikes, yet you can have someone get 2 years for a murder conviction.
If you commit an armed/violent felony during which anybody dies, you are responsible for their death. This would include accomplices, old ladies having heart attacks, etc. I don't necessarily have a problem with that law to be honest, just the fact that you have people that are sentenced to life in prison for minor non-violent felonies under 3 strikes, yet you can have someone get 2 years for a murder conviction.
Thinking about it what bothers me here is that it was an accomplice. Old lady's having heart attacks makes sense and if your accomplice shoots the security guard dead then I agree you should be on the hook for that murder.
Thinking about it what bothers me here is that it was an accomplice. Old lady's having heart attacks makes sense and if your accomplice shoots the security guard dead then I agree you should be on the hook for that murder.
If you commit an armed/violent felony during which anybody dies, you are responsible for their death. This would include accomplices, old ladies having heart attacks, etc. I don't necessarily have a problem with that law to be honest, just the fact that you have people that are sentenced to life in prison for minor non-violent felonies under 3 strikes, yet you can have someone get 2 years for a murder conviction.
Felony murder statutes can be used very creatively.
Felony murder statutes can be used very creatively.Thinking about it what bothers me here is that it was an accomplice. Old lady's having heart attacks makes sense and if your accomplice shoots the security guard dead then I agree you should be on the hook for that murder.
If you commit an armed/violent felony during which anybody dies, you are responsible for their death. This would include accomplices, old ladies having heart attacks, etc. I don't necessarily have a problem with that law to be honest, just the fact that you have people that are sentenced to life in prison for minor non-violent felonies under 3 strikes, yet you can have someone get 2 years for a murder conviction.
Yeah. This is pretty messed up.
Yeah. This is pretty messed up.Felony murder statutes can be used very creatively.Thinking about it what bothers me here is that it was an accomplice. Old lady's having heart attacks makes sense and if your accomplice shoots the security guard dead then I agree you should be on the hook for that murder.
If you commit an armed/violent felony during which anybody dies, you are responsible for their death. This would include accomplices, old ladies having heart attacks, etc. I don't necessarily have a problem with that law to be honest, just the fact that you have people that are sentenced to life in prison for minor non-violent felonies under 3 strikes, yet you can have someone get 2 years for a murder conviction.
I think it is a case of, in a manner of speaking, intent following the bullet.
1. Death caused by the commission of a felony: felony murder
The death of his wife occurred as a result of the bank heist. Felony murder.
2. Premeditated murder and certain murders such as those involving law enforcement, varying from state to stae and the feds: first degree murder.
He intentionally engaged in an act whoe purpose was to murder someone, a security officer, fulfilling his duty. The attempted intentional murder (engaging the security officer in a shootout) resulted in the death of someone who was not the intended victim. Still first degree because the criminal intent to commit first degree murder was present but resulted in the murder of his wife instead of the intended target. The intent follows the bullet as a manner of speaking in this regard.
Even though it wasn't his bullet, I don't have a problem with this ruling at all. Whether or not it will be appealed and survive, I have no idea.
I wonder if the security guard or a law enforcement officer had killed a bystander with a stray bullet would the felony murder statute still be applicable.
If so, you could wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot. It seems like a stretch to me.
I wonder if the security guard or a law enforcement officer had killed a bystander with a stray bullet would the felony murder statute still be applicable.
If so, you could wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot. It seems like a stretch to me.
It doesn't seem like a stretch to me.
(From my point of view)
If you (in general here and in the remaining references) shoot at a cop, you are committing a felony.
If you shoot at a cop it is reasonable to expect he will shoot back and a bystander getting killed as a result is a reasonable expectation.
Therefore it was a reasonable expectation that your action could lead to someone getting killed. Therefore it is your responsibility.
Another situation would be that the perpetrator did not shoot at the officer.
In such a case, it would need to be determined whether or not the perpetrator's actions presented a danger to society great enough to warrant the officer firing upon the perpetrator.
If the answer is yes, then the above description would still apply. If the perpetrator's actions did not rise to a degree necessitating the use of lethal force, then the death would be the result of the policeman's unnecessary use of force rather than the commission of the felony.
That is what a trial is for.
The purpose of the felony murder trial is to determine whether or not responsibility lies with the perpetrator of the felony. The police are held to the expectation of meeting the criteria for lethal force before using it. Therefore, it is not a legal reasonable expectation for lethal force to be used where the criteria is not met. Therefore it would not be reasonable to attribute the murder to the felony rather than the officer.
