is that it's played by republican douchebags in khakis. you know, the type of people who are against universal health care because f you they've got theirs.
I am not sure how President Obama fits into that description.
Yeah, that explains why the cities with the strictest gun control laws have the lowest murder rates and those with the laws making it easier for law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns have the highest murder rates...No, wait, it's the other way around. If you actually look at the facts it turns out that it is people like Bloomberg who are blood-drenched and the NRA who are the heroes.
Really? Then why do the policies of the Democratic Party, when enacted, have results that look like they were designed by the Democratic Party of 1860?
You make an interesting complaint but you provide no argument or evidence that the government doesn't have a good reason to propose this rule.
But you see that is exactly his point, he should not have to present anything in order to prevent the government enacting a new rule. It should be up to the government to present an argument or evidence that this proposed rule is not only a good idea, but necessary. When the government proposes a new rule, the first reaction of a free people should be, "Not until you convince me that it is necessary for this branch of government to implement this rule."
Wealthy areas have students that do well, poorer areas, less so.
Right the explanation must be the fact that they have more money to spend on schools. It could not possibly be because those who have values that encourage their children to value getting an education are more likely to be wealthy, while those who do not encourage their children to get an education are more likely to be poor. It is not possible that the same factors which cause the parents of children in wealthy neighborhoods to be wealthy are the same factors which cause those parents to raise well-educated children.
On the other hand, such districts can be poorer. While the suburban schools are wealthier. My state used to have heavy state funding of schools, to even out disparities), but that started to be cut. According to a quick google search, the year it came under heavy attack involved a state congress that leaned Republican.
That would make sense if not for two things. First, those inner city schools were already failing before the state funds were cut. Second, there is no correlation between how much a school district spends per student and its success at teaching those students. A few years back, the Washington, DC school district was spending more per student than any other school district in the country, yet was one of the worst school districts in the country (I have not seen the numbers for a few years, so it may no longer be spending the most per student).
Also, the urban areas don't "lean" Democratic, they are overwhelmingly Democratic. There are occasions when a Republican will win the Mayor's office, but that is rare and the overwhelming majority of other elected offices are controlled by Democrats.
Did you fail to notice that the person I was responding to was saying that this was a Republican scam to destroy education?
More importantly the idea that we are collectively responsible for anything is part of the problem. The only kind of responsibility that matters is individual responsibility.
Umm, have you looked at who runs the schools that are failing to teach minorities to read? In particular you might want to take a close look at the party affiliation of those running the school boards, and the rest of the political machinery of the local government in those place. Further, you might want to look at the history of the political party in question. Then you should ask yourself, if they still held to the political philosophy and beliefs they held in 1860, what would they do differently to better accomplish goals in line with that political philosophy?
If I was moving a company out of California, I would be happy to lose any employees who were not jumping at the chance to move out of California with me because I would be able to replace most of them with better workers wherever I was moving the company to.
The reason that Mark Steyn was not mentioned in the article is because this case is not the one which Mark Steyn is involved in. Mark Steyn will not be using a FOI request to attempt to gain access to Mann's emails. Mark Steyn will be using the discovery phase of the lawsuit to attempt to gain access to those documents of Professor Mann's that he wants access to.
You know, you might want to do a little research before launching on a rant. Then you might discover that there are already 80 diseases which are treated with stem cells. So, we have already moved beyond theories and experimental research to something more than "the search for pure academic knowledge." In addition, it appears that the misinformation spread by supporters of embryonic stem cell research has done more to delay the development of stem cell treatments than the relatively minor limits that George W. Bush put upon the use of federal funds when he became the first President to allow ANY federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research.
I agree with the idea of the Mission being in multiple languages. I just think that some thought should be given as to whether Latin and Ancient Greek are the correct alternate languages. Really, which languages are used is the only part of your idea I think is open to question. A question which I am guessing you are open to debating.
Well, perhaps you should have read my very first sentence. The one where I listed the reason the charges should have been dismissed and then in my second sentence where I stated I had a problem with the judge ruling that the students and teacher DID have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
You may want to read the article again. The police officer contacted the DA thinking that the charge should be felony illegal wiretapping, but decided to only charge the boy with disorderly conduct. This went before a judge who found the boy guilty of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
Actually, that does not require an entire new constitution, just an amendment. I will give that some thought, because at first blush it seems to me that it would be a good thing (the languages part is where I want to think about it).
I would like a constitutional amendment requiring that all federal laws state what provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to pass such a law and that if the courts found that that provision did not support what the law did, the law would get thrown out. I would like another amendment that requires that when Congress amends existing legislation, the law making the amendment must contain the entire new form which the law now takes so that all future attempts to understand the law need only look at the most recent version of the law to know everything which is covered under said law.
No, the men who wrote the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) believed, with some justification, that a standing army would inevitably lead to tyranny.
The U.S. Marine Corps was disbanded in April of 1783. It was re-formed by the Act to Provide a Naval Armament of 1794. So, the person you replied to is, more or less, correct. However, when one considers that the men who wrote the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), for the most part, objected to the idea of a standing army, it makes it clear that they believed it was important that nothing interfere with all able-bodied men possessing the weapons necessary to make war.
