Why would you think to prevent the state and local statutes?
I'm not trying to prevent them, I'm just saying if you are a "true libertarian" you should also be opposed to "state and local statues". You're seem to be confusing "strict constitutionalist" with "libertarian". I think there is a well established basis that, by definition, a libertarian is opposed to government intervention except as required to protect individuals from coercion and violence.
You seem to have ignored the bill I linked above, HR-1096. I've seen statements that estimate that up to two thirds of all pregnancies spontaneously terminate (I'm not sure if this statistic includes women on birth control pills). If that's true, the police should have their hands full with an endless stream of potential murders of incorporeal and nameless "people". After all they have a duty to investigate the death of "people". Women who have miscarriages could now be prosecuted for murder, manslaughter, negligence causing death, failure to provide the necessities of life, or other crimes. The birth control pill could be viewed as a weapon of mass murder, doctors and pharmacists as accomplices. You might think that's a little far fetched, but do you think the law won't be used that way by people like Rick Santorum who don't believe people should be allowed to have sex for any purpose other than procreation.
So, a bill sponsored by Ron Paul would result in more oppressive government not less. Actions speak louder than words.
We want to prevent the Feds from overreaching. And we're the bad guys?
No, you're the bad guys because you ignore the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
I don't really see it. It looks to me like a Microsoft partisan is pulling the old "liberal media" trick of accusing everyone else to be biased so that he'll look less biased. The guy making the complaint is intricately tied to Microsoft (he's Microsoft VIP, and MSCE, a Microsoft Partner...), these are facts that he neglected to mention in the article because they might lead people to rightly believe that his reporting might have a pro-Microsoft bias.
Also I've never heard of the controversy he claims gets "so much attention". It's biased reporting of the worst sort.
He's talking about media coverage, not the personal opinions of people who know things. Back in the early 90s Microsoft got almost entirely positive press. Of course, I've heard that was partly because they blackballed anyone who dared criticize them. It wasn't until the anti-trust lawsuit and Windows ME that I started to see any significant negative press about Microsoft.
No, the closer it is, the easier it is to fix it. States, and even cities, were run by political bosses who could rouse their base. And in smaller states and cities, that base could easily overwhelm elections.
And if said "base" constitutes an overwhelming majority, sufficient to elect their representatives to all bodies, why shouldn't it get to call the shots? There's the Constitution (federal and state) to keep basic freedoms guarded, and for everything else, it's called democracy for a reason. Besides, freedom of movement is still considered a basic freedom, too - so voting with your feet is always an option, and is heavily exercised in practice already.
The point, I think, is that they don't need to represent an overwhelming majority of the populace to win a small, possibly divided electorate. One problem is a voting system that will effectively reduce every election that matters down to a lesser of two evils vote, once one party decides to play hard ball, another is that state and local elections tend to have lower turn out rates than federal elections. Thus it easier for an organised group that does not accurately represent the wishes of the general public to win either through voter mobilisation or electoral fraud. If we fixed our electoral systems so that we used preferential balloting, for example, many of the problems that lead to inferior results would be resolved.
No, it doesn't. He's sponsor of a bill that would expand the definition of murder to include fertilised eggs. Please note that this change could mean that any sexually active woman on birth control could be legally considered a serial killer, since many of the birth control pills prevent the egg from implanting, but not fertilising. Also, any woman who has a miscarriage could be prosecuted for manslaughter, negligence causing death, failure to provide the necessities of life, or a host of other crimes.
His actions don't match the rhetoric and would have wide-ranging and potentially very negative consequences.
Well, I strongly suspect that "returning to the gold standard" would result in an unprecedented economic collapse in the U.S. I think the people who want to do that own a lot of gold, because there simply isn't enough gold to back the current supply of U.S. money at anything close to it's current price. That means either the U.S. dollar crashes in value, the value of gold soars or both happen at the same time.
Simply trying to make that change could produce a worse collapse than the great depression. It would also eliminate the good benefits of having an inflationary currency (namely encouraging investment). A gold-backed currency can become deflationary, where the currency increases in value as time passes. That will actually encourage people to divest themselves of investments and hoard cash instead. Hoarded cash is economically useless until it re-enters the system, and since the supply of money is limited, hoarding cash tends to drive further deflation in a vicious cycle that punishes economic activity.