(From my point of view)
|
|
I wonder if the security guard or a law enforcement officer had killed a bystander with a stray bullet would the felony murder statute still be applicable.
If so, you could wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot. It seems like a stretch to me.
It is my understanding that ANYBODY who dies during the commission of a felony has, as far as the law is concerned, died because of those committing that felony. You say "wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot" but ask yourself this: would the cops have been shooting had those felons not been there robbing the bank? They wouldn't have and that's why the people who committed the crime are held responsible. Is an accomplice a bit of a stretch? Yes, but only a bit. Is anybody else who dies during the crime a stretch? not really.
It is my understanding that ANYBODY who dies during the commission of a felony has, as far as the law is concerned, died because of those committing that felony. You say "wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot" but ask yourself this: would the cops have been shooting had those felons not been there robbing the bank? They wouldn't have and that's why the people who committed the crime are held responsible. Is an accomplice a bit of a stretch? Yes, but only a bit. Is anybody else who dies during the crime a stretch? not really.I wonder if the security guard or a law enforcement officer had killed a bystander with a stray bullet would the felony murder statute still be applicable.
If so, you could wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot. It seems like a stretch to me.
I'm basically in agreement with you except that I feel accomplice is too much of a stretch. You've committed your crimes and you should have to face the music - your accomplice has also been forced to face the music and clearly paid the ultimate price. Tacking what happened to your accomplice onto the bill you owe society stretches things into the territory where the punishment no longer fits the crime.
|
|
Repeat Drunken Driver Gets Life in Prison
This isn't folly (for the most part), IMO, this is the gov't getting it right. The only complaint I have is that it took him (getting caught) driving drunk 9 times for them to take permanent action.
It is my understanding that ANYBODY who dies during the commission of a felony has, as far as the law is concerned, died because of those committing that felony. You say "wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot" but ask yourself this: would the cops have been shooting had those felons not been there robbing the bank? They wouldn't have and that's why the people who committed the crime are held responsible. Is an accomplice a bit of a stretch? Yes, but only a bit. Is anybody else who dies during the crime a stretch? not really.I wonder if the security guard or a law enforcement officer had killed a bystander with a stray bullet would the felony murder statute still be applicable.
If so, you could wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot. It seems like a stretch to me.
Sorry, I hold cops to more stringent standards when it comes to their firearms- they get away with far too much already.
It is my understanding that ANYBODY who dies during the commission of a felony has, as far as the law is concerned, died because of those committing that felony. You say "wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot" but ask yourself this: would the cops have been shooting had those felons not been there robbing the bank? They wouldn't have and that's why the people who committed the crime are held responsible. Is an accomplice a bit of a stretch? Yes, but only a bit. Is anybody else who dies during the crime a stretch? not really.
OK, so if a dude is running out of an apartment with a home computer and a bunch of jewelry -- enough $ value to give him a felony beef. Cops at the end of the alley yell halt and then open fire when he keeps running; they spray bullets all over the alley, empty their weapons and reload; it's WWIII in there. Perp is injured; six innocent people in nearby apartments, cars, etc. are killed as collateral damage. But, hey, they were all killed during the commission of a felony. Therefore the perp gets six counts of Murder 1 and the cops get a "clean shooting" review, right?
Thankfully, I don't think it works that way, legally-speaking.
|
|
Sorry, I hold cops to more stringent standards when it comes to their firearms- they get away with far too much already.It is my understanding that ANYBODY who dies during the commission of a felony has, as far as the law is concerned, died because of those committing that felony. You say "wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot" but ask yourself this: would the cops have been shooting had those felons not been there robbing the bank? They wouldn't have and that's why the people who committed the crime are held responsible. Is an accomplice a bit of a stretch? Yes, but only a bit. Is anybody else who dies during the crime a stretch? not really.I wonder if the security guard or a law enforcement officer had killed a bystander with a stray bullet would the felony murder statute still be applicable.
If so, you could wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot. It seems like a stretch to me.