But they were not committing that crime during the recording. You seem to be overlooking the fact that there is another exception to the "all-party consent" law. That exception is that it ok to record a conversation which occurs where none of the parties to the conversation have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Such would be the case here.
See, that is where you are misunderstanding my initial post(assuming that you actually bothered to follow the thread of conversation). The presence of those other, uninvolved persons changes the situation so that, according to previous court rulings, you no longer have any expectation of privacy. In which case, as the courts have ruled, I am allowed to record you to my heart's content, even if you are NOT committing any crimes. In any situation where those being recorded have no expectation of privacy, such as when they are in a room full of random individuals (say, a school classroom).
Now, in the situation you described, there are all kinds of reasons why the recording would be legal. First, since you postulated that third-parties would be paid to not give consent, you are postulating that those present knew in advance that there would be a recording. Courts have repeatedly ruled that if you carry on a conversation which you know is being recorded, you are implicitly giving your consent to being recorded. Second, you are postulating that these people are being paid to cover-up your crime (being paid to not consent to being recorded is an attempt to prevent the acquisition of evidence to prove a crime is being committed), which is a crime.
So, to re-iterate: the exception to the all-party consent law of recording criminal activity does not apply because not all of those present were committing a crime. However, the boy was not guilty of violating the wire-tap law because he was recording the conversation in a place where people do not, and should not, have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
That was true until about 1 or 2 years ago, when a judge ruled against the police in cases in several states saying that there had been sufficient rulings against such an interpretation that the police could no longer claim that they thought they were following the law...either they were lying, or their training was criminally inadequate.
Not everyone in the classroom took part in the activity which could be defined as assault, conspiracy to commit assault, or even accessory to assault. So, not everyone being recorded without their permission was committing a crime during the recording.
I recently came across a story where it was stated that the Vice-Principal actually testified at the hearing that the mother had previously reported students bullying her son, which makes the judges confidence in the school doing the right thing even worse.
One of the stories I read contained a summary of the evidence presented at the hearing. The organization which published that story had their own court stenographer present to take down a transcript of the hearing.
According to the law in every all-party consent state that I am aware of. One of the exceptions to those all-party consent laws is when the action is in a place were the people involved have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In every all-party consent state, courts have repeatedly ruled that it is legal to record police officers while they are carrying out their job because they have no reasonable expectation of privacy while they are carrying out their job.
Slashdot Mirror
is that it's played by republican douchebags in khakis. you know, the type of people who are against universal health care because f you they've got theirs.
I am not sure how President Obama fits into that description.
Yeah, that explains why the cities with the strictest gun control laws have the lowest murder rates and those with the laws making it easier for law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns have the highest murder rates...No, wait, it's the other way around. If you actually look at the facts it turns out that it is people like Bloomberg who are blood-drenched and the NRA who are the heroes.
Really? Then why do the policies of the Democratic Party, when enacted, have results that look like they were designed by the Democratic Party of 1860?
You make an interesting complaint but you provide no argument or evidence that the government doesn't have a good reason to propose this rule.
But you see that is exactly his point, he should not have to present anything in order to prevent the government enacting a new rule. It should be up to the government to present an argument or evidence that this proposed rule is not only a good idea, but necessary. When the government proposes a new rule, the first reaction of a free people should be, "Not until you convince me that it is necessary for this branch of government to implement this rule."
Wealthy areas have students that do well, poorer areas, less so.
Right the explanation must be the fact that they have more money to spend on schools. It could not possibly be because those who have values that encourage their children to value getting an education are more likely to be wealthy, while those who do not encourage their children to get an education are more likely to be poor. It is not possible that the same factors which cause the parents of children in wealthy neighborhoods to be wealthy are the same factors which cause those parents to raise well-educated children.
On the other hand, such districts can be poorer. While the suburban schools are wealthier. My state used to have heavy state funding of schools, to even out disparities), but that started to be cut. According to a quick google search, the year it came under heavy attack involved a state congress that leaned Republican.
That would make sense if not for two things. First, those inner city schools were already failing before the state funds were cut. Second, there is no correlation between how much a school district spends per student and its success at teaching those students. A few years back, the Washington, DC school district was spending more per student than any other school district in the country, yet was one of the worst school districts in the country (I have not seen the numbers for a few years, so it may no longer be spending the most per student).
Also, the urban areas don't "lean" Democratic, they are overwhelmingly Democratic. There are occasions when a Republican will win the Mayor's office, but that is rare and the overwhelming majority of other elected offices are controlled by Democrats.
Did you fail to notice that the person I was responding to was saying that this was a Republican scam to destroy education?
More importantly the idea that we are collectively responsible for anything is part of the problem. The only kind of responsibility that matters is individual responsibility.
