Slashdot Mirror

California is actually number 1 with the highest poverty rate in the United States.

I believe the answer is zero.

But nice try.

Sorry, but we're talking rabid insanity, which doesn't require a specific set of actions, but covers all the crazy stuff Republicans did to show how completely fucking unhinged they were. Which is important, since if you focus on a specific set of actions, you can be mislead into ignoring all sorts of craziness.

But, you remember something they did claim they'd do? Lots of other talk too. Don't deny it. Links abound.. Huh, maybe the difference is that the right-wing makes empty threats, while the left actually gets off their asses. Or maybe it's all Haymarket Square type things. Since the right is big on accusing the left of setting up false-flag operations, that means they have to admit the existence of such things. Right? You can wonder if outside agitators are leading peaceful protest rallies astray, right?

Or not. Doesn't change the craziness, it just means the right-wing is a bunch of posers. All hat and no cattle.

Which by coincidence, describes the Trump. An empty-suited bombastic sack of hot air.

we do not really know how to defend ourselves against what is happening, not without turning into savages ourselves

Of course, we do:

• Enforce your visa laws.
• Do not provide governmental assistance and deport those, who sneak in despite your efforts

There is nothing "savage" about either of the two measures. Whoever feels sympathetic to the people displaced by war or any other kind of disaster, is welcome to help them in any way they choose directly.

The current situation makes no sense at all. Ukraine, for example — itself a European country with customs quite similar to those of EU members — has been struggling to obtain a visa-free status with EU for years. Meanwhile, folks with completely different ideas of how to live (and dress and pray) are allowed to immigrate en masse.

The US is different, but no less bizarre. For example, while the government actively prosecutes rich folks coming to US to give birth, who pay for it themselves and go back, the poor folks who can't afford healthcare themselves are effectively encouraged to come (illegally), give birth and stay . South Americans cross into the US daily while the Border Control intercepts only about 61%.

To America's credit, we seem to be better at dealing with the "wonderful tapestry of diversity", but there is nothing "savage" about wanting less of it — diversity is not strength, it is an expensive luxury.

We know how to do it and there is nothing "savage" about saying "no". But our current elites just would not do it — whether due to some misplaced compassion or desire for cheaper gardeners and cherry-pickers.

In California, you'd be wrong. There is an explicit exemption for police to text and drive. http://laist.com/2014/08/27/da_wont_charge_deputy_who_hit_napst.php

CA Vehicle Code section 23123.5:

(e) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.

Not sure about FL, but it's difficult to believe that CA cops get an exemption that FL cops don't.

Ah, if *most* jurisdictions have provisions, that means it's not a problem? For example, feel free to peruse the relevant WA state legal code and point out the relevant provision (spoiler: the ACLU doesn't seem to think it exists). In any case, 18 US code 2251, a law against child porn is a federal law and - while I believe it only covers inter-state or foreign transmission - contains no such provisions. Fortunately, minors are definitely never in a different state from their SOs, and if they somehow were, would never request or send naughty pictures, right? Not that I know of any cases of the feds prosecuting such a case of private communications between consenting teens, but if they did the law would appear to be on their side.

While states certainly have some de facto control over what cases they will prosecute, in many cases they have certainly attempted to convict sexting teens as child pornographers, and sometimes they have succeeded. The situation does seem less outrageous than I believed it to be, especially after the first few cases to make the news generated enough outrage at this travesty, but it's still far from perfect.

http://www.cnet.com/news/polic... - 17 and 16 year old in Florida prosecuted, found guilty, conviction upheld on appeal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2... - 15 year old arrested on felony charge (apparently got put on no-cell-phone-or-unsupervised-Internet probation, charges probably dropped afterward)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2... - 7 teens charged with felonies, at least 6 plea bargained to misdemeanors (better than it could have been, still very wrong)
http://laist.com/2013/05/17/re... - Key quote: "... anyone who sends obscene images of persons under the age of 18, whether it’s of themselves or someone else, are violating child pornography laws,” San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Dept.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... - Cops photographing a 17-year-old's junk to try and enter the pictures as evidence. They eventually backed down, after massive public ridicule, on the plan to have him given an injection to make him erect before photographing him *again*.
http://pilotonline.com/news/go... - Provisions, you say? Nope, can't even downgrade it to a misdemeanor, gotta stay a felony!

Sorry for doing the research...

Besides, it would seem that Gynecologists have no problem helping male patients...

It should be the same for police officers: Sure, there are times they may need to turn the camera's off, but the reason should be clear and should itself be recorded. In the absence of a justification, the camera should always run.

The problem with that is that cops are not only trained to manipulate people into agreeing to searches without warrants or interviews without lawyers, but they are free to lie to you in the process. So Detective Mackey stops by your house to ask you about xyz and assures you that you are not at all a suspect. After he talks you into turning off his camera, because you're both reasonable fellows, he beats the shit out of you after claiming you tried to hit him or shoots you after claiming you "reached for your waistband".