I agree that there should be some accountability as far as the officer is concerned, but a bulk of the responsibility should be placed on the people who caused the officers to fire in the first place. Now were there an instance, such as the officer who shot the guy in the back on the subway, or Anaiya in Detroit, etc. there is only one place to place the blame.
|
|
It is my understanding that ANYBODY who dies during the commission of a felony has, as far as the law is concerned, died because of those committing that felony. You say "wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot" but ask yourself this: would the cops have been shooting had those felons not been there robbing the bank? They wouldn't have and that's why the people who committed the crime are held responsible. Is an accomplice a bit of a stretch? Yes, but only a bit. Is anybody else who dies during the crime a stretch? not really.OK, so if a dude is running out of an apartment with a home computer and a bunch of jewelry -- enough $ value to give him a felony beef. Cops at the end of the alley sprays bullets all over the alley. Perp injured; six people in nearby apartments killed as collateral damage. But, hey, they were all killed during the commission of a felony. Therefore the perp gets six counts of murder-1 and the cops get a "clean shooting" review, right? I don't think it works that way.
I could be wrong, but I think that the crime has to be an armed felony for this type of statute to apply (ie.- he opened fire on the cops and an innocent bystander was killed in the ensuing shootout). IIRC, cops are no longer allowed to issue "stop or i'll shoot" type ultimatums.
It is my understanding that ANYBODY who dies during the commission of a felony has, as far as the law is concerned, died because of those committing that felony. You say "wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot" but ask yourself this: would the cops have been shooting had those felons not been there robbing the bank? They wouldn't have and that's why the people who committed the crime are held responsible. Is an accomplice a bit of a stretch? Yes, but only a bit. Is anybody else who dies during the crime a stretch? not really.OK, so if a dude is running out of an apartment with a home computer and a bunch of jewelry -- enough $ value to give him a felony beef. Cops at the end of the alley yell halt and then open fire when he keeps running; they spray bullets all over the alley, empty their weapons and reload; it's WWIII in there. Perp is injured; six innocent people in nearby apartments, cars, etc. are killed as collateral damage. But, hey, they were all killed during the commission of a felony. Therefore the perp gets six counts of Murder 1 and the cops get a "clean shooting" review, right?
I don't think it works that way.
Spray n' pray! Except now we can ditch the prayer- it's their fault I had uzi down that school bus full of nuns, didn't he hear me say "Stop, police"?
Note- this post was meant in dark humor...I do not want anyone ventilating a school bus full of nuns(or anyone else for that matter).
I could be wrong, but I think that the crime has to be an armed felony for this type of statute to apply (ie.- he opened fire on the cops and an innocent bystander was killed in the ensuing shootout). IIRC, cops are no longer allowed to issue "stop or i'll shoot" type ultimatums.
OK, so they flake him with a throw-down piece afterwards. Problem solved, even if a bunch of kids playing hopscotch in the street get mowed down?
Nope. I could be mistaken, but it's my understanding that, legally, cops need to evaluate the risk of collateral damage before they start shooting -- even if they claim someone is shooting that them -- or IA is supposed to suspend and investigate them, and maybe it goes to trial.
|
|
I could be wrong, but I think that the crime has to be an armed felony for this type of statute to apply (ie.- he opened fire on the cops and an innocent bystander was killed in the ensuing shootout). IIRC, cops are no longer allowed to issue "stop or i'll shoot" type ultimatums.OK, so they flake him with a throw-down piece afterwards. Problem solved, even if a bunch of kids playing hopscotch in the street get mowed down?
Nope. I could be mistaken, but it's my understanding that, legally, cops need to evaluate the risk of collateral damage before they start shooting, or IA is supposed to suspend them pending trial.
I don't think anybody stated that cops should be able to use a "spray and pray" method when returning fire. Obviously, firefights are chaotic and as with any situation involving munitions, there can be collateral damage. In the examples you have posited, there is obvious negligence on part of the police. I don't think this statute is a way to suspend other laws and regulations (b/c every bank robbery/hostage situation would end with a tactical air strike otherwise), but is simply a way to discourage and punish armed and violent crime.
|
I could be wrong, but I think that the crime has to be an armed felony for this type of statute to apply (ie.- he opened fire on the cops and an innocent bystander was killed in the ensuing shootout). IIRC, cops are no longer allowed to issue "stop or i'll shoot" type ultimatums.OK, so they flake him with a throw-down piece afterwards. Problem solved, even if a bunch of kids playing hopscotch in the street get mowed down?
