Perhaps guilt-ridden cheering, but cheering nonetheless.
IOW, we're all vindictive bastards, and we all know it, and none of us particularly care.
Clearly, he didn't care then, and I really don't see how four years in prison would make him care now.
That's as may be, but it illustrates a problem with incarceration-as-rehabilitation. It's supposed to be rehabilitative, but it usually isn't. What's readily apparent from the commentary here and in other threads of commentary like this is that it's meant to be nothing more than a punitive measure and as a rule we like it that way. We want to punish the guy? Fine. But make it purposeful, otherwise it's just a bloodsport. The fact that there's no actual blood just lets us be sententious about it. Poor form, humanity.
I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.
I sure hope that he has reformed. That's the point of penal servitude, isn't it? Otherwise, why bother with it? I mean, why not just execute him if doing his time isn't good enough for you?
I don't think anyone's saying that life arose on a comet or asteroid, only that the ingredients were deposited here by such. And I don't think anyone's saying that it didn't happen anywhere else. Indeed, rather that passing the buck, positing an extra-terrestrial origin for the required ingredients might suggest that it would be more likely (or at least possible) for the same sort of thing to happen elsewhere.
"Go stick your head in a pig"
(Hey/., your lameness filter is too loose. Maybe you should freeze an account for fifty fucking years after each post! Please stick your collective heads in a pig.)
So vote Green. Particularly in the Senate. Greens will support the NBN, but they will oppose the bloody filter. But what will the Libs do? Will they treat their current opposition to the filter as a non-core promise and drop us in the poo anyway?
Group voting tickets are just undemocratic. Preferential voting should only go as far as the voter wants - if your vote doesn't get distributed to any of your preferences, it should be discarded.
This has come up in the reviews that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters conducts. Usually someone makes the argument that optional preferential voting is tantamount to first-past-the-post voting, and the matter is more or less swept under the carpet unless and until it comes up again after the next election.
We have optional preferential voting in QLD and NSW state elections. Both states have craptastic governments. But that's not a function of the voting systems, it's a function of having even more craptastic oppositions.
Anyway, you're right: extorting from me a vote for a candidate whom I despise in order for me to register a vote for a candidate who I wish to represent me is nothing short of an electoral mugging. My only practical means of objecting is to either cast an informal vote or to hold my nose and place the "opposition" candidate second-last (which effectively votes him or her into office if the preference count goes out that far).
And, one hopes, sooner or later the taxpayers who have to make up this deficit manage to break the code and work out who to be pissed off at, and then exercise their pique at the ballot box.
Though I might have put it more politely, I agree to some extent.
The problem with putting it politely is that it engages and to some extent validates their view. They should be told to fuck off. I don't know anyone has to be nice to them.
Slashdot Mirror
What about: 4. The right to keep and bear arms for the maintenance of a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB2454
IOW, we're all vindictive bastards, and we all know it, and none of us particularly care.
That's as may be, but it illustrates a problem with incarceration-as-rehabilitation. It's supposed to be rehabilitative, but it usually isn't. What's readily apparent from the commentary here and in other threads of commentary like this is that it's meant to be nothing more than a punitive measure and as a rule we like it that way. We want to punish the guy? Fine. But make it purposeful, otherwise it's just a bloodsport. The fact that there's no actual blood just lets us be sententious about it. Poor form, humanity.
I sure hope that he has reformed. That's the point of penal servitude, isn't it? Otherwise, why bother with it? I mean, why not just execute him if doing his time isn't good enough for you?
I don't think anyone's saying that life arose on a comet or asteroid, only that the ingredients were deposited here by such. And I don't think anyone's saying that it didn't happen anywhere else. Indeed, rather that passing the buck, positing an extra-terrestrial origin for the required ingredients might suggest that it would be more likely (or at least possible) for the same sort of thing to happen elsewhere.
Are you for hire, my hero?
So you'd just sunset that law, then, right?
But that seems to be the language they understand.
"Collapse is sometimes a suboptimal way to save things." Only sometimes. Such as, for example, when bail-outs are even less optimal.
You call that a tax bill? That's not a tax bill. THIS is a tax bill!
They don't have to arrest everyone. They only have to arrest the people who piss them off.
"Go stick your head in a pig" (Hey /., your lameness filter is too loose. Maybe you should freeze an account for fifty fucking years after each post! Please stick your collective heads in a pig.)
Except for the adults who don't think that...
Well, they think imaginary people are real, so why not?
7/7 = 1.
So, why can't 3/3 = 1?
Next!
Until you can, somehow, make it contractually their problem.
Understand "possession" in context. Or fuck off and die in a fire. Either will be fine, thanks.
So vote Green. Particularly in the Senate. Greens will support the NBN, but they will oppose the bloody filter. But what will the Libs do? Will they treat their current opposition to the filter as a non-core promise and drop us in the poo anyway?
That's a good hedge: you can't be wrong.
This has come up in the reviews that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters conducts. Usually someone makes the argument that optional preferential voting is tantamount to first-past-the-post voting, and the matter is more or less swept under the carpet unless and until it comes up again after the next election.
We have optional preferential voting in QLD and NSW state elections. Both states have craptastic governments. But that's not a function of the voting systems, it's a function of having even more craptastic oppositions.
Anyway, you're right: extorting from me a vote for a candidate whom I despise in order for me to register a vote for a candidate who I wish to represent me is nothing short of an electoral mugging. My only practical means of objecting is to either cast an informal vote or to hold my nose and place the "opposition" candidate second-last (which effectively votes him or her into office if the preference count goes out that far).
And, one hopes, sooner or later the taxpayers who have to make up this deficit manage to break the code and work out who to be pissed off at, and then exercise their pique at the ballot box.
And I say that while I have a meaningful choice in what I eat (I've started growing my own food) Monsanto can suck my dick.
Maybe I just don't get your outlook, but it sounds like the argument makes you want to kill the wrong person.
The problem with putting it politely is that it engages and to some extent validates their view. They should be told to fuck off. I don't know anyone has to be nice to them.