Umm, have you looked at who runs the schools that are failing to teach minorities to read? In particular you might want to take a close look at the party affiliation of those running the school boards, and the rest of the political machinery of the local government in those place. Further, you might want to look at the history of the political party in question. Then you should ask yourself, if they still held to the political philosophy and beliefs they held in 1860, what would they do differently to better accomplish goals in line with that political philosophy?
If I was moving a company out of California, I would be happy to lose any employees who were not jumping at the chance to move out of California with me because I would be able to replace most of them with better workers wherever I was moving the company to.
The reason that Mark Steyn was not mentioned in the article is because this case is not the one which Mark Steyn is involved in. Mark Steyn will not be using a FOI request to attempt to gain access to Mann's emails. Mark Steyn will be using the discovery phase of the lawsuit to attempt to gain access to those documents of Professor Mann's that he wants access to.
You know, you might want to do a little research before launching on a rant. Then you might discover that there are already 80 diseases which are treated with stem cells. So, we have already moved beyond theories and experimental research to something more than "the search for pure academic knowledge." In addition, it appears that the misinformation spread by supporters of embryonic stem cell research has done more to delay the development of stem cell treatments than the relatively minor limits that George W. Bush put upon the use of federal funds when he became the first President to allow ANY federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research.
I agree with the idea of the Mission being in multiple languages. I just think that some thought should be given as to whether Latin and Ancient Greek are the correct alternate languages. Really, which languages are used is the only part of your idea I think is open to question. A question which I am guessing you are open to debating.
Well, perhaps you should have read my very first sentence. The one where I listed the reason the charges should have been dismissed and then in my second sentence where I stated I had a problem with the judge ruling that the students and teacher DID have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
You may want to read the article again. The police officer contacted the DA thinking that the charge should be felony illegal wiretapping, but decided to only charge the boy with disorderly conduct. This went before a judge who found the boy guilty of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
Actually, that does not require an entire new constitution, just an amendment. I will give that some thought, because at first blush it seems to me that it would be a good thing (the languages part is where I want to think about it).
I would like a constitutional amendment requiring that all federal laws state what provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to pass such a law and that if the courts found that that provision did not support what the law did, the law would get thrown out. I would like another amendment that requires that when Congress amends existing legislation, the law making the amendment must contain the entire new form which the law now takes so that all future attempts to understand the law need only look at the most recent version of the law to know everything which is covered under said law.
No, the men who wrote the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) believed, with some justification, that a standing army would inevitably lead to tyranny.
The U.S. Marine Corps was disbanded in April of 1783. It was re-formed by the Act to Provide a Naval Armament of 1794. So, the person you replied to is, more or less, correct. However, when one considers that the men who wrote the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), for the most part, objected to the idea of a standing army, it makes it clear that they believed it was important that nothing interfere with all able-bodied men possessing the weapons necessary to make war.
But they were not committing that crime during the recording. You seem to be overlooking the fact that there is another exception to the "all-party consent" law. That exception is that it ok to record a conversation which occurs where none of the parties to the conversation have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Such would be the case here.
See, that is where you are misunderstanding my initial post(assuming that you actually bothered to follow the thread of conversation). The presence of those other, uninvolved persons changes the situation so that, according to previous court rulings, you no longer have any expectation of privacy. In which case, as the courts have ruled, I am allowed to record you to my heart's content, even if you are NOT committing any crimes. In any situation where those being recorded have no expectation of privacy, such as when they are in a room full of random individuals (say, a school classroom).
Now, in the situation you described, there are all kinds of reasons why the recording would be legal. First, since you postulated that third-parties would be paid to not give consent, you are postulating that those present knew in advance that there would be a recording. Courts have repeatedly ruled that if you carry on a conversation which you know is being recorded, you are implicitly giving your consent to being recorded. Second, you are postulating that these people are being paid to cover-up your crime (being paid to not consent to being recorded is an attempt to prevent the acquisition of evidence to prove a crime is being committed), which is a crime.
So, to re-iterate: the exception to the all-party consent law of recording criminal activity does not apply because not all of those present were committing a crime. However, the boy was not guilty of violating the wire-tap law because he was recording the conversation in a place where people do not, and should not, have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
That was true until about 1 or 2 years ago, when a judge ruled against the police in cases in several states saying that there had been sufficient rulings against such an interpretation that the police could no longer claim that they thought they were following the law...either they were lying, or their training was criminally inadequate.
Not everyone in the classroom took part in the activity which could be defined as assault, conspiracy to commit assault, or even accessory to assault. So, not everyone being recorded without their permission was committing a crime during the recording.
I recently came across a story where it was stated that the Vice-Principal actually testified at the hearing that the mother had previously reported students bullying her son, which makes the judges confidence in the school doing the right thing even worse.
One of the stories I read contained a summary of the evidence presented at the hearing. The organization which published that story had their own court stenographer present to take down a transcript of the hearing.
According to the law in every all-party consent state that I am aware of. One of the exceptions to those all-party consent laws is when the action is in a place were the people involved have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In every all-party consent state, courts have repeatedly ruled that it is legal to record police officers while they are carrying out their job because they have no reasonable expectation of privacy while they are carrying out their job.