Nope. I could be mistaken, but it's my understanding that, legally, cops need to evaluate the risk of collateral damage before they start shooting -- even if they claim someone is shooting that them -- or IA is supposed to suspend and investigate them, and maybe it goes to trial.
If the cops fired inappropriately, they could also be charged with murder. Just because the perp in your scenario was charged with murder doesn't mean nobody else can be. Legally speaking, in your scenario, the burglar and the police could all go to jail together.
Arrested In Fistfight, Teen In Prison For LifeI could be wrong, but I think that the crime has to be an armed felony for this type of statute to apply (ie.- he opened fire on the cops and an innocent bystander was killed in the ensuing shootout). IIRC, cops are no longer allowed to issue "stop or i'll shoot" type ultimatums.It is my understanding that ANYBODY who dies during the commission of a felony has, as far as the law is concerned, died because of those committing that felony. You say "wind up with felons being prosecuted for people the cops shoot" but ask yourself this: would the cops have been shooting had those felons not been there robbing the bank? They wouldn't have and that's why the people who committed the crime are held responsible. Is an accomplice a bit of a stretch? Yes, but only a bit. Is anybody else who dies during the crime a stretch? not really.OK, so if a dude is running out of an apartment with a home computer and a bunch of jewelry -- enough $ value to give him a felony beef. Cops at the end of the alley sprays bullets all over the alley. Perp injured; six people in nearby apartments killed as collateral damage. But, hey, they were all killed during the commission of a felony. Therefore the perp gets six counts of murder-1 and the cops get a "clean shooting" review, right? I don't think it works that way.
BTW, felony flight rules allow law enforcement to shoot fleeing unarmed felony suspects in the back in most departments. Cops have very broad latitude in most situations.
EDIT: After 1985 the Tennessee v. Garner decision changed the language to say there must be sufficient probable cause to believe "the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
This was raising the bar from (basically) presumption of danger.
I had to share this here.
The “Fugitive Felon” Rules, Or Government Regulations as Absurdist Theater
Our bureaucrats leap into action!
Life In Prison: Felony Murder
Arrested In Fistfight, Teen In Prison For Life
Here it sort of makes sense. The jury believed that the intent of the 4 boys was to commit robbery. I can kind of understand the logic of you where committing a crime and some one died your also on the hook.
That said I think the idea of some kind of mandatory involuntary manslaughter provision makes more sense. In theory because you should get less time if your intent was to rob and not murder then if intent was to murder on the presumption that this helps convince criminals not to carry weapons and such which can save lives.
Now I don't actually think this distinction causes behavior change. I'm pretty sure if your hard core enough to be willing to kill in the line of a felony then the prospect of a lighter sentence does not cause you to leave your piece at home. Its hard to kill people and its this that results in most criminals not taking things that far.
Hence we are really down to technical points based on high flown theories like punishments fitting crimes.
Kirth also raises some good points in regards to the fact that a felony opens the door to unreasonable use of force by law enforcement who now know that some one else will take the fall for any collateral damage.
I had to share this here.
The “Fugitive Felon” Rules, Or Government Regulations as Absurdist Theater
Our bureaucrats leap into action!
I don't really understand how this is the fault of the bureaucrats. They preform the actions but it was congress that told them too. This is not a case of the bureaucrats enforcing dumb rules from a bygone era either - these rules a brand spanking new. Its the job of the bureaucracy to enact the will of the people as decided by their elected representatives.
Now if the system is working properly this should be a case where the mandarins go back to their elected bosses and explain why their great theory is a flop in actual practice and insist that it be brought before congress again so it can get some changes. This is the reason top mandarins are supposed to get their position in part on their ability to speak truth to power.
Of course it may well be that nothing gets done. If psychology has taught us anything in the last 100 years or so its taught us that humans are really quite far from the rationalist beings that enlightenment philosophers believed us to be. Politicians get elected based, in part, on their ability to exploit such irrationality.
I had to share this here.
The “Fugitive Felon” Rules, Or Government Regulations as Absurdist Theater
Our bureaucrats leap into action!
I don't really understand how this is the fault of the bureaucrats. They preform the actions but it was congress that told them too. This is not a case of the bureaucrats enforcing dumb rules from a bygone era either - these rules a brand spanking new. Its the job of the bureaucracy to enact the will of the people as decided by their elected representatives.