Your suggestion seems more appropriate for Scalia's Utopia, where cops aren't corrupt, all citizens are well versed on their rights, encounters between civilians and heavily armed law enforcement agents are on equal ground, and duress whether subtle or blatant does not exist.

http://laist.com/2013/02/07/christopher_dorners_manifesto_in_fu.php

I'm fairly certain they're still ignoring the issue that the most people were interested in changing, legalization of marijuana.

California already voted on that. Then Washington told them they don't get to choose anymore.

There are efforts to fix that. Oddly enough, it's a joint effort by Barney Frank and Ron Paul. Talk about strange bedfellows!

I'm fairly certain they're still ignoring the issue that the most people were interested in changing, legalization of marijuana.

California already voted on that. Then Washington told them they don't get to choose anymore.

Your state is $41 billion in the hole. When people like you tell the rest of us to "man up" who choose not to live out there, it really pisses us off. We're sick of carrying your broke-ass state every five years because Ahh-nold and the rest of your retard politicians can't quit spending money they don't have and won't stop paying for people who aren't supposed to be in the country in the first place. Learn to balance your budget like the rest of us have to in reality land, and then you'll have a right to talking about "manning up" and paying taxes. It's easy to be loose with someone else's money, isn't it? You do realize that people and companies are fleeing California by the THOUSANDS (144,000 last year alone) right now because of high taxes and cost of living and shitty quality of life, don't you? I've lived out in California and while I still love to visit occasionally, I'd never EVER live there again, in part because of all of the arrogant folks who think they know what's best for everyone else and our wallets. I got smart and moved far, far away eight years ago, and am considering moving again because my home state of MD is unfortunately headed down the same deep blue, manure-filled path to permanent Federal welfare. Good luck, comrade.

"There is an initiative in the works that could end up on the November ballot that allows for marijuana to be sold to anyone, and anywhere that already sells alcohol. Its being called The Inalienable Rights Enforcement Initiative. From the full text of the measure:
This initiative will amend the Constitution of California to defend and safeguard the inalienable rights of the People against infringement by governments and corporations, providing for the lawful growth, sale, and possession of marijuana. Marijuana will be taxed through a system of stamps and licenses--a $5 stamp will be required for the sale of an eighth ounce of marijuana and a $50 annual license will be required for the growth of one marijuana plant. To protect participants and encourage participation in the system, such licenses and stamps will be available anonymously in stores where marijuana is sold.

So instead of getting some quack doctor to give you a prescription for $100 because of your supposed "anxiety" or alleged "insomnia", you will just pay an extra tax each time you buy yourself another 8th.

Aside from allowing all willing adults to be able to buy weed easily, this initiative will start to generate revenue for California, and stimulate our struggling economy. More weed stores means more jobs for Californians, more taxes to be collected, and more people enjoying better weed. And finally marijuana will be put into the same file as Alcohol and Cigarettes where it belongs, instead of it being equated with crack-cocaine and heroine.

The initiative goes on to say why they believe this to be a necessary measure:
We also hold these truths to be self-evident-That, as an intoxicant, marijuana is far less harmful to the health and safety of the People than alcohol--That, as a smoking substance, marijuana is far less addictive or harmful to the health of the People than tobacco--That, even though alcohol is harmful to the health and safety of the People, the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933 only increased the harms associated with alcohol use: criminals seized control of the alcohol market, crime and violence increased greatly, and poverty, unemployment, and corruption flourished, while otherwise lawful alcohol drinkers were treated as "criminals" subject to detention, arrest, and incarceration, even though they had not harmed the rights of anyone--That, as with alcohol prohibition, the prohibition of marijuana has only increased the harms associated with the use of marijuana: criminals control a multi-billion dollar market, crime and violence have increased greatly, and poverty, unemployment, and corruption flourish, while otherwise law-abiding marijuana smokers are treated as "criminals" subject to detention, arrest, and incarceration, even though they have not harmed the rights of anyone-That the history of marijuana prohibition is a history of repeated injuries and infringements upon the inalienable rights, powers, and best interests of the People.

Fuck Yes! Preach on, brothers! They go on to point out that alcohol, tobacco, and big-pharma lobbyists have the politicians that are supposed to represent the People in their back-pockets and serving the interests of the alcohol, tobacco, and big-pharma industries.
Despite the harms of marijuana prohibition, politicians persist in imposing and upholding marijuana prohibition, because these politicians are not working for the People--they are working for the corporate executives who financed their campaigns, such as corporate executives in the alcohol industry who want to protect their monopoly on intoxication, corporate executives in the tobacco industry who want to protect their monopoly on smoking, corporate executives in the pharmaceutical industry who want to protect their monopoly on expensive medicines, and corporate executives in the many industries threatened by competition with hemp. These corporate exe

In order to truly make your thinkpad green you will need some of this.

Hey, c'mon! They're sponsoring hep barbecues!