Except most juvenile cases are decided before a judge, not a jury.
In addition, IAAL and I've done plenty of Juvenile defense cases and I can tell you that some of these kids need extra help as early as possible. Far too often, the reason a kid stays in a life of crime into adulthood is because the juvenile justice system is ill-equipped and has their hands tied in how to properly deal with these cases.
I see this as a potentially positive thing... and this is coming from a juvenile defense attorney.
Actually, money is not the deciding factor on what goes to the Supreme Court. In fact, there are countless cases where the appellant is indigent.
The Supreme Court is most interested in cases where an important question of law is at issue. Not granting certiorari (i.e. not hearing a case -- usually just abbreviated "cert") just means that the Supreme Court feels that either the question isn't important and/or the appellate court got it right, so they don't want to waste time on it.
First, there is only a Grand Jury in certain states. Washington State, for instance, does not have a Grand Jury... the judge merely decides if there is probable cause.
Second, the judge also decides what evidence the jury can listen to. I am a defense attorney and my client just went to jail because the judge wouldn't let us present evidence that would have proven his innocence... why? Because the judge wants to get re-elected and wants to look "tough on crime". What the easiest way to do that? Ignore truth, justice, and right/wrong and just convict at all costs.
Our judicial system is far more broken than most Americans believe.
We are talking the Ukraine here. Let's not automatically superimpose American sensibilities on someone that comes from a drastically different culture and lifestyle.
Let's have a little charity for someone who hasn't grown up as extravagantly privileged as us.
Yes, many people are Luddites. But don't they have that right? Jeez! We have a problem with some people forcing their opinions on us (taking religion out of schools, etc...) but we are perfectly comfortable forcing our opinions of what is "right" or "good" or "best for the community" on others.
Maybe we should treat others with respect and promote their rights instead of just force our opinions on them.
Yes, it does work. Broadband came to consumers through market forces in the first place. So long as we can stop these companies from getting sweetheart deals with congress, market forces should continue to provide higher speeds and reduced costs.
Um, no. You're not even almost right. Broadband was brought to the public by market forces in the first place. What makes you think that market forces won't encourage more speed down the road?
"Should", yes. "Will", I don't think so. The $200 billion has already lined someone's pockets and they'll need another $200 billion to actually do what the first $200 billion was supposed to do... do you remember the first bailout that was supposed to "fix" our failing economy? Something like $800 billion, right? That quickly become 1.5 trillion and it is ever increasing. Never assume that the price tag you're shown by government is the real price tag.
I think "Market Forces" means removing the artificial barriers to new companies coming in to provide service options. You're right, when you only have one comm. provider, things suck. Diversity of options will benefit people far more than mandated 'this' or regulated 'that'.
I think that is exactly what this is intended to accomplish.
But is this really the purpose of government? What if I don't want to pay for high-speed internet because all I do is e-mail people every once in a while? (I actually DO have high-speed, but I have family members -- siblings, not grandparents -- who only use internet for occasional e-mail and still only have dial-up) Why should I be forced to pay for high-speed that I will never use?
We should be increasing people's options, not limiting them. And increased options doesn't have to mean "better" options.
Not every state only charges on profit... Washington State, for instance, (my wonderful home state) has what they call a "Business and Operations" tax which is on GROSS income, not NET. That is one of the many reasons that Boeing left Washington state... and they're a big business, capable of relocating... small businesses usually don't have that option and so simply go out of business.
You know what creates jobs? Small business. The overwhelming majority of Americans are employed by small businesses. And what is the enemy of small business? Taxes. And what drives higher taxes? Pork.
So, you wanna save the economy and get out of this depression? Kill the Pork.
Um... no he doesn't say the word "ready" at all... he doesn't even hint at the idea of being "ready" for the evils he describes. And the evils he describes are specific evils unique to public school. He provides no framework in which these things should, at some future point, be learned by a child... or even an adult.
He makes three points:
1. Sending a kid to school teaches him/her that you don't care about him. There was nothing in there about a kid not being ready... indeed, any good parent would never want to teach their kid that they don't care about them.
2. Sending a kid to school puts them in an environment where they receive minimal adult attention and are expected to perform. Most adults can hardly be expected to perform when they are given little to no instruction in advance. Again, nothing about being "ready".
3. Schools teach objectification. There is nothing redeeming about objectification and no one should ever learn it... so no one is ever "ready" to learn it.
None of these things that kids learn in schools have a proper time to be learned, because no one should learn them, not even adults. These are categorical evils to be avoided by all.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah! The Shay Rebellion... indeed, there was "too [much] Shay".
Except most juvenile cases are decided before a judge, not a jury.
In addition, IAAL and I've done plenty of Juvenile defense cases and I can tell you that some of these kids need extra help as early as possible. Far too often, the reason a kid stays in a life of crime into adulthood is because the juvenile justice system is ill-equipped and has their hands tied in how to properly deal with these cases.
I see this as a potentially positive thing... and this is coming from a juvenile defense attorney.
Actually, money is not the deciding factor on what goes to the Supreme Court. In fact, there are countless cases where the appellant is indigent.