Now if the system is working properly this should be a case where the mandarins go back to their elected bosses and explain why their great theory is a flop in actual practice and insist that it be brought before congress again so it can get some changes. This is the reason top mandarins are supposed to get their position in part on their ability to speak truth to power.
Of course it may well be that nothing gets done. If psychology has taught us anything in the last 100 years or so its taught us that humans are really quite far from the rationalist beings that enlightenment philosophers believed us to be. Politicians get elected based, in part, on their ability to exploit such irrationality.
In practice politicians pass the laws then bureaucrats write the volumes of regulations and processes for how those laws are carried out. I'm pretty confident this odious practice is a function of the bureaucracy rather than the statute.
Why is ground zero still a giant hole, and how many billions of federal dollars have gone into cleaning up and rebuilding the site after ~9 years?
|
|
The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS
I am truly speechless...I sat here staring at the screen for about 5 min thinking of something witty to add regarding this link and could not come up with anything--it's that ridiculous and scary.
|
|
Oklahoma City police officer cleared in fatal crash
64 in a 35
Headlights on, but no police lights
Varying witness accounts
Magically appearing beer cans and BAC reading
If the cops want to speed on their way to a call, they need to put their lights on when they do it. I can't count the number of times i've been doing 70-80 on the highway and looked up to a cruiser gaining on me like i'm standing still with no lights on...cops are more of a public nuisance than the drivers they harrass and ticket.
Oh, and where has BT been? haven't seen him on the boards lately.
Why is ground zero still a giant hole, and how many billions of federal dollars have gone into cleaning up and rebuilding the site after ~9 years?
Why is Belgrade totally rebuilt, and St. Saba's Cathedral (a symbol of Serbian resilience) there nearly complete, while Ground Zero is still a giant hole?
On the plus side they do have a new Starbucks and McDonald's along with tons of cheap souvenir stands.
Has this been posted anywhere yet?
Edited to a less biased link.
If an article does not pertain to the Americaniski that should be noted. Took me a while to figure out this was UK.
If an article does not pertain to the Americaniski that should be noted. Took me a while to figure out this was UK.Has this been posted anywhere yet?
Edited to a less biased link.
It was a little weird to me, but I know that racial slurs/overall shorthand vary WILDLY depending on where you are.
It was a little weird to me, but I know that racial slurs/overall shorthand vary WILDLY depending on where you are.If an article does not pertain to the Americaniski that should be noted. Took me a while to figure out this was UK.Has this been posted anywhere yet?
Edited to a less biased link.
I'm back.
Freedom lost.
I will post something I learned yesterday...
It is well known that once you get chicken pox as a child, you are pretty much immune for the rest of you life(barring some immunity system disorder). However, some people could get shingles much later in life.
What is much more recently known, is that it turns out your immunity to chicken pox actually wanes later in life, which makes you more susceptible to shingles...however...by being exposed to children who are sick or recovering from chicken pox, your body gets exposed once again and builds up immunity again. A natural "booster shot" if you will. Elderly may be more vulnerable to shingles because they aren't exposed to children with chickenpox, it at least is an influencing factor.
The government mandated a chicken pox vaccine in the 1990s. The claim was that chicken pox is dangerous, which it isn't(again unless your immune system has a serious problem). The real reason was Merck wanted to sell lots of chicken pox vaccine. So they began immunizing children against chicken pox. Now chicken pox is much less frequent...
Annnnndddd shingles is on the rise. You now know why, and it is going to get worse. Be prepared for a shingles epidemic amongst adults, at least in the US, which is worse than chicken pox as a kid. Some children are even coming down with shingles, which never happened before.
But fear not, Merck to the rescue! For only $200, you too can get vaccinated against shingles...which may work, or may not...and it may have adverse side effects...we will all know in another 15 years or so.
An example of how getting the government involved in sickness care, creates a real problem where none existed before...
This is slanted in that the government isn't making a profit off the vaccine, Merck is. Also, the damage the chicken pox can do to an adult male who has never had it is well documented(happened to my stepfather). STILL Also, children NEVER having come down with shingles before is a bit hard to believe considering how old chicken pox is. I'm not getting on a soapbox to boo you down, per se, but this is a poor example. I'm also more than a little leery about this because of the good the polio, measles, and mumps vaccine has done for the public as well as the fact that despite being exposed to it DOZENS of times, I've never had chicken pox once...