People who advocate for the gold standard are people who believe that gold represents wealth. They haven't learned the lesson that you can't eat gold.
allow the states to decide because as a true libertarian
A true libertarian would want to forbid any government from interfering, regardless of whether it's federal, state, or local.
That is pretty damn "clear" for a "clouded" political position, wouldn't you say?
No, see the link above. He's clearly not doing what the propaganda says he would. Ron Paul's got his good points, for the OP pointed out one of his big problems. He's a corporate-libertarian and a social conservative.
That's an interesting theory, but it would probably work like this under a single payer system:
Your dentist tells you that you need a root canal.
The dentist looks up your address on record, and arranges for you to go to the nearest affiliated root canal clinic to your home at the first available opening.
You go there and get the root canal done.
As far as I'm aware there's not a whole lot of competition in the root canal marketplace. It isn't a product that people want, and not that many people actually need root canals that often. That means there often isn't a whole lot of choice about where to go.
Anyway, under a single-payer health care program, the price the single-payer (usually government) will pay for a root canal is set. There is no "more expensive" root canal option. The government pays X for root canals, and patients are referred to the specialist by generalist dentists. The single-payer doesn't care when or where you get your root canal done, it pays the same amount no matter who you go to and when*. Now if you have a specialist using better painkillers, his patients will tend to give better feedback to the dentist and he may get more patients referred at the cost of lower profit per patient.
The perverse incentives only exist if they are allowed to exist, it usually means you have poorly designed system, it may or may not be an inherent problem in the basic idea of the system, but it's usually an implementation failure.
* In general anyway, of course payments, may be adjusted year-to-year.
Presumption of innocence is what you get in court. The police aren't supposed to presume that everyone is innocent, it really interferes with the job of investigating crimes. But of course, they aren't actually bothering to do that in this case, are they?
No, you don't. You demand that scientific results match your preconceived notions. Conservatives are easily swayed by anything claiming to be science that matches what you want to be true. Just look at the people who listen to Christophen Monckton, he has a bachelor of arts and claims to have cured AIDS and cancer, yet conservatives love to listen to him tell them how global warming isn't occurring, how the earth is actually cooling not warming and all sorts of other nonsense that matches how you want the world to be.
You don't trust science because you don't like the results regardless of how many times the experiments have been replicated. This article is about an inordinately high rate of failure in one particular area of research where not enough verification of results is being performed. The problem is easily fixed, the question is whether the corporations paying for the research will be willing to pay for the verifications and release the results.
Not exactly. A drug that works no better than the placebo could be used for years or decades before anyone figures out that it doesn't do anything but create side effects. As long as there is no evidence of intentional malfeasance and there isn't a bunch of corpses linked to the drug, it would probably have little impact on profits even if it was exposed as useless.
The people who believe in creation, evolution and geology are not creationists. They are simply religious. You can believe there is a creator, however, a principle part of creationism is believing that humans and animals were created in their current form. Heck even the deists believe the universe had a creator and they're effectively atheists (they believe God is dead or gone). It's practically by definition that if you believe in evolution, you're not a creationist.
Not really. Take an example from Canada we have a Prime Minister who campaign on honesty, integrity, openness and transparency who has run the most secretive, deceitful, closed, and ideological government we've ever seen. Sometimes the guy who promises to limit government will be worse than the guy who doesn't. You should spend more time looking at actual individual positions on issues (and their history of actions taken) so you can judge more accurately who is less worse. Conservative politicians are generally lying when they say they want less government, see this explanation, they don't want less government they want government to stop helping people they don't like. It means they want a government that punishes those who are different and rewards those conform to their idea of who Americans should be.
Then why is "conservative" presidential candidate Rick Santorum, for example, so keen on telling people what they can do with their bodies?
The real truth: Liberals are people who value fairness and preventing harm. Conservatives aren't as keen on those, principles they believe that fairness and preventing harm can be limited to the good people who live the correct way, because they place a high moral values on conformity, tribal identity*, and obedience. Liberals, generally speaking, do not appreciate those conservative values. That is the root source of much conflict between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives seek to limit the government when the governments actions appear to benefit non-conservatives, and support government action when it appears to support conservative values. That's why conservatives think it's ok to have laws on who you can put your tally-wacker into and what you can smoke. Those laws reinforce the tribal identity that conservatives would like American to mean. Liberals meanwhile support government actions that increase fairness and prevent harm, and oppose government actions they think will decrease fairness or harm people without just cause. For example liberals generally oppose everything conservatives want done to enforce conformity, because they see that as unnecessary harm.