The Supreme Court is most interested in cases where an important question of law is at issue. Not granting certiorari (i.e. not hearing a case -- usually just abbreviated "cert") just means that the Supreme Court feels that either the question isn't important and/or the appellate court got it right, so they don't want to waste time on it.
First, there is only a Grand Jury in certain states. Washington State, for instance, does not have a Grand Jury... the judge merely decides if there is probable cause.
Second, the judge also decides what evidence the jury can listen to. I am a defense attorney and my client just went to jail because the judge wouldn't let us present evidence that would have proven his innocence... why? Because the judge wants to get re-elected and wants to look "tough on crime". What the easiest way to do that? Ignore truth, justice, and right/wrong and just convict at all costs.
Our judicial system is far more broken than most Americans believe.
Simon the Zealot was a political activist. Judas (yes, that Judas) probably worked with money in some way, like a banker or accountant.
Yeah, and American prosecutors NEVER go after people who are innocent.
We are talking the Ukraine here. Let's not automatically superimpose American sensibilities on someone that comes from a drastically different culture and lifestyle.
Let's have a little charity for someone who hasn't grown up as extravagantly privileged as us.
Right... because it's "crazy" to not want government encroaching on every aspect of our lives. Fiscal responsibility is also "crazy".
Yes, many people are Luddites. But don't they have that right? Jeez! We have a problem with some people forcing their opinions on us (taking religion out of schools, etc...) but we are perfectly comfortable forcing our opinions of what is "right" or "good" or "best for the community" on others.
Maybe we should treat others with respect and promote their rights instead of just force our opinions on them.
They can't all be that stupid.
Careful underestimating how stupid congress-critters can be.
Yes, it does work. Broadband came to consumers through market forces in the first place. So long as we can stop these companies from getting sweetheart deals with congress, market forces should continue to provide higher speeds and reduced costs.
Um, no. You're not even almost right. Broadband was brought to the public by market forces in the first place. What makes you think that market forces won't encourage more speed down the road?
"Should", yes. "Will", I don't think so. The $200 billion has already lined someone's pockets and they'll need another $200 billion to actually do what the first $200 billion was supposed to do... do you remember the first bailout that was supposed to "fix" our failing economy? Something like $800 billion, right? That quickly become 1.5 trillion and it is ever increasing. Never assume that the price tag you're shown by government is the real price tag.
Yes, this scenario does happen, but the far more common situation is for municipalities to give a monopoly to one company or another.
I think "Market Forces" means removing the artificial barriers to new companies coming in to provide service options. You're right, when you only have one comm. provider, things suck. Diversity of options will benefit people far more than mandated 'this' or regulated 'that'.
I think that is exactly what this is intended to accomplish.
But is this really the purpose of government? What if I don't want to pay for high-speed internet because all I do is e-mail people every once in a while? (I actually DO have high-speed, but I have family members -- siblings, not grandparents -- who only use internet for occasional e-mail and still only have dial-up) Why should I be forced to pay for high-speed that I will never use?
We should be increasing people's options, not limiting them. And increased options doesn't have to mean "better" options.
Superb reasoning.
You're right. I don't have 14 employees. But I am a small business owner.
No, I didn't mention the "evil rich", but it is implicit in discussing taxes because 99% of all taxes are paid by about 1% of the populace.
Not every state only charges on profit... Washington State, for instance, (my wonderful home state) has what they call a "Business and Operations" tax which is on GROSS income, not NET. That is one of the many reasons that Boeing left Washington state... and they're a big business, capable of relocating... small businesses usually don't have that option and so simply go out of business.
Really!?! Talk about shortsighted.
You know what creates jobs? Small business. The overwhelming majority of Americans are employed by small businesses. And what is the enemy of small business? Taxes. And what drives higher taxes? Pork.
So, you wanna save the economy and get out of this depression? Kill the Pork.
We'd get gaming at the cost of losing good phone features.
No, he got the reference to BTTF, but pointed out the OP's obliviousness to the statement quoted in TFA.
Except Takezo Kensai (A.K.A. Adam Monroe) used just his blood to heal Peter... and supposedly Monroe and Claire had the same ability.
Um... no he doesn't say the word "ready" at all... he doesn't even hint at the idea of being "ready" for the evils he describes. And the evils he describes are specific evils unique to public school. He provides no framework in which these things should, at some future point, be learned by a child... or even an adult.
He makes three points:
1. Sending a kid to school teaches him/her that you don't care about him. There was nothing in there about a kid not being ready... indeed, any good parent would never want to teach their kid that they don't care about them.
2. Sending a kid to school puts them in an environment where they receive minimal adult attention and are expected to perform. Most adults can hardly be expected to perform when they are given little to no instruction in advance. Again, nothing about being "ready".
3. Schools teach objectification. There is nothing redeeming about objectification and no one should ever learn it... so no one is ever "ready" to learn it.
None of these things that kids learn in schools have a proper time to be learned, because no one should learn them, not even adults. These are categorical evils to be avoided by all.