Libertarians are technically neither conservative nor liberal. They value individual liberty above all else. They care little for fairness, preventing harm, conformity, tribal identity, or obedience except where those values align with liberty.
* Tribal identity for many conservatives is "conservative", though it can also be based on nation, city, favorite sports term or something else.
There seem to be some mistakes in you post. Reagan's "tax cuts" were actually a "tax increase" he lowered the tax on earned income but increased the taxes on capital gains. He actually raised taxes 11 times, I think, over his term. The shifting of tax burden from wages to capital gains gave the government an increase in revenue. One of his legacies was to spawn the political myth that lowering taxes can increase taxes supposedly because the U.S. was on the right side of the Laffer Curve, however, most conservative just can't face the fact that their beloved hero actually raised taxes, not once but many times.
You are correct that Bush the Lesser is no conservative, however, if Reagan were alive and running for the Presidential nomination today, his opponents would deride his as left wing nutcase. The Republicans have veered very far to the right of the party they were in the 80s. Unless he changed all of his policies, Reagan would not pass the current Republican Party purity tests.
What many people don't seem to realise is that a church-marriage is wrapped around a state-marriage. As part of the church ceremony the couple getting married sign a legal document that then has to be delivered to the state. A church-marriage without a state-marriage is not a marriage, it's just a show.
Technically, if you can find a consenting adult who'll let you punch them in the face, you should be free to go at it. I think there might even an underground group of punching enthusiasts who run something called "boxing matches".
I'm not trying to pick on you here, but there's a problem with your belief: it's wrong. Marriage is a legal status conferred by the government. Religious ceremonies exist only to keep the church in people's lives. Many people are married in non-religious ceremonies, are atheists not really married because they aren't religious?
The whole marriage is religious thing is an invention to justify opposing various marriages on religious grounds. Whether it's used to justify opposition to marrying blacks, inter-race couples, gays or lesbians, it's always been a invented reason. There's one legitimate definition of marriage and it's not religious. If religions want to have their own super-hetero-god-fearing-marriage, they can have it, but it shouldn't be recognised by the government as anything other than a civil marriage.
From my perspective, the FRC is a scourge upon the United States. They exist solely to advocate for censorship of everything they disagree with, because if they don't like it, nobody else should be allowed to see it either. The most ridiculous part is that most of the people who send the letters in don't ever watch anything they're complaining about. They don't want to risk exposure to "that degenerate material" so the FRC employs people to scan shows and find things that they can be offended at, and then provide their membership with a form letter they can use to bombard the latest victim with complaints from people who never watched what they've been told to be offended about.
The evil the organisation does isn't limited to what they actually complain about, companies avoid airing things they know the FRC will be upset about, particularly when Republicans have control of the FCC, because it can be very costly to run afoul of their arbitrary prejudices.
EA mostly makes games that suck. I don't think there's much competition in the evil category here.
"I believe cats are dangerous. I believe cat ownership shouldn't be promoted. I oppose cat ownership. Does this make me anti-cat? No way."
When you declare that homosexual couples are not deserving of the same rights as heterosexual couples then you are, by definition, anti-gay. You can maybe get away with "I believe homosexual acts are a sin according to my religion". Even then, I think that is only explicit in the Jewish and Mormon traditions. Look it up, the prohibition on gay sex is in the same book that prohibits blended fabrics, eating shellfish and cutting your hair. Why do you hold so close to one arbitrary prohibition and not the rest?
Not really. The wounds, if they actually existed, could be unrelated to his story. They could have been inflicted before or after the shooting, and the bloody nose could have been induced by the shooting. Stress can trigger nose bleeds and hands can transfer blood.
I'm not saying Zimmerman's story is false, however, I don't think there's sufficient justification to not change him. Sometimes it's important that people see that justice is being done, and there's too many inconsistencies in this story.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you think to prevent the state and local statutes?
I'm not trying to prevent them, I'm just saying if you are a "true libertarian" you should also be opposed to "state and local statues". You're seem to be confusing "strict constitutionalist" with "libertarian". I think there is a well established basis that, by definition, a libertarian is opposed to government intervention except as required to protect individuals from coercion and violence.
You seem to have ignored the bill I linked above, HR-1096. I've seen statements that estimate that up to two thirds of all pregnancies spontaneously terminate (I'm not sure if this statistic includes women on birth control pills). If that's true, the police should have their hands full with an endless stream of potential murders of incorporeal and nameless "people". After all they have a duty to investigate the death of "people". Women who have miscarriages could now be prosecuted for murder, manslaughter, negligence causing death, failure to provide the necessities of life, or other crimes. The birth control pill could be viewed as a weapon of mass murder, doctors and pharmacists as accomplices. You might think that's a little far fetched, but do you think the law won't be used that way by people like Rick Santorum who don't believe people should be allowed to have sex for any purpose other than procreation.
So, a bill sponsored by Ron Paul would result in more oppressive government not less. Actions speak louder than words.
We want to prevent the Feds from overreaching. And we're the bad guys?
No, you're the bad guys because you ignore the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
I don't really see it. It looks to me like a Microsoft partisan is pulling the old "liberal media" trick of accusing everyone else to be biased so that he'll look less biased. The guy making the complaint is intricately tied to Microsoft (he's Microsoft VIP, and MSCE, a Microsoft Partner...), these are facts that he neglected to mention in the article because they might lead people to rightly believe that his reporting might have a pro-Microsoft bias.
Also I've never heard of the controversy he claims gets "so much attention". It's biased reporting of the worst sort.
He's talking about media coverage, not the personal opinions of people who know things. Back in the early 90s Microsoft got almost entirely positive press. Of course, I've heard that was partly because they blackballed anyone who dared criticize them. It wasn't until the anti-trust lawsuit and Windows ME that I started to see any significant negative press about Microsoft.
No, the closer it is, the easier it is to fix it. States, and even cities, were run by political bosses who could rouse their base. And in smaller states and cities, that base could easily overwhelm elections.
And if said "base" constitutes an overwhelming majority, sufficient to elect their representatives to all bodies, why shouldn't it get to call the shots? There's the Constitution (federal and state) to keep basic freedoms guarded, and for everything else, it's called democracy for a reason. Besides, freedom of movement is still considered a basic freedom, too - so voting with your feet is always an option, and is heavily exercised in practice already.
The point, I think, is that they don't need to represent an overwhelming majority of the populace to win a small, possibly divided electorate. One problem is a voting system that will effectively reduce every election that matters down to a lesser of two evils vote, once one party decides to play hard ball, another is that state and local elections tend to have lower turn out rates than federal elections. Thus it easier for an organised group that does not accurately represent the wishes of the general public to win either through voter mobilisation or electoral fraud. If we fixed our electoral systems so that we used preferential balloting, for example, many of the problems that lead to inferior results would be resolved.
No, it doesn't. He's sponsor of a bill that would expand the definition of murder to include fertilised eggs. Please note that this change could mean that any sexually active woman on birth control could be legally considered a serial killer, since many of the birth control pills prevent the egg from implanting, but not fertilising. Also, any woman who has a miscarriage could be prosecuted for manslaughter, negligence causing death, failure to provide the necessities of life, or a host of other crimes.
His actions don't match the rhetoric and would have wide-ranging and potentially very negative consequences.
Well, I strongly suspect that "returning to the gold standard" would result in an unprecedented economic collapse in the U.S. I think the people who want to do that own a lot of gold, because there simply isn't enough gold to back the current supply of U.S. money at anything close to it's current price. That means either the U.S. dollar crashes in value, the value of gold soars or both happen at the same time.
Simply trying to make that change could produce a worse collapse than the great depression. It would also eliminate the good benefits of having an inflationary currency (namely encouraging investment). A gold-backed currency can become deflationary, where the currency increases in value as time passes. That will actually encourage people to divest themselves of investments and hoard cash instead. Hoarded cash is economically useless until it re-enters the system, and since the supply of money is limited, hoarding cash tends to drive further deflation in a vicious cycle that punishes economic activity.
People who advocate for the gold standard are people who believe that gold represents wealth. They haven't learned the lesson that you can't eat gold.
Your statement is completely ignorant of the facts.
Or is it? Ron Paul is the sponsor of an act that would make abortions legally murder. Maybe he isn't the person you thought he was.
allow the states to decide because as a true libertarian
A true libertarian would want to forbid any government from interfering, regardless of whether it's federal, state, or local.
That is pretty damn "clear" for a "clouded" political position, wouldn't you say?
No, see the link above. He's clearly not doing what the propaganda says he would. Ron Paul's got his good points, for the OP pointed out one of his big problems. He's a corporate-libertarian and a social conservative.
I'm just curious, in your world does getting killed because of the color of your skin count as part of "take it badly"? Or is that not racism?
That's an interesting theory, but it would probably work like this under a single payer system:
As far as I'm aware there's not a whole lot of competition in the root canal marketplace. It isn't a product that people want, and not that many people actually need root canals that often. That means there often isn't a whole lot of choice about where to go.
Anyway, under a single-payer health care program, the price the single-payer (usually government) will pay for a root canal is set. There is no "more expensive" root canal option. The government pays X for root canals, and patients are referred to the specialist by generalist dentists. The single-payer doesn't care when or where you get your root canal done, it pays the same amount no matter who you go to and when*. Now if you have a specialist using better painkillers, his patients will tend to give better feedback to the dentist and he may get more patients referred at the cost of lower profit per patient.
The perverse incentives only exist if they are allowed to exist, it usually means you have poorly designed system, it may or may not be an inherent problem in the basic idea of the system, but it's usually an implementation failure.
* In general anyway, of course payments, may be adjusted year-to-year.
It's not even that. It's "Waah! I'm not making as much money as I think I should, and I think it's all their fault!"
Presumption of innocence is what you get in court. The police aren't supposed to presume that everyone is innocent, it really interferes with the job of investigating crimes. But of course, they aren't actually bothering to do that in this case, are they?
No, you don't. You demand that scientific results match your preconceived notions. Conservatives are easily swayed by anything claiming to be science that matches what you want to be true. Just look at the people who listen to Christophen Monckton, he has a bachelor of arts and claims to have cured AIDS and cancer, yet conservatives love to listen to him tell them how global warming isn't occurring, how the earth is actually cooling not warming and all sorts of other nonsense that matches how you want the world to be.
You don't trust science because you don't like the results regardless of how many times the experiments have been replicated. This article is about an inordinately high rate of failure in one particular area of research where not enough verification of results is being performed. The problem is easily fixed, the question is whether the corporations paying for the research will be willing to pay for the verifications and release the results.
Yeah, I'm going to get me a job with Big Green. I hear Greenpeace is paying new grads six-figure starting salaries*.
* Energy companies in north-eastern Alberta are actually offering six-figure salaries to new grad electricians among other trades jobs.
Not exactly. A drug that works no better than the placebo could be used for years or decades before anyone figures out that it doesn't do anything but create side effects. As long as there is no evidence of intentional malfeasance and there isn't a bunch of corpses linked to the drug, it would probably have little impact on profits even if it was exposed as useless.
The people who believe in creation, evolution and geology are not creationists. They are simply religious. You can believe there is a creator, however, a principle part of creationism is believing that humans and animals were created in their current form. Heck even the deists believe the universe had a creator and they're effectively atheists (they believe God is dead or gone). It's practically by definition that if you believe in evolution, you're not a creationist.
Not really. Take an example from Canada we have a Prime Minister who campaign on honesty, integrity, openness and transparency who has run the most secretive, deceitful, closed, and ideological government we've ever seen. Sometimes the guy who promises to limit government will be worse than the guy who doesn't. You should spend more time looking at actual individual positions on issues (and their history of actions taken) so you can judge more accurately who is less worse. Conservative politicians are generally lying when they say they want less government, see this explanation, they don't want less government they want government to stop helping people they don't like. It means they want a government that punishes those who are different and rewards those conform to their idea of who Americans should be.
Then why is "conservative" presidential candidate Rick Santorum, for example, so keen on telling people what they can do with their bodies?
The real truth: Liberals are people who value fairness and preventing harm. Conservatives aren't as keen on those, principles they believe that fairness and preventing harm can be limited to the good people who live the correct way, because they place a high moral values on conformity, tribal identity*, and obedience. Liberals, generally speaking, do not appreciate those conservative values. That is the root source of much conflict between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives seek to limit the government when the governments actions appear to benefit non-conservatives, and support government action when it appears to support conservative values. That's why conservatives think it's ok to have laws on who you can put your tally-wacker into and what you can smoke. Those laws reinforce the tribal identity that conservatives would like American to mean. Liberals meanwhile support government actions that increase fairness and prevent harm, and oppose government actions they think will decrease fairness or harm people without just cause. For example liberals generally oppose everything conservatives want done to enforce conformity, because they see that as unnecessary harm.
Libertarians are technically neither conservative nor liberal. They value individual liberty above all else. They care little for fairness, preventing harm, conformity, tribal identity, or obedience except where those values align with liberty.
* Tribal identity for many conservatives is "conservative", though it can also be based on nation, city, favorite sports term or something else.
There seem to be some mistakes in you post. Reagan's "tax cuts" were actually a "tax increase" he lowered the tax on earned income but increased the taxes on capital gains. He actually raised taxes 11 times, I think, over his term. The shifting of tax burden from wages to capital gains gave the government an increase in revenue. One of his legacies was to spawn the political myth that lowering taxes can increase taxes supposedly because the U.S. was on the right side of the Laffer Curve, however, most conservative just can't face the fact that their beloved hero actually raised taxes, not once but many times.
You are correct that Bush the Lesser is no conservative, however, if Reagan were alive and running for the Presidential nomination today, his opponents would deride his as left wing nutcase. The Republicans have veered very far to the right of the party they were in the 80s. Unless he changed all of his policies, Reagan would not pass the current Republican Party purity tests.
What many people don't seem to realise is that a church-marriage is wrapped around a state-marriage. As part of the church ceremony the couple getting married sign a legal document that then has to be delivered to the state. A church-marriage without a state-marriage is not a marriage, it's just a show.
Technically, if you can find a consenting adult who'll let you punch them in the face, you should be free to go at it. I think there might even an underground group of punching enthusiasts who run something called "boxing matches".
I'm not trying to pick on you here, but there's a problem with your belief: it's wrong. Marriage is a legal status conferred by the government. Religious ceremonies exist only to keep the church in people's lives. Many people are married in non-religious ceremonies, are atheists not really married because they aren't religious?
The whole marriage is religious thing is an invention to justify opposing various marriages on religious grounds. Whether it's used to justify opposition to marrying blacks, inter-race couples, gays or lesbians, it's always been a invented reason. There's one legitimate definition of marriage and it's not religious. If religions want to have their own super-hetero-god-fearing-marriage, they can have it, but it shouldn't be recognised by the government as anything other than a civil marriage.
From my perspective, the FRC is a scourge upon the United States. They exist solely to advocate for censorship of everything they disagree with, because if they don't like it, nobody else should be allowed to see it either. The most ridiculous part is that most of the people who send the letters in don't ever watch anything they're complaining about. They don't want to risk exposure to "that degenerate material" so the FRC employs people to scan shows and find things that they can be offended at, and then provide their membership with a form letter they can use to bombard the latest victim with complaints from people who never watched what they've been told to be offended about.
The evil the organisation does isn't limited to what they actually complain about, companies avoid airing things they know the FRC will be upset about, particularly when Republicans have control of the FCC, because it can be very costly to run afoul of their arbitrary prejudices.
EA mostly makes games that suck. I don't think there's much competition in the evil category here.
Here's an example of what you're saying:
"I believe cats are dangerous. I believe cat ownership shouldn't be promoted. I oppose cat ownership. Does this make me anti-cat? No way."
When you declare that homosexual couples are not deserving of the same rights as heterosexual couples then you are, by definition, anti-gay. You can maybe get away with "I believe homosexual acts are a sin according to my religion". Even then, I think that is only explicit in the Jewish and Mormon traditions. Look it up, the prohibition on gay sex is in the same book that prohibits blended fabrics, eating shellfish and cutting your hair. Why do you hold so close to one arbitrary prohibition and not the rest?
Not really. The wounds, if they actually existed, could be unrelated to his story. They could have been inflicted before or after the shooting, and the bloody nose could have been induced by the shooting. Stress can trigger nose bleeds and hands can transfer blood.
I'm not saying Zimmerman's story is false, however, I don't think there's sufficient justification to not change him. Sometimes it's important that people see that justice is being done, and there's too many inconsistencies in this story.
Falls are so prevalent because a lot of the victims are immigrants who were bullied into working without proper safety restraints. Sad but true.